Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Riordan 08-31-04, 06:50 PM	Example: Your character is good-aligned, lets say that she is LG, and you're in a group of otherwise Neutral and Evil characters. The other players are your friends and the GM didn't enforce any same-alignment rules. Your character is constantly getting screwed by the other characters because as you are good, you cannot do certain things if you want to remain true to your alignment. How do you prevent the other players's characters from screwing yours? Or do you adapt and make a new character more in line with them? How much "attitude" can your character show without deviating from your alignment? Any thoughts?
Kaminton 08-31-04, 07:21 PM	If they commit a crime, arrest them, turn them in to the local authorities, etc. Try to redeem them so they're no longer evil. Good people can adventure with neutral party members. It's almost impossible to do so with actively evil people. You have to either arrive at an understanding (don't commit evil acts in my presence or I'll smite you), or leave (basically come in with a neutral/evil character of your own). Have your character ask him/herself: Why am I adventuring with these people? If they keep robbing you and abusing you, why do you stay?
danielinthewolvesden 08-31-04, 08:01 PM	Try another game. Really. Or play someone CN with good tendencies so he doesn't care about the others. How exactly are you "getting screwed"?
illiterate 08-31-04, 08:52 PM	remember that as a lawful good character you have an obligation to bring evildoers to justice if possible, dispatch them if necessary. remember that your character may be lawful and good, but isn't stupid. strike when their guard is down. they may be watching eachother for betrayal, so consider manipulating them into fighting one another. if you've been the goody twoshoes, they won't expect it.
Kiri Sittori 08-31-04, 09:32 PM	Example: Your character is good-aligned, lets say that she is LG, and you're in a group of otherwise Neutral and Evil characters. The other players are your friends and the GM didn't enforce any same-alignment rules. Your character is constantly getting screwed by the other characters because as you are good, you cannot do certain things if you want to remain true to your alignment. How do you prevent the other players's characters from screwing yours? Or do you adapt and make a new character more in line with them? How much "attitude" can your character show without deviating from your alignment? Any thoughts? Story of my role-playing experience? First party. Me: LN telepath, LN fighter/assassin, NE fighter/mage/thief (the last left the party and became my mostly solo-campaign antihero.) Other player: CN fighter/monk with every psionic power, CE samurai, CE witch. (Let's see... Zain the fighter/monk was closer to CE, and had personally created a suit of Liquid Steel armour that could do far, far more than the T-1000 ever could; the samurai was named Pestilent; and the witch was... well... a witch named BlackHeart.) The Elves Party: CG ranger NG ranger/cleric of Sune NE mage (and necrophile. In Ravenloft.) Horse and Rabbit: LG Paladin (of Chauntea...) CN Dark Elf Fighter (Cynvanter, "the Rabbit Lord," who being insane, believed that putting straw-stuffed pants on his head gained him the title, Rabbit Lord. Was fond of using a Wand of Temporary Polymorph to turn town guards into Dire Rabbits, which he would then attempt to ride. Habitually named his horses Quigby McGee Jones. And got him and the Paladin turned into outlaws when he burned down a tavern in a fit of arachnophobia, then attempted to eat all the wanted posters AND FEED THEM TO HIS HORSE. Worst of all: his weapon of choice was a broom, and he challenged a high-level dwarf guard to a broom fight, with the accusation of cowardice. Naturally, the dwarf broke his broom, creating an improvised spear, and beat the poor darky down, under protest from the Paladin...!!) (Note: I RAN this game. :P ) The Collapse: NG rogue... seeking advice on how to become a Paladin. CN fighter... and would-be organiser of the "Association for the Annihilation of Secret Subterranean Structures" (AA-SSS.) A few other characters, running the gamut of alignments; what was to be a rather high-quality game collapsed in two sessions because of AA-SSS boy. What I'd do: Talk to the DM about setting aside the lawful-good character for a... how you say... more appropriate campaign, and bring in a character that fits the party better. Fewer headaches for you... for the other players... and for the DM. Especially if you had a Paladin in mind.
