|
1 year ago ::
Mar 15, 2012 - 10:02AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jan 24, 2012
|
(3.5) I've recently hung up the DMing hat and passed it over to one of my players who is running a new campaign. All is well except for one player who is insistent on playing lawful good characters even though he is clearly unable/unwilling to play as such. Out of the last 5 characters he's played 3 have been LG, paladin, cleric, and paladin (what he is playing now). Every single one acts the same, get loot? mine. See enemy? Kill. Conflict between him and NPC? Intimidate.
The worst came when I was DMing and they saved some petrified elves from long ago who had been working to open a portal and summon demons. The elves managed to earn the trust of the group, eventually they were found out and one had been captured. It went something like this:
Him (LG cleric of Moradin): "Airameth is tied up?"
Me: "Yes..."
Him: "Ok, I break his legs."
Everyone else: "No, that's insane. He's helpless!"
Him: "Hmm.. Alright, I piss on him."
Everyone else: O.O
Him: "What? He betrayed my trust."
I've talked with him many times and gave tips/ideas, even going as far as removing spells temporarily when I was DM. Now that we're in a new campaign he's decided to roll paladin AGAIN. It's literally the same character, just a different sheet. I'm almost at my breaking point, how can I be a NG cleric of Pelor when I have a paladin in my group trying to kill every NPC that doesn't see eye to eye?
Thank you in advance
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 15, 2012 - 4:07PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Aug 15, 2011
|
If you were the DM, I'd recommend simply throwing out alignment.
From what you say, I assume the DM is unwilling to actually do anything, meaning he approves of the behavior. You can't do much on that front. You might consider asking the DM, away from the game, why this kind of behavior isn't getting him in trouble, but considering how heinous the transgressions are, it seems like this wouldn't get very far.
If 'everyone else' includes every other player at the table, and they all agree with you that this character is problematic, then you could simply take the matter IC. Next time he gets ready to go over the line, you all tell him, in-character, to sit down and shut up. If he goes over the line, you can either vote his character out of the party, or jump on him and beat the crap out of him en masse.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 15, 2012 - 4:25PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Apr 16, 2009
|
(Noting that you're playing 3.5E.)
Well, the game-mechanic consequences of the Paladin's actions are no longer your problem, they are the DM's problem.
Now that you're a player rather than a DM, you need only be concerned with how you react and what your deity thinks of your reaction. Perhaps your cleric should attempt some instruction. As long as you are steadily trying to lead this wayward soul to the Light, and interposing yourself to block abusive behavior when you have reasonable opportunity to do so, Pelor should be happy with you. More drastic action on your part should not be required until things get to the point where the character is more evil than good - which should be well past the point where the DM steps in.
(By the way, while maliciously urinating on someone is insulting and degrading, it is not generally harmful. In fact, if you're in the wild and feel a need to irrigate a wound with a sterile liquid... fresh urine is sterile, unless the supplier has a kidney/bladder infection. Breaking the prisoner's legs, on the other hand, is clearly an Evil act in almost all circumstances, and almost certainly not even pragmatic. It would be vastly easier to justify a quick minimum-pain beheading.)
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 16, 2012 - 6:05AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Nov 30, 2005
|
Ask the DM to throw out alignment and any effects based on it. He can play his paladin as a wild reckless ****, devoted to the wild reckless **** diety. You can play your cleric as a stand up generally good guy devoted to the stand up generally good guy PC. If the issue is that his ****ary is ruining the game for you take him aside one day and say "your ****ary is ruining the game for me. Can you tone it down a bit?" If he is a decent guy you can have a chat about it and come up with a solution. If not, well why are you playing with him?
5e comments and thoughts all in one place. Check it out to provide feedback, mock, or steal ideas.
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/28835423/Krusks_5e_Design_Goals?sdb=1
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 16, 2012 - 9:45AM
#5
|
|
|
Hobbling captives in a way that is easily reversible might be reasonable behavior in some situations, and the facts that they are members of an enemy race and were petrified in the act of summoning demons certainly weigh in his favor.
Urination has no inherent moral absolute, no matter how uncouth you think it is. The intent here was definitely to degrade, but shaming naughty people is what LG holy men are for, isn't it?
"When Friday comes, we'll all call rats fish."
D&D Outsider
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 16, 2012 - 12:01PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jan 24, 2012
|
Urination has no inherent moral absolute, no matter how uncouth you think it is. The intent here was definitely to degrade, but shaming naughty people is what LG holy men are for, isn't it?
I believe that's a difference between lawful and chaotic. When I think of a crusader of good I don't picture someone who will degrade others just because they are evil.
However, I hear what everyone is saying, maybe I wasn't clear in talking to him before.
Thank you all
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 17, 2012 - 11:46AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Dec 10, 2008
|
Urination has no inherent moral absolute, no matter how uncouth you think it is. The intent here was definitely to degrade, but shaming naughty people is what LG holy men are for, isn't it?
Wow.
OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player.
3E challenged the character, not the player.
Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM.
That's why I love 4E.
"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 20, 2012 - 6:34AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Nov 14, 2011
|
In the context of D&D or even the Crusades in real life, LG Holy Men did go around killing, maiming and all kinds of horrible things in the name of "LG". So, why not? After all its a fantasy game. Anti-LG behaviour generally involves reneging a previously agreed (even sworn thing), especially for little more than convenience. That said, perhaps just put Alignment out of the game and just RP your character. Your char doesn't know your Paladin friend's Alignment (although if you're playing earlier editions, you probably can guess he's LG). Make it your DM's problem, after all that's probably why you hung up the hat (at least for this game) Have fun, relax  Be yourself / your char Screw the rest.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 20, 2012 - 9:42AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jan 24, 2012
|
In the context of D&D or even the Crusades in real life, LG Holy Men did go around killing, maiming and all kinds of horrible things in the name of "LG". So, why not? After all its a fantasy game.
Then they were not lawful good, what is lawful about killing and maiming? Actions speak louder then words. Maybe another example is in order, this happened just last week. The group finishes talking with this (innocent) man who has been working in a store where the BBEG is often.
Bard- "So what do?"
Paladin- "Let's kill him, he helps out The Blessed."
Now, the examples I've given aren't the worst but they would be if not for the other players stepping in. It's just things like this that frustrate me. I've talked with the others in the group and I'm not the only one that feels this way, next time I'm just gonna make myself more clear.
BTW: DM likes the idea of alignment and wants to keep it in game.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 20, 2012 - 9:47AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Nov 14, 2011
|
Last I checked, even the 2E Paladins killed Enemies. They were not disallowed from killing or maiming enemies, by being forced to knock them unconscious.
Another non-LG roleplay (in my opinion) would be to kill "innocents" without justification or just on a suspicion.
In the example you gave above, that would be relevant concern.
It is not about the act of Killing or Maiming ; it is what lawful justification there is for it before Killing or Maiming.
So yes, I do agree your "friend" is really stretching it.
|
|
|
