PvP: Don't we just love it!

[EvilCookie]

We are playing a homebrew world and there are currently 3 PCs:

An ex marauder Water Priest, Lawful Good, A healer, general nice guy with a fierce hate for everything evil or Hell-related (His whole class is built around that)
A power-and-knowledge-hungry Mage, Lawful Neutral, Coming from a noble elf family, a smug ass, and the priest's friend (also, my character)
A mercenary swordmaster, True Neutral, Currently in the service of the elf, quite loyal and would put his life on the line for him (he is even better than a puppy)

As a party we have functioned quite well, and having a Lawful-Powerhungry, a Neutral-Greedy, and a Goody-Twoshooey makes the roleplay fun and the loot easy to divide.

Since we would actually like to have a party of four, we are getting a new player (yay, spreading the love)

The only problem is the new player would like to play an Occultist; a class leaning strongly towards evil, and with some of the features being Blood magic, necromancy, summoning demons and horrors, and based around insanity and fear spells.

At our last meeting we talked about getting a new player, and how to make it easier for him to blend in and not feel weird the first couple of times.
The problem is, the priest actually plans on killing him if he takes the occultist class, and doesn't give him a VERY good reason IC why he shouldn't (cant blame him). Its kinda similar to a paladin reacting to a necromancer being added to the party. The DM has given a green light on PvP if its based of off IC interaction, but i kinda feel it might leave a sour taste for the new guy.

So, any advice on roleplay advice that would make coexistence in a party possible (not just for this specific scenario, but how do you rp an evil char in a good party), and any advice how to make his character dying perhaps a fun or interesting for him (i will suggest to our DM putting him as a major villain later, trying to kill the party that almost killed him or something along the lines).

[Segev]

Is this the PF Occultist, or something else? The PF Occultist needn't be "evil" at all.


It is the responsibility of a player bringing in a new PC to make that PC fit in with the group. If he'd cause irreconcilable conflict with an existing PC, he should bring in something else.

[EvilCookie]

Sadly, its not the PF occultist, all the classes are completely homebrew, mostly only the basic mechanics of the dnd/PF are left

I kinda agree with PC needing to fit the party (well i love to be a special snowflake and get the opposite aligned character every so often, but dont really mind him/her getting killed), but since his is a first time player, and he didnt really want other classes I am kinda torn between acting wierdly IC (since my character is probably the strongest, and the swordsman will follow me, i can make them cooperate by force) but i dont really want to do that, or risking losing a new player, and giving him the wrong impression of TTRPGs

For me personaly, getting characters killed, even through combat is usually not a nice experience but not something tragic (at least some of them make good stories :D)

[Grim Portent]

You could ask the GM, the Priest and the new guy to sit down together and sort out a way to excuse the new guys evil methodology that the Priest would accept IC before the first session with the new PC. They can hash all the drama out before hand OOC and work out a way around it for when dice hit the table.

[Mr.Moron]

This doesn't end without somebody getting salty. You just need to choose the reason why someone is salty

• New player gets told he can't play cultist
• Priest player gets asked to just let it go.
• New player gets his character killed.

I think of the three, the first option generates the least amount of salt for the least amount of people.

[Mr Beer]

First time player? GM explains it's not going to work and why. Pick something that fits the group. If the player can't get the idea that joining a new group involves fitting around them and not vice versa, that is someone you don't want to associate with, let alone RPG with.

[Terrador]

This doesn't end without somebody getting salty. You just need to choose the reason why someone is salty

• New player gets told he can't play cultist
• Priest player gets asked to just let it go.
• New player gets his character killed.

I think of the three, the first option generates the least amount of salt for the least amount of people.

This is a holy post, and I second it. The kill-on-sight attitude and any potential stubbornness on the part of the Occultist player are both problems, but the Priest player does have precedence. Even though PvP should be worked around as hard as possible (remember that metagaming for the fun of everyone is a thing that can be, should be, and is done, especially with situations just like this), it is totally reasonable to ask the Occultist to not come in and create a party alignment predicament.

[Geddy2112]

I think both the priest and occultist are in the wrong here.

A lawful good character would kill on sight an occultist? Sure, the class leans towards evil but is the player planning to be openly evil aligned and openly act evil? Its pretty evil to profile others and kill them if you think they are evil, and the "you detect as evil therefore die" is not exactly good. The priest has every right to be wary, suspicious, and let this new person wanting to join the adventuring trio that we are not a bunch of murderhobos, and that we generally try to stay on the side of law and good.

