You see, we play in the dragonlance setting during the age of mortals, and I play a silvanesti elf conjurer (god flavor), and the parties other wizard is a necromancer who have just taken the test of high sorcery and won a black robe. Now, my wizard have no plans to take the test himself though he is ready, and thus he is viewed by an illegal magic user by the order, and any member of the said order is forced me to either kill me or force me to take the test or risk being kicked out of the order and deemed an illegal spellcaster himself. In short; the parties other wizard is forced to attack me the very moment he learns that I have the ability to cast 3rd level spells and that Im not planning on joining his organization.
Now, flavor stuff aside, I know that the player whos character I must kill are very fond of said character, and that he is likely to be a upset about his death. I on the other hand are fond of my character too, and I would hate to have my character die for much the same reasons as the other player. So this is my dilemma; one character must die, but slashing the others wizards throat or scribing Explosive Runes on the ceiling of his tent at night out of the blue would not be very sporting of me, and a direct confrontation will be too much of a risk to me as I will with great certaincy die if I loose the initiative roll.
I was planning on informing him that I intend to skip the test of high sorcery a late night after a long day of fighting in which I know that he have already used up his most deadly spells, and let him attack me first as the laws of wizardry require. I would of course have made sure to have my best spells left unused for the occation, and to make it absolutely sure that he will attack I would require him to hand over his spellbook to me as to make sure that he would not just follow me and attack me when Im weak. This approach would go well with my alignment (LN) and race (Silvanesti elves believe in preservation of life), but in reality he would have no choice but to engage in a fight in which he is at a great disadvantage.
Is this a fair enough way of killing a firends favourite character? How would you feel about it in his shoes? And how would you go about this problem if you were in my place?
Oh, and if you opt to kill him like a coward, whether by murdering him in his sleep, or forcing him into a rigged duel, expect the other PCs to use your skull for an ashtray. You'll deserve it.
If you both agree to a duel that can avoid hard feelings between the players - but that will only work if you are willing to lose your character fair and square.
If you turn assassin and your target has no idea or preparations, it should be easy. Even a one-sided battle should be easy. But you have to decide if that's what you want to do.
Killing people who aren't prepared is easy enough that it's a wonder the DM doesn't do it more often to smarten up new players - but it isn't fun at all. With a silence stone my Katana weilding samura finished off an entire party with Coup de Grace during his guard shift one night as a protest to the DM that his game was too merciful. He was furious and my character's soul is still being tortured in hell and the rest of the party has been returned to life - but I made my point.
PVP sessions in my past have alienated my friends. One has never roleplayed since. Another left the group never to return. Another split out group down the middle with both sides not talking to each other. Certainly there were other factors, but there always is.
PVP can be fun. It's the ultimate challenge - just be careful and decide what you will do if you lose and what you'll do if you win.
Mark Charke
There has to be another way around this if you are so up on not wanting to irritate the other player by killing a PC he likes so much. Discuss it between the DM and this other player. Come to an agreement. This should have been planned out whether you both are renegades or are taking the tests in the beginning of the game. As well as, whether or not you are going to be coming into conflict with each other.
Frankly, if I were your DM, and I saw one of my players run their character so it killed another character due to lack of foresight amongst the group, I'd use it as an excuse to teach the rest of the group a hard lesson. That way, when the next time character creation comes around, the group brainstorms on where their characters are going. They won't conflict in a "You must die for me to live!" type scenario.
PvP like that will grow ressentment, and possibly in my experience, destoy the game for everyone else.
The only way i could see it becoming interesting: both players are doing it on purpose and have agreeded to it, to further some plot hook.. or one want to change his character but want it to go out with a bang..
Or its some kind of gladiator game, where pvp is the game.
Is this a fair enough way of killing a firends favourite character?
No.
How would you feel about it in his shoes?
Upset.
And how would you go about this problem if you were in my place?
I would talk to the DM and tell him/her that I don't enjoy being in a position where I have to kill a PC. The DM can easily fix this problem.
Im not going for a 100% fair fight either, after all he decided to join the most intolerant branch of the order of his own free will, and though he might not have known it when he created his character, he chose that a confrontation had to happen. Im going for a fight in which I have the advantage, but still lets keep a chance of running away wihout the means pose an immediate threat.
But maybe I should just take the head on fight in the morning.. That might even be fun, though he has a 55% chance of wining initiative ant killing me before my first move, unless of course I cheat again and pick up some scrolls of defensive buffs at the next wizard trading station we pass, before anyone know that I am a renegade wizard. Would that be fairer, and at any rate fair enough? Im not trying to tick anyone off there, least of all my fellow players, I just want to know how fair a fight is fair enough to destroy anoter PC.
EDIT: It seems I got ninjaed several times while typing.
First of all, why not work something out within the party, OOC to deal with the situation? Its not as if all of you didn't know the consequences of one of you taking the test and the other not before hand, right? So, why did you, as a group, opt for one to take the test, and the other to not? Was it your plan to whack the other wizard in the group from the start of play? Why don't you take the test yourself? You happen to be lawful anyhow. Maybe you can work it out with your DM that your character takes the test, but doesn't join the PrC?
The DM do not allow the party to share any information on our characters before the campaign start, as he feels that this way of doing it gives a more realistic impression of a band of adventurers who randomly meet and decide to adventure together. We simply created two characters on crash course independantly of eachother, and I only found out about the problem when we hit level 3 and his character started talking about taking how he would soon be ready for the test.
There is a number of reasons why I wont take the test RP wise, but mechanically it would also be hard for me because know that I dont meet the prerequests for the Wizard of High Sorcery PrC, and according to my DMs house rules that means that I autofail it, which again will kill me.
Frankly, if I were your DM, and I saw one of my players run their character so it killed another character due to lack of foresight amongst the group, I'd use it as an excuse to teach the rest of the group a hard lesson. That way, when the next time character creation comes around, the group brainstorms on where their characters are going. They won't conflict in a "You must die for me to live!" type scenario.
I did confront the DM before posting here, asking if there were another way around this, but sadly Im out of luck. The DMs exact words were "Cool! Your character is a renegade, and Xs character just joined the black robes? Remind me to bring popcorn to the next session.".
The setting dictates...
The DM controls the setting as he/she is the ultimate dictator.
Its not that I want PvP to happen,
You seem quite content to kill a fellow PC. What seems to be bugging you is HOW to do it fairly, not that you have to do it at all in the first place.
