| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Staying one alignment or another is a big picture sort of thing NOT a balancing act between I founded an orphanage last week so now I have to burn it down to stay neutral thing... that is insanity and insanity isn't part of the alignment chart. Rather if you character is the sort to found an orphanage then what sort of dark side could you have? It's possible but it really should make some sort of internal sense. Perhaps it's a children thing and you just do evil things to beings that hurt children. And if that's the case then what alignment you are has to look at the big picture and WHY you did those things is something that should be answered. For this example an eagerness to do evil things despite loving children means this is an evil character with a bit of a light side.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wish I had more time to post on this topic, as it is a near and dear one to my heart, but one thing I would observe for the folks that have not had an evil PC in their game is that for all the "heroic" themes you can have going for you, there can be no real redemption for those who were not at some point evil.
Redemption storylines can be very powerful and very rewarding long-term roleplaying between PCs. For long-term campaigns, this is incredibly optimal as it assists the GM as both a better gauge for player interests and for setting a backdrop for different types of conflict than one might normally see even in an PvP game.
-TimD
Wish I had more time to post on this topic, as it is a near and dear one to my heart, but one thing I would observe for the folks that have not had an evil PC in their game is that for all the "heroic" themes you can have going for you, there can be no real redemption for those who were not at some point evil.
Redemption storylines can be very powerful and very rewarding long-term roleplaying between PCs. For long-term campaigns, this is incredibly optimal as it assists the GM as both a better gauge for player interests and for setting a backdrop for different types of conflict than one might normally see even in an PvP game.-TimD
I absolutely agree with you. you have an entire group that can handle it. I have been in some groups that handled it well, and yes, sometimes it was a pretty amazing experience (once, I was the TET). Other times it was pretty much a null.
If on the other hand you have even one person in the group that can not handle it, feelings get hurt and people get angry. Then it is not an entertaining diversion, it is a chore and people stop wanting to go to game night and sometimes even stop wanting to be friends.
Most groups that I have been a part of have at least 1 person that can't handle it well. Campaigns have crashed, game groups have fallen apart, and even life long friendships have ended. To me, that is a pretty huge risk to take for something that may or may not improve the game for everyone if it works out really well.
It happened again last night. Even with no evil characters, 2 PC's made a deal for the whole group. Another PC, in-character, very legitimately was very against the deal and refused to follow through. The two PC's started threatening each other, then two players started yelling at each other. Game night ended with 2 people being angry at each other and the rest of us uncomfortable being in the room with it.
You start putting good and evil PC's in the same party (with this group of players) with very different motivations and goals and that will soon become a common occurrence. I have definite evidence for that with this group. About 2 years ago, we tried allowing evil PC's in the game with mostly the same group of players (everyone was sure they were mature enough to handle it). After only 5 game sessions the campaign was in ruins, one PC was dead from PvP for doing what he thought was right, and 2 players left. We have not heard from them since.
From discussion in the aftermath, I guarantee you that none of the players involved on either side think they were the one that had a hard time dealing with good and evil on the same team. Every one of them, is absolutely convinced it was all the fault of the other person being unable to handle it.
If at some point in the future, I join a different group that I am pretty certain each and every player can handle it, I might give it a shot with a one off. If that works out, maybe a mini series. Only if that also works out and I am still sure they can all handle it will I even consider starting a new campaign that allows both good and evil alignments in it.
------------------
I would also like to say I think ‘mature’ is not the correct term to use. I have seen that term used constantly in this thread and others on the same topic. It is not a matter of whether or not the people involved behave as adults, it is way of thinking that many/some people just can’t seem to wrap their head around. Similarly to the way some people can’t look at a 2-D technical drawing and visualize a 3-D image. Yet for some people it is relatively easy.
‘A’ person gets tired of playing a ‘goody-goody’ character, reads a novel, watches a movie, and/or talks to someone that gets them thinking about it. So ‘A’ decides she want to play an evil character. Unfortunately, she have no real concept of how to do that other than playing like a complete traitorous ash-hat. Most of them that do this are really not trying to wreck the game, they just don’t really know what to do.
‘B’ person really like the slight ‘out of their own skin’ feel of an RPG, but doesn’t really no how to play anything that is all that far from the person they really are (or at least want to be). ‘C’ person plays something very unpleasant. ‘B’ person may say (know in their head) that ‘C’ isn’t really like that, but since his characters are like him he may still have the feeling that ‘C’ really is like that.
