Etu's point about compromise is right on the money. If you're going to pee on the frenzying Get, you should at least not split your dice pool four ways without one of those splits being a dodge Arata is only still alive because I didn't split dice pools from dodging, and I STILL had to blow four willpower. Anyways, I don't think the problem is with your characters, DV. They are wonderful, and you've got a lot of talent for generating interesting concepts. The problem is with the execution; making and playing over-the-top, extremist, perhaps even technically sociopathic characters requires a bit of compromise, or at least some mental footwork, to ensure you don't ruin the game. Is trying to blast the blasphemers who painted 666 on the side of the barn terribly smart? No, I'm sure everyone else is armed, so you might pick off one person, the but other two will kill you. Is it in character? Maybe. But there are better, more clever solutions you could be working out with the GM. Which leads me into my point, which is a question, really; how often do you consult with the ST regarding your character's troublesomeness when the conflict is happening? Most STs are invested in having the game not be ruined. They should, in theory, be willing to help you out. You can't make these kinds of characters, and run then in an uncompromising fashion (even nutters sometimes know when to keep their mouths shut) without much consideration for the other players, and not expect bad things to happen. Although that stuff with the preacher and the native american character doesn't sound like your fault at all.