Inner party conflict, am I acting appropriately?

[Typewriter]

OK, so this is going to be kind of a long post. We had some conflict tonight, and while nobody was surprised by this, I was getting a little aggravated by something one of the other players did. The DM remained neutral, but later told me he agreed with me. I'm curious as to what others think.

Our campaigns generally begin with a 'grow up' session that sets events into motion. The party knew going into the campaign that I was going to play an evil character, and they said they were fine with it as long as I wasn't Stupid Evil.

This particular campaign is very, very low magic. Very low. We are now level 6 and I have a magic ring and I don't know what it does. End of party magic items.

The backstory:
The four of us grew up in the same village, and have been 'friends' most of the time. My character was the creepy kid. My father was a hunter and made me 'dolls' out of dead animal skins. At one point during the 'grow-up' session I told the female party member(with a CHA of 8) that she looks like a man, and people would like her more if she dressed like a boy. She responded by stealing one of my toys. I entered a rage and punched her in the back of the head when I figured it out. A week later I had my dad make her a toy, and we all got along just fine. The character I punched is named Seton(Rogue). Other party members are Ryn(Cleric) and Worthing(Cavalier). I am a Barbarian/Rogue.

I bring up this particular story because it is one of the only (if not the only) instances of me doing something 'evil' in front of the party. As an 8 year old boy.

Cut to the beginning of the campaign. I'm a creepy hermit who wears antlers. My face is half paralyzed from a stroke at birth. I look creepy. We hear a scream. We run to investigate, and find a guy running from Goblins. We fight off the goblins. The guy dies from poison, but not before saying "The path to the orb lies in the setting sun. Tell the monks.".

When we try to tell the villagers about this, they don't seem to understand, and we figure out it's because we're actually speaking (and understanding) a different language. Obviously we should go and see the monks to the south!

I miss the session where we meet up with the monks. I noticed something during my watch so I went to investigate and found an Elf (elves are nearly as rare as magic). He wants help killing some Goblins so I tell him I'll help him if he gives me some kind of elven trinket. I help him, he gives me the ring. I rest after the fight, and go to try and catch up to my party. I get to the monks place just in time to find out I missed them, catch a ride on a boat, and catch up.

What I missed, and was not filled in on during this time:
The orb is one of the artifacts that was put in place by some people to keep an evil god at bay. The monks want us to retrieve it for them, and tell us to go to a nearby city.

After meeting up we get into a fight over a cave with a ghost. I take no part because I don't see why we need the cave. Why not just leave? Worthing almost dies, and hates my character now.

So we finish our trip to the city. During this journey we have all been experiencing odd dreams. We're other people, and we work with the gods. But they're not gods, they're mortals. Right before my fight with the goblins (in my one off) I dreamt of a god fighting me and some of the good gods. In the dream I attacked that deity (Shale), and it almost died. Then I fought Goblins. My characters interpretation of these events is that Shale is helping the Goblins. Crazy guy in the woods, thinks dreams mean a lot. Whatever.

So we get to the town and run off to do our own things. I find out there's a temple to Shale. I then burn it to the ground. While spreading oil a cleric found me, and I also lit him on fire. I was disguised at the time so nobody found out. In game nobody knows I did this, but Seton is suspicious it was me.

They find out about a local legend that says the orb is in the mountains. As we leave the city I am confronted by Seton.

Seton: So, you slept outside the town last night?
Kingsley(Me): Yes
Seton: Wouldn't have anything to do with the fire last night?
Kingsley: No. The elves wanted to speak to me.
Seton: I know you're smarter than that. Come on, what really happened.
Kingsley: You know what, you're right. My goofy looking self (gestures to antlers) burned down a church in the middle of the day. Surely no one noticed.
Worthing: Really, Seton, you only think it's him because he was away from the party. So was I, so why only focus on him.
Kingsley: I know. I can't believe Setons accusing us of being the ones to burn down the temple.
Seton: I wasn't accusing you both....
Worthing: No, you were trying to but hadn't gotten around to it yet (rides off in a huff).

Out of character I smile big because that worked beautifully. OoC everyone knows I did it, but in character they haven't got anything on me.

Into the mountains we go, and there we find a magic stairway that leads to a cloudy heaven.

After wandering around a bit I see a glowing woman. She tells me to stop, and I say no, and intimidate her. The other party members try to get me to calm down, I start to walk and when she moves to block me I intimidate her again. She moves by, and I'm allowed to pass, but by this point her glow has faded and the party members are trying to get me to stop because she's a god. To this I respond, "No she's not, the gods are dead", and keep going.

The goddess then drops to her knees in front of the cleric, Ryn, and begs "You must stop what you're doing. You're being deceived."

I see the orb, and put it in my bag, then begin to look for an exit.

Worthing charges me and deals 45 points of damage to me (I have 70 HP). I rage and smash the orb, but it simply re-materializes back where I first found it.

Me and Worthing sit at a stalemate, the goddess repeats herself to Ryn, and then leaves.

At this point an argument breaks out at the table:

Someone: Woo, inner party conflict!!!
Worthing: Well, if Kingsley wasn't acting completely chaotic...
Kingsley: How am I acting chaotic? By trying to complete my quest?
Worthing: How about by burning random churches down?
Kingsley: So because you don't know why I did something that you don't even know about in character it's chaotic? If anyones being chaotic it's you.
Worthing: How so?
Kingsley: A glowing blue person appeared and suddenly you're religious? And giving up on the quest? And attacking party members? Okay, fine, it's not chaotic, it's pure metagaming.
Worthing: How????
Kingsley: Why attack me? Your character just did a complete 180, and either it's because of stuff you know out of character, or it's because you're character has no personality.

