So I want to play a Paladin in my group. I have a backstory worked out and have my progression for several levels playing around in my head.
My friend, also playing, wants to play a Bard. He is using a WoTC book called "The Book of Vile Darkness", which includes, among other things, a number of evil spells he wants to cast (note that he is not evil, and I haven't read the book).
I'm somewhat of the opinion that, as a Paladin, I should make an effort to stop the casting of evil spells (an evil act), if I'm capable of it at the time (IE, within arm's reach, not in combat, etc). This upsets him, and I'm worried about our bickering disrupting the group quite often, as he wants to play an evil bard, but evil is forbidden for PCs in our campaign (a trend I started as a GM, that the new GM has decided to continue). So the idea is to be a neutral bard that is as evil as he can be without changing alignments.
Obviously this creates a problem. He doesn't feel the problem is big at all, and I shouldn't "force" my alignment onto him, and not worry about what he does. I think playing the Paladin is more than just words on a paper - I think it's about an ideal one must uphold with difficult role-playing that is part of the class.
The question is - are these two different character concepts reconcilable within the same group? Or should one of us change classes for the good of the group? Or should I go with secret answer 3, and find a new group (which I was considering anyway, primarily for the reason stated above)?
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
There are diffeent ways of playing a paladin, and different campaign rules about what's acceptable to tolerate. (To my experience, paladins usually don't mind it when other characters don't follow the Code of Conduct, typically are bothered when characters 'act chaotic', and won't tolerate characters who 'act evil' or go against the boundaries of what their divine patrons would tolerate, unless it's an extreme situation, to fight an even worse threat.) So, I would check with your GM.
For what it's worth, my opinion holds that "Book of Vile Darkness" and its companion for otherworldly good influences, are neither one particularly well-suited for Pathfinder. The PF game system is supposed to be compatable with core D&D 3.5, but those books aren't core 3.5, and they don't sync to Pathfinder very well. I would expect your friend to check with the guy running the campaign.
There are some campaigns where a focus on PC conflict is expected and welcome. (A lot of the people who play those campaigns cut their teeth on games like Vampire and Mage, or Amber, where internecine conflict is part of the tension of the campaign background.) Other campaigns expect the party to all be good friends and work together. You should talk to your Game Master.
What do the other players think of this? What kind of characters do they want to play? What does the GM think?
There are diffeent ways of playing a paladin, and different campaign rules about what's acceptable to tolerate. (To my experience, paladins usually don't mind it when other characters don't follow the Code of Conduct, typically are bothered when characters 'act chaotic', and won't tolerate characters who 'act evil' or go against the boundaries of what their divine patrons would tolerate, unless it's an extreme situation, to fight an even worse threat.) So, I would check with your GM.
Agreed, for the most part - I should accept that not everyone is like me, but there is a line at some point - grossly violating the code should warrant some type of response, though perhaps not lethal.
For what it's worth, my opinion holds that "Book of Vile Darkness" and its companion for otherworldly good influences, are neither one particularly well-suited for Pathfinder. The PF game system is supposed to be compatable with core D&D 3.5, but those books aren't core 3.5, and they don't sync to Pathfinder very well. I would expect your friend to check with the guy running the campaign.
I will bring it up with my DM. He hasn't really read it as far as I know, and I will see what he thinks.
There are some campaigns where a focus on PC conflict is expected and welcome. (A lot of the people who play those campaigns cut their teeth on games like Vampire and Mage, or Amber, where internecine conflict is part of the tension of the campaign background.) Other campaigns expect the party to all be good friends and work together. You should talk to your Game Master.
I expect he wants us to co-operate 99% of the time, with the last 1% being party bickering in the inevitable "political tussle" I'm sure he'll want to do at some point. That's just conjecture on my part though - again, I'll talk to him.
What do the other players think of this? What kind of characters do they want to play? What does the GM think?
I'm sure the DM doesn't quite realize the...depth of the problem quite yet (he think's fooling the DM is part of the game - he honestly borders the line between "problematic" and "That (expletive) Guy often, and not just in D&D). Our group, besides me and him...
A Neutral Ranger who I think only plays because her boyfriend plays with us (and is the DM). She rarely expresses herself and fits the "Lurker" description in the Dungeon Master's Guide II (if you've read it).
A Swashbuckler (we only just converted to Pathfinder, and must find a new character for him), who was NG as I remember, and he generally abides by the alignment.
