Roll-Playing gone wrong, a sure-fire way to anger your DM. [Archive]

kentma57

2009-05-09, 09:52 PM

Was tempted to post this in the 2001 Things I Am No Longer Allowed to do in an RPG (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=608704) thread as "Will not use an 'Encyclopedia of Serial Killers' as character refrence", but I don't have an account so I thought I would make a chat of it here.
Basicly I am never alowed to play this guy again.

A few months back, we where playing 'the good guys' and we had gotten news that some people had been captured by an evil cult. The next step was simple, or so the DM thought.

Now up to this point I had been ussing my 'unique' style of roll-playing, this usualy means that I am just a bit crazy. In this case I was playing a cannibal with a knack for anatomy, by this point in the game I had built up a nice colection of skulls, and mysterious meats(the party refused to let me cook for some reason).

When the evil cult was mentioned I felt I was just crazy enough to pass of a an evil cleric(being a CN cleric, it was easy enough to guess what god they worshiped and pick up the supplies I needed to join the cult. My god was cool with it, as long as someone dies in the end it's all good.) So I grab two of the other morally questionable guys in the party(There where six of us, I told the other 3 to follow us and keep watch of once we enter the cults base.) and walk into the worst bar in town.
By belt of skulls and holy simboly to their god got us right in. Here come the tricky part.
After 5 minutes, of talking to the local leader me and the other two realized that team evil pays much better. At this exact moment the CG members of the party chose to kick down the door, we gave them a quick look and realized that, with the BBEG on our side this would be an easy fight with lots of treasure. At this point the DM realized that the 3 CN characters had no intension of suddenly turning to the cult leader, we all drew our weapons...
Unfortunately we ran our of game time and had to end the session, for some reason he decided we should try a new campaign :smallamused:...

Myrmex

2009-05-09, 09:59 PM

When you said roll-playing, I was hoping for something more amusing than Belkar-esque tactics. The weird kid with issues playing a weird character with issues has been done to death.

FoE

2009-05-09, 10:16 PM

So you were an evil guy in a mostly good party who decided to start switch sides. Oh wow, that is so original. Yawn.

And for God's sake, learn how to spell 'symbol'.

Kylarra

2009-05-09, 10:32 PM

So you were an evil guy in a mostly good party who decided to start switch sides. Oh wow, that is so original. Yawn.
I'm going to have to concur here. You're CN leaning towards CE and you went for better pay, which happened to be diametrically opposed to your group's current goals. Not really surprising and just annoying as a player on your "team".

kjones

2009-05-09, 11:26 PM

Tell me, are you posting this story because you're proud of it? Or are you trying to repent for past misdeeds? Because when my actions end a campaign, I usually don't consider it a win.

The Glyphstone

2009-05-09, 11:45 PM

It's a very accurate title - "a sure-fire way to anger your DM"

And your fellow players. And not get invited to the next campaign.

BobVosh

2009-05-09, 11:56 PM

Tell me, are you posting this story because you're proud of it? Or are you trying to repent for past misdeeds? Because when my actions end a campaign, I usually don't consider it a win.

He seems rather proud of it. Main reason I banned Assassin in 1st ed, almost everyone who played it went this route.

Seriously though, there is a lot more fun ways to play evil. See Belkar: he isn't in it for the profit, but mostly a chance to corrupt those around him. Espically when Miko was alive. And kill with Society patting his head going "good boy."

If that cult leader had any intelligence he would have immediatly betray you after the fight ASAP. Never trust a turncoat who is in it only for money.

Arkaim

2009-05-10, 12:22 AM

I don't think the cult leader knows that they are turncoats.

Aik

2009-05-10, 06:43 AM

Dagren

2009-05-10, 06:49 AM

I don't get the negativity - sounds like a fun twist to the game. So long as it's not one of those games where the GM has sat around on his lonesome plotting everything in advance (I can't think of much worse...), what's the problem with rolling with the new situation?Isn't having the party members try to kill each other generally considered a problem?

Faulty

2009-05-10, 06:51 AM

The weird kid with issues playing a weird character with issues has been done to death.

So you were an evil guy in a mostly good party who decided to start switch sides. Oh wow, that is so original. Yawn.