The spoilered section below is the in game conversation about what just happened if you're interested. The conflict has already been covered though, so feel free to skip if it's too long.

This leads to the in-character debate:

Ryn: What did you mean the gods are dead?
Kingsley: I've never met a god. Have you? If I ever meet one I'll change my beliefs.
Ryn: What about her?
Kingsley: I don't know what you've heard, but gods getting on their knees and begging things of mortals is not what I'd heard of them. If a goddess wanted to stop us, she could. The fact of the matter is that you're power comes from within. Praying to a dead god is as pointless as listening to a false prophet.
Worthing: But we just saw her?
Kingsley: You saw someone who glowed. I'm able to disguise my retarded ass and burn down a church without anyone realizing it was me. How could you base your friends life off of the appearance of someone you meet in the clouds, who claims they're a god?
Seton: I knew it was you! I told you Worthing.
Ryn: Why'd you burn down the church?
Kingsley: Because the dreams we're having mean something. In my dream I was someone different, and I fought alongside the gods of good, and I fought the god shale, and killed him. He was no god, but a mortal. Then I awoke and fought Goblins. The signs are clear that Shale, a mere mortal, is helping the Goblins.
*silence*
Kingsley: Why should we not take this artifact?
Seton: She told us not to....
Ryn: But the monks told us to take it to them?
Kingsley: Wait what?
Worthing: The monks asked us to bring it to them.
Kingsley: Well there you go then, regardless of whether you think she was a god or not if you want to abide by what she said is that we should stop what we're doing because we've been deceived. The only people who we, and by we I mean you guys, have talked to is the monks.
Ryn: Then we should just leave it here.
Kingsley: Even though we told them how to find the path? If we leave it here, and they're after it they're going to come looking for it, and we've, you guys have, given them the key.
Seton: In my dreams I've been shown signs that implied that if we try to take the orb we will be stopped...harshly.
Kingsley: Then let me take it, and if anything happens I will bear full responsibility.
Seton: I'm leaving. Whatever. *Leaves the heavenly place*
Ryn: I think the dreams mean something. I think those we dream of are who we were in past lives. We must have put this here for a reason.
Kingsley: We can agree on that. We put it here, and now we believe it's in danger. Why leave it unprotected?
Ryn: Because maybe it's a bad idea for us to take it?
Kingsley: If we go off of what ifs' then we may as well just go back home and farm some more dirt.
Ryn: I don't think we should go home, I think we should go find the other Orbs.
Kingsley: If we go hunting for other orbs it's going to be dangerous. Why not take this one and see what power we glean from it. That way we don't leave it undefended, and we'll have a powerful artifact at our disposal. Even going by what she said we don't have to give up on the orb, our sole quest up this point. We can just not give it over to the monks.
Ryn: I think you're right, she may or may not be the goddess I pray to. That doesn't matter. I think what we did in past lives was done for a reason then.
Kingsley: And if we did it in past lives we have a right to this power now.
Ryn: I don't know....
Kingsley: Look, the fact of the matter is that you're going to have to either kill me or let me take the orb. If I were to agree to leave with you do you really think I wouldn't just come right back for it?

*more deliberation:

Ryn: Kingsley, if I take the orb, will that work for you?
Kingsley: Yes, that's fine. If it grants us powers you will not be the sole benefactor though. Agreed?
Ryn: Yes. Are you okay with that Worthing?
Worthing(OoC): Well if Seton or Kingsley tried to take it I was going to kill them, and if you decided to take it I was going to spend the rest of my life praying for forgiveness for not doing as she asked, so whatever.
Worthing(IC): *Shrug*


That ended the session, but the arguments still abound. Everyone seems to be convinced I'm going to try and use the orb to destroy humanity when:
A. No, I'm not.
and
B. Even if I was, they would have no reason to think that.

I enjoyed the session, but am incredibly aggravated by the fact that I got attacked by someone for no real reason. If his character had treated me with respect instead of attacking me the whole thing would have gone much better. I talked to the DM afterwords and he told me that he had no idea where Worthing was getting his interpretation of events from, and that attacking me was an extreme interpretation. Seton and Ryn are both fairly neutral on the situation, Seton because he didn't care either way, and Ryn because I almost converted him to atheist in game.

I stand by the assertion that everything my character has done has had a valid, logical reason behind it, and that attacking him was a purely metagame construct. My character has no intentions of evil. He's actually very much in favor of healing and general goodness, but believe that vengeance and violence, control, etc. are all key to a healthy society.

Thanks for reading. Largely I just really wanted to vent, but I am curious as to what people think of my actions, and the actions of my fellow player.

[Rasman]

This is one of the reasons I don't tell people what I am sometimes, because if someone knows you're evil out of game, they'll look for reason to turn on you in game. The only thing Overtly evil you've actually done is probably burning the monk alive, but no one saw it and no one has proof it was you.

Its an interesting story to say the least, but not being able to hear the other side of it means I can't say you are either in the right or wrong on this. But if he did attack you just because "you're evil" then he was pretty much Metagaming and you should continue doing what you're doing.

[Cespenar]

From what information I have by reading this, it seems like you're roleplaying your "Evil" character exceptionally well and realistic.

Your party, however, and especially that Worthing fellow (which seems even more chaotic evil than yours) sees the alignment evil the commonly wrong way. Also,

1- Speak to them about alignments and what evil may or may not mean.
2- Think about dealing with issues that others shouldn't know in secret. Let the DM take you to another room, pass notes to the DM, etc. Stopping oneself from metagaming is a hard, indefinite problem. You never know if you go too far or not enough.

