Post/Author/DateTime	Post
RabidPirateMan 07-04-07, 03:49 PM	Hey there, I have a question for all you nice people out there. I'm playing Expedition to Castle Ravenloft with a few other people. The theme was that we were missionaries for the Silver Flame, so everyone had to be Lawful. Because everyone was the same Cleric/Paladin Lawful Good suck-up to their deities stereotype, I decided to go with something interesting, a Sorcerer/Acolyte of the Skin. Anyway, they catch me going into the woods and preforming the Skin Graft ritual, and demand I explain myself. I say that because there was no rule outlawing this spell, I did it in order to give me more power to fight our enemies, or in short, that the ends justify the means. They all disagreed, beat me up, took my items and told me I would die unless I follow them like a slave. I agreed, because I knew that I could get somewhere with this. So we kill this witch, and I, knowing that I can gain power by doing these rituals, put its body on a rune circle. I get constant nondetection of my gear, which is useless because I'm chained naked to the Paladin by a collar. However, a rock turns into a Ioun stone of Charisma +2 . I think, freaking score, right? Well, the Paladin says that the stone should go to him. I had been waiting for this forever, so I pipe up and say he cant. "This stone is a manifestation of necromantic magic. Although its not illegal to use it, it is made of evil powers. If, however, you are saying its OK to use an evil item for good, you should then give me back my freakin' items and stop controlling me, since I did just that by giving up my body to demons. If not, then give the stone to me, because it will aid you in killing Strahd and I'm already willing to do whatever it takes to destroy evil." My argument goes NOWHERE, while everyone else agrees that using evil items for good is fine. Uh, hello! Thats what I did when I signed my body over to fiends! I suggest to the DM that they get an alignment change, they argue against, and the session ended with the DM unable to decide what to do and feeling pressured by the majority. So what do you think? Am I right in saying this is comparable to what I did, or do they have a point?
Comus 07-04-07, 03:59 PM	I think you should tell them, out of game, that you're not having fun because of how they're treating your character. Then, work something out by sitting down and talking like adults. Maybe you need to make a character more inline with the rest of the group. Maybe they need to cut you some slack. Remember: The best advice you'll get on these boards is to talk to your fellow players/DM. Try that before coming here.
RabidPirateMan 07-04-07, 04:11 PM	Thats true, and its a topic of discussion, but this is more a question of alignment. The DM cant decide, players cant decide, so I'm trying to find out what other people think. I actually am having fun, especially because I have to think more. I was nearly killed when I did that ritual with the witch, but I thought it out to say that if Strahd knew this would sap power from him, he'd probably curse it, so it'd be better if I did the ritual since A) they could kill me if they wanted to and B) if I died it would be no loss. That to me was good roleplaying. But this is sort of out of hand, since everyone is so worried about weakening their own characters they cant see how they could try and play around this. My character has nothing, and yet I still make an interesting time of it.
calronmoonflower 07-04-07, 04:15 PM	1. They should be upset by you trying to become an Acolyte of the Skin as it makes you become increasingly fiendish. 2. By debasing you they are acting in an evil manner. Punishment is one thing, treating like a slave is wrong and evil. 3. The paladin would be required by the code of conduct not to engage in such conduct. They fall because even one evil act even if it isn't enough to change their alignment. From the SRD Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. It can be argued that innocent doesn't apply to you, but if you are not evil, then it should.
Callista 07-04-07, 04:17 PM	If your character's evil, you already made a mistake by playing him in a party with a paladin in it. But if he isn't, you need to talk to the other players and tell them they're ruining your fun by being so strict. Remind them that the paladin doesn't have to stand against non-evil stuff that's just "gross".
DarkNick 07-04-07, 06:11 PM	I like how you have turned this into a positive experience. I think you have a point, but I don't think it is really comparable. Signing your body over to fiends is not exactly a good thing and they have already decided that what you do is bad. You won't change the other players minds. You could continue as a bum boy slave, plot against the party because of their bad treatment, turn the character over to the dM as a an NPC bent on revenge, make up a new character, talk to the players out of game and ask them to reneg on the treatment. Personally I think you are in a position of low power both in and out of game, I would make up a new character. No one deserves to be treated in such a degrading manor, even if it it just in a game.
Ack 07-04-07, 07:22 PM	They're pulling this crap because they feel like it, not because they are holding to a specific code. Point out the flaws in their logic. If they still don't ease up on you, then they're being dicks because they can and justifying it after the fact. In which case, talk to the GM out of game and lead him through the situation step by step so that he can see where you're coming from. He should either make them ease up on you, or give you an out somehow.
Caelic 07-04-07, 07:30 PM	I dunno...I see plenty of blame to go around here. Sure, naked adventurer bondage isn't exactly what I'd call "Lawful Good" or a great response on the part of the other players, but I'm not wildly impressed by "Because everyone was the same Cleric/Paladin Lawful Good suck-up to their deities stereotype, I decided to go with something interesting..." either. "Everyone else is going to be good? BORING! I'll make a character who I KNOW will conflict with that!" Heck, if I was playing a Lawful Good character and caught another member of the party trafficking with demons, I can assure you: one way or another, there would NOT be a problem with that character being with the party anymore, let alone dragged on a chain.
AffableDoomwalker 07-04-07, 09:58 PM	"Everyone else is going to be good? BORING! I'll make a character who I KNOW will conflict with that!" Heck, if I was playing a Lawful Good character and caught another member of the party trafficking with demons, I can assure you: one way or another, there would NOT be a problem with that character being with the party anymore, let alone dragged on a chain. Thats kinda flawed logic... think about it for a sec, firstly, your reaciton would be... well... the typical "LOL MY DEITY DESERBS 2 B PRAYSED NOW FRO GRAET JHUSTUS I SLICE UR MUFFINZ!!!" Which is silly. Very silly. Even if you're only saying "You can't party with me." Let me guess, you'd want that Ioun Stone too, right? For the greater good and all that stuff... Think about it... Who is causing conflict? OP, or the Other members in the group? From what I've read, the OP didn't directly, indirectly, or in any other way instigate any conflict whatsoever. He simply utilized his character before it came down to a choice between death/poor treatment. He made a darker kind of hero, not his fault the other players decided to play the parts of Sir Single-Minded Ignorance/Hypocrisy and his merry band of Tunnel Visionaries. For once I'd like to see a LG hero-clone that decided it was time to cut his losses and go for the win without being a complete retard in the process*, there are just times when being an uptight moron isn't ideal... like, say, when you're stuck on the half-prison/plane home of a Bela Lugosi-esque vampire overlord (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20061006a&page=2) with a major chip on his shoulder? I actually applaud the OP for turning the situation around a kicking their asses with logic. I also spit on his DM for not being manly enough to use that logic in the logical fashion: (logically) in order to come to a simple and fair conclusion. Regardless, OP, disregard the people who blame you for playing something that goes against the grain, thus making for a better and more interesting story (as opposed to 'For the greater good! Huzzah!" x6), and take some time to do like others have said: take your DM aside and have some heart to heart in a step by step fashion, if the decision isn't made, or is made badly, then find yourself a new game. *I've just inspired myself. That's my next character concept.
Mock26 07-04-07, 10:19 PM	D&D is supposed to be about teamwork and players really shouldn't go out of there way to disrupt that party unity. You should start the whole thing over from the start and tell the other players to stopping acting like a bunch of little brats.
was_fired 07-04-07, 10:34 PM	Their actions are evil, no doubt about it.
Novabomb 07-04-07, 10:43 PM	Most of the fun in Dnd to me comes from the interactions. If the PCs are replicas of one another then much interest is lost. It is alright to play a hypocritical character (others in the op's group) as long as OOG it is understood that the hypocrisy takes place. Now to answer the OP's question. It is in fact comparable to your what your PC has done only if the they believe that your true intent was for the greater good.
keyunp 07-04-07, 10:59 PM	IMO the parties actions are, if continued, would be considered an evil act. While I would not force an alignment change for it, it would cause the Paladin to lose powers until attoned.
Enlightened1 07-04-07, 11:17 PM	Well, they aren't really treating you well. Whether they're being *evil* is another question... Claiming the magic stone I think is definitely out. It amounts to stealing, or at least forced commandeering, and ought to be fairly compensated. Not letting you use evil magic? It seems to me that they're within their rights and good alignment. It may not be the wisest thing to do, and there certainly ought to be room for some compromise, given the setting. You say you're having fun, That's great - I can certainly get behind the idea of playing a misfit and finding creative ways to work with/around the group. Big question: Are THEY having fun? Are they enjoying having to deal with someone who, by alignment definition, they aren't supposed to trust or even hang around with? Are they enjoying chaining up a PC and stripping him of power? I smell someone, or multiple someones, who are just enjoying pi**ing off other players. And that's bad. Some groups I've heard thrive on such; I hate it. If it were my campaign, I'd start the next session with a discussion about the situation and how people need to come up with a reasonable compromise on how this should be handled; otherwise, the conflict will almost certainly escalate to PC combat (or, more likely, execution), and/or the GM will be manipulated into punishing players for playing their characters by the rules. It's quite possible to play a roguish misfit and not be disruptive to the group. It's also very possible to play a cleric, even a paladin, without being a pr*ck. Sounds to me like some folks in your group need to be reminded of that.
Caelic 07-05-07, 12:02 AM	Thats kinda flawed logic... think about it for a sec, firstly, your reaciton would be... well... the typical "LOL MY DEITY DESERBS 2 B PRAYSED NOW FRO GRAET JHUSTUS I SLICE UR MUFFINZ!!!" Which is silly. Very silly. Even if you're only saying "You can't party with me." Ah. Very presumptive of you. No problem, though; you get to describe my reaction, I get to describe yours. Yours would be...well...the typical "D00d I can b party membr now 'cuz I iz PC! U iz not aloud 2 say no! I haz PC t-shirt!" ...which is infinitely more silly. Player characters don't get special t-shirts. If a player character shows up and demonstrates that he's not the kind of person my character would associate with. my character doesn't associate with him. We ran into this problem in our current campaign two weeks ago. A new player joined in; the premise was that the king assigned him to our group for a very dangerous mission. His entire contribution to said mission consisted of the following: 1. Vanishing into the shadows any time an enemy appeared. 2. Never striking a single blow. 3. Failing to disarm two traps and pick one lock. 4. Appearing in the middle of one particularly nasty fight to shovel as much treasure as possible into his sack. When the mission was over...surprise, surprise...the group had no interest in a continued association with the guy. Let me guess, you'd want that Ioun Stone too, right? For the greater good and all that stuff... Actually, if he got it the way he described and I was playing a hardline Paladin, I probably would've smashed it. He has a point; it's the congealed product of dark magic. Better safe than sorry. Typically, when I play a Paladin-type, they tend to be very pragmatic, but they do not go in for "The end justifies the means." 'Course, as I said, I would've done a lot of things differently than the "Lawful Good" members of the group. If I thought he was a threat, I sure as heck wouldn't be lugging him around chained and naked, for a number of reasons: 1. If he's evil, I've got a potential threat at my back. 2. If he's not evil, I've just screwed up big-time. 3. Whether he's evil or not, unless I actually have the power of middle justice, it's not very lawful for me to play jailer 4. Whether he's evil or not, by dragging him chained and helpless into a very dangerous situation, I make myself responsible for his safety...a distraction I do not need. In all probability, if his actions didn't actually break any laws, I would've simply told him to hit the road. The actions described probably wouldn't be enough justification to cut the guy down, and I sure as heck wouldn't want someone that questionable at my back in a life or death situation; too risky. Think about it... Who is causing conflict? OP, or the Other members in the group? Both, I'd say. Deliberately, knowingly creating a character you know the rest of the party is going to have problems with is disruptive. It can make for interesting rp, but it's disruptive. On the other hand, essentially telling a player "You don't get to play" is as bad, if not moreso. At least by booting the questionable character from the party, you create an opportunity to work in a new character. For once I'd like to see a LG hero-clone that decided it was time to cut his losses and go for the win without being a complete retard in the process*, there are just times when being an uptight moron isn't ideal... ...and I'd like to see more players who don't automatically think "dark and gritty" is cool and realistic and Lawful Good is automatically "retarded" or a "suck-up to their deities stereotype." "Dark, edgy, and morally ambiguous" is at least as much of a cliche as straight and narrow. Quite possibly moreso. Regardless, OP, disregard the people who blame you for playing something that goes against the grain, thus making for a better and more interesting story ...because being disruptive is cool and edgy! It's cool to play a character who has no logical reason to associate with the rest of the people in the party, let alone adventure with them! Harmonious groups that actually make logical sense adventuring together are boring! Right? (as opposed to 'For the greater good! Huzzah!" x6), Well, apparently, you think so, anyway.
ShinoAburame 07-05-07, 12:27 AM	I would say nay, because unless the item has the description [evil] negative energy is no more evil then say nuculear power. Oh sure you got your hippy druids whining and complaining that the negative energies will destroy our plant and blahblahBLAH! You think a paladin has time to think about that crap when some 12 year old is about to become deflowerd by Bob the ogre?! Don't think so... Hypocrisy happens out of any alignment, I hate how we live in such a progressive society that we automaticaly assume lawful=bad and we have to harpoon it with unimmaginable standards that we don't apply to anything else. Does good always have to do the right thing? Does lawful always have to follow the rules? Isn't okay to break the code once inawhile if it serves "the greater good"? Then it should be no differant for a lawful good character. Paladin or not. Hell, it's bad enough wotc decided to make the paladin complete dog-crap on the rules system. The least you could do is let the poor bastard have a nuke!
AffableDoomwalker 07-05-07, 12:43 AM	Caelic my man... I really can't go point for point with you because you were using periods and commas as points, but I can happily, and with a clear conscience say that I never implied being a PC was some sort of ultimate "I'm allowed to do anything" shield, nor did I say "dark and gritty" or "edgy" was some sort of awesome bade of greatness, I'm not that immature, I'd appreciate it if you didn't imply that I was (and let it be known, in turn, that my caps lock extravaganza was no attempt to mock you, but rather, Paladins in general, if you took it that way, I apologize, unless you're a Paladin). I did, however, imply that there seems to be a common trend among LG PCs to act like complete and total jackasses and hypocrites whenever the opportunity presents itself. As for parties that make sense? How about a party that works well together? As opposed to, I don't know, parties that go... "Hey, you're using a class feature! Looks like I'm gonna do my best to **** in your cereal!" The OP didn't do anything wrong, and going off the information I have here, is clearly the victim of bad, bad roleplaying (unless some strange floating orb comes down to me in my sleep and shows me exactly how the group dynamics work in his game to show me otherwise). I notice you didn't make any attempt to acknowledge the campaign setting (a major selling point in my argument, which conveniently disappeared... omnislashing (http://wiki.reliccommunity.com/Omnislashing) is so cool!), but rather, decided to focus on the fact [sic] that creating character that have different moral views than their group is disruptive; I'd like to point out that (and thankfully, you acknowledge this at least) borderline kidnapping, strapping your former ally in bondage gear, and then doing your best to act a fool is a little bit more disruptive. Only by a small margin though. In any event, I really appreciate your editing your post to make it seem less inflammatory, and including some content actually worth reading, which helps quite a bit (the second list being the better and more relevant of the two), but I digress, in any case, lets stop trying to make each other look stupid, and stick to the matter at hand. OP, if you'd honestly answer me these questions... What's your character's alignment? Did you create the character to add spice to the game, or to cause havoc? As asked above somewhere, are your fellow players having fun too? Is your DM generally competent, reasonable? What were your In-Character RP, and combat contributions like/what did they primarily consist of (short and sweet, but detailed if possible)? Do you like pie? What kind? Do you think muffinz shud b sliced fro great justus? I await the OP's well thought out, and completely relevant future updates.
Caelic 07-05-07, 12:44 AM	Isn't okay to break the code once inawhile if it serves "the greater good"? Well, that depends on the character. I know the idea of a character who has a code of beliefs he'd rather die than break gets a lot of ridicule on these boards, but it's a totally valid way of playing.
bob_the_great 07-05-07, 01:16 AM	So a paladin was part of a group that beat you up and enslaved you, and that same paladin stole your item? Wow. No alignment changes yet, though the enslaving part should leave a pally minus his powers. Shame on you for having to be interesting, though. Sometimes everyone just wants to vanquish evil and not roleplay intra-party strife. It seems like it should have been obvious that this group was not going to handle it well. What should have happened is that the party should have just abandoned you upon discovering your fiendish ties, at which point you would have made a new character which (hopefully) would be more in-line with the party dynamic. They felt the metagame need to keep you with the party, and poorly chose to enslave you. With a different group you may have been able to make it work. It didn't and won't work. Make a new character.
RabidPirateMan 07-05-07, 02:23 AM	OP, if you'd honestly answer me these questions... What's your character's alignment? Did you create the character to add spice to the game, or to cause havoc? As asked above somewhere, are your fellow players having fun too? Is your DM generally competent, reasonable? What were your In-Character RP, and combat contributions like/what did they primarily consist of (short and sweet, but detailed if possible)? Do you like pie? What kind? Do you think muffinz shud b sliced fro great justus? I await the OP's well thought out, and completely relevant future updates. Well, lets try and answer these questions... 1. My character's alignment is LE. The DM provided reading material for everyone, and it stated pretty clearly that Chaotic actions were not permissable in the Church of the Silver Flame, so everyone had to be some sort of Lawful. When I heard everyone was Good, I secretly chose to be Evil. 2. Spice? I think so. Four of the six PCs are powergamers and dont talk that much, but since I chose such a wonky choice, a lot of talk had happened, from the nature of spellwork and whether I should be treated equally (this was before I revealed my demonic intents). On a combat level, I have a bunch of holding spells that keeps people in place for my allies to smash with large blunt objects in the name of the Flame. 3. These guys have fun after the battle when they rack up XP and distribute loot. The only other guys who RP is one guy who's kind of funny and one guy who is creepy, only plays female characters, uses the same mini each time, has them all by the same name and I'm pretty sure I saw him talking to it once. 4. The DM is sort of the same ilk as the power gamers, but he really gets excited when he can put on a mask and start playing other characters. He tried to talk to everyone in the party, and you can sort of see that he really wants people to get into it. He's an actor, so I'm pretty sure he's letting his creative side flow. 5. Contributions were already noted, holding people and liberal usage of mage armor. RP wise, I tried to hide the fact I was evil. The story I cooked up was that my elf sorcerer (both qualities not good things in the silver flame) was pressured to stop casting spells, yet was too weak to fight for the Flame (has a str mod of 7). So, she read up on legalities, tried to find how to help without breaking any rules, found evocation spells and conjuration to be acceptable (on a hair-thin margin, mind you) and stumbled upon a book which showed how to do the Ritual of Bonding required to become an Acolyte of the Skin (which wasnt mentioned as being illegal). I try to help, but I certainly do sneaky thing. There was this church with a Blaspheme and an evil cleric, and I found a book with instructions on how to make one while everyone was looking for loot. I hide it, and am now searching for the necessary materials needed to make one (for the flame, mind you, I would never try and use it for my own power). In short, I am cursed, but bound to do what I know is wrong (BUT NOT ILLEGAL) to help that which I know to be right. Nice moral quandaries, I think. 6. Yes. 7. What, are you joking? Pie in general rocks my socks. 8. Thats a misinterpretation of the Good Book, you cant take it literally. It means you have to fart in the face of evil. I also want to say something about the guy who said I was playing the "dark, gritty emo goth whaaa whaaa immago lizn 2 linken park" character. Uh, no. I like thinking up creative characters. DnD may be partially a number and dice game, but thats the limited aspect of it. I see DnD as a way to be creative, to play around with your imagination and have fun. My other characters are an half-orc bard hippie pacifist, a stuck up elf (char 5) who has secretly feels desperately lonely, and a fat, 300 pound wasian ninja who's highest ability score is 8. I love creativity, not stereotypes. Im sorry if I dont make the same NG broken character to do 5d6+6 at level three, but talking can accomplish just as much as blasting enemies away.
mato_hibiki 07-05-07, 02:43 AM	For future reference, all those who have problems with paladin punks should point them to Sturm Brightblade... Or at the very least, his wiki entry. That man could paladin with the best of them. And he wasn't even a paladin. Awesome. *Produces a bouquet for Sturm.* RIP buddy.
calronmoonflower 07-05-07, 02:46 AM	Does good always have to do the right thing? No. Alignment is a role playing tool not a straitjacket. Also the rules themselves say that few people are completely consistent. However, a paladin fall for an evil act. That doesn't mean he cannot do it anyway. Does lawful always have to follow the rules? No. Also note that they can follow their own rules and still be lawful. Isn't okay to break the code once inawhile if it serves "the greater good"? Yes. For the paladin point they suffer no penalty for minor infractions of their code of conduct. Doing evil always causes a fall however. Chaotic action have no impact on a paladin unless it is enough to change their alignment or a major infraction. Then it should be no differant for a lawful good character. Paladin or not. Hell, it's bad enough wotc decided to make the paladin complete dog-crap on the rules system. The least you could do is let the poor bastard have a nuke! Like alignment the paladin's code of conduct is a role playing tool. It is not meant to be a club to beet paladins over the head and strip their powers. However, I do believe the paladin the the original post acted in a evil manner. They are require to punish those that threaten or harm innocents, not degrade the existence. omnislashing (http://wiki.reliccommunity.com/Omnislashing) Catches link with pokeball. :D
Sunic_Flames 07-05-07, 09:07 AM	Does the fact the whole time I was reading this my thoughts were "Damn, I'm glad I don't know any players that like playing good alignments." make me a bad person?
Man in the Funny Hat 07-05-07, 09:36 AM	I don't really know from Acolyte of the Skin (or Tome & Blood for that matter) but I gather that making deals with demons and eventually even changing your type to Outsider an AotS is EVIL? Even if he isn't he's definitely BUILT to be a direct antagonist to goody-two-shoes types, as the rest of the party is. The fault is therefore initially, but not entirely your own. In essence you had it coming; you're only getting what you deserve. You've intentionally planted a character into a party where you dang well knew disruptive interaction would be certain to take place between PC's. Don't go crying to outside authority when you try to pull that kind of nonsense and it doesn't go your way. That said, the behavior of the other PC's AND THE DM is no better. The DM deserves the same slap upside the head as you do for ALLOWING you to do this. Then there's the other PC's, paladins in particular. The simple, straightforward reaction need ONLY have been to state, "I will not associate with you," and merely ostracize your PC from the party requiring you to make up a new character which will - as should have been in the first place - more reasonably interact as an intimate ally of the rest of the party for the duration of the game. This whole nonsense of, "Well now you get to be my naked slave on a chain," and, "Of COURSE using EVIL items for good is perfectly okay," is just too pathetic for meaningful response. It's LAUGHABLE, and I would be if it didn't seem that they were genuinely serious. Therefore THEIR reactions are equally as improper as your initial actions. If you're all having fun, well, what's the issue? If not, then I suggest you pull the plug on this entire train wreck right now and start the whole thing over again - AFTER having a lengthy discussion with the other players and the DM on the topic of alignment, paladin oaths, and the core concept of PC's being COMPATRIOTS, not potential antagonists by design.
