Team mate may ruin the party


Advice

51 to 100 of 140 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

Turin the Mad wrote:

To paraphrase how I envision the OP's character:

"I believe in something greater than myself. A better kingdom. A kingdom without sin."

"So me and mine gotta die so you can live in your better kingdom?"

"I'm not going to live there. There's no place for me there, any more than there is for you. I'm a monster. What I do is evil. I have no illusions about it, but it must be done."

and

"Have you looked at his face? That's love. Something a good deal more dangerous."

To paraphrase the Operative from Serenity you mean... ;-)

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think you should let your party member magically break the curse. Based on what you are telling me, you are not likely to do so on your own with this party as an example of what good looks like...

If I were Shelyn, I would be face-palming based on what you describe as happening so far.

You could always play that your character believes he will never be find love or be loved by anyone again if he does not lift the curse himself. This is not a stretch to imagine, since he offended the goddess of Love. Perhaps losing someone he loved (his mother perhaps or an early girlfriend?) when he was young set him on his dark path?

This means anyone discussing magically breaking the curse in character or attempting to remove his curse should incur his wrath. If they succeed in lifting the curse, this could make you want to go back to the temple and get it reinstated. This would seriously befuddle the party and at the same time allow you to stay true to the character concept you originally created at the beginning. Not that getting the curse reinstated couldnt come after you take it out on the party, should you desire this outcome.


have your character continue to be confused by good versus evil. The curse is broken, his teammates are obviously evil-inclined, and he is no longer confused by the misconception that he is not redeemable. However, now that he has felt the effects of having evil committed against himself, he is not as ready to commit evil deeds without a good reason. Thereby making him partially reformed, which was the point of the curse to begin with.

Scarab Sages

I am still confused by how a paladin can exist in this party and not be in serious danger of falling or at least getting chastised by his god...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:
Valandil Ancalime wrote:
Malwing wrote:
Out of character I know this is a bad idea. Without the enchantment I will kill the party and raise an army of kobolds and lizardfolk at the first opportunity. I have not told anyone this other than the GM besides my character's general resistance to the idea of not being in love. What should I do if the teammate succeeds in forcibly removing the curse? How should I prevent it? In two levels he will be able to cast something to get rid of the curse.

This is classic, "But it's what my character would do." Question, how did you see your story ending?

I have a scale that determines when I'll be good without the enchantment.

Ironic. So even with the geas removed, you don't have free will.


redcelt32 wrote:
I am still confused by how a paladin can exist in this party and not be in serious danger of falling or at least getting chastised by his god...

We are playing Kingmaker with 5th edition. Paladin is Chaotic Good. They have justification for their actions my character just disagrees. Out of character I don't argue because I don't play the alignment game unless I have some in character internal conflict. Normally I don't do "its what my character would do" but I have an evilness seal for a reason. Would defeat the whole point of having the back story if removing it had no consequences. Half the rest of the party is against removing the enchantment.


Zenlike wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:

To paraphrase how I envision the OP's character:

"I believe in something greater than myself. A better kingdom. A kingdom without sin."

"So me and mine gotta die so you can live in your better kingdom?"

"I'm not going to live there. There's no place for me there, any more than there is for you. I'm a monster. What I do is evil. I have no illusions about it, but it must be done."

and

"Have you looked at his face? That's love. Something a good deal more dangerous."

To paraphrase the Operative from Serenity you mean... ;-)

Yep! <grin>


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Which class is planning on removing the curse? This would be an evil act. If it is the cleric then Kord, being CG, may not be too happy with his follower causing the spread of evil.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
anthony abbott wrote:
Which class is planning on removing the curse? This would be an evil act. If it is the cleric then Kord, being CG, may not be too happy with his follower causing the spread of evil.

i'm not sure they knew particularly how evil he was, and are mostly hung up on chaotic's FREEEEEEDDDDOOOOOOOM bit.

edit: i meant to include the party in that sentence and not me.


Question: does your party know the details of the curse?

Because if they know "This guy is evil, and the curse is making him good-ish", and they intentionally break that, then to me Darwinism kicking in is perfectly valid.

Perhaps warn the players (not characters) up front. "Guys. My guy is Evil with a capital E, acting good because of that curse. If you lift that curse he will revert to Evil. He will not try to lift the curse on his own, but he will act in accordance with the Evil if you're actually silly enough to do that".


