PDA

View Full Version : Breaking the Mold: can CE be good?



Sacrieur
2015-06-02, 09:16 AM
I have a character in one of my campaigns who started out as CG but the more I began to develop and play him the more I realized he acted more neutral. What's more, now I think he might be Chaotic Evil. I'm not that great with alignments so I've decided to start a fight discussion.

We can call him S for convenience. S is an extremely powerful being capable of spacetime manipulation. Here is a description I wrote of his personality:


Among the nine, S is the most distant and independent. He typically does as he pleases, with little regard for anyone else, often causing serious problems with structured authority. He is not opposed to working alongside authority when itís especially convenient for him, but only as a manipulation tactic to achieve an even loftier goal.

A unique and complex character; he is a pragmatic philosopher, applying intense rational scrutiny to his personal beliefs and motivations and has little patience for those who do not do the same. He has a great passion to do the greatest good, regardless of who must pay the price for him to accomplish it: innocence and guilt are merely idealistic with little basis in reality.

I mean it certainly sounded chaotic good, what with the greatest good thing going for him. He has a hatred of injustice and evil in general, but corrects it inconsistently. Depending on the circumstances he may track down and slaughter every bandit he comes across or he may ignore them while they slaughter villagers. The difference is in his own personal involvement. In general he sticks to himself and his own motivations.

In addition, he's fiercely intelligent and a brilliant tactician.

Here are some things he's done:


Mocks the party consistently.
Lies even though he's not very good at it.
Covertly teleported to the top of a cliff the party had to climb. He waited until the party's de facto leader spent considerable effort to get a grappling hook and made it to the top before demonstrating his ability and bringing up the remaining members of the party.
Has put the party in the position of protecting him from a powerful authority who imprisoned him.

Brutally slaughtered an entire town of villagers until they gave him the information about a witch (good-aligned) who had been kidnapped. He then slowly killed the ones who he deemed even remotely involved, regardless of actual guilt.
Distracted a paladin so that members of the party could kill and loot helpless and dying bandits.
Encouraged the party into a perilous life or death situation, then did nothing to help them out despite having valuable information that would have effortlessly gotten them out of it since he wouldn't have died and for his own amusement.


That said he's done things you could argue were good. The reason he was imprisoned was because an aberrant greater deity was on the the loose destroying worlds. S destroyed an entire plane of existence and all of its inhabitants to stop him, rather than trying to even attempt to save the inhabitants.

He has also spent most of his existence bent on the total annihilation of the Far Realm.

His core belief is creation cannot exist without destruction. He views himself as serving the latter and doing what must be done--what the forces of good won't or can't do--for the benefit of everyone.

Thoughts?

Seto
2015-06-02, 09:43 AM
He's just an evil character that fights Evil. There's nothing contradictory about that. He does do some good, but in the greater picture it's dwarfed by his actions.
What really puts him firmly into Evil territory is that he deludes himself into thinking he does "what has to be done", when he actually doesn't even try to do good when it wouldn't cost him much and the "necessity" is illusory.

Red Fel
2015-06-02, 09:48 AM
Thoughts?

First thought? He's a jerkwad. That's what immediately jumps out at me. Not that he's Chaotic or Evil, but that he's a jerkwad. Let's run down your list.


Here are some things he's done:


Mocks the party consistently.

That's neither Good nor Evil. It's just a jerkwad tendency.


Lies even though he's not very good at it.

Incompetent jerkwad.


Covertly teleported to the top of a cliff the party had to climb. He waited until the party's de facto leader spent considerable effort to get a grappling hook and made it to the top before demonstrating his ability and bringing up the remaining members of the party.

Jerkwad.


Has put the party in the position of protecting him from a powerful authority who imprisoned him.

Cowardly jerkwad who hides behind the party after getting himself into trouble.


Brutally slaughtered an entire town of villagers until they gave him the information about a witch (good-aligned) who had been kidnapped. He then slowly killed the ones who he deemed even remotely involved, regardless of actual guilt.

That's Evil. And excessive. I approve.


Distracted a paladin so that members of the party could kill and loot helpless and dying bandits.

Eh... I'll give you some Evil points, there. Unfortunately, it's pretty much mandatory for somebody to do that when you've got a Paladin in a mixed-alignment party. Stupid RAW restrictions...


Encouraged the party into a perilous life or death situation, then did nothing to help them out despite having valuable information that would have effortlessly gotten them out of it since he wouldn't have died and for his own amusement.


And we're back to jerkwad.

Look, not every CE character can be Belkar or Richard. Those are characters you actually grow to like; their jabs aren't meanspirited, and they're useful more often than not. They're effective. The party keeps them around because (1) leaving them on their own would be dangerous to pretty much the entire world, (2) they're good at what they do, and (3) when they're not being jerks to the party (and they do that less often, of late), they're actually pretty entertaining.

Your guy is a bad liar, a coward who gets himself and the party into trouble, a guy who contributes little and does so for his own amusement, and one who is regularly a jerk to the party. That much isn't CE, it's just stupid and obnoxious. Tell me why they haven't killed him in his sleep yet?


I mean it certainly sounded chaotic good, what with the greatest good thing going for him. He has a hatred of injustice and evil in general, but corrects it inconsistently. Depending on the circumstances he may track down and slaughter every bandit he comes across or he may ignore them while they slaughter villagers. The difference is in his own personal involvement. In general he sticks to himself and his own motivations.

Inconsistent. He doesn't have a "hatred of injustice and evil" if he can shrug and go "eh, it's not my problem." I'll agree that quickly rules out CG, putting him at CN-CE. The fact that he tortures people for funsies puts him pretty squarely in CE.


In addition, he's fiercely intelligent and a brilliant tactician.

Absolutely nothing you've described suggests that. The fact that he is regularly a jerk to his party - the people he hides behind like a frightened puppy when he gets himself into trouble - suggests entirely the opposite: that he is profoundly stupid, at least when it comes to dealing with people. (Rule the first: If you're going to need meat shields to hide behind, make sure they love you.)


That said he's done things you could argue were good. The reason he was imprisoned was because an aberrant greater deity was on the the loose destroying worlds. S destroyed an entire plane of existence and all of its inhabitants to stop him, rather than trying to even attempt to save the inhabitants.

That's not arguable. He sacrificed a plane's worth of people, some of whom might have been innocent, to stop an evil being. That's not a sacrifice a Good character can justify. Moreover, fighting Evil doesn't instantly make one Good, or else the Blood War (between LE and CE, with NE playing off both sides) in D&D would become a source of cosmic confusion.


He has also spent most of his existence bent on the total annihilation of the Far Realm.

An adorably futile gesture.


His core belief is creation cannot exist without destruction. He views himself as serving the latter and doing what must be done--what the forces of good won't or can't do--for the benefit of everyone.

Ahh, "for the greater good." The classic mantra of Evil. At least most anti-villains recognize that what they're doing is technically Evil, even though they have the best of intentions. Does this guy recognize that much?

Maglubiyet
2015-06-02, 10:13 AM
First thought? He's a jerkwad.

Ah, you beat me to the punch, as usual!

I was going to say (and am saying it) that I wouldn't want to play with this guy. Ever. Regardless of what alignment label you want to slap on him, he is an unpleasant person to be around IC or OOC. No fun for the GM, no fun for the other players or their PC's.

What is the point of playing this guy except to be a disruptive, rub-it-in-your-face jerk? Are the game sessions filled with a lot of awkward silences when you show up?

