I am playing a moody Catfolk warlock ((we combine 3.5 + pathfinder in my group, but main world is pathfinder concepts)). As a Warlock i must be chaotic. I intend on becoming a (3.5) acolyte of the skin, which must be neutral or evil, and as evil is not allowed in the campaign, i must be CN. Now, my main problem is, i traffic with demonsm but also a Paladin and cleric both LG. They keep trying to kill my familiar, and towns keep trying to run me out, although my character has NEVER willfully done anything evil, and is actually leaning towards good probably, though i do try to be "selfish" to maintain the chaoticness of things.
I MIGHT help you recover the stolen x, provided it benefits me somehow, so not entirely altruistic. HOWEVER, every NPC causes me a rash of shyt, and even my own group keeps "telling on me" or deliberatly hindering what i am trying to do. I love these guys, and it's fun trying to get away with somethings, but at the same time, frustrating.
I.E. I am trying to find an outsider (demon or fiend) to talk to, and i have been arrested twice, and thrown out of a town... any thoughts, suggestions?
Sounds like your group really doesnt want you to be a warlock, honestly.
My advice is to put on sunglasses and roll through town with a gang of demons in leather jackets and snapping their fingers to the song "staying alive"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, you're still helping the party, you're not evil, haven't done evil, and yet everybody around you hates you. In the meantime, your teammates are betraying you at every turn for no good reason.
My thoughts ...
1. The rest of your group is being pretty douchey.
2. The Paladin and the Cleric should be in trouble for their betrayal. If you've done nothing wrong, there's no reason you should be persecuted.
3. Yeah, the rest of your group are being douchey.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am playing a moody Catfolk warlock ((we combine 3.5 + pathfinder in my group, but main world is pathfinder concepts)). As a Warlock i must be chaotic. I intend on becoming a (3.5) acolyte of the skin, which must be neutral or evil, and as evil is not allowed in the campaign, i must be CN.
Sounds like you want the evil powers, the evil theme, but not have to act evil or suffer any of the consequences for being evil. The LG paladin and cleric probably don't want to travel with you at all, but feel forced to because you're a PC.
My suggestion is retire your character and recreate as something that better fits your group. Or you could ask the paladin & cleric players to recreate their characters as something more evil.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am playing a moody Catfolk warlock ((we combine 3.5 + pathfinder in my group, but main world is pathfinder concepts)). As a Warlock i must be chaotic. I intend on becoming a (3.5) acolyte of the skin, which must be neutral or evil, and as evil is not allowed in the campaign, i must be CN.Sounds like you want the evil powers, the evil theme, but not have to act evil or suffer any of the consequences for being evil..
Which is perfectly legit, because the alignment system is stupid.
I am playing a moody Catfolk warlock ((we combine 3.5 + pathfinder in my group, but main world is pathfinder concepts)). As a Warlock i must be chaotic. I intend on becoming a (3.5) acolyte of the skin, which must be neutral or evil, and as evil is not allowed in the campaign, i must be CN.Sounds like you want the evil powers, the evil theme, but not have to act evil or suffer any of the consequences for being evil.
Except that he explicitly stated that he's not evil and has never done anything evil, and intends to be neutral. So, not so much.
Which is perfectly legit, because the alignment system is stupid.I am playing a moody Catfolk warlock ((we combine 3.5 + pathfinder in my group, but main world is pathfinder concepts)). As a Warlock i must be chaotic. I intend on becoming a (3.5) acolyte of the skin, which must be neutral or evil, and as evil is not allowed in the campaign, i must be CN.Sounds like you want the evil powers, the evil theme, but not have to act evil or suffer any of the consequences for being evil..
This too.
And what would you replace it with?Which is perfectly legit, because the alignment system is stupid.I am playing a moody Catfolk warlock ((we combine 3.5 + pathfinder in my group, but main world is pathfinder concepts)). As a Warlock i must be chaotic. I intend on becoming a (3.5) acolyte of the skin, which must be neutral or evil, and as evil is not allowed in the campaign, i must be CN.Sounds like you want the evil powers, the evil theme, but not have to act evil or suffer any of the consequences for being evil..
At first thought: Nothing. Don't need it or anything else.
