Last session ended with my character refusing to aid the Warlock unless she redeemed herself. Why? Well, we fought a Nightmare and she chose to knock it unconscious and make it her new mount. For those of you who do not know, only a greater, evil creature can force the Nightmare to be its mount. Up until now I knew she had evil tendencies but this is what put her over the edge. As soon as she got on the Nightmare I knew she was evil (my character rolled a 20 to give me a 32 Arcana check to know that that was the case). My character will not kill her but he will also not help her. The party is part of a secret order that saved the world a few years ago and we're bound to help each other because of that. However, the secret order is good and would probably object to her being in the order. The session ended with the Wizard and the Fighter going through a portal to leave the current room of the "dungeon" and the Rogue, Warlock (who is mounted on the Nightmare) and myself left behind arguing about what is happening.
Here are the options as I see it:
1) The Warlock has to redeem herself somehow to be accepted back in the party. This might involve a trial with the secret order we are in. Or the Warlock could be given the opportunity to sacrifice herself to save some friends that were kidnapped that we're going to go rescue next. The player said he'd refuse to do that because it would go against his character's personality.
2) The Warlock continues down her evil path and we are forced to kill her or kick her out of the party.
This is all assuming she makes it out of the current dungeon. If we have a lot of fighting left then there is a good chance she might die. My character refuses to heal her but he wouldn't let her die. I think he would just stabilize her with a heal check and let her remain unconscious.
Option 1 lets the player keep playing that character. Option 2 would force a reroll.
What do you think we should do in this situation?
P.S. - The player and I are good friends and he isn't mad a me because of this. He would prefer to keep playing his Warlock but does not want to make her non-evil. He will roll another character if he has to.
He would prefer to keep playing his Warlock but does not want to make her non-evil. He will roll another character if he has to.
From the background and the secret order hook, I get the distinct impression that you're supposed to be "good guys". So maybe this schism is something the warlock player and the DM need to hash out.
If it's intentional, maybe it isn't just the Warlock that needs to change. You're presenting a very binary case in how you deal with the warlock, maybe there's wiggle room there to keep her in the party and make an effort to convert her back?
There's also a fun, third option available, depending on whether the warlock player is really attached to the character as an idea, or the character in order to actually play her.
[INDENT]3) The Warlock blows off the party, embraces the dark side, and becomes a recurring villain. Possibly up for redemption or possibly just a lost cause - you've got some fun rp'ing hooks ahead of you.[/INDENT]
Seriously though, if you and the other players are able to separate the in character issues from real life, then I say just roleplay your character as you see fit. Don't do anything to help the Warlock, but don't attack her either. You can still demand a trial of some sort, but without the support of the rest of the party, you are likely going to lose out on that one.
There is actually a 4th option (given the third that was suggested): your character refuses to work with the warlock -- even if that means leaving the party. Clearly it seems as though its the warlock who changed attitudes (at least somewhat), but at the same time all the players have a right to play the characters that they want, and just because another player's character has done something you don't like, doesn't mean that they should be the one forced to change. Its a two way street.
Assuming though that neither of you wish to reroll, then you simply are left with the roleplay option.
If it's intentional, maybe it isn't just the Warlock that needs to change. You're presenting a very binary case in how you deal with the warlock, maybe there's wiggle room there to keep her in the party and make an effort to convert her back?
I've wiggled as much as I could with the room I was given. Her evil tendencies were overlooked numerous times. Her mounting the Nightmare was a blatant evil act and cannot be overlooked. My character told her that she would have to redeem herself to stay in the party and receive aid from my character.
I'm looking for other options that I have not thought about. I like the idea that she could come back as a villain. We have a knack for ticking of Lich so maybe she can convert to one in the epic tier and be a villain.
Before I can really give any more advice I'd need to get a general idea of what this "shady" business that your party members are up to other than the nightmare thing, because there are varying levels of evil. If we're talking about I-steal-your-soul-and-sell-it-on-the-market evil I can understand what you're talking about, if we're talking about selfish-I-want-what's-mine-but-wont-go-on-a-killing-spree-to-get-it evil I'm not seeing the big deal here.
Also, taming a nightmare in and of itself is not a blatant act of evil. It's no more evil than taming a normal horse. It just shows that the person doing the taming is evil, or at least evil enough to tame that particular nightmare, but the actual act of taming it isn't evil.
What has the warlock done that was evil other than tame a nightmare? Unless she's going around eating babies or something I dont see a problem with her actions. Going by what you've said she hasn't even gone against any of the teachings of Kord, so I dont see why even your god would have a problem with it.
That is a good point. My Cleric started out as melee heavy Cleric. I initially became a Warpriest. Then I noticed that I was doing more healing than fighting so we threw in a side story for my Cleric to switch to Radiant Servant and that shifted him from Unaligned to Good. He still worships Kord but acts like a servant of Pelor.
Before I can really give any more advice I'd need to get a general idea of what this "shady" business that your party members are up to other than the nightmare thing, because there are varying levels of evil. If we're talking about I-steal-your-soul-and-sell-it-on-the-market evil I can understand what you're talking about, if we're talking about selfish-I-want-what's-mine-but-wont-go-on-a-killing-spree-to-get-it evil I'm not seeing the big deal here.
The shady business has included killing people that didn't need to be killed. Torturing people for information when there might have been other means of getting that information. Lying to the party when only she could speak a certain language and thus was the liaison between our party and a village of evil creatures. I'm not 100% sure but I think she knew that a powerful artifact we had in our possesion was made from the souls of good people. She failed to inform the rest of the party before we used it in a ritual that destroyed it and all the souls it contained. Most of the acts have been the selfish kind but a few have been darker.
Also, taming a nightmare in and of itself is not a blatant act of evil. It's no more evil than taming a normal horse. It just shows that the person doing the taming is evil, or at least evil enough to tame that particular nightmare, but the actual act of taming it isn't evil.
Agreed. The act itself was not evil. But the act was what made my Cleric realize she was evil. It was the last straw for him. He was always the voice of reason when the party was trying to decide between the right (read good) and the wrong (read evil) thing to do. The Warlock has always argued for the wrong thing. The Cleric feels it would be in the party's best interest if the Warlock was gone.
You can RP that your deity wants you to aid the warlock, despite being evil. It can be one of those "God works in mysterious ways" things where you don't quite understand why you've been instructed to do so.
That is a good point. My Cleric started out as melee heavy Cleric. I initially became a Warpriest. Then I noticed that I was doing more healing than fighting so we threw in a side story for my Cleric to switch to Radiant Servant and that shifted him from Unaligned to Good. He still worships Kord but acts like a servant of Pelor.
The shady business has included killing people that didn't need to be killed. Torturing people for information when there might have been other means of getting that information. Lying to the party when only she could speak a certain language and thus was the liaison between our party and a village of evil creatures. I'm not 100% sure but I think she knew that a powerful artifact we had in our possesion was made from the souls of good people. She failed to inform the rest of the party before we used it in a ritual that destroyed it and all the souls it contained. Most of the acts have been the selfish kind but a few have been darker.
Agreed. The act itself was not evil. But the act was what made my Cleric realize she was evil. It was the last straw for him. He was always the voice of reason when the party was trying to decide between the right (read good) and the wrong (read evil) thing to do. The Warlock has always argued for the wrong thing. The Cleric feels it would be in the party's best interest if the Warlock was gone.
Who did she kill and why? Was it an I just feel like it kill or a merciless kill? There's a difference between killing a random traveler you meet on the road and killing someone in battle that even though you beat them and they may have surrendered are likely to come back and try to kill you later on. As for the entire torture thing, was it in a situation where getting the information as fast as possible was better for the group in general? Was there a time limit? As for the artifact my main question is whether or not this ritual was important. Was it imperative that this ritual be completed, else something much worse would occur? If so, I could understand not saying anything in case someone might object. Sometimes people have to do bad things for the greater good afterall.
Another thing I'd like to ask is, has the lock done anything to hurt the party? Has she stolen gold or items or anything like that or tried to kill anyone, or has she just used darker methods in order to help everyone else out? Honestly, it's seeming like it's just a conflict of views. She has her way of handling these, you have your way, and you just happen to not like her way. I'd say just continue as you are until you actually run into a problem, but dont take offense to the lock if she also refuses to help you when you need it.
Honestly, it's seeming like it's just a conflict of views.
Pathetic.
The struggle of Good vrs Evil has been reduced to this:
Pathetic.
I've never seen why good and evil should always have to struggle against each other. The goal of evil people doesn't always have to clash with that of the good guys (Though I dont honestly believe in the entire good and evil thing to begin, just differing points of view).
Just get over it and keep working with him. Agree to disagree.