RPG, pseudo-medieval, gaming, abstracted, and simplified definitions of good and evil behavior really do not match at all well with the views of modern society. ‘D’ person may not be able to get it through his skull that what is generally accepted by most players as good (or evil) behavior in this game should be treated as such. He will react like a modern RL person. Then he may be upset or appalled at people disagreeing with him. That must be how they think in RL.
Some people can kinda sorta barely be able to handle these concepts. But you through in the additional pressure of wildely different pretend moral outlooks add in some clever ethical dilemmas, some players taking it serious and others not, poor communicating by one party or another, misunderstandings of reasons/justifications, etc… Now they no longer can handle these diverse concepts.
Especially since everyone keeps using the term ‘mature’ player (no one wants to think of themselves as immature), very few of them will think they are in any way a part of any problem that arises
An evil teammate can work, as long as the player understands they can be evil, but not towards the party.
If they break this rule, everyone kills them. Problem solved.
Yep, in the Slayer's bio. Left hanging with the unanswered question of whether the Slayer killed him or left him alive at the end.
I have no problem with running an evil PC with a mostly good group or vise verse. But i never have in any of my games. Not because i won't allow it but because i haven't run into a group or player that would play with the group rather than vs the group. When i have been asked i knew the player and i knew there would be pvp involved and i wanted to avoid that. I must say tho. The group i play with now i can see my self letting it happen because they are a good group and more than seem like they can handle it with out picking fights or trying to kill each others.
Evil characters are (usually) okay as long as they keep their evil to themselves and keep their harm (mostly at least) to themselves. Sell your soul if you want, but don't be doing any ritual sacrifice.
Also I don't think Jayne is evil, just mercenary.
Someone mercenary enough to work for the bad guys can still be evil, but it's a matter of opinion, I guess. :P
I have done it more than once...
In one game, I was an Anti-Paladin working to overthrow the Horseman of Pestilence from his seat with my sister, an Dhampir Oracle of Bones working to help me accomplish my goals.
We worked with the party because "the enemy of my enemy is my asset." No sense is trying to fight BOTH the Horseman AND the party when I can use the party to get my close to the horseman.
It is very easy to play an evil character within a non-evil party. You just need to be smart about it. Evil Stupid is just as much as PLAYER problem as Lawful Stupid. If you are cold and calculating enough and MATURE enough, you can fit right into a neutral/good party easy.
A good example of this is the Time of Troubles series from the Forgotten Realms. Cyric was pretty much a NE assassin running along side the NG Nightingale (a wizard who ends up becoming the next Mystra, goddes of magic), NG cleric of beauty, and a LG/LN fighter Kelemvor (who eventually becomes the God of death). He jsut kinda did his work quietly and kept a low profile (until He ended up becoming the God of Death, Murder, Trickery, Lies, Thieves, and Assassins. But then proceeded to lose the domains of Death to Kelemvor and Trickery and theft to Mask).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread needs more evil.
What about an affably evil necromancer? Someone who, for whatever reason, has no idea that his behavior is rubbing people the wrong way?
Like the party is standing around the butchered corpses of their enemies, breathing hard after a difficult fight and rummaging for loot, when in walks Mr. Necro,
"You... you don't, uh, perchance, need that arm, do you?" *points*
"What?"
"Cuz if you're not using it..." *hopeful look*
"...what?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Long ago we had a player who was just hell bent on playing his mage like Raistlin Majere as he was a big fan of the Dragonlance series. Anyway his Raistlin clone was causing all sorts of table disruptions and it invariably lead to players attacking players.
My character got involved and after a back & forth battle (and a potion I purchase as an insurance policy should he go full Raistlin) my character stool battered yet victorious. My character spared his characters life with the promise that he would leave and never been seen again. At that point the GM snatched up the character sheet and declared his character and NPC.
A wise move by the GM and that details my first experience with "the token evil teammate"
Since then I do not allow evil player characters in the heroic fantasy games I run. It's disruptive.
Given the right circumstances and a mature ego-free game group I could see an evil pc in a party.
* A Lawful evil merc who agrees to a contact written up by the players. Being lawful he would have to adhere to the law of the contract. This might work for a few game session or until the mission/contract is over.
* Jayne in Firefly was a pretty evil dude when it came down to it but he found a working relationship with the rest of the crew. He seemed aware that his options are very limited.
