tldr; I am essentially a new GM new to Pathfinder, and one of my players -in our about to begin 6 player RotRL campaign- wants to play an evil drow bard. Should I go along with this? (FYI, he would be one of up to three characters potentially playing evil alignments. I'm still waiting to get character sheets from 2/3 of the party so its unclear what exactly I'll be dealing with, though given that we will have an Inquisitor, inter-party conflict is nigh inevitable, regardless of the race of the evil characters)
Background: I participated in a 3.5 gaming group that was in a 6 year long campaign that went from 1st level to 27th level epic + 6 tier Mythic using standalone modules, GM created content, the full Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk, and a smattering of modified late game Age of Worms content. Essentially the same group of players - who are all adults in our 30s with families and careers - have decided to move to Pathfinder and continue our gaming via the internets using group chat, VTT, etc. The GM from our previous campaign has requested that he be allowed to temporarily step down and the group decided to attempt a rotating GM position running RotRL. (For the record, I was not in favor of running a full adventure path if using a rotating GM; I thought that using standalone modules would be the way to go, but that's beside the point). I was asked to head up the initial foray as GM and run the first 1 or 2 books of the AP. Approximately 6 years ago I ran a 1st level module for a 4 player Pathfinder party that lasted 3 sessions. That is the extent of my GM experience.
Situation:
One of my players, the GM from our previous epic 3.5 campaign, has requested to play an evil Drow in RotRL. I initially said yes to this request as he served as GM for such a long and awesome campaign, in which he allowed pretty much anything -including Dragon Mag -except 3rd party content. I've read in other threads that new GM's should not allow evil characters at all, but I feel somewhat compelled to be flexible due to our history.
Since then (a couple weeks ago), as we are all basically new to Golarion. I have been trying to read up on everything that I can in the setting that would be pertinent to our campaign. I've read up on the origin of the Drow and the basics of the plot of Second Darkness.
I've also tried to read through some forum threads here, but I'm not certain I can take it all in and prep for the campaign in the time I have left. We are scheduled to play this Saturday the 11th of February.
Question:
Understanding that as GM I have the power to change most anything I want with regards to setting and plot, but assuming that I decide to play according to the canon of the published materials, would it make sense to allow a Drow player in RotRL?
*potential spoilerishness for Second Darkness AP below*
Given the time-frame of RotRL as taking place in the year prior to the events of SD, my understanding of operations of the Lantern Bearers and the general orders of the then still strong and active Winter Council, as well as Shalelu Andosana's association with Cryingleaf - the home of a Lantern Bearers contingent - and the general proximity of the locales our players will be operating in relative to the Elves of the Mierani Forest, I am given to think that any Drow character in the area would likely be a target for assassination. Subsequently, it seems likely to me that any Drow moving about in Varisia would not be long for that world as it were.
Furthermore, should a Drow have escaped notice long enough to start adventuring in the Runelords campaign, it would seem likely that any other characters associated with a Drow would also be in the crosshairs of the Lantern Bearers once they do get noticed. I could see all of the above leading to a potential poisoning of the well with the party's relationship to Sandpoint, subsequent to Shalelu's being turned against the Drow and potentially by extension, the rest of the party. While I've not been able to read every page of the RotRL, I do know that the party would need to be going back to Sandpoint repeatedly throughout the campaign, and that this would be potentially problematic.
Epilogue:
Assuming I allow the Drow (as published in the ARG), should I consider removing the Drow's SR for balance or let it ride? Also, I've thought of recommending a Fetchling as an alternative - opinions there?
Thanks to anyone who reads this novel and provides constructive input. Any advice regarding the situation or the campaign is welcomed.
You could always ask why he wants to play a drow and if another character race would do.
If he doesn't know the different background behind the drow in Golarion, you could tell him that it's significantly different from D&D's background because Paizo didn't have full access to it and had to diverge and exploring that is a significant aspect of the Second Darkness AP. That might be enough to dissuade him.
Measured by Race Points, a non-noble drow isn at the upper end of average strength for a PCs race. I wouldn't worry about it being OP.
As for its suitability for the AP, I haven't played RotRL so I can't really opine on the specifics. But I do recall Shalelu from Jade Regent. I'd set the background material aside and look at the AP in an isolated universe. Do the drow play a significant role in the AP? Are they antagonists? If so, is that going to create a real problem with other NPCs or on the positive side might it create opportunities for some great RP and unusual solutions? If several PCs are also evil, maybe this isn't a problem.
