Hey, so I'm going to DM a party that will appear to eachother as all evil(there will be two traitors of good alignment), and I want some advice to ensure it's a TPK for the evil players but still make them give the boss a good fight. Anyone got any advice?
So you are intentionally planning on killing all of these 'evil' characters? Does this lead somewhere in the story narrative? Maybe provide a little more detail on the story and the party makeup.
They are attempting to assassinate the king. The boss is a level 20 dwarvish eldritch knight. Nobody has really done character creation yet. The TPK bit is to teach them to not play evil on me, or else consequences. Also, love that profile pic.
They are attempting to assassinate the king. The boss is a level 20 dwarvish eldritch knight. Nobody has really done character creation yet. The TPK bit is to teach them to not play evil on me, or else consequences. Also, love that profile pic.
I will start by saying be careful with that message; you'll upset your players after all the time they put into creating a character, only to have them killed off just because you don't want evil in your game. That's not fair to them, and it's not fun. Well, maybe it will be to you, but no one wants to be a punching bag to serve as a demonstration.
This is something to discuss in Session Zero, saying you don't want to run an evil campaign, so no evil characters.
I second BK. If you have a problem with running campaigns for evil characters, that's something you should tell your players. Punishing them for breaking a rule they couldn't have known exists is not a good move.
As a rule, if your players are doing something that you don't like, or makes the game un-fun for you, you should talk to them outside of the game and be honest about how you feel. Punishing players in-game just comes off unfair, and the only lesson players ever learn from that is "I'm in a player vs DM game".
Another thing, you can't really-- AND SHOULDN'T-- try to TPK your players. If you're trying to kill everyone, then odds are you're going to massively overpower your encounter, and players will pick up that there was never any chance they could've come out on top, and with no chance, there's really no point in playing with you if you might just kill them for some secret reason and there's nothing they can do.
You should not have the outcome fixed in advance the players actions should have meaningful impact. That is the case for all cames especaily in a game like this where the playrers are on opposing sides. The players of evil characters will ikely be very upset when (and it is almost certain to be when rather than if) they discover there was nothing they could do to achive their characters goal in the game, You might be a little more subtle than allowing the "traiters" to be a far higher level than the rest of the party and to cast soemething like dominate person (with silver barbs if they manage to make the save) and get them to go to the local law enforcement agency and admit thier crimes but in the end the result will be the same
I like the context of a an evil party but with one or two spies wanting to work against them. For example trying to expose a band of thieves but it would be very difficult for both the spies and the DM to pull off successfully. The good players would have to be careful in the way that they at in a way that they can justify any "evil" their characters do to avoid suspicion as being in character and as DM it would be hard to cover things up. It is hard enough for an evil PC to infiltrate a good party in a way that does not either case the good PCs to want to throw them out the party or kill them (i.e. the evil PC has to appear good yet still bend the party to do what they want). Doing the reverse and having good players appear ot be evil without actually being so is even harder. Unless the group is VERY good at roleplay, and very good at deception themselves this is likely to fall flat quickly.
They are attempting to assassinate the king. The boss is a level 20 dwarvish eldritch knight. Nobody has really done character creation yet. The TPK bit is to teach them to not play evil on me, or else consequences.Also, love that profile pic.
I think you will end up teaching them to not trust you or your direction. To intentionally set up players to be TPK won't send the message you intend to. The players are not making the decision to play evil on you and in the end you are potentially punishing them for playing by your guidelines for the campaign. This is like a manager giving their subordinates assignments that would displease the customer or corporate office thinking it will teach the team "what not to do". This won't make the players feel they are part of group or process, instead the players may feel disrespected or worst.
If your intent is to teach them not to play evil then may I suggest developing different paths with consequences should the players choose to behave evil. For example; if the party opts to help an NPC commit an assassination then at the rendezvous location the NPC doesn't show up but the Royal Guard does. Maybe the party is at risk of a TPK because they opt to do business with a Drow Thief's Guild who double crosses them, or the artifact they retrieved for a Lich turns out be their phylactery and proceeds to feed the players' souls to it.
Create logical consequences should the players choose a path that is selfish or destructive. Make them realize there are consequences for their decisions. But don't force them to take a path or deny them options so you can punish them.