* In comics it was often a trope for the hero and villain to have to work together to fight a greater menace. So a shared threat could potentially bring rivals together.
Bottom line is there are many degrees of evil and alignments that could come into play. But this is just me spouting theorycraft as I've never seen it work in action and my experience is limited.
|
|
Long ago we had a player who was just hell bent on playing his mage like Raistlin Majere as he was a big fan of the Dragonlance series. Anyway his Raistlin clone was causing all sorts of table disruptions and it invariably lead to players attacking players.
My character got involved and after a back & forth battle (and a potion I purchase as an insurance policy should he go full Raistlin) my character stool battered yet victorious. My character spared his characters life with the promise that he would leave and never been seen again. At that point the GM snatched up the character sheet and declared his character and NPC.
A wise move by the GM and that details my first experience with "the token evil teammate"
Since then I do not allow evil player characters in the heroic fantasy games I run. It's disruptive.
First and only experience, apparently.
It seems a downright shame that you rule out allowing your players to try their hands at something new because someone "long ago" couldn't do it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Long ago we had a player who was just hell bent on playing his mage like Raistlin Majere as he was a big fan of the Dragonlance series. ...
Since then I do not allow evil player characters in the heroic fantasy games I run. It's disruptive.
First and only experience, apparently.
It seems a downright shame that you rule out allowing your players to try their hands at something new because someone "long ago" couldn't do it.
For me it is a matter of odds.
Yes, an evil character in the group can be done well with much fun had by all. If have been in a group that did it about perfectly. As well as another that did ok with it.
But that isn't where the odds are. Most of the time, there is at least one person in the group that does not handle it well. Some person that can't separate the players pretend persona from reality (we're all playing our fantasy so if he really wants to play a bad guy that must mean he really wants to be a bad guy). The multitude of people that don't know a non-ash-hat way to play an evil character (there are a lot of players that are ok playing a good character, but think to be an evil character they must betray the party, steal, be insane, etc...). The GM that doesn't know how to set up an adventure for non-cliché heroes.
By no means definitive, but from my experience less than 1 in 5 groups have every member as one that can really handle and evil party member and will enjoy it.
If I just say right up front at the start, no evil or chaotic insane characters. This is a campaign about the good guys being heroic. Then usually no one gets their heart set on an evil character, might have some minor grumbling (but not usually), then we go on and have a campaign that we enjoy.
So you say I could at least give it a try, you can always nix it later. Well sure. So I'm GM and I say an evil character will be allowed.
1) Everything goes wonderfully. Great! But this is the least likely outcome. And even if it turns out perfect, is it really all that much better than if we had not allowed an evil character?
2) They player of the evil character can't handle it without being an ash-hat. I nix the evil guy cause it is ruining the campaign. Do you think there is much chance that player will admit they can't handle it? Neither do I. So now I am a bad guy for allowing him something then taking it away for no reason.
3) One of the other players can't handle it. It is a disruption and is killing fun so I nix the evil character. Ok, now I am a bad guy for taking something away that the player really was doing a good job handling.
4) Say I'm the GM that doesn't handle it well. The campaign is on fire and to try and put it out I take away the evil PC's. Now I am the bad guy for taking away their toys because I blame the players for me being a bad GM.
Odds are much higher for me to be the bad guy than any other outcome. Even if things go great, what are the chances that anyone will attribute that to me allowing an evil character? I would guess pretty minor since I have never heard anyone thank the GM for making a great campaign just because he allowed one odd option.
If I don't allow it I will not be a bad guy and we all have fun.
What incentive is there for me to allow evil characters in my campaigns?
I agree with ElterAgo. In far far more cases this explodes in everyone's faces. Can it work? Sure it can if everyone is mature AND they have a method to deal with the eventual alignment conflicts that ARE GOING TO HAPPEN.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen some of the most wonderful rp stories from folks who were 'evil' -- and some of the best 'good' acts done by them.
On the other side of the coin, I've seen some of the *worst* stories from folks who were 'good' and attempted to use that as a justification for the sorts of actions that would get someone executed for war crimes in the modern age without any valid reason to do so.
The most important part, hinted at here and there in this discussion, is that it can't be the 'mustache twirling' evil, but the nuanced method of the players in the group.
Fondly recall at one point a group of 'good' players about to commit an atrocity and the 'evil' character talking them out of it for purely selfish reasons (he wanted to use the party as the lever to bring them into line with his goals -- it worked.)
