Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Raven Dark 05-20-06, 10:08 PM	My DM and fellow players just finished up the last game of our current campaign last night. It simultaneously went so horribly well and so horribly bad. You see, the entire party plays Neutral to Good characters whereas I play a CE Cleric of Death & Evil (wears dark robes, wields a scythe, the whole shebang). After several, several games of fighting our way through dark lands and darker foes, we finally make it to the mountain fortress of the BBEG necromancer. The other PCs are there to stop a powerful crystalline artifact of great evil from activating and causing the death of millions. My character is there simply to get his revenge on the BBEG for a wrong enacted upon him earlier in the campaign. After making our way through dozens of minions and traps, we finally encoutner HIM. The ensuing battle was one of the longest and most climatic encounters we have ever had against a single foe. The BBEG's mastery of battlefield control spells ensured he only faced who he wanted when he wanted. At the end of the fight, the other three players were cut off, helpless, or dead. With just me left in the fray I got a luck critical hit with my scythe and slew the bastard in a most bloody fashion. The group's fighter (barely alive and unabe to move) tells me to go into the next room and destroy the artifact forever (our character's could actually see it during the fight, drawing in magical energy, readying itself to activate in mere moments--very dramatic). My character walks the short distance to the crystal, lays his hand on it, turns around and says to the surviving party members, "The carnage of the world shall be a glorius thing indeed!" before falling to his knees and praying to his dark god of carnage. The other party members watched on in horror as the artifact activated and destroyed millions of lives for the glory of my character's dark diety... ...or at least that is what should have happened. :weep: At the last pivatol moment of the campaign when I announced what I was doing, causing all of my friend's jaws to drop, the DM snatched the character sheet out of my hand, and informed the group that my character cast a mighty spell and sunk the artifact into a chasm of darkness from which it had spawned--destroying it and saving the world. I punched him and walked out without saying a word. :mad: Today he apologized for ruining my fun and I apoligized for sending him to the dentist. :P But now what should I do? I can't leave his group because he is the only DM within 50 miles of my home--plus they are all my life-long friends. If I stay in this group he may well try that stunt again and my fun will be diminished to say the least. How should I approach him about it? How to I keep my cool as I do so? What if he throws a huff and says something stupid like "I'm the DM--the boss!" or "You weren't acting like the hero like you were supposed to be" what then? How should I react? I've never had this happen before in much the same way the other players and DM never had anyone let a world shattering artifact activate before. It's whole new territory for all of us.
ProfWhy 05-20-06, 10:28 PM	If the two of you talked it over and both of you apologized for things, then there shouldn't be any reason for you to leave the group, as long as the rest of the group still wanted you to be there. From what it sounds like (since you said they're your life-long friends), I'm sure that you'd be welcomed back in for your next gaming session without too much trouble... However, if you're truly worried about your DM's approach to your character, you and your DM should sit down outside of the campaign and talk about things. Maybe there are things that you do that he doesn't like and you can straighten him out on those. Or perhaps there are rulings of his that you don't like and he can give you reasons for those as well. In any case, the two of you talking things through and getting these possibilities aired out beforehand might just be a good thing... Just my opinion, do with it what you will... ;)
DrMorganes 05-20-06, 11:00 PM	Seconded. Both of you have some issues from the sound of things, and friends or not - but especially if you're friends! - you really should sit down and discuss them. Edit: For what it's worth, I'd have allowed you to go through with it. What an awesome way to cap a story! (And what did your DM expect - you're PC is a Chaotic Evil Cleric of Death fer cryin' out loud!)
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 05-20-06, 11:09 PM	I punched him and walked out without saying a word. :mad: Honestly, after assaulting someone, you really shouldn't be let back into that game. Ever.
Raven Dark 05-20-06, 11:17 PM	Honestly, after assaulting someone, you really shouldn't be let back into that game. Ever. Normally, I would agree with you, but I wouldn't be the first one to let fists fly in our group. If anything, I am one the most calm and level headed people in our circle. Still, it was definitely a first for me.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 05-20-06, 11:20 PM	Normally, I would agree with you, but I wouldn't be the first one to let fists fly in our group. If anything, I am one the most calm and level headed people in our circle. Still, it was definitely a first for me. Big whoop. If you get so worked up over a damn game to physically assault someone, you should not be playing that game.
Elwyn_Sylveran 05-20-06, 11:27 PM	Big whoop. If you get so worked up over a damn game to physically assault someone, you should not be playing that game. That wasn't the question, nor did the OP say "post your opinions about how i handle things." either be helpful, or shut the **** up
Raven Dark 05-20-06, 11:39 PM	That wasn't the question, nor did the OP say "post your opinions about how i handle things." either be helpful, or shut the **** up Wow. Although I share your thoughts I seriously doubt I would have worded it quite so...um...elegantly. Please don't turn my thread into a flame war. :P
Bluewings 05-21-06, 12:03 AM	Fireball!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (flame war) Now that's a DM who has a REAL low wisdom score...A chaotic evil cleric of death is supposed to behave this way no congrats about the physical assault though
Archangel62 05-21-06, 12:30 AM	I can't say I approve of the assault but I do approve of the fact that the two of you managed to patch things up. My own comment would be that it was probably a mistake to have you being a Chaotic Evil character in a party of mostly good aligned characters going after a destructive and powerful artifact. In similar areas I'd call this sort of problem a 'Sword of Kas incident' He knew that you were Chaotic Evil and should have expected that this would come. So I understand you being angry and I agree that you were wronged. Aside from the whole punching thing I'm on your side, well except that maybe it wasn't wise to play a chaotic evil character in such an environment.
Gleddon 05-21-06, 12:51 AM	Okay. Before this goes too far without anyone knowing for sure... did your DM actually know your alignment, or was it kept secret? You didn't state one way or the other (although your character description would make it a no-brainer if you mentioned it enough during the game). I'm asking because if people know how it was, then perhaps this post won't turn into a complete DM bash when there's no need.
LostPassWordDoesNotWork 05-21-06, 01:42 AM	How the great LostPassWord whoud have done it: Lets I have a chaotic evil cleric of death in my party, And a powerful golem weapon. Well since no matter what alignment I choose all my characters whould try to use it for their own reasons, I can say the cleric should try to control it or risk losing his chaotic evil alignment. :P If I do not want this golem to be turned loose by the cleric I whould block them somehow. Like you have to have a caster level of 21 to use it, or as a bonus kicker, the weapon stores the dead guys soul. He lives on in it waiting for the day somone was dumb enough to try and turn him on, and when that happens as long as his soul is still inside it he can fully control it as if it was his body. You whould have to use a dominate person spell and hope you beat the SR and he fails his will save, if not you just turned the bad guy loose again and helped him animate his golem. Have fun stopping him now. :D But I whould probaly just have one last fight happen, good guys vs you before you chould control it. ------------------------------- As a side note, If I was DMing a game were I house ruled a two-handed weapon into a one handed one then have to listen to him complain about how I whould not let him use a feat I whould consider broken I whould be ****** at them. Grabbing somones paper is not what I whould have done, but maybe it was how that DM choose to vent. I am not saying is was the right thing to do, but it was nowhere as near and punching somone. Listening to someone all night about how I cannot read a feat whould put a -4 moral bonus on my "prepare tomarrows game plan" check, I chould have forgotten that my band of good save-the-world heros has a chaotic evil cleric of death is helping them out. And what did the DM get? He was punched. (I was not the one that got punched and I am still not over it) If somone was welling to punch me over a game then he is not my friend, maybe he was somone I whould hang around with, but diffently not a friend. And he sure the hell won't be invited to the next game without the proper apology and a bigger table. Just so I have the time to pick up my chair and use it next time he wants to walk around to punch. -------------------------------- Today he apologized for ruining my fun and I apoligized for sending him to the dentist. He cooled off and said he was sorry, he thought you ruined his campaign for trying to control the golem, he opened his mouth and shoved his foot in and over reacted. You thought he ruined your fun becuse he didn't let you. Instead of yelling, slamming doors, kicking the wall, or ripping a paper to tiny bits you hit him. So nice of you... But now what should I do? I can't leave his group because he is the only DM within 50 miles of my home--plus they are all my life-long friends. If I stay in this group he may well try that stunt again and my fun will be diminished to say the least. How should I approach him about it? How to I keep my cool as I do so? What if he throws a huff and says something stupid like "I'm the DM--the boss!" or "You weren't acting like the hero like you were supposed to be" what then? How should I react? Stop being the evil pc helping the good guys. Become good and help them, or stay evil and do not help them in any way. Ask your DM if you can be the big bad guy at the end. But before you do that you need to talk things over with your "friend" patch things up. With a little heart to heart chat he might still say no, but alteast you well know why he does not want you to. Or he might just let you but the other PC's show up before you have a chance to bring it fully under your control. All of them vs you, it whould fit any plot that any has ever made. Good guys win, good guy shows his bad side, good guys have to put in one last fight, but this time its against a former member of their party...
Evil DM Mk3 05-21-06, 01:55 AM	Three points first I beleave that both you (for the reason of the punching, but this is a side note, no flame war needed) and your DM where in the wrong over that session. CE cleric of the God of slaughter? Yes he is going to let the thing happen! Second I just want to point out that this is the reason why I only alow LAWFUL evil, PCs because they have limitations built in, and NEUTRAL evil PCs, and then only those of a Blackadder mentality of "I want to be young and wild and then I want be be middle aged and very rich and then I want to be old and annoy people by pretending I am deaf" but also wants the other PCs about and is likely to help them so long as it helps himself. Third I have a sure fire way to ensure that the artifact WAS destroyed by you. State early on that the artifact belongs to a NE god of death and its activation is a tribute to this god who is a life long foe and nemmissis of your own god. No decent role played cleric is going to allow their gods worst eneamy recive mighty tribute, regardless of it's form. By they way, you never stop whining do you? ( ;) )
Raven Dark 05-21-06, 02:34 AM	By they way, you never stop whining do you? ( ;) ) Me? Whine? Nevar! ( ;) )
Andorxor 05-21-06, 02:47 AM	Sounds like your GM can't handle surprising radical plot twists well.You should inform him of your plans the session before you execute them,when you try something like that again.
High Octane 05-21-06, 02:55 AM	He took your character away from you. Cardinal SIN of the DM. Thats pretty bad. You punched him in the face. I'll repeat that, because it bears repeating. You punched him in the face. You physically assaulted someone over a sheet of paper. Without warning. Did you take a level in barbarian? Calm the hell down and use those little vibrating cords in your neck that produce sound next time he starts doing that. Granted he did allow a CE cleric of a god of slaughter and you did act in character, but put yourself in his position. You almost ruined the whole game for the 3 other players. Granted he let it come to that and its a lot more his fault than yours. Next time, pull him aside and start yelling at him. Punches end arguements without resolution. Im not saying be nice and easy, you have every right to be angry. Just dont freaking HIT him!
Raven Dark 05-21-06, 03:08 AM	...You almost ruined the whole game for the 3 other players... The players were having a grand time, even after my announcement. Still, like many of the people here, they were profoundly upset about the DM's reaction AND my having punched him in the face.
