So, in the group I GM for, one of the players wants to play an evil character who will have goals that will most likely go against the party. We have a few house rules on PvP:
-nonlethal PvP is okay, so you can knock someone out. Only time this isn't okay is in the middle of an encounter (because a knock out could mean Dragon food)
-lethal PvP is okay, so long as all involved agree with it, and what it could mean for their character
-betrayal is okay so long as I'm informed beforehand, so I can prepare. Betrayal in this sense isn't literal stabbing in the back, rather leading the party/a character into a less than ideal situation (that I'll create, so it's not totally damming and some could stuff can come out of it)
Basically, with those rules in mind, I'm looking for advice on how best to handle an evil PC who will most likely betray the party - tips on what restrictions to set would be appreciated as I've never GM'd for something like this before, and have only played in a game where a Stabby McBackstab couldn't keep it in his sheath (a boss fight isn't a fun time to be colour sprayed - this was not following the aforementioned PvP rules), and I don't want it becoming like that.
The player hasn't written a backstory yet, so I can't give much more information, but they do know the PvP rules, and so I reckon they'll be looking to set up a betrayal.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Evil PC's are fine, so long as they fit into the story. However, realize that having a PC go against the party can be taken hard by players.
Generally, IMO, evil PC's should always be "Hahn Solo". Yeah they are jerks, but when push comes to shove they are heroes and wont ruin the game for other people.
Everyone is supposed to have fun, and a single evil PC can really ruin it. Be cautious.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only way this works without someone getting upset is to let everyone know in advance that someone is playing an evil character and ask if everyone is okay with it.
As a player and GM I'm pretty staunchly against any amount of PVP or betrayal as I've only seen this cause a lot of conflict out of character and often kills campaigns.
If everyone knows upfront (out of character) before entering in there is less sense of personal betrayal between people (not characters).
If I were a player in your game and I wasn't informed upfront there is a solid chance I would quit the game when the betrayal happened even if it wasn't my character. Pathfinder is a game based on cooperative action and that is the presumed baseline. If you're going to change that everyone should know.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who is this fun for?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I very much recommend against allowing evil pc's who exist specifically to attack other party members.
I played in a game where one PC was essentially an Anti-paladin of Hastur (LE since this was well before Pathfinder, 3.0 I think). He was evil, but saw the value in keeping himself surrounded by good people so they could deflect blame.
Everything he did evil was against NPC's. He never stole from players or went specifically against their wishes. Not specifically for any IG reason sometime but because the player didn't want to ruin their fun.
Naught but hurt feelings and ruined friendships is down the path as your describe it.
If your group is fine with it, and only if you are 100% sure your group is fine with it, is it an acceptable idea.
I have GMed and played RPGs for almost 34 years, the only time it was acceptable was when the game itself revolved around betrayal (Paranoia or Amber), otherwise I have yet to see a group that could pass it as acceptable behavior. This even includes such borderline RPGs such as the White Wolf system, or spy games. Players in my groups have always reacted badly to this unless the game fluff itself emphasized that betrayal is a normal part of the game.
As for evil PCs, for a Fantasy game in my groups it has only worked when the evil PC is still very loyal to the group. The evil PC is just more....extreme when reacting to those that dare hurt the people the PC cares for. Said PC also is more likely to take advantage of random NPCs (not necessarily violent, yet definitely not nice). Even evil people usually care for someone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, in the group I GM for, one of the players wants to play an evil character who will have goals that will most likely go against the party. We have a few house rules on PvP:
-nonlethal PvP is okay, so you can knock someone out. Only time this isn't okay is in the middle of an encounter (because a knock out could mean Dragon food)
-lethal PvP is okay, so long as all involved agree with it, and what it could mean for their character
-betrayal is okay so long as I'm informed beforehand, so I can prepare. Betrayal in this sense isn't literal stabbing in the back, rather leading the party/a character into a less than ideal situation (that I'll create, so it's not totally damming and some could stuff can come out of it)Basically, with those rules in mind, I'm looking for advice on how best to handle an evil PC who will most likely betray the party - tips on what restrictions to set would be appreciated as I've never GM'd for something like this before, and have only played in a game where a Stabby McBackstab couldn't keep it in his sheath (a boss fight isn't a fun time to be colour sprayed - this was not following the aforementioned PvP rules), and I don't want it becoming like that.
