My wife and I are new to Pathfinder as I mentioned in my other thread asking for help with duergar samurai. The group we are joining are veteran players and one of them is a friend of my wife. While talking about what we want to do after the GM had to leave for the night it became obvious one of the people wanted to play an evil character.
A discussion ensued where one of the players said that you are not allowed to use evil characters because the group is supposed to work together and not have to worry about one of its members stabbing them in the back. The player that wants an evil character responded that we wouldn't know they were evil until said character had used us for their own good and decided to part ways or betray us or simply steal the goods.
I know from another friend of mine that does PFS in another state that evil characters are not allowed in official PFS groups because of exactly this kind of problem of players being worried more about a fellow party member than the scenario and game the GM is running.
What I would like to know is how is this usually handled? I have played lawful evil characters before in Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance and had no issue with the party because since lawful evil rarely breaks their word I simply had my character swear not to betray the group...and left plenty of room for said character to be evil as needed to NPCs we ran across. I offered this as a suggestion but the other player wants their character to be a shady, chaotic person that is selfish.
I think we talked them into playing chaotic neutral at the end but I could tell my wife was already worried that she would "do something wrong" in her first time ever pen and paper roleplaying if this person does goes evil and gets us all killed as a result. Is there a protocol that is usually observed in these kind of situations? This is not using PFS just regular house rules.
Do what feels right. If you think your wife won't have fun, play with a different group. Excuse yourself and find a game that will help her love the hobby, which may be playing with other new gamers. In the end, it is a game that should be fun. That doesn't mean you can't explore mature themes, but if it isn't what you are into, don't feel like you have to. I tend to wonder about folks who want to play sociopaths because it's fun, but to each their own. Doesn't mean you have to be on the receiving end of it.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is a situation most easily avoided by not allowing it in the first place.
If the player is willing to pull crap (and it IS crap) like saying that nobody will know until he betrays you, then the problem is really less an alignment issue and more a douchenozzle issue.
I almost always allow evil alignments in my campaigns, but I do so because my players are generally NOT out to ruin a night of fun by acting like spoiled children (even though some of them are spoiled children). Evil PCs can add a whole new aspect of flavor and fun to any campaign as long as you set ground rules ahead, mainly NO BETRAYING YOUR PARTY EVER!!! I usually allow a little extra loot grabbing, sneaky stuff and whatnot, but the line was drawn at stealing other players belongings and plotting violence against them a long time ago.
I'd definitely discuss with the GM and player about the reasoning behind having the evil person in the party is. It would seem to me that it is inviting a situation where one person's character will heavily affect the experience of everyone else at the table; not necessarily in a positive way.
Is there a role-play benefit to the character? Is there a plan from the GM to phase the evil player out, or motivate them to behave towards the other players? If not, basically one character is a fight waiting to happen and Player vs Player is a very different set of challenges to have to face (ESPECIALLY for a new player).
If there isn't anything else you can do about it, then I might suggest the following: make a paladin that is the bodyguard of your wife's character. That way then can detect evil, know there could be foul play afoot, and do what they can to keep your wife's character safe. At least then the two of you will be in it together and have in-character reason to stay cautious regarding this new individual.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The player that wants an evil character responded that we wouldn't know they were evil until said character had used us for their own good and decided to part ways or betray us or simply steal the goods.
Don't play with this person. Full stop. Doesn't matter what their backup idea is, anyone who decides to make a character with the specific intent of screwing everyone else over at some point is playing for the wrong reasons, and they're going to ruin the game for everyone.
This specific case aside, any time I ever see someone putting evil down on their character sheet, I always pull them aside to double check why. There's plenty of character concepts which technically fall under the umbrella of evil, but aren't disruptive.
Characters who aren't naturally inclined to do the right thing, but end up going along with it anyway because they don't want to lose out on the perks of being counted amongst the good guys work (Rygel from Farscape for example) can be a lot of fun to play, assuming there's a really motivated truly good character or two in the party they need to keep up with.
