Going through the comments around here, I realized I have an extremely hard time playing up characters who are just plain a-holes or evil for the sake of it. Even when I write my own campaigns (or hell, even when writing the projects of mine that I might some day publish), my villains more often than not end up having one or two things that gather sympathy. They might have good intentions, a tragic past, some other motivator that can be related to, and so on. Even the Tiefling Wizard I planned to play as in Rise of the Runelords will probably shift from Evil to Neutral or even Good, since I'm sure the Cleric of Desna in their party would try to help her with this change of heart.
|
I ALSO wouldn't agree to play an hero... so you wouldn't catch me going back on an agreement.Sorry your group turned on you; the only solution I know is to quit them. They really don't seem to be worth your time.
I AM sad to see how many folks seem to have nonevil requirements for players. Seems prejudicial, and doesn't solve the problem of jerk PCs: jerks will be jerks regardless of the alignment printed on their sheets... and you lose out on a lot of excellent RP, and excellent players (if I do say so, myself...)
It's about everyone being on the same page, and I also don't spend time with jerks, whether playing PF or doing anything else, so that problem is solved pretty easily.
I'm not sure how it is prejudiced?
|
I wonder how often GMs who thought they were starting a heroic campaign wind up with NPC villains more noble, compassionate, and well...good than the allegedly good and heroic PCs.
It does get frustrating when some gamers display outright resentment towards fellow players playing their characters as something other than sociopathic, callous, or xenophobic. Some people consistently mistake empathy for weakness, but I can't believe that those sorts are the majority of hte gaming population.
Have to have some hope after all.
I don't think I have a problem playing villainous PCs, but I have to have a sympathetic hook to them. They have to have standards and at least some sort of conscience. To the point that many of them probably wound up more appropriate for mostly-Good parties than some "Good" PCs I've seen over the years. The "band of little Caligulas" mode of play just never held any interest for me as a player or a GM, to put it gently.
Good heroes though, and not the "Good in name only" sort, are where my heart really lies.
@Alitan
I see no excellence in RPing Evil, but since that's a matter of opinion I just hope that your players agree.
I am currently playing in a 4e game, based in Golarion.
My character is a lawful neutral pushing lawful evil bounty hunter, with a fanatically if slightly heretical faith in Asmodious... the character was built to provide just a little bit of discord in the party cohesion, by being some one who would never go back on letter of contract, be largely self interested, and not feel any special need to help others where their was not some sort of benefit.
and he is the most socially well adjusted character at the table. What is that you say supposedly true neutral priest of pharesma, you want to burn the prisoners feet both for fun and information? What is that oh supposedly chaotic good, dagger wielding, sociopathic, career criminal? You want to steal everything that is nailed down and drink everything that comes in a bottle for seven leagues?
I come out smelling like a paladin.
I don't really mind though.
I should have known, given the group and the dm, that this was a game where a "Pawn of Id" was going to be a more successful character than something like the above.
I AM sad to see how many folks seem to have nonevil requirements for players. Seems prejudicial, and doesn't solve the problem of jerk PCs: jerks will be jerks regardless of the alignment printed on their sheets... and you lose out on a lot of excellent RP, and excellent players (if I do say so, myself...)
THIS SO MUCH.
Some of my favorite characters - both those I played and those my groupmates played who I was teammates with or GMing for - were Evil or in some cases Neutral, and it's both surprising and disappointing to see just how many tables those characters would never have been allowed to exist at.
Heck, one of the most-talked-of and funniest gaming stories my group has is from one of the Evil campaigns we played, and it's stuck with us for years.
I don't restrict alignments when I am DM, unless the campaign strictly calls for it.
However, I do not approve of jerks. And it's easy to see a jerk unless the table is full of them.
I try to alternate things and keep a cycle on stuff, because IMO playing the same thing every time - always being the straight-laced heroic type, for example, or always being the dastardly villain - gets old after a few campaigns in a row.
My first campaign was VERY Neutral-heavy. The plot centered around the war between Bahamut and Tiamat, with Bahamut backing the party and Tiamat backing the Blue Dragon who was their main antagonist, but the party themselves were very middle-of-the-road; only the Dragonborn (3.5 version) Monk was Good. The rest were LN Knight, TN Dragonfire Adept, CN Binder, and CN Scout.
The campaign after that? Good as you can get it. LG Dwarf Crusader, NG Sainted Swordsage, NG Healer, NG Psion, and CG Warlock. The Warlock did the whole "fall and redemption" thing, but the rest were goody-two-shoes the entire way through.
