How do I deal with a Chaotic Evil party member?

[Mr.Moron]

I'd either ignore it, change characters, or leave the game. This is clearly a problem that can be blamed on the GM/Game Organizer who didn't get everyone on the same page in terms of tone & content before the game started.

At this point the best you can do is try to find a way to make it not a problem, rather than trying to solve the problem.

EDIT: If you just can't be on board with being Shanks McBabyKiller or at least, being an accessory to them this just isn't the group for you. The only option is to leave the game.

[Beta Centauri]

Fix this OOC. Things rarely get better if handled IC only.

100% agreed.

Don't listen to people claiming that this is somehow the paladin's fault - that is utter BS from any sensible point of view.

If the player was being blamed, yes. But this is clearly triggered by the class. No other class has requirements that pressure players to police other player characters (as well as building in the means to do so). Find me even one thread in which a specific alignment-restricted class is in conflict with other party members and it's NOT the paladin, and I'd believe that the class isn't a direct cause of things like this.

Don't get me wrong: there's a lot more about the game that is causing problems. Such as:

Adventuring in a city. That immediately sets a table up for problems with non-Lawful characters, or anyone who just wants to act out.
The GM picking a fight with the barbarian. If that goes away the entire triggering event goes away.
The GM capturing PCs. At best it's boring, and at worst it's punitively boring.
The use of alignment at all.

There's also lack of follow through in how the world works. In a world in which alignment is a real thing, and counter-alignment magic exists, people would have wards up all the time. Even in the real world people perform rituals that are designed to protect them from enemies and evil. This mayor would absolutely have some kind of protection from chaos and evil around his house. I don't really blame the GM for this, as I've never seen that followed through in any other game, but it is an alternative (or at least an augmentation) to having to police the city against objectively evil or chaotic beings.

This is entirely a player problem. Big question: did you bring the paladin in the group before or after the barbarian? If you came in first you have a strong case for getting the barbarian to mend his ways or have to retire. Why should your character and your fun as a player suffer because someone else has to go and be a ****?

Sounds to me like the barbarian is acting completely in character and is not harming the paladin in any way. Not that acting in character is an excuse for either character's reactions in this case.

Conversely, if the barbarian was there first and you brought in a paladin, well, make sure characters and classes you bring in to an existing group are going to work with what's there (an LG person with a bunch of morally neutral and chaotic people is a risky idea). If there is an irreconcilable conflict and the other PC was there first, you should retire your character.
If they were both brought in at the same time, then you should get in the habit of making sure characters will be able to work together before the game starts, and your only recourse now is to settle it OOC.

Solid advice.

[Drakefall]

I agree with everyone who has suggested talking this through OOC.

Its one thing to have party conflict, and another to have characters that are at such odds that they cannot realistically exist in the same party even with OOC compromise. Having an open and calm discussion with the group is the way to go. You seem to have presented your position and thoughts on the matter here in a non-aggressive manner so your good to go on that front.

For what its worth, I do empathise with wanting to play a good guy only to be surrounded by criminals and murderers.

Since you seem at least willing to bite the bullet if necessary and make a new character/bring back your bard, perhaps you could make a suggestion to your group along these lines: "Okay, so I'll retire my paladin and bring in a character who jazzes better with the group for this campaign, but in return I'd like to be able to play an awesome good guy in the next campaign we play and for you guys to make characters who could be in a party with such a character without causing too much drama and/or OOC frustration. Sound fair?"

[Beta Centauri]

When you do talk to the group or the player, I think some of us would like to hear how it went.

[Kato]

Just another possible suggestion: If the Barbarian-player (and at this point the ninja as well) are willing for it, it would not be out of the question to have them show/pretend remorse. Of course it depends on all of you agreeing, but your paladin could even be chosen as their "probation officer" and they need to keep their future crimes hidden from you/him. (Finding a reason for you not to use Detect Evil, say, a promise to trust your comrades.) It could make for some interesting roleplaying if you agree on it...
Otherwise... kill the bastards or die trying

[Razgriez]

Talk it out with your group OOC first, explain your issues to them as you've done here.

as for the situation, if the barbarian, and/or ninja suddenly find themselves staring down the wrong end of your paladin's lance, that's their fault, not the Paladin's for existing and having a code of honor they are sworn to. The Exile option your DM is looking at/chosen, is quite blunt, a poor choice in this situation. It's trying to gloss over their actions while ignoring the fact that as a Paladin, you've got a moral code to uphold. A better solution by the DM, would be to have some more substantive punishment, especially with a body count that high. First off, I imagine the payment for the quest was lost as cost for the deaths of the guards. Second, off, I would honestly be surprised if they escaped execution, at this point. Third, if they are being let go, Mark of Justice, Geas/Quest, or for a mundane option, branded as an Outlaw, giving the writ explaining their crimes to the Paladin. In historical terms, this means they would lose all legal protections.

