DM's Quest: Turning a Good PC Bad

Camarath said:
I personally do not think killing someone based solely on their appearance is in any way clever thinking. A PC scheming to murder another character sounds evil to me. I think giving the player the chance to indulge the dark desires of her heart is a good thing. I do think you should give the PC a bit of very subtle warning nothing as drastic as losing spells or healing, I think vague feelings of misgiving should be enough. Let your subtle warning firmly entrench the player in her chosen course of action then slowly up the warning level till in the end she knows full well what she is doing is wrong or at least not good but does it anyway. Don't force evil on the player let her chose it for herself.

I think we agree on a lot of things. It's not clever thinking to kill the character based on appearance. I even said in my first post if she had managed to do it, i'd have let her suffer the consequences, based on how we portray good and evil in the campaign. You're saying not to force eveil on her, but letting her get herself in so deep there is no way out is hardly giving her choices. As I said, I'd give her a nice warning ni game and speak to her out of game. If she wishes to "choose evil for herself" then so be it, but this may simply be a player-DM communication failure. The player may think this is within her alignment while the DM doesn't. Alignment is very ambiguous and consequences of how to pursue shifts are poorly defined. If your players mistakingly think they are doing the right thing based on their alignment, they deserve to know out of character that you feel it is against their alignment. If you think alignment isn't ambiguous then wait around a month or two, I think we're due for another "is this act evil thread?" any minute now...

I'd give the player a shot at defending herself and explaining how I saw her actions before doing anything else. I'd do this away from the rest of the group so she doesn't feel threatened anymore than she has to.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

A LN cleric of Hextor? Isn't that unusual? I thought Hextor was the greyhawk god of slaughter and was, therefore, chaotic in alignment?

Then again, I know jack crap about Greyhawk.
 

I agree she should get enough warning to know that her actions are evil or at least non-good. I just don't think that it should be done in a very blatant way. I think losing casting ability or divine visions are a bit much for just planning to kill something once she starts committing evil act then those should be clear signs for her to change her ways. As it is if the DM keeps telling her about a sense of something being wrong and keeps asking here if she is sure she wants to plot the NPC death I think that should be enough of a warning. And I do not think an out of game conversation about this specific topic is warranted until she actually kills the NPC although a general one about what alignment means in your campaign might be in order.

Ack! An alignment thread!
 

KingOfChaos said:
A LN cleric of Hextor? Isn't that unusual? I thought Hextor was the greyhawk god of slaughter and was, therefore, chaotic in alignment?

Then again, I know jack crap about Greyhawk.
Not a cleric. A fighter. She receives no benefits from Hextor whatsoever. In fact, her whole kingdom seems to have been forgotten by Hextor (perhaps for apostasy), that's why he let it be overrun by undead from another evil deity.

Also, Erythnul is the GH god of slaughter (CE). Hextor is the GH god of tyranny (LE).

BTW, Harlock, I agree that there should be more hints. In the end, I will not change the cleric's alignment until there is a clear choice of evil over good.

Even then, she will not be punished for it. The BBEG really wants to turn her, and if she does, he will offer her great power. And if that's what she chooses, she'll get it. If not, attonement will be readily available. In the end, the player may be shocked and surprised, but she'll still have the ultimate choice. Either way, I won't withhold anything from her.
 
Last edited:

Halivar said:
Either way, I won't withhold anything from her.

That's the best way to do it in my opinion. Player's can be very protective of their characters and I think it best to ultimately let them know in advance of major changes (turning a good PC evil) and consequences of said change(s).
 

OK, I didn't read this as a DM punishment, but in re-reading, I can see where it can be seen that way. Which means it should be sending off warning sirens all over the place! Proceed carefully Halivar.

That being said ... I have run campaigns where characters turned bad! It can be an interesting development and can enrich the story. Even the temptation and ultimate dismissal of that temptation can be very satisfying. So, as is my fashion, I will go into detail on how I have dealt with this as well as my thoughts on how you might want to address it. :)

Situation #1 - Party is taking on a "mystery snake cult" in a forest. Manages to take out a supply caravan and take one person captive. Party rogue and bard take captive into forest to interrogate the prisoner. They do not speak a common language (I do not have a universal common tongue in my campaign). Miscommunication happens and the bard slits the throat of the prisoner. They dump the body and return to party. In my book, killing a helpless prisoner is murder and is an evil act. Party berates the rogue and bard. After the game, I let the two players know that I prefer to run my games as black & white/Good & Evil. Killing a helpless prisoner is Evil. Both players understand, but want to play the morally ambiguous role where anything you do to a potential enemy is "good". I explain that I understand the appeal of that style of game, but it does not fit with the Good alignment. Future "transgressions may cause an alignment shift.

I was a little peeved, but I had never sat down with the players and really defined what I expect from the various alignments. So, I wanted to reset some expectations.

Situation #2 - Party is in a necropolis and has holed up in an old tower to recuperate. I have just picked up Dragon #302 (December 2002) which has the article on selling your soul. The "Tainted" PrC that allows an evil outsider to start trying to tempt you to Evil. If you can resist, you can pick up some ... interesting ... powers. So, I decide to tempt the party. The house they are in was one of the last to fall to an army of undead. The adventurers that lived there made a last stand, but eventually died. As the party slept that night, each one was visited with dreams and visions of the previous occupants. Some were given visions from the perspective of a particular occupant. Others were given a 3rd party perspective. Each vision was different. I actually took each player aside to work through their dream so that nobody would have all the pieces. I wanted them to feel a bit isolated, but if they communicated, they would put the story together. Basically, some of the previous occupants fell to despair and accepted the assistance of evil forces. These same forces were tempting the PC's 353 years later. Each character interpreted their dreams differently and a few of them decided that forces of good helped the occupants of the house, even though they eventually lost. When a voice whispered in their head that they could have that power ... 3 players said yes!

