Sounds like you should kill the Cleric and Paladin in their sleep. It's not evil if they attacked you first! Just dishonorable. And that fits fine with chaotic neutral
I think he needs to have a discussion with his DM and, most likely, his fellow players. Call them on their use of metagaming as a passive aggressive, shoulder-shrugging seal of approval for their douchebaggery, but you know...do so diplomatically.
I think he needs to have a discussion with his DM and, most likely, his fellow players. Call them on their use of metagaming as a passive aggressive, shoulder-shrugging seal of approval for their douchebaggery, but you know...do so diplomatically.
Sounds like you should kill the Cleric and Paladin in their sleep. It's not evil if they attacked you first! Just dishonorable. And that fits fine with chaotic neutral
Discussywhatnow? Mmm. I don't knooow. Crossbows solve most my diplomatist problems just fine.
Discussywhatnow? Mmm. I don't knooow. Crossbows solve most my diplomatist problems just fine.
Not saying that wouldn't be a satisfying way to go, at least until the campaign imploded. :)
Look it boils down to you made a character that skirts the outside of what the DM wanted for alignment and is in direct opposition of 2 of the four members of your party you've mentioned while the third member also doesn't sound thrilled to have him around either. You might think your justified 75% of your party disagrees. Find a compromise or start prepping a fallback. If you don't find a compromise of some sort best case scenario is they run the character out of the group, worst case scenario they get frustrated enough to run you off the table. If you refuse to see how what you've made is causing conflict and flat refuse to change then that character might not be redeemable for that party. Its a game to have fun, you're causing conflict and stress and obviously not enjoying it. Fix the problem. It costs you nothing to change or replace that character and I bet you DM would be willing to let you change or bring in a new character to cut the conflict off at the knees so you can get back to the story and stop bickering with each other.I maxed my diplomacy,bluff and sensemotive specifically to try and curb the "bias" against me. Points in disguise as well, as clearly calling myself a "sorcerer" to not hide my casting ability but to give a different perspective to look at.
Wizards and sorcerers can do everything my character can do (except eldritch blast, but orb spells etc could look the same) John the farmer should see no difference, imo, but my group knows. I claim to have powers from the shadows (to group only), but again, have done nothing outright evil, even the foodstuffs, which some claimed were evil, were not the "towns" foodstuffs. They belonged to the specific merchant, and were a day after a fresh shipment came in from the other merchant. No starvation was going to happen.
No, it's the PALADIN'S fault! Why? Because he's evil! How do I know? He wears white armor. That could be RACIST, ergo, I SHALL DEMAND THAT HE STOP BEING A SLAVER OR ANDORAN WILL TRY AND KILL HIS PETS AND GET HIM THROWN IN JAIL BY BEING A INDIRECT SISSY.
He shouldn't have made a conflict! He decided wearing white armor was okay, but our campaign is only for good people. And if he looks evil, then he must be evil.
Lawful stupid is the best alignment!
I find it amusing when a player says that it is another characters fault for playing a class (Paladin) that is required to be Paragon-Good when they make a character whose entire foundation is shady at best.
Nevermind everyone else in the group is on one page and you are not.
Yes, because if it looks stereotypically evil, then you are being the paragon of evil and the Paladin is the one being reasonable. It's not like, you know, characters can differ in any way from eachother.
Remember, if Tolkien didn't write it, and you're trying to play it, you're a douche bag.
I find it amusing when a player says that it is another characters fault for playing a class (Paladin) that is required to be Paragon-Good when they make a character whose entire foundation is shady at best.
Nevermind everyone else in the group is on one page and you are not.
Pretty clear who the douche in this one is.
Choosing to play a paragon of good and using it as a means to negatively escalate character conflict and have a go at another player's character who isn't evil is what exactly? Adult and considerate behavior?
I get that the OP made a square peg, but there are so many more productive ways to approach 'shady' characters.
The biggest problem is you're only getting the warlock's side of the story which is immediately biased.
Oh, completely agree. We never really know in these situations.
The important fact is that three of the four people he's mentioned are at the table are against his concept. For whatever reason either the player or the character has rubbed 75% of the group the wrong way, the vast majority would indicate the problem is probably associated around the warlock.
This is why I say it needs to be discussed out of character and not something that can really be settled in-character.