Mobiledwm 05-21-06, 04:00 AM	The players were having a grand time, even after my announcement. Still, like many of the people here, they were profoundly upset about the DM's reaction AND my having punched him in the face. At about a 1:10 ratio, I expect.
Witch 05-21-06, 04:07 AM	Are you chaotic evil in real life as well? :x
hmmmm 05-21-06, 07:00 AM	Are you chaotic evil in real life as well? :x Apears so.
DracoPhoenix 05-21-06, 08:35 AM	Ok, I actually think the punch, as inappropriate as it was, is a bit of a red herring. The problem is the DM has control over everything - EXCEPT the PCs. Ok, you did the one thing no-one expected, but taking the character sheet off and saying "and they all lived happily ever after" is a huge anti-climax. It's a game, as so many people have pointed out, frequently. I would have gone with the tpk (p=planet in this case). and killed off all the characters (resulting in no more xp / quests for them), have it turn out that the artifact was actually a booby trap to capture the sort of person who would use it (microcosim?), or another deity interceeding. Ok, it more than likely did catch the DM off guard, which is why I think I like the twist so much. Lets see, CE initially only out for vengence, who also happens to be a cleric of death. Yeah I can't see any problem letting him get near an artifact of mass destruction, can you? But, more to the point, what sort of xp do you get for killing an entire planet, single handedly?! edit: To those who say punching the guy was a capital offense, what is the punsihment for a DM taking a way a character sheet when the PC is acting totally in character, but the DM doesn't like it?
hmmmm 05-21-06, 10:07 AM	To those who say punching the guy was a capital offense, what is the punsihment for a DM taking a way a character sheet when the PC is acting totally in character, but the DM doesn't like it? Punching someone is much different than taking a pice of paper out of there hand, this is a game not real life. The punishment might be him not being GM but it should never be physically hurting him.
DIESCUMDIE 05-21-06, 11:15 AM	The problem is the DM has control over everything No he doesn't. He has a few maps, some prepared bad guys, a plot and some prepared npcs and conversations. The original poster should take responsability for the fact he chose to play a game ruining character. Alignment is not the point. You attempted to ruin the game. Then you out of the game did your best to ruin the game. The DM is just another person. Hes not a computer game, he's not your boss. He's just the one person out of all of you willing to dm, because it takes more work than being a player. Especially so if some players are only thinking of themselves. Unless he's physically stopping anyone else from dm'ng theres no reason to get annoyed that he's isn't doing everything absolutely perfect. Your expecting him to have an interesting story prepared and be able to make up interesting stories on the fly to deal with your agenda, and your expecting him to let your character trample all over the others. I'm assuming you were only allowed into the party because they assumed you were on the level, which you've taken advantage of. The only reason the dm, and the other players, could possibly deserve condemnation is for allowing you, not your character, you to play in the first place.
DracoPhoenix 05-21-06, 12:20 PM	Punching someone is much different than taking a pice of paper out of there hand, this is a game not real life. The punishment might be him not being GM but it should never be physically hurting him. I have often seen the view that a DM who results in this level of rail-roading, should at best get a hammer in the face or at worst encouraged to be outcast from the local gaming community. The OP said the occasional punch has been known with the group, and it was his first, so hardly the unforgivable behaviour (from his groups point) that warrents such animosity - especially compared to the support offered for the DM. I find the fact people support the DM's rather knee-jerk "you can't do it cos its bad" reaction to what, even you acknowledge, is just a game, is rather funny from where I sit. The punch was unfortunate yes, more people are sharpinging pitchforks about the result, not the initial problem(s). The DM allowed the CE. Personally, dispite the obvious in game consequences, I think the outcome was a brilliant bit of gaming, on the Clerics part. DIESCUMDIE: I assume the "you" you refer to is the OP, and not me. I honestly don't think it was all that "game ruining", there are always other campaigns. They had just got to the end of the major BBEG, so it's not like rolling a new set of characters was wholly out of the question. There were also otherways of dealing with the situation, none of which involved the DM taking the character sheet from the player or invalidating his attempt to destroy everything. Everyone seems hung up on the fact that the guy punched the DM, hardly anyone seems to want to look at what caused the DM to get punched in the first place. The ones that do, blame the player for playing his character as rolled, as opposed to the DM for letting the player roll an evil character in a good campaign.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 05-21-06, 12:25 PM	That wasn't the question, nor did the OP say "post your opinions about how i handle things." either be helpful, or shut the **** up This is a forum. I can post what I want as long as it does not violate the code of conduct.
Raven Dark 05-21-06, 01:59 PM	I posted this thread so we could all work together to investigate the "cause" and the "effect" of the situation at hand. I overreacted and punched a guy. It is unfortunate that it happened, but lets face it, lots of people have done far worse for even stupider things than that. I regret doing it and truly wish I hadn't, but it can't be helped now after the fact. THIS IS SOMETHING WE ALL KNOW. Let's move the discussion towards 1) How this could have been prevented in the first place, and 2) What to do about it now that it has happened. The DM did allowed me to play a CE cleric of death. We are both the most mature roleplayers in our circle (please don't make fun of the irony of that statement) so we didn't think anything of it. It was something we could handle easily--or so we thought. I've DMed for this circle of friends more than anybody. The current DM comes in 2nd in terms of most roleplaying experiance and maturity (again, don't laugh). Before him, I had DMed evil characters and BBEGs for SO long, I didn't feel comfortable playing a good hero at all--it was just too different from what I was used to doing. Thus, I rolled up the cleric, showed it to the DM in great detail leaving nothing out, and then we went on from there. Frankly, the way the BBEG saved my character for last after having crippled everyone else in the party, it had crossed my mind that perhaps the DM had actually planned for me to destroy the world (or at least a good chunk of it) all along. *sighs* I guess I was wrong. :( Truly a msot vexing situation.
DIESCUMDIE 05-21-06, 02:01 PM	DIESCUMDIE: I assume the "you" you refer to is the OP, and not me. I honestly don't think it was all that "game ruining", there are always other campaigns. The 'you' was the original poster. A player can be of different alignment from the other players even to this extreme. But for fairness if the player was in fact working toward a totally different goal to the other players, they shouldn't be forced to include him in their group. Which, since he hid his goals from them, happened. Its as bad as him stealing from the other players or playing a frenzied berzerker. It's in fact worse because they didn't get a sense motive check to find out. The dm isn't the only person responsible for a game. For example, last session I dm'd when I put out the combat grid, it was quite small, this caused a problem for a player who had his followers with him. Is this my fault? There were 5 of us at the table, anyone could have said, 'we need a bigger grid'. It was not done by me out of malice. I leave the players to take control of their characters, if I make decisions for them, ('you shouldn't follow the path you'll be easily spotted by the enemy', 'you should travel at night' etc) the game will be less fun for everyone. I didn't realise the grid size had had such an effect, I only chose it because peoples plates were in the way. Similarly during the combat it turned out no one had a way to deal with a monster with damage reduction, should I have told them to make sure their pc's had energy wepons or some such? I pretty sure it's better to let them make their own mistakes. If it turned out one of the player's characters secretly planned to kill the others would it be my fault I had let that happen? Everyone on the table is an adult and knows how to play. The dm is charged with making the world and story (to a degree) not dealing with people who wont take responsibility for themselves. Players are not entitled to a perfect dm, they have to deal with someone who is like themselves just trying to enjoy the game and not able to meet all and every expectation. Although it is bad for a dm to say 'you cant do that', it's ok to do so if the player attempts to brake the rules. Joining a group of good pc's without saying, 'oh you'd better sense motive to detect the fact I'm going to attempt to destroy your plans', is braking the rules. (Perhaps the poster did this, but I'm assuming everyone let him play his character without asking as they assumed he wouldn't take advatage of them, and thats why they were surprised when he didn't.) If it was not game ruining then why did the poster overreact. His actions (hitting) are simply worse than the dm's for taking the sheet. The line between trying to get your own way in character, and trying to get your own way out of character, has to be drawn. Player character vs dm monster is good. Player vs dm is bad. My solution would be 1) Allow the other players the chance to sense motive your intentions, offer it don't wait for them to ask. 2) Dont rely on the dm to decide if your character is a good idea or not, ask the other players what alignment they are etc. (Furthermore you should find out if they need a party role filled such as healer, meat sheild etc).
feartheinvinceblehamster 05-21-06, 02:41 PM	Listen Raymond Luxury. I respect you, and your skill with monsters. And as someone who respects you, I am now forced to tell you you are being a, to say it scientifically, A FREAKIN' MORON! Anyway, does anyone else suggest the OP edits out all mentions of the punch from his posts, and we remove all mentions from our posts, thus bringing this thread back to NEAR the edge of reason. I feel your pain raven, I have a Storyteller in Dark ages which regularly informs players that they do not, in fact, do what they said they were doing. In addition, when a player gets annoyed, and tells him that what he is doing is stupid, he kills their character instantly. Unless they say "Fine" and go about not doing that. He regularly has NPCs we cannot kill, because they stole one of the most valuable party resources and refuse to give it to anyone else because they "can't.".
DracoPhoenix 05-21-06, 02:41 PM	DIESCUMDIE: While I agree that it was not the smartest move by either player or DM, and that there were better ways of dealing with it (also, the consquences i.e the punch). (I also agree with a most of your points, but the point at which a DM should over-rule player moves is grey and ever shifting) I also think that the ending, though unexpected, was highly original and given it was at the end of the campaign, or at least at a possible terminus (what if they failed to kill the BBEG?), preventing it wasn't necessary.
terrainmonkey 05-21-06, 02:47 PM	okay. first, let's just assume the DM was wrong to take the character sheet out of your hands and do a "you saved the world" resolution. i think we can all agree that that was not exactly the right way to handle it. perhaps you guys can go back to that moment, and have the dm say somthing like, Okay, you did it, the artifact explodes in negative energy, killing all of you, and sucking most of the planet into a vortex of death." Now, he has the option of creating a campaign based on that event, with the world in shadow, much like the Midnight campaign. Not allowing you to play your character the way you wanted was wrong. His first mistake however, was allowing you to play evil characters. this is a game of the fight between good and evil. PLAYERS SHOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED TO PLAY EVIL AT ALL EVER!!! NEVER NEVER EVER AT ALL! So, Raven, you have been DMing for how long? and you can't play good pcs? have you not DMed Good NPCS? it's really easy to play good. just be nice to people. that's all you have to do. it's not about me versus the other guys, it's about how do we all succeed as a group. Second, because i have to say it. take this information for what it is. you punched a guy in the face. you physically assaulted someone. this is wrong on too many levels to count. I would never let you back in my game at all, ever. i don't care how many times you apologized. also, i would never play any game with you at all, ever. call me old fashioned, but anyone who calls himself my freind who punches me over a game, ceases to be called a freind. you were wrong, and i would go out of my way to repeat that fact any time i ever saw your mug from now until eternity. there is no reason at all to ever hit someone. sorry, i don't mean to offend, but you were way off base here. So, your DM allowed you back in the game. ok. roll up new characters, or start DMing again for the group. if you are going to roll up a new character, try good this time. it's not as bad as you think. it's actually quite fun. you might enjoy yourself. try a lawful good knight, or a paladin, or exhalted character. a celestial maybe. and try to work with your DM and the party to be cooperative, not just ME ME ME all the time. The needs of the group outweigh the needs of the one. Trying to hog the spotlight all the time isn't helping the group. Being the big bad uber guy and trying to be the main character is not the way to play. be cooperative with folks. it might actually be fun. just thought i would put out my 2 francs there.
archcomponent 05-21-06, 02:53 PM	It's obvious that you don't deserve to be in a game with other human beings. Period. So all your hurt feelings are moot. And yes, some people do take it very seriously if someone breaks into their house, pulls a knife on them, or assaults them in their home.