A Beguiler (from the Player's Handbook II - a specialist Illusion/Enchanter who had rouge skills and some cool special abilities), who must also find a new class. I forget his alignment, but it was probably N or CN. He had little interest in doing true evil.
And the DM.
I would honestly find it hard to swallow for someone to keep using the kinds of spells contained in there without repercussion and I definitely recommend that you clarify that no evil for PCs doesn't mean your alignment can't shift if you head down that way. It sounds like they're using that as an excuse, thinking it means that their PCs can't ever be deemed evil.
I agree completely, and think the DM will too. I will discuss it with him in private.
|
I've always seen using pretty much anything in the BOVD as a quick trip to being evil without passing go. Especially if he's wanting to use a lot of the evil spells in it all the time. This isn't a matter of "oh, he's toeing the line with using dominate person on someone" or something similar, this is more along the lines of "oh, he just sold his soul to Asmodeous and burnt a church/orphanage full of children in the process."
As to the issue of him thinking you're forcing your alignment on him, tell him you aren't forcing your alignment on him and that you're properly playing a paladin. However, if your DM decides to allow this for whatever reason, you can still work with said evil bard if the evil you're fighting is greater than him. Though you should be constantly trying to redeem him and seeking the occasional atonement spell (possibly twice a week, depending on how evil he is).
Only problem here is according to the dev's an evil aligned spell can shift your alignment after only 1-2 castings. (as opposed to good aligned spells which take 10-20 if you started out good, yeah its weird)
This would break your no evil PC's rule.
Only problem here is according to the dev's an evil aligned spell can shift your alignment after only 1-2 castings. (as opposed to good aligned spells which take 10-20 if you started out good, yeah its weird)
This would break your no evil PC's rule.
Can you give us a link to that post/blog?
I would love to see what the devs have to say about good and evil spells.
I'm sure the DM doesn't quite realize the...depth of the problem quite yet (he think's fooling the DM is part of the game - he honestly borders the line between "problematic" and "That (expletive) Guy" often, and not just in D&D).
Fooling the DM is not part of the game, it's part of how to spoil the game. I think this is your real problem - sounds to me like he wants to write Neutral on his character sheet and then play Psychotic Evil. You have two choices, play the way this player wants you to (which you will not enjoy because it is all about him), or play the way YOU want to and inevitably clash horns with him. Speaking privately to your DM, voice your concerns and see what the DM says, but don't sacrifice your fun for the sakes of his and read every rule he quotes very carefully and remember that Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate do not have to have any effect on a player character if you do not want them too.
A Neutral Ranger who I think only plays because her boyfriend plays with us (and is the DM). She rarely expresses herself and fits the "Lurker" description in the Dungeon Master's Guide II (if you've read it).
Know the type, not an issue.
A Swashbuckler (we only just converted to Pathfinder, and must find a new character for him), who was NG as I remember, and he generally abides by the alignment.
There's a Swashbuckler class produced by a 3pp, the one from Complete Warrior is too weak, alternatively I used a variant on the college trained fighter (losing medium and heavy armour prof for 4+Int skill points per level and some more class skills) crossed with a rogue and then going duelist worked very well (the pathfinder duelist is pretty good), or the single-handed fighter archetype from the APG has been errata'd so that it no longer sucks.
A Beguiler (from the Player's Handbook II - a specialist Illusion/Enchanter who had rouge skills and some cool special abilities), who must also find a new class. I forget his alignment, but it was probably N or CN. He had little interest in doing true evil.
You can cross the beguiler class straight into Pathfinder if you want, just adjust the HD to match the BAB progression and it works OK; alternatively a sorcerer/rogue or wizard (enchanter or illusionist)/rogue will do the job as well.
|
Paladin or no paladin, it's always frustrating when someone pulls the "I want to play evil and I'm going to play evil but not really" stunt when the majority of the group wants a non-evil campaign.
If you take Dabbler's advice, be forewarned that he'll likely complain about you and/or the other players not allowing him to play his character the way he wants. Inform him that by doing evil in front of the rest of the party, he's not allowing you to play your characters the way you wanted and keep him in the party. Otherwise he's asking everyone to play characters that just impotently shake their heads and go "oh well!" and continue to associate with him.
You shouldn't force your alignment on him, true. But by that same token he shouldn't force the alignment he's actually playing on the group and not expect consequences.
Exactly what spells is he wanting to use out of the BoVD? Because a fair number of those are inexcusably evil. If he's engaging in things like sacrificing souls to get some of those spells, any good aligned character is in the clear to put him down.
