PvP Assistance

[Pinkcrusade]

Hello, everybody.

So, in a campaign (we haven't started it yet) somebody is making a Lawful Good Cleric, and the other a Neutral Evil Warlock: so, they both know what the other is playing (we got together, created them, and are playing soon), and the Cleric stated (after we made them) that when the he finds out that the "Sorcerer" is actually a Warlock (casting Demonic spells), he is going to attack and try to kill him.

They both have stated they will -not- reroll, and the Warlock doesn't really want to fight.

What ways would you recommend a DM controls this situation?

Thanks.

[AzureKnight]

If the warlock is casting these spells to attack an enemy that threatens the party as well as to protect himself and his party I dont see why the cleric would attack him.

The cleric is lawful good, and I would imagine that his diety would, or could talk to him via dream or other means, charging the cleric to perhaps help reform his warlock companion and embrace a less demonic power source.

If the warlock isnt doing anything to bring harm to an innocent or defile anything goodly without very good reason, the clerics deity may strip the cleric of his powers until he attones for this act in which itself is evil

[Zanos]

First of all, I don't think Kn: Religion encompasses invocations and eldritches blasts. It's very possible that, in character, the cleric doesn't know what a Warlock is. Even if he does, a warlock has no alignment requirements. A warlock can be lawful good as well as chaotic evil, and the source of their spells has no impact on that. Warlocks are not evil by default, so the cleric better have a pretty good in character reason for trying to kill him when he doesn't know who he is.

On a more broad note, being evil is not punishable by death. Paladins can't just scan entire cities with detect evil and slaughter everyone who pings evil, because being evil is not itself a crime.

You could talk to the cleric player about attempting to turn the warlock away form his evil ways, since redemption of an evil creature is one of the most good acts you can perform.

[Captnq]

Round One: Say, Isn't randomly killing someone an evil act? Don't you have to ask me to surrender first?

Do you surrender?

Sure. I just happened to have taken 10 levels of knowledge: Local laws and customs. So you have to bring me in and have me brought up on charges.

(some time late)

You unlawfully imprisoned someone and brought them here because you think they "might" be evil? What's your proof?

Lawful Stupid Cleric: Duhhhhhhh...

Get the point?

[Captnq]

oh GOD!

Have the warlock take a feat in something like "Guild Benefit: King's Secret Service"

Check it out, Cleric! I'm your worst nightmare! I'm a warlock with a BADGE!

[geekintheground]

Even if he does, a warlock has no alignment requirements. A warlock can be lawful good as well as chaotic evil, and the source of their spells has no impact on that. Warlocks are not evil by default, so the cleric better have a pretty good in character reason for trying to kill him when he doesn't know who he is.
.

actually, warlock requires either a chaotic or evil component in their alignment.

[Zanos]

actually, warlock requires either a chaotic or evil component in their alignment.
I stand corrected. I've never actually played one, so my knowledge of their mechanics is a bit iffy sometimes.

Regardless, not all Warlocks are evil, so what I said still applies.

[Pinkcrusade]

Hello, thanks for the responses.

The Cleric stated that his temple told him about ways to identify evil magic or something like that, and that he is going to attack it on sight. The Warlock is actually a True Necromancer, so, that was my mistake -- it would be difficult and inefficient for the Necromancer to not raise dead (as it is sort of a tell-tale sign, and Clerics hate Necromancers)... any suggestions?


Thanks.

[angry_bear]

It really depends on what kind of evil that the warlock wants to play. If he's planning on killing random peasants for the heck of it, then the cleric is going to be more than justified in taking him out in response. Just remind the cleric that, until the warlock actually does something evil, or attempts to do something evil, he has no real justification in killing him. And that the character has to know the warlock did it...