That said though, do understand, there is a very likely PVP conflict to come out of this. If that happens, remember, it was their choice to take those actions in game, any action you are taking against them, or to defend your self from them, is because of those actions they committed. (and hopefully not just out of a petty desire to really annoy the Paladin player. If that is the case, either they need to apologize, or they need to go, or you need to find a new group that will respect your choice to play the upstanding knight)

[Beta Centauri]

Talk it out with your group OOC first, explain your issues to them as you've done here.

Yes.

as for the situation, if the barbarian, and/or ninja suddenly find themselves staring down the wrong end of your paladin's lance, that's their fault, not the Paladin's for existing and having a code of honor they are sworn to. The Exile option your DM is looking at/chosen, is quite blunt, a poor choice in this situation. It's trying to gloss over their actions while ignoring the fact that as a Paladin, you've got a moral code to uphold.

The paladin's class requirements are not the fault or the problem of the other characters or players.

A better solution by the DM, would be to have some more substantive punishment, especially with a body count that high. First off, I imagine the payment for the quest was lost as cost for the deaths of the guards. Second, off, I would honestly be surprised if they escaped execution, at this point. Third, if they are being let go, Mark of Justice, Geas/Quest, or for a mundane option, branded as an Outlaw, giving the writ explaining their crimes to the Paladin. In historical terms, this means they would lose all legal protections.

The issue with this is that the intent appears to be to make the game boring for the supposedly transgressing character or characters, who were apparently acting out their alignment just as the paladin feels compelled to. I'm NOT saying that there shouldn't be consequences for actions, but consequences can be interesting or boring for a player and boring consequences are easy to interpret as punitive attempts to change player behavior.

That said though, do understand, there is a very likely PVP conflict to come out of this. If that happens, remember, it was their choice to take those actions in game, any action you are taking against them, or to defend your self from them, is because of those actions they committed.

Cool, if everyone's on board with that kind of PVP conflict. If not, it's no more justified and no less disruptive than anything the other players are doing.

(and hopefully not just out of a petty desire to really annoy the Paladin player. If that is the case, either they need to apologize, or they need to go, or you need to find a new group that will respect your choice to play the upstanding knight)

If it's not out of a petty desire to annoy the paladin player, then the paladin player need to make sure that any action they take is in no way based on a desire to see the other player (player, not character) pulled up short or punished, and that the other player isn't going to take it personally. If it is intended at all personally then it's no better than if the other player was also being personal, and the player should find or create some reason to take another course of action. Really be honest with yourself here, and don't hide behind "It's what my character would do!" just to get payback.

[Lord Torath]

Sounds to me like the barbarian is acting completely in character and is not harming the paladin in any way. Not that acting in character is an excuse for either character's reactions in this case.

I'd say this is a case where the Barbarian's player could easily have chosen to act differently, while still staying in character. It rather depends on the culture the barbarian came from, of course, but generally they can be patient enough to wait for daylight. Most barbarian cultures I'm familiar with are primarily diurnal societies. Would the barbarian wake his chief up in the middle of the night for something that is not urgent? Highly unlikely. 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.

[Beta Centauri]

I'd say this is a case where the Barbarian's player could easily have chosen to act differently, while still staying in character.

Yet the paladin seems to have only one choice.

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.

[aspekt]

I personally have doubts about a DM in this situation who refuses to execute and cannot come up with a more imaginative answer than exile. It is a community of saints that wouldn't have already lynched the lot of them.

No DM worth their salt wants to be a TPK DM but when players force your hand there have to be either consequences or general agreement that hilarity and over the top actions are the theme of the campaign.

Why mention the DM when the OP is just a player? Because the CE player isn't the only issue here. Resolving the issue with the player is great but will only arise again if the DM is onboard with this playstyle.

And to be clear this is one more reason for an OOC conversation with everyone involved.

[Razgriez]

I disagree about the idea the article raises, that you linked, Lord, in regards to this case. We're not just simple talking about a non-violent crime or dishonor. We're not talking about "The paladin shouldn't act Law Stupid, it's something minor, they just went behind the Paladin's back to enrich themselves of extra items.". We're talking dead guards protecting the mayor of the town because:
A. The barbarian was impatient, and decided killing a guard to get the reward would be a swell idea. And B. A ninja arrested because he was impatient to let a trial happen.