If you did this to my PC and in real life we were good friends, I would take you aside and ask that your PCs never kill my PCs and vice versa. If you did it a 2nd time, I would never speak to you again.
If you insist on fighting another player's character (i.e. you suck at D&D) and you want to feel like it was a fair fight, you need to trigger your opponent's obligation to duel you when a) he cannot attack, and b) he has time to prepare.
So, encasing him in a jail cell, magic barrier, or whatever, then telling him, and then telling him how things will play out many hours from now after you have both had time to fully prepare, is the way to go.
But if you play a smart person who does not want to duel in character, you can avoid the conflict.
I did confront the DM before posting here, asking if there were another way around this, but sadly Im out of luck. The DMs exact words were "Cool! Your character is a renegade, and Xs character just joined the black robes? Remind me to bring popcorn to the next session.".
I would either retire my character or change his behavior. I would ask my DM not to be so inflexible in the future (i.e. to the point where PVP is the only option). If he refused, I would find another DM.
I do not know your friends' personalities, but it seems fair to guess that the player whose wizard you killed will consider you a Steve from this point forward, as may some of the other players. Your DM seems...er... cool with it, so you don't have to worry about him, at least. If you're confident that you can handle the others, you should next consider how the rest of the PC party members will handle this, IG.
If you think they'll be cool with it, proceed however you like.
If you think they're more likely to say "OMFG! U fragged teh wizard, u team-killer!" and attack you out of a desire for revenge or out of fear for their own lives, you might want to reconsider the "Wait until after a heavy battle, when he's weak" plan, because that's when other party members are likely to be aware of what you're doing. Cutting his throat in his sleep puts you at less risk in that respect, because you can claim that bandits did it, or something.
If that doesn't appeal to you, then your best chance is to get him alone somewhere, somehow, and then nuke the crap out of him when he's not ready. I suggest waiting until the next time the party is in a dungeon, and propose that both parties split up. You go with the other wizard, finish him off while the rest of the party is busy elsewhere, and claim that a random monster or a trap is responsible for his death.
I've been in a position where my choices in character seemed to be either attack a fellow party member or make a new character. As much as I liked the character, I opted to have him leave the group behind and brought a new character into the mix. I always have character ideas banging around in my head, so it created a more fun scenario for the group if I made a new character.
I recommend you and the other player talk about it, before the next session. If your DM is a jerk about this (and it sounds like he is, frankly) I would have the conversation behind his back. The two of you need to decide the best way to resolve the in-game conflict. Maybe the other player is OK with the idea of a duel, as long as it's fair; maybe he's willing to make a new character; maybe he thinks you're being unfair; maybe he thinks the DM is being unfair. You won't know until you talk to him.
First, in the actual campaign setting, you are an illegal spellcaster. This is the truth. But you must also consider that the orders have issued an informal decree that spellcasters outside the tower are to be left alone BECAUSE there are so few in the Tower that they simply can't deal with them all. They treat Renegades and Sorcerers the same. While it's officially against the law, it's not something that they are really likely to pursue unless your DM enforces this rule.
Which means that the black robes may well simply not care. They have a LOT of bigger issues on their plates right now than a single pebble in a river like yourself. You are one spellcaster among many who aren't part of the tower, so why should they care? If I were you, I would play your character out as if it doesn't know any better, and see what happens later on. Like, don't act like you are evading the test...act more like you don't KNOW about the test, and then watch the blackrobes reaction.
I'm betting it won't even notice. Or it might. You can deal with it then. Be passive. My advice. Whatever you do, if I were you I would NOT provoke the attack. Especially because you are neutral.
By the way, the "not meeting prerequisites for a PrC" causing an autofail of a life or death test is pretty lame.
Meh. Its called realism. And one player has made a choice to join a Tower of Sorcery, and the other player must respond. Can the DM railroad them around this confrontation? Sure, if he wants. But conflict between characters is real, and those who suggest the DM is instigating the conflict are still metagaming just a bit.
I liked the passive suggestion the best.
If I were you, I would play your character out as if it doesn't know any better, and see what happens later on. Like, don't act like you are evading the test...act more like you don't KNOW about the test, and then watch the blackrobes reaction.
I'm betting it won't even notice. Or it might. You can deal with it then. Be passive. My advice. Whatever you do, if I were you I would NOT provoke the attack. Especially because you are neutral.
Yes, yes, yes! This man has it right.
Now, my wizard have no plans to take the test himself though he is ready, and thus he is viewed as an illegal magic user by the order... This approach would go well with my alignment (LN) ...
If you are lawful, why are you breaking the law and incurring the wrath of the society of magic users at the peril of yourself and your party members?
How about telling him you have passed the test then take it when you can or try to keep it a secret forever.
PvP ruins this fun game so try to avoid it at all costs, no one wants to lose a character. Try talking to him ooc to see what his reaction would be, sure it allows him time to plan a strategy but at least he sees it coming.
Why not simply take the test or agree you are going to take the test when you can, is it that important that you don't that one of you lose your characters?
I asked the same question. Upon reading back through the thread, I found the answer buried in one of his other posts-- The DM has declared that the character must meet the prerequisites for the Wizard of High Sorcery PrC in order to pass the test, and failing the test kills the character.
This, as far as I can tell, blatantly contradicts the information in the Dragonlance Campaign Setting book. Or at least the first part does; failing the test does kill the character.
For one thing, although passing the test is a prerequisite for the PrC, I don't see anything that says that every character who passes the test must necessarily advance in the PrC. And, in fact, it states that a character who passes the test can continue to take Wizard levels.
For another thing, the description of the test itself states that it's tailored to the individual taking it. To me, that implies that anyone capable of casting the appropriate level of spells has the chance to pass, whether he meets the PrC prerequisites or not. If he doesn't have the right feats, he'll have different ones (and therefor demonstrate different capabilities), and the proctors of the test will take that into account. They ought to take his specialty (if any) into account as well, even if it's incompatible with his alignment.
But let us suppose that I did survive the test, then what? I would be accepted into the branch of the red robes, and I would have to fight the black robed wizard in the party anyway because black robes just dont get along with wizards of the other branches of the order very well, and on top of that I would never be able to return to my elven homelands because I would be viewed as unclean for not being admitted to the order of the white robes.