But for the NPCs...maybe the drow PC needs to have a means to disguise herself. Stress and emphasize it. Failure in disguise will result in ostracism and likely death at the hands of a mob or arrested/assassinated by a band of do-gooders/vigilantes. Can you do it so it will be fun, or will it be a constant distraction.
On evil alignment, having run two explicitly evil campaigns, it's totally doable. Just establish at the beginning reasons for folks to work together and make sure your players understand evil does not mean stupid. Evil people have friends, lovers and even loyalties. It's just their motives and goals that are reprehensible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does your group enjoy interparty conflict? Because that seems inevitable (to use your word) with some evil pc's and some not.
I'm not sure I'm a good candidate for offering advice (but that's never stopped me before!) Best I can do is give you the conventional wisdom.
This AP is not designed for evil pc's. Can it be done? Sure. But you can put a tattoo on your forehead and dye your hair bright green with pink stripes too - doesn't mean it's a good idea. The AP assumes the pc's care about Sandpoint and it's people and are willing to risk their lives on the town's behalf. Being evil is going to make it increasingly unlikely that the people, institutions and leaders of the area will have any trust in the pc's. You can have the world ignore the evilness of the pc's or pc's can avoid behaving in an evil way but in those cases why be evil? Also, in a narrative sense it's not until well into Book 4 if not later that it becomes even possible the BBEG (and allies) might not win - until then evil pc's should be just as inclined to join the BBEG as resist.
Trying to run a good-focused AP with a mixed group of evil/not evil pc's is turning the GM difficulty meter up to 11. Not the best choice for a first-time GM new to Pathfinder.
As mentioned above, this isn't Faerun. Drow do not walk the streets of any surface city, certainly none in Varisia. If you run the people of Varisia "as written" they will view the drow as a total freak or the embodiment of evil (see how they react to a certain unusual NPC in the AP) or both. Sure, the pc can try to hide its race but that will quickly prove tedious. The player wants to play a drow so he can pretend not to be one? And you can gloss over this condition but you're gimping the world's internal logic and how do you justify having consequences for any other pc actions or choices? "Oh Bob can be an evil drow bard and no one does anything but I pick the pocket of the town drunk and it's get-a-rope time?"
As others have pointed out, RotR heavily assumes a heroic party. Characters with evil alignments will be hard to fit in. Skulls and Shackles would be a better AP for that kind of thing, but you'd have to switch campaigns.
I would definitely have a discussion with your player regarding how much trouble being a drow will cause. Finding that kind of thing out in play can be very frustrating.
My advice is to make it appear as if alignment doesn't exist. Ever since I told players I didn't use alignment in character creation for my games, I've run many successful mixed-alignment games. This may or may not also coincide with the maturity level of my players and their ability to avoid party conflict.
Note: I'm not saying that you should remove alignment from the game; only that you tell your players not to bother with it for their characters. I, personally, wait until a few sessions in (so they can get a grasp of how their player acts and interacts with others) and then have them take a personality test, which is really an alignment test, and allows me to record their alignment in the rare case when it comes up mechanically in the game. In reality, you wouldn't need to assign an alignment to them until 5th level, when they would first register in a Detect spell, etc.
My most recent example of this working involves the party's Cleric of Erastil and Shady AF Alchemist. The cleric was definitely GOOD in her own mind, and wanted to root out evil. She had a bit of a vindictive streak, which marred the good, somewhat. The alchemist was interested in poisons and laughed at the wrong jokes. He was a little bit twisted, and definitely had some Slytherin-type thoughts. (He dreamed of owning Habe's sanitarium and running experiments to further his mutagenic knowledge.) But he didn't really share his nefarious sub-plot ambitions with the party in game. He went along with what the party wanted, saved the town out of self preservation- basically, he did all the right things for his own personal gain or preservation. Selfish, yes. Twofaced, yes. But he made friends in the party and was as heroic as the rest to those who couldn't read his mind.
Cleric didn't "like" him, mostly because she was knew and had metagame knowledge of the characters thoughts, and so she was prone to fall into the alignment trap. The players got on great, btw. Well, she wanted to start some of the ole inter-party conflict. She wanted very badly to cast her Detect Evil spell on him, have it work, and start 'bringing him in line'. So I asked her what, exactly, he had done or said that was evil? Why did she suspect him? She had no answer, because there was no alignment to point to and say "See! He's evil!" She settled on a "Ok, I just don't trust him". And let's admit that we all know someone who is either a friend or an acquaintance that falls under the Do Not Trust flag, but we still get along with. It worked and continued to work until the alchemist left the party (for his own rp reasons). They role-played a great tension between them, which helped keep the alchemist and the other evil party member from going off the deep-end, but by the time 5th level came and she could use her Detect Evil spell, the two characters had formed enough of a bond that none of that mattered anymore.
