|
2 years ago ::
Dec 08, 2010 - 2:01PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Nov 16, 2010
|
How do you all deal with them? Our party is entirely good or unaligned with the warlock being the exception. Im pretty sure my Chaladin is the worst of the normal party, with his unceasing complaints about being out in uncivilized areas ("Do you idiots have ANY idea how hard it is to maintain my hair this far from a bath?!) I'd like to not have to kill a party member... but Im concerned it may be the only way to get the game back on track! The DM has already banned future evil characters is why we are considering offing him :p
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 08, 2010 - 3:11PM
#2
|
|
|
Well, we don't allow them in the first place.  The easy solution is for the GM to talk to the player, admit he made a mistake in allowing an evil PC, and give the player the option to either change characters without penalty, or change the way the present one acts so he's not a pain in the butt.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 08, 2010 - 4:10PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Apr 16, 2008
|
Well, we don't allow them in the first place.
The easy solution is for the GM to talk to the player, admit he made a mistake in allowing an evil PC, and give the player the option to either change characters without penalty, or change the way the present one acts so he's not a pain in the butt.
Salla has a good recommendation here. I like to establish "ground rules" before any RPG starts, and one of them concerns allowed character behavior. This is a group decision, but nothing creates player tension quicker than one player running an evil character in a group of players who were expecting a good (or at worst neutral) party composition. Before the game even begins, and character concepts are made this decision about the type of character behaviors allowed should be mutually decided.
Since your game has already started, and this wasn't done in advance, it is time to propose a meta-game discussion on this issue with your fellow players, and decide if evil characters in good parties should be permitted. If the consensus is no, then the evil character either becomes an NPC, or changes to a good character. The player of the character gets their choice of which happens, and the game moves forward without too many continuity issues.
Personally I don't mind as a player or DM if someone "retires" their character from the party, and starts a different concept. It happened with another player's character in the game I'm playing in last night. We got to Role Play the old character stepping out of the party to seek out less adventure, and then Role Play the party identifying a new member to flesh out their reduced numbers. It worked just fine with no noticeable in game or meta-game issues.
I also don't mind playing morally ambiguous characters in parties as long as one of a different set of other ground rule is in place, "no in party treachery allowed" or "In party treachery expected". As long as all the players understand and agree that one or the other condition is in place from the begining, then it shouldn't be an issue.
This ground rule can include good characters "taking out" an evil one in a preemptive strike in the treachery permitted scenario, or an evil character getting along with the goals of the good party as long as they benefit in the no treachery scenario. Remember, just because a character is evil, it dosn't mean they have no clue how society expects them to behave, just that they don't agree with the expectation. An evil character isn't required to be a maniac or stupid about their evil. Sometimes they just like cheating on their unfairly levied taxes. Let the suckers pay.
I hope this helps.
Link to my novel on Amazon.com
Show
Link to my novel on BarnesandNoble.com
Show
Link to my publishing web page
Show
Link to my videos on youtube
Show
Class
Show
monster type
Show
Official title - Resident Loser. aka, the last one picked for the baseball team every time.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 08, 2010 - 11:53PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2006
|
Well if he's just being a jerk, I'd say talk to him about his asshatery, I mean, he could probably say
"My character, frustrated with the environment's detrimental impact on his once shining black locks, lashes out against his party for being here in the first place."
See if that takes the edge off a bit.
If your character is seriously contemplating offing a person, let alone a capible if annoying member of his party, to end the barrage of insults, then well perhaps you are the one with the problem. Just saying, not trying to be mean or anything, but its a possibility worth looking into.
Bottomline, see if there's a comprimise.
The essential theme song-
Get a little bit a fluff da' fluff, get a little bit a fluff da' fluff! (ooh yeah) Repeat
Unless noted otherwise every thing I post is my opinion, and probably should be taken as tongue in cheek any way.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 09, 2010 - 7:38AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Sep 21, 2010
|
It should be noted, because I get the feeling this might be the case, that Evil doesn't need to wholly mean crazy, homicidal, jerk or orphan burning, and this is often the failings of people who play Evil characters.
A good visualization of alignment is to think of them as domes. At the center is 'what benefits me' with rings extending out to include friends, family, tribe/city, nation, strangers, etc. A good character is likely to be far reaching with maybe almost a flat top as they care about everyone mostly equally. An evil character probably pretty narrow going outwards with a steep decline once it hits the edge. So an evil character is likely not a sociopath, and does have friends and loved ones they trust and care for. The Evil character will likely butt heads when the Good ones want to save the village at no gain to themselves, but that doesn't mean he's instantly in favor of supporting the raiding bandits over his companions.
So it can work in some situations, yes. It really depends on the feeling for the campaign the DM and the players want to set. Most people enter the game, as previously mentioned, with the mind set that it's a cooperative experience, so party in-fighting is not to be tolerated. Neither way is correct.
