I have found myself with a really hard decision as a DM.
Background - My players asked that the current campaign be more role play intensive, part of doing this was laying down some table rules that everyone agreed on. the primary one being, if you say something at the table it is considered in character, unless otherwise indicated. As part of allowing more versitle roleplaying and opportunities I have allowed Lawful Evil to be on the table as a possible alignment. One person, decided that this alignment would fit an idea they had brewing... They decided to be a necromancer and that the characters endgame is to subtly take over the town politically/economically, and that he would use his companion's (and his own of course) heroics to gain trust, power, and influence. So far, to me, it sounds intriguing and something I'm more than willing to role with and provide ample RP opportunities for.
Provocation - 3/4 of the way through the first adventure, no problems, everyone is RPing well, and having a lot of fun. As part of the adventure, the towns most prominent and influential noble woman goes missing. Seeing this as an opportunity to gain prestige and favor of both the noble woman and the towns folk, this player convinces the rest of the party that it is in everyones best interests to rescue her. Long story short, they find her bound and gaged in the bad guys lair, and after defeating the bad guy - the following then proceeds. Two player move to cut loose the bindings and comfort/console the noble woman. The player in question then shouts out (in character, even worse in character's voice [so I know it wasn't just a slip of the brain]), "Wait! Don't untie her! We can use her to make a sacrifice and use her animated body as a pawn!" Party (in character) argument ensues, noble woman is cut loose and escorted by the savvy rouge back to town while the rest of the party fights with each other.
Issue - I have already decided that this noble woman now fears and distrusts this player's character because of his actions, and while she has nothing personally against those who stood up for her, she doesn't understand why they continue to associate with them. Her attitude towards the necromancer is now openly hostile. and she is unfriendly with the rest of the party. She has flat out asked the rouge (who did the most to mitigate the damage done here) to cease relations with the necromancer. Now the rouge and another player had an in character discussion about this, and have spoken to me privately. Their characters at this point would not be comfortable associating with the necromancer. They never saw him using enemy corpses to fight their enemies as a bad thing, and new he was "power hungry." However, they now think that he has cold blooded murder in his heart and consider him a liability, and are worried about the possibility of him turning on them. While I think these two players would love to confront his character about it, their characters are far more passive agressive. They are contemplating leaving the town without him.
Furthermore, I'm pretty sure at this point, the noble woman, who is close friends with the town sheriff is ready to have the necromancer (and his associates), run out of town, jailed, or otherwise disposed of. If I proceed with this and allow the logical progression to unfold, I think our campaign and story line is over, and I'm sure the rest of the party at that point would either turn on the necromancer, or shun him completely.
When this player was asked by another character (out of character) why he said what he said, his response was, "it's my character, it's what he would say."
As a DM, "I asked is this going to represent an alignment shift towards Neutral Evil?"
He said, "No."
I warned him that any further actions like that run the possibility of an alignment shift and that his character would then become an NPC due to alignment restriction set down before the campaign. I'm concerned that he has sabotaged the campaign and story lines; that without major oversite (wich would irritate the rest of the group) on my part from the NPCs in town that this campaign (entirely dependent upon being at least somewhat liked and trusted by the town's folk) is no longer salvable. I'm concerned that if the party breaks up or if they are run out of town, the players might get upset at the instigating player for "ruining" what was turning out to be one of the most fun campaigns in years.
Any advice on how to salvage this, or should I just call this a loss and wrap this one up? Maybe have them roll new characters and try to tie them into the story line so they can proceed with it just with characters that are not hated?
Coulda woulda shoulda...
Another question(s) I would have asked the player is "Are you prepared to lose your character should roleplay or your characters actions lead to it? Are you going to resent me when your character gets itself shunned or even removed from the party? Will you be willing to re-roll, no harm done?"
I say, if your group is having a good time with the story line, and you've let it unfold as it may so far, continue to do so.
It is tough to swallow but I would say that you need to let this play out logically and let your players suffer the consequences. I absolutely hate players who play evil characters. They are usually just attention seekers who are not creative enough to come up with compelling non-evil characters. If most of the party does not want to associate with the evil PC then don't make them. That's the breaks. It sucks being evil. You sit in the bar while the party goes adventuring.