Keltest
2015-06-02, 10:30 AM
Id call him chaotic stupid, with a massive overestimation of his own ability and importance. His huge ego demands he champion a cause, but his stupidity prevents him from actually, you know, doing that. However I wouldn't call him evil, either, because that generally requires some understanding of whats actually going on, which he clearly lacks.

In terms of actual practical alignment, Chaotic Neutral who thinks he's CG because he doesn't understand what good actually is, like, at all.

Sacrieur
2015-06-02, 11:01 AM
First thought? He's a jerkwad. That's what immediately jumps out at me. Not that he's Chaotic or Evil, but that he's a jerkwad. Let's run down your list.

I'm glad he comes off that way, since he kinda a big ****. But he's been helpful too. He's helped out the party once or twice and has helped in preventing one of them from being executed.



Eh... I'll give you some Evil points, there. Unfortunately, it's pretty much mandatory for somebody to do that when you've got a Paladin in a mixed-alignment party. Stupid RAW restrictions...

He doesn't care about money or killing so much as that they could have potentially overheard some secret information a party members slipped out. It was more precautionary, but he did permit enough time to loot the bodies.



Look, not every CE character can be Belkar or Richard. Those are characters you actually grow to like; their jabs aren't meanspirited, and they're useful more often than not. They're effective. The party keeps them around because (1) leaving them on their own would be dangerous to pretty much the entire world, (2) they're good at what they do, and (3) when they're not being jerks to the party (and they do that less often, of late), they're actually pretty entertaining.

Your guy is a bad liar, a coward who gets himself and the party into trouble, a guy who contributes little and does so for his own amusement, and one who is regularly a jerk to the party. That much isn't CE, it's just stupid and obnoxious. Tell me why they haven't killed him in his sleep yet?

He lies out of amusement and because he thinks everyone else is an idiot so it doesn't really matter anyway.

He's contributed a lot and has racked up more kills than the rest of the party combined. He's also provided a hint or two on a puzzle on occasion and has kept the party out of serious trouble and argued for their advantage on more than one occasion. The party puts up with him because the paladin hasn't used detect evil on him yet and he's somewhat useful.

The party had a chance to turn him over and didn't, so clearly they very much like him. I think S trusts them as being less stupid than most people around him.



Inconsistent. He doesn't have a "hatred of injustice and evil" if he can shrug and go "eh, it's not my problem." I'll agree that quickly rules out CG, putting him at CN-CE. The fact that he tortures people for funsies puts him pretty squarely in CE.

Innocent in paladin terms, but arguably guilty. He blamed the commoners for being hostile to the witch who only ever was benevolent and caring to them (to the point of a fault). In his mind, they permitted injustice to flourish and just as guilty.



Absolutely nothing you've described suggests that. The fact that he is regularly a jerk to his party - the people he hides behind like a frightened puppy when he gets himself into trouble - suggests entirely the opposite: that he is profoundly stupid, at least when it comes to dealing with people. (Rule the first: If you're going to need meat shields to hide behind, make sure they love you.)

The people after him are very powerful. But ultimately he's using them as a way to hide from them to further an ulterior (and good/noble) goal.



That's not arguable. He sacrificed a plane's worth of people, some of whom might have been innocent, to stop an evil being. That's not a sacrifice a Good character can justify. Moreover, fighting Evil doesn't instantly make one Good, or else the Blood War (between LE and CE, with NE playing off both sides) in D&D would become a source of cosmic confusion.

Doing so may have saved countless more planes. IIRC the god had already destroyed six or seven planes before the powers that be decided they should consider sending S, who went regardless.



An adorably futile gesture.

He's their fiercest opponent, but yes, highly futile. The authority (of the nine) he's apart of is dedicated to protecting the multiverse against the Far Realm.



Ahh, "for the greater good." The classic mantra of Evil. At least most anti-villains recognize that what they're doing is technically Evil, even though they have the best of intentions. Does this guy recognize that much?

Yes, his deepest powers are based around unraveling and nihilism. One could say his very purpose is to destroy.

---

As a side note, he's fond of paladins and will go out of his way for them in a way that he wouldn't for anyone else.



Ah, you beat me to the punch, as usual!

I was going to say (and am saying it) that I wouldn't want to play with this guy. Ever. Regardless of what alignment label you want to slap on him, he is an unpleasant person to be around IC or OOC. No fun for the GM, no fun for the other players or their PC's.

What is the point of playing this guy except to be a disruptive, rub-it-in-your-face jerk? Are the game sessions filled with a lot of awkward silences when you show up?

Their main complaint is that he's too powerful and knows too much, even though he's a cat. So while his character has started off somewhat noble it sort of evolved and is still evolving to something more fun. He's a lot like Q when Q doesn't have any powers. (https://youtu.be/Q5tD2KDtHYU)

kyoryu
2015-06-02, 11:23 AM
We can call him S for convenience. S is an extremely powerful being capable of spacetime manipulation. Here is a description I wrote of his personality:

He has a great passion to do the greatest good, regardless of who must pay the price for him to accomplish it:

So, this is where you have to decide whether good/evil in your campaign is utilitarian or not. That is, is the morality of an action dependent on the final balance of good/evil it causes (which, I mean, how do you calculate that until all events are played out), or is it more like something based on natural law - does it assume that (at least some) creatures have rights, and that violating those rights is bad, even if it results in a "greater" good?

IOW, is the road to Hell paved with good intentions? My opinion is probably obvious, but I'll just add in that people who say things like "to make an omelet, you have to break some eggs", or "the greater good, regardless of who pays" rarely assume that they will be the ones paying.


or he may ignore them while they slaughter villagers.

That one's more neutral than anything.



Brutally slaughtered an entire town of villagers until they gave him the information about a witch (good-aligned) who had been kidnapped. He then slowly killed the ones who he deemed even remotely involved, regardless of actual guilt.

Okay, really, this alone should probably answer your question.


His core belief is creation cannot exist without destruction. He views himself as serving the latter and doing what must be done--what the forces of good won't or can't do--for the benefit of everyone.

Awesome! He's come up with a rationalization for being evil! Most evil people do. Every single genocidal maniac the world has known has been convinced that what they were doing was just and necessary, and likely good, and hey, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs! So shove people into those gulags or re-education camps! Pass out those diseased blankets! It's for the greater good.

mAc Chaos
2015-06-02, 11:43 AM
I'm not sure if it's on purpose or not but he comes across as a layered character at least.

Honest Tiefling
2015-06-02, 11:51 AM
Honestly, reading this I'd put him at Chaotic Evil. There's not a single action described that could be good aligned in the slightest. And just because you punch the Evil Overlord in the face, kick his dog and then relieve yourself on his throne does not make you good in any way. Evil fights evil all of the time, they often have better stuff! And curtains that usually already go with your theme for your lair.

AxeAlex
2015-06-02, 12:00 PM
There is no need to overcomplexify anything, you are Chaotic Evil.

Of course evil characters can do good when it benefits them, that is usual and expected. Like saving a Princess to marry her and become royalty.

Evil can also kill evil, that doesn't make them good. Demons and Devils kill each other, but they aren't any more "good" for it.

Destroying a plane is an evil act. You said yourself your character didnt care of even think about it's inhabitants, so we can rule out the fact that it was "necessary for the greater good" if you didn't even try to find another way.

There is nothing complex or out of the ordinary here; You are simply chaotic evil.

Sacrieur
2015-06-02, 12:38 PM
Honestly, reading this I'd put him at Chaotic Evil. There's not a single action described that could be good aligned in the slightest. And just because you punch the Evil Overlord in the face, kick his dog and then relieve yourself on his throne does not make you good in any way.