The occultist is, on the other hand, bringing a character into a game that does not work with the party, which should never ever be allowed. Since they are new, they probably don't understand how their actions are going to strain the group dynamic. It is always the responsibility of the player bringing in a new character to fit the party. It would be just as wrong if the new player wanted to bring a lawful good priest into the game, hellbent on killing the evil occultist in the party.

I think both of the players should make concessions- the priest should give everyone he meets a chance, but let the player and character know that he won't stand for hell or evil. Likewise, the occultist needs to accept he is bringing in a build that potentially challenges the priest's character concept, and that if he starts being evil he is going to get killed. If both players cant agree to this and not have hurt feelings,then the new player needs to bring in something different. If this is homebrew anyways, why not take out some of the demon summoning and more evilish things?

[Quertus]

So, any advice on roleplay advice that would make coexistence in a party possible (not just for this specific scenario, but how do you rp an evil char in a good party)

I personally love playing necromancers. Playing an evil character in a good party can be tricky, or really easy, depending. Usually, my evil characters are much more loyal to the party than most other party members are, and usually have that loyalty returned. Easy. And better than a puppy.

However, alignment aside, you appear to have two incompatible character concepts: the demon-hater and the demon summoner.

I adventured with that party (ok, it was the undead hunter and the undead master, same idea). The DM used fiat to make it work. The players didn't usually get along to begin with, and it usually spilled over into their characters, so, this time, before they even made their characters, the DM said that they were old friends who had lost touch, and were meeting up again for the first time in years. When they created opposed character concepts, the DM (and the rest of us) face palmed, and the DM used fiat to say that the undead hunter was unable to notice that the undead created by the undead master were undead. Although it strained credibility, it did keep the game from devolving into PvP.

Honestly, I suspect that you would need a similar level of divine intervention to make these two characters compatible.

[goto124]

- Ask the new player to pick a different class?
- Let the new player play a refluffed version of the same class, if it's really desired to play the mechanics of the occulist?

[MrNobody]

What about keeping the occultist mechanics (fear, debuff, summoning things) but asking the player to refluff his PC converting it on the good side?

Instead of summoning horrors from the Abyss it could call forth friends from Celestia, his fear effect could be more close to the aura of menace of an archon than to necromantic effects... and Ruins and afflictions in BOED has shown that even exalted character can do ability damage!
With a little work on the DM side you could easily replace undead servants with Deathless.

This could be a great change on the side of roleplay but if the player is more interested in the mechanical side it could be an easy way out!

[Socratov]

What about keeping the occultist mechanics (fear, debuff, summoning things) but asking the player to refluff his PC converting it on the good side?

Instead of summoning horrors from the Abyss it could call forth friends from Celestia, his fear effect could be more close to the aura of menace of an archon than to necromantic effects... and Ruins and afflictions in BOED has shown that even exalted character can do ability damage!
With a little work on the DM side you could easily replace undead servants with Deathless.

This could be a great change on the side of roleplay but if the player is more interested in the mechanical side it could be an easy way out!

this, or maybe treat the occultist like the Malconvoker who almost by definition, fights fire with fire. It's a bit how using hellfire doesn't require you to be evil, or even to constitute as an evil act according to the FCII. Play it out like the priest losing his ****, while the occustist will try and convince him the occultist is not evil as he uses his stuff for entirely the right reasons.

[Faily]

What about keeping the occultist mechanics (fear, debuff, summoning things) but asking the player to refluff his PC converting it on the good side?

Instead of summoning horrors from the Abyss it could call forth friends from Celestia, his fear effect could be more close to the aura of menace of an archon than to necromantic effects... and Ruins and afflictions in BOED has shown that even exalted character can do ability damage!
With a little work on the DM side you could easily replace undead servants with Deathless.

This could be a great change on the side of roleplay but if the player is more interested in the mechanical side it could be an easy way out!

If the player absolutely does not want to choose a new class, then this is the way to go, imo.

Sure, it is giving one player precedent over another, but in this case I do want to say "he was here first and is already established in the party". Making a character that directly conflicts with another character's philosophy and beliefs is douchey. Don't be a douche.