That sounds exactly like metagaming. If paladins were meant to always know who's evil at all times detect evil would just always be on. I bet you don't sense motive when the townsfolk tell you there's orcs raiding their land. The reason you don't is because you wouldn't have reason to disbelieve the random person telling you a plausible story. If the paladin hasn't failed a smite on the warlock he may have no reason to need to detect evil, he knows the warlock is evil so why check. Paladins are allowed to be wrong or there'd be no need for the code of conduct and falling. Evil is allowed to exist because paladins aren't infallible and don't always pick up on it. In your world evil would be impossible because paladins scan everyone automatically which means evil doers would either be unable to do anything because they were being monitored at all times or just be flat out stamped out before they got any power. Sounds real boring.
Really? "Hmm, this guy's a little off, let me see if he's evil ... nope." is metagaming? Looking at an imp and double-checking to see if it's evil is metagaming?Seriously?
BTW, I see one good wheel and two flats here. The Paladin and the Cleric are still the problem to my perceptions, because, again, the Warlock hasn't done anything wrong, and they're persecuting and betraying him for it.
That's why I don't use alignment in general, and paladins specifically.
But, seriously, if you think 'this guy is acting suspicious, let me scan him' is metagaming, we have nothing more to say to one another.
Not good at this quoting stuff, so bear that in mind with my replies.
Bave = Easy boy, wheres the hostility coming from? I sure didn't call anyone any names, there's absolutely no need for that kind of hostility.
Everyone referring to campaign alignment = Campaign alignment is whatever we want it to be. We have already been told if we want to go evil we can. We don't. My catfolk is NOT evil. He has no intentions to be, his moral code is just a bit shakey.
As an afterthought, our paladin is a newb, so she has some issues with how/what she should do, AND metagaming, we are working on her.
Tkul : 1. Character is chaotic neutral by neccessity for the powers to be gained, there is nothing stopping him from becoming good. To my knowledge it would only stop forward progression, not lose powers. This is why as we play, my character is warming up to the paladin, and TRYING to make friends. He is evolving as the nature of the campaign/group does, much like a child would.
2. CN is NOT directly opposite of LG, CE is, and he is NOT evil.
Out of game, my group loves my concept, and we love hanging with each other. It's not a me vs them concept like so many are trying to make it seem. I am a bit annoyed at how they see they have to play their characters, but i personally have aloways hated LG, and I HAVE discussed it with the DM. What i am looking for, is recommendations IC and suggestions to either do a roundabout way of handling this, or just peoples thoughts on the matter.
My only other real experienced RP'ers are my "brother" PC character and the DM himself. Furthermore the Metagame aspect can suddenly leap up out of nowhere, we have been working on it, but as some of the posts here show, both sides aren't terribly far off. I believe the warlock would fit perfectly, with a bit more work.
This thread has already helped me huge in 1 aspect. Mephits not being demons, i thinki confused them with quasits perhaps? Either way that alone should help fix some issues, though my group does not have high knowledges both I, and the bard do, perhaps we can explain what i as a player failed to realize. This is the type of thing i was hoping to flush to the surface. Thank you all for your suggestions, just please keep the hostility to a minimum :)
Hm. Well, my in-character justification for being a necromancer was "Summoners bring creatures from the beyond and enslave them, forcing them to fight, sometimes to the death. I make automatons with my own soul and use them to fight, no other creatures in the mix. I believe I am more good than a conjurer."
Perhaps you can use a similar argument to the Cleric and Paladin.
I have used "The magic you call dark, is what i possess to use. I possess the power, it does not possess me. I make it to as i will, and though what i do is not always what you wish, it is not evil, and more then daggers are evil, because one is used to slay a child."
The OP's last post clarified a lot of things. If everyone is having fun, then you are doing it right.
Still though, I think the core in character problem is a bit murky. Is your character frustrated because he thinks he is a good(ish) guy, and the other characters just don't see him or is your character frustrated because the good guys in the party are blocking his plans to ultimate power?
What are the in character goals your character has, and how are those goals being blocked?
Sure, you can argue that someone shouldn't play a Paladin, the same way someone could argue that the Warlock doesn't have to projecting "BAD" either.
Actually warlocks in 3.5 don't have to be evil or even make deals with demons. Its a very different argument.
Look, it is pretty simple.