Caelic 07-05-07, 10:00 AM	1. My character's alignment is LE. The DM provided reading material for everyone, and it stated pretty clearly that Chaotic actions were not permissable in the Church of the Silver Flame, so everyone had to be some sort of Lawful. When I heard everyone was Good, I secretly chose to be Evil. Well, there you go. You knew everyone else was playing a good character, and moreover that they were not playing easygoing "Whatever floats your boat", but rather Good-With-A-Capital-G-As-In-Gank-Evil-On-Sight characters. You knew the group was going to be intolerant of evil. You chose to make an evil character despite this, or perhaps because of it. The party may have gone overboard in reaping conflict, but you sowed the seeds. I also want to say something about the guy who said I was playing the "dark, gritty emo goth whaaa whaaa immago lizn 2 linken park" character. Uh, no. I like thinking up creative characters. DnD may be partially a number and dice game, but thats the limited aspect of it. I see DnD as a way to be creative, to play around with your imagination and have fun. My other characters are an half-orc bard hippie pacifist, a stuck up elf (char 5) who has secretly feels desperately lonely, and a fat, 300 pound wasian ninja who's highest ability score is 8. I love creativity, not stereotypes. Actually, I didn't say that you did. I said that you were partly to blame for the situation, and I stand by that. I also said I was sick of people who reflexively sneered at Lawful and/or Good and considered morally ambiguous "gritty" characters to somehow be more inherently compelling. Maybe that shoe fits you, maybe it doesn't; I don't know. I've never seen you roleplay. Enough such sneering is going on in this thread, though, from several people, that I thought the comment was warranted. In case you missed it, I agreed with you that the other party members were being hypocritical, and acknowledged that you had a good point about the Ioun Stone. Im sorry if I dont make the same NG broken character to do 5d6+6 at level three, but talking can accomplish just as much as blasting enemies away. What in the world does alignment have to do with the amount of damage you do, or with preferences for talking things out rather than fighting them out?
Caelic 07-05-07, 10:02 AM	Does the fact the whole time I was reading this my thoughts were "Damn, I'm glad I don't know any players that like playing good alignments." make me a bad person? No. It's a shame, and you're probably missing out; hopefully, you'll have the opportunity to expand your roleplaying horizons at some point.
High Octane 07-05-07, 10:11 AM	Hey there, I have a question for all you nice people out there. I'm playing Expedition to Castle Ravenloft with a few other people. The theme was that we were missionaries for the Silver Flame, so everyone had to be Lawful. Because everyone was the same Cleric/Paladin Lawful Good suck-up to their deities stereotype, I decided to go with something interesting, a Sorcerer/Acolyte of the Skin. Anyway, they catch me going into the woods and preforming the Skin Graft ritual, and demand I explain myself. I say that because there was no rule outlawing this spell, I did it in order to give me more power to fight our enemies, or in short, that the ends justify the means. They all disagreed, As was their right. beat me up, What? took my items WHAT? and told me I would die unless I follow them like a slave. ..... If you ever get the DMs mantle inform them they are banned from the good alignments. Forever. Cause they just cant fake it.
Sunic_Flames 07-05-07, 10:26 AM	No. It's a shame, and you're probably missing out; hopefully, you'll have the opportunity to expand your roleplaying horizons at some point. I disagree, doubt any chance will present itself, and likely wouldn't take it if it did. After all someone came close once... and by that I meant wrote good when they meant something else entirely. I'd much rather have an honestly LE character than a CG(E) character as a DM and as a fellow player as well, the perspective applies regardless of my position at the table. I simply have a hard time believing anyone can kill things and take their stuff (which no matter how you spin it is what D&D adventuring involves) and still be truly good. And before anyone says it, noone has even tried to play a good character who was in fact good even before I made my stance known. I simply asked and got a lot of neutrals, which is fine by me. So I suspect we will simply have to agree to disagree on this point as I will continue to believe the hyper righteous archetype is bland, contrived and forced and you will continue to believe what you do regardless. ;) By the way, my question there wasn't entirely serious. Also... If you ever get the DMs mantle inform them they are banned from the good alignments. Forever. Cause they just cant fake it. Rather interesting quote, I think it fits. Mostly because I'm naturally inclined to believe anyone who claims to be good actually isn't, unless proven otherwise. Especially paladins, who take it to the extreme. And before anyone says it, the CG(E) example actually was far more evil than good, threatening shopkeeper's lives over paper, casting non friendly (but non damaging) spells on the party, and so forth. This was not a misperception caused by my bias, I check these things to be certain. Also, barring that rebalanced version floating around here paladins aren't strong enough to justify being drama *****s. Assuming of course some variation of "Deal with it or I'll kick your ass." could be considered justification... :rolleyes:
Caelic 07-05-07, 10:44 AM	I disagree, doubt any chance will present itself, and likely wouldn't take it if it did. And, as I said, that's a pity; it's always a pity when someone's mind is closed to new possibilities. After all someone came close once... and by that I meant wrote good when they meant something else entirely. I'd much rather have an honestly LE character than a CG(E) character as a DM and as a fellow player as well, the perspective applies regardless of my position at the table. Sounds like you have fairly limited experience with people attempting to play good characters; certainly that's the case if you've never encountered anyone who can do it well. I simply have a hard time believing anyone can kill things and take their stuff (which no matter how you spin it is what D&D adventuring involves) and still be truly good. In order to respond to that question, we'd need to delve perilously deep into real-world morality and politics, which is a no-no on the boards. Suffice to say that I think that's a pretty cynical position to take. I myself am a strict pacifist for religious reasons, but that doesn't mean I assume that everyone who has ever picked up a weapon in defense of his home is evil. And before anyone says it, noone has even tried to play a good character who was in fact good even before I made my stance known. Again, that sounds like a case of very limited experience. If that's not the case, I apologize, but it seems to be how you're portraying your situation. So I suspect we will simply have to agree to disagree on this point as I will continue to believe the hyper righteous archetype is bland, contrived and forced and you will continue to believe what you do regardless. ;) Certainly, it can be--just as "I-Can-Do-Anything-I-Want-Cuz-I'm-Neutral" characters can be bland, trite, and tiresome. The thing is, though, that "good"...even "Lawful Good"...doesn't automatically mean "hyper righteous archetype," and it certainly doesn't automatically mean "bland, contrived, and forced." By the way, my question there wasn't entirely serious. Perhaps not, but underneath the levity, it surely seems as if you have a very cynical worldview and a low opinion of good characters and those who play them. The following certainly strikes me as cynicism... Rather interesting quote, I think it fits. Mostly because I'm naturally inclined to believe anyone who claims to be good actually isn't, unless proven otherwise. I guess I'm just an optimist; I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt until they prove themselves undeserving.
yellowdingo 07-05-07, 11:06 AM	Here is what you tell the DM: 1. Any act of Government, Law, Constitution or Sovereign which causes Government, Law, Constitution or Sovereign to be held in hatred and contempt is a Seditious Act. 2. All crime, no matter how insignificant you consider it, is an assault on the obligation of the state to preserve the rights of every citizen to an equal share of the obligations and benifits of citizenship. The Paladin having refused to adhere to these two laws has committed a crime that is ultimately treason. There must be a change of alignment and a loss of Paladin status. So your character prays to the party god to inform him/her/it of the heinous and evil crimes of the rest of the party that they might be stripped of their power and that other Paladins might be informed of their transgressions. You get brownie points for being loyal to your god and lawful goodness in general and your DM gets a nifty legal standard to which LG characters must adhere...despite the fact that it requires the overthrow of all Monarchy for a Commonwealth of Equals under the rule of law and deportation of criminals rather than their slaughter. .
Sunic_Flames 07-05-07, 11:21 AM	Sounds like you have fairly limited experience with people attempting to play good characters; certainly that's the case if you've never encountered anyone who can do it well. Granted. But see, it's hard to act in a way considerably different from one's actual personality. For most this means good comes out contrived and forced, neutral comes naturally, and evil is not as far away as many would like to believe. And on the other axis it tends to mean chaotic comes naturally, neutral isn't too hard, and lawful is contrived and forced. Note, this second axis is the opposite for me, the example is general and therefore has exceptions. In order to respond to that question, we'd need to delve perilously deep into real-world morality and politics, which is a no-no on the boards. Suffice to say that I think that's a pretty cynical position to take. I myself am a strict pacifist for religious reasons, but that doesn't mean I assume that everyone who has ever picked up a weapon in defense of his home is evil. Oh, I'm a cynic alright. And I wouldn't consider killing in self defense remotely evil... but by this same logic, going and cleaning out an orc cave or whatever means the orcs were not evil and you the adventurers were... after all they may (or may not) be evil but they were just defending their homes. So if you started good, a few levels worth of adventuring would change this to neutral, or to evil if you were instead killing things to take their stuff. Again, that sounds like a case of very limited experience. If that's not the case, I apologize, but it seems to be how you're portraying your situation. Granted. But given all the paladin and 'good' drama I see here on a daily basis I can only admit to gladness for not having said experience. Certainly, it can be--just as "I-Can-Do-Anything-I-Want-Cuz-I'm-Neutral" characters can be bland, trite, and tiresome. The thing is, though, that "good"...even "Lawful Good"...doesn't automatically mean "hyper righteous archetype," and it certainly doesn't automatically mean "bland, contrived, and forced." That thing you described... it's the most common reason for selecting chaotic neutral. Yes, this is tiresome... but I find it tolerable because if nothing else their often pointless antics amuse me. I don't like chaotic very much either but it is at least entertaining, as opposed to stifling. Also, wasn't the OP about paladins? Difference between LG and LG paladin after all. Perhaps not, but underneath the levity, it surely seems as if you have a very cynical worldview and a low opinion of good characters and those who play them. The following certainly strikes me as cynicism... I have a low opinion of hyper righteous types, and a low opinion of good characters in D&D because it seems the only reason they have the presence they have is to try and dispel that D&D is the devil mindset by making an unnaturally high focus on goodness via calling them good when they're just as guilty of raiding homes and stealing possessions (a very mercenary/neutral or selfish bastard/evil thing to do) as the NE rogue squad... they just aim at different dwellings. I guess I'm just an optimist; I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt until they prove themselves undeserving. Ironically enough I do the same. However, claiming to be good is like claiming to be honest, or any other trait typically regarded as positive for that matter. Anyone can say it, not many can or will actually mean what they say and therefore it is far more often used to claim some advantage over another than as a truthful statement. The only way to really know if someone is good, or honest, or anything else they'd have something to gain by lying about is by their proving it. On the flipside, there's nothing to gain and often something to lose by claiming the opposite. As a result few will claim to be evil, or a liar, or so forth. Even if they actually are. End result, I take verbal claims with a grain of salt unless they have nothing to gain by lying. It's actions I listen to, they're louder. :P
Caelic 07-05-07, 11:53 AM	Oh, I'm a cynic alright. And I wouldn't consider killing in self defense remotely evil... but by this same logic, going and cleaning out an orc cave or whatever means the orcs were not evil and you the adventurers were... after all they may (or may not) be evil but they were just defending their homes. So if you started good, a few levels worth of adventuring would change this to neutral, or to evil if you were instead killing things to take their stuff. Now, that's an entirely different kettle of worms. Keep in mind that the D&D universe, as presented in the rulebooks, has different laws than our own. By definition, it has different physical laws; magic exists. Matter can be created and destroyed, mass can be magically gained and lost, and so forth. By definition, it also has different metaphysical laws. Evil and good are more than philosophies or social constructs; they have an absolute and independent existence. They can be detected; they can be measured; they can have a real, physical effect on the world (as is the case when someone of a forbidden alignment tries to enter a Forbiddance.) There's little room for moral relativism in a universe where you can pop a Detect Evil spell and it will reveal Evil...and it'll register the same things as evil no matter who casts it. A demon is evil. EEEvil. He's not misunderstood; he's not morally challenged; he's not bitter because of an unhappy childhood. Granted. But given all the paladin and 'good' drama I see here on a daily basis I can only admit to gladness for not having said experience. As I've pointed out before, most of that "drama" is secondhand reports by biased parties. We get things like: "There my perfectly-innocent Chaotic Neutral rogue was, minding his own business, doing absolutely nothing wrong, when this Paladin comes up and smites me! Out of the blue! His own party member! For no reason!" ...which conveniently omit that said rogue had been stealing from the party for months, the party had finally figured it out, and the smiting was his well-deserved comeuppance. Of course the person on the receiving end of the Paladin's wrath is going to portray himself as the wronged party and the Paladin as horribly unreasonable. That thing you described... it's the most common reason for selecting chaotic neutral. Yes, this is tiresome... but I find it tolerable because if nothing else their often pointless antics amuse me. Mostly, they bore me. Oh. Look. Our chaotic neutral rogue has yet again attempted to play a practical joke on the biggest and meanest looking person in the bar and set off a brawl. How whimsical. How bemusing. Wake me up when it's over. I don't like chaotic very much either but it is at least entertaining, as opposed to stifling. Also, wasn't the OP about paladins? Difference between LG and LG paladin after all. True. There are more bad stereotypes of paladins than of lawful good characters in general. Not many more, but more. I have a low opinion of hyper righteous types, and a low opinion of good characters in D&D because it seems the only reason they have the presence they have is to try and dispel that D&D is the devil mindset by making an unnaturally high focus on goodness via calling them good when they're just as guilty of raiding homes and stealing possessions (a very mercenary/neutral or selfish bastard/evil thing to do) as the NE rogue squad... they just aim at different dwellings. Moral relativism. As I said, it doesn't really work in a universe where good and evil are demonstrably absolute and not subjective. ("Oh, no! That horrible Paladin has burst in on the demon's home and brutally attacked it! How do YOU know that demon was evil? What laws was it breaking? You're just humanocentric, and guilty of racism against demons!") However, claiming to be good is like claiming to be honest, or any other trait typically regarded as positive for that matter. \ Generally speaking, good folks don't waste a lot of time telling you that they're good. They just go about being good.
Sunic_Flames 07-05-07, 12:31 PM	Now, that's an entirely different kettle of worms. Keep in mind that the D&D universe, as presented in the rulebooks, has different laws than our own. By definition, it has different physical laws; magic exists. Matter can be created and destroyed, mass can be magically gained and lost, and so forth. By definition, it also has different metaphysical laws. Evil and good are more than philosophies or social constructs; they have an absolute and independent existence. They can be detected; they can be measured; they can have a real, physical effect on the world (as is the case when someone of a forbidden alignment tries to enter a Forbiddance.) There's little room for moral relativism in a universe where you can pop a Detect Evil spell and it will reveal Evil...and it'll register the same things as evil no matter who casts it. A demon is evil. EEEvil. He's not misunderstood; he's not morally challenged; he's not bitter because of an unhappy childhood. Rather large difference between a physical embodiment of chaos and evil, and a 'often Chaotic Evil' humanoid. Which means about 2/3rds are... but that's still a sizeable minority. The point I was trying to make is unless the target is an undead, evil outsider, or maybe a chromatic dragon racism based attitudes are fallible enough to not apply. Honestly if a player went around killing orcs or something for no other reason than because all orcs were evil because they were orcs I'd let em... and then I'd make em encounter that 1/3rd minority. As I've pointed out before, most of that "drama" is secondhand reports by biased parties. We get things like: "There my perfectly-innocent Chaotic Neutral rogue was, minding his own business, doing absolutely nothing wrong, when this Paladin comes up and smites me! Out of the blue! His own party member! For no reason!" ...which conveniently omit that said rogue had been stealing from the party for months, the party had finally figured it out, and the smiting was his well-deserved comeuppance. Of course the person on the receiving end of the Paladin's wrath is going to portray himself as the wronged party and the Paladin as horribly unreasonable. Oh, those are amusing. But wasn't the drama I was refering to. Hell if it were me the paladin wouldn't get the chance to smite, I'd do it myself. Mostly, they bore me. Oh. Look. Our chaotic neutral rogue has yet again attempted to play a practical joke on the biggest and meanest looking person in the bar and set off a brawl. How whimsical. How bemusing. Wake me up when it's over. I'd find said rogue getting his ass kicked rather amusing. Especially if I were the DM at the time. Also annoying but... consequences for one's actions tends to teach those 'I can do what I want' types one way or the other. Either way the problem is quickly resolved. True. There are more bad stereotypes of paladins than of lawful good characters in general. Not many more, but more. Been my experience disruptive players favor CE characters as an excuse. Very few DMs will actually allow these though, so they instead favor the exact opposite (paladins) or CN played as chaotic stupid. Funny thing is most of my characters would actually get along somewhat well with a LG character. They'd probably think they weren't as willing to do what was necessary or something though. But a paladin? They start getting righteous and oppressive like as they are want to do, and my darker side tempts me to corrupt them and make them a fighter sans bonus feats. :devil: Moral relativism. As I said, it doesn't really work in a universe where good and evil are demonstrably absolute and not subjective. ("Oh, no! That horrible Paladin has burst in on the demon's home and brutally attacked it! How do YOU know that demon was evil? What laws was it breaking? You're just humanocentric, and guilty of racism against demons!") Demons are again a bad example. Who by the way, would break quite a few laws, and as their home is a different plane... :P A better example would be the Bhuka. Bhukas are goblinoids. Goblinoids are generally considered to be evil. But Bhukas are generally lawful good. Now imagine a party: "Hey look, goblins! They must be evil! XP and loot packaged for our convience!" *attacks* "What do you mean I can't cast spells anymore?" :devil: Generally speaking, good folks don't waste a lot of time telling you that they're good. They just go about being good. Truly good ones yes. My point was there are far fewer who actually are than there are those that claim to be but aren't. We're saying the same thing here.
Aucturos 07-05-07, 12:44 PM	An alignment doesn't dictate what you can and can't do. It dictates what your intents and actions are at the time of creating the character. Also, they're very much up to the interpretation of the players and the DM, as ethical choices (what to do at the time) can be made outside of moral obligations (a Paladin's code). You say the character was Lawful Good, and that they basically dregged you into slavery nude for performing evil acts. That's easily within the realm of LG. Lawful simply means that they tend, as in, most of the time, adhere to the moral code they have, and don't usually waiver. Their moral code is telling them that Evil is bad, and they must stop it. Good is debatable, but I generally take it to mean that my actions are mostly dictated by the urge to help others, whether they be peasants or an entire nation. Now, the Ioun Stone... Well, the PC could easily consider it Lawful. He's keeping an object of power away from someone he knows to be Evil. That fits within his dictum. Taking it for himself? That's where the "Good" comes in. He's using it to fight Evil and help others, so it must be a Good act. What I would do, as your character, is call for a vote of the rest of the party on to whether or not he should be allowed to keep it, or destroy it/turn it in because of its evil nature. Let them argue both points, and demand both perspectives. His Lawful nature should mean that he would adhere to the decision of the group. If the group decides in his favor, not much you can do. However, continued acts of greed (usually getting larger in style) should result in loss of powers, or even an alignment change. Perhaps, if the DM agrees that the act of taking the stone wasn't quite within the Paladin's code and alignment, he notices his power getting slightly less effective. Overall, though, YOU'RE the one who chose the LE character, YOU'RE the one who purposely created conflict within the party, and in the end, YOU'RE the one who put yourself in the wolves' den. As long as you realize it and take responsibility for your own actions, your course of action should be fine. You may realize that it's not very fun being the only evil character amongst a bunch of goodie-two-shoes, and create another, perhaps Neutral-Good, Neutral-Evil, or another Lawful-Evil with different goals (using the party as a patsy to obtain items of power, then take over their sovereign nation!). But you did it to yourself, and that's the jist of it. :)
Mock26 07-05-07, 05:21 PM	But you did it to yourself, and that's the jist of it. He may have created a character that didn't mesh perfectly with the rest of the group, but he wasn't the person(s) acting like a bunch of immature children more concerned with inter-party squabbling than they were with the adventure at hand.
mato_hibiki 07-05-07, 05:55 PM	Wow. Ok, to interject something here, if I may. Rather than squabble over what's 'good' and what's 'right' and 'lawful' I'll give another of my beloved examples. Ever seen Lord of War? Agent Valentine was LG. Perfect example comes from the main character's narration: "Sure he had me dead to rights, and I was clearly guilty, but Agent Valentine wasn't that kind of guy. He wouldn't break the law to arrest me just because I did." Not 100% verbatum, but you get the jist of it, yes? Just because everyone else cheats, doesn't mean you can too. Being a paladin means you have to suck it up, and play by the rules. It's hard to do that for some people, apparently.
Aucturos 07-05-07, 08:29 PM	He may have created a character that didn't mesh perfectly with the rest of the group, but he wasn't the person(s) acting like a bunch of immature children more concerned with inter-party squabbling than they were with the adventure at hand. Well, he purposefully created a character that he knew would cause disruptions with the party. Granted, while the other player could've been more understanding, he's the Democrat at the Republican convention... If he's pantsed, beat up, and left upside down off the side of a hotel, he's the one who put himself in the situation. It would be like you walking into a P.E.T.A. protest wearing fur and leather. Do you expect to come out unharmed?
Mock26 07-05-07, 08:49 PM	Well, he purposefully created a character that he knew would cause disruptions with the party. Granted, while the other player could've been more understanding, he's the Democrat at the Republican convention... If he's pantsed, beat up, and left upside down off the side of a hotel, he's the one who put himself in the situation. It would be like you walking into a P.E.T.A. protest wearing fur and leather. Do you expect to come out unharmed? But this isn't the real world. This is a fantasy game. Republicans are not pretending to be republicans. Nor are PETA members pretending to be PETA members. It is who and what they are. People playing D&D are pretending to be a certain alignment (among other things). The original poster is at fault for bringing in the character that he did, but I think the other players are more at fault for going out of their way to disrupt the party unity and harmony. It would have been very easy for them to play along and not go out of their way to discover his true nature.
Caelic 07-05-07, 09:07 PM	It would have been very easy for them to play along and not go out of their way to discover his true nature. That sounds awfully like "You HAVE to like my character, he's wearing his "I'm a PC" t-shirt!"
Vharuck 07-05-07, 09:08 PM	I'm more interested in how the OP's character, a devout member of the Silver Flame which is a religion named for a physical eldritch force binding fiends and known for combating supernatural evil, would use supernatural evil rituals.
Mock26 07-05-07, 09:26 PM	That sounds awfully like "You HAVE to like my character, he's wearing his "I'm a PC" t-shirt!" No, I'm just saying that sometimes it is better to actively work towards party unity rather than to actively work towards party disunity. For example, if you, the player, know or think a character is evil, but your character doesn't have credible proof or any idea at all, don't follow that evil character into the woods when he goes off alone to perform some blood sacrifice or other such evilness.