[Douche]

Tell the occultist, if he absolutely must play a necromancer-type dude, to flavor it as "understanding the darkness" in order to combat it. Fight fire with fire, ya know? Sorta like the demon hunters from Warcraft - they harness demon magic in order to fight them. They are shunned by their own society for the corrupting influence they willfully harness, but they are doing it with altruistic hopes: to be able to protect their people and stop the demons from invading their world... That way, he's not "evil" he's just "misunderstood" lololol - as long as he doesn't go murdering civilians, at least.



Otherwise, i dunno, explain to him that that type of character won't mesh with the party dynamic. You can have the coolest concept in the world, but it's not gonna go anywhere if the party has no reason to keep you around... In one of my games, 3 of us are in a chaotic neutral thieves guild and 1 guy chose to be a lawful good patsy to the keepers of order (or whatever). It's also set in the present day, which is important cuz we have phones... We gave him several chances, and last week I called him (in character) to join us when we got a job to steal an artifact, under the condition that he be cool about it (the other two characters in the party didn't even want me to invite him, but I gave the reasoning that he was good to have in a fight - ooc I didn't want the guy to do nothing all session or make the DM shoehorn him in somehow, lol). When we dispatched all the foes and got the artifact, he grabbed it and said he was returning it to the lawful good faction. I was all "Dude, I said you had to be cool or I wasn't gonna call you anymore"...

Anyway, I feel like I'm getting long-winded here, point being, his character didn't make any sense to be in our group. He kept wanting to do the lawful stupid archetype, while we were all thieves. He ended up handing over the axe, but we didn't have any reason to invite him on any more missions. He realized that on his own and retired the character, and said he's rolling a new one for this weeks game.

[Madeiner]

I agree with all the above, and if the DM does not want PvP, to just say, in addition to what has been said before:

If PvP happens, and somebody dies, then all the characters involved must be retired and those still alive become NPCs.
I guess the priest player will then find a lot of reasons to not kill the other character, and it will also prevent ganging up on the new guy (not involved = not retired)

I still believe other solutions are better.

[Âmesang]

My longest running character was chaotic evil — totally vain, conceited, self-centered, proud, the center of her own world, yada yada. "How can something be semi-perfect? Either you're perfect or you're not me." That type. Being a pure-blooded Suel you could say she followed the doctrine of the Scarlet Brotherhood, except instead of working towards the glory of a new Suel Imperium she was working towards her own glory… 'cause she's the only one that matters, naturally.

However, just 'cause I (and Wizards' online alignment test) saw her as chaotic evil doesn't mean she had to kick puppies or sucker punch babies; after all, the best way to go through life is by having as few enemies as possible, and working against the overall interests of the party (saving the town/country/world) would only lead to having more enemies gunning for her, no? So she works with the party, buffing her allies, debilitating their enemies, and otherwise acting the part of the beneficent noble so as to keep people on her side… and to allow her meatshields friends to draw enemy attacks away from her to stay healthy and strong so as to more easily take over save the world.* I'd say it's pretty simple (and fun!) to play a character who acts friendly and helpful to everyone around her while, deep down, thinking them as nothing more than tools and pawns for her schemes (being trained in Bluff certainly helps, I'd imagine).

I guess I just see alignment as not just action but attitude and personality; the (subtle?) difference between "being good for goodness' sake" and "being good because you're expecting a reward out of doing so." The results might be the same, but the intent behind the actions necessarily aren't, and a foul intent might overshadow the good outcome.

…granted, my character rarely had the opportunity to create undead or summon dæmons 'cause the players themselves weren't too keen on players controlling much more than their own character and a familiar/animal companion/special mount, since it could draw attention away from each other… and I can understand that. I guess that's leading me to picture the occultist taking command of fiends and turning 'em on each other "for the greater good." A good cleric should enjoy watching evil destroy itself, no?

Tell the occultist, if he absolutely must play a necromancer-type dude, to flavor it as "understanding the darkness" in order to combat it.

Somewhere I have notes for a true neutral necromancer I'd like to play sometime; basically a wizard trying to discover the nature of life and death — the cleric might seek to save good people from death, but this wizard wants to know why people die at all. A necromancer with a stereotypical scientific mindset, I guess.