I doubt that the noble woman will run them out of town since they did rescue her and the evil PC did not technically do anything wrong. Just let the campaign move forward logically. Even in a staunch LG society simply wanting to do evil does not equate to actually doing evil. While she will probably not be too keen on working with the necromancer in the future she can still hire/use the party as a whole. I can see the hook now.
"Though I distain your methods, I must admit that I have a task that only you and your companions would be sutibale for...etc."
I doubt that the noble woman will run them out of town since they did rescue her and the evil PC did not technically do anything wrong. Just let the campaign move forward logically. Even in a staunch LG society simply wanting to do evil does not equate to actually doing evil. While she will probably not be too keen on working with the necromancer in the future she can still hire/use the party as a whole. I can see the hook now.
"Though I distain your methods, I must admit that I have a task that only you and your companions would be sutibale for...etc."
This is not the first time I have allowed Evil. Lawful Evil is as evil as I have ever allowed. They, in the past never presented any real problem other than a selfish streak. The Lawful side of them keept things from getting out of control. This is however the first time this player has player Lawful Evil, and I'm thinking they misunderstand the L.E. alignment. I had him read up on it before play and since the incident.
Two problems here: this noble woman, knows he can animate and control the dead, she was witness to his "horrors" during her rescue, and he has been (previously) pulling som political influence away from her and putting economical pressure on her commercial holdings in town. He was hoping that her rescue would change her previous dislike (professional dislike) of him. Instead, now not only does she have reason to professionally see him as a threat, but now personally.
You don't think she would try to use her power and influence (which is still quite considerable) to expose him and rid her self of this problem? At the very least him, and give the rest of the party an ultimatum of disassociation with him, or standing against her...
He was hoping that her rescue would change her previous dislike (professional dislike) of him.
"Congratulations, dude, you succeeded. Now, instead of having a simple dislike, you have made an enemy of her."
I can see where the party could salvage this situation, but I think the first thing that needs to happen is that your group have a discussion of the ramifications of the evil PC's actions.
The player needs to know the very real consequences of his character's shouting out "let's sacrifice her!" This means stepping back from the first-person perspective of role-playing and looking at the situation from a third-party perspective. Remember that the players may not have all the information their characters would have. What would happen in a movie should one of the "heroes" want to sacrifice the target of a rescue mission? Why wouldn't the woman react with hostility?
IF (and that's a big IF) the player sees the error of his decisions, you could make the woman a rival of the PCs. She may realize the potential for trouble this group possesses, and begin taking actions behind the scenes to cause them pain.
On the other hand, if the player continues with the "that's what my character would say" schtick, let everyone know what will happen. This necromancer will be hunted down, the associated characters' reputations tarnished at best (more likely the characters will be seen as cavorting with an enemy of the city), and appropriate actions will occur, including the wrapping up of the campaign as the party has now turned evil and are all NPCs.
I think there are several lessons that can be learned here:
1) Think twice about letting people play "evil." Yes, there are some who can pull it off, but those players are few and far between.
2) When a player takes an action that threatens to destroy the campaign, call a time-out. "Do you really do that? Because if you do, she will likely think you're a psychopath . . ." may not be the best for role-playing continuity, but this player decided that a selfish and immature act would be more fun than playing with the group.
3) Think twice about letting people play "evil." Yeah, I know I mentioned it before, but it bears repeating.
The last game I ran was an openly PVP table and RP between characters and with NPCs was encouraged. The more into the story the Players got the more detailed and colorful I got. Most of the group, my core players, functioned like a well oiled machine as a group, both the personalities of their characters and their tactics in battle. However, without fail there would be one or two people seeking to be the center of attention or seeking to prove their character was the most powerful, usually chaotic or evil characters. Those characters were usually dealt with very quickly by my core players and the player in question would then be dealt with OOG by me. I had a character antagonize other characters while they were sleeping in a hostile environment, because he thought it was fun, he got thrown out through the window of a second story room, landed on the ground beneath and then rolled unconscious into a river that sent him over a waterfall, he wasn't seen again. His next character was much more party friendly. I had another guy who decided to steal all the parties’ loot from a battle, he got into an argument with another character, dwarven fighter, and after a few rounds of stupidity the dwarf fighter killed him in one shot. A few times the party got together and politely but sternly told a character he needed to leave, and not come back. The player would then re-roll for something that would work. I have also taken care of a few characters with NPCs when that particular character felt he could do whatever he wanted with the NPCs in my world without fear of consequences. If players continued to bring characters to the table that could not function in a party they would stop being invited to games.
