Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ashathar 03-05-07, 01:26 AM	I may end up with a difficult situation to handle here in the near future, so I'm looking for a bit of advice. I am currently playing a Half-elf Bard/Harper Agent who is very much the quintessential Harper in general outlook. He believes in the Harper philosophy and code, and as such strives to be honest, generous, altruistic, and compassionate. He's not perfect and does make mistakes and errors in judgment, and understands that he doesn't possess the power, time, or ability to affect everything, but like many who count themselves among those who harp, does his best to fight against evil, tyranny, and wickedness wherever they manifest. So, it was disheartening for me, given the time and effort I spent in building my character, his backstory, personality, etc. when another player introduced a new character (after retiring his previous character), a Lawful Evil monk who is brutally violent (but not an openly psychotic killer) who's strongest personality traits were basically described as hateful disdain for the weak, invalid, innocent, downtrodden, and undisciplined worthless common folk who exist for those who are stronger to subjugate. As a player, I expressed my opinion, both about the alignment, since the rest of the party is all some form of Good, and the character's personality, as I felt a character like that would not be a harmonious fit in the party. I suggested to him to perhaps consider a Lawful Neutral character with a less grating personality who looked upon the weaker and less disciplined with some pity, but not overt hate and scorn. The DM, likewise, suggested against an Evil character, but the player was resistant (and even urged on by some other players), and kept the Evil alignment. Thus far, he hasn't been openly violent or malicious, but does antagonize and dish out the hate on the so-called weak and pitiful common folk, despite my character's pleas and urges to leave them be. However, I do worry that his tyrannical and hateful personality will manifest in more overt displays or schemes, and thus end up directly at odds with my character. I also worry that the simple act of consorting with an Evil individual could be a potential violation of the Harper's code, and cost my character class abilities or worse, so it's something my character will very likely have to deal with if the Evil character remains in the party. It really is a classic case of an Evil PC amongst a group of Good PCs, and I want to nip it in the bud before something gets out of hand in game and our characters end up trading blows or something, since a) that a fight I probably wouldn't win, and b) it can be a guaranteed campaign ruiner. I'll be giving my DM a call this week to talk it over and see what we can figure out, and will also talk to the guy playing the Evil Monk, and have some plans during the in-game role-playing. I want to see what advice I can drum up here in addition to what I already plan on doing, though. Thanks.
bitter thorn 03-05-07, 02:11 AM	I don't really see how the whole evil PC in a good party thing can ever work out in the long run.
Panurg 03-05-07, 02:20 AM	I agree, we tried once. It was disastrous! Not only did the CE Sorcerer betray the party on every possible occasion, he also murdered people in secrecy and droped their corpse near PCs resting place , began fights with townguards and tried to kill their harper contact. Impossible to play under such circumstances.
Bolithio 03-05-07, 11:32 AM	Perhaps you can justify to yourself that there may be more individuals behind the monk, and as a Harper, you may want to keep the conflict to a minimum. That way you can discover out the monks true intentions, who he is affiliated with, and perhaps put an end to his entire cell - if one exists. Much more "cloak and dagger".
The_Shaman 03-05-07, 12:24 PM	Generally, it might be good to try to convert him. If it doesn't work out, or he just tries something too overly cruel, tell him that if he intends to follow through on it, he'll have to get through you.
Galad 03-05-07, 02:12 PM	Generally, it might be good to try to convert him. If it doesn't work out, or he just tries something too overly cruel, tell him that if he intends to follow through on it, he'll have to get through you. Well my take on it is that the DM should not have allowed an evil PC in a group of all good PC's. Being that it happened though I would agree with Shaman. Try to convert him and if that fails, stand against any evil act he tries to commit. Your companions, who are also good, should stand beside you.
Faraer 03-05-07, 02:23 PM	Why did the DM allow this in the first place? Do the other players mind? Why does the evil character travel with the good characters? Why do the good characters let this evil character join their adventuring company? Why does the player want to play an evil character in this campaign? If you're all seriously compromising your characters for the sake of party harmony, that alone shows this is a bad idea. We can't give detailed advice without knowing these things, but in any case the only solution is to talk about all this, get it out in the open, and find the way out that works best for the campaign as a whole. By the way, Galad, do you know that in the Realms, 'galad' is an exclamation meaning something like 'Zooks!' or 'I'm astonished'?
MarkusTay63 03-05-07, 02:41 PM	Your DM should hit him with a meteor. :devil: He sounds very immature to me, bad guys are supposed to be the DMs area.
Calmar 03-05-07, 03:24 PM	Try to outsmart him. I dont know what your relations to the player are, but I'd probably try to manipulate him in some way, or bring him in situations, where the whole party is on your side. Besides that, I think your DM made a wrong decission allowing that evil monk.
Galad 03-05-07, 04:46 PM	By the way, Galad, do you know that in the Realms, 'galad' is an exclamation meaning something like 'Zooks!' or 'I'm astonished'? :confused: No I did not. Where is that from? And in what language?
