Evil vs. Being a ****

[ABEW19043]

So, I've been the DM for a while in a campaign with my friends, and we usually get along all pretty well, except for one thing.

We have a chaotic neutral rogue and a paladin in our party. As players, they are about as opposite as you can get, and the paladin always complains about the things I let the rogue get away with for the terms of breaking laws or just being mean. You see, the rogue has a tendency to steal from the party (Which we do by him rolling where I can see while others aren't looking and me rolling the other character's opposing checks), steal things from anywhere he can get them (Including a temple to Heironeous once), and just overall being a **** to the Pally and somewhat to the party.

The paladin has always argued I should make the rogue have an alignment shift, but I don't see these acts as evil. They are simply things he does out of greed, not out of malicious intent.

This wouldn't be a problem, except for the fact that the reason the pally is like that is his father, who is a D&D vet (Been playing since Red Box first came out) has made him think this way. Said father is going to be our DM for a campaign we're starting very soon, where I and the rogue plan to most likely both be chaotic neutral.

So, two questions:

1. Is there a fine line between being a **** or having a lust for money and evil?

And 2. How do I explain or justify it to our resident Paladins (His dad played a Pally whenever available)?

[Flickerdart]

Evil is (among other things) selfish acts that benefit the person at severe cost to others, without their consent. Someone who is greedy but not evil might frequent casinos, hoping to win big, or take on dangerous and shady jobs that promise a big pay-out. Stealing from your comrades in arms isn't just evil, but downright stupid, because they have no reason not to eject the rogue from the party (and into a prison cell).

[Invader]

I wouldn't say he's acting totally out of alignment. Is the questionable behavior confined to just theft? If it is I wouldn't worry about it to much even at just theft it would be safe to say its bordering on neutral evil.

[Acanous]

Is the New DM taking over the current plot? If yes, discuss this with him beforehand, that the gods of your setting draw a line between "Selfish" and "Evil", where "Evil" means "Malicious intent". If not, play your characters like you want to. If he alignment changes you from N to E, roll with it. Don't argue, that's how his setting works. You'll save a lot of time and aggrivation.

[Kane0]

The word 'antihero' comes to mind. The rogue is stealing out of self-interest or perhaps his own reasons, not the intent to cause harm.

That said, stealing from the party is not a wise thing to do.

[ABEW19043]

The only problem isn't theft. I'm having troubles thinking of some examples, but he does things that would piss other people off, while not necessarily being evil.

I can think of a single example:
Once, in another campaign, he weakened the leather straps on the fighters armor so when he put it on, it fell off. It was for a joke, and I didn't consider that evil. However, if were to have done it and then not help the fighter when he was in battle, I would have considered it evil, as he is causing the fighter's death.

[RFLS]

Is the New DM taking over the current plot? If yes, discuss this with him beforehand, that the gods of your setting draw a line between "Selfish" and "Evil", where "Evil" means "Malicious intent". If not, play your characters like you want to. If he alignment changes you from N to E, roll with it. Don't argue, that's how his setting works. You'll save a lot of time and aggrivation.

Seconding this. Arguing with the DM is not a good move, generally speaking.

[mcv]

In a setting like D&D that has far more serious evils, I'd consider mere theft Chaotic Neutral. Stealing from party members is closer to Chaotic Stupid, though. If he's ever discovered, he will lose the most valuable thing he has: his allies.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Why, if he's being such a D-bag, do the other members of the party put up with him?

I understand why the players put up with the rogue's player; they're all friends (presumably) and there to have a good time; but it makes no sense for people to put themselves in life-and-death situations with someone they cannot trust.

I'd've called out the player, OOC mind, for douchy behavior by now.

"It's how my character would act" is not a valid reason for this sort of behavior. It's just an excuse, and a flimsy one at that. You choose your characters' actions. He cannot choose them for himself, because he doesn't frakking exist. Choose less douchy actions, or he will have an unfortunate accident.

The above paragraph is what I'd say to your player, word for word, if I was in your place.

On the original question though, the line between d-bag and evil d-bag is whether or not you're knowingly and willfully causing harm to others with your thefts.

[DrDeth]

Why, if he's being such a D-bag, do the other members of the party put up with him?

I understand why the players put up with the rogue's player; they're all friends (presumably) and there to have a good time; but it makes no sense for people to put themselves in life-and-death situations with someone they cannot trust.

I'd've called out the player, OOC mind, for douchy behavior by now.

"It's how my character would act" is not a valid reason for this sort of behavior. It's just an excuse, and a flimsy one at that. You choose your characters' actions. He cannot choose them for himself, because he doesn't frakking exist. Choose less douchy actions, or he will have an unfortunate accident.

The above paragraph is what I'd say to your player, word for word, if I was in your place.

On the original question though, the line between d-bag and evil d-bag is whether or not you're knowingly and willfully causing harm to others with your thefts.

Right, it’s the player being a “richard’ not the PC. Stealing from the party is pretty bad. D&D is a cooperative game.

Just tell the player to “stop it”.

[ABEW19043]

Is the New DM taking over the current plot? If yes, discuss this with him beforehand, that the gods of your setting draw a line between "Selfish" and "Evil", where "Evil" means "Malicious intent". If not, play your characters like you want to. If he alignment changes you from N to E, roll with it. Don't argue, that's how his setting works. You'll save a lot of time and aggrivation.

It's his own campaign, but I'm just trying to help my friend out. I don't have a problem with the shifts, but I want to get the two (Evil and dickhattery) sorted out.


Why, if he's being such a D-bag, do the other members of the party put up with him?

I understand why the players put up with the rogue's player; they're all friends (presumably) and there to have a good time; but it makes no sense for people to put themselves in life-and-death situations with someone they cannot trust.

I'd've called out the player, OOC mind, for douchy behavior by now.

