Post/Author/DateTime	Post
BrokenClock 07-12-06, 10:40 PM	So my group *in game* now hate me. We had dealt a deal with some orcs to aid them in a fight against lizard men. We were not killed right away because my character bested their greatest fighter in hand to hand combat. My character felt honored to be given such a strong standing amongst their clan. We were given word that a group of 30 lizard men were taking a chest to their base that they had stole from someone else. Our group decided to go down and take it. We offered the orcs help in liberating that chest and its contents. That night, my group and I talked about how we are going to take the money from the orcs. I left the tent and bumped in to a female orc of the sexy persuasion. Or, as sexy as an orc can be. I don't need to get in to details here, but I'm willing to bet the DM will throw a half orc child at me some time down the road. The next day, we decided to head out and take a few orcs with us to help us against the lizard men. We took the archers. We positioned ourselves across a bridge and waited for them to cross it as it was the only way back to their base. I put oil all along it and was ready to set it ablaze. They came, as expected, and smelt the oil as they all got on the bridge. It was too late, they went down in flames. The orcs behind us yelled and screamed with glee and went to the cliff side to see them dead. I jumped down the pit to check to see if any were left alive. I looked up and saw my party members cutting the ropes that the orcs were using to get in to the pit. I felt guilt and shame. I piled dead bodies under them and tried to catch them as they fell. My party yelled at me and called me a traitor. But, I had to do it. The guilt was too much. I was welcomed in to their clan and THIS is how I repay them? I managed to save two of the orcs and I put them under my bulk amongst the dead bodies. I didn't see the black shape that lay in the pit with me. The giant thing quickly tossed me aside and killed the two orcs. I pounced at him and was tossed yet again, but this time straight up and back on to the land above with my party. The fighter tried to knock me out. I felt my rage build and I turned and held him over the cliff side and asked him if fat little dwarves could bounce. The mage put his hands on my shoulder and told me to put him back on the ground. I laughed and called them all cowards. I was done explaining. He used shocking grasp and I let the fighter drop. The fighter just managed to grab a hold on the land before he fell. The best down in the pit saw all of us and started to climb up. Knowing I would need the fighters help, I quickly grabed him by his dirty beard and yanked him up. He thanked me and I paid little attention to him, readying myself for the beast. When all was said and done we proved the better combatant. My party forgot about my 'treachory' and took the treasure chest. I felt so much guilt. As we stayed the night I left the camp with a dead orc over my shoulder. I headed back to the orc camp. *Session over* What I want to know is what I should do from here. Do I turn my friends in? Do I lie? Do I tell them about the fallen orcs and say they died bravely so they can have a buriel? And, are orcs to be trusted at all, are they trully 100 percent evil to the core? Am I foolish in thinking I could call this orc tribe brothers? Thanks for the help.
Gideon_Gideonson 07-12-06, 10:51 PM	First off, what are you? Alignment, etc. What would your character do? How attached is he to the orcs? Does he feel betrayed by his allies? Does he feel guilt-ridden? If so, turn them in, but gently. Turn them in, but instead of turning the tribe on them, placate the tribe. Your party will appreciate it, the tribe probably will feel satisfied if you punish them in some way, and you'll get to keep playing in a group that won't want to kill you. Sit down and have a talk with your party. They sound like horrible people. Not all orcs are evil. All devils are. All orcs aren't. Even evil orcs can be redeemed. Take charge, distribute justice how you feel it should be distributed. Who knows? you may find yourself eventually ruling your own orc clan.
pres_man 07-12-06, 10:55 PM	Whether orcs are evil to the core is totally dependent on the setting you are playing in, so this is probably something you should ask your DM, how closely is he falling the RAW with respect to creatures' alignments. In the core rules "only" a 40-50% of orcs are CE, the other 50-60% could be anything from NE to LG. Many DMs will have some of them be at the very least non-evil, as this makes things like evil high elves more believable, consistance and all that. Let me ask you this though, would you have been surprised if they killed all of you had you not bested their greatest fighter? If they were willing to do that, then they can hardly be called good, and even neutral might be a stretch (though still possible, it might be that your group had violated their territory which often can be punishable by death in a non-evil way). What I would do is talk to the DM about is it possible for orcs to be non-evil? Especially if your character thinks there may be a chance of an offspring of his being raised by orcs. Also one can respect evil creatures due to their possible code of conduct without necessarily agreeing with their behaviour. I would take all of the silver and copper gained from the encounter, and returned with the body (hopefully of one of the ones slain by the beast). I would tell the tribe that the warriors died in the pit with the beast (this is the truth if a bit inexact), and that the silver and copper is their share and being given to the tribe. Tell them in the future you will work harder to protect any of the tribe you may come across, but for now you must return to your companions. When you return tell the party if they intend to murder beings around you that are acting as your allies, then they will expect you to treat them as the backstabbers they are. If they can keep their murderous impulses in check then you are willing to drop the issue. Even a devil deserves to be killed in an honorable combat, not killed in the shadows by some coward. Tell the party they acted without honor, like Drow. I'm sure that will get a rise out of any elves or dwarves in the party. ;)
BrokenClock 07-12-06, 11:08 PM	I'm CN. Good ideas. I was thinking of telling them where the orcs were and lying and saying they helped to save our lives. That I was the only party memeber to survive. I came back to help the orcs give their fallen brothers burial fit for heroes. I figure, if the shaman knows I'm lying, I'll tell him the truth. Perhaps something like, "And what would you have me say!?!? That your brothers were stabbed in the back and the ones who saw their death did nothing but stain their pants? Is that what you want to hear of your kin?" Something like that. I think I'll be safe in the village. My DM told me the orcs are not 100 percent evil. I'm just not sure what to do about my party and the mass ammount of gold that they now have hiding. 15k
pres_man 07-12-06, 11:18 PM	LOL, this is almost as bad as a paladin thread. Seriously though, it seems like you might be headed for -game shut down -PKs -new character for you -all of the above Frankly, you might have to make a decision between "true" to the character and just trying to keep the GAME rolling. Sometimes, you got to bend "reality" to keep the game going. Besides you're CN, sudden changes should be in your nature.
