|
Don't forget the other adventurer cash-cow, graverobbing.Nothing says 'adventurer' like staggering out of some champion / chieftan / kings heavily-trapped tomb to get the rings you pried off of his dead fingers appraised.
Indeed, I did not forget that. The first adventure of Age of Worms can be boiled down to 'our characters are stuck in a small mining town that sucks, so we're going to go loot a tomb for the cash to get out of there'.
My party is of various alignments, the Paladin just found out that one, possibly, two people in the party are evil. One of the rogues have prestieged to Assasin, the other one is looking to go Shadowdancer (no evil required, but he's done some evil acts anyway).
The party have already had to make new characters due to death, is there anything I can throw at them to force them together regardless of alignment?Party is:
human paladin
human rogue/assasin
human rogue
human barbarian
ogrin barbarian
Do you remember the old Sesame Street song?
"One of these things is not like the other. One of these things just doesn't belong."
Looking at this party, and assuming the barbarians are likely chaotic as well, I see a problem for the paladin right off the bat. He just doesn't fit in the current party, and probably should have been discouraged from playing a paladin in that party. Now perhaps he fit better in the original party, and it changed with the introduction of replacement characters. If so, I would have to say the other players creating the evil characters were kind of being jerks if they knew there was already a paladin.
This group, if everybody roleplays well, will likely never be more than a temporary alliance. They can work together, if necessary, to fight off a great evil threat, but there is destined to be conflict and it will devolve quickly into player vs. player mayhem unless the rogues modify their behavior (at least when the paladin is around or is likely to hear about what they do), and the paladin can prioritize the greater good and put off her desire for justice until that threat is met. In the end, though, the assassin has committed public murder, and the paladin (not to mention any civil authorities) will demand justice. It might be delayed for the greater good, but in the end, the paladin has to act.
For this very reason, I insist that all characters in a party be within a couple of alignment steps. In fact, I usually flat out don't allow evil characters/parties for a wide variety of reasons, but boiling down to I just don't find playing them or GMing for them to be any fun. I personally find PvP behavior annoying and destructive to most games, with the exception of those rare games in which everyone enjoys it and agrees to that type of game. Playing an evil character when the rest of the party is good and doing things that you know will cause conflict with another player's character is not the mark of a good player. Conversely, neither is insisting on playing a paladin when the rest of the group wants to be chaotic and/or evil.
|
As of the first and second posts from the OP, it did appear to be a Paladin threatening PVP against party members, but subsequent posts have painted a less rosy picture of the Assassin.
It's *still* the Paladin threatening to attack another party member (which even the excuse of 'Imma just playing mah character!' doesn't excuse, since PVP and D&D don't mix), but the Assassin player has a bewildering Hollywood-esque notion of what an 'assassin' is.
Assassins aren't Wuxia ninja, that get into epic fights with other dudes while crowds of passersby look on, amazed by their acrobatics and technique. They aren't VtM Assamites, who brag about what kickbutt fighters they are and use celerity to slap someone lightly four times in a round.
Assassins kill people. If the other guy gets an action? You did it wrong. If anyone saw you? You did it wrong. If there's a 'fight?' You did it wrong. If initiative is rolled? You did it wrong. If the target saw your face before dying? You did it wrong.
If people shy away from you in the streets because of your fearsome reputation for killin' folk what look at you the wrong way, sinister mein and all-black ensemble, accessorized by scary-looking knives? So far wrong, you are the center of an entire universe of wrong, with lesser wrongs orbiting around you.
Assassins are hired to kill people, not to get seen, not to be famous, not to get on no-fly lists or FBI 'most wanted' posers, not to lead lawmen to their clients, not to show off their abilities, and not to slap someone around in an epic acrobatic padded gloves melee. If that was the goal, the client would have hired a monk.
Or possibly Timmy, the red-faced bully with the glandular disorder who's the terror of the 4th grade playgroud.
But not a professional killer.
Killing someone in a barfight because he pissed you off? That's not 'assassin,' that's 'belligerent drunk who embarasses his friends by picking fights in bars.'
Instead of making the resolution between the two characters (I'm sorry I killed the drunk in front of you...) it should be between the assassin and the society.
