I think you need to ask her what she wants to do with her character, that require an evil alignment. Get a clear idea of her expectations from the game and what she wants to do in order to hav fun in it.
But if those expectations don't mesh with the rest of the group, well...you need to show her the door.
Never underestimate the power of "no". With that said, have a sit down and try to compromise/ understand what the character wants.
It's workable, but it will be extra work.
Generally, the alignments you want to avoid are Chaotic Bloodthirsty ("I randomly kill everyone cuz I'm evil! lulz!", which has a way of derailing anything remotely resembling a plot other than "paladins arrive, everyone dies"), and Neutral Player-Poisoning -- PvP is the real killer with evil parties, particularly if some players don't want to work with evil characters.
Someone who can fit with the rest of the party is required, and it's good you're working on that. But you need to be sure that the rest of the party is OK with having an evil PC -- don't bend over backward to make one player happy if the result will be to make everyone else unhappy.
A good roleplayer can handle the challenge of concealing motivations and finding in-character justifications, but everyone sort of needs to be in on it, or at least OK with it. Even if this player is a good enough roleplayer, do the OTHER players have the roleplaying skills to handle it?
Depends on how evil is evil.
Evil can be anything from simply self-absorbed to orphan-murder.
Also depends on lawful and chaotic. You can usually count on a lawful evil character to play along until a dramatic backstab moment. A harmlessly evil, lawful character is likely unproblematic.
A more disruptive brand of evil is likely to be killed by the rest of the party the first time they gank a mission critical NPC to loot the body.
If you read Order of the Stick, Belkar is a good example of how an evil character in a good party can work. His evil is channeled into carnage and destruction, and as long as his parties have a baddie to aim him at, he's happy (+loot, +ale, +company on occasion). Belkar was supposed to be chaotic, but he followed the group rules enough he was probably neutral evil.
All that said, make sure you establish boundaries. It's cool that she's only interested in playing a certain character. If you're willing to allow her that, that's fine too. Just make sure you don't let your accommodations of her squish everyone else's fun.
|
You have to decide what your aim is as a GM, do you want to run a campaign/adventure for the entire group or just for her, if she is by far the most important one go with it, run a solo campaign and she can be as evil as she wants, you might have a lot of fun.
If however you want to run the game for all the players then as Lamontius said, you need to find out *why* she wants to be evil, does she want to be able to kill anyone who disagrees with her? Steal from the party? Plot to kill someone considered good? Once you know what part evil plays in her character you can decide more clearly on whether to allow it or not.
If her desire to play an evil character doesn't put her at odds with the other players and she agrees it *won't* be allowed as cause for PVP in the future then she might be handing you some great plot hooks you can work into the adventures!
It's less about laying restrictions on her and more about finding why she wants to, so you can control the situation and understand it better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with saying "you can be evil, but you can't do these evil things" is that the role playing is now arbitrary and subject to GM whim. I wouldn't play under those constraints.
I typically don't allow evil PCs unless I am deliberately running a campaign designed to allow them. It's not so much that evil PCs are a problem in my experience, rather it's that evil PCs in an otherwise good party are a problem. And not just a problem for the GM. Many players who discover an evil member in their midst are suddenly (and unfairly imho) put in the position of either playing their character truly, and potentially creating player vs player issues, or else corrupting their character's concept in order to accommodate the evil member in their midst.
My guess is if you put your foot down she will choose to play a "chaotic neutral" character which is the most common recourse for players who want to do evil things but skate by the edge of the rules.
Ask her what her real intentions are and why she feels it is necessary to play an evil character.
I typically don't allow evil PCs unless I am deliberately running a campaign designed to allow them. It's not so much that evil PCs are a problem in my experience, rather it's that evil PCs in an otherwise good party are a problem. And not just a problem for the GM. Many players who discover an evil member in their midst are suddenly (and unfairly imho) put in the position of either playing their character truly, and potentially creating player vs player issues, or else corrupting their character's concept in order to accommodate the evil member in their midst.
It also depends on the gameworld to a certain extent. I know a lot of people don't like undead-controllers having to be bad-guys. So even though they cast animate dead enough they radiate evil, that doesn't mean they're a villian.
IOW, evil doesn't necessarily equal bad. The judgement of the universe regarding good/evil doesn't necessarily have to match the party member's. So someone who pings on a detect evil spell might be considered differently, depending on where you are.
Rather than focus on the pigeon-hole of alignment; ask her to describe her character's motivations and personality. If they're going to be unharmonious or disruptive to the group's game tell her that the character concept won't fit into the game as a PC. If it does fit then select the most appropriate alignment.