Also, someone said Loki was Chaotic Evil? No. Loki is Chaotic Neutral. Which should terrify folks even more.
First and only experience, apparently.
It seems a downright shame that you rule out allowing your players to try their hands at something new because someone "long ago" couldn't do it.
If a player came to me with a good idea and expressed how it would not be disruptive I would listen. (with my skeptic hat on)
But RPG's are a game and games can get competitive. Even on the forums we have endless threads of classes being overpowered and others being underpowered. So even when dice are not involved players compete for the most powerful "builds". But at the table the dice amp up the competition and from what I've seen humans get competitive when rolling dice.
I've never had a player ask to play a evil character in my games game. Maybe they know I'm not up for it so don't ask? In general my table enjoys playing heroes and I'll oblige.
Yeah, it's a shame.
|
|
Long ago we had a player who was just hell bent on playing his mage like Raistlin Majere as he was a big fan of the Dragonlance series. ...
Since then I do not allow evil player characters in the heroic fantasy games I run. It's disruptive.
First and only experience, apparently.
It seems a downright shame that you rule out allowing your players to try their hands at something new because someone "long ago" couldn't do it.
For me it is a matter of odds.
Yes, an evil character in the group can be done well with much fun had by all. If have been in a group that did it about perfectly. As well as another that did ok with it.
But that isn't where the odds are. Most of the time, there is at least one person in the group that does not handle it well. Some person that can't separate the players pretend persona from reality (we're all playing our fantasy so if he really wants to play a bad guy that must mean he really wants to be a bad guy). The multitude of people that don't know a non-ash-hat way to play an evil character (there are a lot of players that are ok playing a good character, but think to be an evil character they must betray the party, steal, be insane, etc...). The GM that doesn't know how to set up an adventure for non-cliché heroes...
Never tell me the odds!
Sorry, I've always wanted to say that. But to answer your questions:
1- Yes, absolutely. Any time as a GM you can maximize player choice and agency, it is all that much better.
2- As the GM, it's your responsibility to manage the game in a way to maximize the fun for all the players. If the agency of certain players interferes with the overall enjoyment of the others, then it is your responsibility to talk with them and, if they cannot mitigate their behavior, mitigate it for them. This is not unique to alignment.
3- See above
4- That's YOUR problem, not your players' problem. If you can't handle being the GM, don't be the GM.
But what I take most issue with is the fallacy you premise your argument on. Your biggest logical error is that you can't guarantee that "you won't be the badguy and everyone will have fun." I've been in plenty of games where there were stringent alignment restrictions, and interpersonal friction/GM mismanagement still managed to derail and/or detract from the game.
Can differing alignments contribute to that? Absolutely they can. But they do not, in and of themselves, derail or detract from a game any more than does the existence (or lack thereof) of the caster/martial disparity, the Stormwind fallacy, the summoner/gunslinger/headless clown class, or simple interpersonal friction from having different personalities at the table.
The incentive to allow evil players in your game include, but are not limited to:
1-Demonstrating trust and faith in your players to approach thorny issues in a mature and responsible way that will be fun for everyone
2- Maximizing player agency and choice, which is (IMO) always preferable to limiting options based on your personal beliefs that others may not share.
3- Challenging your players to play a wider ranger of roles and challenging you as a GM to adapt to accommodate those roles and integrate their decisions into your game.
Give evil a chance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
1- Yes, absolutely. Any time as a GM you can maximize player choice and agency, it is all that much better. ...
Again. I've seen little evidence that suggests the allowance of one single optional choice in a game with thousands of choices will make it significantly better for everyone.
...
2- As the GM, it's your responsibility to manage the game in a way to maximize the fun for all the players. If the agency of certain players interferes with the overall enjoyment of the others, then it is your responsibility to talk with them and, if they cannot mitigate their behavior, mitigate it for them. This is not unique to alignment.
3- See above ...
That is exactly what I am doing. My experience tells me that allowing evil alignments is most likely to detract from the enjoyment of all the members of the group except for one. Taking it away after having allowed it means even that one person is not having fun. At that point the campaign is probably dead.
...
4- That's YOUR problem, not your players' problem. If you can't handle being the GM, don't be the GM. ...
Now that is just silly. Because a person has difficulty with one single optional choice, he is suddenly totally unacceptable as a GM.