Characters who always do the right thing for the wrong reasons can work too (the bloodthirsty warrior who storms the hobgoblin fortress because he loves killing and hobgoblins are a guilt-free target is a surprisingly common PC archetype).
People who want to start off with a major darkside and slowly come around over the course of the game can work out too... but you have to get everyone on board with the idea and pace the transition right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The player that wants an evil character responded that we wouldn't know they were evil until said character had used us for their own good and decided to part ways or betray us or simply steal the goods.
"Yes, we wouldn't know in-character, but we would know out of character and wouldn't want to play with a character who we know out of character will eventually betray us. Why would we willingly allow ourselves to play a game in which we knew we'd be backstabbed and would have all the characters we've worked hard on?"
"You see Mr./Ms. Fellow-player, you're right that we wouldn't know stuff in-character, but this is an out of character issue, and we'd prefer to have much more fun as a group by playing together and cooperating, rather than funnel all the fun towards one evil character while shouldering disappointment on the rest of the party."
"Since we have a new player in the group as well, it would be really good of you to reserve your evil character (and likewise, any chaotic neutral 'for the lulz' characters) for a more appropriate game; preferably one where everyone is experienced, and willing to play alongside evil, neither of which applies to this current group."
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since any alignment is capable of working with others, sharing stuff, having friends, and finding that special someone, the problem isn't that he wants to play an evil character, the problem is he wants to play a jerk character. And that (regardless of alignment) goes against one of my table rules: All characters must be likable.
I don't see anything wrong with playing an evil character. I've run games with them in before and played in games as evil characters as well. But in all of these games in which an evil character has worked successfully, it has been because that evil character wasn't disruptive to the game. Betrayal is usually pretty disruptive. Being a total bad ass doesn't have to be disruptive at all.
"The player that wants an evil character responded that we wouldn't know they were evil until said character had used us for their own good and decided to part ways or betray us or simply steal the goods."
So, basically, they want to use their alignment to troll/screw over the other players at some point. This is something I'd definitely want the approval of other players on, since it can be massively disruptive to their fun.
Generally, I'd pass on such a character/player, since this can cause to some pretty unpleasant situations where someone ends up feeling like .... so this guy can get his kicks. Because of course an evil character just has to backstab dangerous and (up to that point) reliable associates.
It is sort of like the iconic ******* paladin, only repackaged to be evil and edgy.
It really depends on how it's played. Evil characters work perfectly well if they are played well, but then the same could be said of *any* alignment.
Hell, a chaotic neutral thief is just as capable of stealing all of the parties loot as a chaotic evil one.
What you're talking about is a player issue, not an alignment or character issue, and if that's the case, no amount of changing characters is going to fix things.
|
The player that wants an evil character responded that we wouldn't know they were evil until said character had used us for their own good and decided to part ways or betray us or simply steal the goods.
I will admit that this part of your statement concerns me (for you and your wife)
Creating a memorable evil character to play with a group of good aligned PC's is a very difficult task. My only question to you is, "do you think this guy (or gal) could pull it off.
The statement that I have quoted from your post screams "NO" to me.
It is selfish, it does not help the group in any way, and it is juvenile.
I have no idea what character your wife will play, but if you play this samarai and this guy's character does something to betray you or your lord (if you don't go ronin). What option do you have but to slay him on the spot.
This puts you in the horrible position of having to kill a pc to keep from losing your challenge class power for 24 hours game time. (which is your main power)
You cant gain resolve back if you have no challenge
Greater Resolve is useless
No honorable Stand or Demanding Challenge abilities
True resolve and last stand are also out the window (but that is at 17th and 20th level)
This is not even counting your Order abilities, which demand you have a strong sense of honor. If you have no honor, then those powers are gone as well, (but for sure, your extra challenge power for the order is stripped)
Just things to consider....
Oh, that's easy. Say "no". Works out fine for me.