Witch 05-21-06, 03:05 PM	this is a game of the fight between good and evil. PLAYERS SHOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED TO PLAY EVIL AT ALL EVER!!! NEVER NEVER EVER AT ALL! Why not?
Raven Dark 05-21-06, 03:12 PM	It's obvious that you don't deserve to be in a game with other human beings. Period. So all your hurt feelings are moot. Count yourself as lucky, if someone assaulted me in my home they'd be escorted out at gunpoint and the police would be called. Actually, it was my home--and I left so I could cool down for a bit.
slimgoodbody 05-21-06, 03:16 PM	Now, I'm no violence monger, but am I the only one who thinks the punch in the face is really really funnly? Raven, as has been pointed out earlier, you seem to have a LOT of problems with your gaming group. Every third thread is about how you've been stomped by some evil DM :P Still, your DM was way out of line. Had I been DMing, I would have given you applause for your awesome decision, and described the rending of the world in flowing poetics. Then we would have started a new game with your former PC as the BBEG. And ArchComponent, you SERIOUSLY need to relax.
hmmmm 05-21-06, 03:24 PM	You own a gun?
Raven Dark 05-21-06, 03:25 PM	Raven, as has been pointed out earlier, you seem to have a LOT of problems with your gaming group. Every third thread is about how you've been stomped by some evil DM :P I merely illicit reactions from board members with a few elaborate falsehoods as a part of my continuing goal of manipulating the general attitudes of board members about various subjects. That's all. Lamen's Terms: Sure, every third thread I write is about how I've been stomped by some evil DM, but that is of no consequence anyways--since every other thread I write is a lie. :P I'm a student of psychology who also happens to be a little bit crazy. YOU ARE ALL PART OF MY EXPERIMENT! :evillaugh You own a gun? No. I don't. Nor would I ever, given the option. I abhore real life violence--which is why I am terribly upset about the situation as a whole. Are you chaotic evil in real life as well? :x Yes. Yes I am. I'm complicated that way. :schemes:
hmmmm 05-21-06, 03:33 PM	Neither do I and I would not ever, but I was asking archcomponent about that as he/she mentioned he/she does.
Evil DM Mk3 05-21-06, 03:38 PM	It's obvious that you don't deserve to be in a game with other human beings. Period. So all your hurt feelings are moot. Count yourself as lucky, if someone assaulted me in my home they'd be escorted out at gunpoint and the police would be called. Sorry but I can't let this one pass... You would pull a GUN on a guy over a gaming table?!?!? I pass no sentiment on the irony of the statment coupled with the motives behind it. Also (to a differnat guy) Evil PCs can work in a party so long as they are role-played well and follow certain archetypes. In my experiance CE can never be role played THAT WELL.
Radijs 05-21-06, 03:45 PM	It's obvious that you don't deserve to be in a game with other human beings. Period. So all your hurt feelings are moot. Count yourself as lucky, if someone assaulted me in my home they'd be escorted out at gunpoint and the police would be called. Nutter! Seriously, pulling a gun at a gaming table, scratch that. PULLING A GUN?! Violence is bad m'kay.
Witch 05-21-06, 03:47 PM	Some people think more extreme violence stops violence. Those people are wrong.
terrainmonkey 05-21-06, 04:00 PM	Why not? um i believe i answered this in the quote you posted. the characters are in a fight of good versus evil. that's the way i run my games. I allow only LG, NG, CG, LN, and N in my games. i feel evil gives players carte blanche to be stupid and ruin the game that i have spent hours of my life creating. that's the way all games should be run. you are a bad DM if you let your players run evil characters. period.
Derrhyn 05-21-06, 04:02 PM	Wow! Just wow. So much stupidity in one single thread, amazing. 1. Your DM was way out of line to change your characters actions like that. If that is not destroying a players game then I do not know what is. 2. You punching the DM is definately understandable considering the circumstances, he had just ruined what was probably the greatest moment of your character in the entire campaign, and probably one of the more memorable D&D moments I have heard of. That is not a nice thing to do to someone. I would probably have a harder time forgiving him for that than forgiving a punch in the face. Note that I do not defend you using violence, but I certainly understand it. 3. What is the problem people have with evil characters? Or evil and good characters together. It is not impossible for them to cooperate. And why do you have to have a party of friends holding hands to have fun? My party once spent around three months of real time, gaming in two different rooms because half the party was hunting the other. It was really intense and I would not mind it happening again. D&D doesn't have to be about four heroic friends looking for a BBEG in a dungeon. So please let people play evil if they wish, the nine alignments are in the PHB for a reason. ------------------------------------------ Raven Dark, it is good that you and your DM are getting along again. Talk it over and figure out how to avoid something like this happening again. My suggestions would be: -Sort out in advance if the group has a problem with conflicting alignments and goals. -Make sure everyone understands what this implies. Evil characters are evil and should be played accordingly. -Make everyone have some alone time with the DM and explain their characters views and goals once in a while. In my game, something like this would be anticipated by the DM and he would have made the nessescary arrangements. It is OK (and sometimes great fun) to surprise the players, but it is not OK to surprise the DM. At best it makes his job very demanding, at worst... we just saw an example of that. So there. My views and suggestions. And: terrainmonkey. Where I'm at your 2 francs is not worth donkeydung
Witch 05-21-06, 04:04 PM	um i believe i answered this in the quote you posted. the characters are in a fight of good versus evil. that's the way i run my games. I allow only LG, NG, CG, LN, and N in my games. i feel evil gives players carte blanche to be stupid and ruin the game that i have spent hours of my life creating. that's the way all games should be run. you are a bad DM if you let your players run evil characters. period. I let my players run evil characters. I let my players run stupid characters. I don't let my players steal from the party or play "Hey, I'm evil, I stab the next random person on the street, knowing I'll get caught and executed" I prefer to trust the maturity of my players. I don't mind you don't allow evil, but the fact that I do doesn't make me, nor anyone who allows it, a bad DM.
Derrhyn 05-21-06, 04:08 PM	The first quote: PLAYERS SHOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED TO PLAY EVIL AT ALL EVER!!! NEVER NEVER EVER AT ALL!. And the second one: um i believe i answered this in the quote you posted. the characters are in a fight of good versus evil. that's the way i run my games. I allow only LG, NG, CG, LN, and N in my games. i feel evil gives players carte blanche to be stupid and ruin the game that i have spent hours of my life creating. that's the way all games should be run. you are a bad DM if you let your players run evil characters. period. Nothing further your honour.
Evil DM Mk3 05-21-06, 04:16 PM	:clap: Nuff said.
kelvinaw273 05-21-06, 04:20 PM	Ok, what was a chaotic evil cleric of death doing in a neutral good party anyway? The character clearly does not fit the party or the thrust of the campaign. That said, yes, you were in character. Yes you should have done it. Yes, either you or the rest of the party would have died afterwards, because they would have done their damdest to kill you after betraying them to such an extend. And yes, his deity may well have been p****d with him for sending them a massive influx of souls and shortening further yields from future generations for decades to come. A deity of death knows that the more life there is, the more death there will be ... this really wasn't in Death's interests. Now your DM was out of line, yes. He should have given you a wakeup call LONG ago regarding your characters alignment and his attitude to death and reasons for being there. By the way, I too feel that dealing with IC issues with physical violence is out of line.
Raven Dark 05-21-06, 05:03 PM	Ok, what was a chaotic evil cleric of death doing in a neutral good party anyway? The character clearly does not fit the party or the thrust of the campaign. It wasn't a Nuetral Good party. It was a party with a variety of alignments ranging from Nuetral alignments to Good alignments with my being the only evil character.
feartheinvinceblehamster 05-21-06, 05:07 PM	Some people think more extreme violence stops violence. Those people are wrong. The scientific term for those people is NRAis Psychopathis Okay, seriously though, Half the people who posted here sound like they would have fed the DM's kneecaps to their dog, while at the same time they are saying what a moron Raven Dark is. This isn't a discussion about any stupid decision the DM made, or the motivation behind raven or the DM, but it's a flame war. It's people like you guys who convince me karma doesn't exist.
Cifer 05-21-06, 05:12 PM	[Please insert about one page of rant about physical violence, randomly puzzled together from the past two pages. I'm too tired to write it out. ;) ] Given the circumstances, I would definitely have let that action happen. The words "BBEG" and "worlddestroying device" seem to indicate that the campaign was ending anyway, so why not end it in a memorable way (hey, thousands of BBEGs have tried to destroy the world. This one has managed it post-mortem!)? If it turned out one of the player's characters secretly planned to kill the others would it be my fault I had let that happen? We seem to have diverging opinions about the "duties" of a DM. I see a DM as a ref, judging actions but also the PCs who are elegible in his game. If I intended to run a campaign where just about every enemy would be undead with blindsight and an aversion to the usage of traps, I would tell the future player of a rogue that he will probably not enjoy the campaign if he hopes for classical Stabbing&Disarming and builds his character correspondingly. In the same way, I would tell the player of an evil character that the campaign demands heroic characters. Joining a group of good pc's without saying, 'oh you'd better sense motive to detect the fact I'm going to attempt to destroy your plans', is braking the rules. Being able to join a group despite obviously being a follower of a god of death is showing the stupidity of the other pcs. How much sense-motive do you need to see that someone wearing black robes, wielding a scythe and carrying the holy symbol of a god of death should not be allowed within a five-feet-step of a weapon of mass-destruction? Similarly during the combat it turned out no one had a way to deal with a monster with damage reduction, should I have told them to make sure their pc's had energy wepons or some such? There is railroading and there is subtle hinting. Railroading would have been "[Player of cleric], an angelic voice tells you to pack an energy weapon". Subtle hinting would have been for example to let the PCs meet some npc muttering about the "damn [kind of monsters] who defeated an entire unit of brave soldiers because they didn't have a wizkid with them and it was unaffected by their blades". this is a game of the fight between good and evil. No. Since D&D is only a rule-construct and not a setting, it can become a game of the fight between good and evil. It often becomes more fun when dealing with shades of grey instead of black and white, since that's when dealing with moral issues starts.
terrainmonkey 05-21-06, 05:14 PM	see, didn't we already decide that this whole thread was based on the assumption that Raven was trying to illicit responses from folks based on falsehood, or did i miss something here? but then again, going with the falsehood idea, is it too hard to assume that anyone, including me, would post something so patently ridiculous, as to illicit a response from folks? i mean come on. just call me the poster child for a Bad DM. I was being sarcastic, folks. I allow all alignments, and i don't feel anyone is a bad dm for doing so. i've seen all kinds of people play together with different alignments just fine. hell, i've even allowed an entire party to create lawful evil just to see how it would work. it turned out fine. everyone had a good time. i posted the above statements, just to (like raven before me) illicit a response. not to start a flame war against me for being an over conrolling DM. which i am anything but.
