|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Piccolo brings up a good point-- A major, major part of DMing in a constructive way is to always be transparent about your world. I've had PCs react REALLY poorly to their own metagame constructs before, despite all evidence, and at one point you legitimately need to sit down and tell the PC what's going on.
If you want the imp to be good, it can be good and you just have to hint at that. If it's going to be neutral, it can be neutral, hint at it. If it's going to be evil, it can pretend to be good, just hint at it. Make it obvious. That kind of thing, so that the PCs know that the imp is evil or good or neutral and can go from there, or that they understand that their actions may be making it head towards another alignment. Be frank and open if you need to be.
This.
As a player I was in a similar situation to the fighter. Another PC was trying to redeem a lich, and I was pretty worried about it (IC and even OOC) because it seemed likely that the lich was going to use the other PC to do some serious damage to the rest of the party. It was a pretty tense situation and it would have been even worse if I hadn't trusted the GM not to screw everyone over. It helped that he gave one or two hints that that particular lich might be redeemable. The absolute first thing you need to do is clearly convey what the character's chances are with this imp and the possible consequences of failure.
But even with a GM I trusted and some strong IC hints that it was going to turn out all right it still stressed me out. I didn't make any ultimatums, but I pretty well begged the player to be a little less idealistic IC when it seemed as if the PC was ignoring all the other PCs' concerns and warnings.
So yes, the fighter is overreacting, but it appears he has reason to believe the imp really is trouble - you indicated that the imp's current plans are nefarious and though it's possible to redeem the thing the oracle hasn't made any obvious or meaningful progress. If he's seen previous GMs allow an evil PC to screw over the rest of the party for the sake of drama (or because they believe preventing PvP is not the GM's concern) it's reasonable for him to get nervous about this. Even if the fighter's player's actions are excessive his concerns are not unfounded. The oracle's player seems to be doing a pretty good job attempting to compromise but hopefully hasn't gotten too attached to this long-shot redemption (and if you have done a good job of being transparent the player shouldn't have reason to believe this is a sure thing).
Given that your situation has escalated, I think you have three options.
1) The imp decides the current situation is too volatile and leaves for now, coming back later to collect on its favour. This removes the immediate point of contention without necessarily tossing out the plotline.
2) The imp shows his hand by doing something so blatantly evil that the oracle gives up on redemption and allows the fighter to kill the imp.
3) Something occurs to force the imp towards redemption in such an obvious way that the fighter can feel comfortable having it around.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My issue stems from the whole "your character will do what my character wants, or... <enter threat here>"
I hate that.
Now if the fighter had approached in-character and tried to convince the other character of the wrongness of their actions (not some dismissive/arrogant "I am like 9x wiser than your young ass" sort of deal) and failed to convince, then put it to the other party members to resolve the conflict, I'd be fine with it. Civil discorse is wonderful to resolve heated issues, and it's always nice to set precedent on how the party will react to later moral dilemmas.
The issue appears to be the fighter character. They threaten with ultimatums and don't get their way, so they're going to force the issue with threats (leaving the oracle in an awkward position...do they defend the imp?), and then will leave in a huff (likely coming back with their next character who is a paladin named I'hatez'impz).
It's the RPG version of holding one's breath until they get their way.
Bullies suck.
Those that like to throw their weight around are generally the first ones to cry like little b~&&!es when someone pokes them hard in their left orb. Bet you 4 copper that if the oracle had said, "This is my cohort, you're not wise enough to see all angles, if you don't like it then...<enter threat here>" that fighter would have had a complete conniption fit.
I wouldn't have used such harsh tones, but this fits my first impression of the fighter's player via the OP as well. One player is effectively insisting that another player conform to her wishes, and is using proxy combat to emphasize it. That's really not a good working relationship between players. And, unfortunately, she's pretty much painted herself into a corner too. She can't back down without suffering embarrassment.
Interesting, this fighter, how much did she have invested into knowledge planes?
How did this fighter know so much about devils and soul corruption?
How did the fighter know what alignment the imp is?In other words, the fighter was meta gaming like mad.
so the first thing that should have been done as a GM is put a fast stop to that.
The imp can also change shape, so wasn't necessarily in its devil form to reveal it's self to goo characters. Unlike the fighter, the IMP can tell who is good as who is evil.
I dont recall the situation but I do remember the imp being in a cage at the golden goblin and something about "come gamble at the golden goblin and cheat the devil"
As an Imp, he could have just said, well I was captured by this guy vancaskerin, and I'm actually a sprite, see a I actually look like this: poof" Vancaskerin was just forcing me to shape change into that, now that I am freed I'm not forced into that shape anymore, because it was the magical curse of the cage"
Blah blah blah.
They really only have vancaskerins word to go on that "that" is a "devil"
Dude it was a publicity stunt get over it.
He's also hiding drow in the basement, who you gonna believe?The fighter is totally using out of game knowledge in this situation.
So knowing what something is goes off your knowledge vs its CR.
A black bear is a CR 3, 1 more then an Imp.
