Easy answer is talk to your players. If you're not enjoying what they're doing to the game - you've got to let them know.
You could also try something 'subtle' like sending bands of good NPC's (authorities, bounty hunters, or just do-gooders against them). You can tell them this could be used to get themselves back on track to good (after surrendering and some cool off time in jail!) - otherwise they're never allowed back in any civilized area ever again.
hey guys how do you other GMs deal with players that are Evil, and Chaotic evil in this campagin. I have two evil PCs who think its a licence to do what ever they like.
Do you have any ideas to keeping these type of players in check?
I dont allow PCs to start off as chaotic Evil but when the bard did some very evil acts I had no choice to turn him CE. and I have a sorceror who acts more evil then anything eles and thinks its alright for him to do what ever he wants because he is evil.
Can you please give me some advice for this campagin?
I see a couple of problems in this:
1. You're players are inmature.
2. You don't HAVE to do anything as a GM.
3. Why are you letting the players control the campaign?
First off your players obviously aren't that much into the thinking otherwise they would understand just how far off they are... but this could be your fault too. Are your evil creatures completely off their rocker? Are your plots full of holes that elephants can walk through? Did you not read your group right and presented the wrong sort of campaign? All these are questions you need the answers too in order to see why the players are acting as they are. If it is something that you are contributing to then you need to change in order to change the situation.
Secondly don't for a second think that you must do anything, and especially don't let the players think they can force you into actions. That's a death sentence for your campaign as the players lose all respect for what you are trying to do since you are in effect a machine they can play. This doesn't mean you don't follow logic or the rules, but you don't let anything force you into something that you are not comfortable with as a GM.
Finally you have currently given your players too much control. In order to fix this you need to either have a talk out of game about it, bash their skulls in game, or a combination of both. My recommendation is the last one. Tell them you aren't liking where things are going, and that continued actions like what you have seen will lead to understandable consequences. Sheriffs, paladins, Bralani, and other do gooders will be after them. Even LE types might decide to put the rabid characters down for the sake of the LE plots. Show them why people don't actually act like this in real life -- have the world turn against them and not give them any rest or even an inch.
Ultimately this is a power struggle between you and your players -- until you resolve that struggle you won't be able to get anywhere. Realize that resolving it with your players instead of against your players will be the best option for you, your players and your game.
Kingmaker is not like other campaigns. It is extremely PC-driven. More than any other AP, the PC have to be "on-board" with the campaign premise.
Being on-board is a tough thing to define. One PC of mine wanted to play a Druid who was more-or-less anti-civilization and wanted everything returned to nature. Not vociferously, mind you, but that was her outlook. I politely told her that such a concept wasn't welcome in Kingmaker and that she'd have to choose something else that jivved with the game. So now she's a Ranger with a strong pioneer-bent to her.
Is evil considered on-board? That's your call. For me, and my game, it's not. I tell them, out-of-game, that they're not on board, and need a different character. Evil characters are NPCs. I'm comfortable with someone experimenting with moral ambiguity or doing some sort of seeking-redemption plotline, but not someone who is just unabashedly evil and loves it.
There is no way to handle this in-game. No amount of sending paladins or swordlords at them is realistic. The Stag Lord is evil, and the PCs are the ones sent after him!
Kingmaker isn't for everyone. Sounds like it's not for your group. It wasn't for my first group either. (I've since switched.) You just need to talk to them out-of-game about expectations. It's not ham-handed, and it doesn't make you the GM-Nazi. The truth of the matter is: you, as GM, must be having a lot of fun at all times. If you're not, then you will be unethusiastic and your game will suffer. It's in everyone's best interests to tend to your own hopes and expectations.
Your bard will understand this even if your sorcerer won't: Being evil is a public relations nightmare for many activities.
As the characters deeds accrue, they will start gathering a reputation. A very dark reputation which means that some businesses will blacklist them, others will deal with them very gingerly, and yet more will do things like hiring the Daggermark Poisoner's Guild to do them in because having them around is bad for business, and being bad for business can be very bad for your health.
Think of the River Kingdoms kind of like Vegas back in the classic days of the Mafia. They want refugees and outlaws and people who've fleeced their formerly respectable jobs and are now looking for a place to settle down with their ill-gotten gains and people out looking for a wild weekend of drinking, gambling and prostitutes. They're fine with killing so long as it's duels at high noon or gladiatorial combat or other stuff people can opt out of if it's not their bag. But they do have rules and standards of acceptable behavior in the form of the Six River Freedoms which are basically a code of ethics agreed upon by the society of the River Kingdoms and enforced by anyone who's had enough of any particular antisocial behavior.
With the incident in question, the relevant Freedom would be "Oathbreakers Die." Now, it could be argued that the sorcerer never accepted the fey's surrender, but it could also be argued, since the druid and the war oracle were protecting him, that they evidently had, and indeed, the whole party had accepted the surrender via their silence and non-interference during the prisoner's questioning. So, while there may not have been an explicit oath, there was certainly an implicit one following the usual code of civilized warfare which is occasionally written down but mostly just understood.