Look at it this way: You and he have been together for a long time (14 levels apparently). You know and respect each other, and have been through countless perils. You've "Saved the World" together at least once. You're both in an organization that's trying to do it a second time. He is a 14th level character, who presumably is good at doing what he does (killing bad guys most of the time).
It's really in your, his, and the world's best interest if you can cooperate to save the day, even if you don't consider each other friends anymore.
He's lied and cheated about some things, and killed a few random people, but does the bad outweigh the good considering his long career?
I think it's best if your character along with the other good members "confront" him in some way, and basically come down that you all need each other, but you won't approve of him doing evil things while you're together. For his part, he can refrain from performing evil deeds, or at least keep them from your characters' knowledge. Let him know you're "watching him" but it shouldn't mean you can't all get along to perform your missions unless he pushes things too far.
Sometimes you need bad guys to accomplish good. Hannibal Lechter was helpful in Silence of the Lambs was he not? If he was given the death penalty when originally caught, he couldn't have helped catch that other guy (let's leave the rest of what transpired out).
Your character is "Good" and not "Lawful Good." You can bend some rules when it's to the greater benefit of humanity and so forth. As was already mentioned, Kord doesn't particularly have a zero tolerance policy on evil per se.
If you haven't read it, I'd really recommend this web comic, Order of the Stick by Richard Burlew (he wrote for some WotC products too):
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0001.html
They're mid-high level heroes who've been together a while, and one of them is hardcore Chaotic Evil -- and everyone knows it and they still get along. He just tries to get along with them and not do things to their detriment, and they benefit from his abilities and being able to "keep an eye" on him. The comic is pretty much version 3.5 of D&D, but most of it is rules neutral.
I think it is time for that character to move on... maybe even with an feeling of being betrayed (possibly all in his head), which makes him into a great opponent in the future.
Having an evil character:
1. Is against the 4e philosophy per WotC (FWIW).
2. Rarely works out well in the long term.
3. Can be very un-fun for the other players.
etc., etc.
If you haven't read it, I'd really recommend this web comic, Order of the Stick by Richard Burlew (he wrote for some WotC products too):
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0001.html
They're mid-high level heroes who've been together a while, and one of them is hardcore Chaotic Evil -- and everyone knows it and they still get along. He just tries to get along with them and not do things to their detriment, and they benefit from his abilities and being able to "keep an eye" on him. The comic is pretty much version 3.5 of D&D, but most of it is rules neutral.
The Warlock was going to try to pull a Belkar (I read the OotS) and try to Bluff my character in to thinking she was not evil. We said it wouldn't have worked because I know for a fact that you have to be evil to make the Nightmare a mount.
As it stands right now, we have to work together to make out of our current situation. I stated that I wouldn't let her die but I was not going to heal her. She doesn't have any healing surges left anyways so I couldn't heal her even if I wanted to.
This thread wasn't made to debate whether what my character did was good or bad, its to help brainstorm some ideas of how to get the Warlock back on the right path or at least keep her in the game. I think the best thing is to take her in front of the council of our secret order to see what they say. I don't see my character being able to just forget the fact that she's evil. She would have to redeem herself in some way. You can also count on me keeping an eye on her.
The one thing that came up during our character's discussion about good and evil was what gave my character the right to say what he thought and did was the right thing to do? As a player, I see it as the party needs me to keep them all alive. My character doesn't need the Warlock and the Warlock might survive without me but I don't think it would be for long. As a character, its his beliefs that dictate his actions. He believes in using his powers/might for the good of the people and to vanquish evil with those powers. Aiding an evil character would go against what he believes in. He has done some things that others would have thought to be evil but he did them for the greater good. The people involved did not understand the whole picture and he had to sacrifice their trust for the greater good.
This sounds like it has gone too far, as often happens when one plays an evil character.
I think it is time for that character to move on... maybe even with an feeling of being betrayed (possibly all in his head), which makes him into a great opponent in the future.
Having an evil character:
1. Is against the 4e philosophy per WotC (FWIW).
2. Rarely works out well in the long term.
3. Can be very un-fun for the other players.
etc., etc.
I dont see why that character should have to move on. She's done nothing wrong, and hasn't directly started anything with anyone. There's no reason at all that she should have to give up her character because one person disagrees with her characters ideology. It's like saying that if two characters worship different gods, both either good or unaligned, yet their gods have different view points that one of the characters would have to give up their character for the sake of another, even after not doing anything harmful to the party.
@Neomonk21: If she can pull it off, just get the warlock to bluff her way out of it. It says under the nightmare section that a nightmare will submit to a more powerful evil, but it doesn't say that it would only submit to a more powerful evil. It's a technicality somewhat, but there's nothing that specifically says that a good/unaligned character couldn't manage it. Just because noone (that the party knows/has heard of) has done it without being evil doesn't necessarily eliminate all chances of it being possible. Hell, the warlock, by virtue of being a warlock could play it off as if she herself wasn't evil, it was just the source of the power she wields that was. A power that she uses for good. Afterall, a nightmare has no evil sensing abilities to speak of, so at best it would be able to base this off of the fact that she was throwing around hellfire/eldritch energies etc.
@Neomonk21: If she can pull it off, just get the warlock to bluff her way out of it. It says under the nightmare section that a nightmare will submit to a more powerful evil, but it doesn't say that it would only submit to a more powerful evil. It's a technicality somewhat, but there's nothing that specifically says that a good/unaligned character couldn't manage it. Just because noone (that the party knows/has heard of) has done it without being evil doesn't necessarily eliminate all chances of it being possible. Hell, the warlock, by virtue of being a warlock could play it off as if she herself wasn't evil, it was just the source of the power she wields that was. A power that she uses for good.
I could see that working. Thanks for the idea.
I dont see why that character should have to move on. She's done nothing wrong, and hasn't directly started anything with anyone. There's no reason at all that she should have to give up her character because one person disagrees with her characters ideology. It's like saying that if two characters worship different gods, both either good or unaligned, yet their gods have different view points that one of the characters would have to give up their character for the sake of another, even after not doing anything harmful to the party...
She's done plenty of thing wrong, as mentioned above.
It really comes down to the evil character should be doing whatever is needed to get along with the rest of the party. Taking the Nightmare was really just the final straw of thumbing her nose at the party - essentially staying - "yeah, sure, I'm evil - so what are you going to do about it?"
In then end, all players have a responsibility to ensure their characters are able to adventure together or they should be prepared to leave the party.
In this case, the Warlock has acted in such a manner so as to be incompatible with the rest pof the party. It is not for the other players to change their characters to be able to now accept the now-evil warlock, it is incumbent upon the warlock to avoid doing things that will make her incompatible with the party or be prepared to leave.
My personal philosophy of play is that all characters should be very careful to not offend other party members in such as way as to be forced out of the party - such an action would be against their own interests.
Either way it's a matter of greater good versus personal belief in current good.
She's done plenty of thing wrong, as mentioned above.
It really comes down to the evil character should be doing whatever is needed to get along with the rest of the party. Taking the Nightmare was really just the final straw of thumbing her nose at the party - essentially staying - "yeah, sure, I'm evil - so what are you going to do about it?"
In then end, all players have a responsibility to ensure their characters are able to adventure together or they should be prepared to leave the party.
In this case, the Warlock has acted in such a manner so as to be incompatible with the rest pof the party. It is not for the other players to change their characters to be able to now accept the now-evil warlock, it is incumbent upon the warlock to avoid doing things that will make her incompatible with the party or be prepared to leave.
My personal philosophy of play is that all characters should be very careful to not offend other party members in such as way as to be forced out of the party - such an action would be against their own interests.
None of which are really that wrong honestly, no more so than what most players do. She's in some kind of secret organization thats trying to save the world from who knows what, so she killed someone, it obviously wasn't some innocent nun or she would have been labeled evil then, so chances are it was someone who had already surrendered, but as with a lot of secret organizations and the evils they oppose, you cant just let people off the hook that easily, so some times people get killed (and in D&D you're typically supposed to proceed to take their stuff at that point). She tortured someone for information, information that I'm assuming the party needed since again, she wasn't being imprisoned for doing it. Honestly, most of the "evil" things shes done seems to be for the greater good/the advancement of the party, so I'm not seeing a problem.
I also dont think that the evil character should be doing all they can to get along with the party, at least no more than anyone else. It should be an equal amount of give and take. Going by the way its been presented it's not even the entire party who has a problem with it, it's just one person. So let me ask you this. Why should the cleric not leave the party instead (not that I think he should)? As presented, the only person with a problem here is the cleric. He's the only one that refuses to cooperate at this point, so tell me, isn't the one here who isn't ensuring that they can get along with the rest of the party the cleric? And by that logic should it not be the cleric that should walk (again, I dont think either should have to quit their character over something this trivial).
