So, the "good extremist" type guy in our party (at least i assume he is) starts throwing insults at him and talk about how we should charge at him and kill him. My character, having actually read the fantasy equivalent of the art of war, doesnt want to fight anything she isnt prepared for and doesnt know the ability of, so spoke against it and tried to instead get him to not blast us to smithereens, leading up to suggesting a deal. Namely that if he allowed us to take the mithril we were sent to retrieve and leave, we would tell them that the mine was clear, which would mean that the townspeople would send workers up to him, resulting in "free labor" sent directly to his door.
He agreed and teleported out, leaving us with our hides intact, at which point the "extremist" turned on me and began scolding how "we dont make deals like that" ect, and refused to even let me get a chance to explain my actions (mainly, keeping us alive until we could prepare, know more, and kill him), so took the other member of the party present that day aside and explained it to him.
True, i couldnt care less if that cattle was massacre or enslaved, but i still see that necromancer as an enemy and would not want to give him free troops, just as i always planned to only respect part of the agreement and made sure there were "holes" in it ^^
Anyway, come back from the talk with the other guy, and the "extremist" still hasnt cooled down, talking about how i need to "prove" myself to him and the others and with a choise of words that leaves no doubt about the subtext threat in it.
So, which gets me to the point; it seems that this guy has decided based on that encounter that im heartless and evil (he is right, but that is besides the point) and just itching for an excuse to kill me, almost assasinating me in my sleep.
now, to sum up things:
-Me; lvl 2 monk, lvl 3 wiz, LE, human
-Him; sorcerer/psion, ? , human
-Rest of the group: good guys or dont quite care about about moral discussions, not a threat and dont want to get involved it seems.
- we dont play with open allignments, so they tecnically dont know im evil yet.
- MY character is quite paranoid and always on her guard, to the point where even her favorite "tool" in the group has not seen her face, in spite them travelling for years (you know, assasins can be VERY patient!)
- While she is willing to throw the rest of the group under the bus and only actually likes one of them, she doesnt want to get too much in troubble with them, as they are usefull and she would prefer to have them around rather than move on her own, after all, numbers is safety and helps get her goals done.
- Could kill him in his sleep, but as mentioned above, that could lead to troubble with the rest of the group.
- simply going along with his ways, is likely to get us all killed charging at a dragon or something.
- While i am almost impossible to hit in melee, him as a caster and the primary dmg dealer of the group, would turn me into sliced bread in no time, i also suffer from some horrible hp rolls so only got around 20 hit points, meaning a direct fight is not quite an option.
-as human and caster i need to sleep, so will sadly end up exposed every night..
What tips would you suggest for dealing with the situation where the "good guy" is out to get me, yet first strike and direct confrontation does not seem like an option, and he has his mind made up about me being evil?
IC'ly I'd take a couple of days away from the group, letting the good guy calm down, then see if you can't get a chance to explain your actions, possibly go along with proving that you're not evil (even if you are, but your character sounds manipulative enough.), if that doesn't work just poison him. (And pray he fails his fort save), sure the others might suspect it's you but can they prove it?
OOC'ly I'd talk it over with the other player, you two obviously need to find some way to get your characters to tolerate eachother again or one of you will end up having to reroll.
What tips would you suggest for dealing with the situation where the "good guy" is out to get me, yet first strike and direct confrontation does not seem like an option, and he has his mind made up about me being evil?
Make sure that the 'good' guy knows that your intention was avioding a fight you did not feel the group was ready for. Explain to him that you felt that if you all fell in the battle they would be no one to stop the BBEG...that you not serious in giving the town folks to him for free labor...
Then go in a long speech about how the forces of evil hunt you down that is why they never seen your face but you can trust them now...and let them see your face.
Then just act 'good' but also council that good is not always charging headlong into fights but by deception.
All good replies guys.
@ Salla: not a suprise, but a pain in the arse nonetheless, especially since i dont want them to discover that i dont give a damn about them.
@Nikita: actually we had a theoretic discussion at the start of the campaign, and the DM ruled that poisons were not allowed for lawfull characters as it would mean conciously breaking the law. Now im pretty sure saving your own hide beats following the law, but had a fair discussion about it so im ok with it. As for OOCly, we have been playing together for soon 10 years, so its not like trying to arse each other over intentionally (funny enough, we only had 1 group so far that didnt end up killing eachother as a way for the party to end).
@John: yup, what i tried, however the main reason for the thread is that in this case we are talking about when a good character goes unreasonable on you and refuses to listen to your reasons, just decides youre evil and need to die. As for revealing her face, no way, she still doesnt trust them enough ;)
Hmm, what ive been working on so far, and will try to continue tomorrow, is to get the rest of the group convinced and try to get them turned against his way of doing things, and of course not give them any reasons to suspect me.
Also, the BBEG promtly contacted me that night and offered me what i wanted if i decided to help him out, which allowed me to insert a clause about how "for the sake of secrecy will have to pretend to go along with the group" which hopefully means he wont try to kill me if we charge at him the next time. So more worried about prejudice rather than future actions on my side (that is, until i have to explain them i cut the deal with him to get in striking distance of him, and not because it would help me get more powerfull in terms of my personal revenge XD).