Tell the assassin's player that after the not bright deed of killing someone in a room full of witnesses, if he wants to keep playing he has to make restitutions to the SOCIETY. Which means gobs of cash to the family of the drunk (or the city if no family exists), and, in light of his service to the city, he will be placed in the care of the Paladin in an attempt to redeem himself. As opposed to jailtime and execution.
Though this may result in the assassin becoming not evil and maybe losing some of his PrC stuff.
I've had a character booted out of a game because they attacked someone in their room. The party chased a murderer into an inn, when the character in question barged into a room with a sleeping barbarian. The barbarian got upset that someone entered his room and started insulting the character, following and yelling at them. The character attacked the barbarian with lethal force and was promptly beaten unconscious by the barbarian.
At the resulting court case the character was banished from the city (Waterdeep).
The fact is, PVP may actually be the only option that doesn't damage the suspension of disbelief.
That is, unless something like the above suggestion is done.
First off, paladins are not permitted to associate with evil folk unless they have no choice (an undead army is an example of a 'no choice' moment). And any lawful good character with a combative personality, like most paladins, would be morally obliged to do something about a cold-blooded murder of a guy because he was a bit annoying.
This. Exactly this. I'm gonna copy this in my "GM Notes" for future reference. Hope you don't mind =)
Be my guest, it's one of the greatest complements you can be paid on these boards!
The title of this thread should be "Alignment Issue / Assassin Problem"
This is very much the point, I think. The paladin didn't handle the problem well .... but the assassin actually created the problem. I don't know about you but one of my friends becoming a homicidal maniac would be a problem for me, whether I was a paladin or not.
I think that a paladin can’t be in a party with evil characters. They can do temporary team ups, but even then they have to seek atonement.
From the SRD:
Code of Conduct
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Associates: 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. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
((POSTED WITHOUT READING WHOLE THREAD))
Some of this has already been mentioned but will include again for completeness.
Paladins are Lawful Good. Lawful is in there too. I'm not sure but I dont think most regions have a law that reads; "Being Evil is a crime."
Certain acts are crimes but just being evil generally isn't one. I see alot of paladins killing people just because they registered as a Ping on Detect Evil. Afterwards I asked them "What crime did he commit that was punishable by death?" Suddenly you have a paladin breaking the Lawful aspect of his alignment by commiting MURDER which is a crime in most areas. Generally being Evil isnt a crime. Having bad morals isn't a crime. Will Paladins become the "Thought Police"?
If the Paladin hasn't witnesses any of the crimes and is going only on his Detect Evil he has no case to arrest or confront the other PC. He can choose to break association with the PC. "Her heart is dark and black, I sense a growing evil about her and do not wish to associate with her further." That would be one response.
If the paladin did witness the Evil Acts, why didnt he stop them at the time? If they were inface evil acts, why did he allow them to happen?
I agree as has been said, stealing in general is not evil. Selfish? Yes? I moral? Depends? Evil? only in certain situations. It's definately unlawful.
Does the paladin question the other PCs when they commit unlawful acts? Lawful is just as large a part of his alignment and Good and is also covered in the Palain code just as much as good is.
/sign
This is very much the point, I think. The paladin didn't handle the problem well .... but the assassin actually created the problem. I don't know about you but one of my friends becoming a homicidal maniac would be a problem for me, whether I was a paladin or not.
Exactly, I'm actually a little curious what the REST of the group thinks about this?
Any 'Good' Character should be equally upset because of a random civilian murder as the Paladin is...
If there are no other 'good' characters, then yeah... The Paladin is probably in the wrong group. Paladins and Barbarians can easily co-exist, and Paladin's and Rogues can co-exist (think Luke Skywalker and Han Solo...) Law and Chaos can find some middle ground to work with...
but EVIL and good is where the problem is. And evil leaving witnesses and proof of guilt is just ASKING to be smited.
What kind of backstory do these two have? Are they childhood friends taht he'd want to redeem... or did they meet in a tavern and become adventurers? If there is no personal connection between them, your going to have to make a choice...
Either Side with the PALADIN... and encourage your players to NOT kill randomly and have their characters think their decisions through logically....
or Side AGAINST the paladin... which may encourage more random acts of violence regardless of what common sense would dictate the situation calls for...
I dont' know your game group, so you'd have to figure out what is more fun for your friends :)
This is very much the point, I think. The paladin didn't handle the problem well .... but the assassin actually created the problem. I don't know about you but one of my friends becoming a homicidal maniac would be a problem for me, whether I was a paladin or not.