And for God's sake, learn how to spell 'symbol'.

Ugh, this. It's also the clichéd "Chaotic Neutral means I can do whatever I want" schtick.

AslanCross

2009-05-10, 07:01 AM

I don't get the negativity - sounds like a fun twist to the game. So long as it's not one of those games where the GM has sat around on his lonesome plotting everything in advance (I can't think of much worse...), what's the problem with rolling with the new situation?

It's fun if the entire party is evil, has agreed that doing such a thing is kosher, or are otherwise okay with their power being cut in half all of a sudden. From the looks of it, that didn't happen.

Tsotha-lanti

2009-05-10, 07:32 AM

I don't get the negativity - sounds like a fun twist to the game.

Where's the fun, exactly? Other than for the three CN idiots.

"Oh, great, our characters got wiped and the campaign got trashed because half the players were ********s."

Oh, yay. RPGs are not about you having fun at the expense of the other players' fun.

Also, OP: "roll-playing" has a pretty specific meaning. I think you mean "roleplaying." (Although it is hard to tell.)

SilverSheriff

2009-05-10, 07:35 AM

I hope you guys mean Role-play.:smallannoyed:

Also: why did the Original Poster have to pull a ****-move by turning on his party? Why does anyone pull this type of ****-move?:smallsigh:

Zergrusheddie

2009-05-10, 08:15 AM

Chaotic is so much more annoying if the players are willing to lean on the side of Evil. Our current campaign insists of a completely Evil party and we figured that out very quickly. Chaotic Evil is way too difficult to deal with. These are the guys who burn the bridge just to see the pretty flames but forgets that the the entire party is currently crossing the bridge. Most Evil despise turncoats because they are either cowards or are only in it for the pay. Imagine if a Lich walked into Pelor's Temple saying "I need the money, so I worship Pelor now!" He would have been fried before he even finished the sentence.

If you want to be Evil, go Lawful Evil and take a note from Devils. Remember that Demons are not successful because they spend too much of their time torturing children "for the lulz". Angels don't just heal everyone who is suffering just because they are good, they do it selectively and meticulously. Devils are the same way: an excuse of "to be evil for the sake of being evil" is meaningless and would get you killed. Remembering that burning down creation is not Xykon's idea, as that would serve no purpose. He wants to burn down the current order of good so that he may control the world. Hell, he even gives Roy a chance to go level up when Xykon knows that Roy will lose.

It was an interesting story but role-playing shouldn't be at the expense of other people, especially if they didn't agree to it at the start. It's also hard to say that a mass murder is evil because what happens when the paladin goes absolutely insane and kills the innocent? It's not an act of good but they are not evil because both good and evil rely on a choice and insanity is not a choice. The same is true for the LN Monk who fails a Dominate Person and is forced to attack his party. Attacking the people you have a contract with is highly Chaotic but only a jerk DM would say "HA! You aren't a Monk anymore!"

Best of luck
-Eddie

Faulty

2009-05-10, 08:21 AM

Tsotha-lanti

2009-05-10, 10:39 AM

There's a difference between Chaotic X and Chaotic Stupid (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupidChaoticStupid). CE people who decide to stab people in broad daylight for funsies are idiots with a death wish. A real CE person is probably like a sociopathic serial killer who can blend in.

Seriously. "Real Chaotic Evil" people - serial killers especially - are experts at hiding it.

Speaking of which, there's nothing remotely like any serial killer in your character, kentma57. You were just playing a regular ******* mercenary; the other players/characters should never have let your character into the party.

V'icternus

2009-05-10, 10:47 AM

Besides, everyone knows that staying with the party will pay off better in the long run.

How long could it possibly be before your party kills a dragon (In a game called Dungeons and Dragons) and it's time to split the hoard?

Also, siding with evil when your party is good is a sure-fire way to get killed. The evil guys hate you, and then the good guys'll hate you too. Then your only friends are the other evil guys in the party who you just saw betray the rest of the party. How long before they betray you, too? Are you willing to bet that you're the most powerful out of your party? And are you willing to bet your life on it?

Personally, when I play chaotic evil, I play to a) stay alive, b) complete any personal character goals and c) ensure that the other party members die of things other than myself.

