When you don't fit in

[Betote]

My advice: read more comics

Comic-books, specially the "superteam" ones are full of inter-party conflict without going so far as to split the party (in most cases). I'm thinking about Wolverine-Cyclops in X-Men, or the whole roster of JLI.

So, give them a speech about how killing unarmed prisoners is against all that is good and lawful, and keep on with the game. Your character doesn't control you, despite whatever that chick tract said

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Interestingly this was exactly what I was trying to avoid, the idea behind my character was to try to make a strictly lawful good character who is not lawful stupid, and not a jackass about it. Although I am unwilling to bend my own morality I've tried to be forgiving and understanding towards others. The concept is that the character tries to be a symbol of good to inspire others.

Oh, I'm not saying you ARE morality police. I've just noticed that when people see a paladin, they go out of their way to act significantly more evil and chaotic then normal. Significantly. Then when the paladin isn't a complete craven douche, they scream and whine.

Now I don't know how well I've been accomplishing those goals, but that's the theory and I don't feel I've ever stepped over the line.
This is true the wizard's player is almost entirely passive. Outside of combat or planing combat he seldom says anything at all.
I really would like to do this but its just not feasible. What with the character being gone and everything. Although perhaps my new character has been scrying on the party and knows what they have done...
The other problem with that course of action is that it would probably kill the campaign.[/quote]

In all honesty, talk to them OoCly. Of course, if they continue to do the same BS after that, you do know for a fact that the warlock is evil and the player behind it needs a smack upside the head.

And you know what paladins do to unrepentingly evil creatures, right?

 

[Dragonhelm]

I once played in a Star Wars game a friend ran using a variant of White Wolf's Storyteller system. Since it was Star Wars, I naturally wanted to play a Jedi (or at least a guy trying to become a Jedi).

There was some good storytelling, but some of the other players played mercenary type of characters. So my wookiee Jedi didn't fit in. It ended with a battle between my Jedi and one of the player characters who had it in for my character. Both characters lived, but my guy was effectively out of the game.

I tried a mechanic for a short bit, but didn't care for him. So then I created another Jedi, but this one was very much a scoundrel as well. This guy fit in much better.

Later on, I ran a Star Wars game with the DM from that game and the player I mentioned in it. They played bounty hunter types while my friend played a Jedi. Again, there was conflict. My game came to a halt that night.

What I have learned from these experiences is that DMs and players must talk first about the type of game they are running, what the characters are going to be like (i.e. heroic, mercenary, etc.), and what some of the themes are. I think Fear the Boot calls this the player contract, or some such. I forget the exact term.

What I also discovered is that if a character doesn't work in one game, try another game. My wookiee Jedi thrived in a few other games another friend of mine ran. I'm playing him to this day.

Also, don't settle on something just to fit in. Play what you want. Otherwise, you may resent the character.

And don't be afraid to recognize when the group isn't working. I like my friends who play the merc types, but I don't like gaming with them so much since my style is different from theirs. And that's okay. We're still friends; we just realize we have different styles of play.

Hope that helps.

 

[kk14]

I'm the DM for this game.

I'd just like to clear one thing up, and make some comments.

By and large I agree with Simm.

The warlock's pushing our good Simm down the pit was only partially intentional.

She had separated herself from the group, and got somewhat lost in the dark. She started sneaking, and found the party around the pit. She snuck up behind the poor paladin (who was leaning over, peering into the darkness below) and shouted 'boo!' with the intent to spook him. I ruled she had to make an attack, against will, I think. She hit. I decided That Simm got a save to avoid falling down, and another to avoid falling into the pit, both of which he failed.

Also, the only reason the warlock did not become evil then was because Simm was determined to bring the law down on her, either his own special brand or the local town's, which I figured was punishment enough. She was suitably recalcitrant so... I let it go. I mean, she didn't mean any 'harm' by it...

