Party of level 11 characters:
CG Barbarian
NG Druid (Me)
LN Monk
LE Sorcerer
CG Duskblade
The seeds of the conflict were planted when the LE sorcerer Dominated an assassin who tried to kill us. We didn't think too much of his new pet (After all, he has a Familiar and a pet basilisk as well; why not?) until a new member who just recently joined our party (The CG Duskblade) found out the assassin was dominated. He noticed it when the Sorcerer refreshed his dominate person that morning only to have him make the will save. Before he could fight back, the sorc casted it again and redominated him. The Duskblade demanded he take the assassin to prison when we reach the nearest town. Both me and the barbarian took the side of the newcomer. However, the sorcerer, being as stubborn as the person playing him, refused. Conflict erupted, and threats began being thrown around the table. At that point the DM exploded, claiming we'd rather argue than play the game.
What should we do? I wasn't aware of this at the time, but apparently having Evil and Good characters in the same party inevitably lead to conflict. Is this normal? Is this destructive to the campaign?
Post any feedback, similar personal experiences, etc. that might help.
Thanks, in advance.
The group I play with have conflicts all the time and the most on one side get it their way. But again such actions have an effect in game. Those that keep getting out voted or disrespected may not feel like helping you out in the next battle. Why no one ever messes with the healing classes. "Help me I need healing" "Oh really well I dont feel like it" :D
Secondly, sadly, if you read Dominate Person, it says "Self-destructive orders are not carried out", so the assassin won't just walk into a jail cell. However, you can point out to the DM, that it also says "Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus."
(I can quote it because it's in the SRD)
It's unfortunate that this spell will last for 1day/level.
And as for the good and evil in a campaign, yes; about 19/20 times it does ruin a campaign. However, I could still see a CG sorcerer doing the same thing.
The Assassin's guild thing is pretty funny, but he's from a cult that we eliminated earlier in the campaign. I wish there was a compromise or something....
Your evil player just needs to get better at convincing the god players that what he's doing is good...
you can construe almost anything as being for the 'greater good', and if you guys aren't lawful (or are neutral) then as long as good is being done, it shouldn't bother you (except for extreme cases of course)."A Chaotic Good character favors change for a greater good, disdains bureaucratic organizations that get in the way of social improvement, and places a high value on personal freedom, not only for oneself, but for others as well. They have no use for those who would try to push them around and tell them what to do."
That sounds like an alignment that would oppose domination more than any other. As for the breaking out thing, yeah, you're right about that. Also, it was the Duskblade that wanted him in prison. The barb wanted to just kill him, and I, the druid, would rather him be in prison than killed.
Anyways, thanks, and keep up the input!
cough-And then let him talk. If he gets whiny, defensive, argumentative or otherwise immature and stupid, then follow through and roll for initiative, then prepare to lose a dumb player. If he changes, great. If he convinces you that what he's doing is no problem for your character, great. What's really fun, sometimes, is when the player says "Ok, I totally get where you're coming from. My character isn't going to change though. I think we should let this play out in-character. No hard feelings, if I die I'll roll a new character to meet you in the next town." Then he can escape and become a recurring villain for the DM :D .
As for what to do, try and get the players to keep the character tension, and make sure that your DM keeps player tension to a minimum. It sounds cliche, but a smile is contagious. Laughing a little bit will lighten to player tension. If they are incapable of having character problems without player problems, then another solution entirely is in order.
Seems like the dm either needs to abide by his admission of the alignments and let the chips fall where they may or take a step to insure that people are going to work together. Such as limiting alignments or at lthe least not presenting situations that are so divisive. Keeping a dominated slave is certain to be a hot button topic for anyone.
Post any feedback, similar personal experiences, etc. that might help.
Thanks, in advance.
skill combat.
each player rolls bluff/diplomacy/... vs sense motive
The PC who gets 3 successes more then the other player first, can convince the other PC that his motivations are worth it ...
As DM I allow pvp rolls, just for these situations: if a PC is good at social skills, he/she should have it easier to convice other characters, irrelevant if he/she is a PCs or NPC
Normally PvP rolls aren't needed if you have a good roleplay party: If the 35 charisma epic sorcerer with bluff says "I killed half the abyss while you were gone", and you don't have ranks in sense motive, ... you're darn well believe 'm. regardless who's a PC and who isn't.
Have the DM kill off the evil sorcerer -- assassin was just pretending to fail the save. Boom, backstab, next, reroll a new non-evil non-asshat.
antagonizing players is something I'dd recommend against ...
Anyway, the sorcerer isn't being LE, he is being Stupid Evil. Basilisk as a pet means party turns to stone the first time it activates its sight attack (everyone in the area must make saves on their turns and anyone being directly target has to make an addition save on the basilisk's turn). Having a dangerous foe dominated in the party is also Stupid Evil. In the middle of a fight a foe drops a dispel magic and suddenly the foes have another ally attacking the party. This guy is making some pretty stupid decisions and risking the entire party.
Having a dangerous foe dominated in the party is also Stupid Evil.
I disagree. its a tactic. Given, its a dangerous tactic, but a tactic none the less. Dangerous is is not the same as stupid.
In fact; dominating a enemy is a very valid tactic for a LE character.