None of which are really that wrong honestly,
We've been told:
"The shady business has included killing people that didn't need to be killed. Torturing people for information when there might have been other means of getting that information. Lying to the party when only she could speak a certain language and thus was the liaison between our party and a village of evil creatures. I'm not 100% sure but I think she knew that a powerful artifact we had in our possesion was made from the souls of good people. She failed to inform the rest of the party before we used it in a ritual that destroyed it and all the souls it contained. Most of the acts have been the selfish kind but a few have been darker."
plus
"Her evil tendencies were overlooked numerous times. Her mounting the Nightmare was a blatant evil act and cannot be overlooked. "
...I also dont think that the evil character should be doing all they can to get along with the party, at least no more than anyone else...
Here is where we (and WotC) really disgree with you. WotC is quite clear that PCs should not be evil. If the DM and the rest of the players don't mind, fine, but it really is the responsibility of thw evil PC's player to ensure that being evil does not get in the way of the fun of thw rest of the players and force other players to change their characters just to get along with the evil PC.
We've been told:
"The shady business has included killing people that didn't need to be killed. Torturing people for information when there might have been other means of getting that information. Lying to the party when only she could speak a certain language and thus was the liaison between our party and a village of evil creatures. I'm not 100% sure but I think she knew that a powerful artifact we had in our possesion was made from the souls of good people. She failed to inform the rest of the party before we used it in a ritual that destroyed it and all the souls it contained. Most of the acts have been the selfish kind but a few have been darker."
plus
"Her evil tendencies were overlooked numerous times. Her mounting the Nightmare was a blatant evil act and cannot be overlooked. "
Covered that.
Here is where we (and WotC) really disgree with you. WotC is quite clear that PCs should not be evil. If the DM and the rest of the players don't mind, fine, but it really is the responsibility of thw evil PC's player to ensure that being evil does not get in the way of the fun of thw rest of the players and force other players to change their characters just to get along with the evil PC.
DM says they can be evil which is an option that WotC gave. I disagree with you. They shouldn't have to be anymore responsible for their actions than anyone else. Why should you ruin their fun by trying to bully them around saying well I'm good so no matter what you say my opinion matters more than yours, which is pretty much what you're trying to do. You're trying to do the exact same thing you're saying evil characters should avoid, and that's the kind of double standard I'd never allow. You're proposing that they should force one player to change their character to get along with 1 good PC, how is that any better than 1 good PC being forced to go along with an evil character?
Covered that.
Not very well, but let's let that slide.
...You're proposing forcing one player to change their character to get along with 1 good PC, how is that any better?
No, I am saying the evil character has a responsibility to figure out how to get along with everyone else and not force the game that is designed for good/neutral characters to have to change to accommodate him/her.
In fact, the evil character should, in his/her own best interest, not act evil when around the party. To do so is self-defeating as surely, eventually, he/she will be, at best, banished from the party.
It really comes down to this:
The player that chooses to step outside the norm for the game has the responsibility to ensure that this adds to the game rather than subtracting from it and causing strife.
The norm is good/neutral. This has always been true for D&D, and even more so with 4e. Stepping outside that to be evil means it is now that PC's player's responsibility to ensure that such a path adds to rather than subtracts from the game and the enjoyable experience of the other players.
Not very well, but let's let that slide.
No, I am saying the evil character has a responsibility to figure out how to get along with everyone else and not force the game that is designed for good/neutral characters to have to change to accommodate him/her.
In fact, the evil character should, in his/her own best interest, not act evil when around the party. To do so is self-defeating as surely, eventually, he/she will be, at best, banished from the party.
It really comes down to this:
The player that chooses to step outside the norm for the game has the responsibility to ensure that this adds to the game rather than subtracting from it and causing strife.
The norm is good/neutral. This has always been true for D&D, and even more so with 4e. Stepping outside that to be evil means it is now that PC's player's responsibility to ensure that such a path adds to rather than subtracts from the game and the enjoyable experience of the other players.
The game is designed to work with either. Alignment changes nothing in the game other than how you and other players interact which is something thats decided by the GM and players. The mechanics and rules of the game dont change just because you're good or evil. The only thing being evil does is change the method that you get things done. This is no different than two good characters that do the exact same thing and honestly, if not for the fact that the warlock herself says shes evil this probably wouldn't even be an issue to most people. Actually, thats a good way to do this. Let us play like her character was unaligned instead of evil for a second.
She and her party are fighting against an enemy and she kills them, even though the cleric feels that it may have been a bit too hasty. Would there be a problem with that, or would it just be brushed off as a personality difference? She doesn't forgive her enemies and let them run rampant, so she killed them. A little ruthless but not that bad of a thing, people kill things all the time in this game, its one of its primary features in fact.
The entire party is working for a secret organization and they need information out of one of their enemies. That enemy refuses to spill, so she makes him tell the group. Again, pretty harsh method of doing it, but it's fine, this is saving the world, whats the pain of one monster/evil person compared to that?
Not really even sure about the evil creature village thing to be honest.
To Neomonk21: What were they and did you see them do anything evil or did you just assume they were? What did she do? Did she make peace with them, did she sell them slaves or something, what? This could be a good thing or a bad thing depending on the circumstances.
Magic item with souls in it used for a ritual that the party needed. She didn't take the souls and may not have even known they were there. Could be an act of evil, could not, especially depending on what the ritual was for.
Then taming a nightmare isn't even in itself an act of evil. Honestly, this is just seeming like your typical run of the mill PC who just happens to a tad bit more brutal in her workings than the cleric likes. The only real problem factor people seem to have with this is that instead of her character sheet saying unaligned it says evil. While she's obviously not good she could easily get away with saying her character is unaligned based purely on her actions.
To clarify some things
-The artifact in question was used to power an airship for the party's personal use. Nothing but greed drove that decision, though that was a party-wide decision.
-The killing in question was a hostage situation; the warlock chose to shoot through rather than around the meat shields. Also killed innocent mindflayer thralls while the rest of the party used non-lethal means (not necessarily evil, but not good)
-A lot of situations where the party saw something wrong, but just let it slide and didn't ask questions. Now they're kind of wishing they knew more about what was really going on.
The warlock is evil. There's no longer any question or doubt about that. The warlock also made the decision to fully cross the line knowing that something like this was unavoidable; it just happened sooner than we thought it would. The badass factor of taming a Nightmare outweighed the need for secrecy with his character, and when he realized what just happened it was a very big "Oh @#$%" moment for the warlock.
Myself and all of the players have been friends for a while, and no one is mad or upset at anyone else. The warlock is prepared and willing to roll up a new character, as he knew something like this would eventually happen. However, we're just looking for a possible way to keep the warlock in the party as it provides for some interesting roleplaying. Also, we have a lot of time and story invested in the character.
Don't misunderstand, if a reasonable, believable, and most importantly agreeable solution cannot be found for the warlock to remain in the party, he's gone and a new character arrives. We won't sacrifice the fun of the group for the whims (even though the warlock is a well thought and fleshed-out character) of one player.
Also, 4E is none of our first edition of D&D. Allowing an Evil character was my choice, and I firmly believe that it was the right choice. The warlock began as Unaligned, and it took years of in-game time for him to eventually cross the line to Evil. Who am I to tell him how to play his character? He made the choices he wanted to and is now suffering the consequences.
DM of the group here.
To clarify some things
-The artifact in question was used to power an airship for the party's personal use. Nothing but greed drove that decision, though that was a party-wide decision.
-The killing in question was a hostage situation; the warlock chose to shoot through rather than around the meat shields. Also killed innocent mindflayer thralls while the rest of the party used non-lethal means (not necessarily evil, but not good)
-A lot of situations where the party saw something wrong, but just let it slide and didn't ask questions. Now they're kind of wishing they knew more about what was really going on.
The warlock is evil. There's no longer any question or doubt about that. The warlock also made the decision to fully cross the line knowing that something like this was unavoidable; it just happened sooner than we thought it would. The badass factor of taming a Nightmare outweighed the need for secrecy with his character, and when he realized what just happened it was a very big "Oh @#$%" moment for the warlock.
Myself and all of the players have been friends for a while, and no one is mad or upset at anyone else. The warlock is prepared and willing to roll up a new character, as he knew something like this would eventually happen. However, we're just looking for a possible way to keep the warlock in the party as it provides for some interesting roleplaying. Also, we have a lot of time and story invested in the character.
Don't misunderstand, if a reasonable, believable, and most importantly agreeable solution cannot be found for the warlock to remain in the party, he's gone and a new character arrives. We won't sacrifice the fun of the group for the whims (even though the warlock is a well thought and fleshed-out character) of one player.
Also, 4E is none of our first edition of D&D. Allowing an Evil character was my choice, and I firmly believe that it was the right choice. The warlock began as Unaligned, and it took years of in-game time for him to eventually cross the line to Evil. Who am I to tell him how to play his character? He made the choices he wanted to and is now suffering the consequences.
