So, I’m in a campaign where one of the players has started working for an evil goddess that is telling them to burn down churches of a rival religion, which has helped the party before the player found religion. My character expressed interest in killing the player as my backstory included my character failing to stop a raid that burnt down a village. The character worshiping the evil goddess has also lied to the party about about the reason for visiting a temple. They claimed it was just to try and convince the priest to leave peacefully. Once everyone was there the worshiper of the evil goddess burnt the temple down and murdered the priest, but my character was the only one who saw them do this. When I tried to save the priest and the temple the dm stepped in because I wanted to attack the worshiper and pvp was banned, saying I had to justify letting them get away with it. Now the party thinks we are both evil but no-one can do anything about this but npc’s are starting to be more wary of the party because of the recent temple burning. Is there anyway to resolve this without pvp or kicking the evil character out?
This is a danger of having evil PCs in the party. You need to discuss should happen OOC.
Unless you, as a group, can come up with a decent reason why your character and the one worshipping and evil goddess would continue working together at least one of you would need to roll a new character.
If the rest of the party would not want to adventure with someone who murders friends of the party because their God says so then you re rolling is just pushing the problem until the next time another party member becomes aware of evil PC so it would be best for them to change character. This could be done for example by them being reported to the authorities and arrest or killed. This could however be regarded as PVP so needs to be agreed OOC.
From what you said your DM might not like this as you are not justifying them getting away with it. Your character could be persuaded to worship the evil God and have the campaign turn into an evil PC campaign if that is what everyone wants.
Be careful it is not an ooc issue, it might be ghat the type of game you want to play might be different to what others want to play then your only choice is to play anyway or leave the group.
Yeah, the problem is, no one started with evil characters, I’m not sure if the player is deciding to do evil things because their interpreting the affect the goddesses influence has on them or if the DM is telling them to act evil for plot reasons.
Like jegpeg said, this is an out of character discussion. Maybe your DM is working on something with that player, but if do, it seems like they are doing it pretty awkwardly.
You all need to sort it out. If it is the DM, they could just say something like, I have a plan. For me, that would solve it as I trust my DM. And if it isn’t the DM, the party needs to work out what’s up with the evil character.
Evil characters rarely work well in a group. We had a long "session 0" when one character starting doing some sketchy stuff (cutting tongues from the dead, collecting teeth; basically quasi-evil actions. Players were not happy with it because their characters would not tolerate it. DM stepped in and gave a choice; continue to play the character in the "that's what the character would do" style and then other characters were free to do "what their characters would do" to solve the issue OR change the way they were playing the character to be more in line with the group OR find a new group to play with. In the end the player decided group harmony was more important.
So, I’m in a campaign where one of the players has started working for an evil goddess that is telling them to burn down churches of a rival religion, which has helped the party before the player found religion. My character expressed interest in killing the player as my backstory included my character failing to stop a raid that burnt down a village. The character worshiping the evil goddess has also lied to the party about about the reason for visiting a temple. They claimed it was just to try and convince the priest to leave peacefully. Once everyone was there the worshiper of the evil goddess burnt the temple down and murdered the priest, but my character was the only one who saw them do this. When I tried to save the priest and the temple the dm stepped in because I wanted to attack the worshiper and pvp was banned,
The in-game premise is not compatible with a "no pvp" rule. One of the two needs renegotiating. If the group in general or the DM in specific don't want pvp, then the campaign cannot be one that's set up to put PCs at odds with each other at this kind of level.
saying I had to justify letting them get away with it. Now the party thinks we are both evil but no-one can do anything about this but npc’s are starting to be more wary of the party because of the recent temple burning. Is there anyway to resolve this without pvp or kicking the evil character out?
No. (Well, you could kick the good character out.)
Also, "you have to justify letting them get away with it" is kind of a red flag. Why doesn't the other player have to justify you stopping it?
So, I’m in a campaign where one of the players has started working for an evil goddess that is telling them to burn down churches of a rival religion, which has helped the party before the player found religion. My character expressed interest in killing the player as my backstory included my character failing to stop a raid that burnt down a village. The character worshiping the evil goddess has also lied to the party about about the reason for visiting a temple. They claimed it was just to try and convince the priest to leave peacefully. Once everyone was there the worshiper of the evil goddess burnt the temple down and murdered the priest, but my character was the only one who saw them do this. When I tried to save the priest and the temple the dm stepped in because I wanted to attack the worshiper and pvp was banned, saying I had to justify letting them get away with it. Now the party thinks we are both evil but no-one can do anything about this but npc’s are starting to be more wary of the party because of the recent temple burning. Is there anyway to resolve this without pvp or kicking the evil character out?
