I recent played a paladin focused on healing with a healing-focused cleric cohort. I LOVED these characters and had an absolute blast playing them. HOWEVER they were forced to leave the party (not by force) because I missed one week, 2 characters died (one of the rouges who was raised by me the next week and other paladin who decided not to be raised) and the other rouge became a vampire. And the party voted to keep the vampire rouge (and i was very tolerant not destroying them immediately i have another whole thread about this where it was mostly agreed i was not the jerk) and my paladin left the party with most of his magic items to help them.
NOW i can't stand any characters i play in that group and am just not having any fun. I'm still a little bitter to the group for this utter betrayal (my pali was with the group for a real-time year, while the rouge was with the party for 3 sessions even though the player has played for about a year too). so then i got to thinking, i probably won't enjoy another character while this my pali still could come back (if i completely beak character) Now i'm going to be a jerk, A HUGE JERK. (yet to clear it with the dm but)
What i am thinking was that he is saddened by failure, it's his fault that his best friend is dead, that another ally died and the other given a fate worse than death. THEN his group decides to allow that beast into the group with open arms actively kicking him out. he tried to part with no hard feelings but he was breaking his paladin code by lieing to himself. gets a teleport back to the city where they started and bumps RIGHT INTO the main villain (who happens to be a vampire, not the vamp that turned the party) and up to that point he hadn't realized he lot his paladin powers and is slammed int the ground with little to no effort and the cleric cohort that (trough flavor was the one in charge) was turned into a vampire, with that he has lost the last thin he had, his duty and has a COMPLETE mental break. Having fallen to this low of a point, he is easily convinced the best way to continue was to start fresh, and the only way to do that is to wipe out his past failures and become an Anti-paladin. So now what he plans to do is raise his friend as a juju zombie or skeletal champion and destroy the vampire rouge.
so i sort of want the gm to let me run this encounter in the near future, it will give me closure and let me get out my frustration with the other characters. YES i am am very aware this IS childish, passive aggressive, yadayadayada. So just dont keep repeating that i'm a jerk, i am well aware, don't just harp on that.
I the result of the events that inspired your last thread is that the desires of one player (the vampire rogue) has caused the rest of the players to have to create new characters to conform to his wishes, your GM has lost all control. I understand your desire for revenge, but it is not going to make anything better. The best course of action would be to talk to the GM, because you obviously, and justifiably, feel that your fun is being subjugated to the other player's fun. The campaign should be scrapped, your GM is no longer in charge, the rogue player is. He needs to start over, make it clear that no character will be allowed to gain non-pc races or templates, no one is allowed to play evil, and player-vs-player conflict will not be tolerated.
|
I agree. Hey look, yet another Rogue Fing over the party and ruining everyone's fun while they steal the spotlight., Sorry, rant.
I agree wit Mab Tlk to the DM and maybe even the player. Be an adult about it, and don't turn it into a blame game or us against you arguement. Just say it's over, and either we start something new, and that sort of behavior is not acceptible or it might be time to find a new group. It happens. Maybe just take a break a few weaks.
It seems like you're doing this less for closure and more out of spite. I may be wrong, but that's the impression I got from your post. If so, rethink this. Talk to the other players (and the GM) and let them know that you haven't been enjoying the game since their characters betrayed your paladin. Ask them to justify their roleplaying.
Then, if this conversation hasn't resulted in anything productive, work with the GM to come up with some scenario you can get closure from. Maybe the paladin tries to kill the PCs. Maybe he saves them, but dies doing so. Or maybe you can just roll up a character from the paladin's church/village/whatever (who isn't a paladin).
I the result of the events that inspired your last thread is that the desires of one player (the vampire rogue) has caused the rest of the players to have to create new characters to conform to his wishes, your GM has lost all control. I understand your desire for revenge, but it is not going to make anything better. The best course of action would be to talk to the GM, because you obviously, and justifiably, feel that your fun is being subjugated to the other player's fun. The campaign should be scrapped, your GM is no longer in charge, the rogue player is. He needs to start over, make it clear that no character will be allowed to gain non-pc races or templates, no one is allowed to play evil, and player-vs-player conflict will not be tolerated.
yeah i know this probably won't solve ANYTHING but, it didn't force ALL the players to roll up new characters, it forced ME and only me when my character had been with the group longer by about a year, had MUCH more invested in the story, and when that rouge was introduced she failed at EVERYTHING (failed to detect ANY of the 6 or 7 traps and set them off on the party)
I most likely won't do any of this i just really need to vent about this because it COMPLETELY current game for me. I was one of the people who wanted this one story to continue to completion before we restart, but now...i just don't want to play in that game anymore.
Regardless of what you would like to accomplish in the game with this vengeance, the only thing you are likely to actually achieve is to convert in character conflicts into real life animosity. You GM would be very foolish to allow it, as it would likely disrupt the player group and lead somebody to quit coming to the group. Talking about the situation is far more likely to lead to a resolution than what you are proposing.
|
Hey, I like the idea of the Paladin falling into utter madness and seeing being a CE antipaladin as being the right thing to do to fix everything that went wrong.