The Paladin. It came up when he was trying to convince me to follow Lord. I refused because I'm trying to be a better follower of my love's religion (also I don't like Kord). He argued that I shouldn't do that for love. I revealed my full back story and the characters had a long argument. My character believes that without love in his heart he will be the man he once was. An assassin that killed for the joy of expressing his talent for killing and bandit that killed for the joy of power. The Paladin wants to grant me back my free will.


kestral287 wrote:

Question: does your party know the details of the curse?

Because if they know "This guy is evil, and the curse is making him good-ish", and they intentionally break that, then to me Darwinism kicking in is perfectly valid.

Perhaps warn the players (not characters) up front. "Guys. My guy is Evil with a capital E, acting good because of that curse. If you lift that curse he will revert to Evil. He will not try to lift the curse on his own, but he will act in accordance with the Evil if you're actually silly enough to do that".

That's why half the party is against this move. The wizard thinks I'm fine the way I am and my character is actively protesting this idea. The in character argument is still going on.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Malwing wrote:
An assassin that killed for the joy of expressing his talent for killing and bandit that killed for the joy of power. The Paladin wants to grant me back my free will.

i forgot that you were an assassin. you should just assassinate the paladin, he's obviously going to create more evil than good if he breaks the curse.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, forcing this on him when he has specifically stated he doesn't want it is rather evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:
Out of character I know this is a bad idea. Without the enchantment I will kill the party and raise an army of kobolds and lizardfolk at the first opportunity. I have not told anyone this other than the GM besides my character's general resistance to the idea of not being in love. What should I do if the teammate succeeds in forcibly removing the curse? How should I prevent it? In two levels he will be able to cast something to get rid of the curse.

I ask this question sincerely: Do you know that YOU get to decide what your character will do and what he won't do?

You.

YOU.

The decision is ENTIRELY YOURS - if you screw up this campaign and kill the rest of the party, then YOU are the one who screwed up the campaign.

Just you.

All your fault.

Is that what you really want to do? Do you, the PLAYER, really want to screw up this campaign and ruin it for everyone?

If your answer is "Yes, I like ruining things for other people, even people I'm pretending to call friends" then all I can say is get help. Lots of professional help. Therapy. You need it.

But I'm going to assume that your answer is "No, I really don't like ruining things for me and my friends." I sincerely hope this is your answer.

If that is your answer, then just don't do it!

Again, the decision is yours.

Malwing wrote:
I have an written tally of the character's progression from evil to good using the alignment changing rules from Ultimate Campaign. GU is currently Lawful Evil so unless he gets two more marks towards good he'll likely go after the party.
Malwing wrote:
I have a scale that determines when I'll be good without the enchantment.

This is all an arbitrary rule that YOU created for YOUR character.

You don't have to follow this stuff. There is NO rule, ZERO, NADA, that says any of this stuff is mandatory for characters to follow.

So just throw this crap away. Use your BRAIN, not some arbitrary scale, to decide what your character will do. And if you really don't want to screw up this whole campaign, then use your BRAIN to decide that your character will do things that [i]improve the game for everybody playing it[/b].

It's really that simple. Really.

And as a final suggestion, maybe next campaign you might try NOT to make an angsty Darth Hitler character who is one random accident away from ruining things for everybody - I'm not sure you're ready to handle it, certainly not if you're leaving such critical decisions, such deep character evolution, up to an arbitrary scale.


Personally, I would rule that removing a curse that somebody doesn't want remove (and isn't actively forcing them to accept it, which I don't think yours is?) to be as bad as actively cursing somebody to begin with, which is most definitely not behavior in lines with a CG Paladin.

But that's that. They've got the in-character warning. Give them the out of character warning that you think they're about to do something monumentally stupid and that you will play your character if they do that. If they persist, let Too Dumb To Live kick in.

... Seriously what kind of Paladin is stupid enough to take an evil assassin off of his leash.

Sovereign Court

Only read the opening post and just had to laugh at this whole thing.

Yeah dude, you'd just HAVE to kill the party. I know right. No other choice possible.

Come on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I actually find this whole thing interesting, DM Blake, because you and I are approaching this with the same issue in mind, from totally opposite angles.

Given that players and characters are operating with full knowledge of this curse and that the character doesn't want it removed, what's the difference between removing a Geas that says "you have to act as though you were Good, even though you're Evil" and placing a Geas that says "you have to act as though you were Evil"?

From my angle, it looks like there's a pretty heavy PvP element on the verge of kicking in, but if it kicks in it's not going to be Malwing who instigates it, but the Paladin and Cleric. They're the ones who are actively-- and knowingly-- interfering with another character through the use of mind-affecting magic.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
DM_Blake wrote:
Malwing wrote:
Out of character I know this is a bad idea. Without the enchantment I will kill the party and raise an army of kobolds and lizardfolk at the first opportunity. I have not told anyone this other than the GM besides my character's general resistance to the idea of not being in love. What should I do if the teammate succeeds in forcibly removing the curse? How should I prevent it? In two levels he will be able to cast something to get rid of the curse.