Dnarris 07-05-07, 09:26 PM	I think as players in the game the players have to draw a line between roleplaying and breaking a game. I don't think a player should be forced out of playing particular classes just, because player A wants to play an oppresive character of good or vice versa. In one my current games we have a neutral cleric who RPs her character as a mean, callous, and manipulative woman. At the very beginning of the game I was suprised at how obnoxious the character was, because our characters were just meeting and I all of a sudden thought "Hey wait....why would my character want to go with some one that, despite just meeting, has alluded to him as having a simple mind, and has proved to be extremely hateful". So I mentioned out of character that my character would not want to travel with this person. So the player of the cleric chilled out her B***** mode and we went on with the adventure. Later she starts commanding these undead creatures and my character's nose wrinkles again, because he's a monk whoe believes that the undead should be put to rest no forced into slavery. So again, my character has a conflict. So now rather than oppress her character my character really has no interaction with her. She speaks to him...he turns his back. He won't come to her aid as long as she's enslaving the dead nor will he defend her "minions". So rather than oppress her character I've played in a manner that allows her to do what she wants, but there are still RP consequences, because there has already been more than once where she's needed my aid and I would not lend it. Basically, what these holy character should be doing is chastizing you and trying to show you the error of your ways rather than enslaving you and treating you like a dog. There really has to be some give in take when everyone is just playing a game. Taking away someone elses fun for "RP" purposes isn't what makes a good game.
Caelic 07-05-07, 09:32 PM	I don't think a player should be forced out of playing particular classes just, because player A wants to play an oppresive character of good or vice versa. So why is it okay for one person to make a character who doesn't fit with the group, and then force them to compromise their characters in order to accommodate him? Why is it the five people who all agreed that this would be a group of good characters who are "oppressive," and the one who said "Nope, I'm evil, deal with it" who's the victim? Look, I'm sorry; I just don't see how "I won't talk to you or have anything to do with you, except of course that I'll routinely go into life or death situations with you" makes sense. Actions have consequences. In character actions have in character consequences. If your character acts in such a way that there is no logical reason for the party to associate with him, then they should be under no obligation to do so. Individualism is well and good, but I think our society has gone way overboard with the idea that any kind of conformity is bad and any kind of rebelliousness is to be celebrated.
Dnarris 07-05-07, 09:56 PM	So why is it okay for one person to make a character who doesn't fit with the group, and then force them to compromise their characters in order to accommodate him? Why is it the five people who all agreed that this would be a group of good characters who are "oppressive," and the one who said "Nope, I'm evil, deal with it" who's the victim? Look, I'm sorry; I just don't see how "I won't talk to you or have anything to do with you, except of course that I'll routinely go into life or death situations with you" makes sense. Actions have consequences. In character actions have in character consequences. If your character acts in such a way that there is no logical reason for the party to associate with him, then they should be under no obligation to do so. Individualism is well and good, but I think our society has gone way overboard with the idea that any kind of conformity is bad and any kind of rebelliousness is to be celebrated. "I won't talk to you or have anything to do with you, except of course that I'll routinely go into life or death situations with you" makes sense. Why wouldn't that make sense in a setting such as Ravenloft? It's either face all those life or death situations by yourself or face them with some you really don't like or care to associate with, because if you don't go with them you're on your own. I think that makes perfect sense....that's nothing more than upping your chance of surviving that situation. Why is it the five people who all agreed that this would be a group of good characters who are "oppressive," and the one who said "Nope, I'm evil, deal with it" who's the victim? First of all, because the DM allowed it. In a situation like that the DM should have been the first line of defense. It's pretty clear that the characters were going to be conflicting. If the DM allowed it, the DM should be provide at least so mediation that'll allow the character to still take an active part in the game. Being stripped down, chained, and dragged around as a slave isn't allowing that character to take an active part in the game and more than likely is fostering more possibilities for further player conflict. Also...if stripping someone down, chaining them, dragging them around, and demanding they be your slave isn't oppressive...I don't know what is. I also don't see the character saying "I'm evil deal with it". From what I can tell the character has opted to use his power to fight a common enemy that both parties claim is evil. Why a group of righteous players couldn't bargin with the player and allow him to continue his fight until the threat is gone, I have no idea. Instead the characters took the oppressive method. The "evil" character has tried to reason with the "good" players and has done nothing that would be considered ill will towards them, but they still shackle him and enslave him for the good of the world. Two, it's a game. Why shouldn't a player be allowed to play what he or she wants? Sure there should be consequences for playing something that is out of place with a party or campaign setting, but basically making it so the character can't play the game is quite a bit too far. Individualism is well and good, but I think our society has gone way overboard with the idea that any kind of conformity is bad and any kind of rebelliousness is to be celebrated. And this is an opinion that should have little to do with a game.
Mock26 07-05-07, 10:25 PM	So why is it okay for one person to make a character who doesn't fit with the group, and then force them to compromise their characters in order to accommodate him? Why is it the five people who all agreed that this would be a group of good characters who are "oppressive," and the one who said "Nope, I'm evil, deal with it" who's the victim? Look, I'm sorry; I just don't see how "I won't talk to you or have anything to do with you, except of course that I'll routinely go into life or death situations with you" makes sense. Actions have consequences. In character actions have in character consequences. If your character acts in such a way that there is no logical reason for the party to associate with him, then they should be under no obligation to do so. Individualism is well and good, but I think our society has gone way overboard with the idea that any kind of conformity is bad and any kind of rebelliousness is to be celebrated. I think that so long as the evil character wasn't flaunting it openly then the other good characters shouldn't have gone out of their way to gang up on the evil character. In that situation both people are making minor compromises for the sake of party unity and neither is being asked to seriously compromise their character. It sounded to me like the evil guy in the first post was at least trying to be discreet about his evil (like going into the woods to perform his evil rite), so since he was making an effort what is wrong with expecting the others to at least make something of an effort to get along?
Derren S. 07-06-07, 07:02 AM	A compromise is simply not always possible. You should not expect that players bend their character including their roleplaying vision just so that a jerk who knowingly makes a character which simply can't work together with the group can play.
mato_hibiki 07-06-07, 07:27 AM	Cute. So, if the character had been taking a leak, would the lawful moro- sorry, LG character still have followed him? Being a conflicting character isn't the issue here. Breaking character and using metagame info is. It's the immaturity and pigheadedness of the 'LG' players/characters that made a problem worse. Player 1 "My character sneaks off to do his ritual of the damned." Player 1's character "I'm gonna go pee, be right back." Player 2 "Oh, he can't get away with that. My character follows him to catch him in the act." Player 2's character "AH-HAH!" Now, if the DM was on the ball, it would have ended like this: DM "Ok, you jump out from behind the tree, and your left foot suddenly feels wet.'
WolfHati 07-06-07, 07:29 AM	@Mock26: If telling a paladin, "Hmm, I'm going to go consort with demons now" isn't flaunting your lack of morals, I really don't know what is. I play paladins who stress humility and mercy and even then I'd be hard pressed not to incapacitate such a person by force if they persisted in that course of action.
kelvinaw273 07-06-07, 09:14 AM	Well, without getting into alignment discussions, I have to say I think the OP made a bit of an error of judgment: In a predominantly Good party all followers of the Silver Flame, a militantly Good religion, he has tried to skate as close to the edge as he can with an evil-using (if not evil) character. This is what is known in certain circles as "Dumb" and in others as "Disruptive". Just one player from a past "I'm betraying the party because it is in my nature I'm just role-playing my character's alignment don't take it personally" TPK would probably not wait for the wild stab in the dark but pre-empt it. As it is, yes, I think their reaction was extreme. A more mature response would have been to tell you to get lost, that they couldn't trust you, they feel the end does NOT justify the means, and if they caught you hanging around them or their quest they would assume you'd defected to the enemy and act accordingly.
Aucturos 07-06-07, 11:12 AM	But this isn't the real world. This is a fantasy game. Republicans are not pretending to be republicans. Nor are PETA members pretending to be PETA members. It is who and what they are. People playing D&D are pretending to be a certain alignment (among other things). The original poster is at fault for bringing in the character that he did, but I think the other players are more at fault for going out of their way to disrupt the party unity and harmony. It would have been very easy for them to play along and not go out of their way to discover his true nature. Regardless of whether the roles are real-life or imaginary, consequences follow in the game. These consequences echo, heavily, those that would occur in reality, as it's simple human nature. You missed the point. If you put on some leather pants and a fur coat and walked through a PETA protest, do you honestly expect to get out unharmed? Assuming I take your argument and position. That because he's an Evil character and knows (somehow, I might add) that this group of LG Paladins are going to be around, so he disguises himself. The minute one of the Paladins use Detect Evil he'll light up brighter than a Christmas tree. Then what? The Paladins are part of a militant-like faith, making them basically Holy Navy-Seals, with an under-cover potential foe in their midst. Well, let's take an even more uncommon approach, and figure on never using Detect Evil, thusly able to keep his identity. The moment they caught him using his skin to channel demonic energies, I'd personally argue that they should've smashed his head in, and by not doing so are taking a very risky chance at having him backstab them in the dark (he is Evil and has cause to). In fact, I'd argue that, ignoring the Ioun Stone for the moment, they in fact have been compromising their characters' personalities in order to accomodate this player who, again, purposefully created a character meant specifically to disrupt the group. Taking all this into consideration, why would the group of Paladins give their evil prisoner any more power than absolutely necessary, knowing he could turn on them at any moment? If there's a bully that you've been keeping tied to the playground teather-ball pole, you don't give him a bat and set him loose. Which is why I can only see the Ioun Stone as being greedy, and not immediately against the party's alignment. Which is why I suggested, if the person continues to be greedy in other areas, to start changing things for the Paladin. Any leniency towards the Op is most likely a result of precisely what you're talking about, meta-gaming thinking for the "party-mentality." You want the Paladins to basically ignore their sworn foe amongst them by metagaming. We expect a bit of this anywhere in D&D, so it's all good, but it's also understood that it's a favor for the PC by the party, and if the rest of the LG Party chooses to turn their characters to "full-on" and adhere to their character concept, you can't blame them. But the Op is eating a hamburger at a vegan convention. He's wearing fur at a PETA protest. He's the lone democrat at the republican convention. He's the Capulet attending the Montegue ball. The Atredies son surrounded by Harkonnens. The snowball in hell. He's Frodo surrounded by Orcs. The Nerd at the Jock fraternity. The oil in the water. He's sticking out like a sore thumb. Is it possible for the Paladins to ignore the fact that he's evil and likes to channel the power of demons through poisoning his skin? Yes, if the Op plays it right and the other players make some concessions, it's more than possible, and the preferred outcome. But they just barely met, it hasn't been that long into the campaign, and the Op is complainig that the LG Militant Paladins aren't giving his LE demon-channeler any loot? Come on now. :P Op: Give it some time. You're outnumbered 4:1. Try to build their trust first. Don't ask for loot for a little while, show them you're useful, and on their side (for now). Give them time to get used to you. Again, you did it to yourself, so you've no one to blame but you. It has potential to be a good campaign, and an interesting one. But get out of the "I'm a friend in RL so they have to treat my Character like a friend In-Game" mentality. I do, however, wish you luck with whatever choice you make. Like I said, it does have potential to be very fun. :)
Caelic 07-06-07, 11:17 AM	Why wouldn't that make sense in a setting such as Ravenloft? It's either face all those life or death situations by yourself or face them with some you really don't like or care to associate with, because if you don't go with them you're on your own. That might have some bearing if the setting was Ravenloft, the campaign setting; it's not. The adventurers aren't stuck on the Demiplane of Dread. Expedition to Castle Ravenloft hearkens back to the original Castle Ravenloft. More to the point, I'd argue that it makes more sense in Ravenloft. "Let's see. I'm in a world that has taught me that it's dangerous to be too trusting, that corruption and betrayal are rampant. Therefore, I'll hang out with anyone, no matter how unsavory." I think that makes perfect sense....that's nothing more than upping your chance of surviving that situation. "Hey, Sarge, do we HAVE to take the twitchy guy who never puts the safety on his gun and talks to himself about how everybody's out to get him?" "Yep. It makes perfect sense. It's nothing more than upping our chance of surviving the situation." First of all, because the DM allowed it. In a situation like that the DM should have been the first line of defense. It's pretty clear that the characters were going to be conflicting. If the DM allowed it, the DM should be provide at least so mediation that'll allow the character to still take an active part in the game. Because heavy-handed DM intervention to overrule PC reactions to a situation always makes the game better. Precisely what sort of intervention do you think he should've taken? "I'm not going to allow you to notice that he's evil?" "I'm not going to allow you to REACT to the fact that he's evil?" Being stripped down, chained, and dragged around as a slave isn't allowing that character to take an active part in the game and more than likely is fostering more possibilities for further player conflict. I've already agreed that this wouldn't have been my reaction of choice; I'd simply have given the character in question the boot. I also don't see the character saying [B]"I'm evil deal with it". From what I can tell the character has opted to use his power to fight a common enemy that both parties claim is evil. No, the player made that decision. Knowing that the party consisted of good characters from a highly intolerant religion, he chose to make an evil character. This is the Silver Flame. You know--massive purges of lycanthropes because they're all "evil"...regardless of whether they actually are or not? Why a group of righteous players couldn't bargin with the player and allow him to continue his fight until the threat is gone, I have no idea. See above. Not compromising with someone they saw as evil was actually pretty good roleplaying on their part. Keeping him around, not so much. Instead the characters took the oppressive method. The "evil" character has tried to reason with the "good" players and has done nothing that would be considered ill will towards them, but they still shackle him and enslave him for the good of the world. "Look, sure I robbed a bank, but I didn't hurt YOU, officer! I needed that money to continue my fight against other criminals! I'm trying to reason with you here? Why are you handcuffing me? That's oppressive!" Two, it's a game. Why shouldn't a player be allowed to play what he or she wants? Sure there should be consequences for playing something that is out of place with a party or campaign setting, but basically making it so the character can't play the game is quite a bit too far. Again, you're upholding the right of the individual to play what he wants over the right of the rest of the group to play what they want. They want to play good characters who don't associate with evil characters. The individual player has the right to make an evil character--assuming the DM doesn't prohibit it, which he probably should have, in this case. Or do you think it's also "oppressive" when the DM puts restrictions on what a player can or can't play? And this is an opinion that should have little to do with a game. It has everything to do with the game. When a player gets the attitude of "It's all about me and what I want to play," that's disruptive to the game as a whole and needs to be dealt with. If it can be dealt with by the party as a whole electing not to associate with the disruptive character, well and good. If the player insists on consistently bringing in characters who conflict with the party, it may be that it's time to ask the player to find another group.
Caelic 07-06-07, 11:19 AM	Cute. So, if the character had been taking a leak, would the lawful moro- sorry, LG character still have followed him? Being a conflicting character isn't the issue here. Breaking character and using metagame info is. It's the immaturity and pigheadedness of the 'LG' players/characters that made a problem worse. And you know that for a fact? You have access to all of the information from the campaign, and know that the other characters had no reason to suspect the character? I would certainly hope so, before levelling accusations of metagaming and calling people morons.
Caelic 07-06-07, 11:24 AM	Regardless of whether the roles are real-life or imaginary, consequences follow in the game. These consequences echo, heavily, those that would occur in reality, as it's simple human nature. You missed the point. If you put on some leather pants and a fur coat and walked through a PETA protest, do you honestly expect to get out unharmed? This is actually an extremely good analogy. Consider: 1. The person wearing the fur coat should have the right to wear that fur coat; it's not against the law. 2. However, he/she is in close proximity to a group of people who believe extremely strongly that wearing fur is evil. 3. If those people react violently and injure the coat-wearer, that's a reaction which most people would characterize as unjustified; a violent attack on a person who isn't breaking the law is over-the-top and wrong. 4. However, at the same time, the person wearing the coat probably should have known better than to knowingly walk into that protest wearing the coat in the first place. Op: Give it some time. You're outnumbered 4:1. Try to build their trust first. Don't ask for loot for a little while, show them you're useful, and on their side (for now). Give them time to get used to you. Again, you did it to yourself, so you've no one to blame but you. I actually give the OP full credit; he seems to be taking the situation in stride and running with it. Kudos to him. Most of my comments have been directed more at the crowd reacting with shock and horror and crying "They CHAINED him? That's INHUMANE! It violates his CIVIL LIBERTIES! He's a PLAYER CHARACTER!"
Karanth 07-06-07, 12:54 PM	OP's question is irrelevant. These characters are not Lawful Good, in spite of what is written on their character sheets. Need we bring up the Paladin torching babies to stop evil? (BTW, most stuff was a case of tl;dr.)
Derren S. 07-06-07, 01:50 PM	OP's question is irrelevant. These characters are not Lawful Good, in spite of what is written on their character sheets. Need we bring up the Paladin torching babies to stop evil? (BTW, most stuff was a case of tl;dr.) Why? I don't see anything which would make those characters not LG. Good doesn't mean nice and evil is the mortal enemy. The paladin also could have simply killed the OPs character on the spot because he was evil, but he showed mercy because he simply took him prisoner. Enslavement is not evil unless the slave is mistreated. Ok, they could at least give him clothes but thats nothing wich would make the paladin fall.
RabidPirateMan 07-06-07, 02:37 PM	Well, let's take an even more uncommon approach, and figure on never using Detect Evil, thusly able to keep his identity. The moment they caught him using his skin to channel demonic energies, I'd personally argue that they should've smashed his head in, and by not doing so are taking a very risky chance at having him backstab them in the dark (he is Evil and has cause to). They did use detect evil, but I was meditating a while they did it to see if anyone was stalking them. They had suspicions (because I was an elf and a sorcerer), but couldn't prove anything. Later, when I was doing the ritual, two clerics followed me (because of being an elf and a sorcerer) and saw me do the ritual. When I was finished, they demanded I explain myself. At first I said I was trying to cleanse myself of taint (originally, I was going to blame my skin condition on taint, since no one would heal the sorcerous elf) and that it had backfired, but one of them rolled a 21 on a spell craft check. The DM gave me leniency, since the spell required is supposed to be extremely esoteric, and just told them it was some sort of spell that contacted the lower planes. I decided to be honest since I had lied once before to a commanding officer and didn't want to do so again, and named myself a nessecary evil against evil. To the poster who asked about spell casters: Actually, warmages are regarded as extremely beneficial and are praised. I didn't like the idea of not having mage armor or shield, so I stuck to an evocation sorcerer, which is allowed (but frowned upon). The limitations to magic are on divination and necromancy, and no wizards (who ACTIVELY learn spells, as opposed to cursed individuals who know spells naturally). Really, it was luck. If they hadnt followed AND rolled a high spell craft check, I would have been scotch free as just another fringe of the Holy Church... until I make a blaspheme...
Mock26 07-06-07, 02:52 PM	They did use detect evil, but I was meditating a while they did it to see if anyone was stalking them. They had suspicions (because I was an elf and a sorcerer), but couldn't prove anything. Later, when I was doing the ritual, two clerics followed me (because of being an elf and a sorcerer) and saw me do the ritual. When I was finished, they demanded I explain myself. At first I said I was trying to cleanse myself of taint (originally, I was going to blame my skin condition on taint, since no one would heal the sorcerous elf) and that it had backfired, but one of them rolled a 21 on a spell craft check. The DM gave me leniency, since the spell required is supposed to be extremely esoteric, and just told them it was some sort of spell that contacted the lower planes. I decided to be honest since I had lied once before to a commanding officer and didn't want to do so again, and named myself a nessecary evil against evil. To the poster who asked about spell casters: Actually, warmages are regarded as extremely beneficial and are praised. I didn't like the idea of not having mage armor or shield, so I stuck to an evocation sorcerer, which is allowed (but frowned upon). The limitations to magic are on divination and necromancy, and no wizards (who ACTIVELY learn spells, as opposed to cursed individuals who know spells naturally). Really, it was luck. If they hadnt followed AND rolled a high spell craft check, I would have been scotch free as just another fringe of the Holy Church... until I make a blaspheme... I still think it is metagaming on the part of the other players. I will say that your choice in character and alignment was probably a poor choice given the rest of the group composition, but it could have still been doable. As for the suspicion part, I don't buy suspicion just because he was an elf sorcerer. That is going out of their way to find fault with the character and metagaming. As for following him to the woods, what is so suspicious about an elf wanting to go hang out with a bunch of trees? Everyone knows that elves (except for drow) are tree huggers and they need to hug a tree every so often or lose their racial abilities (:D ), so I wouldn't think twice about an elf wandering off to be alone with some trees for a little while. Now, if I then heard screams of pain and anguish and terror and saw strange flickering lights I'd become suspicious, but not just an elf going to the woods to hug some trees.
Aucturos 07-06-07, 03:52 PM	They did use detect evil, but I was meditating a while they did it to see if anyone was stalking them. They had suspicions (because I was an elf and a sorcerer), but couldn't prove anything. Later, when I was doing the ritual, two clerics followed me (because of being an elf and a sorcerer) and saw me do the ritual. When I was finished, they demanded I explain myself. At first I said I was trying to cleanse myself of taint (originally, I was going to blame my skin condition on taint, since no one would heal the sorcerous elf) and that it had backfired, but one of them rolled a 21 on a spell craft check. The DM gave me leniency, since the spell required is supposed to be extremely esoteric, and just told them it was some sort of spell that contacted the lower planes. I decided to be honest since I had lied once before to a commanding officer and didn't want to do so again, and named myself a nessecary evil against evil. To the poster who asked about spell casters: Actually, warmages are regarded as extremely beneficial and are praised. I didn't like the idea of not having mage armor or shield, so I stuck to an evocation sorcerer, which is allowed (but frowned upon). The limitations to magic are on divination and necromancy, and no wizards (who ACTIVELY learn spells, as opposed to cursed individuals who know spells naturally). Really, it was luck. If they hadnt followed AND rolled a high spell craft check, I would have been scotch free as just another fringe of the Holy Church... until I make a blaspheme... Good to hear it was more luck than metagaming (hopefully). It also sounds like you're on the right track, at least. Being honest with the party should earn some kudos points. I would still call a sort of council on whether or not you should be allowed off the chain/leash. You've thus far proven not a threat. Or maybe an opportunity could come up (talk to your DM perhaps?) where you save their butts big-time or help them out (an encounter where only a non-Good aligned PC could finish might be something, even something as simple as info-gathering) could put you on their "Cautiously watching" instead of "Indentured Servant" list. Just play some games/tricks on the pompous Paladin (Prestidigitation-type spells) if you really want to gloat. :devil: /cast Mage Hand: Target underpants. Paladin: "What?! What sorcery is this?!" /cancel spell. LE PC: *snicker*
pmurray@bigpond.com 07-06-07, 04:27 PM	They all disagreed, beat me up, took my items and told me I would die unless I follow them like a slave. ... and the session ended with the DM unable to decide what to do and feeling pressured by the majority. Caveat: I'll bet this didn't really happen exactly as the OP describes it. I'll reply as if it had. If I was DM, I'd tell you to roll up another character and turn your existing character into an NPC who the paladin is responsible for. Ain't going to happen in your group, I know, but it's nice to pretend. I would then require the paladin to attempt to convert this NPC to good, as per the rules in the Book of Exalted Deeds. This process has stringent requirements that this person you play with would never be able to stick to. During this process, the NPC would make every attempt to escape - possibly attempting to kill the paladin in the process. That, IMO, is the only thing that could possibly justify keeping your character in a chain and collar, and even then it's fraught with alignment-breaking moral dilemmas. As it is, your character is 100% justified in trying to kill the other party members. But PvP games, IMO, are no fun and someone's feelings always get hurt. However, you didn't start the PvP: they did.