Echoing/supporting "Talk to your GM." If your wife has concerns, she should talk to your GM as well. (And as an aside: as you mentioned your wife feeling nervous about playing, I would also suggest that if she's willing, she should talk one-on-one with the GM about her nervousness, so he or she can reassure her about any other concerns she might have. One on one is important so it doesn't just sound like he's saying stuff to placate YOU and not talk to her and get to know her as an individual player.)
GMs commonly ban evil PCs at their game. That can avoid the issue of some trouble making right there. (And while evil PCs don't always mean troublemaking, it's clear the player you're talking about wants to dig up some PVP b#&!~!+!).
I would also ask the GM talk to the group about understanding that this is a cooperative game where the PCs are expected to work as a team--all the more so since there are new-to-the-game players involved.
If the player turns out to continue to be problematic, then it's time to have a chat with him and with the GM again.
It's not the "evil character" issue so much as him broadcasting "I am going to f@%* your guys s$#$ up and you won't know when and I am going to enjoy it" that is the problem. MAJOR red flags there.
If I was aware of something like this as a DM, I'd allow it for about as long as it takes to say, "Rocks fall from the sky, you die." On a slightly more serious note, such a player would be subject to an unreasonably large array of cursed items (bags of devouring are fantastic), mimics and other misfortunes, a situation I like to term "The Curse of the Chucklehead". If the player continues to persist with his/her dreams of PvP, life only gets worse. However I'm often handling an experienced party of players where sometimes the only answer is along the lines of a comedic version of "Rocks fall from the sky".
(To be clear, these are not for "co-op evil characters" because those can be interesting. This is only for the player who has decided that being a royal pain is a good idea)
If this is sanctioned PFS, then he can't play an evil character or willingly/knowingly commit an evil act without getting banned.
Homebrew it's DM fiat. I echo what others have said about discussing it with the DM. If worse comes to worse, shift groups OR (and this would be my solution playerside) walk into the game with a duo and detect evil "le gasp, he's evil!" --> Slumber Hex --> Coup de grace! However, this isn't a positive start to PF or PFS, so I'd discuss it with the DM.
Evil characters, even chaotic evil characters, can work with a group if the players are mature about it. Lawful evil characters are willing to work together and have a strong sense of (twisted) duty/honor. Neutral evil characters can be amoral (end justifies the means) rather than actively immoral (evil for evil's sake). Chaotic evil characters could just be in it for a "socially acceptable" way to satisfy the thrill of combat/killing.
None of these precludes working with, or even loyalty to, others. However, from what you've said, it looks as if the problem isn't a player wanting to play an evil character, but wanting to play a jerk character.
The player that wants an evil character responded that we wouldn't know they were evil until said character had used us for their own good and decided to part ways or betray us or simply steal the goods.
I have played lawful evil characters before.... I offered this as a suggestion but the other player wants their character to be a shady, chaotic person that is selfish.
Evil characters and parties can work as long as certain ground rules are set and followed. The biggest one is, as others have stated, "don't be a jerk and ruin the game for other players." One way to enforce this is to put the onus on the player to explain in the character's backstory why the character is loyal to the rest of the party; if the player isn't willing to follow the "don't be a jerk" rule or come up with a reason why the character is loyal to the rest of the party, then that character is not allowed.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
'Just as you are about to plunge the poisoned blade into the unsuspecting PC's back, you feel a pain down your left arm. Your knife clatters to the ground and you fall over.'
'You mean, he was going to kill me?'
'Yes, it's obvious. You can also tell, just by looking, that he died of a heart attack and a brain aneurysm at the same time! What are the chances?'
If the guy wants to play the bad guy that much in a heroic campaign, then tell him only the GM gets to play evil. If he doesn't like it, tell him to start his own table.
|
Not every player is entitled to every concept.
Some players can handle it, some can't.
And you have to earn the right to do such things from the group, rather than having it happen because you want it.
If people in the group are uncomfortable with your concept, you don't do it in that group. It really is that simply.