Why not? It does if you're a vigilante.

Murk
2015-06-02, 12:45 PM
I just want to chime in and say, yes, chaotic evil can do good. You can do good on accident. You can do good for the wrong reasons. You can do good because good is sometimes simply the best for you personally and your evil plans.

Which aligns perfectly with a character you originally wrote as CG, but then turned out to be CE. I imagine everyone around this character, and the character itself thinks: 'hey, this is a good guy. He's doing some good stuff. Cool!' only for him to turn out to be a jerkwad who is pretty much evil, but coincidentally his Evil sometimes overlaps with other people's Good.

That's... a cool story of character development. One that even fooled the author (you)!

Red Fel
2015-06-02, 12:47 PM
Why not? It does if you're a vigilante.

That's not what makes him a Good character, though. When a Good character does that (although, really, kicking the dog?), he does it in part because he's Good; when an Evil character does that, it doesn't change the fact that he's Evil.

Your guy can do all the heroism he wants; he's not Good.

Honest Tiefling
2015-06-02, 12:49 PM
Why not? It does if you're a vigilante.

Does it? I'd say no, else a lot of evil gods are actually good aligned, because they fight other evil gods. Heck, by this logic, devils are good because they fight the demonic hordes of the abyss. You can also be a very evil vigilante as well. Fighting evil just doesn't make you good, it makes you not a complete idiot because those people usually still pose a threat to you.

So I still say, this character has not been presented to have done a single good-aligned act. Why would they be good aligned? No possible reason has been presented.

Talakeal
2015-06-02, 12:53 PM
Why not? It does if you're a vigilante.

Its more of a "why" in this case.

If you are doing it to protect others it can be good.

If you are doing it because you are angry, or sadistic, or prejudiced, or because doing so will help you with your own goals, or merely to save your own skin then there is nothing good about it, and it might even be evil regardless of the target's alignment.




I once had a player who acted like a complete CE sociopath, but claimed that because he was helping the rest of the party kill the bad guys this would balance it out and leave him at neutral. We all had to explain that it doesn't work this way, and if it did the "bad guys" he was killing would no longer be bad guys at all because they have killed enough of their rivals to balance out their evil deeds. He still didn't buy it though and refused to change either his behavior or his listed alignment.

Geddy2112
2015-06-02, 01:02 PM
I think he might be Chaotic Evil.

You THINK!? Your character is as chaotic evil as it gets.

{scrubbed}


Here is a description I wrote of his personality:
I mean it certainly sounded chaotic good, what with the greatest good thing going for him. He has a hatred of injustice and evil in general, but corrects it inconsistently. Depending on the circumstances he may track down and slaughter every bandit he comes across or he may ignore them while they slaughter villagers. The difference is in his own personal involvement. In general he sticks to himself and his own motivations.

It most certainly does not sound chaotic good. Debating on doing the killing or ignoring it is between neutral and evil. Sticking to yourself and your own motivations goes against the altruism that is good.

{scrubbed}

Here are some things he's done:


Mocks the party consistently.
Lies even though he's not very good at it.
Covertly teleported to the top of a cliff the party had to climb. He waited until the party's de facto leader spent considerable effort to get a grappling hook and made it to the top before demonstrating his ability and bringing up the remaining members of the party.
Has put the party in the position of protecting him from a powerful authority who imprisoned him.
Brutally slaughtered an entire town of villagers until they gave him the information about a witch (good-aligned) who had been kidnapped. He then slowly killed the ones who he deemed even remotely involved, regardless of actual guilt.
Distracted a paladin so that members of the party could kill and loot helpless and dying bandits.
Encouraged the party into a perilous life or death situation, then did nothing to help them out despite having valuable information that would have effortlessly gotten them out of it since he wouldn't have died and for his own amusement.


So not only are you a remorseless murdering psychopath, but you are an ******* and terrible to be around. You use others for your own selfish gain or amusement. Chaotic. Evil.


That said he's done things you could argue were good.
{scrubbed}

He has also spent most of his existence bent on the total annihilation of the Far Realm.
I have no idea what this is, but if it is the most evil thing in your setting being set on destroying it does not automatically make you good. As others have said, evil can fight/kill evil all the time.


His core belief is creation cannot exist without destruction. He views himself as serving the latter and doing what must be done--what the forces of good won't or can't do--for the benefit of everyone. The first part is a very neutral outlook on things, although being a force of destruction and "doing what must be done" is usually on the grounds of chaos/evil.

People who are Macchivellian (the ends justify the means) are almost never good.


First thought? He's a jerkwad. That's what immediately jumps out at me. Not that he's Chaotic or Evil, but that he's a jerkwad. Let's run down your list.
Incompetent jerkwad.
Jerkwad.
Cowardly jerkwad who hides behind the party after getting himself into trouble.
And we're back to jerkwad.

Jerkwad is an understatement, and I am surprised somebody so evil used such a tame word when there are far worse.


Your guy is a bad liar, a coward who gets himself and the party into trouble, a guy who contributes little and does so for his own amusement, and one who is regularly a jerk to the party. That much isn't CE, it's just stupid and obnoxious. Tell me why they haven't killed him in his sleep yet?

{scrubbed}

The fact that he tortures people for funsies puts him pretty squarely in CE.

Textbook CE.




I was going to say (and am saying it) that I wouldn't want to play with this guy. Ever. Regardless of what alignment label you want to slap on him, he is an unpleasant person to be around IC or OOC. No fun for the GM, no fun for the other players or their PC's.

What is the point of playing this guy except to be a disruptive, rub-it-in-your-face jerk? Are the game sessions filled with a lot of awkward silences when you show up?

+1 to this


Id call him chaotic stupid, with a massive overestimation of his own ability and importance. His huge ego demands he champion a cause, but his stupidity prevents him from actually, you know, doing that.
he doesn't understand what good actually is, like, at all.

Emphasis mine


I'm glad he comes off that way, since he kinda a big ****.

{scrubbed}

But he's been helpful too. He's helped out the party once or twice and has helped in preventing one of them from being executed.

Does not excuse the fact that he is a colossal ******* megalomanaic insane psychopath.


He lies out of amusement and because he thinks everyone else is an idiot so it doesn't really matter anyway.
I am glad he thinks its amusing and I assume the rest of the players do. {scrubbed}


He's contributed a lot and has racked up more kills than the rest of the party combined.
I think you had them beat when you slaughtered an entire town. Once you destroyed an entire plane, hands down we have a winner for most blood on their hands.


He's also provided a hint or two on a puzzle on occasion and has kept the party out of serious trouble and argued for their advantage on more than one occasion. Useful does not equal good. At all.


The party puts up with him because the paladin hasn't used detect evil on him yet and he's somewhat useful.
I would ask why not, but the paladin should not need a spell to see how much of an {scrubbed} monster this character is.


The party had a chance to turn him over and didn't, so clearly they very much like him.
Clearly very much likes them!? {scrubbed} The party might have kept you around for dozens of reasons, and I doubt they did it because they like you. A strong metagame agreement is likely the only thing keeping your character around. Most players know that offing your character or otherwise punishing them is a gregarious offense in a group game(with exception, some groups love backstabbing and betryal, and some systems like Paranoia are designed for this) but most ttRPG's are a team game and that they have to involve you and your power trip. I suggest you read this http://angrydm.com/2014/05/respect-the-metagame/

{scrubbed}


Innocent in paladin terms,but arguably guilty.
I don't know anybody who stands for anything good would call you even remotely innocent. There is no arguably either.