So less people can tell what a bear is by looking at then know what an Imp is.
Is this really how you run a game?
If a commoner doesn't have ranks in knowledge Nature they don't know what a horse is? (Cr only 1 less then the Imp)
Not trying to be a jerk, but that just sounds a bit off.
Bear is a common animal as is a horse. therefor situational bonuses to knowledge about animals would be in place.
Knowing the workings, alignment, or functional powers of an IMP, would not be common.Stating "that's a nasty evil looking thing, I dont want it around me" is about the same reaction one might have to seeing a goblin.
However, concerning the MULTITUDE of posters on threads about how you goblins and orcs can be good and you can't just go around killing them, or that would be an evil act, I'd say that same would have to apply for an Imp. You all can't have it both ways. Hug a goblin, kill an imp. Both LOOK like they will kill you in your sleep.
Only ONE of them can look like something else at will.
And as far as knowing it can commune 1/wk? YEA that's going to be taking a very good roll my friend.
How many common folk know how to properly lead a horse? Or where not to stand, or how not to spook one. The difference between a black and brown bear?
Considering the number of idiotic hunters that shoot the wrong every year, Id say that also needs a knowledge check.
looking at an imp, and saying that's some kind of nasty outsider is one thing.
Knowing it's evil, can steal your soul, or has any mode or method of harming you?
Yep, needs a roll. Not common knowledge.
Edit: and you would expect your character to know the difference between an imp and homonoculous? (which can have wings and a pointy tail if I want it to)
Give them 5 minutes to talk to each other and hopefully work it out. If they don't come to a satisfactory agreement, let the fighter character leave the group. And the imp, who has overheard the conversation has gone invisible,so the fighter can't just kill him before he leaves. Send the player playing the fighter to a separate area to make a new character. Once the fighter leaves, the imp can attack him separately. If the fighter can survive long enough, he might even be able to call out for the group's aid...
The Imp isnt going to have a very good time in a toe to toe fight with even a first level fighter, I doubt it would do that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting, this fighter, how much did she have invested into knowledge planes?
How did this fighter know so much about devils and soul corruption?
How did the fighter know what alignment the imp is?In other words, the fighter was meta gaming like mad.
so the first thing that should have been done as a GM is put a fast stop to that.
The imp can also change shape, so wasn't necessarily in its devil form to reveal it's self to goo characters. Unlike the fighter, the IMP can tell who is good as who is evil.
I dont recall the situation but I do remember the imp being in a cage at the golden goblin and something about "come gamble at the golden goblin and cheat the devil"
As an Imp, he could have just said, well I was captured by this guy vancaskerin, and I'm actually a sprite, see a I actually look like this: poof" Vancaskerin was just forcing me to shape change into that, now that I am freed I'm not forced into that shape anymore, because it was the magical curse of the cage"
Blah blah blah.
They really only have vancaskerins word to go on that "that" is a "devil"
Dude it was a publicity stunt get over it.
He's also hiding drow in the basement, who you gonna believe?The fighter is totally using out of game knowledge in this situation.
So knowing what something is goes off your knowledge vs its CR.
A black bear is a CR 3, 1 more then an Imp.
So less people can tell what a bear is by looking at then know what an Imp is.
Is this really how you run a game?
If a commoner doesn't have ranks in knowledge Nature they don't know what a horse is? (Cr only 1 less then the Imp)
Not trying to be a jerk, but that just sounds a bit off.
Bear is a common animal as is a horse. therefor situational bonuses to knowledge about animals would be in place.
Knowing the workings, alignment, or functional powers of an IMP, would not be common.Stating "that's a nasty evil looking thing, I dont want it around me" is...
This post is silly. Did people stop to ask if witches were white or dark, no they just burned them. an imp looks like a devil. without deeper knowledge, you paint with the broad brush of ingorance. all wings creatures looking like devils will eat your souls. that's how common knowledge works, it's the most base defination and applies to everything that is remotely. the Fighter is acting correctly. If an imp like creature showed up in the middle ages, the first thing people would do is kill it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't have used such harsh tones, but this fits my first impression of the fighter's player via the OP as well. One player is effectively insisting that another player conform to her wishes, and is using proxy combat to emphasize it. That's really not a good working relationship between players. And, unfortunately, she's pretty much painted herself into a corner too. She can't back down without suffering embarrassment.My issue stems from the whole "your character will do what my character wants, or... <enter threat here>"
I hate that.
No, what the Fighter said was that she wouldn't accept being in a party with a Imp, and if the Imp stayed, she had to leave. Perfectly understandable.
I do appreciate JJ dropping in here to say that it is possible, even if very difficult to redeem a Imp.
I wouldn't have used such harsh tones, but this fits my first impression of the fighter's player via the OP as well. One player is effectively insisting that another player conform to her wishes, and is using proxy combat to emphasize it. That's really not a good working relationship between players. And, unfortunately, she's pretty much painted herself into a corner too. She can't back down without suffering embarrassment.My issue stems from the whole "your character will do what my character wants, or... <enter threat here>"
I hate that.
