If he's not going to be disruptive, then it doesn't matter if his character sheet says 'CE' and 'worships Cookie Monster' on it. It's literally irrelevant.
If the campaign setting is built around 'Cookie Monster' being the vilest force of evil that even all the other evil deities oppose, dedicated to the destruction of the world, and only insane psychopaths worship him, with such groups always considered criminals and enemies of existence itself, it is disruptive to roleplay immersion in the setting to suggest that one view worship of said god as wholly acceptable. If roleplaying immersion in setting is considered important, than details like whether you are a Rovagug or Skinsaw Man worshipper somewhat do matter. If every other NPC is the world treats Rovagug worshippers as insane criminals, then accepting such a character would be forcing the other PCs to act contrary to the world setting norm, and become 'Rovagug accomplices' themselves.
If said character has otherwise acted acceptably, then just executing them for Rovagug worship would be rather extreme, plenty of other options exist, such as non-violent means to stop their worship of Rovagug, madness can be addressed more sympathetically, a possible victim of influence of Rovagug could be saved before they completely fall, etc. You should be asking not just what your character does but what ANY character (NPC, etc) in the world would do.
Talking this over with the GM as well as other players is a good idea. You should all be on the same page as to what the functioning campaign setting "reality" is. If it's decided that the Golarion setting canon IS in effect, but perhaps said player was ignoring some of it, you can agree to find the best way to 'segue' moving the game back in line with it, perhaps the character coming to their senses thru intervention, etc. (could be plot hook for Rovagug cult trying to expand) Or if it's decided that Rovagug worshippers are not universally reviled insane criminals, you can adjust your setting expectations. You shouldn't be forced in the name of 'not disrupting play' to suspend your setting-appropriate roleplaying just to facilitate another player's ignorance of it, though.
If the campaign setting is built around 'Cookie Monster' being the vilest force of evil that even all the other evil deities oppose, dedicated to the destruction of the world, and only insane psychopaths worship him, with such groups always considered criminals and enemies of existence itself, it is disruptive to roleplay immersion in the setting to suggest that one view worship of said god as wholly acceptable.
Not really. All the players going 'well, that's the way we have to play because the book/GM says so' instead of making their own decisions would break immersion.
The question has yet to be answered, 'other than the sacrifice thing, what has he been doing/how has he been acting up to this point'?
Has he done anything illegal? Attacked innocents? Wrecked stuff just for the sake of wrecking it? Is this somehow disrupting the party or the game? If not, then there is no problem here.
Actually, that kinda is the whole picture. I mean, in this setting people are burned at the stake for being suspected of being worshipers of Rovagug (or demons, or demon lords).
And his fellow PCs are under no obligation to go along with that line of thinking (nor are any individual NPCs, for that matter). They get to make their own decisions about how to react to things.
And while sacrificing an animal may be distasteful, I wouldn't consider it evil. Just because someone else's thing isn't yours, doesn't mean you gotta raise a snit about it.
This needs to be done more often. No PvP, no drama, just boot them. And if the player comes back with another - boot the player.That's what I was talking about earlier about how because you show a hint of being evil, suddenly your supposed to be banned from the group. Little extreme, don't you think?
Please re-read. What I said is that the Player CHARACTER will be kicked out of the adventuring party. 100% IC.
The Player would only be asked to leave if he brings in a carbon copy.
This needs to be done more often. No PvP, no drama, just boot them. And if the player comes back with another - boot the player.That's what I was talking about earlier about how because you show a hint of being evil, suddenly your supposed to be banned from the group. Little extreme, don't you think?Please re-read. What I said is that the Player CHARACTER will be kicked out of the adventuring party. 100% IC.
The Player would only be asked to leave if he brings in a carbon copy.
It's overkill and unnecessary either way.
If the campaign setting is built around 'Cookie Monster' being the vilest force of evil that even all the other evil deities oppose, dedicated to the destruction of the world, and only insane psychopaths worship him, with such groups always considered criminals and enemies of existence itself, it is disruptive to roleplay immersion in the setting to suggest that one view worship of said god as wholly acceptable.Not really. All the players going 'well, that's the way we have to play because the book/GM says so' instead of making their own decisions would break immersion.
The question has yet to be answered, 'other than the sacrifice thing, what has he been doing/how has he been acting up to this point'?
Has he done anything illegal? Attacked innocents? Wrecked stuff just for the sake of wrecking it? Is this somehow disrupting the party or the game? If not, then there is no problem here.