Alignment is a great mechanic, but a horrible role-play crutch.
first time gm's should steer clear of evil alignments, drow isn't the problem really, they arent that overpowered. also something to keep in mind most of the surfacers don't know drow exist.
anyway evil is doable if the pc makes two very important promises, they will not betray or touch the party, with the evil.
and secondly they're doing evil alignment because they are trying to do some kind of antihero.
the only doable evil alignment is LE, NE barely, and CE absolutely not.
evil is a label, if other pc's find out who are good aligned. there will be problems.
first time gm's should wait before dealing with evil aligned pc's
would it make sense to allow a Drow player in RotRL?
Absolutely not.
|
1) Evil characters mixed in non evil party is never good idea for first time GMs, espicially in campaign that assumes pcs are heroic
2) Drow are pretty much "kill on sight" race(aka race so generally evil and dangerous they are considered basically monsters), but what complicates the matter is...
3) ...They are essentially boogeyman of legends to elves. Before Second Darkness happens, majority of people don't realize they are real beings. So drow being adventurer on surface before that is kinda absurd
To be fair though, at least they didn't want to play a goblin in this campaign <_< Thats even worse combo because of subject matter of first part
|
Does it make sense? No
Is it doable? Yes.
Drow are basically unknown at the time of Rise. Most people would look at a Drow as something like a Mwangi half-elf. Only full elves would possibly know who the drow are, and most would consider the legends of the Drow to be like our legends of boggy men or monsters under the bed. They're myths to scare children with.
You would have to decide how you want Shallelu and Ironbriar to react to a Drow. Our GM ruled that both Shallelu and Ironbriar are forlorn elves (raised outside of the elven community) so they did not recognize the PC in our party as Drow. Our own Drizzt 254875.9 claims to be CN though, and basically manages to stay within that realm as his character is not malevolent. But your player wants to be evil. He needs to have a good reason for being an evil character in the first place. So make him give you his motivation. Then you can work it into the game. But let him know, if the general elven population gets word of a Drow running around Varisia, they might just come looking for him. That at least gives his character an incentive to behave publically. And if he steps out of line, start subtly.
Have an elf meet the party, but kind of freak out when they see a Drow. Build up from there. More elves are seen in the region, traveling in small groups (like an adventuring party). They stare the Drow with obviously angry expressions. If the Drow player continues to be a problem, have the party attacked by elven mercenaries hunting a Drow. Have them actually target the Drow player. If the player gets upset, remind him that he wanted to play a Drow, and this is how elves react to Drow, with fear and loathing. But be nice enough to let the player know in advance, if he plays a Drow, and makes problems that get noticed publically, this is what will happen over time.
Now, since you've already started the game, how did the first session go?
I'll go with the majority of the other posters, and recommend that you don't allow evil characters or drow in this game.
You're a first-time GM. Have an out-of-game discussion with your players that for this game, you want all of the PCs to be heroic, and you also want them to be races that aren't generally hated on sight. This will simply make it easier for you to run the game, meaning that you'll have more mental energy to make it more fun for everyone.
If your player is completely insistent that he play an evil drow, then maybe Runelords isn't the best game to run.
An AP is a HUGE time commitment... If you're a beginning GM, you might want to get your feet wet by running episodic adventures before trying to bite off a full Adventure Path. I'd suggest running modules and/or PFS scenarios instead of an AP.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Player: "I think it would be fun to play an evil character in this campaign."
Translation for Inexperienced GMs: "I want to have carte blanche permission to cheat or murder every NPC I see, refuse to do anything for anyone unless I am well-compensated for it, and possibly betray my own party members if I get bored enough and decide I want to be even more disruptive than I already am."
This will not work in Rise of the Runelords without significant GM re-work.
The AP assumes a massive amount of altruism on the PCs' part. "Would you please go down and risk life and limb to rescue my kidnapped relative?" will be met with, "Why should I? What's in it for me?", and the AP grinds to a halt...
Admittedly, I've never run an AP with self-anointed "Evil" PCs that made it out of Book 1. Their reasons for being evil are inevitably reasons that disrupt most APs.
I agree with the suggestions above: Ask the player, "So, given that this AP is all about altruism and being a hero in the face of adversity, how are you going to make your evil PC fit in with that overarching paradigm?"