I would let one of the people I've gamed for years run an evil PC, but I trust them to be responsible about it, or at least accept the potential outcome when things fall apart. I would be wary of letting someone new be evil.
You: Ok, sorry john. You might as well go home since you're not joining the adventure. Maybe you can spend the next 2 hours building a brand new character from scratch while we all adventure. Perhaps we can work you in for the last 30 minutes IF your character is successfully integrated to the party this time. Best of luck!
While EWHM didn't explicitly say that new character ideas were bounced around before game time, it would seem conservative to suppose that was the case, given his play conditions.
I think you need to ask her what she wants to do with her character, that require an evil alignment.
Well put.
If she wants to be evil so that she can stab the other PCs in the back, you should definitely make sure that the rest of the players are on board with that possibility.
If she just wants to wear black leather and kill lots of intelligent creatures, that's called being a PC -- no evilness required!
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some people do a great job playing evil characters, and can bring a lot of fun to your group. Others want to play evil so they can be the center of attention and crap on everyone's fun so they can be the king/ queen of the table.
To me, the phrase "insists on it and simply won't play unless I allow it" sets off all kinds of alarm bells.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Granted I don't understand the dynamics of a situation.
But if I had a player who insisted on playing an evil alignment....and wasn't willing to make a compromise with me the GM, then I would have to question if i needed the player at the table.
I know that 4-5 players +1 GM is the "ideal" number for running a game. I would prefer to have fewer players at my gaming table in my own home and players that I like and get along with, rather then have to put up with one jerk of a player. I have an intermittent home game with 2-3 players.
There is some good advice up thread, but if she refuses to consider playing an alignment other then an evil one, when you the GM want to say run a good aligned campaign It would be better not to have her in the game. It will head off all sorts of problems down the road.
Yes there is some give and take between the players and GM, as to the kind of game you want to run, and the kind of game your players want to play. But at the end of the day, its the GM who sets the boundaries Its the GM who is the final arbitrator on how the rules apply to his/her game. So what you say as the GM goes.
So in short talk to her.
If a player absolutely insisted they play an evil character I would ask for a detailed explanation of their concept. If the concept simply didn't fit with the campaign or group I would simply give a firm "no." If there was a way for me to make it fit then I would do so. However, I would do that by also explaining that my GM style with relation to in-game actions is no holds are barred. If the party finds out they're evil (especially if there is a paladin in the party) then what those characters would do would ultimately be up to them.
In the case of the party paladin I wouldn't allow a character whose concept was any of the "kill random things including good characters" tropes as the they would step in immediately and that would simply be wasted time for all. But if it was the "we're together to join against a greater evil" trope that very well could work even if you still do evil things along the way, again, with the understanding that in-game actions will be what they will be.
it's not evil PCs that are an issue
it's jerk players who abuse alignment as an excuse to hurt a party that are the real issue
they could do the same with chaotic neutral, or even lawful good.
in fact, i have both played, and associated with Evil PCs that weren't trigger happy Lunatics.
in fact, not only have i been around such concepts as cunning masterminds who take their pure motives too far, such as Light Yagami, i have also been around Evil Knights who seek to serve their tyrannous lord by whiping out the competition, or Jailers so obscessed with justice, that it drives them crazy. or the mad scientist in search of perfection at all costs.
If you are a new DM having an evil character might be a problem. It sounds like this campaign is going to be centric around your friend. If so, why bother including the others?
Though I'm a huge proponent of evil characters (most of my favorites are lawful evil), I would have to advise you to steer clear in this case:
I'm a newish DM, and I've never run a campaign with an evil PC.
Running any sort of non-standard game (and rest assured default Good and some Neutral alignment is most definately the standard) is best left for when you have more experience.
However, I have a player who insists on it and simply won't play unless I allow it. And I want her to play, so...
This is what we call a "warning sign".
As you said this is someone you want to game with, you should definately talk with the player about what it is that they hope to accomplish and why none of the neutral flavors will do for their character. I could be that they have aspirations of playing something that is only allowed for evil characters (assassins and anti-paladins, for example) which you may be able to work with (I regularly houserule that assassins don't have to be stupid-evil, for example).Hopefully you can have a constructive out of character discussion about it. Good luck.
-TimD
I actually hadn't considered the motivations for an evil PC to go with the party and have their own motivations for a backdrop while "fitting in".