Just the opposite. The Player are likely going “Well, my PC would bust him out in a hot second, but since he’s Joe and a nice guy and we like him to play with us…”
And, if the DM knows his setting, yes, it will be disrupting the party when the Paladins or Constables or peasants with pitchforks come and burn the whole party at the stake. Which IF HE’S PLAYING ON GOLARION exactly what should happen.
|
Actually, that kinda is the whole picture. I mean, in this setting people are burned at the stake for being suspected of being worshipers of Rovagug (or demons, or demon lords).
And his fellow PCs are under no obligation to go along with that line of thinking (nor are any individual NPCs, for that matter). They get to make their own decisions about how to react to things.
And while sacrificing an animal may be distasteful, I wouldn't consider it evil. Just because someone else's thing isn't yours, doesn't mean you gotta raise a snit about it.
That's a very valid point from someone who is in 21st century earth. It's doesn't really apply to someone in Golarion as written. If you want to ignore the setting to play the way you want to fine, the is no badwrongfun.
But that doesn't mean that people who are trying to play characters who live in the world that is published would react that way. Anyone who is in that game world who isn't insane or at the very least ambivalent to the destruction of all existence would have a serious problem with anyone who performed a ritual to Rovagug. He isn't some fictional being though up by Lovecraft, he is a REAL force that is constantly trying to destroy all of existence. The planet, solar system, planes, everything.
This isn't just a freedom of religion issue. It's a crime everywhere, and every other god in the setting is opposed to everything he does.
To the OP, I'd try to convert him to Ragathiel and show him that it's better to have focused destruction than the end of everything.
Just the opposite. The Player are likely going “Well, my PC would bust him out in a hot second, but since he’s Joe and a nice guy and we like him to play with us…”
Citation needed.
It's not overkill in anyway shape or form.
An INQUISITOR of a LG deity isn't going to be cool with a follower (no matter the class or state of worship) of Rov.
Does it really have to be restated that Rov wants to destory everything?
Most Inquisitors (IC) would immediately start inquisiting as soon as that revelation hit the floor.
Rov is basically the Hitler of PF. Just because Hitler liked killing jews and it wasn't my thing doesn't mean I'm not going to raise a "snit" about it.
Think of the setting this is being played in. It be a far stretch for an Inquisitor and Cleric to watch ritual sacrifice to Rov and be like "Oh, that your thing? Well don't attack us and we're cool."
Seriously, the ramifications of Rov alone would put a screeching hault to interparty relations.
I'm not saying kill dude on the spot, but IC Good Aligned Divine Casters would not just carry on like nothing happened.
I think this is a great opportunity for some good roleplay, but no way should an Inquisitor just roll over like nothing happened.
Actually, that kinda is the whole picture. I mean, in this setting people are burned at the stake for being suspected of being worshipers of Rovagug (or demons, or demon lords).
And his fellow PCs are under no obligation to go along with that line of thinking (nor are any individual NPCs, for that matter). They get to make their own decisions about how to react to things.
And while sacrificing an animal may be distasteful, I wouldn't consider it evil. Just because someone else's thing isn't yours, doesn't mean you gotta raise a snit about it.
That's a very valid point from someone who is in 21st century earth. It's doesn't really apply to someone in Golarion as written. If you want to ignore the setting to play the way you want to fine, the is no badwrongfun.
But that doesn't mean that people who are trying to play characters who live in the world that is published would react that way. Anyone who is in that game world who isn't insane or at the very least ambivalent to the destruction of all existence would have a serious problem with anyone who performed a ritual to Rovagug. He isn't some fictional being though up by Lovecraft, he is a REAL force that is constantly trying to destroy all of existence. The planet, solar system, planes, everything.
This isn't just a freedom of religion issue. It's a crime everywhere, and every other god in the setting is opposed to everything he does.To the OP, I'd try to convert him to Ragathiel and show him that it's better to have focused destruction than the end of everything.
It's valid everywhere, because people make their own decisions, regardless of what gods think. The PCs have every right to make their own decision about this, of their own free will. It does not matter what the gods think. It doesn't matter what your average peasant-on-the-street thinks. It doesn't matter what anybody thinks but the PCs at this moment in time.
They have free will, and they're entitled to use it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just gonna throw my opinion in.
I think that if he's generally an "acceptable" person in public (doesn't wantonly destroy stuff, slaughter innocents, etc.) and uses his admiration of the cycle that eventually destroys everything to model his character after, I'd have no problem with it.
There's a cycle in the real life, everything is "made", everything will "die".
Does this make some despise it? Yes.
