Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Stormborn20 Apr 10, 2015 9:50:56	I'm thinking of playing a character who is a follower of Bane, maybe a cleric or paladin.  It seems like it would be a fun tie in for the Mulmaster adventure. The thing is, I'm worried about it being too disruptive to the quests. I wouldn't try to intentionally be a dick to the party of anything, and would strive to find good RP reasons for joining whatever the week's adventure is. So no spoilers please, but for those who have seen some of the new adventures, would you say that a follower of bane could be appropriate for these quests?  I mean, if the adventures revolve around battling the church of Bane then it probably wouldn't work, but if the church is a bit more in the background then I'll probably go for it.
#2 QwertyAzerty Apr 10, 2015 10:27:47	i can tell you without any spoiler, that the DDEX2-1 (the 5 1 hours adventure) are all about accepting small payed job, so you can actually buy food/shelther and some enjoyments. Yeah being a cleric of Bane you probably get the food and shelter from the church for free, but you can still accept those payed job for the money for your personal pleasure.   Being evil do not necessarily mean you need to kill all good align paladin, and take a bath in the blood of 40 virgins every day. Being evil just mean that you will make your own need pass before other people need no matter the consequences.   For example, a Good align person wouldn't smoke in public place because it might bother someone else. The Neutral person will smoke in a public place, but if someone come and tell him that she's pregnant or alergic, he will probably stop The Evil person will laught at the pregnant lady and blow smoke in her face.   So your Evil cleric of Bane do not necessarily want the destruction of everything and will avoid act of kindness, he will just make sure that the benefit of doing those are GREATER then the annoyance of doing them.     Your alignment should NEVER be an excuse for being disruptive or refusing an adventure, it will simply modifcy the hook that need to be used to bring you in.   So If someone ask you to go save there daughter. The good align person will gladly do it just for the act of kindness and might even refuse (depending if he need the payment for this month rent or not) The neutral person will do it, but he will take that payment even if he don't need it, since he might not need to eat a steak tonight, but it much better then an old dry jerky. The Evil person will do it, but he want an advance on the payment, will haggle to try to get some extra on top of it, and if the daughter is cute, might try to have some other bonus as well.   Yes an evil player will help the team, because he knows that without them he will fail the mission then all this effort will be for nothing. he won't kill the party after the mission neither, since this team was not as bad as other random people could be so might as well keep them around, they are good lackey.   For example, the relationship between the good align protection paladin and the mage of the party: If the mage is good or neutral, the paladin is a good friend and working as a team is jsut common sense. For the evil mage, the paladin is a good meat shield protecting him from the enemies and as long that he fulfill his purpose properly he can stay in the party.   When played right, Evil character can be very fun in an adventure. They are willing to do the easy thing which a good align character would had problem doing (killing the hostage instead of having to bring them back in town for trial)
#3 Stormborn20 Apr 10, 2015 11:19:14	Thanks! And yes, I am aware that you can play an evil character without ruining the game for the other players. I was mostly concerned with being disruptive plot-wise, not RP-wise.
#4 QwertyAzerty Apr 10, 2015 11:30:43	like I said even plot wise. even being evil you can accept allthe quest, you just do it for a different reason. The good align character do it for being nice and for helping other, and the evil character will do it for the reward (money, renown, influence, for pleasure.... of killing stuff, because he share a personal reason to kill the target etc...)
#5 Stormborn20 Apr 10, 2015 11:40:01	Well, if I'm a devout cleric of bane it would probably take a lot more than the AL DM could offer to entice me to overthrow the church.
(Reply to #5) Coredump00	Stormborn20 wrote:
#7 Kalani Apr 10, 2015 12:14:58	That person was me and it was a paladin of Tiamat. I considered the cults motives suspicious (as it was a sudden departure from their normal MO). Also, I hated the fact they have corrupted Tiamats children and transformed them into undead abominations for centuries.    She considered herself an Inquisitor and challenged even loyal members of the church to single combat. If they lost - they were judged unworthy by the Dark Queen.   Keep in mind however that Trickery is part of Tiamats portfolio and that she encourages infighting.  Rooting out deception, corruption and killing off weak members of the church was my way of making the church inherently stronger (survival of the strongest)
#8 Skerrit Apr 10, 2015 12:37:31	Also please not that the factions that allow you to play evil characters have also ordered you to work with the other characters since the factions are currently allied. Screwing other PCs because you can makes your bosses look bad, and what with your bosses being evil, their punishments tend to be... creative.   Greg Marks DnDAL Associate Resource Manager
#9 Stormborn20 Apr 10, 2015 12:50:16	Skerrit wrote:
#10 Pauper Apr 10, 2015 13:23:27	Sounds good to me -- I've got a Lawful Evil paladin of Helm* who belongs to the Lord's Alliance who is all about protecting the defenseless and backward from those who would exploit them (so that they can be exploited by the folks who should rightfully be exploiting them, but let's not dwell on that, 'kay?)   * - Cordell's expedition to Maztica happened long before he was born, but he idolizes those intrepid explorers   The weird thing was, it was easier for me to play my character in ToD than it was for many folks who were traditional Harper-style do-gooders. Whenever an adventure would try to play the 'oh, do you really do this thing to support a corrupt leadership' moral dilemma card, my character would be all, 'yep, those are my guys!' and just keep on truckin'.   -- Pauper
(Reply to #7) Coredump00	Kalani wrote:
#12 BRJN Apr 10, 2015 17:24:39	Stormborn20 wrote:
#13 Hibiki54 Apr 11, 2015 12:34:01	Coredump00 wrote:
#14 Stormborn20 Apr 11, 2015 18:12:34	I looked on the forgotten realms wiki a bit.  Any other sources available online?  I don't own any old settings.
