Moral Dilemma

[alexthemad]

So I have a problem in a PbP game (D&D 3.5) that I'm in that I don't quite know how to handle. I'm playing a paladin, that while he hasn't stayed in the "paladin class", he still holds his beliefs and values to that level. This paladin has a particular distaste for necromancers and the undead...go figure right. Now to the problem.

Since I've joined with this character there has been a revolving door with new characters joining and dropping. Which isn't terribly hard to explain at the moment because there seems to be some sort of temporal disturbance that is messing with teleporting, planeshifting, etc. So people have just seemed to pop in and then the players just quit posting so the characters pop out.

The newest character is...yup, you guessed it...a cleric/necromancer. He just pops in, right after a battle, right as a fireball trap goes off in all his bone armour glory. My character would definatly attack in my opinion. But as a player, I would be mad if I put the time and effort into making a character (we just hit 20 btw) and then my first appearance I get attacked, maybe killed by another player in the game.

The DM allows PvP, but it has never been a problem before. So whats a guy to do?

[Lin Bayaseda]

Find a reason why your character might want to not attack him. Maybe he's an omen from the gods? Maybe your tolerance is being tested? Maybe you're supposed to convert him to the path of right rather than kill him? Maybe you're on a super important mission and need all the help you can get, even from bone-armored necromancers? Who knows?

[JeenLeen]

I would recommend PMing the DM and, depending on the nature of the thread, the player. Or discuss it in the OOC thread, if that PbP game has one. It's good to talk these things out OOC.

One thing to note is how PvP has been so far in the game. Have other players just attacked someone because of their beliefs, so such is understandable upon entering the game? Also, in the context of the fight, is there any way to know that this necromancer is an ally. Even if you dislike undead, perhaps are vehemently opposed to them, you might give an ally a chance to explain himself. If he 'popped in' on your side, it seems dishonorable to attack him; makes sense for a paladin to ask a comrade what he is doing first.

[gbprime]

Here's a crazy concept... how about talking to the person?

You start out with a "who in the 7 heavens are you, and why shouldn't I smite the like of you on sight?" And you go from there. Roleplay.

[CyMage]

Here's a crazy concept... how about talking to the person?

You start out with a "who in the 7 heavens are you, and why shouldn't I smite the like of you on sight?" And you go from there. Roleplay.

So you always strike up a conversation with someone in the middle of a battle? As the OP said, the new character joined mid-battle right as someone cast a fireball...

[AmberVael]

My character would definitely attack in my opinion. But as a player, I would be mad if I put the time and effort into making a character (we just hit 20 btw) and then my first appearance I get attacked, maybe killed by another player in the game.

The DM allows PvP, but it has never been a problem before. So whats a guy to do?

Attack.
The guy pops in unannounced and a fireball goes off? You've got definite cause, especially if he appears to be a necromancer.
That said, you say you're a paladin type. He hasn't had a chance to surrender yet or anything- charge, but use nonlethal force (grapple, subdue, trip, subdual damage) until he proves a fully hostile adversary. Give him a chance to surrender, explain, whatever.

Be proactive, but don't instantly leap to the negative conclusion.

[Strawberries]

So you always strike up a conversation with someone in the middle of a battle? As the OP said, the new character joined mid-battle right as someone cast a fireball...

Yep. Talking is, after all, a free action. I'd take gbprime's suggestion and talk to the guy. The IC motivations for doing that can be many: to get information, to try and make him "repent", to give him a fair warning before attacking (and, based on his answer, you may decide not to attack at all...)

Otherwise, if you don't want to, a good suggestion is working things out in the OOC thread and/or via PM. But, if I was in the other's player shoes and somebody attacked me out of the blue, I'd be pretty angry. So, if you can, try to avoid that...:smallwink:.

EDIT: Vael's is a good suggestion, too.

[alexthemad]

Here's a crazy concept... how about talking to the person?

You start out with a "who in the 7 heavens are you, and why shouldn't I smite the like of you on sight?" And you go from there. Roleplay.

As a player I'm torn, because if this person popped up as an NPC then the whole group would probably attack without question because of the battle we were just in...then a fireball goes off...then big bad evil looking guy shows up. But since I know its another player...I don't want to just attack. But what about the character?

[Lin Bayaseda]

Let me explain this one more time. You control your character. Your character doesn't control you. If, as a player, you don't want to attack, find a reason why your character wouldn't attack. Don't let a sheet of paper have power over you.

[alexthemad]

Let me explain this one more time. You control your character. Your character doesn't control you. If, as a player, you don't want to attack, find a reason why your character wouldn't attack. Don't let a sheet of paper have power over you.

Seems to me that's kind of the point of the game...make a character and play that character. Just saying...

[Lin Bayaseda]

Exactly. You got it. Play that character. Be in control of it. He's not in control of you.

[Nightson]

Seems to me that's kind of the point of the game...make a character and play that character. Just saying...

Don't elevate your first reaction to be the only possible action of the character.

[WildPyre]

It's a two way street, and yo have to balance the player and the character.

My advice? Detect evil... if it glows it dies. Though I've always had a low tollerance for people wanting to play evil characters in a game not specificly designated as an "evil game".

The first thing the other person should have considered when making his character, is how well it would mesh with the rest of the group, so if he decided to play an evil character in a group with a paladin, it's really their own fault.

