This might spoil some stuff from the first Kingmaker module.
I got into an alignment discussion with one of the other players over skype. I have not yet had the opportunity to discuss it with the rest of the players. Basically the guy believes that our group of characters are acting too evil for our alignment.
He MIGHT be doing some devil's advocatish thing here in order to justify his desires for playing a lawful evil inquisitor in a group where all characters are good aligned, but I'll write this post as if he isn't. His ranger just died in an encounter and now he's going to stat a new one next session.
He made a list of the things he believes we have done which are evil.
Notice that some things might not be Kingmaker "canon" because the GM has admitted that he's changed some things around a bit.
1: We've killed a group of bandits. We hung their corpses on the wall of a trading post as a warning to other bandits (only two corpses are on display if I remember correctly. We knew they were bandits because they attacked a trading post.
2: We promised one bandit that he would live, but we decided to kill him anyway because he was obviously not cooperating.
3: A priest told us he had seen a vision of a mysterious bear in a temple. He knew that there was something that had to be done there, but didn't know what. We found the temple and the bear displayed hostility towards us. After careful deliberation we fought it and killed it.
4: A hunter we met told us of an abnormally powerful wild boar that had attacked him. We tracked the boar down and killed it.
In my opinion, and based on what you wrote:
- Not Good.
- Chaotic and Evil.
- Neutral, but dependant on the faith of the temple.
- Neutral, leaning towards Lawful.
|
1. I agree. Not Good, but more neutral than evil.
2. Hard for a good person to justify murdering a prisoner, even an uncooperative one, but really just not Good, not Lawful.
3. You killed a bear that attacked you. Unless you're PETA, that could be the action of a Paladin...
4. Again, this good be Lawful Good.
Since you don't say what alignments you are, it's hard to say if you're playing them, but the second action is in character for any character nether lawful nor good, the first is fine for anyone not Good, and the last two are fine for ANYONE.
In my opinion, and based on what you wrote:
- Not Good.
- Chaotic and Evil.
- Neutral, but dependant on the faith of the temple.
- Neutral, leaning towards Lawful.
I just want to clarify that we've basically been ordered to kill bandits on sight.
Since you don't say what alignments you are, it's hard to say if you're playing them, but the second action is in character for any character nether lawful nor good, the first is fine for anyone not Good, and the last two are fine for ANYONE.
We're four characters.
Wizard (neutral good)
Cleric (unknown good)
Ranger (true neutral)
Witch (chaotic good)
It was the ranger's idea to kill the prisoner. The wizard (me) objected but didn't actively attempt to stop it. Mainly reasoning that they were going to die anyway and we could not set them free.
Edit: Clarifying the temple. The temple was somehow corrupted. It was originally dedicated to some nature god (might have been Erastil) but was now corrupt and defiled. The priest was sickened by being anywhere near the temple building itself. After killing the bear, the temple was restored.
My Paladin killed bandits with impunity. The Charter that you are under requests that you do what was done including the display of bodies. It provides an impetus for other bandits to not follow the same path.
When he takes prisoners, he provides them the opportunity to repent their sins and if they don't take the vow and strive to change their ways, he feels justified in having them killed. Letting them go into a lawless wasteland just puts the locals at risk so he is justified.
He is now the Baron of the new Kingdom and the law remains. We have a VERY low crime/banditry rate at this time.
Moving away from modern moralities, all those actions seem to be at the very worst neutral. I need to know more on 2 to say for sure.
The Charter you are given for the campaign gives you pretty much carte blanche to kill the bandits in the area.
At worst, the party is chaotic. 3 and 4, you basically did exactly as the module requested. 1 and 2, doing exactly what you signed up for with the charter. So.. lawful.
Your neutral good party is basically right on track.
Don't allow him to play Evil, it will end badly, trust me.
Of the actions you listed, killing the prisoner after you promised not to was definitely chaotic and some would consider it evil. However, the dead ranger was the responsible person, so he has no grounds to argue that the party is acting evil.
That's just what I was going to point out!
Here's the stuff you did:
- Killed known bandits who attacked a trading post, while acting under a charter that gives you jurisdiction in the area. Not evil.