Wuggadad 07-13-06, 03:03 AM	CN could mean that you put your personal honor above that of any organization. I have played a character in a similar situation. I had a True Neutral cleric, (with Augmented Healing), the party had been escorting some wagons as part of a mission to bribe a neutral into being an ally of the Good Guys. The orcs killed a bunch of the horses and after a charge by the Paladin and the Monk, 1 orc surrendered. Two orcs had been knocked unconscious. After checking to make sure no party members were injured, my character set about stabilizing the orcs. My expressed opinion, "They killed the horses, they can pull the wagon." However, for no real reason, the party ranger, (racial enemy: orcs), walks up and kills the orc who surrendered to the Paladin. As there had been orcs that fled, wasting the time to kill a prisoner seemed a bit, well, crazy to me. The ranger then came over to slaughter my cleric's patients, and told my cleric to stand aside. My cleric said, "Over my dead body." Now, my character had some issues, notably she appeared able to command undead _and_ spontaneously heal. But she knew there were certain things you just _don't_ do. You don't threaten the healer, and the healer does _not_ stand aside while her patients are butchered. At a later point, I formally entrusted the orcs, now grumpily pulling a wagon, to the paladin. And sure enough, the ranger butchered the orcs immediately after we delivered the wagons' cargo. I later learned of some GM communication with the paladin player to the effect that the paladin order wanted the paladin to keep an eye on my character because of her dangerous pacifism. Now my character wasn't all warm and fuzzy to the orcs. She fully intended to sell the orcs into the Mines of Mirabar if nothing more appropriate offered itself as an opportunity. She considered it a waste and pure cowardice to kill a helpless prisoner, especially when there were live armed orcs the ranger _could_ have hunted down. My cleric felt that it demonstrated far more strength to be able to take a prisoner and control it and to _not_ fear it. It is like war. You fight until the enemy surrenders. But then you _stop_, unless the enemy is a craven scum who feigns surrender or breaks treaties. If you manage by battle or diplomacy get a group of orcs to act in a beneficial way, then by breaking the treaty or agreement you make it so much harder to get orcs to accept any deal, and they will fight to the death. Which is a poor gift to the next humans or demi-humans to encounter those orcs. Now the GM in the campaign I was in really wanted orcs to be kill-on-sight creatures. And over a bunch of disputes with the GM, I got booted from the campaign. But if he wanted them to be kill-on-sight creatures, he should not have had that one orc surrender just on a morale check, and we should not have been able to get useful work from the orc prisoners my cleric healed with cure minor wounds. With the official attitude of the campaign's paladin order towards orcs, it is beyond belief that an orc would take the time to try to surrender in broken Common, rather than running for its life. Especially since running saved several other orcs.
Kapalen 07-13-06, 03:45 AM	CN could mean that you put your personal honor above that of any organization. I have played a character in a similar situation. I had a True Neutral cleric, (with Augmented Healing), the party had been escorting some wagons as part of a mission to bribe a neutral into being an ally of the Good Guys. The orcs killed a bunch of the horses and after a charge by the Paladin and the Monk, 1 orc surrendered. Two orcs had been knocked unconscious. After checking to make sure no party members were injured, my character set about stabilizing the orcs. My expressed opinion, "They killed the horses, they can pull the wagon." However, for no real reason, the party ranger, (racial enemy: orcs), walks up and kills the orc who surrendered to the Paladin. As there had been orcs that fled, wasting the time to kill a prisoner seemed a bit, well, crazy to me. The ranger then came over to slaughter my cleric's patients, and told my cleric to stand aside. My cleric said, "Over my dead body." Now, my character had some issues, notably she appeared able to command undead _and_ spontaneously heal. But she knew there were certain things you just _don't_ do. You don't threaten the healer, and the healer does _not_ stand aside while her patients are butchered. At a later point, I formally entrusted the orcs, now grumpily pulling a wagon, to the paladin. And sure enough, the ranger butchered the orcs immediately after we delivered the wagons' cargo. I later learned of some GM communication with the paladin player to the effect that the paladin order wanted the paladin to keep an eye on my character because of her dangerous pacifism. Now my character wasn't all warm and fuzzy to the orcs. She fully intended to sell the orcs into the Mines of Mirabar if nothing more appropriate offered itself as an opportunity. She considered it a waste and pure cowardice to kill a helpless prisoner, especially when there were live armed orcs the ranger _could_ have hunted down. My cleric felt that it demonstrated far more strength to be able to take a prisoner and control it and to _not_ fear it. It is like war. You fight until the enemy surrenders. But then you _stop_, unless the enemy is a craven scum who feigns surrender or breaks treaties. If you manage by battle or diplomacy get a group of orcs to act in a beneficial way, then by breaking the treaty or agreement you make it so much harder to get orcs to accept any deal, and they will fight to the death. Which is a poor gift to the next humans or demi-humans to encounter those orcs. Now the GM in the campaign I was in really wanted orcs to be kill-on-sight creatures. And over a bunch of disputes with the GM, I got booted from the campaign. But if he wanted them to be kill-on-sight creatures, he should not have had that one orc surrender just on a morale check, and we should not have been able to get useful work from the orc prisoners my cleric healed with cure minor wounds. With the official attitude of the campaign's paladin order towards orcs, it is beyond belief that an orc would take the time to try to surrender in broken Common, rather than running for its life. Especially since running saved several other orcs. Almsot the EXACT same thing happened to me. Except it was bandits instead of orcs. As for the OP, I think your own idea is pretty good. I'd be more worried about the party than the orcs. WIll they adventure wth you? Do you WANT to adventure with them? When it happened to me, my guy ended up leaving the party.
Aeromus 07-13-06, 08:07 AM	I think he played CN correctly. He respected the orcs self-freedom to impose thier laws upon him. By besting thier best fighter. He felt honored to be part of something not wholly lawful. The orc tribes. He tried to save the orcs, to keep HIS honor intact. Saving them when they fell. He turned on his companians to maintain his own belief in honor, and free will. Holding the dwarf over the pit. And, he let bygones be bygones to save his own ass, to continue being free to think how he wants. Saved the dwarf to fight the beast.
kelvinaw273 07-13-06, 09:19 AM	I agree with Aeromus. The question I would ask is ... what alignment are the rest of the party? Some assume that if they are 'good' they can be evil to 'evil' creatures and it's OK. It isn't, if you are 'good' or even 'neutral' you can only be as evil as you NEED to be to evil creatures. In this case, the motivation to kill the orcs does not appear to be doing good or protecting he innocent or anything, but pure opportunism: they didn't want to split the treasure. I'd say it's a definite black mark and a step toward becoming Evil .... certainly in the way in which they did it they behaved at best chaotically.
