Okay so I'm a new DM and I have no idea of how to let my player play this serial killer without breaking the whole purpose of the campaign, and even if I can there is still a very high chance that my other players will kill/leave him, I'm very tempted to just say no, but I've already told him no multiple times and every time he brought another "evil" character, I feel like I'm failing as a DM but I really have no idea of what to do. I tried to tell him that this is just not the setting for a character like that but he seems to not understand.
If you're thinking "it can't be that bad", I'll just say that one of the ideas I denied was a literal child necromancer... My setting is supposed to be a sci-fi/steampunk and very political based so a character like that just doesn't fit in, I'm being a bad DM? Should I be more flexible? Please I have no idea of what to do.
P.S. He's a very close friend of mine so I can't just say "don't play"
You already told him no. It is up to him to create a character that fits into your campaign. If he starts to do the murderhobo thing, then explain that that is not part of your campaign goals. If he continues, then create a campaign in which he can be a murderhobo, just not with your current group.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Thanks a lot! Problem is that I've been working on this setting of mine for quite a while now so no metter what I want people to play in it, the real problem is that our DnD group is well ours, we play together and that's it we don't have other people to play with and even if we did I would not have the time to manage 2 campaign at once, thanks again for the reply it helps a lot! (seeing the video right now)
If anything, you are succeeding as a DM, not failing. You are protecting the rest of the table, and yourself, from a character which will inevitably cause problems. Stick to your guns. The advice I’d give is to maybe try going at it from the other direction. Instead of saying no, give him specific ideas for what would work. Take his ideas, and think of ways you can file the rough edges off and let his square pegs fit in your world’s round holes. Find a kind of compromise.
Thank you so much! I really needed to hear that, the funny thing is that he wanted to make the character so far ahead! Like I'm not even halfway done writing the setting! That's one of the reasons why I struggled so much to give him alternatives, I hope he will understand... Thanks again it meant a lot!
Yep, just say no. If it were just you and the other player, then sure, there'd be an argument for giving in. But by telling him to play a different character, you're not just preserving your campaign, but you're saving the other players from a serious annoyance! Good for you for keeping everyone's fun in mind, not just the individual player.
The nice thing about playing with friends is that they tend to be more understanding and look out for your fun, too. Hopefully this guy can do that.
I've already told him no multiple times and every time he brought another "evil" character, I feel like I'm failing as a DM
No, he's failing as a player
You've made it very clear by now that kind of character isn't acceptable. If that's the only kind of character he wants to play, then he needs to go do it in another campaign
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The only way I'd let him play would be if he is essentially part of your villains team and tell him that his character will eventually become an NPC. He can pick and choose when he betrays the party, but when he does, he becomes part of your monsters and if he wants to continue in the campaign, his next character will be working with the party not against them. Tell him he has to give you an idea of the betrayal or a sessions notice and put a hard limit on it say level 7 max. Do NOT let him go to level 17 Wizard and he wishes the party dead. Keep his level low, D&D has made some classes get too powerful and they could screw up everyone. Having a player who they thought were on their side betray them can add some drama and a big WTF moment, so go for if he's game. And let him know, his betrayal will not be allowed to kill the group, at best 1 character, and then the world will intervene.
If he can't abide by that, tell him its a bad fit and he should go elsewhere because you aren't going to destroy the other players experience just to indulge him.
Note, I was in your shoes, I did NOT do that and my bud got on my nerves to the point where if he was physically present I would strangle him for the crap he pulled. I kicked him from the group and haven't talked to him in a year and frankly I don't care to run into him again due to his behavior because he's damn sure nothing he did was wrong, my players said otherwise. Never, ever underestimate the amount of dickery a friend will do to your campaign because he's the DM's friend.
Your thread title really says it all. He wants to be in an evil campaign. You want to run a neutral/good campaign. It really sounds like he needs to be in a different group. You're well within your rights to say no to this character and any character he brings to the table that doesn't fit the group/campaign.
To echo what others have said, you're not being a bad DM, he's being a bad character creator.
