Help! REALLY BAD party conflict, what do I do!?


Advice

101 to 150 of 185 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

magnuskn wrote:


And more victim blaming. Great.

I don't see the fighter player as a victim in this scenario.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

This is still on the GM for not properly vetting the group for compatibility, then going off and falling in love with an NPC so much that said NPC is made more important than the player characters.

Imps are devils and made of eviltonium. Sure, there might be one in a million who is redeemable ( and, boy, that trope gets abused, too ), but in this case this isn't even the case. The imp is happily trying to corrupt the Oracle before everyone's eye, but for many here that makes the LG character the bad guy for playing out his alignment.

That people keep blaming the LG characters player for actually sticking to her alignment by a.) leaving the party and b.) trying to save the Oracle from himself by slaying the evil fiend is really boggling my mind. I guess reflexive "Paladin blaming" is more fun.

If it were the situation Kryzbyn describes above, with a black dragon whelp, I would be here with everyone else saying that the LG character should relax a bit and try to compromise. However, an imp is a monster which explicitly exists to corrupt its master and try to corrupt as many beings it can and there is no "It isn't born evil" aspect to it. It actually can already be hundreds or thousands of years old and have way more experience with this than any player character could hope to have.


<i><b>UPDATE!</b></i>

We haven't had a chance to sit down and talk it out as a group, but my Oracle's Player informed me today that she plans to propose a slight retcon:

Rather than have her oracle refuse the Ultimatum (which she initially did because because she didn't think OOC that it was for real, whoops), she's going to have the oracle accept and release the imp, since her character would logically know he isn't bluffing and wouldn't want to cause the Fighter to leave (as another character is the fighter's estranged daughter and the oracle doesn't want to come betwe-... IT'S COMPLICATED lets just leave it at that ahahahahaha)

I plan to have the imp, who is of COURSE eavesdropping, attempt to GTFO, although I'll give the players a chance to catch and/or kill it if they so choose. If they kill it, they kill it or whatnot. If not... Well, they may have just made themselves a recurring villain-type ;D

I'm very proud that the Oracle's player is willing to give up the imp for keeping the group happy. I do feel uncomfortable that an ultimatum even came UP and will explain this, but from here out I'm going to try to step back and not let myself get accidentally over-attached to ANY NPCs.

I'm also gonna mention that this AP deals with a lot of grey morality/lesser of two evils, but I think it'll be ok.

Fingers crossed this solves the problem!!

Thank you again to everyone who's posted their two copper on this, its given me a lot of perspectives on the situation and the different ways people might feel about it. I think this experience will help me avoid such things in the future!


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Nice. Glad you found a resolution that worked for everybody.


magnuskn wrote:

This is still on the GM for not properly vetting the group for compatibility, then going off and falling in love with an NPC so much that said NPC is made more important than the player characters.

That's about as uncharitable and maybe even obnoxious interpretation of the OP as I could have imagined. You don't think it could be interpreted as one of the PCs hits on a cool idea and the GM says "OK, let's go with it"? That's what it looks like to me since the oracle PC is the one who sought out the imp, not the the GM foisting something on them.

The LG fighter character then manages to spoil that PC's idea and then plays the victim card because his cool idea makes it impossible for her to play her character. And yes, there is a bit of blame the paladin style analysis going on here because lots of players make the same mistake, make the paladin very rigid in his tolerance, and cause problems for the other players.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

People on this thread seem to think the oracle is roll playing so that excuses anything. While I don't agree with this sentiment keep in mind the fighter is role playing his character just as much. The fighter is playing a good character and trying to stick to his alignment. He sees a member of the party engaging in possible evil activity and objects. When his objections are shot down he sticks with his alignment and decides he can no longer associate with this party. Good job of role playing your character.

The oracle on the other hand is playing a lawful NEUTRAL character. Lawful neutral is not concerned with redeeming people that is good. If he is playing to his alignment he is already willing to commit evil acts as long as it does not break the law or his particular code. Lawful neutral tends to stick by the letter of the law and not worry about morality. Lawful neutral supports the status quo instead of trying to make peoples life better. While they may do good they are just as likely to do evil.

The oracle is trying to claim that he just wants to redeem the imp. If that is the case he is not playing a lawful neutral character he is playing a neutral good character or maybe even chaotic good. The only reason I could see a lawful neutral character making a deal with an imp was if he had something to gain from it. At this point the oracle is not doing a very good job at role playing his character.

Alignment should be more than a couple of words written down on your character sheet. Play any alignment you want but play the alignment you choose. The other thing about alignment is the party needs to be in agreement on what alignments are acceptable in the group. Personally I like to play good characters and playing with an evil character is not something I enjoy. The GM of this campaign needs to have a talk with his players about what they want out of the game.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Bill Dunn wrote:
magnuskn wrote:

This is still on the GM for not properly vetting the group for compatibility, then going off and falling in love with an NPC so much that said NPC is made more important than the player characters.