TarlSS 07-13-06, 09:33 AM	You're in the right. If they do something detestable you aren't required to play with them. Here you need to judge your principles of remaining in character to your desire to remain with the rest of the party and potentially in the game. If they're your friends, remember it's just a game. You don't need to participate. Often alignment issues like this give people bad feelings, and that means they aren't having fun. How can you if you're wracked with contempt and disgust? No point in playing if you aren't having fun.
BrokenClock 07-13-06, 09:57 AM	Oh there is a 0 percent chance of anyone having bad feelings outside of the game. We laughed about it all and we all know it's just to add some fun and spice to the game. The DM loved it. I'm not going to go back to the party and kill the party members and they are not going to kill me. We want to continue our adventure, so it's a given that we are going to find some sort of fun way that I can 'redeem' myself and perhaps I'll have them redeem themselves to me. Someone asked for the party's alignment. Fighter : LG Paladain : LG Mage : CN Theif : CG Barbarian : CN (me) I was going to ask that very same question to the rest of my party *in game*. How these goody two shoes type people could be so quick to stab someone in the back simply because they wanted gold. The Paladin didn't even detect evil on them. The fighter was the first to act and he justifies it with his hatred for orcs. I admit, I planned with the rest of them while in the tent. But, CN lets me go with the wind. I'm not trying to find out if I did the right thing or if I'm a total jerk. I was just looking for fun ways to roleplay this through in regards to dealing with the orc camp and my party. The comments here have been helpfull. I forget sometimes that this forum can prove usefull when there are no petty arguments about role playing vs roll play and all of that junk that pops up all the time.
Gedrin 07-13-06, 12:36 PM	This makes no sense. It sounds like all the lawful characters betrayed the orcs for no reason at all, while the CN BarBar rejected attempts to assassinate comrades in arms. I'm willing to be there's something we're not being told. Otherwise I'd leave the party because you can never tell when they'll turn on you suddenly and try and kill you. Of course, apparently the CN BarBar planned it out with the others too, and then just betrayed them when they actually went through with the plan. Sounds like a bunch of back stabbing thugs to me.
BrokenClock 07-13-06, 11:36 PM	This makes no sense. It sounds like all the lawful characters betrayed the orcs for no reason at all, while the CN BarBar rejected attempts to assassinate comrades in arms. I'm willing to be there's something we're not being told. Otherwise I'd leave the party because you can never tell when they'll turn on you suddenly and try and kill you. Of course, apparently the CN BarBar planned it out with the others too, and then just betrayed them when they actually went through with the plan. Sounds like a bunch of back stabbing thugs to me. Ummmm.....yes, thanks for the advice. I'll leave the group and find new people to play with. Who needs friends? I thank you for the advice, no matter how odd it is. I have no intention of leaving the group and they are NOT going to kill me. I play with friends...not *******s. I've explained why the betrayed the orcs and why I betrayed my party. I'm looking for neat ways to roleplay the experience. I'm not looking for advice as to wether or not I should ditch my playing group. Because, again, I'm not an *******.
Gedrin 07-14-06, 12:26 AM	Ummmm.....yes, thanks for the advice. I'll leave the group and find new people to play with. Who needs friends? I thank you for the advice, no matter how odd it is. I have no intention of leaving the group and they are NOT going to kill me. I play with friends...not *******s. I've explained why the betrayed the orcs and why I betrayed my party. I'm looking for neat ways to roleplay the experience. I'm not looking for advice as to wether or not I should ditch my playing group. Because, again, I'm not an *******.I reallize you failed your Read check, but at no time did I recomend you, the player, leave the group. In fact, I don't even mention the players. It looks like the characters are thugs and back stabbers. I'm sure the payers, your friends, are all wonderful people. If there's such a break in the view of the PC's, it seems that they'd naturally drift appart as characters. It just doesn't make sense to me that you can be so committed to playing in character, but then just turn around and be okay with traveling along with folks who turn on you (or visa versa) in combat. Maybe the rest of the party will come to some conclusion that they shouldn't turn on their allies in the middle of a fight and you can all get along. But hey, if you think it makes some sort of sense to travel with a guy you dropped over a cliff, or with a wizard who zotted you with lightning... Maybe your tribal-honor barbarian doesn't mind when the PC's are cowards who betray their allies.
ElSanto 07-14-06, 12:26 AM	I would try to redeem my freinds in the group. I played a CN Barbarian that constantly lectured the Paladin in my party about the meaning of honor for one's enemies and how he treated them in a disgraceful man (IE, the paladin demanded enemies surrender, thus insulting their honor by even thinking they would abandon their leader/ Not honoring the spirit of fallen enemies by eating their hearts). While I would not turn the party over to orcs I would have your Barbarian make it his personal mission to teach culture to the savages (and remember the civilized men are savages from your persective.) who would betray your brothers for gold. Point out that the good will of a strong tribe is worth much more than the skins and gold you could win by killing them. Who knows you might even make them feel sorry for their actions if you play it right. Also for what it is worth, I wouldn't act angry with the party, I would play it more as disapointment in their actions.
EarthTremor 07-14-06, 12:42 AM	don't you just love inter-party tension like this? I've known many DMs and players who don't like the idea of party members disagreeing wth one another... but when it works it just works so damn well. It's character building and makes for a great story. 1) I once had an issue with my True Neutral druid upon hearing of a group of Trolls inhabiting a local marsh. My druid figured the Trolls weren't really causing a problem and so there forefore he wanted to just leave them be and get on with the quest at hand. The other characters in the party were appalled at the idea of letting trolls live... even the DM tired to argue with me that as a druid I should be outraged by such 'unnatural' creatures and want to see them destroyed. I tried counter-arguing that in a fantasy setting a troll is just as natural a creature as an elf or an orc, but to no luck. Needless to say I gave up and fried many a troll with my Wall of Fire. 2) Another situation involved a party inculding my NG Barbarian hunting down a group of Ogre bandits. After slaying most of the group, my character (whp pervesely found unnnessary violence distasteful) and offered them an ultimatium: leave these lands and never come back. The Ogres accepted an even dropped all their treasure for us to take. No sooner was my back turned when the (alledgedly) good fighter slew the surrendered Ogres in one round. 3) Perhaps the worst case of misplaced morals involved an assault on a warehouse run by an evil arms dealer. Before entering the building, my LG monk spoke to the party and said that most of the workers on the ground floor were probably just innocent civilians and should therefore be spared if possible. During the opening attack my character went to great pains to deal nonlethal damage only. After successfully knocking out one of the workers who might have panicked and sounded an alarm, my monk raced off to help another party member who had gotten into a spot of trouble... only to have the unconcious worker slain by a sword stroke from another fellow party member. A lot of the issues your having really comes down to how the DM wants to run the game. Betraying your orc allies is most definately an evil act, and the paladin at least should be repremanded. Killing (or torturing) prisioners of war is still regarded as an evil act on our society (even if some politicans want to tell us otherwise). Likewise, murdering patients under the medical care of a cleric is an attack on the cleric's values and beliefs and so the cleric should very much take it personally... the ranger is basically saying to the cleric what you or your god thinks doesn't matter. My only advice is don't let these issue disrupt the game - if it stops being fun you've all missed the point - but rather feed on these moments. Perhaps the Barbarian will grow mistrustful of his companions, wondering if one day they'll cut his rope. Or maybe he'll instead try to redeem them, starting his own journey towards becoming a CG protector of downtroden peoples. Maybe the cleric will have sterns words with the ranger about the value of mercy when next he desperately needs healing, and warn him that he risks becoming very much like the creatures he hates so much (but not withhold that healing, seeing as that would be agaisnt her values also).
