This is usually the one that does not get along with the group, the one that goes left when they all decide to go right, and the one whose role playing skills seem the worse because he/she is trying so hard to be different.
How do you handle them ?
~B4Real
Originally posted by B4Real
I know you have had them in your LG campaign. The one or two players that always pick an evil alignment to try to be different.
...
How do you handle them ?
I tell them they can't play in Living Greyhawk until they choose an alignment that is not evil. It is clearly against the rules. It says it plain as day in the campaign documentation.
Regards,
Eric Anondson
Shield Lands Triad
Originally posted by Eric Anondson
I tell them they can't play in Living Greyhawk until they choose an alignment that is not evil. It is clearly against the rules. It says it plain as day in the campaign documentation.
Regards,
Eric Anondson
Shield Lands Triad
Very true. I actually meant GreyHawk. That still leaves the problem of them always trying to do the opposite of what the other members do.
~B4Real
I'm running one campaign that's going pretty smoothly, but I'm also playing in another one that has had some . . . well, let's say interesting developments. One of the players has done some problematic things, the most recent being his attack on one of the other PC's. I think that incident proved to be a learning experience for the player, though, because his character ended up unconscious and the party left him behind. Consequently, the player ended up sitting around for the rest of the session with nothing to do, quite bored. I think it will make him think twice about pulling the same kind of stunt in the future.
So, apart from just simply disallowing that kind of character (which is the DM's prerogative), the way to deal with that kind of situation is by making the player deal with the consequences. A good party will probably end up ditching or fighting with an evil member, leaving the evil guy on his own. It's the same with the players who want to play a drow or a troll or something; if you don't simply disallow it, make them deal with the consequences (shunned, attacked on sight, etc.).
I'm running one campaign that's going pretty smoothly, but I'm also playing in another one that has had some . . . well, let's say interesting developments. One of the players has done some problematic things, the most recent being his attack on one of the other PC's. I think that incident proved to be a learning experience for the player, though, because his character ended up unconscious and the party left him behind. Consequently, the player ended up sitting around for the rest of the session with nothing to do, quite bored. I think it will make him think twice about pulling the same kind of stunt in the future.
So, apart from just simply disallowing that kind of character (which is the DM's prerogative), the way to deal with that kind of situation is by making the player deal with the consequences. A good party will probably end up ditching or fighting with an evil member, leaving the evil guy on his own. It's the same with the players who want to play a drow or a troll or something; if you don't simply disallow it, make them deal with the consequences (shunned, attacked on sight, etc.).
Seems like your group is somewhat identical to my own. I have these players that seem to believe that DnD 3e is so combat based and hopeless that they always try to pick extremely powerful characters(Drow, Aasimar, etc.).
~B4Real
They do split up alot from the group as you stated, but it is never a problem for me, nor form my past DM.
They also quarrel with the other players as much as they do other NPCs.
I think it adds more intrigue to my campaign.
Originally posted by cwslyclgh
I have never realy had a problem with it... if people want to play an evil character more power to them... but they have to face the consequences of thier actions....
Sometimes you just want everyone to be the good ole gang though if you know what I mean.
~B4Real
When you try to get a person that is naturally good at play a NE priest of Nerull to play a CG ranger from the vesve, all you are doing is affecting your game in more ways than the party's class make-up.
Most people I've known who so dearly want to play an evil character are, as you put it, trying to be different. Unfortunately, that aspect of being different follows the same 2-dimension archetype of an angst ridden lone wolf so common in films, novels, and comics (and one which I am sick to death of seeing any more). I rarely use alignments myself, or use them as a very general guideline that changes often depending on the players decisions and actions, so I don't disallow anyone their own choice. If someone really begs for an evil PC though, I tend to make them live up to the name. If they're not setting a new ransom for the princess that they just rescued, they're in for it.
how ever a paladin can't adventure with a NE cleric of Nerrul....
The cleric too had better have a good reason for not poisoning the paladin in his sleep or ruining the guys reputation through rumored lies and tretchery. It does work both ways.
Originally posted by B4Real
Sometimes you just want everyone to be the good ole gang though if you know what I mean.
I know what you mean, B4Real and I'm feelin that. It's true when they say one rotten apple can spoil the bunch. Plus, I don't see a point in playing the villian when the world is so corrupt as it is. It's a fantasy game so let's all at least PRETEND to be heroes...
The evil character shouldn't care one whit about rescuing princesses, saving the hamlet, or 90% of the adventure hooks out there.
I dissagree, you can always find a selfish reason for doing what others do in the name of goodness and nobility... by rescuing that princess you put the king in your debt... save the hamlet and you have a secure base of opperations where the commonfolk will help you in times of need and probably not question your motives... etc.
The cleric too had better have a good reason for not poisoning the paladin in his sleep or ruining the guys reputation through rumored lies and tretchery. It does work both ways.
there is a distinct difference... the cleric has roleplayinbg reasons, the Paladin actually has game mechanics reasons, he is porhibited from doing it by a class feature.