The player hasn't written a backstory yet, so I can't give much more information, but they do know the PvP rules, and so I reckon they'll be looking to set up a betrayal.
Chaotic Evil?
Nope. Never, Don't even think about it.Neutral evil/Lawful Evil?
More acceptable.
It is true that Evil characters tend to be more selfish, and to a degree see little value in the life of another, however, from a pathfinder group perspective, an evil character, would stand to lose More from betraying/fighting his own group, than doing so to NPC's, Generally Paladins, and NPC's are weary of Evil characters if it is known that they are evil, while PC's would have a reason to trust an evil aligned PC.
If the Evil PC wants to duel someone, it should obviously be stated, and should be done so in the presence of the other party members. But such dueling should have a meaningful purpose not a "look my player is stronger than yours, HAHA"
Maybe the Evil PC would like to steer the group to a different direciton, or a different tactic. And Demands a duel to prove his honor/might to be in charge. And as a consequence of such dueling then that player would lead a charge or attack on a group since OBVIOUSLY he is strong enough to take down his own Ally, then he shouldn't chicken out when it came to danger.
It can be a lot of fun roleplaying wise, but keep in mind that it should not be fun on the expense of others.
For example, if a character prepares more utility spells for the day, and The Evil PC wants to duel with his optimized spells, then that is an obvious disadvantage.
Also be wary that once the Evil PC does betray the party, that is one player that the party depended on. Why would they trust that player again?
I could see a betrayal like a judas action of selling out his allies to evil authorities, in which the PC's get sent to prison.
But by doing so, the evil PC is able to gain better favor among that evil group, and break the PC's out and strike directly at the evil organizations leader.
It's a tough call.
|
Organize things so that betraying the PCs appears slowly but steadily like an increasingly bad idea for the Evil PC. So that his own best interest (or that which has the most value in his eyes) is far better served with NOT betraying the party.
For example, maybe he discovers that his boss who asks for the party's betrayal intends to betray and execute him too.
I have no problems with evil characters and have played several myself. However, all of them for one reason or another in their backstory saw the benefit of working with the group and never betrayed the group. One person backstabbing the rest of the group is not going to be fun for anyone except the one doing the backstabbing. I do not recommend allowing it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Once the PC betrays the group, he or she should be ready to make a new character, and that causes a whole slew of different problems...
There is no good in game or out of game reason to have a "blatantly evil will betray you and derail the game" PC.
So, in the group I GM for, one of the players wants to play an evil character who will have goals that will most likely go against the party.
Playing evil can be fine. Playing a character who goes against the party is just making things difficult. The character doesn't actually have to be evil to be antagonistic. Any other alignment could do that in the right party.
Basically, you should discuss doing this with the rest of the party before doing it. If everyone thinks it's going to be fun then sure, but otherwise, no. I feel the same way about playing a Paladin in a party. Check with everyone else to make sure they feel like being in a Paladin party.
So, in the group I GM for, one of the players wants to play an evil character who will have goals that will most likely go against the party.Playing evil can be fine. Playing a character who goes against the party is just making things difficult. The character doesn't actually have to be evil to be antagonistic. Any other alignment could do that in the right party.
Basically, you should discuss doing this with the rest of the party before doing it. If everyone thinks it's going to be fun then sure, but otherwise, no. I feel the same way about playing a Paladin in a party. Check with everyone else to make sure they feel like being in a Paladin party.
I really think that is part of a big misconception, Lawful Stupid Paladins should be the exception, not the rule.
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
There is nothing in there that locks out any PC except for an evil one, and even then it does not actually cause them to fall.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Playing an Evil character can be done. But you need to be careful that his interests align with the party.
Playing any Alignment on a character that goes against the party will lead to "unfun times"(TM) on your table. DO NOT do it.
