My DM was running a Rise of Tiamet campaign, evil style, with the Rona we switched to discord, to cover the gaps while we all adjusted he pulled the party into a portal into the middle of the Magic and Mech campaign. The rouge and I left everyone else behind when we destroyed magic to make a portal to go home. Now the party is mad. They have to make new characters because we killed them. They had the chance to go home, they wanted to stay. So we robbed them blind and hit the portal destroying the world. Hmm thoughts?
Public Mod Note
(GPyromania):
Moved from Rules & Game Mechanics to Dungeon Masters Only
"Evil campaigns are only evil to non-party members" tends to be an unwritten rule for some folks who indulge in evil campaigns.
Evil characters tend to be selfish, egotistical and take advantage of situations for their own benefit. I realize that "it is what my character would do" is a famous excuse for players taking actions others consider unacceptable but if you are playing evil characters in an evil campaign and you DON'T have a strong in game narrative reason established by either the characters or the DM to support your party members and not leave them behind, then if the situation comes along where the reward is large and risk is low ... evil characters are much more likely to take it whether it harms other party members or not. It is a fundamental aspect of an evil campaign that should be addressed in session 0. Is PVP a part of the campaign?
Unfortunately, it sounds like you folks didn't discuss this before starting. Some folks thought PVP was off the table while you and the rogue happily sacrifice everyone else to "rob them blind" and "get back home". Also, why would the other characters choose to stay if they knew that destroying the portal would destroy the world? I'm guessing they weren't committing suicide so either the DM neglected to inform them of this important piece of information AND the DM decided it would be fun to kill off a bunch of the PCs by saying the world is destroyed OR you intentionally decided to destroy the rest of your party and they didn't expect you to go through with it.
Either way, if they were invested in the characters at all, they are bound to be mad since the characters weren't killed by anything they did - they were killed either by you or the DM.
My guess is the campaign is done since DMs don't usually kill off a bunch of characters that way. The DM could have provided any sort of mechanism they like to save the other characters - eg they find an experimental spelljammer lifeboat in the Magic and Mecha world and are able to use it to escape the plane before it is destroyed. It takes them a while but they navigate back. However, then the campaign devolves into a revenge scenario since their characters are not going to like yours. Even if they roll up new characters, revenge and selfish evil play are likely to be the new normal as the players seek revenge for the characters you killed off.
Odds are good that these were campaign ending actions for your group ... unless everyone accepts that evil characters do evil things ... but in either case, PVP is likely to be a big factor from now on since everyone is likely to switch over to a play style where they don't support the team. ... For example, is it better to win a combat as a team OR to win AND have a character die so everyone left can take their stuff?
P.S. For evil characters to work in a campaign, they need to have good narrative reasons to support the party, otherwise the game eventually devolves. (Raistlin in Dragonlance was a decent example of an evil character in a good party ... always looking out for himself, but he would do anything for his brother and had his own reasons for sticking with the group and keeping them alive).
I agree with David. Yeah, this was not just evil, it was Chaotic.
Evil means they are OK destroying a world. But Lawful means they do not screw over party members. You choose to break your unspoken oaths to your party members.
Chaotic Evil, as David says, has to have a good reason to stay with the party.
Basically - why would you have stayed with the party long enough to betray them like this?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My DM was running a Rise of Tiamet campaign, evil style, with the Rona we switched to discord, to cover the gaps while we all adjusted he pulled the party into a portal into the middle of the Magic and Mech campaign. The rouge and I left everyone else behind when we destroyed magic to make a portal to go home. Now the party is mad. They have to make new characters because we killed them. They had the chance to go home, they wanted to stay. So we robbed them blind and hit the portal destroying the world. Hmm thoughts?
yeah, I'd be made at you too.
I'd be mad too :)
"Evil campaigns are only evil to non-party members" tends to be an unwritten rule for some folks who indulge in evil campaigns.
Evil characters tend to be selfish, egotistical and take advantage of situations for their own benefit. I realize that "it is what my character would do" is a famous excuse for players taking actions others consider unacceptable but if you are playing evil characters in an evil campaign and you DON'T have a strong in game narrative reason established by either the characters or the DM to support your party members and not leave them behind, then if the situation comes along where the reward is large and risk is low ... evil characters are much more likely to take it whether it harms other party members or not. It is a fundamental aspect of an evil campaign that should be addressed in session 0. Is PVP a part of the campaign?
Unfortunately, it sounds like you folks didn't discuss this before starting. Some folks thought PVP was off the table while you and the rogue happily sacrifice everyone else to "rob them blind" and "get back home". Also, why would the other characters choose to stay if they knew that destroying the portal would destroy the world? I'm guessing they weren't committing suicide so either the DM neglected to inform them of this important piece of information AND the DM decided it would be fun to kill off a bunch of the PCs by saying the world is destroyed OR you intentionally decided to destroy the rest of your party and they didn't expect you to go through with it.
Either way, if they were invested in the characters at all, they are bound to be mad since the characters weren't killed by anything they did - they were killed either by you or the DM.
My guess is the campaign is done since DMs don't usually kill off a bunch of characters that way. The DM could have provided any sort of mechanism they like to save the other characters - eg they find an experimental spelljammer lifeboat in the Magic and Mecha world and are able to use it to escape the plane before it is destroyed. It takes them a while but they navigate back. However, then the campaign devolves into a revenge scenario since their characters are not going to like yours. Even if they roll up new characters, revenge and selfish evil play are likely to be the new normal as the players seek revenge for the characters you killed off.
Odds are good that these were campaign ending actions for your group ... unless everyone accepts that evil characters do evil things ... but in either case, PVP is likely to be a big factor from now on since everyone is likely to switch over to a play style where they don't support the team. ... For example, is it better to win a combat as a team OR to win AND have a character die so everyone left can take their stuff?
P.S. For evil characters to work in a campaign, they need to have good narrative reasons to support the party, otherwise the game eventually devolves. (Raistlin in Dragonlance was a decent example of an evil character in a good party ... always looking out for himself, but he would do anything for his brother and had his own reasons for sticking with the group and keeping them alive).
I agree with David. Yeah, this was not just evil, it was Chaotic.
Evil means they are OK destroying a world. But Lawful means they do not screw over party members. You choose to break your unspoken oaths to your party members.
Chaotic Evil, as David says, has to have a good reason to stay with the party.
Basically - why would you have stayed with the party long enough to betray them like this?