I am playing in a 9th-level evil campaign in which all of the PCs have been either hired or strong-armed into helping a regent overthrow his kingly brother and take over a kingdom. How? By taking over the rest of the world through a combination of diplomacy, economics, or (discreet) force (essentially, by any means necessary). Once we've consolidated a power base of loyal outside support for the regent, he will make his move against his brother (and likely start and finish a civil war).
The party consists of an orc barbarian/monk, a human cleric, and an elf ranger. I play a venerable human sorcerer (witch theme) with woeful physical stats and ungodly Charisma.
As of late, the other players have taken to telling me that they are going to kill off my witch. Their personalities are such that it is hard to gauge whether they really mean it, or if they are just pulling my leg.
What should I do about this potential threat (in-game and out)?
I've already tried talking to them out of game.
It went something like this (paraphrased for lack of a good memory):
Players: We are going to kill Hama.
Myself: Why would your characters do something like that? Hama has been a wonderful resource to your characters just as much as your characters have been wonderful pawns towards accomplishing her own goals. It doesn't make any sense to end such a beautifully symbiotic relationship. Besides, if we turn on one another and fail our master, we may all end up dead (may end up dead anyways).
Players: Why would we do something like that? Hama has the ability to wipe us all out with a single spell, granting us a save that we have less than a 20% chance of passing. We're going to do it out of fear, out of self-preservation.
Myself: And you could slit Hama's throat in her sleep. What of it? Hama has done nothing IN-GAME to provoke your characters nor has she done anything to illicit such a fearful response. Also, you are metagaming. Your characters know nothing more than that she is a treacherous witch of great power that does not throw away potentially useful pawns even after they've accomplished their primary task (as they may yet be useful later). Attempt to destroy her without good cause and we'll have words in game and out."
Players: *Walks away to discuss other matters amongst themselves.*
(I suppose it also bears mentioning that, though Hama COULD potentially destroy the entire party with but one spell, with her -2 initiative it is unlikely that she will get to go first. With her terribly low hit points, she is unlikely to survive the first melee attack of one of her more physical party-mates either. I would have every reason to be as fearful of them as they do of me if there was any cause to be fearful in the first place.)
This is part of why I don't like evil games much...at least not as long term campaigns...a short foray into wickedness can be amusing. Anyhow, if you can kill them with a single spell and they think you mean to then maybe you should. Perhaps they could come back as your undead servants.
I guess you also might want to consider whether or not your high Chr caster is outshining the rest of the party so much they feel the game would be more fun without her.
Of course, no one "in game" knows that the old witch's initiative modifier is -2, they just know that if she decides to kill them, she can. Of course they won't kill her while the threat/benefit ratio is favors the party, but yeah, if they are evil, and they aren't roleplaying that they are best friends with your witch, it makes sense.
I'm not saying that evil characters can't be friends or work together, but if they aren't already friends, and they feel more threatened than they do beholden to the source of the threat, you eliminate the threat.
If they are saying it out of character, then there's not much you can do IC.
If one or more are saying it IC, then I'd do the following.
1) Plot to kill them (You are an evil character).
2) Execute your plot and kill as many as possible, leave an escape route.
3) Escape when it looks like you can't kill them all (but not before killing several).
4) Ask the DM to reboot the campaign, or change to a non-evil one.
Explain to the DM ahead of time your reasons for doing so.
Another option is to have your character plot to betray them all to the good king, thus building up alliances of her own.
Part of the problem is, you are looking at the evil campaign the way you would a good campaign, everyone helps each other. It's an evil campaign, plot to stab them in the back so you can have more power/money/glory. Foment disention between the others, in character. When you find something the barbarian wants, argue that the ranger would be the better choice, or the cleric, whoever also wants it. Don't try for the powerful artifacts, let them squabble over it, soon they'll be plotting to kill each other instead. Tell the DM you want to make plots with NPCs, offering money to a local assasins guild to set up an ambush on the road and have them kill the monk/barbarian, or cleric.
Basically, do unto others before they do unto you.
Oh, and that -2 initiative is meaningless. As, combat doesn't start until YOU cast your spell, if you do a pre-emptive strike. It doesn't matter what their initiative is, you go first in the surprise round because you initiated combat.
As of late, the other players have taken to telling me that they are going to kill off my witch. Their personalities are such that it is hard to gauge whether they really mean it, or if they are just pulling my leg.What should I do about this potential threat (in-game and out)?