I like the passive approach a lot, but the risk of him attacking me at night are perhaps a little too great, if we take his general personality into consideration. My best bet is perhaps to just bluff my way out of this, as Cedric suggested. I have roughly 45% chance of making a bluff check against his sense motive, and if I can get the DM to apply a little circumstance bonus to my roll when I say something like 'Uhm.. The official at the tower told me to come back again next year.', I just might be able to pull this off anyway. However, I will attempt my bluff with a Shield up and a Stinking Cloud aimed at the guys forehead, without him knowing of course. If the dice gods want bloodshed, I cant stop them, but like this there is at least a good chance at avoiding this.
Also, I'd like to take a moment to commend you for being willing to alter your outlook, from "I'm going to kill a PC next session" to "there is a good chance of avoiding bloodshed." I've been in too many games that have ended horribly when a player said "but it's in character for me to kill that PC!" and I always breathe a sigh of relief when someone is about to say that, and then finds another way. I wish I could play in a group with people as resourceful and reasonable as you sound.
Yeah, just kill him in his sleep. All that pretentiously long post just to handjob your own conscience, what BS. If you don't have what it takes to deal with him in a fair fight, just kill him like the coward you are. That, or you could try a novel idea and not kill him. Suggest while he's weak that you two work together to evade or take down the organization that has set this conflict up. If he refuses, leave.
Oh, and if you opt to kill him like a coward, whether by murdering him in his sleep, or forcing him into a rigged duel, expect the other PCs to use your skull for an ashtray. You'll deserve it.
You're forgetting the PC is Lawful! If he kills the other character, he'll do so in some sort of fair fight, or not at all. The OP is right: If I had to lose a character, I would be happier about losing him in a hard-fought duel than through a middle-of-the-night trick.
Has this been mentioned yet?--Can you talk it over with the other PC's player? I know that ruins the surprise of it; but that way both PCs can go into the duel fully prepared, and let the dice decide. That's the fairest way, metagame and in-game; and there's always the possibility of resurrections for the guy who fails (and goes down a level, and can no longer cast 3rd level spells--for the moment--giving you both, in-game and out, a little more time to think of a solution for both of you).
The DM do not allow the party to share any information on our characters before the campaign start, as he feels that this way of doing it gives a more realistic impression of a band of adventurers who randomly meet and decide to adventure together. We simply created two characters on crash course independantly of eachother, and I only found out about the problem when we hit level 3 and his character started talking about taking how he would soon be ready for the test.
There is a number of reasons why I wont take the test RP wise, but mechanically it would also be hard for me because know that I dont meet the prerequests for the Wizard of High Sorcery PrC, and according to my DMs house rules that means that I autofail it, which again will kill me.
I did confront the DM before posting here, asking if there were another way around this, but sadly Im out of luck. The DMs exact words were "Cool! Your character is a renegade, and Xs character just joined the black robes? Remind me to bring popcorn to the next session.".
Your DM is childish. I'd look for a new DM. He's got a very narrow view of how the tests should go, and thats not how they have to go. As you are using the Dragonlance Campaign setting, I'm going to suggest that your DM read the novel Dalamar the Dark. Might change his mind on the Tests a bit. It specifically says in the Dragonlance Campaign Setting book that you don't HAVE to specialize. Nowhere does it say that you HAVE to come out injured or disfigured either. It DOES say that you get a magical item of minor power however.
Years ago I 'rescued' a former D&D player from giving up on the hobby all together. His previous DM had allowed the party to kill his character. He was so ******, he swore off D&D. When I became friends with him, I convinced him to give D&D another shot with my campaign. He turned out to be one of the best D&D players I've ever had the privilege of DMing, before or since.
I will say that I've experienced one instance of inter-party strife that wasn't magic-induced. One of the players had his beloved cohort killed by the mistake of another player. In a passionate rage, he attacked the bungling player's character. It was totally appropriate, totally in character. The rest of the party knew what had happened, and quickly worked to subdue the enraged character. But we were all veterans of RPing, so the incident played out favorably for all involved.
Quite honestly, your group deserves the havoc this will cause. I really have no sympathy here. At all.
So because the DM is a , the group deserves all the grief?
I don't buy into that whole "since they are playing in his game they deserve his crap theory". Most DM's leave something to be desired.
I like the passive approach a lot, but the risk of him attacking me at night are perhaps a little too great, if we take his general personality into consideration. My best bet is perhaps to just bluff my way out of this, as Cedric suggested. I have roughly 45% chance of making a bluff check against his sense motive, and if I can get the DM to apply a little circumstance bonus to my roll when I say something like 'Uhm.. The official at the tower told me to come back again next year.', I just might be able to pull this off anyway. However, I will attempt my bluff with a Shield up and a Stinking Cloud aimed at the guys forehead, without him knowing of course. If the dice gods want bloodshed, I cant stop them, but like this there is at least a good chance at avoiding this.
Just remember you can always create a new character if your current one dies. But I like your bluff strategy.
Now as for how I'd handle the situation myself, I'd do something spectacular to get myself killed and hope for bonus xp when I roll up my new character, who incidentily, would be uncannily similar to the character I'd just lost flavor-wise.
Of course, this is all assuming that I'd talked things over with the other player to make sure there's absolutely no alternative, like his black-robe simply not caring that you're a renegade. How're the heads of the order supposed to know he found a renegade and let him live? They just don't have the resources to waste on being Big Brother to each and every one of their members, not in the Age of Mortals they don't anyway.
So because the DM is a , the group deserves all the grief?
I don't buy into that whole "since they are playing in his game they deserve his crap theory". Most DM's leave something to be desired.
I would agree with you, except I don't see the DM as the sole problem here. Having read the thread and subsequent clarifications by the OP, it seems rather clear that he is trying to convince himself it's okay to kill another PC. He want's us to give him that blessing. Well, as Shaggy points out, I see through the too. Not only that, the OP and his PC adversary chose these classes and designed their characters knowing full well the consequences.
That is why I blame them all. If any of them truly had an interest in preserving player harmony, they'd find a way to fix it. Instead, the OP's not only asking us for validation, but ways in which to accomplish his goals.
I would agree with you, except I don't see the DM as the sole problem here. Having read the thread and subsequent clarifications by the OP, it seems rather clear that he is trying to convince himself it's okay to kill another PC. He want's us to give him that blessing. Well, as Shaggy points out, I see through the bull$hit too. Not only that, the OP and his PC adversary chose these classes and designed their characters knowing full well the consequences.
That is why I blame them all. If any of them truly had an interest in preserving player harmony, they'd find a way to fix it. Instead, the OP's not only asking us for validation, but ways in which to accomplish his goals.
