Justice vs Evil party member

[AdamantlyD20]

A lawful evil cleric of our party threatened to summon a demon and offer my character's gear ( which the enemies we had just finished defeating had previously stolen) i fought the entire battle naked with nothing but a warhammer, having escaped by myself from being covered in gasoline tied to a chair and lit on fire, broke my bonds, hit the enemy a bunch of times, and basically dimension doored to safer location near the end of battle after having no other options. The enemy leader escaped, my party members killed the rest of the enemies, and as i went to get my gear, our LE cleric pulled the shenanigans of " swear your allegiance to me and my cause and I'll give your items back" i told him no, I'll give you all my share of any money/ items we get for the next few weeks in game, for the return of my items, he said no. Then threatens to summon a devil/demon to take him away from our group, offering my gear as payment for a planar teleport. I told him I'll give him one last chance to return my items. He refused, i told him to roll initiative, i rolled natural 20, he rolls a 2. I go first, full attack, taking a penalty to all attacks for dealing nonlethal damage so i don't kill him. I deal 110 damage, bringing him to 0HP and knocking him unconscious in one round. Then tied him up andequipped my gear. Was this ok for a NG character to do. What do i do with the LE character next time we play

[MonochromeTiger]

A lawful evil cleric of our party threatened to summon a demon and offer my character's gear ( which the enemies we had just finished defeating had previously stolen) i fought the entire battle naked with nothing but a warhammer, having escaped by myself from being covered in gasoline tied to a chair and lit on fire, broke my bonds, hit the enemy a bunch of times, and basically dimension doored to safer location near the end of battle after having no other options. The enemy leader escaped, my party members killed the rest of the enemies, and as i went to get my gear, our LE cleric pulled the shenanigans of " swear your allegiance to me and my cause and I'll give your items back" i told him no, I'll give you all my share of any money/ items we get for the next few weeks in game, for the return of my items, he said no. Then threatens to summon a devil/demon to take him away from our group, offering my gear as payment for a planar teleport. I told him I'll give him one last chance to return my items. He refused, i told him to roll initiative, i rolled natural 20, he rolls a 2. I go first, full attack, taking a penalty to all attacks for dealing nonlethal damage so i don't kill him. I deal 110 damage, bringing him to 0HP and knocking him unconscious in one round. Then tied him up andequipped my gear. Was this ok for a NG character to do. What do i do with the LN character next time we play.

.....take his equipment and tell him he's not getting it back until he agrees never to try and blackmail you into serving him or taking advantage of any member of the group again. if he refuses sell his equipment, he's not going to be loyal to the group and shouldn't get to profit from the others' support. if he agrees give him his equipment and make it clear he will be treated as an enemy if he breaks his word.

[Deophaun]

Perfectly OK. It's also reasonable at this point for you and the rest of the party members to kick the LE Cleric out of the group. After all, when you're facing the worst horrors the D&D universe can hurl at you on a daily basis, you need people you can trust at your back. The LE Cleric just proved that none of your characters can trust him.

He should become an NPC by party vote. Your party's next major nemesis, perhaps.

[AdamantlyD20]

I think he thought that because i had no items except my favored weapon, that he was in control of the situation. I am trying to give him a chance, this is the player's first time playing (his second session) and perhaps doesn't get the concept that a lv 8 cleric with 56 hp isn't in a position to blackmail someone who can deal average of 91 damage per round with all average rolls and only needs to roll a 3 to successfully hit him.

[Zanos]

I probably would have just killed him. He's a cleric of an evil deity who has admitted he is going to, or has in the past, consorted with devils or demons. Killing someone bringing devils and demons to the prime material is not an evil act.

What he did in general was pretty scummy as a player.

[MonochromeTiger]

I think he thought that because i had no items except my favored weapon, that he was in control of the situation. I am trying to give him a chance, this is the player's first time playing (his second session) and perhaps doesn't get the concept that a lv 8 cleric with 56 hp isn't in a position to blackmail someone who can deal average of 91 damage per round with all average rolls and only needs to roll a 3 to successfully hit him.

oh ouch.. an evil character on his first campaign in a group with good aligned characters? yeah that's a recipe for a fast character death, the way most people try to play evil their first time rarely mixes with a group that isn't monumentally merciful to badly planned betrayals. if nothing else I'd give him the advice out of character that if he's planning to betray the group for personal gain he should be sure they will keep to the agreement he makes and not have ANY means of fighting back.

[Deophaun]

Your new player may benefit from this article by Rick Burlew (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html), particularly the stuff under the header Decide To React Differently. Being evil does not mean being a #$%&.

[MonochromeTiger]

Your new player may benefit from this article by Rick Burlew (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html), particularly the stuff under the header Decide To React Differently. Being evil does not mean being a #$%&.

agreed, it also doesn't mean betraying everyone at the first opportunity regardless of how little sense it makes. I've always found the only betrayals that work out as anything other than character suicide are when you're guaranteed victory or are betraying them in a way that doesn't result in any deaths in the group (such as doing something the group wouldn't allow when you're certain they won't catch you) and even those wind up having a huge risk both in and out of character. honestly the number of times I've heard "I'm evil that means I have to kill them" has made me almost lose faith in the tactical and strategic skills of evil characters everywhere...

example: last campaign I had an evil character devoted to a specific deity and I was in a good group. that group decided "hey let's kill the high priest of *my character's god*!" my options were betray them stupidly getting myself killed out of loyalty to a cleric that doesn't care about my character at all. OR let them kill that cleric with the minimum support from me to make it look like I'm helping so I can get a quick religious promotion and then slowly get them to be less aggressive towards that deity over time so I can have free reign at the end of the campaign. one option had really dumb choices that risk the character's life for the cliche "buwahahaha I'm evil" the other option had a way for my character to gain something and still keep evil in mind.

[AdamantlyD20]

The LE character's backstory includes information about him being a prince, the younger of the two brothers, heir to the throne, who tried getting the throne for himself, got caught, and was exiled. I pity him for his "loss" but i don't think it entitles any player to be a jerk. To be honest, in retrospect, its somewhat comical, his failure to take my gear, but someday it might not be so funny when he succeeds. I don't want to make him have to be tied up and gagged because we can't trust him. Would letting the CN spell caster in the group cast petrification or flesh to stone on him, be against a NG alignment of my character.

[MonochromeTiger]

The LE character's backstory includes information about him being a prince, the younger of the two brothers, heir to the throne, who tried getting the throne for himself, got caught, and was exiled. I pity him for his "loss" but i don't think it entitles any player to be a jerk. To be honest, in retrospect, its somewhat comical, his failure, but someday it might not be so funny when he succeeds. I don't want to make him have to be tied up and gagged because we can't trust him. Would letting the CN spell caster in the group cast petrification or flesh to stone on him, be against a NG alignment of my character.

thaaaaaat strongly depends. if he's already tied up and your CN caster simply petrifies him he is essentially "dead" unless he gets stone to flesh and survives, that's pretty much killing a bound prisoner who isn't a threat (which I'm told is not a good guy thing to do). if you unbind him and he tries to mess with the group again? no issue with it, he's proving he would rather betray everyone than work with the group till the mutual goal is reached then simply leaving, he becomes a threat to the group's goals and the safety of everyone involved. as much as I can pity someone who decides they want to be evil the first time they play...there's only so much failure they can have before getting rid of the character outweighs any forced forgiveness in the name of new player sympathy.

[AdamantlyD20]

That's what i figured. Harming a helpless prisoner didn't sound very "good" to me. you can't cast a contingency on another player can you?

[MonochromeTiger]

That's what i figured. Harming a helpless prisoner didn't sound very "good" to me. Iyou can't cast a contingency on another player can you?

by the contingency spell I see (from pathfinder, might not translate to some other systems like this) contingency has a target of "you" and thus can only be used on yourself or a target that you have a link with to share self targeted spells such as a druid's animal companion. I'll be honest as moral choices go you could always stretch for "we know he's going to betray us later" cause otherwise you really set yourself up for a risk by knocking him unconscious instead of doing lethal damage.

[Averis Vol]

If you're looking to try to slowly turn him to the side of good, Stamp him with a gaes spell to never again perform an action that would harm someone who has not harmed him or one of his party.

If you want what I would do.... Remove his gear and snap each of his fingers so he can never again steal from you. If you want to be really sadistic, force feed him potions or heal him with the fingers bent at weird angles so they heal incredibly warped and can't be used properly (can't hold a weapon or anything)

......