You're right about their being some party problems, and Simm's chjaracter really was the odd one out, although I think it is because his roleplaying is much more active than the others. If the wizard acted a little more good (or a little more anything at all) then this might be less the case, as he is a person who cannot be anything but good-aligned. The cleric and warlock's roleplaying styles are rather opportunistic : if they see circumstances they can use, they go, otherwise they let stuff happen.

I would classify the Warlock as more chaotic than evil, until last game.

And don't worry, the cleric is in for a little surprise next time he tries an encounter or daily power. Those are still sourced off the deity in 4e, right?

@ Simm play the character you want (although a defender will be sorely missed). The others will learn that wanton chaos has devastating effects in a sandbox, especially at low levels. I would advise not being a jerk though, or at least one that could compromise (the last guy was something of a pain to deal with from an NPC point of view). The next few games are going to be complicated enough...

 

[Simm]

The warlock's pushing our good Simm down the pit was only partially intentional.

She had separated herself from the group, and got somewhat lost in the dark. She started sneaking, and found the party around the pit. She snuck up behind the poor paladin (who was leaning over, peering into the darkness below) and shouted 'boo!' with the intent to spook him. I ruled she had to make an attack, against will, I think. She hit. I decided That Simm got a save to avoid falling down, and another to avoid falling into the pit, both of which he failed.

Ah, innocence on acount of stupidity. I think one oth the other poster's comments that this is not someone you'd necessarily want to adventur with still holds true.

Also, the only reason the warlock did not become evil then was because Simm was determined to bring the law down on her, either his own special brand or the local town's, which I figured was punishment enough. She was suitably recalcitrant so... I let it go. I mean, she didn't mean any 'harm' by it...

Which I didn't do. Those words both as a player and a character were born of frustration. Instead I forgave her, aiming for the whole turn the other cheek and lead by example thing. My theory, didn't work.

And don't worry, the cleric is in for a little surprise next time he tries an encounter or daily power. Those are still sourced off the deity in 4e, right?

Nope

PHB p. 61
As a cleric your diety does not directly grant you powers, instead your ordination or investiture as a cleric grants you the ability to wield devine powers... ...what you do with your power once you are ordained is up to you

Looks like that old avenue is now closed to you.

@ Simm play the character you want (although a defender will be sorely missed). The others will learn that wanton chaos has devastating effects in a sandbox, especially at low levels. I would advise not being a jerk though, or at least one that could compromise (the last guy was something of a pain to deal with from an NPC point of view). The next few games are going to be complicated enough...

Don't worry I've got a swordmage in the wings who's going to make some waves.

 

[Engilbrand]

While not RAWRRR!!!! my plan for Clerics and Paladins who annoy there gods is rather simple. If a Cleric of Bahamut just tortured a child for kicks... well, it'll be bad. I'll probably have an encounter ability go off on the Cleric at the start. If it continues, it will be another. Longer and it becomes and encounter. If something ridiculous happens over a long enough amount of time, or just one big act of evil for a "good" Cleric of a Good god, I'll probably just have every power activate at once on the Cleric. If they survive, they'll probably receive a message from whichever evil deity wants them, and they're now an NPC. Even though powers aren't keyed off of deities, that power still comes from somewhere, and the deities have a say in what their powers are used for.

 

[kk14]

My thoughts are pretty similar, Engilbrand.

As long as the power is 'divine' the source is the deity. He might keep his basic abilities, but I think that any of his more 'divine' powers may backfire.

If it causes too big a rules contradiction, I'll just say there is a binding clause in the investiture ceremony involving upholding the deity's tenets, and it is this that is causing... whatever his problem will be.

Honestly, CDGing many informants, when your job is to collect info, seems like it might merit some backlash.

And Simm, don't warn him.

 

[Simm]

He's a cleric of Ioun, you might find it difficult to make a breach of tenents stick. I supose killing informants counts.

Actually the fact that he keeps a secret at all might be a breach of faith, after all he is suppose to spread information and challenge those who follow the god of secrets. I see an opertunity for an attempted convertion.

 

[3K073jMSi6]

Hello all.