I'm not sure that I'm convinced that you're actually reading all of the posts in this thread - the OP has stated that he tried to go to the DM and find some way around this situation, to which the DM replied (more or less) "No way, this is gonna be great. Remind me to bring popcorn next session!"
Also, from what I've gathered, they all created their characters without being allowed to see the other persons' characters until the campaign had started - realism or something - so they didn't really create their characters knowing all of the future consequences of the wizard choosing to specialize in Conjuration.
It sounds to me like the DM has, through not using the rules from the Dragon Lance setting campaign book correctly (though I'm certain as I don't own the book myself), forced the two wizards in the party to come to blows.
To The OP: You might be able to use some of the suggestions in this thread to get around it - acting passive, and such. (Good ideas all around, by the way.) But from how the DM has been described so far (especially his comment about bringing popcorn and the way he interprets the rules from the DL: Campaign Book) he probably won't let you or the other wizard get away with simply ignoring each other.
What? No, I won't do what the Law requires of me, and then I won't take the punishment that the Law requires. I will even attack one of the people the Law sends after me..
Just take the damned test.
What do you really gain out of being a renegade caster in Dragonlance? Hunted down and killed eventually, yeah great thing to look forward to.
There's a subset in this thread that the DM is a jerk for provoking this.
Meh. Its called realism. And one player has made a choice to join a Tower of Sorcery, and the other player must respond. Can the DM railroad them around this confrontation? Sure, if he wants. But conflict between characters is real, and those who suggest the DM is instigating the conflict are still metagaming just a bit.
I liked the passive suggestion the best.
(((Quoted my previous post)))
Yes, yes, yes! This man has it right.
Thank you Kuros, I am really happy that you liked my idea.
The fact is, it's entirely up to you how you want to do it, but I think you should probably give the black robe a little bit of credit. I mean, I'm sure he doesn't want to die any more than you do, and if you are able to take the test that he just passed, I'm sure you pose some kind of a threat.
I know you don't want to take the test. I get it. I'm fine with it. It's your character, your life, do what you want to do. I should say though that you've got a few things wrong. For one, the Black Robes get along just fine with Red Robes. It's the White Robes that give them the most grief. For two, your Silvanesti people will ostracize you, but the fact is you aren't going back to your homeland any time soon anyway. The Minotaurs took it over, so you are kind of out of luck there.
I still say my previous idea was best. I would use the bluff and the duel as alternatives if the first plan fails. Try to remember that the game is fun, and try to remember that you acn do what you want. It's a game.
First, the test is not handled the way the DM describes it. I'm going to leave it at that.
Second, I want to address the black robe.
A) All WoHS want to increase the amount of magic in the world.
B) Black Robe wizards don't really care how they go about doing that.
C) Black Robe wizards are power hungry and would REALLY like to see more black robes then other robes.
D) The Black Robe in this party would love the oppertunity to help this fledgling red robe grow... by making him a formal apprentice, thus protecting him from the test until the Black Robe, in his wisdom, decides he is ready for it.
E) The Black Robe doing the above would do so in an effort to convince his new friend that the ways of neutrality, although nice, are not as... just downright fun as the ways of evil. Besides black is back.
Any mage who just said "Oh kill him!" would not be played right. And any supposedly intelligent black robe who wasted a perfectly good oppertunity to bring more evil magic into the world... well Nui there would be down to slap his butt around the block.
Oh and the DM too.
Hi , I'm LN the Paragon of Law..
What? No, I won't do what the Law requires of me, and then I won't take the punishment that the Law requires. I will even attack one of the people the Law sends after me..
Just take the damned test.
What do you really gain out of being a renegade caster in Dragonlance? Hunted down and killed eventually, yeah great thing to look forward to.
Well, from what he's posted, if he opts to take the test, he's committing suicide. The DM has apparently decided that if you can't make the prereqs for the PrC, you die.
There is a number of reasons why I wont take the test RP wise, but mechanically it would also be hard for me because know that I dont meet the prerequests for the Wizard of High Sorcery PrC, and according to my DMs house rules that means that I autofail it, which again will kill me.
Elf: I'll never take the test!
BlackRobe: Then you die! *Two men (elfs?) enter, one man leaves*
The Victor: And that's why they call me Awesome mcAwesome pants.
Fighter: NO!!!! You monster! *attacks the victor*
TV: Augh! I am conveniently out of HP and spells! BLARGH *death*
Cleric: How could you?
Fighter: He would've turned on us next!
Cleric: This betrayal shall not go unpunished! *fight ensues*
The Victor MKII: There. The deed is done. *sword appears through the chest* 'allo, what's all this then?
Rogue: Sneak attack damage.
TVMKII: Oh. BLARGH *dies*
Rogue: ... WHAT HAVE I DONE? All my friends are dead! I'LL BE WITH YOU SOON! *a true roman falls on his sword*
----
Black Robe: That was a fun game. What do we do now?
Elf: Hoe bout another Dragonlance game? I'll DM.
Black Robe: Awesome! Dibs wizard!
Fighter: I want the fighter!
Rogue: My usual.
Cleric: Darn, heal-bot again!
Elf: Well, this is going to be a tough game. I think you guys might need the help of an NPCally wizard.
DM: *coughs up popcorn* Uh... what just happened?
Elf: You got hammergunned. *PWN*
THE END
That was fun to write. If there's one thing I hate more than PvP it's a Dm who practically forces it. For a serious answer though, I recommend you and the Black Robe role play it so you don't have to fight. GO GO compromise! Unless you want to kill him, in which case you are a bad person and I hope he wins.
do not get anything out do not ge sheets or books have it all under the table and sit there
'
then he asks what your doing ask him where is the popcorn and you are protesting against the fact he is making you Pk your faverit characters,
[also which ever dip #### said that they deserve it please don't say anything more... you alredy have made yourself look bad]
look i would be all for the statagy if he knows hell kill me while i sleep thing,
[ also to the person who said your lawful you cant kill in your sleep, a assasin can be law full if he strictly obeys the law of his group or his own personal code]
your stuck between you dying him dying and the small chance your bluff will work,
here is my strategy if you decide not to protest, 1 bluff him after a long hard battle where you still have all your good spells left
2 if you fail warn him a battle will resolt in his death and your willing to give a fair dual tomorrow at noon if he wants to fight
this means he ether accepts the dual tomorrow attacks you know and dies or refuses the hole thing
have fun with thatBeing a huge dragonlance fan I'm about ready to throw up at the inaccuracies and blatant abuse going on here.
