Problem Player

[BoredAsUsual]

So I have a player that feels the need to constantly bring his character into whatever someone else is doing. Example: When another person is introducing their new character the problem player feels the need to bring up what his character is doing in that situation without being asked. Another example (just to show how bad his attention seeking is): The rogue is having some secret conversation with a contact and the problem player “jokingly”, and loudly, interjects with what his character would be doing IF they were there. The players and I were all okay with this behavior since we mostly just ignore the player and try to keep things moving along. He has ruined a few super special moments for a single person, but the DM usually shuts it down before it gets out of hand.

Just last week there was an issue. He brought his level 6 chaotic good paladin into a dungeon with a bunch of level 3 characters. Proceeded to boss them around and showboat, and then get them into a diplomatic conversation with a large group of gnolls. He started this conversation, not wanting to fight, and had the “babies” follow him through this dungeon (passing trio after trio of gnoll guards) before stopping in the middle to talk to the leader. In the middle of his discussion with the leader of these gnolls, a discussion he started, he decides that he wants to start a fight and shoots at the leader. The leader is of course evil, but not at all expecting an attack, and all of the guards that they passed come rushing in (as do the guards on the opposite side of the dungeon that they had not gotten to yet). What the plan for this dungeon was is for the party to slowly make their way around the dungeon taking out guard post after guard post before hitting the leader. The paladin decided that we needed a CR 10 encounter, one in which three of us almost died.

Now thankfully they made it out of that situation alive, though definitely with a few angry players. My problem with this player is that they are hiding behind the fact that they are a chaotic good paladin that was put in front of an evil gnoll cleric and saying that of course they had to kill them no matter how difficult the fight. I agree that a chaotic good paladin MIGHT do that, but I also think that a paladin would put the lives of the people that were entrusted to them before their need to immediately rid the world of evil. It was also not the DMs intention that he go talk to the bad guy of the dungeon right off the bat, but for us to fight our way through other “evil” gnolls.

So I really want to know if his actions fall under the line of a chaotic good paladin, seeing as how it was pretty chaotic, or if he should be facing some sort of punishment.

[Geddy2112]

So I have a player that feels the need to constantly bring his character into whatever someone else is doing. Example: When another person is introducing their new character the problem player feels the need to bring up what his character is doing in that situation without being asked. Another example (just to show how bad his attention seeking is): The rogue is having some secret conversation with a contact and the problem player “jokingly”, and loudly, interjects with what his character would be doing IF they were there. The players and I were all okay with this behavior since we mostly just ignore the player and try to keep things moving along. He has ruined a few super special moments for a single person, but the DM usually shuts it down before it gets out of hand.

In part, I can get this. Nobody wants to sit at the table for an hour doing absolutely nothing when another player is getting all the spotlight. You could ask your DM for encounters that focus on the party as a whole, and to mitigate the times when one person does all the acting and the rest of the group hangs back. However, suddenly bringing up their character when somebody introduces a new one is more than a little rude. If the player can't sit still and shut up for 5 minutes without the spotlight, then they could learn some paitence and how to share the game. If it is going on an hour without any interaction, even the most grizzled ttRPG vet is going to go stir crazy.

He brought his level 6 chaotic good paladin into a dungeon with a bunch of level 3 characters.

Is there any reason this player is 3 levels higher than the rest of the party?

Proceeded to boss them around and showboat

Again, why are they 3 levels higher? Showboating is normally something newbies do, but I have seen vets do it too. Generally people wanting to live out power trip fantasies in games. To some extent, this is okay, but it is by no means grounds to boss around the party.

and then get them into a diplomatic conversation with a large group of gnolls. He started this conversation, not wanting to fight, and had the “babies” follow him through this dungeon (passing trio after trio of gnoll guards) before stopping in the middle to talk to the leader. In the middle of his discussion with the leader of these gnolls, a discussion he started, he decides that he wants to start a fight and shoots at the leader. The leader is of course evil, but not at all expecting an attack, and all of the guards that they passed come rushing in (as do the guards on the opposite side of the dungeon that they had not gotten to yet). What the plan for this dungeon was is for the party to slowly make their way around the dungeon taking out guard post after guard post before hitting the leader. The paladin decided that we needed a CR 10 encounter, one in which three of us almost died.

In and of itself, that is not a bad thing. It is that the player decided to unilaterally run the encounter and the session that night. If you all decided to do it and almost died, then it would have been challenging but I would guess far more fun. Treating you like children in and out of character is a seriously jerk thing to do. Doing dumb things that almost get the party killed is also a jerk move.