Derrhyn 05-21-06, 05:24 PM	see, didn't we already decide that this whole thread was based on the assumption that Raven was trying to illicit responses from folks based on falsehood, or did i miss something here? but then again, going with the falsehood idea, is it too hard to assume that anyone, including me, would post something so patently ridiculous, as to illicit a response from folks? i mean come on. just call me the poster child for a Bad DM. I was being sarcastic, folks. I allow all alignments, and i don't feel anyone is a bad dm for doing so. i've seen all kinds of people play together with different alignments just fine. hell, i've even allowed an entire party to create lawful evil just to see how it would work. it turned out fine. everyone had a good time. i posted the above statements, just to (like raven before me) illicit a response. not to start a flame war against me for being an over conrolling DM. which i am anything but. Thank you. You just saved my faith in human sanity, at least a little bit of it. But unfortunately your posts were not that different from some others here. I guess you all might be sarcastic but I doubt it. Well. You had me fooled there. :tiphat: Derrhyn
evilviper77 05-21-06, 05:42 PM	this thread forces another strike against forum anonymity...
DIESCUMDIE 05-21-06, 05:44 PM	There is railroading and there is subtle hinting. Railroading would have been "[Player of cleric], an angelic voice tells you to pack an energy weapon". Subtle hinting would have been for example to let the PCs meet some npc muttering about the "damn [kind of monsters] who defeated an entire unit of brave soldiers because they didn't have a wizkid with them and it was unaffected by their blades". I probably should have done that. I probably will next time. At the moment I err on player freedom and responsability, probably at the expense of assistence pc's might benifit from. My understanding is they get assistence when they ask for it (normally in conjunction with some skill check, knowledge 'where the hell do we go now' maps etc). Although this of course isn't perfect. Basically the thing that bothers me here is that in my games the players have to be on the same team. Otherwise why would they be on the same team? If I was a player, and my character was good, I would upon meeting a NPC who was obviously evil not allow them to join the party. But if the character was a player character I would assume the player was mature enough to be evil but loyal to the party (there not mutually exclusive). Being able to join a group despite obviously being a follower of a god of death is showing the stupidity of the other pcs. How much sense-motive do you need to see that someone wearing black robes, wielding a scythe and carrying the holy symbol of a god of death should not be allowed within a five-feet-step of a weapon of mass-destruction? See this actaully backed up my point. They only allowed him into there party because of off table reasons. Which the poster took advantage of. Its not as if his character managed to bluff the party. Because the poster told them he would be loyal, or they assumed this, they have been betrayed. Effectively the poster has given himself a bullet proof bluff and mind sheild, without actually having them in game, and is self dm'ng at the players and dm's expense. This isn't about raw, its about one player purposefully sticking his fingers up at the others. If players have the option of going solo the game is completely different. The biggest source of wealth and xp is always the other players, vulnerable characters (wizards) are forced to destroy the other players for there own security. The dm's plot is basically irrelevent (poor dm). In the posters story the good pc's would have ganged up upon and killed the evil pc on sight, as he obviously is not hiding his evil. I always assumed it was a given that the players are working together as a team, I imagine everyone in the posters group had assumed the same. Therefore the posters turnaround is cheating to them. If one of my players stole from the others (or at the last minute used the artifact instead of destroying it) as dm I would point blank say 'no that doesn't happen'. 'Someone else can dm a royal rumble, it would be booring for me, it's not what I agreed to'. It's just not cricket The punching thing is weird to me, if thats what you want why not do karate (etc) instead? In my experience arguements within the group tend to destroy the atmosphere and make playing impossible. Would you lash out at anyone this way? Or only people you know you can push around? Dont get me wrong, I've had bad dm's. I leave the group and find another. If they were friends, well then i would discuss it, unless it became a pattern at which point it's more of a personal insult (then violence is more understandable).
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 05-21-06, 06:05 PM	Listen Raymond Luxury. I respect you, and your skill with monsters. And as someone who respects you, I am now forced to tell you you are being a, to say it scientifically, A FREAKIN' MORON! Forgive for feeling no sympathy towards the OP. Yes, the DM was in the wrong. I've said that, unless I'm misremembering things. It doesn't give him an excuse to assault someone. Forgive me for treating DnD as a game, and not as a "Blackleaf! NOOO!" thing.
Raven Dark 05-21-06, 06:24 PM	Forgive me for treating DnD as a game, and not as a "Blackleaf! NOOO!" thing. :heehee Seriously though, the evil cleric character was brought along with the others in the group becasue they all had something in common: They all wanted to get the BBEG. Sure, the characters (not the players) didn't like traveling with someone they knew to be a murderer, but they were desperate and to get such a powerful ally to help them against a foe of such significance was a lucky break for them. What was that saying again? My enemy's enemy is my friend? I played my character properly--he did exactly what he was supposed to do when he accomplished his heroic task of slaying the BBEG (which was why he joined the party in the first place--the other characters were a means to an end). Once that was done, he continued to act as a cleric of slaughter might act--carrying out the slaughter of innocense in the name of his lord. The ONLY thing I did wrong was lose my cool and punch a guy.
Reversefigure4 05-21-06, 07:43 PM	Of course, all this 'should have done' is largely irrelevant. Perhaps you shouldn't have played an evil character to avoid group/campaign disruption, perhaps the DM should have let you destroy the world, bringing the campaign to a grinding halt, etc, etc. But none of that happened. Thankfully, you've both apologised for doing the wrong thing instead of having a hissy fit. Frankly, I see no reason why the game can't continue. If the DM puts rules down like "No evil", or "You can be evil, but you can't destroy the world or kill your party members", those are fine and allowable restrictions depending on his campaign. Personally, I'd advise stretching out your RPing experience and playing a good character. Hell, play a Paladin, if you want to go that far. A simple compromise should solve your problems. Tell your DM (as I suspect you already have) what you don't like about what he did, he tells you what he doesn't like about what you did, and work it out from there.
SoldierOfFortune187 05-21-06, 10:16 PM	A number of emotions and responses is evoked when I read the original posting. On the one hand, you have a DM who decides to arbitrarily decide what a player's actions are for them, even when first being told exactly what the player had in mind. Well, this is almost without saying wrong and causes a very negative response from players who believe (and rightly so) that their characters should be, well... theirs! That being said, the choice of response from the player to this is (as they have already stated themselves) less than choice. This had been stated, and needs not be further examined. The original question regarding how to handle this DM, and really the whole of the group of players that are apart of this really takes knowing how they (as friends) act and react, so I cannot offer sound advice, only how I might wish it to be had it happened within my circle. I honestly and truly feel that if the DM had a set outcome in mind (i.e. the destruction/banishment of said artifact, party saves the world, etc), they have set themselves up for failure by bringing together a party as was laid out. While I am not against, per say, the inclusion of characters with strictly opposing alignments and goals, they should be taken into account when crafting an adventure for them, or better guidelines established if the players are to create their characters after an adventure had already been selected. If adventures are done, as mine usually are, more on the fly in terms of creation instead of set modules, the team needs a stricter format, so as not to force conflict when two characters are dynamically opposed in how to handle a situation. I will assume for the sake of the arguement and question that the players agreed to have one of their numbers play directly opposed to their alignments, as such a decision should not be left 'to discover' during gameplay when things start going 'wrong.' They know what drives such a character, yet were still shocked by the outcome so perhaps something was not made clear when the character was introduced or hooked up with the team. For the DM : I feel there were more tactful ways of handling this without deus ex being the outcome. Perhaps the character, in communing with their god, is told that the artifact would rob them of valuable souls by consuming them itself. Death deities are not always necessarily served by dispensing large amounts of it. A direct order from their god should pretty much assure that the artifact is destroyed (as the DM intended) instead of unleashed, with the CE character 'winning' by serving their divine lord, and the party 'winning' because they have stopped the mass genocide about occur. So I feel that there were/are ways to let everyone feel like they are winning without taking away the freedom that players enjoy by playing D&D and not a videogame.
Gideon_Gideonson 05-21-06, 10:46 PM	Despite the party not fitting together especially well, despite the evil alignment, despite the conflict waiting to happen, and, yes, despite the punching, the DM was wrong. I must say that that scene is possibly one of the most brilliant I have ever seen. Had I been DMing, I would have allowed it and applauded. Every party gets to save the world and no one complains, so why should the everyone complain when the world gets destroyed? Sometimes the ending isn't a happy one. If every D&D adventure ended happily, I for one wouldn't play. It gets boring. This was one of the most phenomenal campaign endings ever, and should have been allowed. Just don't punch people in the future. It can hurt your knuckles. :D
BenTGaidin 05-21-06, 10:55 PM	Let's move the discussion towards 1) How this could have been prevented in the first place, and 2) What to do about it now that it has happened. As for #2, if as you said, you and he are now cool about it, and if the rest of the group is cool, then there isn't a problem, as you've presumably already solved it. For #1 - Well, what I'd probably do in that situation would be, as my character lays his hands on the artifact, look at the group and say "You know, out of character... As a chaotic evil cleric of death, I bet my god would be _really_ happy with me if used this artifact to slaughter a bunch of people anyway," and then grin evilly... and then while the expressions of shock were still on their faces and before the DM could grab my character sheet, continue with "Okay, **charname** grabs the crystal and smashes it on the ground, destroying it." That way, I'd get all the fun of pulling a shocking twist on the other players, without making them ****** that I actually ruined all of their hard work. After all, it's not like the players going to _forget_ that **charname** could have doomed them all. Heck, the characters would probably think back on it along the lines of "...the BBEG was defeated, when suddenly we all realized that the only person left to deal with the artifact was the Death Cleric. I nearly wet my pants, expecting him to kill us all, before he finally destroyed it."
Drachasor 05-21-06, 11:38 PM	As a DM I'd handle this in one of two ways (if I was ok with evil characters in my campaigns, which I wouldn't be). First, I'd let the player do what he wants, then I'd either... 1. Take over his character...he's now the new villian. The player has to roll up a new character. 2. The world is gone and the campaign is over, everyone has to roll up a new character. I'd probably take the player aside and explain that both of the above are possibilities, and if he still wanted to do it, then I'd let him. -Drachasor
Nom 05-22-06, 12:05 AM	(1) "elicit", meaning prompt or entice. Not "illicit", meaning illegal (like, say, punching someone in the face :eek: ). (2) Actions like this depend a lot on the context. One of my most memorable campaigns ended after 3 RL years when one PC revealed himself to be a spy and sold out another PC that both sides in a civil war wanted as a figurehead. This wasn't the act of a griefer; it was a logical, in character act of a PC who had been a fully contributing member of the party the whole time. And ended up a fitting climax to the campaign. Aftermath aside, Raven's PC's actions seem much the same. This is the sort of thing the DM really needs to decide way back at the start - do you expect the PCs to be "heroic", or just to be a team. Most players don't mind having their PCs betrayed by a teammate, as long as it feels fitting and inspires a "Wow, I see it now! How can I have been so blind?" response, rather than a "What did you do that for, jerk?" response. The other vitally important aspect is that any PC that betrays the party must be immediately (a) cause the campaign to draw to a close or (b) expect to immediately be written out of the story (or (c) both). Betraying the party should be a campaign-crowning event with a long history, not a minor act of pettiness. In this situation, it looks to me like both parties (DM and Raven) panicked and made hasty, poor decisions.