I feel the same way about playing a Paladin in a party. Check with everyone else to make sure they feel like being in a Paladin party.I really think that is part of a big misconception, Lawful Stupid Paladins should be the exception, not the rule.
It doesn't have to have anything to do with Lawful Stupid though. A party with a Paladin will be limited in what they can do by the paladin code, or else you will have to split the party, which is also a bad thing.
It really depends on your group. Personally I know that my local group would actually relish the cool story aspect of it as long as I managed to story-telling of it well. We have very strong player/character separation. But not all groups are as mature as ours.
But not all groups are as mature as ours.
It's not as much about maturity as about what you enjoy to do. It's like the difference between liking PvE or PvP servers. Some like to be adversarial and some don't. Which is why I say it's the sort of thing that should be discussed with the entire table first.
Although I would still argue that maturity is a big part of it, you are correct in that different players enjoy different kinds of stories. Open communication with your players is always a positive thing. I wouldn't run a completely secret evil party member until you really know how your group would react.
It really depends on your group. Personally I know that my local group would actually relish the cool story aspect of it as long as I managed to story-telling of it well. We have very strong player/character separation. But not all groups are as mature as ours.
Maturity has nothing to do with it. If your group enjoys it that's on you and yours, but your group would by far be an exception.
Off Topic...
It doesn't have to have anything to do with Lawful Stupid though. A party with a Paladin will be limited in what they can do by the paladin code, or else you will have to split the party, which is also a bad thing.I feel the same way about playing a Paladin in a party. Check with everyone else to make sure they feel like being in a Paladin party.I really think that is part of a big misconception, Lawful Stupid Paladins should be the exception, not the rule.
I don't see anything in the code of conduct that limits what a party can do in any great way.
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
It's splitting hairs sometimes (not lying, working your way around a situation, etc.) but it is no where in the same realm as an evil PC.
Off Topic...
** spoiler omitted **
I could argue to a point, but you are right that it would derail the thread, so I agree that we just drop that thread in this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Although I would still argue that maturity is a big part of it, you are correct in that different players enjoy different kinds of stories. Open communication with your players is always a positive thing. I wouldn't run a completely secret evil party member until you really know how your group would react.
I would argue that in a really mature group, there would be no reason to keep your character "completely secret" from them. They should be able to separate their meta-knowledge from their character's knowledge.
Thanks guys. I've since spoken to the player about it, and I'm trying to work things out with him (either decided to not play a character with a contrasting alignment, or to tell the others what he plans to do and see if they're happy with it).
We're playing a lawful campaign at the moment, as such characters are asked to be one step within lawful neutral. The player is new to Pathfinder (though has played a lot of 3.5) and he's said that he likes playing characters that don't fit in with the group (and I *think* he may have said he doesn't like playing lawful characters); his first character was CG, and while I probably shouldn't have been as lenient, the good half of the alignment made me think it wouldn't be too much of a problem, and it wasn't. He later wanted to make a second character (the one being discussed), and again he doesn't want them to fit in, but this time he doesn't want them to be goody-goody either. Besides the evil character, he also had an idea for a CN character, which I am also unsure about because they'd be worshipping a CN god (whereas the rest of the team worships the same LN god), and CN has quite a reputation for being the fourth (and worst) evil.
I'm wondering if there's a good way to appeal to his wish to be different (as to not spoil his fun) and a way to implement that character in a way that wouldn't disrupt the party. I know I could give him an ultimatum of "play the way the campaign was meant to be played, or get out", but I'd feel that'd be way too harsh as he hasn't done anything wrong, and it wouldn't be fun for him. Any advice for him to make a character that doesn't share the same viewpoints as the team, but who doesn't clash with them either?
|
I tend to Play LE a lot. But I usually live by a moral code. The first rule on it is I do not harm those I call friends but will try to better there situation when it will better my situation.
Basically it can work...but only if your PCs are adult about it and realizes there is more fun to be had working together instead of trying to give the other 3 the shaft.