Grox 08-31-04, 09:53 PM	The GM should guide character creation at the campaign's outset to minimize conflict between the players: making everyone's alignment within two or three steps of each other, and working with the characters on a backstory that encourages them to work together, even if it's as simple as: "You all grew up together, and have grown to like and trust each other." The difficulty is this: if the DM has any story he wants to present in the campaign, it has NO CHANCE of maintaining more than a tiny fragment of the players' attention once they turn against each other. Players' hatred for characters of the other players runs deeper than it ever could against an NPC enemy, and the importance of the campaign at large will wither away. It will die and stay dead until only one faction of allies remains.
Thorak 08-31-04, 10:30 PM	It's perfectly possible to play an evil alignment with a group of any other alignment. Especially neutral or lawful evil. Because people of those alignments can have the self-discipline necessary to cultivate relationships that benefit them, like a party. Being evil doesn't entail screwing your party members. It entails screwing everyone else for the group's benefit. And ripping the intestines out of anyone who screws with your friends. The only thing that should make an evil character turn on his party is someone offering him more than the relationships and protection the party offers can, which is a hefty price. Smart evil guys think ahead, and about what the party can do for him in 10 levels, rather than screwing them all now for that +1 longsword that would look neat on their belt. That said, if your fellow players are playing Stupid Evil and being antisocial sociopathic nutjobs, I'd strongly suggest quitting and finding a group that doesn't believe Evil means Insane, as they obviously do.
Kilamar 08-31-04, 10:37 PM	How do you prevent the other players's characters from screwing yours? Very easy. Ask your DM and/or other the other players what kind of campaign they want to play and come to an mutual understanding. Kilamar
Cymraegmorgan 08-31-04, 10:47 PM	Like Daniel daid, find another, better game. We do not allow evil characters in our game. I have said it before, and I will say it again, if the game is not fun for all, run from it. Sounds like you are in a game that is not fun for you. Your DM should have prevented this situation from escalating. That said, a LG character could always get each of the other PCs alone, one at a time. Then, using non-lethal damage, beat each senseless and turn them over to the appropriate authority for their crimes. A Paladin can challenge an evil character to trial by combat. If the evil character dies, they must have been guilty. Whatever brand of Good you are, itis in your philosophical best interest to curtail evil. Period.
angryman 08-31-04, 10:57 PM	Rule 1 of "enforcing your will"- convince them that what you want is what they want. (difficult) Or, have some power than them- not necessarily stat wise, just have something over them and blackmail them. Recruite the reasonable and rational PCs covertly against the evil one(s), and when it comes to crunch-time, confront them (as they are committing an evil act) and tell them to leave. Either you'll die or he'll die/leave. Then the new character must play an alignment in line with the party. Just remember- paladins and evil clerics dont get along together, and this really should have been worked out BEFORE the game.
Riordan 09-01-04, 02:27 AM	A few things. The game has not started yet. We haven't made characters yet though people are pretty clear on what they are going to play. The party so far is going to consist of a LE Paladin of Tyranny (UA), a LN arcane magic-user, a LN Psion and me, the NG Cleric of Pelor, aspiring Radiant Servant (CD). The GM haven't enforced any same alignment restrictions yet and he said that he will allow us to make characters and then make an adventure of it. And since I am the minority, the deviating part (since I think it is reasonable to assume that the two LN guys can work with the LE), and the group seems to be run by the general principles of democracy, I doubt that they will change their characters to better work with mine. Another point about converting Evil-types: If they are players, you will not do it if they don't want to. And about bringing them to justice. My character is one cleric (with average human physical stats) against three others. I'm a bit outnumbered. As to blackmailing, deceiving and conspire to bring them to justice, how much of that can actually be allowed if you play good? And before anyone asks why I am playing with them, I do it because the alternative is sitting on my hands and not playing. And an example of what I mean by "screwing over". As a good character, and a cleric besides, I cannot deny anyone healing without a very strong reason. Assume that one of the other characters falls in combat, my character, as good-aligned, would feel compelled to try to save him at the risk of his own life. However, if the situation was reversed I'm pretty sure that they would leave him instead of even remotely risking their lives. And further, the way I have interpreted the religion of Pelor, they are big on understanding and tolerance, giving aid and seek solutions through diplomacy rather than violence though they can occasionally take up arms to defend themselves and those under their care. I can see so many ways that an evil character can abuse the good cleric.
