I just wrote a long post, then an error in the board wipes it. So here it goes again.
I want to know what to do in my situation with my PCs who have unlikeable characters who lean towards making evil decisions and justifying it hiding behind being neutral or chaotic.
The game is not fun for me when I do not care about the PCs and I cannot root for them.
I think that it is partly my fault for letting people play whatever background they want, we have a mercenary and a spy which I thought would be interesting, but they just play them like evil a-holes justified by BS.
Things I have tried:
- Talking about favorite characters they have in fiction. What makes that character interesting. Why would an outside observer like your character if they were reading this story?
- Told them flat out that I do not want to run an evil campaign and again more whining about how they are not evil.
- Inserting decidedly good NPCs into their travels, but when they flip out and do something evil they just decide to attack the NPC too if they object.
The latest situation:
They travel to a druidic hideout in the forest, they seek pieces of an artifact that has been destroyed that needs to be dispelled to remove the curse on the land of darkness and risen undead. Their good ally is a priest who is researching hot to dispel the evil. The druids want to remove the curse too and have a way to do it. The druids they ran into in the city wanted the pieces to dispel them but the ritual was time sensitive and they were in a hurry and this led to combat.
One PC is an agent of an evil witch who wants the artifact pieces herself and has been subverting plans, even giving away the pieces to her and pretending like he had no choice.
The PCs travel to the cave(the witch gave them these plans). They meet a simple but kindly mustachioed strongman monk who is lost and will help they if they help him get back to the city after (this is my decidedly good NPC I added because other PCs didn't show up).
They meet two unarmed druids there who talk to them about the process of dispelling the shards and feed them. They scry on the Priest's work and send him a message, they say they are working with him. The priest says it is worth a shot and to try to help the druids because they want to remove the curse just as bad.
The PC plot against them and decide to take out everyone in the room and remove the shards from the ritual. One pulls out a hidden weapon and blasts the druid as they sit at the campfire together. The female druid screams and runs and the scout PC who is fast chases her and hacks her with a sword every time he catches up, she keeps running. The strongman tells them to stop and grapples the PC who shot the druid. Another PC summons alligators to attack the strongman. I stopped the session here.
The druids have strong defense and now the scout ran far away from the others to hack at the fleeing woman. Also the strongman monk is fighting them now too for obvious reasons. I feel the forces there in this situation will be able to take out the PCs and I feel like letting them.
Reasons that I do not want to kill them off:
- We have been playing with these characters in this campaign well over a year now on and off.
- They are in love with their characters and power hungry and in this setting resurrection is not an option.
- No other people in our gaming group have been able to GM a game that holds any interest and if this game dies off we will probably not be RPGing.
- I have mentioned that I want to start a new campaign where the PCs all have common goals and are decidedly good and likable so that I will have an interest in them but they moan and groan about how in love with their characters they are.
If I do not like the PCs I cannot have fun GMing a game, I have made this clear. Again I am not having fun and just want to let the chips fall and have the PCs get killed off for being evil.
Please give me some advice.
Rotate GMs.
Tell them that you're not having fun. Then say one of them has to pony up and run.
Then create a good-aligned PC and lead by example from within their ranks.
I did just that Erik. I made a lawful good monk who is kind of like kung fu Jesus. He never will kill anyone, helps selflessly. After a village was destroyed he spent time making a graveyard for the dead and taking all of the loot in the city and dividing it up by location and which bodies it was found by to give it all to the next of kin.
The other party member were selfish mercenary types who constantly pulled out their hair because of him.
The others in my group have not been able to keep interest in their games because of poor GM style and stories or just refuse to because they know how much work it is to be done right. No one wants to play any other game except for this one. So I fear it is this or nothing.
Kill them off. Let it sink in how much having their characters killed off really sucks. Describe the journey their evil, rotten souls begin to take shortly after dying. Give them a vision of themselves as lemure demons getting kicked around and tormented for being such bastards. Then tell them they hear a voice calling to them as they begin their descent towards this awful afterlife. It's a good cleric who has performed a powerful ritual to bring back the spirits of several heroes to complete the quest.
Play it up as a real life-changing experience for the characters and maybe the players will actually have fun playing their characters as "born-again" good guys.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At the core of it all, I think you're looking at irreconcilable differences in terms of what you want out of the game. I wouldn't want to play with those guys either, most likely.
Are there really no other groups in the area for you guys to try out?
If a game is actively becoming anti-fun for a player, that player shouldn't be beholden to stay in the game. And GM's are players too.
Trainwreck:
Ressurection does not happen in this setting (Iron Kingdoms) it is seen as an affront to the gods, maybe one or two major figures get resurected each year.
Reincarnation does happen more often. Which makes me want to bring them back as a krill of trollkin, who are the only 100% no grey area good guys in the setting.
I am sure killing them would have the players flip out and whine.
Mikaze:
I game with my group of friends. I could look for a game at a lgs but I have never tried that before.
My home group tends to "go evil" under certain sets of circumstances. For example, if I leave them in an urban-center for too long. Or if the sandbox becomes too open ended.
Once I found out the triggers, I figured out to avoid them. When I run for that group, I run pretty tight rail-roads out through wilderness or rural areas. I'm not saying that that's the exact prescription for your group, but it was for mine. Figure out what makes them go crazy, and keep them away from their triggers.
Also, have them be confronted with real evil. Something that makes them squirm a little bit out of game. Talking about "an evil curse that rises undead" is cliche enough to not register in player's minds as truly depraved. Come up with something that hits their emotional centers. A mother that was hiding from orcs, and had to kill her crying baby to remain hidden. A man proud to have just worked ten years to buy a plot of land, and the noble steals it out from under him. A woman that has just been raped. NOT a "blood spattered room" (because that's not emotional). I don't know where your group "draws the line" on acceptable content, only you do. But go to that line. Sometimes it takes Darkness to make the Light visible. Showing my group real evil is what spurs them on to heroism. Otherwise, yea, they act like your group.