#15 BRJN Apr 12, 2015 14:51:27	Hibiki54 wrote:
#16 Stormborn20 Apr 12, 2015 15:09:55	Well, I made Cleric of Bane. War domain, fights with crossbow.   I brought him to a store to tryout.  The DM tells me that he doesn't allow evil alignments at his table.  I'm a bit stunned by that given AL rules that permit it, but I also didn't want to delay the game with an argument, so I offer to switch gods with the intent of discussing the alignment after the game.   Now the role playing personality I'd planned was shot, but at least I'd have some fun in combat, right?  We eventually come across our first room of baddies. I take aim and fire a bolt, then use my War Priest feature to fire again with my bonus action.  But no, I'm told that the crossbow can only fire once per turn. This isn't true, so I explain that the War Priest feature lets me use a bonus action.  He just ignores me as then condescendingly explains that crossbows take time to be reloaded.   So my cleric's religion was banned and then effectively my only domain feature was banned.   I was pretty pissed and won't be going back to that store again.  I thought there was supposed to be agreement amongst the basic rules at AL events.
#17 Ainulindalion Apr 12, 2015 15:52:39	Unless he's the only DM there ever is at that store, don't write off a store because of a bad DM.  Even still, you might want to talk to the store organizer and explain your point of view.  Unless said DM is also the store organizer.  In which case... *shrug*
#18 Greenstone.Walker Apr 12, 2015 16:08:28	QwertyAzerty wrote:
#19 Kalani Apr 12, 2015 17:24:15	Did you have the crossbow expert feat? If not, your DM is correct that a crossbow can only fire once per round, regardless of how many attacks you can normally make. This is due to the "reloading" property.    The crossbow expert feat allows you to ignore the "reloading" property. If you had that feat you could make a second attack with the "War Priest" ability.    At first level, only a variant human could possibly have said feat. All other characters would be limited to 1 attack per round with their crossbow until they get their first feat - at 4th level (or later if multiclassed or took an ability increase/different feat instead)   Lawful Evil is a legal alignment (depending on faction). Your DM does not have the authority to ban it or any other AL-legal rule at his table.
#20 Ainulindalion Apr 12, 2015 18:53:13	Player's Handbook, pg. 147 wrote:
#21 Coredump00 Apr 12, 2015 18:32:18	Crossbow expert feat is not needed, you can fire it once per action, not once per turn.    (Personally, I think if they are going to have the loading property, it *should* be once per turn.... but it isn't.)   I would try to talk to him one on one, and be friendly..... explain that as you understood it the AL games are supposed to follow the DnD rules and the ALPG without creating house rules; and ask him if he is planning on doing that, or if he is going to continue to create house rules.   If he is going to continue that way, I would then go to the coordinator and ask if there are any DMs that will be following the DnD rules and the AL guidelines.   If things don't go your way, you may be able to contact the Local or Regional Coordinator... they may have more luck, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
#22 Tyranthraxus Apr 12, 2015 20:29:16	Ive noticed that the dm at your location banned the Evil alignment from their tables. Strangely.. or perhaps not strangely at all, Ive seen a fair few posters here and in facebook say the same about their dms.     Speaking to your choice of Bane and being in Mulmaster.   Mulmaster is the ... Vatican City of the faith of Bane. The Black Altar is there and Bane not only has a temple, he has a massive Cathedral there. Notice too that there is a definite change in how Clerics of Bane behave. Once upon a time before the Time of Troubles Banites would if not openly slaughter one another to advance rank come pretty close. THey used to use the mace/other to resolve a lot of disputes. Since the time of troubles however, Banites have embraced a lot more of the shadow, behind the scenes approach to advancement.   I would hope that you Cleric is cruel, maybe disappasionate and slightly haughty.