Any ideas what precautions i could take in terms of sleep? he could still cut my throat, but i need the sleep and also dont want to rouse too much suspicion about considering him a threat.
If the character doesn't want to get in bad with the rest of the party you'll be fine...if everyone wakes up to find your murdered body when the only person you were clashing with was their character, they'll be pretty fast to put two and two together. Nobody is going to want to trust/adventure with someone who just up and murders their companions in their sleep over verbal arguments.
He's absolutely right. Aslong as your character stays on good terms with the others he can't really do much of anything without getting the others supicious. Also would this guy really try to murder you in your sleep? To me he sounds like 'honorble' character that wouldn't sink that low, but you would obviously know that much better than me. (And if I'm right, he should at the most drag you infront of the law and either you get stuck in jail and can break out or you finally get a chance to explain yourself. :p)
One more option ofcourse would be for your character to set up a situation where she can save this good guys butt, he cna't really call her evil and want to kill her if she just saved him, right?
I suggest a house rule: Player characters are not allowed to damage or kill other player characters without the victim's player's permission.
Second, I recommend you establish a system for determining party policy. A party leader that makes the decisions or decide by vote. I am sure the GM won't mind you calling for a time-out so that the players can discuss the situation and decide on an issue, even if this doesn't mean you all agree.
-DF
I suggest a house rule: Player characters are not allowed to damage or kill other player characters without the victim's player's permission.
Second, I recommend you establish a system for determining party policy. A party leader that makes the decisions or decide by vote. I am sure the GM won't mind you calling for a time-out so that the players can discuss the situation and decide on an issue, even if this doesn't mean you all agree.
-DF
this.
Any ideas what precautions i could take in terms of sleep? he could still cut my throat, but i need the sleep and also dont want to rouse too much suspicion about considering him a threat.
The thing is if he is playing the 'good' and honorable guy killing you in your sleep is...and should not be a viable action on his part. Nut other than that...if the rest of the party has no problem with killing you in your sleep...then maybe you should do it to him first.
The next time he rushes headlong into combat...follow him....if you feel it is safe. Show him some support...become a ally. Admitt he was right that you were wrong.
I suggest a house rule: Player characters are not allowed to damage or kill other player characters without the victim's player's permission.
Second, I recommend you establish a system for determining party policy. A party leader that makes the decisions or decide by vote. I am sure the GM won't mind you calling for a time-out so that the players can discuss the situation and decide on an issue, even if this doesn't mean you all agree.
-DF
1) Some people perfer not to play with rules like that...personaly I think rules like that go a long way in killing RPing. Though I guess that if your players are not mature enough maybe you need those rules. Though I don't think that is a issue with the OP.
2) Wow that just completely kills any form of RP among the group. I mean ok even with the first houserule you can still RP your characters and atgue in game for a course of action, but now it is left up for a out of game vote...or the arbitary descsion of a 'group' leader....
Anyway I really don't see the OP as so much complaining Out of Game that it is unfair or such...but more in game how do..? kinda of question.
All good replies guys.
@ Salla: not a suprise, but a pain in the arse nonetheless, especially since i dont want them to discover that i dont give a damn about them.
@Nikita: actually we had a theoretic discussion at the start of the campaign, and the DM ruled that poisons were not allowed for lawfull characters as it would mean conciously breaking the law. Now im pretty sure saving your own hide beats following the law, but had a fair discussion about it so im ok with it. As for OOCly, we have been playing together for soon 10 years, so its not like trying to arse each other over intentionally (funny enough, we only had 1 group so far that didnt end up killing eachother as a way for the party to end).
@John: yup, what i tried, however the main reason for the thread is that in this case we are talking about when a good character goes unreasonable on you and refuses to listen to your reasons, just decides youre evil and need to die. As for revealing her face, no way, she still doesnt trust them enough ;)
Hmm, what ive been working on so far, and will try to continue tomorrow, is to get the rest of the group convinced and try to get them turned against his way of doing things, and of course not give them any reasons to suspect me.
Also, the BBEG promtly contacted me that night and offered me what i wanted if i decided to help him out, which allowed me to insert a clause about how "for the sake of secrecy will have to pretend to go along with the group" which hopefully means he wont try to kill me if we charge at him the next time. So more worried about prejudice rather than future actions on my side (that is, until i have to explain them i cut the deal with him to get in striking distance of him, and not because it would help me get more powerfull in terms of my personal revenge XD).
Any ideas what precautions i could take in terms of sleep? he could still cut my throat, but i need the sleep and also dont want to rouse too much suspicion about considering him a threat.
Well, as far as the poisons rule (I'm assuming you're lawful evil then?) I'd argue the DM's definition of that. Lawful neutral/evil characters tend to have "a system of rules/laws" that they follow strictly, and they would stick to contracts they'd made (and look carefully for loopholes) but not necessarily the laws of the land. After all, killing is in itself against the laws of most lands.
But, you could give him some sort of knock-out drops/sleeping medicine or herbs just so you can get some sleep. Of course that also means you'll probably have to take his watch as well as your own, if you don't want the party to be attacked while he's snoring away. As said above, though, the good guy shouldn't be trying to kill you in your sleep.
I also think DwarfFighter had excellent advice.
