Dealing with an... overly promiscuous party member

[Preaplanes]

To avoid breaking the rules about inappropriate topics (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?f=59&a=1), PLEASE avoid anything truly explicit in the topic, as this could go south very quickly if we don't.

I'm hoping for advice on reigning fellow players in when the DM won't do so.

I'm playing a NG watered-down-"Half-Celestial" Gnome Cleric of Garl (or Baravar if the DM says no to Substitue Domain-ing to Illusion), Good & Trickery.

The player in question is playing a CE Elf Sorceress.

There is also a TN Tiefling Ranger (Evil (Native) Outsider for spell purposes), a Human Paladin, and a CN Halfling Rogue.

The entire party is female save for the Paladin, and I'm the only one who rolled for my gender.

Party leader is my Cleric though the Paladin is a close second. The Cleric tends to be the voice of the party (Maxed Diplomacy, 17 cha) and the obviously-trustworthy neon sign of Angel wings and silver hair, combined with a neither-chaotic-nor-lawful voice, makes her the go-to. The Paladin is more decisive, making him seem like he knows what he's doing.

ATM I'm working with 1 class level, LA+1. The party levels together, but due to LA, I don't level 'til the rest of the party, save the Tiefling, hit total Class Level 3. The DM is very "anything goes" so long as it's in 3.5 core/supplemental or run by him (and not unreasonable) first. Hell, I prepared 3.0's Random Action once.

Now, the two new players are the Rogue and the Sorceress. They also chose the two "warning sign" Alignments, but I don't really mind so long as they don't fall into a "Stupid Aligned". The Rogue has been doing very well so far, quite chaotic (knocked out the Ranger with a sap for talking too much once) but not a distraction and actually helps the party. The problem is the sorceress.

The player was originally going for... a child. With the same character "premise". I pretty much called foul on that right there due to RAW saying the minimum age for an Elf Sorcerer is 114, though the real reason I did so was a sense of decency. Two bad signs there, but sometimes characters surprise you. A character can have motivations and personalities beyond a single trait, after all.

The PC is played like a slattern from Full Metal Jacket. The character has no depth beyond that, literally every line the character has said has been like that, and is actively disrupting the campaign. The only spell she's cast so far was Hypnosis on the Rogue so she could get her in bed...
in the middle of a forest...
just after escaping from a camp of 50+ Goblins...
who stole the supplies for an escort/resupply mission...
before the goblins had stopped chasing them...
while the rest of the party was looking for them.

Now, I'm not taking issue with anything that takes place behind tavern doors. Heck, when the Halfling got totally hammered at a tavern in our first-day RP, she wound up with a lusty Dwarf NPC and had to roll an untrained Perform, which she repeatedly failed miserably, leading to laughs all around. Only took a few minutes, one time, as opposed to the problem player's antics which are chronic and take far longer to the point where nothing gets done.

The player is new, but I don't think this is any excuse, as the Rogue is doing quite well despite his somewhat infamous alignment. Due to the "Always Good" alignment, the tolerance of Garlian clerics, chosen domains, and my homebrewed "Merciful" flaw, I can't straight-up kill the thing without good cause. I'm wondering if there's any way to use a Good Cleric to permanently change this sort of behavior, rules legal. Good=/=Nice, after all.

Or perhaps a way of getting the Paladin to kill her since the player doesn't use Detect Evil (only Smites things that are Always (any) Evil).

The lower level the solution, better, preferably where the player has little choice in the matter should the character's behavior not change due to the will of the player. The "anything goes" is fairly dominant so I'll get little help from the DM, so while the disruptive behavior is currently tolerated, that means my own chastisement is unlikely. All I've come up with so far is a Mark of Justice, but that has a 10-minute cast time and is mid-level, plus it probably won't stop it anyway.

The very first thing I said when introduced to the new player was "Hi, I have the Good Domain", said jokingly since I assume a player knows how to behave and RP until proven otherwise.The Paladin's player and I have both said that our characters won't meta-game (in fact, the Paladin's player is sorta reverse-metagaming to avoid the can't-work-with-evil thing) but if the character screws up, things could get ugly. So the player has been warned. I don't think I'm being unfair here, am I?

The sorceress, I remember, is most definitely not spell-optimized (save for Prestidigitation as a known spell... but which isn't exactly being cleverly used). I forget the stat roll, but I helped the player assign the stats myself so they're not terrible. I don't remember any other specifics save for +1 con, 5hp.

Almost any question about the Cleric and my plans for her can be answered if it'll help.

[Ravenica]

long and short of it; You can't

game mechanics aside the other players are allowed to play as they see fit, you can talk to them ooc about it if it bothers you that much but trying to limit them through in game means will not end well

[Eugenides]

My advice? Talk to the player OOC. Have you even tried this yet?

Though honestly, when you're jumping straight to killing a character you don't like the RP of, that suggests you're clashing with the group. You might be best off leaving.

[Feralventas]

The lowest level solution to any issue you have with the way the other players are taking part in the game is to talk with them, either in private if you feel it appropriate, or with the rest of the players at the table (or chat room) so that the party can discuss it as a whole.

Trying to simply Kill their PC doesn't solve the problem, and there's a good chance they'll come back with similar kinks for lack of knowing Why they were struck down; there's no association with the action, no perception of retribution.

That said, the CE Sorc with an attempt at starting as a child doesn't ring as the sort of thing you're likely to get from a player who's likely to take it well when they're asked to tone it down, though if they surprise me in that respect it's probably a good sign that they can learn and be a helpful, contributing member of the party both IC and OOC.

Try to avoid passive-aggressive tactics in dealing with fellow players unless you really think it's the only way to approach the matter. A little honesty goes a long way.

[Jeff the Green]

Yeah, this is an OOC problem, as far as I can tell. You need to talk to the player.

If it were a problem with the character (as in, your character has a problem with it but it's not distracting from the game), there are various fun things you could do. Bribe someone with interesting venereal diseases to seduce the sorceress (help them with the disguise, perhaps). Drop hints to whomever the sorceress is seducing that they're a succubus or they're gradually going insane or have interesting venereal diseases. Use your illusions to convince the sorceress they have said diseases.

[NM020110]

...alright, then.

Out of curiosity, how much of these activities are known of in character? If the hypnosis that you mentioned was known...well, that skirts rather close to rape. Close enough that a few questions should probably be asked, by the paladin if no-one else.

[Fates]

Firstly, I don't mean to pry, but is the sorceress' player male? If so, I say wreak havoc, without question- quite literally nothing is more annoying to me in D&D than male players playing horribly shallow and promiscuous women. I don't care if it's Misogyny* or just joking, it bugs the crap out of me.

Now, as to how to prevent this IC? Bestow curse is a good option- really, the Mark of Justice spell is totally pointless- bestow curse can do the same thing, but better, on its own.

