Should this be fixed

[Dross]

I applaud the DM's style in providing interesting treasure and how the situation has been handled so far.

As a DM I wouldn't "fix" the problem because it wasn't one that I made (for the record, I wouldn't have provided that type of treasure if I thought that the dwarf's necromancy=evil problem was still there, I'm assuming that Elf Witch's view was shared by the DM). As long as they had enough tools for future jobs I'd let it slide or adjust some things, bit I would not "replace" the treasure.

As a player I'd be miffed about the murder and more miffed about destroying the treasure as, from the viewing gallery at least, the dwarf seems to have a problem reconciling same basic St. Cuthbert beliefs. The murder would not be lawful, and it wasn't punishing evil. I know a couple of my PC's would have said something along the lines of: "And just what does St Cuthbert say about leaving allies, party members or maybe even friends during a battle to rob them of items that they have gained through blood and toil?"

I'm also happy with the player of the dwarf having a background and characterisation out of it.
Where I do question the player is where the total hatred of necromancy comes from (with what we know, such hatred for Drow would be more acceptable). Given that it is not a in-game world view it has to be a character (or maybe religion) specific view. Since there has been 2 major instances I don't feel it is out of line for another PC to ask:

"Why do you equate ALL necromancy with evil?"

Then you could move forward in game about how to handle this.

 

[Dross]

On a slightly different topic, how does the dwarf deal with all the necromancy in the game world? Why are there not more actions to destroy such things? Surely there has been more than 2 actions in two years.

It would seem that the party would run into more than 1 non evil necromancer in more than 2 years of playing. And since he was mentioned as being part of a guild, why is the guild not perceived as evil by the dwarf?

Spells (3.5) such as Blindness/deafness, cause fear, chill touch, death ward, Disrupt undead (necromancy using positive energy) are all 3rd or lower level. As is Mark of Justice, a 4th level paladin spell, and Undeath to Death, a level 6 Clr/Wiz spell used to destroy undead. There should be problems with using these spells near or by (with UMD) the dwarf.

I wonder if the dwarf should deny the protection from a cleric/druid/paly's Death Ward because it is from the Necromancy school?


At some stage (pre-3.5) weren't the Cure spells in the necromancy school?

 

[steeldragons]

Thanks for the input. My DM is also my roommate and she was feeling a little insecure about her decision to let what happen stand.

Ummmm whyyyyy? Tell your "roommate" that she is totally doing the right thing!

Her one flaw as a DM is that she sometimes bends over backwards to give the players what they want.

hmmmm...well, tell her from me, KNOCK IT OFF!!!! YOU ARE THE DM! YOU CONTROL THEIR UNIVERSE! What the PCs do, the PCs do...YOUR job is to give them the consequences of their actions...so GIVE 'EM!

As for ingame consequences. There have been some. Our lawful good cleric of Heirneous attacked and almost killed his character when he killed the necromancer

And why didn't he? He would have been totally justified.

My lawful good wizard told my guild what happened and they took a contract out on his life.

ComPLETEly justifiable...how did a cadre of wizards not find and kill this retch?

They dropped it when the wizard was raised. We also got forced into a mission by the crown to rescue hostages as part of getting the dwarf out of jail.

OK....so if I'm clear...the party had to do/take on a quest to get the nutcase dwarf out of jail...ummmm and at what point did anyone in your party say, "HELLLLLLS NO!!!!!" I won't do dick for this crazed nonsensical zealot!

Back when the murder happened we had a bigger group playing it was two years ago. Since then we lost four players they were married couples one set moved and the other split up. At the time the rest of the party was against saying anything to the dwarf and wanted it dropped saying it was a natural mistake.

Welll then...the rest of the party can take the "natural" consequences for the dwarf's actions...I recommend dropping a half dozen ice demons on them...that seems to wake people up.

The player does keep a record of all treasure he
gets and does tithe 10 percent to the church of St Cuthbert.

Well then, maybe his accountant ass should note the fact that he just annihilated his portion of 30,000 gp worth of tithe. Um, dwarf player...no mo' treasure for you....til the party is paid back...n' even after. Just...grrrr, I want this dwarf dead.

100,000 gp to the first PC who kills this obNOXious dwarf who believes himself a follower of St. Cuthbert. So sayeth the Steel Dragon.

The sticky thing about the church of St Cuthbert is that in my DMs game they are fanatics against evil. Their priests often have the attitude kill them all and let St Cuthbert sort it out. In their eyes his killing of the necromancer was an innocent mistake and his intention was good. So they gave him forgiveness.