Or something that could be hilarious is, if you convince the warlock player to change his alignment to good without telling the cleric. Then if he attempts to kill the character, have him fall for committing an evil act. Because meta gaming lawful stupid is bad. :belkar:

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

A Warlock's power doesn't necessarily come from the lower planes. You can have a Chaotic Good Warlock who has Fey Heritage feats from CM, or an Enlightened Spirit whose abilities mimic those of Eladrins and Archons. Not all Warlocks are evil, and not all of them draw their power from an evil source.

If the Cleric doesn't have any ranks in Spellcraft, then it's impossible for him to know that the Warlock is even a Warlock at all.

[Captnq]

I rather like the giving him a badge solution.

"Look, white lighter, allow me to take your tiny, self-centered little world and stand it on it's ear.

At one time I was the bad guy. I screwed up and I was brought to trial. There I was given a choice, do what ever little thing pops into the king's tiny little mind, or he'll be drinking grog out of my little skull by sundown.

Well, being the pragmatic sort, I took the job. I must admit, I rather like it. It certainly comes with a few... perks. One of them, is telling stuffed shirts, such as yourself, to kiss my ass.

You see, as much as you might hate to admit it, a king cannot afford to be all sweet, innocent, and pure. He has to live in the real world, and make real world choices. Sometimes those real world choices suck. They suck hard. And sometimes, the solution is someone has to die.

And that's where I come in. I do it very well. I enjoy my work. I don't lament the morality of the choice or second guess my superiors. I kill. On command. I get paid well for it. And I sleep just fine.

And that's why people like YOU get to run around and act all holier-then-thou. Because there are people like ME making sure people like YOU never have to make those hard choices."

[Zanos]

Hello, thanks for the responses.

The Cleric stated that his temple told him about ways to identify evil magic or something like that, and that he is going to attack it on sight. The Warlock is actually a True Necromancer, so, that was my mistake -- it would be difficult and inefficient for the Necromancer to not raise dead (as it is sort of a tell-tale sign, and Clerics hate Necromancers)... any suggestions?


Thanks.
Have you considered asking the cleric player to not be a jerk so everyone can actually have fun? :smallsigh:

Necromancy is not inherently evil, and not all clerics hate necromancy as a rule. Clerics actually get access to animate dead a spell level before arcane casters. You should check whatever deity he worships to see if his deity actually has a major issue with undead specifically. Along that same line casting spells with the [Evil] tag is not necessarily evil by itself. He's not raising an undead army to slaughter villagers or anything.

Also, considering that he says he has ways of "identifying evil magic", you better make sure that he actually has skillpoints in spellcraft and make him roll to identify it whenever the necromancer casts something.

[sjeshin]

Have you considered asking the cleric player to not be a jerk so everyone can actually have fun? :smallsigh:

Necromancy is not inherently evil, and not all clerics hate necromancy as a rule. Clerics actually get access to animate dead a spell level before arcane casters. You should check whatever deity he worships to see if his deity actually has a major issue with undead specifically. Along that same line casting spells with the [Evil] tag is not necessarily evil by itself. He's not raising an undead army to slaughter villagers or anything.

Also, considering that he says he has ways of "identifying evil magic", you better make sure that he actually has skillpoints in spellcraft and make him roll to identify it whenever the necromancer casts something.

Not all necromancy is evil, but animate dead is in every way and definition inside D&D 3.5 an evil spell without houserules. And, by definition, laid out the in PHB, casting an evil spell IS an evil act all on its own. It is not enough on its own to change your alignment, but it is an evil act.

[infomatic]

The Warlock is actually a True Necromancer, so, that was my mistake …
Thanks.

Do you mean Dread Necromancer? True Necromancer is a lousy PrC and before you deal with the Cleric maybe you should argue the Evil guy out of playing one.

Regardless, the fact that it's a lawful cleric helps the DM out immensely:

• You control the society and the circumstances: Dark magic might be tolerated (probably not animate dead, though maybe you're playing Greyhawk's Rauxes.)
• You control the cleric's church and his god, and the strictures of both
• You control the Greater of Two Evils — with the Necromancer being the lesser one.