I'm still confused as to how exactly the paladin erred. He delayed until the current adventure was wrapped up, he has yet to actually resort to violence....
The worst he's done is tell the guy to turn himself in, and then chase him around a bunch. It's what he'd do to any man who killed an innocent in the middle of a crowded pub. It's the only thing a decent paladin can do. Either that, or give him the chance to flee the city, but that'd be stretching the Code.
I think that a paladin can’t be in a party with evil characters. They can do temporary team ups, but even then they have to seek atonement.
That depends - one circumstance I can see working is if the paladin is seeking to redeem the evil character. In the scenario we have here, this is workable as the character did not start evil, he slipped into it. He can just as easily slip back out with a little help from his friends.
This is very much the point, I think. The paladin didn't handle the problem well .... but the assassin actually created the problem. I don't know about you but one of my friends becoming a homicidal maniac would be a problem for me, whether I was a paladin or not.
I'm still confused as to how exactly the paladin erred. He delayed until the current adventure was wrapped up, he has yet to actually resort to violence....
The worst he's done is tell the guy to turn himself in, and then chase him around a bunch. It's what he'd do to any man who killed an innocent in the middle of a crowded pub. It's the only thing a decent paladin can do. Either that, or give him the chance to flee the city, but that'd be stretching the Code.
I think the possible errors in the paladin's play that have been pointed out (whcih are relatively minor) are that he should have intervened to prevent the murder in the first, and if that were not possible (they beat his initative or acted in a surprise round) he should have objected immediately and perhaps forcefully.
My party is of various alignments, the Paladin just found out that one, possibly, two people in the party are evil. One of the rogues have prestieged to Assasin, the other one is looking to go Shadowdancer (no evil required, but he's done some evil acts anyway).
The party have already had to make new characters due to death, is there anything I can throw at them to force them together regardless of alignment?Party is:
human paladin
human rogue/assasin
human rogue
human barbarian
ogrin barbarian
How did they die? If this has been answered then feel free to ignore this post. I have not read the other post yet.
I am aslo baffled as to exaclty how the paladin erred. it appears to me that the player played it perfectly. I am not exactly sure, how else the paladin player could have played it.
To me the only way for this to be fixed, is that the assisan player turns himself in, and the paladin ask the magistrate for a chance to redeem the character and the dead guys family and local authorities agree. the rogue character can pay his debt to society by being in service of the church/good for a period, and if he gets out of line, its the paladin job to execute the sentence.
I aslo agree with most everyone else, the player who is playing the assasin is doing a poor job. The whole point of being an assisin is to be anoynmous.
I think that a paladin can’t be in a party with evil characters. They can do temporary team ups, but even then they have to seek atonement.That depends - one circumstance I can see working is if the paladin is seeking to redeem the evil character. In the scenario we have here, this is workable as the character did not start evil, he slipped into it. He can just as easily slip back out with a little help from his friends.
That would be an interesting roleplaying opportunity, and I can buy it. Of course, the paladin would have to determine first if the character was redeemable, which would probably require some willingness to be redeemed. Of course the rogue/assassin could lie about that, but paladin's aren't required to be stupid (and have access to spells and abilities that make them harder to deceive). It could develop in lots of interesting ways, or still end up as a total disaster.
I think the possible errors in the paladin's play that have been pointed out (whcih are relatively minor) are that he should have intervened to prevent the murder in the first, and if that were not possible (they beat his initative or acted in a surprise round) he should have objected immediately and perhaps forcefully.
Perhaps he did both? We don't know, and I don't feel we should make assumptions. Rogues and assassins are very good at moving first.
Perhaps he did both? We don't know, and I don't feel we should make assumptions. Rogues and assassins are very good at moving first.I think the possible errors in the paladin's play that have been pointed out (whcih are relatively minor) are that he should have intervened to prevent the murder in the first, and if that were not possible (they beat his initative or acted in a surprise round) he should have objected immediately and perhaps forcefully.
I believe the OP said he didn't do anything at the time and only objected later in a follow up post, but I'll let him answer for himself if he is still around, since he is the only one with first hand info.