"It's how my character would act" is not a valid reason for this sort of behavior. It's just an excuse, and a flimsy one at that. You choose your characters' actions. He cannot choose them for himself, because he doesn't frakking exist. Choose less douchy actions, or he will have an unfortunate accident.

The above paragraph is what I'd say to your player, word for word, if I was in your place.

On the original question though, the line between d-bag and evil d-bag is whether or not you're knowingly and willfully causing harm to others with your thefts.

I have no problem with the player doing as much, and it's not something he does every day. The party has taken action back against him and all, and I tend to let my characters do as they please in the terms of role playing.

[navar100]

So, I've been the DM for a while in a campaign with my friends, and we usually get along all pretty well, except for one thing.

We have a chaotic neutral rogue and a paladin in our party. As players, they are about as opposite as you can get, and the paladin always complains about the things I let the rogue get away with for the terms of breaking laws or just being mean. You see, the rogue has a tendency to steal from the party (Which we do by him rolling where I can see while others aren't looking and me rolling the other character's opposing checks), steal things from anywhere he can get them (Including a temple to Heironeous once), and just overall being a **** to the Pally and somewhat to the party.



That, right there! The rogue player is being the typical d*****bag a**hole I-can-do-anything-because-I'm-chaotic-neutral. Playing a rogue does not give you license to steal everything not nailed down and take out the nails of things that are. Tell the a**wipe to knock it off or don't come back. His fun does not take priority over anyone else's. He controls his character. The character does not control him. The player is choosing to be a f***tard. If he is incapable of changing his behavior, allowing for retiring his rogue and play a new character without requiring him to be a saint, then kick his tuchus out the door, and I wouldn't say no to doing that literally.

The DM needs a smack upside the head as well for enabling such behavior.

I've long since lost any patience with such players. They get no respect from me.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

In the wise words of one poster here:


Remember, Evil isn't "selfish". It's Evil. "Look out for number one" is a Neutral attitude. Evil looks out for number one while crushing number two.

Taking a larger share of treasure, playing harmless but unappreciated pranks, and stuff like that which benefits you but doesn't actually harm other people is a neutral thing to do. Stealing from your friends for the lulz, playing jokes that can actively get people killed, and stuff like that which benefits you and harms others is definitely an evil thing to do.

Now, performing lots of minor evil actions doesn't necessarily make you an evil character. A fine, honorable, upstanding person with a kleptomania problem won't drop from LG to CE for stealing a few purses. Someone who commits these acts knowingly, repeatedly, and unrepentantly, however, should expect to see an alignment shift.

[Firechanter]

Every single word that Kelb Panthera said. And several other users, but Kelb put it pretty much like I also would have said it.

Whether officially D&D-sanctioned "evil" or not, that Pally or in fact anyone else would have my blessing to knock that Rogue into the middle of next week... in parts.

[Medic!]

I've always had a huge problem with players using their PC's alignment as a justification to be awful people.

Our games at home have had some very very similar circumstances, particularly with a player ganking an entire level's worth of wealth from the party and hiding it from them.

I love playing an evil character because it feels a little more realistic to me, but there's always a way for an evil PC and a good party to get along just fine. Arguements and conflicts can show the evil distinction without shafting the party or wrecking the plot/game.

In the case of a greedy PC, I usually play them as covetting their share of the loot, refusing to spend money helping someone else, offering to loan it to another PC with some interest if needed, going the extra mile to loot things (prying sconces off the walls, etc). Not stealing from the party.

The way I explained it to our resident klepto was like this: Taking money from the party puts them at a disadvantage on their WBL, making future encounters unnecessarily more difficult if not nearly impossible to overcome. It weakens the entire party, meaning it puts your PC in danger, no matter how he spends that money. Completely ignoring the OOC side of life, where it's totally a **** move, IC it's only going to hurt you in the long run.

His reply was that his PC followed his own god, Greedocious, and the next session his PC snuck off in the middle of the night to join the bad guys as an NPC, taking all the wealth he stole from the party with him. As he spent literally 45 seconds explaining this to everyone, he smiled and whipped out a new character sheet, already completed, (and this really galled me) at the new level of the party, who'd just gained a level, with the full WBL for the new level.

Needless to say, he doesn't play with us anymore.

I've had a lot of experience playing an evil character amongst good-guys, and I've never had a problem with stepping on [Good] toes, there's always a way around it, and any action in the world can be justified from every single spectrum of the alignment. As I and many others have said many times (even in this thread), "It's what my character would do" is never an excuse. Unless it's the specific purpose of the game in question, players playing [Evil] as "I kill/rape/defecate on/steal from/insult everything with a pulse and many things without" always strikes me as...sad.

[Kelb_Panthera]

It's his own campaign, but I'm just trying to help my friend out. I don't have a problem with the shifts, but I want to get the two (Evil and dickhattery) sorted out.



I have no problem with the player doing as much, and it's not something he does every day. The party has taken action back against him and all, and I tend to let my characters do as they please in the terms of role playing.

I understand where you're coming from. I really do. You don't want to be "that control freak DM."

I'm pretty laid back as a DM myself. Very much an almost anything goes kinda guy in general really. But there are some things that are outright unacceptable.

Stealing gear from the party, unless you were in on one of my evil DM kicks (they always get their gear back in the long run, btw), is simply not to be tolerated.

Generally playing a wholly unlikeable character is borderline at best.

Seriously, If I was that paladin I'd've ganked him myself by now, falling be-damned. (assuming I couldn't get the other PC's to just ditch him in the woods one night.)


Ultimately though, this is an out of character problem that should be handled out of character.

[ABEW19043]

I should probably note that the Rogue doesn't steal ALL their gold.
He usually does enough so they end up being like 10 or 20 gp short of the item they wanted, and he generally lends them that with a little interest. Also, he never spends the gold he gets extra, and really does help the party.

I feel like I was only showing the bad sides of him. He does it simply and only to be a ****, just for the fun of it.