I gave them the choice to play an evil campaign and said they'd probably all die. They didn't care they just want an excuse to, I don't know, kill babies or something. I do see the lower level traitors as a good idea, I'll talk to them. I am really sure that they know it's supposed to be a TPK though. And they don't trust me anyway. My ideas are a little... eccentric. *has flashbacks*
I gave them the choice to play an evil campaign and said they'd probably all die. They didn't care they just want an excuse to, I don't know, kill babies or something. I do see the lower level traitors as a good idea, I'll talk to them. I am really sure that they know it's supposed to be a TPK though. And they don't trust me anyway. My ideas are a little... eccentric. *has flashbacks*
I still wouldn't aim for a TPK. You can make something challenging, or really challenging, but don't make their death a forgone conclusion. When you say "you'll probably all die", that'll pique the players' interest and they'll want to see if they can make it. If there was never a chance, all you'll do is let them down.
If your players have a play style that you don't want to DM, and they don't trust you, and you're already planning to kill their PCs before they've even finished character creation...my advice is to hit the brakes or step down. This isn't a good DM/player match and it will only get worse unless basic game expectations and preferences are hashed out.
You said you gave them the choice of running evil characters, but if the only thing you're planning is to kill them because they're evil...you didn't actually give them a choice. You promised them something you had no intention of delivering. "You guys will probably die if you play evil characters" is not the same thing as "I'm planning to TPK you to teach you a lesson."
By letting them choose to be evil characters, you tacitly endorsed that style of play - which means that, since this is a collaborative game, they expect you to provide them opportunities where they could succeed. Instead, you've already decided they will totally fail before they've even started. That's...not cool. Also, speaking as someone who had a party that didn't trust or like each other...the traitor thing is likely to be more fun in theory than in practice. D&D is not designed to pit players against each other; it's designed for everyone to work together. If you want a game that has backstabbing built into it, I recommend playing something like Paranoia instead.
I strongly encourage you to talk to your players after you decide whether or not you're comfortable DMing for evil characters. No D&D is better than bad D&D.
It is entirely reasonable for good characters to want to kill the king. It is also reasonable for evil characters to donate to charity. In both cases, they just need an appropriate reason.
Also, remember, alignment doesn't define a character, it describes them.
More important than your characters' alignments is whether their actions have appropriate consequences. If selfish acts have negative consequences and selfless actions have positive consequences, evil characters will tend to take actions that give them an overall benefit.
In my experience chaotic characters are a much bigger problem. It isn't the lawful evil schemer that disrupts my plans, it's the chaotic good idealist that decides they're not going to take that from anyone, even if they are the king.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hey, so I'm going to DM a party that will appear to eachother as all evil(there will be two traitors of good alignment), and I want some advice to ensure it's a TPK for the evil players but still make them give the boss a good fight. Anyone got any advice?
So you are intentionally planning on killing all of these 'evil' characters? Does this lead somewhere in the story narrative? Maybe provide a little more detail on the story and the party makeup.
They are attempting to assassinate the king. The boss is a level 20 dwarvish eldritch knight. Nobody has really done character creation yet. The TPK bit is to teach them to not play evil on me, or else consequences. Also, love that profile pic.
I will start by saying be careful with that message; you'll upset your players after all the time they put into creating a character, only to have them killed off just because you don't want evil in your game. That's not fair to them, and it's not fun. Well, maybe it will be to you, but no one wants to be a punching bag to serve as a demonstration.
This is something to discuss in Session Zero, saying you don't want to run an evil campaign, so no evil characters.
I second BK. If you have a problem with running campaigns for evil characters, that's something you should tell your players. Punishing them for breaking a rule they couldn't have known exists is not a good move.
As a rule, if your players are doing something that you don't like, or makes the game un-fun for you, you should talk to them outside of the game and be honest about how you feel. Punishing players in-game just comes off unfair, and the only lesson players ever learn from that is "I'm in a player vs DM game".
Another thing, you can't really-- AND SHOULDN'T-- try to TPK your players. If you're trying to kill everyone, then odds are you're going to massively overpower your encounter, and players will pick up that there was never any chance they could've come out on top, and with no chance, there's really no point in playing with you if you might just kill them for some secret reason and there's nothing they can do.