I'm siding with the paladin here. His player showed great maturity in having the character delay in vengeance until the apocalypse was over. The assassin, on the other hand, sounds like somebody who doesn't know how evil works, and who decided it means "kill whoever, even if it'll turn out badly for me."
I'm trying to do this without siding with anyone actually. The paladin lost his abilities until he atoned, for associating with murderers (and something else he did while preparing for the battle, but that's another story) and the rogues are getting fined for the murder (as there happen to be bigger fish to fry in this case and the captain of the guard still needs them).
The problem now is that the paladin is claiming that he just wanted to talk (by drawing his sword and throwing a pair of manacles at the assassin) and the assassin is avoiding him like the plague. So even if/when they come to a compromise as players, they have put their characters in a position where they won't be willing to make said compromise.
The problem now is that the paladin is claiming that he just wanted to talk (by drawing his sword and throwing a pair of manacles at the assassin) and the assassin is avoiding him like the plague. So even if/when they come to a compromise as players, they have put their characters in a position where they won't be willing to make said compromise.
If they both have intelligence or wisdom scores with double digits, the characters can do what the players have done: talk and be reasonable. If need be other PCs can act as go-betweens.
"I'm just playing my character" is never an excuse - the player decides what the character is like, after all.
Wow, didn't notice this was 2 pages long. Yes they are both playing from the point of view "I'm just playing my character" which has a bit of immaturity on both sides and might just end in making new characters or crashing the campaign entirely, however I don't want it to come to that and ruin the fun for everyone else. Now to answer some questions i've come across.
I chose the title based on the paladin's code vs the alignment of the assassin, aside from that it's a title, I've seen worse, deal with it.
The previous party all died fighting undead and accidentally blowing themselves up with powder kegs in the process several game-time days before the big attack on the city. The only survivors were the rogue that runs a thieves guild (as he stayed in town while the others went questing) and the paladin's previous character who ran off into the woods and lost sanity, as the player decided it would be easier to make a new character with everyone else.
The group did not discuss much before making their characters, but they all knew each other's plans: thief running guild, rogue going assassin, a pair of bar-brawling/alcoholic barbarians, and the paladin who hired them all as mercenaries.
Part of the argument is that the mercs still haven't been paid. Yes they have a lawfully binding contract. Yes they've met the literal end to it, though it is to be assumed that they will continue to work together now that they know about the evil necromancer who got away blah blah blah.
As previously mentioned, this is the first sign of the paladin intervening/objecting at all. The rest of the group doesn't care either way, seeing both characters as heros that have fought beside them.
If it helps, the paladin's playing with a chaotic good alignment, but his viewpoint has been mostly lawful so far anyway (I was thinking of talking to him about changing to LG anyway). Originally, the CG alignment would be no problem in working with an assassin, but the personality just doesn't fit.
If it helps, the paladin's playing with a chaotic good alignment, but his viewpoint has been mostly lawful so far anyway (I was thinking of talking to him about changing to LG anyway). Originally, the CG alignment would be no problem in working with an assassin, but the personality just doesn't fit.
I think this was a mistake - paladins aren't bothered by working with chaotic characters, so the law/chaos bit isn't that important. It's the good/evil split that's a problem. Chaotic Good or Lawful Good doesn't matter, they are are still Good trying to work with Evil.
That said, hiring an evil assassin to work for a good cause isn't that daft a concept, and I can see it working even for a paladin. If the assassin had the sense to not randomly kill people it might have worked very smoothly.
Wow, didn't notice this was 2 pages long. Yes they are both playing from the point of view "I'm just playing my character" which has a bit of immaturity on both sides and might just end in making new characters or crashing the campaign entirely, however I don't want it to come to that and ruin the fun for everyone else. Now to answer some questions i've come across.
I chose the title based on the paladin's code vs the alignment of the assassin, aside from that it's a title, I've seen worse, deal with it.
The previous party all died fighting undead and accidentally blowing themselves up with powder kegs in the process several game-time days before the big attack on the city. The only survivors were the rogue that runs a thieves guild (as he stayed in town while the others went questing) and the paladin's previous character who ran off into the woods and lost sanity, as the player decided it would be easier to make a new character with everyone else.
The group did not discuss much before making their characters, but they all knew each other's plans: thief running guild, rogue going assassin, a pair of bar-brawling/alcoholic barbarians, and the paladin who hired them all as mercenaries.