#23 Nozareem Apr 12, 2015 23:12:01	I play a human cleric of Bane from Thay in last season and this season he's a badass who looks mean and does a lot of intimedation but he's not crazy he knows that you need your party to further Thay and Zent goals so he use people to your benifit.  I have raised dead in front of clerics of kelemvore which was a very interesting PC interaction but it was not disruptive he's evil and does something other pcs might not like, but I don't have him anything crazy because he's not Chaotic evil .
(Reply to #16) Pauper	Stormborn20 wrote:
#25 RO3 Apr 13, 2015 12:06:02	The variety of events and rather central focus of Bane throughout Faerun's history makes it difficult to ignore such a deity. The league's focus on his cities and, according to faction options, promoting your role amoung his secret police in Mulmaster was a very.... unique perspective to me. Allowing people to bully the citizenry of Mulmaster isn't very heroic (but it is damn awesome for story).    The whole "play well with each other" makes a ton of sense out of game. Party / player unity is a very important aspect to D&D. Conflict should really only be an IG focus. I fully understand and agree with these things.    I consider most evil faiths extremely complex, even in a world where many can easily point to someone and paint them with an alignment.  I do not find their deep and fun philosophical reasons for existence to be well reflected in league play. Honestly, I find any in game justified reasons for philosophical debate crushes what little immeersion exists instead of promotes story.    I am playing a cleric of Corellon Larethian in one of the organized play games I went to. I figure I would try the class out and his being elven made the choice of god reaosnable. When I show up, the table I sit at is comprised of three Zhentarim folders. This doesn't bother me so much. I can work within the confines of the Forgotten Realms mafia, even with its history. That's fine; we are not getting married after all.    I ask if I should try out my paladin of Bane. Too much front line goodness and they would LOVE a cleric (who doesn't!?) Yet, two of the players were half-orcs of Grummush. Constantly mocking, antagonizing, and just being obnoxious (which was, admittedly, vey well roleplayed). There really was no reasonable way to handle the situation, except for our group to basically ignore the faiths, and dive into the faction's purposes more... which worked rather well actually.    Staying strictly to a tabletop campaign idea, there are very few reasons for these two faiths to work well together, but at least it could be constructed with a DM and a large story told. n such a place, the story is more malleable and “sandboxy”. In the rather mercenary methodology (meaning table to table, different DMs, etc.) of the league, I really don't see much purpose to allowing evils faiths. We have factions, whose goals are a much larger focus (as in, the game has goals for them and mechanical support) to the game.    The TLDR of this would be I see the league as an amusement park. You are there to experience the written story and ride the rides versus create a personal (or sandbox style) story. The depth and richness of creating conflict with evil aligned PCs and the faiths appears very counter intuitive to me and only creates artificially restrictive and immersion breaking scenarios.
#26 Mirtek Apr 13, 2015 12:22:55	Tyranthraxus wrote:
#27 Tyranthraxus Apr 13, 2015 18:37:18	Mirtek: Yeah, I was aware of that but didnt want to go too far into detail on the portfolion business. Thanks though for summing it up!
#28 Hibiki54 Apr 15, 2015 17:58:54	It also helped that Fzoul and Manshoon pretty much regulated and put in check everyone in both the Church of Bane and Zhentarim.   Coredump00 wrote:
#29 Stormborn20 Apr 15, 2015 18:10:17	I expect table variation where the rules are unclear, incomplete, or ambiguous. But on this issue they are explicit and direct.
#30 Tyranthraxus Apr 15, 2015 20:27:54	It also depends on how much the DM herself knows about FR. Im sure there are more than a few Expeditions and Encounters dms who know next to nothing about FR and only learn what they read in either the scenarios or the modules. They may have been picked by the Organiser to run things.   Depth of setting and consistency of setting is only as deep as the DM running the scenario's knowledge goes.
(Reply to #29) Pauper	Stormborn20 wrote:
#32 Stormborn20 Apr 16, 2015 8:40:43	Surely players are not expected to be familiar with fifteen year old rules from two editions ago to play in AL. Some weren't even born yet.
#33 Pauper Apr 16, 2015 8:54:30	No, but a DM who ran for a decade using the 3E crossbow rules might need to be shaken out of old habits.
#34 imaginaryfriend Apr 16, 2015 8:57:51	Let me try to translate the 3e thing: Just because you think its explicit and direct (and it is) does not mean your DM, who may be holding on to half a dozen rules variants from earlier editions and alpha/beta test, agrees automatically. Sometimes gentle prodding can be required. Less gentle prodding may be required in extreme cases, but keep in mind that antagonizing your DM may have interesting side effects..
#35 Ainulindalion Apr 16, 2015 11:34:38	I know that antagonizing me out of character when I'm DMing tends to result in potion or spell slot usage being increased for the individual in question.