The main issue IMHO lies not with metagaming but with the understanding with evil however, as I said. If others could know how your character actually thought, they would probably go "That's not evil!" or something similar. They assume your character is D&D Evil, or a Card Carrying Villain, etc. and that causes the problems.

[Vance_Nevada]

So you told the party that you weren't going to play Stupid Evil...

... then burnt down a church and murdered a (presumably innocent, presumably Good) cleric.

Perhaps the other don't want to play a game where they have to out-of-character not know what you're doing, and have their characters walk around with a murderer? Metagaming entirely aside, you should think about whether the other players are happy with your choices. It doesn't seem like.

[Gnaritas]

She moves by, and I'm allowed to pass, but by this point her glow has faded and the party members are trying to get me to stop because she's a god. To this I respond, "No she's not, the gods are dead", and keep going.

The goddess then drops to her knees in front of the cleric, Ryn, and begs "You must stop what you're doing. You're being deceived."

Ok, so the party is trying to stop you, but you continue anyway. The goddess (not literally) begs to stop you. Worthing does, although i think he should have chosen for a bullrush or grapple attack. But then again, he does hate you (in character, because of previous actions):


After meeting up we get into a fight over a cave with a ghost. I take no part because I don't see why we need the cave. Why not just leave? Worthing almost dies, and hates my character now.

You then proceed to say the following:



Kingsley: Why attack me? Your character just did a complete 180, and either it's because of stuff you know out of character, or it's because you're character has no personality.

This would royally piss me off as the Worthing player, because from what i read (and that is in the words of someone who feels he has no personality) he does have personality.

After insulting me like that, there is little chance you are going to get me (the player) on your side. (i also stopped reading after this)

[rayne_dragon]

So you told the party that you weren't going to play Stupid Evil...

... then burnt down a church and murdered a (presumably innocent, presumably Good) cleric.

You've never burned down a church before? Especially when you've got a reason to believe the church in question is your enemy? Admittedly it's not what everyone would do, but I've seen characters of all alignments do this.



Perhaps the other don't want to play a game where they have to out-of-character not know what you're doing, and have their characters walk around with a murderer? Metagaming entirely aside, you should think about whether the other players are happy with your choices. It doesn't seem like.

If that's true there are more appropriate ways of dealing with it. Attacking another player's character in game with little to no real provocation isn't exactly playing nice.

Really, I think the whole thing illustrates that different people will view the same events differently. I doubt that Worthing sees his character's actions as unreasonable, even if everyone else in the group does. If these kinds of conflicts are starting to make the game less fun for people, though, it might be a good idea to suggest to the DM to have everyone sit down and discuss their expectations for how people should act. I know some groups think it's okay for players to stab each other in the back, while in others it's a major no-no, so it makes sense to get some ground rules laid out when they seem to be unclear.

[Stormageddon]

It sounds like a case of heavy handed "good" pcs. I believe in inner party arguements. It brings a sense of reality to the character's relationship with each other as even people who get a long can disagree. But arguments tend not to break down into physical violence.

His character was wrong in trying to kill your character based on the word of some glowing blue girl claiming to be a god with out proof of said divinty. I can name a lot of spells that could give anyone that effect, let's not forget to mention ployomorph and disguise self and many other spells that change your appearance. Even in a low magic world, anyone with half of a brain would take a moment to question the word of someone claiming to be a god. They certain not try to murder someone they knew all their life based on the glowly things word a lone.

But it's D&D his aligment is good and you disagreed with him so smite, smite, smite, kill, kill, kill!

[Ormur]

Sorry, the title just made me think this was an Orwellian game of political intrigue.

[Gnaritas]

It seems, considering your words, that the attack was not completely unwarranted.



Kingsley: Look, the fact of the matter is that you're going to have to either kill me or let me take the orb. If I were to agree to leave with you do you really think I wouldn't just come right back for it?

You apparently are not to be reasoned with, it is either your way or a fight.
Although, in the end you let someone else take the orb.

[elonin]

It is impossible to form an opinion with only one side of the argument. If the dm is unable to figure the reasons for the attack it seems more likely to support you. No one acts without reasons even if that reason is out of game I know you did a somewhat evil act.

[Toliudar]

I find it funny that the OP complains that others equate not understanding their motivations with acting in a chaotic and unreasonable manner, and then says the same thing about the other players.

Accept that you have some kind of responsibility to cooperate with the others in the group, and are in some way answerable to the others for your actions, or that there are negative consequences for breaking that social contract.

[elonin]

I find it funny that the OP complains that others equate not understanding their motivations with acting in a chaotic and unreasonable manner, and then says the same thing about the other players.

Accept that you have some kind of responsibility to cooperate with the others in the group, and are in some way answerable to the others for your actions, or that there are negative consequences for breaking that social contract.

Why is there a responsibility to just get along with whatever anyone in the group wants even when it is just one person? The disagreement with this group seems to be out of character with the others not liking the actions of one character with their characters not being the wiser.

Conflict up to a point is good for the group dynamic, else this isn't a rollplaying game but a strategy game like what dnd spun off from in the early days.

[The_Werebear]

I think you acted correctly, though I may be biased towards you. I usually find myself in similar situations (where the entire rest of the party doesn't agree with my logic/choices), so I know the pain of metagaming PC's opposing you on OOC knowledge.