- Promised a bandit he would live, then killed him anyway. Evil, and the Ranger did it!
- Killed a wild animal (bear). Not evil.
- Killed a wild animal (boar). Not evil.
Here's who did it:
- Wizard (neutral good) Not evil.
- Cleric (unknown good) Not evil.
- Ranger (true neutral) Evil.
- Witch (chaotic good) Not evil.
You don't have a player who thinks the party is evil, you have a player who wants to play evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say the ranger went chaotic, not evil. Killing bandits is agreed to be not evil due to this charter (haven't played KG), but promising he will live and then killing him is Chaotic based on being a liar.
The other players aren't necessarily morally obligated to stop this because there's no lawful in the party. Nor is the party alignment going to change because the ranger is going all stabby on you.
Now, if he starts torturing, then he's going evil. Also if he starts going after people that are not obviously bandits or criminals... like the little girl down the street selling flowers (which she stole, obviously! String her up!) you might be looking at an evil character. If the good members dont stop his torturing or killing of innocents, the term 'neutral' will be supplanting those 'good's on character sheets.
The only concern with issue 1. is if you had an LG cleric or paladin of a god of Mercy and Understanding and Rehabilitation. Otherwise it is either lawful to take down the bandits, or good to rid the world of people who hurt others for profit. Or it is just nice to collect rewards and who cares about them (neutral).
3 and 4 are meh, whatever. Hostile animals get put down. A good ranger could argue that he should be allowed to try and calm the creature first, but it isn't a moral imperative.
If you're under a lawful charter to kill banditry, then it can be construed as a chaotic act to promise the bandit that he will live.
If you've promised the bandit will live, but then you lie to him AND then kill him, that's evil!
Chaotic Evil!
I'm mostly joking, but let's say it was a CE act. That's not going to automatically turn the party's alignment without balancing it against the good deeds you've done. Have you helped any NPCs? Like Oleg and Svetlana, maybe? Have you brought any criminals to justice? Like some bandits, maybe? Have you resolved any encounters that avoided bloodshed?
If you want to argue against this guy that your party is not evil, you should both debate what he thinks are evil acts, and you should bring forward the good acts that your party has done, also.
|
I'm of the mind that stringing up bodies of criminals, regardless of the relative quality of the people being strung up, is pretty messed up. It doesn't really strike me as "NG" in any particular way, more of a LN/N, LE/NE kind of thing.
Regardless things are open to interpretation. I feel that the majority of adventuring parties are pretty neutral really. They sure do a lot of killing without much effort invested in non-lethal combat.
You might feel like a good person, but when you're standing at the crossroads and one turn is the bludgeoning feat or merciful spell and the other is something crunchy. Well that's when alignment starts to become clear =P.
For the record I play mostly neutral characters, though I do invest in a sap when I can.
...
I just want to clarify that we've basically been ordered to kill bandits on sight.
Just want to say, following orders does not cause action to not be evil.
However, in this case I agree that only action 2 was evil. We'd have to know more details about what went down to decide whether is was horrificly evil or just mildly evil.
I would not call the other 3 necessarily good or evil.
For 3 and 4. It could be more appropriate for someone like a druid or nature warden to want to lead the animals away, then try to find some other way to cleanse the temple and keep the hunter safe.
|
You also have to examine the actions in the context of the AP. Blueluck has it dead on. NONE of the actions listed as "evil" are evil in the context of the Kingmaker AP period, with the exception of killing the prisoner. If the party consensus was that he was not able to be reformed and was a diehard bandit, killing him is not evil. If he could be redeemed, its a borderline evil action, certainly NOT good.
Whether these actions might be evil in some other campaign or adventure could be open to debate, but as a GM of said AP, its fairly clear the player's are supposed to do all of the above except killing reformable bandits. Even then it is not like anyone except a good god or divine character is likely to scrutinize that action in the overall scheme of clearing the Stolen Lands. You would have to know what is going on with the other groups asked to clear parts of the Stolen Lands to understand this, so non-GMs of Kingmaker may not see this as clearly.