Could he be a serial killer along the lines of Dexter or Billy Summers (for you Stephen King fans) that only kills the people that fit his code? That could lead to a lot of roleplay as he has to research backgrounds, compare to his moral code, etc.
Firstly, you're definitely being a good DM by making sure the characters fit the campaign and thus will make the game flow properly. So well done for saying no!
Secondly, I suggest you do a session 0 with them, just to make their character. That way, they might come out with "What I were a cat polymorphed into a human and I will actively attack anything smaller than me..." and you can stop them before they get in any way attached to the character.
Some people really like the dynamics of evil characters. I personally blame DC comics, as they have exceptionally good villains and decidedly mediocre heroes. The Joker? Very interesting, and fun, and chaotic, and with a tragic backstory. Batman? He was left alone with nothing but billions of dollars, a mansion, and a life of luxury. One creates in-depth plots with twists and made-up tragic backstories, and the other punches people with arm blades and pretends they don't kill people. Superman? is man, punches hard, can fly. Lex Luthar? evil mastermind and genius, somehow capable of combatting someone who is essentially a god despite being human. Which one sounds more interesting? But I digress!
You need to work out what is appealing to them of being an evil character, and then direct it to form a good character. Is it being an outcast of society who doesn't play by their rules? Is it being able to do what they want, when they want to? Or is it for the good ol' fashioned joy of killin'? Find the motivations they like, which is what drives their characters, and find a way to make it fit with a good/neutral character. Letting them have free reign and then coming to you with a finished character isn't working, so hold their hand (or at any rate, their leash) through the process to get them a character you both like!
Some players think that the point is to make whatever character they want and just show up and that’s enough to entitle them to play. It is not. It is always best pot each player to design a character, not only that is specifically for the campaign you have in mind, but also specifically designed to work together as a team with the others
A while back I hounded a game with a bunch of others who all also DM. Most of us created our characters for the campaign in question, but with little opportunity to put our heads together and discuss the party we were building. However, since we are all DMs of our own campaigns we all understood what was happening and endeavored to create characters that would be able to fill a variety of roles and fit just about any party.
We all created characters that would either be called “Gishes” or “support casters.” Every PC can heal in some way, we all have a variety of proficiencies, and could all lean into heavy damage dealers if we needed to, either mainline beast or spell striker. (Three out of the four PCs currently in he party can pick locks for crying out loud, and the fourth can smash through doors like it’s time for kool-aid. Even though we couldn’t make our characters specifically to suite our party, we all knew enough to create characters to would suit any party.
When we leveled up, we could each have only considered our own characters and done our own thing. Instead we each tuned our PCs to be more suitable together. We swapped out redundant spells for things that would fill gaps in the group, we saw where the holes were and all spread out a bit to fill them better, stuff like that. We weren’t thinking only of our own PC, we were thinking of the party we had formed.
It seems like your player wants to do what they want to do and are not even considering your campaign or the party as a group. The best thing you can probably do is with them down and have a sincere conversation with them. Tell them that the lone-wolf villain idea is absolutely cool, but just not a good fit for the game you’re trying to run. Let them know that you would appreciate it if they stop trying to make a character better suited to a solo campaign about something different and Instead make a character that fits the group you have for the story you are trying to build together.
Back in 2e, we had a “Session 0,” but we didn’t call it that. Instead we all got together for “character creation,.” We would literally convene to hear the DM tell us about what they had in store, and then we all made our characters together. We weren’t a number of individuals creating individual characters. We were a group creating a group of characters to fit the ideas the DM had just run past us. Maybe a strategy like this would work in your situation. Get the group together to build the group together. See if that helps.
And in the end, if they keep insisting on trying to specifically stand out as contrary to the group, you might need to let them know that you just don’t think it’s a good fit this campaign and you’ll have to try again with a different campaign some time.
Players have a clear option as to whether they participate in a game or not. They are not forced to be there and if, say, a dm chose to run a bloodlust frenzy campaign, the dm should inform players of the plan and they can decide whether to participate.
If a player wants to play a bloodlust frenzy character they should similarly inform others of their preference and the dm/other players can decide whether such a character can join. It is that player's abusive behaviour to try to work a situation in which you have to witness their shit.