Lincoln Hills 07-06-07, 04:31 PM	First of all, it's spelled "hypocrisy". Secondly, I wouldn't game with this group with a ten-foot pole, unless that ten-foot pole had the bane vs. jerk quality. Not tryin' to offend Rabid Pirate, just grievin'. Feels like the real question ought to be, "What is a rational response when a straight-and-narrow character discovers that one of his proven comrades against the Evil of the Vampire is out in the forest, sewing the skin of a devil onto his own body?" Okay, well, my first reaction would be an assumption that the Evil Vampire has dominated my companion and is forcing him to perform this vile, vile act. So... protection from evil on him, quick! Oh, he wasn't dominated? OK. The struggle against evil has clearly driven him insane. (And I'm not saying that's incorrect, mind you. Acolyte of the Skin always struck me as a Strictly-For-Nutjobs prestige class... but the RAW doesn't hold this view, so let's assume that spells that will cure insanity do not compel an Acolyte to abandon his prestige class.) If he's insane, and you don't have the necessary spells to heal him, you certainly don't want him going with you into the Vampire's Lair. The poor man is sick. He needs help... and reversal of that demonic surgery... before you can subject him to the risk of facing the Vampire! ...Notice my first NG-gut-reaction was to cast a protective spell, and my second is a healing spell, and my third is to boot him out of the party for his own good. No chains, no nudity, no stealing his stuff. Hence my comment about the ten-foot pole.
shout27 07-06-07, 05:43 PM	My $0.02 I would say nay, because unless the item has the description [evil] negative energy is no more evil then say nuculear power. The perfect argument for this would be the "Human Flesh" armor from BG2, while not made with evil magical methods it is made from . . . you guessed it HUMAN FLESH, now, if you want to walk around in such a thing that's fine for you, however, even if the rules said it was alright i wouldn't even let my CG character touch such a thing. Oh sure you got your hippy druids whining and complaining that the negative energies will destroy our plant and blahblahBLAH! Think of it this way, any truly nasty DM can come up with "side-effects" for a Good character using an item made in such a fashion. Heck, I'd at the very least make the Paladin if he wears it be subject to a "Doom" spell if he fails a Will Save that happens every turn. You think a paladin has time to think about that crap when some 12 year old is about to become deflowerd by Bob the ogre?! Don't think so... He will if it prevents him from being killed. Hypocrisy happens out of any alignment, I hate how we live in such a progressive society that we automaticaly assume lawful=bad and we have to harpoon it with unimmaginable standards that we don't apply to anything else. Does good always have to do the right thing? Does lawful always have to follow the rules? Isn't okay to break the code once inawhile if it serves "the greater good"? Remember that Good constitutes what action is right from what is wrong(Evil), and that Paladins + Clerics don't just worry about the world they're in but their afterlife as well. you know, the place their Deity resides whom they have to spend the rest of eternity with, the guy who gives them all their power and can approve or disapprove of their actions. Lawful is merely an approximation of how closely one adheres to the Laws of their Country, Deity, Family, or Society. "You are to pay Taxes yearly" is a Law "You are not to plant flowers" is a Law it is something each DM must decide upon by region and religion. At some places they intersect: "Do not Murder" Both Good and Lawful "Do not give False Testimony" Both Good and Lawful "Do not Steal" Both Good and Lawful etc. Then it should be no differant for a lawful good character. Paladin or not. Hell, it's bad enough wotc decided to make the paladin complete dog-crap on the rules system. The least you could do is let the poor bastard have a nuke! While i somewhat agree, the right DM will give you in-game options for such a character, you know, calling on their Deity for a helping hand. besides the Fighter still has to make a Will Save or run away in Fear (oh my, even at level 20), While a Paladin doesn't need to, plus, he can get some obscene Saves with a couple of good items.
Comus 07-06-07, 06:00 PM	The perfect argument for this would be the "Human Flesh" armor from BG2, while not made with evil magical methods it is made from . . . you guessed it HUMAN FLESH, now, if you want to walk around in such a thing that's fine for you, however, even if the rules said it was alright i wouldn't even let my CG character touch such a thing. Actually, my CG Rogue//Beguiler is currently wearing studded leather armor that may have been made from human skin. We accidentally uncovered a vampire running a leather shop after buying goods from him. He figures that it doesn't do anyone any good if he doesn't use the armor, and maybe if he fights some evil with it, it'll be a better tribute to the person than if he destroys it. As a rogue, he tends to justify things towards "it's totally okay, as long as I... I mean, we can use them to do good. How much does one of these sell for again?" Lawful is merely an approximation of how closely one adheres to the Laws of their Country, Deity, Family, or Society. I've always taken Lawful to me more about following a personal code than about actual laws.
shout27 07-06-07, 06:17 PM	Question, what spells do you know and is your collar magical? I ask this because making a character a slave, Especially a Sorcerer is a VERY bad idea. And, if they don't let you off the leash soon all they're doing is promoting bad-blood between them and you. I've always taken Lawful to me more about following a personal code than about actual laws. That's fine for a Paladin or any other PC, however, Commoner's don't get that kind of leeway when the Royal Tax Collecter comes. "WHAT! you don't believe paying taxes is Lawful? Execute Him!!" In this case the Government is Law and Commoner's have to follow the Governments decrees to be considered Lawful if not Good.
Howland Reed 07-06-07, 06:17 PM	Granted. But see, it's hard to act in a way considerably different from one's actual personality. For most this means good comes out contrived and forced, neutral comes naturally, and evil is not as far away as many would like to believe. And on the other axis it tends to mean chaotic comes naturally, neutral isn't too hard, and lawful is contrived and forced. That's certainly a cynical view...it makes me wonder about the sort of people you've encountered in your life. I know plenty of people who act as you describe...neutral coems most naturally. But evil is simply not that common, in the hundreds of people I have regular contact with, and for many if not most of them, good does not feel "contrived and forced". It's a natural part of who they are. Maybe it's just an optimist v. cynic thing, but doing good honestly makes me feel good, and the same is true for a heck of a lot of people I know. by this same logic, going and cleaning out an orc cave or whatever means the orcs were not evil and you the adventurers were... after all they may (or may not) be evil but they were just defending their homes. So if you started good, a few levels worth of adventuring would change this to neutral, or to evil if you were instead killing things to take their stuff. First off, there are situations where I feel it is justified/good to go and clean out an orc cave...like, for instance, the orcs in the cave are all brutal murderers who've committed numerous grisly crimes (all heavily witnessed), and when you arrive in the cave are in the process of barbecuing some innocent peasants. Yeah, then I think you're fairly good in cleaning them out. They weren't just "defending their home"...they were committing atrocities and eluding justice. That said, is that the only kind of D&D you have experience with? Where all the characters do is bust into monsters' homes and slaughter them? Because most of our parties...um, don't do that. They stick to more heroic kinda jobs. Rescuing kidnapped damsels...guarding caravans and protecting them from brigands...recovering stolen property...occasionally solving mysteries, or ending wars. Basically, things where you're not required to be "judge, jury, and executioner" to a bunch of random monsters. The people you're fighting usually hit first, and are usually clearly identifiable and complicit in some wrongdoing. ...calling them good when they're just as guilty of raiding homes and stealing possessions (a very mercenary/neutral or selfish bastard/evil thing to do) as the NE rogue squad... they just aim at different dwellings. Again...is that the only sort of "good" PCs you've ever encountered? Because there are other things to do in D&D. Ironically enough I do the same. However, claiming to be good is like claiming to be honest, or any other trait typically regarded as positive for that matter. Anyone can say it, not many can or will actually mean what they say and therefore it is far more often used to claim some advantage over another than as a truthful statement...End result, I take verbal claims with a grain of salt unless they have nothing to gain by lying. It's actions I listen to, they're louder. And you haven't encountered many people who's good actions shouted at you (in D&D, or real life)? You have had some lousy experiences, my friend. Where did the idea come from that D&D is all about busting into the homes of innocent creatures, stabbing them in face, and rifling their goods? What's wrong with bringing justice to the weak, and punishing the wicked? Granted, some 1E stuff was like that, but the best thing out of 1E was the A1-A4 Slave Lords series...and you weren't killing little orc babies, you were fighting hardened, vicious slavers who had committed numerous crimes, and were often in the process of said crimes when you arrived. Where's the moral ambiguity? And once you got into 2E, it became even moreso...rather than just "looting lairs" there was more focus on helping folks. Sometimes you helped 'em by killing the guys that were putting a hurt on them...but you knew where you stood.
Comus 07-06-07, 06:24 PM	That's fine for a Paladin or any other PC, however, Commoner's don't get that kind of leeway when the Royal Tax Collecter comes. "WHAT! you don't believe paying taxes is Lawful? Execute Him!!" In this case the Government is Law and Commoner's have to follow the Governments decrees to be considered Lawful if not Good. Believe it or not, many Neutral and Chaotic characters pay taxes too. There is a difference between being Lawful-aligned and following the law of the land. In fact, according to the alignments section in the PHB, most commoners are True Neutral, because they lack the conviction that'd push them towards another alignment.
Dnarris 07-06-07, 07:18 PM	That might have some bearing if the setting was Ravenloft, the campaign setting; it's not. The adventurers aren't stuck on the Demiplane of Dread. Expedition to Castle Ravenloft hearkens back to the original Castle Ravenloft. More to the point, I'd argue that it makes more sense in Ravenloft. "Let's see. I'm in a world that has taught me that it's dangerous to be too trusting, that corruption and betrayal are rampant. Therefore, I'll hang out with anyone, no matter how unsavory." "Hey, Sarge, do we HAVE to take the twitchy guy who never puts the safety on his gun and talks to himself about how everybody's out to get him?" "Yep. It makes perfect sense. It's nothing more than upping our chance of surviving the situation." Because heavy-handed DM intervention to overrule PC reactions to a situation always makes the game better. Precisely what sort of intervention do you think he should've taken? "I'm not going to allow you to notice that he's evil?" "I'm not going to allow you to REACT to the fact that he's evil?" I've already agreed that this wouldn't have been my reaction of choice; I'd simply have given the character in question the boot. No, the player made that decision. Knowing that the party consisted of good characters from a highly intolerant religion, he chose to make an evil character. This is the Silver Flame. You know--massive purges of lycanthropes because they're all "evil"...regardless of whether they actually are or not? See above. Not compromising with someone they saw as evil was actually pretty good roleplaying on their part. Keeping him around, not so much. "Look, sure I robbed a bank, but I didn't hurt YOU, officer! I needed that money to continue my fight against other criminals! I'm trying to reason with you here? Why are you handcuffing me? That's oppressive!" Again, you're upholding the right of the individual to play what he wants over the right of the rest of the group to play what they want. They want to play good characters who don't associate with evil characters. The individual player has the right to make an evil character--assuming the DM doesn't prohibit it, which he probably should have, in this case. Or do you think it's also "oppressive" when the DM puts restrictions on what a player can or can't play? It has everything to do with the game. When a player gets the attitude of "It's all about me and what I want to play," that's disruptive to the game as a whole and needs to be dealt with. If it can be dealt with by the party as a whole electing not to associate with the disruptive character, well and good. If the player insists on consistently bringing in characters who conflict with the party, it may be that it's time to ask the player to find another group. You're right, you win. Enjoy your argument.
Karanth 07-07-07, 06:56 AM	Why? I don't see anything which would make those characters not LG. Good doesn't mean nice and evil is the mortal enemy. The paladin also could have simply killed the OPs character on the spot because he was evil, but he showed mercy because he simply took him prisoner. Enslavement is not evil unless the slave is mistreated. Ok, they could at least give him clothes but thats nothing wich would make the paladin fall. Good Characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make sacrifices to help others. "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. Now, of those two, which is closer? We have a Paladin, of all people, who hauls someone around in chains, forcing him to do his bidding. This 'Paladin' also is willing to use magical items that are evil, steal from others, and instead of helping this person turn from evil (if he is, the point wasn't clear), we have him using him as magical artillery. Plus, I would challenge you to find, anywhere, information detailing to us when slavery isn't evil, or at the very least, something a Paladin should fall for doing. RAW makes no mention of slavery being disallowed by the Paladin's code, but then, it was probably thought unlikely that someone would attempt to justify a Paladin keeping slaves.
Sunic_Flames 07-07-07, 10:56 AM	That's certainly a cynical view...it makes me wonder about the sort of people you've encountered in your life. I know plenty of people who act as you describe...neutral coems most naturally. But evil is simply not that common, in the hundreds of people I have regular contact with, and for many if not most of them, good does not feel "contrived and forced". It's a natural part of who they are. Maybe it's just an optimist v. cynic thing, but doing good honestly makes me feel good, and the same is true for a heck of a lot of people I know. The vast majority of people are neutral. They may do good things, but not enough to actually be good. That's why they're neutral, they don't lean too far either way. As for evil, it depends. If you hold that you're only evil if you're some sort of insane killer, yes it's rare. If you hold evil need not be extreme evil to be evil, I'd put it at around oh... 1/3rd the populace. And that's a conservative estimate. I'm inclined to believe you aren't looking hard enough, most evil people can bluff good well enough so that you'd have a hard time telling without either high observation skills or them telling you. And very few would do the latter. First off, there are situations where I feel it is justified/good to go and clean out an orc cave...like, for instance, the orcs in the cave are all brutal murderers who've committed numerous grisly crimes (all heavily witnessed), and when you arrive in the cave are in the process of barbecuing some innocent peasants. Yeah, then I think you're fairly good in cleaning them out. They weren't just "defending their home"...they were committing atrocities and eluding justice. That said, is that the only kind of D&D you have experience with? Where all the characters do is bust into monsters' homes and slaughter them? Because most of our parties...um, don't do that. They stick to more heroic kinda jobs. Rescuing kidnapped damsels...guarding caravans and protecting them from brigands...recovering stolen property...occasionally solving mysteries, or ending wars. Basically, things where you're not required to be "judge, jury, and executioner" to a bunch of random monsters. The people you're fighting usually hit first, and are usually clearly identifiable and complicit in some wrongdoing. In such a case it wouldn't be a case of them defending their home, it would be a case of you exacting retribution. But the fact I specifically stated defending their home means that in that case they were in fact defending their home. Again...is that the only sort of "good" PCs you've ever encountered? Because there are other things to do in D&D. Still is killing things and taking their stuff though. :P And you haven't encountered many people who's good actions shouted at you (in D&D, or real life)? You have had some lousy experiences, my friend. Where did the idea come from that D&D is all about busting into the homes of innocent creatures, stabbing them in face, and rifling their goods? What's wrong with bringing justice to the weak, and punishing the wicked? Granted, some 1E stuff was like that, but the best thing out of 1E was the A1-A4 Slave Lords series...and you weren't killing little orc babies, you were fighting hardened, vicious slavers who had committed numerous crimes, and were often in the process of said crimes when you arrived. Where's the moral ambiguity? And once you got into 2E, it became even moreso...rather than just "looting lairs" there was more focus on helping folks. Sometimes you helped 'em by killing the guys that were putting a hurt on them...but you knew where you stood. On the contrary, I've seen plenty who acted good well enough to shout at me. It was just that, an act, a bluff. I got myself good at seeing through layers of deceit for a reason you see... Which makes me inclined to believe that while people doing good may be an unexpected surprise, expecting it to happen is an exercise in futility as the only way people will reliably do something of that sort is if it is in their best interest to do so. There are far more who claim to be good to gain some personal benefit than those who actually are. In D&D terms this means paying the adventurers to help you instead of hoping they care about random people they've never met. In general terms it means trading favors or some similar transaction like trade, if you've helped them they're more inclined to help you. If they happen to do it anyways, great! Just don't count on it. If you want someone to help you unconditionally... go look for them in the mirror. On a closing note, there's a reason why charity donations are tax deductable.
Optimized_Commoner 07-07-07, 11:18 AM	I simply have a hard time believing anyone can kill things and take their stuff (which no matter how you spin it is what D&D adventuring involves) and still be truly good. 3 points. Firstly, while D&D is certainly strongly focused towards that end, it is not a requirement of the game. You can have D&D games that involve no killing things and taking their stuff. I have played in and run games in which KT/TS was only an occassional rare component. Secondly, there's always the undead/constructs when you need a morality free kill. (Is it any wonder libris mortis is my favourite splatbook as a DM?) Thirdly, while going out to someone's home and killing them is generally considered poor manners, defending your own home when it's under attack and killing out of a necessity to survive is quite justifiable. ... though I agree that in most cases, typical D&D good is quite far from moral. Rather interesting quote, I think it fits. Mostly because I'm naturally inclined to believe anyone who claims to be good actually isn't, unless proven otherwise. As an amusing sidenote to that, if you'd asked the "most good" character I've played whether he was good his answer would be, 'I just try to do what'll make my mother proud of me.' Whereas if you asked one of the "most evil" characters I've played whether he was good his answer would be (in all honesty... in his opinion). 'Yes, of course I am.' Moral of the story: You shouldn't trust peoples' assessments of their own morality.
Derren S. 07-07-07, 02:09 PM	Plus, I would challenge you to find, anywhere, information detailing to us when slavery isn't evil, or at the very least, something a Paladin should fall for doing. RAW makes no mention of slavery being disallowed by the Paladin's code, but then, it was probably thought unlikely that someone would attempt to justify a Paladin keeping slaves. Maybe you should try to justify why a paladin should not hold a slave? Tell me one reason why slavery is evil without automatically assuming that the slave is mistreated. Slavery is first and formost a lawful trait. Only the specific circumstances make it good or evil.
Pyro_Azer 07-07-07, 03:20 PM	Maybe you should try to justify why a paladin should not hold a slave? Tell me one reason why slavery is evil without automatically assuming that the slave is mistreated. Slavery is first and formost a lawful trait. Only the specific circumstances make it good or evil. Well i would consider a slave being dragged around by a chain in the nude after being beaten up and stole from mistreated. Is keeping him as a slave lawful and possibly good? Yes. Are the conditions under which this PC is being kept good? No.
Karanth 07-07-07, 03:35 PM	Maybe you should try to justify why a paladin should not hold a slave? Tell me one reason why slavery is evil without automatically assuming that the slave is mistreated. Slavery is first and formost a lawful trait. Only the specific circumstances make it good or evil. I am ignoring the lawful component here, since that part doesn't pertain as well to the OP. I have no need to assume anything, considering that the conditions were laid out in the beginning. And again, attempting to justify why a paladin shouldn't hold slaves is like trying to justify why a paladin shouldn't use torture to help save others, or kill one innocent to save a hundred more. Even if it is harder, the paladin signed up for it. And in the end, it would help if we knew for sure whether the OP was evil. Even if he isn't though, any paladins have fallen, by failing their code of conduct. As it says.... Associates: While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may only accept henchmen, followers, and cohorts who are lawful good. Now, if the OP is evil, then this would be easier. As it is, the fall still happens, considering that the characters in question continue to use(abuse?) the powers of someone who traffics in fiendish rituals, and evil magic. So, anything else?
Derren S. 07-07-07, 03:39 PM	Well i would consider a slave being dragged around by a chain in the nude after being beaten up and stole from mistreated. Is keeping him as a slave lawful and possibly good? Yes. Are the conditions under which this PC is being kept good? No. Are they evil? No except the nude part. That is stretching it. Considering that the only alternative for the paladin would be to kill him I wouldn't argue that the paladin is violating his code. Hes probably only nice to him because its a PC and not a NPC. Edit: Another thing. Do you think it is evil to use criminals as work force? If not why? Thats just slavery with a different name.
Gwenfloor 07-07-07, 03:43 PM	1. They should be upset by you trying to become an Acolyte of the Skin as it makes you become increasingly fiendish. 2. By debasing you they are acting in an evil manner. Punishment is one thing, treating like a slave is wrong and evil. 3. The paladin would be required by the code of conduct not to engage in such conduct. They fall because even one evil act even if it isn't enough to change their alignment. From the SRD It can be argued that innocent doesn't apply to you, but if you are not evil, then it should. We are talking about uber-religious missionaries of the Silver Flame. Several church members couldn't care less about Law and Good unless it fit their interpretation of the Church doctrine. Religious misinterpretation if rife in the real world, so why shouldn't it be in D&D?
Howland Reed 07-07-07, 04:04 PM	The vast majority of people are neutral. They may do good things, but not enough to actually be good. That's why they're neutral, they don't lean too far either way. As for evil, it depends. If you hold that you're only evil if you're some sort of insane killer, yes it's rare. If you hold evil need not be extreme evil to be evil, I'd put it at around oh... 1/3rd the populace. I agree the vast majority of people are neutral...not good, and certainly not evil. If you don't feel doing good things is enough to make one good, I don't feel that doing evil things is enough to make one evil. Frankly, I believe most people are neutral, who do more good things than evil things in their lives, and end up pretty much in the middle. How can you feel the vast majority of people are neutral when you think a sizable minority (33%) are evil? Do you think it's around 33% evil, 65% neutral, and 2% good? I think it's more like 5% evil, 5% good, and 90% neutral. I might even give good the slight edge in numbers. I'm inclined to believe you aren't looking hard enough, most evil people can bluff good well enough so that you'd have a hard time telling without either high observation skills or them telling you. And very few would do the latter. I'll concede the possibility you may be right. Are you willing to do likewise, and admit that maybe you're just uncharitable and assigning people bad motives when you really don't know? In such a case it wouldn't be a case of them defending their home, it would be a case of you exacting retribution. But the fact I specifically stated defending their home means that in that case they were in fact defending their home. I never stated they weren't. Only that you posited what is (to me) a very rare situation, and not one we should judge the majority of D&D parties by, since (in my experience) most D&D adventurers don't simply go around busting into the homes of innocent orcs. Let me point something else out...even in the case where adventurers do sometimes go busting into people's houses, you can't simply say "they're defending their homes". Crack dealers and gang leaders have homes too, and cops bust into their homes all the time to deal with such people. The average orc in D&D does worse things than the average crack dealer. Still is killing things and taking their stuff though. First, not always. My parties often get more wealth from rewards/pay than by looting the fallen. Second, are you positing that killing someone and taking his stuff is always evil? On the contrary, I've seen plenty who acted good well enough to shout at me. It was just that, an act, a bluff. You know this...because you have telepathy or something? I got myself good at seeing through layers of deceit for a reason you see... Which makes me inclined to believe that while people doing good may be an unexpected surprise, expecting it to happen is an exercise in futility as the only way people will reliably do something of that sort is if it is in their best interest to do so. *shrug* I've seen plenty do things which were clearly NOT in their best interest, simply because they like to help people. If you haven't had the good fortune to meet any decent people, I feel bad for you, but it doesn't mean they're not out there. One more thing...do you feel that helping people isn't good if they decide to reward you for your help? On a closing note, there's a reason why charity donations are tax deductable. To encourage people who are not otherwise charitable to be charitable. It doesn't mean that before they were tax-deductable no one gave to charity, or that if that tax exemption were done away with no one would ever give to charity.