Does it make others enjoy life even more, as death is our only certainty? Absolutely!
On the issue of animal sacrifice, again relating to the real world, Christians used to have to sacrifice animals on a regular basis, with one story even having a Christian almost sacrifice his own SON!
I don't have an issue with the "sacrifice things to my god" thing.
Even if it IS to the "cycle of life".
It's not overkill in anyway shape or form.
An INQUISITOR of a LG deity isn't going to be cool with a follower (no matter the class or state of worship) of Rov.
Does it really have to be restated that Rov wants to destory everything?Most Inquisitors (IC) would immediately start inquisiting as soon as that revelation hit the floor.
Rov is basically the Hitler of PF. Just because Hitler liked killing jews and it wasn't my thing doesn't mean I'm not going to raise a "snit" about it.
Think of the setting this is being played in. It be a far stretch for an Inquisitor and Cleric to watch ritual sacrifice to Rov and be like "Oh, that your thing? Well don't attack us and we're cool."
Seriously, the ramifications of Rov alone would put a screeching hault to interparty relations.
I'm not saying kill dude on the spot, but IC Good Aligned Divine Casters would not just carry on like nothing happened.
I think this is a great opportunity for some good roleplay, but no way should an Inquisitor just roll over like nothing happened.
1. Classes don't come with baked-in personalities. Free will and all that.
2. I don't care if someone thinks Hitler was the best thing since sliced bread, so long as the person in question doesn't actually DO anything wrong. You can think anything you want. You can SAY anything you want. We have no evidence, except one dead animal (which could well be dinner), that he's done anything even questionable, much less wrong. Which is why I keep asking for more details on his past behavior.
Of course everyone has free will.
But you are still influenced by your surroundings.
By how you grew up, how your parents treated you and by the God(s) you worship.
That will dictate how you see the world and how you excercise that free will.
Again, in game, in character, in the setting you're playing in, an Inquisitor of a LG deity isn't going to be cool with that 99.99999999% of the time.
And again, I didn't say try to kill dude right away. But questions would be asked and they would be rather aggressive and very direct.
It is ridiculously rare for a follower/worshipper of Rov to be just some regular dude/dudette who does nothing to further the destruction of the universe as a whole. Most Rov followers/worshippers are lunatics/insane/mad men who only want the world to burn.
It would be way more weird for him to be calm and just be like, yeah I just kill a goat everynow and again to Rov just because, no other motivation, just because.
I'm all for interesting characters but to have two characters who just go against the grain and break all known norms is kind of ridiculous.
Should a follower of Rov be an axe weilding psycopath? No, but 9 times out of 10 he's gonna be.
Should an Inquisitor of a LG deity put the screws to a follower of the most reviled god in the entire universe? No, but 9 times out of 10 he's gonna.
Free will or not there are ways people will react 99% of the time. You can't have the rare exception all the time. That's just not logical.
Free will or not there are ways people will react 99% of the time. You can't have the rare exception all the time. That's just not logical.
A person with a religion who doesn't follow his god's exactly isn't really rare, unless that person is a cleric or such in dnd anyway. In particular if your worry is that he's going to go nuts and break everything and everyone around him in a public setting, I think you might've noticed that habit by now.
Of course your arguing that we should have Xerox copies atm, which... is not logical either.
Free will or not there are ways people will react 99% of the time. You can't have the rare exception all the time. That's just not logical.A person with a religion who doesn't follow his god's exactly isn't really rare, unless that person is a cleric or such in dnd anyway. In particular if your worry is that he's going to go nuts and break everything and everyone around him in a public setting, I think you might've noticed that habit by now.
Of course your arguing that we should have Xerox copies atm, which... is not logical either.
In reality it's not very rare at all. But I'm only talkin in character in Pathfinder. It's rather rare.
It's not my worry at all. I'm saying In Character an Inquisitor and a Cleric would react pretty harshly to a follower/worshipper of Rov.
In it's basic form, it's a betrayel of trust. You're most common Rov worshipper, again, wants to see the world burn. A calm, possibly calculating one, is probably a bigger threat.
No one is just going to trust a follower of Rov, no matter how casual.
I'm not saying we should have copies at all. I'm saying you're asking to make an exception to finding out that your "friend" worships the most reviled being in the known univers. You wouldn't just immediately do that. You'd wanna know what the f*** is going on.
We've come a long way, but it can't be assumed that the peoples of Golarion have made the same leaps.
Right, we're way behind compared to the guys with wizards, time travel, aliens, and where you can have 26+ intellect!... I guessed right, right?
