| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, ouch. Evil and a Wizard. Pretty sure this guy just wants to see how far he can get crashing your campaign, judging from your examples.
Get the other players' opinions. If you aren't comfortable asking outright, or don't want to invite negativity toward the LE's player, just observe them. Do they argue more than just reasonable IC opinions about the LE character's actions and decisions? Do they scowl or roll their eyes or stop paying attention to the game when he does troublesome things? Or do they play along and seem to have fun with it?
If the rest of the group isn't particularly enjoying this character's behavior, then you absolutely can (and should) step in, nothing mean about doing so.
I'd advise not telling him you can't handle the alignment, though. The alignment isn't the real problem (and freeing demons is not necessarily LE at all, for instance), the character's behavior is. Let him know that it's hard to work with and is interfering with your motivation to GM, and work with him OOC on how to change the character's behavior IC. Maybe that means some kind of incentive for the character to at least toe the line, maybe it means rerolling. If he wants to stay LE, fine - just with more emphasis on the L, or a shift in goals, or so on. But yeah, I think it's more polite, and more likely to succeed, to talk to the player outright instead of just trying to nudge his character in a different direction for this.
This exact thing happened to me when I ran my first game. LE, Wizard/Cleric Necromancer, and he used material from 3.5, prestiging into True Necromancer. I couldn't control him and I couldn't kill him. It got really bad. So, I feel your pain.
The most straight forward way to handle this is to tell this player that you're glad he's having fun, but it turns out Evil characters are very hard to control and as a new GM, you need him to help you out by making a new, better behaved (non-evil) character.
It's not being mean if you're talking to him because he's running amok and disrupting the game. I can only speculate, maybe he's throwing his weight around because he's used to being in the big chair and isn't comfortable not being in charge or being the most important person at the table. Whatever the reason, it's sounds like it's not about alignment per se but about the player.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being a new GM I didn't think how hard a LE character would be in my campaign. This person knows waaaaaaay more than I do and has been a GM previously. He helps me GM sometimes, but is currently playing a LE wizard in my game. Any subtle ways I can get him to switch alignment? He causes so much trouble in the game. Freeing demons that were captured, almost killing an NPC, and trying to find stuff to kill demigods. Just. UUUGGGGHHHH. I got myself in a bad situation. I don't want to be mean and outright say I can't handle your alignment, change it. Any thoughts and ideas?
Uh... None of those particularly strike me as LE, although I admit I don't know the context. Most LE wizards that I've dealt with are on the diabolical, Asmodean side, so those actions, particularly freeing demons who are known to change their minds on eating people on a whim, don't exactly scream LE to me.
Nope, they are more E without the L descriptor, Chaotic might be used to describe such acts even... but for some reason, I guess that adhering to his alignment is not among the player's top priorities.
This exact thing happened to me when I ran my first game. LE, Wizard/Cleric Necromancer, and he used material from 3.5, prestiging into True Necromancer. I couldn't control him and I couldn't kill him. It got really bad. So, I feel your pain.
The most straight forward way to handle this is to tell this player that you're glad he's having fun, but it turns out Evil characters are very hard to control and as a new GM, you need him to help you out by making a new, better behaved (non-evil) character.
This. Honesty is a great policy, no need for cloak and dagger metagaming. Just be honest. It's well known that it takes some experience to be able to handle Evil characters, especially in an otherwise not-evil party. You won't be showing signs of weakness, it'll just show you know your limits.
If he doesn't respect that, then you'll know it's a player problem and not an alignment problem, but I got the feeling this will work.
Do you know why he's playing a LE character? If not, find out. If he doesn't have a cogent reason for being out of alignment with the rest of the party (and from your comments he's not necessarily working with the party towards the same goals), then politely ask him if he would consider changing his alignment or his character to better suit the mood of the party and the game. Good luck!
In my opinion, it has little to do with being evil. He just sounds like a disruptive player.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, the basic rule is "No Evils" Sit down with him and tell him you are having less fun DMing the game due to this. Ask for suggestions. Tell him you are instituting "No Evils" and that this is not the type of campaign you want to run, you want a heroic game.
You can play evils without being disruptive... sure, it's easier to railroad goody two shoes but evils don't need to disrupt the game if you know how to appeal to their self interest.
I've only played one game where a Lawful Evil character was a problem, and the "problem" was actually the other characters. He basically did nothing evil , except he owned a slave, and because of that in particular (and probably the fact that the players knew he was EVIL) they felt their characters wouldn't want to work with the guy. Of course, the slave plotline was basically dropped after the second session because it was one of those "better in theory than practice" ideas, but the stigma, of course, never went away.
There's a lot here, but basically, the good players couldn't work with the evil player because of who he was, which is going to come out eventually. And they were completely justified, as even though slavery is relatively minor compared to some of the stuff that happens in the PF universe, it's still icky. The worst part was, they didn't want to bring the tension to a head and destroy the party, so everyone was just awkward and unhappy about the situation.
Now, not all types of good characters are going to be intolerant of evil, and not all evil characters are going to do something that indicates they are evil. But it was a lesson that even if the Evil character has the best intentions, the simple fact that Good characters tend to be disgusted at Evil things is going to make playing as a team harder. Some groups can handle that, some can't, and I wouldn't want to wish that scenario on a new GM that doesn't think they can handle it.
OK, the basic rule is "No Evils" Sit down with him and tell him you are having less fun DMing the game due to this. Ask for suggestions. Tell him you are instituting "No Evils" and that this is not the type of campaign you want to run, you want a heroic game.That's so narrow minded.
I'm currently playing a LE power hungry necromancer and working fine with a mostly good team. I'm gathering power (contacts with devils, tomes of forbidden knowledge, raise powerful minions..) while helping the team.
I really have no reason to betray them, my char saw the other chars as powerfull tools. The better minions are those who don't know they are. We do have an heroic game. Now trust has been built. Even evil ones have loved ones.
What the char is doing could be done with almost any alignement. Anyone can see freeing someone/thing as a "good" action, or find a reason to gather power "for the greater good". It has nothing to do with being evil.
On how to handle him, you can give him reasons to stick with the team. "It's dangerous to go alone there" "it's faster/easier if you have a team with you". Make him need the team as much as the team must need him.
That's why it's a general, basic rule that requires approval to go around. It's very hard to make it work, and you need everyone completely on board with it. It's not impossible, but it's unlikely.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Saying 'this isn't working, we need to make a change' is not mean. Being manipulative and passive-aggressive about it is. Be up front, be honest, but be polite about it.