Also, let their actions have repurcussions. Non-combat repurcussions (having the city gaurds attack them won't work). In your above example, once they hack down the fleeing woman, have one of the other NPCs in camp bawling his eyes out crying "you killed my sister" (or wife, whatever). Make it sad, but don't have said sad person attack!! Just have him sit there. Thus forcing the PCs to sit in the moment and chew on what they just did.
Also, why are you allowing the PCs to work for this evil witch? You're enabling their behavior. If you invite your alcoholic friend to your birthday party, it's beholden on you to hide the wine. And if you don't, you're not allowed to act surprised when he gets drunk.
And when you say "if this game ends then we won't RPG" - I can't help but be suspicious that this isn't true. If they like RPing, they'll RP. Don't paint yourself into a corner and think it's this campaign or no campaign. Sure, you'll take a month off, but then the itch will come back, and you'll present a brand-new setting and plot to them that will sweep them off their feet.
|
You said they enjoy the setting/adventure... is it they like the setting, the story, or the characters?
would be able to start an 'alternate group' set in the same setting... tell them that they have to be good... and not tell them that they are sent in direct opposition to their other characters. have the group PvP against themselves..
Maybe the fact that good church/group sending groups against them might tell the group that they arn't being good.
Erik:
I like leaving things open and giving the PCs tough choices. I was hoping that the PC would see the right thing to do and turn on the witch making for an interesting character arc.
It is my fault for giving them too much freedom I agree.
Only one character is working for the witch secretly because she is a member of his countries military he works for. All the others are all too eager to follow his plans though.
It seems they 'go evil' when a tough choice is laid out for them. They found a lost child in the woods once and were confronted by the same witch who wanted it. It was more convenient for they not to deal with the baby and trade it to the witch for favors.
They were confronted by the blinded lost mother later in the woods and pretended to help her look for her baby.
Perhaps having straight rail-roaded characters and plots that are good is the only way to work this.
Also I am hoping that someone will step up and GM, but I have asked everyone and I am pessimistic.
Kirstov:
They like the setting, they are in complete love with their characters, and they also enjoy the story. Also I do not GM in a way where they get all the power and magic items they want and it keeps them hungry and wanting more where our other GMs in the past just lay on the Mounty Haul power levels and everyone gets bored when the game gets absurd.
I have told them I want to start a new campaign in the same setting and set up the group better but they whine and moan about how much they love their characters.
I would love for them to have to fight their old party as the bad guys, sounds like great fun! But I am pretty sure they will have a hard time giving up their beloved characters they have grew from level 1 to 8.
Ok, several thoughts.
1) What kind of campaign do they want to play? Some people enjoy playing morally bankrupt characters. This could be fun for some groups. If 4 of the people at the table are having fun and one isn't then you may have to bite the bullet on things and just keep going. It may take them to oblivion but at least you can make it an interesting, memorable, oblivion. If you are not on the same page then it might make sense for you to look for another group to play with.
2) You need to plainly and clearly tell them that they are committing evil acts. If they insist that they are not evil acts then tell them otherwise. You are within your rights as GM to decide what is an evil act. If they pout then oh well they must have chosen you to GM for a reason.
Recommend that if they want to remain neutral then they will have to alter their behavior. If they continue doing evil things it means that their empathy is slowly rotting away, when this happens in the real world people go insane. Because non-evil people are compassionate they start to shut out the horrible things that they are doing and experience the effects of PTSD. Nightmares, paranoia, delusions of grandeur, etc. The 3.5 suppliment "Heroes of Horror," has a good system for this.
3) If they continue on the path to darkness let them know that being evil sucks. Not many people like you, the law is after you if you are not careful, you make a lot of enemies, and the good guys usually win. You are totally within your rights to have this monk character whip their asses. Maybe the monk just kills one of them before they can subdue him. Oh well, "you screw with the wrong people..."
Same with the drids who are combating the curse. The curse that will plague the land or do whatever nasty thing that it does. Perhaps the monk leaves them alive and merely tells whoever will suffer from the curse what they did and oh crap now you have some wicked NPC Inquisitor hunting you down like dogs. Because when you're evil the good guys are the bad guys.
Heck you could even go nuts and have demons contact them who are "impressed," with their track record and want to offer them powerful magic items for their service. Once the demons collect their souls you have all of your adventure hooks written for you. Oh, and demons don't work on your schedule mortal so you had better be out there doing my bidding without question unless you want a ticket straight to the abyss. So instead of doing whatever it was they wanted to do in your sandbox they are risking their lives getting no treasure doing the dirty work of demons.
Of course if they are capable roleplayers they might reason their way out of such traps, in which case you might have a real interesting campaign on your hands. Just don't let them get off easy.
EDIT: Ninjaed by Phazzle.
I agree with the previous posts, make them come face-to-face with the aftermath of their dirty dealings. Off the top of my head consider a vengeful undead from one of the good NPS's they killed. (Revenants are excellent at this role, see Adventure Path #2 from Rise of the Runelords). Also, the local authorities (assuming they're lawful and/or good) should make their lives a living HELL if they're even remotely aware of their actions: Sudden tolls on the road, extra 10% on all weapon costs, innkeepers refuse to give them accommodation, information is more expensive and harder to come by.
Word should spread fast through a settlement, or even on the open road.
One thing I did notice was that in this campaign it seems easier for a character to do evil acts. Easier in the short term, bigger rewards. I'd recommend throwing some situations where their evil acts immediately bite them back. They find a scruffy child and a mangy puppy they want to sell to a witch? The dog is in fact a hound archon (this can happen, read Hound Archon entry in the bestiary) who believes the child to have a destiny in its adulthood.
He would not be pleased at the PCs actions, and might hunt them down once he takes care of the witch.
But I'm sure you can think of similar ideas.
Erik:
I like leaving things open and giving the PCs tough choices. I was hoping that the PC would see the right thing to do and turn on the witch making for an interesting character arc.
It is my fault for giving them too much freedom I agree.
Only one character is working for the witch secretly because she is a member of his countries military he works for. All the others are all too eager to follow his plans though.
It seems they 'go evil' when a tough choice is laid out for them. They found a lost child in the woods once and were confronted by the same witch who wanted it. It was more convenient for they not to deal with the baby and trade it to the witch for favors.
They were confronted by the blinded lost mother later in the woods and pretended to help her look for her baby.