If I was your GM, I would take your idea and set the betrayed friend on the party at some most inopportune time in the future.
Of course, I would not tell you that, nor would I tell you when it will happen and your new character would be also under attack by the antipaladin and his minions, same as the betrayers.
You might even have fun saving the Rogue vampire from the antipaladin, who knows ?
After all, this is all just a game, you know.
Rapthorn, I really think you need to have a serious conversation with your GM. He/she is allowing a single player to dictate what characters other players can play, is allowing the rogue to play a character which is in violation to the Rules As Written, and take the spotlight, not through good role-play or good tactics, but simply through bullying the GM.
A GM needs to have better control over his/her campaign than this, and needs to consider the fun of the whole group before granting a single player exemption from the rules just because he/she wants to be a character from Twilight.
People need to get over this stupid vampire crap, it is the stupidest thing to hit pop-culture since the Bee-Hive hair-do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can totally identify with your frustrations, man. There is nothing worse than having to surrender playing a favorite character, even worse if your character has to bow out of a continuing campaign. Honestly though, your anti-paladin idea won't make the situation any better. Nevermind causing possible r/l strife in your group, you obviously really enjoyed your paladin and I doubt that turning him into a twisted mockery of his former self would make you feel any better at all.
Realistically, I would say that if you want to continue adventuring with this group (a question I would be asking myself at this point), but consider your former paladin to be a "loose end" for lack of a better way to put it, work out something with your DM to where your paladin and cohort become NPCs and your paladin feels it necessary to give some sort of message or indication to the vampire in the group that he will no longer tolerate her existence and formally challenges her to honorable one-on-one combat.
The way I see this going is either:
A). The rogue finds out where the paladin is and murders him in his sleep.
or
B). The rogue decides to meet for the fight, but enlists the rest of the party in taking him down.
I'm sure that most people will agree that CN is not exactly known for possessing a dearth of honor, so I don't really see the one on one happening. Either way, the paladin gets to die with honor and the rest of the party gets to see how far down the rabbit hole they have gone when they are directly or indirectly responsible for the murder of one of their former traveling companion, whose only crime against the party was refusing to tolerate the existence of a soulless abomination in the group.
Cheers
Ok, I'm going to go completely against the grain here and say, I think that you have a great idea of how to close the book on your paladin here.
I played in a campaign where the opposite happened (the paladin and other good players abandoned the elven fighter/wizard in Undermountain, where he was turned into a vampire and became an NPC). The DM let the player run his former character, killing my cleric with his bloodthirsty vampire. In fact, his PC has turned into recurring NPC in all Undermountain games since.
What it looks like here is the classic "Rogue vs. Paladin" party conflict. Now, I haven't read your other post about the above mentioned events but I don't see why letting you have closure with your "beloved" character should cause party division. People above are saying that you're being childish by creating party conflict, which might be the case, but what I see is you're trying to conclude a story arc in a dramatic and interesting fashion. If you run this encounter as a guest GM, not as an angry player, I think that it has the potential to be a very memorable event. But all this depends on the motivation of both you and the other players in your group.
And hopefully concluding this will allow you to enjoy your next character.
Ok, I'm going to go completely against the grain here and say, I think that you have a great idea of how to close the book on your paladin here.
I played in a campaign where the opposite happened (the paladin and other good players abandoned the elven fighter/wizard in Undermountain, where he was turned into a vampire and became an NPC). The DM let the player run his former character, killing my cleric with his bloodthirsty vampire. In fact, his PC has turned into recurring NPC in all Undermountain games since.
What it looks like here is the classic "Rogue vs. Paladin" party conflict. Now, I haven't read your other post about the above mentioned events but I don't see why letting you have closure with your "beloved" character should cause party division. People above are saying that you're being childish by creating party conflict, which might be the case, but what I see is you're trying to conclude a story arc in a dramatic and interesting fashion. If you run this encounter as a guest GM, not as an angry player, I think that it has the potential to be a very memorable event. But all this depends on the motivation of both you and the other players in your group.
And hopefully concluding this will allow you to enjoy your next character.
Thankyou, and i'm not so much angry even. and i would run this as a player trying to have fun and i'd honestly hope NOT to kill any of them permanently. I am a big fan of good verses evil. But what i love about it is that good always triumphs. i'd hope they give me a tough fight, a climactic fight, but in the end i'm rooting for them. I think that when i posted this after building all the stuff for the encounter, i got a little too far int the mind set. I actually hope that because i don't enjoy playing an evil character (or even neutral characters) that this will ruin them for me.
I actually hope that because i don't enjoy playing an evil character (or even neutral characters) that this will ruin them for me.
Put in your shoes, I would hope that doing this "un-ruins" evil and neutral characters for me, at least so far as I would open new options for me to have fun in the game while keeping the spirit of teamwork alive.