That's about as uncharitable and maybe even obnoxious interpretation of the OP as I could have imagined. You don't think it could be interpreted as one of the PCs hits on a cool idea and the GM says "OK, let's go with it"? That's what it looks like to me since the oracle PC is the one who sought out the imp, not the the GM foisting something on them.

The LG fighter character then manages to spoil that PC's idea and then plays the victim card because his cool idea makes it impossible for her to play her character. And yes, there is a bit of blame the paladin style analysis going on here because lots of players make the same mistake, make the paladin very rigid in his tolerance, and cause problems for the other players.

Agreed.

"Show me on the doll where the bad DM touched you."


MuseAmused wrote:


I'm very proud that the Oracle's player is willing to give up the imp for keeping the group happy. I do feel uncomfortable that an ultimatum even came UP and will explain this, but from here out I'm going to try to step back and not let myself get accidentally over-attached to ANY NPCs.

You should be proud of him, he just took one for the team. Now don't forget that. Don't let him become the team doormat/martyr, always giving up his ideas for the sake of togetherness.


Mysterious Stranger wrote:

People on this thread seem to think the oracle is roll playing so that excuses anything. While I don't agree with this sentiment keep in mind the fighter is role playing his character just as much. The fighter is playing a good character and trying to stick to his alignment. He sees a member of the party engaging in possible evil activity and objects. When his objections are shot down he sticks with his alignment and decides he can no longer associate with this party. Good job of role playing your character.

The oracle on the other hand is playing a lawful NEUTRAL character. Lawful neutral is not concerned with redeeming people that is good. If he is playing to his alignment he is already willing to commit evil acts as long as it does not break the law or his particular code. Lawful neutral tends to stick by the letter of the law and not worry about morality. Lawful neutral supports the status quo instead of trying to make peoples life better. While they may do good they are just as likely to do evil.

This line of reasoning just gives good characters free license to run roughshod over the neutrals in setting the party's agenda. It sounds like another variation on the excuse of "I'm only playing my alignment" that we so often hear from Chaotic Neutral or evil character players when they're just disrupting the game.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You know the entire time I read this thread I thought the OP should let the fighter retire, and hand her a character sheet with a lvl 1 imp on it.

That would have been a way more interesting outcome.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Posters these boards seem to leapfrog status quo whenever their sugar levels get too high.

500 posts per thread of paladins cant attack this or that "just because it's evil" and 500 more posts because we can't just kill goblins and orcs because they aren't necessarily evil, and yet another 500 flame ridden posts on "my character is lawful evil but he hasnt done anything evil"

But we can snuff the imp out for being a devil and Devils are common knowledge? We should all know it's powers, abilities, alignment all along with recognizing one on sight.

Yet Necromancers in the party and the witch that curses people can sell you heal pots but we can't do anything about this?

This is a reality where witches AREn't burnt at stakes, and Can you tell the difference between a dragon disciple (horns, teeth, scaled skin, bat like wings) and a devil?

Who's to say your gnome dragon disciple isn't a big fat portly Imp. Have you seen another one to compare it to? Heck how many gnomes has your 20 year old human fighter from backwater village A seen?

And this IMP, completely intelligent, it's whole purpose in life manipulation and deceit, and it doesn't use any powers like invisibility or turning into a raven? pfffft.

"oh shucks, the fighter doesn't like me? I guess i'll just leave" walks off far enough to not be noticed, turn invisible and runs back to sit on the oracles shoulder, and whisper in her ear (next time we come to a village, tell your friends you are going to buy a Raven....Ill make sure one is available!"

That's what the imp would do, because the oracle has made it's self a mark.
Then it would do what it could, to kill the fighter at the nearest chance, like when she's stabilized during a fight, the imp would sneak over invisible, coup de gras, and then the party would be like "but I swear, her bleeding had stopped"

Are Imps really common familiars? You sure those aren't rats and ravens?
They don't ride around on wizards shoulders in true form folks, that's why they HAVE those forms to use.

IF they were that common, they would either be begrudgingly tolerated, or there would be content battles in the streets between people and Imps.

What about Eidolons, which are outsiders and can look like all sorts of unheavenly nasty and scary creatures. Are we trying to kill those now too?

Which is it. Let's make up our minds? Are all goblins evil? Can we kill them on sight? They certainly don't LOOK good.

and by the by, killing the Imp (or making it go away, or leaving yourself) isn't going to release the Oracle from her Agreement.