Now if they're some sort of non-evil necromancer (something I put right up there with non-evil demons, drow and vampires, IE you'd better be a good RPer to pull it off) then I'd go with the above stated "Who the bloody hell are you?"

[Strawberries]

Don't elevate your first reaction to be the only possible action of the character.

Exactly this - there are a lot of reasons why a character wouldn't attack on sight, and a lot of reasons why a "good" character may be convinced to work with an evil one. Just find the reasons that make the most sense for your character as you view him.

[Scipio]

The newest character is...yup, you guessed it...a cleric/necromancer. He just pops in, right after a battle, right as a fireball trap goes off in all his bone armour glory. My character would definatly attack in my opinion. But as a player, I would be mad if I put the time and effort into making a character (we just hit 20 btw) and then my first appearance I get attacked, maybe killed by another player in the game.


Did the fireball affect any party members? Does anyone in the party know the guy? If he actually attacked a party member, and you have no other explanation, then I would certainly consider attacking him. Non-lethal force is always an option, and it is a good option for a paladin.

How does your character know he is evil? Did you do a detect evil?

Depending on the campaign setting, there are a lot of non-evil necromancers (e.g. Aerenal elves in Eberron). Does your character know he is a necromancer, or is that meta-knowledge?

The most important thing to consider is what does your character know. As a paladin, I would think attacking someone first with little to no knowledge about the guy would put your code in jeopardy.

[gbprime]

As a player I'm torn, because if this person popped up as an NPC then the whole group would probably attack without question because of the battle we were just in...then a fireball goes off...then big bad evil looking guy shows up. But since I know its another player...I don't want to just attack. But what about the character?

Okay, fair enough. A bone-wearing necromancer pops up in front of your paladin in the middle of a combat. Ask the DM why you shouldn't assume this is a combat encounter. is there some telltale sign that says "this is a PC"?

[RandomMerchant7]

dont you have to be evil to be a necromancer? if not then my next group will be fun :D

had the page up for 20 minutes didnt see the "lots of non-evil necromancers" guys post sorry

[Machiavellian]

what's the necromancer's alignment? (No really, there's a reason to ask this)

because TECHNICALLY the rules never say that only evil characters are allowed to cast necromancy (consider the context). If the player is good, but uses undead to, say, protect the innocent, then you cannot up and kill him

[Escheton]

Charge and smite, if the smite has no extra effect (not evil) act confused and slightly regretful and call him out to quickly state his case while you charge a foe.
You are lvl 20, not like a single smite will kill him.

[Lin Bayaseda]

Charge and smite, if the smite has no extra effect (not evil) act confused and slightly regretful

Paladins - detecting evil the hard way since 2000.

[jiriku]

Seems to me that's kind of the point of the game...make a character and play that character. Just saying...

Wow, you're getting a lot of bad advice here, although Lin and Nightson are right on.

Let's make it even simpler: the point of the game is to have fun making a character and playing that character.

If you up and kill this new guy's character, then he cannot play his character and have fun. You will ruin his enjoyment of the game, and come across as an antisocial $%&#%& at the same time. Much as if his necromancer suddenly killed your character just because he offs paladins on general principle.

On the other hand, if you indulge in some tense, dramatic roleplaying with him over the course of the game, challenging his character to reconsider his moral outlook and taking it as your personal mission to redeem him from his wicked ways, you'll both have a lot of fun, and he'll likely enjoy playing with you in the future and tell other people what a cool dude you are.

One of these outcomes is much better for everyone than the other. I bet you can tell which one it is.

[hamishspence]

what's the necromancer's alignment? (No really, there's a reason to ask this)

because TECHNICALLY the rules never say that only evil characters are allowed to cast necromancy (consider the context). If the player is good, but uses undead to, say, protect the innocent, then you cannot up and kill him

Normally, a character who regularly casts [Evil] spells can't maintain an alignment of better than Neutral.

in Heroes of Horror- Dread Necromancers are "Any non-good" and the Neutral ones are the ones that turn [Evil] spells to good ends.

Which is not to say that a Good character who is some form of Necromancer other than a Dread Necromancer, can't create undead, just that they are unlikely to remain Good for long- and will probably end up Neutral at best.

A Neutral necromancer who only ever creates the undead, or uses evil spells, for good reasons, fighting to protect the innocent- is plausible though.

[Escheton]

Wow, you're getting a lot of bad advice here, although Lin and Nightson are right on.

Let's make it even simpler: the point of the game is to have fun making a character and playing that character.

If you up and kill this new guy's character, then he cannot play his character and have fun. You will ruin his enjoyment of the game, and come across as an antisocial $%&#%& at the same time. Much as if his necromancer suddenly killed your character just because he offs paladins on general principle.

On the other hand, if you indulge in some tense, dramatic roleplaying with him over the course of the game, challenging his character to reconsider his moral outlook and taking it as your personal mission to redeem him from his wicked ways, you'll both have a lot of fun, and he'll likely enjoy playing with you in the future and tell other people what a cool dude you are.

One of these outcomes is much better for everyone than the other.

you act as if smiting excludes any of that
it does not. You seem to underplay the situation in favor of being nice.
It just starts things off on a tense foot. Something the situation warrents.