What does this mean? It means that anyone who wants to can probably go gack the sorcerer with no tears shed by the populace and in fact, depending on the dude's other deeds, they might get anything from a standing ovation to drinks at the local bar to any of several rewards and bounties from individuals who the sorcerer ticked off. You killed an oathbreaker! Go you!
Think of what would happen in Gotham City the day some inmate of Arkham Asylum decided that a little bit of crazy was fine, but some people are just too nuts to stand being around and beat the Joker to death with a folding chair. There'd be a holiday held in that guy's honor. Batman? He's the idiot who kept dropping a psychotic serial killer with a clown fetish back off at a mental hospital that might as well install a revolving door. But the guy who finally killed the Joker? He'll have 100,000 Facebook fans the first day as well as clemency hearings based on the fact that he must be sane because he killed the Joker! Huzzah and hosanna! Following the Texan doctrine, there are some people who just "need killin'" and the Joker's a prime example.
The sorcerer? If he goes down the road of being a sociopathic clown, then the same goes for him too. Shaft or Dirty Harry or some other CG badass will take him out for the general good, or else a consortium of frightened citizens of lower level will hire a hit from the Poisoner's Guild, or put out a bounty, or all of the above.
I'd think a major element to consider is this: are you as GM willing to accept evil characters in your game? It doesn't matter, to a certain extent as far as the AP is concerned - evil characters have just as much to gain (or to loose) and good characters. But if you as GM have a problem, hands-down you need to be clear from the get-go with your players that it's an issue. Some GMs want their heroes to be HEROES, and players should respect that when that's the point of the game their in.
Myself, I tend to let the players follow which ever path they choose, and just make sure their sheet matches up alignment wise with their actions. In one recent game we even had an alignment switch as the goblin barbarian who had formerly thought of himself as chaotic evil took one look at the party wizard liberally throwing fireballs around at any npc he vaguely considered a threat (and thus resulting in a high body count with his collateral damage) and was shocked into switching to true neutral (of the enlightened self-interest variety, as opposed to balance in all things view), while another - the [u]player[/u] of the party Warlock - practically had a coronary over the Wizard's complete disrespect for life. If that game hadn't summerly ended due to a near TPK, the majority of characters in that party were plotting to leave the Wizard stripped and locked up for the authorities to sort out after the adventure. All in all a good example of how even if the GM is willing to put up with evil PCs, the other players may not.
Another situation I'm watching develop with interest is one where I have outspoken worshipers of Erastil on one side and an apparently unnoticed (but otherwise completely open about it) worshiper of Gyrrona in the same party. Never mind the interesting twists that may come up given how the AP is set up with these faiths, and given where I am in KM2, I expect this situation to come to a head fairly soon. But the Gyrrona worshiping PC is what I like to call NE Clever, and is quit subtle about how he's playing it, cheerfully encouraging religious tolerance for all faiths. A very different playbook than the mass-murdering Wizard who just thought he was indulging in a little CN fun.
But here's the thing - the second example covers a subtle interplay over alignment, vs. an overt conflict for the first group. In Kingmaker, your PCs don't HAVE to be heroes, but if they want their colonies to grow successfully, they need the public to at least think they have their interests at heart, or they should start getting unrest an eventually chase them out with pitchforks if their leaders are being overtly nasty. Sneaky or legally villainous sadly still gives leaders a lot of leeway, so you'd best use your own judgement as to how much people will put up with. One look at history (or even modern world politics) will show how much the masses will accept.
hey guys how do you other GMs deal with players that are Evil, and Chaotic evil in this campagin.
Retire them, and tell the players to make new characters that actually fit the campaign that they agreed to play.
(Maybe not a lot of help in your specific instance, but you did ask how *I* would deal with such players...) ;)
I also would make this dependent on how much the two evil PC's are affecting your enjoyment and the one of the other players. Either talk to the two players out-of-game or use your power as a GM: Squash them like bugs.
There is a plethora of really nasty random encounters in this campaign, so if you get too turned off, just give them 4 trolls which target the offending guys specifically, or some of the other big hitter encounters, if you already finished the first module.
every town and member of the public in the AP is CN
except the high level ones , like clerics, who are mostly LG
the general alignments in the mods make no sense to me
that said
the party i GM to are
LN x1
LE x3
N x2
NG x1
I said during charcater roll-up, before the 1st mod was released....
law is great,
neutral is great,
evil is ok,
good is not really ok, and
chaos is very bad
They have set forth and forged a LN kingdom, and with some debate over some issues, it all works well
I hate, and always have, the CN alignment for a PC as its always a path to immaturity and party conflict
The good thing is, and well done AP, all alignments should be doable in the mod. Its a sandbox go with it
of course if u also have LG and CG in the party as well, then it all sounds doomed
I like alignments, i think that there are v important in a 'high fantasy' games
therefore they should always be discussed before hand
As i stated the party of 'bring order where there is chaos' was thought up before we realised what a bunch of psycho's the poeple of the land are!!