Have your witch kill them with a single spell. Your high INT witch should be smart enough to see such betrayal coming. They literally brought it on themselves by telling you they were going to kill her. So kill them and tell them they got their self-fulfilling prophecy for being dumb-@sses.
Failing that, get the GM on your side. A simple "No intra-party conflict or the game folds" ruling should shut them down right quick.
|
Kill them all with one spell in the surprise round.
. . . .
Seriously, before they kill your PC ask them what they expect you, the Player, to do for the rest of the campaign.
Ask them if they expect you to waste 5 or 6 hours of your free time watching them play.
Ask them if they're out of their fu*#ing minds.
See, one PC can't hinder, and certainly not kill another PC. It ruins the game.
For metagame reasons the Players of the other PCs HAVE to come up with a reason not to kill your PC.
.
.
.
Of course, it sounds like they probably don't have a problem with your PC.
They have a problem with you.
For whatever reason they don't want to ask you not to game with them so they're taking their frustration out on your PC. They're trying to come up with, for metagame reasons, a justification for them killing your PC.
If that's not the case, whew, just go back to what I said a second ago.
Sadly, this is usually what happens when you play an evil campaign. 90%+ of all players will decide that they can't just be evil, they have to be EEEEEVILLL!, 24/7. Treacherous, deceitful, paranoid, and likely to kick puppies for no reason, because they're, y'know, EEEEVILLLL! And these are usually the same players whose approach to playing a good character is "well, I haven't done anything bad, really, in a while, and I did save the town (for pay), so that balances, right? I'm still lawful good." Stick an E in the alignment slot and suddenly that's the most important thing about their character, the singular defining characteristic, vastly outweighing even personal survival. The idea that the character might only be kinda evil, or really just amoral and self-centered, doesn't even occur.
Evil doesn't mean that you have to plot to kill the other party members. Sure, be distrustful at first (unless the group is supposed to have been together for awhile) but it doesn't have to be the driving force. Be ready in case one or more of the others starts something, but otherwise focus on what you're supposed to be doing. Getting along with others isn't "Good", it's just common sense - diverse groups work. Use the rest of the evil vermin to help you survive, finish the job (or at least get out from under whatever is forcing you down a path you don't want), and then kill them off if you need to. Evil can have friends, can be loyal, can follow rules. Evil might mean "no limits", but it doesn't have to mean "no brakes" or "no sense".
If they are saying it out of character, then there's not much you can do IC.
I never fully agree with this argument. While it makes sense to a large degree (avoiding meta-gaming), we're talking about groups of people (the PCs) who live and work together, often 24/7 for long periods of time. So they probably have a decent read on each other's intentions and predict their behavior (roughly speaking, your PCs should know each other as well as you know your friends or long-time co-workers).
So when a bunch of players tell you their characters are planning to do X (out of character), your character should probably be able to see it coming - especially if they're high INT, high WIS, or have lots of Sense Motive.
too bad, evil characters can be played quite interestingly.. though often it comes down to people actively trying to be evil instead of playing credible characters with you know.. personality.
This kind of campaign lacks anything I look for in this game, oh right what to do about it.. ermm.. no clue, sorry for the slight rant xD.
Possible solutions:
Get bodyguards. These can either be a group of hired mercs or you could take the leadership feat. Charm Monster lasts for one day/level, meaning you can have eight monstrous allies. Planar Allies deter no one, but it might buy you the round you need to prove them right. You've got CHA. Make use of it, dude.
Pick the least hostile PLAYER and get him on your side. Aid him first in combat. Make sure that you craft an item just for him. Help him achieve a goal. Voila. Odds evened. You have CHA, dude: use it.
Figure out a way such that you are invaluable to their plans. You're smarter, wiser, and more charismatic than them.
Pick a good role player in the group. Charm/Dominate and diplomacy his character. Make sure to be a benevolent master that permits the player to get some fun out of this arrangement.
The Keyser Soze Solution. Work with the DM privately through down time to kidnap someone near and dear to these blackguards. Everyone has someone. Now we can all play nice, or else.
Blackmail. You have a great deal of information on these jerks. Set up a plan such that if you die, underlings bring incriminating information to the worst possible people. They now have a strong incentive to protect you, until such time as they break your plan. You should be setting up a network anyways as an evil CHA based character. You have CHA dude: use it.
Perhaps they're right. Wait until they're damaged badly and take over in a surprise round. Make them curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!
Firstly AND lastly, tell the DM that if he doesn't solve this problem, these plans will be put into action. If he's down with that, then go ahead. If not, he's got fair warning that the campaign's just about to implode if he doesn't do something.