In any other context, you might change the channel.
It also might be worth looking up psychopathy for potential insights as to why the player might be as unresponsive as you say.
Thank you so much! I really needed to hear that, the funny thing is that he wanted to make the character so far ahead! Like I'm not even halfway done writing the setting! That's one of the reasons why I struggled so much to give him alternatives, I hope he will understand... Thanks again it meant a lot!
As an aside I will say, if you have a world you have a session 1, you don't need to fully form your world to start playing, I have seen so many DM's spend months or years populating a world only to realise they actually only played in a tiny portion of it, or that the story and adventure they had planned went out the window in session 3.
I now world build on the fly, session to session, adventure to adventure, I create NPC's on the fly and populate my towns, my players had a town map which is 3/4's blank and I told them, I don't know what is there yet, as the game has progressed I have filled in bits of it. My continent map started with just blobs indicating nations, over time I have refined it and added extra detail, but I will be honest I don't know what most of it is or means because my players are not there yet.
Don't overthink your campaign, as soon as you have an inn and a place for the party to meet you can start :)
Tell your player that the campaign is neutral good and ask them if they think they can incorporate their character in that setting.
There are many ways to get evil characters mesh well and believable with good characters once you get past the "evil = saturday morning cartoon villain" stage.
E.g. teaming up against an even greater evil. Or a pact like "I help you deal with that Goblin tribe, you make sure I stay out of prison". Or simply a bounty hunter who's only interested in the money and doesn't care about laws or morals. Maybe the serial killer doesn't want to be a killer anymore and seeks to atone for their crimes? Or at least they pretend that to be the case?
So if they can pull it off, there's no problem. If they can't the good characters will get rid of them and they have to roll a new character.
I've already told him no multiple times and every time he brought another "evil" character, I feel like I'm failing as a DM
No, he's failing as a player
You've made it very clear by now that kind of character isn't acceptable. If that's the only kind of character he wants to play, then he needs to go do it in another campaign
Agreed. Evil PCs have a tendency to ruin games. Especially games that start as heroic where everyone else is playing a good character. Your “friend” is setting up a huge fight that will happen in the game and spill out into real life. The only time I’ve ever seen evil characters work is when the entire campaign is evil and everyone agrees up front that they’re all playing an evil campaign and that you’re running a campaign of evil PCs
Sadly I’m speaking from personal experience. I’ve seen this happen before and the end result every time was a nasty fight between players with at least one person leaving with his feelings hurt and never returning.
I think it's possible to play an "Evil" character in a good/neutral campaign, but it's generally harder, for both the DM and the player. The easiest way to pull this off is with a "Lawful Evil" character... someone with a strong moral compass, just one that doesn't align with traditional beliefs. Bringing up characters like Dexter is a good comparison... someone who commits atrocious acts but does so only against targets who are evil in their own right. If you're going to do this, you need to make sure that everyone at the table is comfortable with it, and not just spring it on them.
In the campaign I'm currently playing in I'm playing as a very moral character, and one of our players is an Undead Necromancer Warlock who needs to regularly absorb souls to give to her Patron. To keep things from getting too dark the DM wrote that the Patron only accepts corrupted or evil souls... good souls are harmful to the patron. This set up an interesting challenge... the player had to find ways to subtly absorb souls, either using stealth to steal souls from downed enemies mid-combat, or sneaking out at night to lure criminals and murderers into traps and killing them in secret. Eventually the Good characters figured her out, but by then we had learned to trust and respect each other and we also realized that, as an Undead, she would literally die if she didn't have her patrons support.
The important thing was that the Warlock player went in knowing that this character type would normally be disruptive to a good campaign, and built her character in a way that allowed her to enjoy the unpredictability of playing an Evil character without just becoming a nuisance that the rest of the party has to put up with. If you're playing a group of heroes who take jobs to hunt down dark wizards and brigands, it's a huge stretch to ask them to also just ignore their fellow party member who is gleefully slitting Barmaid throats in their spare time.