As for his charging into battle, I'd wait till the next time that happens, see if you can manage to save his sorry butt (proving you're not evil, with any luck) then use it as an excuse to give him a lecture on foolhardy tactics. I'd also suggest a sit-down IC and talk about tactics and how charging into battle is sometimes stupid.
Next time there's some poor downtrodden sort/child, etc who's in danger, make a big deal of how important it is to save them. Try to be the first one to insist that "we must right this terrible wrong." Do that a couple times and they might lighten up on you.
If you've been acting callous in the past, come up with some sort of "revelation" about why your were that way before and are different now. Perhaps some story from your childhood (maybe the plight of the little child in trouble reminded you of your cruel father) or a dream you had or something else that explains why you're now being so goody two-shoes all of a sudden.
the only thing it kills is spontaneous player versus player killing.
and thats not exactly a bad thing to stop dead in its tracks actually.
John k. i dont think establishing a system for party policy undermines rp in any significant way, as per i can see a group of people getting together forming a party and figuring out amongst themselves what is acceptable in thier "work envirorment".
the only thing it kills is spontaneous player versus player killing.
and thats not exactly a bad thing to stop dead in its tracks actually.
Sure....just leave it in game. You can discuss all you want IC. That is called Role-playing. Talking about it out of game is metagaming.
Sure having a established rules out of game when making your PCs is a good idea(IE no evil characters)...or something I do when people are making characters is I point out that I don't like Warlords and will not take any of the benfits without some RP investment between the characters. That is fine...but stopping play to discuss tactics before a fight is a little too much for me.
By the the way most of the player vs player conflicted that don't have valid reason for happening usualy is the result of metagaming and OOC discussion...so saying it will eliminate it I found rather short sighted. I actualy see it leading more to what you want to stop.
Also I have issues with rules protecting PC from attacks from other PCs as I have seen those abused alot and poor RPing. Because they know they can do whatever they want and get away with it...because their PCs even over other PCs...because this attitude of shying away from PvP...which I see as a bad thing.
Anyway I have different experience than you in these cases so we will have different PoV I suppose.
i respect your opinion because it shows me potential problems that may occur at different games. its somthing that happened in you game and it became the fact that you based your opinion on.
in regards to rules protecting players from other players attacks cant stop at that point, specifically the example you bring up; the dm should have stepped in.
what i do disagree on is establishing boundries and rules between players and dms, on what is acceptable in a game. doing this one step may eliminate potential problems in the future. and should something arise in character that needs to be addressed out of character, the game should stop and communication should begin. truthfully from my experience it doesn't happen often enough to become an issue. if it ever did it surely would weed out uncompatible players with games.
either one learsn to play nice with the game and fellow players, or one doesn't play at all.
Basically, i told the BBEG that i would pretend to screw him over, accepted his deal, made sure to include the clause to keep the rest of my party alive, but also told him that if he wanted to make an example of "that guy" he was more than welcome. After that, i went above and beyond what the "good guy" demanded i did, and gave up more information on the BBEG to the townspeople than i had promised not to say.
Sadly, i still cant be sure he buys it, but seemed to convince at least one of the others, which i can use as a shield while i figure out a chance to kill off the good guy, you know, just to be on the safe side *grin*
agreed. we have a very different point of view =]
i respect your opinion because it shows me potential problems that may occur at different games. its somthing that happened in you game and it became the fact that you based your opinion on.
in regards to rules protecting players from other players attacks cant stop at that point, specifically the example you bring up; the dm should have stepped in.
what i do disagree on is establishing boundries and rules between players and dms, on what is acceptable in a game. doing this one step may eliminate potential problems in the future. and should something arise in character that needs to be addressed out of character, the game should stop and communication should begin. truthfully from my experience it doesn't happen often enough to become an issue. if it ever did it surely would weed out uncompatible players with games.
either one learsn to play nice with the game and fellow players, or one doesn't play at all.
Actualy reading it our PoV are not soo terribly at odds. The DM should step in at times to moderate between players. I just think if a in game problem crops up it should be tried to be dealt with in game. Sure if it does not work then you should try the out of game approach. But just skipping over the characters actualy discussing the problem I think it sorta skips over part of the game. I have seen some of the best RP and character developement happen because of this. I have never seen it as a result of the DM saying 'No you can't kill Bob because he annoys you.'
As I said I just think the best solutions come from in character then out of character...because out of game always feels force to me.(Which by defination it is). Also while yes PvP can suck...it can also work great...depending on your player base. In the game I play the most that allows PvP I have only personaly seen it happen once( never reasulting in a PC's actual death). Lets faced it a armed society is a polite society after all.
Anyway I didn't mean to dis your rules or how you handle them and have played in games with similar rules as yours and have enjoyed them...I just think though PvP gets a bum wrapped on these boards.
im not dissed, just informed now. =]
Basically, i told the BBEG that i would pretend to screw him over, accepted his deal, made sure to include the clause to keep the rest of my party alive, but also told him that if he wanted to make an example of "that guy" he was more than welcome. After that, i went above and beyond what the "good guy" demanded i did, and gave up more information on the BBEG to the townspeople than i had promised not to say.
This is why I don't allow evil PCs. You made the decision to play an evil PC in a good party, and now another player is (predictably) not able to separate his knowledge of your alignment from his PC's actions.