[AstralFire]

While I would work OoC with the player to discuss what could be done, I have to say that if someone makes a character to join a party with disregard for what the rest of the party is, they are - themselves - being antisocial.

[WildPyre]

While I would work OoC with the player to discuss what could be done, I have to say that if someone makes a character to join a party with disregard for what the rest of the party is, they are - themselves - being antisocial.

Precicely! If they're making a character that can't mesh with the rest of the party it's their own fault. I'm not saying kill him right off without any provocation, but if a guy pops into a fight and the paladin detects him as evil, can you really hold it against the paladin for attacking? It's what they fricking do!

I certainly endorse roleplaying out the confrontation though and not immediately resorting to blindly smiting. If the guy turns out to be blatantly evil it's one thing, but just being a necromancer doesn't make him evil... just makes him suspicious. A paladin would probably react accordingly.


Certainly if you as a player don't want to attack them then you can RP out a reason not to attack them.

[Lin Bayaseda]

I have to say that if someone makes a character to join a party with disregard for what the rest of the party is, they are - themselves - being antisocial.

We don't know what "the rest of the party" is. We only know it contains a paladin. While you may be right in general, in this case you seem to be jumping to conclusions.

[AstralFire]

We don't know what "the rest of the party" is. We only know it contains a paladin. While you may be right in general, in this case you seem to be jumping to conclusions.

The 'rest of the party' contains a zealous paladin. It's just like how I don't throw in Exalted characters to an established party with a solidly evil slaver, even if I'd work with the rest of them.

[hamishspence]

The key feature might be that the paladin dislikes necromancers and undead more than usual for a paladin.

So even if the necromancer is neutral (or the paladin is the type that doesn't kill any Evil being on sight) they have more reasons than most paladins, to not want the necromancer in the party.

[Godskook]

Y'Know, its possible to be a LG necromancer cleric who worships a LN god of death, at least in one or two settings, maybe more(Faerun, specifically).

What're your character's ranks in Know(Religion)? If its high, he'd know this pretty easily, and wouldn't kill a necromancer on sight, despite his distaste for the practice.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Exactly this - there are a lot of reasons why a character wouldn't attack on sight, and a lot of reasons why a "good" character may be convinced to work with an evil one. Just find the reasons that make the most sense for your character as you view him.
Yeah. As I've seen advised before, it's not about "What would my character do?", it's about "What could my character do?" Figure out what plausible responses your character might have, and choose the one that makes for the best game.

[hamishspence]

Y'Know, its possible to be a LG necromancer cleric who worships a LN god of death, at least in one or two settings, maybe more(Faerun, specifically).

True- but Kelemvor is very, very anti-undead, in the splatbooks. He has the Repose domain, rather than the Death or Undeath domain.

In this case, the necromancer would be a person who casts nonevil necromancy spells (assuming they follow Kelemvor's rules).

Which would mean- no Animate Dead, Create Undead, etc.

Wee Jas (also LN) is a bit more forgiving of Animate Dead, but still frowns on Create Undead (in the Dragon article).

[Escheton]

Powerfull(gear, attitude) necromancer looking guy pops in midcombat.
You don't have the time to argue, he might kill you. So the player knows it's another pc, so what? Thats metagaming. Not always bad, true. But in a life or death situation roleplaying the circumstances is probably best. You don't have the time to delay to have a neat little chat. He might desintegrate your ass. Or worse. You don't know his allegiance or alignment. And even if he attacks your foe and states he means you no harm, you can't be sure but might give him the benefit of the doubt. Has he done so though? If he popped in and did not than he is clearly ok with being threatening.
Either smite him or a foe that is clearly a bigger threat and call him out verbally. Detect evil takes a standard action. You are midfight. Who has that kinda time?

Best thing to deal with this without compromising things is for the dm to redcon him initiative priority, give him a surprise round. Or have him spend his move and free actions after (I think)the teleport standard action to state his case and roll diplomacy or something.

edited to not post too much: I agree with psycho 2 posts down.

[alexthemad]

Thanks for all the advice/opinions. Just to clear a few things up...My paladin has almost a hatred for necro's and undead. The rest of the party consists of an exalted character, a half-celestial (or something close...can't remember exactly, some type of angelic holy type) and then a couple of neutrals.

Another issue...I despise meta-gaming. But I do believe I have figured out what I'm going to do thanks to some of the suggestions here. Since we are technically out of combat now, just by maybe a minute, I am going to try and put my sword-tip milimeters away from a vital area and give him the chance to talk me down.

[Drakevarg]

Being out of combat at this point changes matters considerably since now you can just interrogate him, but to be the Voice of Unreason here:

I vehemently disagree with several of the other responses. I play on a "characterization comes first" basis, and regardless of how inconvienient an action would be, if I'm playing a character that would do exactly that, I'm damn well going to do it. I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to stay in character even if I knew full well it would result in my character's death. Because at that point... my character's continued survival is out of character, and I can't have that, and won't.

Which is also why I'll never play in a game that forces a radical shift in my character's personality (Helm of Opposite Alignment, for example). I joined this game to play this character, and if you change that I'm now playing someone else. Not a chance, I quit.

So again, as the Voice of Unreason: do what your character would do and nothing else.

[AstralFire]

If this guy had any sort of idea what kind of party he was walking into and didn't clear it with you guys first, major fail.