Part of the argument is that the mercs still haven't been paid. Yes they have a lawfully binding contract. Yes they've met the literal end to it, though it is to be assumed that they will continue to work together now that they know about the evil necromancer who got away blah blah blah.
As previously mentioned, this is the first sign of the paladin intervening/objecting at all. The rest of the group doesn't care either way, seeing both characters as heros that have fought beside them.
If it helps, the paladin's playing with a chaotic good alignment, but his viewpoint has been mostly lawful so far anyway (I was thinking of talking to him about changing to LG anyway). Originally, the CG alignment would be no problem in working with an assassin, but the personality just doesn't fit.
well ok strike what i said before. the player is not playing a paladin. count me as one those who don't believe in anything other than lawful good paladins.
I am aslo baffled as to exaclty how the paladin erred. it appears to me that the player played it perfectly. I am not exactly sure, how else the paladin player could have played it.
Without context, it seems the Paladin has erred by remaining within a group that's clearly evil in alignment, and modus operandi and shows no potential for reform. It's not clear whether he's been threading the line by being a "led out the room" Paladin, or whether there has been a concern that overrides the standard code considerations.
But I will say again that the DM and the other players are equal contributors to what has evolved.
I'm not so sure, given that the paladin is CG I'm not sure such a code would apply. so long as the paladib felt he was doing the right thing, and did not do any evil himself, I'm not sure a CG paladin , if such a thing could exist, is at fault at all.
|
The Drunk was harrassing the half elf so the rogues went from doing nothing to shanking the guy until he was dead?
I'm kinda curious how drunk were the rogues?
What kind of harrassment are we talking?
Why did the Paladin just sit by and not intercede in the harrassment which probably would have prevented the drunk from ending up dead?
From where I'm standing this looks like a clear cut case of Self defense quick plea deal for manslaughter and probation for both of them then everything is cool.
Honestly if I were said half elf I would have apologized for my race, and bought the guy a drink use sleight of hand to poison said drink with the nastiest slow acting poison I have and gone on my merry way then in a day or two the poor guy dies from a mysterious wasting disease I'm not wanted for murder and the Paladin has no clue what happened.
The group did not discuss much before making their characters, but they all knew each other's plans: thief running guild, rogue going assassin, a pair of bar-brawling/alcoholic barbarians, and the paladin who hired them all as mercenaries.
....
If it helps, the paladin's playing with a chaotic good alignment, but his viewpoint has been mostly lawful so far anyway (I was thinking of talking to him about changing to LG anyway). Originally, the CG alignment would be no problem in working with an assassin, but the personality just doesn't fit.
It would have helped tremendously if you had stated up front that you were running a houseruled game that allowed paladins to take alignments other than LG. That makes the party composition make some sense, although assassin and paladin in the same party is still likely doomed to end badly, IMHO. 99% of the responses you've received undoubtedly assumed that the paladin was LG.
Count me with those who don't like paladins who aren't LG, but it's your game.
With the new information on how the party was created, it seems that it is the paladin player who is out of step with the others, and probably should have been discouraged from creating a paladin. I have to admit I don't find the idea of him hiring this crew as mercenaries to be at all credible, unless they were literally the only people available, even if he is CG, rather than LG.
As to how to make it work now, as others have said, they both have to give some. The paladin needs to put aside his need for justice until after the greater threat is dealt with, and the thieves need to stop provoking him by throwing their evil in his face. This is particularly true if he hired them! They want to get paid, don't they? Or they can continue fighting with each other, and someone dies and rolls a new character.
And tell the thieves they should count themselves lucky. I played the Witchfire Trilogy as an uncompromising LG monk of Menoth. His tag line was "I see sinners in need of correction", right before going all Bruce Lee on somebody. He would not have tolerated any evil acts in his presence, and they would not have been able to outrun or outfight him. He wouldn't have killed them, but he certainly would have beat them within an inch of their life, repeatedly, until they saw the error of their ways and repented.
That Monk sounds Awesome with a capitol A.
I was hesitant to mention the paladin's CG side for two reasons 1) I know how much everyone hates the idea of non LG paladins, but frankly it makes sense to me either way. 2) He made the paladin CG, but so far has mostly played from a LG point of view, only hiding behind the CG part when he does something evil by saying "well I guess I can't play my alignment right then". An example of the later being commanding other party members to break into people's homes and steal their furniture to board up the city gates before the undead attack, while there were similar materials in plain view.