My advice, as it always is with Bestow Curse, is be creative! Without going into gross detail, make...weird stuff happen whenever she tries to have sexy times- you could just kill her or her libido, but that's just uninspired! I say make a game of it, and make sure that the character doesn't know it's you.


*Okay, that's a lie. Misogyny sucks.

[Crake]

Honestly, from what I could gather it sounds to me like you want to kill off another player's character simply because you don't like the way he/she is playing. What *exactly* is making you so mad, and have you a) talked to the problem player, b) brought it up with the DM and c) voiced your concern with the other players?

[Preaplanes]

...alright, then.

Out of curiosity, how much of these activities are known of in character? If the hypnosis that you mentioned was known...well, that skirts rather close to rape. Close enough that a few questions should probably be asked, by the paladin if no-one else.

My character was a cleric that's too extraverted to be cloistered, but is nearly as sheltered. When the Halfling Rogue introduced the character to the party and described her with a colorful euphemism, my character tilted her head and said "Huh?" until the Tiefling put it bluntly, but then knew exactly what it meant.

However, it'd be metagaming to say my Cleric knows just how bad (let's just say it wasn't the Elf's idea to leave :smalleek:) it is, and so far all my character has Detect-ed on her was Chaos, since she's had no reason to prepare Detect Evil yet. The paladin was disgusted, but so far we've seen nothing blatantly Evil IC yet.

Even the Hypnosis' description says that the subject forgets being hypnotized, but not what they did while hypnotized, so not even the Rogue knows, and she's had... first-hand experience.

[Roog]

Best solution: As other people have said, talk about it OOC, and persuade the player to change.

If that does not work, then the next best solution is also an OOC one.
Persuade the rest of the group (or get then to implicitly accept) that the player's problematic actions are misogynistic/creepy/immature, and that letting the actions go on without question is condoning those actions. If the other players feel that the actions are making them a bit misogynistic/creepy/immature by association, then they will put subtle (or not so subtle) social pressure on the player to change their behavior.

[Preaplanes]

Honestly, from what I could gather it sounds to me like you want to kill off another player's character simply because you don't like the way he/she is playing. What *exactly* is making you so mad, and have you a) talked to the problem player, b) brought it up with the DM and c) voiced your concern with the other players?If I let you know exactly what's crossed the line, I'd get banned from the forums. :smallfrown:

I have tried talking about it, but the DM's primary rule is that the players pretty much have free reign, so I have to go by the book and be the Roy to the player's Belkar if the player really wants to play a character that depraved. The other players are on my side (save for the tiefling's player, he thinks it's hilarious) and I've got a "Chaotic Neutral DM", but we're trying to play by the rules.

And I don't want to kill off the character, I'm looking for in-game ways a Good Aligned character can keep a character like this in line. I don't exactly have access to a Greater Mark of Justice... yet :smalltongue:.

[Crake]

The paladin was disgusted, but so far we've seen nothing blatantly Evil IC yet.

If your paladin isn't detecting evil on everyone he formally meets, he's doing it wrong. As a spell like ability, there's no outward indication that he's casting except for maybe a stern look, so he really should have it almost always on. Especially considering that he should technically have lost his paladin powers for adventuring with an evil party member. Has your paladin read his code of conduct at all?

[Preaplanes]

If your paladin isn't detecting evil on everyone he formally meets, he's doing it wrong. As a spell like ability, there's no outward indication that he's casting except for maybe a stern look, so he really should have it almost always on. Especially considering that he should technically have lost his paladin powers for adventuring with an evil party member. Has your paladin read his code of conduct at all?

Yeah, he has, and I'm facepalming about it the whole time.

[Juntao112]

Do not hinder the sorceress. Help her. Get behind her plans 100%...

... because that's the best way to stab them in the back.

What? You are a gnome, aren't you?

[Preaplanes]

Do not hinder the sorceress. Help her. Get behind her plans 100%...

... because that's the best way to stab them in the back.

What? You are a gnome, aren't you?

I have been prestidigitation-ing all her food to taste like soap if that helps.

Unfortunately I'm on the upper third of the Alignment chart so I can't just stab a person because I find her questionable... what, too literal?

[Sith_Happens]

If I let you know exactly what's crossed the line, I'd get banned from the forums. :smallfrown:

Do you and/or the paladin know about that bit in-character? If so then you're free to react however you think would be appropriate. Otherwise, just bide your time. The elf'll get caught eventually, at which point it's either smiting time or stern-talking-to time depending on the severity of the offense.


If your paladin isn't detecting evil on everyone he formally meets, he's doing it wrong. As a spell like ability, there's no outward indication that he's casting except for maybe a stern look, so he really should have it almost always on. Especially considering that he should technically have lost his paladin powers for adventuring with an evil party member. Has your paladin read his code of conduct at all?

The "Associates" section is separate from the code of conduct, so there's actually no mechanical penalty for breaking it.

[Feralventas]

I have been prestidigitation-ing all her food to taste like soap if that helps.

Unfortunately I'm on the upper third of the Alignment chart so I can't just stab a person because I find her questionable... what, too literal?

Zone of Truth to confirm suspicion, leave it to the Paladin to smite?

Call the player out on it specifically and ask them to stop?

Ask your DM to actually arbitrate rather than causing harm and discontent to the rest of the party for the sake of one player?

Take craft wand, spam the same enchantments from the Cleric list to Force the sorc in line with your character's alignments and such instead? (Vow of Non-Violence to raise the DC by 4 when you cast it)

Look into the BoEF and start punishing the character for their actions with the action itself?

Simply leave the group and make sure they know Why you're doing so, see if they care enough to step in before you leave?

[Juntao112]

I have been prestidigitation-ing all her food to taste like soap if that helps.

Unfortunately I'm on the upper third of the Alignment chart so I can't just stab a person because I find her questionable... what, too literal?

The pronoun "them" refers to the plans, not the person.

[Another_Poet]

I have tried talking about it, but the DM's primary rule is that the players pretty much have free reign

That only means the DM won't intervene; it doesn't mean the other players have to choose to make you uncomfortable.

Many people have suggested you talk about it OOC, but it sounds like you've only talked to the GM. Talk to the player, before the game, and say "Look, here's the thing. Your character is doing a great job of being horny and Chaotic Evil, but it's making me really uncomfortable at the table. I don't want my cleric to be in conflict with you and I don't want to feel creeped out. Is there a way can work together to tone it down?"

If that doesn't work - if the player does not care about a fellow player's feelings - then this is probably not a good game to be in.


Unfortunately I'm on the upper third of the Alignment chart so I can't just stab a person because I find her questionable... what, too literal?

You can stab a person because you find them evil, and you have every reason to be suspicious IC and start to snoop - perhaps in the devious manner that Juntao suggested.

[meto30]

As a DM who may have a DMing style simililar to your DM's, while I agree that a character is entitled to everything he/she is capable of, I think that also means he/she is liable to all consequences whether he/she likes it or not. If something is amiss, I'd totally support pursuing all in-character means of investigation, interrogation, interdiction, and intervention. While it might be in character for the sorceress to act like that, it is also fully in character for the paladin and you to react sternly.