I've played games where the DM was ready to send guards to arrest the party over public disturbances the party was calling, and for similar hot headed demands to the powers that be. This is a situation that has shot way past the "Are you sure you really want to keep doing this?" question DMs "ask" (warn) their players when they're about to do something that's bound to see them rolling up a new character. What the situation here is, the DM, and the party need to agree upon 1 of two paths.

1. To heck with punishment for violent murderers! The game must go on"

2. "Uh, yea, you broke several laws, murdered a bunch of guards, you're going to be lucky to not be rotting in jail or sent to the gallows soon"

Cold blooded murder simply because payment wasn't being delivered in the dead of night is not an issue a Paladin can overlook in this case. This is not a "we can bend the rules, for the greater good" moment, this is a "The Greater Good is that these two guys murdered others out of greed and impatience, and they deserve to be punished harshly, and if they want to save their skin at all, they need to go on a quest of redemption.

[Beta Centauri]

No DM worth their salt wants to be a TPK DM but when players force your hand there have to be either consequences or general agreement that hilarity and over the top actions are the theme of the campaign.

The great thing about a fictional fantasy setting is that there is almost always a way for those consequences to be cool, rather than boring.

[Beta Centauri]

if they want to save their skin at all, they need to go on a quest of redemption.

Good idea!

The GM could also have the town be attacked, in any one of a number of ways, or have something else happens that gets the character out of jail, but retains the "logic" of the game setting. There's a reason why Pirates of the Caribbean wasn't two hours of Jack Sparrow sitting in a jail cell and having a trial.

If GMs and players aren't out to punish, there are lots of fun outcomes that can be dreamed up.

GMs: do you really want to play out jailtime and a trial for even just one member of the party? Wouldn't you rather the players were involved in something cool and adventurous? Wouldn't you rather not have to follow through with the threat of arrest and yet another fight with the woefully under-equipped town guard, especially when most of the party isn't able to get involved anyway? Don't you think there might be a better way to deal with this kind of behavior, which has been around for decades and isn't likely to go away soon?

Talking is hard, especially for many of the people our community tends to attract. So look at the adventure and setting you have planned and try to spot and remove elements of it that require you to make your own game boring in response to player actions. No one wants to run a boring game, do they?

[Othniel]

I appreciate all the ideas and input, folks. I really do. I'm waiting on a response back from our DM, and I'll be talking to my Ninja friend today. I'll see what they think, and then talk to the Barbarian. I'll let you guys know how the issue is resolved.

[aspekt]

The great thing about a fictional fantasy setting is that there is almost always a way for those consequences to be cool, rather than boring.

Agreed which is why I pointed that out in my first sentence. Lack of imagination kills tables not just individual games.

[veti]

Many good points made in this thread, but the one thing I'm picking up on is:

• there are only 3 regular players
• 2 of them are against you
• therefore, you're the odd one out. From the perspective of "party unity", if that's a thing anyone cares about, it's the paladin that's the problem.

The paladin can't overlook this. He can't continue to adventure with these murderers - that's explicitly stated in RAW, and should be fairly obvious from a roleplaying perspective too. I think the idea of retiring the character (staying in the town after the others are booted out, to help the bereaved families and maybe serve in the town guard) is about the least-disruptive way of ending the current situation reasonably, but it will leave a bigger problem unresolved, viz. that the party is now effectively being led by this lunatic.

The other three players need to be canvassed at some point to see which side they'd come down on. And then the DM, and players, need to make a collective decision: are you aiming for high, heroic fantasy, or mindless fun? (Both are perfectly fine, but it's tough to make them coexist.) Based on that decision, you'll then know whether it's you or the barbarian (and possibly the ninja, although it sounds like s/he at least should be redeemable) who needs to reroll.

If you try to introduce another good character to the barbarian-led group - good luck with that, I've been there. I played it as a rather passive character who tried to mitigate their mayhem as much as he could. It's a thankless and unpleasant role, and will result in you being hated by civilians, and despised and very likely bullied by your fellow PCs, but it can have an upside, and it's this:

If your DM is any good, "being a successful evil party" isn't easy. "Being good" might seem like a lot of hassle and restraint, but it buys you the support of a huge network of good (and most neutral) characters in the setting. And even the bad guys will often practise restraint around you, because they don't want to invite too much attention from that network. "Being evil" means going it alone, and that means alone alone. Bad guys, good guys, neutral guys - they'll all be out to get you, and the bad guys - knowing you're outlaws - will take off the gloves and really show what they can do. If you're not prepared for it, the campaign can rapidly become unsurvivable. Sooner or later the barbarian and his cohorts may realise that, and decide they want some way to buy back into society - and at that point, your passive, 'respectable' healbot (or whatever) suddenly finds herself in a very pivotal position.