[Lin Bayaseda]

I vehemently disagree with several of the other responses. I play on a "characterization comes first" basis, and regardless of how inconvienient an action would be, if I'm playing a character that would do exactly that, I'm damn well going to do it.

Player: So, I made this character, he's a Halfling, parents died in a tragic accident, raised by an uncle, never left his birthplace, a bit of a coward.
DM: Uhm, ok, I guess. What's his name?
Player: Drofo.
<two hours later during the session>
DM: So, your uncle leaves you this Artifact Ring of Uber Doom, with instructions to take it to the Elven city of Dinervel.
Player: No way. I play on a "characterization comes first" basis. I created my character as a coward, and he'll act like a coward. He has never left his birthplace, and there's no reason he should start now. He refuses.
DM: Are you sure?
Player: I vehemently disagree to act in a non-cowardly way.
DM: Oh well, your gardener arrives with two of his friends, says he'll take the ring. Will you join them?
Player: No.
DM: They leave.
Player: Now what?
DM: Parcheesi?

[WildPyre]

Well at that point your character gets to sit at home while the other characters go on to fortune and glory... you as a player get to sit on your thumbs while every one else at the table gets to have a good time.

NOT because you decided to play your character... but because you decided to play a character that doesn't work with the group and/or campaign.

[Drakevarg]

Well at that point your character gets to sit at home while the other characters go on to fortune and glory... you as a player get to sit on your thumbs while every one else at the table gets to have a good time.

NOT because you decided to play your character... but because you decided to play a character that doesn't work with the group and/or campaign.

Exactly. If you set yourself up for failure, you deserve failure. If I designed a character as that much of a coward, I WOULD do exactly as described there. However, I wouldn't make a cowardly character, since then I'd have no game.

I would, however, make an overzealous paladin with a huge bug up his ass about necromancy and the undead, on account of that being actually interesting. If unforseen incidents cause unwanted actions from my character, then so be it. But it's just silly to make a character for an adventure game that hates adventuring.

Similarly, it'd be silly to make a Paladin in a game where the entire rest of the party was Evil. But this Cleric/Necromancer was an unforseen issue, therefore the OP is not at fault for making a fundamentally conflicting characterization.

[Lin Bayaseda]

And yet, in the actual game film, Drofo's character did manage to work quite well with the group. What "set yourself for fail" here was not the creation of the character, it's the rigid "characterization first" approach.

As Tolkien and Jackson showed us, you are completely wrong, and creating such character is not a recipe for fail. But your unrelenting and unflexible "characterization" is.

[Drakevarg]

And yet, in the actual game film, Drofo's character did manage to work quite well with the group. What "set yourself for fail" here was not the creation of the character, it's the rigid "characterization first" approach.

As Tolkie and Jackson showed us, you are completely wrong, and creating such character is not a recipe for fail. But your unrelenting and unflexible "characterization" is.

Frodo doing what he did was not out of character. He's a bit of a coward, maybe, but if the situation is dire enough that can be overcome. ("The world will end if you don't do this, plus the small matter of the immortal undead hunters after you." is a rather dire situation.) This doesn't defy "characterization first". To say that would be to assume (wrongly) that characterization is monofaceted.

I was assuming with your metaphor there that instead of "bit of a coward" you were going "total coward who wouldn't leave his home if his life depended on it." On account of that being what you actually portrayed in your little example.

[Lin Bayaseda]

I was assuming with your metaphor there that instead of "bit of a coward" you were going "total coward who wouldn't leave his home if his life depended on it." On account of that being what you actually portrayed in your little example. If you would only know Frodo from the first 30 or so pages of the book, you could bet your life it was the latter, not the former. Now, of course, your perspective is skewed because you're familiar with the entire book, so you can act clever as if you always knew it was the former. But honestly, Frodo leaving home is a huge change for him. About as huge as the paladin finding a way to get along with the necromancer. It's changes like these that make a story worth reading. And not just a bunch of automaton characters behaving in an automaton way.


To say that would be to assume (wrongly) that characterization is monofaceted. Great. So you would agree that it's possible for an undead-hating Paladin to attack the necromancer, but it's ALSO possible for him to give this necromancer a stern lecture w/o attacking. Which, I believe, was the point I was trying to make all along.

Characterization is not a pigeonhole. Just because you made your character a coward, doesn't mean he can't decide, when the circumstances are right, to do something brave for a change. And if you made him undead hating, that doesn't mean that ... etc.

[Drakevarg]

Great. So you would agree that it's possible for an undead-hating Paladin to attack the necromancer, but it's ALSO possible for him to give this necromancer a stern lecture w/o attacking. Which, I believe, was the point I was trying to make all along.

Let me put it this way:

IN COMBAT, the sudden appearance of someone wearing heavily undead-themed equipment (as this Necromancer was) in the middle of a fight would likely result in the automatic assumption that this was an enemy.

OUT OF COMBAT, depending on how Templar-esque the Paladin was, it would be far more reasonable to simply interrogate the Necromancer before making any smite-based decisions.

Unlike here in the forum where we can do armchair contemplations, decisions in combat are made in a split second. And for most PCs, an undead-hating Paladin in particular, someone wearing humanoid bones for armor would result in the automatic listing of them as smitebait before the Necromancer decides to make you tear your own skeleton out for ****s-n-giggles.