Though I'm sure, given time, I could make a suitable replacement that isn't bad and has less to do with morality and more to do with alliances.
I also vote for 'nothing'.
Which is perfectly legit, because the alignment system is stupid.
Sure - whatever works for the group. Sounds like the other two players may have a different take though, so it wouldn't hurt to discuss it with them and get everyone on the same page.
Personally I like clearly good and clearly bad character concepts. Some grey area is fine, but good-aligned necromancers or demon worshipers is generally pushing it beyond credibility in my mind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I like clearly good and clearly bad character concepts. Some grey area is fine, but good-aligned necromancers or demon worshipers is generally pushing it beyond credibility in my mind.
Which is perfectly legit, because the alignment system is stupid.
Which I find silly to the point where I can't comprehend how people think that.
Might help to talk with the group about what's going on. Don't know what the problem is on the cleric/paladin side, but people going out of their way to mess you up is bad mojo and needs to be dealt with out of character imo. Maybe it means you need to change, or maybe them, I wouldn't know because I have no way to look into the situation myself, but communication is usually a good thing.
In character you can always go with subterfuge, but the power of meta is strong and you really should deal with this out of character to get it out of the way for good and avoid hurt feelings on any side.
Isn't there like three whole paragraphs in the warlock description loading up on how much people fear and mistrust warlocks. And don't even get me started on acolyte of the skin.
Which is all fluff and mutable and most people don't look at you and shout "WARLOCK ARGH!" and make a fit of your existence, and most definitely doesn't mean your fellow players should go out of their way to ruin your fun or make your character's life meh. As far as we know, this warlock hasn't been doing anything bad or even how he's been doing things.
Isn't there like three whole paragraphs in the warlock description loading up on how much people fear and mistrust warlocks. And don't even get me started on acolyte of the skin.
Firstly, it's not like he's wearing a nametag that says 'Hello, My Class Is Warlock'. Secondly, it's not like anybody in the game world even knows what a class IS. Third, that's fluff text and non-binding. Fourth, again, assuming the OP is being straight with us, he's done nothing wrong, which counts for a LOT.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which I find silly to the point where I can't comprehend how people think that.Personally I like clearly good and clearly bad character concepts. Some grey area is fine, but good-aligned necromancers or demon worshipers is generally pushing it beyond credibility in my mind.
Which is perfectly legit, because the alignment system is stupid.Good necromancers are possible and easy, yes, but if he's so wrong then justify how anyone can be good AND worship demons at the same time.
When you idolize creatures that enjoy murdering innocents, and you strive to be that and you respect it, then you are evil. If you don't, then you don't worship the demons, and that's irrelevant.
Stop trying to start a argument with inflamatory language. It's not completely off topic, because convincing his party that being a demon dealmaker doesn't mean he's evil could be an okay way of going about things, but I damn well won't get anything good on this subject out of someone with a attitude like yours.
|
The fact of the matter is that you can court darker powers to attain positive results. Yes, you are dabbling in darker powers, but you do so without losing yourself to it. Chaotic neutral, as an alignment, does not HAVE to skirt the line all that much. For that matter, willfully interacting with a demon or devil will not necessarily turn you evil.
On another note, the LG characters in your party should definitely be suffering consequences for their willful betrayal of your character. Familiars are, for all intents and purposes, an extension of their master. The two share a lot of things in most cases. There's a bond there, and trying to kill it is no different than trying to kill a druid's animal companion. You should ask your GM why, having CHOSEN to betray a member of the party that has done nothing evil, their characters have not suffered any penalties. I would also suggest asking the other two players why they feel their characters are behaving appropriately, and see if a compromise can be reached.
The next point I'd like to raise is that your GM should not be having townsfolk react negatively to your character if it is not, in fact, doing anything to warrant such actions. Your wording has made it seem as if there is a good deal of unfairness going on on the part of your GM. Does your character LOOK evil? I could see a negative reaction if it looks evil, and people are very superstitious. I WOULD have raised the question of detect alignment, but I already know there is no warlock mechanic that would cause it to detect as evil without being such. Thus, that method of justifying their behavior is also shot down
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which I find silly to the point where I can't comprehend how people think that.Personally I like clearly good and clearly bad character concepts. Some grey area is fine, but good-aligned necromancers or demon worshipers is generally pushing it beyond credibility in my mind.
