| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The cleric sounds so ridiculously camp while also being so dead set on playing it straight. I'd treat him like a joke that no one takes seriously. I mean really, "Final Breath?" Have no one take him seriously at all. Hell, that might even work to his advantage if he's willing to roll with it. Everyone will get used to him seeming like a harmless eccentric until it is far too late.
Final Breath: "I'm going to eat its soul for EEEEEEEEEVVVVVIIIIIILLLLLL!"
The NPCs look at him oddly.
The Paladin: "Don't mind him, he just gets overly excited and doesn't really know what he's saying. We can't leave him alone or we're afraid he might hurt himself due to his own mental incompetence, the poor fellow."
Final Breath: "EEEEEEEEEVVVVVIIIIILLLLLLL!"
What kind of story are these characters gonna be in? I think the cleric would be out of place in most standart fantasy stories unless he is being very secret about it. Who is granting him spells? The Marven Villain Tharnos sort of have a similar story and he dosent work in a group.
If it is a game World and story where the Death hangaround is gonna work then the paladin wont work because he will be surrounded by Evil all the time.
But if Tharnos JR. wont work the paladin is most likely gonna have a chance. If it is a sandbox i think Tharnos JR. Will soon die from unhappy NPCs unless he is very secret about it.
But basically this is somthing the GM have to chip in on. And if he is happy with the issue being fixed in game then i assume that the folks that dont like demons will soon get tired of the demon worshipper. And he can make another PC.
But i also like Chaoseffects suggestion.
Final Breath: "EEEEEEEEEVVVVVIIIIILLLLLLL!"Please... please tell me you were imitating Mermaid-Man lol
And no he's VERY serious about his character. To put it in perspective, last time we made a dead space rpg game, pretty cool stuff to be honest (trying not to sound like I have an ego), but he wanted to play a real "hard" cannibal with his own ability that everyone hated to which he would say, and i quote, "My predator senses... are tingling."
To answer your first part, yeah, I was :P
Anyway, I would still have NPCs treat him like a joke and perhaps it would be all the funnier for everyone but him due to his insistence on playing it straight. No matter what ominous, "badass" things he says, the NPCs laugh it off or look at him pityingly. I imagine the everyone else in the campaign might be able to get on board with treating him the same way. He gets to be evil and as grim dark as he wants and the party, including the paladin, doesn't have to engage in an Old Yeller type situation.
That said, you know the person in question better than I do. If you think he wouldn't be a good sport about it then perhaps not.
Sounds like the problem is the player, not character or the alignment.
Try to talk to him. There's lots of advice threads out there about how to deal with difficult players. Check them out and see if anything in them might help you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My GM (and myself, when I GM) don't allow opposing alignments. We let the players pick the initial direction (Wanna play evil baby-punching, orphanage-fireballing monsters? Okay!)
If there is a disagreement, we go with majority.
Paladins/LG Monks/any LG characters pretty much force a good party.
I would talk to them both, apart, and see which is more willing to change. If you are okay with an evil character, make sure he understands that NPC good guys will likely treat him the way he wants: as a threat.
Instead of dungeon looting and dragon slaying, he might wind up spending his days avoiding Paladins and such hunting him down.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM, I tend to run with "No PVP allowed, and your characters must be willing to work together. If your concept doesn't allow that, change your bloody concept!"
I know here on the boards, time, space, physics, rules limitations, story, GM, and everything must bow before the mighty character concept, but seriously, there's billions of possibilities, how hard is it to come up with a handful that won't hate each other?
I suggest you guys remake all of the characters, with nobody allowed to keep their original so nobody feels unfairly targeted, and remake them keeping each other's ideas in mind when forming a cohesive group, like it were, I don't know, a cooperative game!
It's the last guy:
he wants to be an evil cleric who's sole existence is to become the apprentice of Death. Y'know. One of four horseman who's in charge of Abandon and countless daemons. That guy. It doesn't help the player naturally wants to be the star of the show, but instead of using that as a character trait with a character flaw, he simply refuses to have his character have ANY flaws or personality. It also doesn't help no one can take him seriously. As a lvl 1 cleric his character assumes the name "Final Breath" with no reason how he got that name.
Now, this isn't NECESSARILY bad or disruptive i would like to point out, i havve a similar character (though alot less cheesy) that is an inquisitor of Charon, he is very nice and basically runs off a combination of Pragmatic Evil and Affably Evil, he hasn't seen play yet but he is less omnicidal and more patient, with time everything can die, his purpose is basically to put down things like undead that try to live past their time, plus, clerics of Charon can be True Neutral, so it is not NECESSARILY a bad idea that should be written off, its just his specific way of playing it that is probably an issue :)
I know here on the boards, time, space, physics, rules limitations, story, GM, and everything must bow before the mighty character concept, but seriously, there's billions of possibilities, how hard is it to come up with a handful that won't hate each other?I get where you're coming from, as much as it seems like I dislike his character concept, I actually was the first to support it. Sarcasm is duly noted in showing you're more interested on making people in these forums feel stupid for asking for additional advice.thanks buddy.
I apologize if I came across as I was trying to make you feel stupid. It wasn't the intent. Merely a sardonic overflow from years of seeing players make characters with zero regard for those around them. It's really inconsiderate when you think about it being a group oriented game.
The paladin is just as guilty as the evil guy of this, because when you play a pally without talking to the rest of the group about this, you're telling the rest of the group, "the rest of you now have to bend your ideas to my character."