He has also on multiple occasions, bought another party member new equipment (albeit with their gold) and gave it to them on the incentive of doing something stupid or demeaning (Which especially gets funny with the Paladin)

He makes sure no one is hideously underequipped, but, like I said, steals for the fun and the jokes

[Laserlight]

1. Is there a fine line between being a **** or having a lust for money and evil?
2. How do I explain or justify it to our resident Paladins (His dad played a Pally whenever available)?

1. No, it's actually a pretty broad line. You can lust for money and evil and be absolutely charming. And you can be "good" and still be an obnoxious jerk.

2. You can't. Would you hang out with someone who stole from you and played the kind of "jokes" the rogue does? Would you go into combat or similarly risky situations with that person? Why should the rest of the party (not just the paladin) do so?

[Kelb_Panthera]

I should probably note that the Rogue doesn't steal ALL their gold.
He usually does enough so they end up being like 10 or 20 gp short of the item they wanted, and he generally lends them that with a little interest. Also, he never spends the gold he gets extra, and really does help the party.

I feel like I was only showing the bad sides of him. He does it simply and only to be a ****, just for the fun of it.

He has also on multiple occasions, bought another party member new equipment (albeit with their gold) and gave it to them on the incentive of doing something stupid or demeaning (Which especially gets funny with the Paladin)

He makes sure no one is hideously underequipped, but, like I said, steals for the fun and the jokes

Then the player is playing a very dangerous game both in and out of character.

People will only take so much of this sort of behavior. I'd wager the paladin's player has more than had his fill, judging by the fact he's trying to get the guy tagged as evil.

Is there nothing in the way the paladin phrases his argument that says, "I want to smite the crap out of this jerkwad, but he's not evil and I might fall."? I bet if you read between the lines, you'll find that very message.

The bottom line is this; if everybody's cool with it, then it's fine. If anybody's not cool with it, it's a problem that needs to be addressed. You know your players better than I do, so you'll be the one to have to make that call, but I strongly advise you to be honest with yourself and your players on this matter, and if there is a problem to deal with it firmly before it blossoms into a genuine conflict between your friends.

I've got a friend like that, my best friend in fact, but I'd put a stop to this sort of behavior from go. The inter-personal strife it causes isn't worth it just for him to get his jollies.

[ArcanaGuy]

I should probably note that the Rogue doesn't steal ALL their gold.
He usually does enough so they end up being like 10 or 20 gp short of the item they wanted, and he generally lends them that with a little interest. Also, he never spends the gold he gets extra, and really does help the party.

I feel like I was only showing the bad sides of him. He does it simply and only to be a ****, just for the fun of it.

He has also on multiple occasions, bought another party member new equipment (albeit with their gold) and gave it to them on the incentive of doing something stupid or demeaning (Which especially gets funny with the Paladin)

He makes sure no one is hideously underequipped, but, like I said, steals for the fun and the jokes

Now, while I dislike stealing from all and sundry ... it is a chaotic (read: anti-law) act, and not an evil act.

But this clarification shows that he is not stealing for the money. He is stealing specifically in order to hurt people. He finds pleasure in the suffering of others. That's evil.

[snoopy13a]

"It's how my character would act" is not a valid reason for this sort of behavior. It's just an excuse, and a flimsy one at that. You choose your characters' actions. He cannot choose them for himself, because he doesn't frakking exist. Choose less douchy actions, or he will have an unfortunate accident.



The problem with "it's how my character would act" is it imposes meta-gaming friendship limitations on the other players. If a character is caught stealing from his party-mates, then, from a role-playing perspective, the other characters can either punish him, expel him from the party, or leave the party themselves. The sole reason the players' characters cannot do these actions is because the other player, not the character, would have a fit. It is essentially using metagaming to have your cake and eat it too.

In this instance, the paladin cannot walk away from the party, which is what a goody-goody two-shoes paladin would probably do, because of real-life friendship.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The problem with "it's how my character would act" is it imposes meta-gaming friendship limitations on the other players. If a character is caught stealing from his party-mates, then, from a role-playing perspective, the other characters can either punish him, expel him from the party, or leave the party themselves. The sole reason the players' characters cannot do these actions is because the other player, not the character, would have a fit. It is essentially using metagaming to have your cake and eat it too.

In this instance, the paladin cannot walk away from the party, which is what a goody-goody two-shoes paladin would probably do, because of real-life friendship.

I very much get that. The paragraph you quoted was me speaking as a DM, not as a player. Unfortunate accident, in this case, means "rocks fall....." or "of the damndest luck, a rogue meteroid the size of a golf-ball impacts the very spot your character is standing. No ref save because you're flat-footed and you take 1345d6 damage. Everyone else is blown clear with only minor scuffs and bruises."

Edit: now that I read it, I suppose the latter option there is still effectively rock falls. :smalltongue:

[Kane0]

My personal favourite is still tossed up between a 'random' encounter purely and solely going for one target (bounty hunter, assassin, etc) and the good old lightning strike.

Edit: Or possibly convincing ythe rest of the party to betray him. Eg. "I found a trap? I step back and let [party member] go right over the pressure plate."

[elonin]

I'm against dm's taking a stance in a meta way in their game. Then again if there are npc's that are affected then it's realistic to have them take precautions and then take action when necessary.

I also don't think that the other pc's would be wrong to take precautions when stuff goes missing.

[Telonius]

Your problem player is expecting the other players to put up with his character's shenanigans because "that's how my character would act."

The thing is, laying down the law regardless of personal friendship is absolutely how a Paladin would act. I wouldn't bet a dime that the player would be okay with his character getting thrown in jail, if it came to that.

[ABEW19043]

Your problem player is expecting the other players to put up with his character's shenanigans because "that's how my character would act."

The thing is, laying down the law regardless of personal friendship is absolutely how a Paladin would act. I wouldn't bet a dime that the player would be okay with his character getting thrown in jail, if it came to that.