Your want is not greater than someone elses not want.
Over time, if you prove yourself the people might relax their reservations. Or you may need to find another group that agrees with your concept.
But you as an individual telling another individual they must allow a concept they think will disrupt the game is selfish of you, and being selfish in a group game is crap.
The idea of adventuring together in a party is a neutral to good concept.
An evil party would only stay together as long as the lead character would be the biggest bully. In short 'cooperating' with an evil character is impossible unless it's in his/her direct interest.
And it seems the only goal for an evil player is to gain more GP then his fellow players. So he/she is obviously selfish and not interested in teamplay. The idea of teamplay is working together against a common enemy. I have actually played with an evil character once and the experience was lousy and realise the the evil character was being played by my best friend. After 3 sessions he explained he didn't like playing that character as the party was coming apart. We didn't try an evil character again. If someone wants to play evil monsters, then let him/her play a GM and he/she can be as evil as he/she wants.
I play in a party that has a common wealth pool from which anyone can draw, as long as everyone agrees. We don't have the same amount of wealth but try to distribute items so the party will remain the strongest. I for instance play a paladin who wants to get a suit of full plate. It was possible to the party pool to do that and the party actually considered doing this. I convinced them that it was better to first gear up the rest in better medium armor as that was their maximum armor and weapons before we spend 90% of the pool one one character, even if it was me. They eventually agreed and planned the next item out of the pool will be my suit of full plate. As we were level 2 at the time I still think that one suit of plate mail just for me would have been unbalancing in the party. Coincidently our next enemie was a will'o wisp type of monster that had a ranged touch as attack to which my suit or armor would have been useless. Our new weapons worked even though we barely managed to take it down.
If a party wants to do something interesting try adventuring with a reformed demon or devil. This is a hellish creature that changed alignment for some reason. It would still detect as evil and be warded by a protection from evil, but not be evil anymore. The roleplaying possibilities are enormous as well as challenging.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
anyone in this thread remember Jayne from Firefly?
Jayne was a chaotic evil character, but he was one of the most likable characters in that show from a viewers perspective. he was stand offish and tried to take power at every opportunity. he didnt kill people in there sleep, he wasnt a psycho path, nor was he excessively disloyal. you can "evil" and be borderline neutral without being a heartless mass murderer.
i like to think that evil just means sociopathic, you're capable of killing without remorse, but 99% of the time you wont.
The idea of adventuring together in a party is a neutral to good concept.
An evil party would only stay together as long as the lead character would be the biggest bully. In short 'cooperating' with an evil character is impossible unless it's in his/her direct interest.
And it seems the only goal for an evil player is to gain more GP then his fellow players. So he/she is obviously selfish and not interested in teamplay. The idea of teamplay is working together against a common enemy. I have actually played with an evil character once and the experience was lousy and realise the the evil character was being played by my best friend. After 3 sessions he explained he didn't like playing that character as the party was coming apart. We didn't try an evil character again. If someone wants to play evil monsters, then let him/her play a GM and he/she can be as evil as he/she wants.
The person in the OP's story is clearly being anti-social and a jerk. However, that's not the only way to play an evil character. Evil characters can have motives beyond getting more loot than the rest of the party. Being evil doesn't mean you aren't allowed camaraderie with others or that you have to plan to backstab everyone you spend more than five minutes with.
I once played a NE tiefling alchemist who was all about the power of teamwork. He preferred to surround himself with competent people and competent people become more competent when you share infusions with them. The rest of the party were part of the relatively small number of people he respected enough to care about their well-being.
I'd call Jayne Lawfull as he always followed the hierarchy. But neutral or possibly evil. Jayne can be selfish, but follows the orders into certain death. An evil character would try to find a way to use the law to get out of such a predicament.
A sociopath is the inability to understands someone elses feelings. They use behaviour that masks his/her lack of caring in order to function in society, but will drop the act if it suits them.