Perhaps having straight rail-roaded characters and plots that are good is the only way to work this.
Also I am hoping that someone will step up and GM, but I have asked everyone and I am pessimistic.
Kirstov:
They like the setting, they are in complete love with their characters, and they also enjoy the story. Also I do not GM in a way where they get all the power and magic items they want and it keeps them hungry and wanting more where our other GMs in the past just lay on the Mounty Haul power levels and everyone gets bored when the game gets absurd.
I have told them I want to start a new campaign in the same setting and set up the group better but they whine and moan about how much they love their characters.
I would love for them to have to fight their old party as the bad guys, sounds like great fun! But I am pretty sure they will have a hard time giving up their beloved characters they have grew from level 1 to 8.
A few things that have sprung to mind...
One method could be that if they keep on doing evil acts, shift their alignments. Make sure some Good organization knows about this, and have them send hit squads, including Inquisitors and Paladins. Make them not welcome in cities. Make their country's army do a "routine checkup" that includes alignment scanning. Kick them out of the army.
Introduce a new shadowy figure who will offer more riches and power than the Evil Witch would. Have them steal from the witch next time they meet her, to get the pieces back and get more money from this new figure. Once all the parts are assembled, reveal the character as a very Good character who wanted to save the region. Make sure to reveal this in a room with lots of people with wands of Ray of Exhaustion with only 3 or 4 charges left, so the party doesn't try to kill everyone ;)
If all else fails, Geas.
I like the second option the best.
One further thing... My group solved the Evil problem by having campaigns that are specifically meant to be Evil. Currently we're a group of goblins / kobolds / gnomes who are terrorizing cities in advance of an evil invasion. The first session involved a Tengu Monk jumping into the window of a 2-storey house and pecking the eyes out of the children in the room, all before decapitating them and throwing them down the stairs to where the adults slept. Then we set the house on fire.
3 sessions ago, we killed everyone in a farm house, raised them as zombies, and sent them in to a town, accompanying the mayor's daughter who was also a zombie.
We run this campaign in parallel to our normal good campaign.
Just a thought.
|
I want to know what to do in my situation with my PCs who have unlikeable characters who lean towards making evil decisions and justifying it hiding behind being neutral or chaotic.One PC is an agent of an evil witch who wants the artifact pieces herself and has been subverting plans, even giving away the pieces to her and pretending like he had no choice.
As GM YOU decide their alignment due to their actions.. killing innocents = evil. selling to evil witches for profit while endangering others = evil. (Pretending to the other characters? 1000 bluff vs sence motive checks)
The game is not fun for me when I do not care about the PCs and I cannot root for them.
Sometimes this happens. You might tell them that your not having fun and need to switch it up for a bit. get one of the characters to "go on a side quest" or something and insert druid here or the like.
I think that it is partly my fault for letting people play whatever background they want, we have a mercenary and a spy which I thought would be interesting, but they just play them like evil a-holes justified by BS.
No they should be able to play the characters they want but should not whine when there are consequences. For example if your druid that is running away send an animal messenger to the host of other druids they all might just come down and wipe the PC's out as they (the PC's)are now acting in a manner counter to their (the druids) nature and shard protective goals.
I played a self obsessed evil bas**** in one campaign and everyone loved to hate the dude (it is still a loved and oft spoken of character and campaign; and most of them want me to resurrect the SOB somehow). He was super charismatic and could talk his way in and out of anything, and as a sorcerer he could blast away enemies too. However, when he got caught being an ass the other players would not stick up for him.. After all he was a jerk, a useful jerk but a jerk. he got himself into trouble doing something bad he will have to pay. However he was useful and often they used each other. As long as his power hungry goals and public praise issues were met he was happy. So evil isn't bad for the campaign as long as the PC's accept responsibility. When the law, druids, and communities fear and fight you your evil.It sounds like what the PC's are really doing is subverting the campaign and making it into an evil PC campaign... Start playing good and send a party of do-gooders out to kill the witch get the shards and return them to safety. Find ways for good chracters to smear their names, and take profit and freedom from them. Shun them from civilization... make the money they earn worthless. You cannot trade/buy items from a town you are no longer allowed entry into due to your 'chaotic, or evil' actions. Have an NPC summon an Azatta... litmus test for evil.
I like leaving things open and giving the PCs tough choices. I was hoping that the PC would see the right thing to do and turn on the witch making for an interesting character arc.
It is my fault for giving them too much freedom I agree.
While you may enjoy giving them tough choices, by not enforcing tough consequences to their actions (such as being killed by vengeful family members/clergy/toads) you're undermining the toughness of the choices you wish them to find tough.
They are presented with a tough problem?
Their solution - Go evil - flip out - do what it takes.
It's an appealing solution to many a tough choice because it's made so easy!
::
Having to work within a framework where the consequences of such 'easy' actions are viscous, longterm and brutal presents *real* tough choices.
This is not a matter of 'too much freedom' - it's a case not enforcing reactions to their actions.
They can, literally, get away with murder! No wonder things are getting crazy...
::
Personally, I'd kill off whoever puts themselves in a situation where death would be the sensible, likely and perfectly reasonable reaction to their actions.
If this seems to harsh you can always maim/cripple a character or three. Break a leg, shatter a spine, remove an eye....
In our campaigns, if you push the world the world pushes back - people still do stupid things but when they do die they realise it's because they did something stupid.
When you remove the fear of consequences from play, players can and do resort to any means necessary to get the job done.
::
Now, regarding your position as a DM.
Take a break. If it's not fun for you anyway, you have nothing to lose. Let them miss you for a while. Perhaps someone will step up and give it a real go in your place - perhaps not.
Don't get tetchy, simple state you are tired and bored DM'ing.
Let them realise how much they *need you*. Let them appease you rather than continuously attempting to appease them.
This is not a general stance for all DM's but one best adopted to by any DM where the players are abusing the kindness/generosity of their DM.
Stop being their minion - your a BBEG damnit, shake your fist some! :)
Good luck
I would choose nothing. I would tell the other guys, "hey come over for Halo (or whatever) but don't bring dice." If the game is not fun, don't play it. Do you enjoy running your fingernails over a chalkboard? Chewing aluminum foil? Then don't do it!
