Team mate may ruin the party


Advice

1 to 50 of 140 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So I'm playing kingmaker with a particular back story. I was an assassin and bandit that desecrated a temple of Shelyn. As punishment I was cursed to fall in love with the temple's priestess. I did my best to do charity work as atonement and wooed the priestess but she will not accept my love until I commit great deeds in the name of goodness and fully learn to be a good man.

Now at 7th level my party found out the full extent of my back story and one of them wants to break the enchantment to give me back my free will. My character refuses and another party member thinks its a bad idea to get rid of the curse.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Find a way to roleplay something less destructive?

Talk your other party members out of game and explain X, Y, Z?

Make a new character, hand your old sheet to the DM and become a villain?


11 people marked this as a favorite.

Realize that many years of faking it can in fact lead to you making it. All those years of doing good don't have to be for naught just because the magic got whisked away.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
Realize that many years of faking it can in fact lead to you making it. All those years of doing good don't have to be for naught just because the magic got whisked away.

Yes, this.

I love the story, by the way. ^_^


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.

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


pipedreamsam wrote:

Find a way to roleplay something less destructive?

Talk your other party members out of game and explain X, Y, Z?

Make a new character, hand your old sheet to the DM and become a villain?

FYI, I do have a Bard rolled up in case of emergency. But the current character is a fighter that's perfectly capable of one-shotting 3/4 of the party.

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.

The Exchange

Why?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Don't use alignment. And if you do, don't use it so rigidly. Maybe your character is neutral once the enchantment is broken, but maybe you're still in love with this priestess. Love impacts all alignments. Even though alignment is stupid.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Why would he kill the nice people who defend and feed him?

or tell them that he's Evil again?

Are you sure he's not Chaotic Stupid?


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.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

When your ally goes to rid you of the curse, have nothing happen. This leads to the realization that there never was a curse....

You could also from your characters perspective realize that finishing this campaign with them would be payment for releasing you from your curse that could have imprisoned you for the rest of your life. You are lawful, them freeing you of this curse should not go unrewarded. Evil does not mean being an a*!!$~+ necessarily.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DominusMegadeus wrote:

Why would he kill the nice people who defend and feed him?

or tell them that he's Evil again?

Are you sure he's not Chaotic Stupid?

I'm the only party member with massive Bluff bonuses from flavor choices so he's likely to lie until he can gather power and get in a good position.

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.

The Exchange

9 people marked this as a favorite.

Look, go read Machiavelli's The Prince and rethink your actions as a 'free' villain. Betraying and murdering your companions (aside from the out-of-character problem that your campaign is then over) is not only unnecessary but counter-productive. Who's your current competition if you decide to take over the land? The current campaign villain. Who are your companions trying (bless their naive little hearts) to destroy? Same guy. There's no reason not to play along.

Then, after they've shouted 'Hooray!' and gone back to the Shire, you can unroll your blueprints for Mordor 2.0.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Do you (the player) want to do this to the game?

Since this is your character, you control what they do. You control alignment changes. You control their actions. You control the horizontal, you control the vertical. (axes of the alignment chart)

If you argue anything else, then the problem is you. I suggest removing yourself from the group.


Current competitor to the throne is the party mate that is sitting on it. But I think you guys are right, I should probably bluff my way through the campaign pretending to be good. Then become the final boss. Happed the last time I was evil only nobody opposed me so we took over the kingdom as an evil party of immortals.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:
pipedreamsam wrote:

Find a way to roleplay something less destructive?

Talk your other party members out of game and explain X, Y, Z?

Make a new character, hand your old sheet to the DM and become a villain?

FYI, I do have a Bard rolled up in case of emergency. But the current character is a fighter that's perfectly capable of one-shotting 3/4 of the party.

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.

I have a fun story about bullettes which I'll get to in a bit. First, though:

Lawful Evil is arguably one of the least betrayal-prone alignments in the game. And while you're in love, wouldn't you want to avoid being put in a condition where you know you might be "compelled" into (or capable of) hurting the priestess? This indicates you would immediately explain to your party members the danger in "releasing" you.

Moreover, does your character currently give a s+@~ about nobody but the priestess? Your post makes me think your character really hates everybody and is only helping his fellow adventurers for the priestess's sake. Is this the intention? He's been fighting alongside these people for a long time, and they're apparently highly motivated to help him—even at their own expense. Even a Chaotic Evil person would be unlikely to want them dead. Lifting the love spell might make him hate the priestess, but any other friendships should still be around.

