Gonna GM a game and the guy wants to play an anti-paladin basically and keeps pushing that as his only option despite me as the GM saying "no evil classes". His core concept for the character is some sort of alternate code of "Oppression is fine as long as the guy in charge isn't a horrible person" and he has a massive "preference" for the Anti-Paladin spell list.
Explicitly in his words "[he's] meant to be a character who's meant to be a force of change. As a force of change My character believes that any form of leadership deemed inadequate should be replaced by any means, which would include helping the leader to become better, Deposing the leader by inciting revolution, helping in coups, etc. He himself does not seem to care for the idea of freedom but instead prefers stability either through force or peace based on how the country runs itself."
I want to try and find a way to compromise but I wanted to consult with you guys before going further.
More so his history as a player is the sort where based on the game if there's no alignment, given the "dead or alive" option when dealing with an encounter he'll just kill the person.
Let him use the LE tyrant anti-paladin archetype and tell him to play nice with the rest of the party.
Tyrant's Code: A tyrant must be of lawful evil alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if he willingly and altruistically commits good acts. This does not mean the tyrant can't take actions someone else might qualify as good, only that such actions must always be in service of his own dark ambitions. A tyrant's code requires that he place his own sinister goals above all else, respect rightful authority even as he twists its loopholes to his own ends, impose tyranny, and punish all those who dare dissent. A tyrant can accept underlings of any alignment; he cares not who serves him, only that they are truly loyal to him. He can even work alongside good-aligned individuals, as long as he is secretly manipulating them.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe he doesn't get the concept of heroic characters and doesn't belong in your campaign. It happens. Best thing you can do as a GM is to set the expectations of your game before you start running it.
Players who insist on playing something outside of the campaign's specifications don't really want to play in that campaign and will most likely, either consciously or subconsciously, sabotage it and ruin your fun and the fun of those playing with you.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about a warpriest? Could be a warpriest of Asmodeus or some strict LN god. I think there's even an archetype that eventually grants smiting if he wishes it (Champion of the Faith).
Depending on the spell, you could perhaps make a concession on allowing an antipaladin spell or two as a warpriest spell, although it may be a bit of a balancing act, particularly for the higher level spells.
Johnnycat93's suggestion is also a fair idea (at least LE can/should be reasoned with).
How about a warpriest? Could be a warpriest of Asmodeus or some strict LN god. I think there's even an archetype that eventually grants smiting if he wishes it (Champion of the Faith).
Depending on the spell, you could perhaps make a concession on allowing an antipaladin spell or two as a warpriest spell, although it may be a bit of a balancing act, particularly for the higher level spells.
Johnnycat93's suggestion is also a fair idea (at least LE can/should be reasoned with).
I'm considering pushing him towards Hellknight stuff, besides that I'm running a custom campaign world with its own gods and such but Hellknights could fit in somewhat, I may use them as a chasis for another organization in my game which are basically Hellkngihts but their code and ethics are more about the protection of knowledge.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you believe that he will actually stop pushing after he has got you to back down on rule one?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Politely thank him for his time, and set your player prospects elsewhere.
If the GM is expressly trying to establish ground rules for character creation and he is refusing to pick a character that fits character creation.
Additionally, you have reason to believe that he is the kind of player who has a track record of choosing evil options in games, and not at all inclined to be good.
If you let him in and he starts being evil, he will cause party friction. Your other players, or at least their characters, will dislike the guy's character. If you allow him to play an Antipaladin, some players may be resentful that you gave him an exception to the rules but not them. You should think of ways to resolve all of these scenarios, since the wrong move here may outright endanger friendships.
Antipaladins have a lot of neat toys that other classes don't. I think there should be a little effort beyond a flat "no" to accommodate the players desired class. If they can't be trusted that's one thing, but allowing a character that has an extreme ideology can give rise to some interesting player interactions. Plus, Hellknight is a PrC.
Talk with them like a reasonable adult and determine the intention. If he's up to no good saying "no evil" doesn't solve the problem and if he can really make the character work then there's no harm in broadening your horizons.
Politely thank him for his time, and set your player prospects elsewhere.
If the GM is expressly trying to establish ground rules for character creation and he is refusing to pick a character that fits character creation.
Additionally, you have reason to believe that he is the kind of player who has a track record of choosing evil options in games, and not at all inclined to be good.
If you let him in and he starts being evil, he will cause party friction. Your other players, or at least their characters, will dislike the guy's character. If you allow him to play an Antipaladin, some players may be resentful that you gave him an exception to the rules but not them. You should think of ways to resolve all of these scenarios, since the wrong move here may outright endanger friendships.
Redirecting him towards a Neutral Warpriest, Inquisitor or martial (or 3/4 class) and maybe encourage one of the more Neutral Hellknight Order might be a better route.