That said, I'm more used to the far stricter and punishing moral codes of the FR deities, so all I can suggest for actual means of dealing with the sorc usually involves some form of capital punishment...

[Hendel]

I guess I am a little slow, but I do not understand what your problem is.

A. Are you uncomfortable with this as a player and want it to stop?

B. Do you not like where this is taking the game when you would rather be focused on adventuring and gaining xp and loot?

C. Are you fine with it as a player but you think your character is not so you want an in game way to deal with this?

D. Are you fine with this in and out of the game but your character just wants everyone to focus on killing orcs and looting gold and such?

If it is A or B, then you need to call a time out and talk with the DM and the players and tell them enough is enough and that it is time to cut this crap out and get back to gaming. Call me prude or whatever you want but the idea of me trying to role-play intimacy with a heavy set guy with a beard while he is eating pizza and downing a Mountain Dew does NOT sound like fun. I know it is just "role-play" but that is not why I play the game. If you and your group are different, then knock yourself out but it seems from the post that you are not okay with it.

If the answer is C, then you can look to some of the suggestions here and just role play how you think your gnome would act. If the others can role play their perversions, then you can role play your indignation at said perversions.

If it is D, then both in game and out of game, you can say "nice guys but lets get back to hunting a dragon!"

If it is anything else, then I guess I have no answer and you are on your own. Good luck!

[Fates]

If your paladin isn't detecting evil on everyone he formally meets, he's doing it wrong. As a spell like ability, there's no outward indication that he's casting except for maybe a stern look, so he really should have it almost always on. Especially considering that he should technically have lost his paladin powers for adventuring with an evil party member. Has your paladin read his code of conduct at all?

This here? This is why so many people hate paladins. Honestly, there are few things as obnoxious to a DM as a player who checks the alignment of everyone he meets. It sucks, so hard; in my campaigns, I only make those spells apply to creatures with that subtype, because that little 0-level spell (or at-will power, for paladins) can kill whole plotlines. I don't care if it's sub-par, your paladin is just fine the way he is.

[animewatcha]

How about getting DM to roll for pregnancy?

[Preaplanes]

As a DM who may have a DMing style simililar to your DM's, while I agree that a character is entitled to everything he/she is capable of, I think that also means he/she is liable to all consequences whether he/she likes it or not. If something is amiss, I'd totally support pursuing all in-character means of investigation, interrogation, interdiction, and intervention. While it might be in character for the sorceress to act like that, it is also fully in character for the paladin and you to react sternly.

Sounds like my DM alright.

If I can prove it to a Naive-Good Paladin (which again frustrates me to no end. "Dude, I didn't cast Blindness/Deafness on you"), I've got backup on this. It's a long ways off, but if a collateral Holy Smite blinds the Elf, that's irrefutable.

That said, I'm sure she'll screw up eventually. Don't need a Bluff check to tell the truth.


Zone of Truth to confirm suspicion, leave it to the Paladin to smite?

Call the player out on it specifically and ask them to stop?

Ask your DM to actually arbitrate rather than causing harm and discontent to the rest of the party for the sake of one player?

Take craft wand, spam the same enchantments from the Cleric list to Force the sorc in line with your character's alignments and such instead? (Vow of Non-Violence to raise the DC by 4 when you cast it)

Look into the BoEF and start punishing the character for their actions with the action itself?

Simply leave the group and make sure they know Why you're doing so, see if they care enough to step in before you leave?

All fair options, but I'm still looking into line 5... *sigh* Fight fire with fire, I guess. *grumbling*

*~15 minutes later* Ooh, now that'll work. A spell that starts with "Innocence" does just what I need it to should it come to that. "Congratulations, you forgot everything you knew about belly sports." Clr 3, fairly low level. Permanent effect, Will save, but psh, +5 wis and Divine Quickened, odds are in my favor.




How about getting DM to roll for pregnancy? I think he just might. Though it is an elf, so that probably won't have an effect without a noticeable time skip.


It sucks, so hard; in my campaigns, I only make those spells apply to creatures with that subtype, because that little 0-level spell (or at-will power, for paladins) can kill whole plotlines.Scroll of Undetectable Alignment: 50gp.
Lead sheet: <100gp.
1 level of Sorcerer/Wizard: Variable
The look on the paladin's face when it doesn't work the first time: Priceless.

[Fates]

Lead sheet: <100gp.
1 level of Sorcerer/Wizard: Variable
The look on the paladin's face when it doesn't work the first time: Priceless.

I really LOL'd there. :smallbiggrin:
Of course, that's assuming the paladin's oath doesn't also feature "You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide." I've seen paladins that kill anyone who doesn't register, because what only an evil person would try to disguise their alignment, right?

Paladins like that didn't stay paladins for very long in my games.

[Preaplanes]

I really LOL'd there. :smallbiggrin:
Of course, that's assuming the paladin's oath doesn't also feature "You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide." I've seen paladins that kill anyone who doesn't register, because what only an evil person would try to disguise their alignment, right?

Paladins like that didn't stay paladins for very long in my games.

Hah! Exactly, that's called a "Blackguard in the making."

[Gavinfoxx]

Geas
Bestow Curse
Mark of Justice

Dominate Person / Dominate Monster...

etc. etc.

[Crake]

that little 0-level spell (or at-will power, for paladins) can kill whole plotlines. I don't care if it's sub-par, your paladin is just fine the way he is.

honestly, if detect evil is killing your plotlines then maybe the fault lies with your terrible antagonist who cant even get an item to conceal his alignment. Good ol' ring of mind shielding is a cheap 8k and available in core

[FreakyCheeseMan]

I really LOL'd there. :smallbiggrin:
Of course, that's assuming the paladin's oath doesn't also feature "You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide." I've seen paladins that kill anyone who doesn't register, because what only an evil person would try to disguise their alignment, right?

Paladins like that didn't stay paladins for very long in my games.

My ruling is that Detect Evil *only* detects the evil on a person, unbalanced by the good. So the king that's had to make complicated decisions? Shows up on Detect Evil. The former murderer who's done his time and found redemption? Shows up on detect evil. Basically, Detect Evil detects Gross, not Net.

[Fates]

honestly, if detect evil is killing your plotlines then maybe the fault lies with your terrible antagonist who cant even get an item to conceal his alignment. Good ol' ring of mind shielding is a cheap 8k and available in core

I didn't say it was killing my plotlines (unless you were using you in the indefinite sense). Besides, Detect Evil is usable at first level, and I doubt I'd be giving antagonists an item worth that much until at least fourth level (and it hardly stands to reason that every bad guy out there would be carrying one of those around. The social implications!)