That’s why banning PCvPC is dumb in my opinion. I say just have the characters act appropriately and call it however it works out. As long as the players don’t take it personally the. It’s not really "Player vs Player” in the end and just character vs character. That’s essentially all D&D is anyway with the only difference being the DM usually runs all the party’s antagonists.
This sounds like the DM's fault for setting up a no-win game. Like others have said, discuss it out of character and specifically mention that you cannot have Zero PvP while also having characters and motives that go directly against the morals of the rest of the party.
They're either setting up something clumsily, as Xalthu said, they're a new DM, or they're coddling/playing favorites with PCs. None of which feel like a good look.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
Potentially hot take: when one player kills a character that another player wanted to protect, that's PvP. You're already playing in a PvP game, you're just banned from direct combat. That doesn't prevent intra-party tension, it just advantages certain kinds of characters (namely those who don't have NPCs they care about).
Giving your DM the benefit of the doubt: it's very possible they aren't doing this on purpose and don't understand that they've upset you. Try to have a one-on-one conversation with them to explain how you feel about this. It may be they have a long-term plan that involves letting the evil PC get away with their crimes for now, but in my opinion any DM plan that involves letting one character walk all over the party is a bad plan.
If it is being a drag on your fun, then speak up. Ask the GM straight out if they are planning something with this whole killing the good guys and innocent bystanders stuff. Let them know that if that is the case you can play along, but only to a point as your character would strenuously object to these actions.
In the end, if you are really uncomfortable, it's ok to walk away. no DND is better than bad DND.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
If it's prohibited in my campaign, the character doing evil becomes an NPC.
This is happening in one of my active games. We are exploring Cthulu, horror, and madness themes, and the player wants to play out the "Can I hold on to humanity?" question. If the character goes over to the side of evil, they become a "Certifiable Bad Person™" and exit the character play to become an NPC.
Which is when I take over as DM and do the fun things :D
Sounds to me that either i) Plot is being plotted (badly) and it isn't great to do a 'big reveal' yet or, ii) Some favouritism
You don't mentoin how well you know your party / players. We've had some big twists amongst really good friends I've played with before, and a bit of hmmmm... what are they up to? But we would never restrict PCs reacting (even violently) if that is in character. Can make for great RP among people that know and trust each other well.
I get a feeling this isn't the case - talk to your DM and always feel free to walk
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
RPGs from '83 - 03. A fair bit of LRP. A big gap. And now DMing again. Froth.
It’s an online game, three of us have been together since level one. The worshiper of the evil goddess joined at level three. We are all level eight. The DM has given me more information that makes the priest seem somewhat morally grey, and has hinted that he maybe an on going plot point, but that’s meta game information, my character wouldn’t know. The priest was, or I guess is more powerful then the party realised. Also, I’m not completely innocent as my character was hiding his mixed parentage from everyone until recently, which nearly ended badly when one of the other characters mistook my hiding my ears for werewolfism.
As others have said, this needs an out of game discussion, and I'd suggest making something like the following argument:
"When we started this campaign and there was a rule of "no pvp," my understanding was that we were a party of characters who would not behave as evil characters. The rule works while the party is cooperating with one another, it prevents stealing from one another, and it is generally a good idea."
"However, the events of the last game means that the evil character is effectively a villainous NPC just not under the control of the DM. As a general expectation in DnD the villains are controlled by the DM, not the players."
"One might argue that behaving as an evil character in a way that makes them an enemy of the other PCs is effectively PvP without direct physical attack."
"There's no way my character can work with the character who murdered the priest, and because one character has chosen to murder an NPC in front of me without me being able to do anything to stop them, I'm not able to play my character the way that I should. The two characters are incompatible in the same party."
"What are we supposed to do if one character decides to start murdering random villagers in front of us? What if they attack an NPC that we have a connection to, say a family member or beloved innkeeper?"
"Our characters are all we control, and as DM you cannot tell me to make my character think in a way that they would not, especially not so that another player can act in the way that they want. My character has to have the reactions that I choose."
"Once a character begins to act in a way that marks them as the party's enemy, and it's no secret to the party, there is no way that the character can continue with that party."
It’s an online game, three of us have been together since level one. The worshiper of the evil goddess joined at level three. We are all level eight. The DM has given me more information that makes the priest seem somewhat morally grey, and has hinted that he maybe an on going plot point, but that’s meta game information, my character wouldn’t know. The priest was, or I guess is more powerful then the party realised. Also, I’m not completely innocent as my character was hiding his mixed parentage from everyone until recently, which nearly ended badly when one of the other characters mistook my hiding my ears for werewolfism.