My advice would be to stay your course, but now much more suspicious of Worthing as a character. He attacked you once without cause. Maybe he's receiving dreams too and not telling anyone. Maybe he's working for that evil deity.. After all, he's already identified one lady as a god. Who's to say he doesn't have more information then you do, and is planning to betray you. Maybe what the blue glowing lady meant is that you're being deceived by HIM, and he attacked you to kill you before the rest of the party figured it out.

[Gabe the Bard]

I'm surprised that your friends didn't bring you up to speed on what happened with the monks. Someone should have taken the time to let you know what happened in the session that you missed.

The fight at the cave: This seems like a big reason why Worthing wanted to attack your character. In general, it's good manners to contribute to a fight, even if you believe your character has reasons to do otherwise. There are plenty of reasons you can come up with to have your character participate, such as simply defending your friends from the random monster that's attacking them.

The fire at the church: If you think it's going to keep causing problems within the party, maybe you should just avoid doing it. Or try to come to some sort of agreement with the other players to look the other way. It doesn't matter whether or not the characters know who burned down a church or whether one PC has a really great reason to punch another PC in the face. What matters is how the players will react to it. If one person gets really pissed off, it ruins the game for everyone.

[Toliudar]

Why is there a responsibility to just get along with whatever anyone in the group wants even when it is just one person? The disagreement with this group seems to be out of character with the others not liking the actions of one character with their characters not being the wiser.

Conflict up to a point is good for the group dynamic, else this isn't a rollplaying game but a strategy game like what dnd spun off from in the early days.

If conflict is good, then don't complain when somebody else also does something for reasons you don't understand. Again, there's a dissonance - if it's all right for one character to act without having to justify (or even reveal) his actions to the others, then they similarly are under no obligation to explain why their characters are attacking him. That's not the same thing as them "not being the wiser."

[Glyde]

From the sounds of things, the OOC knowledge of what your character's dreams meant to him may have been withheld - And certainly withheld IC. That alone is your illness, they had no way to know that what you did you thought was right.

[turkishproverb]

If conflict is good, then don't complain when somebody else also does something for reasons you don't understand. Again, there's a dissonance - if it's all right for one character to act without having to justify (or even reveal) his actions to the others, then they similarly are under no obligation to explain why their characters are attacking him. That's not the same thing as them "not being the wiser."

I'm inclined to agree.

How did the character KNOW that Seton didn't know the truth? Maybe he was playing coy and had information your character wasn't privy to. You're explanation, that you were communing with the elves, would seem ludicrous to him when you consider the fact that you yourself said they were ridiculously RARE in this campaign world. He'd have no real reason to believe you.

An even better example comes from Worthing. How are you so sure he was metagaming? His character could easily have information your character isn't aware of. He could simply have enough back story to think that glowy person he doesn't know better about=God, or even that he recognizes her behavior from religious titles. Heck, you weren't at the Monastery with the Monks, it could have something to do with that. In character and out of character you decide that your character is automatically more accurate than his because HIS character doesn't see a problem with a presumed GOOD God depicted in a way that involves pleading with someone to do the right thing, as though every god were a War deity bent on forcing people to bend to their whims because they can (something that strikes me as a bit evil...). You're presuming you were privy to their knowledge. You aren't and thus your character can't judge if they were OOC. And frankly, their behavior wasn't even that odd all things considered. She acts like an emissary for a deity adn you brush her off without listening, the players have a right to think they were indeed warned, but not about the monks. You're very lucky they didn't try to kill you.

Frankly it seems to me that you are whining because you're being opposed, rather than being opposed for no good reason.

[Forged Fury]

Ryn: What did you mean the gods are dead?
Kingsley: I've never met a god. Have you? If I ever meet one I'll change my beliefs.
Ryn: What about her?
Kingsley: I don't know what you've heard, but gods getting on their knees and begging things of mortals is not what I'd heard of them. If a goddess wanted to stop us, she could. The fact of the matter is that you're power comes from within. Praying to a dead god is as pointless as listening to a false prophet.
Worthing: But we just saw her?
Kingsley: You saw someone who glowed. I'm able to disguise my retarded ass and burn down a church without anyone realizing it was me. How could you base your friends life off of the appearance of someone you meet in the clouds, who claims they're a god?
Seton: I knew it was you! I told you Worthing.
Ryn: Why'd you burn down the church?
Kingsley: Because the dreams we're having mean something. In my dream I was someone different, and I fought alongside the gods of good, and I fought the god shale, and killed him. He was no god, but a mortal. Then I awoke and fought Goblins. The signs are clear that Shale, a mere mortal, is helping the Goblins.
*silence*
Kingsley: Why should we not take this artifact?
Seton: She told us not to....
Ryn: But the monks told us to take it to them?
Kingsley: Wait what?
Worthing: The monks asked us to bring it to them.
Kingsley: Well there you go then, regardless of whether you think she was a god or not if you want to abide by what she said is that we should stop what we're doing because we've been deceived. The only people who we, and by we I mean you guys, have talked to is the monks.
Ryn: Then we should just leave it here.
Kingsley: Even though we told them how to find the path? If we leave it here, and they're after it they're going to come looking for it, and we've, you guys have, given them the key.
Seton: In my dreams I've been shown signs that implied that if we try to take the orb we will be stopped...harshly.
Kingsley: Then let me take it, and if anything happens I will bear full responsibility.
Seton: I'm leaving. Whatever. *Leaves the heavenly place*
Ryn: I think the dreams mean something. I think those we dream of are who we were in past lives. We must have put this here for a reason.
Kingsley: We can agree on that. We put it here, and now we believe it's in danger. Why leave it unprotected?
Ryn: Because maybe it's a bad idea for us to take it?
Kingsley: If we go off of what ifs' then we may as well just go back home and farm some more dirt.
Ryn: I don't think we should go home, I think we should go find the other Orbs.
Kingsley: If we go hunting for other orbs it's going to be dangerous. Why not take this one and see what power we glean from it. That way we don't leave it undefended, and we'll have a powerful artifact at our disposal. Even going by what she said we don't have to give up on the orb, our sole quest up this point. We can just not give it over to the monks.
Ryn: I think you're right, she may or may not be the goddess I pray to. That doesn't matter. I think what we did in past lives was done for a reason then.
Kingsley: And if we did it in past lives we have a right to this power now.
Ryn: I don't know....
Kingsley: Look, the fact of the matter is that you're going to have to either kill me or let me take the orb. If I were to agree to leave with you do you really think I wouldn't just come right back for it?