[Preaplanes]

My ruling is that Detect Evil *only* detects the evil on a person, unbalanced by the good. So the king that's had to make complicated decisions? Shows up on Detect Evil. The former murderer who's done his time and found redemption? Shows up on detect evil. Basically, Detect Evil detects Gross, not Net.

So does it always show up unless the character has the Saint template? Or does Atonement work? Do Lawful Neutral with Good tendency characters or True Neutral characters show up as Evil?

[Fates]

My ruling is that Detect Evil *only* detects the evil on a person, unbalanced by the good. So the king that's had to make complicated decisions? Shows up on Detect Evil. The former murderer who's done his time and found redemption? Shows up on detect evil. Basically, Detect Evil detects Gross, not Net.

An interesting concept, but it seems like that practically turns it into Detect Innocence, because really, it would be far more remarkable to see someone who didn't register as evil than one who did.

[Elricaltovilla]

My ruling is that Detect Evil *only* detects the evil on a person, unbalanced by the good. So the king that's had to make complicated decisions? Shows up on Detect Evil. The former murderer who's done his time and found redemption? Shows up on detect evil. Basically, Detect Evil detects Gross, not Net.

Too bad that's not how it actually works... (looking at other people's responses, maybe its a good thing that's not how it actually works)... Detect spells detect the subjects alignment, as in the very nature of their core being. You could have a Lawful Evil person be far too cowardly to ever commit a crime (criminals go to jail!:smalleek:) and they'd still detect as Evil because that's who they are at their core.

D&D doesn't really make room for shades of grey.

[Urpriest]

At low levels Detect Evil won't tell you very much. You're unlikely to be facing Always Evil shapechangers or the like, so at most all it's giving is someone's general disposition, which you can also get with a fairly low DC Sense Motive. Remember, 30% to 50% of humans are Evil, give or take, and a murder mystery or the like can easily have a Neutral or Good villain if it's the first time they've done something.

[Preaplanes]

An interesting concept, but it seems like that practically turns it into Detect Innocence, because really, it would be far more remarkable to see someone who didn't register as evil than one who did.

Not to mention that brings the haven't-committed-an-evil-act TN Tieflings into a grey area. They're (Evil) as far as Planar Binding (on a plane other than the Prime Material) is concerned, why would Detect Evil act differently?

[Phelix-Mu]

My ruling is that Detect Evil *only* detects the evil on a person, unbalanced by the good. So the king that's had to make complicated decisions? Shows up on Detect Evil. The former murderer who's done his time and found redemption? Shows up on detect evil. Basically, Detect Evil detects Gross, not Net.

This actually sounds useful. My players don't tend to play pallys or other very strict code stuff, but, if they did, I'd need a work-around, since I allow considerable leeway in the way of xNeutral person doing some evil stuff before they totally become evil. I don't mind alignment as an abstraction for describing typical behaviors, but in my mind it is actions, not people, that can be defined as Good, Evil, etc.

Back to the OP's topic, though, there is no cure for tasteless IC and OOC behavior that works better than ostracism. Get the majority of people in the group to stop laughing at his jokes, to give him some sideways glances, and freeze him out. This usually works. If neither this nor a more direct (talk to him, ofc) approach doesn't work, then you're down to in-game solutions.

Personally, I'd go for the "beat 'em at their own game." This stands to be quite messy, but essentially, get her to sleep with someone with a terrible STD. I'm sure there is one that deals Charisma damage. Encourage the behavior until it bites the character in the ass. Just desserts and all.

Finally, the trickery might be nice. Set it up so that the elf chick thinks she's getting all horizontal with so-and-so every night, but really she's by herself. Might be hard to pull off at low-level, but remember the beauty of a.) intoxicating beverages (low Fort for the win), and b.) post-hypnotic suggestion (is this an in-game thing?). Ravages from BoED might work, but an expensive fix at this level.

[Gavinfoxx]

There was a whole Dragon Magazine article full of alternative Detect Evil variants for games that don't have actual Good/Evil in their worlds.

If you don't like Detect Alignment spells, ban them and put those in their place, and give Paladins access to Detect Heresy or Detect Violence or something.

[Deffers]

Hrm. That strikes me as a fantastic idea. Make the character THINK she's having sex with someone when in reality she's going on a solo adventure. It'd definitely be in character for a good trickster (and it strikes me as hilarious for some reason) and may give you IC reasons for an investigation into her general moral character.

"Creepy sorceress has been making sexy eyes at me this morning and alluding to some world-changing event last night for some reason. Cleric, why do you think this is?"

Also, just... for the record. This guy initially wanted to play a child with this type of behavior and had to be prevented from doing so?

...It's, like... I feel like I need to take a shower from all the skeezy. Ewwwww.

[Juntao112]

The player definitely seems to have... issues.

[ArcturusV]

Ah... Well... I did run into this exact problem in a few campaigns.

Last campaign, when I was a player? My guy was Lawful Evil. The rapey mindjacking one was a supposedly Lawful Good guy who used charm, dominate, and suggestion like that on any female NPC (Or PC) that he thought was Hot. I effectively bid my time, putting up with it while plotting against him behind his back (Didn't hurt that I didn't like the guy to start with as he was kind of a dink). So I ran a few side sessions with people where I plotted to take down his character systematically. I basically turned ALMOST all of his allies, former sexual conquests, etc, against him (Only one I failed to do so with was his latest one), had him stripped of all his IC toys, entitlements, etc. Gave him a crushing chest would that permanently lowered his stats to Raistlin "A Stiff Breeze Might Do Me In" Majere levels, and overall reduced him to Fate Worse Than Death levels of Bad End.

And that worked. It did correct his behavior. He has yet to do mindjacking sort of stuff... Though he still pervs out a bit since that seems to be the guy's default personality.

Another campaign, dealing with a similar player, his actions got out of control. More than just seducing barmaids and the like. As a logical consequence to some of his actions (seriously, he did something to the King's Daughter...), he got hunted down like a dog by the powers that be. But no one really wanted the character to die, though other players wanted his behavior to change... so his captors castrated him like a bull when they eventually caught him. Fitting of his crimes, he still got to adventure. And since no one liked his behavior in that regard no one was willing to cast any sort of spell to grow back body parts for him.

Course, in your case, if you're looking for IC ways to do this, two spells come to mind. One that would just be kinda funny and mean to do, and one which can help stymie the problem as long as the player gets the message and goes along. Cleric Spells that I'd feel justified using since she brought the subject matter into the game: Level 3 spell "Innocence of the Virgin", it is Will Save, SR: Yes, touch spell. But it makes the target, if they are effected, completely forget everything about sexuality, at all. And yes, I used this before on some players... The other one, kinda mean, kinda funny, might get the point across if not outright kill her depending on luck? Another Level 3 (2 with the right domain) Cursed Orgasm, Fort Save, but SR: No, so good luck with the Sorceress passing it. Because nothing says "I'm not cool with this" so much as random shots of pain whenever you do what I don't want you to do. Xd6 in this case every time they get off. With a duration of 1 trigger/caster level. So quite a long lasting curse.

