How do I deal with a Chaotic Evil party member?

[Red Fel]

Hell, any of the Evil characters I've used in the past would find random murder unacceptable. This sounds to me like the Barbarian player wanted to be disruptive, possibly for comedic effect(in other words he meant well), and created a CE character in order to shield himself from criticism or metagame consequences.

In fact the last IRL game I played also ended up being derailed because a player wanted to run a disruptive character and, coincidentally, attempted to use Chaotic Evil as a shield from criticism or consequence. While in both cases any individual could have decided for their character to act differently, my case there was a mismatch of expectations and I suspect the same is true here as well.

This. So much.

Look, the bottom line is that while an argument can be made that the Paladin is the albatross around the party's neck, in that his Code is indirectly imposed on the rest of them, an argument can also be made that the "for the evulz" character is the albatross, inasmuch as his actions are designed to disrupt, and would be problematic irrespective of the Paladin's presence or absence.

And to be quite honest, there are only two things a DM can do about this, and only one of them entails in-game action. One is to establish a "no disruptive characters" rule, but that's an out-of-game option. The other is to have a character suffer realistic consequences for his actions. In this case, execution would have been reasonable. So what if it derails the campaign? That's not the DM ending the campaign, it's the PC ending the campaign by provoking a perfectly reasonable and expected response from the authorities.

I'm not saying that DMs need to be super-lethal, or that killing off characters is a proportionate response in all situations. But if a PC stands directly in front of a dragon and provokes it, does anybody bat an eye when he gets roasted and eaten? No. If a PC with no way to fly leaps headfirst off of a cliff miles in the air, is anybody surprised when you need a shovel and a mop to clean up what's left at the bottom? No. If a PC decides to go on a merry murder spree, and gets caught, why should anyone be surprised if he gets the axe for it?

The problem wasn't the Paladin. The problem wasn't the CE character. The problem was a player who wanted to run amok, and to a lesser extent a DM that allowed it with minimal consequence. This sends the message that the PCs are, to a certain extent, consequence-immune. Unfortunately, that puts the Paladin in a position where he has to leave. It's not fair, but basically, if the CE character had been executed, the Paladin could continue his adventuring career. Because he lives, however, there is no way for the Paladin to stay. Pally's gotta go.

After that, your options depend on how spiteful you want to be.

[Beta Centauri]

Look, the bottom line is that while an argument can be made that the Paladin is the albatross around the party's neck, in that his Code is indirectly imposed on the rest of them, an argument can also be made that the "for the evulz" character is the albatross, inasmuch as his actions are designed to disrupt, and would be problematic irrespective of the Paladin's presence or absence.

You're probably right that they're designed to disrupt in this case, but sometimes things that seem disruptive are actually being done in good faith. Punishing those actions with boring consequences would be a bad idea.

And to be quite honest, there are only two things a DM can do about this

No, but there are only two things most GMs try.

and only one of them entails in-game action. One is to establish a "no disruptive characters" rule, but that's an out-of-game option.

Nothing wrong with that.

The other is to have a character suffer realistic consequences for his actions. In this case, execution would have been reasonable.

Why does it have to be reasonable, I wonder? So the GM can't be seen as being punitive?

So what if it derails the campaign? That's not the DM ending the campaign, it's the PC ending the campaign by provoking a perfectly reasonable and expected response from the authorities.

It seems like you're saying that as long as it comes about in a totally reasonable and expected way, it's okay for a game to be "ended." Is that what you're saying? Because that seems rather spiteful to me.

I'm not saying that DMs need to be super-lethal, or that killing off characters is a proportionate response in all situations. But if a PC stands directly in front of a dragon and provokes it, does anybody bat an eye when he gets roasted and eaten? No.

That doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, or the only thing to do. I would do something else, unless that PC wanted to be roasted and eaten.

If a PC with no way to fly leaps headfirst off of a cliff miles in the air, is anybody surprised when you need a shovel and a mop to clean up what's left at the bottom? No.

This example always comes up. My friends and I call it the Cliff Clavin Fallacy.

If a PC decides to go on a merry murder spree, and gets caught, why should anyone be surprised if he gets the axe for it?

Surprised? No. Bored? Yes.

You're assuming the player doing these things is being deliberately disruptive. What if they're not? Is it worth slapping them down, or even slowing them down, when they're making an honest effort. Of course there should be consequences, but the GM has more options than just the totally reflexive "natural" consequences.

The problem wasn't the Paladin. The problem wasn't the CE character. The problem was a player who wanted to run amok, and to a lesser extent a DM that allowed it with minimal consequence.

We don't know for sure, but the GM also appears to have set things up to allow the character to run amok. Maybe not deliberately, but did they really think the barbarian wasn't going to just kill those guards? Anyone should have seen this coming a mile off when they heard the words "paladin," "barbarian," and "town."

This sends the message that the PCs are, to a certain extent, consequence-immune.

Yes. If a GM leaves themselves only boring consequences then there can either be no consequences or the game will turn boring.

Consequences, yes. Boring or punitive consequences, no. Unless someone finds atonement interesting, paladins come with an easily triggered boring consequence.

Guards bar the way. Lots of options there but the "reasonable" and "natural" ones for a barbarian are to leave (boring) or kill the guards and be jailed (boring). The game gives the impression of being designed to punish the barbarian player.

[Segev]

Not merely "in-character," no, but it can be solved in-game, assuming no one is actually trying to cause trouble (which we don't know yet). As I mentioned, the GM can bring facts to light or take other steps that allow all three of those to be achieved.

Except that, if he does so without talking to the players about it, it can wind up "ruining" one or more of the characters. The barbarian could be revealed to be under a curse that the paladin has to help him lift, and now the barbarian is constrained...or going to suffer the curse. But that could annoy the barbarian's player if he neither wants to deal with the curse nor be constrained. The paladin could be ordered by his order to stay with the barbarian and try to mitigate the harm he does. But that could annoy the paladin to always have to watch helplessly as the barbarian does things anyway...or the barbarian as the paladin actively polices and resorts to violence if needs be.