I'm on my way to discuss the final details of the compromise/sacrifice that all involved will come to now, I'll see my results on Sunday. If they won't cooperate on their own, I'll have Hellstrom or Borloch (as they don't know his story yet) force them to work together. If that doesn't work, we'll discuss character re-creation.
Thank you everyone for your help.
+1
I think your group needs a party-building excercise. Sit everyone down around the book and have everyone READ the alignment section together.
Good: Respect for innocent life. (Note that this in no way counts for Vermin or Animals, and that Aberrations, Undead, and Evil Outsiders can by NO STRETCH OF THE FREAKING IMAGINATION be considered innocent. I'm looking at you, Troll.)
Chaotic: Chafing under confinement, aversion to authority, ruled by passions rather than rationality.
Evil: Selfishness, primarily. Cruelty falls under evil as well, but is a full step beyond. Simply being concerned ONLY WITH WHAT YOU WANT is evil.
Lawful: Support of society and community, support of cooperation and authority, structure, order, and rationality.
Your current party is:
CE Assassin
CE Thieves Guild Rogue
CE/CN Barbarian
CE/CN Barbarian
LG Paladin. ... ... Saywhat?
Sit them all down, have them discuss their character concepts before ever putting a pencil to paper, and have them all firmly having character ideas and attitudes in mind, and working together, before a single die is rolled. Players should practice a bull-session or two before starting play, so they understand each other. It does wonders for party unity AND for party roles.
The paladin did the right thing not getting between two rogues when there was a plague of undead to stop. He did the right thing by coming back to it later. He'd also be doing the right thing stabbing their stupid evil asses to death with the entire city guard at his back, immune to the intimidation they provide by being adventurers because the city has a PALADIN on its side.
Aberrations can by NO STRETCH OF THE FREAKING IMAGINATION be considered innocent.
Flumphs are weeping right now. They brave the depths of the Dark Tapestry to warn you about unspeakable horrors, and that's how you thank them?
Aberrations can by NO STRETCH OF THE FREAKING IMAGINATION be considered innocent.Flumphs are weeping right now. They brave the depths of the Dark Tapestry to warn you about unspeakable horrors, and that's how you thank them?
Sad acidic tears...
|
Aberrations, Undead, and Evil Outsiders can by NO STRETCH OF THE FREAKING IMAGINATION be considered innocent.
What about Guardian Nagas, Flumphs and other such "alien" beings that get lumped into the aberration type? Or good-aligned ghosts, particularly those of innocents? Or risen fiends born from souls unjustly taken by the Lower Planes?(srsly, check Bestiary 2. There are a ton of ways this can happen)
Good has to have room in its heart for them. To play favorites because of creature types...well, that's more neutral than good, at best.
Or good-aligned ghosts, particularly those of innocents?
Good has to have room in its heart for them. To play favorites because of creature types...well, that's more neutral than good, at best.
Ghosts need to go on to their final reward... Innocent spirits.. angry spirits... vengeful whatever... they are not natural. Releasing them from the curse of undeath is a blessing.
I've played a couple of CG supernatural fighters who's sole purpose was to put the spirits to rest...
In most games it can either be done 1) by completed whatever task they left unfinished and leaves them bound to this plane... or 2) with a +5 sword ^_^
With a piece of evidence about the necromancers launching an attack on the city this night, the paladin turns to round up the group. It's at this moment, a nearby drunk begins harassing the half-elf rogue (assasin) nearby for being a half-elf. The pair of rogues, in their current state of mind, instinctively shoot him (clockwork era guns)killing him in the middle of the bar. The ominous silence is broken by the paladin who, at this time, rounds up the whole bar to his side to fight against the undead and wanders off like nothing happened.
Now that the undead have been purged, the paladin is going after the rogues for killing the innocent drunk, to which they've argued "but you did nothing to stop us/him".
So, it's chaotic stupid then. The paladin player is not the problem here. He put the mission first and gave the other players time to figure out a way to help mitigate KILLING SOMEONE IN BROAD DAYLIGHT IN FRONT OF A DOZEN WITNESSES.
And these morons want to play an assassin?!