I know at least 2 GM's that do a perfectly fine job with heroic campaigns. One of them can even handle an all evil campaign. But neither seems to know what do do with a mixed group.But oh well, they can't handle this one thing, so I guess they have to quit. That's ridiculous.
...
But what I take most issue with is the fallacy you premise your argument on. Your biggest logical error is that you can't guarantee that "you won't be the badguy and everyone will have fun." I've been in plenty of games where there were stringent alignment restrictions, and interpersonal friction/GM mismanagement still managed to derail and/or detract from the game. ...
Look again. I never said anything about guarantees. I never said there can't be other causes of friction or GM mismanagement. I never even hinted or implied that.
What I clearly said is of the 4 general categories of possible outcomes related to allowing evil alignments, only 1 is positive for me or the group. My experience tells me that it is the least likely of those 4 possibilities. I have seen little evidence that it is anything other than a very slight positive.
Do you have another general category of possible outcome?
Is there any reason to believe that it will suddenly become the most likely outcome?
Do you have any reason to believe that is a greatly significant positive to out weigh the rarity of its occurrence?
There is very little reason for me to allow that option in my games.
...
The incentive to allow evil players in your game include, but are not limited to:
1-Demonstrating trust and faith in your players to approach thorny issues in a mature and responsible way that will be fun for everyone
2- Maximizing player agency and choice, which is (IMO) always preferable to limiting options based on your personal beliefs that others may not share.
3- Challenging your players to play a wider ranger of roles and challenging you as a GM to adapt to accommodate those roles and integrate their decisions into your game. ...
1) I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at here. But it doesn't sound like my goals (or most of the players I have known) in this hobby. I take part in this hobby to hang out with my friends and escape from my daily life for a few hours.
2) Has zero to do with my personal beliefs. No idea where you are getting that. I try reasonably hard to make sure players have as many choices as are consistent with keeping the game going and remaining fun. The vast majority of house rules that I use are to allow more combinations and options that the RAW currently does not.3) It isn't my job to push them into more roles. Besides that doesn't have anything to do with the conversation unless I say that not only is evil alignments allowable, but one of you has to take one.
I'm not sure exactly where you are heading with it, but your incentives sound more like a therapy/counselling session that an enjoyable hobby.
Again, I am not absolutely against the entire concept. I have seen it done very well. Once I was the evil character in a campaign that did pretty good. However, that has been the unusual case not the standard.
I am probably joining a new group this spring. If the GM allows evil alignments will I run screaming into the night? No of course not. But it probably would make me watch a little more carefully for signs of an imminent implosion.
Am I never willing to consider allowing evil alignments? No. If I have been with a group long enough to know them well and be relatively certain that the entire group can handle. I may remove that stricture from my house rules. Actually I have considered it for the last 3 groups I have been a part of. But after consideration there has been at least 1 person in each group that I felt was more likely to not handle it well.
I allow it with the stipulation that alignment differences are jocular and cannot result in player-vs-player combat.
And I make sure that the evil character has a motivation to assist the party.
|
|
Again. I've seen little evidence that suggests the allowance of one single optional choice in a game with thousands of choices will make it significantly better for everyone.
But as you note, it is not just one single option. It's 1/3rd of the alignments available, and with those alignments come additional thousands of choices down the line.
That is exactly what I am doing. My experience tells me that allowing evil alignments is most likely to detract from the enjoyment of all the members of the group except for one. Taking it away after having allowed it means even that one person is not having fun. At that point the campaign is probably dead.
With respect, it is different. The distinction is "if". You assume the agency of certain players will interfere with the overall enjoyment of the game. That's not terribly fair to players who have not demonstrated they cannot be trusted with that agency. You're operating exclusively on your beliefs, and reducing agency because of it.
Now that is just silly. Because a person has difficulty with one single optional choice, he is suddenly totally unacceptable as a GM.
I know at least 2 GM's that do a perfectly fine job with heroic campaigns. One of them can even handle an all evil campaign. But neither seems to know what do do with a mixed group.
But oh well, they can't handle this one thing, so I guess they have to quit. That's ridiculous.
I must have misunderstood your initial point. When you said "4) Say I'm the GM that doesn't handle it well. The campaign is on fire and to try and put it out I take away the evil PC's. Now I am the bad guy for taking away their toys because I blame the players for me being a bad GM." I guess I just misunderstood, because if the players are enjoying themselves, and no one is objecting to this (the GM is the only one with a problem) how is everything on fire? And why would you take away something that everyone is capable of doing and enjoying?