Evil simply means selfish to the extreme.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
anyone in this thread remember Jayne from Firefly?
Jayne was a chaotic evil character, but he was one of the most likable characters in that show from a viewers perspective. he was stand offish and tried to take power at every opportunity. he didnt kill people in there sleep, he wasnt a psycho path, nor was he excessively disloyal. you can "evil" and be borderline neutral without being a heartless mass murderer.
i like to think that evil just means sociopathic, you're capable of killing without remorse, but 99% of the time you wont.
Jayne wasn't evil .He was pretty much the definition of chaotic neutral. He did was best for Jayne..
"A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those others suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as he is to cross it."
Half of the problems people have with alignment seems to come from not actually following alignment as written in the book.
This is a problem player issue more of a PC alignment issue. I'd be willing to wager if the GM puts his foot down and insists that all PCs be good, he'd bring a stereotypical Lawful Stupid "death before dishonor", "must kill anything evil on sight" paladin who makes sure to ruin everyone else's fun.
I would really hesitate to play with this guy.
Half of the problems people have with alignment seems to come from not actually following alignment as written in the book.
No, the problem with the alignments as written in the book is they don't match how I play those alignments. Obviously, they should be rewritten for everyone else as a result.
Everyone's pretty much covered it. It's a player issue, talk with the DM (and all the other players) about it. Evil can work, but only if those playing are interested in making sure it's fun for everyone. Some folks get a kick out of trying to "Outwit, Outplay, Outlast" the other players, but that only works if all the players like the idea and are informed from the very beginning.
Nobody wants to roleplay someone else's rube, which is what this player seems to expect the other players to do.
If I were the GM, I'd require the player in question to accept the fact that I refuse to run a game that isn't fun for everyone, and he/she needs to create/roleplay their character acordingly. I'd also warn them that should they decide later on to try and screw the players anyway, Fate would be on the other players' side, and all the (evil) player's PC's rolls would mysteriously miss, and all the other PCs' rolls would be auto-crits.
The Gods in my worlds hate a douchebag. Even the evil ones. :p
|
This is probably bad advice.
You could take offense at the first possible thing and challenge him/confront/fight him. If the GM stops it and says to play nice then he should keep the db character in line. If not, you have a dead db.
Example
If the evil db offers to buy a drink, that's an insult and a challenge. He misses a lot due to bad rolls in combat, he is weak and should leave the group or is helping the enemy, so you make him leave.
You can play with it, so when his character betrays you it is at least justified. Insult, nag, and spread rumors about him to make life hard or embarrassing for the character. You don't have to be evil, just take an instant dislike to everything he does and try to gently get him to leave.
I think the people saying "dont play with this player" are offering good advice. The player is being a jerk - and even more important is being tremendously SELFISH...., and thats not a good sign for gaming with them in future, as they want to have fun at the expense of other people around the table.
The point of a hobby is to ENJOY it. This is a great hobby, but playing with that sort of person isnt worth it, I'd suggest backing off fromvthe game, elegantly if you can, and fine another game or group to play with.
You said the GM had left for the night before the conversation with this player ensued? If that's the case, I would approach the GM and tell him about how you feel and that you do not want your wife's new hobby ruined by the other player's plans.
I don't allow evil PCs at my table. Perhaps your GM does not, either?
Eh, Jayne was pretty okay with killing people for a Chaotic Neutral guy. "Aw, hell, I'll kill a man in a fair fight. Or if I think he's gonna start a fair fight. Or if he bothers me. Or if there's a woman. Or if I'm gettin' paid. Mostly only when I'm gettin' paid!"
And did he really follow the hierarchy? He often questioned things. He followed Mal, but he turned on his previous employer for very little. I see him as pretty Neutral Evil, actually.
|
|
Eh, Jayne was pretty okay with killing people for a Chaotic Neutral guy. "Aw, hell, I'll kill a man in a fair fight. Or if I think he's gonna start a fair fight. Or if he bothers me. Or if there's a woman. Or if I'm gettin' paid. Mostly only when I'm gettin' paid!"