After that? Evil game. LE Binder, NE Barbarian, NE Sorc, CE Assassin. Theme of the game was we were spies scouting out a neighboring plane so our empire could conquer it. And we got to play up the villainy to hilarious levels. The Jerky Story is retold on a regular basis.
Next game? My Gestalt Savage Tide campaign, and the alignments were all over the place. The first group leaned heavily Lawful and a little Good, but everyone but one party member died or left in Chapter One and the replacements leaned heavily CN, including an NE Swordsage|Scout who ended up becoming the party leader and ship captain (The Dread Pirate Ninja!). One of the best characters I've ever seen out of that particular player, bar none. Yet in the same party were the LG Warforged Crusader|Cavalier, NG Tiefling Cleric|Bard, and CG Skarn Champion of Kord (who had a bunch of multiclassing on both sides of her gestalt). That game was all over the place.
When I restarted GMing with my new group, my first test campaign had a Paladin in it. When I set that aside to start running Kingmaker, I got a VERY Neutral-aligned group - not a single Good character in the mix, with LN Oracle Duchess, TN Samurai Marshall, CN Rogue Spymistress, CN Centaur General, and CE Magus Magister. Been a blast the whole time through.
My next campaign will, in contrast to this Kingmaker game and in keeping with my tendency to swap things around, likely lean more heroic. But who knows? I'll be starting playing in a Council of Thieves game that's leaning very Good-aligned (CG Sorc, CG Rogue, Paladin, and LN [I think] Alchemist) around Thanksgiving; since KM will likely end well before CoT, we might be tired of heroism by the time I start my next game and thus I might end up with another batch of less-morally-upright protagonists.
Mind doesn't think in an evil way, and if I do make an evil guy, I end up feeling horrible for the evil committed in game, just like I feel horrible if another player does the same thing...
I know they're made up people, but they're still just innocent villagers...i feel bad when someone burns their village down.
My villains tend to be more pragmatic than that.
Why burn the village down when you could conquer it?
Then again, I still have a leaning to anti-villains as always.
My villains tend to be more pragmatic than that.
Why burn the village down when you could conquer it?
Exactly. Within a month of our arrival in Jasper, we were running every business of worth in the town. Under our command, it became a thriving tradepost and primary route of entry into the frostfell, the first and foremost market and sanctuary on the trade road into the north.
I cannot see for the life of me what adventurers desire in "freeing" the town, since before our arrival it was but a meager stop on the road with little prosperity or worth. The quality of life there has quadrupled since we claimed control of management. Its people are not unhappy or unwell, nor are they ruled by a fist of cold iron; they are allowed, so long as they do not disturb the peace nor disrupt trade or travel, to do mostly as they please. And yet because their ruler is a half-fiend, surely they must be "liberated"!
If that ruler is being a jerk and treating the citizen bad, then yes, I will liberate them.
What if the ruler generally treats them well, but doesn't extend the kindness to the people of neighbouring nations?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope, never made it to Rome.
Haha! you're alright after all! True misanthropes are never this quippy... ;)
I AM sad to see how many folks seem to have nonevil requirements for players. Seems prejudicial, and doesn't solve the problem of jerk PCs: jerks will be jerks regardless of the alignment printed on their sheets... and you lose out on a lot of excellent RP, and excellent players
So encompassing, and yet so simple to grasp...You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.
This whole argument kind of got polarized at some point, as forum debates are wont to do, and so now there are non-interlapping positions being treated as if they were diametrically opposed:
a) The OP's group is clearly selfish and non-commiting, unsuited to follow any kind of script. No one has denied that.
They seem to want to sandbox, mainly, and don't really care that sandboxing is not a fraction as fun to the DM as it is to them.
Party alignment has zero to do with the case, here. If they had commited to playing an evil-inclined party from the get-go, they would probably, by now, have decided to retire from adventuring and run a stray kitten adoption center instead, out of spite. DITCH THEM.
b) To take away a whole range of options from the players is against the very spirit of roleplaying games - imo, and seemingly others' too.
You can reasonably expect a group of "heroes" not to sit idly by watching an unfair slaughter, but you cannot demand that every single one of them be a paladinesque ideologue erring about, stomping evil for free. That's about as idiotic as believing that any military personnel is the core embodiement of a nation's ideals, when in reality the motivations almost exclusively happen to be either a relatively well-paid job for the low academic entry-requirements, or one of the few remaining outlets of violent behaviour in a controlled fashion. And yet evil regimes are overthrown, dictators hanged, and expansionistic empires kept in check because of the sum of those individual actions.