If he doesn't have a decent answer, either say, "No evil" or switch to an evil-friendly AP like Skull & Shackles.
Even evil PCs should see the advantage of keeping their home (aka Sandpoint) safe. If a player is unwilling to have their character have the sort of personality that is both evil and can see sense in being responsible, then yeah, they're going to be disruptive. It's worth having a discussion with the player about how their character is going to react to some hypothetical situations so that you can decide whether or not that character is going to work in the campaign.
However, I'll also rebut the argument that RotRL assumes that the party is good by pointing out that a LOT of "good" characters demand payment for risking life and limb as well. Players are not so great at coming to a consensus on what good is. Look at any alignment-related thread on the boards.
Even evil PCs should see the advantage of keeping their home (aka Sandpoint) safe. If a player is unwilling to have their character have the sort of personality that is both evil and can see sense in being responsible, then yeah, they're going to be disruptive. It's worth having a discussion with the player about how their character is going to react to some hypothetical situations so that you can decide whether or not that character is going to work in the campaign.
However, I'll also rebut the argument that RotRL assumes that the party is good by pointing out that a LOT of "good" characters demand payment for risking life and limb as well. Players are not so great at coming to a consensus on what good is. Look at any alignment-related thread on the boards.
And I'll counter your rebuttal :) Starting with a clarification: it would probably be better stated to say the AP is premised on the pc's being non-evil. PC's can proceed with a blend of altruistic and mercenary attitudes but they need to be able to relate to and build effective relationships (including trust!) with the various communities and institutions in Varisia. And several of the NPC's they meet along the way as well. It's true there are NPC's and governments that are willing to compensate the pc's for actions in the AP but as the AP progresses, their ability to pay falls off (in comparison to what the pc's might expect from a WBL perspective.) The pc's have to be willing to proceed on a "doing the right thing" basis or on a gamble the treasure to be found will be worthwhile. Especially in the later books when no NPC will tell or encourage the pc's to do much of anything - the pc's have to be self-motivated.
Let's look at NobodysHome definition: "I want to have carte blanche permission to cheat or murder every NPC I see, refuse to do anything for anyone unless I am well-compensated for it, and possibly betray my own party members if I get bored enough and decide I want to be even more disruptive than I already am."
While it's written from a player perspective, it's a pretty good summation of a character perspective also. A good character will rarely if ever behave this way, a neutral character may occasionally behave this way, but an evil character prefers to behave this way. That's what it means to be evil - causing other creatures to suffer is what makes you tick. I quote the Core Rulebook (p. 166) "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others." Often I see players (and internet threads!) confuse selfishness and evil. They are not the same. You want to have a completely mercenary attitude? ("I'm in it for the money, Princess") - go for it. Such a character or group of characters can complete RotRL. And get filthy rich doing so. (Aside: my group is well into Book 6 and they just dropped 17.5k on greater planar ally and they put that together out of what amounts to loose change.)
I was afraid I would spark yet another discussion over what alignment means what, and to whom. :)
The point of bringing up a mercenary attitude with good characters wasn't to illustrate an evil take on things, but rather players who swagger around thinking "Hey I'm good, it says so right on my character sheet." while acting decidedly not so. (In this case perhaps we can agree that a mercenary attitude is indicative of neutral alignments?). "Hey look, I'm real sad about your missing child, too. But you're asking me to risk my neck to get him/her back, and I just can't do that for less than 3K gold, you know?"
I get that after book 3 there isn't anyone egging them on with wads of cash, but in degrees of evil, I believe a player can make their character's hurting and oppressing something they do in their downtime... and get their fill of killing while also insuring some giant army doesn't overrun their side operation's business. That's just my opinion and anecdotal take.
Agreed that evil isn't necessarily a disqualifier to RotR. One can easily build an evil aligned character simply by adding "at any cost" to the end of their goals and motivations. "Saving my hometown...at any cost" describes someone who might be willing to do some really awful things to protect the place where they live.
But the specific question is about drow, and in Pathfinder, drow happen to be evil-aligned for a specific reason. These two factors just do not mix with RotR. Not normally. A half-drow might work given the right backstory and cover, but a full drow? As The Usual Suspect points out, your first problem is going to be Shalelu. And that's practically right out of the gate. And she's a recurring NPC that tags along with the party later on...
+1 for not having any evil or Drow PCs in RotR.
And Shalelu is not a Forlorn elf. She was brought up in an elven community, so she would have heard of the elven version of the boogeyman.