[Toliudar]

This is an out of character problem: the cleric's player is setting out to follow his beliefs as he interprets them, and attack the dread necro. This is against the stated wishes of the necro, and presumably the DM.

As long as the DM isn't being a dork about this and enforcing some kind of penalty on the cleric for NOT playing nice with the other PC, then the only source of the conflict is in the player's mind. Therefore, either through persuasion, carrot or stick, the best way around this is to make the player put the needs of the game ahead of their own interpretation of their character's motivations.

The cleric's player will inevitably find some way around any sort of in-game impediment that you put in the way. You'd only be delaying the conflict. Better to deal with it clearly at the start.

[Yawgmoth]

Have you considered asking the cleric player to not be a jerk so everyone can actually have fun? :smallsigh: This bears repeating, but with more force. Tell the cleric he can either not be a jackass or he can take his jackassery somewhere else. PvP is only acceptable if all players are well aware it in advance and are all right with it happening. Anything else is rude.

[Callin]

Yea look into his God. Necromancy is not evil. Hell spells with the [Evil] Tag are not even Evil. It just means that someone [Good] cant cast them.

If his god does not condone evil acts then the act of casting that spell is NOT against his dogma. If the God is against Undead then yes.

Have the Cleric fall if he is out of line

[Immabozo]

Hello, thanks for the responses.

The Cleric stated that his temple told him about ways to identify evil magic or something like that, and that he is going to attack it on sight. The Warlock is actually a True Necromancer, so, that was my mistake -- it would be difficult and inefficient for the Necromancer to not raise dead (as it is sort of a tell-tale sign, and Clerics hate Necromancers)... any suggestions?


Thanks.

Players deciding their background in ways to force your world to be a certain way to support it, is one of my biggest pet peeves as both a DM and a player. Another DM friend of mine has a similar distaste for it and one of the guys that came to game with us one week, just was a pain to play with. The DM had his world all set, tons of detail worked out. The player showed up with no coordination with the DM and said "This is my back story" and, in short, it took a piss all over the DM's world and tried to change things around.

It was rather funny when he decided to attack the main bad guy who was trying to hire us in the first few minutes of playing. A contingencied Summon Monster IX went off, summoned a huge fire elemental and he died fast. The rest of the group (i.e. not me) asked him not to come back.

While funny, I felt bad just watching it.

Although he certainly got revenge (intended or not, I think not intended) when he DMed for me and made life suck.

[Zanos]

Not all necromancy is evil, but animate dead is in every way and definition inside D&D 3.5 an evil spell without houserules. And, by definition, laid out the in PHB, casting an evil spell IS an evil act all on its own. It is not enough on its own to change your alignment, but it is an evil act.
Do you have a page number for casting [Evil] spells being an Evil act? I know there's blub in one of the alignment books that says that creating an undead is "absolute abominable, negative energy is bad and evil, blah blah blah*", but I didn't think there was a rule about [Evil] spells in general.

*And both those books have a really, really bad definition of good and evil.

[Tragak]

If one player uses his character to make an aggressive move that would harm the character of another player, than the target player decides whether the attack works or not. If the defender chooses to use dice to decide what happens, than goody for him.

PVP can make the story more interesting and give good tension to players who find that intra-party conflict makes their characters more 3-dimensional, but it can make the game stressful and give bad tension to players who want the party to be more united. As such, giving the defender control of potential PVP ensures that it ONLY happens when both players are on board with writing a fun conflict scene into the party's story.

***

Most importantly, remind the players that there are ways to make any plan work, ways to make any plan not work, and that they are CHOOSING to focus on the ways to make each other's plans not work. Plenty of stories involve a Good group tolerating a Token Evil Teammate WITHOUT everybody killing each other (Belkar Bitterleaf, Spike, Illyria, Jayne Cobb, The Comedian, "Gentleman" Johnny Marcone, Barney Stinson :smallwink: …).

