Perhaps there is nothing in the text saying a paladin cant adventure with evil characters, the text does say that a paladin will never willingly associate with evil characters nor continue to associate with them. I see adventuring as associating.
Yes it says that, and if you ignore it then ... what? Nothing, except you can't be a cardboard cut out of a paladin. Seriously, put roleplaying ahead of some meaningless text in a book that has no actual game implications (unless you take the leadership feat).
Also from what you said, I think you did fine with the encounter with the rogue. You made it clear that if pressed you would act, but you would not be a party to initiating such action. Well done.
Kevin Andrew Murphy thank you for the Mafioso suggestion. It is an excellent one. A couple of years ago, I ran an “evil” campaign for about six months. We were all adults, and we all had allot of fun. Everyone was an aristocrat, and part of the same extended family. They were all cousins. Their grandfather held the seat of the duchy, and one of their uncles was their minder as they did jobs for the family. Yes in modern terms the family would be Mafia. However I chose to play a paladin, and don’t particularly want to play in an evil party. Why is my choice to want to play a LG character any less valid then someone else's choice to want to play an evil character? At this particular gaming table, this seems to be the case. My paladin has not gone off and smited any of the other characters because they detect as evil, nor has he told them what to believe nor how to behave. He has only made tactical suggestions during combat. And yes he has been a little curt with the thief. They have traded barbs the whole way along.
The extended family business is a very good one, and something that you might want to look into if there is some reason people want to play characters of wildly differing alignments in the same party: The reason the paladin can't smite the evildoers is because they're his relatives, and fratricide is the gravest sin. He can be hoping to reform them from their wicked ways, etc.
Of course keeping the evil characters from engaging in fratricide can be a bit trickier. The LE types can be stopped by the Don being displeased by this sort of behavior, whereas with the CE types, the best way to get their cooperation is some means of pulling the plug on them if they displease the LN Don. I think something like the Family having a very strong agreement with the Church, such that anyone who displeases the Family does not get resurrected.
It can be as simple as this: SPEAK WITH DEAD "Did you commit fratricide or patricide? Y/N?"
Those who fail the test don't get resurrected.
CE types may then find that enlightened self interest is more important to them than the transitory pleasure of knifing cousin Guido when he tries to reform them.
|
The Wraith, I think what you say makes sense, however, because the games are in a semi public place open to whom ever wants to come, I think Rob may booting ability may be limited to someone being destructive to the merchandise in the store.
Thank you for your kind words.
If the games are taking place in public, in front of non-gamers, or potential gamers, or their parents, then it seems irresponsible to run a game based round evil jerk PCs.
Whatever one's preferences at their home game (and I've played in more than a few Gang War campaigns myself), the primary reason for running a game in public is (or should be) to showcase the fun, positive aspects of the hobby to people who may be sceptical, or have heard negative reports. Anyone who lived through the 'D&D is Devil-Worship!" period will likely see that game and hang their head in embarrasment.
You need to be able to say "Yes, Madam, little Timmy CAN play a Shining Knight, and imagine going on noble quests...".
Hard to do when the example players are shrieking at each other and slitting each other's throats over every copper piece.
Maybe you could suggest to the DM that the current tone of the campaign could be costing him sales?
|
If the games are taking place in public, in front of non-gamers, or potential gamers, or their parents, then it seems irresponsible to run a game based round evil jerk PCs.
(snip)
Maybe you could suggest to the DM that the current tone of the campaign could be costing him sales?
Snorter, I've played in games at this FLGS before. They take place in rooms that are separate from the sales floor, and the games start at closing time. It's not likely that non-gamers will show up.
However, it could be true that a gamer shows up for the first time and is put off enough not to come back. I think this would cost the group a gamer rather than costing the store a customer; when it comes to gaming stores, this store is pretty much the only thing in town.
|
To the OP:
I can empathize with you. In the campaign I ran from 2006-2008, a CN Rogue was in the same party as the LG Paladin. Smart players can pull this off marvelously with great effect and fantastic rp. Poor players (and by that I mean those who do not try, or lack willingness to receive coaching from the DM) cannot pull this off without causing tension outside of the game. When player feelings start getting hurt (defined by having bad during, after, or about a game session) I find it is the cause of 1 of several possible causes on the part of the CN (orCE/LE) player or the LG player 1) the players cannot seperate their characters from themselves (inexperience) 2) the players are either passive-agressive, insensitive, insecure, etc. (inexperience) 3) One, but not both, of the players is playing their character to its potential *(more on this below) or 4) the DM has set up a bad situation or is unwisely blocking/preventing one, but not both, of the characters from playing their character to its potential* (more on this below). And, there are a few other causes...