Speaking from experience, DO NOT allow an evil character of any stripe in a party that is primarily good unless you wish inter-party conflict, especially in a game where throwing a coup is far too tempting for an evil character (or building an SS police force in a good kingdom). If you know your group is mature and experienced enough to handle these issues without spilling over into RL (a rarity), just say no. That is my advice in any case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking from experience, DO NOT allow an evil character of any stripe in a party that is primarily good unless you wish inter-party conflict, especially in a game where throwing a coup is far too tempting for an evil character (or building an SS police force in a good kingdom). If you know your group is mature and experienced enough to handle these issues without spilling over into RL (a rarity), just say no. That is my advice in any case.
Speaking of even more experience- ;-) redcelt32 is absolutely correct.
Speaking of even more experience- ;-) redcelt32 is absolutely correct.
Been GMing 30+ years with many, many groups.
I can count the number of well-played evil characters on one hand and still have fingers to spare.
Evil PC is absolute poison for any group. There's a reason the D&D/PF PHB says not to do it.
1. pretty evil. (but neutral is understandable)
2. very evil.
3. not enough knowledge, I do not know the background, killing an animal itself isn't evil. If you started the fight, and it was intelligent, you might have a problem.
4. again missing knowledge, but might even be a good act, an animal attacked a human being, and you killed it.
Yes, if your group is good, you don't act like it and I can understand some blackguard being confused, altough I don't understand why someone would play a blackguard in a good aligned group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know the charter the characters gets and it basicly said "Unrependent banditry is to be punished by sword or rope" or something.
1) Untasteful maybe, but not evil. Lawful probably. Not good of course.
2) People say chaotic, but its pretty much exactly what the charter tells you is your job. The bandit wasn't cooperating, so obviously not rependent, therefor he was executed according to the law. LN I would say. That you promised he would live, ok, but you can say that was under the implied premise he cooperates.
3) seems fine. If it was a demon bear or something even good.
4) Neutral or good. Lawful most likely.
Evil PC is absolute poison for any group. There's a reason the D&D/PF PHB says not to do it.
+1 to that. Hack, make that +MAXINT.
I am not as experienced as Anlerran (some 25ish years of playing and GMing here), but portraying evil characters in a way that they are true to themselves, and at the same time do not destroy group cohesion is a rare talent.
In a 'normal' heroic AP campaign, there are exactly two players I have ever played with I would trust with an evil PC in a good(ish) group... and I have been a member of quite a lot of groups.
In a game like Kingmaker... just don't.
when i dm for a party and somone wants to bring an opposing alignment that is not in tune with the rest of the party, i put the burden of making it work on said player with these 3 house rules:
1 no pvp.
2 majority vote rules.
if you want to do an action that may be against what the party wants to do, the party wins. and since the player is so opposite morally and ethically then the other party, they have to come to me with an angle and explain why an evil person would act that way. with out this explanation, this persons morality will eventually shift in tune with the party.
this rule usually weeds out all but the most adamant on alignemnt.
3 party resources come before your characters.
yes. even if your neutral evil. and yes, if you wanted to play someone that is only out for himself, you better come to terms with helping the party out "for his best intrests" so no. you can't steal that gem that the cleric didn't see and sell it for your own profits.
so if he would want to play this evil inquisitor, you might want to let him but let him understand that he has just subjected to losing minor to moderate control of his free will.
Of the actions you listed, killing the prisoner after you promised not to was definitely chaotic and some would consider it evil. However, the dead ranger was the responsible person, so he has no grounds to argue that the party is acting evil.That's just what I was going to point out!
Here's the stuff you did:
- Killed known bandits who attacked a trading post, while acting under a charter that gives you jurisdiction in the area. Not evil.
- Promised a bandit he would live, then killed him anyway. Evil, and the Ranger did it!
- Killed a wild animal (bear). Not evil.
- Killed a wild animal (boar). Not evil.
Here's who did it:
- Wizard (neutral good) Not evil.
- Cleric (unknown good) Not evil.
- Ranger (true neutral) Evil.
- Witch (chaotic good) Not evil.
You don't have a player who thinks the party is evil, you have a player who wants to play evil.