*(Being chaotic I doubt she'd really care about taking over the world, just gaining as much "power" as possible — to become the first Mage of Power since the fall of the Suel Imperium over a thousand years prior. Otherwise she should easily be able to use her vast magical and alchemical resources to lead a comfortable and decadent lifestyle as one of the uppercrust. Like my necromancer idea it basically boils down to behaving and working with the party simply 'cause its in one's best interests — allows for more easily obtained long-term goals instead of betraying the party for something potentially short-term.)

[Pex]

The new player needs to play a different character. He can still play an occultist, just not a demon-loving evil one. He's the new guy joining an established group. It's his responsibility to have his character fit. The other players do not have to adjust their characters to his.

The priest player may be overreacting, but that overreaction is the point. The party works as a coherent team. The new player wants to bring in a character that by its nature is antagonistic to the party make-up. The priest player does not want to lose the comfortable atmosphere that already exists.

New player needs a new character.

I remember playing a paladin in a group that also had a good ranger. A new player wanted to join, a cleric of a deity about poison and disease, not to cure, to spread around. The player knew a paladin and ranger were in the party. The party rejected his character. The player was welcomed to create a new character. He refused and never joined the group.

[HeadAcheron]

I've never played a game myself, but I have read a lot of roleplayingtips.com and similar sites, and the favorite tip that I've found is: when one player decided that hir character will make an aggressive move (attack, bluff, theft) against another PC, then the target character's player decides what happens (does it work or not, does the target character notice or not...).

[veti]

I second "get the new player to pick something else". It's on them to fit in with the group, not vice-versa.

But if the guy is really wedded to this Occultist idea (and personally I'd see that as a red flag in itself, that he's never played before but he's conceived a strong wish for this of all classes... but if you're determined to add him in despite all that, then...) does it have to be played as "evil"?

• Could they be using dark forces to fight some real, much more serious evil?
• Could they be "investigating" dark forces, on behalf of an unimpeachably good patron?
• Could they be a "fallen" servant of such a patron, who has hopes of rehabilitating them if they can direct their talents towards the right ends?
• Could they be a defector from the Enemy, whom the party's patron wants to "turn" properly?

That the Water Priest is Lawful is a helpful thing, because it means he'll take orders. If his superiors downright order him not to kill the new guy, then he'll respect that. And if they make him responsible for guiding the new character in his quest towards rehabilitation, then he should - ideally - jump at the RP opportunity.

[Lord Torath]

I think the two best options I've seen here, are:
1) New guy creates a different character with a non-evil class (as defined by the GM's homebrew rules).
2) Re-fluff the Occultist class (for this one specific character) to be bright and good and sunny instead of dark and evil.

If this new player is new to RPGing, it's important to start him off right, and that means he needs to know that RPGs are cooperative games*, where the players work together to achieve their goals. Teach him this, and he'll be a much better player in the future.

*with a few notable exceptions.

[AMFV]

I second "get the new player to pick something else". It's on them to fit in with the group, not vice-versa...

I don't know, I think that forcing somebody to play something they don't want, is kind of counterproductive. I think that instead finding some way to fit in what they do want. Maybe have a plot-based reason for the other players not to kill him.

I think the two best options I've seen here, are:
1) New guy creates a different character with a non-evil class (as defined by the GM's homebrew rules).
2) Re-fluff the Occultist class (for this one specific character) to be bright and good and sunny instead of dark and evil.

If this new player is new to RPGing, it's important to start him off right, and that means he needs to know that RPGs are cooperative games*, where the players work together to achieve their goals. Teach him this, and he'll be a much better player in the future.

*with a few notable exceptions.

I disagree with both. Changing intrinsic fluff to a class, may alter the way to play. And the other restricts player options unnecessarily. The problem is one of RP, fixing it with mechanics is just going to be clunky, and it's going to breed resentment. Maybe introduce a roleplay reason why the Water Cleric can't kill our Occultist, maybe the Occultist is too valuable, or friends with his supervisor, or he needs to keep him alive (because prophecy, or whatever). That would be what I would attempt.

[Socratov]

I don't know, I think that forcing somebody to play something they don't want, is kind of counterproductive. I think that instead finding some way to fit in what they do want. Maybe have a plot-based reason for the other players not to kill him.