Even out of combat, I think it would be a reasonable (and in-character) decision to take the Necromancer prisoner first, and move under a guilty-until-proven-innocent mindset. If they proved themself to be a non-threat, then we can move on to cooperating with them.


Characterization is not a pigeonhole. Just because you made your character a coward, doesn't mean he can't decide, when the circumstances are right, to do something brave for a change. And if you made him undead hating, that doesn't mean that ... etc.

Yes, but before tossing in that etc, remember that other caveat: when the circumstances are right. A man dressed in bones just popped up in the middle of combat. What's your gut reaction?

If a man dressed in bones approached your camp, surrendering, and asked to aid you in your quest, this is an entirely different matter.

[Lin Bayaseda]

If you think pretending not to read the OP would give your arguments more weight, let me assure you, you are wrong.


He just pops in, right after a battle

Please stop beating the "during battle" horse. Not only is it dead, but it was never alive to begin with. Its parents didn't even bother to concieve him.

[Drakevarg]

Right after, as in IMMEADIATELY. Not as in "while we were looting the corpses"; as in "its practically impossible to tell whether the fight is actually over or if this guy is reinforcements."

That, at least, is how I interpreted that statement from the beginning.


If you think pretending not to read the OP would give your arguments more weight, let me assure you, you are wrong.

And if you think acting smugly superior and pretending that I'm being intentionally malicous would give your arguements more weight, let me assure you, you are wrong.

[Safety Sword]

Detect Evil at the earliest opportunity after the battle. Unless he attacks you or your party, then he's mince meat immediately.

Behave as a paladin would.

If he doesn't ping your evil sonar, you have to wait until he offends your code. Associating with undead is probably going to meet the smite criteria to my way of thinking.

[Drakevarg]

Detect Evil at the earliest opportunity after the battle. Unless he attacks you or your party, then he's mince meat immediately.

Behave as a paladin would.

If he doesn't ping your evil sonar, you have to wait until he offends your code. Associating with undead is probably going to meet the smite criteria to my way of thinking.

I may be misinterpreting things a bit, but I think the OP is actually a Fallen Paladin who continued to live under the Paladin's Code regardless.

[Safety Sword]

I may be misinterpreting things a bit, but I think the OP is actually a Fallen Paladin who continued to live under the Paladin's Code regardless.

OK, so you don't actually have detect evil or smite. It's inconsequential actually.

He's associating with undead, which still offends your personal code. Do an OoTS. Yell "SMITE EVIL" and hit him with a Greatsword. :smallsmile:

I have played a "Paladin wannabe" Fighter, which was a hugely fun character. Being a paladin by heart but not having the class features was actually better than being a real paladin in that campaign.

[Hobs]

OK, so you don't actually have detect evil or smite. It's inconsequential actually.

He's associating with undead, which still offends your personal code. Do an OoTS. Yell "SMITE EVIL" and hit him with a Greatsword. :smallsmile:

I have played a "Paladin wannabe" Fighter, which was a hugely fun character. Being a paladin by heart but not having the class features was actually better than being a real paladin in that campaign.

This thread is hilarious. Its as if people here haven't read any OOTS at all.

One of the central themes of the entire comic is that paladins who attack evil on sight are wrong. Ok, perhaps those who haven't read Start of Darkness can be forgiven a bit, but even so, it is evident through the the entire Miko storyline. Where Belkar, the evil character, was the hero, when compared to the lawful good paladin.

[Eloi]

This thread is hilarious. Its as if people here haven't read any OOTS at all.

One of the central themes of the entire comic is that paladins who attack evil on sight are wrong. Ok, perhaps those who haven't read Start of Darkness can be forgiven a bit, but even so, it is evident through the the entire Miko storyline. Where Belkar, the evil character, was the hero, when compared to the lawful good paladin.

TV Tropes Survival Guide to the OOTS forum warned me of such conflict involving Miko. What does it say to do?
"Pg. 36 Quickly change the subject in hope no one notices, and Lampshade Hang if you absolutely fail at being subtle, those guys love them Lampshades, right?"

So anywho, I think you should confer with your DM about the situation, talk to the person who has the PC, and figure out what to do. Just talk to the people, because you are playing with the people, not the characters.

[Safety Sword]

This thread is hilarious. Its as if people here haven't read any OOTS at all.

One of the central themes of the entire comic is that paladins who attack evil on sight are wrong. Ok, perhaps those who haven't read Start of Darkness can be forgiven a bit, but even so, it is evident through the the entire Miko storyline. Where Belkar, the evil character, was the hero, when compared to the lawful good paladin.

Miko was more Lawful Bitch than Lawful Good.

If I made it my mission to destroy evil and a detect evil shows the guy with the bone armor who just teleported in was evil, I know which end of the sword I'd want him on. That's all I'm saying.

Even if I don't slay them on sight, I wouldn't let them get away with creating undead whilst I'm in the party.

You can try all the "evil for the greater good" arguments you like, I'm still going to slash first ask questions later when he's casting Animate Dead.

[Escheton]

pedantic people are pedantic

also: psycho ftw

[Eloi]

Miko was more Lawful Bitch than Lawful Good.