This. I think you have one player wanting it to be an evil game so he can go badass. To my mind, the rest of the party are fine, their only problem is not stopping him being evil, I think.
|
I'll second (or third, or fourth) the opinions above saying that an evil character in a good party is BADWRONGFUN. I've been playing since '77, and I've never seen 'evil character in a good party' end well. Don't let it happen. If you must, go with ravenharm's rules, and make it absolutely clear that at the first sign of 'party-evil' the player will be booted from the campaign. Trust me; you're better off with fewer players than having one who's only there to cause grief for the others.
|
|
Spoilering the info on the animals in the example given by the OP:
Speaking of even more experience- ;-) redcelt32 is absolutely correct.Been GMing 30+ years with many, many groups.
I can count the number of well-played evil characters on one hand and still have fingers to spare.
Evil PC is absolute poison for any group. There's a reason the D&D/PF PHB says not to do it.
Well, I disagree. Once every few years, a group of mature players and a expereinced DM can do a "all evil" campaign for a bit, just for a change.
But yes, no adding in one Evil PC to a otherwise Good party. That's bad news.
|
|
Well, I disagree. Once every few years, a group of mature players and a expereinced DM can do a "all evil" campaign for a bit, just for a change.
But yes, no adding in one Evil PC to a otherwise Good party. That's bad news.
Oh, an all-Evil game can be a blast. As a campaign, it tends to bog down a bit (in my relatively-limited experience; I've either run or played in...uh...five all-Evil campaigns in my 30+ years) as the players either get the bloodlust out of their systems or slaughter each other, but they're definitely fun as a change of pace. But, as you've (and the OP) said, that's not the case here.
|
|
I'm of the mind that stringing up bodies of criminals, regardless of the relative quality of the people being strung up, is pretty messed up. It doesn't really strike me as "NG" in any particular way, more of a LN/N, LE/NE kind of thing.
Stringing up dead criminals is not likely to diminish crime, just as a nation with a death penalty will not have a significantly lower crime rate.
If people are starving, or alternatively, very greedy, stringed up wrongdoers will not make them shirk from crimes that are punishable by death.
i know when i gave my example i used evil character,s but this can work both ways.
opposing aligned characters in the same party usually doesnt work.
I'd have to agree with the general consensus that evil characters in a non-evil party are bad news nine times out of ten, especially when you're dealing with someone who has a shaky grasp on what constitutes an evil character.
That's not to say it can't be done, but it takes the right kind of player and the right kind of group. Of the two times I've seen it done without causing problems the evil character played the sort of evil where they're loyal to the group and direct all their nastiness outwards, which keeps the interparty conflict to a relative minimum.
I'd have to agree with the general consensus that evil characters in a non-evil party are bad news nine times out of ten, especially when you're dealing with someone who has a shaky grasp on what constitutes an evil character.
That's not to say it can't be done, but it takes the right kind of player and the right kind of group. Of the two times I've seen it done without causing problems the evil character played the sort of evil where they're loyal to the group and direct all their nastiness outwards, which keeps the interparty conflict to a relative minimum.
Yep. I ran a Evil assassin (who was even a Jackalwere) in a more or less Good group once, but since we were all after the same end- to kill a BBEG, the party worked. But I made sure my PC was never the cause of any inter-party conflict. In fact the only 'evil" thing he did is when we found a evil artifact so the party decided to destroy it, so he volunteered to do it... but instead turned it over to the Temple of Set. However he worked very hard to help the party towards it's goal, etc. OTOH, he was VERY Lawful and even only assassinated those that the Temple sent him to do, never any "side work". (Technically this wouldn't even qualify him as a "Assassin" but I had a lenient DM).
(Note this was not a whole campaign, either, just a short 3 session quest, and the other players knew who I was playing all along, too).
I will say, that it is possible to run an evil character even in a primarily good party (prob not with a paladin though) and it still turn out well.
However, it is fairly rare and takes very mature and teamwork oriented PC's and players.
Usually it causes hard feelings, derailment of campaign, arguments, etc... and lessens the fun for everyone.
The player has settled for playing a LN inquisitor of Iomedae.
That will hopefully work out well.