Witchy Ways
The votes have been tallied and our latest Patreon poll has a winner. It was Witch in a landslide! She and her spiky little buddy Brutus are the latest additions to Handbook-World! (Better luck next time, Psion!)
I don’t know about the rest of you guys, but when I’m running a game, watching little old ladies burn for the PCs’ crimes is exactly the sort of thing that makes me go, “Huh? You do what? I… OK.” Evil and selfishness are part of the game, but when it’s the protagonists of the story doing the dirty deeds… I dunno, man. I tend to freeze up.
Just last week my intrepid crew of Starfinders took down a bunch of gangbangers in their nightclub hideout. It was a nasty fight, but in the end the good guys triumphed. Or at least I thought they did.
“Most of them are unconscious right?”
“Yeah. You guys used nonlethal pulsecaster rounds. They’re just sleeping it off.”
“We can’t risk them reporting back to their boss. We shoot ’em in the head and finish them off.”
“You do what? I… OK.”
I had to pause for a minute and recalibrate my expectations. In my mind these PCs only had to call station security, hand over the proof they’d uncovered of the gang’s nefarious doings, and then collect their hard-earned attaboy from the local quest giver. All very paragon, you know? Apparently that wasn’t the kind of crew my guys were rolling with. And as much as that can be jarring to my personal white hat style of pay, I think you’ve got to give the players room to be as bad as they want to be. No moralistic tutting or sudden karmic reprisals from the GM. It’s their story, you know? I’m just there to facilitate.
How about the rest of you guys? Have you ever encountered unexpectedly renegade behavior from a fellow PC? Was it a matter of characters not seeing eye-to-eye, or a clash of player expectations as well? Let’s hear it in the comments!
GET YOUR SCHWAG ON! Want a piece of Handbook-World to hang on you wall? Then you’ll want to check out the “Hero” reward tier on the The Handbook of Heroes Patreon. Each monthly treasure hall will bring you prints, decals, buttons, bookmarks and more! There’s even talk of a few Handbook-themed mini-dungeons on the horizon. So hit the link, open up that treasure chest, and see what loot awaits!
Shadow of the Demon Lord, last month. The players rescued a NPC captured by an evil harvester( immortal beings that have to replace their organs on occasion to stay alive). Instead of killing the creature, the party monk suddenly decides to enlist the creature and her harvester minions to kill police officers, so their long objective of abolishing slavery in the city comes closer.
That was one thing. Next is the creature desiring the nose of one of their friends, where after they murder said friend and give to her. Now I’m not really sure where they’ll draw a line.
Well that’s interesting. I didn’t know that I could be made to go, “Huh? You do what? I… OK,” for somebody else’s game.
Was there some other reason to kill this friend? I mean, were they kind of annoying or something?
You did award a buttload of corruption for this right? Like a ton of it?
I’ve had many such cases and, quite honestly, I probably tend to be bad more often than good when I’m a player.
The most memorably moment of that is a decision I made that more or less ruined a game (though, to be fair, it was heading to ruin either way).
To keep a long story short, my character basically killed a surrendering opponent in a traditional, honorable fighting tournament, mostly because she had a reason to and didn’t really comprehend the concept and repercussions. She faced some serious backlash from it, but unfortunately, it eventually led to another player leaving the game before it inevitably crumbled.
The main problem was that, as players, we weren’t really on the same page. We wanted different things from the game, we had somewhat contrasting characters and, most of all, we had serious lack of communication and empathy. Eventually some players got tired of compromising, started a discussion/argument and we decided to cut our losses and stop the game there.
There were many other problems with that particular game, I have to say, but that was the big one. If anything, I find it regrettable that I didn’t see it earlier so I can do something about it.
It was a strange moment around the table when the elven princeling in one of my games murdered a pirate captain in cold blood. She was beaten, bound to the mast, and had defiantly spit at him during the interrogation. He ran her through. Suddenly questions of honor vs. morality entered the game, and I think the campaign became more interesting because of it, despite some the other players’ shock.
Key difference: we discussed the implications as a group afterwards. Everyone has their own image of what the fantasy world looks like in their own head. If you can’t agree on what it looks like as a collective, then that’s straight up CREATIVE DIFFERENCES. Probably a good call disbanding your game.