No, what the Fighter said was that she wouldn't accept being in a party with a Imp, and if the Imp stayed, she had to leave. Perfectly understandable.
But that's not all that the player's done or said, according to the OP. It was just a question of not taking it personally and deciding that a PC wasn't a good fit for the group, that's one thing. But laying down an ultimatum, taking it personally, and declaring she'll kill the imp anyway in spite, those are pretty problematic behaviors. I'm certainly coming away with a poor impression of that player.
As the GM you might tell your players how things work in the world that you have created. Can an "evil" creature be reformed? Are there "good" goblins? Is there a kindhearted ogre out there?
If the oracle could point to an example like Mary the succubus Paladin of Erastil then your fighter might be willing to change her view in character. If nothing of the sort exists in your world then I would make it clear to the Oracle that she is probably carrying around a ticking time bomb.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's my idea: Let the fighter attack the imp, in view of the Oracle. Have the imp call it that the required favour is to not intervene. Let the fighter attack, while the imp makes no effort to attack back. As the fighter strikes down the imp, it says "today you justified murder, I'll be seeing you" as it vanishes back to hell.
The fighter ought to feel some remorse, and hopefully the player will at least take a moment to reconsider what is right. The imp will no longer be an issue, and the fighter will have a good reason to leave, or apologize.
If any one of my players ever managed to actually accomplish what YOU did with your Paladin, I would outright hand an experience level and a fancy magic item to the sneaky bastard. No joke. Of course, I'd b~$~@ about one of my players getting one up on me, but I'd *privately* congratulate the PC on their feat. That was damned impressive, it was an act of lasting Good.
As for the imp, it isn't stupid, it has heard everything going on so it is high time it voids the contract and heads for the hills.Evil outsider. Killed on the Material Plane, doesn't it just pop back into Hell for a while?
Leaving behind an oracle and a fighter who are now really pissed off at each other, one maybe one step closer to falling towards evil, and at the very least weakening the party that is (I assume) generally working or the greater good.
Hell, promote that little guy!
Agreed. And to further drive the point home to the players, who probably haven't realized the above quote happened, I'd have the Imp return in the campaign, this time promoted to a more powerful devil and seeking to further warp the party members.
Anyone seen Supernatural, the Storyline with Sam and Ruby? THIS sounds like it would have made for a great play along that line. The LE outsider, a contract with a giant hole in it, an ally pointing out the flaws...too bad the players ran it into the ground...
Not having read all the posts so far, I may repeat something that already was said, but here goes: Sit the players down, make them separate IC from OOC (always a mess when they get mixed up) and have them go through it ICly. The fighter should really accept a compromise but stay highly mistrusting if the imp (RIGHTLY so!). He could even become the saviour to the oracle once the deal blows up in his face.... Ah, the vast possibilities for RP, don't waste them!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to think the fighter is the wronged party here, unintentional though it is. You had a happy group with a good fighter, the oracle brought in an element that any good aligned character could reasonably be expected to object to. The OP was understandably excited by the opportunity to weave in an intriguing story element, but as DMs we have to let our players dictate a great deal of the story and the fighter was never onboard..
I would direct your players to this thread, you've expressed your feelings clearly and I think the fighter would see you are taking their feelings into account, etc. Then I would tell the oracle that you would only consider allowing such a deal if the rest of the party was onboard, and allow the imp to flee, while giving the fighter a chance at killing it. Probably just have the invisible imp escape while promising to return, etc.
I also assume the party are friends IC? Can you imagine a situation where you would allow a friend to walk away so you can gain an evil servant? Even if you believed said creature to be redeemable? I cannot.
Remember what I wrote about PvP (player versus player)?
I WASN'T BLOODY KIDDING!!!!
It's always bad news, and far worse than some cheesy in game issue. It potentially means that some of the players may outright quit, and in many instances, that also means a loss of friendship in the real world.
Squash this. Now. If that means revealing all your cards, as DM Carpe suggested, then frickin' do it. Or, do as I wrote earlier.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, well. I'm coming down firmly on the side of the Lawful Good fighter here.
1.) The fighter is obviously trying to prevent the morally grey Summoner from being corrupted by an obviously still evil devil.
2.) She then is planning on leaving the party, as to avoid the friction this will cause in the party and ( maybe ) any retributive measures taken by the morally grey character. You know, like the idiotic "kill her in her sleep" stuff which certain people here recommend. Great way to keep a group of players together, btw. Really, great. :-/
3.) The GM is clearly playing favorites, because he loves roleplaying the imp. The GM admits himself that has been doing so. The fighter player is right to feel slighted.
So, yeah, the good player is playing her characters alignment out as she should. Moral flexibility really is wasted most times on devils and this one isn't apparently even pretending to trying to redeem itself.
But apparently it's much more fun for many people here to go off on the player who actually plays her alignment out and does it well.