No, seriously; he just went and proved that he cannot be trusted. He deserves no less than the minimal amount of leash that you can give him to continue on with the story. Even with his fingers completely mangled he can still cast spells, and if he's willing to endure the pain, showing he isn't a complete coward, he can go about rehealing them himself.

If he tries this again, remind him that you gave him a chance before you kill him; he obviously doesn't care about the character enough t not make his life nul and void.

[Xunthrae]

That's what i figured. Harming a helpless prisoner didn't sound very "good" to me. you can't cast a contingency on another player can you?

I think "mark of Justice" is what you're looking for. The one that if the person it's cast on breaks the parameters set at the start they take heavy penalties.

[hymer]

May I suggest killing him off, accepting the switch to an evil alignment, and then showing the player how you can play evil without being a four-letter-word to the other players?

[Ivanhoe]

The LE character's backstory includes information about him being a prince, the younger of the two brothers, heir to the throne, who tried getting the throne for himself, got caught, and was exiled. I pity him for his "loss" but i don't think it entitles any player to be a jerk. To be honest, in retrospect, its somewhat comical, his failure to take my gear, but someday it might not be so funny when he succeeds. I don't want to make him have to be tied up and gagged because we can't trust him. Would letting the CN spell caster in the group cast petrification or flesh to stone on him, be against a NG alignment of my character.

In this case, I suggest you talk to the player of the LE character first, in particular since he apparently has little gaming experience. How would he like to see this situation develop further? Does he want to continue with this character in this group since they (and you) apparently do not accept them as their leader and/or help him confirming his claim on the throne?
And then, of course, it is a matter of how you would like the story to continue. Punish that character? Kick him out of the group? Or keep him despite the alignment differences?

With enough player consensus, you can basically play with a group of very different alignments. At least that's my experience. It only gets more difficult, the more different the alignments are...:smallwink:

[Studoku]

Good doesn't mean nice. Or doormat. Defending yourself against the other party member is fine for any alignment.

I also second kicking the evil character from the group- it shouldn't be hard to get party consensus. Since he's now an NPC, the player is free to roll either a good character or at least someone high-functioning.

[Abaddona]

Try to resolve it OoC first. Killing his character isn't good option because he can feel discouraged, torturing etc. him (even if damages can be easily healed) is an evil act. If he is Lawfull then you may try to force on him written contract - maybe you can even get Inevitable to witness whole procedure of making and signing it.

[Gray Mage]

I think the best course of action is talking to the player. If it's his first time, maybe retire the LE character and bring one that'd play nice with the group? Playing an Evil character in a good group well isn't easy and sooner or later someone's char'll die.

Just killing his char might turn him passive agressive, while a slap on the wrist will encourage this disruptive behaviour.

[Da'Shain]

Your NG character did absolutely nothing wrong; he knocked a devil-summoning thief out instead of just killing him (which is kinda the D&D default when that thief's an NPC). Talk with him OOC about what he was trying to do and what he expected to happen. Make it clear that if he wasn't a PC his character would probably just be dead, and that if he wants to play evil he needs to work extra to put in a betrayal that won't end as pathetically one-sided as this. Also make clear to him that threatening a PC's gear is tantamount to threatening the PC with death and will be treated accordingly; perhaps he thought that your character wouldn't fight as hard just for his gear.

Really, just calmly explain your reasoning and it'll probably turn out fine. Then you guys can say the cleric suffered temporary insanity brought on by the enemy you just fought, or by summoning devils or the like. Maybe have it be the start of an IC nemesis situation if you're both on board with that (in a friendly way, though), but have the rest of the party convince your guy that they should give the cleric another chance or something.

[Red Fel]

Ah, another young villain takes his first, awkward steps along the path to damnation. I tell you, it brings back memories my own early acts of villainy. Like all players of Evil characters, this one had to start somewhere, and admittedly he did an absolutely sloppy, horrid job of it. But, as the saying goes, you can't make an omelet without killing a few partymembers and sacrificing their belongings to the Powers Below.

Would-be monsters like this need a helping hand. They need your patience and your compassion if they are ever to grow into the soul-crushing, morality-defying, mass-murdering monstrosities they have festering inside like a malignant tumor. You need to take this player aside. Talk to him. Explain the cardinal rule: Being Evil doesn't mean being a jerk. Help him understand that it's possible - nay, highly recommended - to be an Evil partymember who is pleasant, friendly, maybe even genuinely caring about the party.

Evil doesn't come from stabbing your partymembers in the back or trying to dominate them. It comes from taking actions against your common enemies that turn your allies' stomachs. It comes from being so indispensable that your party simply can't afford to be rid of you, even knowing what a horrible sub-creature you are. It comes from being able to go off and terrorize a village or something, then coming back to your allies to go fight a dragon or something, and then basking in the adoration of the grateful public even while you still have orphan-brains on your shoes.

Don't chastise your would-be villains-in-training. Teach them. Nurture them. Then unleash them on the world.

(Tl;dr non-evil version: Talk to him. Tell him how to play non-jerk Evil. And if he insists on playing Evil-as-jerk, take the character away from him, because he's giving Evil players a bad name.)

[Raven777]

Once again in alignment related matters, Red Fel nails it like a boss.

[ArcturusV]

Gotta love Red Fel there with the decent, good point along the lines of what I'd say.

In particular you might want to focus on teaching him why Lawful Evil is generally the only "Acceptable" evil you can play in a group with Good aligned adventurers... because the "Lawful" Part tempers evil so that you generally don't do this sort of thing. Means having codes of conduct, honor, regulation and rules. You may twist the rules, or seek to use the system to get advantages over other people... but you generally believe in the system.

Meaning Lawful Evil is the least likely to betray you. Heck, Chaotic Good is more likely to betray you (Because they think their way is better than yours) than a Lawful Evil type (He recognizes the strength of order and organization and that having the team intact is only a net boon).

In particular cover that Lawful Evil doesn't mean you're a megalomaniac necessarily. You don't need to "prove" your evil by trying to rule over everything. There's quite a few boot lickers in the nine hells to prove that wrong. Part of it is trying to figure out just how Lawful Evil plays for his cleric. And as a cleric, he should generally be pretty devoted to it, depending on just what god/devil/cause they are a cleric of. A cleric of Baalzebub or Mammon (Lying and cheating to those you see beneath you, coveting wealth and the adoration of others) compared to a Cleric of Bane (Believing in the rule by the martially superior, in which case that Cleric should be trying to suck up to the obviously martially superior NG character that knocked him on his ass).

[Berenger]

Was this ok for a NG character to do.
It was ok for each and every character, ever.

[AdamantlyD20]

Would it be against my alignment if i help him get the throne by any means?

[MonochromeTiger]

Would it be against my alignment if i help him get the throne by any means?

huh... was kind of curious how this was going to play out since yesterday. generally helping a lawful evil cleric who clearly only cares about his own gain get a throne he has no real claim to is indeed a bad thing for good aligned characters (and neutral characters without some strong reasons) to do.

if I may how did it go from debating offing him to wanting to help him take over and rule the kingdom he was exiled from for trying to steal the throne?

edit: as always red fel said it better than I could :P

[Red Fel]

Would it be against my alignment if i help him get the throne by any means?

A dozen ways until Sunday.

Let's review - you are Neutral Good. That means, regardless of freedom or order, you seek the Good outcome by the Good means.

As a rule, overthrowing a legitimate ruler isn't generally a Good or Evil action, although the details may make it so. As a rule, "By any means" is the typical Evil mentality - Good will not accept "any" means; there are some that remain off-limits. Finally, as a rule, placing an Evil character on the throne is an Evil act, even if he's slightly less evil than the guy already sitting on the throne.

As an aside, unless your character's alignment is Chaotic Stupid, I wouldn't help this character get to the toilet by any means. Seriously, if somebody tried to mess with me like that, the only thing I'd be in the hurry to help them reach is the business end of a sword.

[Harbinger]

Would it be against my alignment if i help him get the throne by any means?

What would be your IC reason for doing so, especially after he just attacked you?