Now, I think you are going to have to let your party handle this in game; it is what they asked for and what they agreed to. Hopefully they will decide to outcast that character and the player will re-roll someone more prone to the group dynamic. It could turn into a cool event as the necromancer could become an enemy of the town and party as an NPC later on. If they end up getting kicked out of the town then you as the DM need to be prepared to take the story in a different direction. If they then decide to part ways with that Necromancer then perhaps they will be welcomed back to the town when they tell your NPCs that they parted company with the unsavory mage. In short, if the party can handle the problem, let the party handle the problem. Only step in yourself when the party is unable to resolve the issue and things are about to completely fall apart. I try to let the party take care of things in game and I would take care of things out of game if it came to that, although a few times I had to take care of things in game as well. That said I talked OOC with my players quite a bit and they would talk to me about a lot of this stuff as it was building up.
This is why evil characters should not be used unless the player knows how to be evil without being foolish. Animating the noblewoman's corpse (via Animate Dead) would give the necromancer a look-alike zombie good for maybe a week using Gentle Repose to keep things "lively". For that plan to work, several illusion spells would be needed daily on top of that the entire party would need to be on board (which obviously, they're not). Lawful Evil is a subtle and seductive evil that bides its time until resistance is far too late; that player roleplayed a CN/NE/CE necromancer with a Wisdom score of 8.
Salvaging the campaign is doable:
1 - Something insanely monstrous attacks the town and the necromancer can offer some heroics in order to at least look useful.
2 - The necromancer can sneak into the woman's house at night and hide undead inside (awaiting orders). Show up the next night, wake her, expose the undead he's hidden, convince her to get off his back, cast sleep, rinse and repeat as needed until she gets the message.
3 - Kill the noblewoman.
And so on...
It seems to me like the most likely possibility is that the player of the evil character has his PC arrested (or whatever) and then the rest of the PCs go on with the plot. Is it going to be a problem having the one player roll up a new character?
|
Sounds to me like your player needs to learn the difference between "That's what my character would THINK TO HIMSELF" and "That's what my character would SAY OUT LOUD."
His character (as a necromancer) is probably not so stupid that he's born with no filter on his mouth. Remind him of this. Move on. You'll be OK.
Two problems here: this noble woman, knows he can animate and control the dead, she was witness to his "horrors" during her rescue, and he has been (previously) pulling som political influence away from her and putting economical pressure on her commercial holdings in town. He was hoping that her rescue would change her previous dislike (professional dislike) of him. Instead, now not only does she have reason to professionally see him as a threat, but now personally.
You don't think she would try to use her power and influence (which is still quite considerable) to expose him and rid her self of this problem? At the very least him, and give the rest of the party an ultimatum of disassociation with him, or standing against her...
The situation is obviously too complicated to condense into a handful of paragraphs on a message board. It is your campaign so let the story unfold as you see fit.
The trick with this is the same as role playing a character realistically. Role players don't like to admit it, but role playing your character can be just as disruptive as munchkining it to hell. Role players sometimes make the mistake of deciding what their characters will do and then damn the consequences, they do it. You're the DM , you're running multiple characters here but the same principle applies.
A better approach is to decide what the characters SHOULD reasonably do: a range of options. Is the noblewoman going to become fast friends with the necromancer? No. Does she have to have him run out of towns on a rail? No, there's other ways of being antagonistic besides torches and pitchforks, especially for a noble with influence in a town.
Rather than try to get the rogue to disassociate from the necromancer She might hire the rogue to keep an eye on the necromancer and have him off the creep if he tries to murder anyone. ,Keep your friends close, but keep someone even closer to your enemies. She might wait a while, throw a party for the pcs... and then poison his drink. She might also arrange for the PC's to get a mission they won't survive.. there's plenty of reasonable options fo a vindictive politician that won't end the campaign.
This is not the first time I have allowed Evil. Lawful Evil is as evil as I have ever allowed. They, in the past never presented any real problem other than a selfish streak. The Lawful side of them keept things from getting out of control. This is however the first time this player has player Lawful Evil, and I'm thinking they misunderstand the L.E. alignment. I had him read up on it before play and since the incident.