As I said to Neomonk21, have the warlock bluff their way out of it. Nightmares have no way (mechanically) of telling who is good and who is evil, so it's to be assumed that they cant be right 100% of the time. It could easily have assumed the warlock was evil purely because of the kind of powers the person used. As I also said before, nightmares may be known to submit to powerful evils, but it doesn't specifically say that they cant be tamed by non-evil beings. It's just typically evil people who do it. You could very well have someone else in whatever organization the PC's are in that had also tamed a nightmare, showing that it's not a guaranteed thing that the tamer is evil. So while the character may very well be evil, the nightmare thing wouldn't be something that automatically points to them being evil.
1. Some sort of true transformation of the warlock, possibly into a radical opposite of what she is now. DM, intervention will be required, I would think. Tons of role-playing potential here, and much of it will drive the other players crazy as the warlock insist on the absolute straight and narrow with no compromise!
or, for tons of fun
2. A fake reformation of the warlock. This would involve some bluffing for sure, as well as changing at least the obvious behavior - though not character motivations. I am not sure if the warlock could pull this off while still keeping the Nightmare mount - that would be some trick indeed!
I like number 2, but it's really hard to pull off well. To do this, every action of the warlock must at least appear to be good rather than evil - regardless of the true motivation.
An evil character can act "good" far better than a good character can act "evil."
In fact, with scenario (2), you could still have the warlock insist on the absolute straight and narrow with no compromise solely to create frustration for the "good" characters. How evil is that?
Yes, it is possible for the warlock to be evil and stay in this party, but the onus is on the warlock (well, the warlock's player) to figure out how to do it.
That being said...
Who is the dwarf cleric to decide the mandates of the secret order or even that of his god without counsel? Kord is unaligned. He is the god of battle - he wants you to be strong and brave and WIN at all costs. Even if you are good, it is within the doctrine of your god to use whatever tools are at your disposal to win. If one of those tools is evil, actually so much the better... since he can do things that you are bound by your OWN moral positioning to not do. He is a tool to be used to win. It should be your divine mandate to foster your relationship with him to overcome obstacles that you couldn't do on your own. Hell, you could even consider your relationship with him a divine gift to use when your personal moral bias would have otherwise prevented you from winning.
But yeah, it's not your place to judge him, only to work with him within the mandates of your order. You may not like what he does sometimes, and the Order should put restrictions on his behavior if they are supposed to be the 'force of good' that they seem to be, and may even put you in charge of reporting on his behavior or even releasing him to your authority, thus requiring you to limit his actions (a potentially dangerous position to be in due the the possible fostering of resentments, both in-game and without), but you have to be able to work together for the good of the mission.
Not really even sure about the evil creature village thing to be honest.
To Neomonk21: What were they and did you see them do anything evil or did you just assume they were? What did she do? Did she make peace with them, did she sell them slaves or something, what? This could be a good thing or a bad thing depending on the circumstances.
They were a race of fire salamander things that had Slaads as slaves. They told us that the Slaads were their enemies and that we should go kill them if we wanted safe passage through their village (this was all underground in a vast system of caves). They were secretly hoping that the Slaads would kill us or weaken us enough so they could kill us. I can't remember exactly but I think only the Warlock could speak to them and she was going to cut a deal with them. I think at the last second she changed her mind. Or it might have been that she provoked them in to attacking us because she wanted to kill them and loot the village. Something along those lines.
Regarding the artifact of souls and the airship. The Warlock and the Wizard knew it was full of souls and didn't tell anyone else. When we got the artifact three of our friends were killed. One was a member of the secret order (Arklight's Order), one was my best friend who was a Dwarven King and the last was the long lost sister of the wizard. We had the means to bring back everyone but my friend. I made the decision to bring back the other two because I knew my friend would understand (I forget why we weren't able to bring him back, there was some in game mechanic preventing it. I think the Lich took his soul or something). The whole reason we went after the artifact was to get an airship to make getting around easier. I figured we could do more good that way. I don't see it as a selfish or greedy decision at all (at least for my character). If anything it will allow us to bring my friend back quicker.
But yeah, it's not your place to judge him, only to work with him within the mandates of your order.
Once again, I might be fuzzy on some of the details about this. But I think when we got inducted in to the Order there was a big argument about letting in the Warlock and the Goblin (or maybe just the Goblin). A few of the council members did not want them in the Order but we argued that they need to be let in because they helped us and were part of the party. So they already have their suspicions of those two. I think this would just be fuel for that fire and the people that argued against them would have something to use against them if it came to trial.
You could try to strike a pact with the warlock (she should be familiar with how those work). The two of you agree on a good deed the warlock has to perform when you heal/aid her next time at the time establishing conditions on when you will help her and when not (e.g. only if she falls unconcious).
Each time the condition triggers you negotiate on the next exchange of good deed for not dying (only do it between encounters).
That way you could still work together and depending on how things work out, the tainted soul of your misled friend might get just a little tad whiter.
From what I've read, if that's true, the Warlock is still concurrent with party goals. DM's should only take possession or force rerolls if the character has made itself into the "target villain" of the party. Additionally, it sounds like your group has a nice, strong, personally invested RP; in fact, it's part of why the OP probably posted here in the first place.
Don't use the sessions to get out "how you think D&D should be run". Your characters have encountered a natural schism and party conflict is half of D&D (let's face it, 4 people with varied backgrounds are unlikely to wander a countryside bashing things and burning things unless they are motivated by an extreme situation to do so).
You did good by refusing healing. THat makes the Warlock adapt which makes her a better player. That also forces your party to work around ensuring minimal damage occurs to the warlock when she starts blasting things. Your RP actions have changed the flavor of things, which is what keeps a campaign alive. Live it, love it, and see how it evolves; the best campaigns become living, breathing worlds of their own, and good RP is the blood that courses through its veins.
Consider the characters in fantasy stories that have an evil companion but make it a personal point to "fix" them. Try playing this role..."See, wasn't that easy? All you had to do was give her the potion. Healyjoy!" or "I'll heal you THIS time....IF you give half the gold in your purse to the poor of this town."
You could try to strike a pact with the warlock (she should be familiar with how those work). The two of you agree on a good deed the warlock has to perform when you heal/aid her next time at the time establishing conditions on when you will help her and when not (e.g. only if she falls unconcious).
Each time the condition triggers you negotiate on the next exchange of good deed for not dying (only do it between encounters).
"I'll heal you THIS time....IF you give half the gold in your purse to the poor of this town."
This is totally the best suggestion I've seen on the topic. You're fueling his redemption!
This is totally the best suggestion I've seen on the topic. You're fueling his redemption!
I tend to disagree - you can't force someone to be good. You can encourage/bride someone to do good things - but how good is that, really?
I tend to disagree - you can't force someone to be good. You can encourage/bride someone to do good things - but how good is that, really?
I had considered this before I posted. Sure, what you're ultimately doing is bribing him to be good, which in itself doesn't seem immediately to be a good thing.
But if what you're really doing is providing some means to bridge the gap between his existing selfish nature and the ultimate joy of altruism by speaking to where he is now - well, isn't that the ideal of any missionary worth his fire and brimstone?
;)
I really don't see the problem here. Evil and good characters can get along just fine. It's only at the point where the evil character is actively trying to hurt the party that it becomes a problem.
Yeah right, it's perfectly fine for my dog to take a bite of passersby when I take her for a walk just as long as she doesn't try it on me.
The only reason I can think of that this would be problem is if one of your characters was playing a 3.5 paladin and would actually lose class features for associating with an evil character.
Doing evil things to evil people might be justified in some or most cases depending on how strict you want to be.
Doing evil things to neutral factions or associates however is an issue (or should be as long as you don't understand 'unaligned' as 'whatever, I don't care'). And that's really the case we're dealing with here.
Now that's something entirely different isn't it?
Doing evil things to evil people might be justified in some or most cases depending on how strict you want to be.
Doing evil things to neutral factions or associates however is an issue (or should be as long as you don't understand 'unaligned' as 'whatever, I don't care'). And that's really the case we're dealing with here.
Not at all. From whats been said (to be more specific, nobody has said the person has) the warlock hasn't done anything to any of the persons teammates or members of their faction.
I've never seen why good and evil should always have to struggle against each other. The goal of evil people doesn't always have to clash with that of the good guys
Yes. It does.
This isn't Star Wars where the Sith go back and forth between Evil and Neutral and occasionally Good. Evil is Evil. And at it's most basic level:
Evil: My Gain At Others' Expense
Neutral: My Gain
Good: Help Others, Sometimes Sacrifice My Gain.
Usually, the people that need help from Good people have been shorted their share by Evil people, who didn't care about who was shorted in the first place. And the Neutrals sit on the sidelines until Good or Evil needs mercenary help.