Every player should play in a group environment (focused on *everyone* having fun!), and as someone else said early on: The GM is a player, too!
If you have an LGS look there for a game. Go as a geust player and if you like the group find out about long term attendance. There are a lot of nice things about LGS/new groups. You get to see different aspects of the game. You get to shop for different groups, ones that fit your play style. You get to *play* However, there are also disadvantages to LGS groups... the picking and choosing of new groups as you zero in on which one fits you. Sometimes there are established friends and the new guy gets left behind. I think its worth it, though.
I am making an assumption here, but we all play these silly games because we like them. The Action!, the Arithmetic!, the Role Play!, the Fun! A hobby, a *game*, should never be a chore. Ever.
Good luck to you whatever you decide. :)
GNOME
And I just wanted to say:
The game is not fun for me when I do not care about the PCs and I cannot root for them.
By all of my d20s do I agree with this!
Also I do not GM in a way where they get all the power and magic items they want and it keeps them hungry and wanting more where our other GMs in the past just lay on the Mounty Haul power levels and everyone gets bored when the game gets absurd.
You need to show them how absurd the game has gotten for you. There is a style, and a story that you provide that they have no substitute for. Show them how bad it sucks when your disbelief is always under assault.
It sounds like you are having trouble suspending your disbelief, because it's not like a movie, because the evil guys win all the time. They know how you feel about this and they don't care. Make them care.
When they act evil- make it easier. Stupidly easier. They'll hate that. That's why they want you to GM, because you're the only in your group that's figured out how hard to make it (Incidentally, one of the hallmarks of really great GM). Give the NPCs less hit points and more treasure. Rinse and repeat. The Witch gets the pieces together she wins, you are all her evil minions, and no foe can stand before your mighty blades. What magic item did you want? Oh, the witch tells you that lady who lost her baby killed herself, and it's in her house.
It won't be long until they say WTF. And that is when you hit them with it. I've told you guys I don't like the direction the game has gone with the selfish play(steer clear of "evil" just to avoid the debate, because it really isn't an alignment issue), but none of you would listen to me. I want a more heroic atmosphere. When I get what I want out of the game, you guys can have what you want out of the game- a fair challenge.
Let me say first thank you all for you help this makes me feel much better about this situation.
I know that they are still having fun with their evil characters but as the GM if I am not having fun I do not want to time into the game. It makes no sense for me.
For all the suggestions about changing the game to make it unfun for them again, I will not be having fun with that either. Although your suggestions are humorous.
I agree about the consequences needing to be there, and if I pick this game up where we left off I will run the encounter with those 3 characters, one who has ran off to hack a lady and now the strongman has turned to fight them even though the encounter was created with them 4 working together in mind. Almost certain doom as the encounter would have been very challenging with the party of 4.
I will look into joining other groups too. I have had one bad experience of joining a group of all 6-7th level characters and they had me start at level 1 and the other characters harassed mine. This makes me weary, but I know there are better groups out there.
I talked to one of my players today, the one who dealt with the witch, he admitted that his character is now neutral evil and I reminded him that I didn't want evil characters because I do not enjoy running that kind of game. We'll see what come of it and I will keep you posted.
My condolences for getting harshed by a bunch of tools. Level 1 in a party of 6-7? Makes me wonder why they invited you to play in the first place. May as well have called you "Piss Boy" :( Have you ever seen the youtube video "Tom and his Friends"? Youtube search for Farador and be sure to watch both parts! (I would link, but the Work Says NO to Youtube!) yeah... sometimes revenge is funny ;)
Please don't let that blemish the rest of us that want new players :)
GNOME
In this situation, I do what my friend -created-.
Its called.
The DM Penis.
The DM Penis, serves as something you can always, no matter what, regardless of the situation, use to ravage the players to death. And moreso.
|
There are two types of gaming (well, more, but I'm generalizing);
Cooperative gameplay, which includes team sports like football, online games (MMOs) and RPGs like D&D, Mutants & Masterminds, and 'every man for himself' games, like poker, first-person shooters, Diplomacy, Paranoia and the version of D&D these chuckleheads appear to be attempting to play.
If *they* are having fun with their contrary self-centered gameplay, then they aren't technically 'doing it wrong,' but it's certainly not the game for you, and the game itself won't change things, as this is a problem with the players, not the rules. They'd be the kinds of basketball players who would slam into one of their own teammates to settle a score from before the game, no matter if it cost them the game, or the kind of soldiers who would frag their own squadmate.
Find a group that better suits your playstyle, working together cooperatively, and not at cross purposes, even if that means you have to settle for playing online.
D&D as penis-measuring-contest isn't worth playing, IMO.
and 'every man for himself' games, like poker, first-person shooters, Diplomacy, Paranoia and the version of D&D these chuckleheads appear to be attempting to play.
BUT....HEAVY THOUGHT HE WAS CREDIT TO TEAM!!
D&D as penis-measuring-contest isn't worth playing, IMO.
Unless you are the GM and you are using...
The DM Penis, serves as something you can always, no matter what, regardless of the situation, use to ravage the players to death. And moreso.
While I haven't seen this group play, I find it makes me quite uneasy. Part of me wonders if the players don't get some kind of kick out of forcing the OP to run the game for them, and acting out all their a#&+!~& tendencies at the DM's campaign. My second thought is that since the DM makes being evil quite simple, he must also be getting something out of it even if he doesn't see it.
Playing an evil campaign is fine, I have done it a few times, but you can't stay in a campaign that grates on your feelings. My suggestion would be to get the hell out as soon as possible. There is some kind of abuse quality to the relationship to the players, and that's not good.
There are other groups. Find them.
Seriously though, to the OP: Your party is Evil. Maybe not smoldering brimstone EVIL, but their actions from your posts do seem to be Evil. Selling a lost kid to an NPC who is KNOWN to be an Evil Witch... yeah that would be Evil. Actively chasing down and murdering, or trying to murder, an innocent woman who is fighting on the side of Good... I'm going to go with that being an Evil act also. Murdering another Druid who was also actively trying to fight on the side of Good... I'm seeing a pattern of Evil here. And now the player who has been working directly for an Evil NPC has come out and admitted to being NE. You also said the rest of the party tends to follow that player's plans, so basically the Evil Witch has a NE agent running the party and directing them to do things that are aiding the side of Evil. Seems to me they don't have much room to claim Neutrality, they are pretty blatantly Evil.