Way to back the paladin into a corner. I'm impressed with the player of the paladin here. He didn't act instinctively, put the game first, gave the idiot chaotic a chance have the DM do a trial that finds him innocent by reason of temporary insanity or insult to his honor or whatever... and the other player simply refused to role play.
|
|
Ghosts need to go on to their final reward... Innocent spirits.. angry spirits... vengeful whatever... they are not natural. Releasing them from the curse of undeath is a blessing.
Anything that can and does exist, is *natural.*
It might be ugly, or evil, or not belong in this particular region, but as long as there is a negative energy plane in the setting, a creature animated by it is no more 'unnatural' than an elemental, or any living creature 'animated' by *positive energy.*
Kudzu doesn't belong in the American south. It's not 'unnatural,' just destructive and unwanted.
Ditto undead. If they exist, they can't be unnatural. Just unfriendly, unpleasant and unwelcome.
The 'nature' of the D&D/PF cosmos includes a negative energy plane, and entities empowered by it, and *naturally occuring undead,* that just kind of spring up, without any spellcasting involved. It's not the sort of 'nature' that is necessarily beneficial to the surrounding environment, but neither is a tidal wave, an outbreak of ebola, a pack of bored quasits or an open gate to the elemental plane of fire.
Lots of stuff that would be 'unnatural' in our world, because it couldn't happen (elementals, undead, etc.) are natural occurences in a fantasy world that is nestled between various upper, outer, inner, lower and transitional planes, each with there own 'ecosystems' and prone to leaking and / or bleeding into each other.
The *stars* of Golarion are portals to the positive energy plane. If *the stars* aren't unnatural (and note that the planet would be a lifeless rock in space, without the positive energy beaming down from Golarion's sun, to feed the grass, which feed the gazelle, which feed Mufasah), then a portal to the negative energy plane pouring out shadows wouldn't be any less 'natural.'
Just, yanno, about as welcome as a volcano erupting over your Roman city...
Well first of all, we've worked the issue out in a way that keeps the game rolling and everyone is happy. By the paladin player's request, his story arc is being altered so that he can retrain himself to a class that's more suiting. He has decided to playtest the samurai, and has a great backstory that explains the change well and how he will fit back in.
Secondly, those of you calling myself, my players, or anyone else on here for that matter things like "idiots", "dumb", "stupid" etc can go F$*k yourselves - you don't know us personally/every detail of the game so far and you can keep that kind of oppinion to yourself. I asked for help, not insults.
Thank you for the input, it's helped.
Actually, what you have is a DM problem. In the future, consider these questions:
When the players decided to create a party tailor-made for PvP, where were you? Why didn't you say something? Set some ground rules?
When the assassin and rogue decided to knife a man in broad daylight, where were you? Why didn't you say something like "Are you sure you want to do that?" For that matter, why did you engage in race baiting as a RP encounter with characters likely to cause a major problem? Did you want to risk busting up the party after a TPK?
When this RP encounter passed and the mission got started, where were you? Why didn't you say something like: "Just so you know, you have to resolve this peacefully amongst yourselves. If you want suggestions on how to do that, I can offer them." Alternatively, given the break in time, why didn't you have NPCs guide the players towards an equitable solution to an inevitable problem?
Seriously, don't try to pass off all the blame on the players here. You played with fire and they got burnt. It's not all their fault.
Secondly, those of you calling myself, my players, or anyone else on here for that matter things like "idiots", "dumb", "stupid" etc can go F$*k yourselves - you don't know us personally/every detail of the game so far and you can keep that kind of oppinion to yourself. I asked for help, not insults..
Lawful Stupid and Chaotic Stupid are internet shorthand terms for play that creates party conflict with little justification and in a manner that produces little fun. Posters are describing the behavior. If there are mitigating circumstances that we need to know about to provide feedback, then you should provide it as the OP, because the consensus of this thread seems to be that one or more of your players acted stupidly.
Everyone does that once in a while, but the first step to avoiding such problems in the future is recognizing when you're acting stupidly.
For that matter, why did you engage in race baiting as a RP encounter with characters likely to cause a major problem? Did you want to risk busting up the party after a TPK?
He probably finds fun in that kind of conflict. He didn't think they'd take it so far maybe.
But why blame the Pally when others at fault I'll never know.
Anything that can and does exist, is *natural.*
Poodles. I rest my case.