DM of the group here.
To clarify some things
-The artifact in question was used to power an airship for the party's personal use. Nothing but greed drove that decision, though that was a party-wide decision.
-The killing in question was a hostage situation; the warlock chose to shoot through rather than around the meat shields. Also killed innocent mindflayer thralls while the rest of the party used non-lethal means (not necessarily evil, but not good)
-A lot of situations where the party saw something wrong, but just let it slide and didn't ask questions. Now they're kind of wishing they knew more about what was really going on.
The warlock is evil. There's no longer any question or doubt about that. The warlock also made the decision to fully cross the line knowing that something like this was unavoidable; it just happened sooner than we thought it would. The badass factor of taming a Nightmare outweighed the need for secrecy with his character, and when he realized what just happened it was a very big "Oh @#$%" moment for the warlock.
While not "members of their faction" the hostages and thralls weren't hostile to the party nor were they 'other' evil creatures.
In fact killing hostages is supposed to create unwanted complications for an even slightly good party. This is by itself enough proof that a statement to the point of "the presence of an evil character in the party is not a problem as long as he doesn't attack a party member" is not applicable to the specific situation because she has already willingly or out of disregard for life created trouble for her teammates.
Yes. It does.
This isn't Star Wars where the Sith go back and forth between Evil and Neutral and occasionally Good. Evil is Evil. And at it's most basic level:
Evil: My Gain At Others' Expense
Neutral: My Gain
Good: Help Others, Sometimes Sacrifice My Gain.
Usually, the people that need help from Good people have been shorted their share by Evil people, who didn't care about who was shorted in the first place. And the Neutrals sit on the sidelines until Good or Evil needs mercenary help.
No, this is role play, which can easily simulate real life in terms of personality complexity, and life is not so simple as to be as black and white as what you make it out to be. If you think otherwise, I feel sorry for you and must respectfully disagree. What may seem good or evil to some people may be the complete opposite to others. Good and evil are so subjective that I honestly find it foolish to try to label people as such.
Your chart of what makes things good and evil is also flawed. A lot of the time even if you help someone and sacrifice things yourself, other people are still inconvenienced and often times harmed because of it, even if that wasn't the original intent. For example, a paladin of, lets say Pelor, kills an "evil" priest, sustaining injuries himself. This priest happened to have had a daughter who watched this paladin kill her beloved father from her hideout. Her father was always kind and loving to her, so while the paladin did the "good" thing by disposing of the "evil" priest, he orphaned an innocent little girl and unknowingly forced her to watch the slaughter of her kind father.
This is merely one example of where one persons good deed is at the same time, from another view point, an act of evil.
Then there's the reverse. An "evil" sorcerer slays a dragon for his own personal gain to obtain its wealth to further his own ambition. Unknown to the sorcerer, this dragon he's slain was a menace to the surrounding settlements. He gained something at the expense of another (the dragon who regardless of actions is an intelligent being who had gained it's wealth through its own power), yet at the same time saved the settlements that the dragon once plagued.
Now what happens when a character at times does decidedly "good" deeds and at others does decidedly "evil" things? A person who performs the most despicable acts of cruelty to some, yet is a veritable saint to others? There's always two sides to a story, and what's good to one side can be just as evil to the other. And good deeds done for one can turn out to be a heinous slight against another.
Edit: Heh, I think I'm getting a bit off-topic. I should probably make a Good/Evil thread later and discuss this there.
Of course I am exaggerating. I do like to present players with intricate moral dilemma at times myself but in general D&D is not about moral. (If you want to go deep into this stuff, The Last Exodus is your game) Black and White is the way to go straight into the action. Spot some Orcs? Chances are they are evil, you'd better have your swords ready and not conjure up some divinations to find out if they had actually been naughty this year.
I really wonder why you try so hard to defend the Warlock's actions as not being evil whereas we know that the DM has judged her deeds to be evil, the Cleric's player considers her evil and (according to those two) the Warlock's player himself is not hesitant to give in that his character is treading the dark path.
And seriously, doing something evil and unwittingly commiting a good deed that one is unaware of still makes doing something evil on purpose. And even being aware of good side effects doesn't help all that much. Committing evil for the sake of 'greater good' is still morally questionable at the very least.
Except this is D&D where evil priests don't have innocent children they rise with loving and care (so they become evil priestesses themselves and spread famine and terror) and where the evil sorcerer is just going to plague the village even more than the dragon did (not only taking the treasure and some livestock but also transforming most of the populace into zombies).
Of course I am exaggerating. I do like to present players with intricate moral dilemma at times myself but in general D&D is not about moral. (If you want to go deep into this stuff, The Last Exodus is your game) Black and White is the way to go straight into the action. Spot some Orcs? Chances are they are evil, you'd better have your swords ready and not conjure up some divinations to find out if they had actually been naughty this year.
I really wonder why you try so hard to defend the Warlock's actions as not being evil whereas we know that the DM has judged her deeds to be evil, the Cleric's player considers her evil and (according to those two) the Warlock's player himself is not hesitant to give in that his character is treading the dark path.
And seriously, doing something evil and unwittingly commiting a good deed that one is unaware of still makes doing something evil on purpose. And even being aware of good side effects doesn't help all that much. Committing evil for the sake of 'greater good' is still morally questionable at the very least.
I was pointing out that saying you have to be either good or evil and that there was no in between was just silly. I'm also not saying she's not evil. Actually, all I really said was that she shouldn't have to give up her character because one other person in character doesn't like her actions. She's not done anything bad enough that she should have her character taken away. If one character has a personal problem with another, I dont see why one should be persecuted at the table because of it. I mean if the person wants to switch characters, all power to em, but being forced out of a character over such minor transgressions is just inexcusable. It's like having the group leader being prejudice against elves or something and to not be able to choose elves as a race because that one persons character doesn't like them, simply for the sake of "getting along", when its not even your character that has the problem with getting along with someone.
No, this is role play, which can easily simulate real life in terms of personality complexity, and life is not so simple as to be as black and white as what you make it out to be. If you think otherwise, I feel sorry for you and must respectfully disagree. What may seem good or evil to some people may be the complete opposite to others. Good and evil are so subjective that I honestly find it foolish to try to label people as such.
Your chart of what makes things good and evil is also flawed. A lot of the time even if you help someone and sacrifice things yourself, other people are still inconvenienced and often times harmed because of it, even if that wasn't the original intent. For example, a paladin of, lets say Pelor, kills an "evil" priest, sustaining injuries himself. This priest happened to have had a daughter who watched this paladin kill her beloved father from her hideout. Her father was always kind and loving to her, so while the paladin did the "good" thing by disposing of the "evil" priest, he orphaned an innocent little girl and unknowingly forced her to watch the slaughter of her kind father.
But the Paladin didn't do it to spite her. He put a stop to someone harming someone else. Being a parent doesn't magically give you license to murder. The evil priest killed someone for his own gain, the Paladin killed a murderer. In fact, it was moreso the evil priest's fault for harming his daughter by committing crimes that he knew that, if he were caught, he would be put to death for, leaving his daughter hurt and without a father.
This is merely one example of where one persons good deed is at the same time, from another view point, an act of evil.
Then there's the reverse. An "evil" sorcerer slays a dragon for his own personal gain to obtain its wealth to further his own ambition. Unknown to the sorcerer, this dragon he's slain was a menace to the surrounding settlements. He gained something at the expense of another (the dragon who regardless of actions is an intelligent being who had gained it's wealth through its own power), yet at the same time saved the settlements that the dragon once plagued.
Now what happens when a character at times does decidedly "good" deeds and at others does decidedly "evil" things? A person who performs the most despicable acts of cruelty to some, yet is a veritable saint to others? There's always two sides to a story, and what's good to one side can be just as evil to the other. And good deeds done for one can turn out to be a heinous slight against another.
I'd say, follow intent. The sorceror did it for his own gain. He doesn't rack up "Good" points because his whims happened to coincide with helping out innocent people. It's a 'better' deed than going out and razing those settlements, but he still murdered a fellow sentient for his own gain.
Well, as I am loathe to invoke forum laws, a certain leader of Germany around the 1930's and 1940's was instrumental in bringing Germany back into a healthy economic, industrial nation, and roused people into helping themselves out of the hole they'd dug themselves into from World War I. However, his evil actions are nothing new. Just because he was a charismatic leader and capable of reviving a struggling nation does not excuse him from his darker decisions.