I ask this question sincerely: Do you know that YOU get to decide what your character will do and what he won't do?

You.

YOU.

The decision is ENTIRELY YOURS - if you screw up this campaign and kill the rest of the party, then YOU are the one who screwed up the campaign.

making a kobold nation seems to be perfectly under the domain of kingmaker... though i haven't read the AP or done it before. :P

DM_Blake wrote:
maybe next campaign you might try NOT to make an angsty Darth Hitler character

at least he's not Kung Führer... then they'd be in trouble.


Not really Darth Hitler. But yes its my choice. By making a character like that I made a rope. You either can use it for something helpful, like climbing down a cliff or holding something together. Or you could hang yourself with it. Upon making the character I did not think that anyone would choose the latter but I made that an option. In character I say don't do this, out of character I tell the GM that he doesn't can make the curse undisenchantable if he wants to, but internally I like to see people get burned for willingly putting their hands in fire which is why I'm reluctant to deviate from the scale I set up for myself.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If the other players choose to mess with your backstory, then they knowingly chose to put their character's lives in danger. Act like the character is choosing to become good and kill them in their sleep. You can all roll new characters together.

As a DM I would have the paladin fall if he has anything to do with it. This act is the same as breaking an evil assassin out of prison.


kestral287 wrote:

I actually find this whole thing interesting, DM Blake, because you and I are approaching this with the same issue in mind, from totally opposite angles.

Given that players and characters are operating with full knowledge of this curse and that the character doesn't want it removed, what's the difference between removing a Geas that says "you have to act as though you were Good, even though you're Evil" and placing a Geas that says "you have to act as though you were Evil"?

From my angle, it looks like there's a pretty heavy PvP element on the verge of kicking in, but if it kicks in it's not going to be Malwing who instigates it, but the Paladin and Cleric. They're the ones who are actively-- and knowingly-- interfering with another character through the use of mind-affecting magic.

I don't think I would call removing mind-affecting magic using it.

I don't think that the characters present wishes have any weight. If you are being mind controlled, consent is invalid. Presumably, the uncontrolled character would indeed want the geas removed (and if not, then the geas is probably irrelevant.)

One could also make an argument that it is likely that eventually the Geas will be removed somehow, and that while being controlled no true redemption or reform is impossible. I know others have talked about the gaes itself causing redemption, but I think anyone can be good without temptation, and it is learning to control impulses, not removing them that makes a person a decent human being.

All that being said, if the other players know that the OP as a player doesn't want the geas removed, they are jerks for doing it and shouldn't, and should figure some reason why not (although asking him to refrain from special snowflake backstories designed to create conflict in the future would be reasonable). If the curse is removed, and the OP decided to go all serial killer on the party then he is a jerk, he should instead choose one of the thousands of responses that won't ruin the game.


Dave Justus wrote:
kestral287 wrote:

I actually find this whole thing interesting, DM Blake, because you and I are approaching this with the same issue in mind, from totally opposite angles.

Given that players and characters are operating with full knowledge of this curse and that the character doesn't want it removed, what's the difference between removing a Geas that says "you have to act as though you were Good, even though you're Evil" and placing a Geas that says "you have to act as though you were Evil"?

From my angle, it looks like there's a pretty heavy PvP element on the verge of kicking in, but if it kicks in it's not going to be Malwing who instigates it, but the Paladin and Cleric. They're the ones who are actively-- and knowingly-- interfering with another character through the use of mind-affecting magic.

I don't think I would call removing mind-affecting magic using it.

I don't think that the characters present wishes have any weight. If you are being mind controlled, consent is invalid. Presumably, the uncontrolled character would indeed want the geas removed (and if not, then the geas is probably irrelevant.)

One could also make an argument that it is likely that eventually the Geas will be removed somehow, and that while being controlled no true redemption or reform is impossible. I know others have talked about the gaes itself causing redemption, but I think anyone can be good without temptation, and it is learning to control impulses, not removing them that makes a person a decent human being.

All that being said, if the other players know that the OP as a player doesn't want the geas removed, they are jerks for doing it and shouldn't, and should figure some reason why not (although asking him to refrain from special snowflake backstories designed to create conflict in the future would be reasonable). If the curse is removed, and the OP decided to go all serial killer on the party then he is a jerk, he should instead choose one of the thousands of responses that...