*more deliberation:

Ryn: Kingsley, if I take the orb, will that work for you?
Kingsley: Yes, that's fine. If it grants us powers you will not be the sole benefactor though. Agreed?
Ryn: Yes. Are you okay with that Worthing?
Worthing(OoC): Well if Seton or Kingsley tried to take it I was going to kill them, and if you decided to take it I was going to spend the rest of my life praying for forgiveness for not doing as she asked, so whatever.
Worthing(IC): *Shrug*
I just have to ask. Was this recorded somewhere? Because that's a shocking amount of dialog to recall verbatim.

[Typewriter]

This is one of the reasons I don't tell people what I am sometimes, because if someone knows you're evil out of game, they'll look for reason to turn on you in game. The only thing Overtly evil you've actually done is probably burning the monk alive, but no one saw it and no one has proof it was you.

Its an interesting story to say the least, but not being able to hear the other side of it means I can't say you are either in the right or wrong on this. But if he did attack you just because "you're evil" then he was pretty much Metagaming and you should continue doing what you're doing.

Yeah, in most previous campaigns I've done this, but it sometimes leads to a large amount of distrust so I decided not to request my actions taking place off screen because of it. I was hoping that by having everyone know what I was doing they would realize that, out of character, I didn't care about hiding it from them because it's not part of some nefarious scheme.

And yes, it's impossible to make any true judgement call because any post from me is going to be biased off of my interpretations, so I understand what you mean :P


From what information I have by reading this, it seems like you're roleplaying your "Evil" character exceptionally well and realistic.

Your party, however, and especially that Worthing fellow (which seems even more chaotic evil than yours) sees the alignment evil the commonly wrong way. Also,

1- Speak to them about alignments and what evil may or may not mean.
2- Think about dealing with issues that others shouldn't know in secret. Let the DM take you to another room, pass notes to the DM, etc. Stopping oneself from metagaming is a hard, indefinite problem. You never know if you go too far or not enough.

The main issue IMHO lies not with metagaming but with the understanding with evil however, as I said. If others could know how your character actually thought, they would probably go "That's not evil!" or something similar. They assume your character is D&D Evil, or a Card Carrying Villain, etc. and that causes the problems.

Yeah, as I mentioned I think I'm going to have to do anything else like this 'off-screen'. I am going to send an e-mail to them this week explaining my characters mentality so that they know I'm not going for "Death-God" or anything like that....



So you told the party that you weren't going to play Stupid Evil...

... then burnt down a church and murdered a (presumably innocent, presumably Good) cleric.

Perhaps the other don't want to play a game where they have to out-of-character not know what you're doing, and have their characters walk around with a murderer? Metagaming entirely aside, you should think about whether the other players are happy with your choices. It doesn't seem like.

Out of character everyone was really amused and wanted to know why I did it, but I wouldn't tell them because they shouldn't have known at that point.

And I argue the chaotic stupid nature of my attack on the church when I had dreams providing omens as to the evil nature of the church, and other dreams in which Shale (the god whose church mysteriously burned down) was actively fighting me and some other people (who are also worshipped as gods of ultimate good). Perhaps it was Lawful Stupid, or Neutral Stupid, buy my aciton was definitely not chaotic.



Ok, so the party is trying to stop you, but you continue anyway. The goddess (not literally) begs to stop you. Worthing does, although i think he should have chosen for a bullrush or grapple attack. But then again, he does hate you (in character, because of previous actions):



You then proceed to say the following:



This would royally piss me off as the Worthing player, because from what i read (and that is in the words of someone who feels he has no personality) he does have personality.

After insulting me like that, there is little chance you are going to get me (the player) on your side. (i also stopped reading after this)

They kept saying I should listen to the glowing blue woman and I said no. Nobody told me there reason for such until after I had been attacked. Do I have a problem with not knowing why my party members wanted to listen to her? No, in game I didn't have that knowledge and they were not telling me. Instead I just got stabbed.

The example in which he almost died involved him wanting to go into a cave we found, and none of the party having darkvision. My character stated he was not going into the cave, and would watch the front. He goes in, finds a ghost, and starts fighting it. Seton was unable to damage it and fled, telling me that there was an indestructible ghost inside. I yelled inside to Worthing, "Do we really need a cave?", and remained outside. Him and the cleric sat there fighting the ghost until it died, then Seton bluffed Worthing into thinking he fled for a tactical reason. All of the party went inside to sleep for the night except for me because it was a haunted cave that was pitch dark and I had no way to see.

I can understand his character being upset, but I also think my decisions made 100% sense.

That being said, I should not have insulted him like I did. I had just been insulted and I threw one right back.