He blamed the commoners for being hostile to the witch who only ever was benevolent and caring to them (to the point of a fault). In his mind, they permitted injustice to flourish and just as guilty.
What in the actual ****? You brutally slaughtered these people till they fessed up, then slowly and painfully tortured them to give up the location of somebody who tried to help these people? And it is THEIR fault? There are some demons in the abyss worshiping you as a god for being the monster you are. What did you do when you found the witch? Did you punish her for being too benevolent and caring? How did you do that, gang rape her to death?


The people after him are very powerful. But ultimately he's using them as a way to hide from them to further an ulterior (and good/noble) goal.
There is too much blood on your hands and darkness in your soul for you to have "good and noble" goals. I also doubt your doing these "good and noble" goals for any good or noble reason, those are just side consequences.


Doing so may have saved countless more planes. IIRC the god had already destroyed six or seven planes before the powers that be decided they should consider sending S, who went regardless.

I will throw you a bone here- doing this to prevent further death could be argued as neutral, but only if you actually weighed the consequences against the cost. Good people tend to feel bad if they have to do non good things. If your character really thought this out and took into account the lives sacrificed vs the lives saved, it could be argued as "preserving" and maybe a bit less evil and a bit more lawful. With your track record, I doubt this is the case.

{scrubbed}

One could say his very purpose is to destroy.
Could say? That is all you do. CN-CE.

{scrubbed}

Rad Mage
2015-06-02, 01:07 PM
For me at least, what makes a character Good is the willingness to atone. It is impossible in any game to commit an act that someone can't twist into "evil from this point of view". A Good character is allowed to wipe out an entire plane to stop a greater evil (albeit as a last resort), and his alignment would remain unchanged at my table if he sought to find a way to atone for it and right the wrong in someway. I would say you were CG if after wiping out an entire plane you devoted your life to making some kind of reparations. But what I see as posted is an unwillingness to take responsibility for his actions and an attempt to justify those actions by saying, "It's for the greater good, so consequences no longer apply". That is kind of textbook evil overlord.

Red Fel
2015-06-02, 01:16 PM
*distilled rage*

Don't hold back. Tell us what you really think.

Seriously, though, hold back a little. I, uh, think you might have been pushing some boundaries there. (Believe me, "jerkwad" is my way of censoring some much, much sharper words. And I have an extensive vocabulary.)

As an aside, thanks for bringing this part to my attention:


Their main complaint is that he's too powerful and knows too much, even though he's a cat. So while his character has started off somewhat noble it sort of evolved and is still evolving to something more fun. He's a lot like Q when Q doesn't have any powers. (https://youtu.be/Q5tD2KDtHYU)

Wait... wait, what? Okay, back up a moment.

He has wacky space-time powers. The other players are annoyed that he's "too powerful and knows too much." And he's a cat. You didn't say cat-person, or felinoid, or cat-spirit, or anything like that; he's a fluffy kitty-cat.

Wow. Okay.

Let me also point out the implication of your statement. "Their main complaint is..." The term main complaint suggests that there are other complaints, beyond the main one. Is this so?

As a rule, if the other players have multiple complaints about my character - or even one, particularly if that complaint is "too powerful" or "knows too much" - I try to step back and ask if I've gone too far with the character. And in this case, I'm really inclined to say yes. You mention that the other characters had a chance to turn him in, but didn't, so they must like him; I see no reason to assume that. You also mention that his idea of being nice to them is to think them slightly less stupid than the average idiot. Sherlock and House are not ensemble cast pieces, for that reason; the arrogant, pompous windbag jerkwad who thinks (or knows) that he's better than everyone is unlikeable and does not work well with others. You describe a character who is "sort of evolved and is still evolving," except that he really doesn't seem to be; his evolution seems to be from "highly murderous sociopath who loathes everyone" to "highly murderous sociopath who loathes everyone but loathes the party slightly less." That's not an evolution.

I'd strongly advise you to step back and look at all of these pieces. The magical overpowered omniscient feline Time Lord. The fact that he dislikes the party. The fact that he's utterly unpleasant and fairly unrepentantly Evil. I'd advise you to step back and say, "How can I give this character some actual character development, and soon?"

Sacrieur
2015-06-02, 01:17 PM
S does believe he's doing it for the greater good. He does operate on somewhat of a consistent basis for conduct.

He doesn't really enjoy violence. He enjoys fighting, but violence and chaos?

He certainly has a psychopathic streak, but isn't a total psychopath; he does make friendships even if he shows it in a bizarre way. He was friends with the witch, for instance. I mean sure he's heavy handed and is painfully vengeful and plenty CE, but I don't think it's fair to throw his motives under the bus so easily.

How would any character feel if they found out one of their friends was betrayed by a member of a town who couldn't care less about them? I think one aspect of his character is that the more good someone is, the more he personally feels obligated to care and exact vengeance on those that do them wrong.

He doesn't do evil to evil because it gives him some personal gain or because he gets a sadistic pleasure out of it. It's nothing like the typical motivations for an evil character. He showed mercy to an enemy orc by killing him swiftly after respecting him as a combatant when the rest of the party intended to just leave him bleeding, muttering something about how in this particular orc's society death in battle is the only honorable death.

As with most characters I come up with, I really don't know what they're going to do before they do it. Many times I feel like they play me more than I play them and I'll often say that I have no idea what my character is going to do.

Honest Tiefling
2015-06-02, 01:33 PM
How would any character feel if they found out one of their friends was betrayed by a member of a town who couldn't care less about them? I think one aspect of his character is that the more good someone is, the more he personally feels obligated to care and exact vengeance on those that do them wrong.

...No. Just no. A good aligned person would try to find out motives and try to redeem and forgive their former friend. If they cannot, they try to minimize the damage their former friend would do. But a truly good person feels hatred...But overcomes it, and is a better person for it. An evil person doesn't care about mercy or redemption, but might also try to control themselves because that is smart.

The heck definitions are you using for good and evil by the way? This...Is quite frankly speaking, the most unusual expectation of the system I've ever seen.

Sacrieur
2015-06-02, 01:35 PM
He has wacky space-time powers. The other players are annoyed that he's "too powerful and knows too much." And he's a cat. You didn't say cat-person, or felinoid, or cat-spirit, or anything like that; he's a fluffy kitty-cat.

The plot event where he was confronted by the powerful authorities who wanted lock him up resulted in him having already prepared for the confrontation. Before this he was a human warder.

After faking defeat, he shifted everything backwards in time two days and assumed a cat body. His powers became extremely limited. When I say he kills people, I'm talking about his human form that he had. Once he became a fluffy kitty cat he became rather harmless.

The reason he can't use any of his powers is because that's how they found him in the first place. He is limited to level 0 abilities only.



Let me also point out the implication of your statement. "Their main complaint is..." The term main complaint suggests that there are other complaints, beyond the main one. Is this so?

The fact that he's a cat doesn't upset anyone, he and the wizard's familiar get along.

And no, the fact he can figure out every solution comes up every once in awhile. That's what I mean by being too powerful/knowledgeable. Recently, however, this hasn't been the case. He almost got himself stuck in a bad situation because he arrogantly assumed he knew the answer to something he really didn't.



As a rule, if the other players have multiple complaints about my character - or even one, particularly if that complaint is "too powerful" or "knows too much" - I try to step back and ask if I've gone too far with the character. And in this case, I'm really inclined to say yes. You mention that the other characters had a chance to turn him in, but didn't, so they must like him; I see no reason to assume that.