danielinthewolvesden 09-01-04, 04:00 AM	No, actually, the LN's should get along better with the LG than with the LE. That LE "Paladin of Tyranny" doesn't fit at all. Talk to the DM, and to the other players. You don't have to cure the Evil guy. But in fact- you'd have to strain credibility to have tow such extreme LG and LE in the same party. A "paladin of Tyranny" isn't just "LE"- he is *LE*!!!!! :eek:
Glak 09-01-04, 04:19 AM	Neutral characters like good characters more than evil characters. It explicitly says so in the core books. I mean really, who would you want to be friends with: A cleric that likes to heal you but wastes too much time helping right wrongs, or a paladin of TYRANNY who wants to enslave you? Overtly evil characters simply cannot be in parties with good or neutral characters. Tip your DM off to the fact that the party won't last more than one session. Really, how can your DM craft more than one adventure where you work with a paladin of tyranny? Killing him would be your adventure. Why kill orcs when you have a paladin of tyranny close at hand? Just smash his head while he sleeps.
Thorak 09-01-04, 10:58 AM	And an example of what I mean by "screwing over". As a good character, and a cleric besides, I cannot deny anyone healing without a very strong reason. Assume that one of the other characters falls in combat, my character, as good-aligned, would feel compelled to try to save him at the risk of his own life. However, if the situation was reversed I'm pretty sure that they would leave him instead of even remotely risking their lives. You can't let them die. But if they're mean and nasty to you, there's absolutely no reason you'd use your God's gifts to mend every wound they have. Heal them till they're above 0, slap some bandages on the rest, and let them go. Oh, and when you cast spells like Bless, or other party-affecting boosts, specifically exclude the people who are nasty to you from it's benefits. Again, if they're horrible to you, there's no reason you should be giving them the benefit of your God's power. Don't discriminate based on alignment though. The LE paladin of tyranny is almost certainly going to cause problems, but I already detailed how a LE character can be perfectly nice and content within a group. If anyone is being nasty to you, you don't have to use your class abilities and spells to benefit them beyond the bare minimum required, keeping them alive.
Camellan 09-01-04, 01:40 PM	As to blackmailing, deceiving and conspire to bring them to justice, how much of that can actually be allowed if you play good? If you're Lawful good, probably not much. You're Neutral Good. You're concerned for the Most Good for the Most People. If that means you play the laws to your best advantage, fine. If that means you manipulate the stuff out of them, fine. The goal is to get the most good done that you can, right? Laws, or Freedom are secondary concerns to the cause of Good. That gives you a bit of leeway, IMO. And an example of what I mean by "screwing over". As a good character, and a cleric besides, I cannot deny anyone healing without a very strong reason. Assume that one of the other characters falls in combat, my character, as good-aligned, would feel compelled to try to save him at the risk of his own life. However, if the situation was reversed I'm pretty sure that they would leave him instead of even remotely risking their lives. And further, the way I have interpreted the religion of Pelor, they are big on understanding and tolerance, giving aid and seek solutions through diplomacy rather than violence though they can occasionally take up arms to defend themselves and those under their care. I can see so many ways that an evil character can abuse the good cleric. Yep, sounds about right. Except that healing evil beings so they can do more evil is aiding and abetting evil, and hence is evil, and therefore shouldn't be allowed without an alignment change on your part. If someone is commiting an evil act, and gets waxed in the process, who are you to get in the way of the Greater Good by healing the miscreant. He made his bed, now he can lie in it. Mercy concerns would force you to help the Evil person who got injured doing good, or neutral deeds. Or, even trying to patch together them after some evil event. But, that doesn't mean that you have to completely heal them. It depends on how Subtle the Evil player is. If he's secretive about it, and you don't catch him, then heal him up. It can be fun having 1 subtle evil person in the group, and waiting to see how long it takes the rest of the group to figure it out. Problem is most of your Evil players are as subtle as a brick upside the head, and that causes issues. So, you be the subtle one.