Since you decided to play the disruptive PC, the solution is now in your hands. Give your character over to the DM as a badguy (he's well on his way there anyway, after selling out the party to the BBEG at 5th level), and bring in a new PC who isn't a problem for the other characters.
And do it now, before you have to start incarnation #1,045,679 of the thread that says "I ended up killing someone else's PC because it's what my character would do, and now two of the players are threatening to leave the group!"
I will never understand why some players enjoy making the game a pain in the ass for other players.
If I'm the DM, I just kick their character's ass out when I see them do it. If they won't roll up a reasonable character that can get along with the group, I'll find a player who will. Life's too short to deal with this sort of thing.
this.
I will never understand why some players enjoy making the game a pain in the ass for other players.
If I'm the DM, I just kick their character's ass out when I see them do it. If they won't roll up a reasonable character that can get along with the group, I'll find a player who will. Life's too short to deal with this sort of thing.
I agree, however your post raises another point worth addressing...namely the "If I'm the DM part." Yeah, the player is responsible for planning on killing another player, but in this example the DM is actually at fault for being an instigator. Had the situation just ended after the first post it'd be all said and done, the good player would be a distrustful but eh far from the point of their being bloodshed. Instead, the DM basically handed the evil player a loaded gun and painted targets on everyone elses mini's.
Yeah, the player is responsible for planning on killing another player, but in this example the DM is actually at fault for being an instigator. Had the situation just ended after the first post it'd be all said and done, the good player would be a distrustful but eh far from the point of their being bloodshed. Instead, the DM basically handed the evil player a loaded gun and painted targets on everyone elses mini's.
There's lots of blame to go around, here, so let's not be stingy with it. It's the fault of the DM, for not quashing this circus before it even had the chance to begin (let alone when it became obvious that there was a lethal PC conflict brewing), and it's certainly also the fault of the sorcerer/psion player, for not keeping his in-character actions reasonable and consonant with his in-character knowledge.
But the OP was the person who actually took the first step. As such, it makes sense for him to be the one to step up and admit the mistake by bringing in a different character. As I said before, it also needs to be done soon, so the situation doesn't spiral further out of control.
Because it's late here and I'm feeling voluble (and slightly inebriated), here was my formative moment with this sort of problem.[spoiler]The first real long-term campaign I ever played in was a 3rd Edition conversion of the Temple of Elemental Evil. The party had just arrived at the Temple itself, and found that the front gates were closed and barred. After searching for some time for an alternate entrance, we found one--a long tunnel leading from an ancient well into the dungeon.
One of the players had rolled up a claustrophobic elven archer, and a few feet into the tunnel, the PC had a panic attack and refused to go any further. The party argued for the next 90 minutes, and the session ended with seven players and the DM all with tempers steaming.
I was new to D&D and to group RP, and had taken the claustrophobic PC's side in the argument: the character was terrified, and we had no right to force him to do something he strongly opposed. Another player, who was a close out-of-game friend, pulled me aside afterward and said something I remember quite clearly: "You know, we weren't mad at him for roleplaying. We were mad because he was taking hostages: either we let him control the decisions for the whole group, or no one was going to get to play at all." Two sessions later, the DM did the adult thing and told the claustrophobic elf player that he would only be invited back with a new PC. Instead the player tore up his character sheet, threw the pieces in the air, and stomped out of the building and out of the game permanently. The game ran considerably more smoothly from then on.
And that's the reason evil PCs in good groups don't work. Individual personalities and group dynamics being what they are, there's an excellent chance that at least one and probably more than one person simply can't deal with it without degrading into hostage-taking--into trying to make the game about themselves, rather than about the party. Rarely, the evil PC's player does a good job and someone else in the group doesn't separate OOC knowledge; much more frequently, the evil PC is the one that can't handle being the odd one out, and starts plotting against other PCs instead of imagining a way to maintain his alignment while sharing party goals.
As I said I might be reading it wrong so I'll ask the OP...do you have problems with the PvP? Or the fact that you were allowed to play a evil character? Etc? I am curious.
Just curious...everybody seems to be missing something here...or maybe I am. But as far I read the post no one is complaining about the PvP...or the fact that a evil character is screwing the group...or anything to that matter. As I have said these games can be great fun if handled in a mature fashion. And PvP can prevent some really bad metagaming BS I have ever seen in a game.
What you're missing is that no one is complaining about PvP yet. Groups that can handle PvP in a mature, appropriate fashion are as common as groups that can handle playing evil in a mature, appropriate fashion--by which I mean if you find one, buy a lottery ticket.
I'm curious that you say "PvP can prevent some really bad metagaming", because in ten years I've only seen that happen once. We've already got some bad metagaming going on here: like the other "I have to kill him in pre-emptive self defense!" thread, the OP is explicitly engaging in metagaming by coming on the boards and asking how he can make sure he beats the other PC.
There's also a more subtle, and much more dangerous, metagame assumption that occurs in every single instance of PvP I've ever experienced or read about: PCs stick together, no matter what, until they come to blows.
But why should the "good guy" and "bad guy" PCs in this instance continue adventuring together? The incident the OP describes is a serious thing: one character volunteered to sacrifice an entire town in order to save his own skin, and another feels that making such a promise even in jest is an unconscionable violation of his principles. And yet the two are continuing to adventure with each other, rather than (at best) going their separate ways. That's a stilted and unnatural situation, and it's occuring only because of the metagame assumption that PCs play as a party.