Basically I would say NO to him....because he has the Intention to Kill the other players. Childish and petty. It will cause a Salty feeling among the other players to get attached to their characters and then having them killed off by a guy who has been dicking them over.
If he asked to be evil cause he wants to play a character fighting against his nature...Like a Necromancer who is trying to get back on the path o good by not using Raise dead or (evil) aligned spells. I did this and worked on redemption...Being LE is easy...going from LE to LG makes for a much more interesting character.
Lawful evil is the best kind of evil to get along with. If he has a very strict personal code of conduct be could easily get along with the party with the right campaign motivation. I would draw inspiration from Asmodeus and his incredibly lawful and contract-orientated way of dealing with things. Perhaps a blood contract for your character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Opinion within:
CN & CE are the worst alignments for PC's. They are both lazy and prone to murderhobo in the worst way.
To be CE you have to a sociopath (you dont care about morals or ethics). No one wants to work with a sociopath.
CN is worse because its lazy, just pick N or NE, chaos for chaos sake isn't cool.
Though there are exceptions, of course, that is just my feelings at base.
Lawful evil is the best kind of evil to get along with. If he has a very strict personal code of conduct be could easily get along with the party with the right campaign motivation. I would draw inspiration from Asmodeus and his incredibly lawful and contract-orientated way of dealing with things. Perhaps a blood contract for your character.
You don't necessarily have to go full contract in blood for LE to work but yeah if someone has to be evil LE and NE are the best two.
I prefer evil that's almost neutral, but evil enough in one area to still be evil. Like a necromancer who just really thinks undead are cool. He won't go out of his way to do anything bad to someone, but he'll happily take your corpse and make a butler out of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Certain kinds of neutral evil are very easy to work with. Specifically, the kinds motivated by green and/or selfishness. As long as working with you always pays or helps them personally prosper, they'll stick with you. Obviously doesn't cover all kinds of NE, but some kinds it does.
I wouldn't say it's the evil part of the character concept that's the problem; it's the part where he wants to betray the party. Unless everyone knows upfront that PvP is likely to happen in the game and agrees to it, that's a bad idea.
Cwheezy is right. Evil doesn't mean stupid, and even a chaotic evil character isn't going to, say, murder someone in front of a paladin. That would just be stupid. Evil characters can have plenty of reasons to work with the party while still being evil.
Side note: CN isn't supposed to be borderline evil. It CAN be, but often people just treat it as evil-lite and ignore the "neutral" part of the alignment.
Since it's a lawful campaign, you probably want to encourage him to stick as close to that as possible. Maybe LE? Personally, I wouldn't say no to the evil alignment, but I would say no to a concept that involves him turning on the other players. There's just too much possibility for bad feelings there.
Greed* and/or selfishness. It would be an odd character to be inspired by green.
Greed* and/or selfishness. It would be an odd character to be inspired by green.
Druids.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, in the group I GM for, one of the players wants to play an evil character
Others have said it - this is fine if it is managed well and the evil guy fits into the group.
who will have goals that will most likely go against the party.
This never ever works. It ruins campaigns, it causes hurt feelings, and it's almost always bad for the continuity of any long gaming group. Maybe as a one-shot adventure where everyone agrees to this kind of thing, otherwise it's a bust.
This is a SOCIAL game. Playing it as an antisocial jerk just ruins the social aspect that the rest of the players are trying to achieve. Yes, I'm calling that player a jerk (he's anonymous so it's not personal about him, it's about that player type). He is the only person who benefits from this, if you define benefit as "I get my kicks by ruining things and being a general pain in the butt". Everyone else loses. That's being a jerk.
We have a few house rules on PvP
Doesn't matter.
PVP that evolves organically through roleplaying and exploring diverse characters can be great fun (again, as long as everyone involved agrees). But PVP that exists solely because one player wants to be antisocial and behave like a jerk at the expense of other players is not, NOT, NOT good gaming.
Basically, with those rules in mind, I'm looking for advice on how best to handle an evil PC who will most likely betray the party
Disallow it.
Period. Full stop.
and I don't want it becoming like that.
It will. Just prevent it in the first place.