First, the test is not handled the way the DM describes it. I'm going to leave it at that.
Second, I want to address the black robe.
A) All WoHS want to increase the amount of magic in the world.
B) Black Robe wizards don't really care how they go about doing that.
C) Black Robe wizards are power hungry and would REALLY like to see more black robes then other robes.
D) The Black Robe in this party would love the oppertunity to help this fledgling red robe grow... by making him a formal apprentice, thus protecting him from the test until the Black Robe, in his wisdom, decides he is ready for it.
E) The Black Robe doing the above would do so in an effort to convince his new friend that the ways of neutrality, although nice, are not as... just downright fun as the ways of evil. Besides black is back.
Any mage who just said "Oh kill him!" would not be played right. And any supposedly intelligent black robe who wasted a perfectly good oppertunity to bring more evil magic into the world... well Nui there would be down to slap his butt around the block.
Oh and the DM too.
This is the way I think it should go, too.
Saying that a black robe will automatically fight and kill a red robe wizard is a really immature and shallow way to characterize the role of black robe wizards in Dragonlance.
Personally, I think the whole situation is wrongly handled altogether. The test is more of a personal quest thing for any wizard to make sure he can handle magic with wisdom. It is not an entrance exam for the Prc.
Hi , I'm LN the Paragon of Law..
What? No, I won't do what the Law requires of me, and then I won't take the punishment that the Law requires. I will even attack one of the people the Law sends after me..
Just take the damned test.
What do you really gain out of being a renegade caster in Dragonlance? Hunted down and killed eventually, yeah great thing to look forward to.
once again the tower of high sourcery is not affiliated with any government they do not mave the ability to make law. they are just a bunch of self appointed yahoos in a tower hsoe should not have to "Just take the damn test". if you consider the high wizards capable of makeing laws then no one could play any kind of lawful sorcerer in a dragon lance campaign because the orders kill them on sight as well.
But for now there is not much more to do. All preparations are done, and all I can do is to hope for a natural 20 on that bluff roll.Being a huge dragonlance fan I'm about ready to throw up at the inaccuracies and blatant abuse going on here.
First, the test is not handled the way the DM describes it. I'm going to leave it at that.
Second, I want to address the black robe.
A) All WoHS want to increase the amount of magic in the world.
B) Black Robe wizards don't really care how they go about doing that.
C) Black Robe wizards are power hungry and would REALLY like to see more black robes then other robes.
D) The Black Robe in this party would love the oppertunity to help this fledgling red robe grow... by making him a formal apprentice, thus protecting him from the test until the Black Robe, in his wisdom, decides he is ready for it.
E) The Black Robe doing the above would do so in an effort to convince his new friend that the ways of neutrality, although nice, are not as... just downright fun as the ways of evil. Besides black is back.
Any mage who just said "Oh kill him!" would not be played right. And any supposedly intelligent black robe who wasted a perfectly good oppertunity to bring more evil magic into the world... well Nui there would be down to slap his butt around the block.
Oh and the DM too.
That right there is a really good idea!! It implies all the passivity of my post, with the appropriate actions of the Black Robe. Yeah...I think you should try to do that.
It will be great. Can't wait to hear the results. When is the game?
Secondly, there would be little issue with a Red Robe and Black Robe traveling together. The primary focus of all the branches of the order is devotion to magic not morality. You might just have to donate to charity to balance out all the evil that the Black Robe commits.
Lastly, the Black Robe is not some Barbarian that has to attack you as soon as you refuse the test. Wizards are of high intellect and Black Robes are cunning, if played correctly he wouldn't attack you immediately when he doesn't have his power spells and he knows you you cowered in the back during the fight and didn't use your spells. He would wait that night and slit your throat because he is evil and your not.
but i'm guessing 3E DL campaign changed the rules a bit for the tests (or we had a home rule for 2E DL that I was unaware was a home rule)
but i seem to recall in 2E that once a wizard hit level 4. they could no longer advance until they took the tests. (as in say you hit level 4.. and don't do the test, and have enough xp to be level 5. till you do the test you gain xp but don't level up.)
Because, even in the books (yea i know dnd doesn't = the dl book series), it seems to 90% of the time they talk about renegades as those who TOOK the tests, got more power and THEN choose to turn away from the order.
and even black robes care about the balance to order and all that and will strike down a renegade. The difference is the methods.
A white or red robe would probably first try to capture/reason with the renegade. a black robe would just kill him outright and steal any useful magic for himself.
Same goal (stopping renegade magic), different approach.
I mean, obviously he doesn't want to lose his character either, so you can rig the inevitable conflict so it isn't, and neither of you risk anything.
Second, I want to address the black robe.
A) All WoHS want to increase the amount of magic in the world.
B) Black Robe wizards don't really care how they go about doing that.
C) Black Robe wizards are power hungry and would REALLY like to see more black robes then other robes.
D) The Black Robe in this party would love the oppertunity to help this fledgling red robe grow... by making him a formal apprentice, thus protecting him from the test until the Black Robe, in his wisdom, decides he is ready for it.
E) The Black Robe doing the above would do so in an effort to convince his new friend that the ways of neutrality, although nice, are not as... just downright fun as the ways of evil. Besides black is back.
Here would be a good place to start. Black-robe can always explain to his superiors that if your wizard takes the test now, he will become a red robe, while if they let him influence him over time, he can take the test and become a black robe instead.
Your DM likes PVP conflict, and has encouraged it.
I'd never allow this, from the setup.
A few ways to deal with this:
You both agree to fight, and fight fair, OOC, then you fight. knowing one will die. You let the other players know the score and that you are both cool with it. You fight it out and move on.
That isn't how I'd go.
I'd personally put that PC on hold, and have the DM take him over as an NPC, and then gen up a replacement of equivalent level, gear / cash, and XP. Then play that.
What needs to happen is you, him, and the DM have a sit down meeting, the three of you, and you all work out what will happen. If the DM says "you both must fight, one of you will die" Then you need to both gear up all your spell lists, prep for the game, make a big show, meet in a field, act like you are gonna fight this duel to the death. Ready, steady, go! Then you both ooc metagame and arm wrestle..for the win.
Whoever loses, say, "Bang! you're dead! Are not! Are too! C3PO!"
Then look at the dm, and stick out your tongues, laugh and say "okay folks, what game campaign are we playing next? cause we both were told we had to kill each other...and we don't want to lose our PCs. So we need to change games.
Or some such.
If this was my good friend, in the interests of peace, I'd work it out.