eRaz0r 09-01-04, 02:44 PM	Change your character to LE and start the game as the Tyrants squire (fighter) or spiritual adviser (cleric). If he starts to complain about the lack of healing in the party, laugh and point at him and say "that's what you get for playing an evil character - moron" If he still wants you to play a healer - tell him he has to play a non-evil character, because there's no way you're going to sacrifice your character concept just to float his. What goes around, comes around. If you're married to your character concept, then you certainly can deny healing to people who abuse you. It's simple. Unless you intend on playing an Exalted character, you can always put restrictions on who you will heal, and for how much. But I'm completely mystified as to what reason you would have for travelling with such a party. You share not a single alignment trait with any of them. What are your common goals ? This is the problem with coming up with characters in a vacuum.
danielinthewolvesden 09-01-04, 04:56 PM	You can't let them die. You most certainly could let the LE Paladin of Tyranny die- in fact, likely the best way of taking care of this porblem is to memorize a Cause wounds spell, and when he is on his last legs, offer to "cure" him. Killing Evil- esp anti-paladin level of evil- is GOOD.
Lincoln Hills 09-01-04, 08:57 PM	Everybody seems to assume that the NG guy is doomed because 'evil is smarter'. Look: you say you're friends with the other players. Go to your fellow players before play begins and say, "My character genuinely IS a nice guy. He won't be plotting against you, planning to stab you, or changing his alignment. And he WILL be providing healing and spellcasting, in most cases, free of charge. You already KNOW the rest of the party will sell you if the price is right - so give me a chance to run this guy as trustworthy." I once ran the only good character in an 8-person party of players who weren't friends, just fellow game shop patrons - all of 'em running N, CN or evil characters - for several months. And in the end, everybody trusted me, the gnome rogue (!?), because I had shown beyond doubt that I would risk myself for their welfare and I wouldn't turn on them. Can't promise that it would work every time, but it CAN work.
Daquiel 09-01-04, 09:34 PM	Everybody seems to assume that the NG guy is doomed because 'evil is smarter'. But I thought evil will always triumph because good is dumb. Or are you implying that Dark Helmet has lied to me? :D Sorry, but I couldn't resist.
Thorak 09-01-04, 10:09 PM	You most certainly could let the LE Paladin of Tyranny die- in fact, likely the best way of taking care of this porblem is to memorize a Cause wounds spell, and when he is on his last legs, offer to "cure" him. Killing Evil- esp anti-paladin level of evil- is GOOD. You could, if he'd given you reason. Just because he's evil doesn't make him guilty of a capital crime. A greedy merchant is Evil, but doesn't deserve to die for it. And I had written my previous post with the assumption that the LE guy hadn't given reason, besides being an obnoxious arse. If he's going around trying to kill babies, take that sucker out. If he's just ranting about how he's the supreme being and you're required to heal him now, or he'll gut you like a pig, then just refuse to heal him. When he takes a swing at you with his sword, that's when you kill him. But killing based on alignment isn't Good. It is, if anything, Evil. Because you're not giving them a chance to mend their beliefs, when confronted with your good example. You're passing judgement based on their morality, rather than their actions. Which isn't a Good thing at all.