[Karnith]

Do you have a page number for casting [Evil] spells being an Evil act?
Book of Vile Darkness, p. 8, and Fiendish Codex II, p. 30, both identify casting evil spells as morally evil acts, though as noted casting one spell is not enough to change your alignment in either case.

Casting 9 without repenting is apparently enough to damn you to hell, though.

[Madwand99]

I'm going to play the angel's advocate here and say I sympathize with the cleric player's position. He might or might not be a jerk, but I've been in his position before and it really ruined the game for a while. I'm one of those people that really likes playing The Fettered (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheFettered). I don't really like the crunch of Paladin, though, so instead I play other classes and just roleplay appropriately. This time, I was an LG Crusader. I was playing this PC as a fairly relaxed and kind individual, but when faced with evil became the pointy end of the sword. It worked well for 9 levels or so, no one in the party was evil. But then, a new potential PC approached, behaving like a sterotype "dark loner assassin". So I had my cohort Detect Evil on him, and sure enough. We questioned the new arrival, and he admitted to being an assassin, basically murdering people for money. At this point the "will never knowingly associate with evil characters" Paladin clause came up, and we had a problem. I told this guy to go away, he was unwelcome in the group. When he refused, we even got into a fight. At this point the rest of the players came down on me for my roleplaying, claiming that because I wasn't actually a paladin, I had to let him into the party. And thus my PC's personality and motivation for adventuring had to be radically altered mid-game. It sucked. Being forced to tolerate evil sucks, and no good PC should be required to do so. That cleric is NOT necessarily a jerk for wanting to roleplay an LG alignment, though it's possible he handled the conflict badly.

In this case, the best solution is for the GM to step in and either ban evil PCs or make the game an evil campaign. Paladins -- or PCs who share a similar code -- should not be required associate with evil PCs. Neither should either players choice of PC alignment and roleplaying restrict anyone's elses. In this case, neither player is at fault, and both are. Only the GM can resolve this properly without the situation getting very bad both IC and OOC.

[Zanos]

...or the DM could ban characters with restrictive moral codes that inherently limit who they can associate with. "Evil character backstabs the party" just isn't a thing that happens in mature roleplaying groups. Evil characters don't have to be morally empty sociopaths who revel in eating babies and torturing virgins.

I do agree that your interests probably should have taken priority in your case, since your character was already in the party when someone new came in. In the OP's case though the characters were created at the same time, and the Cleric player said in advance of the game even starting that they would kill his character at the first available opportunity.

EDIT: Remember some good advice someone on here gave awhile ago. Alignment is not a cage, and "that's what my character would have done" is a terrible excuse. You inevitably control your character, and you can still RP your LG holy character while taking a different view. The actions you take in any situations are perhaps one conclusion that the character you RP would have come to, but they are not the only legitimate ones.

[Madwand99]

The cleric's player claiming he would kill the other PC may have been undiplomatic. All we really know, though, is that he was being honest with his feelings. Or, at least, he was trying to save the group some grief by saying something to discourage other players from playing evil PCs. Maybe he's noticed, like I have, that most groups with evil PCs don't tend to work out very well. Maybe he knows or suspects that the evil player is actually the immature kind of evil-PC-player, and is probably planning to backstab the entire group. Maybe he tried being more diplomatic first, gently suggesting that non-evil PCs lead to better group cohesion and cooperation, before moving on to more forceful methods. We just don't know, there's not enough information to judge who's really being a jerk. So yeah, the GM should sort it out. If he thinks not all his players are mature (and I strongly suspect they aren't) then banning evil PCs is probably the safest route. If they ARE all mature, then an evil campaign could work. Personally, I've never seen good and evil PCs work well together in the same group, though I'm sure it can happen.

[Tragak]

Personally, I've never seen good and evil PCs work well together in the same group, though I'm sure it can happen. They don't need to work well together, they just need to work together.