I disagree with both. Changing intrinsic fluff to a class, may alter the way to play. And the other restricts player options unnecessarily. The problem is one of RP, fixing it with mechanics is just going to be clunky, and it's going to breed resentment. Maybe introduce a roleplay reason why the Water Cleric can't kill our Occultist, maybe the Occultist is too valuable, or friends with his supervisor, or he needs to keep him alive (because prophecy, or whatever). That would be what I would attempt.

if everyone just started I would tell you you're right. However, this is a player that enters along the way and thus it'sup to him to make a character that fits the party (to some extent) and doe snot need the DM to jump through hoops just to introduce him. If you, at this point being along the way, require plotarmour (what else is a plot reason to te be killed on sight) to just get into the party You're not helping anyone and creating an imbalance within the group. Becuase now you don't have a party member, but a special snowflake that is even more special then the rest of the players. If you don't figure a way to put forth plor armour, you can count on, if the occultist uses his classfeatures, will antagonise the cleric resulting in yet again PvP.

TL;DR - If you can't fit into an already exiting party, don't bother playing since you will actually wreck the campaign faste then you can say PvP. If you enter an already existing party, it's up to you to make the fit.

[Eugoraton Feiht]

There is also the point that the Priest is Lawful Good. Unless he plans on throwing the lawful straight out the window he needs to have a legitimate, lawful reason to execute him. Especially if the occultist is willing to work with them.

I've played a LE Cleric with a Paladin using that same mechanic.

"You are evil and"
"What have I done?"
"Excuse me?"
"I am a cleric of an established church in these lands and have broken no laws of this land. By what right do you judge me?"
"You have performed an evil act by raising the dead and"
"That is not disallowed by my church or my kingdom. You have come into a kingdom I am a law-abiding citizen of and you have no right to draw sword against me. I would however be interested in hearing about what faith you apparently uphold and see if we might come to some discussion or agreement."

[AMFV]

if everyone just started I would tell you you're right. However, this is a player that enters along the way and thus it'sup to him to make a character that fits the party (to some extent) and doe snot need the DM to jump through hoops just to introduce him. If you, at this point being along the way, require plotarmour (what else is a plot reason to te be killed on sight) to just get into the party You're not helping anyone and creating an imbalance within the group. Becuase now you don't have a party member, but a special snowflake that is even more special then the rest of the players. If you don't figure a way to put forth plor armour, you can count on, if the occultist uses his classfeatures, will antagonise the cleric resulting in yet again PvP.

TL;DR - If you can't fit into an already exiting party, don't bother playing since you will actually wreck the campaign faste then you can say PvP. If you enter an already existing party, it's up to you to make the fit.

Why?

My opinion is that it's the DM's job to try to make plot stuff fit. In this case, it's not plot-armor, so much as plot-armor against PvP, and in a game where there isn't PvP focus that doesn't matter. All of the players should be special snowflakes, they should all have plot elements that make them unique. The things I suggested were not extremely snowflake, but fairly minor and those would prevent PvP, avoiding PvP in a game that doesn't call for it is a DM responsibility.

But if a player wants to play something then the DM's first suggestion should be ways to make that work, not a blanket ban. Yes, some concepts may wind up being unworkable, but declaring something that IS workable, unworkable, without any suggested solutions is a little bit rough, and to my mind, not superb DMing.

[Theoboldi]

There is also the point that the Priest is Lawful Good. Unless he plans on throwing the lawful straight out the window he needs to have a legitimate, lawful reason to execute him. Especially if the occultist is willing to work with them.

I've played a LE Cleric with a Paladin using that same mechanic.

"You are evil and"
"What have I done?"
"Excuse me?"
"I am a cleric of an established church in these lands and have broken no laws of this land. By what right do you judge me?"
"You have performed an evil act by raising the dead and"
"That is not disallowed by my church or my kingdom. You have come into a kingdom I am a law-abiding citizen of and you have no right to draw sword against me. I would however be interested in hearing about what faith you apparently uphold and see if we might come to some discussion or agreement."

I heavily recommend against this. First of all, being of Lawful alignment does not necessarily mean that one follows the laws of the land in all situations, or even at all. A lawful cleric could just as well follow a very strict oath to kill each and every person who commits certain crimes, no matter what laws protect them. Lawful =/= Mindlessly Obedient.

Secondly, using the character's alignment to force the player to adventure with someone he doesn't want to adventure with could easily be seen as railroading by him, souring relations even further. It's telling him 'This is what your character should do.', which I cannot see ending well in this situation.

[AMFV]

I heavily recommend against this. First of all, being of Lawful alignment does not necessarily mean that one follows the laws of the land in all situations, or even at all. A lawful cleric could just as well follow a very strict oath to kill each and every person who commits certain crimes, no matter what laws protect them.