For instance, sneaking away from the party while they sleep and spending a good deal of money and a gem or two to convince the dragon not to attack you, but to attack your friends the next day when they show up trying to slay it.

Then, when there's only one party member left asside from me, I engage them in whatever form of combat I am best at. If I cannot beat them, then I earned my death. If I can, then I tricked my way into becoming as rich as a whole party put together.

But just to openly turn on them and engage them in combat? Nuh-uh.

Thanatos 51-50

2009-05-10, 11:19 AM

The real trick would have been to get your party to work for the Evil Cult under the guise of 'Infiltration', eventually accomplish the cult's ends and use your party members 'infiltrating' the cult as (demi-)human sacrifices in Ye Olde Grande Sacrifical Ritual.

That would have been an entertaining story that would probably take a more Lawfully-aligned character.
You just pulled a straight and rather boring Face-Heel Turn, a Face-Heel Xanatos Gambit would have been much funnier.

Tengu_temp

2009-05-10, 11:24 AM

Seriously though, there is a lot more fun ways to play evil. See Belkar: he isn't in it for the profit, but mostly a chance to corrupt those around him. Espically when Miko was alive. And kill with Society patting his head going "good boy."

Belkar isn't a really good example, because if he was a part of a non-comedic game, his good/neutral party members would have killed him ages ago.

Knaight

2009-05-10, 11:36 AM

Isn't having the party members try to kill each other generally considered a problem?

Not always. Sure, splitting the party in half and having warfare is generally a bad idea, but sometimes its something that has to come up. In this particular case the remaining good characters could have retreated, found a creative way to attack later (collapsing the ceiling is always a good idea, particularly if you have poured acid above it before hand), and turned in the turn coats to the authorities.

Oracle_Hunter

2009-05-10, 05:02 PM

Belkar isn't a really good example, because if he was a part of a non-comedic game, his good/neutral party members would have killed him ages ago.
Not necessarily.

After all, Belkar has (apparently) tremendous damage potential and substantial combat ability - particularly for a halfling ranger! And, aside from the Oracle incident, he has pretty much always killed The Greater Evil - and is either too stupid (or, if this were a real game, his player is too crafty) to let Belkar betray his party.

As examples, look at him save Hinjo (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0435.html) and save Haley (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0520.html), respectively. Roy is exactly on the money (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html) when he is describing the situation to the Deva - they need the firepower and he has a pretty good handle on the fellow.

Now, the OP is, as has been pointed out, done nothing particularly novel. In particular, he has rather ignored the alignment system:

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.
Unless the PC actually cared absolutely nothing for his adventuring companions (in which case, why the hell did they keep him around?) then betraying his long-time allies on a whim is less a Neutral act, than an Evil act.

CN does not mean "Mostly not CE" it means "Chaotic but devoted only to his personal friends as opposed to some greater ideal;" obviously the OP's behavior is CE - a textbook case, actually:

A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal.

Dagren

2009-05-10, 06:02 PM

Not always. Sure, splitting the party in half and having warfare is generally a bad idea, but sometimes its something that has to come up. In this particular case the remaining good characters could have retreated, found a creative way to attack later (collapsing the ceiling is always a good idea, particularly if you have poured acid above it before hand), and turned in the turn coats to the authorities.What's the difference? You still have two halves of the party at odds with each other, which pretty much spells the end of the campaign. At the very least, it would be new characters for half the players (who probably wouldn't be particularly inclined to carry on gaming with the others anyway)

holywhippet

2009-05-10, 06:23 PM

I could have a problematic situation in the 2nd ed campaign I'm playing in. We are currently dealing with some kobolds who attacked a village. After killing some we came out of their dungeon home (several party members are wounded). The current rulers of these lands (through conquest/assimilation) have sent some fighters (well, one good fighter and some bowmen) to investigate the attack. Three of their bowmen went down attacking the kobold defenses on the outside. They've left a squire to look after them while the remaining men went inside to investigate.

The problem is this, these particular guards belong to a race of humans (Sarumites) who are very much hated by many other races. One reason is the fact that they are looking to conquer other lands. Another is a great cataclysm in the past which they apparently caused.

