I believe the title already gives a pretty good TLDR, but let me provide a little extra context.
I play in a group with two clerics, a rogue, a fighter and a bard (me). It’s also important to know that the DM is a player in one of my groups and plays pretty much exclusively lawful good or neutral good characters. I am on good terms with all of the people involved and I don’t intend to change this. We’re all adults and if this ever gets out of hand I’m sure we’ll find a way to talk things out.
Now to the ingame problem. My character started out chaotic good with a pretty strong emphasis on the chaotic part. She’s a fey and orderly things go against her very nature. It’s usually small things like planting flowers in the middle of the streets or “resorting” some shop shelves. However, due to some not so nice things going on in the world right now, she began shifting a little more towards the neutral side by developing a indifference towards the lives of several faction members in the world (mostly cultists of various evilish cults).
This led to the party steamrolling a bunch of cultists who expected us to pay a toll for crossing their lands with my character hypnotising them beforehand.
Another encounter had our rogue grow tired of a spectator who blocked our way with obvious implications of combat should we ignore him. Our rogue decided to backstab the spectator mid conversation.
I as a player don’t really consider these acts evil. Neither does my character. But apparently the DM and at least one of the clerics see things differently. Which in and of itself is not a problem. However, I got wind that they plan to invoke some sort of plot to “make the party repent for their evil ways”. And that’s where my issue arises. I have no problem with players or characters who want to be a shining example in an evil world and who see the good in everyone. But I have zero interest in playing such a character and it feels like that is what this amounts to.
So, I’ll do the obvious thing and talk to everyone involved before the next session. And that’s where you come into play. How would I go about this? What arguments might help my point and what am I missing? If shit hits the fan, I am ok with leaving the game and I know that they will accept my decision. But I prefer to avoid this, as I really enjoy the campaign and my characters role in it and in the group.
Golden rule: Everyone should be supporting the player group having a rewarding experience. That’s what it’s all in service of.
The players can say “that’s what my character would do,” just like the DM can say “well it’s realistic that the bugbears would set an ambush and come out and outnumber and kill you all,” but neither is going to lead to an enjoyable outcome.
I have no idea what to recommend, for the details of what you or your group should do in this exact situation. As you said you’re all adults and it’s ultimately up to all of y’all however it works out. But the overall principle of keeping an eye on, yes we have our individual characters and we’re trying to develop and express ourselves in character and sometimes tension between our incompatible motivations is a big part of that, but also, we’re also all responsible for the whole thing ultimately working out well – that’s what I would recommend to keep an eye on (for you and for your expectations of what other PCs should be “supposed to” bring to the table in order to be fair to you + your character).
Are you and the rogue chaotic good, or chaotic neutral? It doesn’t seem like you’re clear on this with the rest of your party. Murder (e.g., backstab in the middle of dialogue) is not a “good” action, any way you slice it, even if the spectator is an asshole, evil, or through RP, would have eventually led to combat resulting in death anyways. If you were playing true chaotic, it’s understandable, but it doesn’t sound like that is what was made clear.
And if you’re trying to force an alignment shift, consider that you may be ruining the enjoyment of everyone else at the table; if I’m playing a lawful good cleric, I’m not sure my character would party with a true chaotic fey, which would essentially end the campaign.
NB: Alignments are not factions. Two Chaotic aligned characters are not inherently on the same side; they are on their own sides, individually.
Here are two potential ways to play it.
If your Fey is Chaotic Neutral:
You find the two clerics dragging your resident murder hobo in front of a tribunal hilarious, and in fact, might be inclined to help. It would be different if they attempted the same for you; in your mind, the action would be justified if you did it, but for the supposed “good” rogue, they still just killed someone out of convenience. You are allowed to be a hypocrite, they are not.