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AN EVIL CAMPAIGN!!!
I found seeing this claim next to your devilish looking avatar kind of amusing :) That said, I think you've raised some good points about keeping the game fun for everybody.
EDIT: PS to the OP - Consider asking the DM if your PC can come back as a ghost who can only rest when she's accomplished whatever grand evil scheme her master had in mind. Maybe this happens through the mysterious powers of the Evil Master, and certainly he should instruct your PC that she can't kill the other PCs in revenge...unless they fail him.
Hmm, this is the second post this morning I've made about ghosts...
Also, if you can fly and cast greater invisibility, and they can't, don't worry about anything but an ambush from them.
Most importantly: which spell is it?
|
Kill them all with one spell in the surprise round.
. . . .
Seriously, before they kill your PC ask them what they expect you, the Player, to do for the rest of the campaign.
Ask them if they expect you to waste 5 or 6 hours of your free time watching them play.
Ask them if they're out of their fu*#ing minds.
See, one PC can't hinder, and certainly not kill another PC. It ruins the game.
For metagame reasons the Players of the other PCs HAVE to come up with a reason not to kill your PC.
.
.
.
No, you don't kill them in the surprise round! You wait for the Big Battle of a session and just make lousy spell choices that allow for the party to take a bit of a beating while protecting your own @ss. Then just before the fight is over you toss out a swift fireball on the entire group of enemies and friends, following that up with a second AoE spell to end them all. Then gather up their worthless corpses and take them back to the master, asking for better troops that will stay loyal so you don't need to "kill the betrayers of the king's mission".
You then have gained stature in the king's eyes, made a cool story that your next "friends" will hear and learn from, and gained a ton of XP for all the carnage.....win, win, win!
I kind of agree with you, WERay, but some groups suggest having a backup PC ready. Several guys I play with always have at least one with them, and some of them seem eager to use them.
Most importantly: which spell is it?
hmm.. I guess he means confusion, if it is core. Can't really see taking 3 other players of 9th lvl out with one spell otherwise, maybe fear.. though chasing them is a bother.
with cha 25 base and maybe a +4 item (maybe with fiendish ancestory)it might well be a problem for a low wis party, getting DC up to 24 + spell focus, possibly DC 26.
I think it's hard to suggest that they are plotting out of game only if they are plotting together. Their characters would need to reflect this action in game. This is an action you may pick up on through observation or sense motive.
That said, I would continue efforts to work with them out of game to keep the campaign from turning into a player vs player degeneration.
Presumably your character has no plans to kill the party (or it sounds like she already could have). If she is killed off by party members for no reason except the players want to be huge douche-bags, then you are kind of forced to ensure your next character plays the player vs. player game so they aren't taken unawares like this character was.
At which point the campaign basically goes down the toilet. Maybe you need to have a discussion with the other players and DM and ask if that is the way this campaign is headed, and if so, whether it's worth playing it out.
Evil campaigns only work if you have some sort of agreement not to be a group of paranoid psychopaths who need to kill their allies to feel safe. It's not logical behavior. It's evil, but it's evil-stupid not evil-smart.
Our most common reference to pure evil in real world example is Hitler, who clearly had a large number of evil close colleagues (Himmler, Goering, etc) who worked with him. None of them ever tried to kill each other to our knowledge.
There were several assasination attempts including one by Rommel himself.
Our most common reference to pure evil in real world example is Hitler, who clearly had a large number of evil close colleagues (Himmler, Goering, etc) who worked with him. None of them ever tried to kill each other to our knowledge.
I think Rommel was a close associate of Goering or Goebbels (forget which one).
As for Hitler, I don't think they had much more than a professional relationship. Certainly I've never read anything to suggest they were personally associated or friends with each other.
I would not list all the Nazi generals as "close colleagues" of Hitler. That would be a massive number.
Those I would consider close allies of Hitler would be: Eva Braun, Himmler, Goering, Goebbels, Bormann, Hess, Heydrich, Eichman, Speer (and all their families)
He hung out and socialized with all these people regularly, and there was a personal loyalty between them, even though they were all horrible human beings.
|
It should be said,
Lots of campaigns have been played very successfully with all evil PCs.
Sure, there are gamers out there that aren't so mature as to not ruin the game -- but that has to do with the maturity of the Player, not the minutia of alignment in D&D.
Seems like there is a correspondence (not 100% but it high) between the maturity level and the appeal of all evil campaigns. Other than that I agree. This is also what makes everyone roll their eyes about Chaotic Neutral players.
