Just wondering who all has been in an anti-hero party/game and what your party looked like? What were some of the basic backstories and character motivations? What about intraparty interactions? Im in a game that we decided to give this a shot, we started with Dragon Heist and just got sucked into Barovia/Ravenloft at level 5 for a custom campaign. the party and basic backstories and motivations are:
Oathbreaker Paladin: fallen aasimar knight. Former Vengeance paladin who broke his oath because he was tired of being confined by his oath.
Zealot Barbarian: half-orc soldier. Servant if a war god. loves a good fight
Whispers Bard: half elf urchin. She’s a seductress who like to sow drama and chaos and see how it plays out.
Enchantment Wizard: dhampir noble. He was the heir to a small noble family that lost its fortune and has its name only. He seeks power but really want to feel part of something
Hexblade Warlock: teifling outlander. He seeks power, glory and the good life, something he feels he is entitled to as he claims to be a direct descendent of Asmodeus
Death Cleric: firbolg sage. Her tribe was killed when she was young and became obsessed with death. She carries a bag of holding with the bodies of her dead family and tribe that she uses to animate.
If the party can cooperate and not degenerate into PvP because goals don't align, and also do not go a-murder-hoboing across Barovia, this could make for an interesting campaign. Sounds like the players have thought out some interesting concepts for their characters. But I'd just be worried about "my guy" syndrome kicking in.
Whenever I play or DM a campaign, I always ask everyone during Session 0 to agree that the game is first and foremost a cooperative, party based game. My groups are good about agreeing to that and always make sure their characters play well with others. I'm playing a neutral evil pact of the fiend warlock in a game where the party is fighting for a rebel group against an occupying force, but I made sure to create my character around the idea he's a team player. Some of the party are staunchly good aligned, some are neutral, and while my character does things the others find distasteful, I make sure to not push the group beyond what the Party's morals would allow.
We did a very extensive session 0 and collaborated on backstories to connect the characters pre-game to add some built in loyalty. No one is inherently just out for themselves its a collective WE are out for ourselves and if we do some good for people around use in the posses ok, if not or they get in the way well they should have been smarter. We arent murder hobos. We all agreed no chaotic evil. We have to be able to fit into society, on the fringes sure but fit in none the less.
Yikes. I don't know if I could be a part of a party.
The closest I've seen is a party with a self-centered Rogue who fixates on getting gold, a Warlock who loves unnecessary suffering or carnage, a Druid who has no love for people, a Paladin that likes to make things explode, and a Bard who makes short-sighted plans doomed to disaster and fixates on getting gold to throw in lakes. The Bard is the only Good character. The Warlock is the only Evil character. They leave disaster in their wake with no actual intent to do so.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Man, "anti-heroes" in D&D... I feel like that was every game of Adventure League that I played in. Every character seemed to be a loose moraled mercenary who was indifferent to collateral damage and had to be bribed into helping people and, y'know, doing the quest. It was so bad that my Lawful Neutral character whose moral code was roughly "Only nobles have rights" came off as a righteous paladin. She was not a paladin.
The problem with tropes like "edgy good guys" is that they're hard to discredit. Because edgy good guys can work and work brilliantly. I'm sure we can all name an edgy good guy that we all love. The problem isn't with the trope itself but with the poor execution of a popular idea. Because those characters are inherently jerks and making a jerk a likable and not tedious person is difficult.
The one issue I think people don't think about is setting. An anti-hero in a slum is different than an anti-hero in an idyllic village. That's important. If you are a bad man in an even worse place, you seem a lot more likeable by virtue of being the "most good" element. However, if you are a selfish jerk in a place where people are nice, they you're just ... a nasty person and there isn't really a lot that is likeable about that. So, that's my advice. Remember that the context for the anti-heroes is just as important as the anti-heroes themselves.
