How do I deal with a Chaotic Evil party member?

[goto124]

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.

One solution: The 'crazy axe murderer' gets toned down to a level the paladin can take. Perhaps the barbarian gets a mark of justice, or the paladin has to remind him every so often not to kill innocents. Either way, you can't really have a completely unrestrained CE in the same party as an LG.

You could also swap out the paladin for a character who doesn't have the LG responsibilites- an option the OP had considered, and would also be a good option. But the OP's already against his paladin falling, and if you have a fight to the death you might as well go straight to the OOC consequences of swapping out characters/player leaving.

[Othniel]

Minor update:

1) I spoke with my Ninja friend. He blames the DM and Barbarian mostly, with a bit of himself for trying to break out the Barbarian. Apparently his original plan was to attempt to commit petty crimes of thievery and such without my knowing. Obviously, that didn't work out. :P He thinks the player behind the Barbarian is being impulsive and just enjoying his character, but not intentionally trying to cause the party problems. Agrees with me that things would have been workable if a) the barbarian had remained CN and not been homicidal, and b) the DM would have not given the barbarian a chance to murder the town guard.

2) No reply from the DM yet. He's crazy difficult to get ahold of sometimes.

3) Waiting to talk to the DM before I talk to the Barbarian.

4) Sounds like we may be starting a new campaign anyway, possibly as soon as next session (which is the Sunday following this coming Sunday). One of the folks that hasn't been able to join us for a few weeks is interested in taking over as DM (He's pretty good at it, and apparently prefers to DM over playing, which might explain his absence recently), and several of us have expressed interest in a pirate campaign. This would mean new characters for all, and more importantly, a fresh start for everyone. Probably the best solution overall, though I'd still like to resolve the current problem.

[Mr.Moron]

4) Sounds like we may be starting a new campaign anyway, possibly as soon as next session (which is the Sunday following this coming Sunday). One of the folks that hasn't been able to join us for a few weeks is interested in taking over as DM (He's pretty good at it, and apparently prefers to DM over playing, which might explain his absence recently), and several of us have expressed interest in a pirate campaign. This would mean new characters for all, and more importantly, a fresh start for everyone. Probably the best solution overall, though I'd still like to resolve the current problem.

If you do start a new game I'd strongly suggestion having a group discussion about the kind tone people want the game to have and the kind of content people want to explore before the game starts. Set expectations on what kind of archetypes would work well and what are probably not the best.

If everyone is one the same page ahead of time, it'll go a long way to avoiding these problems. Otherwise everyone is going to have slightly different ideas about what a "Pirate" campaign means. One person might be thinking about high-spirited merry band out of outlaws on the high seas, while another might be thinking of terrifying band of stone-cold warriors taking any chance to dominate or kill those that enter their waters. One person might be thinking treasure hunts and and taming monkeys, another might be thinking a realistic examination of trade routes and crew management.

[Jay R]

In a game a few years ago, I had to continually remind the DM that my 2E Thief was not Lawful. He just found that traveling with a Paladin was far more lucrative than petty theft, and so wasn't going to do anything to risk the relationship.

Eventually I started asking him the value of anything we got close to in town. I wasn't planning to steal anything. But as long as Ornrandir was always casing out the joint, the DM never forgot that he was Neutral.

[Segev]

No. But the question is irrelevant.

It's entirely relevant, as the way you attempt to twist and squirm around it later demonstrates.

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.

But he IS required to cooperate with the authorities, legally, in the investigation, including testifying as to what he knows. He IS legally responsible if he aids and abets the murderous co-worker in evading the law, even if it's just by refusing to help the authorities find them. Morally, choosing to continue to pal around with said co-worker rather than immediately acting to get the authorities' attention when he knows the guilty fugitive is right here is neutral, not good.

Consistent neutral behavior WILL cause you to slip in alignment. Neutral behavior that leads to greater evil will also plague the conscience of a good person. A good person must either actively continue to constrain - that is, as you put it, police - the actions of an evil compatriot to prevent evil, or must do his best to stop said evil person once and then extricate himself. That is, leave the party.

Therefore, the question is relevant. The LG character cannot remain true to his conscience, in-character, and remain lawful and good, if he does not act to see that justice is brought to his barbarian acquaintance. Or at LEAST see that said acquaintance no longer perpetrates such lawless, evil actions.

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.