Your fighter seems to want to play an old school Paladin, killing evil just because it is evil. You could try telling the Fighter that killing the imp before it has truly done and evil act is step away from their own LG alignment and it could be the beginning of the path to the dark side. Or you could have the imp go away and change shape as an animal and the Oracle gets a "new Familiar" and let the matter rest until you can use the imp as a prop for some other plot point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Interesting, this fighter, how much did she have invested into knowledge planes?
How did this fighter know so much about devils and soul corruption?
How did the fighter know what alignment the imp is?In other words, the fighter was meta gaming like mad.
so the first thing that should have been done as a GM is put a fast stop to that.
The imp can also change shape, so wasn't necessarily in its devil form to reveal it's self to goo characters. Unlike the fighter, the IMP can tell who is good as who is evil.
I dont recall the situation but I do remember the imp being in a cage at the golden goblin and something about "come gamble at the golden goblin and cheat the devil"
As an Imp, he could have just said, well I was captured by this guy vancaskerin, and I'm actually a sprite, see a I actually look like this: poof" Vancaskerin was just forcing me to shape change into that, now that I am freed I'm not forced into that shape anymore, because it was the magical curse of the cage"
Blah blah blah.
They really only have vancaskerins word to go on that "that" is a "devil"
Dude it was a publicity stunt get over it.
He's also hiding drow in the basement, who you gonna believe?The fighter is totally using out of game knowledge in this situation.
So knowing what something is goes off your knowledge vs its CR.
A black bear is a CR 3, 1 more then an Imp.
So less people can tell what a bear is by looking at then know what an Imp is.
Is this really how you run a game?
If a commoner doesn't have ranks in knowledge Nature they don't know what a horse is? (Cr only 1 less then the Imp)
Not trying to be a jerk, but that just sounds a bit off.
Bear is a common animal as is a horse. therefor situational bonuses to knowledge about animals would be in place.
Knowing the workings, alignment, or functional powers of an IMP, would not be common.Stating "that's a nasty evil looking thing, I
I don't think Pendagast is being silly and I don't think that's a fair judgement to make on him. People think of fantasy worlds in different ways. Let's look at LoTR for example, or Gollum, to be more specific.
He's evil. Sure he's got a "good streak" to him, but he would definitely fall under the "townsfolk would kill him" category. He survived and accompanied the party because he made himself useful. At times, he won over Frodo through deception and trickery. Why couldn't the imp act in a similar fashion? Why couldn't he endear himself to the Oracle (and the rest of the party) and be a jerk to the fighter when no one was looking? It would make for excellent character and plot development.
Sure, a commoner would look at an imp and scream "Evil, kill it!" But I doubt a creature with at-will invisibility would be venturing through towns in full view of the peasantry.
In the end, the monster stuff comes down to the individual GM. Every person on the message board can say "Well, we all agree that devils are evil no matter what." and that means absolute bupkis because every game is different.
My advice to the OP would be to let it ride. If the fighter wants to leave, that is the fighter's decision to make. Since she made it clear that she would kill the imp before doing so, why wouldn't the Oracle (or the imp for that matter?) take precautions against it? The imp has amazing abilities it can use to entice PCs. Use commune, augury and (especially!) suggestion to the best of your ability.
The options are limitless! Does the fighter have long hair? Have the imp suggest she cut it short to avoid complications in battle! If the fighter snaps at the imp, have it pull the old "I was just trying to be helpful" routine. Let the imp scout ahead and find a trap, then stop the fighter right before she steps into it while shouting, "See? I saved you!"
There's all sorts of stuff the OP could do, he came here looking for advice, not orders. I just hope my tidbit of advice helped.
Happy gaming and good luck!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The imp isn't even pretending to be "not Evil with a major E", so I don't see the issue why a lawful good anybody wouldn't want to wipe it from existance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The imp isn't even pretending to be "not Evil with a major E", so I don't see the issue why a lawful good anybody wouldn't want to wipe it from existance.
That doesn't matter though. The fighter can kill the imp and not alter alignment one bit, that's true, but the issue here is party cohesion. The oracle and GM see the imp as a role-play opportunity. The fighter views it only as a roadblock for her character. The OP is looking for a way to resolve it amicably and maintain positive role-play / forward momentum.
"I kill it because its evil" is an understandable reaction, and also very vanilla.
The Oracle clearly has the impression that the imp can be changed. Why not play on that. The imp could "leave" but promise the Oracle that it won't break the contract. The imp could then pop in on occasion to save the party from impending trouble, proving himself to the party and still scheming the whole time. An abandoned puppy with an agenda.
Looking at this dilemma from a "This person is right and that person is wrong." perspective will end with personal animosity and/or hurt feelings from one of the players - at least that's the feeling I get from the OP's posts. It's fantasy role-play, there's always a solution.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you should make it clear to your players if it's possible to convert/redeem outsiders.
Personally, I don't think it's such a preposterous idea; imps may be strongly evil, but they're also pretty small fry by Hell standards. Even real-world mythology has lots of stories about heroes shaming and converting spirits; saints shaming devils and all that. It's a fantasy world, not the Reformed Fatalist Orthodox Church of Predestination. Trying to convert a pit fiend would be hubris, but for a powerful Oracle to convert an imp is within the realm of the possible.