Not exactly a geas. Just love. One reason why the character insists on not having it removed is because he doesn't want an empty void where love used to be.

My current plans are to either pretend to be good until later, convince them to not break the enchantment, or immediately hand my character sheet to the GM and pull out a new one. I'm never sore about losing a character to narrative so the last one is best, but if this happens much later I want to use the bonus option and pretend like nothing happened. For me it's boring narrative but no need for another character to die because another player decided to open my pandora's box.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

no, murder the cleric before he can remove the curse.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dave Justus wrote:
kestral287 wrote:

I actually find this whole thing interesting, DM Blake, because you and I are approaching this with the same issue in mind, from totally opposite angles.

Given that players and characters are operating with full knowledge of this curse and that the character doesn't want it removed, what's the difference between removing a Geas that says "you have to act as though you were Good, even though you're Evil" and placing a Geas that says "you have to act as though you were Evil"?

From my angle, it looks like there's a pretty heavy PvP element on the verge of kicking in, but if it kicks in it's not going to be Malwing who instigates it, but the Paladin and Cleric. They're the ones who are actively-- and knowingly-- interfering with another character through the use of mind-affecting magic.

I don't think I would call removing mind-affecting magic using it.

I don't think that the characters present wishes have any weight. If you are being mind controlled, consent is invalid. Presumably, the uncontrolled character would indeed want the geas removed (and if not, then the geas is probably irrelevant.)

One could also make an argument that it is likely that eventually the Geas will be removed somehow, and that while being controlled no true redemption or reform is impossible. I know others have talked about the gaes itself causing redemption, but I think anyone can be good without temptation, and it is learning to control impulses, not removing them that makes a person a decent human being.

All that being said, if the other players know that the OP as a player doesn't want the geas removed, they are jerks for doing it and shouldn't, and should figure some reason why not (although asking him to refrain from special snowflake backstories designed to create conflict in the future would be reasonable). If the curse is removed, and the OP decided to go all serial killer on the party then he is a jerk, he should instead choose one of the thousands of responses that...

*Shrug* As I said, to my knowledge the curse is not forcing consent. If it is then that changes my position insofar as the good/evil scale goes, but that's strictly in-character stuff.

In terms of what the players are doing, I tried to consider it with my own character instead. What does she deem important that she wouldn't want taken away? Well, for her it's her gold; she's a greedy little thing.

What would she do if somebody openly discussed stealing her gold in front of her? Well, she'd oppose the notion vehemently.

What would I do, as a player, if the other characters were discussing that? Well, I'd probably warn them that if they carry out this act of aggression on my character that she'll respond violently.

And what would I do, as a player, if the other players went through with that despite being warned not to enact an act of aggression on my character? I'd play her character and we'd go from there. Good odds at least two people at the table are going to be rolling new characters though. And frankly... I wouldn't feel bad about that. I did my due duty, in character and out, to prevent the rest of the table from launching an attack on my character; they chose to do so anyway. PvP was initiated by the other party.

So, as long as Malwing gives the rest of his table fair warning and doesn't initiate any PvP on his own, I'm not sure it's fair to hold him accountable for other players and characters attacking him.


Talked to the GM. If the curse is removed the real ways to deal with that is either run away and plot my revenge and in the process hand over my character sheet and roll a new character; Or I can decide a way for the character to stay in the party without trying to or plotting to kill them.

Depending on the circumstances I may go for the former. Most ways to do the latter feel arbitrary or narratively weak to me. Would rather roll the object of the character's love who wants to rescue him from himself.


But wasn't the compulsion just to love a priestess? It wasn't to act good,that was a personal choice.


Korak The Boisterous wrote:
But wasn't the compulsion just to love a priestess? It wasn't to act good,that was a personal choice.

Acting good was a result of the compulsion; the priestess won't return his love if he's evil, so he has to try to become good.

Removing the compulsion to love the priestess removes his motivation to become good, so he's likely to revert to evil.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Korak The Boisterous wrote:
Okay. I'd love to see the spell broken and watch you plot his death.

The spell doesn't have to be broken. Loving one person doesn't have anything to do with the hatred of others.

Seduce the cleric and make her your ally.


kestral287 wrote:
Korak The Boisterous wrote:
But wasn't the compulsion just to love a priestess? It wasn't to act good,that was a personal choice.

Acting good was a result of the compulsion; the priestess won't return his love if he's evil, so he has to try to become good.

Removing the compulsion to love the priestess removes his motivation to become good, so he's likely to revert to evil.