(heck, keeping slaves is ever more risky, yet until a couple of hundred years ago, it was very common)
I disagree. its a tactic. Given, its a dangerous tactic, but a tactic none the less. Dangerous is is not the same as stupid.
In fact; dominating a enemy is a very valid tactic for a LE character.
(heck, keeping slaves is ever more risky, yet until a couple of hundred years ago, it was very common)
Unnecessarily risky, i.e. stupid. Dominating for a short term, valid tactic, attempting to keep a dominated foe as a pet, stupid.
As for slavery, there was an entire social construct supporting the owning of slaves. So even if slaves killed their masters, they still had to deal with the entire society around them, which basically meant they would be killed. The choice was live with it, kill your slavers and get killed yourself, or try to escape (which after dred scott wasn't as useful). So I think the comparison to this situation is pretty weak.
Unnecessarily risky, i.e. stupid. Dominating for a short term, valid tactic, attempting to keep a dominated foe as a pet, stupid.
And still ... chances on casting a dispel (about the only spell that works against the domination) on a assassin (you know, those characters who are usually hiding)? quite low. For that, the party's power increase with 20% (a sixth member).
Besides, when is something 'unnecessarily risky'? rod of wonder is also risky. Heck, attacking any monster can be seen as unnecessarily risky. My point is, there is no clear line between 'worth it' and 'not worth it'.
You say it isn't, I say it is...
So even if slaves killed their masters, they still had to deal with the entire society around them, which basically meant they would be killed.
something similar that would happen if the assassin attacked the party?
edit: small addition: unhallow also helps against it ... (hallow/unhallow automatically gives everyone in the area protection vs good/evil; which means that whilein the area, tha assassin would no longer be dominated). then again a simple spellcraft DC 20 check alarms the sorcerer ...
edit: small addition: unhallow also helps against it ... (hallow/unhallow automatically gives everyone in the area protection vs good/evil; which means that whilein the area, tha assassin would no longer be dominated). then again a simple spellcraft DC 20 check alarms the sorcerer ...
Or you got a guy doing a death attack on a party member (the sorcerer most likely) just because somebody dropped a magic circle against X near the guy.
Or you got a guy doing a death attack on a party member (the sorcerer most likely) just because somebody dropped a magic circle against X near the guy.
only if the assassin is suicidal (death attack takes 3 rounds - spellcraft identifies immediatly what's going on). IMO if he gets loose, he'll try to escape first, only to take revenge on the party at a later time (w00t campaign hook)
I do agree that it is stupid to a point though. He's going to escape sometime and that's not going to be a good thing.
He's going to escape sometime and that's not going to be a good thing.
On that I agree, so now its measuring the advantages against the disadvantages.
I was just thinking: a dominated NPC might be good for walking 20ft in front of the party (a.k.a. scout): any traps that aren't found will be triggered by the NPC ; he'll be the one who enemies take supprize on ; ...
If the spell fails and he fakes still being dominated someone is going to wake up with their throat cut.
- while sleeping, always have a PC guarding
- while sleeping, you could tie him up (or take away his weapons)
- sense motive notices if someone is under the influence of the dominate spell
Kill the assassin and get on with life.
Have the DM kill off the evil sorcerer -- assassin was just pretending to fail the save. Boom, backstab, next, reroll a new non-evil non-asshat.
WTH! Why is it people seem to be against the sorcerer. The post clearly indicates he had his "pet" assassin for a while and the party was fine with it. It wasn't until the 'new player' joined that it became an issue. He's the one being the asshat.
If you join a group then start picking fights with players who have been in the group then your the one being the asshat. It doesn't matter that he convinced 2 of the other players in the group to go along with it. Because the fact remains that he joined a group and then got the group to gang up on a player who had been their before doing what he had been doing up to that point.
Now it would be a completely different issue if the party had all said no we won't accept that when he first tried to do it. And he then stood his ground and refused to listen to the rest of the party.
But seeing that he's been allowed to have his 'pet' for a while now it's become a part of his character. You might as well have a new person join the group and say I don't think you should use that magic item because I don't approve of it now go give it away to charity. That assassin has become just another tool or weapon in his arsenal which he's come to depend on and you can be sure he'll be hella mad if he has to give it up.
However, when our party came across your typical Undead Variety Pack(TM) the sorcerer made a tactical error and left the assassin open to some fortitude saves. As you can imagine, his soul was consumed.
Funny how things turn out, eh?
(P.S. The "member since 2005" thing made me laugh pretty hard. However, WotC forums does host several other games like Magic, which I played, and somewhat still do.)
Also, I think it's possible the Duskblade might have RPed a little improperly. Is this town known for meting out strong justice that fits the crime? This is a guy who kills people for a living, and not just bad people and goblins who deserve it. I think that if I were in the Duskblade's shoes, the only way I'd be taking the assassin back to that town is in pieces. Maybe if the town had a hanging sheriff or something, but either way the assassin would know what was coming to him. A quick death might be merciful.
(P.S. The "member since 2005" thing made me laugh pretty hard. However, WotC forums does host several other games like Magic, which I played, and somewhat still do.)
Ok, how about, I find it surprising that someone wouldn't realize that a Red faction and a White faction might have some differences. There. Better?
Ok, how about, I find it surprising that someone wouldn't realize that a Red faction and a White faction might have some differences. There. Better?
They should get together and be friends by forming the new Pink Faction.