Good Cleric in a suddenly Evil party

[Malaqai]

Hello playgrounders - I'm looking for some advice on a looming change in the alignment of a party I've been DMing for. To keep it simple, most of my party is of the chaotic neutral, self-interested sort. In a coming encounter, they are going to be offered anything their hearts could desire - money, power, etc. Ordinarily, I'd be fine with them accepting this offer - it'd involve them sacrificing the fey guardians of the forest who have (mis)placed their trust in the party, and I could just swap things around and run an evil campaign. However, one of the characters in the party is a good-aligned cleric whose deity would definitely NOT be alright with her betraying the forest guardians. How would you go about handling this conflict?

[Curbstomp]

Well, you could talk to the player of the cleric ahead of time and see if they want to try to redeem their friends and if they would find that to be an interesting roleplay opportunity.

You could also tempt that character with free entry into Ur Priest (prerequisites waived) and a straight level conversion for all cleric levels past 5th. THAT should tempt the player if not the character. It is a dramatic power curve increase over time even if there is a temporary setback.

Lastly, the character could remain with an evil party b/c they are friends. At least as long as the good cleric does not commit the evil acts personally or condone them.

-Curb

[Arbane]

Expect PvP, and be ready to deal with hurt feelings in AND out of game.

[Kaeso]

I think the problem is, as is often the case, the way chaotic neutral is interpreted. Chaotic neutral is a free spirit interested in his own well-being above all, but he is not malevolent. They're not psychopaths who go around randomly killing because it's fun or they expect a benefit from it. That would be chaotic evil or neutral evil. IIRC the players handbook describes "neutral" (which is a deceptive term when you think about it) as supporting good generally, but being unwilling to go all the way in supporting it. In a way, neutral just means diet good.

[Raezeman]

Definitely talk to the player. I hope that the friendship of your players is good enough to withstand (or even enjoy) some player vs player roleplaying. If he really wants to stay good i see 2 immediate options.

First, after a probably short attempt to talk to others out of it, he attacks, but probably won't survive as he is outnumbered. So have the player have a new character ready.
second, also with the attempt to talk them out of it, have the character leave the party with again the player having a new character ready. you can make him even state something cheesy like: "I can not let this just happen, but i won't fight you for the sake of our past friendship. I will leave you all to pursue life my own way. I hope we never meet again, but should we ever do meet again, all bets are off."
You can then have that character be a (returning) NPC with a new group of fellows constantly trying to turn his old friends away from their evil ways.

If the player does not need to want to stay good with the cleric, have him become corrupted by greed, temporarily losing his cleric powers, until he finds a new god. You can make some sort of side quest out of this.

[nedz]

Do not talk to the player upfront — that will just lead to metagaming, and spoil any role-play you might get out of this.

You have set up a moral challenge, which is fine, though those work best when the party isn't CN.

I'd just see how the chips land — the Good Cleric may talk the CN characters out of this action. You have set up what could be an interesting bit of intro-party role-play, can you really predict how the CN PCs will react ?

[Psyren]

Lastly, the character could remain with an evil party b/c they are friends. At least as long as the good cleric does not commit the evil acts personally or condone them.

No, they just stand by and let them happen. This would not fly with me as a player or as a DM.

[Yahzi]

Psyren; is right; a good cleric can't turn a blind eye to his companion's evil acts and still keep the favor of his/her god.

Well, unless there's some secret prophecy and the evil PCs are destined to save the world despite their evilness and so the good cleric has to put up with them and mitigate their acts as much as possible until the final battle.

The whole point of alignments is not to control what players do; it's to make them come up with creative explanations for why they can do those things.

[Red Fel]

A morally upright spiritualist could never collaborate with a party of morally reprehensible monsters (and perhaps one weapons-happy idiot) in pursuit of a world-saving prophecy. It's simply unthinkable (http://www.nuklearpower.com/8-bit-theater/).