If you know there is going to be a Paladin in the group, understand that if you make a shady-ish character you are heading down conflict rod to one degree or another. If you have outwardly visible signs of "transgressions" expect it to get worst.
Sure, you can argue that someone shouldn't play a Paladin, the same way someone could argue that the Warlock doesn't have to projecting "BAD" either.
Look, it's pretty simple.
If you know there is going to be a warlock in the group, understand that if you make a prude of a character, you are heading down the conflict road to one degree or another.
^Your argument.
Or, you know, paladins don't have to be played lawful-stupid.
|
Protip: Paladins can cooperate with sinners in the interest of the greater good. There is absolutely, positively no risk of a fall from doing this whatsoever. They can even work with outright EVIL creatures for limited periods of time, let alone a chaotic neutral warlock that appears to have slightly good tendencies. There is nothing in the class that gives them the right to mistreat or otherwise betray non-evil party members without SIGNIFICANT CONSEQUENCES. Furthermore, that GM is still doing his job wrong. If your character does not look, act, or scan as evil then guess what? He isn't evil, and the townsfolk have no reason to believe as such.
It sounds to me like both the cleric and the paladin should be getting penalized by their respective deities, more so the paladin.
Sure, you can argue that someone shouldn't play a Paladin, the same way someone could argue that the Warlock doesn't have to projecting "BAD" either.
*sigh*
It doesn't matter if he projects bad. Any paladin worth his salt isn't going to go 'he looks evil' and jump on someone without proof of wrongdoing; that's part of the whole 'justice' part of the schtick, along with the punishment fitting the crime.
What matters is if he IS bad, which he ain't.
It doesn't matter if he projects bad. Any paladin worth his salt isn't going to go 'he looks evil' and jump on someone without proof of wrongdoing; that's part of the whole 'justice' part of the schtick, along with the punishment fitting the crime.
There would be far less evildoers in the world if he did! What's the worst that could happen?
|
|
It doesn't matter if he projects bad. Any paladin worth his salt isn't going to go 'he looks evil' and jump on someone without proof of wrongdoing; that's part of the whole 'justice' part of the schtick, along with the punishment fitting the crime.There would be far less evildoers in the world if he did! What's the worst that could happen?
That moment when you realize nearly every paladin you have ever played with somehow has those two things built into their perception checks. Did someone invent magic goggles that make everything read as the epitome of evil? "I would like to make a perception check." "All right." "I determine that the necromancer is evil, and therefore must be taken down. I ACTIVATE SMITE EVIL!" "Uh.. he isn't evil. He's chaotic neutral, and I'm pretty sure he just almost died saving the party from a very angry dragon." "NO! The necromancer is evil!" "Your smite fails. It doesn't work on non-evil beings." "But he's a necromancer. My character KNOWS he is." "How does your character know this? The necromancer has never even cast animate dead. It isn't high enough level to HAVE animate dead. How do you know it's a necromancer? Looks to be dressed like a standard adventurer to me." "But he's a necromancer! He's EVIL!"
The above is the paraphrasing of a conversation I've watched happen at a table I was playing at. Eventually had to BS a reason to walk outside, as I couldn't refrain from laughing any longer.
Anyway, back on topic. I recall the OP also wanted advice on how TO skirt the line legitimately. My advice? Just act chaotic neutral. Look out largely for your character's own interests, but don't play it as so avaricious that it will just walk away from the kinds of atrocities that, regardless of your alignment, it's going to raise an eyebrow. There are just some times, CN or not, that lending a helping hand is wise. Even if you have your character mask its momentary good intention behind a declaration of greed, make it somehow apparent to the GM that he ISN'T doing it purely for his own gain. Another thing I would suggest is to periodically buy the party around of drinks in a tavern or something. Little things like that will make your GM less likely to nail you with an alignment infraction. A lot of people will see things defined as neutral in the books as evil anyway, since let's face it, a lot of what a neutral to evil alignment required class asks of you could easily be considered evil in some cases. Towing the line can be risky enough as it is, let alone going into certain classes or prestige classes that are widely regarded as evil (despite not being evil). Little gestures will help a good deal, and should smooth over things with the party a bit as well. Also refrain from dressing your character as lolevil, as that will definitely lead to more problems than you want to deal with, given what you've told us already. When entering towns, I would recommend that your character be as personable as possible. Taking steps to increase your social skill ranks, as you've said you already did, is already an excellent step in the right direction.