EDIT: I should mention that I'm mostly just talking about this as general advice. For you, Cloudwinder, specifically, I agree with everyone who says that just saying "No" is the smart move. You mentioned that you're a new DM, and working with a not just evil, but outright murderous PC is a challenge even for experienced DMs. For the sake of not just yourself, but your entire table, you did the right thing telling them No.
Thank you so much! I really needed to hear that, the funny thing is that he wanted to make the character so far ahead! Like I'm not even halfway done writing the setting! That's one of the reasons why I struggled so much to give him alternatives, I hope he will understand... Thanks again it meant a lot!
As an aside I will say, if you have a world you have a session 1, you don't need to fully form your world to start playing, I have seen so many DM's spend months or years populating a world only to realise they actually only played in a tiny portion of it, or that the story and adventure they had planned went out the window in session 3.
I now world build on the fly, session to session, adventure to adventure, I create NPC's on the fly and populate my towns, my players had a town map which is 3/4's blank and I told them, I don't know what is there yet, as the game has progressed I have filled in bits of it. My continent map started with just blobs indicating nations, over time I have refined it and added extra detail, but I will be honest I don't know what most of it is or means because my players are not there yet.
Don't overthink your campaign, as soon as you have an inn and a place for the party to meet you can start :)
On the flip side, some people aren't very comfortable doing that kind of "world on the fly, make it up as you go along"-style campaign, and like to have a firm foundation for their world established before session 0.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Thank you so much! I really needed to hear that, the funny thing is that he wanted to make the character so far ahead! Like I'm not even halfway done writing the setting! That's one of the reasons why I struggled so much to give him alternatives, I hope he will understand... Thanks again it meant a lot!
As an aside I will say, if you have a world you have a session 1, you don't need to fully form your world to start playing, I have seen so many DM's spend months or years populating a world only to realise they actually only played in a tiny portion of it, or that the story and adventure they had planned went out the window in session 3.
I now world build on the fly, session to session, adventure to adventure, I create NPC's on the fly and populate my towns, my players had a town map which is 3/4's blank and I told them, I don't know what is there yet, as the game has progressed I have filled in bits of it. My continent map started with just blobs indicating nations, over time I have refined it and added extra detail, but I will be honest I don't know what most of it is or means because my players are not there yet.
Don't overthink your campaign, as soon as you have an inn and a place for the party to meet you can start :)
On the flip side, some people aren't very comfortable doing that kind of "world on the fly, make it up as you go along"-style campaign, and like to have a firm foundation for their world established before session 0.
I get some need a bit more detail in but for instance I have a friend who has been building his world for 2 years now insisting it isn’t ready to run a campaign in, there is a balance between being a bit prepared and then just spending far far to long. Personally I think you can have a firm foundation in your head, a list of bullet points and a very rough map as a prompt and then get going. It isn’t so much creating on the fly but it gives enough structure to then focus on your starting area.
Anyway a sidetrack as far as the player goes I will have a slightly different take on this, define serial killer? A paladin who kills all evil creatures might be called a serial killer by some, a rogue assassin could be neutral or chaotic good and be a “serial killer” if they enjoy killing their targets.
In a fantasy world where good people kill you could have a neutral or good serial killer who lives by a set of rules.
Just a suggestion you and the player could consider it might not work, I don’t know that I would allow it as a DM but sometimes you can work with a player to let them form a version of the character idea they had.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Okay so I'm a new DM and I have no idea of how to let my player play this serial killer without breaking the whole purpose of the campaign, and even if I can there is still a very high chance that my other players will kill/leave him, I'm very tempted to just say no, but I've already told him no multiple times and every time he brought another "evil" character, I feel like I'm failing as a DM but I really have no idea of what to do. I tried to tell him that this is just not the setting for a character like that but he seems to not understand.
If you're thinking "it can't be that bad", I'll just say that one of the ideas I denied was a literal child necromancer... My setting is supposed to be a sci-fi/steampunk and very political based so a character like that just doesn't fit in, I'm being a bad DM? Should I be more flexible? Please I have no idea of what to do.