This doesn't mean you have to destroy the party and start over, nor does it mean you have to make them turn over their characters as NPCs. If they are having a ton of fun you have some options. You have stated you don't want to play that kind of Campaign but what if you weren't playing it just to run an Evil game? What if you run this Evil Campaign as a prelude to the story you really want to tell? Could you get excited about it then? Let these PCs bring the country, or world, or whatever to the brink of total darkness... or let them plunge the world into total darkness. Make their story the background of your next Campaign. Then at the end of this Campaign you can take all their character sheets and they will be the Ultimate Evil that the party of Good heroes they create in your next Campaign will have to destroy. It is also possible that when faced with the fact that they have murdered and alienated all of their Good allies and are working for an Evil Witch who is directing the party through an Evil PC, they will see the error of their ways and fight to correct the wrong they have done. They may never be accepted by the town again, the Druids may eventually come to accept them, but at least you could get the story back on track in the dirrection you wanted to take it.
....
Now, for the situation you are in right now, I would say run the combat as intended. If you want to end the Evil Campaign then don't pull any punches, it sounds like they will end up getting pretty mangled since they split up. One is being kited into a Druid's grove where he will surely fall on his own, then those Druids will likely follow the female Druid back to where the rest of the party is and find them one man short and already wounded due to a fight with the Monk. That is an easy way out for you if you are really just done with them.
Alternately, you could pull a few punches, or even if you don't a few of them might survive. At that point, they should get the treatment of Evil characters. The town should somehow find out what has transpired, possibly from the Good Priest you spoke of, or the Druids, or even the Monk if he escapes with his life. They should be outlaws in that town, and any others that have close trade or diplomatic relations with that town. They will have no choice then but to live on the outskirts of town and seek alliance with the Witch and other Evil NPCs. They can still seek the shards for the Witch and the forces of Good would be their enemies in this Campaign. You can really plunge them into Evil and at the same time you could have a lot of fun building all the Good NPCs that will be hunting and opposing them for control of the shards. Build detailed backgrounds for these NPCs and make sure the Party learns of it through the Witch's secret spy network or even through Scrying. Make sure they know that the guy who hunts them is an Inquisitor of a Good organization who has children and a wife. Make sure they know the Evil they are doing. It is possible that by changing the feel of the Campaign you could get yourself excited about running it. Then when they feel there Evil characters have been fulfilled, by defeating the nations around them and using the shards to help the Witch bring total darkness on the world, they might be more willing to start up a Good Campaign. Then you can spring on them that their Good characters will be in the same world, in the same nation, fighting to undo the horrible darkness that their former characters have brought on. Make each of their former Characters a powerful BBEG and have the Witch as their leader... or some such.
It could be a lot of fun for you and for them. Or if you just can't have fun in this game anymore, quit. Ruthlessly destroy their PCs with the NPCs they have now hopelessly turn into enemies and after they are all dead you can end the game. Then either run the game that you want to run, decline to GM for them any longer and see who picks up the mantle, and/or find a new group. Any way you spin it though, if you are going to continue running any game for these players you are going to have to become more dominant. Take charge of the game, it sounds like you are allowing them to walk all over you and run-a-muck in your world. They should have free will, but you are the GM so act like it. They can control their actions and their PCs yes, but you control the ENTIRE WORLD beyond that.
|
Whenever someone indicates having difficulties with a player/players/GM/etc., there is always an overwhelming "DUMP 'EM!" response...
SOME people play with their friends. When friendship starts taking a backseat to a game, something's wrong and there's a much deeper problem. Back in the 80's, my playing group was so large, we would have multiple games running concurrently. As the years passed, people have moved and this original group (which could have as many as 20 people!) is whittled down to 4... we've added one more about 8 years ago. I've had issues and difficulties with just about all of them... but NOT dumping them has led to some of the longest lasting, most important friendships in my life (one of them was my Best Man, I was Best Man for another, and yet another donated his kidney to me earlier this year!).
Don't dump your friends over difficulty in a game. If they are your friends, you should have no trouble explaining to them that, however they're defining their characters ("We're not evil!!! Waaaahhh!!!") you're defining them as NOT FUN. If they insist that that's what they want to play, then tell them you're ok with it but, as you're not having fun so you won't run that sort of game.
You're there to have fun, too... and you're not blindly servicing the players. Once they understand that, you can still move forward with your existing campaign. They can receive a vision of where their current path will lead... the ol' "Its a Wonderful Life" trick. Maybe they'll achieve power.. but their subjects will cower in fear and accomplish nothing. Or they'll fall to bounty hunters or assassins. Or they'll see how they've come to cause pain and anguish to people they care about (did they make characters with no attachments? I always disallow these characters!)
You can even retcon stuff when they 'wake' from their vision and they're actually back before some event that's already been played out... giving them an interesting chance to choose another path.
Just don't listen to people who tell you to dump your friends or that their behavior in a game is the criteria you should use to decide whether they're your friends at all... THAT would be sad.
|
|
If you want to give evil actions consequences then I would suggest taking your adventure to a town with a good-alignment government.
When they misbehave there will be people to report it to the authorities and the rulers have a good reason for enforcing codes of conduct.
Even other evil characters will know the rules and can squeal on the PCs to harm them.
Also, give them a base of operations in a nice area, so they can defend it when a monster attacks and get to feel the advantages of being good heroes (people buying them drinks, discounts in stores, hot women chatting them up).
Let them develop friendships with good PCs (the centaur blacksmith who tells dirty jokes and takes in orphans, the dwarven poet who hires them to recover an ancient text and then invites them to the big parties he throws, etc.) and then defend these people and this place for no reason other than that they care about it.
Maybe even let one get a girlfriend (good, naturally) who gets upset and leaves when she sees him doing evil things.