These things need to be discussed OOC, because the problem is one of party composition. Characters are incompatible, and need to be made compatible by some means. Possibly including having one or the other be replaced.

And as I mentioned, the player can also decide to fail to constrain the barbarian, or to wait for a more opportune time, or to have faith in the essential power of his own goodness and example to eventually change the barbarian's mind. Or probably other things.

Not...really. Ignore that he's a paladin. Just have him be LG. Make him a fighter, instead.

He sees this barbarian continue to commit evil acts of murder and mayhem. Acts at least as bad as those of the various monsters the party faces periodically. Why is it that the LG guy has to swallow his alignment while the CE guy can do whatever he wants? The LG guy should be defending the innocent, turning the CE guy in to authorities, and generally making the CE guy's life miserable. Not because he's trying to make the CE guy suffer, but because the LG guy sees what the CE guy is doing and has to put a stop to it.

If that's not possible, he still shouldn't be travelling with and helping defend the CE guy if the CE guy cannot be constrained nor prevented from doing evil. Similarly, if the whole party were N to G, and kept stopping an evil character from doing anything that promotes his self-interest, it would be hard to justify why a) the evil guy would willingly stay with the party and b) the party would willingly keep the evil guy around and free.

OotS handled the latter situation, but it's notable that the evil guy IS CONSTRAINED by his membership in the party. If Belkar's hypothetical player insisted he had to be able to actually act on Belkar's impulses all the time, Roy would have long ago, IC, put Belkar down.

Yes, don't constrain the barbarian. I recommend that the GM get the game away from civilization. It was pretty silly for the GM to put a barbarian in a civilized area in the first place.

This could work, if the barbarian doesn't plan to murder more NPCs just for his convenience or the DM can keep him away from them.

It's unacceptable because it's blocking: it's uncreative, and it's a halt to the action, and it implies that one person's idea is objectively worse than another's, in a setting in which any idea can be made fun and workable.

Not by itself it hasn't. It takes inflexibility on the party of the GM, the other player, and the play style to make it impossible. A GM who can keep options available and open, a player who can see more than one way to have fun (and who has taken off the table the option of directly constraining someone else's character) and a play style that allows players to contribute to the narrative and the fiction can overcome this behavior ASSUMING everyone is acting in good faith. We don't know if that's the case here, and it's probably not the way to bet, but if it is then very little is impossible.

...buh?

So... "I murder the girl you spent the last few sessions wooing. But you can't respond to my character with any violence, because that's PvP," is totally how you think games should be run? Because the DM should have "other options" for the young sorcerer who was exploring his first love to just get over her, but the CE fighter who killed her to torment him can't be expected to have to deal with more than petulence from the sorcerer? Because that's "blocking?" Really?

That's not obvious. I don't care how natural and logical something is: if my choice as a GM would make my game boring, I will not have it occur, by either die roll or fiat. Capturing the barbarian would be boring for me and probably for the barbarian player (I'd check). Therefore, it will, for some reason we deem plausible, not occur. Other consequences will occur, but they will be ones we deem both plausible and interesting.

If "other consequences will occur," then you've agreed with me. I'm not sure why you're being so argumentative. I do take offense to having "natural consequences" interpreted as me being a hypocrit by "recognizing" that I'm making a bad choice. "Natural" consequences include "the paladin reported your crime to the authorities. The authorities are now coming after you." Or are you saying that because I view that as "natural" I am doing it wrong, and should rewrite the whole city to not care about barbarians murdering guards?

I'm really baffled by your comments. THey seem to be, "No, you'd do it wrong. Do it this one true way that allows the player who plays disruptively to dictate how the party has to run, because actually discussing the kind of game and tale everybody wants to tell at the table is somehow bad."

If there are to be no constraints, then there's nothing to have to be okay with.

Ah, okay, so you're advocating PvP as a solution. You do realize that can cause bad feelings OOC, right? If it's not discussed, OOC, before hand?

I'm not saying that out-of-character conversation shouldn't at least happen prior to the game getting started. I don't even have a problem with it happening during the game. I'm just saying that it isn't required to occur in game, if the GM is open to certain options and approaches.

I'm afraid you're wrong. When a problem arises that involves party composition and character compatibility, OOC discussion is required before the DM starts to invent IC solutions. This is because IC solutions designed to shoehorn incompatible personalities together can often wind up impacting characters in ways that ruin the conception of them in the mind of the player. Sure, you could get lucky and do it right without input from the players, but you really shouldn't take the chance, because if you screw up by guessing wrong, you're the jerk who ruined his character through writing the game to "screw him over."

By the rules for the paladin, coupled with the GM's choice-limiting decisions.

Uh, no. By virtue of one character being CE and acting like a murder-hobo in civilized lands, and the other being LG and acting like a responsible and heroic individual.

Again, it doesn't matter that he's a paladin. A lawful good fighter would have the same dilemma. Which is only a dilemma because of OOC considerations: the CE barbarian is a fellow PC. If this OOC consideration weren't there, it wouldn't matter if fighting to the death or leaving the party happened.

It's fine to discuss it out-of-character, and that's my preferred approach. But it doesn't HAVE to happen that way.

It really does, unless you're content to shoot your pistol in the dark and hope that it was down the shooting range and not at the next stall over. The consequences to the game for a mis-aimed "alternative" based IC are as grave as the consequences to your friends if you shoot wildly in the dark: the game could be maimed or even die.

It requires a GM who probably would have found ways to avoid this situation in the first place, and who is willing to improvise in a big way (or is more copiously prepared than any GM I've ever seen), but it's possible. I'm hoping people will at least admit the possibility, and start thinking about this kind of thing differently.