Now thankfully they made it out of that situation alive, though definitely with a few angry players. My problem with this player is that they are hiding behind the fact that they are a chaotic good paladin that was put in front of an evil gnoll cleric and saying that of course they had to kill them no matter how difficult the fight. I agree that a chaotic good paladin MIGHT do that, but I also think that a paladin would put the lives of the people that were entrusted to them before their need to immediately rid the world of evil. It was also not the DMs intention that he go talk to the bad guy of the dungeon right off the bat, but for us to fight our way through other “evil” gnolls.

Anyone who uses the excuses of "I am just roleplaying my character", "but that is what my character would do" or anything like that is usually pulling some seriously jackbutt behavior, and probably knows that they are doing it. Their character is not the problem, they are. They are using their character as a shield, saying their character did it, and that because it is the way their character is they are allowed to get away with being a jerk. In reality, every move their character made they decided as a player, including creating said character.
Certainly their character might do these things, but that is not the issue. The issue is that the player feels they act unilaterally and will blame their character for their actions as a player.

So I really want to know if his actions fall under the line of a chaotic good paladin, seeing as how it was pretty chaotic, or if he should be facing some sort of punishment.

Arguably they do, and certainly a zealous or foolish character might do the same. However, this is not the problem. The problem is not that in game the Chaotic good paladin has an urge to smitehammer evil monsters that worship evil deities. The problem is that the player wants to hijack the game and make it entirely about them, running roughshod over the other players and their experience. The game is a group activity, and has no place for rogue agents like that(players, rogue characters are fine). The problem should not be resolved in game as the paladin falls or gets a divine reprimand. The player needs to be told that such things ruin the fun of everyone else, and at your table they play with the team, or they don't play.

[Psyren]

Have you told your DM how you feel? If another person (or their character) is negatively impacting the game for you, the DM is in the best position to address it, but they have to know how bad the problem is first. You can plan your next moves after that conversation.

[BoredAsUsual]

Is there any reason this player is 3 levels higher than the rest of the party?

The campaign that the DM is running is a little weird. Everyone can make up to five characters and send them off to do different missions. We have people coming and going from the campaign a lot and it is supposed to have an Adventurer's Guild type of feel to it. It has been fantastic so far. The player has other low level characters he could have been playing, he wanted to be his high level character to have the upper hand in decisions. We all kind of felt weird letting him do it, but this is the first time (in this campaign) that he has gotten other people's characters in danger.

His actions have caused a lot of in game fighting, as well.

Arguably they do, and certainly a zealous or foolish character might do the same. However, this is not the problem. The problem is not that in game the Chaotic good paladin has an urge to smitehammer evil monsters that worship evil deities. The problem is that the player wants to hijack the game and make it entirely about them, running roughshod over the other players and their experience. The game is a group activity, and has no place for rogue agents like that(players, rogue characters are fine). The problem should not be resolved in game as the paladin falls or gets a divine reprimand. The player needs to be told that such things ruin the fun of everyone else, and at your table they play with the team, or they don't play.

Have you told your DM how you feel? If another person (or their character) is negatively impacting the game for you, the DM is in the best position to address it, but they have to know how bad the problem is first. You can plan your next moves after that conversation.

Thank you. This is kind of why I posted this on here. My DM also finds this to be an issue, but was not sure how to handle it. The player is a long time friend of his and is known for acting like this during game. He is afraid that since we have let him get away with so much that telling him now won't do anything. Not to mention that every time he is told what he is doing wrong he seems to magically forget about it. I figured that an ingame consequence would be more eye opening than saying "Hey. Could you not do that anymore?".

[DeTess]

Thank you. This is kind of why I posted this on here. My DM also finds this to be an issue, but was not sure how to handle it. The player is a long time friend of his and is known for acting like this during game. He is afraid that since we have let him get away with so much that telling him now won't do anything. Not to mention that every time he is told what he is doing wrong he seems to magically forget about it. I figured that an ingame consequence would be more eye opening than saying "Hey. Could you not do that anymore?".

Nothing wrong with in-game consequences for in-game actions, but they are not the way to solve an issue like this. If you want to solve it you need to talk to him and explain that he's making things less fun for others. Such a talk is not particularly fun, but it will improve the game (and hopefully your friend as a person) going forward.

[Darth Ultron]

I think you might have a ''DM Problem'' Too


Though all the wacky actions can fall under a ''Chaotic Good'' person. Things like ''thinking about others safety'' is not really a solid alignment thing....anyone can take a risk/not think something trough/make a mis judgment/error/mistake or such.

[Deophaun]

I figured that an ingame consequence would be more eye opening than saying "Hey. Could you not do that anymore?".