They could meet an old adventurer who acts as a mentor (giving advice about unusual things and some high knowledge skills) but stops helping them when he finds out about terrible things they have done.
All of this is stuff which reinforces good behaviour by:
1. Rewarding good
2. Making good seem normal/natural
3. Placing it in context
4. Making moral lines clearer
5. Punishing evil
In this city there must be opportunities for 8th level adventurers to do awesome things but there must also be a pegasus-riding imperial guard who can step in to put super-villains (which level 8 probably are) if they threaten the city. These people might be hiring the heroes at times, as long as they're virtuous.
Sample dilemma:
Disease has to be carried back to magic cave so that the crystals can create a cure. Disease must be borne by a host. Options are: PCs or low-con highly attractive person who flirts with PC.
A PC can be heroic, take the risk of the disease slaying him/her or they can infect the NPC, who will surely die (but still work as a host for disease).
Or they can take the witch's deal (infect the girl and bring me her corpse so I can raise an army of diseased undead to destroy city, have no fear, you will have time to take your stuff and leave the city).
Either way they save the city, but one way makes them proper heroes (street party, get the girl, awarded medals, gifted magic items), one gets them some low-key praise (well done from a grizzled veteran, pats on the shoulder at the girl's funeral, parents in floods of tears asking: "Did it have to be this way?") and one destroys everything they hold dear, gets them bags of cash and some cool magic items, and leaves them hunted by people from different parts of the country to which the city belongs.
Edit: in a scenario like this do not tell them about any rewards the city might choose to bestow or you might get a cynical "I wonder who gives us cooler stuff" debate.
Reading through this, the only sensible solution I can think of is: stop GMing these people. Seriously. Hear me out.
They are your friends, fine. Some of my friends I have learned I cannot be their GM. Some of my friends I have learned I do not want to be my GM. We are still friends, I just do not play RPGs with them. We get together, watch movies, eat good food, play board games. Probably avoiding being their GM or vice versa has allowed us to remain good friends rather than be bitter over irreconcilably different preferences in play style of a game.
If that still doesn't make any sense, let me try to put it more clearly, if perhaps mildly hyperbolically:
Do you want to keep your friends, or do you want to play Pathfinder with these people?
Because in my opinion, if you're not having fun, you will get bitter and frustrated, and it will roll over into your RL friendships whether want it to or not.
Get out while you can, tell them to find a GM who will cater to their world-dominating preferences, and go find another gaming group that allows you to play out your heroic fantasies.
And still get together with these guys for pizza and board games. All will be well, I promise.
Run the game evil. If they are evil characters, then this is now an evil game. No more goody two-shoes quests. All quests will be evil and their enemies will be Paladins and Clerics and big angry good guys.
If any and all efforts to curb the PCs evil actions have failed utterly and turned into more evil actions, then they are running Evil PCs, not CN PCs. We have a player whose PCs are all effectively CE. But he will at least go along with the story and not kill anyone that walks by. Usually.
Let me say first thank you all for you help this makes me feel much better about this situation.
For all the suggestions about changing the game to make it unfun for them again, I will not be having fun with that either. Although your suggestions are humorous.
I agree about the consequences needing to be there, and if I pick this game up where we left off I will run the encounter with those 3 characters, one who has ran off to hack a lady and now the strongman has turned to fight them even though the encounter was created with them 4 working together in mind.
I feel for you, it sucks when the players forget that you need to be entertained too, and that you didn't just spend all that prep time, because you have nothing better to do than help them play out their power fantasies. I've found that sometimes ratcheting up the consequences only fosters an adversarial atmosphere, where they then sort of start thinking in that - us vs. the GM attitude.
As for ratcheting it down and making it super easy. It was a lesson a GM taught me. This was probably 20 years ago. We were all playing Traveler and like players are won't to do on occasion we started b#+%~ing about it being too hard. Finally the GM threw up his hands and said "Alright, you win. You take over the ship, kill all the crew, it's yours. What do you do now?"
We thought it was kind of funny, so we went along with it. We spouted off various ludicrous statements like "We destroy the Imperial Navy. We take over various planets. We declare ourselves Emperors of the Universe."
To each statement the GM only responded, "You do so. What do you do next?"
We laughed and thought it was real funny, but after about 15 minutes we got bored.
Players: Alright that was funny, but what really happens when we try and turn off the life support on the ship?
GM: I already told you. The crew is all dead, you took over the ship. But that doesn't even really matter because you are the Emperors of the Universe now. What do you do next?
Players: Stop kidding around, man. The joke's over. We want to play.
GM: You are playing. What do the Emperors of the Universe do next?
This want on for several hours, and we were all laughing including him, but he would not get back to the story, and just kept repeating ,"Alright, you do so. What happens next?" When we tried to commit suicide to end this travesty, he wouldn't let us, "No, you're too important they won't let you kill yourselves. What do you do next?" Finally after begging and pleading, and promising him that we had learned our lesson, he went back to running the game. It's a lesson that I have never forgot. It's not the winning I enjoy, it's the overcoming the obstacles.
So I'm not sure if your players are educable, but I found that sometimes easier is a better beat stick than harder.
How about blowing out an oil well fire with high explosives...
I agree with Cartigan to a degree, if they want to play with fire, they're going to be burned. Allow them to attract the attention of a very powerful devil who basically "likes their style". He'll give them all sorts of cruel, vicious, vile quests - horrific stuff which might churn the stomachs of most players. Maybe he'll offer them some outrageous power for their souls, etc. Maybe the players will actually start to dislike their characters and their quests, actions, etc.
Then, of course - in fashionably evil style, the devil becomes bored with them and basically guts their power or influence, or makes them the target of another evil group, or simply calls in the souls for payment. It's always capricious, or non sequitor, or arbitrary.
It's their bed.... let them lay in it.
How about blowing out an oil well fire with high explosives...
I agree with Cartigan to a degree, if they want to play with fire, they're going to be burned. Allow them to attract the attention of a very powerful devil who basically "likes their style". He'll give them all sorts of cruel, vicious, vile quests - horrific stuff which might churn the stomachs of most players. Maybe he'll offer them some outrageous power for their souls, etc. Maybe the players will actually start to dislike their characters and their quests, actions, etc.