Just for the record, he has and would. He's perfectly fine with the consequences of his actions.

[animewatcha]

Any chance you could get the problem rogue to throw a spin on what he does? Basically, he steals from party members, but returns it later. Inbetween however, he basically asks 'what do you/we do if x thing happened/was taken'? Basically, to think like a wizard. If I am getting alignments right, neutral may sometimes 'just talk' ahead of time and sometimes 'just do it'. Lawful being the 'just talk' route and chaotic being 'just do it' route.

[Felyndiira]

Coming from this problem in a very different angle (free-form roleplays), it is very much possible for one character to not be cooperative with the rest of the party and for the entire table to still have an enjoyable roleplaying experience. It really depends on what the players at your table is looking for: inter-party conflicts can lead to a bad gaming experience if your players just wants to roll some dice and kill some monsters, but character development and a richer RP experience can result from such in-context acts if all of your players (including the rogue player himself) are willing to do so.

Take the paladin, for instance: does he ever catch the rogue in his actions? If he does, and knows/infers that this has been happening repeatedly behind his back, this could lead to an in-context philosophical argument between the rogue player and the paladin. Even if the paladin doesn't notice normally, if both players would be okay with it, you can give him or other members a Spot = YES check once or twice to make sure this comes to the attention of someone else so that the roleplaying can initiate.

From what you described, the rogue player is okay with going to prison for what he's doing. This shows that he's not just a selfish player and is more than willing to play out the consequences of his actions. If this is the case, and if the party is willing to go along with it, I don't see any problems with resolving this entire situation in-game.


As for the evil discussion, one thing to remember is that Robin Hood is generally considered to be chaotic good despite stealing from the rich and giving it to the poor. In the rogue's case, consider the following:


Is he willing to, in full conscious and with full awareness, steal the last stocks of food from a starving peasant? THIS is an evil act, as it shows callous disregard for another human being.
How much does he steal from the party. Does he take so much that the others have trouble buying necessary equipment? If so, does he acknowledge this when confronted, and doesn't care about his actions? This is a bit more questionable, but can very easily be construed as evil.
Does he steal like a few GP here and there to buy drinks? If this is the case, consider robin hood as an example; the rogue may have decreased the quality of life for his party members by a bit for selfish purposes, although even Robin Hood takes a share of his spoils. It's not an act that callously disregards life.
Does the rogue understand the consequences of his actions?


Now, D&D is a bit more silly about evil (for example, casting death watch or protection against good is apparently an evil act despite harming no one), so I could easily see minor stealing being construed as an evil act despite it not being anywhere close to a callous disrespect of life. However, stealing a few GP from an otherwise wealthy party or stealing stuff from a likely very wealthy temple (good god or not) is NOT showing a callous disregard for human life; it's selfish, but not destructive, so ultimately does not concretely fall within the realm of an evil act.

A GM is free to interpret stealing as evil, though; I would make sure the players know about the new DM's disposition towards this so that there aren't any GM-player hostilities, although as long as you're the DM, the evilness of simple stealing is not set-in-stone at all.

[Medic!]

Stealing could fall just about anywhere on the alignment checker-board, depending on circumstances and motivation.

Guy walks into a man's shack, opens his top dresser drawer, takes out a pouch with some gold in it, walks out the door.

He was:

Lawfully collecting back-taxes

Chaotically...well....walking into a mans house, going through his undies drawer, and taking his money

Evilly depriving a poor man of his bread money for the month

Good..ily? taking the man's salary to go buy food for him before the recovering alcholic squanders it all on hookers and blow. Again.

Neutral....meh

[Eugenides]

So: The rogue isn't being evil, no. Many people seem not to like this character out-of hand. I can say, this type of role-play works great in the right group(see: me and my group. I rob them blind in character, but the DM and I don't hide it from them, and then they stick it to me in character and we all have a great laugh.)

However. Keep in mind that the Rogue has a GREAT excuse in-character to rob the group blind. he's a selfish character. Play him that way. Keep in mind, however, that his group is made up of seasoned veteran adventurers. These kind of people have learned that their life is on the line ALL THE TIME. As a DM you should keep in mind, the Rogue may not be Evil, but that doesn't mean that a seasoned neutral character isn't going to expel him from the party or flat-out coup-de-grace his ass the first night he's sleeping after they catch him. He's a liability, not a help.

If the rogue can reasonably role-play being an ass to the party, the party can reasonably role-play that there is no way they as characters would be caught dead with said rogue.

[Pilo]

If the character behaviour is the problem, cursed items are for you:
This (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#helmofOppositeAlignment) could be change in a nice crown instead of a regular helmet.

This (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#stoneofWeightLoadstone) could be change in a nice not so expensive gem.

This (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#medallionofThoughtProjection) would be fun too.

Stealing from friends should be a bad thing. Furthermore, even if they don't see him steal them, they may find out something they used to own is missing. If it happens while someone out of the group can't do it, then they can confront eachs other and find out.

This may help: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=248164

I think stealing from party member could be considered as betrayal.

[Wise Green Bean]

Getting his chaotic dumb ass caught will likely put a damper on his urges to steal from the party. So long as the party is a forgiving bunch or there are extenuating circumstances or he'll repay them or something like that.

[CthulhuEatYou]

Stealing, evil or not, is in most civilized parts of DnD wrong, and even more so for the paladin. Can't see why a Lawful good paladin wouldn't just shackle him and throw him in jail if he keeps stealing from his own party. He is Lawful after all.

[Rejakor]

Stealing stuff, or playing practical jokes, is not necessarily Evil, it depends on why it is being done, how it is being done etc.

However, it is certainly Chaotic.

Paladins are both Lawful AND Good.




That said, this player and his dad sound like they both subscribe to the Lawful Stupid view of the alignment system. They probably think Fireball is a super powerful spell, and that faerun is a great example of realistic geopolitical world design.