This is the in game consequence: His character needlessly endangered the lives of the other party members. Word spreads. No one trusts that character enough to place their lives in his hands. That level six character is now an NPC.

It won't solve the problem though. Whatever character he brings in will be as big an ass as the one he just lost, possibly bigger as he has less investment in the character and can get more attention by derailing the session.

[Geddy2112]

The campaign that the DM is running is a little weird. Everyone can make up to five characters and send them off to do different missions. We have people coming and going from the campaign a lot and it is supposed to have an Adventurer's Guild type of feel to it. It has been fantastic so far. The player has other low level characters he could have been playing, he wanted to be his high level character to have the upper hand in decisions. We all kind of felt weird letting him do it, but this is the first time (in this campaign) that he has gotten other people's characters in danger.

That does sound like a fun campaign. The big red flag is that the player specifically brought in their higher level character to strongarm the party. Not for any legitimate reason like "my chaotic good paladin would really want to be in on this particular quest" but simply so they can bully the party. I am shocked the DM let him do it. It is an easy enough fix though, simply make him play a character equal to everyone else. You can send the paladin back, or all of you can be your higher level character. Since he has abused the privileged, don't let them play a character that is any higher level than the party.

The player is a long time friend of his and is known for acting like this during game. He is afraid that since we have let him get away with so much that telling him now won't do anything. Not to mention that every time he is told what he is doing wrong he seems to magically forget about it. I figured that an ingame consequence would be more eye opening than saying "Hey. Could you not do that anymore?".

If he has already been told as a player not to do this, repeatedly, it might be better to kick him from the game. Gaming with a close friend is complex though, and that is not really a good option. I still think an in game punishment for an out of game problem is a bad idea. I have tried it myself several times and it tends to lead to even more toxic behavior, not curtail it. There can't just be pointing out that this is wrong, as this seems not to work. They should be told that is is poor form to bully everyone else at the gaming table, and that if they keep it up they don't have a seat. Not an easy conversation to have, but you have to be assertive against a bully.

[denthor]

Let us take a look.

CG follow your heart to do good.

Ok flag of truce broken Chaotic. Is this good... no he struck first. Is it something a neutral person might do yes. Will an evil person do it you bet. At best that is CN

Took people to the very center of a dangerous place under flag of truce. Lawful yes Neutral yes Chaotic yes no help

Place others in Jeopardy for no reason good no neutral no evil yes. You said he knew they were not as skilled as he was. Cn/e

Did it on purpose yes evil

If I am the DM he loses his paladinship right there. Then I do not tell him but set up a meeting with an outsider who wants to team up marvel style. Do you have an idea what would have happened if all 3rd levels died? If dome of them died?

[BoredAsUsual]

That does sound like a fun campaign. The big red flag is that the player specifically brought in their higher level character to strongarm the party. Not for any legitimate reason like "my chaotic good paladin would really want to be in on this particular quest" but simply so they can bully the party. I am shocked the DM let him do it. It is an easy enough fix though, simply make him play a character equal to everyone else. You can send the paladin back, or all of you can be your higher level character. Since he has abused the privileged, don't let them play a character that is any higher level than the party.

If he has already been told as a player not to do this, repeatedly, it might be better to kick him from the game. Gaming with a close friend is complex though, and that is not really a good option. I still think an in game punishment for an out of game problem is a bad idea. I have tried it myself several times and it tends to lead to even more toxic behavior, not curtail it. There can't just be pointing out that this is wrong, as this seems not to work. They should be told that is is poor form to bully everyone else at the gaming table, and that if they keep it up they don't have a seat. Not an easy conversation to have, but you have to be assertive against a bully.

I think the DM let him play the high level character because he thought that the player wouldn't cause too much harm. He talks a big game and ruins any stealth or diplomatic missions we take him on (doesn't matter which character he is playing), but in the end we tend to keep him in check. When he started leading the party into a diplomatic discussion with the leader of the gnolls we were all surprised. My first thought was, "No way! Is he really changing?" and then he shot the leader in the face with an arrow. We had two characters in that party who hated gnolls and they were both willing to talk to the leader if it meant coming back later and murdering them. This just became a bad situation really fast. He felt bad, but he is hiding behind his paladin now.

Sadly, we cannot send the low levels back and I think he might fight us on his paladin going back too(but trust me, I will be suggesting it). There is an in game punishment currently being discussed behind the player's back. He was an officer of the guild that we are running and the captain of the guild wants to strip him of his badge. Everyone is in favor of this, but we are worried about the consequences. Do you think that seems fair? The only reason one of characters got a badge is because we gave every vet player an officer badge to feel included, we did not want to give one to his character (even the paladin).