In the end, Evil generally "weighs" more than Good. It goes back to the idea of why Good is the side that gets better press. Because you have to work a hell of a lot harder to really do something. A murder or a theft could be an unmeditated act that you decide to do in the span of five minutes. That could change, or end not just one life, but countless. However, holding a door for someone or helping them pick up something they dropped, while nice and certainly helpful in brightening someone's day, really is not all that impressive and won't make a lasting change for most people. Not to mention, Neutrality is still worlds higher than Neutral, as he may be self-serving, but Evil is blatant intent to harm others. Of course, all of this is just how I see it. This is by no means universal fact. :P
And going into the philosophical aspects of Good and Evil, as has been brought up in the many, many past Good & Evil debates on this board, is irrelevant, as Good and Evil are literal, tangible forces in the D&D world.
But the Paladin didn't do it to spite her. He put a stop to someone harming someone else. Being a parent doesn't magically give you license to murder. The evil priest killed someone for his own gain, the Paladin killed a murderer. In fact, it was moreso the evil priest's fault for harming his daughter by committing crimes that he knew that, if he were caught, he would be put to death for, leaving his daughter hurt and without a father.
I'd say, follow intent. The sorceror did it for his own gain. He doesn't rack up "Good" points because his whims happened to coincide with helping out innocent people. It's a 'better' deed than going out and razing those settlements, but he still murdered a fellow sentient for his own gain.
Well, as I am loathe to invoke forum laws, a certain leader of Germany around the 1930's and 1940's was instrumental in bringing Germany back into a healthy economic, industrial nation, and roused people into helping themselves out of the hole they'd dug themselves into from World War I. However, his evil actions are nothing new. Just because he was a charismatic leader and capable of reviving a struggling nation does not excuse him from his darker decisions.
In the end, Evil generally "weighs" more than Good. It goes back to the idea of why Good is the side that gets better press. Because you have to work a hell of a lot harder to really do something. A murder or a theft could be an unmeditated act that you decide to do in the span of five minutes. That could change, or end not just one life, but countless. However, holding a door for someone or helping them pick up something they dropped, while nice and certainly helpful in brightening someone's day, really is not all that impressive and won't make a lasting change for most people. Not to mention, Neutrality is still worlds higher than Neutral, as he may be self-serving, but Evil is blatant intent to harm others. Of course, all of this is just how I see it. This is by no means universal fact. :P
And going into the philosophical aspects of Good and Evil, as has been brought up in the many, many past Good & Evil debates on this board, is irrelevant, as Good and Evil are literal, tangible forces in the D&D world.
I'm saying that to the girl that the evil one is the paladin. It's more to show that good and evil are subjective depending on whose perspective you take. The same with the sorc really.
I see the evil in the D&D world to only be as black and white as the DM makes it, but that shouldn't apply as strictly to players as it does random NPCs, because honestly, players tend to be a little bit more fleshed out than random monsters the DM sends at the party. Thats why I object with the you did bad you lose your character mentality.
I'm saying that to the girl that the evil one is the paladin.
Well than hopefully the person who adopts her will own a dictionary so that she can look up the word "Paladin".
Well than hopefully the person who adopts her will own a dictionary so that she can look up the word "Paladin".
Paladin doesn't equal good guy, at least not in a world of evil gods. You can be a paladin of Asmodeus just as easily as you could be a paladin of Pelor. Not that it matters. All the girl would see is a guy come in and kill her loved ones, whether it was a paladin or not probably wouldn't matter. It's like having the police kill your mom. Just because their police doesn't make them good guys, and surely doesn't make it ok to the person that just lost family.
Paladin doesn't equal good guy, at least not in a world of evil gods. You can be a paladin of Asmodeus just as easily as you could be a paladin of Pelor. Not that it matters. All the girl would see is a guy come in and kill her loved ones, whether it was a paladin or not probably wouldn't matter. It's like having the police kill your mom. Just because their police doesn't make them good guys, and surely doesn't make it ok to the person that just lost family.
Except you already stated that this was a paladin of Pelor, and with paladins representing their deities, and Pelor not being the deity of vengeful patricide, we can assume the Paladin was Good.
And, for the hell of it: http://dictionary.infoplease.com/paladin
Except you already stated that this was a paladin of Pelor, and with paladins representing their deities, and Pelor not being the deity of vengeful patricide, we can assume the Paladin was Good.
And, for the hell of it: http://dictionary.infoplease.com/paladin
Doesn't really matter. The guy came in and started killing people. Regardless of whether or not he thought he was doing it for a good cause or not, to the people he hurts and to to the people close to them, hes the bad guy. He's the guy who came to them and started causing trouble. He broke in, likely killed the guards (that's how adventurers tend to do things after all) and then proceeded to kill the head priest. Regardless of what his god may or may not represent, to the victims he's just as evil as anyone who would do the opposite to a priest of Pelor.
Also the classic definition of a paladin is meaningless in this situation. The real life use of the word never really refers to those who follow evil deities, though as I said, In D&D, you can be a paladin of Asmodeus just as well as you can be a paladin of Pelor. So when paladins are evil just as often as they are good, saying, well as long as she knows what a paladin is isn't a very meaningful defense.
While alignment isn't a big deal anymore in 4E, you still run into trouble. At the very least, evil deities couldn't exist because every one would consider it's own cause the good one (like dominating everybody else so one can reign supreme). Likewise there wouldn't be any evil priests because following the teaching of one's god would be the good thing to do.
Ironically evil creatures could only be people with a very sophisticated conscience having the insight that what they do is wrong although it furthers their own goals.
The problem is that assuming your stance that moral is in the eyes of the beholder, which is a valid assumption in many instances, several concepts of D&D cease to function properly.
While alignment isn't a big deal anymore in 4E, you still run into trouble. At the very least, evil deities couldn't exist because every one would consider it's own cause the good one (like dominating everybody else so one can reign supreme). Likewise there wouldn't be any evil priests because following the teaching of one's god would be the good thing to do.
Ironically evil creatures could only be people with a very sophisticated conscience having the insight that what they do is wrong although it furthers their own goals.
Aha! One gets it! Take note that this isn't how I think a D&D game should always be run. It would take some fairly mature players (or really immature ones) to be able to deal with the fact that they weren't the "good guys", or at least they weren't inherently better or worse than the people they were trying to fight, but logically this is how I perceive it should be. What makes one side good or evil other than how they and the ones around them view themselves and others after all, and if that changes with the point of view, what makes one persons view superior to anothers? Though again, I never actually said this is how D&D should be. With D&D you have to suspend disbelief for things like this or else a few things start to get kind of fuzzy, more so with 3.5 than 4e actually, since more things were tied directly to their alignment system.
...to be able to deal with the fact that they weren't the "good guys", or at least they weren't inherently better or worse than the people they were trying to fight...
I understand this and agree with it to some extent. But what I have been saying is that my Cleric knows the Warlock is evil from his perspective. The Warlock might not think she is evil. My Cleric did what he thought was the right thing to do. I don't want to discuss what each person thinks is good and what they think is evil.
For example, murder is wrong.
Even that example may have shades of gray, I admit, but there is a general sort of moral compass that guides us everywhere in the world, as well as in D&D.
That said, In this particular case, what is good and what is evil is not even an issue - that's already been decided, so the debate on that point is worse than useless- it distracts from providing suggestions for the players on how to deal with it.
edit: FYI: I am not going to debate this - it is off-topic and not fair to the player trying to get advice.
edit: As for advice, I think that it is primarily up to the warlock's player to figure out how to make this work - that player is the one who has allowed the character to slide over "the dark side" and become potentially incompatible with the rest of the party. It is neither right nor fair to expect other players to bend over backwards to accommodate that warlock's player's whims.
I understand this and agree with it to some extent. But what I have been saying is that my Cleric knows the Warlock is evil from his perspective. The Warlock might not think she is evil. My Cleric did what he thought was the right thing to do. I don't want to discuss what each person thinks is good and what they think is evil.
Sadly enough, this has gone so far off topic that this is no longer really about to the case with you and the warlock. Not directly at least. Anything that might apply at this point probably applies coincidentally.
While there certainly are shades of gray, in both the real world and D&D there are indeed absolutes of good and evil (or right and wrong, if you like).
For example, murder is wrong.
Even that example may have shades of gray, I admit, but there is a general sort of moral compass that guides us everywhere in the world, as well as in D&D.
That said, In this particular case, what is good and what is evil is not even an issue - that's already been decided, so the debate on that point is worse than useless- it distracts from providing suggestions for the players on how to deal with it.
edit: As for advice, I think that it is primarily up to the warlock's player to figure out how to make this work - that player is the one who has allowed the character to slide over "the dark side" and become potentially incompatible with the rest of the party. It is neither right nor fair to expect other players to bend over backwards to accommodate that warlock's player's whims.
Ok, but here's the problem with that. You say murder is wrong, no matter how you spin it, right? Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another person. If a person is following the mandate of their god, order, or particular society, it's no longer murder, at least no more so than a good person killing an bad person because they're god or society tells them to do it. In that case, they're no more murderers than the people who kill them for doing it. Though if you define murder as simply killing others, what happens when you yourself kill someone for being evil? Would that not make you evil also for doing it?