And this is why Paladins can cast Zone of Truth.
“Please step into the zone, and say “I have not committed, nor do I intend to commit any crimes that a Paladin considers a Smite-worthy offense.” The Dwarven constitution says that non-compliance is a capital crime, and therefore a Smite-worthy offense.”
Pulls out the 5E drum In 5E there are no player-accessible means of detecting alignment. Paladins instead have the ability to detect Celestials, Undead, and Fiends. I for one like this change.
A very important line: “You know whether each creature succeeds or fails on its saving throw.” That’s absent from the Pathfinder version, which is extremely interesting to me. In the 5e version, you have perfect information. In the 3.X version, you still have an element of doubt. Whether that neuters the spell or creates a more interesting RP situation is a matter of taste.
I really like the 5e version, because to be able to lie in it, you need an 8th level spell, Glibness. This means that whenever the DM has some Mary Sue questgiver NPC not show up on the zone of truth, you can use the following argument:
Point A: NPC is spending an 8th level spell just to not have to tell the truth to us, so they obviously want to be dishonest about something.
Point B: NPC is capable of casting an 8th level spell, so whatever problem they want us to “solve” they could probably handle themselves.
Deduction A: A very powerful spellcaster is intentionally lying to us, and making it look like they want us to do something they could do themselves.
Deduction B: This is either some kind of scam and they’re not actually going to pay us or it’s some kind of trap. We should decline the job offer immediately.
I feel like Detect Alignment supersedes Zone of Truth as the Social Jackhammer in that case.
Though if the Pathfinder one is anything like 5E then you make a save every turn you’re in it until you fail, at which point you’re under the effect until you live. So have them stand in it for 5 minutes of its’ 10 minute duration before questioning. If they can make 50 saves in a row, they’ve earned it.
Ah, yes. Zone of Truth; a fantastically useless spell. Anyone within the spell’s area can’t lie, unless they can. You have no way of knowing – the spell doesn’t actually tell you who failed the save or provide any indicator of whether it’s working or not – so you have to rely on Sense Motive just as if nobody had cast the spell.
It’s even better than that. Even people who fail the save are not obligated to talk or tell the truth in an at all useful manner or even respond appropriately. The only limitation they have is that they can’t lie. They can still not talk. Or talk about a different subject entirely. Or answer you questions with useless prophecy style riddles.
And they too know they’re under the effects of the spell. So they also know they should behave that way. You don’t even get a single free “gotcha!” of information out of the spell against beings that have even the most rudimentary intelligence.
“Please step into the zone, and say “I have not committed, nor do I intend to commit any crimes that a Paladin considers a Smite-worthy offense.” The Dwarven constitution says that non-compliance is a capital crime, and therefore a Smite-worthy offense.”
Zone of Truth is not meant to be used in a subtle fashion.
Personally, I’d say Zone of Truth was not intended to be used, period. Again, in editions before 5th, there is literally no difference between having the spell cast or not; you still need to use Sense Motive to determine if the target is lying to you or not. You could use it to be 95% certain a Commoner wasn’t lying to you, but you probably had the Sense Motive to do that anyways. You might as well save the spell slot for a useful spell.
Also, your statement relies on the target’s (and to a lesser extent, the caster’s) knowledge of and interpretation of the Paladin’s code. If the target doesn’t know what a Paladin considers “Smite-worthy”, and the caster’s interpretation is a lot more strict than the target’s, you might get a false negative. Or a false positive, if the target is convinced that Paladins are the guys who got rejected from Mega City One’s police academy for being too strict and brutal.
It’s a fundamentally flawed spell that doesn’t even reliably accomplish its primary function.
Fun fact, there actually IS a way for players to detect alignment… it’s just not given to the class you’d expect since clerics and paladins can’t do it… it’s actually WARLOCKS who can do this.
“But Mr. TheVoidman! what spell lets you actually detect alignment?”
Well, that’s just it, it’s not a spell, it’s a creature… one of the warlock’s familiar options, the SPRITE! it has an ability called “Heart Sight” which tells you a person’s current emotional state, and (if they fail a really low DC Charisma save) their alignment
BRB. Burning 10 gp worth of charcoal, incense, and herbs in a brass brazier
My crew almost used an extinction wave device on a Nethalgu hideout that they KNEW had innocent captives inside. My Neutral Evil Slayer Pirate had to stop them and go “Okay, before we do this… You DO realize you’re about to commit murder, right? Like, MASS murder, of innocent people. I just need to be sure you’re okay with that…”
Turned out they weren’t… And the GM shifted my character’s alignment to Neutral for being so altruistic.