[Fates]

Hrm. That strikes me as a fantastic idea. Make the character THINK she's having sex with someone when in reality she's going on a solo adventure. It'd definitely be in character for a good trickster (and it strikes me as hilarious for some reason) and may give you IC reasons for an investigation into her general moral character.

"Creepy sorceress has been making sexy eyes at me this morning and alluding to some world-changing event last night for some reason. Cleric, why do you think this is?"

Also, just... for the record. This guy initially wanted to play a child with this type of behavior and had to be prevented from doing so?

...It's, like... I feel like I need to take a shower from all the skeezy. Ewwwww.

I suspect (and sincerely hope) that he was not planning to act the same with the child character. I guess the only way he could handle playing a woman would be whorishly? Jeez, now I need a shower.

[Deffers]

IIRC, the OP states that his original character was exactly the same but a child. Yup, just checked. Child with same character premise.

That is... possibly something you need to deal with out of character. WAY out of character.

[Fates]

IIRC, the OP states that his original character was exactly the same but a child. Yup, just checked. Child with same character premise.

That is... possibly something you need to deal with out of character. WAY out of character.

I guess the idea was that, because it's an elf, it's mentally an adult at the same age as a human? Maybe? Uggh..you know what? Just...eww. Bleh. Puke. Forget it.

Yeah, Pleapanes, I sincerely hope that your wording was just iffy there, otherwise that player needs psychiatric help.

[Bogardan_Mage]

I didn't say it was killing my plotlines (unless you were using you in the indefinite sense). Besides, Detect Evil is usable at first level, and I doubt I'd be giving antagonists an item worth that much until at least fourth level (and it hardly stands to reason that every bad guy out there would be carrying one of those around. The social implications!)
Those who's evil schemes depend on blending into Good society where such spell are (or even might be) used would, though.

[Fates]

Those who's evil schemes depend on blending into Good society where such spell are (or even might be) used would, though.

Well, I personally usually run low-magic item campaigns anyway (which is okay, because my groups are usually either all spellcasters or all nonspellcasters). I know it's not the way D&D is designed, but Magic Marts really kill the feel of a lot of games- I like to make magic items special.

...which is why I don't allow detect evil as written, so there's really no reason for us to be arguing.

[Fates]

There was a whole Dragon Magazine article full of alternative Detect Evil variants for games that don't have actual Good/Evil in their worlds.

If you don't like Detect Alignment spells, ban them and put those in their place, and give Paladins access to Detect Heresy or Detect Violence or something.

Any chance you know which DragMag that is? I might want to take a peak.

[Preaplanes]

Yeah, Pleapanes, I sincerely hope that your wording was just iffy there, otherwise that player needs psychiatric help. Sorry to disappoint, but afraid it's the latter.

Guy doesn't seem to get the difference between THIS type of depravity and the usual "I burn down the orphanage 4 teh lulz" and "I re-enact Weekend at Bernie's with the nun's corpse. Animate dead!" type of black comedy.


Any chance you know which DragMag that is? I might want to take a peak.

As would I.


Ah... Well... I did run into this exact problem in a few campaigns.

Course, in your case, if you're looking for IC ways to do this, two spells come to mind. One that would just be kinda funny and mean to do, and one which can help stymie the problem as long as the player gets the message and goes along. Cleric Spells that I'd feel justified using since she brought the subject matter into the game: Level 3 spell "Innocence of the Virgin", it is Will Save, SR: Yes, touch spell. But it makes the target, if they are effected, completely forget everything about sexuality, at all. And yes, I used this before on some players... The other one, kinda mean, kinda funny, might get the point across if not outright kill her depending on luck? Another Level 3 (2 with the right domain) Cursed Orgasm, Fort Save, but SR: No, so good luck with the Sorceress passing it. Because nothing says "I'm not cool with this" so much as random shots of pain whenever you do what I don't want you to do. Xd6 in this case every time they get off. With a duration of 1 trigger/caster level. So quite a long lasting curse.

Perfect response, actually. Thanks.

[Gavinfoxx]

Any chance you know which DragMag that is? I might want to take a peak.


As would I.

Dragon Magazine #323, the article "See No Evil", starting on page 69, going to page 72.

[Fates]

Sorry to disappoint, but afraid it's the latter.

Guy doesn't seem to get the difference between THIS type of depravity and the usual "I burn down the orphanage 4 teh lulz" and "I re-enact Weekend at Bernie's with the nun's corpse. Animate dead!" type of black comedy.


Well, really, the whole orphanage burning deal is probably more horrific...but there isn't the same stigma and innate yuckiness to it. I try and make sure my players take all truly evil acts seriously, because in reality, even most of our worst people would never stoop as low as the classic D&D villain. As usual, the alignment system is far too narrow a spectrum to encompass that difference.

[Scow2]

I guess the idea was that, because it's an elf, it's mentally an adult at the same age as a human? Maybe?

Well, according to Races of the Wild (Which explicitly contradicts the BoEF, and is the more official source anyway), Elves do mentally mature at the same rate as humans (Before hitting immortality at around 20 or 30). They just live sheltered, idle lives until they hit 100 or so, and then they feel they've lived long enough to actually start doing things with their lives (that would likely risk them).

On a less serious note - to shut her legs permanetly... Arcane Lock is a level 2... sorcerer/wizard spell. Nevermind.

[Preaplanes]

Well, really, the whole orphanage burning deal is probably more horrific...but there isn't the same stigma and innate yuckiness to it. I try and make sure my players take all truly evil acts seriously, because in reality, even most of our worst people would never stoop as low as the classic D&D villain. As usual, the alignment system is far too narrow a spectrum to encompass that difference.

Well true, evil one way or another (usually, I already came up with a couple exceptions), but just HOW horrific depends on if you're burning the orphanage or the orphans.

[meto30]

Well, I guess people have differing levels of evil tolerance. We once had a PC eat sixteen hundred children alive through the course of two years in a bid to become the next god of Murder, and I remember no one raising any eyebrows about it. He's trying to outdo Bhaal, this kind of behavior is to be expected, we thought. Although come to think of it the child eating became rather routine after the fifth village...

[Sith_Happens]

On a less serious note - to shut her legs permanetly... Arcane Lock is a level 2... sorcerer/wizard spell. Nevermind.

Scroll + 1 rank UMD + Guidance of the Avatar.

[Crake]

Well, I guess people have differing levels of evil tolerance. We once had a PC eat sixteen hundred children alive through the course of two years in a bid to become the next god of Murder, and I remember no one raising any eyebrows about it. He's trying to outdo Bhaal, this kind of behavior is to be expected, we thought. Although come to think of it the child eating became rather routine after the fifth village...

good lord, thats 2.2 children a day roughly. Children aren't small, that'd be quite an ordeal regardless of the ethical dilemma behind it all.