It seems, considering your words, that the attack was not completely unwarranted.

You apparently are not to be reasoned with, it is either your way or a fight.
Although, in the end you let someone else take the orb.

Yeah, up to that point they were vehement that they weren't taking it so I didn't see them carrying it as an option. That being said this statement was made after more than 2 hours of debating, and nobody could give me a good reason not to take it. The orb was the sole reason we left home, and now you want to abandon that quest because of the way you're interpreting what a glowing blue person said to you.

That, and in every encounter up to this point in the game my character has responded diplomatically and with grace until someone disrespects him (or attacks him). At that point I had already been attacked so I was being stubborn.


I find it funny that the OP complains that others equate not understanding their motivations with acting in a chaotic and unreasonable manner, and then says the same thing about the other players.

Accept that you have some kind of responsibility to cooperate with the others in the group, and are in some way answerable to the others for your actions, or that there are negative consequences for breaking that social contract.

I never said otherwise. I'm saying that his decision was extreme, and heavily dictated by metagaming. His character was completely non-religious up to this point, and suddenly he's killing party members at the whims of a god. A god who is on her knees begging the party to do things. = Not a god.

I have never struck first in this game, except for the priest who got burned. When the goblins attacked I called out to them for their reasons for attacking someone, and didn't attack until I got hit. When they fought the ghost I saw the party as the intruder so I left the ghost alone while Worthing tried to kill the ghost. In all combats I've entered reasonably until I get hit. Then I rage.

If the party decides to turn me in for burning down the church now that they know it was me then that makes sense. Attacking me because god told you "Please stop what you're doing. You're being deceived." does not make sense.



I think you acted correctly, though I may be biased towards you. I usually find myself in similar situations (where the entire rest of the party doesn't agree with my logic/choices), so I know the pain of metagaming PC's opposing you on OOC knowledge.

My advice would be to stay your course, but now much more suspicious of Worthing as a character. He attacked you once without cause. Maybe he's receiving dreams too and not telling anyone. Maybe he's working for that evil deity.. After all, he's already identified one lady as a god. Who's to say he doesn't have more information then you do, and is planning to betray you. Maybe what the blue glowing lady meant is that you're being deceived by HIM, and he attacked you to kill you before the rest of the party figured it out.

He admitted to dreaming, but his dreams didn't involve this particular deity. He claims he listened to her because she looked like a statue he saw. That was what led to me revealing that I was able to disguise myself and burn down a church without being detected, thus implying that listening to her based off of appearances alone was foolish.



I'm surprised that your friends didn't bring you up to speed on what happened with the monks. Someone should have taken the time to let you know what happened in the session that you missed.

The fight at the cave: This seems like a big reason why Worthing wanted to attack your character. In general, it's good manners to contribute to a fight, even if you believe your character has reasons to do otherwise. There are plenty of reasons you can come up with to have your character participate, such as simply defending your friends from the random monster that's attacking them.

The fire at the church: If you think it's going to keep causing problems within the party, maybe you should just avoid doing it. Or try to come to some sort of agreement with the other players to look the other way. It doesn't matter whether or not the characters know who burned down a church or whether one PC has a really great reason to punch another PC in the face. What matters is how the players will react to it. If one person gets really pissed off, it ruins the game for everyone.

My character never asked on account of being a backwoodsman/hillbilly and not dealing well with people. At this point in the campaign I was giving one word answers and questions and staring awkwardly at people. The only reason that's changed so much is that the dreams I've been having involve me being a leader, and it's affecting my waking life.

I'm definitely going to behave somewhat differently now that they are on to me. Depending on how the next few sessions go there may be more conflict.

Worthing got to his temple and prayed for forgiveness.
The DM told him he got a sense that he hadn't done anything wrong, and that violence wasn't the way.
So Worthing said he was going to drop his gear and become a pacifist.
So the DM had to clarify that violence can be necessary, and that he did nothing wrong.
So he's sticking with us. I'm considering poisoning his wolf/mount.


From the sounds of things, the OOC knowledge of what your character's dreams meant to him may have been withheld - And certainly withheld IC. That alone is your illness, they had no way to know that what you did you thought was right.

True, but I had assumed that it wouldn't be a problem since IC they didn't know I had done anything at all. I was trying to avoid talking about IC things OoC to prevent more metagaming from creeping in.




Some final thoughts:
A couple other points I forgot to mention about last night:
As Worthing charged me I said "What, this is what we came here for?", and motioned that I would destroy the orb if he attacked me. Then he attacked me. If his goal at this point is to obey the goddess that seems like a weird choice. It turned out fine, but who no one knew that would happen.

Towards the end of the discussion I had the cleric convinced that leaving the orb unguarded was a bad idea, so he had proclaimed that he was going to stay behind to guard it. At that point I saw no reason not to continue to harangue the point that it needed to come with us, so that our entire party could defend it.


Thank you all for the replies, I will be altering my playstyle somewhat because I do not claim perfection in what happened last night. I mainly just wanted to vent, and doing so here has been enjoyable. Thanks :P

[Starbuck_II]

Some final thoughts:
A couple other points I forgot to mention about last night:
As Worthing charged me I said "What, this is what we came here for?", and motioned that I would destroy the orb if he attacked me. Then he attacked me. If his goal at this point is to obey the goddess that seems like a weird choice. It turned out fine, but who no one knew that would happen.


Never negociate with terrorist.
That is what he saw you as. So saying you'll destroy if he attacked meant he needed to attack to stop you. Very reasonable.
Never made a deal with someone unless you can trust them.