Were you OK with the shift? Did it cause you to rethink your character’s RP, or did he remain basically the same dude in your head?
Slayer Pirate: “I need you all to sign these forms to indicate that you are fully aware of the likely outcome of these actions and are fully willing to accept the moral, ethical and legal consequences of such actions. If we’re going to do evil, we’re going to do it the right way – consensually.”
lol. That’s a change to lawful evil right there.
Slayer Pirate: “Tricking people into committing evil acts is wrong and a violation of the whole point of villainy! I’m evil. I’m not a monster!”
…would the above be Chaotic Evil?
That seems lawful to me. It’s a code, albeit a perplexing one, lol.
Our gaming tables have gotten along a lot better since we decided to all be evil. Nowadays our moral decision arguments are about whether to take the guy’s stuff and kill him, or whether to just take his stuff. Either way, people aren’t nearly as sore about losing the argument when we’re all in it for sadism and/or wealth.
*PicaresquePotatoPriest
So you’ve successfully run an evil campaign that didn’t implode?
You’re like a unicorn.
That’s interesting. I gather that in your experience, evil campaigns are actually less stable? In mine, the opposite is true.
What do you feel usually causes your evil games to implode?
Evil people tend not to be trustworthy.
Everyone assumes that they’ll be betrayed, and plans on betraying them right back.
Evil people tend to be selfish.
The moment there’s a magic item multiple people want an evil party turns on itself.
So we’ve got Witch and Necromancer. Are we gonna get Assassin and Anti-Paladin thrown in with them to create a full-on Antagonist party?
Also, on the subject of Anti-Paladins. Who would willingly work with someone who willingly pledged to be as big of an asshole as possible?
We’ll have to see which way the voting goes. The fate of the comic is in the hands of you rabble. MFW:
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/41/f2/5b/41f25bcc86cc82412087043d404edd81–gladiator-quotes-joaquin-phoenix.jpg
…I just thought aboot what Samurai/Ninja would probably be. They’d be played by that insufferable weeb who drops “Kawaii-Desu” in every other sentence, feels that the Katana (A bastard sword with worse armor penetration than most) is the epitome of weaponry, and are generally insufferable.
I suppose you can think of someone working alongside an Anti-Paladin as being the partially inverted equivalent of Belkar from Order of the Stick – rather than having a probably-evil guy that the good guys keep pointed at worse guys, you have a definitely-evil guy that bad guys keep pointed at good/bad/neutral guys they don’t like. Still not a reason to trust him, but as long as you convince him that killing THOSE people and not you serves the greater good of bad…
Speaking of which, I have a lot of difficulty taking Anti-Paladins seriously, precisely because of the above-mentioned Megamind-like nonsensical inversion of morality. They’re just so cartoonish. And the mental image of a “fallen” Anti-Paladin begging his lord for forgiveness for that one, foolish, not-sufficiently-douchy act is simply hilarious. So if we do ever see an Anti-Paladin here, I hope he/she is a mix of Skeletor and Dark Helmet from Spaceballs.
…Though I did once create a campaign setting where in the backstory the Dark Lord Lord Evil Overlord Guy had an elite corps of Anti-Paladins raised from childhood to enforce his evil deeds. They went up against a bunch of Paladins assembled by the Alliance of Good People and were crushed, for the simple fact that the Paladins could trust, support and assist each other and the Anti-Paladins couldn’t. There was actually some interesting plot developments from this (the campaign’s concept is that it’s 10-20 years after Lord Evil Overlord Guy has been defeated, and the Alliance of Good has been dealing with the consequences of having conquered a small empire full of orc, Drow, goblin, evil human, etc. civilians), namely survivors of the Anti-Paladin corps who have been trying to re-adjust to normal society and get over their pasts (sort of like former Grey Maidens). At least one person I told this concept to expressed interest in playing such a character, and it would allow for interesting explorations of the natural of good and evil in an absolute morality universe like D&D – which was the whole point of the setting.