Bollux. Bollux n' ! Killing a LG NPC is not "accidentally" good. It's not an unfortunate "mistake"....it IS KILLING a LG NPC!!! Again, your DM is toooooo kind.

Be thankful to your gods, and shower your DM with frankincense and myrrh, that I do not DM your game. This dwarf er wouldn''t stand a chance in Hades.

Part of the issue I think is the player himself. When he DMs his game is full of gray areas and heaven help you if you take the easy way out and kill a prisoner or even an evil NPC if you are in a town.

But as a player he will kill everything in sight if it might be evil. And he won't stop and listen to the rest of us.

Sometimes it can be a PITA.

It is not a PITA, it is contradictory to a)his persona as a DM and b) his persona as a PC, unable to work for the good of the party.

Flays 'im up by 'is toenails says I....arrrrgh.

--SD

 

[Blue]

Applaud the DM for fun and interesting treasure.

Applaud the dwarf for sticking to his beliefs.

4e divorces treasure parcels from specific acts, instead tying them to levels. I've always seen that as a (needed) step away from "we kill it and take it's loot". You killt he bandits, you get a few treasure parcels. You scare them away so they never come back, you get a reward worth ... a few treasure parcels.

4e ties magic items and the magic item economy so tightly to characters that you can't mess with it too much before you need to adjust other things.

On the other hand, if player actions demand consequences, good and bad. If player choice is meaningless, why play?

So ... I'd make sure that the player choice was meanignful, in terms on not giving the party liquid cash. But I would replace the treasure parcels over the rest of the level. First big of that would probably give the dwarf a divine boon (DMG2: Alternate Rewards) from St. Cuthbert for following his beliefs instead of something that would line his own pockets but could glorify necromancy (even if all necromancy isn't bad). Maybe "Strength of Devotion: gain +2 to saves vs. charm and enchantment, and +2 to diplomacy and intimidate for goals aligned with St. Cuthbert. Take -2 to bluff."

The rest I would work out as we go along. Maybe contacts worth a significant discount (or a "I'll boost your item by +1") to those who can make good arcane/religion rolls to help others rediscover this lost necromantic art, etc.

It's tough - first priority would be to keep the dwarf's actions relevant. But 4e item economy is so tightly a part of game balance that it's hard to penalize the party several parcels worth because of one character's action.

 

[falcarrion]

Anyway we had to go take care of an ooze in another room and the dwarf took his greater invisibility potion went back into the room and smashed all the skeletons.

I curious how the rest of the party found out that he did it. Did his character tell them? Did they question him? How did they role play this out?

 

[steeldragons]

Applaud the DM for fun and interesting treasure.

Applaud the dwarf for sticking to his beliefs.

4e divorces treasure parcels from specific acts, instead tying them to levels. I've always seen that as a (needed) step away from "we kill it and take it's loot". You killt he bandits, you get a few treasure parcels. You scare them away so they never come back, you get a reward worth ... a few treasure parcels.

4e ties magic items and the magic item economy so tightly to characters that you can't mess with it too much before you need to adjust other things.

On the other hand, if player actions demand consequences, good and bad. If player choice is meaningless, why play?

So ... I'd make sure that the player choice was meanignful, in terms on not giving the party liquid cash. But I would replace the treasure parcels over the rest of the level. First big of that would probably give the dwarf a divine boon (DMG2: Alternate Rewards) from St. Cuthbert for following his beliefs instead of something that would line his own pockets but could glorify necromancy (even if all necromancy isn't bad). Maybe "Strength of Devotion: gain +2 to saves vs. charm and enchantment, and +2 to diplomacy and intimidate for goals aligned with St. Cuthbert. Take -2 to bluff."

The rest I would work out as we go along. Maybe contacts worth a significant discount (or a "I'll boost your item by +1") to those who can make good arcane/religion rolls to help others rediscover this lost necromantic art, etc.

It's tough - first priority would be to keep the dwarf's actions relevant. But 4e item economy is so tightly a part of game balance that it's hard to penalize the party several parcels worth because of one character's action.

By the gods, how thankful am I that I shall never play 4e? Wow...every single point here sounds likes torturous nonsense. "Take -2 to bluff"? Dwarf killed a LAWFUL GOOD WIZARD who was there to HELP the party!

The dwarf's actions ARE relevant...he caused the entire party to loose 30k gp of value....I would say that is "relevant" to, ya know, every other person in the party.