[Typewriter]

I'm inclined to agree.

How did the character KNOW that Seton didn't know the truth? Maybe he was playing coy and had information your character wasn't privy to. You're explanation, that you were communing with the elves, would seem ludicrous to him when you consider the fact that you yourself said they were ridiculously RARE in this campaign world. He'd have no real reason to believe you.

An even better example comes from Worthing. How are you so sure he was metagaming? His character could easily have information your character isn't aware of. He could simply have enough back story to think that glowy person he doesn't know better about=God, or even that he recognizes her behavior from religious titles. Heck, you weren't at the Monastery with the Monks, it could have something to do with that. In character and out of character you decide that your character is automatically more accurate than his because HIS character doesn't see a problem with a presumed GOOD God depicted in a way that involves pleading with someone to do the right thing, as though every god were a War deity bent on forcing people to bend to their whims because they can (something that strikes me as a bit evil...). You're presuming you were privy to their knowledge. You aren't and thus your character can't judge if they were OOC. And frankly, their behavior wasn't even that odd all things considered. She acts like an emissary for a deity adn you brush her off without listening, the players have a right to think they were indeed warned, but not about the monks. You're very lucky they didn't try to kill you.

Frankly it seems to me that you are whining because you're being opposed, rather than being opposed for no good reason.

Seton had no reason to believe me about the elves. I find it funny that when the party knows I'm with elves (the DM told them that's where I was during my one off) nobody questions me saying it, but then when I lie about it he acts like he knew I was lying. He even tried to perform Sense Motive on my -1 bluff, and I beat him.

I've mentioned already, but his character was about 90% atheist at the point of this meeting. He had seen statues of the god, and still showed no signs of religious interests. He had been to temples for aid and not shown any interest in their gods. Then someone he recognizes tells him to stop what he's doing, and he stabs me? My character had no interest in what she said because my character knows (see also he thinks he knows) that the gods are simply mortals that people worship. The true gods are dead. Listening to someone tell me to abandon my entire purpose for leaving my home was not on my agenda. If he had any other reasons for why he decided to do a complete 180 all of a sudden he kept them to himself during our 2 hour debate.

I don't care if they oppose me, I just think stabbing someone you grew up with over 18 years of your life because a glowing blue person told you to "Stop what you're doing. Your being lied to" or whatever it was she said was extreme.


I just have to ask. Was this recorded somewhere? Because that's a shocking amount of dialog to recall verbatim.

No, the conversation actually went on for over 2 hours. I wrote what I remembered down. A large part of the conversation was more about gods in general than this specific instance because when I realized I could convert the cleric to Atheism that became a large part of my goal :P

[Typewriter]

Never negociate with terrorist.
That is what he saw you as. So saying you'll destroy if he attacked meant he needed to attack to stop you. Very reasonable.
Never made a deal with someone unless you can trust them.

Fair enough. I would argue that at that point he was trying to do what the god said so endangering the orb seems like a weird way to go about that.

[Ranielle]

Burning down churches is never a good idea. There will be consequences; most likely you will be hunted down in some fashion. Since it is low magic, probably some other adventuring party.

Other than that, well, it's your usual metagaming heavy handed "good" player. "You are doing things that conflict with my moral views ( even though I don't know about them in character ) so you will die!" Yup, nice.

[Saint GoH]

A looooot of posting here. Right. My first suggestion goes in line with what someone else said (but I'm too lazy to go back and find out who), your party is obviously textbook Good.

I mean that in that they read the Good description in the PBH and feel they must crush all forms of evil wherever it is present and if something isn't crapping out bunnies and butterflies it must be the apotheosis of Evil. That's fine. It just means you have to work extra hard to be Evil. Pass notes to the DM, have sessions separately where you do your Evil stuff. And yes, telling the party you are going to play Evil makes them metagame (usually subconsciously) so they will be Sense Motiving everything you say, whether their character has a reason to or not.

Also, to whomever said he was playing Stupid Evil, I think you need your definitions straight. Evil is burning down a church of a (possibly) good aligned cleric. Stupid Evil is burning down said church in broad daylight while cackling madly. Stupid Evil is blatant acts of Evil that serve no apparent purpose. If the OP was going around punching babies and lighting random Commoners on fire, that would be stupid. As is, he successfully burned down a church without his party knowing, then defended his acts via roleplay (intimidating the "goddess" and the church). SOunds like he is being Evil, but not Stupid Evil.

[Rasman]

A looooot of posting here. Right. My first suggestion goes in line with what someone else said (but I'm too lazy to go back and find out who), your party is obviously textbook Good.

I mean that in that they read the Good description in the PBH and feel they must crush all forms of evil wherever it is present and if something isn't crapping out bunnies and butterflies it must be the apotheosis of Evil. That's fine. It just means you have to work extra hard to be Evil. Pass notes to the DM, have sessions separately where you do your Evil stuff. And yes, telling the party you are going to play Evil makes them metagame (usually subconsciously) so they will be Sense Motiving everything you say, whether their character has a reason to or not.

Also, to whomever said he was playing Stupid Evil, I think you need your definitions straight. Evil is burning down a church of a (possibly) good aligned cleric. Stupid Evil is burning down said church in broad daylight while cackling madly. Stupid Evil is blatant acts of Evil that serve no apparent purpose. If the OP was going around punching babies and lighting random Commoners on fire, that would be stupid. As is, he successfully burned down a church without his party knowing, then defended his acts via roleplay (intimidating the "goddess" and the church). SOunds like he is being Evil, but not Stupid Evil.