But seriously: Skeletor Dark Helmet. Do it.
Pulls out 5E drum
This is why I love 5E. There is no “Anti-Paladin”, instead we’ve got various Oaths that can be played evil if you want to, and the Oathbreaker subclass who has to be evil, but doesn’t have to be a mustache-twirler.
It’s possible to play the Oath of Conquest as good or evil, so long as you don’t take no shit, and put those you defeat in their place.
It’s possible to play the Oath of Vengeance as any flavor of neutral with most settling on The Punisher.
It’s possible to play the Oath of the Crown as anything from enlightened despotism to totalitarian fascism, with most settling on Judge Dredd.
Or you can be a fuckup Paladin who takes one of the traditionally good Oaths (Devotion (Paladin Classic) Ancients (Warden) redemption (Mary Sue)) and is simply not quite up to following it, but still wants to try.
What, like this?
https://pics.me.me/i-dont-like-to-feel-good-i-like-to-feel-19296060.png
I bet I could write that joke a few dozen times. I think I’ll put it in the “probably yes at some point” pile. 🙂
The dumbest thing Paizo ever did was base the anti-paladin on the paladin of slaughter variant class instead of the paladin of tyranny.
I’ve known a bunch of players who played “Chaotic Stupid” or “Stupid Evil” no matter what alignment they had written on their character sheets. One player would literally end campaigns by backstabbing the party at the least opportune moments. At least when it happened to my character, he got his just desserts; his character was tried and executed for the crime (it’s not a very good idea to assassinate your superior officer when you’re a mercenary working for a military outfit).
Another time, though, we had a player who managed to get away with playing a Chaotic Evil character IN A PARTY WITH THREE PALADINS and a Neutral Good cleric. The character died in battle with the party’s enemies, not at the business end of a triple-tech Smite Evil.
Was this fun for the other players? If not, did anybody explain that to this wingnut?
We did try explaining it to him, although he didn’t seem to get it until just before moving away and leaving the group for good. The character he was playing in his last campaign with us (a Halfling Outrider, IIRC) had “CG” written on his character sheet and seemed to be more or less living up to that alignment, although he only had a few sessions with that character before leaving.
The other major Chaotic Stupid player in that group (who used to conflict the most with that player) has also been wising up over time.
The people I play with, including myself, will do some pretty mean shit to people that piss us off. Run into cloud giants with a Barbarian who was tortured in his backstory by giants? He runs after one when it tries to run away and breaks its back. Get surprise-out-of-no-where-exploded when traveling by wagon by a rebel group we didn’t even know about? Tie one up and have the pseudodragon familiar stab him in the eye with its barbed tail during questioning. Evil group that stole our things and tortured some of us? They have masks that are permanently adhered to their faces so let’s hold one down and rip it off.
What it comes down to I believe is a personal feel to it. There’s practical evil as you said and then there’s personal, i.e you hurt me so I hurt you. The latter can be “lol I do this because I’m evil” but when done right I think has the players connect with their characters (uncomfortable implications aside).
I tend to think that the over the top Mortal Kombat fatality stuff is unnecessary, distracting, and puerile. Key point however: that’s a matter of taste. If I’m the guy behind the screen, it’s not my job to tell other players how they’re supposed to enjoy the game. That’s the real takeaway for me. If I truly believe my own hype about player autonomy and authorship, I’ve got to grin and bear it even when it doesn’t suit my palate.
In our defense we didn’t really think about bringing things like that up and start doing so until our DM pulled out a child necromancer who pacted with Orcus and villagers and his little brother’s remains as flesh golems because he was fans of our group and wanted his own party.
At that point it basically went “Okay, so that set a tone. And I guess he’s fine with sick shit.”.
and used villagers
*gently used villagers
You don’t want to pay full price for damaged goods. 😛
I do not recall if it´s rule number one or number zero, but it goes like: First and foremost do have fun!
I always thought this goes for players as well as for the GM. But now you´re telling me, a GM helps players write their story, even if he doesn´t like said story!? Where is the fun in that (for the GM)?