[Metahuman1]

A lawful evil cleric of our party threatened to summon a demon and offer my character's gear ( which the enemies we had just finished defeating had previously stolen) i fought the entire battle naked with nothing but a warhammer, having escaped by myself from being covered in gasoline tied to a chair and lit on fire, broke my bonds, hit the enemy a bunch of times, and basically dimension doored to safer location near the end of battle after having no other options. The enemy leader escaped, my party members killed the rest of the enemies, and as i went to get my gear, our LE cleric pulled the shenanigans of " swear your allegiance to me and my cause and I'll give your items back" i told him no, I'll give you all my share of any money/ items we get for the next few weeks in game, for the return of my items, he said no. Then threatens to summon a devil/demon to take him away from our group, offering my gear as payment for a planar teleport. I told him I'll give him one last chance to return my items. He refused, i told him to roll initiative, i rolled natural 20, he rolls a 2. I go first, full attack, taking a penalty to all attacks for dealing nonlethal damage so i don't kill him. I deal 110 damage, bringing him to 0HP and knocking him unconscious in one round. Then tied him up andequipped my gear. Was this ok for a NG character to do. What do i do with the LE character next time we play

I've been were you are. It was my first character, cleric of a good deity. We had a freaking Necromancer in the party. She tried to kill him. He let her off. Fifteen minutes of play later the party was camped and resting and she killed him while she was on watch.


Once evil has double crossed you, you kill it unless it's a low level character and your an optimized Tier 1 character of a very high level. Even then, you only give it one more chance.

Since you've already made my mistake, I'd advise you to make sure your ALWAYS on watch, within reach of him, with your weapon drawn, facing him, never letting him out of your sight for an instant.

And when he inevitably tries to double cross, try to have built yourself up so that if he has a good plan this time, you can live and can come for him, and this time, kill him.



If you MUST be nice (this is likely a fatal mistake but if you must.) warn him out of character that if he pulls another stunt like that against the party his character will be ax'd for good, and if he metagames to know this in character Lighting will strike him. Get the DM with you on that second half if needed.

Honestly, I wish I'd known then what I know now. I rolled the stats, witness rolls, at level one on a human.

I had 2 16's, 2 17's, an 18 and cause one of them was 4d6 that all came up 6's I had a 19. I've never naturally started with stats that good since. Such a waste. Don't be like me, don't give him the satisfaction.

If he DOES off you, come back as a super paranoid Wizard with a billion preparations and Plan B's for EVERYTHING so that as soon as he makes and issue you swat him out of existence, or a hyper optimized refitted Ruby Knight Vindicator with a Dip into PrC paladin for Evildar so that you've got an excuse to be ready to wipe him out the instant he pulls something cause you in character knew specifically form him it was coming.

[MonochromeTiger]

I've been were you are. It was my first character, cleric of a good deity. We had a freaking Necromancer in the party. She tried to kill him. He let her off. Fifteen minutes of play later the party was camped and resting and she killed him while she was on watch.


...the new "good" character mistake designed to counter the new "evil" character mistake.. where a new evil player will likely instantly betray the group and get themselves killed a new good player's doom comes in not being hyper paranoid about who's on watch with a known traitor in the group... then again this also happens in all evil groups but there it can at least wind up being slightly hilarious.

adamantly: if for some reason your LE cleric doesn't manage to find some way to make you off them in the next session NEVER let them have watch without someone else that you trust watching them. never let them handle supplies or travel arrangements. don't let them anywhere near negotiations for work or information. and NEVER let them talk to a remotely threatening enemy because they're just about certain to use at least one of those for a "clever" way to finish the job.

[Averis Vol]

and NEVER let them talk to a remotely threatening enemy because they're just about certain to use at least one of those for a "clever" way to finish the job.


See, I don't think the player is stupid, per se (he did make a boneheaded call that he payed for) but he has shown hat he doesn't have a terribly good grasp on the fact that not having his armor and such isn't really a hindrance for a dedicated bruiser. Which, really, means he doesn't know the game too well (he is new after all) so I'm not sure he is going to be making any "clever" calls.

Either way adamantly, don't let it get to that point; let him know here and now that you are not to be ****ed with.

[AdamantlyD20]

As far as in game reasons to help him, i have 0 reason to want to help him. If i could have it my way, I'd keep him bound at all times, mouth gagged, feed him food through either a straw, or through a feeding tube. But that's not being a forgiving and/or nice to the player. I will have a talk with him OoC and maybe in character write up a contract saying that he will not betray us again or the party will not holdback and won't hesitate to kill next time. The only reason he isn't dead is because I allowed it. I forcibly took a penalty to attack rolls to deal nonlethal damage to show my character's compassion and because the other guy is new and we spent an hour and a half making his character with him. The other party member was thinking about helping him get the throne to get him out of our hair, and we decided it was probably one of the dumbest things we could do, especially to jeopardize our alignment being that half the gear i have can only be used by a NG character.

[Grollub]

I think alignments aside.. if that happened to me in a group.. i would kill that person as quickly and gruesomely as possible

You were naked , cept for 1 weapon, and basically "killed him" ala non-lethal dmg.. when he wakes up from that beating I'd just take your weapon out and say some awe-inspiring quote bout trying to screw over a fellow party member and slaughter him.

If the gm wants to enforce some penalty on you for that, whatever.. it's worth it.. Just because you are good, doesnt make you a door mat, or patsy. He pulled a d*ck move and deserves to die.

[Pickford]

A lawful evil cleric of our party threatened to summon a demon and offer my character's gear ( which the enemies we had just finished defeating had previously stolen) i fought the entire battle naked with nothing but a warhammer, having escaped by myself from being covered in gasoline tied to a chair and lit on fire, broke my bonds, hit the enemy a bunch of times, and basically dimension doored to safer location near the end of battle after having no other options. The enemy leader escaped, my party members killed the rest of the enemies, and as i went to get my gear, our LE cleric pulled the shenanigans of " swear your allegiance to me and my cause and I'll give your items back" i told him no, I'll give you all my share of any money/ items we get for the next few weeks in game, for the return of my items, he said no. Then threatens to summon a devil/demon to take him away from our group, offering my gear as payment for a planar teleport. I told him I'll give him one last chance to return my items. He refused, i told him to roll initiative, i rolled natural 20, he rolls a 2. I go first, full attack, taking a penalty to all attacks for dealing nonlethal damage so i don't kill him. I deal 110 damage, bringing him to 0HP and knocking him unconscious in one round. Then tied him up andequipped my gear. Was this ok for a NG character to do. What do i do with the LE character next time we play

Yes, that was above and beyond the call of duty, you're acting as an exalted character.

Make him swear an oath to do good deeds, reform his ways, and never to interfere again. Follow this up by having a Paladin place a Mark of Justice on him.

[(Un)Inspired]

Would letting the CN spell caster in the group cast petrification or flesh to stone on him, be against a NG alignment of my character.

I think the really important question is whether it's in character to take this action. Maybe one NG character would do it, maybe another wouldn't. Alinements are nice tools for conceptualizing how a character will behave but what most important is you deciding if an action is one that fits your characters personality and motivations.

Try to imagine you were in your characters shoes and raised with you characters set of experiences and morals. What emotions would your character feel at this clerics betrayal? Would you be filled with vengeance against him? Would you feel the need to petrify him to protect the world from his influence? Would you give him another chance because you think anyone can be redeemed?

Don't be ruled by those two little letters on your character sheet that say NG. Try to let your characters actions flow organically (it's hard!) and if your dm says that your actions were not befitting of someone who's NG then maybe your adventurer is undergoing character growth. It's one of the best things that can happen in a story

[Angelalex242]

The only reason to leave him alive is because your character must've seen something worth redeeming in him. If he thought he was irredeemable, he would've ganked him. Even my Fist of Raziel exalted types aren't going to think twice about sending those who consort with devils straight to their masters, express mail.

So, I think the challenge for your character is to ask himself, "Why didn't I coup de gras this guy when he was unconscious? What redeeming quality did I see that bade me stay my hand?"

When you can answer that, you'll know what to do with him.

[AdamantlyD20]

The only reason to leave him alive is because your character must've seen something worth redeeming in him. If he thought he was irredeemable, he would've ganked him. Even my Fist of Raziel exalted types aren't going to think twice about sending those who consort with devils straight to their masters, express mail.

So, I think the challenge for your character is to ask himself, "Why didn't I coup de gras this guy when he was unconscious? What redeeming quality did I see that bade me stay my hand?"

When you can answer that, you'll know what to do with him.

i am really not sure why my character spared him. Mind you, this is the same LE cleric who turned invisible and ran away after i risked my character's life to pick up his unconscious body and running to safety and bringing him back to consciousness, just to be swarmed by the enemy and get captured. That's the reason i was captured in the first place.