One more thing, with all the group wandering around with LN clerics of asmodeus, and reasn B, C, D to cast evil descriptor spells, commanding bands of zombies etc etc. Are we really having this discussion about and Imp? With ALL the handwaving that gets done in these groups and on these boards to accommodate "character ideas?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mysterious Stranger wrote:

People on this thread seem to think the oracle is roll playing so that excuses anything. While I don't agree with this sentiment keep in mind the fighter is role playing his character just as much. The fighter is playing a good character and trying to stick to his alignment. He sees a member of the party engaging in possible evil activity and objects. When his objections are shot down he sticks with his alignment and decides he can no longer associate with this party. Good job of role playing your character.

The oracle on the other hand is playing a lawful NEUTRAL character. Lawful neutral is not concerned with redeeming people that is good. If he is playing to his alignment he is already willing to commit evil acts as long as it does not break the law or his particular code. Lawful neutral tends to stick by the letter of the law and not worry about morality. Lawful neutral supports the status quo instead of trying to make peoples life better. While they may do good they are just as likely to do evil.

The oracle is trying to claim that he just wants to redeem the imp. If that is the case he is not playing a lawful neutral character he is playing a neutral good character or maybe even chaotic good. The only reason I could see a lawful neutral character making a deal with an imp was if he had something to gain from it. At this point the oracle is not doing a very good job at role playing his character.

Alignment should be more than a couple of words written down on your character sheet. Play any alignment you want but play the alignment you choose. The other thing about alignment is the party needs to be in agreement on what alignments are acceptable in the group. Personally I like to play good characters and playing with an evil character is not something I enjoy. The GM of this campaign needs to have a talk with his players about what they want out of the game.

So the Oracles alignment is somehow common knowledge? The characters know it's LN?

How do they know she is not 'good'.
The Oracle could just be saying "I want to redeem it" because she is interested in the power she might gain from the alliance.
This could be the player RPing a slide into LE?

To be honest with you I am SO confused with how alignments work any more because i JUST DO NOT GET characters who are LN clerics of Asmodeus who play ALL their career and remain LN.
I would assume that long term use of evil spells, raising zombies, summoning devils, and praising asmodeus's name would make one evil, But apparently not.

reign of winter mind blown:
In this AP a Cleric of Norberger tells his men he's really a necromancer , because if they know he's a cleric of an evil god of deceit and murder they wouldnt follow him, but a wizard who makes dead bodies move around? Oh ok, that's cool. clerics who do the same thing? I'm sorry Im not down with that! 0.o
We are also expected to believe this NPCs armor and shortsword wielding dont easily give away the fact that he's NOT a wizard, but we can all instantly recognize an Imp for what it is


I think that’s an unfortunate decision on the part of the Oracle’s PC.

Hopefully it won’t encourage the Fighter’s PC to continue their “my way or the highway, and I burn all your stuff on the way out, ha-ha!” policy any further than they already have.

Were it me, I would ask the fighter’s PC not to come back to my table if they tried to pull the “I’m going to be a jerk with this PC since I’m bringing in another one, ha-ha!” crap. It’s one thing to say “hey, I think I’m playing the wrong character for what’s being run” and bow out to introduce a new PC that will work better for the group. It’s quite another to say, “hey out-of-play, I don’t like your decisions, so I’m going to do a suicide / exit run out of spite with my current character right before I bring in my next one”. That’s pure bs, especially as it killed a lot of good role-playing and dramatic tension potential with what is effectively an out-of-play tantrum.

On the other hand, I may still be bitter from too many years of “hey, I’m playing a paladin, you have to adapt to MY character” arguments, which this is remarkably similar to.

-TimD

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Evil Lincoln wrote:

I blame the fighter player. Drawing steel on a "misguided" ally is not something a good-aligned character should ever do.

All three parties bear some level of responsibility for this.

1. The fighter player for being stiff-necked and obstinate and failing to recognise that this is a social game.

2. The oracle player to some degree is guilty of the same sort of me-centered game play and bears some of the onus of not trying for some out of game conversation of this.

3. The biggest failing is the GM who did not account for the fact that the players of both characters were not playing the same game, one player is playing a grey on grey morality world where the fighter is playing a more direct heroic good vs evil type of adventure. It's really the GM's job to make it clear WHAT kind of world he or she is running and if he finds a player to game dissonance, to make some off screen time address this type of player/game disconnect.


MuseAmused wrote:

<i><b>UPDATE!</b></i>

We haven't had a chance to sit down and talk it out as a group, but my Oracle's Player informed me today that she plans to propose a slight retcon:

Thank you again to everyone who's posted their two copper on this, its given me a lot of perspectives on the situation and the different ways people might feel about it. I think this experience will help me avoid such things in the future!

Thank you for the update and I think this is a very workable solution!


TimD wrote:

I think that’s an unfortunate decision on the part of the Oracle’s PC.