P.S. He's a very close friend of mine so I can't just say "don't play"
You already told him no. It is up to him to create a character that fits into your campaign. If he starts to do the murderhobo thing, then explain that that is not part of your campaign goals. If he continues, then create a campaign in which he can be a murderhobo, just not with your current group.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Thanks a lot! Problem is that I've been working on this setting of mine for quite a while now so no metter what I want people to play in it, the real problem is that our DnD group is well ours, we play together and that's it we don't have other people to play with and even if we did I would not have the time to manage 2 campaign at once, thanks again for the reply it helps a lot! (seeing the video right now)
If anything, you are succeeding as a DM, not failing. You are protecting the rest of the table, and yourself, from a character which will inevitably cause problems. Stick to your guns.
The advice I’d give is to maybe try going at it from the other direction. Instead of saying no, give him specific ideas for what would work. Take his ideas, and think of ways you can file the rough edges off and let his square pegs fit in your world’s round holes. Find a kind of compromise.
Thank you so much! I really needed to hear that, the funny thing is that he wanted to make the character so far ahead! Like I'm not even halfway done writing the setting! That's one of the reasons why I struggled so much to give him alternatives, I hope he will understand... Thanks again it meant a lot!
Yep, just say no. If it were just you and the other player, then sure, there'd be an argument for giving in. But by telling him to play a different character, you're not just preserving your campaign, but you're saving the other players from a serious annoyance! Good for you for keeping everyone's fun in mind, not just the individual player.
The nice thing about playing with friends is that they tend to be more understanding and look out for your fun, too. Hopefully this guy can do that.
Good luck!
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
No, he's failing as a player
You've made it very clear by now that kind of character isn't acceptable. If that's the only kind of character he wants to play, then he needs to go do it in another campaign
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The only way I'd let him play would be if he is essentially part of your villains team and tell him that his character will eventually become an NPC. He can pick and choose when he betrays the party, but when he does, he becomes part of your monsters and if he wants to continue in the campaign, his next character will be working with the party not against them. Tell him he has to give you an idea of the betrayal or a sessions notice and put a hard limit on it say level 7 max. Do NOT let him go to level 17 Wizard and he wishes the party dead. Keep his level low, D&D has made some classes get too powerful and they could screw up everyone. Having a player who they thought were on their side betray them can add some drama and a big WTF moment, so go for if he's game. And let him know, his betrayal will not be allowed to kill the group, at best 1 character, and then the world will intervene.
If he can't abide by that, tell him its a bad fit and he should go elsewhere because you aren't going to destroy the other players experience just to indulge him.
Note, I was in your shoes, I did NOT do that and my bud got on my nerves to the point where if he was physically present I would strangle him for the crap he pulled. I kicked him from the group and haven't talked to him in a year and frankly I don't care to run into him again due to his behavior because he's damn sure nothing he did was wrong, my players said otherwise. Never, ever underestimate the amount of dickery a friend will do to your campaign because he's the DM's friend.
Your thread title really says it all. He wants to be in an evil campaign. You want to run a neutral/good campaign. It really sounds like he needs to be in a different group. You're well within your rights to say no to this character and any character he brings to the table that doesn't fit the group/campaign.
To echo what others have said, you're not being a bad DM, he's being a bad character creator.
My Homebrew Backgrounds | Feats | Magic Items | Monsters | Races | Subclasses
Could he be a serial killer along the lines of Dexter or Billy Summers (for you Stephen King fans) that only kills the people that fit his code? That could lead to a lot of roleplay as he has to research backgrounds, compare to his moral code, etc.
Firstly, you're definitely being a good DM by making sure the characters fit the campaign and thus will make the game flow properly. So well done for saying no!
Secondly, I suggest you do a session 0 with them, just to make their character. That way, they might come out with "What I were a cat polymorphed into a human and I will actively attack anything smaller than me..." and you can stop them before they get in any way attached to the character.
Some people really like the dynamics of evil characters. I personally blame DC comics, as they have exceptionally good villains and decidedly mediocre heroes. The Joker? Very interesting, and fun, and chaotic, and with a tragic backstory. Batman? He was left alone with nothing but billions of dollars, a mansion, and a life of luxury. One creates in-depth plots with twists and made-up tragic backstories, and the other punches people with arm blades and pretends they don't kill people. Superman? is man, punches hard, can fly. Lex Luthar? evil mastermind and genius, somehow capable of combatting someone who is essentially a god despite being human. Which one sounds more interesting? But I digress!