It's valid everywhere, because people make their own decisions, regardless of what gods think. The PCs have every right to make their own decision about this, of their own free will. It does not matter what the gods think. It doesn't matter what your average peasant-on-the-street thinks. It doesn't matter what anybody thinks but the PCs at this moment in time.
They have free...
Please don't get me wrong here, I mean you no disrespect.
Of course the PC's have free will, and can make their own decisions about things. However, the setting- the framework of the game-world operates on different assumptions than the world in which we live. The NPC's (and to an extent, the world's influences on the PC's) does not have the advantages of the Enlightenment which our Earth has experienced (and note, this is only really (or perhaps, arguably) true in Western Civilization), nor can it be assumed that the average person has a "live and let live" attitude. Actually, quite the contrary. Our (Earth) history has changed the mindset and attitudes of the masses considerably in a relatively short period of time; even concepts like "free will" itself are "new" when we consider our recorded history. Golarion is not 21st century Earth, or even 18th century Earth, and many of the thoughts and ideas which we (often) today take for granted were "inconceivable" to our ancestors 100 years ago. It wasn't all that long ago when it was believed (erroneously) that women were mentally inferior to men, and thus incapable of being intelligent enough to vote. And it wasn't so long ago that Americans of African origin weren't even considered human. Heck, in the US it was still debated into the 20th century whether or not Indigenous Americans (aka. "Indians") were even human.
We've come a long way, but it can't be assumed that the peoples of Golarion have made the same leaps.
Thank you, that's the point I'm trying to make. You have to remove our reality from the equation. In this game, in this setting, with these characters you can bet on how most characters (PC or NPC) would react to a situation.
Thank you, that's the point I'm trying to make. You have to remove our reality from...
Sort of, you also have to consider people's feelings and how your group does things and how that affects things. Telling someone they can no longer play their character could be taken the wrong way.
Thank you, that's the point I'm trying to make. You have to remove our reality from...Sort of, you also have to consider people's feelings and how your group does things and how that affects things. Telling someone they can no longer play their character could be taken the wrong way.
I'm not telling anyone how to play anything.
He asked for how he should handle it. I'm telling him how 9 out of 10 characters would react. I never said he HAD to react that way, just that would be the most probable (and arguably appropriate) reaction to the scenario given the character he is playing.
In-character, the OP's PC should react similarly to if they meet an NPC who initially acts cooperatively but is then revealed to be a follower of Rovagug. No more, no less. Acting differently because it is a PC is forcing the OP to suspend their setting-coherent roleplaying. Now since it may impact out-of-character dynamics, it's appropriate to address that, and get everybody on the same page re: setting implications, and not be surprised when characters act as predicted by the setting context. But it doesn't seem conducive to roleplaying for any player to just automatically suspend normal roleplaying repurcussions for events simply in deference to out-of-character issues... If such setting assumptions aren't supposed to inform their character's actions, that should be made clear, and likewise would affect their actions towards NPCs (if any coherency is to be retained).
|
I think the fact that people are noting that LG characters, including followers of Torag and Ragathiel himself, practice animal (and even human!) sacrifices, and others are arguing that they'd flip out because a non-evil person did the same thing, is yet more proof that LG is the most CE and disruptive of alignments.
If alignment nonsense is ruining your game, drop it like the radioactive spud it is.
So any advice on how to continue playing with the party as is, not have any PvP, and still stay true to my character?
Don't continue with the party as is is my advice. Tell the Barbarian he is no longer welcome in your group. His embrace of Rovagug puts him diametrically at odds with the good beliefs of the majority of the group and you don't want him traveling with you. Period.
Sounds like one of your players is using the no PVP rule to intentionally mess with the game.
There is 0 wrong with parties telling people top bugger off and then leaving them high and dry if they do things like this. After all folks in RL do not associate with people they do not like, why should adventurers be any different?
Tell him to get lost and have him make a character that will mesh with the group. Was his fault for purposely making a character that will cause strife in the group when you all SPECIFICALLY agreed to not do so by banning PVP in the game.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds like you're making this more of an issue that the barbarian is. So you might want to consider what happens if you issue an ultimatum...it's entirely possible that the character that gets asked to leave the group is the inquisitor.
From the POV of the other characters/players, the one making trouble isn't the barbarian, it's you.