Anyways, the story. Do you know what else murders people who are only trying to help them?

Did you guess bullettes?

Because that's wrong. The answer is nobody. Nobody else is that pointless cruel. Nobody but you.

The Exchange

Sounds better. This way the 'story' gets an ending, even if it is a twist ending. And don't feel like your character's tied to this ending either: the only thing stopping you from switching to Lawful Neutral is you. - Though I still think I'd bear a grudge against the church of Shelyn, personally.


Malwing wrote:

So I'm playing kingmaker with a particular back story. I was an assassin and bandit that desecrated a temple of Shelyn. As punishment I was cursed to fall in love with the temple's priestess. I did my best to do charity work as atonement and wooed the priestess but she will not accept my love until I commit great deeds in the name of goodness and fully learn to be a good man.

Now at 7th level my party found out the full extent of my back story and one of them wants to break the enchantment to give me back my free will. My character refuses and another party member thinks its a bad idea to get rid of the curse.

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'd suggest you tell the GM to at the very least hint at the concept you're trying to portray here, to your fellow party members. Obviously they aren't stupid, and they should realize that you were cursed for a good reason, and trying to remove that curse can open up a giant door filled with blood (and out-of-characters cussing at each other).

Judging by what the priestess said, she won't accept love (and atonement) unless it actually comes directly from you; it's quite clear her Sense Motive rolls showed that you're only following along because you are cursed to do so, meaning your character's actions are guided by empty, meaningless intentions to break the curse that's on your person, allowing you to revert to what you originally intended to do, which is to be an evil Assassin Lord.

Hmmmm...where have I seen this sort of concept before?

As an aside: Next time, don't play a character that can be so destructive to his own party. You not only wouldn't run into these situations, but it will greatly reduce out-of-character casualties. And by greatly, I mean 95-99%.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
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.

... why? Why would your character, at the first opportunity, kill his adventuring companions - who are probably pretty effective at helping him enrich himself - and then raise an army of kobolds and lizardfolk when you're on a trajectory to raise an army of more reliable humans and even carve out a small kingdom for yourselves? Is his alignment Evil or Foolishly Impatient?

There's an old story, the version I know comes from Robert Duvall's character in Colors. There are two bulls, a young one and an old one. The young one says, "Let's run down to the valley and screw a couple of cows." The old one says, "No, let's walk down and screw them all."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lincoln Hills wrote:
Sounds better. This way the 'story' gets an ending, even if it is a twist ending. And don't feel like your character's tied to this ending either: the only thing stopping you from switching to Lawful Neutral is you. - Though I still think I'd bear a grudge against the church of Shelyn, personally.

Well if we stop two more disasters in two levels there's nothing to worry about but technically I've express resentment too each party mate. They side with Fae which I've run afoul the whole adventure. They didn't care that my pseudo cohorts I was reforming died because they were kobolds, not to mention letting one die by not attacking the thing that killed it. Murdered a helpless kobold I wanted to rescue. Attacked me when I killed the lizardfolk king (by myself) for refusing to not eat people. (And I did nothing to defend myself. Trying to pressure me into their religion. Without enchantment I'd hate their guts. But I think pushing to not do anything til the end or changing alignment before the enchantment breaks is better narrative than PvP. Especially since I was internally sore that PvP against me was done and I didn't fight back because it was for a poor reason.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Also, assuming kobolds and lizardfolk would so willingly follow a human = total colonialist viewpoint.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:
Lincoln Hills wrote:
Sounds better. This way the 'story' gets an ending, even if it is a twist ending. And don't feel like your character's tied to this ending either: the only thing stopping you from switching to Lawful Neutral is you. - Though I still think I'd bear a grudge against the church of Shelyn, personally.
Well if we stop two more disasters in two levels there's nothing to worry about but technically I've express resentment too each party mate. They side with Fae which I've run afoul the whole adventure. They didn't care that my pseudo cohorts I was reforming died because they were kobolds, not to mention letting one die by not attacking the thing that killed it. Murdered a helpless kobold I wanted to rescue. Attacked me when I killed the lizardfolk king (by myself) for refusing to not eat people. (And I did nothing to defend myself. Trying to pressure me into their religion. Without enchantment I'd hate their guts. But I think pushing to not do anything til the end or changing alignment before the enchantment breaks is better narrative than PvP. Especially since I was internally sore that PvP against me was done and I didn't fight back because it was for a poor reason.