Then, of course - in fashionably evil style, the devil becomes bored with them and basically guts their power or influence, or makes them the target of another evil group, or simply calls in the souls for payment. It's always capricious, or non sequitor, or arbitrary.
It's their bed.... let them lay in it.
Have them marked by the Infernals. Not only will dogs and children shy away from them, they'll be hunted by the Inquisition (or remnants thereof).
There's a reason why the Infernals are feared and those who deal with them are hunted. Kinda sounds like your players want that. Give it to them.
You play the good guys for a while. Run their characters into the ground. No place is safe for long with Inquisition bounty hunters on their tail. Make the players choose the game they want to play: Evil and die, or make amends for their misdeeds and go on to be heroes.
But Infernals are great for pushing the "borderline evil" characters back to "reasonably good."
Am I the only one that believes the DM doesnt get to decide if he likes the pcs? The idea that the characters are unlikable and thus something needs to change is absurd. The players play their characters as they envision them. The dm doesnt get to decide that. Now mind you I am all about the dm having concequences for PC actions. So if the druids show up in force and have a few tigers rip out the PC's guts so be it. But dont dm fiat it, have the fight, have the players flee, surrender or die.
I think the bigger problem here is a difference in play style. I dont think any amount of coaxing or in game concequences is going to cause these players to play the righteous heroes. That isnt what they are looking for. I also thing that a big part of this is the 'hard choices' the OP has claimed to like. If you are going to put difficult moral choices in front of the party, you cant get mad if they dont pick the route they expect. With a party like this you have to leave morality at the door, or they will pick the easy (profitable) route every time rather then the righteous path. This is a play style conflict that I dont expect will change whether you kill the party off or not.
Kolokotroni,
The ref isn't having fun, by his own admission. Are you suggesting it's just something he has to deal with?
It's also possible the OP didn't anticipate the lack of fun he'd have granting the players the option of playing vile characters when they started. The difference in playstyle might not have been apparent when the campaign started, but now it's clear he's unhappy. He should have the freedom to attempt a fix or simply end the game.
I would imagine that if the OP could just ditch these guys/gals and work with other, more like-minded players that it would have been done by now. Some gamers find themselves in situations where replacements are hard to come by for one reason or another, and they also have to run the game or it won't happen. I know I've been smack dab in that situation from time to time myself. Trying to work to make a disfunctional group playable is a full time job.
If you are going to have contrarian players that wish to play Grand Theft Auto in your game world you have three options:
1) "Don't be a D---": Request that the players work with you to have a good time on the game you are providing rather than their current course of derailing actions. This seems to have already occured with the OP so hopefully it worked.
2) "Someone get a measuring tape": You begin the GM vs PC arms race where their wonton destruction and murder is met with equal parts jail time and lynch mobbing. You will get to see who is more cleaver and rules savy and ultimately one side will walk away from the campaign exasperated.
3) "Screw you guys I'm going home": If you are showing up with the game and the other kids aren't playing nice you can always pack up your dice and head home. This is a pretty final solution akin to sewing salt into the fields of Carthage.
Dear jl 629 (the OP),
I realize that being the GM is a hard position, but at least there is always more to learn from that position.
I'd like to offer this link with the hopes that it may give you an insight or two: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/checkfortraps/7485-Ch eck-for-Traps-Judging-the-Game
I also offer my two cents based off of personal experiences, opinions, and what I've picked up from reading that series. Run the current encounter your PCs face without pulling punches. Roll the dice in front of them, even, to show that you're being fair and honest. If they die, they die. If they do not die, that's great. After the fight, let them know what the in-game consequences are for their actions. They may still argue that they are not evil, but we judge people to be good or evil for any number of perceived or imagined reasons. Unless there are alignment violations at play, they can think what they want while the in-game world thinks what it wants.
It's not your job to insure everyone has fun, but I believe everyone involved should try to have fun. Making a game fun goes both ways. You're just stuck in an odd situation where fixing your character concept or changing classes isn't going to put a smile back on your face. Definitely check with your players to see what kind of game you think you're playing. If they're thinking DM vs. PCs, then there's probably some discussion needed.
Good luck with everything.
Am I the only one that believes the DM doesnt get to decide if he likes the pcs? The idea that the characters are unlikable and thus something needs to change is absurd. The players play their characters as they envision them. The dm doesnt get to decide that.
But the GM does get to decide the flavor of the game. It's really not that different than a GM saying, "This is a human only game." And the players showing up with characters that are dwarves, elves, and halflings.
I've seen this before, both as a player and as a GM. If the GM says "This is a heroic style game. No evil PCs" If the players don't like that they need to negotiate with GM how the game is going to played not just ignore him and be as evil as they want.
And I do believe it is important that the GM likes the characters. Just as much as it is important that the players like the game world. Otherwise, people aren't having fun.
Trainwreck:
Ressurection does not happen in this setting (Iron Kingdoms) it is seen as an affront to the gods, maybe one or two major figures get resurected each year.
Reincarnation does happen more often. Which makes me want to bring them back as a krill of trollkin, who are the only 100% no grey area good guys in the setting.
I am sure killing them would have the players flip out and whine.
I think you may have passed over Trainwreck's idea too quickly. Persoanlly i would run things much as he said even letting them play as the critters and end the session with them waking from the horrible nightmare (tired old trope i know but needs must :)).
I would most likely leave them with some mark of the "Dream" to show them it wasn't one then have the mark react as they do evil and good perhaps slowly revealing itself to be an unholy symbol of some sort.
|
|
Is no game better than the bad game? If so, end it, regardless of the lack of GM ambitions of the players. You're not going to convince them to change, and it sounds like only you want a change. I bet if you allowed eveil alignments in your campaign, they wouldn't argue about being evil. They're only doing that because they know you don't.
It's time to make a change, or you wouldn't be asking advice. My advice is to play it out, give the players the hard consequences of the situation they have gotten themselves into, and let them whine about it. Then move on. You don't have to end your friendship, just the campaign. I know plenty of players who I can deal with just fine as human beings, but don't care to play a game with.