I'd be barracking to not have either of them run a game, especially not one I was going to play a neutral character in.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Just for the record, he has and would. He's perfectly fine with the consequences of his actions.

Even when the last straw breaks in the paladin's mind and he finds himself at the wrong end of a holy avenger?

[only1doug]

I was playing in a WFRP game (low magic, gritty, low wealth) with a kill hungry GM once, we'd been playing for 4 months or so and a couple of new players wanted to join, the GM introduced them by having one of the party knocked into the river and washed downstream only to be save by the two new PCs. New PC 1 pulls him out but charges him 30gold (most of his money) and makes him swear a vow of alleigance to her husband (New PC 2).

When the rest of the party arrive the New PCs introduce themselves and New PC 1 gives a big speech including "I hate thieves, if I ever find a thief I'll kill them, with no further warning". We all agreed that this was fair and reasonable.

The game proceeded and we eventually stopped for the night, sleeping on the deck of a river barge.

I spoke to the GM privately and he grinned. The next session started the next morning with New PC b noticing that New PC A was missing and the PC who had been washed down river noticing that his purse was 30gold heavier.

I was playing a Thief, I hadn't appreciated the death threat or the theft from my ally (demanding money with menaces is theft in my book), so I asked the GM if I could Cut New PC A's throat during the night and ease the body into the river.

TL;DR steal from the party and act like a donkey and your life expectancy will be drastically reduced.

[Acathala]

Another thing to remember if Pally gets his wish and makes the rogue evil, the Pally can't actually adventure with the rogue. He loses his class abilities if he willingly associates with evil characters.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Another thing to remember if Pally gets his wish and makes the rogue evil, the Pally can't actually adventure with the rogue. He loses his class abilities if he willingly associates with evil characters.

Take a closer look at your PHB. The associates section of the paladin's class description is seperate from the CoC section. A paladin should dissaprove of evil characters that aren't trying to mend their ways, but he doesn't lose anything for associating with them unless he can be held responsible for their evil actions; something that's very difficult to do by RAW. Paladins falling for having evil associates is either an error or a DM being a D-bag.

[ABEW19043]

There's also something I've completely forgotten to mention again- This does NOT cause major issues with the group. The Pally, while annoyed out of character and mad in character, doesn't get mad or fight with the rogue, and the rest of the party finds it fairly funny. Neither causes issues to the group and we still have a lot of fun playing.


Coming from this problem in a very different angle (free-form roleplays), it is very much possible for one character to not be cooperative with the rest of the party and for the entire table to still have an enjoyable roleplaying experience. It really depends on what the players at your table is looking for: inter-party conflicts can lead to a bad gaming experience if your players just wants to roll some dice and kill some monsters, but character development and a richer RP experience can result from such in-context acts if all of your players (including the rogue player himself) are willing to do so.



There have been inter-party conflicts with them in previous campaigns, but it was all fun for out of character. We enjoy a deeper RP and the current campaign is EXTREMELY story heavy.

Also, your entire post was amazing with very well thought points. +1 to you, good sir.


Even when the last straw breaks in the paladin's mind and he finds himself at the wrong end of a holy avenger?

It's happened before, trust me XD. It was quite funny, and the rogue was still okay (And cracking up) when he ended up rolling up a new character. (The pally was justified as the rogue was evil [The N wizard was masking his alignment for party unity])

[Kelb_Panthera]

There's also something I've completely forgotten to mention again- This does NOT cause major issues with the group. The Pally, while annoyed out of character and mad in character, doesn't get mad or fight with the rogue, and the rest of the party finds it fairly funny. Neither causes issues to the group and we still have a lot of fun playing.



There have been inter-party conflicts with them in previous campaigns, but it was all fun for out of character. We enjoy a deeper RP and the current campaign is EXTREMELY story heavy.

Also, your entire post was amazing with very well thought points. +1 to you, good sir.



It's happened before, trust me XD. It was quite funny, and the rogue was still okay (And cracking up) when he ended up rolling up a new character. (The pally was justified as the rogue was evil [The N wizard was masking his alignment for party unity])

Bold for emphasis.

This is what I was concerned about. If those two people (not their characters) have a long-standing relationship, in which they regularly annoy one another, then I suppose it's okay. If, however, the rogue is only annoying the paladin like this at game time, it has the potential to blossom into genuine resentment and put a nasty strain on the relationship.

Again you know them better than I do, but it looks to me like this may well require taking action at some point, if not immediately.

Everybody's there to have fun. We all get more than enough annoyance from our lives in the mandatory settings (work/school/public places/etc.) that it can be downright infuriating to get more annoyance in the optional settings too.

[ABEW19043]

Bold for emphasis.

This is what I was concerned about. If those two people (not their characters) have a long-standing relationship, in which they regularly annoy one another, then I suppose it's okay. If, however, the rogue is only annoying the paladin like this at game time, it has the potential to blossom into genuine resentment and put a nasty strain on the relationship.

Again you know them better than I do, but it looks to me like this may well require taking action at some point, if not immediately.

Everybody's there to have fun. We all get more than enough annoyance from our lives in the mandatory settings (work/school/public places/etc.) that it can be downright infuriating to get more annoyance in the optional settings too.


It's the former. The rogue is like that in and out of D&D (Though not actually stealing out money XD)

He's well liked by all of us, and the pally was laughing while taking him out, not doing it because he was pissed

[Kelb_Panthera]

Ah. In that case, carry on.

Like we've all been saying, about that original question, the line between jerkwad and evil jerkwad is whether the jerkwad in question is knowingly and willfully causing harm with his thefts.

To count as knowingly and willfully, by RAW, it needs to be something pretty obvious and immediate. Stealing an anti-undead magical doohicky from a wealthy lord, a few weeks before a major undead incursion that you knew nothing about isn't evil. It becomes evil if you knew about the upcoming zombie-fest, or if you stole it during the zombie-fest for any reason other than to put an end to the undead that are eating the town.