[ArcturusV]

Well other than the obvious "Killing the guy who' sitting across the table from me probably isn't cool" reason I take it.

*shrug* Trying to work on redemption isn't a bad idea at all. Talk to the guy's character, try to get in his head, figure out what he wants. He's cowardly, wants power, etc. Typical evil fodder you might think. Then again remind him that devotion to his evil forces is going to get him in bad straights eventually. Cowardice is not something that the forces of evil countenance in their pawns for very long. And that true power comes from mastery over yourself rather than faustian compacts with the forces of evil, who never give you power, but only the illusion of power while they plot your eventual fall to becoming nothing more than their personal plaything.

That sort of thing.

[Red Fel]

Well other than the obvious "Killing the guy who' sitting across the table from me probably isn't cool" reason I take it.

*shrug* Trying to work on redemption isn't a bad idea at all. Talk to the guy's character, try to get in his head, figure out what he wants. He's cowardly, wants power, etc. Typical evil fodder you might think. Then again remind him that devotion to his evil forces is going to get him in bad straights eventually. Cowardice is not something that the forces of evil countenance in their pawns for very long. And that true power comes from mastery over yourself rather than faustian compacts with the forces of evil, who never give you power, but only the illusion of power while they plot your eventual fall to becoming nothing more than their personal plaything.

That sort of thing.

Arcturus makes an excellent point about "getting into the other guy's head." It wouldn't be a bad idea, both IC and OOC, to attempt to redeem him, make him better, etc. But one caveat.

It's possible nothing's going on in this guy's head.

I don't mean that this player is stupid, but rather that he may be playing a completely two-dimensional "for the evulz" character instead of one with depth or objectives. It is almost impossible to attempt to redeem a character without goals, because they're not being played as a person. When a player plays an evil character with an agenda, you can throw a spanner into the works. You can offer them alternatives. Make deals. Give them a Third Option. But when a player simply says "What's the most evil thing my character could do right now? He does that." There's no real way of dealing with that. No bargains you could make, because he'd break them. No alternatives you could offer, because he only wants to do The Bad Thing.

So before you go about seeing whether you can redeem him, first you need to determine whether there's anything there to be redeemed.

[Brookshw]

i am really not sure why my character spared him. Mind you, this is the same LE cleric who turned invisible and ran away after i risked my character's life to pick up his unconscious body and running to safety and bringing him back to consciousness, just to be swarmed by the enemy and get captured. That's the reason i was captured in the first place.

Probably because you know this is a game and you want everyone to be having fun, at least I hope that's the reason.

I can really feel for someone who's a new player with (presumably) no experience with roleplaying games. He's stepped into a very easy trap with how evil can be portrayed.

This sounds like an out of character conversation waiting to happen. Discuss it with respect for one another, heck, with the group in fact. What kind of game do you want to be playing? If the answer is a hard core back stabbing game then carry on. If the answer is you want a collaborative game but wish to have a level of in character conflict based on the characters beliefs then discuss where you should be drawing the lines of where you should limit your effects on one another.

This could be a great opportunity to flush out the characters and have some fun with tension. Characters are welcome to disagree with one another but decide where and how to draw the line so that it doesn't impact anyone's ability to enjoy the game. Heck, even discuss whether long term you want to roleplay either your characters fall to darkness, converting him to light, or just having the characters be in a bit of a rivalry situation could lead to an interesting campaign. Long ago I knew a player who sat down and designed his character to start as an evil fighter who was eventually going to rethink his ways, go hang out at a monastery for a while (picking up a level in cleric) and then eventually leave the sheltered life to be a champion of good (now multiclass paladin). Frankly I love this, building your character with the idea of personal growth is fantastic. Discuss long term how you want your characters to develop and who you want them to be. Find a way to make it mesh or a compromise that won't impact each others ability to enjoy the game.

[Fouredged Sword]

Whip out the Book of Exalted Deeds and convert his evil backside to lawful neutral and get him to promise to never do it again. He is still one step from his deity, so he keeps his class abilities, but you can tell him that it is now out of character for him to backstab the group.

You can fold the whole thing into a "Shown the light of forgiveness and learned to work with others" life lesson for his character and do a cool redemption arc where he works with the party to save his kingdom from a chaotic and unpredictable despot that his sibling has become.

He gets to be a badbackside Rastlin like spellcaster who uses evil for good (and his own personal power) and the party doesn't get backstabbed at every turn.

[Nagukuk]

You have done well with the interaction between characters so far.

At this point ...

NOT Killing him will bring bad results he WILL come back to get you at some time later. if he is still in control of the character.


KILLING him will (in my long gaming experience 1st Ed Advanced to 3.5) ALSO bring bad results...
Players, especially new players (i have seen this time and time again remember) will

A) tend to want to create their next character to be some relation to the last character allowing them to "hunt down" their killer. Almost always blaming the PLAYER for their death, they do not care about the situation the alinements the actions that lead to it. Only that YOU/HE/SHE killed their character.

B) If their next character is not "related" they will still try and focus on creating a character that will be able to kill yours, and will probably attempt it.

C) perhaps they will quit playing citing "X" reason

Some people may take this "loss" in stride, "Yes I tried to screw him and got caught, I would have done the same" ETC

Rarely ABC does not happen and everyone can continue on playing and enjoying the game/story.



As quite a few above have said,
Talking to the player and/with the DM is the best way to help alleviate the problem.

immediately "NPC" the character, if you are going to take him to jail etc...anyone tied up is going to try to escape, and escaping will cause more potential harm if they injure or kill other party members or even if you have to beat him down again and again and again... the more you beat the player controlled character the more you may "hurt" the actual player controlling him/her. If he escapes as an NPC to come menace you one day so be it. that makes for better stories. Let the DM handle this revenge, not the player.

BEFORE THE NEXT SESSION!!!!
Help the player create a new cool/awesome character (perhaps who's alinement fits better with the party). Doing this a much better choice than playing out the current character/situation where he is allowed to

Live (in my opinion foolishly) and continue with the party to cause almost certainly cause further harm,

Jailed/transported to jail/escape (allowing final screw you tactics etc.) ultimately needing a new character anyway.

Killed him and more often than not allowing his "vengance" character into play.

Sensible adult talk and new better cooler character in a timely manner IE he wont spend whole/majority of session(s) tied up dead etc...This way the disruptions are minimal for all. :smallcool:

[Metahuman1]

...the new "good" character mistake designed to counter the new "evil" character mistake.. where a new evil player will likely instantly betray the group and get themselves killed a new good player's doom comes in not being hyper paranoid about who's on watch with a known traitor in the group... then again this also happens in all evil groups but there it can at least wind up being slightly hilarious.

adamantly: if for some reason your LE cleric doesn't manage to find some way to make you off them in the next session NEVER let them have watch without someone else that you trust watching them. never let them handle supplies or travel arrangements. don't let them anywhere near negotiations for work or information. and NEVER let them talk to a remotely threatening enemy because they're just about certain to use at least one of those for a "clever" way to finish the job.

No, my down fall was the DM wanting to get in the Necromancer's players pants. He insisted as DM that I had no in character reason to suspect she was acting of her own free will at the time, and thus I could not worry about taking in character precautions, and that once she offed me the only thing that would happen was she lost out on being lawful evil and I could not build a character to Mop the floor with her as soon as we met in character.


But my point still stands, Warn him Ooc, watch him like a hawk, his character so much as twitches in a way you don't like kill him on the spot, loot the body and forget he was ever in your party.

Hell, you've be fully justified to force him to swallow what ever that book of exulted deeds version of mind rape is to make him good and make him swallow and atonement spell and a good deity to follow, and pay for it all out of pocket himself.

[MonochromeTiger]

No, my down fall was the DM wanting to get in the Necromancer's players pants. He insisted as DM that I had no in character reason to suspect she was acting of her own free will at the time, and thus I could not worry about taking in character precautions, and that once she offed me the only thing that would happen was she lost out on being lawful evil and I could not build a character to Mop the floor with her as soon as we met in character.

well ouch. truly there is no greater force in a game for getting characters killed than DM hormones. oh right and also that reasoning makes no sense because if they were suspected of losing control of themselves to some outside force the last thing ANYONE would want is to have them be in charge of protecting the group, your DM could've at least learned basic logic before trying to use it against you...