Pretty much this.

I want to emphasize that I DO NOT intent to roll initiative against team mates. If I feel my character is at a point where he wants to murder the party I hand over my character sheet. Its not a protagonist or a part of the party anymore and I will not be upset at rolling a new character. If I were a LG Paladin and suddenly realized the party was made up of crazy murderhobos I'd do the same.


Love isn't always what it should be. He could just as easily ravished her. There's a lot of really f%$@ed up ways to act on love. And might I suggest that your character has actually fallen in love.


Malwing wrote:
The Paladin. It came up when he was trying to convince me to follow Lord. I refused because I'm trying to be a better follower of my love's religion (also I don't like Kord). He argued that I shouldn't do that for love. I revealed my full back story and the characters had a long argument. My character believes that without love in his heart he will be the man he once was. An assassin that killed for the joy of expressing his talent for killing and bandit that killed for the joy of power. The Paladin wants to grant me back my free will.

Heh. Once you're "free" you should pretend to worship Kord, since that's obviously his goal. Then at the end that can be another reveal.

Quadstriker wrote:
Only read the opening post

Keep reading.

LazarX wrote:
Seduce the cleric and make her your ally.

Seduce a cleric of Shelyn.

Yes, I'm sure she will be powerless to resist your charms. After all, what does she know about love?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:
The character is partially inspired by Angel from Buffy but mostly from Ares god of war, from Xena when he fell in love with Gabrielle.

Here's the whole problem, right here. Or most of it.

TV shows and movies and books are FULL of characters who are torn between two extremes. Often, one extreme is extremely bad for the story, and one is not.

The OP's character is a perfect example: he has one extreme where he kills the whole party, ruining everybody's game (or, preferably, runs off and leaves the party which only ruins the OP's character) and he has another extreme where he keeps being a good guy (even if it's been forced upon him).

But people who make these characters often forget, and clearly the OP has forgotten, that TV and movies and books have writers. Those writers do NOT want to ruin their story in the middle of it. There was ZERO CHANCE that Angel would have suddenly killed Buffy and the rest of the main characters in season three. Zero chance. Maybe he was portrayed with a back story that made you think such a thing MIGHT happen at any moment, but the writers were in full control and even more importantly, the writers were highly motivated to make him a successful character in a successful story.

The OP is completely lacking this. His character is randomly capable of screwing everything up and the causes for it are out of his hands - if other characters make certain choices, everybody loses. In the OP's case, there is no writer creating fun and engaging character development to make a fun and successful story - there is just meaningless anarchy and ruin waiting for a spark to light the fuse, with a heavy dose of "Hey, man, I can't help it, it's what my character would do."

But Angel and Ares never ever ever ever do that, because those writers actually wanted their tragic heroes to succeed, and wanted their overarching story to succeed.

The OP has either forgotten that point, or never cared about it in the first place.


Korak The Boisterous wrote:
Love isn't always what it should be. He could just as easily ravished her. There's a lot of really f@~@ed up ways to act on love. And might I suggest that your character has actually fallen in love.

The way I had written it out was that the character has had a hole in his heart from an early age. He was made to kill as a child and was praised for it so takes great pride in his ability to kill as if it were an art form. Its something that he can get good at even if the attention is often negative. He liked control because in his harsh life its the only thing that keeps him from being harmed. Assassination and banditry didn't just keep his belly full, it kept him from being ruled.

After the enchantment he did make a choice to win love as opposed to anything else because a feeling was thrust upon him, and it was that feeling that he wanted and is something he holds dear above possessing the woman herself. Its something that fills a void that all his crimes has tried to fill. Perhaps that is why he is cursed as opposed to simply being gotten rid of. He had a chance to be healed and so the seed was planted. I did note that he actually did succeed in wooing the woman and she does love him but refuses to return his feelings until he knows in his heart that he is atoned. Unfortunately he does not know if he can be redeemed or even knows what good is.

If the enchantment is gone before his heart is healed he desires love but doesn't have it. There would be nothing but a hole that would quickly be filled with a hatred for anyone that took that feeling away and anything involved in giving him something that causes so much pain to lose. That and the blood that the void demanded before. Blood of the weak that dared to enslave him with the notion that it was his responsibility to keep them safe because they don't have the strength to command their own destiny. Blood of the self-righteous 'friends' that daily solve their obstacles with violence, subjugation and death proving the virtue of the ways he previously worshiped.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

@ DM_blake, so?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:

But Angel and Ares never ever ever ever do that, because those writers actually wanted their tragic heroes to succeed, and wanted their overarching story to succeed.