Hopefully it won’t encourage the Fighter’s PC to continue their “my way or the highway, and I burn all your stuff on the way out, ha-ha!” policy any further than they already have.

Were it me, I would ask the fighter’s PC not to come back to my table if they tried to pull the “I’m going to be a jerk with this PC since I’m bringing in another one, ha-ha!” crap. It’s one thing to say “hey, I think I’m playing the wrong character for what’s being run” and bow out to introduce a new PC that will work better for the group. It’s quite another to say, “hey out-of-play, I don’t like your decisions, so I’m going to do a suicide / exit run out of spite with my current character right before I bring in my next one”. That’s pure bs, especially as it killed a lot of good role-playing and dramatic tension potential with what is effectively an out-of-play tantrum.

On the other hand, I may still be bitter from too many years of “hey, I’m playing a paladin, you have to adapt to MY character” arguments, which this is remarkably similar to.

-TimD

Nothing the fighter did was out of character for lawful good. Franky I'd say a paladin, if he saw you making deals with a clearly evil outsider (and it is known to us that the imp has been making deals and trying to corrupt the oracle) he would kill the outsider. Killing it and leaving would be the least of your worries because it wouldn't be out of character for him to kill the imp, then decide the oracle was evil and kill him.

He roleplayed his character, which you seem to love the idea of. Now you're just getting into "I don't like your character type" and to be honest a demon consorting character is much further out of the norms than any paladin and approaches what would normally be straight up villain territory.


Pendagast wrote:


Who's to say your gnome dragon disciple isn't a big fat portly Imp. Have you seen another one to compare it to?

ASDFDGHHFf- off topic but you just said something unintentionally hilarious, because in our other game (I alternate with another DM so we can take breaks)...

I am, in fact, playing a Gnome Dragon Disciple.
Whose bloodline is Red Dragon. Who's gonna look like this http://amuseamused.tumblr.com/image/38275928622 when he finishes the transformation.

(He's NG, deeply devout to Sarenrae and wants to open a church to her in Magnimar :D)

OK TANGENT OVER PLZ CONTINUE


SO, I certainly didn't read all the comments, but this offers a pretty awesome chance to have the Imp pull in a favor.

Imp's Favor:
Given the chance, I would have the imp demand the Oracle kill the fighter. Bring the fighter back in as an NPC and have the oracle choose whether she will kill. This could take a horrible turn for the worse, but it would also be a way to bring the fighter back into the fold.

This is by no means an ideal solution, but the oracle can redeem herself, the imp could show its true nature and the fighter's player still has a chance to resolve the departure.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:

I blame the fighter player. Drawing steel on a "misguided" ally is not something a good-aligned character should ever do.

All three parties bear some level of responsibility for this.

1. The fighter player for being stiff-necked and obstinate and failing to recognise that this is a social game.

2. The oracle player to some degree is guilty of the same sort of me-centered game play and bears some of the onus of not trying for some out of game conversation of this.

3. The biggest failing is the GM who did not account for the fact that the players of both characters were not playing the same game, one player is playing a grey on grey morality world where the fighter is playing a more direct heroic good vs evil type of adventure. It's really the GM's job to make it clear WHAT kind of world he or she is running and if he finds a player to game dissonance, to make some off screen time address this type of player/game disconnect.

Wait? Why can't there be both?

I see a lot of grey on grey people mixing it up with black and white people IRL.
Granted they tend not to like each other very much, but in many situations (work, military, football team) they have to associate and even cooperate.

Heck I spent years in the military with people I didn't necessarily like. In civilian life there are people I work with, that I would never make a conscious decision to invite this person to the family barbecue, doesn't mean I spit on the guy at work and tell him he has to change his ways or I quit and will find another job.

In 1E the Imp was an extremely common familiar. I don't recall it ever being a problem except with a paladin. Of course back then, paladins couldnt travel or associate with any character that wasn't good. So this party dynamic never actually occurred because the caster would have been a non good character.

Imagine being a halfing in a party where the druid has a tiger as a pet.
The Druid is NOT a good aligned character (neutral) but the Halfling is expected to be at ease with something carnivorous and three times it's size and the mere word of the druid "it's ok, he's my friend and I have full control over him"
But if the Oracle says the same thing about the Imp, that's some how not the same.

this IS using out of game information that a character would not know the difference between.

Both situations have reason to make one uncomfortable.

Heck, I think I would be weirded out by a wizards talking Raven. If I'm metagaming, and I know Imp can turn into Ravens, and the wizard has a talking raven, how do I kmow that's not an Imp??

Oh right, I'm meta gaming. Right. It's not an Imp, because it's a talking raven... No problem, return to the game, it;s all good!