I see that, when you accused others of using "logical and natural consequences" as a cop-out to hide that they know their answer is bad, you really meant that that's how you use them.

Tongue-in-cheek aside, that's actually quite irrelevant. The LG hero still would only work with a known murderer he knows will seek to commit more murders and whom he cannot, for whatever reason, prevent from doing so under duress. He might have to save the town with this guy...now. If that's the punishment exacted on the barbarian, great; the party has one adventure to try to work through this.

But that still will require that either the LG or CE guy give, somewhere. Both might have to give a bit. If the CE guy won't give, then the LG guy has to either start actively, in-character, policing the behavior of the CE guy, or leave the party. Or, I suppose, allow his alignment to slip towards TN as he lets his conscience erode by the justification that the Barbarian apparently has a right to do whatever he wants to NPCs without interference from PCs.

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

You'll have to elaborate on this. The statement doesn't make sense to me, either alone or in response to what you quoted.

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.

Um... no. You seem to assume that players of CE characters have more right to play how they want than do players of LG characters. Why is this?

LG characters are good, heroic types who stop evil from befalling the innocent. Refusing to allow them to prevent evil just because it's being done by another PC is refusing to allow them to play their characters how they want to.

Let's turn it around. You obviously feel policing the CE barbarian's actions is uncalled-for and bad behavior by the LG player for having his character do so. Would you feel, therefore, that it was bad behavior on the CE barbarian's player's part to have the barbarian stop the LG character from confiscating the CE barbarian's share of all loot and rewards to use to establish a charity to recompense those harmed by the CE barbarian's actions? The CE barbarian would have to engage in violence to stop the LG character from taking the stuff, just as the LG character would to prevent the CE character from murdering innocents. Is the CE character allowed to police the LG character's actions in that fashion?

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.

This is factually incorrect. The rules provide straightforward guidelines as to what causes alignment shift. It is very clear that consistent acts in accordance with one alignment pulls the character into that alignment. A DM substitutes for the CPU in a computer in being the judge as to when this happens, but that does not mean that the DM is the one "who does it." The DM merely is the one who recognizes and acknowledge that the actions of the PC have caused it according to the rules.

To claim otherwise is to claim that the DM can just decide the barbarian in question is LG. I am unsure what your view of how this impacts the game would be. Maybe "alignment" is just a label, to you, and has no reflection of nor bearing on behavior, in which case you've invalidated the subsystem in your interpretation of the game, and it is meaningless to discuss this problem in terms of it with you.

If alignment truly is a meaningless label to you, then stop thinking in terms of it, and just think in terms of how a person who wants to prevent murder and doesn't like hanging around murderers will behave. You're demanding that, in order not to "cause a problem," the player of the paladin decide that he is okay with hanging around with an unrepentant murderer who he knows will do it again, and is okay with doing nothing to stop it.

It is, somehow, the player of the paladin causing the problem if he insists on playing his character the way he wants to: as a colloquially good man who does not wish to hang out with murderers while doing nothing to stop them.

Why, therefore, do you insist that only the barbarian has a right to play his character as he wishes? That the paladin's player does not?

[Garimeth]

I'm going to repeat this because I think it got swallowed in the debate but:

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.

Trying to salvage this is most likely not going to be fun for anyone involved.

EDIT:

Minor update:

1) I spoke with my Ninja friend. He blames the DM and Barbarian mostly, with a bit of himself for trying to break out the Barbarian. Apparently his original plan was to attempt to commit petty crimes of thievery and such without my knowing. Obviously, that didn't work out. :P He thinks the player behind the Barbarian is being impulsive and just enjoying his character, but not intentionally trying to cause the party problems. Agrees with me that things would have been workable if a) the barbarian had remained CN and not been homicidal, and b) the DM would have not given the barbarian a chance to murder the town guard.

2) No reply from the DM yet. He's crazy difficult to get ahold of sometimes.

3) Waiting to talk to the DM before I talk to the Barbarian.

4) Sounds like we may be starting a new campaign anyway, possibly as soon as next session (which is the Sunday following this coming Sunday). One of the folks that hasn't been able to join us for a few weeks is interested in taking over as DM (He's pretty good at it, and apparently prefers to DM over playing, which might explain his absence recently), and several of us have expressed interest in a pirate campaign. This would mean new characters for all, and more importantly, a fresh start for everyone. Probably the best solution overall, though I'd still like to resolve the current problem.