Firimar Elerrino 05-22-06, 11:56 AM	Were the other characters (not players) aware that you were a cleric devoted the death and slaughter? Perhaps you had hidden your intentions from them throughout the campaign, just waiting for such an opportunity to reveal from true, wicked nature. The fighter, devoted to upholding good and peace, shouts to his supposed "friend" to destroy the foul artifact..and is shocked and horrified when he learns the truth. I'd just love that kind of thing, personally. If they (the characters, still) were aware that you were a cleric devoted to a god of death and slaughter..why the hell were they grouping with you to begin with? Were you a prisoner? A captive being taken to justice? Doesn't seem like it. It seems foolishness on the parts of both DM and party members to allow the clashing character types to mix like they did, assuming that they knew. You shouldn't have hit the man. Yes, he should definitely have allowed the game to play out..but you shouldn't have hit the man. Now, you're all friends from way back, right? Personally, I'm a pretty forgiving guy -- I'd let you back in. But don't ever pull something like that again, or you'd have to be shown the door.
Kuraito 05-22-06, 12:17 PM	I disapprove of people playing evil characters in non evil campaigns at all. It never, EVER ends well, unless the partys a very bastardly nuetral, theres something greater keeping the evil character in check (in which case hes a caged, murderous lion) or the person isn't playing "evil" right. Frankly, you, the players, and the DM should have known better. As to the DM stopping you from killing everything, I'd have just had a deity strike you down, saying "Oh, the other guy was protected. You killed him and tried to take his place without the protection, you got smited. Your diety didn't protect you because, well, he wasn't willing to go to war with Pelor and Heironous over you." Problem solved, everyones happy, except you, but I'd pull you aside and explain the why, and ask you to build a NON evil character this time around. As to the punch thing, be glad your DMs a nice guy. Frankly, if you did that to me, I'd drag you outside and beat you until the police came to pry me off you. None of this "Your out of the game" bull, I will never, ever, lay a hand on a person for things they say, but anyone who punchs me in the face is in for a 10 star ass whomping. I'm serious, I'd have hospitalized you. You should thank your DM.
Evil DM Mk3 05-22-06, 03:01 PM	I disapprove of people playing evil characters in non evil campaigns at all. It never, EVER ends well, unless the partys a very bastardly nuetral, theres something greater keeping the evil character in check (in which case hes a caged, murderous lion) or the person isn't playing "evil" right. I feel sorry for the low standards of roleplaying you have experianced. My second most memorable, enjoyable and interesting character was LE. He was a cleric to a deiaty (homebrew) who belived that the exaction of the law was more importatn than any form of freedom and gave divine mandate to all of his clerics to carry out the full sentance of the law or where there was no law to become judge, jurry and executioner. It lead to a lot of interesting roleplaying, some tight squeezes and two near PvPs (the parties wizard took the rouge asside and reminded him of my deites stance on crime, the rouge just stayed clear.) We where using a reputation and honor system, eventualy my cleric was regarded as more honourable (if not exactly NICE) and dedicated than the party Samurai.
Kuraito 05-22-06, 03:20 PM	I feel sorry for the low standards of roleplaying you have experianced. My second most memorable, enjoyable and interesting character was LE. He was a cleric to a deiaty (homebrew) who belived that the exaction of the law was more importatn than any form of freedom and gave divine mandate to all of his clerics to carry out the full sentance of the law or where there was no law to become judge, jurry and executioner. It lead to a lot of interesting roleplaying, some tight squeezes and two near PvPs (the parties wizard took the rouge asside and reminded him of my deites stance on crime, the rouge just stayed clear.) We where using a reputation and honor system, eventualy my cleric was regarded as more honourable (if not exactly NICE) and dedicated than the party Samurai. First off, thats as "Evil Light" as you can get. You just BARELY evil, in fact, you could state a good case to being lawful nuetral. Having "Evil" in your alignment doesn't mean your the type of person people dislike, it means your the type of person that rips peoples throats out and drinks the tasty blood within. How the "Evil" alignment is seen by many players baffles me, and the desire to play one in a good aligned party baffles me even more. In my opinon, such people want nothing more then to ruin the experience for everyone else for there own enjoyment, citing "Good RPing" and debating the semantics of "Being Evil", trying to pawn off some version of "Diet Evil" when in truth they just want an excuse to do whatever they want, including cheating and murdering party members. That doesn't sit well with me. If someones I control, as a PC or DM, is Evil, then you better believe they are EVIL, unfit for anyplace in society other then being killed by it. not the Diet Coke "I only care about myself, nyaa" of evil. As such, "Evil" characters have zero place in a non evil game. And as to my experience in the matter? I'm sure my freind had a blast with his multiple personality cleric of Good/Evil. But while my paladin lay dying in a darkness spell (this was 3.0) and the good cleric went to help me, rolled to change personality, and suddenly dropped an inflict instead of a cure on me, well, I wasn't having fun, especially since no one knew, and he was free to kill my paladin AGAIN once I was raised, which I put up with as my character wouldn't have been the wiser (THAT is good RPing, not an excuse to be a bastard). Nor was I having fun when said player decided that my freind was a vampaire, dispite the fact that he was walking around in the daytime and proceeded to convince the rest of the party to "stake" both of us in our sleep. In short, sure its a blast to YOU to be able to go around, rape, kill, steal, all that good stuff. Frankly, what your doing is stealing the fun from the rest of the group, and I personally stopped putting up with it a long time ago.
Solik 05-22-06, 03:31 PM	It's amazing to me how many people have overreacted to a punch. It was a group of young male friends together having fun. That's not exactly out of the ordinary for many people. Pansies.
Witch 05-22-06, 03:32 PM	First off, thats as "Evil Light" as you can get. You just BARELY evil, in fact, you could state a good case to being lawful nuetral. Having "Evil" in your alignment doesn't mean your the type of person people dislike, it means your the type of person that rips peoples throats out and drinks the tasty blood within. How the "Evil" alignment is seen by many players baffles me, and the desire to play one in a good aligned party baffles me even more. In my opinon, such people want nothing more then to ruin the experience for everyone else for there own enjoyment, citing "Good RPing" and debating the semantics of "Being Evil", trying to pawn off some version of "Diet Evil" when in truth they just want an excuse to do whatever they want, including cheating and murdering party members. That doesn't sit well with me. If someones I control, as a PC or DM, is Evil, then you better believe they are EVIL, unfit for anyplace in society other then being killed by it. not the Diet Coke "I only care about myself, nyaa" of evil. As such, "Evil" characters have zero place in a non evil game. Ripping people's throat and tasting the blood within isn't "evil". It's vile. It's also "psychopath".
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 05-22-06, 05:33 PM	It's amazing to me how many people have overreacted to a punch. It was a group of young male friends together having fun. That's not exactly out of the ordinary for many people. Pansies. If you bothered to read Raven Dark's posts, you'd notice that he sent the person he punched to a damn doctor.
Doopliss 05-22-06, 06:15 PM	Ripping people's throat and tasting the blood within isn't "evil". It's vile. It's also "psychopath".Indeed, and you'd also be chaotic. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Lawful Evil, "Dominator" A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life.He seems to be completely within his rights playing Lawful Evil. Come to think of it, most of the anti-heroes out there merit Evil of some kind. People underestimate the alignment, really. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm
Ichor Spellka 05-22-06, 06:31 PM	Ok, I read the first page, but I didn't bother to read the second or third, as I'm not interested in getting involved in some large debate. Raven, you did an awesome job roleplaying the character. It was incredible. You did not attack the party that you had perhaps grown attached to, and you didn't need to. You got your revenge. And then, you went for the glory for your god. Every time I think about it, it's just awesome. The way your DM handled that was poor. There was absolutely no reason for him to take away control of your character. Especially going so far as to actually snatch the sheet of paper away from you. His approach was immature, and very obviously unplanned. Saying you cast a terrible spell that swallowed the artifact whole is just silly. Granted, you might have had earthquake memorized, in which case he might've actually taken a bit of thought on how you could stop it. But still, it was your character, your choice, and you were robbed. I'm not going to comment on the physical attack, because that seems to be all that everyone is focusing on. As for what to do now. If the current party is continuing on, say that your cleric died along with the artifact. After that bit, the group will not trust him OOC, and it will most likely carry over into IC. You're just going to have to play another character. And after having that character's actions stripped from you and immediately re-wound and reworked by the DM, I'd consider him an NPC from that point on. I would ask that the character die as part of the actions your DM forced on him, just so he's left out of play from then on, and obtains a fraction of the drama that should have unfolded. Start a new character. Preferably one that wouldn't betray the party, as they're probably going to be looking for just that for a while. Also, since you said that you were the other DM of the group, why not take up the role again? If this was the main BBEG, and the world destroying artifact is done with, the other DM's campaign sounds pretty much wrapped up. DM for a bit, throw around some drama, have some fun, and put it behind you.
Artector 05-22-06, 07:15 PM	2. You punching the DM is definately understandable considering the circumstances, he had just ruined what was probably the greatest moment of your character in the entire campaign, and probably one of the more memorable D&D moments I have heard of. That is not a nice thing to do to someone. I would probably have a harder time forgiving him for that than forgiving a punch in the face. Note that I do not defend you using violence, but I certainly understand it. The response to the punch that I take. This may be beating a dead horse, but Bad DM! Bad! Don't do that! I'm fine with fudging when necessary to get the right effect. But not with blatantly dictating actions. If anyone cares there's prolly 2 routes I'd take with that. 1) Say the session is over and dole out XP. Leave them for next week. --Use time to frinkin' think of something 2)Mystical Backfire - You place you hand on it. I make you make a lot of Knowledge checks (religion, arcana, history) and a concentration check. If you made all those then you did it. If not, then haha! you're dead. Way I figure the BBEG would have been studying, knowing what the artifact contained. You didn't, you thought by pressing hand here you would kill. Nope, its like in Wizard's First Rule, you have to have read the Book Of Counted Shadows first. --Might have had to have 1 to do this Anyways, good luck. And if this was a joke/lie. Good job, you've brought out some good thoughts from this. PS: halfway through the OP I knew that you were going to activate it. What I get for being a writer. (Big shock)
WhiteRaven810 05-22-06, 08:52 PM	-Hails Raven Dark and declares him his new dark deity of death, chaos, destructon, and mayhem.-:bow: You deserve a feakin' meddle for such awesome role playing, and your Dungeon Master is an ass to simply snatch up your sheet and rewrite your action. I'm not going to condone your punching, though I could hardly blaime you. If you want +3 flame burst magic bullets to fire at your DM should the two of you talk, remind him that it was the end of the story, that it's your character, and that's it's not the DM's place to dictate character actions.
