paladintodd says:
...
Nobody is forced to take Cook along ... Why does Cook want Albert or Rook to come along? ...Why do you expect Cook to be more friendly or reliable? ...
Because this is a cooperative game and all players are expected to make characters that are able to work in the group. I am sorry if that was not made clear enough and was just assumed, that is on me.
paladintodd says:
Yes, constant in character arguing would be a hassle. Did I miss a Cook argument somewhere? Not sure why this is a concern.
Probably a poor choice of words, and probably based on assumptions that things will end up there... assumptions based on past experience, I dare say. :(
I have tried to avoid using the term because it is pejorative, but may have caused more harm by avoiding it. This is a version of the 'lone wolf' style of character: one that does not fit with the party and has no reason to be adventuring with the party, or would not be tolerated by the party if the players were not forced to play together. Fortunately, with the internet opening up our options beyond the kids we can collect in our neighbourhood, we don't have to play with the group we have and can work to find a group that wants to play the sorts of games we each want to play. It is possible you can find a play-group that will want to have
Cook along.
paladintodd says:
How would Cook work with the party to defeat the evil? I don't know yet. Don't we play to find out?
That phrase is not a free-ride, it needs to, at least, be feasible for a solution to be viable, and, as things stand, I don't see a way forward.
paladintodd says:
... Cook wants this evil defeated. ...
Does he? Nothing we have seen leads us (players or character) to think that, so far.
paladintodd says:
... Why do Albert and Rook want to be involved with this temple? ...
The question is why this party would be involved, not why they are involved in the current scene. If we had not forced the issue earlier, they would have left
Cook at the camp and done this without him. Can you see that that is a problem?
paladintodd says:
... Raistlin ... Han Solo ... Wolverine ...
All 'lone wolf' characters. Kept around because the story demands it. If a character is not fun to play with, or redeemable (as with Han... very soon after the start) they should not be in a game. Games are a much larger investment of time, and there is no promise that a lone wolf character will be worth the work it take to keep them in the story, in a book or movie the audience can assume the author will make it worth their while, and it is easy investment, or they can leave it (many did over Raistlin). We have no right to force that choice on other players in our game.
paladintodd says:
... temple influenced us and created some bad behavior. Cook's weird power counter-acted it ...
And does that result in his behaviour improving? His was the only 'bad behaviour' that we needed to change. It was for his redemption that any of this existed.
paladintodd says:
... Can we not move on from there? ...
Given how this discussion appears to be going nowhere, if you don't see
Cook changing to work as a more normal character, maybe we should 'vanish' him and you can try making a character that does fit? We don't have to do anything as final as killing him, we can simply have him not be in the temple when the rest enter, that way you can try to bring him back later (redeemed), or introduce him into another game where he does fit.