Player's can choose to do what they want with their characters, grey on grey and my way or the highway can exist in the same world or the same party.

the fighter choosing to freak out because the little talking man on the oracles shoulders is giving her the creeps is fine.
the oracle choosing to not give up the Imp as a companion is fine.
they can both do that.
Crying foul because it disrupts the game is the only thing that cuts the fourth wall here.
It's not disrupting the game, it's part of the game.

I once broke up with a girl because her pet spider monkey gave me the creeps ( I swear it threatened me with a knife once when she wasn't looking) People can storm off and leave relationships all the time, for reasons real or imagined.

IF it were me, and I at some time realized the creepy little winged man could ALSO turn invisible at will? That's IT. I'd be out of there, or I would never get any sleep!

However in a world with magic like that, I also might make it my goal to find some kind of true seeing or see invisible item. I might not know as a fighter that exists, but now that I know that critter can become invisible, I'd be looking for anything to counter it with.

I also might require something like a leash or a cage (not like that would actually control an Imp, but I wouldnt necessarily know that)


If the redeemability of the imp was never possible, that's something the player should know, whether their character does or not. As a work of group fiction, you should be open to the player converting the imp, as that's the part of the story they want to tell. Don't rob them of their input because you have your own ideas. Work together to create the story, allow the characters (both PC and NPC) to write what is happening, don't dictate it to them. As a player, if I were trying to convert an evil character and failed, that could be an awesome story. But if I were trying to convert an evil character and failed because it was impossible, I would feel like I had wasted my time in a very OOC sense, and honestly I'd be pretty annoyed at the GM for not letting me know I was going to be wasting a bunch of time on it.


To OP the imp feels threatened by the fighter have it call in its favor which would be having the oracle kill the fighter then the oracle has a choice either break the contract with the imp or kill the fighter and if she breaks the contract imp is released can disappear and now has a claim on her soul. Now you can roleplay redeeming the oracle.


Hidious Phidias wrote:
Your fighter seems to want to play an old school Paladin, killing evil just because it is evil. You could try telling the Fighter that killing the imp before it has truly done and evil act is step away from their own LG alignment and it could be the beginning of the path to the dark side. Or you could have the imp go away and change shape as an animal and the Oracle gets a "new Familiar" and let the matter rest until you can use the imp as a prop for some other plot point.

It is a devil, who do you justify a paladin not offing it? This would not be an evil act for the paladin especially if he knows it has been hanging around people tempting them.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
He roleplayed his character, which you seem to love the idea of. Now you're just getting into "I don't like your character type" and to be honest a demon consorting character is much further out of the norms than any paladin and approaches what would normally be straight up villain territory.

You're missing my point (or I'm not making it well). My issues aren’t' with the character or how it's role-played. They are:

1. The "my way or the highway because as a player I’ve had bad experiences with other DMs, so OBVIOUSLY I can’t allow that to happen again” attitude.
2. The “I’ve chosen to no longer have this character as my PC, so I’m going to do something disruptive since it won’t adversely affect my game because I’m not going to be playing them any more” decision.

Again, if the fighter character wanted to attack the Imp and live with the consequences, more power to them for playing in character. It’s the choice to leave in a huff and make sure that they effectively get in the last word (or swing, I guess) as a petulant protest that I have the issue with.
The decision to ret con what sounded like a great role-playing exchange because the Oracle’s player was afraid to disrupt their out of play game harmony is what sounded like a bad idea, since it may encourage similar behavior anytime the other player doesn’t like what happens in game in the future.

-TimD


Am I the only one here who thinks the best course of action is for the DM to play along, and then have the imp act like a freaking imp and do something that gets the oracle killed?
DM: "Yes, Ms. Oracle, you can take the imp along with your party!" Next day: "Sorry, you don't wake up from the night. Re-roll for trying something so naive. Real evil exists in Pathfinder. Now you know."

Result: Fighter wins because she was 'right'. Oracle also wins because she got to successfully roleplay her character and make the choices she wanted to make (which correctly results in the character's death).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shalafi2412 wrote:


It is a devil, who do you justify a paladin not offing it? This would not be an evil act for the paladin especially if he knows it has been hanging around people tempting them.

Because good isn't stupid nor evil-destroying automatons. If we rely on arguments like this, paladins pretty much can't operate anywhere near Cheliax without being forced to attack state forces or Asmodean cathedrals nor in Korvosa without being forced to constantly root colonies of imps out of the eaves.

So the LG fighter (or paladin) kills the imp, anybody really think that lets the oracle out of his contract? No, the contract rights probably just float up to the next enforcement level, meaning the creature asking for the favor is now a bit more powerful and, having gotten to that position, more evil and devious than a simple imp.

The oracle got himself, by his own free will, into a (presumably) legal contract. It may be better, for both the greater good and the lesser good (meaning the oracle's soul in this case) to let the second shoe drop rather than kill the imp prematurely, not knowing what the unintended consequences will be.