The m,andate of kill or be killed is because your DM says so. Not because "THAT IS THE ONLY REALITY."
You are both equal and valid participants in the game, just as much as the DM. Suppose a fighter player came at you out of the blue, for no reason, and said hey, kill or be killed, skluh! you're dead! Nyah!
Screw that.
Your DM wants you guys to fight. he needs to be taught a lesson. Make fun of his silly game manipulation power trip. Make it slapstick comedy, and blow him off as the instigator that he is for rigging this.
It's sad but true that you guys are being faithful to your characters, but your DM has some real issues, and is destroying the spirit of DL, as written.
A final thing you might do, that I know you have not considered is to attack an NPC wizard of equal power to your friends' PC. You know you are gonna die, but make the DM do it. Not your friend. Maybe your friend has a change of heart and comes and saves you.
There's all kinds of ways to make this very dramatic, without delving into knock-down drag out magic fight. Their code and laws are their code and laws, so what? Break them, and see what the DM does.
Yeah it's metagaming to do that. But any DM that wants to bring popcorn to a PVP fight that he rigged, it's just not someone I want to game with, generally, UNLESS, thye group is utterly mature, responsible, and stable players who play the role for the role with no emoptional investment in the story, or what happens...and if one pc dies so be it roll a new one.
Hard to explain.
But yeah, i'd suicide the character, for the good of the game.
Whoever loses, say, "Bang! you're dead! Are not! Are too! C3PO!"
The DM controls the setting as he/she is the ultimate dictator.
You seem quite content to kill a fellow PC. What seems to be bugging you is HOW to do it fairly, not that you have to do it at all in the first place.
If you did this to my PC and in real life we were good friends, I would take you aside and ask that your PCs never kill my PCs and vice versa. If you did it a 2nd time, I would never speak to you again.
God I swear to god this game has turned into Pixies & Dungeons/ Fairylance.
While PC killing may not be fun to some it IS neccessary in certain situations. This applies. Why would Player A give up his character; he states clearly that he cant comply with the preq to complete the test. However, Player B made a CONSIOUS decision to play a Wizard from the Black Robes even KNOWING that Player A would play a renegade. Player B is in the wrong thus DESERVES killing. If however Player B dropped his alligience then things would be solved but I assume neither character wants to change (his or her perogitive). In this situation PvP IS required. Now as a renegade I would not be looking for fair as the other character has an obligation to take you in no matter your status. You could be paralysed and still they would hunt you down and kill you if neccessary. So my advise would be to wait until the spells of the opposing caster are depleted and then initiate attack or hire an assassin (prove YOU did it). I think the Assassin (which would be played by DM) is a better choice as, there is no direct link that YOU hired them. Plus it would play about even better because the DM would control the character assassin and thus the other character (black robes) wouldnt suspect. In addition an Assassin would have a better chance to killing the other wizard and thus reduces the chances you die. Or you could play this scenerio.
"Look, here are the facts. I AM NOT taking the test; I refuse to conform to the Tower which corrupts this world so. I believe in freedom of will and I believe in my right to CHOSE. I will not ever succumb to the tests nor the Towers inhabitants. We are friends and I realize that and somehow they have corrupted your mind into thinking I am not worthy to live, how can mere mortals deem so? We are friends and I dont want to ruin that for we have had epic adventures together; failures and successes. I give you one chance not to bow before me but to realize yourself EQUAL to me. Let us fend of these Dictators together as comrades as we have done before. I beg you...do not make us fight..."
Now two things could come out of this.
1) You PC friends realizes what you say to be true and renounces his Black Robes (or keeps them but is just a renegade) and continues to harbor a long lasting friendship with you...
or
2) your friend can be selfish and deny your request and have the duel commence.
Personally I would try convincing him first, make him realize the great things you have done...all without this test. And that the test doesnt prove anything except ones ability to conform.
While PC killing may not be fun to some it IS neccessary in certain situations. This applies.
When I play D&D, my objective is for everyone to have a good time, not for me to get an A+ for playing my character "correctly" in all situations. If I upset a friend in real life by doing something I know will upset him/her, then I fail.
Further, he has said this will cause a problem... so lets solve it, not encourage it.
Further x2, pvp play is fine if all agree to it before hand and it is handled maturely. Going "Great I"m going to bring popcorn" is not doing that. This DM fails at life.
Rosisha
Here's what you should do:
1. Go to a book store. Invite your DM to go with you.
2. Find the "Dungeon Mastering for Dummies" book.
3. Point at something, causing a distraction. Hit DM with book.
Now things your DM is doing completely wrong:
1. Not meeting the prerequistes for any presitage class does not kill you, it should not kill you.
2. Each test is unique to the person taking it. Look at Dalamar and Raistlin and Palin for examples-different tests for each.
3. The whole popcorn thing-a DM saying that is clearly paying no attention to your fun an enjoyment of the game.
4. The Wizards of High Sorcery have let people not take the test-Raistlin's friend Lemuel (in Soulforge/Brothers in Arm) was exempted from the test because it would simply kill him.
5. The WoHS don't usually kill renegades without giving a chance first even if they are a Black Robe.
6. The chance of making you a Black Robe should encourage him not to do anything yet. Bringing in a Silvenesti(sp?) Black Robe would earn huge brownie points with his superiors. Dalamar has been the only one so far...
7. WoHS are not indended for specializing. I really didn't like the whole Specialist requirement for the PrC. It didn't to fit really except for the Black Robes Necromancy.
8. You should be able to say your not ready to take the test to the Black Robe. Unless he can head to the tower and have a chat with the wizs there, he has absolutely no reason to suspect you of anything.
9. There have been renegades who have continued to surive-Hokin, Raistlin's teacher in Brothers in Arm was a renegade I think.
10. The DM is a bastard and is playing things specifically for his own gain and at your expanse.
You should talk over with the other player. You can come up with a solution that benefits you both. Do Not Under Any Circumstances Do The Paladin Change. That just shows you are vindicative and want revenge. Switching out one pvp charcter for another is not going to solve anything.
Just my two gold coins.
When I play D&D, my objective is for everyone to have a good time, not for me to get an A+ for playing my character "correctly" in all situations. If I upset a friend in real life by doing something I know will upset him/her, then I fail.
And, with this, I continue to agree with Key.
When I play D&D, my objective is for everyone to have a good time, not for me to get an A+ for playing my character "correctly" in all situations..