Take a look at an imp's stats: Intelligence 13, Wisdom 12, Charisma 14. It's not stupid, but it's nowhere near infallible. I'm betting the oracle's social skills far exceed the imp's.
I'm not saying it should be easy. The imp could be trying just as hard to convert the oracle. While it's still got a chance at an unspecified favor, it probably wants to hang around; leaving might void the contract. This could be an interesting cat-and-mouse game: the imp may be scared to call in his favor just yet, because he might need it later on. Meanwhile the oracle has this favor hanging over his head, but the favor also keeps the imp from leaving or breaking contract.
So the attempt to turn the imp could grow to be a major subplot. Give the player a fair chance: nothing easy, but it can be done if he's clever and perseveres. Meanwhile he has to dodge the imp's snares.
If you want to put this on the table, make sure the fighter's player knows this. Tell the player OOC that in your game, it is possible to redeem/convert outsiders to another alignment.
I like the idea mentioned above: that a trusted third party religious figure counsels the oracle and fighter that if they want to convert the imp, that it should be a team effort. That in fact it might be a good idea if the fighter and oracle can pull a good/bad PC routine on the imp! That the fighter and oracle are actually on the same side, against the imp's evil alignment.
I do think both players need some OOC talking-to. The oracle's player did bring in the disruptive element, and I've been in the fighter's position (the other cleric in the party wanted to start using Animate Dead...)
I do think the fighter's player is the more difficult one though. I think it's bad manners to intervene so directly in another player's game the way he's doing. While it may be realistic to do so from IC standpoint, OOC it's bad form. What few people seemed to pick up on in your opening post though: you wrote the player's had bad experiences in the past with GMs that favored the evil PCs. I think you need to talk to him about how you look at this. He's imagining problems and reacting to them, but they may not actually apply here, because you're not that old GM from before.
Maybe you should question him about what he's worried about, and OOC assure him of your "rules": what you consider fair game and what's out of bounds, GM-wise. He should know IF you would permit the imp to be turned. And you should assure him that while the imp will probably try to turn the tables on the oracle, you won't as a GM be conspiring with the oracle's player to turn the party evil or something like that. I think this is a left/right hand matter:
The GM's left hand: it creates the monsters, situations, plots. It knows all. It places the playing pieces to create a good story. It actually worries about balance and making sure the PCs have a good shot at coming out on top.
The GM's right hand: the monsters once they're there. The bad guys behave in character, even if that's nasty. They'll use whatever tactics make sense to those monsters, no more, no less. The monsters are really trying to win here.
The left hand is the ultimate boss here, it selects what the right hand gets to work with.
So in this case, assure him that your left hand is impartial or biased towards the players, but that the right hand (the imp) will be doing what it should be doing.
A final thought about alignment. The imp is Lawful, but what does that mean? Does that mean it's inclined to keep its word, or does it mean it can't break its word? Especially if you treat outsider alignments as heavier than mortal alignments, it's possible that an imp is metaphysically incapable of violating its Lawful alignment. Meaning that if your contract is watertight, you've got it under control. (Maybe you should have a cleric of Abadar look it over?)
Interestingly, if you consider the outsider Evil alignment to be close to absolute, then the same probably goes for the Lawful part. Meaning that if the oracle binds the imp in a perfect contract, it's stopped from doing evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The imp isn't even pretending to be "not Evil with a major E", so I don't see the issue why a lawful good anybody wouldn't want to wipe it from existance.That doesn't matter though. The fighter can kill the imp and not alter alignment one bit, that's true, but the issue here is party cohesion. The oracle and GM see the imp as a role-play opportunity. The fighter views it only as a roadblock for her character. The OP is looking for a way to resolve it amicably and maintain positive role-play / forward momentum.
"I kill it because its evil" is an understandable reaction, and also very vanilla.
The Oracle clearly has the impression that the imp can be changed. Why not play on that. The imp could "leave" but promise the Oracle that it won't break the contract. The imp could then pop in on occasion to save the party from impending trouble, proving himself to the party and still scheming the whole time. An abandoned puppy with an agenda.
Looking at this dilemma from a "This person is right and that person is wrong." perspective will end with personal animosity and/or hurt feelings from one of the players - at least that's the feeling I get from the OP's posts. It's fantasy role-play, there's always a solution.
Sorry, but that are not the facts as described by the OP in his first post and the acclarations later. It is clear that the OP in his role as the GM has played the imp as being clearly evil and with no intention to reform itself. He has ignored the complaints of the fighter player because he enjoyed playing up the evil imp so much that he lost sight of her problems with the situation and now has to deal with the consequences of this error.
This is a problem of the GM's own making and blaming the female player for being confronted with a situation which makes continueing to play her character and stay consistant with her characters characterization unfeasible is blaming the victim.
I don't have a good solution for this situation, either, but I refuse to blame the person who was the actual victim here.