Can you give us a link to that post/blog?
I would love to see what the devs have to say about good and evil spells.
It was in a necromancy thread that I am having trouble finding. I'll post it if I ever do though.
You shouldn't force your alignment on him, true. But by that same token he shouldn't force the alignment he's actually playing on the group and not expect consequences.
... not that he will see it this way, of course. The alternative, letting him do what he wants, will entail no-one else getting to play the game they want: it will be an 'evil campaign in all but name with only his character getting all the advantages of being evil and everyone else having to deal with the consequences of his actions' game.
Sorry, past experience has made me a little bitter, and I may be wrong, but I doubt it. What he wants really is an Evil game, which is all well and good as long as everyone else is in agreement that this is also what they want. It may be an idea to explain to him that if this is not an evil game, he shouldn't try and be evil by the back door because that's going to spoil everyone else's fun. Instead play nice, and next game can be an evil one.
It was in a necromancy thread that I am having trouble finding. I'll post it if I ever do though.
Can you give us a link to that post/blog?
I would love to see what the devs have to say about good and evil spells.
Please do if you (or anyone else) find it.
So, it sounds to me like this players is indeed 'one of those guys'. If he is dipping into Book of Evil - there is probably one main reason. 'Uber Spells' that do stuff that the rest of the spells in the game cant compete with.
Although i am not very fluent in 3.5 but i do remember that BoVD spells were too OP, so Ravade might be right on the spot on this one.
|
Some of the spells and options in the Book of Vile Darkness are pretty nasty. Others are *flavored* evil, but don't really have to be.
If the character wants to use sorrow, for instance, which wracks another with grief and gives them a -3 morale penalty to some rolls, yeah, it's [Evil], but it's not really eeeevil. Stuff like morality undone, on the other hand, is actually evil, in addition to being [Evil].
If the player and GM are willing to look over the options that the player wants to use and 'de-evil' them a bit, by changing the flavor, if necessary, for the sake of a more harmonious game, that might be a good compromise.
If the player is choosing evil options just to be disruptive, then that sort of compromise is out of the question, and either you need to accept that the combination of a paladin and his character is just going to make the game un-fun for *everybody* (except perhaps him, if he's actively pursuing conflict, since he'll just be getting exactly the attention and drama he wants, every time your character opposes his actions).
Choosing not to play a paladin is one option.
Choosing to play an even eviler PC is another (I mean, if the game is set in a mud-pit, why not wallow and squeal a bit?).
Choosing not to play in that game, or with that person, is yet another option.
IMO, the *last* option anyone should be considering is 'dealing with it in-game' through party conflict. That way lies hard feelings, damaged friendships and a terrible gaming experience.
Address it before the game, and if he won't compromise and pick some options that aren't egregious (such as that sorrow spell or waves of grief, which are, IMO, less 'evil' than setting someone on fire with a fireball), then you'll have to either be the bigger man and play something less inflexible, or walk away and find a gaming group that better fits your preferences.
You should arbitrarily cut his head off when he casts an evil spell. Sounds like Pally's I've played with.
This isn't the one where he explains how much it takes to turn you evil but it does give some dev thoughts.
This is why chargen should be a group activity.
let us know how this turns out...
GRU
This isn't the one where he explains how much it takes to turn you evil but it does give some dev thoughts.
Thank you.
let us know how this turns out...
GRU
Please do.
To answer part of the question regarding changing alignment, to partially quote the Fiendish Codex II, Tyrants of the Nine Hells.
Corrupt Acts: According to the terms of the Pact Primeval as negotiated between Asmodeus and the lawful deities the good that mortals do in life is outweighed by the taint of sin. For each act of evil a PC commits adds to their corruption rating. Any lawful character who dies with a corruption rating of 9 or higher goes to Baator no matter how many orphans he rescued or minions of evil he vanquished. (There is notes on how to turn a Chaotic person lawful for this requirement but that is outside the scope of this current discussion)
1 point sins: Using an evil spell, Humiliating an underling, Engaging in intimidating torture
2 point sins: Stealing from the needy, Desecrating a good church of temple, Betraying a friend or ally for personal gain
3 point sins: Causing gratuitous injury to a creature, Perverting justice for personal gain
(I do not feel the need to go further down that chart than this, which is likely the areas that bard will fall into often)
A few other places to look for references may be Heroes of Horror, & Unearth Arcana, I just don't have time to check those currently.