Yeah, it's been a thing I've been open about and reforming to better fit realistic expectations. I think the ultimately enjoy it but just would like some things corrected. In fact they weren't even supposed to be able to get away with hiding him. Since 20+ level characters showed up with sense motives off the charts and suspected the party knew where he went (when he was really hiding in a bag as a cat). But they carefully constructed everything they said to not tell a single lie. I'm playing with some seriously high caliber people.



You also mention that his idea of being nice to them is to think them slightly less stupid than the average idiot. Sherlock and House are not ensemble cast pieces, for that reason; the arrogant, pompous windbag jerkwad who thinks (or knows) that he's better than everyone is unlikeable and does not work well with others. You describe a character who is "sort of evolved and is still evolving," except that he really doesn't seem to be; his evolution seems to be from "highly murderous sociopath who loathes everyone" to "highly murderous sociopath who loathes everyone but loathes the party slightly less." That's not an evolution.

A player and I did sit down and have a chat about it and outlined how to improve it. I don't think his being an ******* has ever come up as a complaint.



I'd strongly advise you to step back and look at all of these pieces. The magical overpowered omniscient feline Time Lord. The fact that he dislikes the party. The fact that he's utterly unpleasant and fairly unrepentantly Evil. I'd advise you to step back and say, "How can I give this character some actual character development, and soon?"

I don't know man, the party has done some pretty cruel things themselves. I don't think most of them judge him that harshly for it. Except for a paladin who again, hasn't detected evil yet, but may soon which cause some very fun party tension.

Maybe he'll leave the party as a result.



...No. Just no. A good aligned person would try to find out motives and try to redeem and forgive their former friend. If they cannot, they try to minimize the damage their former friend would do. But a truly good person feels hatred...But overcomes it, and is a better person for it. An evil person doesn't care about mercy or redemption, but might also try to control themselves because that is smart.

The heck definitions are you using for good and evil by the way? This...Is quite frankly speaking, the most unusual expectation of the system I've ever seen.

Let's be fair here, I did say I wasn't very good with alignments.

Psyren
2015-06-02, 02:15 PM
I'm more worried about the rest of the party, especially after reading:


- Brutally slaughtered an entire town of villagers until they gave him the information about a witch (good-aligned) who had been kidnapped. He then slowly killed the ones who he deemed even remotely involved, regardless of actual guilt.
- Distracted a paladin so that members of the party could kill and loot helpless and dying bandits.

Sounds like they're all evil (the former for condoning it, and the latter for being active participants), or at a minimum amoral.

Keltest
2015-06-02, 02:21 PM
Let's be fair here, I did say I wasn't very good with alignments.

Then here's your first lesson. Legitimately good people will always try to explore options other than killing before resorting to that. Maybe there aren't any, in which case so be it. But they don't do so eagerly, wantonly, and certainly not thoughtlessly.

The Evil DM
2015-06-02, 02:34 PM
As GM my response to this character would be

Finger pointed to the door GTFO.

Your objective seems to be obnoxious behavior at the expense of others. Regardless of any alignment arguments or anything else you would be exiled OOC. I agree with everything Red Fel, Maglubiyet and Geddy have stated.

Talakeal
2015-06-02, 02:40 PM
...No. Just no. A good aligned person would try to find out motives and try to redeem and forgive their former friend. If they cannot, they try to minimize the damage their former friend would do. But a truly good person feels hatred...But overcomes it, and is a better person for it. An evil person doesn't care about mercy or redemption, but might also try to control themselves because that is smart.

The heck definitions are you using for good and evil by the way? This...Is quite frankly speaking, the most unusual expectation of the system I've ever seen.

Actually, I am going to have to disagree here. Being angry at an atrocity is not sociopathic or evil behavior, and while it doesn't fit D&Ds definition of "good" is not an evil character trait.

Geddy2112
2015-06-02, 02:42 PM
{scrubbed}

Sacrieur
2015-06-02, 02:47 PM
{scrubbed}

I just mean there's a lot of improvisation going on here.

I'm very pleased by your enthusiastic description of S and me, though.

MUAHAHHAHAHA...

Segev
2015-06-02, 02:56 PM
I'll just reitterate one thing others have said: If your friends at the table - that is, your fellow playrs - have issues with your character, talk to them about it. Find out what your PC is doing in character that annoys the other players. Seek to remedy it. The goal of a game is to have fun. Unless you're facing mechanics that interact with your alignment, it doesn't really matter if you can't figure out what his is. But if you're making things less fun for the other players, you have to talk to them about it, and seek to stop impeding their fun times. Else, you're liable to find yourself disinvited.

The Evil DM
2015-06-02, 03:03 PM
I'll just reitterate one thing others have said: If your friends at the table - that is, your fellow playrs - have issues with your character, talk to them about it. Find out what your PC is doing in character that annoys the other players. Seek to remedy it. The goal of a game is to have fun. Unless you're facing mechanics that interact with your alignment, it doesn't really matter if you can't figure out what his is. But if you're making things less fun for the other players, you have to talk to them about it, and seek to stop impeding their fun times. Else, you're liable to find yourself disinvited.

It may not be true for others, but when I GM I open the doors to my house, typically have a bbq in the back yard to accompany a gaming session that runs from noon to midnight on Saturday. For the players that have kids, half the house is filled with youngsters monkeying around with an extensive Lego collection.

My first instinct is to disinvite anyone displaying the attitude of this player. Period. No talking about it. I am here to host a game not be your counselor and not to help you talk through your interpersonal grievances (exception: If a player has a grievance with me)

You can meet up with friends when it is not on my time and talk about it but the event will go on without you.

Kriton
2015-06-02, 03:33 PM
{scrubbed}

Chill man, the guy is trying to have a conversation about it, personal attacks against him seem kinda unprovoked right now.

I do get the feeling that S is a disruptive little donkey-aperture(wink wink) and he seems pretty evil to me, but if he didn't act against the party that much, and wasn't making a point of being a donkey-aperture, I could find him pretty fun to be in a party with.

Though you should really make sure you are not being a pain to the friends you are gaming with.

EDIT: Oh, and the town that got slaughtered in order to not help the CG witch out, was equally insane with S.

AzraelX
2015-06-02, 03:37 PM
My first instinct is to disinvite anyone displaying the attitude of this player. Period. No talking about it.
I'm surprised you invite people over for a BBQ who you care so little about. In my experience, people who only care about the game as a thing and place zero value on the actual people participating aren't enjoyable to be around.

Ironically, you're displaying the same attitude as this player's character: immediately jumping straight to the most hostile and violent course of action (which most people would consider a last resort), without considering or even caring about alternatives, merely for your own personal convenience.

Red Fel
2015-06-02, 03:47 PM
Chill man, the guy is trying to have a conversation about it, personal attacks against him seem kinda unprovoked right now.

Got to agree with this in part. I won't say this attitude speaks anything about the nature of the player.

And I readily acknowledge that I love a character who grows and evolves organically.

That said, "It's what my character would do," as Geddy points out, is the refuge of some serious jerkery. Not necessarily deliberate or malicious, but it's not an excuse for... Well, anything, actually. Because at the end of the day, you are in control of your character.

While I love organically-grown characters, therefore, I impose limits on them. No character would do one and only one thing in any given scenario; there are options. As a rule, therefore, when I look at "what my character would do," I add a caveat. Specifically, I ask myself, "Of those things that my character would do, which are most conducive to enjoyment at the table?" This allows me to keep playing my character as the character would be played, but ensures that the actions I take are ones which the other players and DM will appreciate.