[Wardog]

100% agreed.

If the player was being blamed, yes. But this is clearly triggered by the class. No other class has requirements that pressure players to police other player characters (as well as building in the means to do so). Find me even one thread in which a specific alignment-restricted class is in conflict with other party members and it's NOT the paladin, and I'd believe that the class isn't a direct cause of things like this.

Paladin is the only class that cannot by RAW adventure with an evil party, but any good person would find random murder unacceptable.

***

As for a solution, I have thought of one other way: play it for laughs.

You are the upstanding paladin trying to do the right thing, but every time you try, it always gets undone by the crazy antics of your companions.

Perhaps the LFG comic could be used for ideas.

[Segev]

Talk to the group OOC. See what they think would be fun and acceptable. One possible keep-all-characters solution would be if the exile came with a requirement that they be prisoners of your Paladin, who will enforce their better behavior. This will only work if the PLAYERS are on board with this, though; they have to be willing to play along with your paladin having authority (and, if necessary, the power) to make them stop when their behavior is unacceptable.

If they're determined to play Evil, it just won't work, because it will turn into PvP of the unfun kind as you can't have your character be good and put up with their evil, and your trying to stop them would count as impinging on their fun.


If they're not okay with playing a more good-aligned (or at least neutral-aligned) game (even if the IC reason is that the Paladin can and will force good behavior), then you will need to play something that can tolerate their murderous ways, even if you don't condone or like them. If you can't play a character with the ability to at least look the other way at casual murder, and they don't want to play characters who are willing to be constrained from casual murder, then you just can't play in this game, unfortunately.

I would, if you can, aim for a TN to NE character who has a strong dose of enlightened self-interest. He's fine with murders...but he's NOT fine with stupidity. And doing things that get the law down on the party is stupid. Stand up for peace and mercy in public, and even maybe in private. It gets you good will. And just be willing, when it genuinely won't hurt you or the party, to let them get away with murder.

[icefractal]

If the player was being blamed, yes. But this is clearly triggered by the class. No other class has requirements that pressure players to police other player characters (as well as building in the means to do so). Find me even one thread in which a specific alignment-restricted class is in conflict with other party members and it's NOT the paladin, and I'd believe that the class isn't a direct cause of things like this.

Just ... not even close. I've never played a Paladin, and seldom anyone LG. 90% of the characters I have played, including some of the evil ones, would not want to ally with some psycho who stabs people for being mildly inconvenient to him.

Now maybe you're talking about a very beer-n-pretzels style game where nobody gives a **** about the characters' personality (or only uses it for humor), in which case sure, no rule, no problem.

But in a game where you're actually trying to get into your character's shoes? Who the hell would want to be buddies with a serial killer? Who would want to aid and abet their highly public and not even profitable crimes? Well, a character designed with that in mind would, which is fine if the other players are on board to support the murder-stabby lifestyle. It's just not something you should expect "any non Paladin" to do.

[aspekt]

Another good point that keeps cropping up and it ties into my original response about competent DMs.

It's one thing to have a hack'n'slash game or an evil campaign or even just a goof off let's see where this goes kind of approach. All of which of course ate perfectly acceptable and can be fun.

But games with any specific bent in them, even a we're all goody two shoes characters, is something clearly discussed by the table before anyone starts playing that way.

"Hey I'm kinda bored with the generic campaign let's do x as an alyernate playstyle just for kicks."

"Sounds great. I quit knocking on the door and start knocking heads!"

Without this mutual understanding no one knows what's going on. The DM has to step up and facilitate the table's cohesion. Even if it's offering to switch up the game some so the players are enjoying themselves more.

I think overall campaign coherence can resolve a lot of these kinds of issues.

[Beta Centauri]

But in a game where you're actually trying to get into your character's shoes?

Ah, I see. Are you a bit like those people who need everything to fit their idea of internal consistency, who can't enjoy The Lord of the Rings until they or someone else comes up with a reason why the Eagles weren't used to just fly to Mount Doom? If so, we're not going to be able to agree on this, even though I'm sure we're both reasonable and intelligent.

What you describe is a fine way to play, right up until someone out-of-game takes issue with what someone is doing in-game. Ideally, no one does. I've heard people claim they can do that, and maybe they can. Maybe you can. Most people, though, seem to have things that, while reasonable and realistic in-game, result in a boring experience for the people actually playing the game, and cause them to want that thing to stop. And more than a few people do make a conscious effort to needle other people via in-character actions. That may very well be what is going on here, though we don't know. In any case, the paladin player isn't in the character's shoes and seems to think that they can make the other player stop controlling their character in an annoying way by being annoying back. That, historically, doesn't work, hence the heartwarmingly copious amounts of advice (which, I'm happy to see, is being taken) to address this out-of-game.