HM.. is there anyway to have my entropic warding up, without being obvious and scaring john q public? I am pretty skittish and not sure my character would lower his warding when outside, even in a town...assassins are everywhere! (in his paranoid mind)
HM.. is there anyway to have my entropic warding up, without being obvious and scaring john q public? I am pretty skittish and not sure my character would lower his warding when outside, even in a town...assassins are everywhere! (in his paranoid mind)
You might try a sort of glamour like disguise self and ask if that works. Being 'surrounded by chaotic energies' is pretty vague, so its hard to say. That's built a lot on imagination and fiat. For all I know they're invisible to anyone without wizard eyes and they might appear perfectly harmless! Or they might be covering you from head to toe like those crazy battle auras you see in anime in big black obvious swirls. Really up to the group how to handle it. You could even say it depends on the outsider you made a deal with, a fey might have a little faint green glow but a demonic outsider might have red flames licking off of you. The fact its vague isn't really that bad, you should talk about what you think it looks like, but you can do a lot with it to add to your character.
|
|
I would think most people wouldn't know what it was to begin with. They would need spellcraft to identify it as it's being cast, or to make a sufficiently high knowledge arcana check in order to identify it if it's already in effect by the time they see it. On top of that, there's really nothing to imply it's anything evil at all. NPCs and the like still need to identify things just like characters do. If a boss, for example, happens to fail a spellcraft and reads the explosive runes someone made appear underneath him? Sucks for the boss. It's probably a goner. Those runes are mean.
I would think most people wouldn't know what it was to begin with.
And what do people fear? What they don't understand.
Part of the divide on this issue could be our expectations of the campaign. In campaigns I run, they tend to be low-magic, the peasants tend to be ignorant of most magic and monsters (they know that magic exists, and a vague idea of what it can do, but don't generally want to be around it.)
If the campaign that the OP is in is drastically different; if wizards typically walk around town with magic aura, familiars, summoned monsters, etc., then it probably wouldn't be odd to see his character.
The spell effect is a magical field ... glowing with a chaotic blast of multicolored hues. So it is visible to anyone and obvious. I personally wouldn't let disguise self cover it (although it would appear as someone else surrounded by a rainbows.) People might not know what it is, but that might make them more nervous rather than less.
Also, you don't generally lower the warding, rather you actively have to bring it up every few minutes. Doing this would make you look paranoid to anyone who knew what you were doing (even if you are paranoid, you might not want to avoid looking paranoid).
It still seems to me that you kind of want to play a paranoid, selfish crazy freak, but you want people to treat you like a noble hero. Getting both of those to work is very tricky.
EDIT: outside a teen vampire drama anyway...
|
|
True as it may be, but do you ever get problems like these when a Paladin isn't part of the mix?I find it amusing when a player says that it is another characters fault for playing a class (Paladin) that is required to be Paragon-Good when they make a character whose entire foundation is shady at best.
Yep! Most LG clerics as well as neutral clerics of Pharasma can be quite disruptive as well, though that second one applies almost exclusively to issues with a necromancer in the party. The first example, however, is far more common of an issue. .... But yeah, I'd say poorly handled paladins can be a far worse problem.
The spell effect is a magical field ... glowing with a chaotic blast of multicolored hues. So it is visible to anyone and obvious. I personally wouldn't let disguise self cover it (although it would appear as someone else surrounded by a rainbows.) People might not know what it is, but that might make them more nervous rather than less.
Also, you don't generally lower the warding, rather you actively have to bring it up every few minutes. Doing this would make you look paranoid to anyone who knew what you were doing (even if you are paranoid, you might not want to avoid looking paranoid).
It still seems to me that you kind of want to play a paranoid, selfish crazy freak, but you want people to treat you like a noble hero. Getting both of those to work is very tricky.
EDIT: outside a teen vampire drama anyway...
Actually the warlock warding lasts for 24 hours.... so it doesn't need to be recast. This make a difference? And noble hero? No... but nor a pariah as it seems to be at the moment.
*sigh* dm kind of pegieonholed me int oa more demon role, he is roleplaying the acolyte of the skin fuse as a pact with the devil, so every level i take, i have a chance to "lose myself". Luckily it is based on a will save, and i have a feat adding my cha to will save instead of wisdom, but things are going to get real interesting now...