The Oracle clearly has the impression that the imp can be changed. Why not play on that. The imp could "leave" but promise the Oracle that it won't break the contract. The imp could then pop in on occasion to save the party from impending trouble, proving himself to the party and still scheming the whole time. An abandoned puppy with an agenda.
I was almost inclined to suggest this, but after giving it a mull I decided that would be exactly the kind of thing likely to cause more problems for the group. The fighters player has had problems with a previous DM and is thus extremely wary of such DM behavior. The only way I could see this working is if you sat the player down out of character and asked her if she would be okay with this scenario, and if your Oracle has a very good bluff score. Its an option I'd very tempted by as a DM, but given the circumstances I'd err on the side of caution with the fighters player and let her dictate if she felt comfortable with it.
A lot of people have also been critical of "I kill it because its evil," but that's something of a strawman. Its not the same as saying a character would kill an evil human, or even an evil orc, its a creature that has evil as part of its intrinsic makeup and an unnatural one that has encroached upon a plane not its own. PC knowledge varies of course, but such things are the stuff of nightmares and the stories used to frighten little children into behaving.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet or not, but Imps have Invisibility as spell-like ability, AT WILL. Have the Oracle stage an instance where the player pretends to banish the Imp and the imp feigns banishment and goes invisible. Then have the Oracle and the Fighter make amends. The imp stays invisible and quiet and stays around to learn to be good and the fighter thinks it's gone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The imp isn't even pretending to be "not Evil with a major E", so I don't see the issue why a lawful good anybody wouldn't want to wipe it from existance.That doesn't matter though. The fighter can kill the imp and not alter alignment one bit, that's true, but the issue here is party cohesion. The oracle and GM see the imp as a role-play opportunity. The fighter views it only as a roadblock for her character. The OP is looking for a way to resolve it amicably and maintain positive role-play / forward momentum.
"I kill it because its evil" is an understandable reaction, and also very vanilla.
The Oracle clearly has the impression that the imp can be changed. Why not play on that. The imp could "leave" but promise the Oracle that it won't break the contract. The imp could then pop in on occasion to save the party from impending trouble, proving himself to the party and still scheming the whole time. An abandoned puppy with an agenda.
Looking at this dilemma from a "This person is right and that person is wrong." perspective will end with personal animosity and/or hurt feelings from one of the players - at least that's the feeling I get from the OP's posts. It's fantasy role-play, there's always a solution.
Sorry, but that are not the facts as described by the OP in his first post and the acclarations later. It is clear that the OP in his role as the GM has played the imp as being clearly evil and with no intention to reform itself. He has ignored the complaints of the fighter player because he enjoyed playing up the evil imp so much that he lost sight of her problems with the situation and now has to deal with the consequences of this error.
This is a problem of the GM's own making and blaming the female player for being confronted with a situation which makes continueing to play her character and stay consistant with her characters characterization unfeasible is blaming the victim.
I don't have a good solution for this...
No need to apologize, I think you are misinterpreting my suggestion. Sending off the offending NPC, but having it help on occasion serves a few purposes. The imp manages to stay within it's contract and appear helpful, which would keep the oracle satisfied. Fortunately it can fly and turn invisible, making it an excellent "convenient getaway" character.
It would then be separate from the party, not a cohort, and later can be exposed for the villain it is, not only satisfying the fighter, but giving her a good gloating, "I told you so!" moment. It also allows the oracle to resolve the issue with a little dignity, ie, "I was wrong but I learned something."
The GM favored a piece of fluff introduced by a player, that's awesome! I wish it happened more often. The Oracle brought an idea to the table and the GM ran with it. So it got out of control, that's no reason for the arm of GMJustice to sweep in and undo it. Use it as an opportunity, not a roadblock. If every idea was cut whenever a player said "This is in opposition to my character's feelings." nobody would get anywhere. After all, the vast majority of adventuring is morally ambiguous. A Lawful Good player should be prepared on how to handle these situations as they will come up often.
...The imp isn't even pretending to be "not Evil with a major E", so I don't see the issue why a lawful good anybody wouldn't want to wipe it from existance.That doesn't matter though. The fighter can kill the imp and not alter alignment one bit, that's true, but the issue here is party cohesion. The oracle and GM see the imp as a role-play opportunity. The fighter views it only as a roadblock for her character. The OP is looking for a way to resolve it amicably and maintain positive role-play / forward momentum.
"I kill it because its evil" is an understandable reaction, and also very vanilla.
The Oracle clearly has the impression that the imp can be changed. Why not play on that. The imp could "leave" but promise the Oracle that it won't break the contract. The imp could then pop in on occasion to save the party from impending trouble, proving himself to the party and still scheming the whole time. An abandoned puppy with an agenda.
Looking at this dilemma from a "This person is right and that person is wrong." perspective will end with personal animosity and/or hurt feelings from one of the players - at least that's the feeling I get from the OP's posts. It's fantasy role-play, there's always a solution.