[meto30]

good lord, thats 2.2 children a day roughly. Children aren't small, that'd be quite an ordeal regardless of the ethical dilemma behind it all.

Well, as a Bhaalspawn he could just transform into a humongous monster and swallow children whole, so we never really considered his rate of digestion. Besides, it's 3.5. XD

[Crake]

Well, as a Bhaalspawn he could just transform into a humongous monster and swallow children whole, so we never really considered his rate of digestion. Besides, it's 3.5. XD

oh, bhaalspawn, fair enough, I just figured he was just a guy, but I should have guessed.

[Fitz10019]

Suggestion + Sovereign Glue

For protecting the party, I believe there's a condition-triggered, spell-storing tattoo feat. Everyone could have Protection from Evil triggered by magical mental influence.

[Darius Kane]

I love players like that. I can do whatever I want to their PCs and they don't even have the right to complain.

[THAD]

Well, a way I was told of how to interact in the game is very similar to improv. Essentially, you can't simply say "No, you can't do that", because you can't very well stop someone from doing anything in real life unless you have some form of legitimate authority over them (by means of title, rank, social ladder level, etc.). So, if you don't have that with the characters, then there's not much else to do other than attempt to convince the rest of the party to banish her.
So, I'd say get creative and find ways to discourage the behavior while adding to the entertainment value of the interactions. Maybe attempt to find a way to some form of binding spell on their trousers, or continue the use of prestignation to constantly make her unattractive via sight or smell. Do what you can to have fun with it, but if it starts becoming an issue that is truly taking away from you enjoying the game then start bringing it up offline.

[JBento]

I can't believe no-one asked this yet:

How does the rest of the party feel about the sorceress' behaviour? Are you the only one with an issue?

[Shining Wrath]

Hag. Next problem?

[Clistenes]

A question: What does the player of the Rogue think about it? Because, if he doesn't like what was done to his character, I would say he has all the right to call the horny Sorceress' player on it.

If the Sorceress' horny player and the DM won't hear him, you can all roleplay the rest of the party thinking about the issue and realizing that something fishy happened. The halfling Rogue should be "why the hell did I go to bed with that icky tierfling I don't like at all?", and the Paladin should be suspicious of the Tiefling just for being a Tierfling (and ringing as Evil to his Detect Evil ability).

If the Rogue's player is OK with what happened, all you can do is tell the Sorceress' player and the DM that you feel uncomfortable. And if they don't hear you...well she's a mind-warping Tierfling, it wouldn't be out of character for the Paladin and the Good Cleric to feel suspicious and contemptous towards her and throw her under a bus at the first chance (the Paladin, who can't check her real alignment due to her race should reject her if her act drive him to suspect she is really evil).

[Water_Bear]

Obviously the best plan is to talk to the guy out of character, tell him to knock it off. But seeing as he's a creep and the DM isn't very assertive, this is probably going to have to be dealt with IC.

You don't really need much of an excuse to get her in the cone of a Detect Evil, especially if you can get your Pally to actually RP his class. After that, it's not a wild leap to think that a powerful Evil person is a potential hazard, one which needs sorting out.

Killing her seems like the smartest plan, but if that's too vicious for your PC then just capture her and use the BoED Brainwashing Diplomacy rules to force her to atone and become Good. After that, treat any sexual activity on her part as backsliding into Evil. Start using Bestow Curse Mark of Justice and Geas as soon as they come online.

[Khatoblepas]

good lord, thats 2.2 children a day roughly. Children aren't small, that'd be quite an ordeal regardless of the ethical dilemma behind it all.

Sure he wants to be as evil as Bhaal, but he's going to end up looking like Orcus if he keeps that up. That's not a healthy diet. And sure, if you want your priests to use a sphere as their holy symbol...

As for the whorey Sorceress, please bring up that you feel personally uncomfortable with her character arc to your entire group, and that you would prefer if he play it less sexually, as it's impacting your enjoyment of the game. Say that you would prefer it be off-screen, if it has to be there at all, but you would prefer it wasn't there at all. Ask the other players what they think. Don't do it IC, because it's not your character who is uncomfortable with this.

It's you.

They're your friends.

You need to have a talk about this.

Killing or disabling the sorceress will not stop the player from making another character that has the same premise.

[Mongrel]

So everyone except the paladin is a female character. Are all the players save for the paladin female as well?

Personally, I think that this is something that should be dealt with OOC, especially since this is a new player. However, if that character's player is male this might be a very awkward conversation (heck, it's awkward if they're female honestly). Still, your options are pretty much that or drop the game. Those spells mentioned earlier (Innocence of the Virgin and Cursed Orgasm) seem perfect, but they also seem to pretty much require good role playing in order to do what you're trying to do, and this player is new (and doesn't seem that good at RP from what you've told us). Innocence of the Virgin is pretty much a spell that says "stop roleplaying that way," what if the player just, you know, doesn't? And as for Cursed Orgasm, assuming it doesn't kill them the player can always just shrug and mark the points of damage on their character sheet then continue on their merry, lusty way.

Given that this player originally wanted to play a child who was this promiscuous (reverse pedophilia?) it might be a good idea to ask yourself (and your DM/fellow players) if you honestly want to keep playing with them. Who invited them to the game in the first place anyway? I assume that they weren't your friend IRL before joining the game.

[Roog]

Obviously the best plan is to talk to the guy out of character, tell him to knock it off. But seeing as he's a creep and the DM isn't very assertive, this is probably going to have to be dealt with IC.

Dealing with the issue OOC does not necessarily mean that the GM is the one to deal with it. If you can get the group as a whole to admit/agree that this is something that they do not want in the game, then the GM does not need to be assertive.

On the other hand, if you do not tackle the issue OOC and try to fix this only IC, then you will be validating the player's choice to act this way. Even if an IC fix gets the character's actions to change, the player will still see the choice to play that way as valid, and will have no reason to avoid having a character with similar issues in the future.

[Water_Bear]

Dealing with the issue OOC does not necessarily mean that the GM is the one to deal with it. If you can get the group as a whole to admit/agree that this is something that they do not want in the game, then the GM does not need to be assertive.

On the other hand, if you do not tackle the issue OOC and try to fix this only IC, then you will be validating the player's choice to act this way. Even if an IC fix gets the character's actions to change, the player will still see the choice to play that way as valid, and will have no reason to avoid having a character with similar issues in the future.

I'm not so sure about that.

In my experience the DM is usually the person who provides the location for the game, and thus is the only person who can actually throw people out if needed. Add to that the fact that the DM is literally the referee, it is going to be harder to get the rest of the players behind you if the DM seems cool with it. Of course, talking could work; that's the reason why I suggested it. I just doubt that it will.

And does anyone really care about what this person thinks is valid? Teaching other people basic social etiquette is not something a gamer is obligated to do for a fellow player. The only important thing is keeping their actions under control, and controlling their PC is one option for doing that.

[Worira]

...alright, then.