Just curious...everybody seems to be missing something here...or maybe I am. But as far I read the post no one is complaining about the PvP...or the fact that a evil character is screwing the group...or anything to that matter. As I have said these games can be great fun if handled in a mature fashion. And PvP can prevent some really bad metagaming BS I have ever seen in a game.
What you're missing is that no one is complaining about PvP yet. Groups that can handle PvP in a mature, appropriate fashion are as common as groups that can handle playing evil in a mature, appropriate fashion--by which I mean if you find one, buy a lottery ticket.
I'm curious that you say "PvP can prevent some really bad metagaming", because in ten years I've only seen that happen once. We've already got some bad metagaming going on here: like the other "I have to kill him in pre-emptive self defense!" thread, the OP is explicitly engaging in metagaming by coming on the boards and asking how he can make sure he beats the other PC.
There's also a more subtle, and much more dangerous, metagame assumption that occurs in every single instance of PvP I've ever experienced or read about: PCs stick together, no matter what, until they come to blows.
But why should the "good guy" and "bad guy" PCs in this instance continue adventuring together? The incident the OP describes is a serious thing: one character volunteered to sacrifice an entire town in order to save his own skin, and another feels that making such a promise even in jest is an unconscionable violation of his principles. And yet the two are continuing to adventure with each other, rather than (at best) going their separate ways. That's a stilted and unnatural situation, and it's occuring only because of the metagame assumption that PCs play as a party.
This.
And that's why when I encounter this sort of thing I kick the PC out. And if the player can't deal with it, I kick the player out.
I don't have time nor do I have the inclination to try to play referee between metagaming player vs. player conflict. This game is supposed to be fun. One player plotting to kill the other PCs without their knowledge is not fun. I wouldn't like having my character murdered in his sleep, would you?
And since the spouses always want to run good-based characters that pretty much means no evil characters in our groups. Limiting? Maybe. But in the last 15 years we have only had 2 instances of characters getting on each others' nerves enough to go after each other, and those didn't end in the death of anyone just a good smack-down.
will try to adress some of your points and questions:
"As I said I might be reading it wrong so I'll ask the OP...do you have problems with the PvP? Or the fact that you were allowed to play a evil character? Etc? I am curious."
Nah, I dont have any problem with the pvp in and of itself, as said we are pretty used to it in our group, the original question was more regarding the situation where its the good guy being distruptive and potentially solving such a problem while still keeping skin intact and group together (with the possible exception ofc of the "enemy" being expendable") from the point of view of an evil player in the situation.
Also, in our group wedont run with preset allignment restrictions, and they havent given rise to many problems as chaotic-stupid allignments tend to get themselves "sorted out" from the group by natural consequence of their actions.
Personally, i dont mind, it actually makes in my opinion for a far more interesting situation if the PC's are at odds with each other and it also gives the best chance to actually bring out the personalities of those characters whereas in a group where everybody agree, the differences dont come into play and so it becomes harder to discern the various characters from each other.
In regards to pvp in general, it does strongly depends, senseless pvp that happens just because a player wants to be a jerk is a problem and not fun, however pvp derived as a natural action on behalf of those characters and that helps move the story of those characters forwards isnt all that bad. Though i strongly oppose player killing in a way that the defending player cant react in any way, yet players also make characters and actions of those characters fully aware of what the consequences might be, and by limiting the party to only playing one specific kind of character (you must be out to do good or get money, you must be the kind of person that puts others before yourself and can cooperate) limits the opportunity to explore different character concepts and RPing situations. I remember some years ago when one of the characters in a group i was part of decided to go chaotic evil orc and as his first action, butcher the innkeeper and make a coat out of his skin, he died as soon as the guards found him, yet for that player it was still a chance to try out something new and evolve as a player even if it meant "if you do this, you get killed".
anyway as mentioned further up the thread is just as much about dealing with the general type of situation than the specific "i dont want to get PKed" case. ^^
and to send a question the opposite way; some of you have damned playing an evil character in an overall good party as distruptive and being responsbile for PKing troubbles and such, is the extremist "good" kind of character that brutally murders anyone that dont conform with his own ideas and deems anyone "evil" based on prejudice, not just as distruptive, if not more? Why is it that having a G on your character sheet makes tyranny more "acceptable" or "the victim of the wrong guy going near him" than if a character behaved the exact same way, just with an E on it?
"This is why I don't allow evil PCs. You made the decision to play an evil PC in a good party, and now another player is (predictably) not able to separate his knowledge of your alignment from his PC's actions.
Since you decided to play the disruptive PC, the solution is now in your hands. Give your character over to the DM as a badguy (he's well on his way there anyway, after selling out the party to the BBEG at 5th level), and bring in a new PC who isn't a problem for the other characters.
And do it now, before you have to start incarnation #1,045,679 of the thread that says "I ended up killing someone else's PC because it's what my character would do, and now two of the players are threatening to leave the group!"
Actually, none of the players know of my allignment and i think they are only starting to suspect it, having assumed up until this point that i was playing good, or at least neutral. Also, the player is experienced enough to separate ooc knowledge from ic knowledge, and thus the original post was purely from the viewpoint of the characters in the situation rather than a "player being mean towards me" ;) As also written his char seemed to calm down after i showed that i had absolutely no intention of really lying about it, and even while i ooc know that it is probably safe now, doesnt change my character suspects him still, so no inter-player problems, just inter-character.