Secondly, using the character's alignment to force the player to adventure with someone he doesn't want to adventure with could easily be seen as railroading by him, souring relations even further. It's telling him 'This is what your character should do.', which I cannot see ending well in this situation.

That's why you discuss it with the player prior to introducing the new character. Basically establishing guidelines. Allowing a pre-existing player to dictate choices to the new player is pretty unpleasant as well. Particularly if it involves making threats. I wouldn't put up with that, period. Yes, the new guy isn't being the most sensitive, but he's the new guy, he gets a little bit more leeway, but trying to change player action by forcing to kill a character, that's not appropriate.

[Theoboldi]

That's why you discuss it with the player prior to introducing the new character. Basically establishing guidelines. Allowing a pre-existing player to dictate choices to the new player is pretty unpleasant as well. Particularly if it involves making threats. I wouldn't put up with that, period. Yes, the new guy isn't being the most sensitive, but he's the new guy, he gets a little bit more leeway, but trying to change player action by forcing to kill a character, that's not appropriate.

To be entirely honest, I think that the new guy should be the one to make an effort to fit into a pre-established group, even if it only means making a character they'd have no obvious problems adventuring with. I do agree that making threats and killing off the new character is a bad way to go about it, however.

Still, using alignment or anything like that to dictate how this players character should behave and that he must work together with the Occultist is, by my opinion, an equally bad idea. I really only wanted to warn against that.

[AMFV]

To be entirely honest, I think that the new guy should be the one to make an effort to fit into a pre-established group, even if it only means making a character they'd have no obvious problems adventuring with. I do agree that making threats and killing off the new character is a bad way to go about it, however.

I agree that there's something to be said for status quo, but D&D isn't anything where a person with more experience should have de facto more authority. Unlike most jobs, and a lot of the real world. I think that a compromise should be reached, and I've suggested how I would do it. If that doesn't work, then it gets trickier.

Still, using alignment or anything like that to dictate how this players character should behave and that he must work together with the Occultist is, by my opinion, an equally bad idea. I really only wanted to warn against that.

And I agree with you in broad strokes, although I think that the Lawful alignment (as interpreted by that particular character), could be useful in figuring out a compromise that works.

[Socratov]

That's why you discuss it with the player prior to introducing the new character. Basically establishing guidelines. Allowing a pre-existing player to dictate choices to the new player is pretty unpleasant as well. Particularly if it involves making threats. I wouldn't put up with that, period. Yes, the new guy isn't being the most sensitive, but he's the new guy, he gets a little bit more leeway, but trying to change player action by forcing to kill a character, that's not appropriate.

(emphasis mine)

Why? Why allow the new player to ruin the fun of the existing player(s)? That would be like changing the price after signing hte contract, but before payment.

If the new player is adamantin playing something the other players can't abide with, then what reason is there for them to include him in the party? Either it will come down to PvP, or if the DM forbids that, it comes down to one player having plot armour and effectively power over another. I can't think of any reason to do this. None at all.

[AMFV]

(emphasis mine)

Why? Why allow the new player to ruin the fun of the existing player(s)? That would be like changing the price after signing hte contract, but before payment.

If the new player is adamantin playing something the other players can't abide with, then what reason is there for them to include him in the party? Either it will come down to PvP, or if the DM forbids that, it comes down to one player having plot armour and effectively power over another. I can't think of any reason to do this. None at all.

Why should the old players get to dictate things? Have they ranked up? There isn't any difference in anything except for seniority. I would not give one player ANY power over another, you can give a plot reason for one player not to kill another that does not correlate to "I am your direct supervisor". Probably I would present several as possibilities to present to the Cleric Player to see if there was any way a compromise could be reached.

Why do it? Because I want everybody to be able to play the things they want and enjoy themselves. Period. Sometimes you have to reduce your fun to make everybody have fun. Period. If one player is unable to compromise for the new guy, he's going to be trouble later. Of course if a compromise can't be reached, then I would try more drastic solutions. But the solution where everybody gets what they want: Ergo, the Cleric is able to roleplay his alignment (but can't kill the other player because of plot reasons), and the other player is able to play exactly what he wants. That's the best solution, not only that, but that will encourage roleplaying rivalries can be just as engrossing as friendships.