*Try to demonstrate through action things like righteousness, virtue, and integrity as you play the paladin. Unfortunately, the players and DM see the paladin get compromised, there is a loss of integrity, and, by the way, a discovered "work-around" that the players and possibly DM, will continue to use against the paladin. The old "what the paladin does not know.... won't hurt us" trick will likely be the default approach. Again - this can work perfectly in a mature/experienced role-play group, but be an absolute disaster otherwise.
The paladin must be played with strength of character and turn tables on the wicked as needed, whether in the party or not (metagame agreements cannot and must not trump your ability to play your character, unless the whole group is okay with a goofy situation). Use instinct, intelligence, wisdom, etc.,... to take action. Ensure the party knows that the paladin is just, but will not be trifled with. Demonstrate through excellent character action (not metagame whining) that the paladin is strong and will smite any wickedness or disobeyance of law in his presence.... then, DO SO!
As needed, cast out another wicked player character, put him in his place through language or action, have them jailed, confront them with the support of the whole party, etc. You need only do this once to turn this situation around, and it need not result in death. Soon the players/characters/DM will recognize that the old "what the paladin does not know" trick will not suffice and it will be abandoned, as it should have been. It sounds (from my light reading of this thread) that the group seeks a kind of metagame solution for very real in-game problems and that will simply not work with your group.
Hope that helps. Good luck. Always boldly play your paladin.
-Pax-
P.s. Even tenured/seasoned players still struggle with this classic conflict. I encourage players to take "in-game" action to address PC conflicts as they arise, and the game works itself out that way. PC tension, character conflict, and opposing view points make for a good story - but when the conflict spills over to the players feelings I consider this a serious problem. Good luck.
|
(The) important issue here is that Rob is running a CE DMPC.
A-MEN!
I've tried keeping my opinion of this out of the conversation -- keeping it about alignments and Players running their PCs, and not about the young DM, but this just screams as an incredibly bad decision.
I don't like to pretend my personal choices in gaming are the best ones but how on earth anyone could run a "DMPC" and call it anything but a stupid mistake is beyond me. Nothin' wrong with a DMNPC that's with the PCs all the time but if you're calling it a PC then that illustrates exactly how you (the DM) are intending to run it.
-W. E. Ray
|
|
What would be an example of a player ruining the game, as appose to character alignment?
So even if I toss my paladin and say make an evil cleric, I will still be just as irritated, and possibly more so?
Some Players, unfortunately, do game only to ruin other Players' fun. I don't think this is intentional, certainly not premeditated, but the results remain. I have seen Players that try to steal items from PCs or withhold info from PCs or not heal PCs or try to "outdo" all other PC actions or make tactically selfish decisions in combat or belligerently argue with the DM or hog the DM's time, etc., etc., for no good reason -- so that all that ends up happening is a ruining of the game.
So, even if you toss your Paladin and make, say, an evil cleric, the problem will not go away if the Player running the PC who doesn't like the Paladin is a Problem Player.
The reasons I automatically think of the Player as a (probably) problematic Player are that he has not tried to play as a "party" by lying and backstabbing (roll a bluff vs sense motive?!!!! Are you a frikkin horrible DM?!!!) and that he is young; often younger Players are more immature.
-W. E. Ray
|
|
Perhaps your paladin could recruit a clerical cohort to give the party some healing punch.
Well Sir Wulf, that is an excellent suggestion.
Like I said a moment ago, I disagree. Here I think it'll become a Player vs Player fight, your PC and Cohort vs the other Players' PCs.
Don't we game to experience the NPCs and dungeons and such?? Not fight each other -- who's gonna win a Player vs Player fight?
-W. E. Ray
|
|
If the games are taking place in public, in front of non-gamers, or potential gamers, or their parents, then it seems irresponsible to run a game based round evil jerk PCs.
WOW!
Thanks Snorter, I hadn't even considered this yet. Absolutely true. Since I'm mostly a homebrew guy in a home setting this one went right over my head but I vehemently Second this "Gamers' responsibility to the Game" idea.
Please, don't make playing D&D look bad.
-W. E. Ray
|
|
Always boldly play your paladin
All I'll add to your strong post is that, no, you don't have to have an "always bold" Paladin.