Differently how? "HAve a conversation OOC" is such an offensive thign, despite being your preferred method, that it must be thrown out as a bad way to think about the solution?

The solution is to talk and figure out how people would like to see the game to forward. What do they see their characters doing, and what are they willing to have happen to or around their characters to contrive to keep the party together? Or is it just better to pick a way to play - good or evil or whatever - and remake the characters taht don't fit that, replacing them with ones that do?

Why is that such a horrible thing that you have to "think about [it] differently?"

[Jay R]

Segev, give it up. You will never convince Beta Centauri to treat this act of disruption as an act of disruption, because of how much he disapproves of Paladins.

We've all expressed our views. That's well and good. But there haven't been any new ideas in the last few exchanges. We've gotten all the good out of that subthread that we can.

Segev and Beta Centauri obviously shouldn't play in the same game, just as Beta Centauri and I shouldn't. I therefore gently suggest that you agree to disagree, and Segev should seek game advice from somebody whose gaming style isn't inconsistent with Segev's.

[Garimeth]

Not going to enter the debate, but to the OP:

I DM, and I had this happen in my last game, a campaign that had been going for a year, and everyone loved. The group had a plot TPK, and were resurrected years later in game. We had been playing 13th Age for the first time and I decided to let them reroll their classes if they wanted as a "resurrection gone wrong" since when we started the game we were all new to it, and we understood it better now.

The Party's paladin decided to reroll ranger, and said he was no longer a paladin of the god of war because the god had let him fall in battle. A little bit later they take a job guarding a caravan to travel across the kingdom. The paladin's player, now a ranger, convinces the rogue that the two of them should rob the merchant in charge and they sneak in to do it, using an excessively complicated plan that wakes the merchant. Long story short they kill the merchant and get caught in the act by the party's brand NEW paladin, who used to be a barbarian. Oh yeah this Paladin's deity? The goddess of justice. They fled so there was no PVP, but it ruined the game.

We tried having their guys be "exiled" and they rolled two new characters, but that sucked and nobody got into it. So then I retconned the whole thing and we pretended it never happened. The whole murder-hobo incident (how we referred to it in our group) completely took the wind out of our sails, the campaigns momentum was lost, and the game just wasn't fun anymore - especially not for me as the DM. I talked to my group about it, and we all agreed it had ruined the game. So I had to scratch the whole campaign and start a new one.

TL;DR: I had something similar happen and it ruined the game.

[Lord Torath]

Before I let him go harass the mayor's guards, I'd ask him (as the DM) where he saw his actions leading him, and what outcome he expected to achieve, and then explain the likely consequences. Because it really just sounds like the Barbarian's player just wanted to stir up trouble.

They're not really "likely" consequences are they? They're consequences the GM is going to do their best to make sure come about. Because when a player just wants to stir up trouble, it's easier to punish them through their character and claim that the consequences were just the logical reaction to their behavior, than it is to stop and ask them not to stir up trouble and leave if they continue. But one of those options stands a much smaller chance of wasting everyone's time.

You just made my point. The DM asks the Barbarian what he hopes to accomplish by his midnight visit, tells him there is no possibility of it going well, and would he please do something less disruptive. "Likely consequences" are the things that will logically follow in the setting. The guards will NOT allow a barbarian to trouble the mayor in the middle of the night for anything less than an emergency. That's why the mayor has guards - to protect him from threats on his life and wastes of his time. A person who kills guards is going to be tried and executed. "Reasonable consequences," as Jay mentioned, are those that make sense in the setting. And as MANY others have mentioned, this has nothing to do with having a Paladin in the party, and everything to do with the disruptive actions of the barbarian.

(Sorry, Jay. Last try)

[The Grue]

At the very least, can we please not do that thing where every clause of every post gets broken into a separate quote with a full counterpoint, and we end up with monstrously long post pursuing a hundred parallel arguments?

[Segev]

It's also worth noting that, if a DM warns a player with "likely consequences," and the player still feels his goal is something to pursue in something like the fashion he outlined, the player can offer, "Well, what if I do [something] to deliberately avoid those consequences?"

For instance, "what if I sneak past the guards?" ("You're welcome to try, but your barbarian's not very stealthy.")

Or, "I'll rage outside the gate and make enough noise for two men fighting, then call to the guards that somebody got over the wall and is coming up the side of the building." ("Um, why?" "So they'll go investigate, and I can burst into the door while they're distracted." "You realize that's also illegal?" "It's not murder, though." "It's also not likely to get you paid any faster." "I'll intimidate him!" "...okay, you can try, just keep in mind that they'll be reporting this to the authorities at the very least, unless you can convince them not to.")


You can make an adventure out of it. Likely consequences extend from the most basic interpretation of what somebody says they're going to do. The more they change it, the more the consequences alter.

[The Grue]

Well said. The best way to avoid undesired consequences is to tell your DM not only what your character is doing, but also what that action is intended to accomplish. Too often I've seen players try to be subtle and clever, only to have their scheme fail spectacularly because the DM thought they were just ****ing around.

The only reason to conceal your goal from the DM is if you're trying to trick them, and for several reasons that should never be necessary.

[Beta Centauri]

I think the discrepancy is around the term "in-character." I don't think of out-of-character considerations as, themselves, taking a player out-of-character, but I think that's because I'm thinking of it from the point of view of the other players. If a player appears to do something in-character, then they're in-character.

I take an acting approach. No one actually is their character, and no one actually wants to be their character, at least not completely, but everyone wants everyone else to be making a good faith effort to appear to be their character (or at least to be describing a consistent character, in the case of an RPG).

But for some reason, it's common for players to only believed to be playing in-character (using the above sense) if they have only the most obvious, bog-standard reactions to things. Same with the setting: if the response from the setting isn't what everyone could have mumbled in their sleep that it would be, then it's not "realistic."