That said, I agree with Psyren that, frankly, you can't maintain it. The Cleric will either fall or leave the party. White Mage was a special case, and one not easily duplicated. For that reason alone, I feel like you should warn the Cleric's player.

... But I don't think you should. And here's why. This is roleplaying gold. Suppose the entire party (other than the Cleric) is tempted. If the Cleric really wants to stay with the party, she has to stop them. (Frankly, being Good, she has to stop them anyway.) Let her try. Let her make her impassioned speech. Let her beg, threaten, warn. If she succeeds, that is awesome. If she fails? New opportunities.

How can her character resolve the hideous act committed by her party with her loyalty to them? Eventually, she can't; she either loses faith, or abandons the party. Take her aside, once the deed is done (if it is done) and discuss her options with her. If she stays, she'll probably fall; if she leaves, she'll need a new character. Be willing to help her with options, because the burden of RP is falling to her.

But don't warn her in advance. It's just too good.

[Psyren]

I don't even have a problem with "working with evil people" - As OotS, Dragonlance and similar stories show, this is sometimes necessary in a party situation, particularly when a party needs competent/skilled help to defeat a greater threat.

But while you are there, doing everything in your power to stop them from actually performing evil acts is an expectation - and if you can't stop them, you run the risk of falling if you simply give up, sit back and let them maraud.

[morkendi]

What god does she worship? Just asking because some gods allow followers alignment to be all over the place. I played a radient servant of palor that fell and began to worship pelor the burning hate. It was a very fun character and easy to adapt.

[Zanos]

I think the problem is, as is often the case, the way chaotic neutral is interpreted. Chaotic neutral is a free spirit interested in his own well-being above all, but he is not malevolent. They're not psychopaths who go around randomly killing because it's fun or they expect a benefit from it. That would be chaotic evil or neutral evil. IIRC the players handbook describes "neutral" (which is a deceptive term when you think about it) as supporting good generally, but being unwilling to go all the way in supporting it. In a way, neutral just means diet good.
I really don't think it's a major change of perspective for people getting paid in one currency to kill something or someone to getting paid in another currency to kill a different something or someone.

[Barstro]

I don't even have a problem with "working with evil people" - As OotS, Dragonlance and similar stories show, this is sometimes necessary in a party situation, particularly when a party needs competent/skilled help to defeat a greater threat.

But there must be a looming "greater threat". Sacrificing fey guardians for power/money is pretty darned evil. If there is that greater threat, then people can start to make justifications (and become politicians).

I agree that you should allow the PCs to work this out without forewarning. Situations like this make me wish my current character were something other than chaotic neutral.

Were she good, she'd never go along with this. Where she not chaotic, she would honor whatever agreement she has with the fey already. Being CN but leaning towards good and really not wanting some sort powerful creature becoming ruler of all and spoiling her good time, she'd probably look for a way to get information from the new power and warning the fey (for a hefty reward, of course).

I'd probably look for a way to sabotage the rest of the party; warn the fey, battlefield control against the rest of the party, destroy some artifact. I'd fully expect the rest of the party to kill me or shun me, but I'd have done right by my god.

[icefractal]

Eh, I'm going to go with "warn the player in advance". Not necessarily everyone, just the Cleric. Because honestly, if the player isn't capable of separating OOC knowledge, this is going to be a cluster**** anyway. And there are some things that you probably want established ahead of time.

1) This is a PvP situation. The other characters and the Cleric are going to be in direct opposition, and while it might get resolved with negotiation, it might come to a fight. And that's ok - as long as PvP is something acceptable for this campaign. Just make sure everyone's on the same page regarding that.

2) Whether it involves a fight or not, the Cleric is likely to leave the party. Let's be honest - "good character who travels with a bunch of *******s because he has to for some prophecy reason, and tries to reform them but with little success" can be kind of a butt-monkey role. Maybe some players would enjoy that; others won't. So plan for a change of characters.