Sorry, but that are not the facts as described by the OP in his first post and the acclarations later. It is clear that the OP in his role as the GM has played the imp as being clearly evil and with no intention to reform itself. He has ignored the complaints of the fighter player because he enjoyed playing up the evil imp so much that he lost sight of her problems with the situation and now has to deal with the consequences of this error.
This is a problem of the GM's own making and blaming the female player for being confronted with a situation which makes continueing to play her character and stay consistant with her characters characterization unfeasible is blaming the victim.
I don't have a
Once again, I don't do victim blaming.
Sounds like one of three things has occurred:
1) The player of the Fighter is so into playing her character that she will effectively suicide it to maintain consistency.
2) The player of the Fighter thinks the game is built around her, and needs to grow the F up.
3) Both 1) and 2).
Either way, good on the Oracle not budging before the Fighter did. When one person's perfectly reasonable idea of fun is interpreted as a violation of some story stick trust bond BS by anyone else at the table, something is wrong. I will comfortably wager that the problem is the Fighter player's. Hopefully she took something away from the experience and there's some personal growth from the incident. Or hopefully you lose a lot of unnecessary baggage.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't take this wrong, but based on what you wrote in the OP, you as the GM messed up in the early stages of the game by allowing such diametrically opposed concepts to come to the same party.
You can't have someone playing inflexibly "Evil must die!" in the same party with "I will redeem all the things!"
This needed to be hashed out in the pre-game and now it is just kind of too late.
If I were in your shoes I would send an e-mail to both players saying "Mea Culpa, I should have worked with you both before the game began to make sure we had compatible concepts in the party, I didn't an I am sorry." And the fighter will need to come up with a new character.
Sounds like one of three things has occurred:
1) The player of the Fighter is so into playing her character that she will effectively suicide it to maintain consistency.
2) The player of the Fighter thinks the game is built around her, and needs to grow the F up.
3) Both 1) and 2).Either way, good on the Oracle not budging before the Fighter did. When one person's perfectly reasonable idea of fun is interpreted as a violation of some story stick trust bond BS by anyone else at the table, something is wrong. I will comfortably wager that the problem is the Fighter player's. Hopefully she took something away from the experience and there's some personal growth from the incident. Or hopefully you lose a lot of unnecessary baggage.
And more victim blaming. Great.
Don't take this wrong, but based on what you wrote in the OP, you as the GM messed up in the early stages of the game by allowing such diametrically opposed concepts to come to the same party.
You can't have someone playing inflexibly "Evil must die!" in the same party with "I will redeem all the things!"
This needed to be hashed out in the pre-game and now it is just kind of too late.
If I were in your shoes I would send an e-mail to both players saying "Mea Culpa, I should have worked with you both before the game began to make sure we had compatible concepts in the party, I didn't an I am sorry." And the fighter will need to come up with a new character.
Right on all accounts.
I actually don't post on here very often because there's always someone within minutes of my post who has some snarky, ill informed reply to throw down. In this case, someone who uses neologisms like "acclaration". Save it for the crochet circle.
And more victim blaming. Great.
Actually, that word came about because I mentally translated the Spanish "aclaración" to English. Doesn't mean that you ain't still victim blaming.
I did a similar thing with a paladin character. He ended up with a black dragon wyrmling as the result of a moral quandry. He was trying to get it more chaotic neutral than evil. Funny thing was it's chaotic nature drove him more crazy than it's evil (it wasn;t dumb enough to do evil things in front of him). I had fun playing the hatchling, and sadly that campaign ended before anything could really become of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Victim blaming? Everyone at that table is at fault for it being aloowed to become a conflict. In that party, would the LG guy seriously be the only one to have a prob with an imp in the party?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just stumbled across this thread. I hate to sound like I'm against the fighter, but if she can't at least tolerate evil she is going to have a lot of problems in this AP. If you don't believe me, look at the spoiler below.
Of course, not only that, but it is a bad decision to make in general, as it spoils the game for all players involved. There is a big difference between roleplaying your alignment and going over the edge with it. And, as stated in the spoiler, there is a LOT in RPGs where you just have to let it go and take the lesser of two evils.
If this problem cannot be resolved by a simple logical appeal to the fighter, then there is a solution. I have the old 3.5 Book of Exalted Deeds and I could convert the Sanctify the Wicked spell to PF for you. Admittedly, the oracle would have to seek someone out for the spell and spend a good bit of gold to do so, but it could give the redemption side what they want, and it would give the no-compromise side what they want as well. It's a win-win.
Or, you could have the oracle buy or find a helmet of opposite alignment!
And, just to clarify, evil outsiders can be redeemed, it just either takes magic or a LOT of patience to accomplish. Anyone remember the old Planescape setting? There were plenty of examples there. And if angels can fall, why can fiends not ascend? They may be two very different classes of creatures, but share a lot of commonalities, primarily that they are both embodiments of alignments. And if one can overcome that facet of themselves, why can the other not?
|
hmm... Let the fighter's player make a new character that is ok with the imp. Have the fighter turn NPC, join a group of extremist that feel it is better to hit anything that might be evil first and ask questions later. Then let it stew for a while. After a few levels, bring him back with some buddies to try to take out the party who he believes are irredeemably corrupt now.