I don't plan everything out in advance. My characters have tendencies; I know that, I designed them that way. But I control how those tendencies are expressed. And there are limits to what I will put on the table. When I was a less mature player, I tested those limits, sometimes irresponsibly. I don't do that anymore.

The Evil DM
2015-06-02, 03:48 PM
I'm surprised you invite people over for a BBQ who you care so little about. In my experience, people who only care about the game as a thing and place zero value on the actual people participating aren't enjoyable to be around.

Ironically, you're displaying the same attitude as this player's character: immediately jumping straight to the most hostile and violent course of action (which most people would consider a last resort), without considering or even caring about alternatives, merely for your own personal convenience.

Who said I invite people over who I care so little about. Sometimes friends of friends get invited. When this occurs - before the game day I usually have a conversation with the new individual. If they show up and cannot abide by simple rules of decency, cleanliness, and social decorum I send them on their merry way.

You call my action violent. I say bull. The real issue is people have this assumption that they can behave how ever they want. You come to my house, and behave like a jerkwad then I have the right to ask you to leave the premises and I can phrase that request in any way I like.

It has nothing to do with personal convenience. It is about respecting the fact it is my house, my family and respecting the other guests in my house.

Sacrieur
2015-06-02, 03:55 PM
There was a post earlier that said how there's a strange thought process here that anyone who isn't LG is CE. I was mostly playing along to see how bad it got and my god I was not disappointed. I really was hoping for some legitimately useful advice.

It's time for the big reveal: I'm the DM. Just in case you didn't miss the ten or so red flags that signaled I was. S is a DMPC and has an integral role in a very deep and intertwined plot. Did you really think any rational DM would let me play a human who turned back time two days, erasing the actions of the rest of the party, only to return as a cat with extremely limited abilities? It's true he was a bit of Mary Sue at first (good catch), but I've since corrected that and have exemplified on his weaknesses to demonstrate that he's not actually good at everything. Plus I've been extremely open with my players about him as to give them the chance to address any concerns that were unfair.

It's really fun to watch people absolutely crucify an entire party just because one member of the party happened to do something questionably evil at one point in time. I remember a similar thing happened when a ninja started a forest fire. And even though the party couldn't have done anything to stop it, an angry mob formed demanding that they all pay for it.



I'm more worried about the rest of the party, especially after reading:

Sounds like they're all evil (the former for condoning it, and the latter for being active participants), or at a minimum amoral.

Yes, they're the first party of adventurers to have looted a body. Every DnD character ever is evil if this is what we're basing evil off of these days. I'm pretty sure even most characters who play paladins end up participating in the "loot" part of loot and exp. Unless of course you've actually seen one in a dungeon that went, "Oh look it's a Holy Avenger! It's a shame it's not mine or else I could really use that. I best just leave it there."

They were not around when he killed off villagers. They were off in a different town.



Then here's your first lesson. Legitimately good people will always try to explore options other than killing before resorting to that. Maybe there aren't any, in which case so be it. But they don't do so eagerly, wantonly, and certainly not thoughtlessly.

No, actually killing may not be lawful, but it's certainly not always an evil act. You must have a really hard time playing characters if you force yourself into this rigorous standard where every good character you come across must try to solve everything diplomatically. Also if they surrender I guess you're not allowed to kill them either, right?

And you completely misunderstood what happened. The witch was betrayed by someone at the town.

And just so everyone's aware here, S didn't flay the witch, he actually stayed up with her all night helping her craft items as a thanks to the party for saving an orphanage from being burned down. He killed the villagers (not all of them, just those who could be connected to the guilt of one man, like the town council who could have done something but didn't) because he was upset that the witch was kidnapped by a brutal thug who enjoyed flaying people and they did nothing to prevent it from happening and withheld information that would lead to her rescue.



I'll just reitterate one thing others have said: If your friends at the table - that is, your fellow playrs - have issues with your character, talk to them about it. Find out what your PC is doing in character that annoys the other players. Seek to remedy it. The goal of a game is to have fun. Unless you're facing mechanics that interact with your alignment, it doesn't really matter if you can't figure out what his is. But if you're making things less fun for the other players, you have to talk to them about it, and seek to stop impeding their fun times. Else, you're liable to find yourself disinvited.

Thanks Segev, your advice is always golden.

I've stated repeatedly in this thread that I've worked out the issues and resolved them. I don't know where people are getting the impression that I've been anything but amicable and open about playing this character. He was originally created as a way to keep the party alive because we had some new players and the entire party was full of low level casters (and not even gish), he quickly evolved into something more fun and mysterious and the players still don't know the full extent of stuff I've revealed here. To them, he's quite enigmatic.

As a DM I always default to that single point: if players aren't having fun I've failed as a DM. That's always my #1 concern and everything else, even rule zero, comes second to it. I've had to retcon and sit down with my players and talk some things out more than once, but they're a dedicated lot and I work very hard. If at any point they think I'm not open to compromise or approachable about anything they've felt is wrong or handled badly, I've also failed as a DM.

So far, I do not believe that's been the case. Which brings me to...



It may not be true for others, but when I GM I open the doors to my house, typically have a bbq in the back yard to accompany a gaming session that runs from noon to midnight on Saturday. For the players that have kids, half the house is filled with youngsters monkeying around with an extensive Lego collection.

My first instinct is to disinvite anyone displaying the attitude of this player. Period. No talking about it. I am here to host a game not be your counselor and not to help you talk through your interpersonal grievances (exception: If a player has a grievance with me)

You can meet up with friends when it is not on my time and talk about it but the event will go on without you.

That's a really crappy attitude for a DM to take. You're there for your players, not the other way around. If a player isn't getting along with the rest of the players and you think it's on them you need to be the adult and try to work it out if possible and not be a jerkwad who just stamps his foot down at the first time of trouble. If I had acted like you advocate I wouldn't be running any campaigns right now.

And I say this as someone who had to boot a player out of a campaign.



Chill man, the guy is trying to have a conversation about it, personal attacks against him seem kinda unprovoked right now.

I do get the feeling that S is a disruptive little donkey-aperture(wink wink) and he seems pretty evil to me, but if he didn't act against the party that much, and wasn't making a point of being a donkey-aperture, I could find him pretty fun to be in a party with.

Though you should really make sure you are not being a pain to the friends you are gaming with.

EDIT: Oh, and the town that got slaughtered in order to not help the CG witch out, was equally insane with S.

Thanks for not jumping on my case. It's always nice to hear a voice of reason :)

For the record the players do like S and think he's quite a bit of fun. They're the kind of group that enjoys role-played tension within the party and real risk taking in an open world -- not the kind that likes some safety-net hack 'n' slash choose your own adventure book type campaigns.

Red Fel
2015-06-02, 04:01 PM
It's time for the big reveal: I'm the DM. Just in case you didn't miss the ten or so red flags that signaled I was. S is a DMPC and has an integral role in a very deep and intertwined plot. Did you really think any rational DM would let me play a human who turned back time two days, erasing the actions of the rest of the party, only to return as a cat with extremely limited abilities? It's true he was a bit of Mary Sue at first (good catch), but I've since corrected that and have exemplified on his weaknesses to demonstrate that he's not actually good at everything. Plus I've been extremely open with my players about him as to give them the chance to address any concerns that were unfair.

It's really fun to watch people absolutely crucify an entire party just because one member of the party happened to do something questionably evil at one point in time. I remember a similar thing happened when a ninja burned started a forest fire. And even though the party couldn't have done anything to stop it, an angry mob formed demanding that they all pay for it.