Ah. This is pretty useful information, actually. Your character has real reason to hate these guys other than "I'm a jerk"—they're jerks, too. That could make the climactic betrayal all the more effective, since you have some sympathetic reason other than "for the evulz". Though going after the lizardfolk for a cannibalistic culture does seem like a fairly evil act, but I guess that's why they're the heroes and you're the villain.

In that case, a suggestion: If you plan to be playing another PC when this one turns evil, start introducing your "replacement" now. Work with your GM to set one up so when the climax comes you have something to do. That's assuming you aren't just gonna play him as a villain, of course.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:
Lincoln Hills wrote:
Sounds better. This way the 'story' gets an ending, even if it is a twist ending. And don't feel like your character's tied to this ending either: the only thing stopping you from switching to Lawful Neutral is you. - Though I still think I'd bear a grudge against the church of Shelyn, personally.
Well if we stop two more disasters in two levels there's nothing to worry about but technically I've express resentment too each party mate. They side with Fae which I've run afoul the whole adventure. They didn't care that my pseudo cohorts I was reforming died because they were kobolds, not to mention letting one die by not attacking the thing that killed it. Murdered a helpless kobold I wanted to rescue. Attacked me when I killed the lizardfolk king (by myself) for refusing to not eat people. (And I did nothing to defend myself. Trying to pressure me into their religion. Without enchantment I'd hate their guts. But I think pushing to not do anything til the end or changing alignment before the enchantment breaks is better narrative than PvP. Especially since I was internally sore that PvP against me was done and I didn't fight back because it was for a poor reason.

It sounds like the rest of your party is as bad as you would be without the curse. Is the whole point of the cleric removing the enchantment to make you more like them?

How about a nice redemption arc that consists of "I don't think I want to live the life of a monstrous bloodthirsty ***hole (any more?). My team mates are like that. I hate those guys. I don't want to be like them". It gives your character a motivation for not being a horrible bastard that can't be removed by a 5th level spell.


It seems mistaken to think that every evil character deems it necessary to kill every good person they meet. I don't think you have to attack your teammates, if you do it is your choice, not "what your character would do" because that is you choosing that path for him. A lawful evil guy may instead plot to use the naive good guys to his own ends.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

First off, I love the backstory!

Malwing wrote:
pipedreamsam wrote:
Make a new character, hand your old sheet to the DM and become a villain?
FYI, I do have a Bard rolled up in case of emergency. But the current character is a fighter that's perfectly capable of one-shotting 3/4 of the party.

Before I got to this post, my thought was "Why not turn the priestess into your next PC?" You and the DM could discuss your assassin running off to figure out what's going on in his head, and the PCs could decide to take in the priestess as a "We'll protect you"/"connection to the assassin".

Either way, the "I need to clear my head! I'm out" choice would allow you (and the DM) to work out how the assassin interacts with the fey plotlines in Kingmaker (no spoilers... But it would be enough to keep a freelance assassin occupied) while the PCs handle all the campaign plotlines. That would also allow for some interaction during key events.

Just my 2 cents


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Though going after the lizardfolk for a cannibalistic culture does seem like a fairly evil act, but I guess that's why they're the heroes and you're the villain.

Actually it was for them refusing to refrain from eating our citizens not cannibalism in general. That and they were holding and torturing a human boy and decimating the local ecology.

XainMexi has a good idea which allows me to roleplay another gender for the first time. Would probably stay being a Bard since there is already a cleric in the party. Bard seems like a good Shelyn priestess and leaving the Fighter with the GM would avoid potential PvP if he decides that the PCs need to go.


let me ask you something. Forgetting alignment, does your character like the party?


Korak The Boisterous wrote:
let me ask you something. Forgetting alignment, does your character like the party?

No.


stop blaming gods when you fall in love...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Right then. They're f%%%ed, then again, you may be underestimating them. Please do keep us apprised of what happens.

The Exchange

Why would you kill them onsight?

Evil and psychopath aren't the same thing.


Philo Pharynx wrote:

Do you (the player) want to do this to the game?

Since this is your character, you control what they do. You control alignment changes. You control their actions. You control the horizontal, you control the vertical. (axes of the alignment chart)

If you argue anything else, then the problem is you. I suggest removing yourself from the group.

I gotta agree with this one.