Caelic 07-07-07, 04:21 PM	Just a thought: The word "slave" keeps getting bounced around here. Bear in mind that that was the OP's description of his treatment--you know, the guy who was actually in chains. I suspect rather strongly that the people who put him in chains might have used the word "prisoner" rather than "slave."
Ack 07-07-07, 04:49 PM	Just a thought: The word "slave" keeps getting bounced around here. Bear in mind that that was the OP's description of his treatment--you know, the guy who was actually in chains. I suspect rather strongly that the people who put him in chains might have used the word "prisoner" rather than "slave." There's a difference between 'prisoner' and 'slave'. If he was being kept bound, fed as regularly as they could afford, and was being taken somewhere to face punishment for his purportedly evil acts - he was a prisoner. If he was being kept bound, but was expected to defend the party as best as he was able, and was simply being dragged along on the quest with no end to this ordeal in sight - he was a slave. You decide.
Sunic_Flames 07-07-07, 04:59 PM	I agree the vast majority of people are neutral...not good, and certainly not evil. If you don't feel doing good things is enough to make one good, I don't feel that doing evil things is enough to make one evil. Frankly, I believe most people are neutral, who do more good things than evil things in their lives, and end up pretty much in the middle. How can you feel the vast majority of people are neutral when you think a sizable minority (33%) are evil? Do you think it's around 33% evil, 65% neutral, and 2% good? I think it's more like 5% evil, 5% good, and 90% neutral. I might even give good the slight edge in numbers. Because I messed up on the terms. With three possibilities anything significantly higher than 1/3rd qualifies as a vast majority. I'd put the numbers at somewhere between 1/6th good 1/2 neutral 1/3rd evil with an optimistic estimate and 5%/55%/40% with a more cynical outlook. And no doing good things is not enough to make you good. Doing evil things isn't enough to make you evil. Most people, the neutral ones do a fair mix of the two. It's only when one takes an edge over the other the person isn't neutral anymore. I'll concede the possibility you may be right. Are you willing to do likewise, and admit that maybe you're just uncharitable and assigning people bad motives when you really don't know? No I am not, on the grounds that I give people chances to prove themselves on an individual basis and far more often than not they fail me, exposing their true nature and thereby proving they are in fact just faking it. Uncharitable I will grant you, I don't do things without a reason. I never stated they weren't. Only that you posited what is (to me) a very rare situation, and not one we should judge the majority of D&D parties by, since (in my experience) most D&D adventurers don't simply go around busting into the homes of innocent orcs. Let me point something else out...even in the case where adventurers do sometimes go busting into people's houses, you can't simply say "they're defending their homes". Crack dealers and gang leaders have homes too, and cops bust into their homes all the time to deal with such people. The average orc in D&D does worse things than the average crack dealer. Using crack dealer and gang leaders as examples implies they were actively guilty of some wrongdoing. Very few are willing to think of orcs as innocent at any time because they're looking for that 'morality free kill' as Optimized Commoner put it. A better example of what I meant would be someone who had a reputation of wrongdoing by type but was not necessarily guilty, had not commited any crimes that they had not been punished already for, and so forth. First, not always. My parties often get more wealth from rewards/pay than by looting the fallen. Second, are you positing that killing someone and taking his stuff is always evil? I'm implicitly stating it's non good. It's evil if you're killing things to take their stuff. You know this...because you have telepathy or something? Because they actively and personally proved it. Actions speak louder than words. When the 'honest' person tells you a blatant lie you aren't inclined to think of them as honest anymore. When the 'good' person betrays you suddenly for some selfish motivation, you aren't inclined to think of them as good anymore. *shrug* I've seen plenty do things which were clearly NOT in their best interest, simply because they like to help people. If you haven't had the good fortune to meet any decent people, I feel bad for you, but it doesn't mean they're not out there. One more thing...do you feel that helping people isn't good if they decide to reward you for your help? If the reward is incidental it's a non factor in the decision. If it's only being done to get paid it is not good. (but not necessarily evil either) Raise your hand if you go to work out of the kindness of your heart. Raise your hand if you do so to bring home a ______ dollar paycheck so you can sustain yourself and those close to you. Now consider adventuring is likely a more dangerous profession than your career path... Is it any surprise adventurers in particular are heavily inclined towards neutrality if not evil? To encourage people who are not otherwise charitable to be charitable. It doesn't mean that before they were tax-deductable no one gave to charity, or that if that tax exemption were done away with no one would ever give to charity. I know that, and not what I was implying. What I was implying is that if there were plenty of good people in the world, they would be able to sustain themselves and do their thing because of the altruistic support. As this is not sufficient and they know it, they need to encourage those neutral types to have a reason to give them money or else they would be unable to support themselves, much less whatever the money is going to help. If it wasn't necessary they would not have done it. But very few people give a rat's ass about some random person they never met. Which is why any charitable cause involving helping people has those handouts with info about the person or people your money is helping, so you will get to know them, come to care about them, and so forth instead of thinking it's just going into some collective 'pool', a proverbial drop in the ocean so to speak. In short, a good person would in fact care about some random person they never met, so when they see a complete stranger getting attacked by an ogre or something they'd go help if they were able, and if not try and find someone who could. A neutral person likely wouldn't care about them. They may help the person anyways if they felt they'd be rewarded, or that the ogre was a threat to them, but caring is reserved for friends, family, and other such people they know personally. An evil person would care about themselves, sometimes those close to them, and maybe those useful to them. They would do what's in their best interest which probably means letting the fight resolve itself and interacting with the survivor as they see fit. Which could mean teaming up with them for a time if this is beneficial, or could mean finishing them off and taking both their stuff...
Derges 07-07-07, 05:30 PM	snip In short, a good person would in fact care about some random person they never met, so when they see a complete stranger getting attacked by an ogre or something they'd go help if they were able, and if not try and find someone who could. If you were to place an encounter like that into your game how many parties of adventurers would go save the person regardless of alignment, I'd hazard a guess that % wise 5, maybe 10 would turn it down. On topic, OP was in the wrong for making an evil character in a group of Paladins. His DM was in the wrong for leting him and then not allowing that character to be playable. His group were in the wrong for metagaming and being more than a little harsh about it.
Sunic_Flames 07-07-07, 05:50 PM	snip If you were to place an encounter like that into your game how many parties of adventurers would go save the person regardless of alignment, I'd hazard a guess that % wise 5, maybe 10 would turn it down. Players: *casts Detect Plot Hook* Hey! It's happening in front of us! It must be important! *bites said hook* Is it the characters or the players acting? You'd be surprised how often character personalities are conceded for some metagame reason. Anyways, playing evil with paladins wasn't a smart move on his part. Amusing, but not smart. Subtler ways to make em fall after all.
Caelic 07-07-07, 06:54 PM	There's a difference between 'prisoner' and 'slave'. If he was being kept bound, fed as regularly as they could afford, and was being taken somewhere to face punishment for his purportedly evil acts - he was a prisoner. If he was being kept bound, but was expected to defend the party as best as he was able, and was simply being dragged along on the quest with no end to this ordeal in sight - he was a slave. You decide. Well, it's not really my place to do that, because I don't have all the facts. I realize that many of those who have responded to this thread have decided; I think that's an error. We have one account from a strongly biased party. If the group is on a mission, I don't think it's reasonable to presume that they'll stop to haul a prisoner to jail. Now: if they are, indeed, forcing him to "defend the party as best he was able," I agree that's a bit beyond what can reasonably be expected of a prisoner. It would also be astoundingly foolish of them, akin to taking a prisoner and allowing him to keep his gun. I can't help but note that all of the descriptions of such treatment I've seen, though, come from posters other than the OP. He merely said: They all disagreed, beat me up, took my items and told me I would die unless I follow them like a slave. ...which is a good bit different than saying "I would die unless I became their slave." The former could easily be a bit of hyperbole, not unlike, "My boss makes me work like a slave!" Has the OP, in fact, actually said that they required him to defend the party to the best of his ability, or actually treated him as a slave?
Pyro_Azer 07-07-07, 07:18 PM	snip If you were to place an encounter like that into your game how many parties of adventurers would go save the person regardless of alignment, I'd hazard a guess that % wise 5, maybe 10 would turn it down. On topic, OP was in the wrong for making an evil character in a group of Paladins. His DM was in the wrong for leting him and then not allowing that character to be playable. His group were in the wrong for metagaming and being more than a little harsh about it. Actually most people who would have the expertise to save someone would not in this situation. The first thing your supposed to do when you rescue someone is make sure the scene is safe. A big hulking ogre does not make for a safe scene.
Ack 07-07-07, 08:00 PM	They all disagreed, beat me up, took my items and told me I would die unless I follow them like a slave. I agreed, because I knew that I could get somewhere with this. So we kill this witch, and I, knowing that I can gain power by doing these rituals, put its body on a rune circle. I get constant nondetection of my gear, which is useless because I'm chained naked to the Paladin by a collar. However, a rock turns into a Ioun stone of Charisma +2 . I think, freaking score, right? Well, the Paladin says that the stone should go to him. The phrase 'we kill this witch' seems to imply that the OP had a hand in the combat vs the witch, and the other PCs obviously allowed him to put the witch's body in the rune circle. And when the rock turned into an Ioun stone, the paladin said something along the lines of, "Ooh! Dibs!" They're allowing him to use his abilities - they just want to keep all the good stuff from it.
Caelic 07-07-07, 08:40 PM	The phrase 'we kill this witch' seems to imply that the OP had a hand in the combat vs the witch, Could imply that, or it could simply have been more convenient than saying "So the party, of which I am currently only tangentially a member, kills a witch without my participation." :) and the other PCs obviously allowed him to put the witch's body in the rune circle. Which is a bit odd if he's truly being treated like a slave, don't you think? And when the rock turned into an Ioun stone, the paladin said something along the lines of, "Ooh! Dibs!" Well, yes, we're agreed that he munched out there.
calronmoonflower 07-07-07, 09:09 PM	Maybe you should try to justify why a paladin should not hold a slave? Tell me one reason why slavery is evil without automatically assuming that the slave is mistreated. Slavery is first and formost a lawful trait. Only the specific circumstances make it good or evil. From the SRD Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. I would say that slavery debases innocent life. We are talking about uber-religious missionaries of the Silver Flame. Several church members couldn't care less about Law and Good unless it fit their interpretation of the Church doctrine. Religious misinterpretation if rife in the real world, so why shouldn't it be in D&D? That would be law evil deluded into thinking they are lawful good. Action, not statements of intent made by players dictate alignment. Or so says the Dungeon Master's Guide in the changing alignments section.
RabidPirateMan 07-07-07, 10:46 PM	...which is a good bit different than saying "I would die unless I became their slave." The former could easily be a bit of hyperbole, not unlike, "My boss makes me work like a slave!" Has the OP, in fact, actually said that they required him to defend the party to the best of his ability, or actually treated him as a slave? Combat is tricky for me, since I cannot use any spells that are area effect, mostly due to a huge paladin being in combat to the closest thing to be, and I have to be 15 feet away. Actually, I make for a good tank: My natural dex is 16, acolyte level gives me 2 more, I get +1 from skingraft, add mage armor and shield and I have higher AC than the paladin in fullplate. However, I have to make sure to call out the spell and its effect in character. Also, to those saying that I should kill everyone: I never PLANNED to kill them, I simply thought they were deluded to thinking the Flame was the lord, when in truth the DEMON IN THE FLAME was the true power. If, for instance, I was to become so tainted that my cognitive thinking fails, I might kill them in a raving insanity, or if my character has suspicions that her life might be in danger.
NecroBobb 07-08-07, 01:23 AM	I love the idea of this character, if I understand it correctly. He is full of good intentions, he just goes about them the "wrong" way. If his goals align with those of the party, I think I have something of a solution to offer. Talk to your DM and your fellow players, explain your character concept, and tell them you have no intentions of ever betraying the party or anything of that nature. Then, the in-game solution could be as simple as an order coming down from superiors in the church, ordering the rest of the party to work with you, despite the "unusual methods" you use. The party, being Lawful, Good, AND members of this organization should hopefully be compelled to follow the order. Off topic: Someone posted earlier that they can't think of a justification for good characters killing something and "looting" it. Well, I humbly suggest that the justification lies in there being a difference between killing and looting, and killing TO loot. If you kill something just to take its possessions, that is evil.
Ack 07-08-07, 04:45 AM	Which is a bit odd if he's truly being treated like a slave, don't you think? Even odder if the character is being treated like a prisoner. Combat is tricky for me, since I cannot use any spells that are area effect, mostly due to a huge paladin being in combat to the closest thing to be, and I have to be 15 feet away. Actually, I make for a good tank: My natural dex is 16, acolyte level gives me 2 more, I get +1 from skingraft, add mage armor and shield and I have higher AC than the paladin in fullplate. However, I have to make sure to call out the spell and its effect in character. Other players: "Cool! We have a pet spell-slinger on a chain!" Also, to those saying that I should kill everyone: I never PLANNED to kill them, I simply thought they were deluded to thinking the Flame was the lord, when in truth the DEMON IN THE FLAME was the true power. If, for instance, I was to become so tainted that my cognitive thinking fails, I might kill them in a raving insanity, or if my character has suspicions that her life might be in danger. So basically we have a female character who is being kept (naked and chained) as a slave by lawful good characters (yeah yeah, I know, equality of the sexes in D&D, yadda yadda) just for what she can do for the party, using extremely loose reasoning, which shifts around under examination ("You're doing stuff that isn't evil but that we disapprove of, so we're gonna beat you up, take your stuff, and keep you chained like a slave. Oh, and we expect you to pull your weight in combat despite being led around like an animal by the paladin. And if you happen to create anything cool with your [evil] powers, we'll take it and use it."). Conclusion? They are being dicks. Revised conclusion? They are redefining being dicks.
Enlightened1 07-08-07, 11:20 AM	Conclusion? They are being dicks. Revised conclusion? They are redefining being dicks. Nah, they're not redefining much of anything. Sounds like the whole party is pretty much full of the same old dicks who have been spoiling the game since the beginning: the ones who will screw other players, exploit rules for individual advantage while ignoring ones that hinder them, justify their actions by whining, and overlook that their own actions and attitudes set up the problems in the first place. Oh, and when alignment comes into play, it's always a justification for screwing other players, etc., no matter what axis the alignment is on. Yep, same old dicks I've always hated to game with. Same old tired arguments.
doomblade403x 07-08-07, 11:55 AM	So lemme get this right. You wanted to play a lawful evil character for color, then got caught, and now your the party slave. First off, this paladin isn't much of a paladin for his actions. Put aside whatever fetish he's playing out for making you follow the party naked, he has in essence enslaved you. If a paladin tried this in my game, his special abilities would be failing all over the place. Worse still he is allowing you to tag along, and essentially using your abilities to suit his own end. That in itself is a straight up charge of paladin hypocrisy. His own actions towards your character is humiliating, and in no way Lawful Good. Second. Alot of this problem lies with you. If you were going to pull off this lawful evil thing amongst a bunch of lawful goods, you had to know it was impossible. The paladin would detect evil at some point and your busted. You could not have hidden forever amongst this party with your alignment. Your actions would've eventually given you away. You might have been ok had you been lawful nuetral. I would state my case to the gm privately and advise him that the paldins actions are less than lawful, and a far cry from good. They had no right to take your things, and worse yet no cause to humiliate you. If he fails to see the logic, I'd wait till the party has a particularly brutal combat and hang back. Let them get beat down, then waste em to get back your gear and move out on my own.
jamesnero 07-08-07, 12:44 PM	As far as Im concerned the OP should count his lucky stars hes not playing with a smart group or a competent paladin. They have all the info they need to break the OP in two and be justified: 1) sorcerer realizes thats a ritual to the lower planes so she has her friend the paladin cast detect evil on the OP character 2) The character pings as evil 3) the paladin takes his weapon of choice and inserts it into the evil PCs backside. 4) roll up a new character Why is this justified because not only is the PC evil hes consorting with evil forces. The paladins code mind as well use this situation as a specfic example under time to smite. On top of that they are in god damned ravenloft its the worst place for the OP to pull this useless crap. Finally someone, I dont care who needs to kick this DM squarely in the pants. James Alexander Nero
Aucturos 07-08-07, 12:54 PM	So basically we have a female character who is being kept (naked and chained) as a slave by lawful good characters (yeah yeah, I know, equality of the sexes in D&D, yadda yadda) just for what she can do for the party, using extremely loose reasoning, which shifts around under examination ("You're doing stuff that isn't evil but that we disapprove of, so we're gonna beat you up, take your stuff, and keep you chained like a slave. Oh, and we expect you to pull your weight in combat despite being led around like an animal by the paladin. And if you happen to create anything cool with your [evil] powers, we'll take it and use it."). Conclusion? They are being dicks. Revised conclusion? They are redefining being dicks. So they should just kill the PC, right? I mean, that's the other option, right? If you're not bringing the prisoner/slave along for some purpose, no need for them, and being LG you're certainly not going to let another evil loose upon the world, right? Off with her head. I mean, if you were in a war, came upon a spy transmitting your battle plans to the enemy who was in your party, knowing they had the possibility of using nearly any object on their person as a way to harm the rest of your troop, but also knew that you could use them against the very enemy they're spying for... You're telling me, you'd be all, "Hey, yeah, here's your clothes, weapons, and a few items of power just in case we get in a scuffle. No, I'm not worried at all about you killing us off, despite you convening intimately with the enemy and possibly betraying us to untold powers who'd reward you handsomely for our heads." You'd be the stupidest man alive, and you'd be dead the next night. The majority of replies to this thread is precisely the tantamount reason as to EXACTLY WHY the Paladin hasn't done anything evil. People have spent the last three pages arguing the point. If there's that much ambiguity between just a handful of people, without a majority consensus, it can't be that simple. Here, let me justify everything that's occurred in a militant Lawful-Good (as per my view) sense: Our new friend is Evil. I'm sworn to fight evil by whatever means necessary. I must be cautious and suspicious. (Assuming I just don't smash their head in right there.) Our new friend is Evil and was seen convening with demons intimately using her very skin. She is now my enemy. Because she has this apparent power to do so with her very skin, perhaps anything she has can be used to do the same. We must relieve her of her possessions, all of them. The Evil demon-consort seems to be helping us against her very kind. I must be suspicious. Perhaps she is trying to lull me into a false sense of security. The Evil demon-witch wants an item of power, and said this thing is powered by evil. If that is so, I must not let her have it, despite her temporary help. She might use it to break her bonds and destroy us. See? Not so hard to justify. Everyone here is addressing and answering the wrong question. Trying to define Good and Evil, Lawful and Chaotic will get you guys nowhere. It's been going on for over 5,000 years, with very few clear lines. You'll notice that, as bad as the "slavery" may seem, the following hasn't happened as far as we know: -Violation of the body. -Purposeful physical harm to the PC. -Tortured for information. -Purposeful mental harm to the PC. -Starvation. -Dehydration. -Bound completely and unable to move. So this slave is being fed well, given water, and relatively unharmed compared to what happened to REAL slaves. Sounds more like a prisoner than a slave. So, can we stop trying to define the lines of Good and Evil, who's being an asshat and who's not? None of the other players from the campaign are here. We can't ask them the purpose for doing what they did, and can't really judge them by one story alone. Can we, perhaps, focus on helping the Op instead of trying to define words which intrinsically defy definition? -Another option you may want to consider, Op, is to be put under the bright light, and have some sort of Sense Motive check made against you by the Paladins to see if you're telling the truth. Or maybe a truth-sense type spell to be used on you. Then, if they know you're telling the truth and still continue the indentured act, the DM should start making their powers fail, etc.
Gwenfloor 07-08-07, 04:22 PM	Regardless of the Lawful Good alignment, do not underestimate the power to rationalize one's actions to be for the greater good, no matter how despicable or repugnant.
Sunic_Flames 07-08-07, 05:09 PM	Regardless of the Lawful Good alignment, do not underestimate the power to rationalize one's actions to be for the greater good, no matter how despicable or repugnant. And the road to hell is paved with good intentions. That sounds very Lawful Evil. (the justification part)
Ack 07-08-07, 05:25 PM	-Another option you may want to consider, Op, is to be put under the bright light, and have some sort of Sense Motive check made against you by the Paladins to see if you're telling the truth. Or maybe a truth-sense type spell to be used on you. Then, if they know you're telling the truth and still continue the indentured act, the DM should start making their powers fail, etc. I seem to recall that the OP's character has repeatedly stated, in character, that she wants to use her abilities to fight the evil they are up against. The other players have basically chosen to disbelieve this. They have chosen to not use Sense Motive, and are simply ignoring what she is saying. All of the truth in the world won't help you if someone won't listen.
doomblade403x 07-08-07, 06:58 PM	Nothing changes the fact that a PALADIN is refusing to allow a caster the benefit of her protection. No one can can even question that this paladins actions are evil. Denying this caster her gear is not only making her a slave, but it's also putting her in danger. Moreover this paladin and the rest of the Lawful cohorts have this woman stripped down and at the end of a chain. Perverted is a word coming to mind, and if there's one class that should'nt be a perv it's a pally.
calronmoonflower 07-08-07, 07:03 PM	random NPC: Why do you have a naked woman on a leash? Paladin: She's was turned into a slave for her wicked actions! Doesn't fly as non-evil to me.
Caelic 07-08-07, 08:22 PM	...and herein is illustrated the central problem faced by many D&D campaigns--the difficulty players experience in differentiating between 21st century first world industrial nation morals and the morals held by player characters in a very different world.
Cartigan 07-08-07, 08:32 PM	So all the tree hugging Lawful Good players decide to make a Lawful Evil character a "prisoner" who they just happened to beat the crap out of before imprisoning and take all the "prisoner"'s stuff away and lead them around on a chain and use their powers like it was a wand. Yeah, Lawful Good my foot. If the Lawful "Good" hippies decide to use the evil based stone, they are hypocrites and is taking a trip to munchkin land. The Paladin should already be atoning. A Paladin taking a prisoner instead of killing them is questionable, and the method of holding the prisoner is questionable. If he shouldn't already be atoning, using the new evil item should force him to. And traveling with an evil character is traveling with an evil character.