DO NOT RAILROAD
You should not have the outcome fixed in advance the players actions should have meaningful impact. That is the case for all cames especaily in a game like this where the playrers are on opposing sides. The players of evil characters will ikely be very upset when (and it is almost certain to be when rather than if) they discover there was nothing they could do to achive their characters goal in the game, You might be a little more subtle than allowing the "traiters" to be a far higher level than the rest of the party and to cast soemething like dominate person (with silver barbs if they manage to make the save) and get them to go to the local law enforcement agency and admit thier crimes but in the end the result will be the same
I like the context of a an evil party but with one or two spies wanting to work against them. For example trying to expose a band of thieves but it would be very difficult for both the spies and the DM to pull off successfully. The good players would have to be careful in the way that they at in a way that they can justify any "evil" their characters do to avoid suspicion as being in character and as DM it would be hard to cover things up. It is hard enough for an evil PC to infiltrate a good party in a way that does not either case the good PCs to want to throw them out the party or kill them (i.e. the evil PC has to appear good yet still bend the party to do what they want). Doing the reverse and having good players appear ot be evil without actually being so is even harder. Unless the group is VERY good at roleplay, and very good at deception themselves this is likely to fall flat quickly.
I think you will end up teaching them to not trust you or your direction. To intentionally set up players to be TPK won't send the message you intend to. The players are not making the decision to play evil on you and in the end you are potentially punishing them for playing by your guidelines for the campaign. This is like a manager giving their subordinates assignments that would displease the customer or corporate office thinking it will teach the team "what not to do". This won't make the players feel they are part of group or process, instead the players may feel disrespected or worst.
If your intent is to teach them not to play evil then may I suggest developing different paths with consequences should the players choose to behave evil. For example; if the party opts to help an NPC commit an assassination then at the rendezvous location the NPC doesn't show up but the Royal Guard does. Maybe the party is at risk of a TPK because they opt to do business with a Drow Thief's Guild who double crosses them, or the artifact they retrieved for a Lich turns out be their phylactery and proceeds to feed the players' souls to it.
Create logical consequences should the players choose a path that is selfish or destructive. Make them realize there are consequences for their decisions. But don't force them to take a path or deny them options so you can punish them.
I gave them the choice to play an evil campaign and said they'd probably all die. They didn't care they just want an excuse to, I don't know, kill babies or something. I do see the lower level traitors as a good idea, I'll talk to them. I am really sure that they know it's supposed to be a TPK though. And they don't trust me anyway. My ideas are a little... eccentric. *has flashbacks*
I still wouldn't aim for a TPK. You can make something challenging, or really challenging, but don't make their death a forgone conclusion. When you say "you'll probably all die", that'll pique the players' interest and they'll want to see if they can make it. If there was never a chance, all you'll do is let them down.
If you don’t want to run an evil campaign, then just don’t. If that what the players really want to play, tell them someone else will need to DM it.
If your players have a play style that you don't want to DM, and they don't trust you, and you're already planning to kill their PCs before they've even finished character creation...my advice is to hit the brakes or step down. This isn't a good DM/player match and it will only get worse unless basic game expectations and preferences are hashed out.
You said you gave them the choice of running evil characters, but if the only thing you're planning is to kill them because they're evil...you didn't actually give them a choice. You promised them something you had no intention of delivering. "You guys will probably die if you play evil characters" is not the same thing as "I'm planning to TPK you to teach you a lesson."
By letting them choose to be evil characters, you tacitly endorsed that style of play - which means that, since this is a collaborative game, they expect you to provide them opportunities where they could succeed. Instead, you've already decided they will totally fail before they've even started. That's...not cool. Also, speaking as someone who had a party that didn't trust or like each other...the traitor thing is likely to be more fun in theory than in practice. D&D is not designed to pit players against each other; it's designed for everyone to work together. If you want a game that has backstabbing built into it, I recommend playing something like Paranoia instead.
I strongly encourage you to talk to your players after you decide whether or not you're comfortable DMing for evil characters. No D&D is better than bad D&D.
It is entirely reasonable for good characters to want to kill the king. It is also reasonable for evil characters to donate to charity. In both cases, they just need an appropriate reason.
Also, remember, alignment doesn't define a character, it describes them.
More important than your characters' alignments is whether their actions have appropriate consequences. If selfish acts have negative consequences and selfless actions have positive consequences, evil characters will tend to take actions that give them an overall benefit.
In my experience chaotic characters are a much bigger problem. It isn't the lawful evil schemer that disrupts my plans, it's the chaotic good idealist that decides they're not going to take that from anyone, even if they are the king.