I'd follow up with the DM in 1 on 1 and explain the situation. Your character doesn't approve and can't go along with another character murder hoboing temples and villages whether they have a good role playing reason or not. Basically, the two characters are not compatible in the same party but up until recently this wasn't entirely clear.
If there is some sort of plot element going on then it is being done badly since it is unreasonable for the DM to expect the characters to NOT react to the activities of another character. Telling the player to "suck it up buttercup" and come up with some explanation for the character to accept the actions of the other character is disingenuous at best. It is railroading at its worst since the DM is telling you how to play your character to get along in the campaign due to actions by another PC in a game where they ruled out PVP.
Hopefully the DM will realize the issue and help modify the plot to sort it out. Whatever is going on, there is no reason the "evil" PC has to be obvious in their actions and involve the other PCs. However, if the DM won't correct the situation, then take the information to the authorities. Inform the church that has helped you about the evil priest in your group. Tell them he appears to have been corrupted and needs to be stopped. Tell them how powerful he is so that they can martial the appropriate forces - presumably the high priests and knights of the church are higher level and more powerful than one level 8 character but warn them that they may have some divine help so they should also engage divine help. See if you can get the church to capture him and perform an exorcism .. or maybe even just kill and resurrect them if they think it would eliminate the taint of the evil god. Either way, let the DM sort out how they want to run the game world but if you can't act directly against the PC due to no PVP rules then engage the game world to do it for you.
Hopefully the DM will realize the issue and help modify the plot to sort it out. Whatever is going on, there is no reason the "evil" PC has to be obvious in their actions and involve the other PCs. However, if the DM won't correct the situation, then take the information to the authorities. Inform the church that has helped you about the evil priest in your group. Tell them he appears to have been corrupted and needs to be stopped. Tell them how powerful he is so that they can martial the appropriate forces - presumably the high priests and knights of the church are higher level and more powerful than one level 8 character but warn them that they may have some divine help so they should also engage divine help. See if you can get the church to capture him and perform an exorcism .. or maybe even just kill and resurrect them if they think it would eliminate the taint of the evil god. Either way, let the DM sort out how they want to run the game world but if you can't act directly against the PC due to no PVP rules then engage the game world to do it for you.
I would say that informing the church and asking that NPCs go and deal with him is effectively just PvP, since it's trying to get the same result but by getting NPCs (e.g. the DM who is saying it can't be stopped by the PCs) to do it. It doesn't solve the problem, it just highlights that each character has a magical aura that says "regardless of what I do, the other people in this group can't touch me." It needs to be resolved out of game. If the DM wants the evil character to be able to do evil things, they won't use NPCs to do it.
Hopefully the DM will realize the issue and help modify the plot to sort it out. Whatever is going on, there is no reason the "evil" PC has to be obvious in their actions and involve the other PCs. However, if the DM won't correct the situation, then take the information to the authorities. Inform the church that has helped you about the evil priest in your group. Tell them he appears to have been corrupted and needs to be stopped. Tell them how powerful he is so that they can martial the appropriate forces - presumably the high priests and knights of the church are higher level and more powerful than one level 8 character but warn them that they may have some divine help so they should also engage divine help. See if you can get the church to capture him and perform an exorcism .. or maybe even just kill and resurrect them if they think it would eliminate the taint of the evil god. Either way, let the DM sort out how they want to run the game world but if you can't act directly against the PC due to no PVP rules then engage the game world to do it for you.
I would say that informing the church and asking that NPCs go and deal with him is effectively just PvP, since it's trying to get the same result but by getting NPCs (e.g. the DM who is saying it can't be stopped by the PCs) to do it. It doesn't solve the problem, it just highlights that each character has a magical aura that says "regardless of what I do, the other people in this group can't touch me." It needs to be resolved out of game. If the DM wants the evil character to be able to do evil things, they won't use NPCs to do it.
I agree. It is best to handle the situation with an OOC discussion with the DM explaining the problem. Basically, the character is faced with an untenable situation in game and the DM is telling the player how to play their character in order to accommodate whatever the DM has in mind. It is the worst kind of railroading in my opinion.
However, some DMs may not recognize the impact of their decisions on other characters when they get lost in what they think is a cool plot idea but when the ramifications are made clear by engaging with the game world to resolve the problem the DM has to decide exactly how much of a railroad they intend to impose on the players and may reconsider how the plot line is interacting with the characters.