Pyro_Azer 07-08-07, 08:35 PM	Well considering that in some medevil societies it was considered lawful and right to fight to the death over an insult slavery might be assumed normal. Edit: It might not be common knowledge that the stone was evil and therefore the paliden coulod have thought the prisoner was lying.
Caelic 07-08-07, 08:43 PM	A Paladin taking a prisoner instead of killing them is questionable... Uhm...I don't disagree with most of the rest of your post, but how is taking a prisoner more "questionable" than killing?
Pyro_Azer 07-08-07, 08:46 PM	Uhm...I don't disagree with most of the rest of your post, but how is taking a prisoner more "questionable" than killing? Actually it was normal to take prisoner the opponent you beat in a fight (the fight was supposed to be fair, but it was a fight nonetheless)
loaba 07-08-07, 08:52 PM	Ya know, why can't people make characters that get along and want to work together? I mean really, is it that hard? In response to the OP: you're a dick (for obvious reasons that have been illustrated within this thread) and you're playing with other dicks(again, its all there for the reading). Hooray for the dickery! Seriously, you made your bed and now you're laying in it. If'n it were me, I would go for the ol' Do Over immediatly. Just wipe this game and move on. Honestly, naked-slavery-bondage is just too much.
Pyro_Azer 07-08-07, 09:04 PM	Ya know, why can't people make characters that get along and want to work together? I mean really, is it that hard? Because then everything would make sense and you know we can't have that. (joking)
Cartigan 07-08-07, 09:09 PM	Uhm...I don't disagree with most of the rest of your post, but how is taking a prisoner more "questionable" than killing? Taking a prisoner in this story I mean - to use as a servant and slave. Taking a prisoner to bring in as commissioned is different. Actually it was normal to take prisoner the opponent you beat in a fight (the fight was supposed to be fair, but it was a fight nonetheless) It was also normal to slay the undead and call down a rain of fire from the sky to destroy your foes. As it seems to escape some, D&D is not an accurate portrayal of world history.
Aucturos 07-08-07, 09:27 PM	I seem to recall that the OP's character has repeatedly stated, in character, that she wants to use her abilities to fight the evil they are up against. The other players have basically chosen to disbelieve this. They have chosen to not use Sense Motive, and are simply ignoring what she is saying. All of the truth in the world won't help you if someone won't listen. Oh, only if there were some some spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/discernLies.htm) that you could cast to know if the person was lying or not, either by a PC or an NPC of their order. Again, can we stop throwing problems in the Op's way and maybe help out a bit? :P For the record: -The Op's character just told the Paladin that the Ioun Stone was evil, but no tests were performed as far as we know. -Lawful Good does NOT mean Lawful Stupid, stop making that mistake. Just because the Op's PC is in the position she's in doesn't mean the Paladins are evil just yet. -Patience. We have one view. Give them the benefit of the doubt. ;)
RabidPirateMan 07-08-07, 09:33 PM	Ya know, why can't people make characters that get along and want to work together? I mean really, is it that hard? In response to the OP: you're a dick (for obvious reasons that have been illustrated within this thread) and you're playing with other dicks(again, its all there for the reading). Hooray for the dickery! Seriously, you made your bed and now you're laying in it. If'n it were me, I would go for the ol' Do Over immediately. Just wipe this game and move on. Honestly, naked-slavery-bondage is just too much. Its boring if everyone gets along, and you probably know that. If every character was the same clone of each other, there would be zero point to role playing. It would be "Do you want to make a diplomacy check on this guy, or do you want me to roll?" It would be "Well, lets all try and come up with arguments to convince the lich to just stop making undead, but remember, the threat of violence is off the table, and follow the laws that have been given to us by our lordly king". And this isn't solely represented upon pure good campaigns. If everyone was evil, it would be just as boring. "I torture him!" "And we all laugh as he does so!" "And I'll go try and kill my teammates!" "Too late, I killed you first!" I'm all for getting along, since no one likes to feel ganged up on (except maybe for me, since it makes me have to think of ways to use this to my advantage with this character), but no one else knew anyones alignment before hand except me, since I started one session late. It was just bad planning that everyone chose to be the holy symbol of the Flame, praised since youth because of their devotion to their religion and their fighting abilities. No rogue, no druid, no nothing, just Clerics and Paladins and hybrids of the two. If anything, I'm helping them simply because there are going to most likely be enemies that are resistant to their weapons and holy energy. So sure, your idea of a fun game is when you have five true neutral fighters with the same god, goal and personality. Thats fine. I like to have fun in different ways. No, creating conflict isn't whats fun, but spicing up a two dimensional campaign is not something to be frowned upon.
Pyro_Azer 07-08-07, 09:37 PM	Its boring if everyone gets along, and you probably know that. If every character was the same clone of each other, there would be zero point to role playing. It would be "Do you want to make a diplomacy check on this guy, or do you want me to roll?" It would be "Well, lets all try and come up with arguments to convince the lich to just stop making undead, but remember, the threat of violence is off the table, and follow the laws that have been given to us by our lordly king". And this isn't solely represented upon pure good campaigns. If everyone was evil, it would be just as boring. "I torture him!" "And we all laugh as he does so!" "And I'll go try and kill my teammates!" "Too late, I killed you first!" I'm all for getting along, since no one likes to feel ganged up on (except maybe for me, since it makes me have to think of ways to use this to my advantage with this character), but no one else knew anyones alignment before hand except me, since I started one session late. It was just bad planning that everyone chose to be the holy symbol of the Flame, praised since youth because of their devotion to their religion and their fighting abilities. No rogue, no druid, no nothing, just Clerics and Paladins and hybrids of the two. If anything, I'm helping them simply because there are going to most likely be enemies that are resistant to their weapons and holy energy. So sure, your idea of a fun game is when you have five true neutral fighters with the same god, goal and personality. Thats fine. I like to have fun in different ways. No, creating conflict isn't whats fun, but spicing up a two dimensional campaign is not something to be frowned upon. If everyone was good or if everyone was evil you could still role play. The same alighnment does not equal the same mindset on everything. This is the reason for backstories and other such things: so you can still role play in a group with equal alignments.
loaba 07-08-07, 09:50 PM	Its boring if everyone gets along, and you probably know that. Actually, no, I don’t know that. Why is it always boring when all party members are on the same page, working together to have fun and accomplish something within the game world? What’s boring is when the same player, time after time, creates a character that (deliberately or not) works to set more problems in the party’s path. Excuse me; I rather thought that was the DM’s role. If every character was the same clone of each other, there would be zero point to role playing. I agree, each player should try and make a unique character. I'm all for getting along, since no one likes to feel ganged up on (except maybe for me, since it makes me have to think of ways to use this to my advantage with this character), but no one else knew anyones alignment before hand except me, since I started one session late. It was just bad planning that everyone chose to be the holy symbol of the Flame, praised since youth because of their devotion to their religion and their fighting abilities. No rogue, no druid, no nothing, just Clerics and Paladins and hybrids of the two. If anything, I'm helping them simply because there are going to most likely be enemies that are resistant to their weapons and holy energy. Nice attempt at rationalizing. You deliberately created a character that is going against the grain of the party. I doubt this is the first time you’ve done so. That’s a disruptive pattern that screams out “look at me”. So sure, your idea of a fun game is when you have five true neutral fighters with the same god, goal and personality. It is? When did I say that? I like to have fun in different ways. No, creating conflict isn't whats fun, but spicing up a two dimensional campaign is not something to be frowned upon. You’ve gone beyond merely spicing things up, don’t kid yourself,
Cartigan 07-08-07, 09:55 PM	Its boring if everyone gets along, and you probably know that. If every character was the same clone of each other, there would be zero point to role playing. It would be "Do you want to make a diplomacy check on this guy, or do you want me to roll?" It would be "Well, lets all try and come up with arguments to convince the lich to just stop making undead, but remember, the threat of violence is off the table, and follow the laws that have been given to us by our lordly king". And this isn't solely represented upon pure good campaigns. If everyone was evil, it would be just as boring. "I torture him!" "And we all laugh as he does so!" "And I'll go try and kill my teammates!" "Too late, I killed you first!" I'm all for getting along, since no one likes to feel ganged up on (except maybe for me, since it makes me have to think of ways to use this to my advantage with this character), but no one else knew anyones alignment before hand except me, since I started one session late. It was just bad planning that everyone chose to be the holy symbol of the Flame, praised since youth because of their devotion to their religion and their fighting abilities. No rogue, no druid, no nothing, just Clerics and Paladins and hybrids of the two. If anything, I'm helping them simply because there are going to most likely be enemies that are resistant to their weapons and holy energy. So sure, your idea of a fun game is when you have five true neutral fighters with the same god, goal and personality. Thats fine. I like to have fun in different ways. No, creating conflict isn't whats fun, but spicing up a two dimensional campaign is not something to be frowned upon. And you were being an an ass. You obviously know Paladins can't travel with evil companions knowingly. The Acolyte of the Skin does not have to be Evil, especially not coming off of a Sorcerer. And I don't see anywhere where it says the class turns them evil. Yeah, it seems cute and like good roleplaying to be Evil but no, you are just being a confrontational asshat because eventually it would come out and the Paladin would be faced with a decision that would affect the entire game.
Mock26 07-09-07, 08:05 PM	This thread is a perfect example as to why all the players and the DM in a campaign need to sit down beforehand and discuss their viewpoints on what it means to be Lawful, Chaotic, Evil, Good, Neutral, and all the various combinations of those.
Pyro_Azer 07-09-07, 08:41 PM	This thread is a perfect example as to why all the players and the DM in a campaign need to sit down beforehand and discuss their viewpoints on what it means to be Lawful, Chaotic, Evil, Good, Neutral, and all the various combinations of those. QFT
pmurray@bigpond.com 07-10-07, 02:50 AM	Combat is tricky for me, since I cannot use any spells that are area effect, mostly due to a huge paladin being in combat to the closest thing to be, and I have to be 15 feet away. Why does this stop you? You are LE. He has chained and enslaved you. Your character has no obligation whatever to be careful of the paladin's life. If he doesn't like it, he can let you go. Have a look at Greater Fireburst in the spell compendium. Take Sudden Maximize as a feat for extra goodness.
Derren S. 07-10-07, 03:14 AM	Your character has no obligation whatever to be careful of the paladin's life. If he doesn't like it, he can let you go. Or, what is much more likely, kill you.
TheMetalAvenger 07-10-07, 09:32 AM	I don't even have the patience to answer the OP before reading the entire thread (SORRY!!!), but I must say it seems like an obvious troll. If not, give up your adventuring group and find somebody better at running the game If you're treated like a lackey peon by the PCs and/or DM, then you shouldn't be in that gaming group. It's bizarre that people forget D&D is about having epic fun adventures, and that it's not meant to be some super-intense "SERIOUS" rule-mongering battle that destroys the fun of anyone playing it. What is the fricking point?
Ack 07-10-07, 06:18 PM	I've actually been in the situation where my character was being treated as a semi-slave by an NPC, with the (occasional) assistance by other PCs. I was not having fun. Especially when the rest of the group went off to a situation where all the other PCs earned 400+ XP and my character was ordered to do something else, that earned me a grand total of 40 XP. So yeah, it can happen. (I dumped that character, btw. When the GM takes that much of a set against him, there's not much else can be done).
Ezram 07-10-07, 08:55 PM	These topics are why I love the WOTC boards
ninjasuperspy 07-10-07, 09:11 PM	The AotS is a class that (as far as I remember) gives up his body to physically bond with an evil extraplanar entity and eventually corrupting himself to the point that he becomes an evil extraplanar entity. That was the one from Tome and Blood with the illustration of the guy with the grinning demon face on his chest right? Your party is composed of LG paladin-types that follow the Silver Flame. The organization that was described by Keith Baker himself on this board as a combination of the Jedi Knights and the Men In Black. The organization that's sole purpose in existence is opposing and destroying evil extraplanar entities. They just meet you and the first thing they see is you running off into the woods and offering yourself up to evil outsiders for power. Your pact is actually signified by a visitable change in your physical appearance. And the only thing they do is bind you and carry you around behind them, a blatant enemy at their backs in life and death situations? I have to agree with Caelic here, the lightest thing they could do in response to you is leave and don't look back. The fact remains that the Church is all about fighting the taint of the Rajahs (actual extraplanar supernatural evil, not an interpretation of evil), and here you are willingly tainting yourself. The fact that you looked at the party, said "These guys are all Paladins, I'll play Evil" means that you were really saying "I will cause party conflict" and hey look, party conflict. In short, they shouldn't have brought you along PC or no PC. Because you were a player at the table and not on the Random Encounter Table they didn't kill or Exorcise you. This is most likely because they didn't want to wait for you to roll up a replacement and were told that you were going along no matter what. Everything follows from that. Paladins shouldn't be associating with you. Period. Full stop.
Lethanic 07-10-07, 09:34 PM	Its boring if everyone gets along, and you probably know that. If every character was the same clone of each other, there would be zero point to role playing. It would be "Do you want to make a diplomacy check on this guy, or do you want me to roll?" It would be "Well, lets all try and come up with arguments to convince the lich to just stop making undead, but remember, the threat of violence is off the table, and follow the laws that have been given to us by our lordly king". And this isn't solely represented upon pure good campaigns. If everyone was evil, it would be just as boring. "I torture him!" "And we all laugh as he does so!" "And I'll go try and kill my teammates!" "Too late, I killed you first!" I'm all for getting along, since no one likes to feel ganged up on (except maybe for me, since it makes me have to think of ways to use this to my advantage with this character), but no one else knew anyones alignment before hand except me, since I started one session late. It was just bad planning that everyone chose to be the holy symbol of the Flame, praised since youth because of their devotion to their religion and their fighting abilities. No rogue, no druid, no nothing, just Clerics and Paladins and hybrids of the two. If anything, I'm helping them simply because there are going to most likely be enemies that are resistant to their weapons and holy energy. So sure, your idea of a fun game is when you have five true neutral fighters with the same god, goal and personality. Thats fine. I like to have fun in different ways. No, creating conflict isn't whats fun, but spicing up a two dimensional campaign is not something to be frowned upon. Lets see. YOu think that you can't have different lawful goods? More over, you could have had PLENTY of room to play around on the law/neutral/Chaos axis. YOu have about five other alignments to play with that could cause conflict without causing a break. Chaotic good. Chaotic Neutral. Lawful neutral. Neutral good. Neutral. . . ANY of those could be played with significant philosophical differences while still agreeing on the overarching goals. Or do you claim the ONLY form of inter-party conflict HAS to be on the good/evil axis? YOu have all of these to chose from> Surely you can find some interesting conflict just among these descriptions even BEFORE adding individual quirks? Lawful Good, “Crusader”: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion. Neutral Good, “Benefactor”: A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them. Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order. Chaotic Good, “Rebel”: A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society. Chaotic good is the best alignment you can be because it combines a good heart with a free spirit. Lawful Neutral, “Judge”: A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government. Lawful neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot. Neutral, “Undecided”: A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way. Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run. Neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion. Chaotic Neutral, “Free Spirit”: A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it. Chaotic neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom from both society’s restrictions and a do-gooder’s zeal.
Everdreaming 07-11-07, 02:28 AM	There are a couple of things that I see in this thread. 1. There are a few people that are automatically assuming that the OPs opinion on this matter is biased, because we only have one side of the argument. 2. The OP created this char with the intent to cause trouble in his group. 3. The Paladin is justified in having the OPs char as a prisoner/slave because the OPs char is evil. Now. As what the OP has presented is the only thing we have to go on we should accept that as true for the basis of any arguement. Also, what would the OP gain from inflating his side of the story if he truely wanted a way out of this situation? From what I can tell in the OPs original post, he created this char not to cause trouble, but to take a new approach to the fighting evil cause. I do not believe that he intended it to cause trouble, and that if he did, he intended that trouble to propagate a good roleplaying environment. Instead of looking at this last one from a chars view, lets look at it from a different perspective. B/C the other players have in effect forced the OPs char to be a prisoner/slave, the have also in effect chained the OP to what they wish to do, modified by the DM of course. The OP can do nothing assuming he wants to continue with this char. Also, the fact that his char is apparently naked, without possesions and led on collar leans me towards the interpretation that they have made him a slave. And assuming the OP is correct in stating that they said that the ends does not justify the means, yet are using an evil person to combat evil, thus attempting to make the ends justify the means. Consider also the fact that the OP had stated his intentions in combating evil with the party anyways, they would not be hypocritical had they(the party) merely accepted him without undue suspiscion. Not b/c he wears an "Im a PC" t-shirt, but b/c he is their comrade-in-arms, and has proven himself to be dedicated to fighting evil. Following my above argument the party is both being hypocritical and using the logic that the ends justify the means, which is probably not lawful good. As such, they are IMHO, worse than the OP himself, for he is merely evil, but attempting to combat evil, and is not deceiving himself as to his being evil. The rest of the party(some may be excluded as I do not know details), is acting evil, and deluding themselves into thinking they are good. Just my :twocents:
Lethanic 07-11-07, 06:36 AM	There are a couple of things that I see in this thread. 1. There are a few people that are automatically assuming that the OPs opinion on this matter is biased, because we only have one side of the argument. 2. The OP created this char with the intent to cause trouble in his group. 3. The Paladin is justified in having the OPs char as a prisoner/slave because the OPs char is evil. Now. As what the OP has presented is the only thing we have to go on we should accept that as true for the basis of any arguement. Also, what would the OP gain from inflating his side of the story if he truely wanted a way out of this situation? From what I can tell in the OPs original post, he created this char not to cause trouble, but to take a new approach to the fighting evil cause. I do not believe that he intended it to cause trouble, and that if he did, he intended that trouble to propagate a good roleplaying environment. Instead of looking at this last one from a chars view, lets look at it from a different perspective. B/C the other players have in effect forced the OPs char to be a prisoner/slave, the have also in effect chained the OP to what they wish to do, modified by the DM of course. The OP can do nothing assuming he wants to continue with this char. Also, the fact that his char is apparently naked, without possesions and led on collar leans me towards the interpretation that they have made him a slave. And assuming the OP is correct in stating that they said that the ends does not justify the means, yet are using an evil person to combat evil, thus attempting to make the ends justify the means. Consider also the fact that the OP had stated his intentions in combating evil with the party anyways, they would not be hypocritical had they(the party) merely accepted him without undue suspiscion. Not b/c he wears an "Im a PC" t-shirt, but b/c he is their comrade-in-arms, and has proven himself to be dedicated to fighting evil. Following my above argument the party is both being hypocritical and using the logic that the ends justify the means, which is probably not lawful good. As such, they are IMHO, worse than the OP himself, for he is merely evil, but attempting to combat evil, and is not deceiving himself as to his being evil. The rest of the party(some may be excluded as I do not know details), is acting evil, and deluding themselves into thinking they are good. Just my :twocents: I'm sorry, but if you create an evil character in a party of Paladins. .AFTER you know they are all paladins, and not ONLY paladins, but particularly fanatical Paladins. . you did it yto cause trouble, pure and simple. As to what he would gain? People don't always even realize that they are inflating their side of the story. People are VERY good at deceiving themselves as to the facts on teh ground. People are also often looking for justification rather than solutions. (Not the last was not an accusation, just a generic principle when talking about this sort of argument) Regardless, _even using the facts as he presents them_ He was the initial instigator of the series of events, whether the paladins reacted unreasonably or not. If a person runs duplicates a certain scene from Die HArd 2 of his own free will, and then gets beaten up - yeah, perhaps he shouldn't have been beaten strictly speaking, but he would have een the proximal cause.
Cartigan 07-11-07, 08:08 AM	The AotS is a class that (as far as I remember) gives up his body to physically bond with an evil extraplanar entity and eventually corrupting himself to the point that he becomes an evil extraplanar entity. That was the one from Tome and Blood with the illustration of the guy with the grinning demon face on his chest right? According to the 3.5 book I found it in (I forget again now, I think it was a complete), the AotS does not have to be evil and does not become evil solely because of the class (unless I glazed over the part that said he did). He does however become an outsider.
Caelic 07-11-07, 09:54 AM	There are a couple of things that I see in this thread. 1. There are a few people that are automatically assuming that the OPs opinion on this matter is biased, because we only have one side of the argument. Naturally. Bias is inherent to the human condition. We're inherently subjective observers, which is one reason they like to have multiple witnesses in courtroom cases. It's possible to be consciously or unconsciously biased...but anyone who thinks they're unbiased in a situation that personally involves them is fooling him or herself. 2. The OP created this char with the intent to cause trouble in his group. More accurately: "The OP should have realized that his character was going to cause trouble in the group." Perhaps he did, in which case, he's guilty of disruptive play; perhaps he didn't, in which case, he really needs to give more thought to the consequences of his choices. 3. The Paladin is justified in having the OPs char as a prisoner/slave because the OPs char is evil. No. In fact, most people have agreed that "slavery" is not an acceptable response. It's tactically unsound and morally questionable. Some of us aren't convinced that "slavery" is an apt description; others are firmly convinced that it is. The dividing line seems to roughly coincide with the given poster's like or dislike of lawful good and authority; in general, those that don't like lawful good characters and/or don't like the idea of authority seem much more inclined to accept the OP's account of his "slavery" and himself as the wronged party. As what the OP has presented is the only thing we have to go on we should accept that as true for the basis of any arguement. A grain of salt now and then is good for the digestion. Also, what would the OP gain from inflating his side of the story if he truely wanted a way out of this situation? Does he? I certainly didn't get that from his post. In fact, it sounds like a lot of the responding posters are much more outraged over his predicament than he is; he seems to be having fun with it. The thrust of his post isn't "How do I get them to unchain me?" but "Are these characters being hypocritical in doing so?" From what I can tell in the OPs original post, he created this char not to cause trouble, but to take a new approach to the fighting evil cause. Anti-hero is hardly a new approach. Neither is "The ends justify the means."
