Look at Pathfinder Soceity, there is a reason that evil characters are not allowed to join save for special circumstances which may or may not exist. One of the primary axioms of groups is that they should work together as a cohesive unit in some form or another. If the party is at odds with itself then it is going to die screaming when it encounters something that is built to kill things.
Tell your players to either rebuild their character personalities so they get along, possibly changing their alignments, so that DMing is easier on you, or only use "dungeon" modules where there is little to none or optional dialogue.
Here is one thing that I have found:
If your players make characters whose personalities are overly hostile or aggressive without having redeeming qualities then they become very hard to play with, especially if the default end of most modules is a good end. These character personalities also don't mesh very well as two hostile people in a room tend to tear out each others throats.
Encourage your players to make characters that are best of friends, or at the very least know that their continued survival is based on their allies survival.
Look at Valeros's basic personality description:
"Noble at heart, and fiercely loyal to those few who manage the considerable feat of establishing themselves in his affections, Valeros nevertheless [he] hides such sentiments under a jaded and crass demeanor, frequently observing that there's nothing better than "an evening of hard drinking and soft company."
The bolded area leaves it open for Valeros to be played as a complete and total jerk, who just wants to do what is best for himself at the expense of everyone around him.
The italicized area states that he will not abandon anyone he is close to, be it romantically or in friendship. It can be assumed that he will fight to the death, or close thereto, to defend that person if they are threatened. It also offers, ambiguously, that if someone kills said person and he hears about it that he might chase the killer to the ends of the Golarion to find and merit out bloody justice upon the offender.
Noble characters tend to make better characters, but don't confuse noble, as defined with "having or showing fine personal qualities or high moral principles and ideals" with good as it can exclude parts of its definition and still hold strong. A noble person doesn't necessarily require high moral principles even if that is in the definition thereof, as if he still possesses fine personal qualities and high ideals he can still be noble when it is safe for him to be so.
A party that will fight and die for each member of itself is many fold more capable than a party wherein its component parts fight for their own preservation alone.
Try combat oriented modules. The less they have to do the talky talky and the more things are trying to cut their throats the better when it comes to dysfunctional parties.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ten Tips For New GM's HERE .
I would talk to your "Experienced" players, as a former DM they should know what a lack of cohesion can do to a party. Have him tone it down a little, or find different angles to play his alignment (hate everyone does not mean KILL everyone, or rage in public).
It sounds like they want to control the game without considering the others (I would double check for shenanigans with a former DM or overly Gimmicky player, they might "handwave" things like they would for a monster without even realizing FYI, or exploit rules loopholes, like basket weaving), remove this notion from their head.
Rule 0: GM is in charge and has final say.
Rule 1: EVERYONE must have fun, because it is a game. You count as part of everyone, remind your players of this.
Maybe give them a story reason to like the party (Bonded items that can grant bonuses to the party, or just to one character 1/day to encourage sharing).
Have the other 3 "Save" the other ones life (a blood debt friendship to increase respect?).
Maybe increase the rewards from diplomacy with items the Anti socials desires (rare spell scrolls, wondrous items, weapons, gold?), make it clear that the antisocial behavior while not punished, is certainly not rewarded.
Do more combat and avoid story conflict for now. (Am Barbarian Smash is easy!)
Sit down and have a chat with the party as individuals and as a whole, find out what they WANT and try to align their desires (I want rare treasures + I want more spells + I want social + I want weird trophies and combat = Gnarled Template Wizard Troll with Dominated innocent guard/hostages that must be reasoned with or no treasure!)
If all else fails, split the party into 2 games and find new like minded players to fill in the 2 new separate parties (extreme last option).
I don't want to tell them they have to change characters. The mod took them to level 3. So they're kinda in deep
It's not so much that they need to change characters, but rather that they need to change some aspects of their characters' psychology in order to work together as a group. The "orc-scarred witchdoctor" and the "wolf-scarred oracle" need to find some common ground for respect and loyalty. The changeling and dwarf ranger sound like they will pose fewer problems.
IMHO, you need to insist to these players that although some of their characters may have evil backgrounds (ex-slaver toturer!?!), at some point they underwent a moment of truth and changed their outlook sufficiently to become both heroic and team players. Also tell them that you won't accept the "I am chaotic" argument to mask evil or selfish behavior. If they want to play evil characters, they should DM a few sessions.