Kolokotroni,
The ref isn't having fun, by his own admission. Are you suggesting it's just something he has to deal with?
It's also possible the OP didn't anticipate the lack of fun he'd have granting the players the option of playing vile characters when they started. The difference in playstyle might not have been apparent when the campaign started, but now it's clear he's unhappy. He should have the freedom to attempt a fix or simply end the game.
I think if your fun requires the players to make choices you like you are doing it wrong. The OP has said he likes putting difficult moral choices in front of the players, the end result of that is usually the PC's sacrifice something (and choose the good option) or gain something/lose less (and choose the bad option). If the players choosing the naughty path is a problem for you you shouldnt put the choice in front of them. Rule #1 of dming is the players will always think of something you didnt, or go a way you didnt anticipate. There are more minds on their side of the screen. You have to deal with the consequences of the choices you put in front of them. If you dont want evil pc's dont have one of them working for (and likely rewarded by) an evil witch. If you dont want evil pcs dont delay their perceived goals with helpless mothers or children the witch wants.
If the players being good is a dealbreaker for you, then a lighter game is a requirement. Save a princess, fight an undead horde, whatever, make good and evil clear. But the gritty moral choice games are not what you should be going for. Because (though this case is extreme) some of the PCs are going to make the naughty choice and its going to arse your fun.
You might say no evil characters, but that is character creation, you dont get to dictate where the characters end up in their development. You put stuff in front of them, the players make the choices. Putting the choice in front of them and then getting pissy if they dont go the route you want is not only childish it is bad dming.
Am I the only one that believes the DM doesnt get to decide if he likes the pcs? The idea that the characters are unlikable and thus something needs to change is absurd. The players play their characters as they envision them. The dm doesnt get to decide that.But the GM does get to decide the flavor of the game. It's really not that different than a GM saying, "This is a human only game." And the players showing up with characters that are dwarves, elves, and halflings.
I've seen this before, both as a player and as a GM. If the GM says "This is a heroic style game. No evil PCs" If the players don't like that they need to negotiate with GM how the game is going to played not just ignore him and be as evil as they want.
And I do believe it is important that the GM likes the characters. Just as much as it is important that the players like the game world. Otherwise, people aren't having fun.
No it is not the same thing as saying humans only. If you require specific choices to be made by the characters in game then you are dictating roleplay. If the player is given a difficult moral choice he has every right to take whatever path he thinks his character is right, you dont as a dm get to dictate character actions and that is exactly the problem here, the dm doesnt like that the players are making choices he doesnt like.
I agree that it is important that the dm likes the characters as they are part of the story he is weaving. And the dm liking the story is a big part of their fun. But this is really a case of knowing your audience and adapting. This dm knows the players lean evil with these characters but insists on testing their morals, and gets upset when the players go a different route then the one he wanted. That is the worst kind of passive aggressive railroading.
Does the dm get to slap the evil alignment tag on these characters? Probably. Can he send druids and paladins to fight/kill/arrest them as a consequence of their actions? Of course. Does he get to say hey you should have saved the baby and her mother and betray your witch employer because that's what heroes do? No. Plain and simple, NO. The dm doesn't get to choose PC actions or the whole point of the game is lost. It becomes story time, and we all have professional authors to do that for us.
...you/me/I...
Are you directing your comments to me personally or to the OP?
If the GM laid out clearly that he wanted to run a heroic fantasy campaign and the players pulled a fast one on him and started doing evil stuff then he is within his rights to be upset.
However, these things happen all the time. It is rare that a campaign works out exactly the way you wanted it to. I agree with Kolokotroni that if the players want to play morally bankrupt characters then the GM just kind of has to roll with it. You cant pigeonhole players into playing the way that is most entertaining to you.
Allow them to play the campaign that they want to play IF, one of them agrees to step up after X sessions and take it over.
The druids have strong defense and now the scout ran far away from the others to hack at the fleeing woman. Also the strongman monk is fighting them now too for obvious reasons. I feel the forces there in this situation will be able to take out the PCs and I feel like letting them.
After rereading the OP this paragraph jumped out at me. Do your PCs often put themselves in harms way and expect you to pull punches to get them out? If your PCs decided to start trouble in a heavily fortified druidic grove then their alignments are irrelevant, they should be "punished," for making a stupid decision.
This goes for good-aligned PCs as well. Once I had a party that knew they were going into a venerable black dragon's lair. They had no healer. They did not go out and find a healer. They did not buy healing potions, even though I suggested it. They died in a brutal TPK that I lost no sleep over.
...you/me/I...Are you directing your comments to me personally or to the OP?
I was speaking in general, poor use of pronouns on my part.
|
|
I think if your fun requires the players to make choices you like you are doing it wrong.
This is silly. Fun, in a social situation, ALWAYS requires people make decisions that everyone involved likes (at least to some degree). If everyone wants to go dancing and you hate dancing, is it going to be fun for you? Its no different for a game. If everyone wants to play a game that you hate (GURPS comes to mind for me...), is it going to be fun for you? Would you GM a game you can't stand because others want to play it? OF COURSE your fun is dependent on the choices of others!
A GM is not there to cater to every player's desires. He's there to facilitate the game. It requires a LOT more work to GM than to be a player so the GM gets to set the parameters. If he wants to tell a story about GOOD characters performing GOOD deeds, then that's the paradigm the players should work within.
The OP has said he likes putting difficult moral choices in front of the players, the end result of that is usually the PC's sacrifice something (and choose the good option) or gain something/lose less (and choose the bad option). If the players choosing the naughty path is a problem for you you shouldnt put the choice in front of them.
Ahh... here you have a DEFINITE point that I *COMPLETELY* agree with. You're absolutely right. If the GM wants his game to be Heroic and he does not want to run something less than heroic (or EEEEEVIL!), then the choices the characters face should be HOW they do the heroic thing... not IF. The moral choices should boil down to WHICH heroic choice they make... particularly when either path not taken will lead to some dire circumstance.
Second bit of useful advice along this path is that the player of a heroic character has to enjoy being heroic from time to time. If every deed requires a choice that has him accomplishing one thing only to see something else destroyed, its not gonna do anything to promote future heroism...