Wow. And here I was trying to be constructive. Serves me right.

I honestly hope you treat your players better than you've treated us. I can't speak for other posters on this thread, but whether what you did was misleading, outright lying, or simply "being clever," I'm really kind of insulted. I try to be helpful, and I hope that I was, at least somewhat, constructive.

But as a rule, if someone wants my help or advice, I'd prefer that they ask me, directly, rather than simply jerk me around with a hypothetical and then drop a "big reveal" on me. I didn't appreciate it on LOST, and I don't need it here, thanks.

Best of luck to you, your campaign, and your kitty Time Lord DMPC.

Sacrieur
2015-06-02, 04:05 PM
Wow. And here I was trying to be constructive. Serves me right.

I honestly hope you treat your players better than you've treated us. I can't speak for other posters on this thread, but whether what you did was misleading, outright lying, or simply "being clever," I'm really kind of insulted. I try to be helpful, and I hope that I was, at least somewhat, constructive.

But as a rule, if someone wants my help or advice, I'd prefer that they ask me, directly, rather than simply jerk me around with a hypothetical and then drop a "big reveal" on me. I didn't appreciate it on LOST, and I don't need it here, thanks.

Best of luck to you, your campaign, and your kitty Time Lord DMPC.

At no point did I ever reference that I was just a player in a campaign. I said I have a character in a campaign. I wasn't jerking anyone around at any point in time, but neither did I correct anyone when they made the illogical assumption I was just another player. In fact you had every reason to believe I wasn't.

I didn't mention it at first because I really didn't think it was relevant, but apparently it is relevant since this thread turned into attacks against my character and about how I was an obnoxious player.

The Evil DM
2015-06-02, 04:06 PM
That's a really crappy attitude for a DM to take. You're there for your players, not the other way around. If a player isn't getting along with the rest of the players and you think it's on them you need to be the adult and try to work it out if possible and not be a jerkwad who just stamps his foot down at the first time of trouble. If I had acted like you advocate I wouldn't be running any campaigns right now.

And I say this as someone who had to boot a player out of a campaign.

And I say this as someone who has had to boot many players for many reasons over 40 years of gaming. My current campaign has been running since 1992. The current group whom assembled after I moved from Oregon to Arizona has been playing with me for 11 years. six other GM's use my campaign world and through them over 150 people have played in my universe. (I say this to show that the attitude I express does not lead to no players)

It is the attitude take by one who, through experience, quickly recognizes those who need to go and in the end the other players appreciate the fact that I will weed out munchkins, murderhobos, people who don't know how to bathe regularly, and anyone else that cannot maintain a minimum of social responsibility to the group out of character.

This does not mean that there isn't conflict. Conflicts can be resolved.

But the situation you were describing, and describing in a manner that was misleading by misrepresenting yourself as a player, rather than a DM running a DMPC even makes your part in the conversation more egregious. You used the misrepresentation as troll to see what sort of response you get.

This sort of misrepresentation is one of many red flags that gets you banned from my table. Not only did you describe a character who is a liar, you just admitted that you were lying to us the whole time.

Red Fel
2015-06-02, 04:08 PM
At no point did I ever reference that I was just a player in a campaign. I said I have a character in a campaign. I wasn't jerking anyone around at any point in time, but neither did I correct anyone when they made the illogical assumption I was.

See, that's still deliberate obfuscation. "I didn't correct your obvious misconception which I intended from the beginning" is still deception. I don't appreciate the trick, I don't appreciate the attitude that thinks it's cool or funny to do.

I genuinely wanted to help, and it turned out that you were hiding the ball. Thank you for correcting my mistake, and I genuinely hope that your campaign is a success.

Honest Tiefling
2015-06-02, 04:12 PM
It's really fun to watch people absolutely crucify an entire party just because one member of the party happened to do something questionably evil at one point in time. I remember a similar thing happened when a ninja burned started a forest fire. And even though the party couldn't have done anything to stop it, an angry mob formed demanding that they all pay for it.

My general impression is that most posters here were vouching for the party against what was assumed to be a PC. Not sure how we crucified the party at all, really.


That's a really crappy attitude for a DM to take. You're there for your players, not the other way around. If a player isn't getting along with the rest of the players and you think it's on them you need to be the adult and try to work it out if possible and not be a jerkwad who just stamps his foot down at the first time of trouble. If I had acted like you advocate I wouldn't be running any campaigns right now.

No, it isn't. Dungeon Masters have some responsibility, as they are in a position of power, but they aren't responsible for other people being jerks. But my players need to be there for me, else I'm not playing with them, period. I'm not their parent, I'm not their guardian and I'm not their nanny. Sure, he should consider talking to disruptive players before kicking them out, but that doesn't always work. Some people don't listen and then they need the boot. I owe it to the rest of my players and my friends to end a possibly volatile situation that might end friendships and ruin everyone's time, even if that means booting someone out that I'd otherwise spend time with.

And honestly, some behaviors are probably so bad you might just want to end the session then and there. Insulting people trying to hold an honest conversation with you is probably one of those, and I wouldn't really blame him if he didn't feel like playing armchair psychologist to someone who did.

Sacrieur
2015-06-02, 04:20 PM
This sort of misrepresentation is one of many red flags that gets you banned from my table. Not only did you describe a character who is a liar, you just admitted that you were lying to us the whole time.

Quote me where I told a lie.



See, that's still deliberate obfuscation. "I didn't correct your obvious misconception which I intended from the beginning" is still deception. I don't appreciate the trick, I don't appreciate the attitude that thinks it's cool or funny to do.

I genuinely wanted to help, and it turned out that you were hiding the ball. Thank you for correcting my mistake, and I genuinely hope that your campaign is a success.

I'm sorry that you feel that way, I attempted to keep the discussion centered on the character, perfectly willing to expand on points brought up and world events.

I can't be blamed for another person's failure to do their due diligence and read what has been written. In no way did I lie, mislead, or cheat anyone into believing anything; I was not complicit into making anyone behave foolishly, they did that to themselves. One member even completely misread what I had written to the point where the entire plot had changed, then proceeded to lecture me. I have been the one personally attacked while I did nothing back of the sort.

And I stepped in and told the truth when it appeared things were getting out of hand. I'm not sure on what planet that's considered deception.



No, it isn't. Dungeon Masters have some responsibility, as they are in a position of power, but they aren't responsible for other people being jerks. But my players need to be there for me, else I'm not playing with them, period. I'm not their parent, I'm not their guardian and I'm not their nanny. Sure, he should consider talking to disruptive players before kicking them out, but that doesn't always work. Some people don't listen and then they need the boot. I owe it to the rest of my players and my friends to end a possibly volatile situation that might end friendships and ruin everyone's time, even if that means booting someone out that I'd otherwise spend time with.

And honestly, some behaviors are probably so bad you might just want to end the session then and there. Insulting people trying to hold an honest conversation with you is probably one of those, and I wouldn't really blame him if he didn't feel like playing armchair psychologist to someone who did.

I'm not going to disagree, since I largely agree.

I'm just not as quick to rush to the boot as some people and use it only when all other options have failed (sound familiar?).

Geddy2112
2015-06-02, 04:27 PM
{scrubbed}

The Evil DM
2015-06-02, 04:30 PM
Quote me where I told a lie.

See Red Fel's statement about Deliberate Obfuscation.

Deliberate Obfuscation is being willfully ambiguous or deceptive and is synonymous with lying.

Honest Tiefling
2015-06-02, 04:30 PM
I'm not going to disagree, since I largely agree.