Also on this note, I don't (as didn't most of the people defending this position) mean VILLAINS, those are a whole dedicated type of campaign, just that NON-GOOD characters are certainly as good as (lol), often better than, straight-up good characters in the building of an awesome campaign and the fun of everyone involved.
Both issues are sad but absolutely true. None invalidates the other.
Then I'll do my best to both get the jerk out of power, and then replace him with someone who will treat both the people and the neighboring lands well.
If that ruler is being a jerk and treating the citizen bad, then yes, I will liberate them.
No harm comes to a man who invites no harm. Those who continue about their business, support the city through their work or their wealth, and do not disrupt travel, trade, or the peace of the city are welcome to do as they wish. In turn they are given a thriving, prosperous, wealthy city, protected from the ravages of the Bleak Lady's ill winds and the wilds of the Ice Claw's beasts and barbarians by our walls.
Travelers whose coin and capabilities - in spell, steel, or scribe - are traded in peace and without disruption are likewise welcome. A trade city that closes its doors to outlanders is one that will wither and die, especially when that city is located on the singular route through the mountains leading to the warm lands to the south.
Those who disrupt the peace or violate these conditions, however, are punished as is the law, and their example will dissuade further such insurrections. But that is all. There is no need for pointless meager pursuit of punishment for the sake of disrupting my own city's well-being. A city that manages itself in serenity and order is all I desire. I have eternal winter to prepare; I cannot be bothered to tend to every minor infraction.
Do I smell an Abadaran around here?!
I have little issue with the way you described that, but my feelings towards jerk-evil stem from Prince John and Robin Hood. My favorite plots to run through are those which overthrow an overtaxing tyrant. Right now, my party is fighting a tribe similar to Mayans who kidnap other tribes and sacrifice them to their blood god.
Do I smell an Abadaran around here?!
I'm not familiar with that entity, myself. I imagine I don't come from his(?) world.
I have little issue with the way you described that, but my feelings towards jerk-evil stem from Prince John and Robin Hood. My favorite plots to run through are those which overthrow an overtaxing tyrant. Right now, my party is fighting a tribe similar to Mayans who kidnap other tribes and sacrifice them to their blood god.
Vien is extremely lenient with her city, mostly because she prefers a hands-off approach. She takes her rulership tips from Lord Vetinari.
Most of the disruption in the town comes from either "she's half-devil, she MUST be plotting something dastardly" or "she's trying to start a fracking eternal winter".
See, and because I tend to see free will in every sentient creature, the "devil-evil" argument doesn't work on me. I've played characters who were so peaceful they tried to save the bugbear from execution.
My character was the one who also saw the good heart in the vampire, and kept him hid from the pharasman paladin who would have slaughtered him without question.
We have a good succubus as an npc, good due to the teachings of our sorcerer. They have a kid now.
So Vien wouldn't be a target. At least based on the description you guys give.
At least not until her cult winds up and gets started on the Fimbulwinter thing ;) That's actually the main plot of a campaign I'll be running one of these days. Vien and her crew never got to high enough level to manage it, so I ended up graduating them to NPC status and building a plot around their intents.
I have little issue with the way you described that, but my feelings towards jerk-evil stem from Prince John and Robin Hood. My favorite plots to run through are those which overthrow an overtaxing tyrant. Right now, my party is fighting a tribe similar to Mayans who kidnap other tribes and sacrifice them to their blood god.John was a victim of bad press. He actually raised all that money to pay the ransom for King Richard who had gotten himself captured during one of his Crusade holidays. Richard was actually a pretty lousy King who couldn't spare the time to actually rule England. In fact, his main castle was in France!
Not talking about the historical John. Talking about the fictionalized John together with the Sheriff. I has the Disney cartoon, prince of thieves, and men in tights memorized by age 9.
Evil? I'm not evil!!
Those who've wronged me are the evil ones.
I was once a noble Chelaxian aristocrat, but then the other families (the real evil here) conspired against my parents and got them killed. When I show an ill-behaved commoner their place, I do not sin. On the contrary, I am doing good by educating the thankless mongrel.