If I made it my mission to destroy evil and a detect evil shows the guy with the bone armor who just teleported in was evil, I know which end of the sword I'd want him on. That's all I'm saying.

Even if I don't slay them on sight, I wouldn't let them get away with creating undead whilst I'm in the party.

You can try all the "evil for the greater good" arguments you like, I'm still going to slash first ask questions later when he's casting Animate Dead.

But, the guy is a Player just trying to participate in a group. Why be so mean to him if he wants to role-play a certain character? Unlike monsters on a random encounter table, Players have feelings, and if the person is just suddenly attacked and hated and feels tense around a character, a lot of the emotion will seep threw at the Player.
@OP: And then where did your fun go? Do you know where it would go? It would be smitten along with that player's hopes and eagerness to contribute to the campaign.
Instead, just talk it out with the actual people. Heck, if the meeting was that bad, you can just negotiate with your GM to re-work the entrance. Just remember, there is people behind those characters.

[hamishspence]

If Animating Dead is considered tolerable (if dubious) by most Neutral regimes in the setting, then the character may not have just cause to attack.

If the setting is one where evil-aligned characters bear all the protections of good-aligned characters, as long as they don't actually threaten to attack others, then the character may simply have to live with the fact that unless the other guy looks like they are about to attack, they can't kill him just for "being an evil necromancer"

That said, it's rare for a setting to be quite that cosmopolitan. Some parts of Eberron are, and Sigil is, in generic D&D, but aside from those, it might be a bit unusual for a person to walk around with a couple of skeletons in tow and not get attacked on sight.

Bone armour, on the other hand, does have precedent (it's in Arms & Equipment Guide) so attacking somebody just for wearing bone armour might be more than a little excessive.

[Jarveiyan]

Let me ask you people who want to support mister necromancer - If you join an organization like the police because you want to uphold certain of your beliefs do you just suddenly change those beliefs when you actually have to arrest your first criminal? No it's because you actually believe in what your doing, in the same regard that this "paladin" believes that undead and necromancers are evil. I'm not saying attack the necro out right, det for evil if you can(just don't compromise your beliefs as a character if your character whole heartedly believes in them). I'm going to be one of the few to say play your character, don't let other people convince you not to play your character.

[hamishspence]

I agree up to a point- the character should believe that undead are generally evil, and that each time an undead is created by magic, that creation is an evil act (if only a minor one).

But they could also be someone who knows that sometimes Good characters can't just kill beings who commit minor evil acts.

[Project_Mayhem]

I Second (third? forth?) Psycho's points here. My groups games tend to be quite roleplay heavy, and playing the character is considered of the utmost importance.

Lin Bayaseda, I feel your Frodo comparison is flawed. I'm probably stating the obvious here, but his character is not just 'he's a Halfling, parents died in a tragic accident, raised by an uncle, never left his birthplace, a bit of a coward.'

This is, first off, not a character. What you have there is a collection of events, and 5 lines of character - 'a bit of a coward'. Based on that personality, then yes, he would just hide at home. rolling with the conceit that LotR is an rpg, Frodo's character is clearly more complex - even in simplistic terms, we have Slightly cowardly, loyal to his friends, and at the crunch, willing to do the right thing'.

Back to the point, if you actually care about playing consistent characters (admittedly, some groups don't), then you kind of have to be constrained to some degree by what 'you' wrote on your sheet. Certainly, there's normally several potential ways a character could react to a given situation; however, given what we know about the character in question, they will all be very confrontational.

[Chen]

If your DM is willing to have inter-party conflict by allowing characters that don't mesh well to adventure together then just do whatever your character would do and accept the consequences (possibly his death, your death, the rest of the party turning on you etc).

If you care about the feelings of the player or whatever talk with the player and DM out of character and let them know the type of disruption that will occur because of this.

[Mastikator]

- "He's wearing a bone armor! Kill him!"

- "This isn't real bone, it's just to intimidate my enemies"

- "He's using fear as a weapon! Kill him!"

- "Wait, I only use fear so I won't have to harm them"

- "He's showing mercy! Kill him!"



Paladins confuse me.

[Optimystik]

This is why I like Hellbred.

"Go on, detect me. See? Now let me animate these corpses in peace."

[Project_Mayhem]

- "He's wearing a bone armor! Kill him!"

- "This isn't real bone, it's just to intimidate my enemies"

- "He's using fear as a weapon! Kill him!"

- "Wait, I only use fear so I won't have to harm them"

- "He's showing mercy! Kill him!"



Paladins confuse me.

Well, assuming they're idiots I guess.

Unless I missed sarcasm, in which case well played

[FinalJustice]

To the hot shots bragging nonsense such as "I would slash first, ask questions later." and "I would not let him get away with raising undead in MY party", here's a tip. You are a Paladin. The other guy is a Cleric. You are 20 Level. Assuming both necro and pally know their opto-fu, pally's chances are actually very low. Being a hot shot gets shamefully ugly when you are trounced by the skinny pale dude with the zombies.

Now that we're over the Internet/Tabletop Macho nonsense, I'd say proceed with the fight, OP. Being it a full fledged fight, I'll bet there is a number of things currently trying to eat your character's prized face. Keep an eye on the newcomer but prioritize said face eaters until further notice. If bony gets hostile, whack him. If your character best judgment tells him that bone knight is the biggest baddie in the block, get adjacent to him and ready an action. Ask simply 'Whose side are you on?' and trust your Sense Motive. And always remember, you can be a Paladin without being a douche.