Congrats MuseAmused, it sounds like you did an excellent job of resolving an awkward situation. It sounds like you have a good group, I wish you a successful AP!

Lantern Lodge

Piccolo wrote:
Psion-Psycho wrote:
If any one of my players ever managed to actually accomplish what YOU did with your Paladin, I would outright hand an experience level and a fancy magic item to the sneaky bastard. No joke. Of course, I'd b@$@* about one of my players getting one up on me, but I'd *privately* congratulate the PC on their feat. That was damned impressive, it was an act of lasting Good.

Lol thanks im glad some1 read it. In a sense i did get a great rewarded because i got to play a 3.0 Goblin Druid later in the game when i retired the paladin. Btw if ur wondering y i retired the character its because i was put into a situation were i thought would be best and was greatly rewarded for the action i took since the DM did not expect it. The character ended up sacrificing it self as a last defense against an army of demons to grant safe passage for the party to get back home and seal the gate behind them. I the player was sad because it was an awesome character but it was some thing the character would do so i did it. Cool thing is the party meets my character later as an ascended champion of the LG deity of the game. So it was well worth it to me even though i would not be able to play the character ever again. It was nice to know that the DM saw my character as a being worthy of such a high title it really did make me feel accomplished that i was able to play the paladin as well as i did.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ooga wrote:

Am I the only one here who thinks the best course of action is for the DM to play along, and then have the imp act like a freaking imp and do something that gets the oracle killed?

DM: "Yes, Ms. Oracle, you can take the imp along with your party!" Next day: "Sorry, you don't wake up from the night. Re-roll for trying something so naive. Real evil exists in Pathfinder. Now you know."

Result: Fighter wins because she was 'right'. Oracle also wins because she got to successfully roleplay her character and make the choices she wanted to make (which correctly results in the character's death).

The imp isnt a Demon. A demon might do something like that, Devils have more intricate longer range plans. Why blow a good thing, the oracle will protect it, feed it and give it all sorts of opportunity to gather power. The CE demon would be into random destruction and death, but there is nothing to be gained by the imp from killing his free ride the very next night, in his sleep.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mysterious Stranger wrote:

People on this thread seem to think the oracle is roll playing so that excuses anything. While I don't agree with this sentiment keep in mind the fighter is role playing his character just as much. The fighter is playing a good character and trying to stick to his alignment. He sees a member of the party engaging in possible evil activity and objects. When his objections are shot down he sticks with his alignment and decides he can no longer associate with this party. Good job of role playing your character.

The oracle on the other hand is playing a lawful NEUTRAL character. Lawful neutral is not concerned with redeeming people that is good. If he is playing to his alignment he is already willing to commit evil acts as long as it does not break the law or his particular code. Lawful neutral tends to stick by the letter of the law and not worry about morality. Lawful neutral supports the status quo instead of trying to make peoples life better. While they may do good they are just as likely to do evil.

The oracle is trying to claim that he just wants to redeem the imp. If that is the case he is not playing a lawful neutral character he is playing a neutral good character or maybe even chaotic good. The only reason I could see a lawful neutral character making a deal with an imp was if he had something to gain from it. At this point the oracle is not doing a very good job at role playing his character.

Alignment should be more than a couple of words written down on your character sheet. Play any alignment you want but play the alignment you choose. The other thing about alignment is the party needs to be in agreement on what alignments are acceptable in the group. Personally I like to play good characters and playing with an evil character is not something I enjoy. The GM of this campaign needs to have a talk with his players about what they want out of the game.

You win the thread! Spot on!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Grayfeather wrote:

]

After reading all you posts my thought is your fighter is a drama queen and is being a hardliner in and out of game to see if you really care about her. This is why female gamers are always wanted but seldom work. Not because of what they do specifically because they arent wrong but they don't play well with others unless its on their terms.

It's been my observations in the paper and dice world that most "drama queens" are male. In fact when compared to the overall numbers, most female gamers who aren't dragged involuntarily into the game by significant others are by thier numbers more mature than their male counterparts.

The player last weekend who was willing to let a low level table dequeue because he insisted on bringing his 1st level player to the tier 4-5 table was male. (As it turned out, being the table marshal, I vetoed his request so that 3 other players with characters of the same level weren't forced to go home for the day. After I placed him in the table he belonged in he pouted and sulked for the bulk of the session.

Making generalised sexist comments on players of a specific gender isn't a help to your point.


Bill Dunn wrote:
Shalafi2412 wrote:


It is a devil, who do you justify a paladin not offing it? This would not be an evil act for the paladin especially if he knows it has been hanging around people tempting them.