And did he really follow the hierarchy? He often questioned things. He followed Mal, but he turned on his previous employer for very little. I see him as pretty Neutral Evil, actually.
"A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those others suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as he is to cross it."
You already pasted that, ciretose. Like I said, Jayne was a bit too loose with murder and torture to qualify for Neutral, in my opinion. ;)
Repercussions. You can play evil, but know if you leave witnesses of breaking the law then you will have the law on your trail and bounty hunters after you.
Mind you, this works for Chaotic Good as well, but let's face it. Most people play CG like NG. They obey the law. They just reserve the right to break it if they so choose.
Or to put it another way, a CG person is someone who lives in Massachusetts but shops in New Hampshire to avoid the sales tax and will go above the speed limit while driving. They break the laws that inconvenience them, but otherwise will live within the law.
He never did torture anybody, but he wanted to. Admittedly, he was pretty upset at the time due to Kaylee having been shot by the guy, but it's telling that he turns to sadistic revenge.
So, if my friend was shot by a guy and I fantasized about skinning him alive then I'm an evil person? Good to know.
Of course, I AM a GM, so that kind of already puts me in camp Evil anyway... ;)
There's a big difference between fantasizing and actually making an effort. The only reason Jayne didn't was a) Mal told him not to, and b) he didn't need to. That's why he got so frustrated at the guy, in my opinion: Dobson's inability to withstand interrogation gave Jayne no excuse to resort to "enhanced techniques".
So, if my friend was shot by a guy and I fantasized about skinning him alive then I'm an evil person? Good to know.
Fantasising about that isn't evil, actually doing it is. BTW why would you want to skin your friend? ;)
Of course, I AM a GM, so that kind of already puts me in camp Evil anyway... ;)
Yes the stint of the GM definetly places you in Limbo there. But don't worry we are not alone. We just lack players to govern. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I was going to say you should chastise them, but it might be funny to spring some ridiculous trap on them when they're gloating(because karma) or about to betray everyone(because humorous anticlimax) and when they complain, write it off, saying it's a 'narrative game' and you did it to give it a cinematic feel. I honestly don't think anyone would complain.
Don't really get why these people do this. Because they think it makes them clever or because it's exciting? Not really. It's just something 14 year olds do which ruins nongood characters for everyone else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem there isn't that they want to run an evil character, it's that they want to run a Stupid Evil character. Just because someone's evil doesn't mean they can't be team players or genuinely have friends. For example, one of my favorite characters I've ever run was a Neutral Evil gnoll warblade. Chakk's life goal was to become the most powerful warrior who ever lived. If people got in the way of that, he'd kill them without a second thought. If they stayed out of his way, he didn't care about them and certainly wouldn't waste time on them. The rest of the adventuring party with him, he at first tolerated because they weren't opposed to his goal and often very helpful to him (buffing, healing, etc) and as time went on he came to genuinely value their companionship in a violent sort of way (i.e. "mess with them and I kill you").
He ended up becoming the de facto party leader, and actually held the group together as they carved out a new kingdom for themselves, and the others served as a moderating influence on his bloodlust because he actually valued them enough to listen to them. At one point, an antagonist approached him with a (very profitable) offer to betray the party; Chakk just killed him on the spot for insulting him by implying money could change his independent goals.
So long story short: the problem is the player, not the alignment. Talk with the GM.
I really appreciate the advice guys and gals. Just to clarify: the player in question that wants to be evil is in fact a female gamer. I think at the end of our conversation they agreed to be CN instead of outright evil but as others have said you can still pull some shady things as CN if you want to do it.
The DM has been notified and basically what I was told is that there's no way in hell he would let a player really disrupt a group or try to kill the other players in the groups. He knows I haven't done pen and paper in years and my wife is totally new to it. I think he's already upset that the one person even brought this up because he doesn't want new players to worry about something like this.