And now, addressing the "Characterization Basis" thing. In my humble opinion, you cannot define one person in a sentence, or a few sentences. If a character never, ever, acts out of character, then it's not that good a character to me. People always act out of character one time or another, why characters wouldn't do the same?

[Lin Bayaseda]

Back to the point, if you actually care about playing consistent characters (admittedly, some groups don't), then you kind of have to be constrained to some degree by what 'you' wrote on your sheet.
Since I'm obviously not eloquent enough to convince you that rigidly "do as my character would do" is the road to oblivion and is NOT roleplaying, here's a word from someone you may find more convincing (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html).

[hamishspence]

- "He's wearing a bone armor! Kill him!"

- "This isn't real bone, it's just to intimidate my enemies"


Alternatively- it is real bone- from slain undead, in the same way as dragonslayers tend to wear dragonskin outfits.

The bone outfit being a big "I kill undead real good" message- to other undead.

[Grogmir]

I disagree with attacking him - he's a PC like it or not. And metagaming has to come first sometimes.

I like you idea of threatening / getting explanation. This Imo is actually more paladin like anyway. You're not sure of him - thats fine. But just attacking someone straight away without giving them chance to explain themselves? Thats more evil than raising the dead - well maybe not but you get the idea.

Good luck and hope the campaign sorts itself out.
Grog

[Gnaeus]

Does your paladin have a deity? How about a simple (DC 10) check to know what your deity's stance on necromancers/undead is. If your god says they are OK as long as they aren't evil, or breaking the law, or whatever, follow your religion and keep him in line.

If your deity says Necromancers and the Undead are abominations and must be slain, slay that abomination!

[Strawberries]

Since I'm obviously not eloquent enough to convince you that rigidly "do as my character would do" is the road to oblivion and is NOT roleplaying, here's a word from someone you may find more convincing (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html).

:smalleek: *facepalm* Here's where I read that! I was trying to remember where I saw that article, and it was on this very site. Thanks for posting that.

[Starbuck_II]

Yes, but before tossing in that etc, remember that other caveat: when the circumstances are right. A man dressed in bones just popped up in the middle of combat. What's your gut reaction?

If a man dressed in bones approached your camp, surrendering, and asked to aid you in your quest, this is an entirely different matter.

Why should I man surrender before talking with you? Rather egotistical for PC to expect that (Pride comes before the fall: means Pally will fall if he expects that).

[Drakevarg]

Why should I man surrender before talking with you? Rather egotistical for PC to expect that (Pride comes before the fall: means Pally will fall if he expects that).

It's not nessicary, per se. It would simply increase the chances of fair treatment. If he wasn't surrendering and just wandered into your campsite, the logical conclusion would again be that this is an enemy, and while it would be excessive to instantly attack at this point, it would not be excessive to interrogate the newcome hostily. It's the difference between "explaining things over tea" and "explaining things with a sword against your throat."


Since I'm obviously not eloquent enough to convince you that rigidly "do as my character would do" is the road to oblivion and is NOT roleplaying, here's a word from someone you may find more convincing (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html).

Hm... not really. Just because I'm a fan of his work doesn't mean I agree with everything Rich Burlew says. Personally, in a situation that resulted in inter-party conflict, I'd just have my character leave and roll up on that conflicted with the party less.


People always act out of character one time or another, why characters wouldn't do the same?

Speak for yourself.

[AstralFire]

Since I'm obviously not eloquent enough to convince you that rigidly "do as my character would do" is the road to oblivion and is NOT roleplaying, here's a word from someone you may find more convincing (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html).

You're not paying very much attention to what Mr. Burlew wrote, are you?


When you think about a situation, ask yourself, "Is this the only way my character can react to this?" Chances are, the answer is, "No." Try to refine your character so that you can deal with situations that conflict with your alignment/ethos without resorting to ultimatums, threats, etc. This will often mean thinking in terms of compromise and concession to your fellow players, or at the very least an agreement to disagree.

There's a difference between emphasizing that there's a chance that you've got another solution, and just breaking character for party peace. Sometimes, a fight is the only proper IC solution when the party has not been constructed to avoid going down that road.

Furthermore:

The division between your personality and that of your character only goes so far as it helps the game; once it begins becoming a disruption, a player has a responsibility to alter his or her character's decisions in the interest of the group. In the end, your relationships with the people you are sitting in someone's living room with are more important than your character's internal consistency.

If the disruption is being caused by a newcomer's inconsiderate choice of character, that is not the original party members' fault.

I also outright disagree with Mr. Burlew's implication that intra-party conflict is only negatively disruptive. (In this case, it would be, most likely. But not every case.)

[Eloi]

So have we thrown out the idea of negotiating a compromise between the actual players or what?

[The Glyphstone]

Apparently OOC interaction between the players of characters isn't allowed, and is a betrayal of RP concepts, or something. I kinda lost track.

[AstralFire]

So have we thrown out the idea of negotiating a compromise between the actual players or what?

Compromise is the best solution if at all feasible to remain within reason for a character's personality and the situation. I'm objecting to the idea that confrontation is automatically bad roleplaying, or the fault of the IC confronter.