That's a big part of what I'm getting at, and why I'm so down on the paladin class. It pretty much only allows a single, obvious, bog-standard reaction to a wide range of common things, forcing the player to either act out-of-character (in the eyes of the other players) or have that reaction. The player of every other character at least has a real option of thinking outside the box.

Or they would have that option, if everyone else at the table would be okay with them choosing it.

That idea, that playing in-character, playing to expectations, means not taking any risks drives almost every aspect of this situation. The barbarian player (and others, its sounds like) have the paladin player as an easy target: they bait him to see if he's going to break character. They also have the world as an easy target: will the GM wreck the realism of the world to keep the game together? The paladin player is stuck, by the rules and himself: he sees (and was given) only one way to be in-character.

It's a crime in role-playing for someone to act out-of-character, and even being suspected of doing so is just as bad. They'll be relegated to the despised "beer-and-pretzels" rabble, and dismissed. So, they huddle inside their natural, reasonable, unquestionable reactions so that no one ever has a reason to say committed that heinous transgression.

What if we thought about it differently?

[Segev]

Nonsense. Nobody is suggesting that one odd reaction is "out of chracter" to the extent that a character would never do it.

What's being suggested is that an ongoing pattern of behavior that is at odds with what the character is said to be puts lie to the claim about the character. "I am opposed to murdering innocent people" stops sounding like a true statement when you hang around somebody you know does this regularly, don't do anything to stop him, and keep working side-by-side with him after he just did it again. And again.

That's why this is a party composition problem. If it's one incident, agreements can be made and it won't be an issue. The goal is to ensure it doesn't become a pattern or, if it does, that it's one the game can live with.

[Beta Centauri]

You just made my point. The DM asks the Barbarian what he hopes to accomplish by his midnight visit, tells him there is no possibility of it going well, and would he please do something less disruptive. "Likely consequences" are the things that will logically follow in the setting. The guards will NOT allow a barbarian to trouble the mayor in the middle of the night for anything less than an emergency. That's why the mayor has guards - to protect him from threats on his life and wastes of his time. A person who kills guards is going to be tried and executed. "Reasonable consequences," as Jay mentioned, are those that make sense in the setting. And as MANY others have mentioned, this has nothing to do with having a Paladin in the party, and everything to do with the disruptive actions of the barbarian.

Nothing about any of the barbarian's actions is inherently, unavoidably disruptive or impactful to the paladin. It appears (we don't know for sure) the GM just decided (as other here have) that they were disruptive and made every effort to make the player pay for that.

What the paladin class caused was the whole situation of the unworkable party.

[Red Fel]

You're probably right that they're designed to disrupt in this case, but sometimes things that seem disruptive are actually being done in good faith. Punishing those actions with boring consequences would be a bad idea.

I disagree. When I say disruptive, I mean disruptive of the game and of the table. A character who has been legitimately provoked and responds accordingly isn't being disruptive; a character designed to flip out and murder people at the drop of a hat is disruptive. And I can't see a "good faith" way to say "I'm making a character who will completely screw over the party at random."

Why does it have to be reasonable, I wonder? So the GM can't be seen as being punitive?

That's part of it. The other reason is verisimilitude. If your PC is executed for murdering a half dozen guards, it's believable. It makes sense, in context. If he's executed for stealing a loaf of bread, it doesn't make sense (unless you're in a society where every infraction receives maximum punishment). The point is that a PC really has no room to complain about the reasonable, foreseeable outcomes of his deliberate choices. It's like my illustration with the dragon and the cliff - if you know it will end badly for you and do it anyway, you're asking for it. If you know it will end badly for the party and do it anyway, you're being disruptive.

It seems like you're saying that as long as it comes about in a totally reasonable and expected way, it's okay for a game to be "ended." Is that what you're saying? Because that seems rather spiteful to me.

If my players are doing things that would get their PCs killed - and I don't just mean engaging in combat, I mean engaging in stupid stuff - I take that as a signal that they don't like the campaign. Either they don't like this particular campaign, or they don't like the other players, or they don't like the DM's style, or they just don't want to game anymore. If you jump in front of the dragon, you're saying you don't want to play. If you lunge off of the cliff, you're saying you don't want to play. And if you kill the king, desecrate the corpse, and then laugh maniacally when the army comes to put you before a firing squad, you're saying you don't want to play. That's not spite.

Telling players that they can do whatever they want, without consequence, is in my mind worse than ending the campaign when they deliberately get themselves killed. It's giving the PCs plot armor. I don't go that far. I give my players the chance - I pull the "are you sure" gambit, maybe even warn them that things may go badly - but if they insist on going through with things that will logically end badly for them, I let them, and I impose the appropriate consequence. And if that means the campaign ends, the campaign ends.

That doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, or the only thing to do. I would do something else, unless that PC wanted to be roasted and eaten.

Let me take this to the logical extreme, then. If a PC stands in front of a hostile dragon, is it safe to say that the dragon would attack? In my book, it would. It's hostile, you're a target, it attacks. If you get killed by the attack, you get killed. This is a thing that happens. Are you saying this is a "wrong" outcome if the player doesn't want his PC to die?

I'm not trying to straw-man your position; I want to be clear. In my mind, if a PC plops himself in front of a hostile dragon and gets killed, nobody will be surprised, because there's nothing illogical or punitive about the idea of a dragon killing a PC who has made himself a target. I'm not saying I'd make it an insta-death - there would be the usual rolls. If the PC survives, good for him. If he doesn't, though, it's no surprise.

That's the point. There is a logical consequence for turning yourself into a target - you get targeted. And there is a logical consequence for murdering a half dozen guardsmen - if you're caught, you get arrested, tried, and executed.

This example always comes up. My friends and I call it the Cliff Clavin Fallacy.