Our druid and fighter have returned to town to heal up while my ranger and the party rogue were watching the fighters during their battle and have seen the others enter the dungeon. The player controlling the rogue has seen this as an opportunity to kill some filthy Sarumites. He wants to kill the squire and finish off the wounded, then try and find a way to take out the other 4 who went inside. He figures their deaths will be blamed on the kobolds so there won't be any problems to us.

This is not acceptable to my character. He's a ranger and under 2E rules he has to maintain a good code of conduct or risk falling. His people have had limited contact with the Sarumites so he has no particular enmity towards them. On top of that, they are acting in a good manner by sending men to deal with the kobolds. As such, murdering/ambushing them would clearly be an act of evil. My character would be more likely to help them out by sending a healer out to tend to their wounded.

I'm not sure how I'd be able to convince the other player - if he does go ahead and try something on his own I'd probably be obliged to fight him. Not sure how that would go - the campaign is still fairly young so I'm only a level 1 ranger dual wieleding a morning star and a broadsword. He's a level 2 rogue and I think he's wielding a shortsword and he's probably in leather armour. I've got the edge in damage output but he probably has more HP than me - I think we both have wounds though.

Myrmex

2009-05-10, 06:59 PM

RPGs are not about you having fun at the expense of the other players' fun.

Don't tell me how to have fun :smallmad:

Myrmex

2009-05-10, 07:19 PM

Belkar isn't a really good example, because if he was a part of a non-comedic game, his good/neutral party members would have killed him ages ago.

If it was a serious comic, I would expect there to be far fewer Belkar fanboy's wetting their pants over his tactics, as the character's presentation would be way different. Up until a few months ago, Belkar was an awful character. His gags were trite and cliché. The Giant pretty much spent 2 years of servicing fanboy's with bad material. I was getting pretty fed up with his antics, and the comic in general, but the last month or so has been a great turn around. It was clever the way the Giant took the big, boring mess he made of an otherwise decent story and well developed characters and tied up all the loose ends rather rapidly.

Oracle_Hunter

2009-05-10, 08:30 PM

This is not acceptable to my character. He's a ranger and under 2E rules he has to maintain a good code of conduct or risk falling. His people have had limited contact with the Sarumites so he has no particular enmity towards them. On top of that, they are acting in a good manner by sending men to deal with the kobolds. As such, murdering/ambushing them would clearly be an act of evil. My character would be more likely to help them out by sending a healer out to tend to their wounded.

I'm not sure how I'd be able to convince the other player - if he does go ahead and try something on his own I'd probably be obliged to fight him. Not sure how that would go - the campaign is still fairly young so I'm only a level 1 ranger dual wieleding a morning star and a broadsword. He's a level 2 rogue and I think he's wielding a shortsword and he's probably in leather armour. I've got the edge in damage output but he probably has more HP than me - I think we both have wounds though.
Question: what kind of Good are you?

A LG Ranger would probably inform the Rogue that senseless killing is immoral and that the Rogue should desist. If the Rogue refuses, then you should retreat to get the rest of your party (or tell the Fighters of their danger) and, if you cannot muster sufficient forces to get the Rogue to back down, you will have to capture him. If the murder is already done, capture him and take him to a lawful authority to be judged.

A NG Ranger would probably tell the Fighters in secret, and encourage them to flee. If they refuse, then he would inform the Rogue that the Fighters are on their guard against a kobold sneak attack, and that he probably couldn't overpower them if they are on their watch - far better to leave them be for now.

A CG Ranger would probably jump the Rogue in his sleep and tie him up until the other PCs get back. Then he'd explain what the Rogue was planning and that he couldn't let good people die because of a stupid prejudice.

In any case, direct combat is a poor idea - even though you probably could kick him around the schoolyard if you get a lucky hit. Conflict should usually be avoided, but even if you didn't have to worry about falling, you should stick to your alignment guns - that is rather the point of the system.

Oh, and you really don't want to live through the alignment switching penalty. Ouch :smalleek:

kjones

2009-05-10, 10:45 PM

Don't tell me how to have fun :smallmad:

Regardless of whether or not he intended to tell you how to have fun, it's a simple fact that one who plays well with others will have a much easier time of finding (and keeping) a group.

If you derive entertainment in RPGs primarily at the expense of others... it will be harder. And it certainly won't make you any friends.