[Metahuman1]

well ouch. truly there is no greater force in a game for getting characters killed than DM hormones. oh right and also that reasoning makes no sense because if they were suspected of losing control of themselves to some outside force the last thing ANYONE would want is to have them be in charge of protecting the group, your DM could've at least learned basic logic before trying to use it against you...

Well, his logic was we removed the thing that was depriving her of control, an evil not quite intelligent but close dagger that compelled the killing of followers of certain good aligned gods. Once that was taken away from her he reasoned I now had no reason to know she wanted to kill me since I didn't know her specialty cause all I ever saw her cast was Shield and Magic Missile.

She on the other hand saw me make a very effective Turn check and decided once she could raise toy's she didn't wanna worry about me breaking them so I should be reassigned to be an XP for her and Gold Dump for the party.

[Yuric the Bold]

Personally there are times like these where I say kill his character and let him go back to sitting on his couch playing Call of Duty.
However, his LE cleric is now bound, gagged, and helpless. Killing a helpless character is an evil act and your NG bruiser already showed compassion.
At this point it is simple; make it clear he has two options either become a true member of the party and renounce his ways (could make for some interesting role-playing as well as plenty of material for the DM to throw your way as followers of said LE god need to 'make right' what you have done) or he can face you in one on one combat to the death.
My gaming group has gone through a number of changes over the last year as we had two of our main players, and a DM move away; so bringing in new players and friends is always a necessity to maintain a good gaming environment. Sometimes though, there are some people who will NEVER get a good grasp on why RPGs and D&D are meant to build dynamic group interactions.
Adamant I will love to read what came of this encounter and what decision you reached and the ramifications of the poor choices cleric.

[AdamantlyD20]

Personally there are times like these where I say kill his character and let him go back to sitting on his couch playing Call of Duty.
However, his LE cleric is now bound, gagged, and helpless. Killing a helpless character is an evil act and your NG bruiser already showed compassion.
At this point it is simple; make it clear he has two options either become a true member of the party and renounce his ways (could make for some interesting role-playing as well as plenty of material for the DM to throw your way as followers of said LE god need to 'make right' what you have done) or he can face you in one on one combat to the death.
My gaming group has gone through a number of changes over the last year as we had two of our main players, and a DM move away; so bringing in new players and friends is always a necessity to maintain a good gaming environment. Sometimes though, there are some people who will NEVER get a good grasp on why RPGs and D&D are meant to build dynamic group interactions.
Adamant I will love to read what came of this encounter and what decision you reached and the ramifications of the poor choices cleric.

We are supposed to have a game this coming weekend, I'll update you once we play, I'm very grateful to all who have shared their opinions/ ideas, it really gives some good ideas. Unfortunately, I'm gong to have to wait and see what the other players reaction is before i can go any further

[Metahuman1]

Best of luck then. Though it might not hurt to point out that if he did it too you cause it was opportune, if it's ever opportune he might make one of them his next mark.

[MonochromeTiger]

I hope what we've all been saying to (read: at) you is helpful...also no matter what you choose to do I really hope it discourages him from that terrible "I'm going to betray my good aligned party who has ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO TAKE MY SIDE ON THIS! bwuahahahahahaha!!!" playstyle.

[Krobar]

I would have just killed him. But since you didn't, youre going to have to deal with him. He's evil, summons demons and is coming for you. Count on it.

[Ardantis]

What a great story

[Pickford]

Metahuman1:

She on the other hand saw me make a very effective Turn check and decided once she could raise toy's she didn't wanna worry about me breaking them so I should be reassigned to be an XP for her and Gold Dump for the party.

So, the rest of the party knows she killed you...and did what, nothing? Adventuring with a psychopath is, usually, a huge mistake. Even another evil character would be justified in killing her at that point just to protect themselves from a potential in-party threat.


AdamantlyD20: Good luck to you.

[Metahuman1]

Well the other players were a cleric who wanted to help the elves overthrow the minotaurs occupying there lands, there human allies, and then make Elvis the Master race of the entire world we were on, so when an elf kills a human he won't get worked up about it, A Gnome Artificer who ran away form the party after that and the player rolled another character on the grounds that after seeing that she wasn't gonna hang around the crazy psyco anymore, and a pair of Chaotic Neutral Humans, a Rogue and a Fighter, who were easily appeased by "Hey, free stuff and no more having to be nice and accept surrenders!"

[MonochromeTiger]

Well the other players were a cleric who wanted to help the elves overthrow the minotaurs occupying there lands, there human allies, and then make Elvis the Master race of the entire world we were on, so when an elf kills a human he won't get worked up about it, A Gnome Artificer who ran away form the party after that and the player rolled another character on the grounds that after seeing that she wasn't gonna hang around the crazy psyco anymore, and a pair of Chaotic Neutral Humans, a Rogue and a Fighter, who were easily appeased by "Hey, free stuff and no more having to be nice and accept surrenders!"

mixed alignment parties can be a bit facepalm-y sometimes. an evil a neutral and a good? whoever makes the neutral think they're bestest friends will likely get the other one killed either intentionally or through inaction. multiple evil and one good? somehow the campaign will devolve into a badly written comedy about the good character never noticing they're in the presence of stab-happy killers.

honestly if nothing else I have to respect the artificer's dedication to the role, I don't know too many people outside my group who would retire a character from a campaign and reroll because something offends or scares the character so much.

[Epsilon Rose]

mixed alignment parties can be a bit facepalm-y sometimes. an evil a neutral and a good? whoever makes the neutral think they're bestest friends will likely get the other one killed either intentionally or through inaction. multiple evil and one good? somehow the campaign will devolve into a badly written comedy about the good character never noticing they're in the presence of stab-happy killers.

honestly if nothing else I have to respect the artificer's dedication to the role, I don't know too many people outside my group who would retire a character from a campaign and reroll because something offends or scares the character so much.

A lot of that depends on how the characters get played. I've definitely written up Evil and even, arguably, CE characters who'd get on fine in a party of paladins and clerics (provided they could get around detect evil) because their evil is more competent then "stabity stabity".

On the other hand, I tend to take alignment as a very vague descriptor, rather than a strict proscription. With more traditional roles, or less subtle characters, things can break very easily.

[Metahuman1]

mixed alignment parties can be a bit facepalm-y sometimes. an evil a neutral and a good? whoever makes the neutral think they're bestest friends will likely get the other one killed either intentionally or through inaction. multiple evil and one good? somehow the campaign will devolve into a badly written comedy about the good character never noticing they're in the presence of stab-happy killers.

honestly if nothing else I have to respect the artificer's dedication to the role, I don't know too many people outside my group who would retire a character from a campaign and reroll because something offends or scares the character so much.

I'd have admired it more if the Dm hadn't managed to throw an under CR'd monster at us next encounter of next session that killed both her and my replacements off as well as an additional person the party picked up who came in a rouge who introduced himself as a walking knife shop and tried to sell everyone daggers.

Next we both got the idea to roll rangers. I rolled a chaotic good human archer ranger, and she rolled a neutral evil twf elf ranger who was a serial killer with favored enemy: Human males, which she had an irrational hatred of cause one raped and murdered her mother when she was a child.

She ended up killing me not long into play and after that I just stopped playing with the group for awhile, came back with a true neutral human rogue assassin some time down the line, and was subsequently killed for trying to get the party to preform a tactical retreat to regroup in a fight they didn't wanna do that in. The rest of them survived and won that fight though.

If I had not in the mean time discovered Play by Post, I might have just given up the game all together.

[MonochromeTiger]

A lot of that depends on how the characters get played. I've definitely written up Evil and even, arguably, CE characters who'd get on fine in a party of paladins and clerics (provided they could get around detect evil) because their evil is more competent then "stabity stabity".

On the other hand, I tend to take alignment as a very vague descriptor, rather than a strict proscription. With more traditional roles, or less subtle characters, things can break very easily.

oh I'm not saying that evil can't be subtle or sociable, I personally find the best way to play an evil character with good aligned characters around is to make it as hard as you can for them to realize your alignment before they're too deep in a plan to stop helping. really most of my "well this alignment did something dumb" comments are in regards to players I've seen take alignment description as THE definition of their character or people too new to grasp proper planning or timing.

and while less subtle characters tend to break things..there's nothing more entertaining than an all evil group that actively scheme against and kill each other while still on good terms. example being a session where my group's kitsune oracle and dragonborn cleric spent 90% of their time just killing and resurrecting each other because of a debate over whose god granted the most power.

metahuman: ....um...ok yeah the bad will that group and its characters all seem to have from how you described them seems like something we'd kick people out over, there's joking or story and then there's tailoring your story towards killing one specific PC (which is kind of a jerk move).