YMMV.
I don't want to tell them they have to change characters. The mod took them to level 3. So they're kinda in deepIt's not so much that they need to change characters, but rather that they need to change some aspects of their characters' psychology in order to work together as a group. The "orc-scarred witchdoctor" and the "wolf-scarred oracle" need to find some common ground for respect and loyalty. The changeling and dwarf ranger sound like they will pose fewer problems.
IMHO, you need to insist to these players that although some of their characters may have evil backgrounds (ex-slaver toturer!?!), at some point they underwent a moment of truth and changed their outlook sufficiently to become both heroic and team players. Also tell them that you won't accept the "I am chaotic" argument to mask evil or selfish behavior. If they want to play evil characters, they should DM a few sessions.
YMMV.
Just to point this out: you can do a game where characters have complete opposites within the party. I ran a game where we had a LG Hospitaler Paladin, a LE Inquisitor (the paladin and inquisitor worshiped the same god, and therefore got along, the Inquisitor also had a ring of mind shielding), a CE Rogue (Ring just like the inquisitor), and a CG Sorcerer.
Being evil is different than being stupid evil, just like being lawful good is different from being lawful stupid. Complete opposition in alignment simply means a ton more roleplay situations, but the players have to understand the implications of and the issues that will arise. They need to realize that the group needs to commit to actions, thereby requiring everyone to agree on action instead of just fracturing.
"I am Chaotic" is a way to say "screw the law" but it has nothing to do with doing inherently evil or good things. Many players who play Chaotic Neutral tend to forget that even if that alignment is typically ambivalent to evil or good.
Alternatively you could impose a Geas/Quest on them to work together as a group. It literally means that if someone decides to say, "Screw you guys, I'm going to go do my own thing" that their attributes start to decrease and they will probably die if they continue not working with the team. This is, however, very heavy handed.
Just to point this out: you can do a game where characters have complete opposites within the party. I ran a game where we had a LG Hospitaler Paladin, a LE Inquisitor (the paladin and inquisitor worshiped the same god, and therefore got along, the Inquisitor also had a ring of mind shielding), a CE Rogue (Ring just like the inquisitor), and a CG Sorcerer.
We've had an ostensibly LE priest of Set in our DD3.5 campaign for the last three years, but if you look at his in-game behavior, there has never been anything "evil" about him... aside from a certain predilection to creating skeletons and summoning evil outsiders. I tried to tell him that he should "update" his character sheet and mark "LN".
If he had really played "LE" I would have had a major problem with that as DM. And I could never have accepted a CE character, whether he be a rogue or whatever. What some might see as enhanced roleplay opportunities, I would see as completely anti-heroic, and if there's one thing I want in RPGs it's for them to feel heroic.
Being evil is different than being stupid evil, just like being lawful good is different from being lawful stupid. Complete opposition in alignment simply means a ton more roleplay situations, but the players have to understand the implications of and the issues that will arise. They need to realize that the group needs to commit to actions, thereby requiring everyone to agree on action instead of just fracturing.
If all of the players are extremely mature and careful to avoid antisocial in-game behavior, this *might* work for a while, but IMHO it's just a powderkeg waiting to explode. Apparently the folks at the Pathfinder Society agree, hence the blanket interdiction of evil alignments in PCs. Balancing on the edge of an unstable powderkeg might be fun for some, but it sounds like the original poster had some profound questions about it.
|
[...] The whole time he was riding to the main city he kept saying "I don't have any reason to go. Im just following [...]If you and this player can't fix this with that character, he needs to make a new one. This is really s*$+ty on his part for not getting a motive.
...
Player: "I go away, my character doesn't have a reason to participate in this event".
It's a character that doesn't want to be in the game and it shouldn't have to be in it either.
"I don't want to do this" THEN DON'T! YOU DON'T HAVE TO! GO AWAY! STOP FOLLOWING ME IF YOU DON'T WANT TO DO...Bottom line: Your Oracle seems to be the problem. It's a character that doesn't want to be played. Make that player understand that.
Viewing it charitably, he's letting you know that he wants to work out a book of some kind for his character. Talk to him about adding something to the story or to his background that would tie him in.