I'm with Kthulhu on this one. As someone diametrically opposed to Rovagug, you may not exactly appreciate him trying to further the ideals of Rovagug, but at the same time, you may want to consider viewing it as your job to "guard" the barbarian, and prevent him from going out of his way to commit evil. Often times you can take into account that considering Rovagug as the god of "Wrath" and "War", he kinda fits right into the general theme of what kind of Strength a Barbarian would respect. I know from my experience, a lot of Barbarians (who are distrustful of magic often enough) would likely respect Rovagug's strength in and of that it took all the gods together to fight him. That does not mean however that he's going to go around eating babies and torching towns.
The question has yet to be answered, 'other than the sacrifice thing, what has he been doing/how has he been acting up to this point'?
Other than that, Ms Lincoln, how did you enjoy the show?
Well, that is a difficult situation for sure. First thing you should do is talk to the player in question what his intention for the character is. If there is a way to solve the problem out of game before it devolves into an in-game conflict (which could well cause hurt feelings out-of-game, too), that is the way to go.
But having a Rovagug-worshipping character in a group of do-gooders is a recipe for disaster. It would severely damage my game immersion of we agreed to just let it go, because, as many pointed out before, Rovagug is about the only god who is universally shunned by everyone else and his followers are persecuted in all civilized places. And many of the uncivilized ones, too.
Rather than attack him or kick him out, a true Good character would try to convert the person instead. One of the better replacements for Rovagug would be Gorum, or if the Barbarian shifts to a Good alignment, Valani the Empyreal Lord from Chronicles of the Righteous would also be a good choice. Those who worship Rovagug don't always seem to be of the very fanatical sort, and those who are usually don't last long with an adventuring party, especially if said group consists of people of a Good alignment.
Called shot to the heart. Only way to be sure.
Which would, in this situation, be a CE act.
He trusts you and you betray him so it is chaotic and he did nothing deserving to be killed so it would be evil.I'm sure Ragathiel would not approve of that.
From the POV of the other characters/players, the one making trouble isn't the barbarian, it's you.
This!
And it is the good one having a fit that's the problem most of the time.When my last Paladin found one of the party could (and would) control (but not create) undead to make them attack our enemies I just left the party. They where after a good goal after all, so why should I attack them?
And before you try to kick him out of the group you should check with the rest. The others are chaotic you are lawful. You are as much an exception which doesn't fit as the barbarian. Or even more so because he's neutral, not evil.
So you are two steps away on the law-chaos scale but he is only 1 step away on the good evil scale. He fits better in this group than you.
Why do people just handwave chaos-law differences but throw a fit over good-law differences? That's absurd.
|
IC “Hey. Klown the Chaotic? Look, we have found out you worship Rovagug. Sorry, dude, that means we can no longer trust you. It’s been nice and all and we wish you all the best. The door is that way. You are no longer a part of this party.”
This needs to be done more often. No PvP, no drama, just boot them. And if the player comes back with another - boot the player.
It's been my experience that this player is looking to pull some "stuff' and will use the tired excuse "It's what my character would do".
"Guilt by Association" is very real in a medieval world, and when he pulls something really nasty, your party will have to pay for it.
It would be like someone in the realworld find out his friend is a big fan of hitler and a bunch of child molesters. are you really gonna want to hang out with that guy......
a true Good character would try to convert the person instead.
Something about this just sounds weird to me... Uncanny valley maybe?
Okay, convert might be too strong a word.
Redeem, perhaps? Turn them away from the evil path?
Talk some sense to him, since worshipping Rovagug is a bad idea?
|
From the POV of the other characters/players, the one making trouble isn't the barbarian, it's you.This!
And it is the good one having a fit that's the problem most of the time.When my last Paladin found one of the party could (and would) control (but not create) undead to make them attack our enemies I just left the party. They where after a good goal after all, so why should I attack them?
And before you try to kick him out of the group you should check with the rest. The others are chaotic you are lawful. You are as much an exception which doesn't fit as the barbarian. Or even more so because he's neutral, not evil.
So you are two steps away on the law-chaos scale but he is only 1 step away on the good evil scale. He fits better in this group than you.Why do people just handwave chaos-law differences but throw a fit over good-law differences? That's absurd.
Wasn't the OP's inquisitor NG? He just worships a LG god.
Since the barbarian is CN but worships a CE god, that makes them perfectly equal to the CG core of the party.
What matters are his actions, not which god he (think) follows.
The gods portfolio contains "Wrath, Disaster, Destruction", so nothing "true evil" and didn't contain Ragathiels portfiol also includes wrath, ;)
Ok, I got this wrong.
I double checked the barbs alignment but not the OP's.