3) Since the Cleric is going to be the one mainly hindered by this, make sure the player isn't the type to take it personally - which is more likely if it takes them by surprise, IME. PvP in an amiable spirit can be plenty of fun. PvP with the players actually angry just sucks.

[VoxRationis]

I would consider it unlikely, in-character, that the current PCs are the only people capable of handling whatever long-term enemy the plot revolves around, unless there were some very specific (and probably contrived) reason for it. I'm not much for prophecy myself, so as a DM, I wouldn't include it as a factor.
As a player, I'd definitely oppose the party. Depending on my god and alignment with regards to Law and Chaos, I might do so openly, or I might do so with some degree of subtlety and sabotage.

[Psyren]

While I will agree with the folks saying "let the players surprise you, and be surprised in turn" - don't be afraid to step in if things look like they're going downhill, ultimatums start flying and people start getting out of character or taking things personally.


But there must be a looming "greater threat". Sacrificing fey guardians for power/money is pretty darned evil. If there is that greater threat, then people can start to make justifications (and become politicians).

Oh, definitely agreed. When the Blight or the Reapers are around, Commander Shepard or the Grey Warden being asshats is suddenly less of a big deal. You want the guy who can get the job done.

[Phelix-Mu]

Is the corruption of the CN partymembers really a forgone conclusion? And on what basis? Cause if they are really that sketchy already, then that makes the present basis for party dynamic questionable as well. If the good cleric has constructive friendships/relationships with the others, than I'd assume that they would not just discount her opinion.

In general, I dislike the idea that offering a bunch of CN characters fame/fortune/power extreme is guaranteed to corrupt them. In fact, I'd say that, if they are doing CN as I would, then they are substantially more difficult to pin down in terms of temptation. Maybe yesterday Mr. X would have accepted the offer, but today, today Mr. X says screw temptation.

[Psyren]

Is the corruption of the CN partymembers really a forgone conclusion? And on what basis? Cause if they are really that sketchy already, then that makes the present basis for party dynamic questionable as well. If the good cleric has constructive friendships/relationships with the others, than I'd assume that they would not just discount her opinion.

In general, I dislike the idea that offering a bunch of CN characters fame/fortune/power extreme is guaranteed to corrupt them. In fact, I'd say that, if they are doing CN as I would, then they are substantially more difficult to pin down in terms of temptation. Maybe yesterday Mr. X would have accepted the offer, but today, today Mr. X says screw temptation.

Or they might be tempted to accept, but reject simply to throw a spanner in the offering entity's plans and see the apoplexy on its face.

[Phelix-Mu]

Or they might be tempted to accept, but reject simply to throw a spanner in the offering entity's plans and see the apoplexy on its face.

Yeah. A couple of my players usually do this. Even when their CN characters do accept, they usually then defy my expectations with the proceeds of their bargains, somehow manage to skirt doing further evil, and wrest their redemption/Back to the Neutral from the jaws of the DM their enemies.

Or, even worse, some minor attempt to backstab by the offering entity is somehow turned into campaign-imploding case of unanticipated consequences. Great when the offering entity is a marilith devoted to Zuggtmoy; not so great when the DM has to rescue the plotline from potential implosion with some improvisation.

[atemu1234]

I don't think this would be a good idea, unless you've forcing the PCs to intentionally pick a side on the good v. evil front.

[Malaqai]

Hi playgrounders, thanks for all the great responses!