I know that the game already started (11 February), so how did it go?
Contributor
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And Shalelu is not a Forlorn elf. She was brought up in an elven community, so she would have heard of the elven version of the boogeyman.
Not only that, but as we see in Second Darkness...
I was afraid I would spark yet another discussion over what alignment means what, and to whom. :)
The point of bringing up a mercenary attitude with good characters wasn't to illustrate an evil take on things, but rather players who swagger around thinking "Hey I'm good, it says so right on my character sheet." while acting decidedly not so. (In this case perhaps we can agree that a mercenary attitude is indicative of neutral alignments?). "Hey look, I'm real sad about your missing child, too. But you're asking me to risk my neck to get him/her back, and I just can't do that for less than 3K gold, you know?"
I get that after book 3 there isn't anyone egging them on with wads of cash, but in degrees of evil, I believe a player can make their character's hurting and oppressing something they do in their downtime... and get their fill of killing while also insuring some giant army doesn't overrun their side operation's business. That's just my opinion and anecdotal take.
All good (at least on my end.) I thought about the value of continuing the dialogue (though obviously not enough to stop!) - not sure we're even helping the OP, who was likely much more interested in feedback about a drow pc than about an evil pc. (Given there were going to be other evil pc's in addition to the drow.) Since the group appears experienced with the D&D family of games and multiple players were thinking about evil pc's, it seems that's something they're comfortable with. It's perhaps an uncommon characteristic given most of the responses trying to warn the OP off that path...
At some point this sort of discussion becomes an argument about what kind of pie you like best. If you really like pecan pie, my arguments about how awesome blueberry is are unlikely to persuade you :) In the end it's Their table, Their way, Their fun. If everyone is on board - Rock on.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And Shalelu is not a Forlorn elf. She was brought up in an elven community, so she would have heard of the elven version of the boogeyman.Not only that, but as we see in Second Darkness...
** spoiler omitted **
All good points, that require the GM to use the full scope of Paizo products and background information for an NPC, when the GM can chose to edit that as needed. In the case of one game I'm playing in; the GM made changes to accommodate the player rather than fighting it. However, our player was not, and still is not looking to be an evil PC. Because of that, our GM cut him slack and let it fly.
I am curious as to how the game in question is going though.
It requires a bit of re-writing on the GM's part, but there's an article in the free Wayfinder #7 about running Runelords as an evil campaign. In that article, the PCs seek to claim the power of the Runelords for themselves.
Don't forget to keep applying the penalties for light blindness. Drow are dazzled whenever they're in an area of bright light (including sunlight).
|
Hopefully it's not too late, but I would agree with some of the posts above. Just say something like "I'm a new GM and it'll be easier for all of us if none of you are evil. The book assumes you're heroes wanting to save the world and I don't have enough experience to fill in the gaps if you go out of bounds."
It'll be a hundred times easier for you, and you'll be saying it in such a way that your players won't think you're just ruining their fun for wanting to be evil. It's basically exactly what I told my players when we started our campaign.
Does it make sense? No
Is it doable? Yes.
Drow are basically unknown at the time of Rise. Most people would look at a Drow as something like a Mwangi half-elf. Only full elves would possibly know who the drow are, and most would consider the legends of the Drow to be like our legends of boggy men or monsters under the bed. They're myths to scare children with.
You would have to decide how you want Shallelu and Ironbriar to react to a Drow. Our GM ruled that both Shallelu and Ironbriar are forlorn elves (raised outside of the elven community) so they did not recognize the PC in our party as Drow. Our own Drizzt 254875.9 claims to be CN though, and basically manages to stay within that realm as his character is not malevolent. But your player wants to be evil. He needs to have a good reason for being an evil character in the first place. So make him give you his motivation. Then you can work it into the game. But let him know, if the general elven population gets word of a Drow running around Varisia, they might just come looking for him. That at least gives his character an incentive to behave publically. And if he steps out of line, start subtly.
Have an elf meet the party, but kind of freak out when they see a Drow. Build up from there. More elves are seen in the region, traveling in small groups (like an adventuring party). They stare the Drow with obviously angry expressions. If the Drow player continues to be a problem, have the party attacked by elven mercenaries hunting a Drow. Have them actually target the Drow player. If the player gets upset, remind him that he wanted to play a Drow, and this is how elves react to Drow, with fear and loathing. But be nice enough to let the player know in advance, if he plays a Drow, and makes problems that get noticed publically, this is what will happen over time.
Now, since you've already started the game, how did the first session go?
Get out of my head!
-His GM