Fun in an RPG should not be zero-sum - the best games are where everyone is having a good time.

Faulty

2009-05-10, 11:05 PM

I think Myrmex was speaking in jest.

Alteran

2009-05-10, 11:08 PM

Don't tell me how to have fun :smallmad:

Do you really need to be told not to have fun at the expense of others? In general I don't believe anybody should be told how to have fun, but if the only way you have fun is by ruining the other players' enjoyment I would suggest you not play this kind of game. One of the worst things to have in a team game is a person who constantly tries to bring down the group for the lulz.

This may or may not apply to the OP as well. Inter-party conflict can be fine when you're in an evil group and/or the entire party is okay with it, but spontaneously switching sides and killing half the party won't be very much fun for that half. The point of the game is, of course for everybody to have fun. If that's not happening, then something isn't being done right.

Edit:

I think Myrmex was speaking in jest.

This is possible. I hope it's true. I couldn't tell, myself.

The Gilded Duke

2009-05-10, 11:15 PM

Faulty

2009-05-10, 11:20 PM

I was under the impression that (s)he was satirizing the OP.

Sstoopidtallkid

2009-05-10, 11:45 PM

I enjoyed the story. I've been in games where I have wanted to have a character switch sides, and it would have been in character for them to do so. This actually seems to be a less complicated problem in black and white games then morally gray games. Many GMs set up the adversaries as all power full or having access to vast resources. If you are playing a pragmatic, or otherwise gray character (such as in a vampire game) sometimes you run out of reasons not to join the winning side.A lot of it depends on the group. I've run 2 Paladins in groups with serial killers and had a lot of fun both times. Some groups view any inter-party conflicts as ruining the fun, and that's fine, but other groups would love nothing more than to have 4 Xanatos' trying to conquor the world, and kill the other 3 in the process.

Godskook

2009-05-10, 11:46 PM

Not necessarily.

After all, Belkar has (apparently) tremendous damage potential and substantial combat ability - particularly for a halfling ranger! And, aside from the Oracle incident, he has pretty much always killed The Greater Evil - and is either too stupid (or, if this were a real game, his player is too crafty) to let Belkar betray his party.

As examples, look at him save Hinjo (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0435.html) and save Haley (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0520.html), respectively. Roy is exactly on the money (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html) when he is describing the situation to the Deva - they need the firepower and he has a pretty good handle on the fellow.

To continue the point, note that Belkar's worst misdeeds are all done while Roy is dead and before his hallucination. The rest of the time, he's been fairly loyal and behaved for his alignment, only killing Roy-approved targets.

As for group loyalty and cohesion, the worst offenders in the OotS are Roy and V, not Belkar (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0153.html), as those two are the only ones that forced a party split because of anything related to roleplay.

Myrmex

2009-05-11, 12:01 AM

If you derive entertainment in RPGs primarily at the expense of others... it will be harder. And it certainly won't make you any friends.

That's why I DM.:smallamused:

Dagren

2009-05-12, 01:52 PM

As for group loyalty and cohesion, the worst offenders in the OotS are Roy and V, not Belkar (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0153.html), as those two are the only ones that forced a party split because of anything related to roleplay.When has V ever split the party? Roy and Durkon both sided with Miko against the rest of the group at one point or another, but I don't remember V ever splitting the group. Unless you're referring to when she left the fleet, but the group was pretty thoroughly split already by that point.

herrhauptmann

2009-05-12, 02:14 PM

When has V ever split the party? Roy and Durkon both sided with Miko against the rest of the group at one point or another, but I don't remember V ever splitting the group. Unless you're referring to when she left the fleet, but the group was pretty thoroughly split already by that point.

Threatening Elan with a disintegrate.
The whole end of the Kubota/Therkla arc definitely has Elan still pissed with V.

As to the opener:

I felt I was just crazy enough to pass of a an evil cleric
So all evil is insane?

My god was cool with it, as long as someone dies in the end it's all good.
Your god sounds pretty chaotic evil too. A chaotic neutral war god would just want a good fight to happen, regardless of who lives and dies.

And dude, the forums have a semi-decent spell check. Your post gives me headaches trying to understand what you're saying.