Who the hell would want to be buddies with a serial killer? Who would want to aid and abet their highly public and not even profitable crimes? Well, a character designed with that in mind would, which is fine if the other players are on board to support the murder-stabby lifestyle.

They don't need to support it, they just need not to police it. It's decent of you to admit that there are characters who could play in the same game with such a character. It wouldn't need to be determined during character creation, though. Facts could come to light showing that the character has some thing or some quality that is crucial to some plan, and must therefore be kept alive and free. Or a powerful person could just tell the other characters to let the character do their thing and treat them as a valuable teammate, for reasons the PCs aren't privvy to. That person could even make it worth the characters' time.

Those are just examples. Two or more people with more knowledge about the characters and the setting could doubtlessly come up with dozens of more ideas that work for them. Those ideas might not work for anyone else, but fortunately they don't have to.

It's just not something you should expect "any non Paladin" to do.

It's quite likely that the barbarian player is not acting in good faith. Out-of-game discussion will address that. In the meantime though, it's reasonable to expect the paladin player to find (perhaps with the GM's help) reasons not to police another character.

The GM in this game isn't helping matters, and possibly even wants to get at the barbarian player in game. We don't know, but the GM could be making different choices that would have prevented this.

Now maybe you're talking about a very beer-n-pretzels style game where nobody gives a **** about the characters' personality (or only uses it for humor), in which case sure, no rule, no problem.

This was unnecessary. You're smart enough to know that there's a range between the kind of game you deride and your kind of game. Lots of people play quite seriously while giving consideration to both the in-game and out-of-game situations. My goal as a GM is that everyone have fun out-of-game, and enjoy what's happening in the game (even if they are also in-character as someone going through something awful), and I position myself (and everyone else) to be able to bring that about. The GM in this game painted everyone into a corner, by choosing outcomes that limited everyone's choices.

In short, lots of smart, creative, capable roleplayers don't find it worth immersing themselves in a game, if the game itself isn't about something that interests them.

But games with any specific bent in them, even a we're all goody two shoes characters, is something clearly discussed by the table before anyone starts playing that way.

"Hey I'm kinda bored with the generic campaign let's do x as an alyernate playstyle just for kicks."

"Sounds great. I quit knocking on the door and start knocking heads!"

Without this mutual understanding no one knows what's going on. The DM has to step up and facilitate the table's cohesion. Even if it's offering to switch up the game some so the players are enjoying themselves more.

I think overall campaign coherence can resolve a lot of these kinds of issues.

Yes indeed. The barbarian player has the hallmarks of someone who is bored and wants a different pace to the game. If a person can recognize this about themselves and talk honestly about what they want (which can be hard), then maybe their boredom can be relieved, or maybe they need to do something entirely different. Just making them more bored isn't likely to improve matters, though.

[GungHo]

If the story is about the continuing adventures of the crazy ninja and his crazier barbarian buddy, I'd probably pick a different character to join them on their crazy adventures. You guys essentially created characters that aren't complementary. At all. I'm all for everyone agency when playing tabletop, but sometimes it helps to all get together before you roll characters to ensure you're on the same page. The Don King/Varric Tethras skald idea sounds like it would be a great complement to this group, and sufficient karmic punishment for bad deeds when the embellishment itself starts to get the barbarian and ninja in trouble.

[Segev]

You have to realize that, if something "comes to light" or otherwise creates a reason why psychobarb needs to be allowed to continue being a serial murderer, that still takes OOC agreement amongst the players to set the social contract for what kind of behavior is "acceptable" in the game.

It isn't "everything must fit neatly." It's not even "you just shouldn't police their behavior." Will their behavior ever reflect back on my character? Then my character has a right to do something about it. The attitude of "just let them do their thing" becomes problematic if you're trying to role-play at all, at least to the extent that you need to acknowledge there is an issue and come up with a reason why the LG guy is going to stay in the party and not police the CE guy.

You have to be very careful with the "just let them do what they want, or you're being stuffy" attitude, because it can easily lead to, "they can do anything they want, but you can't because what you're doing is impeding their fun." This has the probably-unintended message that their fun is more important than yours.

I don't say this to denigrate the idea of "kick-in-the-door, your-characters-are-game-pieces, just-have-fun" play. That's valid. But it is very much a game-only, no-role-play approach, and if you want some role-play, you have to be able to justify your character's actions as a character.