If you still can't deal with an evilly aligned character, then just make it a rule that only good/Neutral characters can be played.
Remember, think different, don't conform, always try to change things for the better, lets try and make sure or future isn't 1984.
-Steel Rabbit
This method was applied after an evil character turned against rest of the group with a native tribe he had managed to corrupt. Results = Most of the PCs died, including the evil one.*
Nowadays when ever a new character is introduced, we immediately cast 'detect evil' or some other such spell. If we don't like what we see, we kill the character.
Plain and simple. Of course the alignment is not much of an issue since most PCs in group are self-serving bastards out for their own good, but choosing an evil aligment and rubbing it in is just asking for it.
IMO, no GM has to tolerate evil character whose only goal is to cause PvP conflicts.
*since that time there has only been a single player caused fatality, which happened because of a miscalculated fireball hit one PC.
I dissagree, you can always find a selfish reason for doing what others do in the name of goodness and nobility... by rescuing that princess you put the king in your debt... save the hamlet and you have a secure base of opperations where the commonfolk will help you in times of need and probably not question your motives... etc
You could easily justify the premise, but if the player doesn't follow through with his justification, then he's not really very evil is he? Then, if he does follow through, and the rest of the do-gooders in the group let him, its they who are not living up to the standards. Either way, it shouldn't take more than a few sessions before an evil character in a good aligned group are at odds and only a few adventures before they become enemies.
Charles Manson got along real well with his gang.
lol! But the difference is that Charles Manson's 'gang' was a bunch of sociapaths as bad or even worse than he was, all of whom shared the insane goal of global domination. Big difference when your friends are more like-minded. The evil player may not intentionaly cause inter party conflict, but eventually his or her personal goals and ambitions would conflict with those of the rest of the party.
If a (Lawful) Evil Character wants the treasure in a demon's hideout, she will work with whoever she needs to in order to obtain it. She won't be worried about torturing prisoners, killing the non-combatants of the humanoid tribe, saving allies, etc.. that good characters worry about. But she won't necessarily turn on her party either (at least until the treasure is secure).
For a decent literary (its in a book, not exactly fine literature
) example of this check out the Against the Giants novel.Spoiler
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
The Paladin won't slay the Sleeping Frost Giant Jarl. The Mercenary leader has to remind him of his vow of service to keep him from stopping the nuetrals (dwarf and Barbarian) from killing them while they sleep. He will have to atone later, but for this mission, he will have to ignore acts he is morally opposed to.
"No. The allowed alignments for my campaign are any Good, Lawful Neutral, and True Neutral. You may select any of those. If you are unable to, and do not wish me to assign one, then I wish you luck in finding a DM able to accommodate you. I can not at this time."
That ends any conflicts or issues immediately.
On occasion, I run even stricter campaigns. My current campaign is such, with each phase having sharp limited on character races available, as well as character classes for each segment. (And prestige class must be approved at character creation, though I do allow design of new classes if appropriate to the background and situation.)
In a situation where the PCs know each other fairly well (they all come from a small town) they should know which of their neighbors have a shady reputation, or they should at least know enough people to be able to assemble a small party without having to worry about unknowingly accepting an evil PC into the party. If the player wants to be a stranger to hide his evil nature, you could say that the party would rather go with so-and-so from town, who they know isn’t such a bad guy, than risk traveling with a stranger when it isn't absolutely necessary. If the PCs are being drawn together for some good cause, the sponsor should have enough reliable resources to assure that he or she isn't picking evil characters to 'save' the day. If the party members are doing the recruiting themselves in an unfamiliar area there could be the risk of an evil PC joining their ranks, but it shouldn't last very long.
I let the players who want to have evil PCs run them, but not as main PCs. I'll occasionally run side adventures so those players can have their evil PC fix.
Scott
Originally posted by ScottyG
The good and evil mixed party should only work on a one time, forced to work together basis. . . . If the party members are doing the recruiting themselves in an unfamiliar area there could be the risk of an evil PC joining their ranks, but it shouldn't last very long.
This makes some sense as a general rule. After all, other than the meta-game reason, why would an evil PC and a group of good PCs associate with each other over a long period of time? Generally speaking, they probably wouldn't; however, I think it's possible to come up with exceptions to that rule.
The first that springs to mind is the evil PC that has some ulterior motive for joining the group. For example, the evil PC needs to get close to one of the other PCs (or a friendly NPC, perhaps a patron) to take revenge. Something where the evil PC's true purpose is hidden (use your imagination). This would permit a long-term campaign with an evil PC in a good party, but it is not entirely open-ended. Sooner or later, the deception must be resolved. Also, this would require a player who is very good at roleplaying.
Actually, maybe the best you can do is structure a long-term but still finite period of adventuring with an evil PC in a good party. I wouldn't necessarily limit it to the short term, but neither can I see a way to make it work indefinitely. Eventually, if the players play their roles well, conflict would arise.