After reading all the feedback on this post I will definitely be calling for a "family talk" before game starts. I know a lot of my fellow players are annoyed by this guy and have some things to say. I am just worried that it will end the way it always does, with him not changing at all. The DM has noticed the problem, but I think he is just hoping it goes away on its' own. I am in the process of convincing him that he needs to sit down with this player, or at least be on our side during the "intervention".

As for the option of kicking him out...we have already kicked someone out of this campaign so it might be an option. This player is closer to us friendwise than the other one was, so more problems might come out of it. The DM doesn't like kicking people out, but this is his story and he doesn't like other people feeling ignored so one person can be the "main character".

[BoredAsUsual]

Let us take a look.

CG follow your heart to do good.

Ok flag of truce broken Chaotic. Is this good... no he struck first. Is it something a neutral person might do yes. Will an evil person do it you bet. At best that is CN

Took people to the very center of a dangerous place under flag of truce. Lawful yes Neutral yes Chaotic yes no help

Place others in Jeopardy for no reason good no neutral no evil yes. You said he knew they were not as skilled as he was. Cn/e

Did it on purpose yes evil

If I am the DM he loses his paladinship right there. Then I do not tell him but set up a meeting with an outsider who wants to team up marvel style. Do you have an idea what would have happened if all 3rd levels died? If dome of them died?

I'm glad I am not the only one who thinks it was chaotic neutral/evil! I had a friend play a chaotic good paladin before and she was hardcore into it and perfect. To the point where she in real life hated some of the things her character had to do, but realized that it was what that character would do anyway. And she never got anyone killed...on purpose.

If they had all died then the paladin MIGHT have made it out alive by himself? If they had all died and he returned to the guild hall then I think he would have been kicked out. Thankfully, no one died. We all stuck to his decision, even if we didn't agree with it. Better than full withdrawing into even more enemies. That and the DM went out of his way to try and kill his character for being such an idiot in the first place and attacking first.

[BoredAsUsual]

This is the in game consequence: His character needlessly endangered the lives of the other party members. Word spreads. No one trusts that character enough to place their lives in his hands. That level six character is now an NPC.

It won't solve the problem though. Whatever character he brings in will be as big an ass as the one he just lost, possibly bigger as he has less investment in the character and can get more attention by derailing the session.

I like this in game consequence and am seriously considering it. I know that none of my characters will want to adventure with that paladin again. But I agree that it would not solve the problem. He has five characters and they are all the same. They all drink, they all interject when no one wants them there, they all say and do stupid things, and they all charge in. He is suffering from main character syndrome.

[mistermysterio]

Am I missing something here in terms of alignment?

pathfinder and 3.5 - aren't paladins, by definition, LAWFUL good? Why is he chaotic in the first place?

[AnimeTheCat]

Am I missing something here in terms of alignment?

pathfinder and 3.5 - aren't paladins, by definition, LAWFUL good? Why is he chaotic in the first place?

likely a paladin of freedom.

[BoredAsUsual]

Am I missing something here in terms of alignment?

pathfinder and 3.5 - aren't paladins, by definition, LAWFUL good? Why is he chaotic in the first place?

Yeppers. Paladin of Freedom.

[dude123nice]

The player has other low level characters he could have been playing, he wanted to be his high level character to have the upper hand in decisions. We all kind of felt weird letting him do it, but this is the first time (in this campaign) that he has gotten other people's characters in danger.

His actions have caused a lot of in game fighting, as well.

You guys are seriously being to permissive with his behavior. That's it. Just Put your foot down.

[Quertus]

I've played with people like that. Sometimes, they need a talking to. Usually, they need medication.

So... Try setting expectations. See if they are even capable of meeting them.

[AnimeTheCat]

I've played with people like that. Sometimes, they need a talking to. Usually, they need medication.

So... Try setting expectations. See if they are even capable of meeting them.

This being said, I really don't suggest (Unless you're a qualified physician) that you medicate the other players. Things get all.... "Illegal" and stuff when you do that...

[Kobold Esq]

He felt bad

No he didn't.

[Solaris]

This being said, I really don't suggest (Unless you're a qualified physician) that you medicate the other players. Things get all.... "Illegal" and stuff when you do that...

Pfft. It's only illegal if you get caught.

Seriously, though, never let this guy run a higher-level character than the rest of the party. Like dude123nice said, stop letting him get away with doing whatever he wants to do. If the worst thing he does when appropriately constrained is be mildly disruptive, that's not worth kicking him out over. Just make it so he's not having fun at your expense, and if he can't enjoy playing with the group he'll get himself gone one way or the other.