To give a little bit more information about the state of the campaign:

The campaign is in its prologue stage: The party is composed of a ragtag group whose only prior association to the campaign is the fact that they were traveling on the same ship when it was attacked and sunk by pirates. The party is composed of:


A NG oracle of Bones who has spent the early part of her life parading about as a cleric, trying to fit in. She's hiding from the inquisitors of her own faith as necromancy is taboo. While she's currently Neutral Good, her player has made it known to me that her long term plans for the character involve overthrowing the Paladin Order that rules her homeland. Her character's mother is leader of the faction that's threatening the forest.
A CN ninja who is a nine-year old girl. Thus far, she's shown herself to be a kleptomaniac vagabond waif who would probably steal the coins off her mother's eyes.
A CN dancing dervish bard who takes every opportunity to dance, seduce anything that moves (though the women of the party are having none of it), or do both at the same time.
A self-described evil mercenary who has thus far been played more CN. He's in it for money and prestige.
A NG pacifist amnesiac cleric who acts more like a druid than anything else. She has only vague recollections of her deity, but enough to know that her deity would not approve of siding with the enemy.


After being shipwrecked, the party decided to make the trek through a great forest in order to get back to civilization in order to avoid pirates. During their journey they befriended some of the Small Folk (tiny, good Fey) who enlisted their help in finding the mysteriously absent dryad guardians to combat the encroachment of some of the less savory, more violent Fey. A journey north reveals that the dryads are tied up combating a full-blown Blight - and are losing. To keep this story short, the party is going to be tasked with infiltrating the compound which is causing the Blight (not intentionally, but the faction in charge of the compound sees the Blight as a happy side effect), then destroying the magical linchpin that is causing the Blight.

However, during their infiltration, they will likely come to a point where they will be offered everything their hearts desire - an opportunity to overthrow the Paladins for the oracle; money, women, and power for the rest. And this faction can deliver. I don't know if my party is heartless enough to sacrifice their forest allies to the Blight for their own greedy ends (the party is very fond of a couple of the Small Folk who have accompanied them on some of their journey), but I do know that the cleric is very unlikely to go for it, and I'd like to be prepared.

[Malaqai]

I don't think this would be a good idea, unless you've forcing the PCs to intentionally pick a side on the good v. evil front.

I'm throwing my PCs a moral dilemma that is going to be very difficult for them. I certainly will not force them into heroism, and it will be very clear to them that what they are doing is evil (it involves the immediate betrayal of allies who are waiting outside the compound for them to open the gates of the compound so that it can be stormed).

[Phelix-Mu]

@Malaqai:

If it is as you laid out, I'd avoid giving too much advance-notice, since the conflict isn't even certain. The dynamic as it spontaneously develops will be key to the enjoyment/compelling nature of the conflict (should there even be conflict), and as there are mitigating factors in favor of turning down the deal, you wouldn't want to bias the situation unnaturally.

The farthest I'd likely go is a general advice to the group about an upcoming important, but vague, moral dilemma, and suggestion to keep it civil, no matter what happens. And this I would only consider among a group of players that I wasn't sure would handle it predictably; among friends, stuff like this can usually be good fun. Potential bad PvP vibes usually emerge among those less-familiar with one another.

[Malaqai]

Thanks for the advice, Phelix! This is a good group, and I trust them to be mature enough to handle the scenario without any out-of-game problems.

[Phelix-Mu]

Thanks for the advice, Phelix! This is a good group, and I trust them to be mature enough to handle the scenario without any out-of-game problems.

Then my final note is to be considerate of the desires of the cleric's player should his/her character get run out of the group or killed. Give them some interesting (perhaps playable) post-script, to fill out the remainder of the session where stuff goes down. And a new character with no loss of level and such, to make sure there are no bad feelings about an in-character falling out.

[atemu1234]

I'm throwing my PCs a moral dilemma that is going to be very difficult for them. I certainly will not force them into heroism, and it will be very clear to them that what they are doing is evil (it involves the immediate betrayal of allies who are waiting outside the compound for them to open the gates of the compound so that it can be stormed).

Then expect the cleric to be pressuring them into choosing good over evil, and expect them to choose their real-life friends over in-game wealth. This isn't going to change their alignments per se, but they will finally choose a side as opposed to just straddling the line of good and evil.

OOG, expect there to be arguments. Especially if they want money. Maybe choose a cop-out solution like having them try and trick the BBEG into giving them the money then betraying them. Suitably neutral.