Everdreaming 07-11-07, 12:40 PM	Naturally. Bias is inherent to the human condition. We're inherently subjective observers, which is one reason they like to have multiple witnesses in courtroom cases. It's possible to be consciously or unconsciously biased...but anyone who thinks they're unbiased in a situation that personally involves them is fooling him or herself.." I was not intending to say that the OP is unbiased in this situation, nor that we should accept his story that way. I am saying that we should not automatically regect his story because it is biased. More accurately: "The OP should have realized that his character was going to cause trouble in the group." Perhaps he did, in which case, he's guilty of disruptive play; perhaps he didn't, in which case, he really needs to give more thought to the consequences of his choices.." He probably did realize it would cause trouble. Like I stated in my post, he probably intended that trouble to cause some good roleplaying(note, I am not familiar with the Silver Flame, or Expedition to Castle Ravenloft). No. In fact, most people have agreed that "slavery" is not an acceptable response. It's tactically unsound and morally questionable. Some of us aren't convinced that "slavery" is an apt description; others are firmly convinced that it is. The dividing line seems to roughly coincide with the given poster's like or dislike of lawful good and authority; in general, those that don't like lawful good characters and/or don't like the idea of authority seem much more inclined to accept the OP's account of his "slavery" and himself as the wronged party.." Ok then. Oh, and that is why I used slave/prisoner in my post, rather than one or the other. A grain of salt now and then is good for the digestion.." I agree entirely. But not the whole shaker. Does he? I certainly didn't get that from his post. In fact, it sounds like a lot of the responding posters are much more outraged over his predicament than he is; he seems to be having fun with it. The thrust of his post isn't "How do I get them to unchain me?" but "Are these characters being hypocritical in doing so?"." I believethat it what his intention in making this thread. B/c pointing out that the party is being hypocritical allows for him to make a good argument for his case(of getting out of chains) Also, he did not make those people more outraged than he is. He would not know if they would react as such. But I digress. We cannot know his intentions unless he tells them to us. Anti-hero is hardly a new approach. Neither is "The ends justify the means." It was apparently new for his group.
Caelic 07-11-07, 12:43 PM	It was apparently new for his group. I don't believe that conclusion is justified, given the information. We haven't been told that this group always plays inflexible Lawful Good; merely that they were playing such a group this time. It may well be that some of those same players have played more morally flexible characters in the past, and are simply able to differentiate between said characters and their Silver Flame God Squad. At any rate, there is an art to creating a character who inspires dynamic roleplaying without being disruptive. It's an art that takes time to master; many players never do. "I am Neutral Good. I agree with you that evil needs to be fought, but I think that your inflexibility and intolerance leads you to tactics which are less than good." There, you have the opportunity for interesting and dynamic conflict between your character and a group of Silver Flame zealots. "I am Lawful Evil. I like sewing demons to my skin." There, not so much. Parade a character like that in front of the Silver Flame (who, bear in mind, committed genocide against all lycanthropes because they couldn't be bothered to sort out which ones were truly evil) and you're just asking for a butt-whooping.
Everdreaming 07-11-07, 01:01 PM	I don't believe that conclusion is justified, given the information. We haven't been told that this group always plays inflexible Lawful Good; merely that they were playing such a group this time. It may well be that some of those same players have played more morally flexible characters in the past, and are simply able to differentiate between said characters and their Silver Flame God Squad. At any rate, there is an art to creating a character who inspires dynamic roleplaying without being disruptive. It's an art that takes time to master; many players never do. "I am Neutral Good. I agree with you that evil needs to be fought, but I think that your inflexibility and intolerance leads you to tactics which are less than good." There, you have the opportunity for interesting and dynamic conflict between your character and a group of Silver Flame zealots. "I am Lawful Evil. I like sewing demons to my skin." There, not so much. Parade a character like that in front of the Silver Flame (who, bear in mind, committed genocide against all lycanthropes because they couldn't be bothered to sort out which ones were truly evil) and you're just asking for a butt-whooping. Most of the conclusions that we have come to need more information to be truely accurate. But yes, that is merely speculating off what information we have. And I agree that he went a little over the top in creating a character that causes dynamic roleplaying. But the party went over the top in responding to it.
ninjasuperspy 07-11-07, 02:42 PM	Whoops, this is what happens when you don't read Complete Arcane before posting. I just remembered the d4 hit dice and 5/10 casting levels thing from Tome and Blood and forgot the "doesn't have to be evil" thing. Still, you have to admit it certainly does look evil. The whole demon skin thing. I mean my Eyeballs of Detect Evil were pinging all over the place, and this is probably the appeal as an anti-hero. Regardless you are intentionally bringing more Khyber taint into the world. You are corrupting your body with the intention of eventually corrupting your soul. You've done this in front of Paladins and Clerics dedicated to the main force on Eberron that has fought against the taint of Khyber since the beginning of time, and because you are a PC they didn't kill you. You chose a character type completely opposed to the majority of the group dynamic solely to mess up party cohesion. Yeah, that's going to be real helpful to the whole "beat up the big bad vampire" mission that the group is on. We aren't even going to begin talking about your frequently stated ambition to create a horrible mockery of unlife out of a deceased close family member. You shouldn't be on that leash, but then you shouldn't be in that party. At best they can chalk you up as less dangerous as the vampire lord and cut you loose. Off topic, the Purge was a bit more shades of gray than people are referring to it as, you can read Lycanthropes and the Purge (http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20050404a) if you'd like and it adds a bit of dimension to the situation over the standard Strawman Christianity Salem Witch Trials vibe.
Lethanic 07-11-07, 05:39 PM	Most of the conclusions that we have come to need more information to be truely accurate. But yes, that is merely speculating off what information we have. And I agree that he went a little over the top in creating a character that causes dynamic roleplaying. But the party went over the top in responding to it. No> If you create a lawful evil character that sews demons into his skin in the middle of a party of lawful good andti - demon paladins you are not trying to creating dynamic tension, you are trolling. There is NO other valid explanation because _By nature_ a paladin CANNOT associate with your character.
Cartigan 07-11-07, 06:26 PM	Regardless you are intentionally bringing more Khyber taint into the world. You are corrupting your body with the intention of eventually corrupting your soul. You've done this in front of Paladins and Clerics dedicated to the main force on Eberron that has fought against the taint of Khyber since the beginning of time, and because you are a PC they didn't kill you. You chose a character type completely opposed to the majority of the group dynamic solely to mess up party cohesion. Agreed, but beating the hell out of a Neutral character that looks like a fiend is a little higher on the "go get an atonement" ladder than beating up an evil one.
doomblade403x 07-11-07, 10:02 PM	Well to me there comes a point when actions of the party outweigh the circumstances. Sure the OP decided to make a questionable choice in character and alignment. Fact is the Paladin had every right to deny the character in question membership into their group. Kill them? If the player is NOT a threat to humanity or to the party themselves? Not Likely. The Paladin ethical code would have to stretch pretty far to justify that. So banishment would likely be the safe course of action. Then the party beats up the diabolical one, takes her clothes and gear, and essentially makes her a wand with boobs +1. I'm definately saying there is an issue there with the paladin and his diety. If nothing else he is having some major conflicts with sins of the flesh. Who knows what an adventure or two will bring. The humiliation aspect is there already, so in the really real world of now if a man was to have a woman chained in his basement what would happen next? Doesn't that trip anyone's lawful good meter a little? I mean the situation itself has all the makings of turning into the worst possible scenario for the character. Moreover they have an EVIL character who is essentially used in their struggle versus the dark side. Isn't knowingly being in cahoots with evil a sin? There are more than a few ways out. 1. Reroll 2. Alignment shift 3. Killing the offending parties character I'll condense a little story for you. Rolled up a new toon in Advanced, and started in a group with an established party. We were set to rid this keep of some orcs, and the leader got some help and decided on this insane assault plan. I tried to talk him out of it, however he could not be persuaded. While he attempted suicide and got alot of fodder killed, myself and three npcs climbed the walls, and essentially saved his skin. The last baddie dropped in the conflict had a chain shirt. The leader arbtitrarily decided I wasn't worthy of it and handed it to another fighter. I demanded a roll off, and lost. Then he beat me down. Myself and a cleric waited two more adventures when he and his minions were beat down, we struck. I killed one at the end of a brutal combat, and slew another without breaking stride. Now to say he was upset was an understatement, and he practically cried when I told him that doing evil onto us cost him his characters life, and we made sure raise dead wasn't an option. The point to all this is you reap what you sow. IRL you do something underhanded to someone, and they will find a way to pay it back to you.
Caelic 07-14-07, 11:49 AM	Well to me there comes a point when actions of the party outweigh the circumstances. Sure the OP decided to make a questionable choice in character and alignment. Fact is the Paladin had every right to deny the character in question membership into their group. We're in agreement there. That probably would have been the best thing to do. Kill them? If the player is NOT a threat to humanity or to the party themselves? Not Likely. The Paladin ethical code would have to stretch pretty far to justify that. So banishment would likely be the safe course of action. How, exactly, can a Paladin know that an evil character who trafficks with demons is "not a threat to humanity?" Does he just take the demon summoner's word? Does he go based on the fact that he hasn't actually seen the demon summoner kill innocents...yet? What happens if he says "Right, off you go," and then later finds out that a hundred people are dead because of his leniency? He could use Detect Lie, I suppose...knowing that this is a character with a very high Will save and magic of his own to defend him.
doomblade403x 07-14-07, 03:03 PM	Well let's look at things out of the metagame. If a wizard casts a spell, 9/10 times a paladin will not know what he's casting. How can he possibly know beyond a doubt the character is communing with demons. The simple answer is he can't know for certain what that character is doing. Realistically the only thing he can do is make a deduction from detect alignment and judge from there.
Aucturos 07-15-07, 12:46 AM	Well let's look at things out of the metagame. If a wizard casts a spell, 9/10 times a paladin will not know what he's casting. How can he possibly know beyond a doubt the character is communing with demons. The simple answer is he can't know for certain what that character is doing. Realistically the only thing he can do is make a deduction from detect alignment and judge from there. Read the thread closer. ;) They're all Cleric/Paladins, and they didn't know precisely what spell the Op was casting, just that it was Evil and something to do with demons. Remember, fanatical group of righteous Paladins. :)
Lethanic 07-15-07, 08:16 AM	Once again; I have zero sympathy in any way for a person who decided to play a lawful evil character that sews demons into his skin in a party of fanatical paladins 'just to create conflict'. If you find yourself in a bad situation, its to be expected - not even mattering in the slightest if the rest were right or wrong. The fault lies with the person who willfully and knowingly started the chain, in full knowledge that there was not ANY possible way for it to end well.
Pyro_Azer 07-15-07, 10:03 AM	Personally i am interested to know what the dm ruled as the OP said he was unsure of what to do.
SirTodd 07-15-07, 11:12 AM	Act 1: They attack you as your performing an evil ritual. This is a Lawful Good act. You surrender presumably... Act 2: They take your gear. Neutral act that doesn't modify alignment at all. It's perfectly normal to seize the gear of your prisoners. Act 3: They enslave you... um... This is an evil act. Any Paladins in the group should immediately 'fall' and lose all abilities until a proper atonement can be performed. The atonement is impossible as long as they keep you enslaved. Act 4: They allow you to perform another evil ritual with a witch? At this point as a GM I would issue a warning to all Good characters, that they are now in danger of an alignment shift. Next gross violation will lower them to Neutral on the good / evil axis. Act 5: They seize an item you gained during the ritual. Neutral act. It is perfectly normal to take the gear of a slave. Act 6: (assuming your correct that the item has an evil alignment) A good character attempting to willingly use an evil item. The one using the device would now be Neutral on the good / evil axis. Note: Carrying such a device isn't evil, using it is. And this should create problems with the remaining Good party members. -------------- They would have been fine if they had merely taken you as a prisoner. (As a prisoner they have to protect you and your under no obligation to fight during encounters, although you may want to) They also never should allow you to perform any evil rituals as their prisoner. -------------- As a GM I never would allow paladins and evil 'based' characters into the same group. In fact I wouldn't mix any good PCs with evil 'based' ones.
RabidPirateMan 07-15-07, 03:26 PM	Personally i am interested to know what the dm ruled as the OP said he was unsure of what to do. In the end, the group dissolved. The next session, the DM claimed that since the stone was evil, the Paladin would loose favor with the Flame if he used it. So they gave it to the rogue. We continue to kill two other hags, and the rogue performs the rituals. He gets +6 AC (!!!) and resistance to magic (!!!), and two more ioun stones, since he's the only non-cleric non-paladin. Now, I was furious up to that point, but whenever I tried to object, the DM stated that he really wanted us to get to Castle Ravenloft by the end of the day and to wait. So, while in the forest, the rogue gets hit by a werewolf (though I have no idea how, since he has TWENTY SIX AC) and fails his fortitude save. He becomes a lycanthrope. Now, if you didn't know, the Silver Flame hates lycanthropes of all kind, and sees them as an abomination upon the world. So, what do they do? They claim that in order to fight evil, they have to align with evil. That was it for me, I wouldn't let it go. We argue for the remainder of the day. As it turns out, the DM is a roommate of the Paladin and best friends with the rogue. I claim meta gaming and hypocrisy, demanding that some repercussion happen on the part of the PCs, be it some action upon the rogue or some divine intervention. They claim they're role playing correctly, since the rogue is human, doesn't use magic, and that he's lawful good and they know it, and being a lycanthrope doesn't change his alignment. So I try and roleplay along, saying that since I'm an elf, I've been in the church longer than he is and deserves a bit more respect that I had gotten up to that point. No deal. That was the end for me; I quit, they killed my character, and I have no group to play with. So, I guess I'm taking a break from DnD for a while.
Aucturos 07-15-07, 03:45 PM	In the end, the group dissolved. The next session, the DM claimed that since the stone was evil, the Paladin would loose favor with the Flame if he used it. So they gave it to the rogue. We continue to kill two other hags, and the rogue performs the rituals. He gets +6 AC (!!!) and resistance to magic (!!!), and two more ioun stones, since he's the only non-cleric non-paladin. Now, I was furious up to that point, but whenever I tried to object, the DM stated that he really wanted us to get to Castle Ravenloft by the end of the day and to wait. So, while in the forest, the rogue gets hit by a werewolf (though I have no idea how, since he has TWENTY SIX AC) and fails his fortitude save. He becomes a lycanthrope. Now, if you didn't know, the Silver Flame hates lycanthropes of all kind, and sees them as an abomination upon the world. So, what do they do? They claim that in order to fight evil, they have to align with evil. That was it for me, I wouldn't let it go. We argue for the remainder of the day. As it turns out, the DM is a roommate of the Paladin and best friends with the rogue. I claim meta gaming and hypocrisy, demanding that some repercussion happen on the part of the PCs, be it some action upon the rogue or some divine intervention. They claim they're role playing correctly, since the rogue is human, doesn't use magic, and that he's lawful good and they know it, and being a lycanthrope doesn't change his alignment. So I try and roleplay along, saying that since I'm an elf, I've been in the church longer than he is and deserves a bit more respect that I had gotten up to that point. No deal. That was the end for me; I quit, they killed my character, and I have no group to play with. So, I guess I'm taking a break from DnD for a while. Well, you caused your trouble and got what you sowed. I'm not terribly surprised. Not that you're the only one at fault (the DM seems to have some stuff he needs to work out), but did you really expect your idea to work? ;) Oh well, take a break, maybe start your own campaign... Good luck.
Caelic 07-15-07, 04:13 PM	So, while in the forest, the rogue gets hit by a werewolf (though I have no idea how, since he has TWENTY SIX AC) and fails his fortitude save. He becomes a lycanthrope. Now, if you didn't know, the Silver Flame hates lycanthropes of all kind, and sees them as an abomination upon the world. So, what do they do? They claim that in order to fight evil, they have to align with evil. Okay. Up until now, I was willing to give them some benefit of the doubt; their actions towards you could simply have been a matter of playing the intolerance of the Silver Flame. To then turn a blind eye to a lycanthrope, though? To claim that lycanthropy is somehow less objectionable in the eyes of a Silver Flame member than magic? Bullpucky. I still think you share some of the responsibility, but I don't blame you for walking away.
doomblade403x 07-15-07, 04:35 PM	It sounds to me like you were the odd man out from the beginning. It sucks, but I doubt your character choices would've mattered too much in the long run. They likely would've chumped you no matter what. Like I said before, you shouldve killed them :D
Johnny_Angel 07-15-07, 04:58 PM	Here's what I think... Slavery is a form of order; order is lawful, so (although they are LG) I could kinda see them arguing that chaining you up was within their code. However, the problem I see is that they are violating their code: their code from what I understand of the OP's op 1) only good can be good 2) using evil to do good is still not good 3) The ends do not justify the means Now, I gather this because, well, that's nearly exactly what you said they said to you when you tried to explain what you were doing with your rituals. They then turn around and say that it's ok for one of them to use an item made of dark powers to do good; by saying that; from what I can see, they are violating all three parts of their code. Do I think they are doing evil? No, I don't think so. They might be, but I don't think there's enough evidence to suggest that from what I've read. Do I think what they are doing is non-lawful? Yes, I definately do think what they are doing is non-lawful. I do not believe they would be chaotic because they do believe in a sense of order or some semblance of a code; however, they seemingly think it's ok to violate that code if it furthers good. In my opinion, that would make them NG; not LG. A normal character may be able to get away with it, but a paladin is held to a much stricter moral code than the average adventurer. My belief is that the paladin might be on the verge of losing his powers. I'm not saying that this one instance is enough to do it, but, if he continues to use the stone while hypocritically telling your character that you can't use your equipment then I would definately say he should shift alignment. If I were you, I would continue to keep trying to play your character. It might be somewhat boring if you're used to hack and slash type games, but I think it would be a unique experience in role playing. Your character might be driven toward evil as a result of being treated the way you are; which contains a very important lesson that the paladin should learn. Also, it might be fun to turn on them or lead them astray. I suggest you talk to your dm no matter what you decide to do.
Johnny_Angel 07-15-07, 05:00 PM	Well, it seems that I've posted to late. I hope what happened in this game doesn't ruin D&D for you. It can be a very rewarding and fun game if you find the right group.
Lethanic 07-15-07, 06:42 PM	Well, it seems that I've posted to late. I hope what happened in this game doesn't ruin D&D for you. It can be a very rewarding and fun game if you find the right group. Or if you don't purposely sabotage it from the very beginning with the express intent of causing trouble.
Pyro_Azer 07-15-07, 08:32 PM	Or if you don't purposely sabotage it from the very beginning with the express intent of causing trouble. "express intent of causing trouble" ? please I do not beleive the player was all that much at fault here now that he told us what happened. The reason that they can drag a longtime member of the church around by a chain but when one of them turn into a lychenthrope, which they hate, they are cool with it? Bull:censored: . I have seen several Dms that played favorites and allowed this sort of crap to take place and really makes the game unfun. Mabye the OP was LE to cause trouble and mabye he wasn't. He has not claimed or denied either. BUT even if he did he probably would have been screwed over later anyway. Its hard to get along in a group as an elf sorcerer when the group is somehow suspiscus os elves and sorcerers for some yet unexplained reason. It honestly sounds like the only reason his party found out he was evil was they metagamed. Also as has been stated before the first thing quite a few people would do if the found out their compatriot was evil would be to assume he was cursed/possesed/whatever and was acting that way/became that way against their will. The DM really needs a hammergun badly. I also think some folding chairs are in order.
calronmoonflower 07-15-07, 09:07 PM	They claim that in order to fight evil, they have to align with evil. Isn't that what you did in the first place? Sounds like the seed of evil you planted grew and corrupted them all. :evillaugh
Lethanic 07-15-07, 09:11 PM	"express intent of causing trouble" ? please I do not beleive the player was all that much at fault here now that he told us what happened. The reason that they can drag a longtime member of the church around by a chain but when one of them turn into a lychenthrope, which they hate, they are cool with it? Bull:censored: . I have seen several Dms that played favorites and allowed this sort of crap to take place and really makes the game unfun. Mabye the OP was LE to cause trouble and mabye he wasn't. He has not claimed or denied either. BUT even if he did he probably would have been screwed over later anyway. Its hard to get along in a group as an elf sorcerer when the group is somehow suspiscus os elves and sorcerers for some yet unexplained reason. It honestly sounds like the only reason his party found out he was evil was they metagamed. Also as has been stated before the first thing quite a few people would do if the found out their compatriot was evil would be to assume he was cursed/possesed/whatever and was acting that way/became that way against their will. The DM really needs a hammergun badly. I also think some folding chairs are in order. He chose to play a lawful evil character who sews demons into his skin in a party of Lawful good Paladins. Yes. Express intent to cause trouble. The rest is unfortunate, but as soon as he chose that combination that he had to KNOW could not end well, he pretty much lost the right to complain.
Cartigan 07-15-07, 09:12 PM	1) Lawful Good Paladin is redundant. Seriously. 2) They wern't all Paladins.
Lethanic 07-15-07, 09:16 PM	1) Lawful Good Paladin is redundant. Seriously. 2) They wern't all Paladins. Both points are also irrelevant. They were lawful good, they were mostly Paladins or lawful good clerics, and frankly, I have less than zero sympathy for anyone that purposely choses an evil alignment in a party where there is _already_ even ONE paladin.
Cartigan 07-15-07, 09:22 PM	Both points are also irrelevant. They were points regarding the inane postings. Paladins can only be Lawful Good. If the party was full of just Paladins, they would get beat down. I already made the point that being a LE class in the group was dumb, especially when the class you chose doesn't have to be Evil.
Lethanic 07-15-07, 09:29 PM	"Lawful good Paladins" is made as a point of emphasis - as in, a way to point out doubly exactly what it was that was a problem about making this particular character choice, Redundancy can be intentional.
Lina_Inverse 07-15-07, 09:54 PM	So what do you think? Am I right in saying this is comparable to what I did, or do they have a point? 1) technically necromancy isn't evil. 2) an ioun stone is not necromancy nor evil. So it's not comparable. You can not use evil to do good, evil is objectively evil and anything you do with it is also evil. The real issue is your not having fun though. Talk to them about that.
Cartigan 07-15-07, 09:56 PM	"Lawful good Paladins" is made as a point of emphasis For who? Complete idiots? The Paladin is a D&D core core-class; it is found in the Player's Handbook. Any idiot playing D&D should know they are Lawful Good and cannot play in a team with an evil character.
Lethanic 07-15-07, 10:06 PM	For who? Complete idiots? The Paladin is a D&D core core-class; it is found in the Player's Handbook. Any idiot playing D&D should know they are Lawful Good and cannot play in a team with an evil character. Agreed, they SHOULD. But it seems from the number of "I chose to play a (Full in the blank) evil character in a party with Paladins just to create dramatic tension" threads you see over time, they DON'T. Or it wouldn't keep coming up. Again, and again, and again. ..
Mock26 07-15-07, 11:05 PM	For who? Complete idiots? The Paladin is a D&D core core-class; it is found in the Player's Handbook. Any idiot playing D&D should know they are Lawful Good and cannot play in a team with an evil character. This is also a reason why players sometimes can't have it their way. This is clearly a case where the DM should have stepped in and told the player, "No, you cannot play an evil character in this game."
calronmoonflower 07-15-07, 11:13 PM	This is also a reason why players sometimes can't have it their way. This is clearly a case where the DM should have stepped in and told the player, "No, you cannot play an evil character in this game." Must be lawful and cannot be evil. Seriously that leave only two alignments. 1. lawful good 2. lawful neutral
Cartigan 07-15-07, 11:41 PM	Agreed, they SHOULD. But it seems from the number of "I chose to play a (Full in the blank) evil character in a party with Paladins just to create dramatic tension" threads you see over time, they DON'T. Disagree, the topic creator knew what he was doing and did it on purpose, and that's normally why it happens in so far as I have seen. Must be lawful and cannot be evil. Seriously that leave only two alignments. 1. lawful good 2. lawful neutral Well the Acolyte of the Skin has to be Lawful anyway, but not Evil.