There are two issues here. The first is comfort level. That’s about the degree of acceptable violence established in Session Zero. My preference is for games where the protagonists don’t maim and torture people, but it’s not a deal-breaker for me. In that sense, I’m not going to grab the X-card and halt play over this stuff. I just find it unpleasant.
And that brings us to the second issue: compromise. People have fun in different ways. If I’m the GM, and if my players are more into the graphic violence thing than I am, I’ve got a couple of options: let it slide, boot them for the game, or politely ask them to knock it off.
In the OP, I talk about supposedly good PCs executing defeated gang members in cold blood. That was surprising to me, and jarring in tone. I don’t think it was extreme enough to halt the game and ask for a retcon though. For another GM, it might have been.
My stance is this: If you’re the GM, and if your players are doing something you can’t stand, then by all means speak up. If they’re merely doing something that defies your expectations or aesthetic tastes however, then that’s their prerogative.
When I have players, or the whole party, being evil, I like to have the consequences of their actions come back at them harder than when they’re all good.
With the Starfinder game example, an easy way to have that encounter come back and bite them hard is for them to get charged with murder. They stunned in self defense, but then they went and killed the victims when they were helpless and no longer a threat. That should have definite consequences. Perhaps there was video evidence, or perhaps there’s witnesses that saw the party as the last people to come out alive.
Like in real life, if they’re going to be evil they’ll have to be smart about it, or they’ll get caught.
Why though? This is exactly what I’m talking about when I say, “No moralistic tutting or sudden karmic reprisals from the GM.” I’m not trying to teach my players ethics. I’m trying to help them tell the story of their characters. In the case of the Starfinder game, there’s as much chance that station security would arrest the PCs for murder as there is that the megacorp funding the gang would hunt down the PCs for leaving witnesses: consequences go both ways, regardless of the capital letters scribbled beside “Alignment.” It so happens that I’m not particularly interested in pursuing either chain of events. This Adventure Path has bigger fish to fry. Actually, I’m more inclined to let the party’s sole Good-aligned PC voice her complaints. If there are going to be consequences, I’d rather that they come from the other players than from me.
I mean the shift is just a shift in alignment, not in your character’s outlook or personality, it’s a way to keep track of where they are on the spectrum of alignment, alignment itself is a good starting base for your characters principles, and you may waver back and forth from evil/neutral or good/neutral a dozen times, and still play the same character, your actions will determine what your alignment is, not vice verse (paladins and anti-paladins excluded, other exceptions may apply, contact local game master for further details.)
Meant this message as a reply to “Were you OK with the shift? Did it cause you to rethink your character’s RP, or did he remain basically the same dude in your head?”
I tend to agree that alignment out to be descriptive rather than prescriptive, but I also think that a GM enforcing an ad hoc alignment change suggests character growth.
GM: “Hey man. You seem to be moving away from evil. Care to explore that arc in character?”
Player: “Possibly yes. Possibly no. Let me think it over and get back with you.”
In that sense, I think there’s an interesting aspect of back and forth between GM and player concerning “what the character is really like.”
I recall seeing a guy complaining on paizo’s boards about how he couldn’t use the Cook People hex in all but the most murderhobo-aligned parties. The response he got?
“You just need to lie better”
That’s why you use the Clever Wordplay trait to turn Bluff into an INT skill. Problem solved!
Funny you should mention that. I ran a campaign based in the Mordheim setting a million years ago…
http://warhammerfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Mordheim
The party’s big dumb orc threw some corpses into the Sisters of Sigmar’s cook pots, then used the resulting ghoulish goulash to feed the starving masses. It was very much a, “Huh? You do what? I… OK,” moment for me. I decided that no one noticed, and that both the nuns and the hungry populace ate heartily. I still feel like that was a cop out decision. The player did something outrageous, and there should have been some sort of reaction. I think that my resistance to the idea of punishing evil because it’s evil got in the way of logical consequences there.
So I play in Organized Play events where I’m gaming with strangers.
I also main Paladin.
People often bring in Evil war-criminals, necromancers, and sociopaths, but all I can do is chastise them, and make empty threats, because it’s bad form to kill another PC.
I can’t even tell them “You’re out of the Chain-Gang.” (Named for the Chain of Command: A Dwarven military concept where failure to follow orders results in being beaten with a chain) because that would functionally remove their character from the story.
tldr: Instead of me using “It’s what my character would do” to justify being an asshole, I’m stuck having my character say “It’s what my player would do” to justify not Smiting some baddies.