Because good isn't stupid nor evil-destroying automatons. If we rely on arguments like this, paladins pretty much can't operate anywhere near Cheliax without being forced to attack state forces or Asmodean cathedrals nor in Korvosa without being forced to constantly root colonies of imps out of the eaves.

So the LG fighter (or paladin) kills the imp, anybody really think that lets the oracle out of his contract? No, the contract rights probably just float up to the next enforcement level, meaning the creature asking for the favor is now a bit more powerful and, having gotten to that position, more evil and devious than a simple imp.

The oracle got himself, by his own free will, into a (presumably) legal contract. It may be better, for both the greater good and the lesser good (meaning the oracle's soul in this case) to let the second shoe drop rather than kill the imp prematurely, not knowing what the unintended consequences will be.

Hmm, but since it does not seem that they are near Cheliax your argument is moot. It is a devil. It is trying to make a party member evil, that is what they do.

Silver Crusade

Fig wrote:

SO, I certainly didn't read all the comments, but this offers a pretty awesome chance to have the Imp pull in a favor.

** spoiler omitted **

This is by no means an ideal solution, but the oracle can redeem herself, the imp could show its true nature and the fighter's player still has a chance to resolve the departure.

One little problem is the orcale entered into a lawful contract with the Imp......

Silver Crusade

Psion-Psycho wrote:
Piccolo wrote:
Psion-Psycho wrote:
If any one of my players ever managed to actually accomplish what YOU did with your Paladin, I would outright hand an experience level and a fancy magic item to the sneaky bastard. No joke. Of course, I'd b@$@* about one of my players getting one up on me, but I'd *privately* congratulate the PC on their feat. That was damned impressive, it was an act of lasting Good.
Lol thanks im glad some1 read it. In a sense i did get a great rewarded because i got to play a 3.0 Goblin Druid later in the game when i retired the paladin. Btw if ur wondering y i retired the character its because i was put into a situation were i thought would be best and was greatly rewarded for the action i took since the DM did not expect it. The character ended up sacrificing it self as a last defense against an army of demons to grant safe passage for the party to get back home and seal the gate behind them. I the player was sad because it was an awesome character but it was some thing the character would do so i did it. Cool thing is the party meets my character later as an ascended champion of the LG deity of the game. So it was well worth it to me even though i would not be able to play the character ever again. It was nice to know that the DM saw my character as a being worthy of such a high title it really did make me feel accomplished that i was able to play the paladin as well as i did.

Yay, someone who actually knows the correct way to play a Paladin! kudos, Psion!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Grayfeather wrote:


After reading all you posts my thought is your fighter is a drama queen and is being a hardliner in and out of game to see if you really care about her. This is why female gamers are always wanted but seldom work. Not because of what they do specifically because they arent wrong but they don't play well with others unless its on their terms.

My advice: Let the rest of the party...

OP here!!

UH NEWSFLASH DUDE:

I'M ALSO A "FEMALE GAMER"
AS IS THE ORACLE'S PLAYER.
AS IS THE PARTY'S ROGUE'S PLAYER.
AND THE ONLY MALE PLAYER IN THE PARTY IS PLAYING THE FIGHTER'S DAUGHTER.

AND IN 4.5 YEARS OF GAMING I HAVE NEVER PLAYED WITH A PARTY THAT HAD MORE THAN ONE MALE PLAYER (and sometimes it was the GM!)

SO YEAH NO. Please don't start bringing gender into this because I ASSURE you, that is NOT the issue at hand >BI

Project Manager

Removed a blatantly sexist trolling post and responses to it. Flag it and move on, folks. Thanks! Left the OP's response to defang future arguments that this is a male vs. female conflict.

Lantern Lodge

Thalandar wrote:
Psion-Psycho wrote:
Piccolo wrote:
Psion-Psycho wrote:
If any one of my players ever managed to actually accomplish what YOU did with your Paladin, I would outright hand an experience level and a fancy magic item to the sneaky bastard. No joke. Of course, I'd b@$@* about one of my players getting one up on me, but I'd *privately* congratulate the PC on their feat. That was damned impressive, it was an act of lasting Good.
Lol thanks im glad some1 read it. In a sense i did get a great rewarded because i got to play a 3.0 Goblin Druid later in the game when i retired the paladin. Btw if ur wondering y i retired the character its because i was put into a situation were i thought would be best and was greatly rewarded for the action i took since the DM did not expect it. The character ended up sacrificing it self as a last defense against an army of demons to grant safe passage for the party to get back home and seal the gate behind them. I the player was sad because it was an awesome character but it was some thing the character would do so i did it. Cool thing is the party meets my character later as an ascended champion of the LG deity of the game. So it was well worth it to me even though i would not be able to play the character ever again. It was nice to know that the DM saw my character as a being worthy of such a high title it really did make me feel accomplished that i was able to play the paladin as well as i did.
Yay, someone who actually knows the correct way to play a Paladin! kudos, Psion!