[Dalebert]

"PC glow" is what we always called it. It's that special glow that characters see when they meet a PC that distinguishes him from an NPC. It also ends up being a get out of jail free card, but it shouldn't.

Teach him that it's a myth. If this is his first game, it's a good opportunity to nip a bad myth in the bud. Explain to him that the party would not possibly continue to have him as a member. Why would they? The PC glow? Pfft. Let him know that he needs to make a new character and he'll play that one with the understanding that friendship and loyalty has to be earned, even if it's an evil character faking it.

Smart evil characters don't poop where they eat.

[Epsilon Rose]

oh I'm not saying that evil can't be subtle or sociable, I personally find the best way to play an evil character with good aligned characters around is to make it as hard as you can for them to realize your alignment before they're too deep in a plan to stop helping. really most of my "well this alignment did something dumb" comments are in regards to players I've seen take alignment description as THE definition of their character or people too new to grasp proper planning or timing.
Agreed.


and while less subtle characters tend to break things..there's nothing more entertaining than an all evil group that actively scheme against and kill each other while still on good terms. example being a session where my group's kitsune oracle and dragonborn cleric spent 90% of their time just killing and resurrecting each other because of a debate over whose god granted the most power.
Agreed and that sounds awesome. Also, oddly, not that unreasonable. Especially in a world where death and injury mean as little as they do in D&D.

[Pickford]

I'd have admired it more if the Dm hadn't managed to throw an under CR'd monster at us next encounter of next session that killed both her and my replacements off as well as an additional person the party picked up who came in a rouge who introduced himself as a walking knife shop and tried to sell everyone daggers.

Next we both got the idea to roll rangers. I rolled a chaotic good human archer ranger, and she rolled a neutral evil twf elf ranger who was a serial killer with favored enemy: Human males, which she had an irrational hatred of cause one raped and murdered her mother when she was a child.

She ended up killing me not long into play and after that I just stopped playing with the group for awhile, came back with a true neutral human rogue assassin some time down the line, and was subsequently killed for trying to get the party to preform a tactical retreat to regroup in a fight they didn't wanna do that in. The rest of them survived and won that fight though.

If I had not in the mean time discovered Play by Post, I might have just given up the game all together.

To ensure I'm not totally baffled...the same player killed you three times?

[Eldest]

Gotta love Red Fel there with the decent, good point along the lines of what I'd say.

In particular you might want to focus on teaching him why Lawful Evil is generally the only "Acceptable" evil you can play in a group with Good aligned adventurers... because the "Lawful" Part tempers evil so that you generally don't do this sort of thing. Means having codes of conduct, honor, regulation and rules. You may twist the rules, or seek to use the system to get advantages over other people... but you generally believe in the system.

Meaning Lawful Evil is the least likely to betray you. Heck, Chaotic Good is more likely to betray you (Because they think their way is better than yours) than a Lawful Evil type (He recognizes the strength of order and organization and that having the team intact is only a net boon).

In particular cover that Lawful Evil doesn't mean you're a megalomaniac necessarily. You don't need to "prove" your evil by trying to rule over everything. There's quite a few boot lickers in the nine hells to prove that wrong. Part of it is trying to figure out just how Lawful Evil plays for his cleric. And as a cleric, he should generally be pretty devoted to it, depending on just what god/devil/cause they are a cleric of. A cleric of Baalzebub or Mammon (Lying and cheating to those you see beneath you, coveting wealth and the adoration of others) compared to a Cleric of Bane (Believing in the rule by the martially superior, in which case that Cleric should be trying to suck up to the obviously martially superior NG character that knocked him on his ass).

Bullpucky. I can do a perfectly good Chaotic Evil that works with a party. She likes these people, they're fun to be around, and she won't tick them off if she can help it. Freedom to do whatever you want is important, and ticking off three-to-five boon companions that are just as powerful as her is a bad way to stay free. Neutral Evil, he's following them because he wants X and he agreed to help the party if they would help him with getting to X. Jeopardize getting him to X, and he'll turn on you, or more likely just end association since X is important, but since getting to X is easier with allies he won't betray them at the turn of a hat. Any other alignments I should describe?

[Red Fel]

Bullpucky. I can do a perfectly good Chaotic Evil that works with a party. She likes these people, they're fun to be around, and she won't tick them off if she can help it. Freedom to do whatever you want is important, and ticking off three-to-five boon companions that are just as powerful as her is a bad way to stay free. Neutral Evil, he's following them because he wants X and he agreed to help the party if they would help him with getting to X. Jeopardize getting him to X, and he'll turn on you, or more likely just end association since X is important, but since getting to X is easier with allies he won't betray them at the turn of a hat. Any other alignments I should describe?

There's a difference between "Lawful Evil is least likely to betray you" (which is what Arcturus actually said) and "Chaotic Evil will betray you at the drop of a hat (which is not what Arcturus said). Don't contradict someone who's busy praising me.

The fact is, I love it when someone can take a more challenging alignment - such as CN or CE - and make it not only playable, but extremely effective. The problem is that this seems to be more the exception than the rule. There's a reason that those two alignments are often prohibited at tables - less experienced or capable players will use CN or CE as license to be "Chaotic Jerkwad" and mess over the party at their leisure.

Are there players who can do it well? Absolutely. Exactly as you described - a chaotic character is vigorously self-deterministic, but nothing is stopping them from not betraying the party. A well-played chaotic character will remain with the party because she wants to, can befriend the party despite alignment differences, and won't constantly observe the backs of her partymembers wondering where to stick the knife.

But as I said, this takes skill. It's easy to play a moderately effective CG or NG character. It's somewhat more challenging to play LG or LE. CE, CN and NE (and LN and TN, for that matter) take a higher level of skill altogether, and some GMs would rather ban those alignments outright than risk party implosion.

[Metahuman1]

To ensure I'm not totally baffled...the same player killed you three times?

No. Here's a break down.

Player 1 Kills me. Player 2's character witnesses this and decides shes getting the hell out of dodge. Me and Player 2 both roll new characters.

DM throws an encounter that's more then we should be dealing with at that level at us. As a result, me and Player 2 both get killed and have to roll new characters again.

Player 2 Kills me cause her new character is a serial killer and i happened to roll her preferred target.

When after a hiatus I come back, I make it too the final boss battle. DM throws Mages Dysjuntion on the part and wastes most of our gear. My character suggests a tactical withdrawal to get our feet back under us, and player 2 finishes her off for suggesting that cause the character didn't like the idea.




Why no, I don't play wtih this party anymore, why do you ask?

[AdamantlyD20]

No. Here's a break down.

Player 1 Kills me. Player 2's character witnesses this and decides shes getting the hell out of dodge. Me and Player 2 both roll new characters.

DM throws an encounter that's more then we should be dealing with at that level at us. As a result, me and Player 2 both get killed and have to roll new characters again.

Player 2 Kills me cause her new character is a serial killer and i happened to roll her preferred target.

When after a hiatus I come back, I make it too the final boss battle. DM throws Mages Dysjuntion on the part and wastes most of our gear. My character suggests a tactical withdrawal to get our feet back under us, and player 2 finishes her off for suggesting that cause the character didn't like the idea.




Why no, I don't play wtih this party anymore, why do you ask?

I feel for you, that's pretty rough man, it doesn't seem that group wanted everyone to have fun, i hope your current group is more mature than that.

[Deophaun]

Why no, I don't play wtih this party anymore, why do you ask?
I'm surprised you lasted as long as you did. I would have left as soon as the DM railroaded me into the first TK.

[Suddo]

What he did was very non-Lawful in my opinion assuming you had been working together for a long period of time. You probably already have a standing agreement to work together where in he gets a cut of the loot and so do you and everyone benifits. This is clearly a Chaotic act, basically saying **** it I see a way to get ahead and I'm going to take it. A lawful evil character will not break laws or agreements he will instead try and create them to further his own end (and in the case of the Cleric his god/s).

Basically he is either Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil and if the latter he will lose all his Cleric powers.

[Metahuman1]

AdamantlyD20: The major problems there were a bad DM, One player abusing preferential treatment, and everyone else trying to run neutral/evil characters.

And I don't so much have a regular in person group do to real life stuff at this time, what I have are Play By Post Games.