Also, I dont disagree that the warlock is evil. The warlock says shes evil so shes evil, that was never really an issue. But let me ask you this. If it's not fair for other people to bend over backwards to accommodate for the warlock, how is it fair that the warlock be expected to bend over backwards for them? That doesn't seem like equal treatment now does it? One character is expected to restrict themselves more than everyone else? One character can use their methods to get things done while the other cant use theirs when they are equally effective yet still doesn't harm the party (not that I'm placing any sort of blame on anyone else) just because they were different than what they were done. How would it be ruled if it were the other way around? What if the defender didn't like the way the wizard did business, saying that he was too lenient, and wouldn't defend that character until the person manned up? Again, not saying that any of this is a bad thing, just a clash of personalities and methods. All in all, what I'm saying is that the warlock player shouldn't be forced out of a character over something so trivial.
As for being incompatible with the party, it seems to only be the cleric, understandably so, that has a problem with it. From whats been said, the rogue is also rather shady, and the wizard knew of the soul artifact also, and as far as the cleric and GM have mentioned, it's only the cleric who seems to have a problem with it. If the entire party was screaming for the warlock to go (with good reason of course), I could understand, but that's doesn't seem to be the case. As I said, it's just a clash of personalities between two fleshed out characters, a minor disagreement that they'll eventually have to get over for the sake of the greater good.
...If it's not fair for other people to bend over backwards to accommodate for the warlock, how is it fair that the warlock be expect to bend over backwards for them? That doesn't seem like equal treatment now does it? One character is expected to restrict themselves more than everyone else?
It is fair because it is the warlock's player that decided to knowingly go against the norm for the group. When you do that, it is up to you to make it work.
... How would it be ruled if it were the other way around? What if the defender didn't like the way the wizard did business, saying that he was too lenient, and wouldn't defend that character until the person manned up? Again, not saying that any of this is a bad thing, just a clash of personalities and methods. I just want to see how you would treat this situation in comparison to the one at hand.
Well, that's a fair question. The answer is that this is not a question of what is between the wizard (well, warlock in this instance) and cleric, but who has decided knowingly to step outside normally accepted behavior for the group knowing it might cause the character to, as best, have to leave the group.
It really comes down to that. When you take a character outside the accepted group behavior norms, you take your chances that the character may no longer be welcome. At that point, it is pretty much totally on the shoulders of the player who has decided to take the risk to figure out how to make it work without forcing other players to compromise there characters motivations, etc.
In 4e, as described in the PHB, at least, running en evil character automatically takes you outside the accepted norms (heck, it is not even permitted by RAW), thus, if you do so, it is entirely upon you shoulders to figure out how to make it work. No one else should be required to accommodate you except, of course, characters should not act based upon player knowledge, but only upon character knowledge.
This is, I believe, simply a matter of RPG gaming etiquette.
Let's face it: There is no black and white morality. Ever. Good and evil are both subjective terms to make the other team look bad. It's just as easy to do good through evil as it is to do evil while pretending to be good.
If I were the DM, I would let it fall where it may. If it's a problem to the entire group that one person is 'evil', then yes something should be done. If it's a problem for only one person, let them work it out for themselves.
The RAW says that you should ask your DM, not that you shouldn't be evil.
Well, it's off-topic, but you're almost right. It says you should not be evil and then explains why it's a bad idea. You are correct that the PHB does not say PCs cannot ever be evil, though it does say, "Unless your DM is running a campaign in which all characters are evil or chaotic evil playing an evil or chaotic evil character disrupts and adventuring party and, frankly, makes the other players angry at you."
This whole topic is a good example of how an evil character in a non-evil party is a bad thing.
...If I were the DM, I would let it fall where it may. If it's a problem to the entire group that one person is 'evil', then yes something should be done. If it's a problem for only one person, let them work it out for themselves.
In the end, I think that's right, the group needs to work this out, but it is the responsibility of the evil character to make it work, for the reasons I laid in in my last post.
Aha! One gets it! Take note that this isn't how I think a D&D game should always be run. It would take some fairly mature players (or really immature ones) to be able to deal with the fact that they weren't the "good guys", or at least they weren't inherently better or worse than the people they were trying to fight, but logically this is how I perceive it should be. What makes one side good or evil other than how they and the ones around them view themselves and others after all, and if that changes with the point of view, what makes one persons view superior to anothers? Though again, I never actually said this is how D&D should be. With D&D you have to suspend disbelief for things like this or else a few things start to get kind of fuzzy, more so with 3.5 than 4e actually, since more things were tied directly to their alignment system.
Finally, we're on the same track here. I've been arguing it this entire time from a D&D standpoint, not a moral relative standpoint. Though with Team Good and Team Evil, I would assume the words Good and Evil came from these two sides' actions in the past, not that these sides one up and picked these pre-existing words. As in, celestials had a certain method, and called their method good, thus, whenever anyone did actions in such a way that fit that method, it could be called good, and vice versa for evil.
Let's face it: There is no black and white morality. Ever. Good and evil are both subjective terms
You say that like it's actually provably true.
Anyway, you were asking what you could do in the situation. I won't presume to debate whether or not the warlock is "evil" but I can almost certainly guarantee that your current course of refusing to aid a teammate is wrong.
You either are a party of allies working together or not. Make a decision.
If the two of you decide you are allies, then agree to work together until you save the world or do whatever it is you are supposed to do.
If the two of you decide you are not, then agree to work together until you reach a city or some other safe zone and then go your seperate ways. Ask the other members of the group who they wish to follow and then that is that.
If you half-ass it and withhold healing, it will not end well. I never quite understood why "the cleric" of a party believes they have this sort of power; medics in the army are required to tend to the enemy and it goes against everything the Hippocratic Oath stands for. If "the cleric" wants to argue they aren't a doctor, that's fine, although I certainly wouldn't call it "good". But when "the cleric" finds himself surrounded by angry orcs and cries to the fighter for help, "the cleric" should not be surprised when the fighter says, "No, I find your moral and ethical worldview unacceptable and thus I feel within my rights not to perform my role in this party when it comes to you."
Neomonk21 -
If you half-ass it and withhold healing, it will not end well. I never quite understood why "the cleric" of a party believes they have this sort of power; medics in the army are required to tend to the enemy and it goes against everything the Hippocratic Oath stands for. If "the cleric" wants to argue they aren't a doctor, that's fine, although I certainly wouldn't call it "good". But when "the cleric" finds himself surrounded by angry orcs and cries to the fighter for help, "the cleric" should not be surprised when the fighter says, "No, I find your moral and ethical worldview unacceptable and thus I feel within my rights not to perform my role in this party when it comes to you."
Umm, this is the moral quadry, but the healer is completely within his rights to refuse healing unless your putting forth that when you play a class with healing it obligates you to heal people. I would disagree on the basis it says no where in the class description or god description that you become a slave,
indentured servant, or healing *****. wh0r3
If you have a skill, any skill, are you required to use it? Well, in a free or semi free society, no. It becomes more expected in a dictatorship or marxism.
Now, for the cleric in question, i would ENCOURAGE you to find a greater good reason to keep the warlock alive atleast until such a time that you can refuse with out endangering yourself or the party. If he dies in the dungeon, your a man down, which puts the rest of the party in more danger. What if another party member dies cause the warlock wasnt there to save him? Or distract the monster atleast? Once you are all out of danger, back in town etc., you can tell him he's no longer your ally, and refuse healing, etc. Even attempt smiting if you think he deserves it.
Check out this link for a better explanation.
http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll...4H9k6efFP.html
This whole topic is a good example of how an evil character in a non-evil party is a bad thing.
As the DM of the game in question, I take offense to this statement. Who are you? Do you know me, do you know my players? No one is affecting anyone else's fun. If a real problem arises with the evil character, the player rerolls, end of problem, and everyone is fine with this. I fail to see how actual interaction between players deeper than "Well do we kill the orcs to the north or kill the orcs to the south?" "Why not kill both, they're evil, and we're good!" is a bad thing.
You've made your point in both threads that you don't like evil characters in parties. Fantastic, that's your opinion. Even if your opinion is in accordance with the rules, in this situation it's still your opinion. My opinion is that evil characters are fair game if played properly. In your games, something like this would never happen. But here's where my opinion wins: The game in question is my game, not yours. Both myself and my player turned to these boards for ideas, and criticisms that don't further the discussion at hand only serve to add nothing at best, and take the topic off-track at worst.
It's fine with me if you don't agree with the way my game is run, but don't blanket statement something you don't agree with as a "bad thing". Please stop posting if you don't have anything to contribute.