You need to work out what is appealing to them of being an evil character, and then direct it to form a good character. Is it being an outcast of society who doesn't play by their rules? Is it being able to do what they want, when they want to? Or is it for the good ol' fashioned joy of killin'? Find the motivations they like, which is what drives their characters, and find a way to make it fit with a good/neutral character. Letting them have free reign and then coming to you with a finished character isn't working, so hold their hand (or at any rate, their leash) through the process to get them a character you both like!
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Some players think that the point is to make whatever character they want and just show up and that’s enough to entitle them to play. It is not. It is always best pot each player to design a character, not only that is specifically for the campaign you have in mind, but also specifically designed to work together as a team with the others
A while back I hounded a game with a bunch of others who all also DM. Most of us created our characters for the campaign in question, but with little opportunity to put our heads together and discuss the party we were building. However, since we are all DMs of our own campaigns we all understood what was happening and endeavored to create characters that would be able to fill a variety of roles and fit just about any party.
We all created characters that would either be called “Gishes” or “support casters.” Every PC can heal in some way, we all have a variety of proficiencies, and could all lean into heavy damage dealers if we needed to, either mainline beast or spell striker. (Three out of the four PCs currently in he party can pick locks for crying out loud, and the fourth can smash through doors like it’s time for kool-aid. Even though we couldn’t make our characters specifically to suite our party, we all knew enough to create characters to would suit any party.
When we leveled up, we could each have only considered our own characters and done our own thing. Instead we each tuned our PCs to be more suitable together. We swapped out redundant spells for things that would fill gaps in the group, we saw where the holes were and all spread out a bit to fill them better, stuff like that. We weren’t thinking only of our own PC, we were thinking of the party we had formed.
It seems like your player wants to do what they want to do and are not even considering your campaign or the party as a group. The best thing you can probably do is with them down and have a sincere conversation with them. Tell them that the lone-wolf villain idea is absolutely cool, but just not a good fit for the game you’re trying to run. Let them know that you would appreciate it if they stop trying to make a character better suited to a solo campaign about something different and Instead make a character that fits the group you have for the story you are trying to build together.
Back in 2e, we had a “Session 0,” but we didn’t call it that. Instead we all got together for “character creation,.” We would literally convene to hear the DM tell us about what they had in store, and then we all made our characters together. We weren’t a number of individuals creating individual characters. We were a group creating a group of characters to fit the ideas the DM had just run past us. Maybe a strategy like this would work in your situation. Get the group together to build the group together. See if that helps.
And in the end, if they keep insisting on trying to specifically stand out as contrary to the group, you might need to let them know that you just don’t think it’s a good fit this campaign and you’ll have to try again with a different campaign some time.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Thank you so much it really helps to know that I'm doing what I can
Consent can be a major issue in rpgs.
Players have a clear option as to whether they participate in a game or not. They are not forced to be there and if, say, a dm chose to run a bloodlust frenzy campaign, the dm should inform players of the plan and they can decide whether to participate.
If a player wants to play a bloodlust frenzy character they should similarly inform others of their preference and the dm/other players can decide whether such a character can join. It is that player's abusive behaviour to try to work a situation in which you have to witness their shit.
In any other context, you might change the channel.
It also might be worth looking up psychopathy for potential insights as to why the player might be as unresponsive as you say.
As an aside I will say, if you have a world you have a session 1, you don't need to fully form your world to start playing, I have seen so many DM's spend months or years populating a world only to realise they actually only played in a tiny portion of it, or that the story and adventure they had planned went out the window in session 3.
I now world build on the fly, session to session, adventure to adventure, I create NPC's on the fly and populate my towns, my players had a town map which is 3/4's blank and I told them, I don't know what is there yet, as the game has progressed I have filled in bits of it. My continent map started with just blobs indicating nations, over time I have refined it and added extra detail, but I will be honest I don't know what most of it is or means because my players are not there yet.