And likewise, everyone in that group have had their chars PvP killed several times without any hard feelings popping up about it, so no risk of pvp causing actual damage to the group.
Also, you seem to mistake "evil" for "distruptive" which is more than understandable as many play evil as "chaotic-stupid". But evil does not have to be distruptive at all. Evil characters are just as able to get along with others and likewise also form relationships, and are smart enough to know you more easily get what you want if you work together. My character is not as such evil due to trying to break up the group, but rather because it makes for far more interesting storytelling in my opinion, and its likewise also a way of showing the other players in the group a more (imo) proper way of playing evil where evil is more about your outlook on the world and your priorities rather than murder and **** ad libitum. That, and i just got out of playing a do-gooder *grins*
Also, id like to point out one important thing; youre saying im selling out the group, i never said that, i only said that i made a deal with the guy. I dont trust that guy further than he could throw me, and fully regard him as my enemy, just as i have my own plans for the group and i will need them to get stronger. Rather the deal was made for the sake of giving me a way to approach him and get him to believe me an ally so i can get close enough for a kill on him, and if i can suck out some magic items and the like in the process from him, all the better, not to mention its the best source of information on his plans.
Not an "excuse" but rather explaining why my character acts like she does, and likewise an example of how evil doesnt mean youre against the group. My character sees the group as a usefull tool and would hate having to replace any of them instead of nurturing them up to a strenght where she can finally put them to proper use for her own ends.
"But why should the "good guy" and "bad guy" PCs in this instance continue adventuring together? The incident the OP describes is a serious thing: one character volunteered to sacrifice an entire town in order to save his own skin, and another feels that making such a promise even in jest is an unconscionable violation of his principles. And yet the two are continuing to adventure with each other, rather than (at best) going their separate ways. That's a stilted and unnatural situation, and it's occuring only because of the metagame assumption that PCs play as a party."
In this case, my character finds the other one to be usefull, its simply in her own interest to have him around rather than having to go out and start all over, and likewise while those two characters are at odds, there is also the "middle" part of the group that are not sure to which side they lean, and of course the true "glue" at the center of the group being a character with the warms for mine, yet still leaning more towards the good side of things (and too thick to notice mine is evil, and my character considers him property and likes him a little personally so wont be letting him go anytime soon).
Tecnically, the discussion could just as well have been a neutral and another neutral discussing if its best to rush headlong at your enemy, or bide your time to pick the right moment to strike at him. And of course, saying you want to do it, doesnt mean you do it and likewise rather than a case of "save your own skin" in this situation is rather a question of whether its an ok price to pay for the sake of ensuring a victory later on. After all, evil vs good also comes into play in terms of what means are acceptable to reach the same goal. As for the good guy, he seems to buy IC that i was not serious about it as ive already warned the town about it, so in his case the "danger" in regards to adventuring together would be sorted.
Now, you do say unnatural, and i would like to touch on that in general in terms of characters using means which are at odds with each other. Is it not the norm for any story involving a party of characters for them to have strong differences in terms of how to get things done? Yet they still stick together, even if the differences eventually reach a point where they collide (leading often to memorable moments). Boromir wanted to use the ring to fight sauron, the others wanted to destroy it, yet they both shared the goal of defeating sauron, the rogue and the paladin should in theory be at each other's throats constantly, yet they are typically accepted as adventuring together. Any modern day RPG exsist where characters dont argue together in the party over which course of action to take, what means to use, yet fuelled by a common goal? So i would actually say that in terms of storytelling, characters that strongly disagree on what means to use, are actually more the norm than the exception.
hmm, this could become quite an interesting discussion, keep it up guys :D
...by limiting the party to only playing one specific kind of character (you must be out to do good or get money, you must be the kind of person that puts others before yourself and can cooperate) limits the opportunity to explore different character concepts and RPing situations. I remember some years ago when one of the characters in a group i was part of decided to go chaotic evil orc and as his first action, butcher the innkeeper and make a coat out of his skin, he died as soon as the guards found him, yet for that player it was still a chance to try out something new and evolve as a player even if it meant "if you do this, you get killed".
I once DMed a game where the PCs tried to shake down an orphanage; when the shocked matron explained that they had nothing to give, the PCs burned down the building and slaughtered the occupants as they tried to get out.
Except the one that urinated on them instead, claiming to be "helping".
That's not an opportunity to try out something new and evolve as a player, it's an opportunity to be ridiculously stupid. I'm not comparing you to those players in any way, but clearly there are some behaviors which ought to be out of bounds for PCs. I feel very strongly that D&D is not a license for people to let out their long-repressed inner sociopath; at the very least, I don't want to game with someone whose idea of a good time is murdering orphans or wearing innkeeper-skin vests.
and to send a question the opposite way; some of you have damned playing an evil character in an overall good party as distruptive and being responsbile for PKing troubbles and such, is the extremist "good" kind of character that brutally murders anyone that dont conform with his own ideas and deems anyone "evil" based on prejudice, not just as distruptive, if not more? Why is it that having a G on your character sheet makes tyranny more "acceptable" or "the victim of the wrong guy going near him" than if a character behaved the exact same way, just with an E on it?