Okay, I'll bite. In what way is this a fallacy? Or do you just use the word the way some people use the word "Opinion?"

Surprised? No. Bored? Yes.

You're assuming the player doing these things is being deliberately disruptive. What if they're not? Is it worth slapping them down, or even slowing them down, when they're making an honest effort. Of course there should be consequences, but the GM has more options than just the totally reflexive "natural" consequences.

It's hard for me to imagine how a player isn't being deliberately disruptive. Just like the DM has more options in terms of consequence, the player has more options in terms of behavior. A Barbarian doesn't have to instinctively murder everything that breathes in his general vicinity. A CE character doesn't have to be an axe-crazed lunatic with a literal blood addiction. When the player chooses to murder an NPC who has inconvenienced him, he is choosing that option, as opposed to talking to the NPC, ignoring the NPC, knocking the NPC out, leaving and returning when the NPC is gone, or any number of other outcomes. The player has chosen to be disruptive when he does something like this, knowing that it will likely end badly for both him and his party.

By contrast, if the DM doesn't employ "totally reflexive 'natural' consequences," he is giving the PCs plot armor. As I've said, this is problematic; creating a consequence-free world breaks immersion. More importantly, if a DM later decides to employ consequences, it creates an unpleasant double-standard - why later, and not earlier?

We don't know for sure, but the GM also appears to have set things up to allow the character to run amok. Maybe not deliberately, but did they really think the barbarian wasn't going to just kill those guards? Anyone should have seen this coming a mile off when they heard the words "paladin," "barbarian," and "town."

Now who's making assumptions? I've been in parties with all three of those things - Paladins, Barbarians, and towns - with an absolute absence of civilian casualties. I don't assume that Barbarians are omnicidal axe-murderers. I don't assume Paladins take issue with anything that draws blood. And I don't assume that every NPC exists to be slaughtered. And that has worked fine in my groups. Perhaps your experience is different, which is fine, but don't assume that everyone has seen the same thing at their tables.

Yes. If a GM leaves themselves only boring consequences then there can either be no consequences or the game will turn boring.

Consequences, yes. Boring or punitive consequences, no. Unless someone finds atonement interesting, paladins come with an easily triggered boring consequence.

Guards bar the way. Lots of options there but the "reasonable" and "natural" ones for a barbarian are to leave (boring) or kill the guards and be jailed (boring). The game gives the impression of being designed to punish the barbarian player.

I'm confused. So, no boring consequences and no punitive consequences - doesn't that leave only positive consequences? Does that mean that the PCs get rewarded no matter what they do?

The game that I describe isn't designed to punish Barbarians. It's designed to impose realistic consequences. One of those consequences is that if you enter a law-abiding society and commit a series of conspicuous murders, you are likely to be arrested and executed. That doesn't punish Barbarians, it punishes sloppy murderers. I refuse to accept what appears to be your assumption - and correctly if I'm mistaken - that Barbarians must and should be permitted to kill anything that draws their ire.

Let us not forget that the Barbarian at issue began at CN, and then dropped to CE. Clearly, the DM was willing to acknowledge (1) that the PC in question was engaged in Evil acts, and (2) that those acts carried some form of consequence (in this case, an alignment shift). Given that the PC in question started at CN, and demonstrated axe-crazy tendencies, it seems quite probable that the PC in question was using the traditional "CN on paper, CE in practice" gambit that has so stigmatized that particular alignment. As a rule, I find that PCs designed with the sole purpose of murdering anything in their way tend to be disruptive and problematic. At a certain point, allowing this character to go without any "boring" or "punitive" consequences amounts to tacit approval of that behavior. And when you reach that point, it's no party for a Paladin, or frankly any character with serious moral compunctions.

[Beta Centauri]

What's being suggested is that an ongoing pattern of behavior that is at odds with what the character is said to be puts lie to the claim about the character. "I am opposed to murdering innocent people" stops sounding like a true statement when you hang around somebody you know does this regularly, don't do anything to stop him, and keep working side-by-side with him after he just did it again. And again.

Stops sounding that true to whom? Who's judging that, and why are they that concerned about it? This is an extreme case, yes, but in general creative people are really good at finding reasons why something they enjoy is actually true, despite glaring holes. Or overlooking them entirely.

The GM and the paladin player don't want the barbarian player to act this way. I get that. But if they prioritized not making the issue worse over not making it less "true," this problem goes away almost entirely.

[Segev]

Stops sounding that true to whom? Who's judging that, and why are they that concerned about it? This is an extreme case, yes, but in general creative people are really good at finding reasons why something they enjoy is actually true, despite glaring holes. Or overlooking them entirely.

What?

No, seriously, what?

You can honestly tell me that if you witnessed a co-worker running children down in the street one morning because they'd bounced a ball off his parked car last night, you would be okay with working with them at work that day? But that you're totally opposed to killing children, especially for such minor infractions?

It's not straining credulity to claim that you're opposed to it and would want it to stop, even though you're doing nothing about it because doing something about it would be "constraining," and not the right, "alternative" solution that lets your party (your workplace) continue working together?

The GM and the paladin player don't want the barbarian player to act this way. I get that. But if they prioritized not making the issue worse over not making it less "true," this problem goes away almost entirely.

No...

The DM allowed the barbarian to walk up to the mayor's house and demand to see him. The DM had the guards take the reasonable action of doing the job they're paid to do: tell the barbarian to shove off because it's night and the mayor is sleeping. The barbarian chose to attack them. The DM let the fight play out. The paladin found out what happened, and chose to help bring the barbarian to justice. The DM, in the name of not just ending the barbarian, is having "exile" be the punishment he'll face, IC. This is, if anything, one of those "alternative" options, since execution would not be unreasonable in this circumstance.