I think when coming up with anti-heroes and anti-parties it's important to look at ones in pop culture. Walter White, Vic Mackey, Jax Teller, Othello, Michael Corleone, Dexter Morgan, Thomas Shelby, Amos Burton , even Geralt of Rivia in a lot of ways. The anti-hero isn't someone who doesn't care about only themselves or has no other connections, it's someone who is willing to do anything to achieve their goals to better what they hold most dear be it family, a town, the rest of the party. Goals that to them are moral and good and to better themselves and those they care about. The anti-hero has the outlook of the ends justify the means and this ends are good and for the betterment of what they hold most dear. People who play by the rules and of a more social normative morality will or could see you as a villain or a monster but should also be able to on some level see why you do what you do even if they couldn't or wouldn't. The problem with anti-heroes thats a trope is their fall. A lot of the time towards the end of a narrative an anti-hero falls and becomes the villain. Vic Mackey, Walter White are examples. But they dont have to, Dexter Morgan, Geralt and thus far Amos havent and dont have to. They have to manage to keep they center though. Thats why we spent a lot of time with out session 0 and working on out backstories so there was mutual connections between them to allow the party to be that thing they care about. We wanted to make sure the characters were grounded and that we knew our characters grounding so they were anti-heroes and not just villains. Now in the end as to whether this party falls and becomes the villain or not is yet to be seen.
In one campaign, I play a kobold rogue. Before adventuring, he worked with a thieves' guild disposing of bodies. But he had a good heart, and knew there were starving children, so he ran a soup kitchen distributing free food to the poor (a la Sweeney Todd). He is a flatulence-obsessed snarky little cannibal, but tremendously loyal to his friends. He does not understand normal human morality at all. He actually works well with the party, although they are frequently having to teach him what is "appropriate" around other humans. He tries. He really does.
In the same party, we had a chaotic evil divine sorcerer who was just mean to everyone around him. He never healed ANYONE except himself. He was a murder hobo in the worst sense, and it worked really badly. The player is slowly learning that you can't just play evil jackass if you want to keep playing.
Both of these characters are anti-heroes. But one works much better in a party than the other.
Most of my "anti-hero" characters were just people who wanted to be good but were really just bad at it. They also just didn't care all that much about what happened, as long as their pet was okay.
Not 'antihero', but I was part of an evil group that played through a homebrew underdark mini campaign. There were 4 PCs (Fallen Aasimar Monk, Tiefling Barbarian, Drow Cleric, Dragonborn Sorcerer) that all had their own hidden agenda and plans. We went into it knowing that there would be light interparty conflict ultimately boiling at some point into straight up PVP. It takes a definite amount of buy-in, as well as understanding from all players involved.
I was playing the Aasimar Monk, who had fallen because he respected Zariel and her fight in the Blood War against demons, so he joined her. The Drow Cleric of Lolth in the party essentially became a target to him, and he seduced her and won her trust before ultimately betraying her. There were a whole lot more other shenanigans going on between the PCs as well, but at the end of the day we all had a blast. The Players knew we were out to get each other, but the Characters had just enough limited knowledge that they stayed together until it all blew up. I had a lot of fun doing the roleplay for that game, and I hope I get to do another one like it soon. But I can see that it clearly isn't for everyone, and only worked because we are all close friends who trusted each other and didn't take conflict out of the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
I’ve never played in an all antihero party but a friend of mine once played a black dragonborn assassin whose mission was to hunt down evildoers and who didn’t care much about the collateral damage he caused while doing that. It was the harm he caused to others (many of them innocents themselves) that really made him clash with the rest of the party.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I really like D&D, especially Ravenloft, Exandria and the Upside Down from Stranger Things. My pronouns are she/they (genderfae).
First campaign: A leader who was very ends justify the means; an amoral mercenary just out for revenge against their former employer; a kleptomaniac rogue; another person who tried to keep order but was too passive to put his foot down; the bird man was alright though.
Second campaign: A former agent of tyranny; two characters that walked out on their families; someone who killed their own sibling; and a half faerie with inscrutable priorities.
Third campaign: Here our characters anti-heroes more in the sense that they’re kinda losers than actively amoral. We have a grumpy swamp hermit; a less grumpy but zero-social skills swamp hermit; a goblin artificer with all the attending stereotypes the combination of those two words call to mind; the most incompetent guard in the town; and a spy with implied Stockholm Syndrome to the agency she works for.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Just wondering who all has been in an anti-hero party/game and what your party looked like? What were some of the basic backstories and character motivations? What about intraparty interactions? Im in a game that we decided to give this a shot, we started with Dragon Heist and just got sucked into Barovia/Ravenloft at level 5 for a custom campaign. the party and basic backstories and motivations are:
Oathbreaker Paladin: fallen aasimar knight. Former Vengeance paladin who broke his oath because he was tired of being confined by his oath.