I don't enjoy gaming with those guys, either. PCs live in a world where they are expected to kill vaguely humanoid monsters by the dozens and take their stuff to use or pawn; trying to apply black-and-white morality to that situation is just silly. So no, having a "G" on your character sheet instead of "E" doesn't make being a disruptive PC any more acceptable to me; it's just as frustrating, and just as damaging to party cohesion.
...the player is experienced enough to separate ooc knowledge from ic knowledge, and thus the original post was purely from the viewpoint of the characters in the situation rather than a "player being mean towards me" ...And likewise, everyone in that group have had their chars PvP killed several times without any hard feelings popping up about it, so no risk of pvp causing actual damage to the group.
Then you have a very unusual group, and kudos to you, but I'm still not impressed with your actions (contacting the super-powerful BBEG and letting him know that you wouldn't mind a certain someone going permanently missing) or his (flying off the handle in reaction to a fairly mild provocation).
Also, you seem to mistake "evil" for "distruptive" which is more than understandable as many play evil as "chaotic-stupid". But evil does not have to be distruptive at all.
All evil PCs are not disruptive, nor ar all disruptive PCs evil (see above)--but the vast majority of evil PCs are disruptive. I think you're actually a prime example: by your testimony you're part of a group of intelligent, mature roleplayers, and yet you still have a judgmental Dudley Do-right making veiled threats at the first hint of villainy.
Now, you do say unnatural, and i would like to touch on that in general in terms of characters using means which are at odds with each other. Is it not the norm for any story involving a party of characters for them to have strong differences in terms of how to get things done?
No, it's not. Two characters (in fiction or D&D) who are willing to embrace methods as divergent as sacrificing the village as slaves to an evil necromancer or... whatever solution Dudley Do-Right advocated before he started threatening you, are quite definitely the exception in fiction--because you need some impossibly powerful glue to hold those two together. Narratively, it's weak.
Yet they still stick together, even if the differences eventually reach a point where they collide (leading often to memorable moments). Boromir wanted to use the ring to fight sauron, the others wanted to destroy it, yet they both shared the goal of defeating sauron...
And look how well that turned out for the Fellowship! Also, they both shared the goal of defeating Sauron--but do you think Boromir would have been sent with Frodo if he advocated not wielding the ring, but using it as currency to worm his way into Sauron's confidence?
That's not an opportunity to try out something new and evolve as a player, it's an opportunity to be ridiculously stupid. I'm not comparing you to those players in any way, but clearly there are some behaviors which ought to be out of bounds for PCs. I feel very strongly that D&D is not a license for people to let out their long-repressed inner sociopath; at the very least, I don't want to game with someone whose idea of a good time is murdering orphans or wearing innkeeper-skin vests.
Hmm, not sure. As long as it doesnt directly offend or has a likewise negative impact on the other players (like some of the really heavy stuff could do, or times when it directly damages their gameplay) i dont quite see the direct problem of having characters go to extremes, as long as they have a good reason for doing so. And also, where do you put the limit for what should or should not be out of bounds? Where do we set the slider for what should in general be allowed and what shouldnt? While groups can always make up within the group if some limits should be imposed i personally think that freedom should outweight putting strict limits on what a character can chose to do, and in my opinion its better to let them do it and then punish their characters for it ICly rather than arbitrarily say they cant try it at all.
In your example you mentioned, such a punishment could be a god getting angry at them or simply sending a group of high level paladins to kick the living daylights out of them without needing to make the players feel like their freedom of RP is restricted.
Though it can be discussed if such a concept as "the freedom of RP" even exsists.
No, it's not. Two characters (in fiction or D&D) who are willing to embrace methods as divergent as sacrificing the village as slaves to an evil necromancer or... whatever solution Dudley Do-Right advocated before he started threatening you, are quite definitely the exception in fiction--because you need some impossibly powerful glue to hold those two together. Narratively, it's weak.
Ok, touché, it is indeed usually not this extreme a kind of situation, though i would say its better than his previous character who was directly intruding upon her territory (reroll was due to not liking the class, she didnt die) and directly sparked jealousy, which would have resulted in some creative PKing. But yes, i agree that all things got a sort of "moderation limit" where once it goes too far it just becomes silly, unless the entire point is for it to be silly and in those cases the "impossible glue" may not be a bad thing. At least i can see the humour in a scenario where a murdering psychopath gets magically chained to a loving, benevolent, paladin and the two need both alive to get out of the situation. But such a scenario would be a (Very) extreme exception, and a one-trick pony.
And look how well that turned out for the Fellowship! Also, they both shared the goal of defeating Sauron--but do you think Boromir would have been sent with Frodo if he advocated not wielding the ring, but using it as currency to worm his way into Sauron's confidence?
True, in that case you could say that that was exactly what happened to Saruman and Gandalf of course opposing him. Although that would also be granting Sauron the ultimate victory to save your own skin, rather than a way to postpone doing battle with him until you're ready.
Cant think of one from lord of the rings, but there are cases of good guys allowing evil a temporary victory for the sake of luring them into a better striking position, of course these are typically those opposed by the "hero" advocating how not a single inch should be given and you should just stand your group even if it means all of you get killed. However i must also say i find it a bit hard to believe how most "good guys" seem to be born without situational awareness or survival instict, and perhaps it is just a factor of the inconsequential deaths we have gotten used to in D&D.