I would also agree with the post about The Prince.

Even if your alignment changes, you have adventured with the group long enough to realize they are useful. Don't try to kill them (I say try, because 1 PC vs the rest of the group is usually fatal for the 1)-Try to convert them! Get them to see YOUR way.

Besides, I have always considered LE the type of alignment where you could actually continue adventuring with a good aligned group. You just want what you want, and will abuse the law to get it. Murder is illegal, and therefor unlawful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Have the GM retcon that the curse was heightened to 6th level or higher. Break Enchantment won't work, and you'll have to wait until someone can leverage a Limited Wish. Just out of curiosity, why does Remove Curse not work on this? It's lower level than Break Enchantment, but you get a saving throw if you want to resist it.

Anyway, above is a solid mechanics reason for it to not be removed (I didn't want to rehash the character-based solutions, since everyone else did a good job on those).


Pathfinder Companion, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rushley son of Halum wrote:

Why would you kill them onsight?

Evil and psychopath aren't the same thing.

Did you read this? That's probably why.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I did not read that.

Your party members are A-holes.


You know.....you don't seem that Evil.

They seem more evil, from what I've read;

And by evil, I mean, willing to allow anything to happen, so long as it doesn't disturb them, such as allowing Lizardfolk to consume their kingdom's citizens, IE their PRIME RESPONSIBILITIES. They lol at dying Kobolds, apply racist reasons for WATCHING them die...

Just saying, there ain't no priests of Sarenrae amongst you, but I think you come across as more a dark Abadar, where as they seem more like Psychopaths


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To be fair to my 'evil' party mates the full story is this;

minor Kingmaker spoilers:
Three kobolds were strung up by their tails by fae for desecrating fae corpses. (mites we killed earlier in the campaign. I wanted to get them down because I didn't want them tortured by unrepresented authority and certainly not for an ambiguous duration for an ambiguous crime but upon hearing about desecrating fae corpses she killed one of the kobolds before I could take them down. I was confronted with the fae 'jailor' asking if I would take responsibility for the remaining kobold's future actions. I agreed to and took them on as my cohorts. The rest of the party was not too keen on having kobolds around since I had to give them 'good' lessons constantly. (I keep an in and out of game journal of all of the 'good' lessons I learned and used that as a basis for my lessons.) Later we left the kobolds out of the tower we were exploring so that they would be out of harms way but when we got back they were being killed by a willowisp. The monk got there first and hesitated in attacking the willowisp out of fear of taking it on by himself for a round so the willowisp killed the remaining kobold.

With the lizardfolk, I was the only one to speak their language and we knew there was a sobbing humanoid in their camp and that they attacked our citizens. I demanded that the lizard king stop killing our citizens and the lizard king refused and asked if I was a challenging his authority by making these demands. So I challenged him to single combat with his crown at stake. I fought the BBEG on my own and won and demanded that the lizardfolk accept my authority which they responded with by attacking. The party cleric attacked me for bullying the lizardfolk during this fight. By the end we rescued the child and defeated the lizardfolk warriors but negociated with the rest allowing them to repopulate. The deal is that we send missionaries to try to reeducate them and they agreed to not eat people that bring them meat until they repopulate. I gave up my loot to the Paladin with the condition that I will get it back if so much as one of our citizens is killed over this deal.

Two of our party, the Paladin and Cleric both worship Kord from D&D. They make it a big point to convert as many people as they can. My character hates that their worship requires them to show off and gain glory. My character also hates the constant pressure to him to convert.

I was the straight man in the fae forest where the fae played pranks on us. I was the only party member that was not amused at the pranks feeling that I got in trouble for ignoring the comfort of others as the fae do with their pranks. We run into a lot of fae and often they are kind of hippie, attack the loggers types. I feel like I'm the main reason why we helped the logger who were being held captive by fae by growing replacement trees.

Last session we were attacked by a green dragon at night(it was really a drake but I didn't pass my knowledge check). I woke up and saw them fighting a dragon. Knowing that dragons were intelligent and not random rampaging beasts I got the dragon in a headlock and begged the dragon and party to stop attacking each other. The rest of the party delayed but the monk killed it while I was holding it down. Then we found out that it was a non-intelligent drake.