I want you to know how hard I’m imagining you sitting down to play next to Saddam Hussein, the Lich King, and Ted Bundy.
Despite the varied shades of evil from their characters, their players were pretty normal people.
I did get to hang one of them with The Chain of Command when it turned out they were conspiring against us with the Yuan-Ti though.
The execution of Saddam Hussein took place on Saturday, 30 December, 2006. Hussein was sentenced to death by hanging.
*Puts on tinfoil hat.*
In my group i am typically the paragon player in a group of renegades or neutral characters, along with a few more morally comples characters. It must have surprised my group in the high level pathfinder campaign i did where literally the first thing my aranea sorcerer did was slaughter a village of people in the name of his demon lord. I had thought we were doing an evil campaign that one, turned out we weren’t.
You ever see “Start the Revolution Without Me?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4aUgnGAXF8
I probably am the instigator of such behavior in groups I’m in. I absolutely will steal everything that’s not nailed down and I’ve been actively looking for years now for a situation where I could actually get away with poisoning my enemies.
Which is why I’m trying something out with one of my more recent characters. They’re a paladin, an actually good person, who has sworn an oath not to lie. So I will actually have to be a morally upstanding person who aids others wholeheartedly for once.
You ever see the Paladin Code maker?
https://forgotten-memories-slumbering-thoughts.obsidianportal.com/wikis/paladin-code
It’s perfectly possible to be a poison-loving do-gooder!
I do have a question about what exactly is happening in the comic- I think it could be interpreted a couple of different ways.
Is the Paladin part of the mob that’s burning the old-lady? That doesn’t seem very Paragon of him. If not, then is he the one that’s there to calm the mob and save the old lady? Then why is Witch there? Was she leading the mob? Pawning her crimes off on someone else? Or was she going to attempt to stop the mob from burning someone else for her (alleged) crimes and then when Paladin showed up she decided that his views on the occult arts (it was just a little blood-sacrifice!) probably didn’t match hers and she should skedaddle?
I can see almost any of those scenarios being plausible to various degrees.
“Pawning her crimes off on someone else” is the joke.
That was my initial thought, and it was only after a few days that I started second-guessing myself.
Naw, I feel ya. Sometimes I block out a scene in my head, but fail to convey it to Laurel properly. That happened way back in comic #2…
https://www.handbookofheroes.com/archives/comic/the-handbook-of-heroes-02
…And I think it’s a little bit present here as well. In my mind, Witch was more obviously trying to deceive the crowd, perhaps facing the same direction so that we could get some townsfolk reaction shots. That would have sold the joke a little more, but it’s also a much more difficult composition for the artist.
As a creative team, Laurel and I try to catch that stuff early and talk it through. Usually I’ll change the dialogue since that’s easier than changing the art. Whether it’s a lack of time or communication, one still slips through sometimes. I don’t think it’s super egregious here, but I do think a tweak or two could have helped. So in a word, don’t worry about second-guessing yourself. I do it too. A lot. 🙂
I am not Guilty. I am certainly not. Why am i to Blame if those Dumb civilians Die? They just happend to stand in the way of me Shooting! It’s really fun if you have Partys with mixed moral Standrads.
Shadowrun Game, Featuring: Dwarf Technomancer Dwarf, Ex-Coporate Wage-Slave, Elven Ganger, Ex Halloweener.
Location: Havanna
A Dude in the Streets gets beaten up by some Government Secret Police. My Ganger walks on and doesn’t bat an Eye. Technomancer. “This is horrible we, help him!” My Ganger shrugs, and charges his Electro-Gloves and shocks the too of them Unconcious, after a short fight, eating a few bullets. The Dude who got beaten up legs it.
My Ganger pulls his Shotgun and aims at one of the two Unconcious Dudes Faces. The Technomancer not being used to all this Fighting gets really stressed and Spouts Bible Citations at the Ganger, not killing and Stuff like that.
My Ganger asks “What?” Twice because he doens’t understand Word his fellow Runner is saying. Ignoring things he can’t understand in favor of things he can, he shoots the two Unconcious Dudes in the head with his shotgun, and quickly makes for his Escape, because he hears Sirens urging the Techno to do the same.