The Paladin's player is now trying to decide what his Paladin would do. The fact he's a Paladin has little to do with it; the fact that he's LG has a lot more to do with it. Remember that Paladins are not any more restricted, in practice, than other LG characters. They just lose more if they stop being LG. The player doesn't want to play this character as slipping out of LG.

Are you saying it is the responsibility of the player of the LG character to let his character stop being LG in order to accommodate the CE player, but not the CE player's responsibility to pull his character up out of CE to accommodate the LG player?

Or are you just trying to say that the LG character can be perfectly fine with hanging out with an axe-crazy murderer he doesn't prevent from committing murders? That axe-crazy murdering should be treated as a foible that gets scolded occassionally, rather than something an LG character should either stop or avoid?

[Mr.Moron]

Or are you just trying to say that the LG character can be perfectly fine with hanging out with an axe-crazy murderer he doesn't prevent from committing murders? That axe-crazy murdering should be treated as a foible that gets scolded occassionally, rather than something an LG character should either stop or avoid?

It's seriously starting to feel like what he's advocating for is that the relationship between the CE player and the other parties (particularly the GM) be like that between Eric Cartman and his mother.

[Beta Centauri]

I disagree. When I say disruptive, I mean disruptive of the game and of the table. A character who has been legitimately provoked and responds accordingly isn't being disruptive; a character designed to flip out and murder people at the drop of a hat is disruptive. And I can't see a "good faith" way to say "I'm making a character who will completely screw over the party at random."

We don't know that's what the player was saying. Maybe they were saying "I'm making a character who has no patience, and doesn't respect anyone who can't best him in combat." That's basically the Klingon race from The Next Generation. Works fine. If people let it.

That's part of it. The other reason is verisimilitude.

The neat thing I've discovered about verisimilitude is that I get to decide how well I need verita simulated.

If my players are doing things that would get their PCs killed - and I don't just mean engaging in combat, I mean engaging in stupid stuff - I take that as a signal that they don't like the campaign. Either they don't like this particular campaign, or they don't like the other players, or they don't like the DM's style, or they just don't want to game anymore. If you jump in front of the dragon, you're saying you don't want to play. If you lunge off of the cliff, you're saying you don't want to play. And if you kill the king, desecrate the corpse, and then laugh maniacally when the army comes to put you before a firing squad, you're saying you don't want to play. That's not spite.

I'm not necessarily saying any of that.

Telling players that they can do whatever they want, without consequence

No one is suggesting this.

Let me take this to the logical extreme, then. If a PC stands in front of a hostile dragon, is it safe to say that the dragon would attack? In my book, it would. It's hostile, you're a target, it attacks. If you get killed by the attack, you get killed. This is a thing that happens. Are you saying this is a "wrong" outcome if the player doesn't want his PC to die?

Yes. Why would a GM do something the player doesn't want to have happen? That's boring, at best.

I'm not trying to straw-man your position; I want to be clear. In my mind, if a PC plops himself in front of a hostile dragon and gets killed, nobody will be surprised, because there's nothing illogical or punitive about the idea of a dragon killing a PC who has made himself a target. I'm not saying I'd make it an insta-death - there would be the usual rolls. If the PC survives, good for him. If he doesn't, though, it's no surprise.

Just because something is no surprise doesn't mean it's correct. Surprising things can be correct, too.

That's the point. There is a logical consequence for turning yourself into a target - you get targeted. And there is a logical consequence for murdering a half dozen guardsmen - if you're caught, you get arrested, tried, and executed.

Logical, but not inevitable. It's entirely in the GM's control, if we let it be. If the GM knows they won't be flogged for not being "logical."

Okay, I'll bite. In what way is this a fallacy? Or do you just use the word the way some people use the word "Opinion?"

False equivocation, reductio ad absurdum, false dilemma. Probably others. Not that I'm not fallacious, it's just that the hypothetical cliff-jumper is such a common move for people in these discussions that we named it.

It's hard for me to imagine how a player isn't being deliberately disruptive. Just like the DM has more options in terms of consequence, the player has more options in terms of behavior. A Barbarian doesn't have to instinctively murder everything that breathes in his general vicinity. A CE character doesn't have to be an axe-crazed lunatic with a literal blood addiction.

All true, but I'm taking that circumstance as read. It has happened and I'm talking about how to react to it.

When the player chooses to murder an NPC who has inconvenienced him, he is choosing that option, as opposed to talking to the NPC, ignoring the NPC, knocking the NPC out, leaving and returning when the NPC is gone, or any number of other outcomes. The player has chosen to be disruptive when he does something like this, knowing that it will likely end badly for both him and his party.

Probably, but not certainly. I prefer to assume they're not when I GM, since punishing them or doing the "logical thing" isn't going to work. If I really can't see how not to make the game boring I'll take it out-of-character, maybe ask the players, but usually it's not that hard and often the issue ends.

I'm confused. So, no boring consequences and no punitive consequences - doesn't that leave only positive consequences?

No. Negative consequences can be quite interesting. But not all of them are to everyone.

Does that mean that the PCs get rewarded no matter what they do?

No. It means the players get rewarded no matter what they do, with an interesting adventure. If they do certain other things they get in-game rewards too, but whether or not their time is spent in an interesting way should never be at issue.

I refuse to accept what appears to be your assumption - and correctly if I'm mistaken - that Barbarians must and should be permitted to kill anything that draws their ire.

No. Barbarian players - all players - must and should be permitted to play their character how they want without worrying that the game will become a boring waste of their valuable gaming time AS LONG AS they are considered to be playing in good faith.

[veti]

If my players are doing things that would get their PCs killed - and I don't just mean engaging in combat, I mean engaging in stupid stuff - I take that as a signal that they don't like the campaign. Either they don't like this particular campaign, or they don't like the other players, or they don't like the DM's style, or they just don't want to game anymore.

Obviously I speak from a position of massive ignorance about this specific campaign, but I think this is a real possibility that needs to be considered in this case.