I approve of the baby punching.

These kinds of situations are why playing Evil is so hard and why people hate Paladins.

But GoH is pretty much right though and though and defending yourself though RP is always the appropriate response. After thinking about it, bringing the conflict out of game is probably the only real fault I see in what you did. I'm playing in a game in which my Druid and the Party Wizard pretty much hate one another, but out of game we don't have that kind of conflict. The "What Happens in Vegas Stays in Vegas" philosophy probably needs to be maintained here before you move too much further.

[Vance_Nevada]

You've never burned down a church before? Especially when you've got a reason to believe the church in question is your enemy? Admittedly it's not what everyone would do, but I've seen characters of all alignments do this.

Umm... no, I've never burned down a church before. And if I had a character who thought it was an appropriate action for the scenario, you'd better believe I'd have discuss it with the rest of the party and I'd have them there holding the buckets of gasoline.

If the party aren't interested in an evil, church-burning, god-murdering campaign, it'd become rapidly clear I needed to roll a different character to play with them.

[Rasman]

Umm... no, I've never burned down a church before. And if I had a character who thought it was an appropriate action for the scenario, you'd better believe I'd have discuss it with the rest of the party and I'd have them there holding the buckets of gasoline.

If the party aren't interested in an evil, church-burning, god-murdering campaign, it'd become rapidly clear I needed to roll a different character to play with them.

Where's the challenge in that?

Party dynamics are important when you live in a world where you have to work together and not doing so will get you killed. A LG/LN/NG party is a very easy dynamic to work with because everyone pretty much agrees with "we should do the greater good" for the most part, but throwing in the C and the E or even just the True N in there makes party interaction MUCH more interesting. It forces compromise and sneakery within the party which can be built on with more plot and work with the DM, not to mention a little creativity.

I'm sorry, but if an Evil character can't act even a little evil in a party that is predominantly Good, then there's something terribly terribly wrong with the world.

I mean, I've had co-workers who were definitely Lawful Evil and I didn't quit my job over it. I figured out ways to work around it to my advantage and that seems to be what the party needs to work on or maybe Typewriter needs to figure out how to deal with the LG/NG/CGs out there.

My advice, invest in potions or wands of Glibness. Nothing says "I didn't do it" quite like a +30 to bluff.

[BayardSPSR]

This particular campaign is very, very low magic. Very low.

In a campaign THAT low magic, isn't listening to someone glowing blue pretty reasonable? At the very least, I'd think you wouldn't just ignore them. It might be possible that you were metagaming based on the assumption that there were methods of making oneself glow blue - something that your character may or may not know or have know. Is the campaign THAT low magic?

[Typewriter]

In a campaign THAT low magic, isn't listening to someone glowing blue pretty reasonable? At the very least, I'd think you wouldn't just ignore them. It might be possible that you were metagaming based on the assumption that there were methods of making oneself glow blue - something that your character may or may not know or have know. Is the campaign THAT low magic?

While it is true that it's low magic, that relates more to magic items. I've been traveling with a cleric for years, and I've seen mages. That being said the fact that I was able to intimidate her into moving out of my way (not exactly how it happened, but in character that's what I thought) was a pretty big indicator. And then she dropped to her knees and begged of people to do things?

That and this entire campaign my characters opinion has been that there are no gods/the gods are dead. And I'm a stubborn backwoodsman.

In real life if god were to appear in my house and start break-dancing I would become religious. There are some people who would ignore it and walk away. Someone who doesn't believe will never believe regardless of the evidence before them. This character isn't Agnostic - he's an atheist. And a stubborn hillbilly.

@Vance_Nevada

I'm normally the DM for this group and it's not uncommon for people to play drastically different alignments and do things other party members don't like. I did make the assumption that they would be fine with my doing things like that when someone else DMs. Especially when I asked them if they were OK with my characters alignment. They knew me murdering people was possible, but they also told them that if something like that was going to happen I would have a reason.

That being said, it sounds like when you play your group tends to all play as one identity with multiple characters. I've seen that done before and it doesn't really work with this group/campaign. Expecting everyone to get along just fine is easy when you have clear cut goals and a DM defined alignment (LG - Neutral is allowed, CN - CE not allowed), but when you're allowing, and encouraging, people to act on their own in a campaign that's set up for the players to interpret things in their own ways, and pretty much treat it like a sandbox, that methodology of play doesn't really work.

[BayardSPSR]

Okay. :smallsmile: I understand what you mean now. In that case, both reactions seem reasonable to me, though the intimidation thing IS a bit weird... I call it no foul to either side, but advise further investigation in-character. Sounds to me like the DM meant it as an interesting plot point to provoke dispute, confusion, and interest, and it got out of hand. Happened to me in a session last Saturday, where I had one player try to murder another because of the color of his boots - a color which signifies ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, by the way. But enough about me.

[Levithix]

It was probably something similar to something that happened to me about a year ago.
I decided I would play a C/E character for once, but he worshiped Vecna and was very covert about it.
My wizard was a crafter and made lots of things for the bsf, even if it ment lending him money, this got him quite in debt to my character. (I wasn't even charging interest)
When my character and my friend's character went to visit an old man who was supposed to have the Golden MacGuffin my wizard teleported invisibly around his house searching for it and my friend's thrallheard killed the old man and burned down his house.

My friend then saw my actions and the fact that I was lending money to the bsf as clear indicators that I was evil beyond saving and needed to be killed so he had his new assassin thrall kill me in my sleep ...

I still see his character as much more evil and mine was killed due to writing "evil" on my sheet.