"But 4e item economy is so tightly a part of game balance that it's hard to penalize the party several parcels worth because of one character's action."

Wow. You really don't play any game I am remotely familiar with, do you? Not your (or anyone's) fault. Just a commentary on where the game has come...or gone...and, it is, gone.

--SD

 

[Elf Witch]

Just got a chance to sit down and read this thread tonight.

I know some one brought up how things are done in 4E we are still playing 3.5.

Our characters don't know that the dwarf smashed them to pieces. We came back and found them destroyed. Since one of the minions escaped we are guessing they did it. Out of character we know he did but we are pretty good at separating the two.

The one player who was upset over everything has calmed down and has told the DM not to worry about it.

I will admit that some of this is getting on my nerves. The whole necromancy thing does not make any sense to me. It does not fit his background wanting to kill every drow in sight yeah I understand that but not this. Personally I think the entire necromancy things is the player's view that all necromancy is evil and that comes from his years of playing. No matter how many PCs and NPCs tell him that necromancy in of itself is not always evil. The DM has come out and said in my game there are good necromancers.


Part of the issue I found out is because of me. He does not like the way I sometimes play. He is basing this on several things. Back when 3.0 came out we were playing in a game and I played an elven sorcerer who tried not to kill things. I did a lot of subdual damage and I often spared lives behind the party's back. The DM of that game really liked my character and how I was playing and rewarded it by showing that my mercy often made things better. For example a former prisoner of ours spared our lives and helped us escape execution because I had spared his life.

For some reason this drove him crazy and it bothered him that I was playing wrong. In his eyes you kill bad things in the game and if the DM puts them there they are to be defeated.

So now 9 years later he is worried that I will do something stupid so he goes behind the party's back to make sure I don't do it. IE smashing the skeletons.

He also does not listen to what my character tells him. For example we were fighting dopplegangers and we came into a room where four people were tied up who looked like us. I yelled wait we need to think about this but he charged in and starting killing them. He killed two and they turned into dopplegangers but I had a bad feeling because we had been separated earlier. I cast web to try and slow him down. The cleric started saying don't listen to her kill them all, at that moment I just knew that one of the dopplegangers was with us and the other cleric tied and gagged in a chair was our real cleric.

I turned an attacked what I thought was the doppleganger and the dwarf tried to attack the tied up cleric but he was asked to make a will save and couldn't follow through he kept trying. I killed the cleric I was fighting and he turned into a doppleganger.

The DM to save the cleric's life had his god interfere and cast sanctuary on him so that he would not be killed.

You would think that after almost killing a party member he would listen to me but nope he doesn't.

It is just something I have to deal with in game. We have been playing together for 16 years and in real life he is a wonderful friend the type who would give you his last bit of money if you needed it. So I just cope with his gaming style.

 

[Nightson]

It is just something I have to deal with in game. We have been playing together for 16 years and in real life he is a wonderful friend the type who would give you his last bit of money if you needed it. So I just cope with his gaming style.

I would strongly suggest for your next game, laying out a social construct for new characters. Go over motivations and personalities and look for potential conflicts, and then talk about what keeps the group together and how those conflicts won't destroy party unity.

I can see that helping, if you know he's going to be playing a homicidal hater of all things necromantic then you can for example, make your own character be sort of suspicious of necromancy. Or it can serve as a way of discouraging him from picking character traits that sort of hinder and conflict with the party.

 

[Griego]

The dwarf just likes being a jerk. Pick some flimsy excuse out of the air to kill his characters a few times until he gets the point. XD

 

[Starfox]

I might be out on a limb, but let me present a different perspective.

That dwarf in an anti-necromantic activist. Just as various activists RL, this is controversial. Peace activists, environmental activists, anti-nuclear activists, abortionists and anti-abortionists - I am pretty sure they all see themselves as Lawful Good and doing the right thing. In my opinion, "activism" is in itself anti-establishment and therefore chaotic, but it is hardly evil. It is not until you start hurting other people that it approaches evil. Which he seems to have done, yes. But I can see how he still thinks of himself as LG.

That is the problem with alignments; once you get in under your character's skin, it becomes impossible for you as a player to tell the alignment of your own character. Of course you are doing the right and honorable thing;" if those fools would only realize what evils they are perpetuating in their mistaken beliefs."

As a player (in this case the dwarf's player) in this situation you need to take a step back, breathe deeply, and try to see what you're doing from the perspective of those around you.