Kaminton 09-01-04, 10:14 PM	You haven't answered my question: Why are you playing a NG cleric of Pelor? I understand you want to play - but why pick a character that is so at odds with the rest of the group? Why not some other religion? A neutral deity, for instance. Another point about converting Evil-types: If they are players, you will not do it if they don't want to. Are we talking about evil characters or evil players? The paladin of tyranny is pretty much a lost cause, unless something really dramatic happens, though. And about bringing them to justice. My character is one cleric (with average human physical stats) against three others. I'm a bit outnumbered. Be crafty about it :) As to blackmailing, deceiving and conspire to bring them to justice, how much of that can actually be allowed if you play good? Those are such dirty words ;) NG can lie and conspire (those aren't necessarily evil acts). Neutral good characters are under no obligation to tell the truth (for example, to avoid a fight, a lie may be diplomatically necessary). "To Conspire" is really "to act in harmony towards a common end" - the other definition is a secret agreement to commit an evil act. The second definition doesn't really apply to you, since you're not planning an evil act. And it takes two to conspire :) Instead of blackmail, think of it as an agreement - you do something evil, and get hurt doing so, I don't heal you (because my deity will smite me). Do something noble, and I'll be happy to heal you. If you watch the paladin of tyranny assault an innocent farmer's wife, and the farmer gets mad and whacks him in the head with a broom, and the paladin kills the farmer - would you feel obligated to heal the paladin's wounds? I hope not. Of course, the question here is why you didn't do anything to protect the innocent farmer and his family... And before anyone asks why I am playing with them, I do it because the alternative is sitting on my hands and not playing. As I said above - why do you have to be a cleric of Pelor? And an example of what I mean by "screwing over". As a good character, and a cleric besides, I cannot deny anyone healing without a very strong reason. Assume that one of the other characters falls in combat, my character, as good-aligned, would feel compelled to try to save him at the risk of his own life. However, if the situation was reversed I'm pretty sure that they would leave him instead of even remotely risking their lives. Ah, falls in combat why? If they were attacking a celestial and got smited, you wouldn't feel compelled to try and save him. If the guy was mauled by a demon, feel free to cure him. Why were they risking their lives? And further, the way I have interpreted the religion of Pelor, they are big on understanding and tolerance, giving aid and seek solutions through diplomacy rather than violence though they can occasionally take up arms to defend themselves and those under their care. I can see so many ways that an evil character can abuse the good cleric. Not really - the crux of the problem, of course, is that if they are out doing evil acts, you shouldn't be involved with the party - or else you will lose your spellcasting right quick, and then you're basically a warrior with great will saves but crappy weapons. As it stands, if your cleric of Pelor joins this party and they go do evil acts, then you won't be a cleric of Pelor for long. Since there is a paladin of tyranny in the party, at best the party can do neutral acts without having either of you lose your powers (assuming that the paladin's code lets him get by without smiting you for your goodness). Here's a thought for your DM: a Demon-oriented campaign is something both characters can get involved in without compromising their alignments. The LE paladin of tyranny is fighting them because they're chaotic, and the NG cleric of Pelor is fighting them because they're evil. Their alliance is one of convenience and is only temporary. They can work together for the duration with the understanding that the cleric doesn't proselytize, and the paladin doesn't do anything overtly evil in the cleric's presence. The key to making this work is that each side must NEED each other for some reason.
MoogleEmpMog 09-01-04, 11:54 PM	A Paladin of Tyranny is likely to be a problem in a mixed-alignment game - paladins generally are ;) - but he might not be too bad. If he's played like a Dragonlance Knight of Neraka, a believer in order, discipline and submission to the strong in order to fight against chaos, he might actually be a good guy to have around, albeit not a Good guy. However, the fact that you're so worried about this (and that you assume a pair of LNs will side with their evil comrade) indicates that past experience with the other players makes you think they'll be trouble. If that's the case, then good luck. But how is healing a non-cleric who probably wouldn't heal you (ya think? :P ) being 'screwed'? Seems to me that's what happens in most parties.
Phist 09-02-04, 02:26 PM	My general rule is that if you want to have a mixed alignment game, no palidins. A good wizard and an evil ranger can work together fine, problems occur when the part of their alignment that is the most likely to cause problems is central to their concept. This excludes palidins of any sort and most clerics. So long as the evil members of the group aren't actively trying to screw the good ones, and the good ones arent actively trying to convert/report the evil ones you should be fine.
Thorak 09-02-04, 03:04 PM	Phist; that's not a general houserule you have to enforce on your players. It's the RAW. Paladins are forbidden from associating with those of evil alignment. And considering they can Detect Evil at will, they have no excuse. The moment they realize a party member is evil, they are required to either leave the party, or kick the evil guy out. By the RAW itself. Well, they could let them stay. But they lose their paladin powers if they do.