Is this a form of PVP? Perhaps, but I would argue that the evil PC has already engaged in this form of PVP by harming NPCs valued by the other player character and relying on the meta game no PVP rule to prevent that character from taking appropriate actions. If one PC can manipulate the game world to do things like this then the other PCs should be equally capable of engaging with NPCs to prevent such actions in future (assuming the DM is unwilling to address the base issue).
So, I’m in a campaign where one of the players has started working for an evil goddess that is telling them to burn down churches of a rival religion, which has helped the party before the player found religion. My character expressed interest in killing the player as my backstory included my character failing to stop a raid that burnt down a village.
The character worshiping the evil goddess has also lied to the party about about the reason for visiting a temple. They claimed it was just to try and convince the priest to leave peacefully. Once everyone was there the worshiper of the evil goddess burnt the temple down and murdered the priest, but my character was the only one who saw them do this. When I tried to save the priest and the temple the dm stepped in because I wanted to attack the worshiper and pvp was banned, saying I had to justify letting them get away with it. Now the party thinks we are both evil but no-one can do anything about this but npc’s are starting to be more wary of the party because of the recent temple burning. Is there anyway to resolve this without pvp or kicking the evil character out?
This is a danger of having evil PCs in the party. You need to discuss should happen OOC.
Unless you, as a group, can come up with a decent reason why your character and the one worshipping and evil goddess would continue working together at least one of you would need to roll a new character.
If the rest of the party would not want to adventure with someone who murders friends of the party because their God says so then you re rolling is just pushing the problem until the next time another party member becomes aware of evil PC so it would be best for them to change character. This could be done for example by them being reported to the authorities and arrest or killed. This could however be regarded as PVP so needs to be agreed OOC.
From what you said your DM might not like this as you are not justifying them getting away with it. Your character could be persuaded to worship the evil God and have the campaign turn into an evil PC campaign if that is what everyone wants.
Be careful it is not an ooc issue, it might be ghat the type of game you want to play might be different to what others want to play then your only choice is to play anyway or leave the group.
Yeah, the problem is, no one started with evil characters, I’m not sure if the player is deciding to do evil things because their interpreting the affect the goddesses influence has on them or if the DM is telling them to act evil for plot reasons.
Like jegpeg said, this is an out of character discussion. Maybe your DM is working on something with that player, but if do, it seems like they are doing it pretty awkwardly.
You all need to sort it out. If it is the DM, they could just say something like, I have a plan. For me, that would solve it as I trust my DM. And if it isn’t the DM, the party needs to work out what’s up with the evil character.
Evil characters rarely work well in a group. We had a long "session 0" when one character starting doing some sketchy stuff (cutting tongues from the dead, collecting teeth; basically quasi-evil actions. Players were not happy with it because their characters would not tolerate it. DM stepped in and gave a choice; continue to play the character in the "that's what the character would do" style and then other characters were free to do "what their characters would do" to solve the issue OR change the way they were playing the character to be more in line with the group OR find a new group to play with. In the end the player decided group harmony was more important.
The in-game premise is not compatible with a "no pvp" rule. One of the two needs renegotiating. If the group in general or the DM in specific don't want pvp, then the campaign cannot be one that's set up to put PCs at odds with each other at this kind of level.
No. (Well, you could kick the good character out.)
Also, "you have to justify letting them get away with it" is kind of a red flag. Why doesn't the other player have to justify you stopping it?
That’s why banning PCvPC is dumb in my opinion. I say just have the characters act appropriately and call it however it works out. As long as the players don’t take it personally the. It’s not really "Player vs Player” in the end and just character vs character. That’s essentially all D&D is anyway with the only difference being the DM usually runs all the party’s antagonists.
This sounds like the DM's fault for setting up a no-win game. Like others have said, discuss it out of character and specifically mention that you cannot have Zero PvP while also having characters and motives that go directly against the morals of the rest of the party.
They're either setting up something clumsily, as Xalthu said, they're a new DM, or they're coddling/playing favorites with PCs. None of which feel like a good look.
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
Potentially hot take: when one player kills a character that another player wanted to protect, that's PvP. You're already playing in a PvP game, you're just banned from direct combat. That doesn't prevent intra-party tension, it just advantages certain kinds of characters (namely those who don't have NPCs they care about).
Giving your DM the benefit of the doubt: it's very possible they aren't doing this on purpose and don't understand that they've upset you. Try to have a one-on-one conversation with them to explain how you feel about this. It may be they have a long-term plan that involves letting the evil PC get away with their crimes for now, but in my opinion any DM plan that involves letting one character walk all over the party is a bad plan.