Symptoms:

1. Half the players don't regularly turn up. For the last two sessions, all three of them have been absent the whole time. That suggests the rate of attendance is declining.
2. One of the players who does turn up, goes off the rails and does something completely lunatic.
3. One of his companions chooses to play along with him.
4. The DM doesn't punish them.

(1) and (2) may be explained by general boredom with the campaign. (3) is a reasonable reaction for someone who's not particularly invested or interested in proceedings. And (4)... is how a DM might react if they themselves suspect their campaign isn't particularly gripping, and they're afraid to assert authority because it might just lead to the players walking out.

Put it all together, and I suggest "just fold up the whole thing and try something else, possibly with a different DM" is an option that should be considered. Persisting with a campaign that people aren't really enjoying, is just throwing good time after bad.

[Beta Centauri]

You can honestly tell me that if you witnessed a co-worker running children down in the street one morning because they'd bounced a ball off his parked car last night, you would be okay with working with them at work that day? But that you're totally opposed to killing children, especially for such minor infractions?

No. But the question is irrelevant.

It's not straining credulity to claim that you're opposed to it and would want it to stop, even though you're doing nothing about it because doing something about it would be "constraining," and not the right, "alternative" solution that lets your party (your workplace) continue working together?

The paladin can claim he's opposed to murder if he's stopping murder. He's not required to stop every murder, even if it involves someone close to him. Heck, in the modern justice system, a co-worker of a murderer would probably not be allowed to take on the case. Meanwhile, the paladin can be working on some actual adventure. It's logical and natural that a town in D&D would be suddenly attacked by a vicious force that will do far more harm than the barbarian.

This is, if anything, one of those "alternative" options, since execution would not be unreasonable in this circumstance.

Yes, but by that time the problem had already been caused.

The Paladin's player is now trying to decide what his Paladin would do. The fact he's a Paladin has little to do with it; the fact that he's LG has a lot more to do with it. Remember that Paladins are not any more restricted, in practice, than other LG characters. They just lose more if they stop being LG. The player doesn't want to play this character as slipping out of LG.

I was giving the player the benefit of the doubt, assuming he was doing what he was doing because otherwise he would lose his paladinhood. If that's not the case, then it's the player of the paladin causing the player of the paladin's problems.

Are you saying it is the responsibility of the player of the LG character to let his character stop being LG in order to accommodate the CE player, but not the CE player's responsibility to pull his character up out of CE to accommodate the LG player?

No. Bear in mind that the player doesn't change a character's alignment. Nor do the rules, outside of certain items. The GM does it, or doesn't as they judge.

[Garimeth]

Put it all together, and I suggest "just fold up the whole thing and try something else, possibly with a different DM" is an option that should be considered. Persisting with a campaign that people aren't really enjoying, is just throwing good time after bad.

I totally agree, hence my sea story further up. Even if it wasn't the intention at the time, this campaign is probably unsalvagable now. DM's best bet is start a new game, make sure everybody wants to play, clearly communicate with each other what kind of game they want to play, and make a new team of PCs that can co-exist. Sad to say it, but this campaign is dead OP.

[Red Fel]

We don't know that's what the player was saying. Maybe they were saying "I'm making a character who has no patience, and doesn't respect anyone who can't best him in combat." That's basically the Klingon race from The Next Generation. Works fine. If people let it.

There is a line between "has no patience, and doesn't respect anyone who can't best him in combat," and "going to straight-up kill every ****er in this place." I've played the former. It can have an almost romantic, chivalrous quality. The Klingons, as you illustrate, don't default to axe-murder. They're proud, but not stupid.

Yes. Why would a GM do something the player doesn't want to have happen? That's boring, at best.

Because that's how it works. That's how the game works. Otherwise, it just becomes a game of "Push button to win." Sometimes the PCs do well, and sometimes they do poorly; if all that happens is what the players want, it's no longer a game, it's just a form of self-gratification.

False equivocation, reductio ad absurdum, false dilemma. Probably others. Not that I'm not fallacious, it's just that the hypothetical cliff-jumper is such a common move for people in these discussions that we named it.

I'll bite. How is it false equivocation? In one scenario, a PC jumps off a cliff with no means to fly, and goes splat. In another, a PC commits a capital offense, gets arrested, and gets executed. Both are presented to demonstrate logical, foreseeable, cause-and-effect scenarios. Where is the false equivocation? The fact that the DM has the option of breaking immersion by refusing to impose the foreseeable consequences?

No. It means the players get rewarded no matter what they do, with an interesting adventure. If they do certain other things they get in-game rewards too, but whether or not their time is spent in an interesting way should never be at issue.

And what if "what they do" is disrupt everyone else's game? I cannot accept that a player who plays a PC in such a manner that it interferes with everyone else's enjoyment must nonetheless be rewarded for his actions.

No. Barbarian players - all players - must and should be permitted to play their character how they want without worrying that the game will become a boring waste of their valuable gaming time AS LONG AS they are considered to be playing in good faith.

The problem is your qualifier, and how it may conflict with your earlier statement. What if "how they want" isn't "playing in good faith?"

Let me backtrack a moment - what does "playing in good faith" actually mean, for you? Because it's possible we're speaking with different definitions. When I see "playing in good faith," I think that a player

• Is committed to the experience of the game, however it is mutually defined
• Recognizes that the game is also a social exercise
• Is committed to not only his own enjoyment of the game, but that of others at the table, players and DM included

"Fun" is the mutual responsibility of everyone at the table - every player, as well as the DM, has the obligation to do what they can, within reason, to help ensure that others are enjoying themselves, or at least to avoid doing things that they know would ruin everyone's good time. When a single character neglects that obligation, he becomes problematic. When a player creates a character for purely self-indulgent purposes, to the extent that he is disruptive and has no regard for whether he is interfering with the enjoyment of others at the table, he is not "playing in good faith," in my mind, and his behavior should not be rewarded.