Look again. I never said anything about guarantees. I never said there can't be other causes of friction or GM mismanagement. I never even hinted or implied that.
I looked again. You said, and I quote: If I don't allow it I will not be a bad guy and we all have fun.
Perhaps what you intended to convey was different than what you chose to write. What you wrote is a fallacy that underpins your entire argument- that but for the inclusion of this option, everyone will have fun and you won't be a "bad guy". This is simply not the case, and you know it as well as everyone else.
What then about this specific option is demonstrably more toxic to enjoyment than any of the other potential barriers I listed? I'll save you time: there's nothing about it. For every anecdote you bring that it is more toxic, others have anecdotes that it isn't, or that the God-Wizard was more of a PITA than the evil rogue, or that some people who play LN like it was CE or LG like LE and so the difference is minimal, or that mechanical imbalances render the game not enjoyable far more frequently than alignemnt, etc.
Given that, the decision to strip options from players who have yet to demonstrate they cannot be trusted to exercise those options with consideration to the other players is arbitrary and capricious.
1) I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at here. But it doesn't sound like my goals (or most of the players I have known) in this hobby. I take part in this hobby to hang out with my friends and escape from my daily life for a few hours.
Absolutely that's the goal. But it sounds like you're saying, when you get right down to it, that you don't trust your friends to be decent to each other, or that should they upset one another, that they wouldn't be able to reason/talk it out and come to terms with one another. That's rough.
Has zero to do with my personal beliefs.
If you aren't willing to give them the chance to demonstrate that they are capable of handling what "your experiences" tell you they are not, then it has everything to do with your personal beliefs. If you have already tried and failed with these players, that's one thing. To hold them to account for things they did not do is entirely another. One is a consequence of their actions, the other is a consequence of your beliefs about actions they did not take.
3) It isn't my job to push them into more roles. Besides that doesn't have anything to do with the conversation unless I say that not only is evil alignments allowable, but one of you has to take one.
No one is mandating you make them play evil characters. That's akin to saying if we make gay marriage legal, then we have to all get gay married. But if you give them the option, and they take it, then you are in effect encouraging them to play new and different perspectives by giving them a chance you otherwise have not.
You may not find these reasons compelling, and that's fine, but I find that games are enriched by a diversity of players and a diversity of characters.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
4- That's YOUR problem, not your players' problem. If you can't handle being the GM, don't...
Because I tell my players I prefer no evil characters in the heroic fantasy games I run is not an indicator that I "Can't handle GM'ing".
And I wholeheartedly disagree with the second half of your point #2.
2- As the GM, it's your responsibility to manage the game in a way to maximize the fun for all the players. If the agency of certain players interferes with the overall enjoyment of the others, then it is your responsibility to talk with them and, if they cannot mitigate their behavior, mitigate it for them. This is not unique to alignment.
I play with grown ups and I expect them to act accordingly. I'm not here to mitigate their behavior or babysit. Time spent babysitting is time not spent playing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
Ok, when a person refers to 'personal beliefs' they usually are talking about morals, ethics, or religion. The whole conversation has nothing to do with that. Sorry, I didn't realize you meant something a person thinks might happen. That is not the way I usually hear the phrase used.
Yes. It is 1/3 of the options on 1 choice among thousands during build. I don't see that it has all that much affect on very many of the rest of them.
I am not exactly sure what you mean by the term 'agency' in your statements. It doesn't fit with what I am seeing for the possible definitions. However, it seems like you are referring to behavior and/or choice. Not sure.
And no I am not assuming that no one can handle the option. Actually, I think most of them probably could. But with 6-7 people at the table, it becomes much more likely that at least one of them can't. If there is one that can't. The campaign takes a nose dive where people are not having fun. As you say, yes I could take away the toy at that point. But I have never seen that save the campaign. All that has ever done is make one more person have even less fun. Campaign dies or at least drags on with a very lengthy recovery time.
Yes, there is a chance that allowing evil characters will go well. But it is the least likely outcome and the improvement is very minor.
I will try to state more clearly.
4) If who ever the GM is, happens to not be doing a good job of handling opposing character alignments. Then probably the campaign is not going well and people are not having fun. If the GM removes the choice of evil alignments at that point, he is seen as a failure and punishing the players for his inadequacy.