Missed this before I posted. I think that a new campaign is your best bet, but you guys should still have a pow wow about what happened and why it happened, and work to make a more cohesive party for your next game, or this could just happen all over again. Also:

In a game a few years ago, I had to continually remind the DM that my 2E Thief was not Lawful. He just found that traveling with a Paladin was far more lucrative than petty theft, and so wasn't going to do anything to risk the relationship.

Eventually I started asking him the value of anything we got close to in town. I wasn't planning to steal anything. But as long as Ornrandir was always casing out the joint, the DM never forgot that he was Neutral.

I've found that there are a few people on here who I agree with most of the time, and Jay R is one of them. His above example is a great way to handle this stuff in the future. The thief's player doesn't need to hide stuff from you the player, just your character. To quote the 13th Age manual, "telegraph your intent" if the DM and the party understands what everybody's end goal is, its alot easier to make sure everybody ends up with the game you all want. Obviously this lesson need not necessarily apply to you, but you should pass it on to your group.

Anyway curious to see how this all plays out.

[Kato]

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.

Trying to salvage this is most likely not going to be fun for anyone involved.

I think depending on what the players want there are plenty of ways to fix this Of course, if the players just can't agree on a way to fix this, no, it won't work, but if they are willing to cooperate there are many, PvP being just the most simplistic.

[Susano-wo]

Minor update:

1) I spoke with my Ninja friend. He blames the DM and Barbarian mostly, with a bit of himself for trying to break out the Barbarian. Apparently his original plan was to attempt to commit petty crimes of thievery and such without my knowing. Obviously, that didn't work out. :P He thinks the player behind the Barbarian is being impulsive and just enjoying his character, but not intentionally trying to cause the party problems. Agrees with me that things would have been workable if a) the barbarian had remained CN and not been homicidal, and b) the DM would have not given the barbarian a chance to murder the town guard.

Wait, so he should have, what, had there be no guards? None of this (aside from perhaps allowing your character knowng he would likely come into conflict with either of the other two characters) is the DM's fault. Barb chose to go immediately, chose to ignore the guards instructions to go away, and then killed 6 guards. Not anyone's fault but the Barb

And I would like to second the people rightly arguing that the LG char has as much right to play his character as the CE has to play his, and the Paladin-ness is irrelevant

[lytokk]

Wait, so he should have, what, had there be no guards? None of this (aside from perhaps allowing your character knowng he would likely come into conflict with either of the other two characters) is the DM's fault. Barb chose to go immediately, chose to ignore the guards instructions to go away, and then killed 6 guards. Not anyone's fault but the Barb

And I would like to second the people rightly arguing that the LG char has as much right to play his character as the CE has to play his, and the Paladin-ness is irrelevant

DM could have always jacked up the guards levels, made them much more difficult to kill. Just saying. OF course, that would have just resulted in the barb's death or capture, but with less dead guards.

Gotta remember that no matter how big the stick a player has, the DM has a bigger one.

[veti]

DM could have always jacked up the guards levels, made them much more difficult to kill. Just saying. OF course, that would have just resulted in the barb's death or capture, but with less dead guards.

Gotta remember that no matter how big the stick a player has, the DM has a bigger one.

Yeah, but if your basic guard grunts are any more than about 3rd level, I for one would start wondering why this ecosystem needs (tolerates) "adventurers" at all.

I guess he could have had the guards - just run away when the first one went down. But that wouldn't make the barbarian any less culpable.

Edit: what the guards needed was some kind of magical taser - some doohickey that can non-lethally incapacitate even a much stronger opponent. I wonder why there aren't more of those around...

[Mr Beer]

Yeah, but if your basic guard grunts are any more than about 3rd level, I for one would start wondering why this ecosystem needs (tolerates) "adventurers" at all.

I agree with that, in my campaigns large towns and cities tend to have elite, rapid response guards (i.e. levelled mages and fighters) for dealing with recalcitrant adventurers though. It's hard to keep order with level 2 guards when a bunch of level 10 adventurers can just pop in and cause havoc. But the basic guys are just fine for normal law and order.

[Kato]

I agree with that, in my campaigns large towns and cities tend to have elite, rapid response guards (i.e. levelled mages and fighters) for dealing with recalcitrant adventurers though. It's hard to keep order with level 2 guards when a bunch of level 10 adventurers can just pop in and cause havoc. But the basic guys are just fine for normal law and order.