Out of curiosity, how much of these activities are known of in character? If the hypnosis that you mentioned was known...well, that skirts rather close to rape. Close enough that a few questions should probably be asked, by the paladin if no-one else.

If by "skirts rather close to", you mean "is".

[FreakyCheeseMan]

So does it always show up unless the character has the Saint template? Or does Atonement work? Do Lawful Neutral with Good tendency characters or True Neutral characters show up as Evil?

Well, it's not a straight up-or-down thing - there are degrees. Someone who committed mild crimes as a child would barely register at all, someone who had committed genocide would reek. Also, it isn't *just* about actual crimes, but emotions/ideas as well; if a person had deep-seated anger issues that they'd kept bottled up, you'd get a hit from that, or if someone was naturally inclined toward cruelty but had not had the chance to practice such, that would show up as well.

In terms of fluff, I actually do it as "They appear different in your vision" - think Dorion Grey, but subtler. Someone who had only a mild stain would seem a little more hard-edged, more aggressive, etc. Someone who'd committed greater acts of evil would have all the negative features of their face emphasized and exaggerated - laugh lines would become sneer lines, there skin would take on a pale, bloodless appearance, etc. A person who had committed true atrocities would look almost like a corpse - pallid skin, dead eyes, the hint of blood about their mouth, a rotting stench, etc. (All of this also opens up the possibility of letting bluff checks apply against Detect Evil.)

I like this system for two reasons: First, it complicated Detect Evil, so Paladin's can't fall into the simple "Detect => Smite => Repeat" system; I tend to like complicated plot lines where characters have to judge things for themselves, so I prefer to make it a little harder for Paladins (or anyone) to cut through everything with magic.

Second, in my settings, it actually makes life easier for the Paladin. I tend to lean towards grey/grey morality worlds, and very few enemies or antagonists are actually evil; going by the traditional interpretation, Detect Evil would be even more useless, as almost no one would register. This way, it always gives them some information but that information is just evidence that is subject to further analysis, rather than handing them a gift-wrapped conclusion.

[Roog]

I'm not so sure about that.

In my experience the DM is usually the person who provides the location for the game, and thus is the only person who can actually throw people out if needed. Add to that the fact that the DM is literally the referee, it is going to be harder to get the rest of the players behind you if the DM seems cool with it. Of course, talking could work; that's the reason why I suggested it. I just doubt that it will.

If everyone else is explicitly against acting that way, and tells the player to "stop that ****" when it occurs, then it will stop pretty quick.

But the other players don't even need to that actively opposed to it, in order to stop it. The other players just need to feel that is OK for them to express their disapproval. If it becomes apparent that the majority of the group feel that the actions are misogynistic/creepy/immature then the social pressure on the player to choose not to act that way will be quite strong.


And does anyone really care about what this person thinks is valid? Teaching other people basic social etiquette is not something a gamer is obligated to do for a fellow player. The only important thing is keeping their actions under control, and controlling their PC is one option for doing that.

Teaching other people basic social etiquette may not be something a gamer is obliged to do, but it but it may be the best way to solve their problem.

If you are playing with someone without basic social etiquette, your options are:
- continue to play with someone with no social etiquette (have fun with that)
- teach them some (directly or indirectly)
- throw them out / have them thrown out
- leave the game yourself

Controlling their PC may be a solution if you will only be playing with the person over the short term, but it is not a long term solution.

[Phelix-Mu]

Well, I guess people have differing levels of evil tolerance. We once had a PC eat sixteen hundred children alive through the course of two years in a bid to become the next god of Murder, and I remember no one raising any eyebrows about it. He's trying to outdo Bhaal, this kind of behavior is to be expected, we thought. Although come to think of it the child eating became rather routine after the fifth village...


Sure he wants to be as evil as Bhaal, but he's going to end up looking like Orcus if he keeps that up. That's not a healthy diet. And sure, if you want your priests to use a sphere as their holy symbol...
[/i]

So, a little off-topic, but this seems like a terrible plan. Eating children wins some evil points, but endless repetition is not likely going to impress anyone. Plus, over 1600 people, the whole experience was probably like making photocopies...murder is supposed to be intimate, personal, and unique. Or, at least that makes it less of a numbers game. Just swallowing kids is a nice touch, has a lovecraftian feel to it, but I dunno. More of a weird thing, along with the endless repetition. Endless repetition does not touch that DM nerve that makes me say "yeah, now THAT was cool." Bids to become gods had better touch that nerve.

But maybe that's just me, and we only had a piece of the story. I'm guessing that anything that took this much effort was more involved.

[meto30]

So, a little off-topic, but this seems like a terrible plan. Eating children wins some evil points, but endless repetition is not likely going to impress anyone. Plus, over 1600 people, the whole experience was probably like making photocopies...murder is supposed to be intimate, personal, and unique. Or, at least that makes it less of a numbers game. Just swallowing kids is a nice touch, has a lovecraftian feel to it, but I dunno. More of a weird thing, along with the endless repetition. Endless repetition does not touch that DM nerve that makes me say "yeah, now THAT was cool." Bids to become gods had better touch that nerve.

But maybe that's just me, and we only had a piece of the story. I'm guessing that anything that took this much effort was more involved.

To just add a little more context, we were doing it in the open and drawing a big divine mark of Bhaal with our path of destruction on the continental map. The repetition was more of a hobby thing on the side, as the primary intention was to piss off every single do-gooder so that they'd come to us to kill us. Besides, eating only a few hundred did not appeal to him, as mundane wars already caused such number of child deaths, and he was trying to set a record that would last throughout the ages. Bards already sung of his horrific eating spree by the time we were eventually slain. 16 hundred children. Has a nice ring to it, if you ask me. Add that to the rest of our achievements, such as leveling Athkatla, and I think our song would last a millennium.

[kreenlover]

Haven't read any of this, but the solution that works in my group: every time they do something like that, stab them/cut off...something

If that doesn't work, follow them, sneak in after them (wherever they go), and steal their stuff while they busy being...are overly promiscuous

[Shining Wrath]

To amplify "Hag" - in a world full of creatures than can change shape to serve their own malign purposes, random boinking is likely to put you in bed with someone or something that you'd rather not be in bed with.

Hags, vampires, dopplegangers, cursed maidens whose curse transfer to whoever takes advantage of them, slatternly slatterns who have contracted diseases too horrifying to describe, incubi and succubi, ...

For the PC in question, a cursed person whose curse makes them vulnerable to a seducer and whose curse transfers to said seducer sounds like the ticket. Something that reduces CHR by 2 until lifted.

[Cerlis]

Anyone else want to commend the paladin for not violating peoples right to privacy by auto Detect Eviling them, or for not being a murderer who murders someone just because they are a selfish criminal?


-------------

And yes, murdering or torturing someone for what she's done is kinda evil.

I'd stick with "teaching them a lesson".