You should play what you want, yes, but what you want can be more than one single idea. You should be able to get together as a group and craft a series of individuals that are cohesive.
Chances are your problem player will improve after he hits puberty.
If he already has...well you are in trouble.
In general though I agree that a campaign and party should have a unifying theme and it is the players job to make sure that they make characters who will more or less harmoniously fit with that theme and work together. The theme can be set by the GM, worked out by the players, or some combination of the two, but in the end if you don't have one and you don't have players that are mature enough to build reasonable characters for that theme, you will probably have a mess.
This isn't a problem with alignments.
I've had/been in parties where everyone has the same alignment and problems still creep up based on perception and what part of their alignment they emphasis even in all neutral good/lawful good/chaotic good parties.
People clash even when they are on the same side.
No this is a player problem.
Guy wants to get his evil on, and to be the hard he feels he fails to be in real life ().
As to the paladin.
He had two choices coming into things -- he either had to let everyone know coming he what he was thinking to play, or he has to adapt to what the group mechanic is. These are the same two options all players have though. He didn't discuss it on the outset (and honestly it probably wouldn't have mattered with what you are saying of the evil player guy) so now he has to figure out how to make it work.
As a GM, I tend to run with "No PVP allowed, and your characters must be willing to work together. If your concept doesn't allow that, change your bloody concept!"
I know here on the boards, time, space, physics, rules limitations, story, GM, and everything must bow before the mighty character concept, but seriously, there's billions of possibilities, how hard is it to come up with a handful that won't hate each other?
I suggest you guys remake all of the characters, with nobody allowed to keep their original so nobody feels unfairly targeted, and remake them keeping each other's ideas in mind when forming a cohesive group, like it were, I don't know, a cooperative game!
I like this. This is good.
First of all I strongly recommend starting all games with giving a perquisite during character creation of alignment expectations and a purpose that binds the characters together. Something like, "As part of your character background (that is, of course, required to play in my game) you need to include that you are somehow positively associated with this NPC. This NPC is in some way a mentor, leader or someone your character looks up to. You also have to include that your character is bound to work with other associates of this NPC (the rest of the party) despite any personal aspirations they might have this must be paramount to your character's existence. And it must be paramount to your character's existence in my game for if this one rule is not followed then you will not play in my game."
Then of course disagreements will happen. When they do if they are unresolvable then let them fight it out. Whatever happens you are down one disruptive character. If it is a player problem you can follow suit by being down one disruptive player as well. If they retort then you can always point back to the rule noted in my first paragraph.
I do this for every game I run. So far I haven't had a problem with inter-party conflicts since. My players all know that when the game becomes un-enjoyable for me that the game stops. That hurts everyone. I have few rules (well, several minor house rules) but the ones I have I have for a reason. That reason is typically the enjoyment of all at the table. That includes me.
My suggestion, Paladin and Final Breath are childhood friends. The Paladin spends a lot of time telling the FB "No!" and saying things like "You and I grew up next door to each other. You are not doing dumb stuff like that or I'm going to talk to your mother about it. You know how she gets. Get over it and get back to reality here." PVP would have to be allowed here, otherwise it won't end well and someone will be mad that they cannot take game world appropriate action. Sometime around 5th level the cleric will either need to have converted or the Paladin fallen or there will be conflict.
We recently instituted a rule that we don't allow PCs of a different axis. In other words, all players must be all Good, all Neutral, or all Evil. We find that anything else creates disharmony. The rule seems to have worked well. Although in one campaign I plan on forcing an alignment shift on one player based on his actions to date - which will bring him into alignment with the rest of the party.
The party mix - to me - sounds too ludicrous. What is it with evil clerics wanting to play with paladins? It seems to be a common theme in so many threads on this forum. So your cleric is the weakest link. Tell him his character is not compatible with the other characters and to reroll. Players need to understand roleplaying is a group event not a solo sport. They need to go play a video game if they want that level of catharsis.
I suspect I can tell you the reason for Final Breathe's name. After explaining his raison d'entre, aims and expectations, which is something it sounds like he would do fairly often, he is sufficiently exhausted he seems to be using his... final breathe.
While I like Seppuku's suggestion in principle, I think that PCs of radically opposed alignments should not be allowed. Some conflict is fine, but absolute incompatibility is not.
Tell them about this and that they are just going to end up killing each other, will one or both willingly change character? If that does not work, have the other players choose which PC they want around. That is what I would do anyway.
New suggestion:
Have both players bring two characters of differing alignments to the game. Example, Paladin player brings both his Paladin and a Neutral Barbarian rager (or a neutral inquisitor)to the first game night. The cleric player brings both Final Breath and a neutral Cleric of Desna to the table. The first thing that happens to start the night is the Cleric Final Breath shows up with a small collection of evil minions (not fellow party member PCs) and is trying to burn down a remote temple of... *TADA* the Paladin player's god, not realizing that the Paladin and some worshipers (also not party member PCs) are holding vigil inside for some solemn event. Let the other players be the sad sack minions running interference and let all hell break loose. Fight to the death for both sides. Winner plays their surviving character and the loser plays the back up character they brought.
Just have a rule that any character must mesh with the party. Any character that is 99% likely to cause an issue will not be allowed. Once that is in place and in forced it should help.
"Final Breath" has a habit of doing these kinds of things, so I'll deal with him specifically instead of punishing the whole group, as this will likely happen AGAIN whether or not I change the alignment ruling or new characters for everyone.
Perhaps having the player duel to the death as was proposed for the character.
I am glad that, while my current group may not be perfect, we don't have anyone quite like that.