Ultimately my suggestion is also to sit down and talk with everyone involved that the evil character is making the game less fun for everyone else. As there was no rule set down before the game began, your act of offing the character is only pushing the same problem to the table. You're overriding another players fun with your own, just as this person sounds like they are.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 09, 2010 - 8:35AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2009
|
How do you all deal with them? Our party is entirely good or unaligned with the warlock being the exception. Im pretty sure my Chaladin is the worst of the normal party, with his unceasing complaints about being out in uncivilized areas ("Do you idiots have ANY idea how hard it is to maintain my hair this far from a bath?!) I'd like to not have to kill a party member... but Im concerned it may be the only way to get the game back on track! The DM has already banned future evil characters is why we are considering offing him :p
Ask yourself this: is the problem that his character is evil, or is the problem that he's being disruptive and calling it "in-character"?
The answer to this question will get you a long way toward finding an answer to the problem.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool. | Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner | |
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 09, 2010 - 6:56PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
How do you all deal with them? Our party is entirely good or unaligned with the warlock being the exception. Im pretty sure my Chaladin is the worst of the normal party, with his unceasing complaints about being out in uncivilized areas ("Do you idiots have ANY idea how hard it is to maintain my hair this far from a bath?!) I'd like to not have to kill a party member... but Im concerned it may be the only way to get the game back on track! The DM has already banned future evil characters is why we are considering offing him :p
Ask yourself this: is the problem that his character is evil, or is the problem that he's being disruptive and calling it "in-character"?
The answer to this question will get you a long way toward finding an answer to the problem.
To Pashilak_Mons you must listen! Save you it can.
Evil isn't a problem in itself (in fact overly LG can be just as disruptive to a party) it is all about how the character is portrayed. In one game I played in that was supposed to be a good campaign every player ended up being evil except one yet, no one realized the others were evil until the effects of our DM notes started becoming obvious. (the wizard was experimenting on people, the thief robbing everyone, the fighter taking over the local mob, etc.)
In conclusion, evil is tough to play but can be done, the character and player just need to realize that he needs to be stealthy in his evil or face the consequences of the party (i.e. death)
Characters currently:
Abscense makes the heart grow fonder but the characters disappear.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 10, 2010 - 5:08AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2008
|
When he's sleeping and you're on guard duty, walk up to him and coup de grace him with your biggest daily, you should be able to do his bloodied value in a single hit and end the miserable sod's disruption once and for all. Then the player rolls up a non evil PC and the party moves on. Playing evil characters mixed with good in DND is almost never a good idea, unless the campaign revolves around that concept.
Just my opinion of how to handle the issue. I've never been a fan of "evil" pc's, I just found it to be dumb personally.
Blah blah blah
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 10, 2010 - 5:41AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2009
|
When he's sleeping and you're on guard duty, walk up to him and coup de grace him with your biggest daily, you should be able to do his bloodied value in a single hit and end the miserable sod's disruption once and for all. Then the player rolls up a non evil PC and the party moves on. Playing evil characters mixed with good in DND is almost never a good idea, unless the campaign revolves around that concept.
Just my opinion of how to handle the issue. I've never been a fan of "evil" pc's, I just found it to be dumb personally.
I'm not down with this and here's why:
John: "Why'd you kill my character?"
You: "He was a dick."
John:"So are you!"
Alternately:
You: " John, you're being a dick, stop it."
John: "Ok, sorry."
Or:
You: "John, you're being a dick, stop it."
John: "No."
You: "Then **** you, get out of our game."
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool. | Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner | |
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 10, 2010 - 9:19AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
May 29, 2004
|
Having an evil PC in the party isn't inherently problematic - in our home group we have one evil PC, and everyone just watches their backs because we know that he will cooperate with us and play nice with the group as long as we don't stop being useful to him or get in his way. This situation is also mirrored in fantasy novels (the Erevis Cale trilogy immediately comes to mind) and in real life (the anti-Communist forces in 1940's China, for example, were not nice people, but the United States was able to work with them toward the mutual goal of defeating the reds). The situation really hinges on three situations, listed in my own opinion of order of requirement:
1. The DM creates a story situation in which it is *both* beneficial and/or necessary for the evil PC not to immediately stab his party in the back for personal gain *and* beneficial and/or necessary for the rest of the party not to disown the evil PC - I think this is the one that is most often ignored. In the home game I play in, one evil deity is out to destroy all the other deities, including the deity of the evil PC, so good and evil need to join forces to resolve the immediate threat.
2. The player of the evil PC is mature enough to recognize the DM's story as motivation for the PC's evil instead of an obstacle to the PC's evil. The player of the evil PC in our home group knows that it is futile to fight the party at this time, and even if he were to do so, there would be no benefit in wiping out the goody two-shoes only to be wiped out himself next.
3. The rest of the players are mature enough not to take evil actions of a character personally (as long as they aren't meant personally). Our evil PC manipulated the party into taking care of his deity's needs before the other needs of the party. Once it was revealed, the characters weren't too happy, but grudgingly accepted that they still needed the evil PC's assistance, especially now that he had something else they needed. The players, on the other hand, recognized the play as a good move and were highly entertained.
Essentially, much like everything else in D&D, playing with PCs of opposing alignments works best if all players *and the DM* (a component that seems to often be seen as that of mediator rather than participant when it comes to these types of conflicts) come to the table prepared and with mature interpersonal and social skills (mature senses of humor and other types of maturity not necessarily required).
John du Bois
Living Forgotten Realms Writing Director, Netheril story area
Follow me on The Twitter: @JohnduBois
Follow my presence on The Intertubes: johncdubois.wordpress.com
|
|
|