Techno to the Rest of the Team, with Horror in his Voice “He,… He just shot those men. They were totally helpless! He murdered them,… just like that!”
Rest of the Team? Shrugs. “Well he has his uses.”
The Technomancers Player was a great Roleplayer, and my Ganger managed to smoth it over by using Gel Ammo at later encounters, after his Team mates did a bit of nagging.
His thoughs went a bit like this:
If you Fight you Kill. It’s as Natural as Breathing right? Okay okay, alright Guys! If its bothering you Guys soooooo much i can use Gel Ammo sheesh. No big Deal.
Fun times!
The key line for me is this: “The Technomancers Player was a great Roleplayer.” If you’re keeping it all in character, and if you’re using the mindset of “find a way to make it make sense for your character,” then you wind up with Good Ending. That’s what happened when you arrived at the bit about, “If its bothering you Guys soooooo much i can use Gel Ammo sheesh.” Both characters bend a little, and the story advances without derailing. That’s good gaming right there.
Thanks^^. The thing some People don’t understand is, even the most Evil dude, and the Paragon of good can work together of they share a common goal, and are able to Compromise a little bit.
It’s a Team Game. Bull headed Fanatics don’t work,… unless you make them so incredibly Stupid ALL other Characters play that one like a fiddle. So yes, i and pretty much all Players/DMs i play with, always put the “playing together thing”, before Everything else.
I am currently playing a CN Tiefling Fiend Warlock named Bobo the Bloodomancer (or Robert) who serves Rakdos, Demon of Blood, Gore, and Blood Carnivals (originated from MTG, my DM loves it). My entire party was skeptical of me due to my… ‘way of life and daily rituals”, so to speak. However, Rakdos needed an ambassador, and I was the only person in all of the Rakdos cult with at least half of my sanity. My party has slowly gotten used to me, specifically our dwarf priest named “insert dwarf name” Battlehammer, due to my character being grateful the he grew him a new hand. Our Fighter, Dante, is on the fence. Our Tabaxi Rouge Tobias on the other hand… well lets just say a misplaced fireball in our third fight caused him to go crazy and want to kill me (despite being LN but he’s a that guy).
During a spy mission in a drow city which was for observation, he found a life draining knife earlier and starting killing guards at random, even considering killing a child for the sake of ‘he’s a drow’. And he still thinks I’m worse! So we currently have a major PvP going on while the other two are busy trying to stop us from killing each other. So yeah, my party’s a mixed bag, and so far, the insane cultist with 8 INT is making smarter choices than the Tabaxi Rouge with 16 INT.
P.S. After the whole demon knife incidents, he got changed from LN to NE. And I’m still somehow CN. Go Figure…
I heard that M:tG had spun off a few Unearthed Arcana setting documents. Was Ravnica one of them? If so, do you have a handy link? My Google-fu is failing me this morning.
Nope, sorry. The MTG stuff was just because our DM reeeeaaaaly likes MTG and the lore, so when I said i wanted to go a warlock with damage, he suggested fiend. Then, when I was in the process of choosing a fiend, his face lit up when he remembered his world had a continent devoted to Ravnica and the different segments. So once we realized Rakdos was an option (and somehow not as evil as a regular demon), the choice was made.
TL;DR No, my DM just likes MTG
Well then hey, on the off chance that your GM pal doesn’t already know about them:
https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/magic/Plane%20Shift%20Zendikar.pdf
http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/plane-shift-kaladesh
http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/plane-shift-amonkhet
I just realized, we’ve seen Witch before.
https://www.handbookofheroes.com/archives/comic/wizard-vs-sorcerer
Did Paladin bump into her at the tavern?
+500 XP to Gabriel! I was wondering when someone would notice. 😀
I just realized that as well and came here to see if anyone else had.
Oh well, no XP for me. The high Initiative gets the worm and all that.
The Paladin is tracking someone through town who has been stealing antiques marked with an old noble’s sigil, and he’s trailed them all the way back to his natural wererat halfling rogue buddy’s house. He finds the ratfling in a panic room, chained up with the someone who’s been stealing stuff holding a knife to their throat.