The player hasn't written a backstory yet, so I can't give much more information, but they do know the PvP rules, and so I reckon they'll be looking to set up a betrayal.
Which is where your campaign will end. At the choosing of this player. Campaigns should end when the GM and players agree that it is finished or that they want to do something else. Campaigns should NOT end when one player decides to ruin it for their own selfish pleasure.
And as at least two posters in this thread have said, they would leave the game when this happens. So it not only ruins this campaign, but if you have players like them in your group it might ruin your whole gaming group.
Thanks guys. I've since spoken to the player about it, and I'm trying to work things out with him (either decided to not play a character with a contrasting alignment, or to tell the others what he plans to do and see if they're happy with it).
Either of these is much more acceptable than the initial impression. But the first is FAR better than the second.
If he picks the first (you probably should insist on it) then there are no problems. If he can't have fun playing a social game in a social fashion, then he should go back to ganking noobs in WOW. Heck, you'll be doing him a favor helping him grow up and learn to socialize with living people.
If he picks the second, then get EVERY player to agree that they don't mind the possibility of being betrayed mid-campaign and work out contingencies to replace their characters and get the campaign back on track (if that's even possible) after the inevitable betrayal. Make it a minigame for them to see if they can find a way, in-game, to prevent that betrayal before it ever happens. If they all agree, this might be salvagable.
I'm wondering if there's a good way to appeal to his wish to be different (as to not spoil his fun)
Lots of ways. But an evil, misfit, betrayer is not one of them. His fun cannot come at the expense of ruining the campaign, ruining the fun of the other players (and you), and possibly even breaking up the gaming group.
and a way to implement that character in a way that wouldn't disrupt the party.
Some others have posted evil solutions in this thread. The gist is to be evil if you must, but not to be stupid-evil: recognize that even as an evil douchebag, you can get more working with a team than working against them, and have this be a STRONG part of your personal code. This means you can be evil but still work well with the other PCs and never betray them. Get him to see this. If he can't, then bluntly tell him that he cannot seem to handle the idea of an evil character in a social RPG and you are banning evil alignments from him. Period.
If he doesn't like it and he walks, it's not a big loss. Better to lose one antisocial jerk who ruins games than lose everybody else who plays games.
I know I could give him an ultimatum of "play the way the campaign was meant to be played, or get out", but I'd feel that'd be way too harsh as he hasn't done anything wrong, and it wouldn't be fun for him.
Talk to him. Make him see reason. If he can, then he doesn't have to "get out" and it won't cause him to have no fun.
But if he can't, then then he IS doing something wrong: resolutely refusing to see reason and insisting on ruining your game IS wrong.
Any advice for him to make a character that doesn't share the same viewpoints as the team, but who doesn't clash with them either?
See a great many of the posts above.
We're playing a lawful campaign at the moment, as such characters are asked to be one step within lawful neutral. The player is new to Pathfinder (though has played a lot of 3.5) and he's said that he likes playing characters that don't fit in with the group
It sounds like this player is new to your group as well, unless you are all new to pathfinder. If that is the case, I would strongly advise against allowing him to make a PvP character that is designed to screw with the other characters. It is very unlikely that it will end well.
That sort of thing can be tricky even with good friends who trust each other.
I suggest you give all of your players basic restrictions, not necessarily 'one step within a given alignment' things like they have to explain why their character wants to be part of this team, why they are going after the campaign goal etc, and why the group would want them to be part of it.
One problem with PvP in roleplaying games, especially when it is one 'betrayer' against a group, is that is isn't really fair. The group pretty much has to accept whatever jerk a player brings to the party because that is 'their character.' Because the party has to accept your character, a player should strive to make a character that the party would want to accept anyway. That includes not being a betraying jerk most of the time.
Greed* and/or selfishness. It would be an odd character to be inspired by green.Druids.
I've always wanted to make an evil extremist druid, but I could never think of a way to make it make sense as part of a party. I guess it's just one of those things that works better as a NPC villain.
A character who has evil motivations but whose goals are compatible with the party is fine. In fact any player character of any alignment should have goals that are compatible with the party's. Anything else is by definition an antagonist.