That could actually make for interesting RPing opportunities, particularly if the PCs accidentally give the evil character what they want, and he goes away dramatically, leaving the remaining PCs (presumably good) to undo their mistake. The character who left creates a new PC to help out.
2cp...
I think the possibility of any evility type characters should be reserved for either particular campaigns that is well known beforehand, and/(or with reservations) a group of good friends.
I think the main reason mixed alignment (not game term) is frowned upon, is the possibility to break rule 0 at best, or break friendship at worst
personally I am against most forms of PvP, but usually just free pvp where anything goes, a duel is different.
PFS, LG, and alot of others have that restriction for similiar reasons.
my campaign for a few reasons, i just simply said no evil, no baby-eating neutral. I stand by it. maybe sometime I could do a mixed, but not today.
Somewhat off-topic but, come to think of it, I've only ever played one non-evil character (Neutral Good Cleric of Pharasma), and that's the GMPC for the game I started running a few months ago. I just really enjoy playing the ruthless Lawful Evil guy and the harmlessly buffoonish Chaotic Evil murder-death-kill (well, to his enemies anyway) characters more than good guys.
Is something wrong with me?
Prison.
In my current campaign, 3/5 characters are evil (though I'm not a stickler about alignment at all, for me it's just a roleplaying aid). Of the 3, only one of them is the kind of evil that does selfish things on a whim and doesn't care about rules.
From the beginning, whenever he made a choice, I made it clear what the consequences might be when his character would clearly know. Taking the evil cultist's magic sickle to use in combat would be enough to get him arrested at least for questioning (worship of the deity is illegal and the item clearly has dark magic). He took that risk anyway, and long-story short when they got to the city and he had no way to try and conceal it, he was arrested and wound up with a 200gp fine, probation that prevented him from summoning fiends without detection inside city limits, and he lost the sickle.
An evil character is only a problem in a game where they will never have to face consequences. If you allow them to just kill and steal everything they find and get away with it, yeah, they're going to do it. But when an inquisitor shows up a few sessions later tracking down the shopkeeper's killer, it's an in-character solution to the problem of an unruly PC.
|
|
If the player won't play unless she gets to be evil, then play without her. That smells too much like trouble for my tastes. Evil PCs can be trouble for the inexperienced GM and if she's going to hide her alignment and work with the good guys anyway there's not much difference between evil and neutral.
I'm currently playing a character who is LN bordering on LE. He is a professional assassin, although he has some scruples on who he will kill. He will only kill people he considers a drain on society. This is generally other killers, thieves, selfish politicians, and most CE people.
He recently helped free a slave, not because he's good, but because he was paid to retrieve someone who'd been enslaved, and the easiest way to do that was to free the slave controlling the ship (think something along spell jammer). He was perfectly fine with the former slave taking some revenge on his enslavers (3-4 died when he landed the ship hard without warning and a dozen others had broken bones and other injuries).
When done, he ended up with a share of the ship, which he voted for the former slave to be captain and captain the ship and run it so he didn't have to worry about it. He returned the recently enslaved slave, and got the reward. If someone had paid him to do so, he'd have, without a second thought, gone through and slit the throats of every slaver on the ship, but nobody paid him for it.
What he wouldn't do is accept a job to kill a widow so someone could get their house. That's against his personal code. He wouldn't poison a well to kill off a village, that's not assassination, that's chaotic slaughter. On the other hand, if someone wanted a murderer not only killed, but tortured to death he'd shrug and increase the price.
He fits in with the rest of the party because he doesn't insist anyone else do anything they don't want to do (against his code), and he is quiet and competent at whatever job they've been given. He will go out of his way to save those he's working with (as allies you can trust are hard to find). Of course, most of the players do not know he's a paid assassin either. He advertises himself as a 'troubleshooter'. :)
|
This is why character creation should happen communally.
As you sit around with 4 or 5 players, discussing builds, firing off lines like, "Hey, you two could be cousins." and, "So, are we cool with three wizards?" you can just drop, "So, Sam, why do you want to play an evil character?"
If they can't answer properly there and then... well, you know they're looking to screw over other people's fun.
This is why character creation should happen communally.
As you sit around with 4 or 5 players, discussing builds, firing off lines like, "Hey, you two could be cousins." and, "So, are we cool with three wizards?" you can just drop, "So, Sam, why do you want to play an evil character?"
If they can't answer properly there and then... well, you know they're looking to screw over other people's fun.
Good idea Geraint.
OP-Stand by your guns. You’re the DM. It is your job to set up the campaign. You tell them how many point for the point buy, what level, what world, what books, etc.