Just stumbled across this thread. I hate to sound like I'm against the fighter, but if she can't at least tolerate evil she is going to have a lot of problems in this AP. If you don't believe me, look at the spoiler below.
** spoiler omitted **
Of course, not only that, but it is a bad decision to make in general, as it spoils the game for all players involved. There is a big difference between roleplaying your alignment and going over the edge with it. And, as stated in the spoiler, there is a LOT in RPGs where you just have to let it go and take the lesser of two evils.
If this problem cannot be resolved by a simple logical appeal to the fighter, then there is a solution. I have the old 3.5 Book of Exalted Deeds and I could convert the Sanctify the Wicked spell to PF for you. Admittedly, the oracle would have to seek someone out for the spell and spend a good bit of gold to do so, but it could give the redemption side what they want, and it would give the no-compromise side what they want as well. It's a win-win.
Or, you could have the oracle buy or find a helmet of opposite alignment!
And, just to clarify, evil outsiders can be redeemed, it just either takes magic or a LOT of patience to accomplish. Anyone remember the old Planescape setting? There were plenty of examples there. And if angels can fall, why can fiends not ascend? They may be two very different classes...
Well said. I agree wholeheartedly.
I'm not sure why so many folks work in absolutes. Loads of stories have diametrically opposed protagonists built right in. Han Solo teams up with Luke/Obi Wan and by the end of the series is a better man for it. Some of Batman's greatest stories are when he teams up with Catwoman.
I also fail to see why "resolve the issue amicably" is not an option for so many posting here. There are plenty of ways to play this scenario out without burning anybody. I offered one possible solution earlier in the thread, and I'm sure if everyone sat down and talked it out we could come up with a ton more!
Actually, that word came about because I mentally translated the Spanish "aclaración" to English. Doesn't mean that you ain't still victim blaming.
Right on, sorry about the word confusion. I still think you're being overly dramatic.
Thanks, Tragic Missile! People tend to think in absolutes because they are easier to quantify, easier to understand. As always, truth is more complicated and requires a level of subjective thinking to see clearly. It is not that people are being stubborn or combative most of the time, it is just that they attach personal viewpoints onto situations, coloring their view of a given situation, as much a subconscious decision as a conscious one. That does not make them a bad person though, so a level of civility should be shown even if one does not agree with their viewpoint.
I would do this...
let the Fighter Retire and have her bring in a new character who is an agent of the Imp's Boss so they and the imp can insidiously lead the Oracle to the path of no return to Evil.
Have them do their best to destroy the party and after the ineviatble betrayal and TPK say "And that's wht we don't pick up stray EVIL creatures for pets"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would do this...
let the Fighter Retire and have her bring in a new character who is an agent of the Imp's Boss so they and the imp can insidiously lead the Oracle to the path of no return to Evil.
Have them do their best to destroy the party and after the ineviatble betrayal and TPK say "And that's wht we don't pick up stray EVIL creatures for pets"
Hahahahaha,
"CURSE YOUR SUDDEN BUT INEVITABLE BETRAYAL!"Sorry, couldn't help but think it when I read your post!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Take the fighter aside. Tell him you'd like him to play the role of Samwise Gamgee in the Frodo/Gollum/Sam menage a trois that you see coming. This might frame things in a way that will make the game palatable for him.
Dude, I was SO reading through hoping no one else had seen that obvious connection so I could post it. Dang it!
|
|
I agree that some mistakes were made by each participant and as GM the situation took on a life of its own that you did not anticipate. We have all found ourselves in that type of situation. The question remains- what do you do about it.
I reccomend sitting down with the two of them, laying the situation out on the table and get them to help you come up with a cool in story way to resolve it so it doesn't blow into something bigger. Draw the boundaries (such as saying you don't want this to turn into PvP by extension but you also don't like the idea of someone dropping a character if there is a cooler solution).
I bet by asking a lot of the right questions they may come up with something cool. For example:
To the Imp-lover:
-What is your expectation of this reform process? Are you willing to accept that it could fail, or are you set on actually succeeding in turning this imp away from evil?
To the fighter:
-Is there an opportunity for cool roleplay ala Sam vs Gollum here (as mentioned above)? What do you feel are your boundaries of what would be ok as far as PvP? If another character killed your character's horse or dog would you be cool with it even if they had an in-character justification?
I think if the first player thinks it would be equally cool for his imp conversion plan to fail, there are lots of cool solutions. Maybe his character wakes up in the night to see the imp trying to kill the fighter in his sleep, and saves the fighter's life by destroying the imp himself. Maybe the fighter drives off the imp only to have it become a recurring villain?
My point is that you will achieve more if you can get buy-in from both players as to how they want this to play out, and what compromises they can live with to create fun for the whole group. A game of ball is much more fun if you are both trying to help the other player catch the ball, rather than throwing it straight for his or her groin, ending the game for both of you. Well, most of the time, anyway...