Teamwork is what keeps these games fun, as you build a story and, to a degree, a community that tells this story without actually having an opponent that you must defeat. Characters come and go. As long as the game stays fun and everyone is enjoying themselves, it's all in the name of good roleplaying.
Would you still be upset if the rogue somehow survives the encounter?
Would you still be upset if the rogue somehow survives the encounter?
i wouldn't TARGET the rouge, i have bigger, greener, and angrier things that need immediate attention (one person is a pretty awesome alchemist/barbarian/master chemist based on the hulk) if the rouge survives then good for her, if she doesn't she goes gaseous ends up in her coffin and wakes up a few hours later a little pissed off.
No, what i would be upset about is if i WERE to TPK (which, if played right, would be pretty easy so now i'm trying to soften the encounter up) i'd BEG the real DM to allow divine intervention to give the characters a second wind and allow them to fight off the evil that stands before them. It's NOT my game, i have NO right to kill (at least permanently anyways) any character. It ruins the story.
I'm mostly bitter that this was probably my second favorite character, and in a month, he'll be remembered as the healer that left. in 2 months nobody will remember him at all.
If this does happen, he'll always be remembered by this group as the paladin who was pushed to the limit!
"All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy. That's how far the world is from where I am. Just one bad day." -The Joker
My hope would be after this, i'll have worked off my frustration and they would have had a fun and challenging fight.
Here is a question: how does anyone heal the vampire rogue in your party? Is there a negative-energy channeling cleric, or is there a cleric who memorises inflict spells? Is there an inflict wand floating around? Just seems very strange to play undead in a good party which under normal circumstances isn't going to have the resources to heal her.
Here is a question: how does anyone heal the vampire rogue in your party? Is there a negative-energy channeling cleric, or is there a cleric who memorises inflict spells? Is there an inflict wand floating around? Just seems very strange to play undead in a good party which under normal circumstances isn't going to have the resources to heal her.
Vampires have fast healing 5.
I’m not a big fan of the Paladin falling from grace and becoming an Anti-paladin, it’s a bit clichéd and reads a too much like bad comic.
A better approach would be for the Paladin to learn the error of his ways and to lead a host of angels in a quest to destroy the unholy abomination that took over his friend’s body. After all, it’s pretty obvious that the rest of the party cast him out because they were (wink, nod) under the influence of the vampire’s domination ability.
For bonus points, have him lead the assault in the middle of the day, so that all the vampire player can do is stew in his coffin, regretting what a stupid character concept he chose.
I changed my mind. Since this clearly is about closure, go for it! Be remembered! :)
If I was the GM I wouldn't allow it. Then again, I wouldn't have allowed things to occur as they have, either.
Propose it to your GM, and I wish you the best of luck. Bear in mind, though, that this could entirely destroy your play group; if one or more of the other players takes the action poorly, which based on the course events I imagine is going to be very likely, you could easily end up having to find a new group to play with entirely.
L'Oreal have a nice line in rouge removers. They could be useful.
yeah i know this probably won't solve ANYTHING but, it didn't force ALL the players to roll up new characters, it forced ME and only me when my character had been with the group longer by about a year, had MUCH more invested in the story, and when that rouge was introduced she failed at EVERYTHING (failed to detect ANY of the 6 or 7 traps and set them off on the party)
Just tell them that, next time you gather. Just toss aside your new character sheet and say: "I don't feel like this any more. I'm not having fun, I want to play my paladin and thanks to your actions I can't. If anyone doesn't have any suggestions, I'm going to take hiatus for a while."
And then find a new group if they can't get their act together.
If you aren't having fun, don't try to punish them, just don't play.
OK... so the party was clearly turned down an evil path, and now travels with a vampire (which is generally evil), so you'd be well within your rights as a paladin to remain a paladin and seek to destroy the evil tainting the rogue (even if that means killing the rogue) and either kill or redeem the rest of your party.
Were I you, the moment the party decided to side with evil and try to boot out a lawful good paladin, I would have used smite on the rogue and charged.
During player-to-player discussions of the course of action, I've straight up told other players that if they take that course of action that I (as a paladin) would treat them as a foe. Sometimes you just have to put your foot down, and the DM should have put his foot down on the situation too.
Paladins don't just give up and start blaming themselves for group members doing idiotic things. It's not your paladin's fault that anyone died or was turned into a vampire. You may not have been there (due to their decisions) to help prevent it, but you can resolve it. Smite away.
I think that it would be a great think for your character but becoming what you hate, an anti-paladin, would not be the best way to do it. Hire NPCs that you would be able to count on to take out the rest of the group. I think that they need to go for their acceptance of a being whose existence is anathema to life.
How is your god by the way?
I do recommend you deal with the issue player to player, rather than enact an in-game drama. Be upfront, be honest, and, if the party is unwilling to consider you position and adjust things, be on your way. They altered the campaign in a dramatic manner that destroyed your enjoyment of the game. If they are unwilling to put it back on track, then leave. You shouldn't be playing if you're not having fun.
It's up to you if you follow this advice, but as I said above I wish you luck with whatever you decide. Let us know what happens in either case.