[Lord Vukodlak]

In my experience chaotic neutral PC's are bigger **** to the party then a lone evil character.

[Greyfeld85]

I've always had a huge problem with players using their PC's alignment as a justification to be awful people.

Our games at home have had some very very similar circumstances, particularly with a player ganking an entire level's worth of wealth from the party and hiding it from them.

I love playing an evil character because it feels a little more realistic to me, but there's always a way for an evil PC and a good party to get along just fine. Arguements and conflicts can show the evil distinction without shafting the party or wrecking the plot/game.

In the case of a greedy PC, I usually play them as covetting their share of the loot, refusing to spend money helping someone else, offering to loan it to another PC with some interest if needed, going the extra mile to loot things (prying sconces off the walls, etc). Not stealing from the party.

The way I explained it to our resident klepto was like this: Taking money from the party puts them at a disadvantage on their WBL, making future encounters unnecessarily more difficult if not nearly impossible to overcome. It weakens the entire party, meaning it puts your PC in danger, no matter how he spends that money. Completely ignoring the OOC side of life, where it's totally a **** move, IC it's only going to hurt you in the long run.

His reply was that his PC followed his own god, Greedocious, and the next session his PC snuck off in the middle of the night to join the bad guys as an NPC, taking all the wealth he stole from the party with him. As he spent literally 45 seconds explaining this to everyone, he smiled and whipped out a new character sheet, already completed, (and this really galled me) at the new level of the party, who'd just gained a level, with the full WBL for the new level.

Needless to say, he doesn't play with us anymore.

I've had a lot of experience playing an evil character amongst good-guys, and I've never had a problem with stepping on [Good] toes, there's always a way around it, and any action in the world can be justified from every single spectrum of the alignment. As I and many others have said many times (even in this thread), "It's what my character would do" is never an excuse. Unless it's the specific purpose of the game in question, players playing [Evil] as "I kill/rape/defecate on/steal from/insult everything with a pulse and many things without" always strikes me as...sad.

Playing as an evil character in a neutral/good party was a challenge for me, but a challenge that I eventually got frustrated with, and caused me to create a new character.

My evil character in question was a ranger from a tribe who worshiped Lolth. He was your typical, "protect the forest" type of ranger, but he took it to an extreme. Every person caught "defiling" the forest was to be immediately killed. Withholding important information from the tribe (or in this case, the party) resulted in death (and actually did result in my character killing one PC, and bringing a second PC into the negatives). And not only did he do these things willingly, he actively enjoyed them.

Unfortunately, I got tired of every bit of downtime being filled with in-character bickering about beliefs and the sanctity of life, and everything. It kinda became a drag after a while, and I had the DM take over my ranger, so I could make a new character.

[Gnaeus]

Coming from this problem in a very different angle (free-form roleplays), it is very much possible for one character to not be cooperative with the rest of the party and for the entire table to still have an enjoyable roleplaying experience. It really depends on what the players at your table is looking for: inter-party conflicts can lead to a bad gaming experience if your players just wants to roll some dice and kill some monsters, but character development and a richer RP experience can result from such in-context acts if all of your players (including the rogue player himself) are willing to do so.


Very much this. I played in a D&D group where all the players were friends from a vampire larp. It was widely accepted that the game was cooperative only within a loose framework, but that if there were legitimate IC reasons for characters to plot against others, it was accepted as part of the game. Theft from, or even murder of a party member was regarded as a much lesser offence than to abstain from this activity for OOC reasons, (which would be regarded as metagaming, maybe even cheating). In a different game this same attitude would be highly disruptive. It is all about the expectations of players and what they find fun.

[Acanous]

It seems now that you're attempting to justify your friend's possibly evil IC behavior.

We don't mind. Really. Evil is an alignment. You're not being judged as a bad person for playing an evil character.
But if your DM says "Your character has been acting evil, his alignment has shifted", roll with it.

Take a step back, tell yourself "It's just a game, they're not actually making judgements about my playstyle or my person, simply my character".

If you take it this personally, I suggest you ask your new DM to roll a character for you, and play it as close to written personality as you can. This will help keep the character seperated from you, and allow you more creativity and freedom. (I know it sounds like less, but really it breaks you out of a rut.)

If your new DM is really old-school as implied, this may be for the best, as old school DMs tended to kill PCs frequently.

[Squirrel_Dude]

So, I've been the DM for a while in a campaign with my friends, and we usually get along all pretty well, except for one thing.

We have a chaotic neutral rogue and a paladin in our party. As players, they are about as opposite as you can get, and the paladin always complains about the things I let the rogue get away with for the terms of breaking laws or just being mean. You see, the rogue has a tendency to steal from the party (Which we do by him rolling where I can see while others aren't looking and me rolling the other character's opposing checks), steal things from anywhere he can get them (Including a temple to Heironeous once), and just overall being a **** to the Pally and somewhat to the party.

The paladin has always argued I should make the rogue have an alignment shift, but I don't see these acts as evil. They are simply things he does out of greed, not out of malicious intent.

This wouldn't be a problem, except for the fact that the reason the pally is like that is his father, who is a D&D vet (Been playing since Red Box first came out) has made him think this way. Said father is going to be our DM for a campaign we're starting very soon, where I and the rogue plan to most likely both be chaotic neutral.

So, two questions:

1. Is there a fine line between being a **** or having a lust for money and evil?

And 2. How do I explain or justify it to our resident Paladins (His dad played a Pally whenever available)?At the moment I'd say that the character might be more neutral evil than chaotic neutral, if he's constantly stealing from everyone. By your description, it really does seem like it's everyone he runs into, even his friends. It seems especially clear when you start stealing from good temples.

May I ask what the character does that is particularly "chaotic," other than breaking laws? Does he do any other anti-party actions? Does he do any other anti-lawful/good actions? How much does he steal from the party?