Mock26 07-16-07, 12:38 AM	Must be lawful and cannot be evil. Seriously that leave only two alignments. 1. lawful good 2. lawful neutral Why would they have to be lawful?
calronmoonflower 07-16-07, 02:51 AM	Why would they have to be lawful? Remember the original post? I'm playing Expedition to Castle Ravenloft with a few other people. The theme was that we were missionaries for the Silver Flame, so everyone had to be Lawful.
Mock26 07-16-07, 04:15 AM	Remember the original post? Yeah, but if he was going to disregard that bit about the Silver Flame by going evil he could have just as easily created a chaotic neutral or a true neutral or a chaotic good character, and any one of those could have easily been accepted by the paladins.
Lethanic 07-16-07, 06:38 AM	Disagree, the topic creator knew what he was doing and did it on purpose, and that's normally why it happens in so far as I have seen. Well the Acolyte of the Skin has to be Lawful anyway, but not Evil. Well, he seemed to be 'surprised' when the consequences actually hit him. . Anyway, original comment: When he chose to go with an evil character in a party full of Lawful good Clerics and Paladins, he lost all rights to thereafter complain - he isn't a victim, but at best an equal opportunity 'part of the problem'. When an alignment is chosen specifically knowing it CANNOT work out. . . So there were two choices here: Ignorance of the rules, or willful malfeasance.
Cartigan 07-16-07, 08:10 AM	Well, he seemed to be 'surprised' when the consequences actually hit him. . Being dense does not mean he didn't know what he was doing. He says it in the topic post - he was doing it to be "interesting." Anyway, original comment: When he chose to go with an evil character in a party full of Lawful good Clerics and Paladins, he lost all rights to thereafter complain - he isn't a victim, but at best an equal opportunity 'part of the problem'. When an alignment is chosen specifically knowing it CANNOT work out. . . Disagree. He has a legitimate complaint about their actions. A number of their actions go against their alignment - especially for the Paladins.
Johnny_Angel 07-16-07, 12:19 PM	Both points are also irrelevant. They were lawful good, they were mostly Paladins or lawful good clerics, and frankly, I have less than zero sympathy for anyone that purposely choses an evil alignment in a party where there is _already_ even ONE paladin. Sympathy wasn't the question though; the question was whether or not the paladin's alignment should shift. In my opinion, yes, it should shift. The palading told the LE character that using evil to fight evil was still non-good; then the same paladin said it was perfectly fine to adventure alongside of a lycanthrope -a creature which the Silver Flame views as always being evil. IMO, that is not lawful behavior because the paladin is saying that it's ok to break the code if it serves a greater good - a hypocritical statement considering his reasons for chaining up the sorcerer. IMO, the paladin violated his code.
Ack 07-16-07, 01:08 PM	The OP may have been at fault initially in deliberately bringing a LE character into the group (though this is modified by the fact that he didn't flaunt it, as I have seen players do before). The paladins found out basically via metagaming (and as the OP's character was female, why exactly were these fine, upstanding paragons of virtue following her into the forest anyway?) and then decided, "Well, we can't let this character have any free will, but we'll use her as a walking magic wand, and oh yeah, we'll strip her while we're at it." Starting to look bad. The OP creates a cool magic item via a necromantic ritual (permitted because the other players knew it would make cool stuff) which the paladins immediately confiscate for their own use (metagaming again). Looking worse. One of the PCs becomes a lycanthrope, and is immediately accepted into the group where the OP hadn't been. Probably the GM's half-assed attempt at having the paladins see the light - backfired utterly. Paladins now guilty of an utterly flagrant double standard. The OP may have supplied the ingredients, but the other players were the ones that brewed up the game explosion and lit the fuse. If they were always going to be this two-faced, they would have found some other excuse to pick on the OP. IMO, anyway.
doomblade403x 07-16-07, 01:50 PM	Most of this is metagame ********. Ok so they caught the pc casting in a ritual they didn't know or understand. The PC should have said she was casting a spell to commune with the spirits for enlightenment. Wouldnt have been a lie per se, just not telling them the whole story. NO ONE can tell me a Cleric/Paladin/Rogue would know the exact nature of the spell she was casting. How could they. Even with a spellcraft check, this is a ritual, and they would've had to observe it for a quite a while to know the truth. Maybe the op did something goofy with playing an evil in a good party. Then again look at the blatant double standard and favoritism by the other players and the GM. It's obvious to me this group has little sense of what "ROLEPLAYING" is all about.
Pyro_Azer 07-16-07, 02:33 PM	For who? Complete idiots? The Paladin is a D&D core core-class; it is found in the Player's Handbook. Any idiot playing D&D should know they are Lawful Good and cannot play in a team with an evil character. Quite honestly it took me a while to figure out that they had to be both lawful and good. This wasn't because i was an idiot but because i did not want to play a paliden and did not read the section on them.
Lethanic 07-16-07, 06:02 PM	Being dense does not mean he didn't know what he was doing. He says it in the topic post - he was doing it to be "interesting." Disagree. He has a legitimate complaint about their actions. A number of their actions go against their alignment - especially for the Paladins. GIven the whole process of choosing to play a lawful evil character in a party of Paladins I am disinclined to believe the story.
Caelic 07-16-07, 07:22 PM	Ok so they caught the pc casting in a ritual they didn't know or understand. ...except that they did have a general idea of what type of ritual it was. The OP has confirmed that. NO ONE can tell me a Cleric/Paladin/Rogue would know the exact nature of the spell she was casting. How could they. Even with a spellcraft check, this is a ritual, and they would've had to observe it for a quite a while to know the truth. The fact that no one...excuse me, NO ONE...can tell you that doesn't mean it's not possible. You don't think it should be possible; that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. It's not, however, the rules, nor does it have any weight in anyone's campaign except your own. Personally, I think it's pretty silly to assume that a group dedicated to fighting evil magic would be totally ignorant of the rituals and methods employed.
Mock26 07-16-07, 07:33 PM	NO ONE can tell me a Cleric/Paladin/Rogue would know the exact nature of the spell she was casting. How could they. Even with a spellcraft check, this is a ritual, and they would've had to observe it for a quite a while to know the truth. They could have studied it in a tome somewhere. I hate to use real world examples but there are a lot of non-Japanese people in this world who know just about every minor detail about the ritual to perform seppuku but who have never witnessed the ritual. They have studied it in various books and through various other sources. It is possible that someone in this DM's world had witnessed the ritual and then described it in great detail to some sage who then wrote it down and the paladins could have studied the tome. An in game example is that a first level mage can make a spellcraft check to identify a spell that he has never seen cast before, yet he would be able to idnetify without having to observe it for quite a while to know what the spell is. Rituals are not that different from spells. They are a magical rite that can be indentified by anyone who has the appropriate skill to identify it, not just by people who know the ritual or who have observed it for quite a while.
doomblade403x 07-21-07, 05:22 PM	...except that they did have a general idea of what type of ritual it was. The OP has confirmed that. The fact that no one...excuse me, NO ONE...can tell you that doesn't mean it's not possible. You don't think it should be possible; that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. It's not, however, the rules, nor does it have any weight in anyone's campaign except your own. Personally, I think it's pretty silly to assume that a group dedicated to fighting evil magic would be totally ignorant of the rituals and methods employed. So lemme get this right. If you see a rogue walk into a bar and communicate briefly with someone in thieves cant. Do you know it's thieves cant? If you were the rogue would you question how the Paladin knew that you were speaking cant? It's the same with spells and INFINATELY more complex. There is no way he would know exactly what was being cast. If for no other reason, because he's not a wizard. What training does a paladin have in identifying rituals and evil spells being cast? Unless he has a major roll in spellcraft, he's got nothing. Metagame knowledge does not mean your character knows a magic missile from an acid arrow as it's being cast, and it is SILLY to believe that your character would. The only thing that tol these players what she was casting was her own foolishness. That is the point I've tried to make. Metagame knowledge was used to make an assumption of what was going on, and it essentially ruined the game. You play however you want in your game, but I didnt crap on your opinion, thus you don't have the right to crap on mine.
Aucturos 07-21-07, 06:49 PM	So lemme get this right. If you see a rogue walk into a bar and communicate briefly with someone in thieves cant. Do you know it's thieves cant? If you were the rogue would you question how the Paladin knew that you were speaking cant? It's the same with spells and INFINATELY more complex. I'm pretty sure if you were a "Rogue Hunter" type of person, you'd know very well what they were talking in Thieves' Cant. I mean, you hunt them... you know this type of thing. It's necessary to perform your duty. You probably know a few words as well, along with a few of their tactics. You don't go hunting for something without knowing a bit about it. Likewise, these are Paladins of an order who's militantly hunting down evil beings without difference. I'm pretty sure they know what they're hunting, or if not, they don't care and would've done the same thing anyways since they're basically righteous fanatics. P.S. - Infinitely. What training does a paladin have in identifying rituals and evil spells being cast? Unless he has a major roll in spellcraft, he's got nothing. Metagame knowledge does not mean your character knows a magic missile from an acid arrow as it's being cast, and it is SILLY to believe that your character would. I don't know... Maybe something about being able to discern the difference between Good and Evil Alignment as an innate ability might give the Paladins a heads-up onto the energy of the spell being cast. Oh, and it was a Cleric who rolled the Spellcraft check on the Op as far as I know, and a Cleric would most certainly know the difference between a "Good" spell and a "Bad" spell. In fact, that's all this group would ever need. They don't need to know what spell, they just need to know it's "Bad." The only thing that tol these players what she was casting was her own foolishness. That is the point I've tried to make. Metagame knowledge was used to make an assumption of what was going on, and it essentially ruined the game. Metagame knowledge was used to create the Op's character in the first place, which, more than anything, ruined the game (along with a bit of poor DMing). The Op, more or less, set out to ruin the game, whether they were bright enough to realize it or not. As it's been pointed out dozens of times already, they Op decided to make a Lawful EVIL caster using their skin as the medium of demonic power in a group composed ENTIRELY of LAWFUL GOOD FANATICAL PALADINS because they thought it would be "interesting." Now, the DM compounded the issue, and there was most definitely metagaming going on (otherwise the Paladins/Clerics would've killed the Op's PC on sight), but to lay the blame on the rest of the group is as thick-skulled as the Op's choice. I can't see how this thread keeps going. :confused: The Op made a character they knew would cause conflict from the very beginning, got caught, caused conflict, and the group imploded with help from the DM. It's over and done with. >.<
Caelic 07-23-07, 12:15 AM	So lemme get this right. If you see a rogue walk into a bar and communicate briefly with someone in thieves cant. Do you know it's thieves cant? If you were the rogue would you question how the Paladin knew that you were speaking cant? Historically speaking? The police did pick up Thieves' Cant in the areas where it was employed, yeah. If the paladin is assigned to hunt thieves, then I would absolutely expect him to be trained in at least recognizing thieves' cant. It's the same with spells and INFINATELY more complex. ...except, of course, for the fact that the Paladin is a spellcaster, and therefore can reasonably be expected to know something about spells. Every time someone makes a bad analogy, Tiamat eats a kitten, you know. There is no way he would know exactly what was being cast. If for no other reason, because he's not a wizard. Opinion. Unsupported by the mechanics of the game. We know for a fact that non-wizards can identify wizard spells; Spellcraft makes no distinction. It is no more difficult for a cleric to identify a wizard spell than a cleric spell. Claims that being a wizard spell somehow makes it more difficult for a non-wizard to identify are therefore specious and unsupported by the rules. What training does a paladin have in identifying rituals and evil spells being cast? Well, I imagine that would depend on the Paladin and the order to which he belongs. In this particular case, given that he belongs to an order dedicated to combating such magic, I think it's pretty foolish to assume he would not be given training. I'll also note that the clerics in the party seem to have been completely forgotten. Let me guess: they also know nothing of summoning spells and rituals? Unless he has a major roll in spellcraft, he's got nothing. ...and, of course, none of those Clerics could reasonably be expected to have Spellcraft. It's not like it's a class skill for them or anything. The only thing that tol these players what she was casting was her own foolishness. That is the point I've tried to make. Metagame knowledge was used to make an assumption of what was going on, and it essentially ruined the game. ...and you know this how, precisely? I certainly haven't seen the OP state that no Spellcraft checks were made or that metagame knowledge was used. Come to that, I haven't seen the OP claim that the game's been ruined.
calronmoonflower 07-23-07, 12:57 AM	except, of course, for the fact that the Paladin is a spellcaster, and therefore can reasonably be expected to know something about spells. Such is represented by a Knowledge (arcana) check as you are not the one being subject to the spell.
Caelic 07-23-07, 11:39 AM	Such is represented by a Knowledge (arcana) check as you are not the one being subject to the spell. Certainly, Knowledge (arcana) would be appropriate to ascertaining specifically what a given ritual is (though you need not be subject to a spell being cast in order to to identify it with Spellcraft.) Again, though, the party was replete with characters for whom Knowledge (arcana) is a class skill. The Paladin? Perhaps not, although it's certainly possible (depending on feats and other factors) that a Paladin might have quite a high score in Knowledge (arcana). What I'm taking issue with here are the rather large assumptions doomblade's making in stating his case so definitely. He assumes that only the Paladin was in a position to see the ritual, whereas the OP simply said that the group caught him. He assumes that the characters either lacked the skills we're discussing or did not use them. Again, unless I missed a post from the OP somewhere, neither of these has been established to be the case.
Aucturos 07-23-07, 03:59 PM	What I'm taking issue with here are the rather large assumptions doomblade's making in stating his case so definitely. He assumes that only the Paladin was in a position to see the ritual, whereas the OP simply said that the group caught him. He assumes that the characters either lacked the skills we're discussing or did not use them. Again, unless I missed a post from the OP somewhere, neither of these has been established to be the case. I believe the post was made by his campaign-mate. housjaelre or however you spell it. It was a Cleric that made the Spellcraft (I think it was that) check, and because of the roll the Cleric just knew that the spell being cast was evil, without the specifics of the spell being known. Unless my memory is on the fritz again again again again again.
Mock26 07-23-07, 05:42 PM	What training does a paladin have in identifying rituals and evil spells being cast? Unless he has a major roll in spellcraft, he's got nothing. Metagame knowledge does not mean your character knows a magic missile from an acid arrow as it's being cast, and it is SILLY to believe that your character would. Well, given that rites are of a religious nature, and given that paladins are basically religious warriors, they are probably trained to know some of the more common rites, be they evil or good in nature. By the way, "SILLY" is an opinion, and stating an opinion does not make it a fact.
doomblade403x 07-23-07, 05:54 PM	I was refered to as silly first, and no one has shaken me from the arguement that these characters would know anything about the spell being cast. These is class knowledge that is CLASS KNOWLEDGE. you can argue the points you keep repeating till the sky falls, however it's stupid to think someone knows the intricacies of someone's class so much that they can identify them as evil, or casting an evil ritual. The right thing for you isn't the right thing for me. You don't like my opinion and I don't like yours. You play your game how you please, but don't bash my opinion of the situation because you don't agree. There's a fine line between debating an opinion and being rude.
Mock26 07-23-07, 06:45 PM	I was refered to as silly first, and no one has shaken me from the arguement that these characters would know anything about the spell being cast. These is class knowledge that is CLASS KNOWLEDGE. you can argue the points you keep repeating till the sky falls, however it's stupid to think someone knows the intricacies of someone's class so much that they can identify them as evil, or casting an evil ritual. The right thing for you isn't the right thing for me. You don't like my opinion and I don't like yours. You play your game how you please, but don't bash my opinion of the situation because you don't agree. There's a fine line between debating an opinion and being rude. But you keep expressing your opinion as if it is sacrosanct fact that applies to all gamers. For example, you say, "it's stupid to think someone knows..." That implies that your view point is the only acceptable viewpoint, for everyone. Saying, rather, "I think it's stupid...." clearly denotes an opinion. And, for the record, I am not bashing your opinion. I am bashing your attitude which seems to imply that your opinion is the only acceptable opinion for everyone, when, in fact, your opinion applies to you and you alone, just as my opinion is mine and mine alone. The difference, is that I have not tried to tell anyone that my opinion should apply to them, where as you seem to be implying that your opinion is right and mine (as well as everyone else's) is wrong. NO ONE can tell me a Cleric/Paladin/Rogue would know the exact nature of the spell she was casting. How could they. Even with a spellcraft check, this is a ritual, and they would've had to observe it for a quite a while to know the truth. As for this, where is your proof to back up the statement that they would have had to observe a ritual for quite a while to know the truth of it? Where is your proof that that a cleric/paladin/rogue couldn't know the exact nature of the spell she was casting? You seem to freely toss around so-called statements of fact without backing them up as proof. Questioning the statement of opinion as fact is not being rude nor an attack on you.
Caelic 07-23-07, 07:58 PM	There's a fine line between debating an opinion and being rude. Well, yes. For example, this: ...it's stupid to think someone knows the intricacies of someone's class so much that they can identify them as evil, or casting an evil ritual. ...is rude. The right thing for you isn't the right thing for me. You don't like my opinion and I don't like yours. You play your game how you please, but don't bash my opinion of the situation because you don't agree. Physician, heal thyself.
doomblade403x 07-23-07, 08:07 PM	I'm not the only acting as though my opinion is the only one that matters if you read the thread. As I've stated earlier. You have your opinion, and I have mine. I'll say no more on this, let's go back to having fun with the game.
calronmoonflower 07-24-07, 03:52 AM	Well, given that rites are of a religious nature, and given that paladins are basically religious warriors, they are probably trained to know some of the more common rites, be they evil or good in nature. If you read the fluff for the acolyte of the skin class the rite isn't common (Raverloft could be different as it is heavy evil) in fact it was almost completely removed from existence. Even references to it where mostly destroyed.
Aucturos 07-24-07, 11:59 AM	I was refered to as silly first, and no one has shaken me from the arguement that these characters would know anything about the spell being cast. These is class knowledge that is CLASS KNOWLEDGE. you can argue the points you keep repeating till the sky falls, however it's stupid to think someone knows the intricacies of someone's class so much that they can identify them as evil, or casting an evil ritual. From the Op himself: They did use detect evil, but I was meditating a while they did it to see if anyone was stalking them. They had suspicions (because I was an elf and a sorcerer), but couldn't prove anything. Later, when I was doing the ritual, two clerics followed me (because of being an elf and a sorcerer) and saw me do the ritual. When I was finished, they demanded I explain myself. At first I said I was trying to cleanse myself of taint (originally, I was going to blame my skin condition on taint, since no one would heal the sorcerous elf) and that it had backfired, but one of them rolled a 21 on a spell craft check. The DM gave me leniency, since the spell required is supposed to be extremely esoteric, and just told them it was some sort of spell that contacted the lower planes. I decided to be honest since I had lied once before to a commanding officer and didn't want to do so again, and named myself a nessecary evil against evil. Mmmkay. The right thing for you isn't the right thing for me. You don't like my opinion and I don't like yours. You play your game how you please, but don't bash my opinion of the situation because you don't agree. There's a fine line between debating an opinion and being rude. There aren't any opinions here. You're wrong. The Op explained how they knew, and if you feel like arguing about another DM's decision in their campaign (which you know very little about), I'll kindly take your pompous stance as idiocy. I'll say no more on this, let's go back to having fun with the game. Agreed, though I suggest next time, read the thread thoroughly. Cheers. :)
Mock26 07-24-07, 01:12 PM	If you read the fluff for the acolyte of the skin class the rite isn't common (Raverloft could be different as it is heavy evil) in fact it was almost completely removed from existence. Even references to it where mostly destroyed. Just because something is rare doesn't mean that it can't happen. Additionally, because the rite was almost completely removed from existence means that it still exists and that some people know about it. I am merely offering up possible reasons as to how the paladins could have known about the rite.
calronmoonflower 07-25-07, 03:35 AM	Just because something is rare doesn't mean that it can't happen. Additionally, because the rite was almost completely removed from existence means that it still exists and that some people know about it. I am merely offering up possible reasons as to how the paladins could have known about the rite. You could still pick it out with a Knowledge (Arcana) check, but the check for common knowledge is 10 or less, as the post I was responding to said it would be common knowledge for a paladin. This would be rare knowledge and thusly require a higher check. A spellcraft check of 21 shouldn't work as the one making it wasn't subject to the spell. Also I the knowledge didn't exist you couldn't perform the ritual to gain the prestige class as you wouldn't know it.
Caelic 07-25-07, 05:13 PM	A spellcraft check of 21 shouldn't work as the one making it wasn't subject to the spell. Okay, I have to ask: where in the world are you getting "subject to the spell?" You keep coming back to that, but neither the rules nor common sense support the notion that it's easier to identify a spell to which you are subject. You're not going to have an easier time recognizing the words and gestures simply because the evil wizard happens to be pointing at you and not the guy standing to your left. In order to identify a spell, you simply need to see/hear the spell's verbal and somatic components. The only time it matters whether you were subject to a spell is when you're attempting to identify a spell you did NOT see cast after making a successful save against it. Ultimately, the DC of this comes down to the judgement of the DM in question. It could be as high as 30 if he determines that it is a "rare or unique effect." Clearly, this particular DM determined that it was not, and that's also totally reasonable.
calronmoonflower 07-26-07, 02:12 AM	Okay, I have to ask: where in the world are you getting "subject to the spell?" Misremebered the spellcraft entery. The ritual isn't a spell so the only entery that applies would be the last one. Anyway the post that points how they where going to cover the effects with role playing shows that the rest of the players where causing problems for the character BEFORE the ritual. :(
Infernostrider 07-26-07, 06:30 AM	no DM should ever be pressured by the majority, but still keep his players happy. it's insane so hard it is. If the stone was created by evil, the paladin should try to destroy it. simple as that. if he tolerates it on a neutral or evil party member, fine, but if he uses it he will fall
Caelic 07-26-07, 11:54 AM	Misremebered the spellcraft entery. The ritual isn't a spell so the only entery that applies would be the last one. 'Course, the problem with that argument is that it automatically relegates every single non-spell magical ritual or process to "Strange or unique magical effect." The apprentice doing his first ritual? DC 30. The spellcaster making a Ring of Protection +1? DC 30. Comprehending the nature of the Shadow Weave and the theoretical effects of using it as an alternate source to manifest Incarnum? Well, that's DC 30, too, so you might as well do that rather than attempt to comprehend magic item creation.