Dougan Axehammer 07-14-06, 12:53 AM	Oh there is a 0 percent chance of anyone having bad feelings outside of the game. We laughed about it all and we all know it's just to add some fun and spice to the game. The DM loved it. I'm not going to go back to the party and kill the party members and they are not going to kill me. We want to continue our adventure, so it's a given that we are going to find some sort of fun way that I can 'redeem' myself and perhaps I'll have them redeem themselves to me. Someone asked for the party's alignment. Fighter : LG Paladain : LG Mage : CN Theif : CG Barbarian : CN (me) I was going to ask that very same question to the rest of my party *in game*. How these goody two shoes type people could be so quick to stab someone in the back simply because they wanted gold. The Paladin didn't even detect evil on them. The fighter was the first to act and he justifies it with his hatred for orcs. I admit, I planned with the rest of them while in the tent. But, CN lets me go with the wind. I'm not trying to find out if I did the right thing or if I'm a total jerk. I was just looking for fun ways to roleplay this through in regards to dealing with the orc camp and my party. The comments here have been helpfull. I forget sometimes that this forum can prove usefull when there are no petty arguments about role playing vs roll play and all of that junk that pops up all the time. I believe that the Mage, with regards to his alignment, was perfectly justified in betraying the orcs to earn a little extra gold, but I think that killing them in cold blood was a bit extreme (cutting and running would have been more appropriate, for CN that is.) I'm not sure if I would trust him, though. He had the trust of others and betrayed it; who's to say he won't do it to you. For the rest of them, I'd start questioning the motives behind their actions, especially the Paladin's. The Paladin, IMO, should have at the very least frowned upon betraying the orcs trust, especially for something as paltry as coin, and he certainly should not have killed them without any provocation. For doing so, willingly at that, he should be stripped of his paladinhood until he sufficiently atones for the misdeeds he has commited. Even the LG Dwarven Fighter, with Orcs as his enemy, should not have done the things you've said; oh, he might keep them at distance for a while, but a LG character would never outright betray another's trust and kill them, certainly not for personal gain. The two of them should be up front with the tribe and accept their consequences accordingly to retain the honor that they have lost. The Thief, on the other hand, has a bit of grey area here. He would certainly not have killed anything outright; killing the orcs was an evil act, not something that a good aligned character would have done. Betraying the orcs' trust, however, is certainly something a chaotic character would have done. He would have probably not trusted the orcs at all; to him they would have been just as likely to betray the party's trust. So, why not do it to them first. I'd start watching the Thief at the very least and see what else he is willing and capable to do. I would certainly ask the party how they expect you to trust any of them at all. Start to question their motives, especially the Paladin's. It seems that trust is going to be a bit of an issue with you and your party.
BrokenClock 07-14-06, 01:23 AM	but at no time did I recomend you, the player, leave the group. Otherwise I'd leave the party. I guess you rolled a one on your short term memory check. Seriously though, thanks for your posts and your insults. It's a lot of help. Please troll somewhere else. ElSanto : That will make a great speech. I think I'll work that in to my, 'hey lets all just be friends' spiel. EarthTremor : We all love the conflict. My DM will let almost anything happen. I dont want to tell them that they broke their alignment out of game. I'll let them do as they please. It will not disrupt the game. I'm sure my DM will cook something up, since he knows that I'm heading back to the orc camp. It should be interesting for sure. Dougan Axehammer : I can see how my character would think that his party might kill him. However, I myself know that they would never do that. Well our party doesnt trust eachother to an extent. But, when all is said and done, we are there for eachother. I've already saved their lives before. That was a lot of fun. I think I'm going to head back to the camp and roleplay my speech to the orcs and then when I want to say some secret stuff about either turning my party in, or where they are located, I will write it down and give it to the DM for fun.
Thulsa Doom 07-14-06, 02:32 AM	The only issue here is that PC see ALL CREATURES AS ENEMIES. They just don't think about what that (imaginary) creature is doing...they think they all stand around in their caves, just waiting for some adventurer to pass by, so they can eat him because they are too stupid to find any other sources of food... That's the real problem - monster prejudice :D ...if I give them a human their first thought is "cool, a quest..." while when I want to add more flavour and send a talkative monster they all go like "he's mine ! ; You're going down *****! ; etc. " It's just player genes, i guess... Here's an example: Party riding down a road through plains, enjoying a summer breeze when they spot a Skullcrusher ogre - the dude ain't carrying weapons in his hands and when he spots them, doesn't go on a rampage but just ignores them and continues on his way ( which is, returning the food he found to his family , by the way ) In not even a split second did they think about that possibility, but just " Let's kill him, I bet I'll deal the most damage in one hit..." . So, they take out their arrows and wands and start blasting him and the poor ogre just tries to run away for one round, but he's no match for horses... They got MINISCULE XP, almost NO TREASURE but they were all filled with euphoria from killing him... As a solution to your "problem" it's not just this situation as it's the other players' mindset...talk to then in front of the DM and try to explain that not all monsters all bloodthirsty killers and man-eaters....well, at least not all the time... If they realize that, it means more friendly monster encounters and more roleplaying and less slashing...if not, more xp and more slashing...again, depends on your co-player's idea of D&D, nothing else... Hope you prove your point!