I'm just not as quick to rush to the boot as some people and use it only when all other options have failed (sound familiar?).

...No? I'm actually 100% confused, since I outright disagreed with a statement you made, and I have no idea who you are referring to.

AzraelX
2015-06-02, 04:43 PM
Not sure why it mattered if he was a DM or a normal player. He asked for advice about what alignment the character should be, which is irrelevant to his status as a player.

The fact people started ignoring the alignment question, insulting him as a person, and telling him about how they wouldn't invite him over for dinner (lol?) is entirely on them.


I'm actually 100% confused
The Evil DM: "My first instinct would be to kick them out. No talking about it."

Sacrieur: "That's a crappy attitude. You should at least talk to them. And I've had to kick a player before."

You: "No, it's not a crappy attitude. You should at least talk to them. But sometimes you have to kick a player."

Sacrieur: "I agree. I'm not as quick to kick a player as some people (sound familiar?)"

You: "No? I completely disagreed with you!"

Hope that clears up your obvious confusion.

Honest Tiefling
2015-06-02, 04:49 PM
A bit, yes, except I was trying to imply that insulting people (as it would appear, both sides are being accused of doing) would be a quick way to get booted without a discussion, and honestly, I found his 'reveal' post to be incredibly insulting. I also assumed he was agreeing with another statement in the quote which was a direct contradiction to what he said.

Damn my low charisma score, damn you to hell!

AzraelX
2015-06-02, 05:06 PM
and honestly, I found his 'reveal' post to be incredibly insulting.
I honestly found the conversation leading up to it incredibly insulting, considering his request for advice was 100% character-specific, and had nothing to do with players/DMs/real people, yet many of the replies were only looking for excuses to focus on and insult an actual person who was just asking for advice about fleshing out a fictional character.

If nothing else, this thread has convinced me to never ask for in-universe tabletop advice here, since it's obvious many posters are incapable of keeping the real world separate from a fictional one. Good thing sites like the RPG StackExchange exist for serious inquiries.

Rakoa
2015-06-02, 05:46 PM
{scrubbed}

Amphetryon
2015-06-02, 05:51 PM
Quote me where I told a lie.
A lie of omission is still a lie. Pretending otherwise doesn't mean you're more clever than the rest of us, any more than an author deliberately withholding information about a Character's actions or motivations makes that author 'clever' when those actions or motivations come to light. Obfuscation is not cleverness.

Keltest
2015-06-02, 05:56 PM
No, actually killing may not be lawful, but it's certainly not always an evil act. You must have a really hard time playing characters if you force yourself into this rigorous standard where every good character you come across must try to solve everything diplomatically. Also if they surrender I guess you're not allowed to kill them either, right?

I never said killing was an evil act, I said a good character will look for alternatives before resorting to it. If youre in a fight for your life, the alternatives are few. If someone has surrendered to you, even a chaotic good character would consider handing them over to the authorities before resorting to execution.

Good characters respect and value life. They aren't quick to end it. That doesn't mean they hesitate when its necessary, they just don't like it.

Eisenheim
2015-06-02, 06:12 PM
Stepping back, semi-onto topic, or onto a different off topic. Are your players allowed to ditch the kitty cat, and what reason to they have to hang out with him? As described so far, he's mostly been a **** to them, so I'm unsure why, given that he lacks the metagame protections PCs enjoy in most games, he's still with the group at all.

AzraelX
2015-06-02, 06:17 PM
A lie of omission is still a lie.
{scrubbed}

He described a fictional character: "I think he might be Chaotic Evil. I'm not that great with alignments so I've decided to start a discussion."

That's the conversation topic. The OP's real-life relationship with the DM of the campaign this character is part of is totally irrelevant, and frankly, none of your business. It's obnoxious that anyone would believe the OP was obligated to share completely unrelated personal information in order to help clarify off-topic insults being directed at him.

{scrubbed}

Amphetryon
2015-06-02, 06:25 PM
{scrubbed}

He described a fictional character: "I think he might be Chaotic Evil. I'm not that great with alignments so I've decided to start a discussion."

That's the conversation topic. The OP's real-life relationship with the DM of the campaign this character is part of is totally irrelevant, and frankly, none of your business. It's obnoxious that anyone would believe the OP was obligated to share completely unrelated personal information in order to help clarify off-topic insults being directed at him.

{scrubbed}
Lovely strawman, there. Really nice.

AzraelX
2015-06-02, 06:30 PM
{scrubbed}

Amphetryon
2015-06-02, 06:32 PM
Have yourself a lovely evening.

AzraelX
2015-06-02, 06:34 PM
Have yourself a lovely evening.
That's what I thought.

Psyren
2015-06-02, 10:19 PM
I've seen (many) bad DMPCs before but this one really takes the cake. I'll echo Red Fel and see myself out.

Sacrieur
2015-06-02, 10:46 PM
A lie of omission is still a lie. Pretending otherwise doesn't mean you're more clever than the rest of us, any more than an author deliberately withholding information about a Character's actions or motivations makes that author 'clever' when those actions or motivations come to light. Obfuscation is not cleverness.

Why is everyone viewing it this way? You had every reason not to believe the growing group-think that I was a player. And then I'm some evil dude for letting people demonstrate their own foolishness by getting on the, "Attack the player!" bandwagon. It was never designed to be some deception from the start and the only thing I didn't do was act. Let's talk about that for a second because apparently people here also misunderstand out the bluff skill works.

Consider this: a member of the party is royalty which he hides from the other characters. Should he be rolling bluff every time he fails to inform the party of the fact he's royalty? Let's say, for a moment, that one PC tells another PC, "The royals are all corrupt, the whole lot of 'em!" The royal PC then chimes in, "Well, most are."

Under the assumption he's a good aligned character, would he be required to roll his bluff (convince another a lie is true) simply because he omitted the fact he's royalty? If so any player who plays this particular kind of very popular trope is going to be walking through a giant headache.



I never said killing was an evil act, I said a good character will look for alternatives before resorting to it. If youre in a fight for your life, the alternatives are few. If someone has surrendered to you, even a chaotic good character would consider handing them over to the authorities before resorting to execution.

Good characters respect and value life. They aren't quick to end it. That doesn't mean they hesitate when its necessary, they just don't like it.

Good characters respect and value life, sure. But sometimes they respect it by viciously killing those who don't. Not every good character is a paladin and just because they value doing the right thing. The bar for evil is too low and the bar for good is too high, so I think there's a big double standard being applied here. It may even feel good to them to kill criminals and evil-doers. Is killing a corrupt king who oppresses his people for the greater good an evil act when you could have probably solved the conflict in a different way?



{scrubbed}

By all means let's continue the personal attacks.



I've seen (many) bad DMPCs before but this one really takes the cake. I'll echo Red Fel and see myself out.

In that case I'm sorry for all the insults I threw your way.

Except I don't remember insulting anyone, so that's weird. I remember trying to correct people's assertions that he was definitely a CE character because motives matter and stating that he only cares about death and destruction. When I tried to point out that he does care about the greatest good and that it's sort of baked into his character design to be someone who destroys things, I'm suddenly being called a bad DM and horrible player.

I've made every indication of the opposite;how many times must I state that I sat down with my players and dealt with all the issues I agreed were a problem. Instead of going, "Oh well then good job, so about his alignment..." all I got was people ignoring this MULTIPLE times and assuming that my players are suffering under my cruel iron mary sue'ing fist.

Haruki-kun
2015-06-02, 11:01 PM
The Winged Mod: Locked for review.