[Red Fel]

They don't need to work well together, they just need to work together.

I've seen good and evil work well together, actually. It takes a healthy combination of mature players, and pragmatic/deluded/oblivious characters. For example, our mostly-Good Dragonlance party had an LE samurai-type and a NE Black Robe Wizard. The samurai was tolerated because he had sworn an oath to serve a CG party member. The Black Robe was tolerated because she had been a friend to most of the party for years, because she was the party's primary source of transportation (Teleport Without Error), because she was ruthless against enemies but never betrayed the party, and because most of us were ICly oblivious to the sheer quantity of undead minions she had sewn into the inside of her dress. Pragmatic, deluded, oblivious. Worked fine for us.

Point the first: The player of the Cleric has explicitly stated that he wants to try to kill the Warlock as soon as he finds out. (Admittedly, if the Warlock's player were more diplomatic, perhaps he might have decided to roll a slightly less evil character, but here we are.) This is a full stop situation - when a player, before the game begins, has defined his motivation as killing one of the characters, there isn't that much to be done unless you can dissuade him. Unless you get him to agree otherwise, he will try to kill that character, and in-game penalties aren't going to cut it, because it's an out-of-game problem.

Point the second: Well, we really don't come to the character dynamics, because we've been stopped by player dynamics. But assuming the player tones it down, and agrees he won't automatically try to kill the Warlock unless provoked, it becomes a question of character compatibility.

You say the Cleric is LG. LG covers a lot of things. Is he LG with an emphasis on the L or the G? Does the L mean honorable, obedient, or stupid? Does the L mean fair-minded and good to his friends, or does it mean "Hai guys i have a sword and use it on evul lol"?

If he is willing to play this character practically, or as a friend, or as someone oblivious to the Warlock's less-holy nature, you're fine. Conflict avoided, and potential humor created. If, however, he insists on being painfully aware, then the conflict remains inevitable. We've survived an issue at the player level only to reach it at the character level.

Ultimately, it boils down to those two things. Can you get the player to back down on the player level? Can you get them to agree to be subtle on a character level? If not, the PvP remains an inevitable outcome.

[AlltheBooks]

The LG cleric attacking a warlock on sight is performing an evil act. You are DM, strip him of cleric powers until they atone. Simple. Crisis over and the jerkoff learns what happens when they disrupt games with stupid characters. Done.

[infomatic]

I quite like Tragak's solution: DM rules at start of campaign that PVP actions are contingent upon the targeted player's say-so. It's like a PVE realm in Warcraft: Just say the necromancer isn't flagged for PVP.

[Urpriest]

Just remind both players that they can play a character of a given alignment in a wide number of ways, including ways that allow them to cooperate with eachother. There are plenty of LG characters in fiction who would tolerate an ally raising the dead and so forth in pursuit of a larger goal. The players are almost certainly familiar with this, it's almost 2014 after all. They just need a reminder.

[sjeshin]

Do you have a page number for casting [Evil] spells being an Evil act? I know there's blub in one of the alignment books that says that creating an undead is "absolute abominable, negative energy is bad and evil, blah blah blah*", but I didn't think there was a rule about [Evil] spells in general.

*And both those books have a really, really bad definition of good and evil.

I was completely incorrect about the PHB spelling it out. I have been of that opinion / understanding for a while. The actual only book that I have found that says evil spells are evil acts is The Book of Vile Darkness, which i don't think is technically 3.5. I didn't have my PHB in front of me, so i apologize for putting out bad info. I was sure i read it somewhere. I still think there is something taht spells it out. I will look in the rules compendium and get back to you playground.

But first and foremost. Killing a person without proof of a crime is NOT lawful good. I don't care what religion the cleric is, without proof of an evil act, and without threat to life and limb or a trial, you can't just kill evil people because you're lawful good. Also, as many have pointed out, tell the kid to go play with the other jerks.