Lawful Evil is NOT less evil than any other kind of evil, it's just better organised. Lawful Evil character may be honourable, which means they may function within a party better than other kinds of evil, but that's their only redeeming feature.
Two problems here: this noble woman, knows he can animate and control the dead, she was witness to his "horrors" during her rescue, and he has been (previously) pulling som political influence away from her and putting economical pressure on her commercial holdings in town. He was hoping that her rescue would change her previous dislike (professional dislike) of him. Instead, now not only does she have reason to professionally see him as a threat, but now personally.
So she knows him and knows what he can do ...
You don't think she would try to use her power and influence (which is still quite considerable) to expose him and rid her self of this problem? At the very least him, and give the rest of the party an ultimatum of disassociation with him, or standing against her...
I think as an astute politician she would consider the situation and turn the tables on him. The only way she is safe is if he is either dead, or if she has a hold over him. Banish him and he may be back with a zombie army, and she won't want to lose his 'friends' anyway.
Getting a hold over him is one thing she could do, via an artefact or a more powerful wizard - magicing his heart into a small chest she holds. Plus side, he becomes harder to kill - minus side, she can kill him at any time she chooses. He then has to do her bidding. This is the opposite of what he may have planned for his game-plan, but he's the one that blew it in the first place, and it's a great plot device for further adventures.
The best way of otherwise getting rid of him would be to present him with a situation in which he is 'set up' to absolve or damn himself, perhaps a kind of repeat situation of the kidnap, only he finds her alone rather than with the rest of the party. Of course they are actually present but unseen, and are ideally in on the plot - if he tries to kill her, they kill him. No second chances this time, and it's his friends that do it.
The trick with this is the same as role playing a character realistically. Role players don't like to admit it, but role playing your character can be just as disruptive as munchkining it to hell. Role players sometimes make the mistake of deciding what their characters will do and then damn the consequences, they do it. You're the DM , you're running multiple characters here but the same principle applies.A better approach is to decide what the characters SHOULD reasonably do: a range of options. Is the noblewoman going to become fast friends with the necromancer? No. Does she have to have him run out of towns on a rail? No, there's other ways of being antagonistic besides torches and pitchforks, especially for a noble with influence in a town.
Rather than try to get the rogue to disassociate from the necromancer She might hire the rogue to keep an eye on the necromancer and have him off the creep if he tries to murder anyone. ,Keep your friends close, but keep someone even closer to your enemies. She might wait a while, throw a party for the pcs... and then poison his drink. She might also arrange for the PC's to get a mission they won't survive.. there's plenty of reasonable options fo a vindictive politician that won't end the campaign.
I like this, maybe I'll take the route of, having her hire thugs to arson some of his key holdings or have her hire an assassin instead of going through more legit means. She could also, attempt to frame him for an actual crime.... I do like the attempt to poison though.
Thank you, this is exactly what I needed to get the creative juices flowing and allow the rest of the party to reasonably move forward with the campaign. I'm still open to more ideas, but I definitely don't want to punish the group to severely for the actions of one. I do however want them to suffer the effects of stupidity reasonably,
|
At our table we always try to not get too deep into our character's heads. It's important to remember that what we're really doing between all the dice rolls is telling a story. But it's all of our story and when one PC goes off the rails everyone's story can suffer for it. I see the following major issues:
1. The evil character is evil. It's a pain in the ass and nearly universally not worth the problems it causes. Unless you're in an Evil Campaign, obviously.
2. The evil character's player is not politically astute enough to pull off the character he's trying to play. If his PC is a smart as his Int score would suggest, he shouldn't just be blurting his wacky plan to the party and the target at the last minute. It's the kind of thing you do with a number of carefully planned conversations to get the party thinking your way before you do it. Or you do it secretly.
I'd say you have the Rogue (note the spelling and stop calling him makeup) coup de grace the Necromancer in his sleep and have him try again. It's a neat idea but maybe not one he can pull off.
Lawful Evil is NOT less evil than any other kind of evil, it's just better organised. Lawful Evil character may be honourable, which means they may function within a party better than other kinds of evil, but that's their only redeeming feature.