Playing antagonists is fine for a fun one-off adventure providing everyone is on board but otherwise will lead to a short campaign, hurt feelings and a broken group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lots of good advice
Thanks.
I don't think the player himself is a jerk, but I'm kind of getting a feeling for his play-style , and I think it's quite 'total personal freedom based' - eg, a person should be allowed to play chaotic evil drider vampire because they want to, even at the expense of the group. I persuaded him to tell the others that he wanted to play evil, and the others have basically said that it's fine, so long as it's lawful evil. I also decided to get rid of CE, NE, and CN for this campaign because a few of the others weren't happy with the idea of someone playing with those alignments, so nipping it in the bud now is probably the safest thing to do. Suffice to say, I don't think any of them would be happy with betrayal from what they've said, so I doubt I'll let him do it.
All but three (including myself) players haven't played Pathfinder for a substantial amount of time, so reflecting on the situation and things that people here have said, I don't think betrayal would go down well, and I don't think the group is mature enough to deal with some of the more morally questionable alignments (not to say all of them are in this boat, but there are a few that I believe may equate chaotic evil to murder everything in sight).
I'll see the group in person tomorrow, so I'll ask them again, and I'll talk to the player to see if we can come up with something that will be fun for the entire group. Thanks again, everyone!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some of your favorite character types from fantasy just don't work that well in a cooperative RPG. Those characters only work in fiction, because the story bends itself around them working.
Him being evil can work perfectly fine but betrayals are contrary to the concept of cooperative RPGs. Even with players that are mature enough to handle PvP, the moment the character in question betrays the party is the point where you'll have to retire the character and I think a lot of people who want to do this forget that fact.
I play a lot of evil characters but I never make them with goals that oppose the rest of the party. They often have their own goals and motivations, some of which are better left hidden from the party, but they never go against the party itself. I also think it's important to remember that Evil characters are still people. Despite their moral compromises, they often have friends and loved ones that they want to protect and may even commit heinous acts for those people. An Evil character might have a vastly different world view than the rest of the party but that doesn't mean that he/she has to hate them. In general, I try to avoid characters who are dead inside and have no connections to anyone because not only does it get very dull, it also makes it beg the question of why your character bothers to be around other people.
So, in the group I GM for, one of the players wants to play an evil character who will have goals that will most likely go against the party.
No matter if evil or not, having a different goal than party, might bite back.
For example, I once had halfling pacifist monk. He was wery soon assassinated and killed by neutral PC, while all Good characters holded his attention. I quess stopping our own group from fighting, when they attacked tiefling guards, was too much. But hey, I was still in middle of persuasing them to let us go inside to their castle and it was rude to interrupt.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Had an evil character once. Full on face stealing serial killer. He worked fine in the party even after they found out what he was, mostly because I gave him an RP reason not to kill / harm the party, and also had a decent enough reason to work with them.
I don't see him killing party members and it going well, despite what everyone says. Even if someone says they're fine with it, once their character is dead, they may change their tune and feel extremely disappointing. Especially if they really like the character in question. I'd advise against that overall.
As for non-lethal, I guess it could work if it doesn't happen a lot. If they're bonking each other over the head every session, then it'll get not only silly but likely unfun and become a competition with each other instead of focusing on any story.
Lastly, betrayal can be alright if planned well, however, you may want them to give up the character after betrayal, or else you'll have a lot of side whispering with each group, solo crud you have to deal with and in the end, they may not even be the big bad, so you'll be taking the focus off of the story.
I think evil characters can be great fun, but only if planned well and even more so, only if they can work as a team or its meant to be pvp, all against all from the get go.
Had an evil character once. Full on face stealing serial killer. He worked fine in the party even after they found out what he was, mostly because I gave him an RP reason not to kill / harm the party, and also had a decent enough reason to work with them.
I don't see him killing party members and it going well, despite what everyone says. Even if someone says they're fine with it, once their character is dead, they may change their tune and feel extremely disappointing. Especially if they really like the character in question. I'd advise against that overall.