After the last session, it seems i finally have the group kind of on my side now, after some ooc talks, and ic talks. Now the gm is kind of screwing me tho... i am half tempted to just start playing reckless til he dies, and remake another character... except i have another problem now...
Another player, my best friend, and in game "brother" has tied their soul to mine. If he dies, i die, if i die, he dies... what to do what to do....
*sigh* dm kind of pegieonholed me int oa more demon role, he is roleplaying the acolyte of the skin fuse as a pact with the devil, so every level i take, i have a chance to "lose myself". Luckily it is based on a will save, and i have a feat adding my cha to will save instead of wisdom, but things are going to get real interesting now...
Perhaps talk to your GM about this?
i am half tempted to just start playing reckless til he dies, and remake another character... except i have another problem now...
Another player, my best friend, and in game "brother" has tied their soul to mine. If he dies, i die, if i die, he dies... what to do what to do....
"My friend, I am finding myself upon a dark and dangerous path with a devil trying to corrupt my soul. With our souls bound together it is too much risk for me to remain upon the road where there is a constant temptation to draw upon my fell powers. I am going to seek out a monastery and spend time in quiet contemplation to regain control of myself. I will miss you greatly and I don't want to leave you alone, so promise that you'll find my good friend [New character name], (s)he lives nearby and can help protect you while I'm away."
Yep! Most LG clerics as well as neutral clerics of Pharasma can be quite disruptive as well...
You say disruptive, I say interesting. Any kind of in-game restriction or viewpoint that is actually role-played brings an interesting element to the table, IMO.
If the cleric of holy healing magic and utmost goodness is role-played just like the fighter who just likes to fight things, then it really isn't an interesting game.
The spell effect is a magical field ... glowing with a chaotic blast of multicolored hues. So it is visible to anyone and obvious.
Except it doesn't actually say that.
If the cleric of holy healing magic and utmost goodness is role-played just like the fighter who just likes to fight things, then it really isn't an interesting game.
Good thing that isn't what people suggested!
*sigh* dm kind of pegieonholed me int oa more demon role, he is roleplaying the acolyte of the skin fuse as a pact with the devil, so every level i take, i have a chance to "lose myself". Luckily it is based on a will save, and i have a feat adding my cha to will save instead of wisdom, but things are going to get real interesting now...
After the last session, it seems i finally have the group kind of on my side now, after some ooc talks, and ic talks. Now the gm is kind of screwing me tho... i am half tempted to just start playing reckless til he dies, and remake another character... except i have another problem now...
Another player, my best friend, and in game "brother" has tied their soul to mine. If he dies, i die, if i die, he dies... what to do what to do....
Well... That's uhh... That's a mess. That's a lot of red lights imo.
Rolling a will save vs. losing yourself is pretty painful, at least its your good save and you can put a lot of oomph into it. Its also pretty unnecessary and adversarial, and if your not comfortable with that you may need to say that in some way. Not sure how to phrase it.
Killing off your own character isn't always the best either. It can be highly disruptive to the other side. At the same time it doesn't sound like they're making it a game you want to play in. You might want to phrase it like that. Or you can follow Kenner's advice and swap, but that's not ideal either and you never know when the GM might decide to randomly kill off your character and your brother's(if he's the type to do it).
Of course you can always leave the game if he's hellbent on making it one you don't want to be in, but that's not really ideal probably. Sometimes you have to make a character that works with what the group does, which is awkward in a lot of ways.
Thats just it, this new "twist" forces me to move even further from the "group dynamic" two LG's and instead of allowing me to go with a neutral outsider, he is forcing me to use a demon and actual becoming part demon... So far i am still officially 92% me according to his method,once and if,i drop below 50% is when he says things will get "much more difficult"
The spell effect is a magical field ... glowing with a chaotic blast of multicolored hues. So it is visible to anyone and obvious.Except it doesn't actually say that.
Yes it does.
Yes it does.The spell effect is a magical field ... glowing with a chaotic blast of multicolored hues. So it is visible to anyone and obvious.Except it doesn't actually say that.
Wrong ability. 3.5 Warlock.