Evil DM Mk3 05-23-06, 02:55 AM	First off, thats as "Evil Light" as you can get. You just BARELY evil, in fact, you could state a good case to being lawful nuetral. Having "Evil" in your alignment doesn't mean your the type of person people dislike, it means your the type of person that rips peoples throats out and drinks the tasty blood within. How the "Evil" alignment is seen by many players baffles me, and the desire to play one in a good aligned party baffles me even more. In my opinon, such people want nothing more then to ruin the experience for everyone else for there own enjoyment, citing "Good RPing" and debating the semantics of "Being Evil", trying to pawn off some version of "Diet Evil" when in truth they just want an excuse to do whatever they want, including cheating and murdering party members. That doesn't sit well with me. If someones I control, as a PC or DM, is Evil, then you better believe they are EVIL, unfit for anyplace in society other then being killed by it. not the Diet Coke "I only care about myself, nyaa" of evil. As such, "Evil" characters have zero place in a non evil game.Why is it that so many persons that otherwise seem to have a very good grip on the game fall down on the whole good/evil/law/chaos thing? I have heard this exact argument before, it rellies heavily on a confusion of EVIL with CHAOS. In many ways Le has more of a place in sociaty then CG. The ruthless lawyer who will work for anyone given enough money is considered in your games sociaty, as well as the local gaming comunity, to be the very essance of LE. Besides if I had told you half the things this guy did in the execution of the law, he never used the term justice seeing it as a soft word used by people who do not understand the purity and nessessity of unyealding, unearing Law, People like Paladins, this thread would have been either locked or moved to the mature forums. This guy would stop at nothing esspecialy since he belived in making the punishment fit the crime, and mere execution was quite low down in his deiatie's list of punishments. We are talking cure, unussual and brutal. We are talking a man who will kill a criinal in front of his children regardless of their crimes, BTW resisting punishment was considered capital (and in fact the ultimate crime) by the Deiaty in question. We are talking a man who would make such pansies as The Punisher look CG in his unyealding dedication, the lengths to which he would go, up to and including executing those as young as three and making pacts with Devils to get his job done. Diet evil? Give me a break! And as to my experience in the matter? I'm sure my freind had a blast with his multiple personality cleric of Good/Evil. But while my paladin lay dying in a darkness spell (this was 3.0) and the good cleric went to help me, rolled to change personality, and suddenly dropped an inflict instead of a cure on me, well, I wasn't having fun, especially since no one knew, and he was free to kill my paladin AGAIN once I was raised, which I put up with as my character wouldn't have been the wiser (THAT is good RPing, not an excuse to be a bastard). Nor was I having fun when said player decided that my freind was a vampaire, dispite the fact that he was walking around in the daytime and proceeded to convince the rest of the party to "stake" both of us in our sleep. In short, sure its a blast to YOU to be able to go around, rape, kill, steal, all that good stuff. Frankly, what your doing is stealing the fun from the rest of the group, and I personally stopped putting up with it a long time ago.Ah chaotic sphycotic! The second most annoying and pointless alignment since Lawful stupid, and only because unlike Lawful stuipid it forces PvP and so lasts less time. I stand by what I said earlier, you have experianced very poor roleplaying in this area. Think, what does either side, good or evil, of that cleric have to gain by killing you?! The evil side would know that he had the perfect hostage in his good side and not having you around would mean that there where goinging to be more bows/swords/knives pointed at him specifically. Very bad role playing, don't blame that on the alignment of the PC.
Kuraito 05-23-06, 05:48 AM	Well, congrats. Your evil. You wanna know my point? I'm not playing with someone who thinks its "Fun" to play a character that will kill mine for spitting on the sidewalk. Period. Its NOT ok to be evil in non evil games. Period. I don't care how lawful you are, your forcing the party to dance to your tune so your character doesn't kill them horribly. And this seems OK to you? Your group ENJOYS the thought that one mis step and your going to meet out punishment in the form of grisly party/campaign death? No evil character is capable of playing nice with the party for an entire campaign if they really are evil and not just a selfish nuetral. Sooner or later, one side or the others gonna have to throw down, and there goes the game, gone. Maybe such balancing acts, of having the entire game on a knifes edge is fun for your group, frankly, if I'm in a good party and I hear someone say the words "I'm Lawful Evil" I'm done with that game. Because I'm not putting work into a game when this guys just gonna trample all over it for his own enjoyment, expecting everyone else to dance to his tune. I got news for them, I ain't no doormat. You work WITH me, otherwise, there is no game as far as I'm concerned. If that evil thing works for you, fine, you do that. Frankly, I wil not play with an evil character unless I'm playing a character willing to kill them at the slightest provocation. I've seen it time and time again, people add that "Evil" to there character, then they get to run the game, since everyone knows that if things don't go his characters way, PCs are going to die. Its an excuse to trample and **** on a game. If you want to be evil. save it till EVERYONE is evil. Don't bring it where its not wanted, just because you think it'd be cool, because frankly? Its not.
Order 66(6) 05-23-06, 07:53 AM	It's amazing to me how many people have overreacted to a punch. It was a group of young male friends together having fun. That's not exactly out of the ordinary for many people. Pansies. People that live in a civilized manner and respect others wellbeing and dignity don't have to resort to physical violence. That was a bad DM call. Personally I would have let it happen and had the ending be a two edged sword: a terrible threat was removed (the original villian) at the expense of massive loss of life. And then I would have parlayed that into a new campaign in which the OP's PC is the new villian. But punching him over it? Bad....I can't even fathom hitting someone over a game, no matter how much it ****** me off. If I was in his shoes, the OP would never be allowed to play again. Ever. I understand being ****** off to the extreme (not over a game though), and still was able to control myself from lashing out at someone. There's just no excuse for such an immature response.
Order 66(6) 05-23-06, 07:57 AM	Well, congrats. Your evil. You wanna know my point? I'm not playing with someone who thinks its "Fun" to play a character that will kill mine for spitting on the sidewalk. Period. Its NOT ok to be evil in non evil games. Period. I don't care how lawful you are, your forcing the party to dance to your tune so your character doesn't kill them horribly. And this seems OK to you? Your group ENJOYS the thought that one mis step and your going to meet out punishment in the form of grisly party/campaign death? No evil character is capable of playing nice with the party for an entire campaign if they really are evil and not just a selfish nuetral. Sooner or later, one side or the others gonna have to throw down, and there goes the game, gone. Maybe such balancing acts, of having the entire game on a knifes edge is fun for your group, frankly, if I'm in a good party and I hear someone say the words "I'm Lawful Evil" I'm done with that game. Because I'm not putting work into a game when this guys just gonna trample all over it for his own enjoyment, expecting everyone else to dance to his tune. I got news for them, I ain't no doormat. You work WITH me, otherwise, there is no game as far as I'm concerned. If that evil thing works for you, fine, you do that. Frankly, I wil not play with an evil character unless I'm playing a character willing to kill them at the slightest provocation. I've seen it time and time again, people add that "Evil" to there character, then they get to run the game, since everyone knows that if things don't go his characters way, PCs are going to die. Its an excuse to trample and **** on a game. If you want to be evil. save it till EVERYONE is evil. Don't bring it where its not wanted, just because you think it'd be cool, because frankly? Its not. I disagree. Not every type of evil is the bloodthirsty, overt, vengeful kind of evil that is completely obvious to all. Evil can also be insideous, secretive, covert, and smart enough to know that its possible to work with good people to meet one's own ends or fulfill some kind of need (bloodlust in battle, for example). After a while, the players will definately not like the character, and they have the option of "removing" him, but thats the downside of playing an evil character. But the rest of the party doesn't have to cowtow to the evil character at all like he's some kind of lord and master just because his alignment is different.
danielinthewolvesden 05-23-06, 10:46 AM	I posted this thread so we could all work together to investigate the "cause" and the "effect" of the situation at hand. I overreacted and punched a guy. It is unfortunate that it happened, but lets face it, lots of people have done far worse for even stupider things than that. I regret doing it and truly wish I hadn't, but it can't be helped now after the fact. THIS IS SOMETHING WE ALL KNOW. Let's move the discussion towards 1) How this could have been prevented in the first place, and 2) What to do about it now that it has happened. . Simple- you should give up roleplaying until you become mature enough to not resort to physical violence. What you did was totally unacceptable in a game. Thus, you need to give up roleplaying as you can't handle it, you are not mature enough yet. Of course, you also have a bad DM in that he let you run CE PC in a non-evil group. He should stop DMing for a while, unless he has learned his lesson.
Stumm_Dolch 05-23-06, 11:14 AM	Psh... what's a little violence between life-long friends. If I had a quarter for everytime my friends and I have thrown down, I'd have about... well a buck fitty. But we're still great friends... prolly greater cause of it. Now, none of those guys are in my D&D group, but I, as my group's DM would fully expect something like that if I pulled some cheese-ball maneuver like that. He made a huge mistake allowing such clashing alignments like those to work together, maybe for a while sure but it wouldn't hold up over 3 years worth of gaming without some incredulity. Even if I'd somehow managed to let it go that far I would have awarded you with your victory. The other players would have enjoyed the shock of it more than be upset at "losing" the campiagn.