Zealot Barbarian: half-orc soldier. Servant if a war god. loves a good fight
Whispers Bard: half elf urchin. She’s a seductress who like to sow drama and chaos and see how it plays out.
Enchantment Wizard: dhampir noble. He was the heir to a small noble family that lost its fortune and has its name only. He seeks power but really want to feel part of something
Hexblade Warlock: teifling outlander. He seeks power, glory and the good life, something he feels he is entitled to as he claims to be a direct descendent of Asmodeus
Death Cleric: firbolg sage. Her tribe was killed when she was young and became obsessed with death. She carries a bag of holding with the bodies of her dead family and tribe that she uses to animate.
If the party can cooperate and not degenerate into PvP because goals don't align, and also do not go a-murder-hoboing across Barovia, this could make for an interesting campaign. Sounds like the players have thought out some interesting concepts for their characters. But I'd just be worried about "my guy" syndrome kicking in.
Whenever I play or DM a campaign, I always ask everyone during Session 0 to agree that the game is first and foremost a cooperative, party based game. My groups are good about agreeing to that and always make sure their characters play well with others. I'm playing a neutral evil pact of the fiend warlock in a game where the party is fighting for a rebel group against an occupying force, but I made sure to create my character around the idea he's a team player. Some of the party are staunchly good aligned, some are neutral, and while my character does things the others find distasteful, I make sure to not push the group beyond what the Party's morals would allow.
We did a very extensive session 0 and collaborated on backstories to connect the characters pre-game to add some built in loyalty. No one is inherently just out for themselves its a collective WE are out for ourselves and if we do some good for people around use in the posses ok, if not or they get in the way well they should have been smarter. We arent murder hobos. We all agreed no chaotic evil. We have to be able to fit into society, on the fringes sure but fit in none the less.
I can't help but be reminded of something...
https://tapas.io/episode/2225038
What are other peoples experiences with the "anti-party"? What does your anti-party look like?
Yikes. I don't know if I could be a part of a party.
The closest I've seen is a party with a self-centered Rogue who fixates on getting gold, a Warlock who loves unnecessary suffering or carnage, a Druid who has no love for people, a Paladin that likes to make things explode, and a Bard who makes short-sighted plans doomed to disaster and fixates on getting gold to throw in lakes. The Bard is the only Good character. The Warlock is the only Evil character. They leave disaster in their wake with no actual intent to do so.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Man, "anti-heroes" in D&D... I feel like that was every game of Adventure League that I played in. Every character seemed to be a loose moraled mercenary who was indifferent to collateral damage and had to be bribed into helping people and, y'know, doing the quest. It was so bad that my Lawful Neutral character whose moral code was roughly "Only nobles have rights" came off as a righteous paladin. She was not a paladin.
The problem with tropes like "edgy good guys" is that they're hard to discredit. Because edgy good guys can work and work brilliantly. I'm sure we can all name an edgy good guy that we all love. The problem isn't with the trope itself but with the poor execution of a popular idea. Because those characters are inherently jerks and making a jerk a likable and not tedious person is difficult.
The one issue I think people don't think about is setting. An anti-hero in a slum is different than an anti-hero in an idyllic village. That's important. If you are a bad man in an even worse place, you seem a lot more likeable by virtue of being the "most good" element. However, if you are a selfish jerk in a place where people are nice, they you're just ... a nasty person and there isn't really a lot that is likeable about that. So, that's my advice. Remember that the context for the anti-heroes is just as important as the anti-heroes themselves.