I, for one, find it utterly frustrating in a book or movie when a character decides to defect to the other team for no reason other than the writer decided he needed them there. (Turn-A Gundam, I'm looking at you.)

[Jay R]

Talk to the other player and the DM. Maybe talk to the entire table.

This is an impossible situation. A character turning evil after there is a Paladin in the party is as deliberately destructive to the party as adding a Paladin to an evil party, and for the same reasons.

If the players don't agree to play in a compatible manner, there is no game. [Or the game is PvP.]

You can't have one player playing a hero and one player playing a villain and keep the party together.

Since the Paladin was there before the other player decided to turn his Barbarian into a murderer, I think it's the Barbarian player's job to fix it. But if you can't make him; you can only try to convince him.

[Note that if the Barbarian were evil before the Paladin appeared, I'd be saying it's the Paladin's fault. But that's not the case this time.]

There are lots of solutions to the specific problem: the Paladin leaves, the Barbarian leaves, the Barbarian reforms, the Barbarian and Paladin fight to the death, etc. But those are all just addressing the immediate symptom, not the actual problem.

The general problem is this. In this one case, the player decided to take an action knowing it would destroy the party. If he is willing to do that once, will he do it again?

If I were in the game, I would tell the players and DM that I don't like to play PvP, and I believe that D&D is a cooperative game. Unless that player agrees to never play in a way that will destroy party unity again, I'd leave the game.

You need to find a way to play in which every player lets every other player play. Or surrender your right to have a say in your character.

This is one of the reasons I like having a Paladin in the party. It makes it clear that we've agreed not to be the monsters.

[Beta Centauri]

You have to realize that, if something "comes to light" or otherwise creates a reason why psychobarb needs to be allowed to continue being a serial murderer, that still takes OOC agreement amongst the players to set the social contract for what kind of behavior is "acceptable" in the game.

It sounds like you're saying that, even if everyone is (or claims to be) acting entirely in-character, that there are some in-game choices that not everyone at the table will enjoy, depending on what the social contract is. The choices might be perfectly logical or reasonable in-game, but the players witnessing them from outside the game would find them "unacceptable." Is that what you're saying?

If so, I agree. But what we might disagree on is the "acceptable" way to deal with behavior that is not "acceptable" in the game. I would think that most people would agree that any approach that only exacerbates the strain on the social contract would also be deemed unacceptable, in which case in-game punishment would not be a good idea.

It isn't "everything must fit neatly." It's not even "you just shouldn't police their behavior." Will their behavior ever reflect back on my character?

That's up to the GM. A GM who punishes players, though their characters, for not doing something about another character, is encouraging policing.

Then my character has a right to do something about it.

Not everyone will agree with this, because not everyone will agree to what extent (if any) characters have "rights." You imply above that a character doesn't have a right to do something deemed unacceptable in the social contract. Their "rights" end there and a character taking such an action will be blocked, either in or out of game. Well, for my part, I deem players (including the GM) directly blocking other players choices, either in or out of game, as unacceptable in the social contract. That is, very basically, if a player does something and another player negates that thing, prevents it from happening, threatens punishment if it's not reconsidered, etc, then the second player is in the wrong, even if the first player is too.

Before anyone gets bunched up about how that approach doesn't make sense, or makes the game unplayable, let me assure you that the game works just fine that way. If anyone doesn't see how, I'm open to honest questions that keep the uncharitable assumptions to a minimum.

The attitude of "just let them do their thing" becomes problematic if you're trying to role-play at all, at least to the extent that you need to acknowledge there is an issue and come up with a reason why the LG guy is going to stay in the party and not police the CE guy.

I don't see why acknowledging there is an issue and coming up with that reason (or just assuming there is a reason) is problematic. Anyway, it's not more problematic than a game that turns into a PvP arms race, or something worse.

You have to be very careful with the "just let them do what they want, or you're being stuffy" attitude, because it can easily lead to, "they can do anything they want, but you can't because what you're doing is impeding their fun." This has the probably-unintended message that their fun is more important than yours.

One player's fun is not more important than another, so it should be unacceptable for anyone to impede anyone else's fun. What we have to be careful about is tying "fun" to a single course of action or series of events, because if that course or series is prevented it then seems as though our fun is being impeded. When "fun" be achieved via a number of different courses it's harder to impede and there's therefore less perceived need to block other player's actions. Finding a different course of action is generally pretty easy in D&D, with a little foresight and collaboration.