However; if he had not allowed it in the first place, that problem would have never come up and generated all those bad feelings.
I will try to state more clearly.
If I don't allow opposing alignments within the party, there is essentially zero chance that I will be perceived as a poor GM if it becomes necessary to take away evil alignments.
If I don't allow opposed alignments within the party, there is essentially zero chance the campaign/group/friendships will be demolished because of opposed alignments.
No, taking away that option does not guarantee a wondrous campaign. But it removes one aspect that could ruin a campaign for nearly no cost.
Yes, I have heard some people not like the wizard. Or summoner. Or druid. Or whatever. But I've never heard of including one of them completely wrecking a campaign. I hear that most of the time for allowing an evil PC in a good party.
Allowing evil PC's in a good party has a relatively small chance to provide minimal improvement for the group.
Allowing evil PC's in a good party has a relatively large chance to promote substantial discord for the group.
Not allowing evil PC's in a good party does eliminate that small chance for the minimal improvement. At the same time it also greatly reduces the chance for a campaign to go down in flames, at least for that particular reason.
No, neither one is a guarantee in either direction. I am aware of that. I am not taking away all of their choices. I am not introducing a tiny fraction of choices that usually seem to result in bad things not good things.
I see no significant reason to allow evil PC's in a good group for my games. The upside potential is minimal and least likely to happen. The downside potential is huge and more likely to happen.
You keep coming back to me trusting my friends. You say I don't trust them to handle it. I don't trust them to work it out after they have a huge fight. I don't trust them to let it go when their feelings are hurt. Give it a chance and see what happens. It just might be good.
But look at if from the other side. Since they are my friends, why should I want to inflict that stress upon them or our relationships for essentially no reason?
If they were not my friends and I didn't care what results, then maybe I would allow it just to see what happened. If the campaign goes down in flames, the group breaks up, or the friends aren't speaking to each other - so what? it isn't a problem because I don't care about them.
That slight chance for things to work out a bit better is ok, because the likely problems don't bother me.
Twice I've played the Token Evil character, or at least the Evil character in a group.
I will say that most of the groups I play with are fairly neutral. Not necessarily due to player choice, but because my DM demands real effort from those who aspire to the Good alignments. Just slapping 'Good' on your character sheet and fighting monsters all day won't cut it. Of course, he does say there's nothing wrong with Neutral. The vast majority of people in the game world are neutral as well.
Anyways, my first example was a Lawful Evil cleric worshipping the God of Tyranny. (3.5) I brought him in after I retired/killed off my last character because he wasn't effective. I saw we needed a cleric, but I decided to mix things up by making him Lawful Evil. We were far enough in the campaign that we knew there was a Big Bad with Big Evil Plans, and so I could have my character work with the group in an Enemy Mine scenario.
He worked out very well. My DM was impressed, saying he thought I showed some real roleplaying with that character. (Backhanded compliment, granted.) Being lawful meant he was willing to go with the group and followed a code of honour. He didn't want the Big Bad to win, and while he would love to see the party kneel before him, he was very much aware that they were just as powerful as him, and trying to betray/trick/dominate them would end up VERY badly.
There were some interesting RP portions, including tense moments when we joined up with an NPC Paladin, and more notably when the other group (We each had two characters, each members of different groups, though sometimes we met up to decide our next move.) turned out to have a cleric to the Chaotic Good Goddess of Freedom. I played the voice of dark reason, always arguing for the most effective route, but never did I force the issue. And since I wanted the group to succeed, I healed and buffed them without hesitation. I also tried to play the role of the comically serious at times.
My second, more recent example, would be a Neutral Evil Alchemist. In this case, while he's a selfish jerk, he's also a craven coward, which balances out the two extremes. I play him as quite creepy, always sunken chested, slightly huddled in himself, and stuttering. Again, he keeps the group alive because they keep him alive. Though outside of the group, he has no such loyalties. For instance, our current trek has our party as part of a large group of tomb robbers hired by a noble to find a particular artifact. There are two dwarves we're travelling with, who were hired before our group, and are receiving a sizeable percentage of all treasure found. (I think 30% for the two of them as opposed to our group's 50 or 60%) My character isn't actively moving against them, but if there's an opportunity to kill 'em off, (With little risk) he won't hesitate. Despite being evil, the only other character my character is friends with is the Chaotic Good Elven Cleric. (Because we're both scholarly types. And it isn't really reciprocal, my character just likes him the most.)