Which is perfectly legit, because the alignment system is stupid.Good necromancers are possible and easy, yes, but if he's so wrong then justify how anyone can be good AND worship demons at the same time.
When you idolize creatures that enjoy murdering innocents, and you strive to be that and you respect it, then you are evil. If you don't, then you don't worship the demons, and that's irrelevant.
Except, of course, that's not how it works. The Acolyte PrC itself says you can be neutral, the obvious implication being 'source of power may be evil*, but you're doing good with it, so it evens out'. He may not be 'idolizing' them; he may just be wanting to steal their power and 'pervert' it into a force for good, which would be deliciously ironic.
*As stupid as that concept is.
|
My advice would be, suck it up.
Warlocks are pretty suspicious off the bat and that's something you're going to have to make your peace with. Add to that the fact that you are trafficking with clearly evil outsiders and I'd say 'Joe Average' townsfolk has every right to distrust and fear you. Chaotic Neutral typically implies self interest, so your behaviour is likely to be to your own benefit (as you stated.) I don't know much about Acolyte of the Skin without looking it up, but it doesn't sound overly pleasant.
Ultimately I'd say you've no place being frustrated by the party and NPC reactions towards you, because they're rational reactions. Your character is a self interested individual who deals with dark magic, demons and the occult.
The best piece of advice I can offer is to talk to the GM and the other players and talk about how you want your character to win them over and demonstrate that while he isn't 'a knight in shining armour', he can be a useful asset, or at the very least a neccessary evil. The LG may never like or fully accept you, but there's no reason they can't come to appreciate the skills you bring to the table. As for the townsfolk, if you save them from a few dragons I'm sure they'll make piece with what you are.
Good luck
Which I find silly to the point where I can't comprehend how people think that.
To each their own I suppose.
Third, that's fluff text and non-binding.
That may be how your group treats classes, but not all groups do. I know a lot of groups like to view classes as a simple set of skills/abilities, but other groups view them as a way of life. Maybe the group that the OP is playing with is more traditional in their handling of classes, while the warlock player is thinking like you just described, thus leading to the conflict.
Based on the way that the NPCs are reacting (GM), and the other PCs, it sure seems like the warlock player is the odd man out in the group. Probably would be a good idea to discuss with the group the issue and handle it out of game.
Ok i shall try to answer as many questions as i saw
Do i appear to be evil? Well i am an oily black furred Catfolk, with a small bit of heritage from a shadow dragon.
My "brother" (another PC) and myself refer to myself as a sorcerer.
My character generally is verbally manipulative for the groups benefit and capable of doing "magic deeds"
In battle I DID summon rats/bats, but have stopped doing that and now sicken people with a bolt of dark energy. An entropic warding constantly surrounds me. I also use wands like CLW and Color spray.
The MOST EVIL thing i have done, was to try and help my brother sabotage a merchants goods, as the behest of another merchant, who double crossed us. My group had a slight idea I might have been involved as I used rats to contaminate his foodwares, and immediately ran to the town guard to report me.
By the time that happened, we had been double crossed, so I went on my own, to the captain of the town guard, confessed all revealed the merchant as an underworld type boss and we all killed him together.
I then went out for the town, and at their request, destroyed a bridge to prevent an approaching army from attacking the town. In order to do so, we had to sneak around about 100 hobgoblins and a black dragon (j).
Now, the guard captain kinda likes me, I seem to have attracted a female bard that keeps following me, and I have convinced the Paladin she can”trust me to tell her what she needs to know when she needs to know it” and that I will never “lie to her, though I may not tell you the truth either” and she said “she deal with that for now, but we will need to revisit the issue”
The rogue constantly flip flops, in town, she “backstabs (see what I did there?) me constantly, but praises me out of town.