Derrhyn 05-23-06, 11:14 AM	Now, please tell me you're being sarcastic too. :rolleyes: Its NOT ok to be evil in non evil games. Period. And the contradiction: If that evil thing works for you, fine, you do that. Please make up your mind And this seems OK to you? Your group ENJOYS the thought that one mis step and your going to meet out punishment in the form of grisly party/campaign death? No evil character is capable of playing nice with the party for an entire campaign if they really are evil and not just a selfish nuetral. Sooner or later, one side or the others gonna have to throw down, and there goes the game, gone. Maybe such balancing acts, of having the entire game on a knifes edge is fun for your group,... Yes. That is sort of the point with a mixed good/evil group. It is going to be party infighting, PvP fights and PC deaths. It is going to take more time to gather the party around a single goal than to actually complete that goal. Frankly I find that a lot more fun than battelling mindless monsters who want to eat me. I find it a lot more rewarding to defeat a fellow player than a BBEG NPC. And I am fortunate enough to play with people who are of the same opinion and don't start whining when I coup de grace them in their sleep. ...frankly, if I'm in a good party and I hear someone say the words "I'm Lawful Evil" I'm done with that game. Because I'm not putting work into a game when this guys just gonna trample all over it for his own enjoyment, expecting everyone else to dance to his tune. I got news for them, I ain't no doormat. You work WITH me, otherwise, there is no game as far as I'm concerned. In my opinion you trample over the other players for your own enjoyment as well when you demand that they must work with you at all times. That is a straight-jacket as much as anything else. Now I agree that all players should be on the same level concerning party infighting and good/evil chars. But they are no more at fault than you are. It is a matter of different playing styles, and none is better than the other. From what I hear I think I would find your games utterly booring, but that doesn't make me think you're wrong, just different. I think you would be better off with that approach as well. If that evil thing works for you, fine, you do that. Frankly, I wil not play with an evil character unless I'm playing a character willing to kill them at the slightest provocation. I've seen it time and time again, people add that "Evil" to there character, then they get to run the game, since everyone knows that if things don't go his characters way, PCs are going to die. Its an excuse to trample and **** on a game. If you want to be evil. save it till EVERYONE is evil. Don't bring it where its not wanted, just because you think it'd be cool, because frankly? Its not. I agree with Evil DM Mk3 that you have experienced some bad evil roleplaying if that is how you percieve evil characters. It is difficult to play evil good, (pun intended) I consider that a challenge. My latest evil character, who is going to be introduced to the party pretty soon, is more or less the ultimate team player. He is evil because he is a sociopath (has no moral inhibitions to killing and making people suffer) but he is foremost a survivour. And once he gets written into the story, he is going to go through anything short of sacrificing his own life for his party members. Wether that is slaughtering a defensless village or sitting up all night tending a players wounds. Because he sees that the party is his best way of surviving as well. And what is good for the party is good for him But again, you need to stop making assumptions about other peoples games. Just because you have an opinion on how you want the game to be doesn't mean that everyone else is not entitled to theirs. You have the right to set standards for what you want in your games, but respect other peoples standards as well. Derrhyn
Stumm_Dolch 05-23-06, 11:21 AM	Sorry, moving on to help your situation: Get back in cause it seems like you guys have worked things out so far... now about the next campaign... Suggest the DM running an evil campaign... something different for the other players, and might allow you to be devious while working WITH your friends instead of against them. If you are the only one in the group interested in being a bad guy then I suggest learn to play a good or neutral character... I prefer rogues personally. Substitute your evil inclinations for the blind power-hungry ambition of a Sorcerer or rogue. my last point... If you look around the table and see a group of people you aren't willing to try a new play-style with, then you are sitting at the wrong table. If you don't want to do anything but evil while the others don't then you need to Man Up or move on.
Raven Dark 05-23-06, 11:52 AM	If you are the only one in the group interested in being a bad guy then I suggest learn to play a good or neutral character... I prefer rogues personally. Substitute your evil inclinations for the blind power-hungry ambition of a Sorcerer or rogue. I do very well with spellcasters (most of my BBEGs in the past were powerful spellcasters). An ambitious, power-hungry wizard might just be right up my alley. :)
Kuraito 05-23-06, 12:41 PM	I agree with Evil DM Mk3 that you have experienced some bad evil roleplaying if that is how you percieve evil characters. See, thats just the thing. I think the opposite. I think Evil characters are incapable of playing well with others for any real extended period of time and any that are, THOSE are the ones not playing Evil right. Even Lawful evil people have no problem with killing their superiors and taking his place. It will take some damn good incentive for an evil character to "play nice" and even then, once again, hes just a caged murderous lion. As soon as the cage goes away, as soon as the thing restraining him is gone, why won't he kill the party? I'd rather not play with a PC that needs to be constantly given reasons NOT to kill me. I don't see whats so unreasonable about that. Also, I find alot of the excuses people come up with to play nice with a party just so they can be evil are pretty thin. Sorry, to me, I think your just looking for an excuse to kill, mutilate, rape, torture, all the good stuff while in character. Agian, such characters, in my eyes, are not welcome in a game unless all the players are evil. But hey, I can't tell people how to play the game. Your right, I should have said "Its NOT ok to be evil in MY non evil games" and "If that evil thing works for youR GROUP, fine, you do that.". I can express my veiws adamently, which is simply this: The Evil Alignment isn't taken seriously enough by people and an Evil character is incapable of working with Good characters for a long period of time. This is my point of veiw, and to me its truth, especially after some of the CRAP I've had to put up with. As to me being unreasonable in not playing with a PC thats evil, well, then I guess I'm an unreasonable prick. I deal with that. But from my experience and my interputation of what Alignment means, that is not the type of game I wish to be involved in.
Evil DM Mk3 05-23-06, 12:42 PM	Frankly, I wil not play with an evil character unless I'm playing a character willing to kill them at the slightest provocation. And what does a blatant dissregard from life indicated by killing at the slightest provocation indicate in a D&D alignment class? Anyone? EVIL. Also evil PCs have just as little reason to turn on their allayes as good PCs. Evil does not mean killing to get your own way. CE and certain NE might but if you read my first post on the sybject in this thread you will note that I have llready covered that base. In my experiance LE has to be more law abiding, restricted and self-regulating than LN of LG because his conduct is the only thing he can hold up as a defence. I do not advocate real world evil, but bear in mind that D&D evil covers a lot of the real world grey areas such as killing a man carring an incurable plauge before he reaches the hospital. Evil in D&D, DEBATABLE in real life. Grey area. Also people who are willing to do anything to compleate their mission, a quality highly valued in certain millitary and inteligance orginisations, would be evil in D&D. The best D&D evil characters are like that, selfless in their dedication to their duty regardless of who or what must suffer for their goals. But like I said right at the start of this whole thing, CE is a no-no. At least I don't feel I can safely handle it.
Witch 05-23-06, 12:44 PM	See, thats just the thing. I think the opposite. I think Evil characters are incapable of playing well with others for any real extended period of time and any that are, THOSE are the ones not playing Evil right. Even Lawful evil people have no problem with killing their superiors and taking his place. It will take some damn good incentive for an evil character to "play nice" and even then, once again, hes just a caged murderous lion. As soon as the cage goes away, as soon as the thing restraining him is gone, why won't he kill the party? I'd rather not play with a PC that needs to be constantly given reasons NOT to kill me. I don't see whats so unreasonable about that. Look at real life. Mass murderers do fine in society. People who care only about themselves do fine in society. People who fire thousands of people for no reason but "not enough profit" do fine in society. People who treat others only as means to success do fine in society. Evil thrives in society, even more than good.
Evil DM Mk3 05-23-06, 12:47 PM	Evil thrives in society, even more than good. Quoted for truth, I have lost track of the number of total and utter :censored: that have done well at the expence of nice guys, often by badmouthing or ticking said nice guys. It isn't nice, under the black and white D&D system it is Evil. It also happens day in day out.
Kuraito 05-23-06, 12:59 PM	Wait, wait, wait, wait, WAIT. So...evil characters are just as likely to backstab the party as good people? and evil characters don't have to be willing to kill people to get there way to be evil? People, THATS THE DEFFINITION OF EVIL. "A disregard for the dignity and sanctity for life" meaning, yes, you will kill people to get your way, including party members. The buisnessman who lays off workers? NUETRAL. The Theives guild that doesn't kill, rape or otherwise harm people while stealing? NUETRAL. The bastardly guy who cares only for himself? NUETRAL until he demonstrats the prerequisite "Disregard for the diginity and sanctity of life"!. Your saying the the DnD alignment system marks the theives guild, the buisness man, even that selfish guy as evil? No. To be good is to "Respect the lives and dignity of others". to be evil is the opposite "To have a disregard for the ldignity and lives of others". And you can actually tell me, with a straight face, that these people make "Fine party members" and that "They have as little reason to backstab the party as good characters"? I don't think I'm the one whos miss interputing the alignment system here.
Witch 05-23-06, 01:10 PM	So you're saying evil characters can't have friends, can't love people, etcetera? Evil can have allies, allies it likes, even. Evil means that you disrespect the sanctity of life in general - nothing says you have to be willing to turn your back on your friends. Many evil people in this world would steal from people for success - but they wouldn't steal from their best friends. Many people in this world would punch people in the face if they insulted them - but not if it's their kids. What yóu are creating with your definition of evil, is a parody of it, or even it's epitome. People who care only about themselves are generally evil. Neutral people care about others. They just won't risk their lives too much for it.
Kuraito 05-23-06, 03:03 PM	So you're saying evil characters can't have friends, can't love people, etcetera? Evil can have allies, allies it likes, even. Evil means that you disrespect the sanctity of life in general - nothing says you have to be willing to turn your back on your friends. Many evil people in this world would steal from people for success - but they wouldn't steal from their best friends. Many people in this world would punch people in the face if they insulted them - but not if it's their kids. What yóu are creating with your definition of evil, is a parody of it, or even it's epitome. People who care only about themselves are generally evil. Neutral people care about others. They just won't risk their lives too much for it. Thats exactly what I mean by "Evil Light" A nuetral person cares nothing for those that he isn't attached to. What you have just described is Nuetral, having attachments to people and not caring about the rest. I don't say so, the alignment system does. Nuetral People are commited to others by personal relationships. A nuetral person may sacrifice himself to protect his family or even his homeland, but would not do so for strangers. Is it possible for an evil person to hold someone dear? Sure. But by being evil, once that person becomes to much of a liability, he'll dispose of/abandon them, though he may feel sad about doing so.
Witch 05-23-06, 03:13 PM	People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. I see that and expand "killing" to "hurting". Neutral does actually care about everyone else, they just don't want to risk their own lives for it. Thats exactly what I mean by "Evil Light" A nuetral person cares nothing for those that he isn't attached to. What you have just described is Nuetral, having attachments to people and not caring about the rest. I don't say so, the alignment system does. So this is patently false. Neutral is supposed to be Average Joe. Average Joe gives to beggars and donates to charity organisations. That means: they care.
Sphyre 05-23-06, 03:42 PM	My character walks the short distance to the crystal, lays his hand on it, turns around and says to the surviving party members, "The carnage of the world shall be a glorius thing indeed!" before falling to his knees and praying to his dark god of carnage. The other party members watched on in horror as the artifact activated and destroyed millions of lives for the glory of my character's dark diety... ...or at least that is what should have happened. In short, you should still be a team player, even if your character isn't. First and foremost this is a group oriented game. It's upto your group how you're going to deal with characters that don't get along with the party. If you choose to do something like this, it might cause your PC to become an NPC, and you create a PC to travel with the party, but whatever the case is that you need to find some reason to stay and play in the party. How that is, is upto you. I have played evil in a party of good characters before, and as such, it makes it very hard to stay with your party if you choose to do something that removes you from it. Such is the biggest challenge of playing an evil character in a good party. You may have to alter your actions, or come up with different ways of doing things if you want to play an evil character...