Such as Cursing away her libido and doing stuff like making her sleep in the bad cot for hindering the party. Naturally the rape thing is something that is going to have to involve IC information. I dont know enough about that.

[ksbsnowowl]

Dealing with it OOC is always good, but if you do resort to in character methods...

Set her up with an attractive individual with an STD. Some adventures actually have rules for this (Lost City of Barakus is one).

Arcane Mark "SLUT" on her forehead. It isn't dispelable (but can be erased).

For the aforementioned "make her believe she had sex, when she really didn't," look no further than the spell Modify Memory.

Lastly, if she has relations with an Incubus (same stats as a succubus), that would HURT...

[Fates]

Anyone else want to commend the paladin for not violating peoples right to privacy by auto Detect Eviling them, or for not being a murderer who murders someone just because they are a selfish criminal?


Absolutely. It's nice to see that not every paladin is Dudley Do-right or Miko Miyazaki.

[Deathkeeper]

To amplify "Hag" - in a world full of creatures than can change shape to serve their own malign purposes, random boinking is likely to put you in bed with someone or something that you'd rather not be in bed with.

Hags, vampires, dopplegangers, cursed maidens whose curse transfer to whoever takes advantage of them, slatternly slatterns who have contracted diseases too horrifying to describe, incubi and succubi, ...

For the PC in question, a cursed person whose curse makes them vulnerable to a seducer and whose curse transfers to said seducer sounds like the ticket. Something that reduces CHR by 2 until lifted.

Lycanthropy works, too. Symptoms aren't detected until it's permanent, lowers Charisma, she probably wouldn't even know the dude was cursed since she wasn't being infected the 'traditional' way. Not to mention the DM can get creative with the animal in question. Or just make it a Bear and she has to take a step towards LG.

[PersonMan]

To amplify "Hag" - in a world full of creatures than can change shape to serve their own malign purposes, random boinking is likely to put you in bed with someone or something that you'd rather not be in bed with.

Hags, vampires, dopplegangers, cursed maidens whose curse transfer to whoever takes advantage of them, slatternly slatterns who have contracted diseases too horrifying to describe, incubi and succubi, ...

For the PC in question, a cursed person whose curse makes them vulnerable to a seducer and whose curse transfers to said seducer sounds like the ticket. Something that reduces CHR by 2 until lifted.

Did you miss the "OP is not the DM" part? I don't think he can just summon a hag/vampire/doppelganger/cursed maiden to deal with this guy.

In general I've always found passive-aggressive "haha he was actually a hag/vampire/cursed maiden and you slept with him" solutions to be a terrible alternative to "hey I really don't like that, please stop".

EDIT: Lycanthropy doesn't reduce Charisma, by the way, it just boosts Wisdom.

[Guizonde]

perhaps in my group we are slightly more mature on adult subjects, but just in case we include the "no rp'ing girls for fetish fuel purposes" clause. i find rp'ing girls can add another level of uniqueness to a character and that's it (especially martial classes). we did have our newest member (which, after this weekend i will keep on raging against) try and pull a "seductress sorceress with huge... tracts of land" act solely based on the character's charisma score (protip: if someone equates charisma score to bust size, that's a warning sign). i've never seen my dm ban something that fast, and if you see my numerous lists in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14999804#post14999804) that means something. i mean, what the TS's fellow player is doing is like 50 flavors of wrong! also, why didn't your dm warn them that in a party with two good-aligned members playing CE is never a good idea (screw the "token evil teammate" trope)?

anywho, talk it out with the guy. this goes beyond inappropriate roleplaying. i'd even venture saying this goes straight into gamebreaking territory. NOT COOL! really not cool at all. shame him, or if that doesn't work, a kitchen fire to destroy the character sheet is easy to do, and hurts the feelings. ( i wish i spoke that in a humorous tone, but my dm's old roommate got angry at him and destroyed a lot of sheets, including my whfrp lizardman and my halfling paladin's. still haven't forgiven him)

[BBEG]

Sounds like my DM alright.

If I can prove it to a Naive-Good Paladin (which again frustrates me to no end. "Dude, I didn't cast Blindness/Deafness on you"), I've got backup on this. It's a long ways off, but if a collateral Holy Smite blinds the Elf, that's irrefutable.

That said, I'm sure she'll screw up eventually. Don't need a Bluff check to tell the truth.



All fair options, but I'm still looking into line 5... *sigh* Fight fire with fire, I guess. *grumbling*

*~15 minutes later* Ooh, now that'll work. A spell that starts with "Innocence" does just what I need it to should it come to that. "Congratulations, you forgot everything you knew about belly sports." Clr 3, fairly low level. Permanent effect, Will save, but psh, +5 wis and Divine Quickened, odds are in my favor.


I think he just might. Though it is an elf, so that probably won't have an effect without a noticeable time skip.
Scroll of Undetectable Alignment: 50gp.
Lead sheet: <100gp.
1 level of Sorcerer/Wizard: Variable
The look on the paladin's face when it doesn't work the first time: Priceless.

Doing magic on the other CE sorceress is only inviting reprisal later in the game. It doesn't change their alignment so she would eventually find herself back to her ways. And UNLIKE you being NG with a flaw. She has no qualms Baleful polymorphing you or sending you to another plane of existence. Or at the wrong moment drop a fireball spell on you by "accident" or that she casted meteor swarm on you while she "panicked" And her will save being the best save zone of truth isn't reliable especially if she picks up a potion of glibness or the spell glibness. This is best solved in an OOC manner as well CE has no problem slitting your throats in your sleep unlike the good counterparts.

[Kaeso]

These problems can't be solved in character. The Sorceress' actions are not due to a certain conflict she (the sorceress) has with one of the other PC's, but the player being downright disturbing. Solve In Character conflicts In Character, solve Real Life conflicts in Real Life. Don't let the two mix.

Since the player is new, he gets the benefit of the doubt, but perhaps you and the group should launch an intervention, to let the player know that raping one of the party members is kind of a big nono.

But if you're desperate to solve the problem In Character, then the mark of justice (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/markOfJustice.htm) is right up your alley. Just hope the conflict doesn't carry over to real life.

[Deathkeeper]

Did you miss the "OP is not the DM" part? I don't think he can just summon a hag/vampire/doppelganger/cursed maiden to deal with this guy.

In general I've always found passive-aggressive "haha he was actually a hag/vampire/cursed maiden and you slept with him" solutions to be a terrible alternative to "hey I really don't like that, please stop".

EDIT: Lycanthropy doesn't reduce Charisma, by the way, it just boosts Wisdom.

Darn it, I'm getting my 3.5/PF templates mixed up again.

[Man on Fire]

The paladin was disgusted, but so far we've seen nothing blatantly Evil IC yet.

I just wanted to point out that using mind control to make person have sex with you...that's rape. Which is pretty evil, you know? If rogue can remember they went to bed with sorceress but cannot remember why...well, that could be traced back to this, maybe some cleric spells could help here.