Lol thanks. Paladin from my personal experience is the 2nd hardest character to ever play at least for me. The hardest for me to play is a follower character that relies on the team since it goes against my nature.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kryzbyn wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
magnuskn wrote:

This is still on the GM for not properly vetting the group for compatibility, then going off and falling in love with an NPC so much that said NPC is made more important than the player characters.

That's about as uncharitable and maybe even obnoxious interpretation of the OP as I could have imagined. You don't think it could be interpreted as one of the PCs hits on a cool idea and the GM says "OK, let's go with it"? That's what it looks like to me since the oracle PC is the one who sought out the imp, not the the GM foisting something on them.

The LG fighter character then manages to spoil that PC's idea and then plays the victim card because his cool idea makes it impossible for her to play her character. And yes, there is a bit of blame the paladin style analysis going on here because lots of players make the same mistake, make the paladin very rigid in his tolerance, and cause problems for the other players.

Agreed.

"Show me on the doll where the bad DM touched you."

Yeah, thanks, that makes me so much more sympathetic to your "Lawful Good can screw itself" position. Get that beam out of your eye, please, the "I couldn't play my Drow-Tiefling half-breed CE Assassin Ninja" anger is peeking through.

Oh, and btw., I am operating 100% on information the OP gave herself, including the further elaborations she gave throughout the thread. She herself said that a.) she did fall in love with playing the imp and b.) she did not take into account the fighters feelings on the matter.

Nobody is perfect as a GM, but I vastly dislike that so many people are trying to play the fighter for just going with her alignment when dealing with a devil ( and not the kind which wants or even pretends to want to redeem itself ).


Sounds like it worked out in the end. My compliments to the Oracle player for actively defusing the situation herself.

This all sounded like a case of accidental favoritism.
You know even though you didn't intend to favor the oracle you did give her a special personal evil devil NPC. Something no one else was going to get. And since it was evil there was huge potential to turn out bad for the rest of the group. Now the fighter may have been overly dramatic in trying to stop it but I empathize with her if she sees favoritism. Favoritism is a very bad thing. Sometimes when you have been hurt by a bad thing you over react to it in future encounters. Fighter player didn't handle this well but I think her motivation was honest enough, she didn't want the game ruined. Her fears were real even if what you intended was not what she saw happening at all. The responsibility here was for YOU to defuse the situation either by explaining OOC that this Imp was going to do it's level best to turn the oracle evil and that no favoritism was being used or by removing the imp yourself. Sometimes it's worth it to show your GM cards if it means earning a players trust.

Lantern Lodge

To the OP
well i hope the situation gets settled in the least destructive and most pleasnt way it can for both players and u. Its tough to be a DM and even more so when players bring in bad experences from there past. Its life but with experience and patience u will be able to better prepare for a situation like this again if it ever rears its ugly head. For now all u can do is let thing play out as it may.

Good luck and best of wishes.

Sovereign Court

This is why everyone should read the boards before running an AP.

The OP would have known to run an all-elf party of aspirant lantern-bearers and avoided the whole shebangerangedangelangewang.

Lantern Lodge

GeraintElberion wrote:

This is why everyone should read the boards before running an AP.

The OP would have known to run an all-elf party of aspirant lantern-bearers and avoided the whole shebangerangedangelangewang.

......what?


GeraintElberion wrote:

This is why everyone should read the boards before running an AP.

The OP would have known to run an all-elf party of aspirant lantern-bearers and avoided the whole shebangerangedangelangewang.

(Sorry ahead of time if I've misread your tone, it can be hard to tell sometimes u.u;; )

Hey man, I read LITERALLY the entire Second Darkness forum before I started running! That's why I originally said it was a 'Heavily Modified' campaigned, I've edited TOOONS of stuff >:B I totes know making it all elf woulda smoothed some stuff, but I could never see my players enjoying me going "HEY GUYS YOU ALL HAVE TO BE ELVES IN MY GAME. OH AND YOU ALL NEED TO BE CONNECTED TO THIS SPECIFIC THING. NO, YOU CAN'T MAKE ORPHANED FETCHLING TWINS, OR AN ESTRANGED HUMAN FATHER AND DAUGHTER, OR ANYTHING ELSE EXCEPT THESE SPECIFIC ELVES."

I mean, talk about unhappy players.

Still, there's something to be said about having a party where everyone's characters at least know each other in PASSING before the Adventure Path starts. We plan to try to work that angle a lot more in the future. FOR NOW, WE ADJUST. Hopefully.

101 to 150 of 185 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Help! REALLY BAD party conflict, what do I do!? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.