Deophaun: It was a near thing, but I was still learning the game. And yes, these guys are the reasons why fluff justifications not to have something mechanical are abhorrent too me.

"Rangers an awesome class and you should totally play one! Oh, Go archer, Archers ROCK!!!" Said with out an energy bow. Made me easy to kill.

"Yes, totally roll a monk, monks kick ASS! Oh, oh god, yes, you absolutely should do Vow Of Poverty!"

Me: "What's vow of poverty"

"Ok, it's a feat that basically makes you Bruce Lee And Jesus combined!"

*Kills me before I get 2 more feats to take it.*

"No, you don't need to learn Tome of Battle or Psionics! There broken! Play a Cleric, Clerics are cool!"

Yeah.

[MonochromeTiger]

AdamantlyD20: The major problems there were a bad DM, One player abusing preferential treatment, and everyone else trying to run neutral/evil characters.

And I don't so much have a regular in person group do to real life stuff at this time, what I have are Play By Post Games.


Deophaun: It was a near thing, but I was still learning the game. And yes, these guys are the reasons why fluff justifications not to have something mechanical are abhorrent too me.

"Rangers an awesome class and you should totally play one! Oh, Go archer, Archers ROCK!!!" Said with out an energy bow. Made me easy to kill.

"Yes, totally roll a monk, monks kick ASS! Oh, oh god, yes, you absolutely should do Vow Of Poverty!"

Me: "What's vow of poverty"

"Ok, it's a feat that basically makes you Bruce Lee And Jesus combined!"

*Kills me before I get 2 more feats to take it.*

"No, you don't need to learn Tome of Battle or Psionics! There broken! Play a Cleric, Clerics are cool!"

Yeah.

there's something very important to learn early on when playing group games like pen and paper RPGs: if someone says something is overpowered it's likely just their own bad experiences talking and not actual proof. if someone says a certain build, class, or feat is really good it's with the unspoken addendum of "if you live long enough to get THIS part of it which I won't let happen".

also, if you're getting repeatedly killed by a caustic group and they say something is broken but still allow it...use it, crush them, they deserve no pity or remorse.

[Metahuman1]

there's something very important to learn early on when playing group games like pen and paper RPGs: if someone says something is overpowered it's likely just their own bad experiences talking and not actual proof. if someone says a certain build, class, or feat is really good it's with the unspoken addendum of "if you live long enough to get THIS part of it which I won't let happen".

also, if you're getting repeatedly killed by a caustic group and they say something is broken but still allow it...use it, crush them, they deserve no pity or remorse.

I was still learning how to play at the time, hell, I didn't even know what Tome of Battle or Psionics were when they first came up, and i though the dragonfire Adept and the Knight were gonna be awesomesacue and that the beguiler and duskblade would be too weak in play.

I've learned a whole lot since then.

Hmmm, you know, that was mostly a per-published model he was running out of, and I will admit the take back the elf lands plot had some merit if it wasn't made an evil deal at the time.

I maybe I should see about getting a game going to run that campaign again on the boards.

[Dalebert]

A lawful evil character will not break laws or agreements he will instead try and create them to further his own end (and in the case of the Cleric his god/s).

Crowley from Supernatural is LE. Also lawyers. Also politicians. But that's redundant.

[AdamantlyD20]

Ok, so this weekend, the player doesn't show up, and hauling around 2 prisoners wasn' tgoing to be viable while hang gliding off a mountain summit to reach a burning village to save them, so i left the prisoners with an allying village and asked them to treat them as hostile, and keep them tied up, but don't let them out of their bonds because the cleric will betray them and most likely try to talk his way out. Next session we will finish trying to save the burning village, and then head back up the mountain to retrievethe other party member/ LE cleric, and a bandit that i tied up and was keeping prisoner after a battle.

[Eldest]

There's a difference between "Lawful Evil is least likely to betray you" (which is what Arcturus actually said) and "Chaotic Evil will betray you at the drop of a hat (which is not what Arcturus said). Don't contradict someone who's busy praising me.

The fact is, I love it when someone can take a more challenging alignment - such as CN or CE - and make it not only playable, but extremely effective. The problem is that this seems to be more the exception than the rule. There's a reason that those two alignments are often prohibited at tables - less experienced or capable players will use CN or CE as license to be "Chaotic Jerkwad" and mess over the party at their leisure.

Are there players who can do it well? Absolutely. Exactly as you described - a chaotic character is vigorously self-deterministic, but nothing is stopping them from not betraying the party. A well-played chaotic character will remain with the party because she wants to, can befriend the party despite alignment differences, and won't constantly observe the backs of her partymembers wondering where to stick the knife.

But as I said, this takes skill. It's easy to play a moderately effective CG or NG character. It's somewhat more challenging to play LG or LE. CE, CN and NE (and LN and TN, for that matter) take a higher level of skill altogether, and some GMs would rather ban those alignments outright than risk party implosion.

I have a knee-jerk reaction against people deciding that " Lawful Evil is generally the only "Acceptable" evil you can play in a group with Good aligned adventurers" (which is what my entire response was centered around) because chaotic does not mean more likely to betray you. It does not mean impulsive, stupid, or rampaging. So I'm frustrated at the tendency for people to play them as such.

[Red Fel]

I have a knee-jerk reaction against people deciding that " Lawful Evil is generally the only "Acceptable" evil you can play in a group with Good aligned adventurers" (which is what my entire response was centered around) because chaotic does not mean more likely to betray you. It does not mean impulsive, stupid, or rampaging. So I'm frustrated at the tendency for people to play them as such.

I agree with you on almost every point. I also dislike, strongly, when people play a Chaotic character as Chaotic Stupid, Chaotic Psychotic, Chaotic Selfish, Chaotic Bloodthirsty, or Chaotic Jerkwad. The alignment has so much potential for character growth, for nuance and artistry and brilliant roleplaying, that when people minimize it like that it hurts. That said, it is difficult to play Chaotic, without question, but when done right it's absolutely brilliant.

Where I disagree is with regard to betrayal. A Chaotic character is an individualist, as I said. They are not inherently selfish, but they do believe in freedom. And freedom can include breaking words, promises, oaths. It can mean ruining a trust or a friendship if you feel it's necessary. A Lawful character may not have a Paladin-style code, but they have something resembling rules or honor that may prevent them from breaking deals or promises. A Chaotic character's only limits are internal - it's a question of what they want to do. As such, technically, a Chaotic character lacks those external limitations on betrayal - they are, to put it bluntly, more easily able to betray the party while staying true to their alignment.

Will they betray the party? That varies. But can they? Certainly more easily than a Lawful character.

[AMFV]

I agree with you on almost every point. I also dislike, strongly, when people play a Chaotic character as Chaotic Stupid, Chaotic Psychotic, Chaotic Selfish, Chaotic Bloodthirsty, or Chaotic Jerkwad. The alignment has so much potential for character growth, for nuance and artistry and brilliant roleplaying, that when people minimize it like that it hurts. That said, it is difficult to play Chaotic, without question, but when done right it's absolutely brilliant.

Where I disagree is with regard to betrayal. A Chaotic character is an individualist, as I said. They are not inherently selfish, but they do believe in freedom. And freedom can include breaking words, promises, oaths. It can mean ruining a trust or a friendship if you feel it's necessary. A Lawful character may not have a Paladin-style code, but they have something resembling rules or honor that may prevent them from breaking deals or promises. A Chaotic character's only limits are internal - it's a question of what they want to do. As such, technically, a Chaotic character lacks those external limitations on betrayal - they are, to put it bluntly, more easily able to betray the party while staying true to their alignment.

Will they betray the party? That varies. But can they? Certainly more easily than a Lawful character.

To be absolutely fair, everybody can betray everybody. Players don't need to act in alignment, since those can change and people can have a sudden change of heart, a lawful person can decide that whatever code of conduct they were previously following is now not worth following, or a chaotic person could start to understand a particular sort of order.

Chaos isn't necessarily treacherous, it is less likely to be predictable, which may in some circumstances for some characters turn out to be the same thing. But you could have a weak-willed lawful person, who intends to follow through on oaths, but doesn't always have the stomach too, or a person who is more weakly lawfully aligned, closer to NE than LE, but still in the LE camp.

Alignment is complex with regards to non-planar creatures (and sometimes even then), a good PC can do things that are unmerciful and ruthless on occasion, he could be uncharitable, these things happen. Even characters that have strict codes fall, often with alarming frequency. Hence the Atonement spell. I would surprised if most characters don't use that at least once in their careers.