Or ask him where his character wants to go instead.
Look at Lord of the Rings. Gimli and Legolas start out basically having more interest in stabbing each other in the face than anything else, but over the course of the adventure they learn to rely on each other. Pull your players aside and explain that while their characters can have vastly different priorities, they can develop a bond despite that and become allies if not great friends.
I agree that it sounds like your oracle is the problem, I would pull him aside and just talk blunt with him. "Honestly, your character as written currently has absolutely no reason to be in this party. He doesn't want to be here. He doesn't like anybody. Why is he here? If you can't find a reason for him to be here, it's time to make a new character, one that could be in the party without being forced against his will."
It sounds like motivation is an issue. The player, and the character WANT a reason to become involved, that means he needs a motivation that makes sense to him. If he often DM's, he may have a hard time being on the other side of the screen - so make it fun for him somehow.
One thing that could help is coming up with a story arch, maybe just one or two sessions, that separates the party from towns and people and anything. Put them in a situation that they are stuck in, and have to work their way out of. Give them a common enemy, that will provide that character with a reason to go along. That's what he wants, he wants you to give him a reason to be with the party.
Talk with the player. Ask him what motivates his character, what does the character care about? Then find some way to threaten that with the common enemy. He may not want to be involved with people, but he will recognize that he can't do it alone.
I have found that when there is a character that seems to lack motivation (it happens sometimes even with very good players) that you have to nudge them a little to get them moving.
If you just finished the Hangman's Noose, then maybe you could have a villain who heard about their success at the courthouse and now wants to do the party harm - or sees that they could be a threat. They are now bonded because of they were all involved in that together.
Maybe the next session starts with "You wake up on a cold, slightly damp, stone floor. You see your recent comrades in the room with you, and you have been stripped of your gear."
Or maybe for some reason the everyone in town kicks them out together. they are on their own, and are not allowed back in the city (the villain against them is an influential local).
Just a couple of ideas.
"I am Chaotic" is a way to say "screw the law" but it has nothing to do with doing inherently evil or good things. Many players who play Chaotic Neutral tend to forget that even if that alignment is typically ambivalent to evil or good.
This is great advice. I would take some time before the next session just to go over everyone's alignment and work out what it means to them. Sometimes examples carry a lot of weight with these things, so I would suggest showing them this chart and make it clear Alignment Chart 1 and Alignment Chart 2.
Pulled from the Core Rule Book:
"Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil
characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life,
whether for fun or profit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern
for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make
personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others
and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others
actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some
evil deity or master."
With these definitions, it is hard to justify an evil character working with a do-good party. Sure, they may just be in it because they get to kill a lot along the way, but they still are lacking a genuine motive.
It seems to me like the Orc player does not really understand his alignment or that his actions do not properly represent it. Just opening up the session with, "So last session I noticed that some of you seemed to be contradicting your alignment, so I wanted to go over that with each of you and what it means to you. Also, here's this link."
As for your Oracle player, I agree with Rub-eta - not having a motive or drive is a poor roleplaying mechanic. If you want to be apathetic, don't do so with regards to the party's goal. The best way to give them purpose: Make the goal integral to their story. Before even meeting up next, before even planning for your next session, text, call or email him and ask him what caused him to be shunned by society. Questions will be your friend here, and the more, the better. Send him a bulleted list of questions and ask him to answer each one in as little or great detail as he wants. Then ask follow up questions. A few that I can think of to help provide good Hook material are:
- What happened that caused you to be shunned by society? (A forceful wording will encourage him to create a reason)
- When did this happen?
- If you have no reason, why follow the party? Loot, acceptance, experience, bloodlust (Hopefully not bloodlust)?
- You lost something of great importance to you in your past. What was it, what did it mean to you and what happened? (Let him know that this is an opportunity for him to make something up to add to the world. Then you can use this as your MacGuffin for the next quest - he sees an opportunity to reclaim the MacGuffin in a prophetic dream, coincidentally the party needs to recover it as well!)