If you are Chaotic Good:
That rogue still straight up ganked a guy for being an asshole. Even if you think the guy probably deserved it, and maybe could have talked yourself into doing the same, it has nonetheless created a situation where you are inconvenienced. They screwed up big time, and not even that deep down, they know they’ve got a black mark on their soul, but that’s neither your nor the clerics’ problem. The last thing you want to hear are more verbose, moral arguments from the clerics and to be sidetracked from the mission; the rogue can atone later, this nonsense is getting between you and getting paid.
I honestly really like the second idea. Even though money is no motivator for my fey, I think I can use a similar argument really well in roleplay. Thank you very much.
My fairy is chaotic good, but throughout the campaign had some traumatic experiences that shifted her towards a more chaotic neutral alignment in some regards. I don’t know the rogue’s alignment, but I would guess somewhere in the chaotic-neutral or true neutral area with tendencies of “kill first, ask questions later”.
Tbh, I find your mindset understandable, but highly problematic. Why should the chaotic characters always be understanding of the stick up your ass behaviour of the lawful characters while the lawful characters see it as their god given right to tell everyone else how to behave. Sure, in the real world, these characters would probably just go their separate ways, but this is pen and paper. It’s everyone’s job to make sure the party sticks together. And that includes the lawful-stupid characters and their players!
‘honor’ or whatever isn’t good and killing an evil creature isn’t evil, no matter how you look at it that wasn’t an evil action.
This thread reminded me how much I despise when players play an alignment rather than just playing their character.
“Hurt durr, I’m a falafel, that means I have to be a dick to you, even if it makes no sense why our characters would keep working together if they are both so committed to opposing everything the other does”
I remind my players that this is a game first and we’re here to all have fun. So if they aren’t receptive to a chat one on one about how they are playing. Maybe they aren’t a good fit.
If the DM is always allowing them to continue like that after a serious chat then I see no harm in moving on and finding a group that would be glad to have you.
In a real story if you had a group of thieves travelling with a paladin that hates theft, wouldn’t you expect the group to kill him?
Going to echo the prior comment. But here’s my thoughts:
-
Was there a “session zero” in which the group’s expectations for the campaign and interactions were laid out? If not, it may be a good idea to pause and have this. Sometimes groups who are familiar with each other skip this because they “know each other”, but it can still be good on a campaign-by-campaign basis.
-
When you discuss it with them, try to start by determining why the DM is acting this way: Since it sounds like the DM likes firmly heroic characters, is this just what they find ‘cool’ or do they actually object to playing / having grey-er characters in their party or campaign? (Same kind of applies to the cleric’s player - are they just “playing the character”, or is this what the player feels is right?)
-
Ask if there’s been any miscommunications involved. The thing that sticks out as odd to me here, is that the DM clearly seemed to be urging you towards combat with stereotypically evil enemies in these scenarios… but views you initiating combat as “evil”? It’s possible something is getting lost in translation.
-
Since you and the rogue are both clearly enjoying less cut-and-dry characters, express that this isn’t just you-versus-them. Or you-versus-cleric-player. Broadly, try to avoid turning this into an argument between people.
-
This will fluctuate a bit depending on how roleplay-heavy your group is, but consider asking if this could be dealt with in-character. Is the cleric open to having a crisis of faith over working with such “tainted” people? Are you okay with your character sometimes being held back by other party members when they’d like to be proactive, so long as their view isn’t changed?
- We had a session zero, but some things have changed since then. The biggest change is that we got thrown into the doomed forgotten realms at some point. This caused a lot of in character trauma and may have caused my character to shift more towards a neutral alignment.
- The clerics player absolutely despises lawful-good clerics in particular. So I’m sure, we’re in for a surprise somewhere down the line.
- This has probably to do with our DM using a module that is written way darker than their usual style of play.
- Yes, I will most definitely do that. This post is mainly about finding ways to articulate my point.
- Oh, the crisis of faith is definitely coming. I’m just afraid it might involve them PVPing the entire party which I really don’t enjoy in a pen and paper group.
-