She doesn’t get to say: “Well, I want to play a 30 pt build, in greyhawk, 20th level, with every supplement going back to the original 3 Vol set”.
And if you have told the other players “No Evil” and you give in to her with those caveats, would you give into the guy that insists on a 25 pt buy, even if he promises not to Min/max?
That being said, you should discuss this with her. Why does she insist on playing evil? I mean, discuss this like adults, with the whole table there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I want her to play, so...
You need to come to grips with just how important it is that this person plays in your game. They have currently set their price at "give me what I want or I am Disco." You've already offered a compromise and had it tossed back at you.
Character Generation is the most happy-go-lucky time in many roleplaying groups. If they are being this difficult before the game even starts?
I refer to these types of players as the Honey Badger.
Best of luck
There can be a substantial difference between playing an evil character and being a table-disruptive asshat. Some GMs won't tolerate the evil characters because, in their experience, it inevitably leads to players being table-disruptive asshats.
I don't require my players to play non-evil alignments, but I do require them to not be disruptive with it. If they want to be evil to grief other players, they'll be playing at another table, not mine.
I haven't read all of the advice, but it seems that you've covered most of the main parts. You'll just have to make sure they live up to the rules.
I played a really evil character once (either CE or NE I believe), but that character wouldn't attack the PCs because he considered them his "toys". He would help attack others because they were trying to take away or destroy his toys (and because he usually got to cut off their faces and use them as a disguises [something I had worked out with my DM to begin with]). In the end, I have to say he's probably my favorite character I've played thus far, if not just for his insanity, although the character I'm playing now is fun too.
If there is a paladin that's going to be playing in the party, you might want to require the evil characters player to pay for an alignment hiding item. I'd also suggest a rule against stealing directly from the PCs as well. Taking something they didn't see in the first place? Cool. Taking something that the fighter has on hand? Not cool. This will bring about PVP eventually.
I'm probably one of the few that is NOT against the use of evil characters. I personally feel they add some interesting RP potential. The main thing to remember, and it seems you already understand, is that their evil-ness should not be detrimental to the party. You can handle it I'm sure. If things don't work out, then you can slam your fist down and ask the player to make someone that will work better.
Side Note: Out of the evils, Lawful Evil is probably the easiest to have in a party. They tend to be more about manipulating, making deals and getting what they want through loopholes than NE and CE.
The player in question is female and the OP is a newbie GM, presumably male. The hormone situation pretty much spells it out.Granted I don't understand the dynamics of a situation.
But if I had a player who insisted on playing an evil alignment....and wasn't willing to make a compromise with me the GM, then I would have to question if i needed the player at the table.
I agree.
even chaotic evil can be workable with a little effort. the bad alignments are.
Gygaxian Neutral, where you backstab the winning team because they are winning. which was a requirement of 1st edition druids, the class that murdered their own to climb the ranks of druidhood and swapped sides more often than Emma Frost
Lawful Stupid; you take the letter of the law too seriously, even enforce pointless personal codes like chivalry. have to wake up the sleeping demon princess before you kill her with your nonmagical quarterstaff because using a +5 holy composite longbow is unfair in your stupid knightly opinion. no lying for your buddies, you will spoil the truth as blatantly as possible.
Chaotic Stupid; you are so unpredictable, jumping off a bridge because it is fun. more like suicidal. don't expect the cleric to save you because you jumped off a bridge for fun without feather fall. and don't eat the fancy mushroom because you think it looks pretty tasty. it is really a poison. this isn't chaotic or insane behavior, just immature foolish behavior
Stupid Evil;
"ummmm, i kill allies FOR THE EEEEEEVUUUUUUUUULLLLZZZ!!!!!!"
"i kill peasants FOOOOOOOOORRRRR THE EEVUUUUULZZZZ!!!!!"
"i flip women's skirts FOOOORRRRRRR THE EEEEEVUUULLLZ!!!!!" essentially, the guy who does everything to turn his Karma Meter Black. doesn't realize D&D/PF doesn't have a built in Karma Meter and thinks that all that trigger happy murder and skirt flipping will make him the most evil thing alive. all it does is show how perverted he is
Stupid Good;
"Killing is Bad, so i turn the other cheek and cry like a good little girl."
the worst example of good ever. always has to protect the baby orcs, despite the majority of them becoming hardened killers in their 6th year of life. tries to foolishly talk the trigger happy skirt flipping murderer into becoming good to no avail, and whines when she can't redeem that big bad demon with the power of friendship.