Yup, it just sets up the possibility of the adventurers marching in, taking over the local government for as long as they see fit and then leave with the treasury. Not that I would have any experience with that.

[Segev]

I agree with that, in my campaigns large towns and cities tend to have elite, rapid response guards (i.e. levelled mages and fighters) for dealing with recalcitrant adventurers though. It's hard to keep order with level 2 guards when a bunch of level 10 adventurers can just pop in and cause havoc. But the basic guys are just fine for normal law and order.

Yup, it just sets up the possibility of the adventurers marching in, taking over the local government for as long as they see fit and then leave with the treasury. Not that I would have any experience with that.

I just read the second novel in Brandon Sanderson's Reckoners series. The story takes place in a post-apocalyptic Earth. The cause of the Apocalypse was the advent of super-villains. With a lack of any super-heroes to stand up to them. They just took over.

They are, basically, level 10-20 adventurers in a world of level 1-3 mortals.

[Susano-wo]

DM could have always jacked up the guards levels, made them much more difficult to kill. Just saying. OF course, that would have just resulted in the barb's death or capture, but with less dead guards.

Gotta remember that no matter how big the stick a player has, the DM has a bigger one.

Either way the guards were as high as they were, and the Barb still chose what he chose. (and if you jack them up enough to stomp him, the question remains: why did they need this group to do the quest? couldn't spare 3 guards?)

[lytokk]

Obviously these are the elite guards who's only job is the protection of the mayor. Its how I would have run it at least. Or had the royal court wizard incapacitate the barbarian. The reason he didn't do the quest, is because it's beneath him. All I'm saying is it's an alternative.

[Jay R]

A lot of people are assuming that the DM was perfectly free to change the guards from who they were somebody else in the middle of the encounter. I find that assumption a little jarring.

They aren't heroes; they're ordinary city guards. Furthermore, these are the grunts who don't have enough pull in the barracks to get transferred to a day shift. They're the new guys.

[goto124]

tMeanwhile, my Paladin arrives on the scene, and (having been suspicious of the Barbarian in the first place) Detects Evil on him. Barbarian comes up as Evil,

Did the Barbarian player knew he was doing an act that would change his alignment? Had the DM at least warned the Barbarian about turning Evil? Who decided that the Barbarian's alignment had changed?

[Jay R]

Did the Barbarian player knew he was doing an act that would change his alignment?

Is there a single D&D player anywhere who doesn't know he will turn evil if he commits a deliberate murder against inoffensive people doing their job correctly in a civil society?

This isn't a judgment call. If murder isn't evil, nothing is evil.

It's murder.

It's not self-defense. It's not defeating an enemy in battle. It's not stopping a monster. It's not a duel. It's not a tragic misunderstanding.

It's murder.

Had the DM at least warned the Barbarian about turning Evil? Who decided that the Barbarian's alignment had changed?

How can it not change? One of the reasons that Beta Centauri seemed off the mark is that the presence of the Paladin had no effect, to my mind. *Any* Lawful Good character - really, any Good character - must try to take down the Barbarian and bring him in.

Any Neutral character I ever play would do the same, unless he was planning to become an outlaw, forever cut off from society and hunted down by all decent folks. If I were playing an Evil character who wanted to be allowed to live in town occasionally, he would also bring the Barbarian to justice.

[Segev]

To be fair, a neutral or evil character could decide that it's easier to pretend not to know him, or, if pressed, to state (truthfully) that he had nothing to do with it and wished them well in catching him. Maybe offer some suggestions on where to look if it will get them out of his hair faster and keep him from being too inconvenienced.

[Othniel]

New update!

I talked to the DM. He's not particularly happy with the way things turned out either. There will be repercussions for the Barbarian and the Ninja...eventually. Next session we're switching to the Skulls and Shackles campaign and all rolling new characters. One of our members that hasn't been around lately will be DMing I believe. We're also going to discuss what happened next time and get on the same page for where the party wants to go for this future campaign to avoid any unpleasantness like last time.

[Jay R]

Perfect! You really need to talk.

A game of outlaws can be fun.

A game of law-abiding adventurers can be fun.

Combining the two is a recipe for PvP and disaster.

[Tragak]

You deal with a Chaotic Evil party member the same way you deal with a Lawful and/or Good party member.