The cleric is all “demons = evil, fiends = evil, you want to see them to talk? = evil”
As for why the acolyte of the skin, my character realizes he has the power of darkness in him. Without these powers he is a weak and fragile cat folk. He wants the power fot the sake of having power. He is seeking vengeance against the Elf that slew his mother for consorting with Devils. Otherwise he is a bit of a blank slate, trying to mold himself the way he thinks each person wants him to be. He has heard of the acolyte of the skin during his research and thinks it is a good way to raise his power. He feels he is strong enough in the dark arts to be able to maintain his own personality (alignment) without succumbing to the evil of the fiend. He sees power as power, and is still a bit oblviious to "good" and "evil" he just knows his friends do things sometimes that are "odd"(good) and tries to mimic.
Doesn't matter. What you DO matters, not how you look, not who you hang out with.
Besides, he can just stand in front of Mr. Paladin and say 'Scan me', and he won't ping. Argument over.
Good xp source.
Conscience Cat says that murdering your teammates pets is not the correct way of level advancement.
but no seriously, that's bound to create problems and is a player issue and not a character issue.
When you decide to take an evil familiar in a group with a paladin and a LG cleric, you decide to start that player conflict imo.
Actually when you decided to play a paladin you decided to play a class that causes a ridiculous amount of conflict.
Also! How people handle paladin/cleric's code and whatnot varies from table to table. How the players act still needs to be amiable though, and definitely shouldn't tread on each others fun. Player issue more than a character issue imo. All actions taken by your character do weigh in on you. We can't call how a GM would act from the forum, and I don't know the GM personally so I can't say what would happen, but I can say that killing other people's pets, breaking their toys, and killing their good time, is usually bad.
http://paizo.com/prd/monsters/mephit.html DUST MEPHIT, CN no? Not CE? Yet still a demon.
http://paizo.com/prd/monsters/mephit.html DUST MEPHIT, CN no? Not CE? Yet still a demon.
In dnd terms I don't think Mephits are actually demons. Demons are a particular type of outsider who are almost always CE. Mephits are impish outsiders from elemental planes and usually neutral in some way if I remember correctly.
I would take hanging out with someone who is walking around with a Demon pet as "consistent offends her moral code".
Unless that demon is actually doing evil things, I would not.
http://paizo.com/prd/monsters/mephit.html DUST MEPHIT, CN no? Not CE? Yet still a demon.In dnd terms I don't think Mephits are actually demons. Demons are a particular type of outsider who are almost always CE. Mephits are impish outsiders from elemental planes and usually neutral in some way if I remember correctly.
This is correct. Looking at the first four, they're all True Neutral (though this can obviously vary from mephit to mephit). Furthermore, none of them have alignment subtypes, only elemental ones. Mephits are not demons at all.
Again, Mr. paladin and Mr. Cleric haven't a leg to stand on here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even if they don't have a mechanical reason why they have to dislike the the warlock they do have moral and character reasons why they are opposed to him.
No, they don't. They can't prove he did that, plus one evil deed in no way causes an immediate shift in alignment. He's still neutral, as is his familiar.
The paladin and cleric are both out of line, and frankly, if someone winds up having to change characters, it should be them into non-stupid characters.
As a thought, and I know its the perfect, but warlocks can actually make deals and gain their power from any outsider, and acolyte of the skin's adaptation notes that there are less squicky ways to deal with it.
If you have a flat tire you don't deflate the other three to make it even, you fix the flat.
Aw crap. So that's where I've been going wrong all this time :(
The paladin may also have a similar antidemon stance
I certainly hope so, otherwise he's not much of a paladin.
I think Zhayne actually hit on the best point:
Third, that's fluff text and non-binding.
When I read the paladin description:
"Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine. Called paladins, these noble souls dedicate their swords and lives to the battle against evil."
This tells me that a paladin is supposed to be dedicated to a zealot type level of destroying evil. Being friends with a guy that appears/acts evil, even if the "alignment" spot on his character sheet doesn't say evil, doesn't make sense.
However, if you disregard all of this and only look at the actual mechanics, that's not the case. If we continue this type of thinking, then text such of this:
"While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code."
Really isn't important. How do we define "avoids"? What composes the paladin's moral code?
In other words, if you're looking for specific rules that state "a paladin may not x", and you don't find that, therefore you assume it is permitted, then paling around with a evilish warlock makes sense.