[Eldest]

I agree with you on almost every point. I also dislike, strongly, when people play a Chaotic character as Chaotic Stupid, Chaotic Psychotic, Chaotic Selfish, Chaotic Bloodthirsty, or Chaotic Jerkwad. The alignment has so much potential for character growth, for nuance and artistry and brilliant roleplaying, that when people minimize it like that it hurts. That said, it is difficult to play Chaotic, without question, but when done right it's absolutely brilliant.

Where I disagree is with regard to betrayal. A Chaotic character is an individualist, as I said. They are not inherently selfish, but they do believe in freedom. And freedom can include breaking words, promises, oaths. It can mean ruining a trust or a friendship if you feel it's necessary. A Lawful character may not have a Paladin-style code, but they have something resembling rules or honor that may prevent them from breaking deals or promises. A Chaotic character's only limits are internal - it's a question of what they want to do. As such, technically, a Chaotic character lacks those external limitations on betrayal - they are, to put it bluntly, more easily able to betray the party while staying true to their alignment.

Will they betray the party? That varies. But can they? Certainly more easily than a Lawful character.

Well... that's not so much a disagreement as a elaboration on what I think. :smallconfused:
You are correct that chaotic people are able to stay true to their alignment while betraying people far easier than lawful people. However, I'd argue that that doesn't make them more likely to betray the party. And a lawful code will have loopholes, which while making their opportunities to betray somebody limited will make it easier to do so. So it's 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.

[Angelalex242]

Well, a lot of people relegate Chaotic Evil to Kefka and/or Joker. If you're 'dancing mad', that's the guy who tortures the druid's animal companion to death because it's hilarious, kills the barbarian's family by dominating him to do the dirty work, and makes the cleric deface his holy symbol for the evils.

Some people, to quote the Dark Knight, just want to watch the world burn.

[AMFV]

Well, a lot of people relegate Chaotic Evil to Kefka and/or Joker. If you're 'dancing mad', that's the guy who tortures the druid's animal companion to death because it's hilarious, kills the barbarian's family by dominating him to do the dirty work, and makes the cleric deface his holy symbol for the evils.

Some people, to quote the Dark Knight, just want to watch the world burn.


But would my chaotic evil character with a 22 Wisdom be incapable of rational decisions? Chaotic characters can be rational, probably even methodical. I don't torture the animal, because it belongs to my friends, I don't dominate the barbarian, because he's my friend. Chaos is exactly as prone to friendship as Law is. And while I may be using my friends for selfish purposes (because they appreciate my singular talents, because of vanity [they praise me] or any number of reasons) I am still their friend.

Although heaven help you if you try to hurt my friends. Or anything that belongs to me.

See there I have made a chaotic concept, and an evil one, and it's perfectly playable, in fact it could work well with the party although there might be some issues with my methodology.

[Red Fel]

Well... that's not so much a disagreement as a elaboration on what I think. :smallconfused:
You are correct that chaotic people are able to stay true to their alignment while betraying people far easier than lawful people. However, I'd argue that that doesn't make them more likely to betray the party. And a lawful code will have loopholes, which while making their opportunities to betray somebody limited will make it easier to do so. So it's 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.

You know, you're right. I think we agree more than I realized.

I think that I was conflating the ability to betray the party with the probability of doing so. Or, in other words, if you can do something, you're more likely to do so than someone who can't. But you're right, ability does not equal probability.

And also, Chaotic is awesome and I want to play CN again.

[Scow2]

Some people, to quote the Dark Knight, just want to watch the world burn.But where's the fun in watching the world burn if you don't have anyone to make Marshmallow S'mores and sing world-burning songs with?:smallconfused:

[Angelalex242]

Kefka didn't seem particularly worried about that question while building a monument to nonexistence.

[AMFV]

You know, you're right. I think we agree more than I realized.

I think that I was conflating the ability to betray the party with the probability of doing so. Or, in other words, if you can do something, you're more likely to do so than someone who can't. But you're right, ability does not equal probability.

And also, Chaotic is awesome and I want to play CN again.

Well if that was your intention then I am in agreement. I'm actually considering playing a chaotic character, although it's kind of outside the norm for me so I'm not sure how that will actually go in play.

[Red Fel]

Kefka didn't seem particularly worried about that question while building a monument to nonexistence.


Kefka was simultaneously the best and worst villain of FF history.

The best because, out of all of them, how many actually succeeded in destroying the world?

The worst because, out of all of them, how many had less substance to them? Even Garland/Chaos had some explanation for how he got the way he did, albeit a paper-thin one. Kefka was just a crazy psychotic clown. No explanation, no backstory, no motivation.


So Kefka would fall under "badly-played Chaotic characters" for me. He was Chaotic Psycho.

Villains like that degrade us all.

[BRC]

It is my opinion that Players have an unspoken duty to let the game move forward by having their PCs generally work together unless there are very good reasons for them not to.

That said, the moment somebody breaks this truce, they should no longer expect to be protected by it.
As a NG character, you did the right thing. Kicking Evil Butt is kind of what Good Adventurers do.
As a player, you did the right thing. He was being an *******, using his character's alignment to justify being a jerk, and thinking that the Party Truce would protect him. He broke that Truce.

Rest easy, you sleep the sleep of the just.

[Eldest]

You know, you're right. I think we agree more than I realized.

I think that I was conflating the ability to betray the party with the probability of doing so. Or, in other words, if you can do something, you're more likely to do so than someone who can't. But you're right, ability does not equal probability.

And also, Chaotic is awesome and I want to play CN again.

Excellent. I'm closest to CN/CG on the alighment chart, so I'd happily agree with you on the awesomeness of Chaotic people.

[Starchild7309]

The first campaign I ever thought about being evil was an utter failure!

I was a CN tiefling rogue/ranger/wizard and we had found a green dragon egg. I hatched it and raised it and it being played by our DM started to put thought in my head about how we could betray the entire party, kill them all and take all their stuff. I thought about it, I planned it all out, I mean I had contingency upon contingency about how and when it would go down. I strung it out till I either had to walk away or act. I considered my character's actions and past with the group and decided that I had pushed my character into a corner where I either acted and succeeded or failed or walked away from the group before they found out what I was plotting. A group of LG holy rollers would have not been so kind to me. What I did end up doing is walking away, retire the character peacefully and reroll.

Moral of the story was I had a 85-90% chance of pulling it off, but I thought about how that would affect the group dynamic out of game. They invested considerable time in their characters and while it would have been a great r/p idea, killing off my entire party for personal gain was something I wouldn't do because I could and because those people are my friends out of game and there is not need for me to be a D*&k to them.

As for your situation, as CG, I would have taken his gear, tied him up and hung him from a tree along the side of the road, still alive with a sign around his neck that read Demon Summoner or Devil Lover...something like that and abandoned him there if for no other reason than to prove a point. If he had had his way he would have ended up either stripping you of all you had or killing you if it came to battel and it went his way. I am surprised your DM let him go evil in a N or G campaign. For an experienced player that can be challenging, as a new player its even more so.

[Wharrrrrrgarbl]

Kefka was simultaneously the best and worst villain of FF history.

The best because, out of all of them, how many actually succeeded in destroying the world?

The worst because, out of all of them, how many had less substance to them? Even Garland/Chaos had some explanation for how he got the way he did, albeit a paper-thin one. Kefka was just a crazy psychotic clown. No explanation, no backstory, no motivation.


So Kefka would fall under "badly-played Chaotic characters" for me. He was Chaotic Psycho.

Villains like that degrade us all.

Kefka was psychotic and psychopathic, but he was also the prototype magitek knight before they got the process right with Celes. Which is to say, he was driven insane by the experimentation he underwent, just like Sephiroth, and, to a lesser extent, Kuja. Kefka's backstory is revealed if you talk to Empire citizens when the Empire brings the Returners to Vector for peace talks.

Edit: I suppose my point is this: sure, villains like that degrade us all. Kefka isn't one of them; rather, he's a symbol of Gestahl's villainy and how power can get out of its creators' control.

[Angelalex242]

Actually, Kefka's not even the best villain in terms of destroying the world anymore. Newcomer Caius Ballad's got him beat there, because he not only destroyed the world, he caused a time crash, and in a game with multiple endings, the player loses miserably in every one of them.

Now that's a well planned villain!