The OP has either forgotten that point, or never cared about it in the first place.

Those writers also didn't have three other writers capable of interfering with Angel or Ares.

Nine times out of ten I'd totally agree with you, mind.


Ok, two big posts critiquing why it shouldn't be this way, so here's a hopefully helpful one to guide the OP to a better outcome.

Even in the worst possible case, the geas is lifted and Darth Hitler gains full free will to do what he wants, a good story solution would be for him to actually evolve. Maybe during his time under the geas, he learned that his old ways were wicked and wrong, and that returning to them would only bring about his own downfall. Maybe he learned that having friends (or at least companions) and working with them toward bigger and better goals (e.g. adventuring) is a much better way to live than his old ways.

So, maybe he has learned something, maybe his character has grown and evolved, and maybe he's not just a one-dimensional loser who is incapable of growing up (or growing good).

Now THAT makes for an infinitely more interesting character story than the OP's original evil robot who can do nothing but revert to its evil destructive programming. And it makes for an infinitely more interesting campaign to continue with the story, involving the growing, learning, evolving tragic hero, than to break the continuity with "OK, everyone, evil Fred runs off into the woods to be angsty, meet Fredwin who just happened to wander by and wants to join your group."

In short, as I mentioned before, Angel and Ares had writers who were highly motivated to make those characters interesting and successful, and to keep them in the story and move the story forward to keep that interesting and successful too. YOU are the writer here. YOU need to be the one motivated to keep your murder hobo interesting and successful so the campaign can be interesting and successful too.

So YOU be the writer. YOU write a better ending, or if this isn't the end, write a better evolution for your character to learn and grow and succeed.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

@DM_Blake, considering the things they did to him he has a lot of motivation to kill them, or at least see them cast out. being friends with them isn't likely a good outcome considering how he's been attacked before by one of them and got his 3 cohorts killed.

so to me at least, his motivations for being "good" now seem bland and non-existent.


kestral287 wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:

But Angel and Ares never ever ever ever do that, because those writers actually wanted their tragic heroes to succeed, and wanted their overarching story to succeed.

The OP has either forgotten that point, or never cared about it in the first place.

Those writers also didn't have three other writers capable of interfering with Angel or Ares.

Nine times out of ten I'd totally agree with you, mind.

No, you're right. There weren't four writers for Angel.

A quick glance at Wikipedia shows that there were at least TWENTY TWO writers, all capable of interfering.

You know why they didn't interfere with each other? They worked together. If one of them had an idea "Hey, I know, let's have this plot twist happen so that Angel goes berserk and kills Cordelia, Allen, Wesley, and anyone else who gets in the way!" another one would speak up and say "Chill, dude, we kill them, we got no show - let's try NOT killing them instead" or even "Wow, great idea, I like the twist, now let's see how we can work with it to make it fun and interesting without killing popular characters or destroying the show in season two."

In short, the players at the OP's table should also be invested in having a fun campaign. And they should reasonably expect that they can insert fun and interesting plot twists, such as removing the geas, with some hope that the OP will turn that into a fun and interesting story instead of just torching the campaign.

Wikipedia, Angel wrote:
Script-writing was done by Mutant Enemy, a production company created by Joss Whedon in 1997. The writers with the most writing credits for the series include: Joss Whedon, David Greenwalt, Tim Minear, Jeffrey Bell, David Fury, Steven S. DeKnight, Mere Smith, and Elizabeth Craft and Sarah Fain.[25] Other authors with writing credits include: Shawn Ryan, Ben Edlund, Drew Goddard, Jeannine Renshaw, Howard Gordon, Jim Kouf, Jane Espenson, Doug Petrie, Tracey Stern, David H. Goodman, Scott Murphy, Marti Noxon and Brent Fletcher.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:

Ok, two big posts critiquing why it shouldn't be this way, so here's a hopefully helpful one to guide the OP to a better outcome.

Even in the worst possible case, the geas is lifted and Darth Hitler gains full free will to do what he wants, a good story solution would be for him to actually evolve. Maybe during his time under the geas, he learned that his old ways were wicked and wrong, and that returning to them would only bring about his own downfall. Maybe he learned that having friends (or at least companions) and working with them toward bigger and better goals (e.g. adventuring) is a much better way to live than his old ways.

So, maybe he has learned something, maybe his character has grown and evolved, and maybe he's not just a one-dimensional loser who is incapable of growing up (or growing good).