Rolof 07-14-06, 03:47 AM	I once had a similar problem; our party had killed a bunch of undead plus a couple trolls (the then current BBEG was using the trolls to dig up more bodies for more undead). Then we found a troll that was in a cage, apparently it's residence while "off duty". Even knowing that all trolls are evil, I didn't want to kill the troll because it was in a cage. So then the party says ok, "we let it out THEN kill it". So my character just looked at them and said 'That is the plan? Very well, do so without me" and walked out of the prison area. Our group too, is a collection of long time friends, so it didn't cause any trouble OUT of game, just in game. After the session, our DM asked me what would I have done if I heard the party members screaming or other signs that the battle was going poorly? I replied that I would have rushed back in to help them, but in no way was I prepared to just slaughter the creature. Furthermore, I thought that since it was practically a given they could beat the troll, if they wanted to kill it, there was little point in letting it out of the cage and fighting it, thus giving it false hope. Might as well just end it right then and there while it was caged. My DM loves being evil in his own little way and causing these sorts of moral issues whenever he can. For instance, knowing that I had just taken favored enemy undead recently, he had the party encounter the ghost of a child who just wanted to be buried after being murdered. Of course, at the time we had no idea it was a ghost, because he gave it some feats that allowed it to take solid form and function normally on a limited basis, and the (apparent) little boy lied to us and said his little brother was the one missing and wanted us to find him. Only when we found the body and realized it looked just like the little boy we'd met did we realize something was up, and even then our first thought was "Oh crap, doppleganger!". It was a very moving scene when our party rushed back, thinking to save innocent people from the 'doppleganger' only to find the now translucent little boy fading away and whispering "thank you". Several of the players later admitted they had damn near shed a tear, and the characters were floored, especially mine, who I've roleplayed that he hates all undead.
Stumm_Dolch 07-14-06, 10:02 AM	Broken Clock, you performed marvelously. I think the community in general however is focused on alignment mandating character behavior instead of the other way around. The PCs may have thought it best at the time to behave the way they did... maybe even from some perverse point of view it was justified. Irregardless, their alignments would all shift a bit towards chaotic evil. The Paladin shouldn't suffer any class feature losses until his alignment has actually changed, and only your DM can decide how much of a shift occured. *edit* After reviewing the Paladin Code of Conduct I see I was wrong about him losing his class features. He would definately be in violation of his oath.
Gedrin 07-14-06, 12:42 PM	If you can't tell the difference between your gaming group and your character's adventuring party...I can't help you and I'll be happy to withdraw.
kelvinaw273 07-14-06, 01:37 PM	Yes, I think your party paladin should now be an ex-paladin. Why? If he believed that the orcs were evil he should never have agreed to work with them in the first place, for any reason (see Paladin's code). If he believed that they were NOT evil, then he committed an evil act by betraying them and killing them (in itself a dastardly and questionable deed). I would suggest you present this case to the DM the next time the incident gets mentioned.
Oren 07-14-06, 03:00 PM	Agreed. That Paladin should be a none-to-interesting fighter right now. Even if he agreed to help a group of evil people for the greater good, cutting the ropes while they were climbing down is attacking a helpless person, and wrong. I'd say the DM is being to generous to the party for being total A**holes. I hope he has something nasty in store for them, like venturing into a town and having a mob form and lynch them. Why? Because they had swords, which meant they could hurt the townsfolk.
BrokenClock 07-14-06, 03:39 PM	Well the Paladin thing is up to the DM. I wouldn't want him to lose his powers. He is a first time player after all. What they did was wrong, by the sounds of what the popular opinion is. So, should I be the one to punish them? I am in a position (heading in to orc town) that I can do just that.
Andrew 07-14-06, 03:53 PM	I've definately got respect for you and your gaming group if you can all get through this well and rationally without too many ruffled feathers. Part of the conflict may come from different views on campaign or play style. From your side of the story, it sounds like you are playing in the "serious character roleplaying" style - you worry about what your character thinks, how he feels, and treat (and expect) NPC's to behave like people. Your group's actions sound more in line with the "waste him with my crossbow" approach, holding to the alignment of "chaotic adventurer," and being very focused on the tangible rewards of XP and treasure - which is also a perfectly valid way to play. If that is the case, it will be important to work out those player expectations to make it so that everyone can keep getting what they want out of the game. Even considering that all in the best light, I think there's a host of alignment discrepencies going on. Your CN barbarian I would consider to have acted more CG than anything, trying to help those that treated him fairly, though CN can be justified. The CG thief also has a case to be made - with a decision that both the lizardmen and orcs were bad and/or enemies of the innocent, what happened is a good way of taking everybody down wth limited risk and resources. The CN mage could justify most things that aren't too extreme. However, LG characters would have to have been dragged kicking and screaming to both work with and then later betray a group like that. An existing hatred is fine for the dwarf, but when given the option to do the right thing or to respect his fixed prejudice, he went with hate, which definately sounds more LN to me. It definately doesn't sound like the paladin was either good or lawful, and playing a paladins really comes with an assumption that you will consider the good and evil of various actions. Consequences really ought be coming for him; it is supposed to be the paladin that acts as the group conscience, not the CN barbarian.
ElSanto 07-15-06, 10:53 AM	I wouldn’t seek to punish your party for their betrayal by turning them over to the orc tribe. You would be in effect turning on your allies because you think those who turn on their allies need to be punished, a little hypocritical to say the least. Certainly if you were lawful you’d feel compelled to turn your party to justice, but as chaotic person you can see clearly that following the letter of law is not always best. The real downside is that either your party is going to slaughter the orcs when they come to extract justice, furthering their crimes against your orc brothers. Or the orcs are going to slaughter your party, robbing you of allies you need for your larger quest. If you truly care for your orc brothers I would try and put some distance between your adopted tribe and the “misguided” members or your party least any more unfortunate accidents occur. Once you are a safe distance from the orcs, I’d bust out with the speech of how you shouldn’t betray ones allies. The best part is that you’ve got the moral high ground since you in fact, remained loyal and kept the party’s secret of the slaughter. You can point out the many would say you are evil for what you did, but you believe they can still be saved.