Another option is an idea taken from Dungeon World, which is a derivative of Apocalypse World. In Dungeon World, character creation is done together with the everyone gathered nearby for one very special reason - Bonds. Bonds are a set of questions unique to each class that the players can fill out with the names of other party members. This gives them a great tie to the party and helps add some basic cohesion or roleplaying opportunities to the party. At the end of a session, if the players acted on one of their bonds, they can cross it off and mark an experience point. Even though you are already into the game, this is something that I highly recommend doing before you starting the actual adventure at your next session. Here are some questions that I repurposed from some of the classes in Dungeon World that you could hand out to them. Tell them they have to fill out at least one bond.
========================
Witch
========================
____________ fears me, and rightly so. (Why?)
I am troubled by ____________ 's behavior. Either they know nothing, or they know way too much. (What do they know?)
The spirits spoke to me of a great danger that follows ______________. (What was the danger?)
___________ has tasted my blood and I theirs. We are bound by it. (Please explain O.o)
========================
Oracle
========================
My animal friends respect ____________, so I respect him too. (What do they respect?)
____________ will save my life, I have seen it. (What did you see?)
____________ is keeping an important secret from me. (What is the secret?)
____________ is woefully misinformed about the world; I will teach them all that I can. (How are they misinformed?)
========================
Rogue
========================
I stole something from _______________. (What was it?)
_______________ has my back when things go wrong. (Why?)
_______________ knows incriminating details about me. (What do they know?)
_______________ knows what killed my parents, but is afraid to tell me. (Ask the bonded player what killed them.)
========================
Ranger
========================
I have guided _______________ before and they owe me for it. (Where and when?)
_______________ is a friend of nature, so I will be their friend as well. (How do you know?)
_______________ has no respect for nature, so I have no respect for them. (What do they do?)
_______________ does not understand life in the wild, so I will teach them. (Give some examples.)
Bonds are my favorite part of Dungeon World, and the players' as well because it gives them a chance to create their own story that fleshes out the world and their ties to the other characters. The follow-up questions will really help to draw out details that you can use later on down the line. Not only will it build an in-game relationship between players, but it will also build an out-of-character relationship. Have them collaborate on each bond to figure out why that bond exists. Make sure they know that it is okay for them to add to their world because it will ground them in the story. If a player is filling out details about another character with relation to a bond (i.e. The Ranger may say that the Rogue has no respect for nature because she is constantly plucking flowers, branches and leaves from passing foliage) and the other player doesn't want them taking control then ask that player to come up the details instead.
This is my two cents, I hope everything works out!
Hey, I'm the Orc in question in this campaign, would love to thank everyone for their help with DM's concerns as well as add just a bit more information.
For alignment, yes I know that it's all very evil, but playing a full-blooded orc, I don't think it would have been terribly likely that I was born to a good family. I was raised with slavery, trained in torture, but never truly asked for any of it and moreso accepted it as life. When he was offered individuality though, he took it and went running. He isn't proud of what he's done, and part of him seeks to atone, but it was life to him. He enjoys the party for not fearing him and does what he can to protect them.
Alright, unnecessary defending aside,
I've talked with DM myself and explained that most of the anger I had was largely due to the fact that I kind of felt like my party wasn't as concerned with gathering information as I was. The only real ability at my disposal was intimidation and it was still poor. Despite my struggling and asking for aid, it seemed the oracle was dedicated to his "I don't like people" behavior and wouldn't assist with potential information. I didn't expect the newer players to jump right in, but I did hope I could rely on him for some assistance.
I have DM'd for this player myself on a few occasions, and it seems he always plays this sort of character, the antisocial kid that tries to fill in everybody's role in the party (Thus DM describing him as 'Gimmicky'), and it's become more than a mere nuisance over multiple games. He wants to play characters that have no reason to be with the party constantly, or who just hate the party, yet still act like top dog.
In this game even, something OP here and I have talked about that really irked the two of us is how he took a monster feat without permission and kind of began taunting DM about it. He qualified for Multiattack and took it. Neither I nor DM liked his behavior about how he almost acted like he outsmarted DM, and DM requested he take the Two-weapon fighting path instead. I can't help but feel as if this was the oracle using his longer experience to try and take advantage of DM. I may be thinking too deep here on that one, but in general, DM prefers if something 'unconventional' be brought to his attention before it's taken, and the behavior just seemed smug.
Anyways, this is just some extra information from a player's point of view. Dunno if it helps or not, but I know that DM appreciates it and as a DM myself I find it helpful as well.