And if something happens to his PC that he doesn't like, as a direct and foreseeable result of his actions, tough. Bad things happen to the PCs. Bad things have happened to my PCs. Stuff that I would rather not have happened has happened to my PCs, as a direct result of my actions. I don't consider it a "boring waste of my valuable gaming time," even if it's something I didn't want to happen; I consider it part of the gaming experience.

Now, if you run your games in such a manner that nothing happens to a PC that the player wouldn't want, that's fine. That's your choice. If your DM runs games that way, that's fine, that's his choice. I don't know many games, in my personal experience, that run in that manner. As a player, I wouldn't find such a game rewarding; as a DM, I wouldn't run my games that way. But if that's what works for you, fine.

Please don't state your preferences, however, as if they were universal truths. Because I'm not so sure that they are.

[veti]

Yes. Why would a GM do something the player doesn't want to have happen? That's boring, at best.

How is the GM supposed to know what the player "wants" to happen?

Ask them? Then there'll never be any surprises, and everyone might as well stay home and play by themselves. Assuming the player can even muster enough ideas to come up with a coherent answer, which is a big assumption in my experience.

Maybe what would really make the player happiest in this case - is for the DM to fold up her screen and take everyone outside for a game of volleyball. I don't know. Possibly the player could give a coherent answer, but he's not likely to unless someone asks him.

Just because something is no surprise doesn't mean it's correct. Surprising things can be correct, too.

You use words ("boring", "correct") that I recognise, but I can't for the life of me fathom what you mean by them.

No. Barbarian players - all players - must and should be permitted to play their character how they want without worrying that the game will become a boring waste of their valuable gaming time AS LONG AS they are considered to be playing in good faith.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've read this year. You're literally arguing that there should be no consequences to anything "AS LONG AS they are considered (by whom?) to be playing in good faith (which means what exactly?)".

To me, "not worrying about the consequences" would be the Number One Huge Red Flag indicating the opposite of "good faith". Good faith implies integrity, integrity implies following through. Consequences. If there are no consequences, it's literally impossible to play "in good faith".

[Beta Centauri]

I'm afraid that when it comes to my real life responsibilities and trying to see if some of my fellow gamers can see past the biases common to our hobby and think about things like boring vs. interesting negative consequences, I must at some point choose the former, despite the unfortunate impression it might give a group of strangers about my bravery.

That point is now.

Thank you for helping me look at my own biases in a new light, and good day.

[Rakoa]

I'm...I'm really, really confused about what just happened. Red Fel and Veti, you've done an admirable job at making your arguments in the face of...something? Yeah.

Is anyone else reminded a bit of Jedipotter? Not in content, per se, but style?

[The Grue]

I was about to comment on what a brief respite that was from colossal multi-quote parallel-argument posts, but I think I will instead point out that Beta literally just said 'I'm going to leave now because I have a life'.

When exactly did GitP become GameFAQs?

[Wardog]

Is anyone else reminded a bit of Jedipotter? Not in content, per se, but style?

Maybe they should game together?

Barbarian: I attack the guards, because I am an angry barbarian should not suffer any boring consequences of behaving in-character.
DM: Suddenly, Orcus.

[Rakoa]

Maybe they should game together?

Barbarian: I attack the guards, because I am an angry barbarian should not suffer any boring consequences of behaving in-character.
DM: Suddenly, Orcus.

Barbarian: What an interesting consequence!

[Red Fel]

I'm a bit disappointed by Beta's passive-aggressive departure, but that's his call to make. Let's not resort to snide remarks about him or anyone else, hmm?

Now that the gratuitous multi-quote posts (of which I am also guilty) are done with, perhaps we could get back to the original topic? Let me try...

Basically, my thought is that your issue isn't the CE character. It's the player, and the DM who tacitly endorses this conduct by insulating the CE character against the consequences of the player's decisions.

And at this point, unfortunately, your LG Paladin really can't deal with it. There's not much you can do. The authorities have passed judgment - they've sentenced them to exile - so bringing him back to serve his punishment won't work. Confronting him directly may well be suicidal. Frankly, your Paladin's only three choices, as I can see them, are:

• Passive-aggressively clear the road for the CE Barbarian, by warning away travelers and advising the authorities of the threat he poses whenever you approach a town.
• Throw down. Challenge him to a duel, to prevent future massacres.
• Leave. Your Paladin can't really abide this kind of conduct in good conscience, but perhaps he'll avoid challenging him directly out of a sad loyalty to the person he once called friend. Perhaps that little heartstring tug will make the Barb's player think twice.

Whatever you choose, be final with it. You're not trying to persuade him. This isn't a negotiation. Commit to an action and do it. Because the alternative, in essence, is that you cease to be a Paladin.

[Mr Beer]

Just wanted to say I completely agree with the need for verisimilitude in a game and applaud Red Fel's cogent posts on the subject. For my part, I think it's difficult enough to suspend disbelief in a fantasy game with wizards and dragons etc. without adding in additional challenges such as ordered societies inexplicably deciding to temporarily suspend the rule of law when faced with homicidal maniacs.

[Jay R]

Oh, good. Let's get back to the subject.

Killing guards at their duty has been a capital offense in virtually all civil (meaning within a city) societies in the history of the world. The barbarian character broke the law in the most heinous way, while traveling with a character known to obey the law.

OF COURSE this destroys the party.

This barbarian cannot now be in a party with a paladin. Or with any lawful good character. Period. Or any character who wants to belong to the society. He's a known would-be murderer. Anybody who stays with him has declared himself publicly an outlaw of society.

The solution can be in character (the barbarian repents, the paladin falls, they fight to the death), or it can be out of character (one player changes character and the old character leaves, one player leaves the game). But the murderer and the paladin cannot remain in the same party.