Out-of-Game: Continue having those conversations, as they are the best thing you can do. Make sure to have them in the presence of the GM. And remember that it's an evil campaign - evil campaigns are very delicate, and they require constant attention from everyone involved to be successful. But also know that this kind of posturing is normal for an evil game, and there's a good chance nothing will come of it.
In-Game: Play up the manipulative abilities of your character. It sounds like the problem is that people are frightened of your character's power, so start complimenting them on their own abilities. That will build up their own self-confidence and make them like you more, while at the same time making everyone else more worried about each other.
He hung out and socialized with all these people regularly, and there was a personal loyalty between them, even though they were all horrible human beings.
One thing to note though: they all thought - and justified to themselves - that THEY were the good guys. They did not think of themselves as evil psychopaths but as men of integrity and honour. Yes, people really can and do indulge in that much self-deception.
He hung out and socialized with all these people regularly, and there was a personal loyalty between them, even though they were all horrible human beings.One thing to note though: they all thought - and justified to themselves - that THEY were the good guys. They did not think of themselves as evil psychopaths but as men of integrity and honour. Yes, people really can and do indulge in that much self-deception.
Won't argue with that.
This happened in a game I ran once and this is how it went: The PCs were taking on a tough challenge and long prior to this I had given them some potent poison DC(30) 2D8 Con. I along with the rest of the party had forgotten about the poison, the group consisted of a Druid, a Wizard, and a Bard. I was playing a NPC Fighter. Close to the end of the battle when the fighter was beaten and the bard and Wizard low on spells when the battle seemed close to finish the druid pulls out a bow stating he was out of spells (a lie which he told me on a note that it was a lie and I rolled bluff and sense motive checks for the group) This got me a little suspicious. The poison was already on two arrows and the Druid on his turn sent his animal companion after the fighter and pegged the bard and wizard with the con arrows. Both failed their saves and died on the spot while the fighter now flanked by the monster they were fighting and the druid's companion went down quickly. The following round the druid and his animal killed the monster and desecrated the corpses of his fallen companions. For the previous two sessions the wizard and bard were threatening to kill the druid because they thought that he was a threat to their PCs. When they asked him why he had done what he had done he said that a preemptive strike was the best solution to threats that his player was receiving. He had never once given them cause to think that his player was going to kill theirs but they had been all too vocal about their intentions to kill his. Never again did I hear, in that group, that one player was going to kill another and we played allot of evil games.
To be perfectly honest it sounds like a fairly reasonable thing for them to consider in character. You say yourself that your witch is treacherous and powerful. It makes some sense to head off your possible betrayal.
There are two ways you deal with that - get chummy with the treacherous and powerful person so they don't see you as a threat but instead as useful, or else kill them before they suspect anything. Telling them about it OOC is just like saying 'Kill Me - find any excuse but kill me!"
I agree, a talk with the DM is in order.
Does you Witch have access to Geas or Quest? Can you somehow manage to cast it on them while they sleep? Make it their most importnant job to protect you while you all complete your task.
It should be said,
I've never played in a good campaign where this level of distrust was an issue; only in evil campaigns.
Your playing an evil game, such a game makes that "ok" even if it's not. By playing an evil only game you have oked that line of thought or behavior. Best thing ya can do in game is take em out first as they think you will anyhow and it seems they are correct.
If they have no trust of your pc in game and reason to think he will double cross em, they are correct to plot your death first really.
Stuff like this is why I do not play evil games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Simple. Say to whoever it is that tells you this, "Really? Thank you for betraying the conspiracy against me. Clearly you understand the folly of such an action. If you tell me exactly who is involved so that I can turn them into newts, not only will I let you live, I'll let you have half of their worldly goods."
Played a few evil alignment campaigns and I think the key to avoiding such a situation is a gentleman's agreement that as players you will not have your characters steal, cheat or murder the others. Its the only way to play it without wrecking the group. In saying that if your character was pissing off the others and ignored all warnings then having your character get the boot or possibly the blade is fine. The character was given warning to change their behaviour. Really your DM should be checking to see whether the others are genuine in their desire to kill off your character and attempt to moderate the situation if its the case.
I think people take the evil alignment as the all out evil when really evil alignment can simply be your selfish and will look to prosper anyway you can. Its a bit like the chaotic-tard. Evil aligned people in D&D are not necessarily raping murderous betrayers. They can simply be the diet coke level of evil and just be greedy merchants happy to sell false goods at high prices.