JusticeZero 09-02-04, 04:32 PM	As to blackmailing, deceiving and conspire to bring them to justice, how much of that can actually be allowed if you play good?Pretty much all of it, really..And an example of what I mean by "screwing over". As a good character, and a cleric besides, I cannot deny anyone healing without a very strong reason.You mean like because you would be an accessory to deeds you have no desire to support, or because they're operating against the interests of your order? I mean, are you obligated to heal wounded goblins you encounter?Assume that one of the other characters falls in combat, my character, as good-aligned, would feel compelled to try to save him at the risk of his own life.Erm.. no, good alignment doesn't COMPEL you to do anything. It just describes an entity who is generally civic-minded who works for the common good.However, if the situation was reversed I'm pretty sure that they would leave him instead of even remotely risking their lives. Then why on earth would you stick with them? Sounds like a lose-lose proposition, even if you were evil...the way I have interpreted the religion of Pelor, ...I can see so many ways that an evil character can abuse the good cleric.Then Pelor is going to consider you a spineless loser who's so stuck on fulfilling the specifics that you let yourself be used and led astray.
Riordan 09-02-04, 06:49 PM	The reason that he is adventuring with them is because either me or the paladin is willing to step down and make a character that works better with them. And as to spineless losers, I thought that the purpose of a dogma is to fulfill it in all your workings and doings. I thought that was the point of being a cleric. And that is also why I choose to play a Cleric of Pelor and not some other kind of Cleric. I want to play a character of this particular religion. The player of the paladin is not known to play stupid evil characters, so random evil is not going to happen. I spoke to the player about this and he mentioned that his character considered the group as his powerbase and he would need to keep each character cooperative to keep his base stable. He specifically pointed out that through his character's POV (and the Paladin of Tyranny CoC), the stronger should rule over the weak but strong doesn't have to be physical might or using overt means of control. He is a very scheming and subtle player. But anyway, I think I'm going to bring this to the GM and have him make some kind of decision. There is more chance that my cleric and the paladin will eventually be forced into a confrontation so one must change his character.
nick012000 09-04-04, 08:20 AM	So you're hanging out with a politian? I really can't see the trouble, then. His aims will likely be the same as yours (after all, he doesn't want a revolt), it would just be his methods that would differ.
danielinthewolvesden 09-05-04, 07:32 AM	You could, if he'd given you reason. . He has done so- he has admitted being a Paladin of Tyranny- someone who has dedicated his life and soul to doing as much evil as he can, and an enemy of your faith. He's not "just evil".
NeutralNeutral 09-05-04, 10:07 AM	I think this group is confused. As I see it, there are two ways to handle alignment differences. 1) Everyone agrees to play similar alignments, and barring a few minor quibbles, everyone works together in a happy team. 2) Everyone agrees that there'll be no restricitions, and its accepted that intraparty conflict - whether overt or covert - could be a major feature of play. In which case, character details , including alignment, should start off secret and only be uncovered in play.
Riordan 09-05-04, 12:35 PM	After talking with my GM he said that character conflict may be a part of the game; he wont enforce any alignment restrictions. So I'll just have to wait and see what happens.
Phist 09-05-04, 12:58 PM	Phist; that's not a general houserule you have to enforce on your players. It's the RAW. Paladins are forbidden from associating with those of evil alignment. And considering they can Detect Evil at will, they have no excuse. The moment they realize a party member is evil, they are required to either leave the party, or kick the evil guy out. By the RAW itself. What happened to mercy and forgiveness? :D Does that work the opposide way too? Can the new evil palidins have good characters in their party? Because if not, this whole problem is averted.
Kiri Sittori 09-05-04, 01:13 PM	What happened to mercy and forgiveness? :D Does that work the opposide way too? Can the new evil palidins have good characters in their party? Because if not, this whole problem is averted. The the problem isn't quite solved: "a paladin of tyranny will never knowingly associate with good characters unless it serves his needs." Now, if it were a pally of slaughter, the "can't associate with good" would be absolute. :eek: (Ref: UA, pp54-55.)