|James MacKenzie RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16 aka Sir_Wulf|
|3 people marked this as a favorite.|
Sometimes it's better to anticipate such conflicts and pull out a different character, even if you then play a pregen.
The Inquisitor's player was clear that he wouldn't tolerate the creation of undead, but the Necromancer then "went there". His refusal to subsequently heal the Necromancer was fair. He is no more forced to support the behavior he detests than a paladin of Abadar would be forced to heal up a rogue who had just caused a fight by ripping off items from a bank vault.
My opinions are colored by previous encounters with folks whose behavior was borderline, but who then expected the party to support their thoughtless choices. One example from a game that went horribly awry: A brand new player's rogue impatiently attacked the town watch while the rest of the party was talking with their leader. The party's displeased paladin refused to participate in the ensuing bloodbath. The rogue then ran and hid, leaving the remaining party members in a needless, brutal fight with the watch. The other players were quite angry that the rogue had pulled such a stunt and let him know that he had better not start needless trouble again. The rogue then bailed out of a later fight to "punish" the party for ordering him around.
When that happened, I pulled the player aside and advised him that he was expected to cooperate with the rest of the party. He then quit, claiming that we were "just hack and slash" and wouldn't let him "roleplay". We later concluded that the player had decided to play chaotic evil while claiming chaotic neutral.