As for non-lethal, I guess it could work if it doesn't happen a lot. If they're bonking each other over the head every session, then it'll get not only silly but likely unfun and become a competition with each other instead of focusing on any story.
Lastly, betrayal can be alright if planned well, however, you may want them to give up the character after betrayal, or else you'll have a lot of side whispering with each group, solo crud you have to deal with and in the end, they may not even be the big bad, so you'll be taking the focus off of the story.
I think evil characters can be great fun, but only if planned well and even more so, only if they can work as a team or its meant to be pvp, all against all from the get go.
I think the other players are happy with a lawful evil character, and they (as well as I) think it'd be quite interesting to have someone less morally conscious help the party in their quest for law. I think this will be fine, so long as the player is sensible and doesn't treat 'evil' as another word for gotta kill em all. If this became the case, and it upset the other players, I'd have a word.
I think his role-playing style is pretty different to what the group I GM for is used to, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but there are a few problems that may emerge in the beginning. I suppose it's similar with many new players who are used to different groups.Kind of strangely, on a side note, those PvP rules were made because the party wanted PvP, but a few others and I didn't because every other time it had happened, it ended badly for everyone; the rules were a kind of half way between. Luckily in this campaign, I've never needed to implement them, and I hope I never will. I feel the same as you in that even if giving consent to a duel to the death, it's all fun and games until you're favourite character is dead.
Yeah, if he betrayed the party, his PC would gain the N affix immediately. At the moment though, I'm not letting him - maybe later when he's been in the group longer and it's fully discussed with everyone, and they're all 100% happy, but not now.
As for non-lethal, I guess it could work if it doesn't happen a lot. If they're bonking each other over the head every session, then it'll get not only silly but likely unfun and become a competition with each other instead of focusing on any story.
Hah, Now I have an image of adventuring as the Three Stooges.
"Oh, a wise guy, ehhh?" booook doink bonk
I think the more important thing to impart on players who want to play evil characters is that basically nobody thinks they're the evil one. People don't really do evil for the sake of evil, they do what they do because they can justify it based on expedience or a peculiar set of values that most people don't share.
So I would want to ask, what reason would an evil PC, who is cooperating with good PCs in order to accomplish some sort of mutually agreed upon goal, have to attack the people with whom he or she is cooperating? I can see going behind their back to cut deals that benefit you, trying to cheat the other party members out of a fair share of the loot, stuff like that.
But I don't think PvP should ever be allowed let alone encouraged in the "one evil member in an otherwise non-evil party" situation. Like if the characters are coming to blows with the intent to cause grievous harm to each other, I don't see how the campaign doesn't fall apart right there. Not because mature players can't handle it, but because what reason do the characters have to work together after that happens? Maybe you'd want to run the campaign where characters aren't working together and aren't in the same place at the same time, but the logistics for that sort of thing never seem to work out well.
So I would sincerely suggest you underline "evil doesn't necessarily mean 'Doesn't play well with others'."
So I would want to ask, what reason would an evil PC, who is cooperating with good PCs in order to accomplish some sort of mutually agreed upon goal, have to attack the people with whom he or she is cooperating? I can see going behind their back to cut deals that benefit you, trying to cheat the other party members out of a fair share of the loot, stuff like that.
As far as I can gather, he was wanting his character to work for a lich (a villain established in the plot already); for whatever reason, he was looking to trick the party into following him into the lair of the lich. The players are about levels 3-4, and so obviously cannot fight a level 15 lich.
The workaround I had in mind when this was mentioned by the player was that he'd be betrayed by the lich as soon as he handed in the party (she's not the most trustworthy of people, and by then she'd see him as a loose end), and the characters would all be locked up in the same prison/necromancy experiment chamber, and they'd have to figure out a way to escape together.
Obviously, this isn't perfect, but it was the best I could come up with to keep people on the same team if a betrayal ever did occur.
If you ask the group if they're okay with a betrayal plot line, you're going to run into someone who really isn't okay with it, but, doesn't want to pee in someone else's Cheerios.