Now THAT makes for an infinitely more interesting character story than the OP's original evil robot who can do nothing but revert to its evil destructive programming. And it makes for an infinitely more interesting campaign to continue with the story, involving the growing, learning, evolving tragic hero, than to break the continuity with "OK, everyone, evil Fred runs off into the woods to be angsty, meet Fredwin who just happened to wander by and wants to join your group."

In short, as I mentioned before, Angel and Ares had writers who were highly motivated to make those characters interesting and successful, and to keep them in the story and move the story forward to keep that interesting and successful too. YOU are the writer here. YOU need to be the one motivated to keep your murder hobo interesting and successful so the campaign can be interesting and successful too.

So YOU be the writer. YOU write a better ending, or if this isn't the end, write a better evolution for your character to learn and grow and succeed.

If this was later I would agree. But given how far along the plot has gone I think its actually not terribly interesting. Its just an arbitrary means of avoiding conflict, conflict that is interesting. It just handwaves the problem rather than show change. I made a scale and a journal of lessons to grow whether the enchantment is in place or not. I even actively ask other characters about moral conflicts that I don't understand. (I once got the answer "The ugly ones are evil" from the Paladin so this wasn't a good idea from a practical point of view) I chart it because I want what he is under the enchantment to be a consequence of the campaign not something arbitrarily decided so that nothing can really have consequence.

I do agree that not killing the entire party is good narrative, hence giving the character sheet to the GM and rolling a character that wants to get him back (Sweet, sweet conflict. Possibly even tragedy.), and its better for gaming to just hand over the new villainous character than play it out.


Malwing wrote:
Korak The Boisterous wrote:
Love isn't always what it should be. He could just as easily ravished her. There's a lot of really f@~@ed up ways to act on love. And might I suggest that your character has actually fallen in love.
If the enchantment is gone before his heart is healed he desires love but doesn't have it. There would be nothing but a hole that would quickly be filled with a hatred for anyone that took that feeling away and anything involved in giving him something that causes so much pain to lose. That and the blood that the void demanded before. Blood of the weak that dared to enslave him with the notion that it was his responsibility to keep them safe because they don't have the strength to command their own destiny. Blood of the self-righteous 'friends' that daily solve their obstacles with violence, subjugation and death proving...

And that is it right there, the crux. He is trying to change for love. He wants it, he has a chance at it. All he has to decide, is that he still wants her to love him, and the curse being lifted is null in void.


Bandw2 wrote:

@DM_Blake, considering the things they did to him he has a lot of motivation to kill them, or at least see them cast out. being friends with them isn't likely a good outcome considering how he's been attacked before by one of them and got his 3 cohorts killed.

so to me at least, his motivations for being "good" now seem bland and non-existent.

I believe the OP said he's LE. That implies a great deal of thinking, planning, and readiness. It also implies some degree of intelligence guiding the LE character to a FINAL outcome in his favor.

If the events of the campaign are such that LE character cannot grow into a more playable, group-oriented alignment, then he can still cooperate for the greater good of his long-term goals. Exact revenge later. Or maybe he figures cohorts are expendable, but the responsible group members should be made to pay restitution (to him) for their wrong-doing. Or whatever.

There are literally infinite ways this character can be redeemed and made fun and interesting without having to run away into Agsty Woods or going all Darth Hitler on the group.

I've been stressing the point that the OP is using an arbitrary alignment-points scale to decide what his character MUST do and his posts lead me to believe the OP thinks there is nothing else he can possibly do - but that is the OPPOSITE of the truth; there are infinite other possibilities, and almost all of them are better than the choices he's considering on this thread.

It's time for the OP to stop reading his character's story and start writing it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Blake, you're latching on to the "I'm worried about what my character would do" and really projecting a "it's what my character would do!" mentality on the OP. He's working very carefully to stay true to his original concept and prevent unnecessary screwups, and he's already pretty much worked out several ways to do that. Have you read through the whole thread? Particularly the parts where he explains why his LE character hates the rest of the group, how if his character turns on the group he'll allow the character to become an NPC, and how he's considering having his character "play nice" until a point should arrive where a betrayal would work for all narratives?

We've already been over what you're discussing. Admittedly, the original post was a bit unclear, but as the thread went on everything was soundly clarified. This is not a "It's what my character would do!" thread, nor an "Evil = Kill 'Em All!" thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
DM_Blake wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:

But Angel and Ares never ever ever ever do that, because those writers actually wanted their tragic heroes to succeed, and wanted their overarching story to succeed.

The OP has either forgotten that point, or never cared about it in the first place.

Those writers also didn't have three other writers capable of interfering with Angel or Ares.

Nine times out of ten I'd totally agree with you, mind.