[jiriku]

Yeah Eloi I think the general argument is something like "Treating my fellow players with respect and going out of my way to make sure we all have a good time is nice-guy stuff! I play a paladin! I'm not a nice guy!"

/Irony.

[AstralFire]

Yeah Eloi I think the general argument is something like "Treating my fellow players with respect and going out of my way to make sure we all have a good time is nice-guy stuff! I play a paladin! I'm not a nice guy!"

/Irony.

Player A: I'm playing a Paladin with a zealous hate for undead.
Player B: I'm playing a good character.
Players A&B: We shall have fighty time with bad guys now.
Player C: I'm playing a traditionally, heavily evil archetype which specifically has issues with Player A and joining you in the middle of a fight.

If Players A&B can figure out a way to accommodate player C without compromising their pre-existing characters in an acceptable way, great. Absolutely ideal. Intra-party conflict is a spice that should be used but extremely rarely. But the better part of the onus is on Player C, not A&B. Working out something like this should be done first. It is not always better to seek forgiveness than to ask permission. I object to the idea that the person with the pre-existing character should be the one wholly bending here.

[Eloi]

Player A: I'm playing a Paladin with a zealous hate for undead.
Player B: I'm playing a good character.
Players A&B: We shall have fighty time with bad guys now.
Player C: I'm playing a necromancer and joining you in the middle of a fight.

If Players A&B can figure out a way to accommodate player C without compromising their pre-existing characters in an acceptable way, great. Intra-party conflict is a spice that should be used but extremely rarely. But the onus is on Player C, not A&B. Working out something like this should be done first. It is not always better to seek forgiveness than to ask permission.

Or you could think of it like this: why did the OP pick a character that'd be most inflexible to new players trying to join? I mean, if Neutral characters with certain class choices can't even pass the OP's character morals, then the OP's character's morals are too inflexible for a campaign that flexible.

[AstralFire]

Or you could think of it like this: why did the OP pick a character that'd be most inflexible to new players trying to join? I mean, if Neutral characters with certain class choices can't even pass the OP's character morals, then the OP's character's morals are too inflexible for a campaign that flexible.

He's not the only person playing a good guy character, the party is tilted towards holies. Sorry, doesn't fly with me. You're saying that pre-existing players should take care to make characters that cooperate with the greatest number of Schrodinger's PCs (and shut themselves off from an archetype they want to play with no actual, concrete things stopping them) instead of the new person taking care to make a character that cooperates with the already existing, not-Schrodinger party. I find that to be unreasonable and requiring both more burden per person and on more people.

[Eloi]

He's not the only person playing a good guy character, the party is tilted towards holies. Sorry, doesn't fly with me. You're saying that pre-existing players should take care to make characters that cooperate with the greatest number of Schrodinger's PCs (and shut themselves off from an archetype they want to play with no actual, concrete things stopping them) instead of the new person taking care to make a character that cooperates with the already existing, not-Schrodinger party. I find that to be unreasonable and requiring both more burden per person and on more people.

No I'm not suggesting characters can't be "Lawful Good Holy people" I'm suggesting they just shouldn't be "Lawful Good Holy people who attack random people because they look kinda evil".

[AstralFire]

No I'm not suggesting characters can't be "Lawful Good Holy people" I'm suggesting they just shouldn't be "Lawful Good Holy people who attack random people because they look kinda evil".

They look fairly evil and are appearing in the middle of a fight. From a pragmatic standpoint, reacting is perfectly reasonable.

If I was playing one of my more zealous (and pragmatic) characters, my precise pattern of actions would be:
- OoC: Hey, I don't want to kill you, but my character sees yours as a threat - poofing in with no warning, look threatening. She will move to attack you. How do you want to do this? I could force a miss and give you a chance to talk. Sound good?

[Eloi]

They look fairly evil and are appearing in the middle of a fight. From a pragmatic standpoint, reacting is perfectly reasonable.

If I was playing one of my more zealous characters, my precise pattern of actions would be:
- OoC: Hey, I don't want to kill you, but my character sees yours as a threat. She will move to attack you. How do you want to do this? I could force a miss and give you a chance to talk. Sound good?

Sounds fair, I agree with the whole talk to the actual person strategy, I applaud you for suggesting it.

[alexthemad]

Just as a follow up...I have talked to the new player OOC. We have agreed that the timing of his arrival and the dubious nature of his appearance warrents an unpleasant reaction from my paladin. We have agreed that my character will aggressivly react, but give him a chance to explain himself. Then he said if I don't like his answers, I can attack him and he will kill me and make me his undead servant. :smallbiggrin:

[AstralFire]

And everyone's happy. And with a solution that involves fighting, no less. -gasp-

[The Glyphstone]

Just as a follow up...I have talked to the new player OOC. We have agreed that the timing of his arrival and the dubious nature of his appearance warrents an unpleasant reaction from my paladin. We have agreed that my character will aggressivly react, but give him a chance to explain himself. Then he said if I don't like his answers, I can attack him and he will kill me and make me his undead servant. :smallbiggrin:

Shoot for Death Knight or Huecuva. Retain your free will and get awesome undead powers of of it, and everyone wins!

Well, except for your poor other good and soon to be zombified party members.