For anyone still interested, here's a fantastic article that was linked in the DM thread: http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html
I've since sent it to all my players, and I'm now speaking with them about this situation's outcome helping to mold their combat personalities. No healing is a distinct possibility, but now the warlock goes on the defensive. He may not always attack the most opportune or appropriate targets. This has the possibility to affect everyone's tactics, and if things get too hairy may even cause the warlock to receive assistance if it keeps the party alive.
And no, I'm not just going to outright force the party to change how they play; this option would be a group decision.
...
You've made your point in both threads that you don't like evil characters in parties. Fantastic, that's your opinion. Even if your opinion is in accordance with the rules, in this situation it's still your opinion. My opinion is that evil characters are fair game if played properly. In your games, something like this would never happen. But here's where my opinion wins: The game in question is my game, not yours. ...
Wow.
Relax a little. You and the player asked for advice, I gave it. You are both free to ignore it and do as you will. It's just my advice and opinion, that's all.
You may (or may not) have noticed I did propose several specific ideas on how to make this work with your group - which, of course, you are free to use or not, as you see fit.
When you ask for advice and opinions you should expect to get some that are not ones that you want and/or you don't feel are helppful. Just ignore those, or take bits from them to use as you see fit. It's your game, after all.
the healer is completely within his rights to refuse healing
Does the fighter have the right to sit out of combat and not participate and let the lealer fight off the charging orcs?
Does the rogue have the right not to inform the healer the area of the floor she is about to step on is trapped?
Does the mage have the right to withhold a stone to flesh spell from the petrified healer?
Things would get real ugly real fast in a "team" when one member willingly refused to aid another member. Healers who like to think they have the power to hold their teammates hostage better be prepared for that moment when they need the help of one of their teammates and that assistance is not forthcoming.
Does the fighter have the right to sit out of combat and not participate and let the lealer fight off the charging orcs?
Does the rogue have the right not to inform the healer the area of the floor she is about to step on is trapped?
Does the mage have the right to withhold a stone to flesh spell from the petrified healer?
Things would get real ugly real fast in a "team" when one member willingly refused to aid another member. Healers who like to think they have the power to hold their teammates hostage better be prepared for that moment when they need the help of one of their teammates and that assistance is not forthcoming.
Technically, yes, they have the right. Doesn't make it the right thing to do, and at that point they could be considered to be conspiring against the party, or at least certain members of that party, but yes, they have the right. Though like you, my sentiments are you can do it, but when the time comes where you need help, dont hold it against them if they refuse to help you in response to how you did them.
Technically, yes, they have the right. Doesn't make it the right thing to do, and at that point they could be considered to be conspiring against the party, or at least certain members of that party, but yes, they have the right. Though like you, my sentiments are you can do it, but when the time comes where you need help, dont hold it against them if they refuse to help you in response to how you did them.
And that's why the OP and the warlock need to work together as a team until they get out of their dungeon and then decide whether or not to go their separate ways.
xanadu
Does the fighter have the right to sit out of combat and not participate and let the lealer fight off the charging orcs?
Does the rogue have the right not to inform the healer the area of the floor she is about to step on is trapped?
Does the mage have the right to withhold a stone to flesh spell from the petrified healer?
Yes, Yes, Yes,
Things would get real ugly real fast in a "team" when one member willingly refused to aid another member. Healers who like to think they have the power to hold their teammates hostage better be prepared for that moment when they need the help of one of their teammates and that assistance is not forthcoming.
Correct, However, they are currently not acting as a team with good reason. Your not playing the rogue, healer, or the fighter, so you dont get to make the decisions for them. Each player has A RIGHT to play their character ANY WAY THEY WANT; even if its stupid, or morally wrong. Thats the difference between a RPG and FInal fantasy. Individual players making decisions from INDIVIDUAL PERSPECTIVES, not from the GROUP PERSPECTIVE. a RPG is all about the interactions of the pc's with each other and the world around them. FINAL FANTASY or WoW (i know they call themselves rpgs) is about getting a party and working as a team to gain xp and advance. Note you do that in RPG's also, but you do that plus solve SOCIAL problems like this one. I appluad both the Warlock and the cleric for playing their pc's well even though they knew it would cause a problem. Thats Roleplaying. Note, he came in here asking, "how can i make this work?" Not "should i kill the warlock?" He's trying to solve the problem.
And that's why the OP and the warlock need to work together as a team until they get out of their dungeon and then decide whether or not to go their separate ways.
I believe that what i said earlier with the difference of understanding if he chooses not to. I'm not trying to obligate him to heal the warlock by saying 'Your a healing wh0r3, shut up and heal.' (I paraphrased that, its not an exact quote) Thats how you come across to me. I'm just pointing out how it would be advantagous for him to help the warlock at least in the short term. It's easy to say, "this is the smart move" when you have all day to think about it and your 24hr+ removed. He had what 10 seconds? He's a good guy who witnessed and evil act, and re-acted. Can you blame him? Thats roleplaying baby, run with it.
As the DM of the game in question, I take offense to this statement. Who are you? Do you know me, do you know my players? No one is affecting anyone else's fun. If a real problem arises with the evil character, the player rerolls, end of problem, and everyone is fine with this. I fail to see how actual interaction between players deeper than "Well do we kill the orcs to the north or kill the orcs to the south?" "Why not kill both, they're evil, and we're good!" is a bad thing.
You've made your point in both threads that you don't like evil characters in parties. Fantastic, that's your opinion. Even if your opinion is in accordance with the rules, in this situation it's still your opinion. My opinion is that evil characters are fair game if played properly. In your games, something like this would never happen. But here's where my opinion wins: The game in question is my game, not yours. Both myself and my player turned to these boards for ideas, and criticisms that don't further the discussion at hand only serve to add nothing at best, and take the topic off-track at worst.
It's fine with me if you don't agree with the way my game is run, but don't blanket statement something you don't agree with as a "bad thing". Please stop posting if you don't have anything to contribute.
For anyone still interested, here's a fantastic article that was linked in the DM thread: http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html
I've since sent it to all my players, and I'm now speaking with them about this situation's outcome helping to mold their combat personalities. No healing is a distinct possibility, but now the warlock goes on the defensive. He may not always attack the most opportune or appropriate targets. This has the possibility to affect everyone's tactics, and if things get too hairy may even cause the warlock to receive assistance if it keeps the party alive.
And no, I'm not just going to outright force the party to change how they play; this option would be a group decision.
It seems like your group - both you and the players - are a lot more mature and less serious about the game than a lot of other people who play - both in my own personal experience and from some of the posts on these boards (both within these threads and without). There are a LOT of people who take their characters all-too-seriously insomuch as that they become so attached to them that re-rolling is a big deal, particularly when they've played them for so long. There are many more who have difficulty differentiating the issues and conflicts between characters as opposed to between players. Too many players take their character interactions to heart and let it spill over into RL interaction. Sometimes, if there's not a lot of RP going on and the player is putting a lot of him/herself into the char, this is warranted because it is an actual personality conflict.
Strangely this seems to happen more in older groups who seem to be less capable of playing a role without it being a part of who they are, than in younger folks who are more flippant about their game personas (then again there's the internet/MMO generation who seem to take joy in being jerks as a game persona because they think they can get away with it 'just being in-character', but that's a whole other thing). That's getting off-topic though...
Anyways, my point being, I think you guys are handling it just fine internally. In fact, I think there's been more derision and the possibility of causing more conflict within most groups (maybe not your own) because of some of the divisive points noted herein, than if you guys had figured it out on your own. Aside from that though, it seems that your player may have found some things herein to help his consideration of these issues and how to let things continue to be playable, so it's at least partially been helpful.
Sounds like you guys have a pretty solid gaming group. Wish I had one like that.
It looks like we largely agree. I do understand what you are saying about individual perspectives and the value of roleplay in RPGs, but I still think that only lasts or is fun until somebody gets killed unneccesarily.
I can only speak for me personally, but as a neutral character I would be hesitant to assist such a "teammate" and if there was an excuse not to, I'd probably take advantage of it. As an evil character, I would be activly and patiently planning on my revenge.
That being said, I think I know what I am going to do (and this might all change depending on what the Warlock does in our current situation). I plan to keep my word and not heal the Warlock. If the Warlock goes down, I will stabilize her. If/when we make it out of the current "dungeon" then one of two things can happen (depending on what the DM decides). During our extended rest I could be visited by Pelor (or even my dead Dwarven friend) in my dreams saying that its imperative that I work with the Warlock because our group is needed once again to save the world or Pelor could say he wants me to try to convert the Warlock back to good. This could be the seed for converting my Cleric to Pelor in the future. The other thing that could happen is that she stands in front of the council of the secret society and they tell her what to do (redeem herself or just don't do anything evil in the presence of the party).
Those are the two options I see being the best from my character's perspective. We'll see what the Warlock came up with.