Here's the thing that the OP is really trying very hard to ignore about Acolyte of the Skin's requirements -
You just added a whole lot of crap that isn't there. He isn't ignoring anything as far as I can tell. On the other hand the GM is throwing in his own house rules. Making assumptions about people isn't always safe either, so I try not to. A big thing about turning around to celestials is that it can be more of a loss of character than anything else.
and what evil outsider is going to give away power and go "meh he seems like an ok dude".
"With its ability to cloak its true form in pleasant illusions, the glabrezu uses its magic to grant wishes to mortal humanoids as a method of rewarding those who succumb to its guile and deceit."
sO, I TALKED TO MY "BROTHER" on the phone, and we decided the following:
I will only take 2 more levels of acolyte for the next fiendskin ability.
The DM has also told me, he feels the flying invocation is too powerful, and i would only be allowed to fly for 2x level minutes a day. And i could spend 2:1 rounds to allow another party member to fly.
Since level 1, i told him i wanted to be a warlock with acolyte of the skin, to be a flying artillery, with good defenses. Now, this is a solid group, and i am not willing to leave, as we play through the internet around the country, and STILL have had trouble picking up a sixth member. (anyone wants in let me know! lol) Therefor,
Since i am not happy with this change, we (brother and I) are going to be a bit more "reckless" as we "lose" ourselves. Apparently he is bored of his character as well. I am already working on a Tetori styled monk. Thank you all for your help and thoughts, but that's about as far as i can go with this concept, since it is being stripped from me.
|
|
It's unfortunate that your GM pidgeonholed you like that. You should ask that next time he has a problem with something, he just addresses you instead of trying to ruin your fun with a barrage of house rules that are in no way a requirement of the listed classes.
Quick word of warning on your tetori-style monk, though. I've got one in Pathfinder, and I've got the 3.5e equivalent in 3.5. The characters are such powerful grapplers, and have such an absurd amount of abilities related to doing so effectively, that they have a counter for virtually everything. Even grappling centered big bads will probably wind up being pinned and curbstomped if you do this. Your GM may take issue with that as well, and you could be looking at a similar scenario playing out all over again as a result. I would advise you choose a different class unless your GM is exceptionally well versed. As a side note, there is no size limitation on grapple. As a example, my medium sized tetori pinned (at level 5), a CR 7 advanced huge owlbear and literally beat the crap out of it with little to no chance of it retaliating. Assuming you know anything about owlbears, you will realize how ridiculous that is.
Be they 3.5e or Pathfinder standards, a tetori styilized grappler (or the actual archetype itself; ESPECIALLY that archetype itself) is absolutely vicious. They can even grapple with ghosts, and their modifiers get so high (very early on to boot) that, say Spawn of Yog-Sothoth, will be unable to successfully grapple without rolling a nat 20 against one facing it at a level appropriate time. Meanwhile it will be able to just put that thing on the ground and stomp it silly like it's his freaking job.
I think giving his style in making massive damage output creatures himself, he would be okay with it, because as a grappler, it would be ridiculous powerful, but to only one or two enemy at once.
Working with demons makes you evil. Sorry if that's a surprise to anyone.
NOT sorry if it causes you lots of problems in-game. It's supposed to.
^perfect example of someone not reading entire thread. Let me recap for you since you dont want to read.
Mephit isnt a demon, its an outsider, I was mistaken thus that part is irrelevant.
DM forced my acolyte of the skin to come from a demon through his house rules, despite my intense dislike for it, and wanting to stay neutral.
Day late, dollar short, dead horse.
/Evilserran
|
|
Working with demons makes you evil. Sorry if that's a surprise to anyone.
NOT sorry if it causes you lots of problems in-game. It's supposed to.
None of the classes mentioned by the OP are specifically noted to make you evil. It has no evil alignment required, and the act of making non-violent contact with an evil outsider is also not an evil act. In fact, the warlock has no ties to the underworld (or any other evil power) What so ever. You do not draw from their power, learn from them, or in any way interact with dark forces while playing a 3.5e warlock. The second class he chose to dip into has a requirement that you make peaceful contact with an evil outsider. It doesn't say you have to worship or otherwise obey them, merely make contact. In fact, I don't even think it has to be an EVIL outsider at all. Mephits aren't evil, as the OP has apparently posted while I was in the middle of typing this post. Fudge. LOL