I think when coming up with anti-heroes and anti-parties it's important to look at ones in pop culture. Walter White, Vic Mackey, Jax Teller, Othello, Michael Corleone, Dexter Morgan, Thomas Shelby, Amos Burton , even Geralt of Rivia in a lot of ways. The anti-hero isn't someone who doesn't care about only themselves or has no other connections, it's someone who is willing to do anything to achieve their goals to better what they hold most dear be it family, a town, the rest of the party. Goals that to them are moral and good and to better themselves and those they care about. The anti-hero has the outlook of the ends justify the means and this ends are good and for the betterment of what they hold most dear. People who play by the rules and of a more social normative morality will or could see you as a villain or a monster but should also be able to on some level see why you do what you do even if they couldn't or wouldn't. The problem with anti-heroes thats a trope is their fall. A lot of the time towards the end of a narrative an anti-hero falls and becomes the villain. Vic Mackey, Walter White are examples. But they dont have to, Dexter Morgan, Geralt and thus far Amos havent and dont have to. They have to manage to keep they center though. Thats why we spent a lot of time with out session 0 and working on out backstories so there was mutual connections between them to allow the party to be that thing they care about. We wanted to make sure the characters were grounded and that we knew our characters grounding so they were anti-heroes and not just villains. Now in the end as to whether this party falls and becomes the villain or not is yet to be seen.
In one campaign, I play a kobold rogue. Before adventuring, he worked with a thieves' guild disposing of bodies. But he had a good heart, and knew there were starving children, so he ran a soup kitchen distributing free food to the poor (a la Sweeney Todd). He is a flatulence-obsessed snarky little cannibal, but tremendously loyal to his friends. He does not understand normal human morality at all. He actually works well with the party, although they are frequently having to teach him what is "appropriate" around other humans. He tries. He really does.
In the same party, we had a chaotic evil divine sorcerer who was just mean to everyone around him. He never healed ANYONE except himself. He was a murder hobo in the worst sense, and it worked really badly. The player is slowly learning that you can't just play evil jackass if you want to keep playing.
Both of these characters are anti-heroes. But one works much better in a party than the other.
Most of my "anti-hero" characters were just people who wanted to be good but were really just bad at it. They also just didn't care all that much about what happened, as long as their pet was okay.
Not 'antihero', but I was part of an evil group that played through a homebrew underdark mini campaign. There were 4 PCs (Fallen Aasimar Monk, Tiefling Barbarian, Drow Cleric, Dragonborn Sorcerer) that all had their own hidden agenda and plans. We went into it knowing that there would be light interparty conflict ultimately boiling at some point into straight up PVP. It takes a definite amount of buy-in, as well as understanding from all players involved.
I was playing the Aasimar Monk, who had fallen because he respected Zariel and her fight in the Blood War against demons, so he joined her. The Drow Cleric of Lolth in the party essentially became a target to him, and he seduced her and won her trust before ultimately betraying her. There were a whole lot more other shenanigans going on between the PCs as well, but at the end of the day we all had a blast. The Players knew we were out to get each other, but the Characters had just enough limited knowledge that they stayed together until it all blew up. I had a lot of fun doing the roleplay for that game, and I hope I get to do another one like it soon. But I can see that it clearly isn't for everyone, and only worked because we are all close friends who trusted each other and didn't take conflict out of the game.
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
I’ve never played in an all antihero party but a friend of mine once played a black dragonborn assassin whose mission was to hunt down evildoers and who didn’t care much about the collateral damage he caused while doing that. It was the harm he caused to others (many of them innocents themselves) that really made him clash with the rest of the party.
I really like D&D, especially Ravenloft, Exandria and the Upside Down from Stranger Things. My pronouns are she/they (genderfae).
First campaign: A leader who was very ends justify the means; an amoral mercenary just out for revenge against their former employer; a kleptomaniac rogue; another person who tried to keep order but was too passive to put his foot down; the bird man was alright though.
Second campaign: A former agent of tyranny; two characters that walked out on their families; someone who killed their own sibling; and a half faerie with inscrutable priorities.
Third campaign: Here our characters anti-heroes more in the sense that they’re kinda losers than actively amoral. We have a grumpy swamp hermit; a less grumpy but zero-social skills swamp hermit; a goblin artificer with all the attending stereotypes the combination of those two words call to mind; the most incompetent guard in the town; and a spy with implied Stockholm Syndrome to the agency she works for.