It's a bit of a Threadjack, but I'd like to posit that there are different kinds of LG Paladins -- you could run a grumpy, morose, quite standoffish Paladin -- who still rescues the lady from the earlier-mentioned alter in the dungeon -- every time.
You could be a snobish, aloof Paladin, etc.
-W. E. Ray
Like I said a moment ago, I disagree. Here I think it'll become a Player vs Player fight, your PC and Cohort vs the other Players' PCs.
As I expressed above, the mismatched party in my game managed to get along because we kept things real. The cleric isn't a jerk about the other characters' actions, but she makes it clear that she won't support misbehavior. It helps that we're all mature adults.
To keep things from turning into Player vs. Player, the DM has to discourage problem behavior. If the CN and CE party members think they can survive without the paladin, they're likely to provoke futher problems. If they need his help to survive, they'll be less tempted to backstab him.
If the paladin "keeps it real", he won't tolerate blatantly evil behavior. This is not the same as instantly calling out evildoers the moment they get out of line. Roleplay him as reasonable and patient, avoiding fights he cannot win.
|
|
Always boldly play your paladinAll I'll add to your strong post is that, no, you don't have to have an "always bold" Paladin.
It's a bit of a Threadjack, but I'd like to posit that there are different kinds of LG Paladins -- you could run a grumpy, morose, quite standoffish Paladin -- who still rescues the lady from the earlier-mentioned alter in the dungeon -- every time.
You could be a snobish, aloof Paladin, etc.
-W. E. Ray
Based on the kinds of issues, here - let's not confuse the after-quip with the substance of the message. Molech points out various types of paladin characters - and is right to do so. The "bold" afterthought is meant to remind the OP to play the class, to play the character - whatever that character may be. And, yes, paladins especially, but "bold" isn't necessarily the best word choice... the central message - don't compromise the class or the character = bold in this sense, i.e. kind of a "hold the line" or "stand your ground" word of encouragement. And yes, Molech is again, right point out myriad personalities that can still fit the class.
|
Gentlemen, again I want to thank you for all of your thoughts. I also want to thank you for your supportive comments and sympathy as well. I am sorry that at the moment I don’t have time to answer all of your responses, but I do appreciate them.
It’s amazing how some seemingly complex problems can be solved with a very simple solution. This morning I went over to the gaming store and talked with my friend Rob. I did not go to the Saturday night game, but I still wanted to find out what happened. Also I was looking for my monster Manuel. I talked with my friend. I told him I was a bit irked about the game. Rob was surprised, he said he was sorry that I was irked and asked me what was wrong. I then mentioned about the DM setting the tone of the game and how a DM PC would especially do that. I was worried that the kids who were brand new to the game were shifting their characters alignments because of the tone I thought he was setting. Rob replied that he didn’t think he had that much influence, he thought it was just their age. I also mentioned that I didn’t want to play in a game where you spent half the time “sacrificing the maiden” while the other half of the time distracting and fooling the paladin. Rob said fair enough, that would be very frustrating. He also said he wasn’t trying to set an evil tone to the game, but he was trying to set up a reoccurring villain, his CE rogue, whom we would have presumably stared out with and have much more of a personal stake at bringing him down. He expected the rogue to be either killed soon, or to be driven out of the party, in case he would make a great reoccurring villain.
He said that he wasn’t specifically trying to mess things up for me when we originally made our characters, but with a party of 8 players, he wanted to give the “ manipulator” role a try, and that he expected that his character would have been driven out or soon killed.
So talking with my friend has for me at least cleared the air. We shall see what happens. Two interesting possibilities, 1) his CE thief becomes a reoccurring villain, or 2) My paladin becomes the reoccurring NPC antagonist to an “evil “ party
I didn’t go to the Saturday night game because my girlfriend had asked me to help her on WoW with a couple of quests. She told me that she knew I was upset about the Saturday night game, and she thought she might give me a reason to “ bow out “ of the game for one evening.
I found out Saturday night only 4 regulars shoed up, and the new kids, and the DM for the other group didn’t show up at all.
Thank you all for your thoughts and support. We shall see what happens.
Well, good to see this was probably only just a misunderstanding.
A recurring villain who starts into a group is a good idea; the only problem is, sometimes things do not happen the way they are conceived, and in those situations the best thing is simply to chill out and rethink everything (especially when players and DMs do not enjoy the game anymore).
A good plotting is not worth a good evening among friends (or, at least this is what I believe).