I think an unorchastrated, honest player conflict can be fun. I do not think the DM has railroaded this confrontation. The DM did not anticipate this, he said, "Cool!" This exclamation evokes surprise at an unintended player reaction to his world: player on player conflict.
So be it.
If I upset a friend in real life by doing something I know will upset him/her, then I fail.
That's an oppressive standard. At least amend it to: Should I reasonably upset a friend IRL . . .
Characters are characters. You are not your character. This is a truth that will help you have fun in DND.
God I swear to god this game has turned into Pixies & Dungeons/ Fairylance.
Amen. Some people on this thread might be served by being exposed to an authentic Ravenloft or Dark Sun campaign to learn to laugh at player character death.
At least amend it to: Should I reasonably upset a friend IRL . . .
That's fine. I think it's very reasonable to assume no PVP going into a campaign, especially since in most campaigns, PCs team up to achieve common objectives. If a friend requests no PVP, I respect that.
Characters are characters. You are not your character. This is a truth that will help you have fun in DND.
So a real life **** victim will have a blast when his/her character is raped?
So a real life **** victim will have a blast when his/her character is raped?
WTF?
How does that follow from: your character is your character (not you)? Nobody is advocating DnD **** on this thread.
WTF?
How does that follow from: your character is your character (not you)? Nobody is advocating DnD **** on this thread.
I said that I would not upset a friend by having my character do something to his/her character that I know would upset him/her. You then presented your 'truth' that we are not our characters and should have fun regardless. Thus, my interpretation of this 'truth' is that regardless of what happens to my character, I should not be upset since I am not my character.
I also interpreted your 'truth' as universal. It applies to me, you, and the next guy. And not only for murder but any other unfortunate act that should fall upon our characters. To test this universal truth, I gave you an example. I'm not sure it received a passing grade.
Is the truth not universal? Does it not apply to all bad things that can happen to our characters? Maybe we should be cool with our characters being murdered, but not cool with them being raped?
What needs to happen is you, him, and the DM have a sit down meeting, the three of you, and you all work out what will happen. If the DM says "you both must fight, one of you will die" Then you need to both gear up all your spell lists, prep for the game, make a big show, meet in a field, act like you are gonna fight this duel to the death. Ready, steady, go! Then you both ooc metagame and arm wrestle..for the win.
This is brilliant.
Why would Player A give up his character; he states clearly that he cant comply with the preq to complete the test. However, Player B made a CONSIOUS decision to play a Wizard from the Black Robes even KNOWING that Player A would play a renegade.
No, Players A and B created their characters independently, with no prior knowledge of what the other would be doing. The DM also instituted one or more house rules specifically to make such confrontations inevitable. Normally, there would be considerable room for interpretation of the code of the Wizards of High Sorcery, especially where a Black Robe is concerned.
Do Not Under Any Circumstances Do The Paladin Change.
For the record, I only suggested vocally expressing interest in rolling up a Paladin, not acually doing it. And I wasn't absolutely certain it was a good idea when I said it, and now I'm even less sure-- it seems a bit passive-aggressive. (But then, I learned a lot about passive-aggression growing up...)
I think an unorchastrated, honest player conflict can be fun.
And it can, with mature players who also think it can be fun.
I do not think the DM has railroaded this confrontation. The DM did not anticipate this, he said, "Cool!"
I think the DM did orchestrate this confrontation, intentionally or otherwise. If he saw one Wizard character who met the prereqs for Wizard of High Sorcery, and a second Wizard character who didn't, and he knew that in his world taking the Test without meeting the PrC prereqs means death, and he knew that all Wizards of High Sorcery must necessarily hunt renegades or die trying, then he either knew this confrontation was inevitable, or he's too oblivious to be a DM in the first place.
Now, I realize that in a choice between malice and stupidity, it is both more charitable and more frequently accurate to assume stupidity. However, if the situation were solely the result of stupidity, the rules being enforced could be changed in order to keep the campaign running smoothly. The fact that the DM is mandating a PvP situation that neither of the concerned players want indicates to me that at least some malice is involved.
If that makes me a player of Posies & Pansies, then so be it. But at least I know my friends are real friends who want to see that I'm having a good time, and are not immature brats who are only interested in themselves.
DMs are supposed to manage the world so that the players have a good time. If this event causes upset and anger, between either player, or any OOC consequences then the DM is at fault. He should have forseen the situation and done something to circumnavigate it.
Of course, I can see where being a jerk is a lot easier for those under the effect of a feeblemind spell... which can be brought about by the desire for popcorn.
Rosisha
Being a big DL fan and a DM, I find the actions of the your DM...Flabbergasting(is that the right word?) I am simply stunned.
Here's what you should do:
1. Go to a book store. Invite your DM to go with you.
2. Find the "Dungeon Mastering for Dummies" book.
3. Point at something, causing a distraction. Hit DM with book.
Now things your DM is doing completely wrong:
1. Not meeting the prerequistes for any presitage class does not kill you, it should not kill you.
2. Each test is unique to the person taking it. Look at Dalamar and Raistlin and Palin for examples-different tests for each.
3. The whole popcorn thing-a DM saying that is clearly paying no attention to your fun an enjoyment of the game.
4. The Wizards of High Sorcery have let people not take the test-Raistlin's friend Lemuel (in Soulforge/Brothers in Arm) was exempted from the test because it would simply kill him.
5. The WoHS don't usually kill renegades without giving a chance first even if they are a Black Robe.
6. The chance of making you a Black Robe should encourage him not to do anything yet. Bringing in a Silvenesti(sp?) Black Robe would earn huge brownie points with his superiors. Dalamar has been the only one so far...
7. WoHS are not indended for specializing. I really didn't like the whole Specialist requirement for the PrC. It didn't to fit really except for the Black Robes Necromancy.
8. You should be able to say your not ready to take the test to the Black Robe. Unless he can head to the tower and have a chat with the wizs there, he has absolutely no reason to suspect you of anything.
9. There have been renegades who have continued to surive-Hokin, Raistlin's teacher in Brothers in Arm was a renegade I think.
10. The DM is a bastard and is playing things specifically for his own gain and at your expanse.
You should talk over with the other player. You can come up with a solution that benefits you both. Do Not Under Any Circumstances Do The Paladin Change. That just shows you are vindicative and want revenge. Switching out one pvp charcter for another is not going to solve anything.
Just my two gold coins.
I'm gonna agree w/most of what you said there. I haven't read Brothers in Arms in a good # of years now. But wasn't Horkin like Lemuel and he wasnt' allowed to take the test b/c 'lack of skill' or whatever reason?
as for the PvP thing, id say stop whining about it. If you really wanna attack a fellow PC. do it, and prepare to be *****ed at by said player.