May I also say that if you're going to let the Rogue constantly try and steal, you shouldn't stop a party from trying to hang him if he is caught multiple times.

[White_Drake]

My first character was a thief. After stealing a party member's purse (and all 30 sp therein) he was knocked into the negatives and then coupe de graced; fortunately, the party saw level-loss and reincarnation on the 2e tables to be sufficient punishment. I came back as an ogre. Now when I want to steal things, I play in a two-man, all thief party, and great fun is had by all. The moral of the story is, that ogres make very poor thieves.

[Gnaeus]

May I also say that if you're going to let the Rogue constantly try and steal, you shouldn't stop a party from trying to hang him if he is caught multiple times.

Multiple times? Evil PCs will off a rogue who steals from them once. A lawful PC may press charges. Even a less harsh PC is likely to want to kick the offending rogue out of the group. Barring campaign fiat, why would anyone adventure with someone who they think will steal from them.

[HunterColt22]

It seems now that you're attempting to justify your friend's possibly evil IC behavior.

We don't mind. Really. Evil is an alignment. You're not being judged as a bad person for playing an evil character.
But if your DM says "Your character has been acting evil, his alignment has shifted", roll with it.

Take a step back, tell yourself "It's just a game, they're not actually making judgements about my playstyle or my person, simply my character".

If you take it this personally, I suggest you ask your new DM to roll a character for you, and play it as close to written personality as you can. This will help keep the character seperated from you, and allow you more creativity and freedom. (I know it sounds like less, but really it breaks you out of a rut.)

If your new DM is really old-school as implied, this may be for the best, as old school DMs tended to kill PCs frequently.

Agreed, you seem to be justifying the players actions after describing them, which either one leads us to think you are either absent minded, which is understandable and a flaw everyone shares at least once in their lives.:smallredface: On the other hand though, it also leads us to believe that you are trying to give excuses for a person who knows what they are doing, but doesn't really understand the ramifications he is having even if his friend the pally is still laughing, but doing it in an annoyed fashion.

I would sit both of them down with you together, and then individually, to see if everything really is all right, because honestly, chaotic neutral is the same as lawful good at times with players. Some people play them lawful/neutral stupid. :smallannoyed: Which is never, never, ever a good thing.

[Origomar]

I would say don't make him evil because i see it going something like thos.

"okay change your alignment to evil"

Paladin: i use detect evil.

Paladin: i use smite evil.

At the very least thats what i would do if someone was being a jerk.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Multiple times? Evil PCs will off a rogue who steals from them once. A lawful PC may press charges. Even a less harsh PC is likely to want to kick the offending rogue out of the group. Barring campaign fiat, why would anyone adventure with someone who they think will steal from them.I've found that OOC interaction normally means people will be forgiving. Obviously an NPC isn't. Parties also have to take into account that at least to some degree they will need the rogue's skills, so maybe they are willing to let the first time slide, and punish him if he continues to do so.


OT: Let me add that I'm not sure his alignment is the problem here. If other players have a problem with his actions, then they do need to stop, or be dealt with in-game. Hell, it could even me a small story hook:

The Rogue is arrested for something he did not commit because he has the reputation of a thief, or there is some crooked cop. He's going to be executed in 14 days (some time for the party to plan), so the party has to break him out. Even the Paladin will be obligated to save him from being unjustly punished. , and the rogue would be shown that stealing isn't always the answer.

[Gnaeus]

I've found that OOC interaction normally means people will be forgiving. Obviously an NPC isn't. Parties also have to take into account that at least to some degree they will need the rogue's skills, so maybe they are willing to let the first time slide, and punish him if he continues to do so.


I haven't. If you are in a party where the teamwork dynamic is in play and people metagame to support the team, then the Rogue's actions are way out of line to begin with, and should probably result in a stern OOC lecture by DM and other players. If you are in a IC driven play environment, no one is going to want to adventure with (i.e., put their lives and treasure in the hands of) someone who is known to be untrustworthy. The IC solution in this case is likely to find a new trapfinder or deal with traps in another way. If you are in a more PVP friendly environment with competitive aspects, you are way more likely to find disproportionate responses (like, he stole my wallet, so I will mutilate him and leave him staked out over an anthill, or the paladin version thereof, which is to arrest the rogue and kill him when he resists arrest).

[pwykersotz]

I game with a group that often puts me in the position of this paladin. Short version, I don't like it at all when it happens. The rest of the game is fun enough where I tolerate it, but to my mind that kind of inter-party fighting really detracts from how I want to play. It's the sheer pettiness of it that gets frustrating. An analog was made to the rogue in real life, but I'll bet he doesn't steal money from friends and then loanshark them.

Now d&d being a game where elder evils, dark gods, and vile spells are in play, I probably wouldn't support the rogue being evil for what ultimately amounts to tomfoolery in the big picture. His actions are somewhat evil perhaps, but probably not enough to have a smite evil work on him.

So to your question, unless something else more major goes down, I would not change the alignment. As far as the paladin goes, be sympathetic to him. Don't coddle him, but consider that he might be hiding some frustration because he doesn't want to come off as a jerk or killjoy.

[GunnDancer]

So to your question, unless something else more major goes down, I would not change the alignment. As far as the paladin goes, be sympathetic to him. Don't coddle him, but consider that he might be hiding some frustration because he doesn't want to come off as a jerk or killjoy.

I completely agree with this assessment. But I will go one step further and say if he continues it, he may find himself slowly shifting from chaotic neutral to neutral evil... mainly in the part where he is charging people interest on the gold he "loans" them which is their own gold.

As an additional point, I have been in this paladins shoes and as much as he might be laughing about it, odds are inside he's pretty ticked off. It's very irritating when you KNOW someone is getting away with things and their excuse for doing it is "Hey, I'm just playing my character" which, btw, makes that guy sound like an A.C.M.