He looked at Hellknight and says that basically fits his concept almost to a key.
|
I don't think his concept is confusing. It looks like "Chaotic Evil rationalizing itself." He considers his character a force for chaos who just so happens to like cutting down anyone who gets in his way.
You could ask him to focus on the "overthrow inadequate leadership" aspect by being a neutrally-aligned inquisitor; or he might go for a re-flavoured Hellknight. Perhaps a fighter or slayer with convictions?
Just be careful. If he refuses to compromise and doesn't want to be anything other than an antipaladin, he may cause trouble later. If he deems the party of having inadequate leadership, is he really the type to help the leader become better? Or would he prefix his first attack on a team-mate with, "Stop whining, I'm just helping you!"?
Second question, are you letting a bully into your game? It sounds like you are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gonna GM a game and the guy wants to play an anti-paladin basically and keeps pushing that as his only option despite me as the GM saying "no evil classes".
And at that point I'd tell him, "Thanks, but if you can't follow one simple rule like this, how can I trust you to not be disruptive at any other point in the campaign?" and then go look for another player.
|
I second the hellknight idea. Also maybe an early entry into arcane trickster could fit? He could use his almost full casting to install who he saw fit as leadership while the varied tactics would be chaotic. If he wants to be lawful with his own code though make him write it up. Hold him to the letter of the law like any true LE dm would.
His concept seems more CN/CE then LE to be honest.
I'd say reiterate that you don't want any Evil characters or classes in that campaign, and that he should save that character concept for another campaign.
Forget compromising. You told him "no evil classes" (which I assume means no evil characters), and he picked the only character class that is required to be evil. Not only that, but he told you it's his only option. Screw that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Politely thank him for his time, and set your player prospects elsewhere.
If the GM is expressly trying to establish ground rules for character creation and he is refusing to pick a character that fits character creation.
Additionally, you have reason to believe that he is the kind of player who has a track record of choosing evil options in games, and not at all inclined to be good.
If you let him in and he starts being evil, he will cause party friction. Your other players, or at least their characters, will dislike the guy's character. If you allow him to play an Antipaladin, some players may be resentful that you gave him an exception to the rules but not them. You should think of ways to resolve all of these scenarios, since the wrong move here may outright endanger friendships.
He looked at Hellknight and says that basically fits his concept almost to a key.Redirecting him towards a Neutral Warpriest, Inquisitor or martial (or 3/4 class) and maybe encourage one of the more Neutral Hellknight Order might be a better route.
That's great news.
You may want to consider assigning a powerful hell knight patron who offers him a place in the order if he should prove worthy. His patron could be a good source for missions/adventures and also provide the parameters for a code of conduct that you and the player can agree to. Stuff like: show no mercy to your enemies but never betray your liege or your allies. Traitors are the worst. No traitor may be permitted to live and no method of execution is too extreme.
Under no circumstances would I allow a player acting this way into my campaign.
"This is the only thing I'll play!"
"Okay, thanks for your interest, but it sounds like this isn't the right kind of a game for you. I'll hit you up next time we're putting something together and we'll see if something fits."
(Also, inciting rebellions is pretty much the exact OPPOSITE of Hellknight.)
Gonna GM a game and the guy wants to play an anti-paladin basically and keeps pushing that as his only option despite me as the GM saying "no evil classes".
He has at least two other options.
1. He can give you the respect you are due as a GM and create a character that conforms to the letter AND spirit of the setting rules you designate.
2. He can find a more compliant GM.
A gaming group can always find it easier to adapt to one less player than one less GM.
i feel like people are probably over analyzing the situation at this point...
Give him this.
okay I think we're REALLY over analyzing the situation
Give him this.okay I think we're REALLY over analyzing the situation
What's to over-analyze?
Guy refuses to compromise, guy gets das boot. Ain't nobody got time to deal with somebody like that.
There's a difference between pushing the limits, seeing what you can get away with, and an ultimatum.
You can work with someone who does the former. With the latter, the only options are acquiesce, or part ways.
This is not over-analysis, it's a very simple dilemma. Give in, or give the boot.
OP doesn't want to give in, therefore das boot is needed.
Generally speaking I agree with you but "You can do anything but this one thing" is pretty reasonable. What is not so is a guy saying "I refuse to do anything except the one thing you said I can't".
More so his history as a player is the sort where based on the game if there's no alignment, given the "dead or alive" option when dealing with an encounter he'll just kill the person.
he's not used to playing in alignments so, I think the no-evil doesn't mean much to him. I'm guessing he's probably not going to actually go around killing people for no reason.
I really like Insinuators, as an Antipaladin archetype. Sure you still have to be evil but instead of being "kick puppies" evil you are just a self-serving jack-off. I wish it let you be neutral, but honestly it is as close as an acceptable anti-paladin archetype as you'll get.