If I take something from someone else (like I'd really need to do that often), it is most likely because it's going to better hands anyway. As for the people I move around with, I would say the alliance that I have with them is merely of convenience. I care nothing for Desna, nor for the concerns of any dumb brutes. The moment one of them decides to try and betray me, I'll have all those involved buried alive and their souls placed in these little gems I've studied for a while now.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Power corrupts. Player characters have a lot of power, and act as if they have even more because they think they're immune to the consequences of their actions.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Power corrupts. Player characters have a lot of power, and act as if they have even more because they think they're immune to the consequences of their actions.
Thankfully, that part of the equation i fixed a long time ago with a simple house rule. There is always someone stronger. And if the PCs go about swaggering and abusing the fact that they are powerful, that someone stronger is going to show up and wipe the floor with them, just to put them in their place. One group learned that the hard way. They insulted a Lord who had lot of political power, and since they were level 11 or so, they thought that they could ignore his anger. That very same night, 5 assassins snuck into their rooms and killed them. A TPK. And i allowed perception checks and fortitude saves and all. They never insulted powerful people again.
And in reality good and evil do not exist, there are only shades of neutrality.
If i wanted reality, i wouldn't roleplay.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have been GM-ing a one/two-shot game
Please share your insight.
My insight is that your problem is in the first quote.
Yes, there is a significant enthusiasm gap about being heroic, as other posters have mentioned. More important, though, is that the players, knowing that they are playing a 1-2 shot game, are not incentivized towards heroic play in the same way that you would be in a longer game.
In short, the players are not convinced that there are actual consequences for their actions because the consequences that are present are "move on to the next game."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I ALSO wouldn't agree to play an hero... so you wouldn't catch me going back on an agreement.Sorry your group turned on you; the only solution I know is to quit them. They really don't seem to be worth your time.
I AM sad to see how many folks seem to have nonevil requirements for players. Seems prejudicial, and doesn't solve the problem of jerk PCs: jerks will be jerks regardless of the alignment printed on their sheets... and you lose out on a lot of excellent RP, and excellent players (if I do say so, myself...)
It's about everyone being on the same page, and I also don't spend time with jerks, whether playing PF or doing anything else, so that problem is solved pretty easily.
I'm not sure how it is prejudiced?
Well, as you seem to continually equate evil=jerk, with which to start. And if eliminating one-third of the possible alignment choices in the game isn't prejudicial, I don't know what the word means.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Quite a bit of the problem (as I see it) is that (a) a lot of gamers fail to adequately understand the nature of evil and (b) the game, itself, fails to adequately explain the nature of alignments, generally.
Common Mistakes:
Evil=Chaos
This one has caused me no end of irritation in evil campaigns. Evil does NOT mean lacking discipline, lacking plans, lacking self-control, UNLESS one is in fact playing CHAOTIC/Evil. And even those dedicated to chaos are perfectly-capable of being creatures of habit, and maintaining a certain amount of decorum. Unless they're jerks, in which case...
I find chaotic alignments to be suboptimal, regardless of where they fall on the good-evil axis. Success is, largely, a function of proper planning and patience, neither of which are well-represented among the true chaosites.
Evil is incapable of compromise or cooperation
Consider the generic band of adventurers, aside from alignment: a group of folks with agendas and goals which may or may not dovetail together easily. Yet, adventuring parties -- successful ones, anyway -- learn to get along with each other despite their differences of opinion.
Why WOULDN'T an evil person unbend from whatever particular position to garner cooperation with other adventurers? Evil people need just as much support (in and out of combat) as nonevil ones. Evil may be home to the selfish end of the spectrum, but that doesn't mean idiots. It well-behooves an evil character to engender an atmosphere of cooperation, the better to pursue their goals of tyranny and dominion over the rest of the world. Again, unless they're jerks...
Eliminating evil solves the jerk problem
This one is a fallacy of the first water. I don't know how many @$$h@ts I've had to deal with, over the course of years of gaming, but MOST of them were NOT evil, and MANY of them were (putatively) good.
The solution to the "I was only playing my alignment" argument is to point out they were playing it BADLY, and not accept the excuse. Odds ARE, that a problematic player will be no more nor less problematic REGARDLESS of the alignment printed on their sheet. And writing off jerkdom as the purview of evil people is an insult to evil people. Evil people are dedicated, ruthless, usually-efficient; they MAY be more likely to ignore the social niceties when they can get away with it. But more often than not, an evil person is likely to seem MORE pleasant than their good counterparts -- who often seem to think that because they're heroes, they don't need to be nice. And evil character -- again, a successful one -- spends a great deal MORE effort on appearing to be a nice person than a good one does. In my experience and opinion.