What clogs that up are rules (or interpretations of them) and GMs that punish players for trying to do something else, thereby constraining them to one course. The paladin player could choose not to police the paladin, but the result would be, at least, a loss of class abilities, so there's not really a choice there. The only real choice is to block the barbarian player. To impede their fun. Someone's fun is going to be impeded, and that's wrong.

Why am I not suggesting that the barbarian player take a different course? Because that player is the initiator. They took the first action (to seek out immediate payment) which, in and of itself, doesn't impede anyone else's fun. The posting of guards doesn't impede the player's fun in a meaningful sense, because the player apparently finds fighting guards fun. Capture, imprisonment and trial (by PCs or NPCs) do impede the player's fun, because they almost entirely constrain free choice. Even death would be preferable, since at least then the player could choose another character to play.

I don't say this to denigrate the idea of "kick-in-the-door, your-characters-are-game-pieces, just-have-fun" play. That's valid. But it is very much a game-only, no-role-play approach,

This is rather irrelevant, as no one is advocating such an approach here. "Just have fun," yes, obviously: it's a game. But that doesn't imply anything else.

and if you want some role-play, you have to be able to justify your character's actions as a character.

You appear to be describing only one extremely narrow and, as we see here, fragile form of roleplaying, though your meaning depends what you mean by "justify." But you seem to say above that roleplaying doesn't trump the social contract, so if the social contract includes not brook deliberate blocking of actions, then even justified actions may not be acceptable.

Of course, the barbarian could alsoI, for one, find it utterly frustrating in a book or movie when a character decides to defect to the other team for no reason other than the writer decided he needed them there. (Turn-A Gundam, I'm looking at you.)[/QUOTE] This is also rather irrelevant. I have specifically stated that reasons for a course of action a player wants to take (that doesn't block a previously initiated action) can and should be supplied, by the player or GM.

I thought of another option. If a player wants to do what they think their character can do, but doesn't want to block anyone else's fun, they can just say that they fail to achieve what they intended. Exactly how and why they fail would depend on circumstances, but the point is that they attempted to do what was in-character, but were unable to achieve it. Hey, it happens, right?

That assumes that the only reason someone would want to stop another player's character's choice is for roleplaying reasons. If one has out-of-game objections to the actions, then of course this wouldn't address their concerns and the out-of-game discussion would need to happen. But otherwise, immersion and character personality can be easily preserved without blocking someone else.

Based on past discussions of this nature, I expect (despite my constant advocation for out-of-game discussion) to be interpreted as saying that anyone can do anything they want and that chaos should reign and that people just have to put up with things they don't like. That's not what I'm saying. If you don't see how that can be, I welcome civil questions.

[Beta Centauri]

Talk to the other player and the DM. Maybe talk to the entire table.

Yes.

This is an impossible situation. A character turning evil after there is a Paladin in the party is as deliberately destructive to the party as adding a Paladin to an evil party, and for the same reasons.

Yes. The paladin class is a problem. No other class has rules that appear to limit what other characters other players can use at the same table.

You can't have one player playing a hero and one player playing a villain and keep the party together.

Ooh, I bet you could, if everyone was into it.

The general problem is this. In this one case, the player decided to take an action knowing it would destroy the party. If he is willing to do that once, will he do it again?

Whether he knew it would destroy the party is unknown until we hear back (and probably even then). The barbarian heading out to get the payment isn't, by itself, destructive. The GM giving the barbarian a rather lame choice (back off, or kill the guards) and the paladin class requiring the destruction of any party containing both a paladin and a guard killer is what destroyed the party.

If I were in the game, I would tell the players and DM that I don't like to play PvP, and I believe that D&D is a cooperative game. Unless that player agrees to never play in a way that will destroy party unity again, I'd leave the game.

Fair enough. Though that player might not agree that they were the one to destroy the party, and they'd have a case.

You need to find a way to play in which every player lets every other player play. Or surrender your right to have a say in your character.

The paladin class basically states that there are situations (and not uncommon ones at that) in which the player (and potentially other players around them) must surrender their right to have a say in their character. The alternatives (paladin loses their powers, other characters oppose the paladin) aren't generally viable.

This is one of the reasons I like having a Paladin in the party. It makes it clear that we've agreed not to be the monsters.

This situation shows that that doesn't really follow.

[Segev]

I...think you're reading something I'm not saying.

My point is that this problem cannot be solved merely IC, because there is no set of choices the Paladin can make that:

1) Keep both him and the Barbarian in the party
2) Do not involve the Paladin constraining the Barbarian's future actions, possibly with threat of violence (leading back to 1)
3) Allow the Paladin to remain true to his character (without FAlling, anyway)

Constraining the Barbarian's actions can allow for 1 and 3 to work, but requires OOC interaction and social contracting, because it will require that the player of the Barbarian be okay with it. If he isn't, it becomes PvP and stops being fun. If he really pushes it, it becomes PvP that leads to one or the other character leaving the party (possibly via funeral procession).