If a betrayal plot line were allowed, I'd probably quit the game and I probably wouldn't game with you or him again. It has nothing to do with my maturity level, I just do not like that sort of gaming. I've dealt with enough petty backstabbing BS IRL that I don't want to deal with it in my fun pretendy times.
And yes, I have played in an evil campaign that lasted for well over a year. We kept a list of the various crimes the party committed and it was probably at least 1-2 pages long, with multiple counts of some crimes. The characters may have been evil, but, they recognized the value in working together to achieve a goal.
The main sense I'm getting from this guy is that he doesn't want to play a RPG - he wants to play a video game, where his feelings are the only ones that matter.
I'm seeing nothing from the way that you describe this guy that suggests he can remotely handle evil.
I'm seeing nothing from the way that you describe this guy that suggests he can remotely handle evil.
I agree.
Makes me wonder...
I propose a hypothesis: The degree to which a person wants to play evil is inversely proportional to that person's ability to play it well in a cooperative tabletop RPG.
It fits my experience. The players I've encountered who were most gung-ho to play evil (or even CN) where the players who were the most difficult to roleplay with, generally because they were always screwing with the group, the story, or the entire campaign. Because evil.
The one time I gamed in an all-evil group, it was the GM's request. None of the players actually wanted to do it (at least, none of them requested it) but the GM said he had a grand campaign plan and wanted us to give it a try. We got into it enough to enjoy the game, and evil was done by all, but nobody derailed the party or the game even once - no betrayals, no backstabbing, almost no PVP (what little there was occurred as a direct result of fun RP). We got tired of it and didn't finish the campaign, but we kept it up for about 4 or 5 months without any shenanigans.
I'm sure there are many exceptions. There always are. But I think that hypothesis stands very well in my experience.
Note: if it's true, that makes this a "Catch-22" kind of situation. If you ask to play an evil character, you're not qualified and therefore your request will be denied. More or less exactly like the old Catch-22.
What do you guys think? I'm looking for more data points to test the hypothesis.
I'm seeing nothing from the way that you describe this guy that suggests he can remotely handle evil.I propose a hypothesis: The degree to which a person wants to play evil is inversely proportional to that person's ability to play it well in a cooperative tabletop RPG.
Replace evil with chaotic neutral, and you've got the first group I played with. We had three evil characters that weren't any bother, and then this one chaotic neutral who betrayed the group.
The next adventure, the same player wanted chaotic neutral again, and he was also planning to kill the rest of the group; possibly most annoying was the fact that he wanted his character to fight a very powerful arcanist who we were in dire need of talking diplomacy with (they way more powerful than all of us combined and had an army) as he was bored with his character - this is despite the fact that doing so would either get everyone else killed, or totally derail the plot. I also played CN here, and while I wasn't planning on any backstabbing, I fully realise now that I was a little turd to some party members, as my character was a bluff build who would blame anyone but himself, including the party (in hindsight, I should have toned it down to NPC only, but back then I thought it was great fun).
The adventure after that, we had two players who are usually well behaved play CN ratfolk. They loot-whored like crazy, and rarely co-operated to help other party members, and finally one sacrificed the other to a coup de grace.
In the beginning of the campaign I'm currently running, chaotic neutral struck again, but was snubbed out before causing any damage. The player who backstabbed and planned a backstab in the first and second adventures asked to play a CN cleric who was worshipping the opposite god to everyone else; worshipping this god as a cleric is pretty much impossible in this campaign, as there are times the god willbe directly opposed. Judging his past reputation of CN, I decided to just say no.
So yeah, I think your hypothesis has some ground, but I don't think it's an evil-only club (as you said later). I'd actually suggest that 'evil' could be replaced with 'a special snowflake alignment' meaning one which is generally not allowed, or one that is a loner/outcast/the opposite to the rest of the group.
(Perhaps it might seem strange that I'd have asked the original question at all (and wouldn't just give a flat 'no' to the player) considering my past experiences with backstabbing, but I did so to see if there was any way that it could be done well. At the moment, it certainly doesn't seem so.)