In my opinion, the "You can't be evil because it causes me problems" is one of the lazier bad decisions of which GMs are capable.
I've never had lawful good cause a problem save one time (paladin w/ oath of vengeance).
vast majority of experience with disruption have been with some form of evil or cn (once w/ ln).
I guess our experiences differ.
I've never had lawful good cause a problem save one time (paladin w/ oath of vengeance).
vast majority of experience with disruption have been with some form of evil or cn (once w/ ln).I guess our experiences differ.
The one time I've had inter-party PvP that didn't get solved without PC death or GM retcon, it was the LG Warforged Crusader|Cavalier against the rest of the party (NG Cleric|Bard, CG lots of multiclassing but mainly Barbarian, TN Summoner|Alchemist, and NE Swordsage|Scout) for the Cleric and Scout mercy-killing a horribly tortured and mutilated prisoner who could not be saved by healing - he'd need regenerate (well beyond the level-7 party's capabilities for quite some time) to recover, at best he'd be a vegetable if he didn't die from his injuries or the trauma.
I ended up having to retcon the kid as coming back undead after they killed him, just to keep the Cav from slaughtering everyone else in the party or being killed in the process. The Cav's player refused to back down, saying that he was forced to avenge the kid's murder.
I don't ban evil alignment. I ban CN. I have never ever witnessed anyone play CN as it is supposed to be played. Usualy either CE in guise of neutrality or N. So it's out.
Man, I'm sorry to hear that. I'd invite you to view some of my group in action if I could. Half my current party is CN and I've had many in prior groups, and it's never been a problematic issue.
|
|
I don't ban evil alignment. I ban CN. I have never ever witnessed anyone play CN as it is supposed to be played. Usualy either CE in guise of neutrality or N. So it's out.Man, I'm sorry to hear that. I'd invite you to view some of my group in action if I could. Half my current party is CN and I've had many in prior groups, and it's never been a problematic issue.
And i would take you up on your offer, but i am certain that we live hundreds of miles apart...
Sadly yeah. Best I could do would be to link you to my campaign journal, but that is sparse on details.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thankfully, that part of the equation i fixed a long time ago with a simple house rule. There is always someone stronger.Power corrupts. Player characters have a lot of power, and act as if they have even more because they think they're immune to the consequences of their actions.
There's always a bigger fish, but the other way around...
What it boils down to for me is simple:
I want to run a game that makes me happy, and I want to play in a game that makes me happy. If your style of play disrupts my happiness, then don't play in my game, and I won't play in yours.
I'd rather have no game than an unhappy game.
Its why I'm desperate to play an apostle of peace from exalted deeds or a monk of the lotus from apg. No game seems to be around that would allow for that, and I can't run one myself due to no one else wanting to play that style.
I rarely (never?, oh yeah, once) play evil characters, but I rarely play heroes, either.
Irl, I don't want to fight monsters, I want to have sex and do drugs.
That's usually what my characters want to do, too.
|
|
I rarely (never?, oh yeah, once) play evil characters, but I rarely play heroes, either.
Irl, I don't want to fight monsters, I want to have sex and do drugs.
That's usually what my characters want to do, too.
Well, when my friends and i want to play "Pointless Lollygagging The Game", I'll be sure to invite you.
And if eliminating one-third of the possible alignment choices in the game isn't prejudicial, I don't know what the word means.
I think I'm completely alright with being prejudiced against evil people ;)
Seriously though, while I usually discourage players from playing evil characters because I worry about it disrupting the campaign, I have allowed it on occasions where I trusted the player to follow the campaign and not go on killing sprees in towns.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, when my friends and i want to play "Pointless Lollygagging The Game", I'll be sure to invite you.I rarely (never?, oh yeah, once) play evil characters, but I rarely play heroes, either.
Irl, I don't want to fight monsters, I want to have sex and do drugs.
That's usually what my characters want to do, too.
Oh, thank you, but, generally, I find that if the DM is any good he can get me into monster-fighting situations anyway.
But my characters rarely go looking for danger, is my point.
Well, when my friends and i want to play "Pointless Lollygagging The Game", I'll be sure to invite you.I rarely (never?, oh yeah, once) play evil characters, but I rarely play heroes, either.
Irl, I don't want to fight monsters, I want to have sex and do drugs.
That's usually what my characters want to do, too.
Hundreds of miles probably still apply.