If they are just talking smack, then twas all in good fun! If it is for real, I would just ask them what they plan to do after they kill your character.
OK, he's dead. I doubt they are going to want to resurrect you, and even if they did, you wouldn't rejoin them.
The other option is that you bring in a new character. Even assuming that this character isn't aware what had happened, you as a player know what is up, so you would be wise to make the most nasty assassin type character possible. And forget sleeping within reach or the rest of the party, or even allowing yourself to get beat up, or low on resources. At this point, you might as well disband the party, and find new folks to adventure with.
The final option is to simply tell the other players that if someone kills his character, it isn't the type of game you want to play. I normally won't make "take-my-dice-and-go" type pronouncments, but this is an extreme circumstance.
If they are just talking smack, it sure is working!
Sounds to me like they are either trying to be competitive, in a completely d!ckish fashion. If this is a group of good friends, you could ask them WTF? If this is a group of sorta-friends, and the game is getting less fun because of this smack-talk, I say you bring the hurt and let the chips fall where they may. Its not like they didn't ask for it.
Well, our current campaign isn't an *all-evil* affair even though my character happens to be NE. There was a lot of "smack-talk" regarding taking me out since I was getting too powerful (I'm a wizard). There was also a bit of a racial thing since one party member has a thing against orcs and happen to be related to them.
Anyway - at the end of a particularly devastating combat, only myself and the mercenary fighter were left standing. While we (I) decided that keeping the cleric alive would be a good idea for a variety of reasons, the troublesome half-elf had to go. Despite having stabalized during the fight, I just slid a knife between his ribs and took his stuff. No one need know what really happened (except the mercenary, of course but his day may come too).
Now - out of character, there is no way I would take these sorts of actions against another player without their permission. It would be a completely inappropriate thing to do if it took enjoyment out of the game for the other player. In the end, the game is about having fun and if the players aren't being mature enough to realize that the game isn't just about having fun themselves but having fun as a group, then you're playing with the wrong group.
After all was said and done, we both have a rather interesting story to tell (particularly since my character will eventually find out that the guy he killed was his half-brother). The other player now has a new character and new stories are ready to be told. The one thing I try to remember when playing D&D is that a character that dies tends to be more memorable than one who doesn't so my goal is to create an interesting story and to die in a memorable way!
...That said, I would continue efforts to work with them out of game to keep the campaign from turning into a player vs player degeneration.
Presumably your character has no plans to kill the party (or it sounds like she already could have). If she is killed off by party members for no reason except the players want to be huge douche-bags, then you are kind of forced to ensure your next character plays the player vs. player game so they aren't taken unawares like this character was.
At which point the campaign basically goes down the toilet. Maybe you need to have a discussion with the other players and DM and ask if that is the way this campaign is headed, and if so, whether it's worth playing it out.
Evil campaigns only work if you have some sort of agreement not to be a group of paranoid psychopaths who need to kill their allies to feel safe. It's not logical behavior. It's evil, but it's evil-stupid not evil-smart.
...
+1
This is probably the biggest threat you're facing. When things turn into bitter PvP the entire campaign suffers, I'd say without question.
I've played regularly in Evil campaigns where someone will decide being evil means being a problem for the rest of the party.
Usually the best way to deal with it in game (when evil) is pull the old trope of having them believe you to be necessary for something. And of course bond with the weaker ones as you attempt to manipulate events such that the larger threats get killed off one by one...yadda yadda. (We all know how baddies manipulate, standard fare, divide and conquer etc etc.)
An alternative is, (if out of game there isn't exactly any bad blood) to find a greater threat. A greater evil or good or what-have-you that will sufficiently distract the party. And present to them a present and clear danger. Perhaps discuss such with the DM.
In my experience a startling number of PC on PC deaths occur when the players are to a certain extent, bored.
---
Anyway there's some solid advice on this thread. I hope the situation can be handled. Hate for a campaign to go down the toilet.
|
|
I've never played in a good campaign where this level of distrust was an issue; only in evil campaigns.It should be said,
I think what he meant to say was:
EVIL CAMPAIGNS DON'T HAVE TO BE THIS WAY!!!
While it's true, my experience is the number of people that are able to make evil characters interesting and fun is quite small. The number of people who think playing evil is a license to be a douchebag is quite high. Finding 5 people who fall into the first group and none of the second is ridiculously uncommon.
I say you need to find that hidden immunity idol, and then start making secret alliances with someone you think you might be able to trust far enough to vote someone else off the island.