BrokenClock 07-28-06, 09:53 AM	Well, it has been resolved in some way. The manner in which it happend isn't too important. However, I did mention there was a large sum of gold on the line and we did promise to give a portion back to the Orcs to help them in their fight with the Lizard men. I waited till they were all asleep, except the mage, he doens't sleep much. I came up behind him and with halted breath, knocked him out cold with my fist. I then took off all my armour and placed my own blood all over it. I then took off in to the woods, naked and running as fast as the wind would carry me. My plan is to get back to the chest of gold that they have now burried in a village full of savages. The savages are a friendly group and mean us no harm. The problem with the whole situation is that I didn't pass notes to the DM or anything. I simply said it out loud. Now my party knows exactly where I'm going. I have a funny feeling the armour with blood on it won't even make them stop and think. They'll simply head in the direction of the gold. I wouldn't mind too much, since I'm a Barbarian (fast movement), but the Paladin is level 5 and of course that means he has a horse. I know they can't all ride the horse, so they might just send him to deal with me. This is fine, because I can take him out too if I need to (not kill). The DM said I'll be an hour ahead of them all by the time they wake up. My questions are, what should I do to put a bit more distance between us? There is a jungle and flatlands between me and my destination. Also, will a horse and a man full in armour catch up to a naked barbarian running through jungle and flatlands super easy? Should I set up a trap for them? Should I get the savages who are our friends to distract them for me? I'll have something planned by Tuesday. But, it would be nice if someone could drop something that I never thought of before. My plan : Since the savages love to hunt and eat Fairies and we just came from a Fairie village, I was going to tell them that the rest of my party has come with a huge bounty of dead Fairies. That way they would stop them to talk. I could also tell them that they have sided with the Fairies and are leading some sort of tiny war party to invade the village. That's my general plan. I thought of using my rope to try and make a trap in the woods that could trip a horse as well. Thanks for your read.
coomber 07-28-06, 10:40 AM	If you can't tell the difference between your gaming group and your character's adventuring party...I can't help you and I'll be happy to withdraw. Nice...lol
KurenaiYami 07-29-06, 12:31 AM	Nice...lol Also fairly true. Sad when people mock others for not understanding something when they are the ones that don't understand. As to the actual topic, I believe most have said what need be said, and it has been resolved. I do really question how the DM did not bring up these things during the session though. Especially if the Paladin was new. DM: "So...you're just gonna kill them 'cause you don't want to share?" Paladin: "Yup." DM: "You...understand that you are a Paladin, defender of Law and Good?" Paladin: "Yeah huh." DM: "And you're still going to murder these people in cold blood?" Paladin: "That's the plan." DM: "...right then. You're going for Blackguard, aren't you?"
a_psh 07-29-06, 01:53 AM	I guess you rolled a one on your short term memory check. Seriously though, thanks for your posts and your insults. It's a lot of help. Please troll somewhere else.Gedrin did honestly offer advice here. That advice being that a character who has been through all that probably has little or no reason to trust the rest of the adventuring party anymore, and would likely consider leaving them because he felt betrayed and wounded by their callous deeds. This certainly isn't the only course of action, but it's a reasonable one both from a roleplaying perspective (people in the real world don't usually stay friends after almost killing each other) and a metagame perspective (setting an example for an honorable character sticking up for what he believes in might get the rest of the party to be less murderous in the future). If your real-life friends beat the crap out of you and murdered a bunch of people you liked, wouldn't you have second thoughts about putting your life in their hands every day? This is distinct from saying that you the player should leave your gaming group because your friends are bad gamers or bad people. Nobody has said anything to that effect on this thread. The only claims that have been made is that their character acted like bad people and that would probably cause a schism between them and your character. You responded to this as if Gedrin had told you to go throw away your dice and disown all your friends. So I do think you owe Ged an apology here.
BrokenClock 07-29-06, 02:02 AM	Also fairly true. Sad when people mock others for not understanding something when they are the ones that don't understand. As to the actual topic, I believe most have said what need be said, and it has been resolved. I do really question how the DM did not bring up these things during the session though. Especially if the Paladin was new. DM: "So...you're just gonna kill them 'cause you don't want to share?" Paladin: "Yup." DM: "You...understand that you are a Paladin, defender of Law and Good?" Paladin: "Yeah huh." DM: "And you're still going to murder these people in cold blood?" Paladin: "That's the plan." DM: "...right then. You're going for Blackguard, aren't you?" Also sad when a person comes in and says nothing helpful. I didn't know the topic was resolved. Thank you for telling me. But thanks to some for some great advice and thanks to others for a nice spin in to troll land. Why comment if you have nothing productive to say? If I'm not interested in a topic, I simply don't post. I mean, isn't time worth anything? I'm way to busy to bother posting in someones thread while pretending to give a damn. Surely there is nothing to gain from silly troll talk. An apology for not accepting outlandish advice? I don't think so. It doesn't deal with the problem and is 100 percent out of character. It would be nice to get some REAL ideas as to a nice solution to the situation. A way to get ahead of the party. But, if trolling is your thing, then play that funky music.
a_psh 07-29-06, 02:28 AM	BrokenClock, You understand the distinction between "gaming group" and "adventuring party", right? How is saying that it's reasonable for your character to perhaps contemplate parting ways with his allies-who-aren't-acting-like-allies-anymore a "troll" suggestion? You said yourself that your PC has strong feelings of guilt about the incident. Based on the way you described the exchange, you and the dwarf and mage came pretty darn close to killing each other. You should, at the least, figure out why you're still comfortable traveling with these people who murdered a bunch of your almost-friends and almost murdered you -- continuing your adventures isn't out of the question, but it seems like it's not necessarily an easy choice to make.