And please don't take this the wrong way, but it sounds like you let him get away with stuff because you find it humorous too. And that's fine if it's a once in a while thing, but having stuff like that happen regularly to characters would eventually make me just up and quit. If the paladin is anything like me, he deals with enough people who want to steal your stuff, screw you over, and all around irritate you on a daily basis. I role play to relax and have fun, not deal with irritating a******'s in a game.

But, you know your party a heck of a lot better than I do. I just know what it's like to play with PC's who think that a roleplaying game gives them carte blanche to be a huge d-bag.

[Razgriez]

*snip*

Now d&d being a game where elder evils, dark gods, and vile spells are in play, I probably wouldn't support the rogue being evil for what ultimately amounts to tomfoolery in the big picture. His actions are somewhat evil perhaps, but probably not enough to have a smite evil work on him.

*snip*

Except... seeing as certain actions, and dogmas are partly what fuels some of these deities their powers, technically, by letting someone commit an act, you're letting them give power to a god's will. Now don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating that Paladins start leading Prohibition era style raids against taverns and speak easies for people supporting a CN god of drinks and partying. But I am saying, that eventually, with repeat offenses, some anvils need to be dropped.

Now, I won't discuss about the dangers of Lawful Stupid, it's been discussed quite often. And before you can say Law and Order, I think many people here know the dangers of having Jack McCoy as your Paladin. ("I can break the law or code of ethics because their evil and I'm on the side of justice" is not the Paladin way). But discussions of Chaotic Stupid actions never ceases to amaze me, at the double standard between a Lawful Stupid character, and a Chaotic Stupid Character.

Far too often, especially with Chaotic Neutral, people try to cite the excuse "Well, it's my alignment, and I'm just acting my alignment" That is excuse number one when it comes to this issue.

Acting your alignment, does NOT make you immune to the reaction of your actions. It's not a "get out of jail free card" for doing morally questionable things. If you do such actions, a player should be ready for the consequences of their actions.

As a player, recently I had an incident in my party, where the party's sole Chaotic Neutral character, went off without warning the party what she was doing, and did something very stupid She Polymorphed self into a Black Dragon, move towards a city at top speed, trespass into the home and office of a major leader in the game's world council because she wanted to beat the rest of the party there first when all we were going to do was talk to him peacefully) This put not only her into hot water, but that of an NPC follower who she dragged along with her because the guards thought a dragon was attacking the town. A Good (Lawful or Neutral, I'm not sure) Cleric, in the party, as well as my self, an LG Fighter/Homebrewed knight style PrC with a code of conduct requirement that states I must make sure that reasonable laws are followed and to bring criminals to justice (preferably alive). We managed to argue on her behalf enough to have the sentence reduced to essentially a misdemeanor with a short bit of community service as punishment.

You'd think she'd be happy. And you would be wrong. Instead she basically decides to "play her alignment" and goes "to heck with your authority" teleports out of the court room, taking the NPC follower she already got in trouble before because of her previous actions, with her, even though the NPC got dragged into it by her. Now all of us good types hard work has been wasted, we look like fools and have to explain to the court that we didn't know she was going to do that so that we don't look like accomplices to these latest actions. End Result? Community service get's turned into her and the poor NPC victim (who's a young teenager) of her antics, into exiled from the lands we were in, with arrest on sight orders against them. (Lethal force authorized if they resist). And if arrested, they would spend at least 2 months doing hard time before being booted from the place again.

A few hours game time latter, she teleports back to the group after it leaves the city to finally go handle the quest the Council member we were trying to see in the first place, gave us. She shows up (polymorphed again into yet another creature, and polymorphed the kid as well for disguises. At this point, I finally had enough at these constant breaks of the law, and I had to tell the CN party member that she had to leave, and wait for us to get done our task in the area before she joined us again or that I would arrest her personally and hand her over to the authorities. The majority of the party agreed with me, and thus she went back into her exile to rejoin us after this quest.

And I've also had to drop an anvil, as a DM, on a particularly greedy CN Mercenary recently as well. The player, was a half orc mercenary, who was originally hired by a Good oriented Kingdom, for information on local orc tribes and habits that had been attacking caravans of innocents on the roads of the kingdom. Room and board (An unused dorm room of the kingdom's local military academy) was provided to them. However, the Half orc would constantly insult the guards, frightened a young servant of the royal family who had been sent to the dorms to provide a request of the kingdom, and food for the mercenary (All because the girl was following the instructions given to her by the king), when one of the two prince of the kingdom (a Paladin no less) confronted the Mercenary about this, the Half orc blew him off as well. Finally, a critical mission came in, asking the mercenary and the rest of the party to help search and rescue two academy students who had been captured by a local orc tribe, with a reward offered depending on how successful the mission was. The Half Orc mercenary kept demanding to be paid upfront. The kingdom refused, because the reward was A. not ready yet due to more focus being on initiating the search and rescue. B. The reward is based on the mission being completed, and it's total value being how successful it is.

After 10 minutes of trying to assure the character, and player, that they would be paid if the mission was at least completed but that right now the kingdom was focusing on trying to rescue the prisoners was a more pressing concern, the player kept on demanding that their character be paid up front.

:smallannoyed:

This here, is where as a DM, I stop being nice to the player, and go "Fine, you want to be more concerned with your greed, rather than the safety of people who need to be rescued from orc raiders, you'll get your reward up front"

Remember folks, just because your a PC, still means that certain actions cause NPCs to shift from Neutral or friendly, to Unfriendly with poor decisions. Said player was "rewarded" with having their free room and board cancelled, the mission offer to that player was cancelled (meaning reduced reward for that player) and future request of services for the kingdom are no longer needed, with those who have had to deal with the mercenary, now hold zero respect for the mercenary.


In closing, it may be a game, but still from a Role play, and fairness aspect, don't let the more abrasive and annoying actions go unpunished to much.

[pwykersotz]

Good points all, Razgriez.