If the player chooses to use his character concept in a way that enhances the game instead of disrupting it, then you don't need to stop him from doing so. If the player chooses to use his character concept in a way that disrupts the game instead of enhancing it, then you talk to him out-of-game to make sure he understands that he's not the only person playing.

[dps]

the Paladin-ness is irrelevant

Yeah, there were some posts in this thread that basically said, "See, this is the problem with Paladins, always trying to tell other players what they can and can't do" but the player had already specifically said that he didn't want his character to associate what a character that just murders innocent people in cold blood, even if his character hadn't been a Paladin.

[Straybow]

New update!

I talked to the DM. He's not particularly happy with the way things turned out either. There will be repercussions for the Barbarian and the Ninja...eventually.

The DM error was letting the Barb be captured. If any of the guards were NN or NL, they'd have shot an arrow or two, or three or five, to make sure the Barb wasn't faking (and wouldn't be any trouble keeping in jail, etc). Especially if actually friends with any of the slain guards.

Heck, a NG or even LG guard might shoot one extra arrow in the heat of anger, maybe even one for each friend: "SoB killed my best friend, Wally! [thwip] And cousin Fred, too! [thwip]" (He'd feel kinda bad about it the next day, but not much.)

Depending on the legal customs, it might even be expected that guards kill such a dangerous felon on the spot. And they'd take custody of the body, so that there'd be a trial if the idiot's companions insisted on raising him.

BTW, were those guards wearing red shirts, perhaps? ;)

[Othniel]

The DM error was letting the Barb be captured. If any of the guards were NN or NL, they'd have shot an arrow or two, or three or five, to make sure the Barb wasn't faking (and wouldn't be any trouble keeping in jail, etc). Especially if actually friends with any of the slain guards.

Heck, a NG or even LG guard might shoot one extra arrow in the heat of anger, maybe even one for each friend: "SoB killed my best friend, Wally! [thwip] And cousin Fred, too! [thwip]" (He'd feel kinda bad about it the next day, but not much.)

Depending on the legal customs, it might even be expected that guards kill such a dangerous felon on the spot. And they'd take custody of the body, so that there'd be a trial if the idiot's companions insisted on raising him.

BTW, were those guards wearing red shirts, perhaps? ;)

Town guards are always red shirts, aren't they? Actually, at the moment, I was trying to disarm the situation, so my Paladin stepped in and cuffed the Barbarian with my masterwork manacles (and regular manacles on his feet) before hauling him off to jail. If I'd been thinking more about solving the problem in the end, I would've held off and let the town guard handle it.

[Razgriez]

I'd argue that you instead had a Critical Success on that, given the heat of the moment, especially when one guard being murdered like that would be grounds already for most Good aligned characters to draw their weapons (which wouldn't be wrong either in-character)

It's not your job to guess how your DM is handling someone taking a head first dive into the Chaotic Evil abyss, it is your job as a Paladin though, to stop them. Which you did.

[Segev]

It's not your job to guess how your DM is handling someone taking a head first dive into the Chaotic Evil abyss, it is your job as a Paladin Good-aligned individual though, to stop them. Which you did.

Being a paladin is not necessary for it to be the right move, IC, to morally and ethically object to murder to the point of thwarting it.

[Razgriez]

Being a paladin is not necessary for it to be the right move, IC, to morally and ethically object to murder to the point of thwarting it.

Oh I agree, There's little excuse for any Good aligned character to not stop it, there's even less/none for Paladin. The idea that any good aligned character is supposed to go blank/catatonic/suspended animation/somewhere else in town and clue less whenever an evil character commits evil, because for them to act to their alignment, and stop them might "Ruin a player's fun" is a hypocritical double standard. What about the Good alligned player's fun? What about them being able to act their alignment?

[goto124]

Oh I agree, There's little excuse for any Good aligned character to not stop it, there's even less/none for Paladin. The idea that any good aligned character is supposed to go blank/catatonic/suspended animation/somewhere else in town and clue less whenever an evil character commits evil, because for them to act to their alignment, and stop them might "Ruin a player's fun" is a hypocritical double standard. What about the Good alligned player's fun? What about them being able to act their alignment?

The party could discuss the matter, and try to come up with a better solution that's Good, or at least not Evil.

[JaminDM]

You do not "deal" with a chaotic evil party member.

You watch their every move, always staying at least not too many steps behind.

And hope like you have never hoped before that they do not end up dealing with you.