The party had just found out about the deal with asmo. The Paladin was ready to kill him at that point too. So maybe they'll solve the problem themsleves by doing that. Lol.
At the end of the day what you have is one player/character demanding that another character is booted, because "that is what my character would do". When you play games like this there is an unspoken "meta" contract that the players are going to act as a group, and that goes beyond in character stuff.
If the paladin actually is going to demand that another players character be removed from the game and forced to reroll, this is meta problem that should be discussed out of game.
I know you said you don't want to force someone to act against character but when the that means you instead would force another player to completely abandon their character and reroll, I think the lesser of two evils is obvious.
If the paladin player feels so strongly that his character would never work with an undead then allow him to leave the party, or at least allow the rest of the party to decide.
At the end of the day what you have is one player/character demanding that another character is booted, because "that is what my character would do". When you play games like this there is an unspoken "meta" contract that the players are going to act as a group, and that goes beyond in character stuff.
If the paladin actually is going to demand that another players character be removed from the game and forced to reroll, this is meta problem that should be discussed out of game.
I know you said you don't want to force someone to act against character but when the that means you instead would force another player to completely abandon their character and reroll, I think the lesser of two evils is obvious.
If the paladin player feels so strongly that his character would never work with an undead then allow him to leave the party, or at least allow the rest of the party to decide.
You're right that this is a meta game conflict of sorts.
"When you play games like this there is an unspoken "meta" contract that the players are going to act as a group, and that goes beyond in character stuff." I'd say No.
Characters come together in a party. Each player creates a character with a certain viewpoint on the world and certain things that their character would and would not do. Ideally, the characters also create a backstory for why their characters are working together in the first place. However, the players are role playing characters with a certain view of the world. There are some actions party members might take that other players/characters would find unacceptable no matter what sort of meta contract was in place. For example, no character I've ever played would continue to play with a character that believed in murdering children, sexual assault, or graphic torture ... and to be honest I'd probably just leave any game where that came up since I wouldn't want to play with a player or DM that tolerated such behaviour. "Meta" game contracts have limits and players can choose to push those boundaries by taking actions with their characters that other characters can't reasonably accept.
In this case, the rogue was the first to break the "meta" contract by making a deal that was likely to be unacceptable to one of the other characters "because their character would do that". The reaction of another character to the deal with Asomodeus is negative because "that is what their character would reasonably do". Both of these are correct and reasonable role playing reactions to a situation created by the DM.
There are two problems. First the rogue player did not consider that deals they make as their character might be bad for the party and second the DM facilitated the deal, since nothing happens without the DMs approval, also putting in place the likely future inter party conflict since most paladins are going to have an issue with a fiend worshipper or vampire in the party (never mind a character that is both beholden to a devil AND a vampire).
Basically, if the party back story doesn't include strong enough reasons for them to continue working together despite the events then one or the other of the two characters will have to leave the party. If the rogue was the paladin's delinquent brother then the paladin might work to become strong enough to redeem the rogue, restore them to being human and escape the pact with Asmodeus. It would be a role playing reason. On the other hand, without a very strong role playing reason, the paladin is much more likely to decide to kill the vampire and try to find a cleric to cast True Resurrection on the rogue.
I'd also point out, that the rogue's plan to escape their deal with Asmodeus may have already failed. If they are dead and converted to a vampire - their soul has either already left and been delivered to Asmodeus or will be delivered when the vampire form is killed.
True Resurrection says:
"If the creature's soul is free and willing, the creature is restored to life with all its hit points."
"If the creature was undead, it is restored to its non-undead form."
If the undead form doesn't have a soul then the character's soul has already gone to Asmodeus finishing the deal and leaving the PC a soul less vampire. On the other hand, if the character's soul is still associated with the vampire then when the vampire dies the soul will again be delivered to Asmodeus since the character made the deal whatever it was and it probably did not depend on the form the creature was in (and if the soul belongs to a devil then it is not free to be resurrected) ... so no matter what happens, I don't think the rogue has actually escaped the consequences of their deal with a devil.
The party had just found out about the deal with asmo. The Paladin was ready to kill him at that point too. So maybe they'll solve the problem themsleves by doing that. Lol.
Quick question: Does the rest of the party take issue with the rogue's actions, or is it just the paladin?
At the end of the day what you have is one player/character demanding that another character is booted, because "that is what my character would do". When you play games like this there is an unspoken "meta" contract that the players are going to act as a group, and that goes beyond in character stuff.
If the paladin actually is going to demand that another players character be removed from the game and forced to reroll, this is meta problem that should be discussed out of game.
I know you said you don't want to force someone to act against character but when the that means you instead would force another player to completely abandon their character and reroll, I think the lesser of two evils is obvious.
If the paladin player feels so strongly that his character would never work with an undead then allow him to leave the party, or at least allow the rest of the party to decide.
You're right that this is a meta game conflict of sorts.
"When you play games like this there is an unspoken "meta" contract that the players are going to act as a group, and that goes beyond in character stuff." I'd say No.
Characters come together in a party. Each player creates a character with a certain viewpoint on the world and certain things that their character would and would not do. Ideally, the characters also create a backstory for why their characters are working together in the first place. However, the players are role playing characters with a certain view of the world. There are some actions party members might take that other players/characters would find unacceptable no matter what sort of meta contract was in place. For example, no character I've ever played would continue to play with a character that believed in murdering children, sexual assault, or graphic torture ... and to be honest I'd probably just leave any game where that came up since I wouldn't want to play with a player or DM that tolerated such behaviour. "Meta" game contracts have limits and players can choose to push those boundaries by taking actions with their characters that other characters can't reasonably accept.
In this case, the rogue was the first to break the "meta" contract by making a deal that was likely to be unacceptable to one of the other characters "because their character would do that". The reaction of another character to the deal with Asomodeus is negative because "that is what their character would reasonably do". Both of these are correct and reasonable role playing reactions to a situation created by the DM.
There are two problems. First the rogue player did not consider that deals they make as their character might be bad for the party and second the DM facilitated the deal, since nothing happens without the DMs approval, also putting in place the likely future inter party conflict since most paladins are going to have an issue with a fiend worshipper or vampire in the party (never mind a character that is both beholden to a devil AND a vampire).
Basically, if the party back story doesn't include strong enough reasons for them to continue working together despite the events then one or the other of the two characters will have to leave the party. If the rogue was the paladin's delinquent brother then the paladin might work to become strong enough to redeem the rogue, restore them to being human and escape the pact with Asmodeus. It would be a role playing reason. On the other hand, without a very strong role playing reason, the paladin is much more likely to decide to kill the vampire and try to find a cleric to cast True Resurrection on the rogue.
I'd also point out, that the rogue's plan to escape their deal with Asmodeus may have already failed. If they are dead and converted to a vampire - their soul has either already left and been delivered to Asmodeus or will be delivered when the vampire form is killed.
True Resurrection says:
"If the creature's soul is free and willing, the creature is restored to life with all its hit points."
"If the creature was undead, it is restored to its non-undead form."
If the undead form doesn't have a soul then the character's soul has already gone to Asmodeus finishing the deal and leaving the PC a soul less vampire. On the other hand, if the character's soul is still associated with the vampire then when the vampire dies the soul will again be delivered to Asmodeus since the character made the deal whatever it was and it probably did not depend on the form the creature was in (and if the soul belongs to a devil then it is not free to be resurrected) ... so no matter what happens, I don't think the rogue has actually escaped the consequences of their deal with a devil.