Faraer 03-05-07, 06:57 PM	See Ed's comments posted at Candlekeep.com, and Power of Faerūn p. 66. It's Common.
Ashathar 03-05-07, 11:28 PM	Well, the character was originally going to be LG, which I was behind 100% (and I'd be behind LN 100% too), but he got a wild hair up his posterior (and seemed bored after playing his LG Wizard who was a devout Ilmater worshipper), and decided that it would make for a good story if his Monk was a lone wolf from an otherwise judicious LG/LN order of monks who followed the ways of Helm. Basically, he twists Helm's dogma of guardianship and protection into the concept of "protect the people so you can cowl them into fear and subjugate them yourself" and because of that left (or was forced to leave) the monastery. From a purely objective standpoint, the story is fine, and if we were playing a party of villainous types, I'd be all for it. However, since the current party is all Good, it doesn't strike me as a constructive character to have in the party in terms of alignment and personality, and I can only foresee (campaign-ending) strife in the near future. Why did the DM allow this in the first place? Do the other players mind? As far as the other players go, two of them encouraged it and worked to convince the DM to play along (which was surprising to me, as our DM is a big advocate of party harmony, both as a player and a DM), two others were completely ambivalent, and in the end I stood alone in thinking the whole thing wasn't a good idea. If the character remains in the party unchanged, I'll probably focus on manipulating and converting the misguided fellow, and will remain vigilant in staying on top of his schemes and intervening in them. He may be evil, but there's no way he's going to pull it off under a Harper's nose.
Critalondel 03-06-07, 02:38 AM	I don't really see how the whole evil PC in a good party thing can ever work out in the long run. We managed it once, but it was a fairly unique campaign. We were all village kids that grew up together before the usual strange and disastrous events catapulted us into adventuring and wandering the Realms together, etc, etc. My character got by by not being overtly evil. He had some anger management issues, and was a very bitter and cynical person (he was a half elf, his elven mother died in childbirth, and his human father blamed my PC for the death, via physical and emotional abuse), but wasn't the maniacal villain-of-the-week type. My character had a mean streak a mile wide, was plenty vindictive and cold...but he cared very deeply for the other party members. He was like an overprotective dog. There was a priestess of Lathander, an apprentice Evoker, and a stalwart young wannabe Guardsman (at the time the game started) in the group with him -- had he been DROPPED into the middle of the group later in the campaign, things never would have worked out. A NE Ranger/Rogue wouldn't have fit in with a group of regular PCs. But with them all growing up together, looking out for each other from the very start (when we were all "apprentice level" teenagers), all of them having lost their homes and families together, etc, etc, it all worked out just fine. The other PCs trusted Ricyn when it came to backstabbings and betrayals (he had an instinct for that sort of thing and saved their hide several times), and in return they did their best to apologize for him when he said something out of line, counsel him to show mercy and be a little nicer to everyone, that sort of thing. Over time, the whole thing really gelled very well and it all fell into place. Everyone involved new full well he'd murder anyone who was a threat to his friends, but his friends trusted him not to do so for no good reason. The Lathanderite prayed just about every dawn for Ricyn's eyes to open to the light a little more, but he didn't do cackling supervillain bad stuff left and right, so she never had to cast Hold Person on him and wack him with her mace or anything. He wasn't nice, or good, but he was loyal. He wasn't some out of control psycho (the way many people play evil characters), he wasn't out to take over the Realms or anything like that. He was just a kid that was full of all kinds of bitterness and hatred, that got a sword put into his hands at a young age. That's life. That campaign worked -- eventually -- because we all worked at making it fit. We all had backgrounds that fit (given the nature of the campaign), the characters all had reasons to care about and trust one another, and the evil guy wasn't some sudden new presence that (as in the Harper/Monk game) seemed almost tailor made to be disruptive and contrary to another PC's personality type.
Khaelieth 03-06-07, 08:18 PM	Your DM should hit him with a meteor. :devil: He sounds very immature to me, bad guys are supposed to be the DMs area. No chance! Evil PC's are soooooooooooooooooooooo much more fun! "Shall we loot the Elven tomb?" "HELL YEAH!" "And then plunder the orphanage?!" "All hail Cyric!" But it sounds like your campaign is shot to Hell unless you stop the renegade player. Just murder him while he sleeps:) Coup de grace!
Ashathar 03-06-07, 11:51 PM	That campaign worked -- eventually -- because we all worked at making it fit. We all had backgrounds that fit (given the nature of the campaign), the characters all had reasons to care about and trust one another, and the evil guy wasn't some sudden new presence that (as in the Harper/Monk game) seemed almost tailor made to be disruptive and contrary to another PC's personality type. I'm glad the situation worked for your campaign, and everyone was able to work together to support each other's characters and make a functional team out of such disparate character personalities. If only I had such a luxury (and no Harper code hanging over my head, I suppose). My DM doesn't seem all that comfortable with the situation after some discussion, which bodes well for my case, so I'll continue the discourse with him and see what happens come Saturday. Thanks for the advice and stories.