I took those players aside and explained that they were being tempted and that if they agreed, the PC would immediately gain 1 level in the "Tainted" PrC. But, I wanted them to look over the PrC, think through the implications, and make a final decision. At that point, one of the players decided to back out. The other two decided to go forward. Great fun!

The player that backed out didn't want to risk his character concept. I was cool with that. He had invested a lot of energy into that character. One of the players that accepted wanted to do it because he felt his character was a bit naive and he wanted to play up the angst that the PC would feel once he figure out that he had let Evil have a grip on his soul. The other player (Playing the Bard from Situation #1) decided that his character wanted Power and was willing to accept it at any cost. The PC was confident in holding back any Evil influence since Power isn't Evil. What you do with it is.

In this case, I wanted to make sure that everyone was willing to go with the story for the sake of the RP. I wanted everyone to have fun and we all did. the key to both situations was that I communicated with the players so that we could eliminate any DM vs Player relationships.

I would encourage you to speak with the Player and clear the air. If the player did not see this as an attempt to turn toward the path of evil, offer an out so that the character can "see the light" and the party can resolve that issue in game. The gods work in mysterious ways. Perhaps the cleric walks into temple one day as the high priest is relating a fable about temptation and deception. The story sounds eerily similar to what just happened with the "paldain" offering to help assassinate somebody else. That could serve as the trigger that allwos the PC to realize the potential problem. If the player realizes that this is a temptation toward evil, and wants to play the fallen character, thenboth of you know that and can work toward that storyline.

Communication is the key. With good communication and understanding, you can really make the temptation a nice character developing experience. But, with poor communication, you risk turning things into an adversarial role.

I hope that long winded post helps! :)
 

Halivar said:
But I need more. How can I more firmly entrench this cleric into a web of evil, deceit, and treachery? I've never run a campaign so focused on character development before. What would you do?

I think this is hilarious. I disagree that it's unreasonble to expect a cleric of _Pelor_ to give someone the benefit of the doubt - "must be evil - kill her and take her stuff" is more a St Cuthbertine attitude. Even a cleric of Heironeus shouldn't be wanting to murder a follower of Hextor in cold blood IMO - Greyhawk history emphasises the 'honourable rivalry' between the two Oeridian faiths, each seeking to outdo the other in deeds of valour and bravery (this may have got lost in 3e's simplifications).
I think what you have so far is fine - assuming everything goes as expected, I see no need to dump more evil & treachery on top of it. Let's see: you could always have the murdered warrior's aggrieved relatives come seeking vengeance against the cleric - through the law courts... :cool:
 

BTW how did changing Delia's alignment from LE to LN prevent the PCs killing her in the first place? You already said that the cleric didn't know she's not evil? Your description of Delia's behaviour would be fully conversant with an alignment shift since she joined the party from a (weak, unreflective) LE to LN. Alignment is supposed to be a tool not a straitjacket for the DM, especially in 3e. Changing the alignment you rate an NPC as having to me is far LESS of a change than arbitrarily increasing or decreasing an NPC's hp in the middle of a fight. OTOH changing it in reaction to PC wanting to kill her doesn't seem right - I would think she was LE when they found her, but only mildly so, and certainly wouldn't warrant the [Evil] descriptor that would have her radiate Evil to a detection spell. Now she's LN, although she herself may not be conscious of any change of heart.
 

S'mon said:
BTW how did changing Delia's alignment from LE to LN prevent the PCs killing her in the first place?
It didn't. The party's thief and wizard convinced the cleric that killing in cold blood was an evil act, no matter who it was. Delia was unconcious the whole time (dying). I never stepped in. So, so far as the party is concerned, Delia was always LN.

S'mon said:
I would think she was LE when they found her, but only mildly so, and certainly wouldn't warrant the [Evil] descriptor that would have her radiate Evil to a detection spell.
Except they never cast any kind of detection of discernment spell. Not a once. In fact, it's been almost a month of playing, and the cleric has yet to cast detect evil on anyone. In this case, the cleric perceives Delia as evil purely because of Character Attribution Theory. Of course, I'll make sure she has a good reason to cast detect evil so I can pointedly say, "The only source of evil in the room is beyond the door over there" where the big beastie lurks.
 
Last edited:

Halivar said:
It didn't. The party's thief and wizard convinced the cleric that killing in cold blood was an evil act, no matter who it was. Delia was unconcious the whole time (dying). I never stepped in. So, so far as the party is concerned, Delia was always LN.

So your alteration had no effect on the PCs except that instead of rescuing an evil person, they rescued a neutral person - a change which almost anyone would consider to be _to their benefit_. The change certainly didn't screw them over, anyway. Changing your mind as to how you characterise the alignment of an NPC who hasn't yet entered play surely seems to fall within DM's prerogative. If Delia had killed her when first encountered, I assume you weren't going to punish her for 'murdering a non-evil person' or something. Like I said, I would look at it as the NPC being weakly-evil previously (since you had LE on her sheet), but LN currently.

One thought I had re the Blackguard was that he might try to tempt Delia further - rather than scorn her he could keep up the deception, perhaps revealing that "I serve another master than Heironeus - a greater master. He has given us a great calling, Delia. Together, we can..."

The secret is to make (true) evil seem attractive, seductive. Maybe the Hextorites come looking for revenge against the party en masse, and the Blackguard helps Delia slaughter them? Then he advocates attacking the Hextorite castle(s) "to eliminate the threat at its source". The whole situation could swiftly escalate into all-out war between nations and the triumph of whatever CE forces the Blackguard serves.
 

Remove ads

Top