No, you're right. There weren't four writers for Angel.

A quick glance at Wikipedia shows that there were at least TWENTY TWO writers, [b]all capable of interfering[b].

that last bit shows you don't know how TV show writing happens. they have writers do individual dialogue for each episode and even some of the events that happen on episodes but are stuck to fitting the general theme/goal/outcome required by the top writer/director/whomever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:

But Angel and Ares never ever ever ever do that, because those writers actually wanted their tragic heroes to succeed, and wanted their overarching story to succeed.

The OP has either forgotten that point, or never cared about it in the first place.

Those writers also didn't have three other writers capable of interfering with Angel or Ares.

Nine times out of ten I'd totally agree with you, mind.

No, you're right. There weren't four writers for Angel.

A quick glance at Wikipedia shows that there were at least TWENTY TWO writers, [b]all capable of interfering[b].

that last bit shows you don't know how TV show writing happens. they have writers do individual dialogue for each episode and even some of the events that happen on episodes but are stuck to fitting the general theme/goal/outcome required by the top writer/director/whomever.

It depends on the show, actually. Let's cut back on the uncalled for condescension.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
DM_Blake wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

@DM_Blake, considering the things they did to him he has a lot of motivation to kill them, or at least see them cast out. being friends with them isn't likely a good outcome considering how he's been attacked before by one of them and got his 3 cohorts killed.

so to me at least, his motivations for being "good" now seem bland and non-existent.

I believe the OP said he's LE. That implies a great deal of thinking, planning, and readiness. It also implies some degree of intelligence guiding the LE character to a FINAL outcome in his favor.

this has nothing to do with alignment, his character plain hates the other characters and hasn't done away with them to save face so he can try at his love.

once again he's been attacked by them and his cohorts are dead because of them. he isn't going to try to stay a part of this whole shindig if he has no more motivations to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

DM_Blake, you are completely ignoring the fact that the OP's party members have attacked him IN GAME. They have earned their fate, if he does decide to kill them, though he seems to not be leaning in that direction.

Personally, if he does get released (and he will, you can just see this coming), I like the play along with the party until the end, and then become the final boss option.


Korak The Boisterous wrote:
Malwing wrote:
Korak The Boisterous wrote:
Love isn't always what it should be. He could just as easily ravished her. There's a lot of really f@~@ed up ways to act on love. And might I suggest that your character has actually fallen in love.
If the enchantment is gone before his heart is healed he desires love but doesn't have it. There would be nothing but a hole that would quickly be filled with a hatred for anyone that took that feeling away and anything involved in giving him something that causes so much pain to lose. That and the blood that the void demanded before. Blood of the weak that dared to enslave him with the notion that it was his responsibility to keep them safe because they don't have the strength to command their own destiny. Blood of the self-righteous 'friends' that daily solve their obstacles with violence, subjugation and death proving...
And that is it right there, the crux. He is trying to change for love. He wants it, he has a chance at it. All he has to decide, is that he still wants her to love him, and the curse being lifted is null in void.

Its more that he wants to love her more than her loving him. The enchantment gives him an emotion that he didn't consider having. Without the enchantment he'd understand that emotion and have it if someone didn't just sit there and let the frickin kobold get his life sucked out and then side with the creatures that worshiped the culprit and attack him. Now he's still to afraid to feel love without the enchantment because it just hurts you when you care about something and take care of it and it just dies because a hero decided to hesitate when an innocent is in the middle of being murdered. That kind of dropped the notches on my scale back to evil when he was LN for a while.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm starting to wonder if DM_Blake is actually reading anything people are posting. It seems like he's just made up his mind that the OP is a terrible, stupid, subhuman person, and will not allow any inconvenient facts about the actual game get in the way of that.


Isn't Shelyn great? I love PC's that have some tie to Shelyn, and in a game I'm running my favorite NPC interactions is the evil party talking to the Paladin of Shelyn. She holds one of the most poweful artifacts in the game [an alignment changing glaive that cuts the evil from a person's heart] but will never use it unless asked. Why? because to force that change on someone against their will is in her opinion, the antithesis of love.

I treat evil [often] as an addiction. Either the addict wants help or they don't. When they want help though, there is magic and companions that can aid in that transition.

Perhaps your PC can explain to them that, though they feel it is an afront to his free will to be under a compulsion, it is the only way he can foresee himself detoxing off his evil ways. I know they've been resistant to it before, but maybe the addict metaphor will help them understand that the enchantment is not his curse, but rather his medicine?

51 to 100 of 140 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Team mate may ruin the party All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.