JayDubya 07-29-06, 08:17 AM	In terms of outrunning the Paladin, you have a 40' movement, his horse has a 50' movement. Every 6 seconds when you go 8 squares, the horse goes 10 squares. If that horse is carrying more than 350 pounds in rider + gear, it's going a bit slower, however, at 35' movement for a Medium load. You can travel 4 miles an hour, 32 miles per day. You are, however, allowed to hustle for one of those hours without a problem, bringing you to 36 miles per day. The horse can travel 5 miles in an hour, 40 miles per day. Let's see here... you can both overland walk for 8 hours per day. Beyond that, you can force march for extra movement, whereas a horse cannot without taking 1 lethal damage for every hour of forced march. If you hustled, you have an 8 mile head start + whatever time it takes the paladin to put his armor on, mount up, and ride off - they can't know what you did or where you went without meta-gaming, so it would be quite remiss of them not to even try and search for you around the campsite. Force march is fairly simple (DC 10 Constitution check, DC+2 for each additional hour), so with a single DC 10 Con check, you can make another hour of movement and another 4 miles. Once you fail one of these checks however, you take 1d6 nonlethal damage and get fatigued. You don't want to walk yourself to unconsciousness, so I'd recommend either stopping after one force march or at least stopping when you fail your first check. The best you're probably going to get is 40, maybe 44 miles. Meanwhile, a horse with a rider automatically fails force march con checks, and the damage it takes is lethal. Of course, we ought to consider that the Paladin can heal away this damage with lay on hands, and if he's dead set on catching up to you, he will. So now we're looking at as many hours as he has LoH points, assuming 16 Cha, +3 x 5 = 15 LoH, so assuming average damage, he can push that mount for four more hours, or 20 more miles for a total of 60 miles. Yeah, I hope this camp is fairly close because the paladin is going to easily overtake you unless you march yourself nearly to unconsciousness, and even then, he'll catch you the next morning. Overland Movement Characters covering long distances cross-country use overland movement. Overland movement is measured in miles per hour or miles per day. A day represents 8 hours of actual travel time. For rowed watercraft, a day represents 10 hours of rowing. For a sailing ship, it represents 24 hours. Walk A character can walk 8 hours in a day of travel without a problem. Walking for longer than that can wear him or her out (see Forced March, below). Hustle A character can hustle for 1 hour without a problem. Hustling for a second hour in between sleep cycles deals 1 point of nonlethal damage, and each additional hour deals twice the damage taken during the previous hour of hustling. A character who takes any nonlethal damage from hustling becomes fatigued. A fatigued character can’t run or charge and takes a penalty of -2 to Strength and Dexterity. Eliminating the nonlethal damage also eliminates the fatigue. Run A character can’t run for an extended period of time. Attempts to run and rest in cycles effectively work out to a hustle. Terrain The terrain through which a character travels affects how much distance he or she can cover in an hour or a day (see Table: Terrain and Overland Movement). A highway is a straight, major, paved road. A road is typically a dirt track. A trail is like a road, except that it allows only single-file travel and does not benefit a party traveling with vehicles. Trackless terrain is a wild area with no paths. Forced March In a day of normal walking, a character walks for 8 hours. The rest of the daylight time is spent making and breaking camp, resting, and eating. A character can walk for more than 8 hours in a day by making a forced march. For each hour of marching beyond 8 hours, a Constitution check (DC 10, +2 per extra hour) is required. If the check fails, the character takes 1d6 points of nonlethal damage. A character who takes any nonlethal damage from a forced march becomes fatigued. Eliminating the nonlethal damage also eliminates the fatigue. It’s possible for a character to march into unconsciousness by pushing himself too hard. Mounted Movement A mount bearing a rider can move at a hustle. The damage it takes when doing so, however, is lethal damage, not nonlethal damage. The creature can also be ridden in a forced march, but its Constitution checks automatically fail, and, again, the damage it takes is lethal damage. Mounts also become fatigued when they take any damage from hustling or forced marches.
Pidmon 07-29-06, 10:50 AM	A trap is a really good idea. If you've got time and the equipment, dig a pit trap, and put some rope just in front of it so the horse would trip in... or if it tries to jump, it'll go in too. Make sure this is in an area not easily avoided, too. I love the roleplay going on here, it's brilliant. Good luck to your barbarian, and I'm all for the 'try to negotiate a peaceful resolve between party/tribe' route, too, once you get the gold to the tribe.
BrokenClock 07-29-06, 10:55 AM	In terms of outrunning the Paladin, you have a 40' movement, his horse has a 50' movement. Every 6 seconds when you go 8 squares, the horse goes 10 squares. If that horse is carrying more than 350 pounds in rider + gear, it's going a bit slower, however, at 35' movement for a Medium load. You can travel 4 miles an hour, 32 miles per day. You are, however, allowed to hustle for one of those hours without a problem, bringing you to 36 miles per day. The horse can travel 5 miles in an hour, 40 miles per day. Let's see here... you can both overland walk for 8 hours per day. Beyond that, you can force march for extra movement, whereas logically, the horse cannot. If you hustled, you have an 8 mile head start + whatever time it takes the paladin to put his armor on, mount up, and ride off - they can't know what you did or where you went without meta-gaming, so it would be quite remiss of them not to even try and search for you around the campsite. Force march is fairly simple (DC 10 Constitution check, DC+2 for each additional hour), so with a single DC 10 Con check, you can make another hour of movement and another 4 miles. Once you fail one of these checks however, you take 1d6 nonlethal damage and get fatigued. You don't want to walk yourself to unconsciousness, so I'd recommend either stopping after one force march or at least stopping when you fail your first check. The best you're probably going to get is 40, maybe 44 miles. Meanwhile, a horse with a rider automatically fails force march con checks, and the damage it takes is lethal. Of course, we ought to consider that the Paladin can heal away this damage with lay on hands, and if he's dead set on catching up to you, he will. So now we're looking at as many hours as he has LoH points, assuming 16 Cha, +3 x 5 = 15 LoH, so assuming average damage, he can push that mount for four more hours, or 20 more miles for a total of 60 miles. Yeah, I hope this camp is fairly close because the paladin is going to easily overtake you unless you march yourself nearly to unconsciousness, and even then, he'll catch you the next morning. Damn, even the book has me doomed. Hopefully the Paladin trys to double load his horse with another party memeber for backup. I guess I'll have to ambush him in the forest. Thanks for the load of info. I'll protest to the DM if my party just goes straight for the gold as soon as they wake up.
kelvinaw273 07-29-06, 10:55 AM	A trap is a really good idea. If you've got time and the equipment, dig a pit trap, and put some rope just in front of it so the horse would trip in... or if it tries to jump, it'll go in too. Make sure this is in an area not easily avoided, too. I love the roleplay going on here, it's brilliant. Good luck to your barbarian, and I'm all for the 'try to negotiate a peaceful resolve between party/tribe' route, too, once you get the gold to the tribe. I love the roleplaying by the barbarian. The rest sound like they are metagaming in force.