An exchange of information ensues in which the erstwhile thief reveals they are quite probably the last remaining descendant of said noble, and in their mind, they’re simply re-acquiring things that should never have left the family.
Paladin proceeds to explain that for threatening their friend, the thief won’t leave the room alive, and prepares to attack. It should be noted at this point, both the ratfling and the thief are minors.
“I, uh. Wow. Okay, just a minute…”
To prevent a paladin from accidentally murdering an innocent, I had to have the ratfling reveal their ruse and that they were working together and this was all meant to be a way for the two of them to get the Paladin off the thief’s trail. Which WAS the story, but I had to seriously wing it for a bit after the Paladin pulled out his flail and moved to swing it because he wasn’t supposed to know that yet.
Nice! Perfect example right there. It’s especially tough when it’s the paladin who’s suddenly decided on the renegade approach.
I’m curious though: Were you motivated by a desire to keep from dealing with Paladin morality issues? No judge, but I think this could be an important point. Why did you, as the GM, decide to work against that player’s decision to kill the thief?
Less ‘dealing with the Paladin morality issues’ and more, ‘I knew if I let this happen, when he found out the Paladin’s player would be upset about it.’ The ratfling was their friend, and the thief was the ratfling’s friend, and seeing friends killing friends wouldn’t end well, especially over a misunderstanding/failed Sense Motive checks. The player himself would have been upset over that series of events in a way that I knew would impact their enjoyment of the game.
But mostly it was because the thief and their story – of being the last remaining descendant of an old noble line – was kind of important in things that would happen later, and I didn’t feel like rewriting entire plotlines because the Paladin decided his sense of honor wouldn’t allow someone who had threatened his friends to live. Was that a selfish decision that removed some player agency? Yes. Was it a reasonable response despite that? I think so. 😛
Cool to see the thought process laid out like that. It’s so hard to judge this sort of thing in the heat of the moment, and the balancing act of player agency vs. player fun is ridiculously hard. Sounds like you made the right call in the moment though, and did so for the player’s sake rather than your own vision of the story. That’s an important distinction.
It wasn’t from a fellow PC, but myself actually. I had made a character for a Starfinder game who was pretty Renegade. Except for the whole ‘for the greater good’ part of it. Her introduction scene included pulling out an assault rifle to jump the queue at a fast-food restaurant, then running from the security bots. I’m still sad I never got to see her crazy storyline to its end.
Cassia, my Undying-patron, Blade-pact warlock, was a very pragmatic lass. Once after a difficult fight, she had managed to restrain and gag an enemy sorceress. I asked if we wanted her alive; the party Paladin (our default leader, as Paladins are wont to be) said yes, of course, we needed to know why she and her master had tried to kill us.
“Okay then,” Cassia said, and she splayed the protesting sorceress’ hand out on the edge of a nearby stair – and smashed hard with a loose brick, breaking the poor woman’s fingers. “We’re good – now she really can’t cast any more spells”.
So neutral.
Recently I was GMing an SCP Foundation game, and I was clear that I want the players to be split to one armed guard, one unarmed scientist, and two D-class personal (condemned criminals used as lab rats). To my surprise, only D-class was willing to cooperate, and the scientist was the one wanting straight up murder the D-class. They killed both D-class shortly after encountering their first SCP, despite the guard having non-lethal weapons in her disposal. All this time I had an inner monologue: “You’re already down to half of your party, so who of you two are going to be a lab rat for the next SCP?”
My solution is to make one of D-class’s player into next SCP and give him good chance to kill those fools. I’ll tell how it went once we finally meet to play.
Well, not exactly a change in alignment, but we have a guileless chaotic-evil whose character sheet has chaotic good written in. To summarize is a Kender without the kleptomaniac parts, both in and out of character, and from what i have heard she has been that way since forever and has had many Leroy Jenkins moments.
So far we are trying to explain her in and out of character that she should not do those things, knowing that it won’t work, so we take it with a bit of a laughter and a shrug when we have to grab her character in almost every encounter or even put her in a bottle or under a helmet (she is playing a Fairy). So far she has only survived due to the teddybear mechanics from 5e and that the GM only throws two or three encounters per day to us so there is more than enough healing while most of it is used on the Fairy, but things are looking similar to if she were Kenny from South Park as the character gets unconscious or very close to that on every encounter.