Kuraito 05-23-06, 04:13 PM	I see that and expand "killing" to "hurting". Neutral does actually care about everyone else, they just don't want to risk their own lives for it. So this is patently false. Neutral is supposed to be Average Joe. Average Joe gives to beggars and donates to charity organisations. That means: they care. So, apparently, you need to be brave to be good. Interesting. So, the people who run orphanages and try to help impovirshed children are nuetral, because, hey, apparnetly the only differnce betwen nuetral and good is good jumps on a warhorse with a lance to go smite evil. Nuetral people give to charity when its 1. conveint and 2. expected of them. It says so in the PHB, that occasionally nuetral people can be swayed to good AND evil acts.They can be inspired to give to charity, just as they can be tempted to steal. Its doing these thing consistantly, with/without regard for the people involved that determines alignment. Hence why the buisness man is nuetral, one day he may lay off 1000 workers, the next, he might give 1 million dollars to charity. Hence, why, being EVIL, means that doing evil deeds is the norm for you, almost compulsive, its not an occasional "I think I'll just swipe this trinket", its "Your in my way? Die." Such people are not the models of teamwork. I dunno, maybe your right, maybe I DO expect to much from people with alignments. Maybe I do expect people who are evil to be untrustworthy and murderous, good people to be kind and heroic and nuetral people to be in the middle. Personally, I think most people ask far to LITTLE and stamp good or evil on characters that don't really deserve either. Good to me doesn't mean you avoid evil, it means you go out of your way to help others consistantly. Evil means you harm others for your benefit or for the sake of harming them, without consideration of there dignity. Everyone else is nuetral. If I'm wrong, well I guess I'll just be wrong. Frankly though, I think I'm much more right then wrong.
kelvinaw273 05-23-06, 04:22 PM	I see that and expand "killing" to "hurting". Neutral does actually care about everyone else, they just don't want to risk their own lives for it. So this is patently false. Neutral is supposed to be Average Joe. Average Joe gives to beggars and donates to charity organisations. That means: they care. This is the old alignment blues again, which is off-topic here. Nonetheless as I like hearing myself talk, I'll expand on it: Good people are those who will help a stranger, and generally have principals against indiscriminate killing, torture etc. and are prepared to make a stand about it if they can. Good people are not always brave, but they will always do what they feel is in their power, and will take a risk if they can see that it will benefit the greater good of all more than failure might risk losing it. Neutral people look after their own. They might help a stranger if it doesn't cost them too much, but they won't go out of their way to make life difficult for them even if they don't. They may agree with principals about indiscriminate killing, torture etc. but they are not prepared to risk anything about it unless it threatens them and those they care about directly. Alternatively, they may have no actual objection to it but would never do so themselves. On the other hand, a neutral person would look after their own as much as a good person would. The neutral person does not say 'I don't care' because he does - he cares about those close to him, rather than everybody. A neutral person may never sacrifice himself for a complete stranger, but he would give his life for his wife and children without a second thought. Evil people do not necessarily enjoy killing, stealing and torturing. Extreme evil does, but to most evil characters these are simply tools to an ends. Evil comes in three catagories: Me First, Twisted Good and Insane. Me First is the basic 'looks after number one' evil person. He often sees what he does as merely necessary to look after himself - even if it is theft and murder. He may have friends and family, he may care about them, but never to the extent of risking himself for their sakes if he does not stand to benefit from it. Twisted Good is prepared to do anything 'for the greater good'. He will kill without remorse, for he is killing in the greatest cause. Innocents may die, but their sacrifice will not have been in vain. Torture is necessary for justice to be served, an army isneeded to defend the realm, even if the peasents are starving. Twisted Good can also love, but will never let his love cross his principals: if they 'betray' him, they must perish. One aspect of Twisted Good is that keeping himself alive is usually in the interests of the 'Greater Good'. Insane is the classic evil; he enjoys hurting people for the fun of it. Whereas Me First is selfish, Insane is just psychotic. This does not mean that he cannot function normally - he can - but that ultimately his life is a power trip about himself (or his goals), and nothing will ever interfere with that. Me First can be a good party member. He may place himself first, but he values other people and will work with their interests if they coincide with his own. He may come to realise that a fair share in a loyal party is beneficial to him, reducing the risk of his getting caught out alone by other people like himself, so he can be loyal, helpful and beneficial. Twisted Good is less likely to be a good party member unless his 'Greater Good' is something the rest of the party are also working toward. Then he will appreciate their stance if not their methods (namby-pamby liberals, refusing to do what must be done...and who has to clean up the mess?) and they can generally 'get on'. Insane is the guy who TPKs the party in their sleep and sells all their gear. You don't want him around AT ALL. From the descriptions of the character Dark Raven has described, he comes pretty much between Twisted Good and Insane - he has a higher purpose, but an Insane one nobody else would want. Not a good party player at all.
Doopliss 05-23-06, 04:47 PM	Hence, why, being EVIL, means that doing evil deeds is the norm for you, almost compulsive, its not an occasional "I think I'll just swipe this trinket", its "Your in my way? Die." Such people are not the models of teamwork.I've always believed that Lawful doesn't betray allies without a very good reason, (Moreso than them causing an inconvenience) holding true for LE. LE still values trust, perhaps moreso than Chaotic Good. If he can't work with the party anymore, he would likely declare he's leaving (When he's not terribly needed. At the end of the quest, for example) and do so. Maybe I do expect people who are evil to be untrustworthy...trustworthiness is Lawful/Chaotic, not Good/Evil. Folks with a strong morality also frequently have a strong sense of ethics, however. and murderous,There are frequently easier ways to deal with an opposition than killing him, especially if the killing would be in a civilized area. If killing is easiest, which is rare considering the complications the aftermath brings, then sure. I suppose it depends on your definition of 'murderous'. All of the above is just my interpretation of the rules. I'm only really defending Lawful Evil here, I agree about Neutral and Chaotic Evil. Morality and ethics are easy to get mixed up in certain situations.
Evil DM Mk3 05-23-06, 05:13 PM	There is no way in the infinate layers of the abyss we are goint to come to an agreement seeing as we both beleave that the other has a fundemental missunderstanding of the alignment system and possibly the deffinition of dignity and whether this refers to the quality or quantity of same so let me round off before this gets any uglier with this question? How on earth did this become an alignment thread?!
Witch 05-23-06, 05:25 PM	I'll give you an example of how an evil person can work well in a good party. It's not made up on the spot - it's from my campaign. The character I'm talking about is chaotic evil. She's an aristocrat lady who has bloodthirsty urges, and had an alter ego as an assassin. However, the criminal organisation she worked for had a few changes of command - after a while she stopped getting commands. She killed the people she suspected to be taking her place. After many assassination attempts, she had to flee. She fled to a small time (the town I was working all PC's backgrounds towards, so that they could start in that town, all together, coincidentially). The town was attacked by a horde of undead, for reasons I'll not explain here, and there were only a few people who managed to get away. The PC's were, in particular - as well as some people who got away on their own. Having no home left, being wanted as well, the chaotic evil person is forced to work together with the others. She still has this bloodthirst, but uses it on enemies only - for example, she'll be attacking a dead person for more blood. She knows that the less people are around here, the more likely she is to die. So she doesn't attack the others.
Urzza 05-23-06, 05:32 PM	If you bothered to read Raven Dark's posts, you'd notice that he sent the person he punched to a damn doctor. yah, about that. I think he was making a lil' joke right there.... As sone by the :P
LostPassWordDoesNotWork 05-23-06, 06:43 PM	I merely illicit reactions from board members with a few elaborate falsehoods as a part of my continuing goal of manipulating the general attitudes of board members about various subjects. That's all. Lamen's Terms: Sure, every third thread I write is about how I've been stomped by some evil DM, but that is of no consequence anyways--since every other thread I write is a lie. I'm a student of psychology who also happens to be a little bit crazy. YOU ARE ALL PART OF MY EXPERIMENT! My mud boots are not tall enough to stick around after that comment. Unless your taking a mere high school course, and you missed half the classes... --- Let's move the discussion towards 1) How this could have been prevented in the first place, and 2) What to do about it now that it has happened. Simple- you should give up roleplaying until you become mature enough to not resort to physical violence. What you did was totally unacceptable in a game. Thus, you need to give up roleplaying as you can't handle it, you are not mature enough yet. Of course, you also have a bad DM in that he let you run CE PC in a non-evil group. He should stop DMing for a while, unless he has learned his lesson. You cannot beat advice like that. --- As for alignments I allow LG, NG, CG, LN, NN, CN, and LE. Good guys do not kill eveything, lawful evil guys do not randomly kill, and you can trust their word. Netural guys you have to keep a eye on and CN is the worst. LE does not kill or steal from from a shop keeper just becuse a ruby that he has looks nice... Maybe kill the guy if he offended in him a way that the LE's law says he can. *slaps you with a glove* "You insult my honor, I challenge you to a dual." And hes nice enough to not kick sand in your eyes, atleast intill hes losing...
Rentar1743 05-23-06, 07:05 PM	Its been said. If you patched things over with the DM, then what about the other players? These things happen with groups from time to time. If everyone is ok with your return then keep playing. Just make sure that things are good between all of the group members. Everyone was affected by the actions of both you, and the DM(atleast I'd think so). The thread is kinda funny. Its all opinions. We all know what opinions are like right? Just remember have fun first and formost!!!!!!
Gilfalas_Elaandrin 05-24-06, 02:17 PM	You see, the entire party plays Neutral to Good characters whereas I play a CE Cleric of Death & Evil (wears dark robes, wields a scythe, the whole shebang). This right here was the problem and the fault for that lies with the entire group to some extent. The Neutral and good people should have had the brains to realise that your, um, a CHAOTIC EVIL PRIEST OF THE GOD OF DEATH AND SLAUGHTER and either killed you or never traveled with you after they realised it. I know it is hard to tell a buddy no but come on. Did they really think this would NOT come bite them in the ass some day? Your responsible because you decided to inject this character into the group, which you had to absolutely know would be at some or many points, be at diametric odds with the party. While it could lend to good drama and story I fail to see how that particular choice of character could be anything but bad for the existing party make up eventually. Lastly your DM is at fault for even letting the character into the mix and for not seeing you were going to do what you did from the start and for taking the sheet away from you. If you guys beat the snot out of each other for fun then that is how you relate to each other. I for one agree with many of the other posters saying physical violence is no way to treat anyone. BUT if all you guys accept it as a means of communication among yourselves then so be it. Summation: This problem did not occur in the last play session. This problem occured the moment the character was allowed in the campaign and everyone who allowed it is at fault.
Raven Dark 05-24-06, 02:50 PM	Its been said. If you patched things over with the DM, then what about the other players? Albeit shocked and surprised, the other players enjoyed it quite a bit (before the DM altered it). Everybody (characters, players, and DM) knew that my character was evil, and everyone allowed it both in and out of game. We had no extremists such as paladins to worry about in the party, so it was perfectly logical for the good-aligned characters to choose the "lesser of two evils." I would also like to add that "lesser evils" helping the "good guys" is a staple of Fanatasy literature. Just take a look at Golem from Lord of the RIngs for example--without him Frodo and Sam never would have made it anywhere at all. I didn't plan on "ruining" the campaign either. It was a spur of the moment decision during that one session once the DM told us what the artifact was capable of doing (and indeed that it had already started doing it). It also happened to be the last session of the campaign--a big factor in my decision to give it a good twist. I seriously doubt I would have betrayed and killed everybody in the middle of the game (as others have said, that jsut isn't any fun). Was any of the ingame events caused by my character planned? No. Was it thought out. Yes. In the end, the ONLY thing to go wrong was that both my DM and I lost are cool.