I am the cleric in question. I have heard your plans. There will be a full systems test at the beginning of the next game, to work out any, uh, problems with the weaponry.

As the "leader" class, when the teifling requested permission to terminate the two captives, I, following my Neutral stance, did not object. (Note that this does not mean that I agreed. It only means that I did not disagree.) However, my character had nothing to do with the actual termination of the two subjects.

Certainly, as leader, there is some liability on my part, however I also feel that those that were objecting to having the two captives embrace sweet death (the paladin and the wizard who opted to have to two captives, er, for lack of a better word, placed into bondage) should have looked at the past history of the teifling and kept a better watch over the prisoners. As captors, there is a responsibility for the wellbeing of the captured (in accordance with the Geneva Convention, which I am quite sure all Good characters follow. Neutral characters can use psychological torture and water boarding for information gathering. Evil characters can use full out physical torture and limb removal, up to and including death for fun and enjoyment).

Additionally, it tends to be best to question captives when the situation is fresh on their mind, as with every day, troop positions, weapons emplacements, plans, and so forth can change, and the information gathered from the captives become useless. This is something that the paladin, as a defender, should have done. I am a medi, er, cleric. I consider myself a non-combatant.

The little problem of the two captives being unconscious and impossible to question certainly could have been remedied through the use of the provisions of the available HMO (the cleric [me]), or healing potions, except, no one asked me to do so, and I, as a Neutral character, did not explicitly offer my services.

So, only as the "leader" (and only on paper, the paladin tends to be the party in power [we follow his experienced lead] and the teifling being Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition), certainly I can take the blame for not taking a direct stance on the issue, however not being a Good character, I cannot say that my course of action was wrong.

 

[Loonook]

Hello all.

I am the cleric in question. I have heard your plans. There will be a full systems test at the beginning of the next game, to work out any, uh, problems with the weaponry.

As the "leader" class, when the teifling requested permission to terminate the two captives, I, following my Neutral stance, did not object. (Note that this does not mean that I agreed. It only means that I did not disagree.) However, my character had nothing to do with the actual termination of the two subjects.

Certainly, as leader, there is some liability on my part, however I also feel that those that were objecting to having the two captives embrace sweet death (the paladin and the wizard who opted to have to two captives, er, for lack of a better word, placed into bondage) should have looked at the past history of the teifling and kept a better watch over the prisoners. As captors, there is a responsibility for the wellbeing of the captured (in accordance with the Geneva Convention, which I am quite sure all Good characters follow. Neutral characters can use psychological torture and water boarding for information gathering. Evil characters can use full out physical torture and limb removal, up to and including death for fun and enjoyment).

Additionally, it tends to be best to question captives when the situation is fresh on their mind, as with every day, troop positions, weapons emplacements, plans, and so forth can change, and the information gathered from the captives become useless. This is something that the paladin, as a defender, should have done. I am a medi, er, cleric. I consider myself a non-combatant.

The little problem of the two captives being unconscious and impossible to question certainly could have been remedied through the use of the provisions of the available HMO (the cleric [me]), or healing potions, except, no one asked me to do so, and I, as a Neutral character, did not explicitly offer my services.

So, only as the "leader" (and only on paper, the paladin tends to be the party in power [we follow his experienced lead] and the teifling being Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition), certainly I can take the blame for not taking a direct stance on the issue, however not being a Good character, I cannot say that my course of action was wrong.

This response is, quite possibly, the worst definition of neutral alignment I have ever seen in the history of gaming. So, neutral characters can torture with no issue as long as it doesn't cause any major harm (i.e. limb and death?) Nice...

Also, how does the Geneva Convention enter into a fantasy roleplaying game?

You, my friend, are... you know, I can't even begin to describe the issues inherent in... ugh, I give up.

Awesome play! You did well! That's exactly what should happen!

Find a new group Simm... please, for your own sanity and mine, as a hapless observer who has been following this thread in quiet up to... this.

Slainte,

-Loonook.