Being an evil character induced to be good I keep a journal of things I learned and try to emulate good I see as interpreted from an evil character. Despite my hate I stick with the party believing that good people are loyal to their team mates and their country and assume that the party is good and that my problems with them are because I'm internally evil and irredeemable.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Malwing wrote:
GU is currently Lawful Evil

IN WHICH CASE WHY IS HE ACTING NEUTRAL EVIL? lawful evil (in general) don't kill people unless there's some kind of advantage or motivation. If he sees that hanging with the party is ultimately beneficial then he would probably stay in the party. He would just have no qualms over people dying or sacrificing people.

to be clear, kobolds are lawful evil, but they don't randomly kill each other because the group would be weakened by it, they're evil but they also are lawful and thus emphasize order, and killing people creates a lot of disorder.

edit: reading the rest of the thread, you got the motivation.


You're playing in an evil party, so kill 'em all if that's the game you're playing.


Pathfinder Companion, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bandw2 wrote:
Malwing wrote:
GU is currently Lawful Evil

IN WHICH CASE WHY IS HE ACTING NEUTRAL EVIL? lawful evil (in general) don't kill people unless there's some kind of advantage or motivation. If he sees that hanging with the party is ultimately beneficial then he would probably stay in the party. He would just have no qualms over people dying or sacrificing people.

to be clear, kobolds are lawful evil, but they don't randomly kill each other because the group would be weakened by it, they're evil but they also are lawful and thus emphasize order, and killing people creates a lot of disorder.

He already gave his motivations for wanting to kill members of the party, based on the events that have occurred and the way they've treated him.


Malwing wrote:
pipedreamsam wrote:

Find a way to roleplay something less destructive?

Talk your other party members out of game and explain X, Y, Z?

Make a new character, hand your old sheet to the DM and become a villain?

FYI, I do have a Bard rolled up in case of emergency. But the current character is a fighter that's perfectly capable of one-shotting 3/4 of the party.

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.

Why in the world would he go after the party? Evil doesn't mean stupid. They're friends who have helped and supported him and protected him in battle. Why not keep them around?


MeanMutton wrote:
Malwing wrote:
pipedreamsam wrote:

Find a way to roleplay something less destructive?

Talk your other party members out of game and explain X, Y, Z?

Make a new character, hand your old sheet to the DM and become a villain?

FYI, I do have a Bard rolled up in case of emergency. But the current character is a fighter that's perfectly capable of one-shotting 3/4 of the party.

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.

Why in the world would he go after the party? Evil doesn't mean stupid. They're friends who have helped and supported him and protected him in battle. Why not keep them around?

Actually, the examples given earlier make it pretty clear his party is made of jerks. I wouldn't blame the character for killing them off. HOWEVER, this would be disruptive to the game.

It's a tough situation, I don't envy the OP.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
MeanMutton wrote:
Malwing wrote:
pipedreamsam wrote:

Find a way to roleplay something less destructive?

Talk your other party members out of game and explain X, Y, Z?

Make a new character, hand your old sheet to the DM and become a villain?

FYI, I do have a Bard rolled up in case of emergency. But the current character is a fighter that's perfectly capable of one-shotting 3/4 of the party.

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.

Why in the world would he go after the party? Evil doesn't mean stupid. They're friends who have helped and supported him and protected him in battle. Why not keep them around?

apperently, there's a lot of resentment from the character towards the other members. well earned resentment, I might add.


Because they tried to kill him and got his friends killed?

It's amazing how many people respond without reading the full thread.


MeanMutton wrote:
They're friends who have helped and supported him and protected him in battle.

I wouldn't quite say that, or at least not 100%. I have been attacked by at least 1 team mate in the middle of battle.


Okay. I'd love to see the spell broken and watch you plot his death.


Because its in a Kingmaker spoiler tag I'll say this line here;

Being an evil character induced to be good I keep a journal of things I learned and try to emulate good I see as interpreted from an evil character. Despite my hate I stick with the party believing that good people are loyal to their team mates and their country and assume that the party is good and that my problems with them are because I'm internally evil and irredeemable.


Malwing wrote:
MeanMutton wrote:
They're friends who have helped and supported him and protected him in battle.
I wouldn't quite say that, or at least not 100%. I have been attacked by at least 1 team mate in the middle of battle.

I think the best thing to do is poop in their shoes. The players I mean. They sound like serious jerks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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."


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Korak The Boisterous wrote:
Okay. I'd love to see the spell broken and watch you plot his death.

+1, keep us posted with the inevitable betrayal and rise of the Kobold Kingdom.

1 to 50 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.