If it is being a drag on your fun, then speak up. Ask the GM straight out if they are planning something with this whole killing the good guys and innocent bystanders stuff. Let them know that if that is the case you can play along, but only to a point as your character would strenuously object to these actions.
In the end, if you are really uncomfortable, it's ok to walk away. no DND is better than bad DND.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
If it's prohibited in my campaign, the character doing evil becomes an NPC.
This is happening in one of my active games. We are exploring Cthulu, horror, and madness themes, and the player wants to play out the "Can I hold on to humanity?" question. If the character goes over to the side of evil, they become a "Certifiable Bad Person™" and exit the character play to become an NPC.
Which is when I take over as DM and do the fun things :D
it's require OOC discussion with player and dm
ooc talk will help you to get if this game is redeemable or it's better just to walk away to prevent even more bs happening
Sounds to me that either i) Plot is being plotted (badly) and it isn't great to do a 'big reveal' yet or, ii) Some favouritism
You don't mentoin how well you know your party / players. We've had some big twists amongst really good friends I've played with before, and a bit of hmmmm... what are they up to? But we would never restrict PCs reacting (even violently) if that is in character. Can make for great RP among people that know and trust each other well.
I get a feeling this isn't the case - talk to your DM and always feel free to walk
RPGs from '83 - 03. A fair bit of LRP. A big gap. And now DMing again. Froth.
It’s an online game, three of us have been together since level one. The worshiper of the evil goddess joined at level three. We are all level eight. The DM has given me more information that makes the priest seem somewhat morally grey, and has hinted that he maybe an on going plot point, but that’s meta game information, my character wouldn’t know. The priest was, or I guess is more powerful then the party realised.
Also, I’m not completely innocent as my character was hiding his mixed parentage from everyone until recently, which nearly ended badly when one of the other characters mistook my hiding my ears for werewolfism.
As others have said, this needs an out of game discussion, and I'd suggest making something like the following argument:
I'd follow up with the DM in 1 on 1 and explain the situation. Your character doesn't approve and can't go along with another character murder hoboing temples and villages whether they have a good role playing reason or not. Basically, the two characters are not compatible in the same party but up until recently this wasn't entirely clear.
If there is some sort of plot element going on then it is being done badly since it is unreasonable for the DM to expect the characters to NOT react to the activities of another character. Telling the player to "suck it up buttercup" and come up with some explanation for the character to accept the actions of the other character is disingenuous at best. It is railroading at its worst since the DM is telling you how to play your character to get along in the campaign due to actions by another PC in a game where they ruled out PVP.
Hopefully the DM will realize the issue and help modify the plot to sort it out. Whatever is going on, there is no reason the "evil" PC has to be obvious in their actions and involve the other PCs. However, if the DM won't correct the situation, then take the information to the authorities. Inform the church that has helped you about the evil priest in your group. Tell them he appears to have been corrupted and needs to be stopped. Tell them how powerful he is so that they can martial the appropriate forces - presumably the high priests and knights of the church are higher level and more powerful than one level 8 character but warn them that they may have some divine help so they should also engage divine help. See if you can get the church to capture him and perform an exorcism .. or maybe even just kill and resurrect them if they think it would eliminate the taint of the evil god. Either way, let the DM sort out how they want to run the game world but if you can't act directly against the PC due to no PVP rules then engage the game world to do it for you.
I would say that informing the church and asking that NPCs go and deal with him is effectively just PvP, since it's trying to get the same result but by getting NPCs (e.g. the DM who is saying it can't be stopped by the PCs) to do it. It doesn't solve the problem, it just highlights that each character has a magical aura that says "regardless of what I do, the other people in this group can't touch me." It needs to be resolved out of game. If the DM wants the evil character to be able to do evil things, they won't use NPCs to do it.
I agree. It is best to handle the situation with an OOC discussion with the DM explaining the problem. Basically, the character is faced with an untenable situation in game and the DM is telling the player how to play their character in order to accommodate whatever the DM has in mind. It is the worst kind of railroading in my opinion.
However, some DMs may not recognize the impact of their decisions on other characters when they get lost in what they think is a cool plot idea but when the ramifications are made clear by engaging with the game world to resolve the problem the DM has to decide exactly how much of a railroad they intend to impose on the players and may reconsider how the plot line is interacting with the characters.
Is this a form of PVP? Perhaps, but I would argue that the evil PC has already engaged in this form of PVP by harming NPCs valued by the other player character and relying on the meta game no PVP rule to prevent that character from taking appropriate actions. If one PC can manipulate the game world to do things like this then the other PCs should be equally capable of engaging with NPCs to prevent such actions in future (assuming the DM is unwilling to address the base issue).