Over the years we've had 2 or 3 PvP instances crop in my group and whatever it sucks, but it happens if people are being true to their characters (or in one case you have a pc who is completely disregarding laws/order/everything around him WHILE with a good aligned party. that guy had it coming).
I just returned home from the session, and I gotta say that it went diffrent from what I expected.
The party were hired by a local lord to to destroy a bandit outpost, that were getting in the way of a new trade route. On our way towards the site, the black robe decided to address my character and downright threaten to kill him, and use his zombiefied corpse as a coat hanger if I did not 'conform to the ways of the conclave' immediately after this quest. I told him no, and informed him that I would rather 'discuss' the subject after the mission when we had ceased being useful to each other, and he agreed to wait. However, during the mission itself he were hit by a lightning bolt trap that bounced off a wall and hit him twice, bringing him straight to the negative thirties. Problem solved.
By the way, thanks to all of you who took your time to write up helpful replies, I really enjoyed reading them.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/lightningBolt.htm
If you find a word in there about "bouncing" lightning bolts, you have better eyesight than I do, that sort of thing went out with 2E.
I sure think I just read a line about "stopping at a barrier" at the end of that.
Now I appreciate the power of any DM to home rule spells if they think it will be more fun, but you just described a level 5 Wizard taking double damage from a spell that rightly shouldn't have done more than 5d6 (which could kill him, but 10d6 is a slam dunk on a failed save, IMO).
Anyways, just consider this:
You could be next!
Good luck, and (hopefully) have fun!
Recently, one of the characters has switched to a LG half-dragon kobold paladin with half-gestalt Fist of Raziel (sp?).
He has declared to the DM that he is trying to follow me every night to find out my secret, and seems to be organizing his character in such a way as to oppose/trump the abilities I have. I know (out of character) he's been doing this, but I have been purposefully trying not to metagame and continue doing what I have been doing.
1/2 gestalt is basically our DM's house rule gestalt. Each person chooses a primary and secondary class. Every other level they get abilities as if they gained a level in their secondary class.
The DM has also allowed people to take selected Prc's as half-gestalt secondary class (allowed on a case-by-case basis).
My fear is that the player is purposefully trying to create conflict between my character and his. His character has figured out my character's fey race and commented something about "cold iron probably upsetting me" (which it would). If it comes to a combat it will be no contest, he is the stronger character for melee atm.
I've figured out some different strategies, but I'm nervous. If we got into conflict, I could use some spells to stop him--the character is basically a battle controller--but I have no spells that deal damage and no defensive spells. If I get initiative I might have a chance, but otherwise my only chance would be to flee.
It all depends on what the paladin PC has in mind and how he's going to roleplay it. Is he going to try to reveal my character as a binder to the authorities?
Player: "Wow, this Tome of Magic rules, can I play a Binder, or would that be a problem in your game?"
DM (hiding a grin): "Not at all, you should play whatever you want, if you'll have fun."
Player: "Sweet!"
-Session 1-
DM: "And of course, Binding the Vestiges is illegal and should never be tolerated."
Player: "0_o"
Other Players: "Oh ok."
Jerk Player: "I hate Binders, I think the ToM is brokity broke broke! I'll make a Paladin just to screw you over, bwahahahahahaaa!"
DM: "Sweet, PvP action!"
Player: ": ("
Seriously, if your DM encouraged you to play a class he was just going to screw over, I suggest you bring a baseball bat to your next session. Don't say anything, just keep it nearby.
And as for the guy who made a Paladin and is determined to "find out your secret"....well...
I think baseball bats work just as well as folding chairs. Tell "Steve" to stop being a bastard.
Honestly, I realize bad things happen even in good games, but why do some people only have fun when they get to ruin someone else's fun?
P.S.: I know reflecting L.Bolts is a relic rule, that's why I mentioned Baldur's Gate I, the only game I know of where someone was sadistic enough to make a reflecting L.Bolt trap. Most DM's who actually want to keep their players don't do stuff like that.
Rule #1: If Thine DM shall enrage his players, then a DM he shall not be for long.
I just thought that I would share my thoughts, as it is possible that I have turned this thread more negative towards my Dm than he deserves.
However, he helped create this situation with his house rule. And rather than step in and discuss it, he simply waited for the fireworks. We can assume that's because he thought it was amusing, or maybe he was hoping you'd flambe Mr. Fancy Pants Black Robes.
You'd have to ask him to be sure.
He did make a few mistakes, however, any way you slice it. Now as for for your Black Mage, who decided this was a great excuse to get stabbity-stabbity...well he made the same mistake.
The problem isn't over, you should realize, it's just been avoided for the moment. This will probably come up again.
Oh and if the lightning trap was the "Hand of the DM" solving the problem...that's a bit heavy handed. I'd only smite someone like that if I caught them cheating.
And to be fair, the DM has allowed me a few things that stack in my favor to prevent him from finding out...but with him obsessively trying every night to find out the secret it WILL eventually come out.
The DM told me in private confidence that he thinks the paladin player thinks I'm doing something evil but will be disappointed when nothing will detect as evil.
Still, he is lawful and I don't know if he's going to play it in a fashion where he will try to turn me into the authorities.
A little background: We are in a magocracy ruled by human wizards. Any non-wizard spellcasters are tolerated but considered inferior. Any non-humans are considered second-class citizens and restricted to reservations. The only way for non-humans to gain freedom of movement, as well as to advance themselves in status is to join a state-sponsored Adventurer's Guild. People who pass a rigorous training are accepted into the guild and then assigned to teams who are expected to work together. Each team is given freedom to explore wilderness areas where government control is limited or nonexistent. Once per month the team must perform a task for one of Wizard Towers (basically divided by specializations--necromancy, divinations, etc.). The Towers are divisions of the government, which is ruled by a commitee composed of the highest ranking members of each Tower.
Outside the borders of the country is wilderness and unknown lands. Information about other countries is repressed--so we know virtually nothing about them.
Our particular team was assigned together because we are all somehow 'imperfect'. Everyone is either a non-wizard or a non-human.
I was thinking about using the intolerant attitude of those in the government as an way to convince the paladin (he IS a half-dragon kobold of all things) not to turn me in. Basically, binding is illegal because the wizards don't understand and can't control it---just like they don't understand and sneer at non-human races. Not sure if this will work.