Don't overthink your campaign, as soon as you have an inn and a place for the party to meet you can start :)
Tell your player that the campaign is neutral good and ask them if they think they can incorporate their character in that setting.
There are many ways to get evil characters mesh well and believable with good characters once you get past the "evil = saturday morning cartoon villain" stage.
E.g. teaming up against an even greater evil. Or a pact like "I help you deal with that Goblin tribe, you make sure I stay out of prison". Or simply a bounty hunter who's only interested in the money and doesn't care about laws or morals. Maybe the serial killer doesn't want to be a killer anymore and seeks to atone for their crimes? Or at least they pretend that to be the case?
So if they can pull it off, there's no problem. If they can't the good characters will get rid of them and they have to roll a new character.
Agreed. Evil PCs have a tendency to ruin games. Especially games that start as heroic where everyone else is playing a good character. Your “friend” is setting up a huge fight that will happen in the game and spill out into real life. The only time I’ve ever seen evil characters work is when the entire campaign is evil and everyone agrees up front that they’re all playing an evil campaign and that you’re running a campaign of evil PCs
Sadly I’m speaking from personal experience. I’ve seen this happen before and the end result every time was a nasty fight between players with at least one person leaving with his feelings hurt and never returning.
Professional computer geek
I think it's possible to play an "Evil" character in a good/neutral campaign, but it's generally harder, for both the DM and the player. The easiest way to pull this off is with a "Lawful Evil" character... someone with a strong moral compass, just one that doesn't align with traditional beliefs. Bringing up characters like Dexter is a good comparison... someone who commits atrocious acts but does so only against targets who are evil in their own right. If you're going to do this, you need to make sure that everyone at the table is comfortable with it, and not just spring it on them.
In the campaign I'm currently playing in I'm playing as a very moral character, and one of our players is an Undead Necromancer Warlock who needs to regularly absorb souls to give to her Patron. To keep things from getting too dark the DM wrote that the Patron only accepts corrupted or evil souls... good souls are harmful to the patron. This set up an interesting challenge... the player had to find ways to subtly absorb souls, either using stealth to steal souls from downed enemies mid-combat, or sneaking out at night to lure criminals and murderers into traps and killing them in secret. Eventually the Good characters figured her out, but by then we had learned to trust and respect each other and we also realized that, as an Undead, she would literally die if she didn't have her patrons support.
The important thing was that the Warlock player went in knowing that this character type would normally be disruptive to a good campaign, and built her character in a way that allowed her to enjoy the unpredictability of playing an Evil character without just becoming a nuisance that the rest of the party has to put up with. If you're playing a group of heroes who take jobs to hunt down dark wizards and brigands, it's a huge stretch to ask them to also just ignore their fellow party member who is gleefully slitting Barmaid throats in their spare time.
EDIT: I should mention that I'm mostly just talking about this as general advice. For you, Cloudwinder, specifically, I agree with everyone who says that just saying "No" is the smart move. You mentioned that you're a new DM, and working with a not just evil, but outright murderous PC is a challenge even for experienced DMs. For the sake of not just yourself, but your entire table, you did the right thing telling them No.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
On the flip side, some people aren't very comfortable doing that kind of "world on the fly, make it up as you go along"-style campaign, and like to have a firm foundation for their world established before session 0.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I get some need a bit more detail in but for instance I have a friend who has been building his world for 2 years now insisting it isn’t ready to run a campaign in, there is a balance between being a bit prepared and then just spending far far to long. Personally I think you can have a firm foundation in your head, a list of bullet points and a very rough map as a prompt and then get going. It isn’t so much creating on the fly but it gives enough structure to then focus on your starting area.
Anyway a sidetrack as far as the player goes I will have a slightly different take on this, define serial killer? A paladin who kills all evil creatures might be called a serial killer by some, a rogue assassin could be neutral or chaotic good and be a “serial killer” if they enjoy killing their targets.
In a fantasy world where good people kill you could have a neutral or good serial killer who lives by a set of rules.
Just a suggestion you and the player could consider it might not work, I don’t know that I would allow it as a DM but sometimes you can work with a player to let them form a version of the character idea they had.