We are quick to damn people like Saruman who "worm their way out" yet let us ask ourselves, if losing meant we would never be able to play D&D ever again, excluded from the group and not allowed to partecipate, would we charge at a Balrog at first sight of it, or leg it and only come back when we got 7 cannons strapped onto each arm? For the characters in question, the stakes are that much higher, and so i think its also bad RP to at least not consider death from your character's point of view when theenemy is obviously able to flatten you, unless you RP a type that dont give that much thought (for example, the "Dudley do-right" is played as being arrogant and overconfident and the "glue guy" just plain doesnt give it any thought, but in both cases they act like that because its how their characters are meant to by personality ^^ ).
Have we not seen before the scene where the good guy is busy doing a slow-mo "nooooooooooooooo!" at the death of someone by the BBEG while the level-headed one have to physically drag him from doing a suicide charge? or go "you cant save him!"?
yes, in this case its more like "let him butcher them, we will kill them later" to his eyes, but point is more the discussion of the importance of death and whether to do a suicidial attack now, or run to fight another day.
In regards to your issue, not really sure how to handle it. Personally, I'd discuss it with the Paladin, see if you can get him to be reasonable. Perhaps take it up with the allies, explain your plan to them, and then all approach him as one. But this is just an issue of clashing personalities, likely something that won't be solved easily. Your character is likely more flexible in terms of his thought process though. Perhaps discuss it with your friends, let the Paladin charge the big bad guy, then revive him later. Or maybe your DM needs to fix it, hard to say.
However, I will say that this issue would likely come up with anyone reasonable going against an unreasonable concept, like the Do-Right situation. You could be a neutral character who just doesn't believe in needless sacrifice and you'd still be running into this situation. Your being evil isn't the issue, it's the unreasonable nature of his character.
Hmm, not sure. As long as it doesnt directly offend or has a likewise negative impact on the other players (like some of the really heavy stuff could do, or times when it directly damages their gameplay) i dont quite see the direct problem of having characters go to extremes, as long as they have a good reason for doing so. And also, where do you put the limit for what should or should not be out of bounds? Where do we set the slider for what should in general be allowed and what shouldnt?
D&D is a refereed game, which means it's up to each individual DM to set the boundaries in his or her campaign. However, as a whole, I think it's reasonable to set the slider to a point which--given that freedom of RP and narrative cohesion each tend to have a strong negative impact on the other--maximizes both.
...or, essentially, at the point where if PvP happens at all it's the climactic ending to a campaign.
In your example you mentioned, such a punishment could be a god getting angry at them or simply sending a group of high level paladins to kick the living daylights out of them without needing to make the players feel like their freedom of RP is restricted.
But that puts the DM on the horns of a dilemma. Either he makes the paladins so high-level that the PCs can't beat them, in which case there's no difference between that and metagame DM fiat, or he makes them a level-appropriate encounter, in which case any surviving PCs actually benefit from their sociopathic behavior and get to claim "victory" over the DM.
So those are your options, in a situation like that: end the current set of PCs by DM fiat, whether it's a simple statement or played out as the wrath of a god, or place the DM and players in an explicitly adversarial relationship.
...there are cases of good guys allowing evil a temporary victory for the sake of luring them into a better striking position, of course these are typically those opposed by the "hero" advocating how not a single inch should be given...
You're right, but there is a key difference between a novel (or movie, or TV show, or whatever medium strikes your fancy) and a D&D campaign. In the general context of narrative, the actions of the characters are constrained only by the desire of the storyteller and the limits of acceptance on the part of the audience. In D&D, there are a number of shared conventions and assumptions which sharply limit the actions of characters, even when--perhaps particularly when--the players are unaware of them.
And the strongest by far of these is the assumption that the party will stick together, even when it's entirely unreasonable to do so; that, despite their personal feelings about one PC or another, each PC will continue working with the others. Good roleplayers, regardless of their characters' moral alignments, will make allowances for the unvoiced assumptions. They may invest their characters with quirks, sometimes even seriously bizarre behavior--but it must not be intolerable or unbelievable for the other players and characters.
Some roleplayers, however, set themselves and their groups up for conflict which can only be sustained by the metagame assumption that PCs won't leave the group--and metagame assumptions are frequently invoked to resolve such conflicts. Take, for instance, a forum post which essentially reads "My character is preparing for conflict with a character with X class and Y levels. What preparations should I make to beat him?" It doesn't make you a bad person, and it's not an unreasonable situation for many kinds of storytelling, but in the context of D&D it's disruptive.
I will grant that I shouldn't have said, several posts ago, that you were the disruptive player. Your Saruman is disruptive in one way (she's likely to engage in acts that are at least very distasteful to others) but the Dudley Do-Right sorcerer/psion is another, because that player's character is so narrow-minded that he assumes anyone who disagrees with his moral beliefs is opposed to his aims.
Let me put it this way: if someone puts on a Yankees cap and walks into a bar in Southie during the playoffs, whose fault is the resulting fight? What most of the patrons in the bar really want is just to get on with watching the ballgame, and maybe the best course of action for everyone is to take off your hat and join them.