You don't get to decide their moral code, and it's not an unreasonable or even especially exclusionary one as presented. On top of that you have to players/characters with understandable issues, saying your paladin should use detect evil and just know that the warlock isn't evil is metagaming, it's specifically not always on for a reason right now he feels justified in thinking the warlock is evil the way you change that is compromise, if you'd actually read what I wrote you'd see I recommended all three come to a compromise of some sort, but the easiest change is to remove the one thing causing the problem for multiple other things. If you have a flat tire you don't deflate the other three to make it even, you fix the flat. The flat here is that the warlock has given the impression of being evil or really close to it. Some of it is misunderstanding some of it is legit character issue, the answer is to compromise and that's for everyone.Even if they don't have a mechanical reason why they have to dislike the the warlock they do have moral and character reasons why they are opposed to him.No, they don't. They can't prove he did that, plus one evil deed in no way causes an immediate shift in alignment. He's still neutral, as is his familiar.
The paladin and cleric are both out of line, and frankly, if someone winds up having to change characters, it should be them into non-stupid characters.
Really? "Hmm, this guy's a little off, let me see if he's evil ... nope." is metagaming? Looking at an imp and double-checking to see if it's evil is metagaming?
Seriously?
BTW, I see one good wheel and two flats here. The Paladin and the Cleric are still the problem to my perceptions, because, again, the Warlock hasn't done anything wrong, and they're persecuting and betraying him for it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Part of being a grown-up is making a character that can work with the other players characters as a team. Some conflict is ok, and even fun, but choosing to play an acolyte of the skin in a game with a paladin and a lawful-good cleric is just asking for issues. Especially if this isn't talked out in advance in a way to make it work properly.
Obviously the DM wants a good themed game (hence no evil alignments) and at least a couple of the players really want to play the heroic leaders to the full.
Then we have the OP, going CN, making a character that is just seeking after power, selfish, and seeking friendly contact with some of the darkest forces in the universe.
Obviously this isn't going to workout.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. Who cares what he looks like? Books and covers.
2. Entropic Shield isn't an evil spell.
3. Rats are not evil, neither are the bolts.
4. Depends on what he's using that power to do.
Can't your familiar shape change? consider telling them that you've "replaced" your familiar and NEVER let the bugger change shape around those two, but it does sound like you're making progress with the Paladin.
All I've gotten from this is that I need to make backup, boring characters if I ever run in to a paladin, because they make roleplaying worthless unless you are also a paladin.
1. Who cares what he looks like? Books and covers.
2. Entropic Shield isn't an evil spell.
3. Rats are not evil, neither are the bolts.
4. Depends on what he's using that power to do.
I know...sounds like lawful stupid.
What a great opportunity the Paladin and Cleric have to roleplay, and what a s#++ty way they've instead (seemingly) chosen to toss a fellow player under the bus.
But don't forget, alignment is a cudgel with which we must bash!
I maxed my diplomacy,bluff and sensemotive specifically to try and curb the "bias" against me. Points in disguise as well, as clearly calling myself a "sorcerer" to not hide my casting ability but to give a different perspective to look at.
Wizards and sorcerers can do everything my character can do (except eldritch blast, but orb spells etc could look the same) John the farmer should see no difference, imo, but my group knows. I claim to have powers from the shadows (to group only), but again, have done nothing outright evil, even the foodstuffs, which some claimed were evil, were not the "towns" foodstuffs. They belonged to the specific merchant, and were a day after a fresh shipment came in from the other merchant. No starvation was going to happen.
I maxed my diplomacy,bluff and sensemotive specifically to try and curb the "bias" against me. Points in disguise as well, as clearly calling myself a "sorcerer" to not hide my casting ability but to give a different perspective to look at.
Wizards and sorcerers can do everything my character can do (except eldritch blast, but orb spells etc could look the same) John the farmer should see no difference, imo, but my group knows. I claim to have powers from the shadows (to group only), but again, have done nothing outright evil, even the foodstuffs, which some claimed were evil, were not the "towns" foodstuffs. They belonged to the specific merchant, and were a day after a fresh shipment came in from the other merchant. No starvation was going to happen.
Sounds like you should kill the Cleric and Paladin in their sleep. It's not evil if they attacked you first! Just dishonorable. And that fits fine with chaotic neutral