My responses to which you seem to be responding are merely stating that it is foolish to assume that you can "live and let live" without discussing this problem OOC. I have seen that attitude - and perhaps I am misreading what you mean by it - lead to tables where, essentially, the biggest bully (sometimes not even realizing they're bullying) setting the tone, because they are willing to push the social contract much further than the other guy(s).

I have seen tables where the CE barbarian's actions up to and including killing NPCs who are important, personally, to other characters are "okay" because "that's just how they have fun," but taking any IC actions to stop them or punish them for it is totally unacceptable as it's "PvP" and "mean."

It ignores that this behavior has rendered it impossible for the other player (analogous to our Paladin, here) to play their character they way THEY have fun.

I am not advocating the DM explicitly exact punishments, IC, on characters via DM fiat. Though obviously the natural IC consequences for actions should befall them (and seem to, here).

What I am saying is that this is something that requires the social contract be actively discussed, OOC, because the players need to decide amongst themselves and with DM help how they wish to proceed. They need to know what they are okay with in terms of constraints on their characters, and what is acceptable behavior when it comes to intra-party interaction (which may or may not include PvP).

Solutions that keep both characters in the party are limited, and will require that one have power over the other to either enforce behavior or, as a possible alternative, force them to stay in the party. (If the Barbarian, for some reason, wanted to force a Paladin to serve him, and could find the means to do so.) But "The barbarian is hte paladin's prisoner and will be kept from committing evil" can be unfun for the barbarian's player, as could "The Paladin is being extorted into putting up with the evil barbarian, somehow" for the paladin's player.

So they HAVE to agree on how their characters can stay in the same party, OOC, and how that will manifest IC. If they can't, then one or the other needs to make a new character who will fit in with the party.

[The Grue]

Paladin is the only class that cannot by RAW adventure with an evil party, but any good person would find random murder unacceptable

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.

[Beta Centauri]

I...think you're reading something I'm not saying.

Could be.

My point is that this problem cannot be solved merely IC, because there is no set of choices the Paladin can make that:

1) Keep both him and the Barbarian in the party
2) Do not involve the Paladin constraining the Barbarian's future actions, possibly with threat of violence (leading back to 1)
3) Allow the Paladin to remain true to his character (without FAlling, anyway)

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.

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.

Constraining the Barbarian's actions can allow for 1 and 3 to work, but requires OOC interaction and social contracting, because it will require that the player of the Barbarian be okay with it. If he isn't, it becomes PvP and stops being fun. If he really pushes it, it becomes PvP that leads to one or the other character leaving the party (possibly via funeral procession).

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.

I have seen tables where the CE barbarian's actions up to and including killing NPCs who are important, personally, to other characters are "okay" because "that's just how they have fun," but taking any IC actions to stop them or punish them for it is totally unacceptable as it's "PvP" and "mean."

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.

It ignores that this behavior has rendered it impossible for the other player (analogous to our Paladin, here) to play their character they way THEY have fun.

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.

I am not advocating the DM explicitly exact punishments, IC, on characters via DM fiat. Though obviously the natural IC consequences for actions should befall them (and seem to, here).

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.

As soon as someone says "That's just the natural consequence," I know that they know that their choice was questionable, and they're distancing themselves from it.

What I am saying is that this is something that requires the social contract be actively discussed, OOC, because the players need to decide amongst themselves and with DM help how they wish to proceed. They need to know what they are okay with in terms of constraints on their characters, and what is acceptable behavior when it comes to intra-party interaction (which may or may not include PvP).

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

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.

Solutions that keep both characters in the party are limited,

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

and will require that one have power over the other to either enforce behavior or, as a possible alternative, force them to stay in the party. (If the Barbarian, for some reason, wanted to force a Paladin to serve him, and could find the means to do so.) But "The barbarian is hte paladin's prisoner and will be kept from committing evil" can be unfun for the barbarian's player, as could "The Paladin is being extorted into putting up with the evil barbarian, somehow" for the paladin's player.

Yes, both of those are bad options and the GM should find ways to offer more alternatives.

So they HAVE to agree on how their characters can stay in the same party, OOC, and how that will manifest IC. If they can't, then one or the other needs to make a new character who will fit in with the party.

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 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.

[Beta Centauri]

The long and the short of it for me is: It would be pretty great if things like this could be handled by a GM without breaking stride, so what would that look like and how can we get at least partway there?