Whenever I see these evil character threads, I have this urge to write up a guide to playing the token evil character, with general rules as well as specific examples.
Rule 1, as everybody has mentioned, is never work against the party. Other rules include:
- Evil is not one big happy family. (Just because you're evil, doesn't mean you're obliged to work with other evil forces, such as those you may be fighting against.
- Evil can have friends. (You are allowed to trust people. Though likely a small group, you can be loyal to your party members. Those outside have no such protection. Also, having people you trust doesn't mean you're not still a jerk to them. You're just more polite about it.)
- Don't be Stupid Evil. (Being evil doesn't mean you have to be doing something evil every waking moment.)
And various other tips. Really should write that up someday, maybe get some input on this board.
I usually have at least one to spice it up, either LE or NE (CE is never going to work unless they're carted around in chains).
I make it very clear up front however that the PC is responsible for his actions and I cannot be held accountable if something he does ends him in serious trouble. Ironically, I have had more issues with CN characters that NE or LE ones in that regard.
In fact, once I had an NE assassin character turn the CN summoner-gone-relic-thief in to the foreign authorities that were out looking for him because he was a menace to their goal. Evil character may cause trouble, but they tend to be more predictable than a CN, in my experience.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
CN is often used by players as CE in disguise.
They frequently forget that 'N' means something.
|
I agree with Aranna. I have more problems with players wanting to be CN than with players wanting to be LE or NE. I've known too many players that think that if they do something nice, they get to do something evil just for fun (claiming that it's about balance). Or worse, they think that being CN means that they get to do random crazy crap.
The same people always seem to want to play Malkavians in White Wolf's Vampire too; because they're so fun an quirky.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How many of you as GMs allow evil characters in your standard non-evil campaign?
How many of you as players have played alongside or as the token evil teammate?
What roles do you guys find most fitting for the TET in terms of group dynamics? Alignment? Classes?
I'm always sort of fond of the TET characters. Be they Jayne from Firefly, Alice Morgan from Luther, Loki from the most recent Thor movie, Jack from ME2, Morrigan from Dragon Age- I feel like the TET can provide a valuable perspective to an otherwise monolithic group of "heroes" (or muderhobos, depending on your group). They can give the opportunity, if played well, of interpersonal friction within the party that doesn't necessarily lead to blows. You can redeem 'em! You can fall to their level! They can provide a pragmatic counterpoint to an otherwise circuitous plan!
Just not in a party with a Paladin. Ever.
I allow evil characters.
I have played alongside evil chars and been the only evil char.
Evil wizards work, warmages (as was mentioned earlier), one of my favourite evil characters was a warmage, melee/assassins.
I responded on this thread something of a half year ago; and I feel I mis-explained myself.
I have had experiences with my players where they choose to be backstabbers of the group, or thieving from their fellow players, using the defense "I'm evil, and just playing my character.". I disagree with this, because it demands that the other players do two things: Deal with your urges to be selfish, and to act out of character themselves, by allowing a proven betrayer in their group. It becomes a real; I am allowed to play my character, but you guys shouldn't.
On the other hand, I've played in WotW, as both a PC and a Gm. We've had runs where Pcs betray each other over greed, or pride, and games where they channel their maliciousness on those that oppose them in the world (The better option I think.) I think it's because the players want to have the leeway to explore BEING evil, for the experience of being evil. This isn't something I'm opposed to. I get opposed to players ruining the game for each other.
My token evil characters have been;
A Vitalist (3pp psionics) who was once forced to kill one of the group's allies to siphon his dying life force into a another person (I was out of PP, and regained them when someone died in my mental collective.) The group looked at me in shock, and in character I responded; "Whatever it takes to win the day."
I've played a selfish Nomad who used his superior mobility to escape with the group's quest mcguffin, and their gems. His CE alignment was hidden, and revealed only during this moment. I then asked the GM to allow me to retire the character, and use him as a recurring. I believe the players enjoyed the idea, if they were going to get their stuff back eventually.
I find this betray was a rare example that worked.
Where the issues happen is when someone tries to mix both the Persistant cold hearted party member, who takes the hard path when needed, with the bastard betrayer. Excellent alone, if each is done well. A bad idea when mixed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one likes backstabbing ar******s. Your nomad actually reminds me of one of my own skirmishers. Good times.
Chaotic evil I view a few ways, overt and hidden.