Right, it is however the only evil that seems capable of working in a non-evil party and not being too much of a hinderance. I think that he had an amazing character concept that was very doable, however, lacks the wherewithal to pull it off. It's a shame really.
she knows him and knows what he can do ...
Exactly, she is, now terrified of him and afraid that he will come after her. I think that is a reasonable state of being considering her situation.
think as an astute politician she would consider the situation and turn the tables on him. The only way she is safe is if he is either dead, or if she has a hold over him. Banish him and he may be back with a zombie army, and she won't want to lose his 'friends' anyway.
She see's him a a threat to herself and other townsfolk. Perhaps this might be her chance to hire other adventures to deal with this problem... If the party survives perhaps they find evidence that she hired them, maybe a letter detail why she wants him eliminated (and that the rest of the party is unfortunate but acceptable collateral damage)...
But it's all of our story and when one PC goes off the rails everyone's story can suffer for it.
Exactly.
I'd say you have the Rogue (note the spelling and stop calling him makeup) coup de grace the Necromancer in his sleep and have him try again. It's a neat idea but maybe not one he can pull off.
If the walking talking blush stick comes up with that on their own, I won't step in their way. However, I will not bring it up; I don't want the enmity at the table that can ensure from a DM suggesting something like that to another player.
Might be worth having a chat with the players, in an OOG sort of way, also.... All of this "sticking by the insane evil guy" may just be a matter of them seenig him as having "PC" stamped on his forehead -- and that prevents them from doing something. Specifically, nobody wants to offend the *player*, and what's more, you're used to thinking about your party as a party.
So - really - It may very well just be that they're upset with the bad behaviours but felt like they couldn't "mess up another PC" - and that they figure all the IC stuff that's coming won't really happen 'cause it isn't "their" fault..
I mean, I don't know your players, but it's something to think about.
Might be worth having a chat with the players, in an OOG sort of way, also.... All of this "sticking by the insane evil guy" may just be a matter of them seenig him as having "PC" stamped on his forehead -- and that prevents them from doing something. Specifically, nobody wants to offend the *player*, and what's more, you're used to thinking about your party as a party.
So - really - It may very well just be that they're upset with the bad behaviours but felt like they couldn't "mess up another PC" - and that they figure all the IC stuff that's coming won't really happen 'cause it isn't "their" fault..
I mean, I don't know your players, but it's something to think about.
I think you're spot on TBH.
First we're all long time friends, secondly, there is a party loyalty and a sense of PC = sacred cow mentality. I think that is where some of their frustrations lay in the fact that their characters don't like/don't approve of his character, yet they like the player and they have that "it's a PC and a party member" (more the latter than the former) mentality.
I think there are several lessons that can be learned here:
1) Think twice about letting people play "evil." Yes, there are some who can pull it off, but those players are few and far between.
2) When a player takes an action that threatens to destroy the campaign, call a time-out. "Do you really do that? Because if you do, she will likely think you're a psychopath . . ." may not be the best for role-playing continuity, but this player decided that a selfish and immature act would be more fun than playing with the group.
Great advice imho. And I always tend to let the players know that it is their responsibility to create a character that can function within the group or accept the possibility that the character will have to leave the group. "That's what my character would do" just doesn't cut it, because the player invents what her character thinks.
Also an evil character needn't be stupid. He could recognize that he needs the party so he won't do anything for her evil desires or short term gain that they would find unacceptable. (openly that is >:-)
Also even evil characters could have friends they want to keep. They would avoid actions that they knew would be unreconcileable with their friends.
And I always tend to let the players know that it is their responsibility to create a character that can function within the group or accept the possibility that the character will have to leave the group. "That's what my character would do" just doesn't cut it, because the player invents what her character thinks.
Also an evil character needn't be stupid. He could recognize that he needs the party so he won't do anything for her evil desires or short term gain that they would find unacceptable. (openly that is >:-)
Also even evil characters could have friends they want to keep. They would avoid actions that they knew would be unreconcileable with their friends.
Exactly. Why a character who covets power would openly announce his intention to do really evil things to a noncombatant is beyond me.
"I want to build a power base in town" usually means "I'll help the people in power so they'll owe me one, which I will cash in later."
Luckily, my house rules include "If you ever do something stupid and/or annoying and claim 'I'm only doing what my character would do,' I will ensure you no longer have a spot at my table."