BrokenClock 07-29-06, 11:03 AM	A trap is a really good idea. If you've got time and the equipment, dig a pit trap, and put some rope just in front of it so the horse would trip in... or if it tries to jump, it'll go in too. Make sure this is in an area not easily avoided, too. I love the roleplay going on here, it's brilliant. Good luck to your barbarian, and I'm all for the 'try to negotiate a peaceful resolve between party/tribe' route, too, once you get the gold to the tribe. A pit trap, that's genius. I guess I'll have to ask the DM with a note if there is anywhere between start and finish that both me and the Paladin have to cross. I hope the equpiment for a pit trap just involve a rope. I'll have to use my hands to do the digging and I bet that would take more then an hour. But I bet a pit trap is my only hope. Well, I guess using my silk rope to tie around two trees at head level of the Paladin might work too. kelvinaw273 : Thanks. They are metagaming. But, I guess I'm to blame as well. I could have just passed a few notes to the DM or talked to him in secret. Also, it's a lot of money for us, as the DM has kept us very poor, so they want it BAD. My next session is on Tuesday, so hopefuly all goes well and I can apply some of the suggestions to my plight.
JayDubya 07-29-06, 12:46 PM	Actually I'm fairly certain you'd need ranks in Craft (Trapmaking) and more time than you have - anytime you waste not walking is only going to make him catch up with you sooner. You have no way to know precisely which way the paladin is going to go, but you don't have to take the most direct, most obvious path either. That, and the Paladin is going to have fairly high saves due to the fact he's a paladin and his horse shares saving throws with him. Just to show you what I mean, here's a CR 1 trap: CR 1; mechanical; location trigger; manual reset; hidden switch bypass (Search DC 25); DC 15 Reflex save avoids; 20 ft. deep (2d6, fall); multiple targets (first target in each of two adjacent 5-ft. squares); Search DC 20; Disable Device DC 23. Market Price: 1,300 gp. But that doesn't even get into the logic of digging a giant hole in the middle of the road, covering it, and hoping the paladin fails a saving throw. * * * For what it's worth, after reading your story I rather sympathize and I think the Paladin shouldn't be catching up with ANYTHING until he atones, as his arse should have to walk after you at 20' per round. This is why I prefer settings like Eberron where not all such-and-such are evil and players are actually encouraged to use Hobgoblins and orcs and such as PCs - those orcs made a deal in good faith and your party betrayed them. Cutting the ropes was an evil act, going along with it without outrage makes him an accomplice. If the paladin knew for a fact that the orcs were evil, he couldn't have travelled with them in the first place. If he knew they weren't evil, he couldn't be justified in killing them. Ergo, goodbye Paladin, hello Fighter without feats. Of course, it seems your DM couldn't be bothered to apply the rules or expect a Paladin to behave with decency, so all I can do is wish you luck. Seriously though, how many miles away are you? You can go really honking fast compared to the rest of the party walking - if he brings another person on the horse you can completely outrun him.
JayDubya 08-02-06, 06:08 PM	Bump to find out how it went.
KurenaiYami 08-02-06, 11:12 PM	I didn't know the topic was resolved. Thank you for telling me. Well, it has been resolved in some way. Silly BrokenClock, not remembering his own words as he's flaming others for his own lack of understanding. I believe I did make a comment relevant to the topic. If you don't believe it was, that is your own problem. All I know is that you were insulting another poster because you didn't understand what was going on. I don't fault you for the misunderstanding, but I believe some form of apology would be expected from an upstanding person such as yourself. ---------------------------------Edit-------------------------------------------------- Apology to Gedrin, of course. I didn't see a direct insult against me, just more misunderstandings.
STAT 08-03-06, 10:46 AM	Okay, let's say his character leaves the party, what then? He brings in another character to be with the same backstabbing traitors. The only way leaving the party becomes useful is if he as a player leaves. Otherwise he's still with them. So how is this good advice and how is this not the same thing as telling him to leave his group?
LCD2YOU 08-03-06, 11:28 AM	Where to begin: This is another DM failure. Yes the DM, not the other party members. 1: The Paladin SHOULD NOT be stripped of his powers. The player is a first time player according to the OP. Does anyone believe that the DM actually sat down with the player and told them what they, the DM, expects from a Paladin? Did they provide examples of what to do when situations like this arose? Did he even warn the Paladin about his actions? This is especially true as the player is a first timer. I don't understand the "Let's make sure we understand where the 'Usually Evil' normally bad guys are coming from but let's hang the Paladin by the short hairs", mob mentality on these boards. 2: As for the Orcs, Pres_man is correct that Orcs are "Usually CE". The only thing I have is that if you go to a tribe of Orcs, you're not going to find that 45% are CE and the rest run the gambit, more or less evenly between CN, NE, to LG. If 45% are CE, then 20% are NE, 20% are CN, 10% are N, <5% are LE, <5% are CG and <1% are LN, LG or NG combined. What you'll find, IMO, is that 45% of all Orcish tribes would be CE or close to it. Then 20% of the tribes would be NE, etc. Could anyone imagine how 1 LG Orc in a tribe of 400 could survive and still keep their alignment in a place where 340 Orcs are NE/CE/CN? The "good" Orcs would leave and form their own bands away from their blood thirsty bretheren just to survive. Sounds though that you're party may have run into "N" Orcs (capable of cruelty and cooperation) though. 3: As Thulsa Doom stated, many players ESPECIALLY 1st timers, see monsters as things you fight. With movies like "LoTR", orcs were nothing but bad guys and needed to be killed off if they got in your way to complete the mission. I'm not say that is the right way to play, but for some it could be. Without the DM having things better expalined, I blame them if things are going out of whack. Of course, this could be the OP's perspective and nobody else in the group is having heartache over it.
Pidmon 08-03-06, 11:41 AM	Of course, this could be the OP's perspective and nobody else in the group is having heartache over it. Um, I never saw heartache. I saw a player having a brilliant time RPing with a group of players also RPing to their best, and just asking for some advice to keep the interesting situation continuing. But I might be wrong.
LCD2YOU 08-03-06, 12:37 PM	Um, I never saw heartache. I saw a player having a brilliant time RPing with a group of players also RPing to their best, and just asking for some advice to keep the interesting situation continuing. But I might be wrong.Ok, wrong word. It could be that nobody else in the OP's group believes that anything else is wrong with what had happened.
KurenaiYami 08-03-06, 06:19 PM	Okay, let's say his character leaves the party, what then? He brings in another character to be with the same backstabbing traitors. The only way leaving the party becomes useful is if he as a player leaves. Otherwise he's still with them. So how is this good advice and how is this not the same thing as telling him to leave his group? Maybe the new character would be a backstabbing traitor as well, and everybody would be happy?