TLDR: A basic concept I just cannot quite wrap my head around. I have a two players that are wanting to make their next PCs evil and I don't know how to drive that in the story when the others want to be heroes. Is that possible? Advice and examples please!
I run a hero-PC role-play and story-focused campaign. We've been playing about 2 months now (weekly for 3-4.5 hours) so I asked everyone to go ahead and create secondary characters as a backup. All but 1 is a new player and all have expressed concern over not being able to continue playing if their PC dies in a battle. My requirements for their first PCs were : no evil alignments, use PHB for class and race, and pick where you are from in my home-brew world (gave them an in-color map). I didn't reiterate this as I assumed (fatal mistake) my players knew this would still apply. 2 of my current 4 (soon to be 5) players are interested in playing evil alignments and I don't want to tell them no if I can make it make sense in-game for some heroes and some unsavory types to team up to bring good to the world. Story matters to my players and they all put in the work to come up with amazing backstories they want resolution for their current PCs. We play very open world and I homebrew events based on their choices, so I can tailor to what they create if I can figure out how to. Advise and examples would be greatly appreciated!
Evil means different things to different people. It really depends on how the players are going to portray evil. I would put it back on them, they know the themes of the campaign and the existing party.
Tell them your concern, ask them to explain how they plan to make their evil character work well as part of the group and why the character would end up doing the heroic things that will happen in the campaign.
If they have good plans, great, give it a go. If not, let them know the character is not a fit for the campaign as is, remind them of the restrictions put in place up front, and ask them to modify the character or make another. There are infinite interesting characters to play, they will find another they will enjoy, that won't break your game.
Personally, I have similar difficulty with CN or N characters in my heroic campaigns. Everyone wants be be Han Solo, nobody wants to be Luke.
I'm going to approach this from a slightly different direction: forget alignment.
Firstly alignment doesn't really serve any mechanical purpose in the game, so why put so much weight on it. Secondly, alignment is, at best, a fluid thing that changes based on each given scenario. Thirdly, alignment is a suggestion on how a character views the world, not a hard and fast descriptor of a character.
You've said that your preferred gaming style is story and roleplay focused, make that the determining factor as to whether the characters will be viable going forward. It seems your players are willing to put some time into who their characters are and why they're doing the adventuring. Have them explain their motivations, have them explain their goals, and have them explain how they feel their characters will benefit the story. Sometimes an evil character is built so that the player can explore a redemption arc, sometimes they just want to watch the world burn. You know what is going to work for the story, they know what they're trying to accomplish in the story, if the story and proposed characters won't mesh, then it's easy enough to change the parts that don't work.
As a thought: I created a character for Heist just the other day. I am helping a friend learn how to DM so I get to play and I wanted to resurrect an old character idea. I am playing a Drow Sorcerer who is bent on becoming the most powerful caster in the world. His ultimate goal is to destroy the noble house he was born under in Menzoberranzan, wipe them completely out. This is an evil character, he will do anything he has to in order to obtain this power. However, he's able to work with the party since he understands that it will take more than himself to acquire these powers. He may never befriend the party, but he does understand the merit of working with others in order to obtain his goal.
I'd tell them the restrictions still apply, you've gave them the rules for character creation already, and I don't see how just because it is the second character they somehow don't apply. You can't renege on the restrictions now because that isn't fair for the other 2 players who *are* following the restrictions correctly. At that point they will feel cheated.
I remember one time we played in a home brewed full metal alchemist world where spontaneous casters was not thought to be possible. Think how Edward could transmute without needing a transmutation circle... And then the GM's twin brother Multi-classing into Bard, but it was allowed because "insert long B.S. explanation here." Everyone else felt like they we're unfairly being treated and that the GM was playing favorites.
Basically, if you have a campaign restriction, stick to them.
I have an evil character that is evil because he lacks compassion. This affects my role playing and motivation, not the story nor the other characters. This type of evil character works. I have played with "evil" characters that do nothing but ruin other peoples characters. This type of evil character does not work.
Essentially, evil as an excuse to be a jerk won't work. Evil as a motivational source does.
Most often, a player that wants to be "evil" really just wants to be a "murder hobo" and have no consequences. If these are "slaughter hobo" types, your options are to make there be consequences and have this be a "Story point", to role with it and have a short lived everyone gets board with it slaughter fest video game like campaign, or make them understand that what they are intending shall be boring.
If they are not wanting to be a "murder hobo", then make them detail in their history why they are evil and how that affects tehir game play. Then rule on if it shall work in your campaign or not. Be sure include how this shall affect party interaction.
Regardless of which and how, everyone at the table must be on board.
Thanks Mael! That was my current train of thought, I'm just so unsure about it. One player wanted to have his PC break into a naval yard to steal weapons and we had to have a game break so I could chat with him about how if his PC does this and gets caught the ramifications of a hero being caught doing this will be long-lasting, so he decided not to. His character is neutral, and he totally channels Solo...
Have them explain their motivations, have them explain their goals, and have them explain how they feel their characters will benefit the story. Sometimes an evil character is built so that the player can explore a redemption arc, sometimes they just want to watch the world burn. You know what is going to work for the story, they know what they're trying to accomplish in the story, if the story and proposed characters won't mesh, then it's easy enough to change the parts that don't work.
Thank you! This was floating voidlessly in my head that I felt like there was some way to give them a chance to try it but I couldn't figure it out. I also love your example!
Basically, if you have a campaign restriction, stick to them.
If I decide to change it for these two, I will definitely be informing the group that after some contemplation the secondary characters can be of any alignment. Thanks for pointing out the importance of consistency for all my players!
Essentially, evil as an excuse to be a jerk won't work. Evil as a motivational source does.
Regardless of which and how, everyone at the table must be on board.
Thank you for this clarification. I'm afraid I think of evil alignments as murder hobo jerks. I will be better able to discuss with them because of these 3 sentences, I feel so relieved.
I don't think they want to be evil. They probably want to be cool, like an anti-hero. The truly evil beings in most D&D campaigns are really distasteful creatures: bullies, murderers, sadists, robbers, liars if they are CE or NE, or friendless, destructive, totalitarian tyrants that destroy far more than they achieve if they are LE. A vast majority of D&D players don't really have the stomach to really RP a character like that. Why would they want to? Games where you attempt to roleplay truly amoral and depraved beings were a rage during the nineties, but I feel those games are for adult children who have no real experience of the more disgusting aspects of life.
Someone can be evil aligned and still want to do what's right. If you take greater good types, for example. They want what's best for everyone and they aren't opposed to nefarious means of achieving that. Remember that despite their "alignment" most if not every character believes that they are good, or that they are doing the right thing. They might even be aware that they are "evil," but they still think that they are right, or that they are doing good. Also, evil characters can be friends or allies with good characters. They might not always get along or agree, but there's nothing to stop them from traveling or fighting side by side.
I think you are most likely right, DMsven. I just don't see the draw or how to do a story for an anti-hero as innately as I do for classical hero stories.
Boromir (and even he is still pretty traditionally heroic) is the one I just can't quite wrap my mind around the motivation of in LOTR - you can't take the Ring to Gondor, basically everyone involved and with knowledge of it says no, obviously don't do it. I only see doing that anyway as selfish and leading to a bad ending. Now, for my players, I can see how to dangle choices like that in front of them, but I want to be able to have the world react to their character in a way that doesn't default bring destruction. How do I let Boromir take the Ring to Gondor and not have the world end in darkness? I guess that's more my question... How do I let an anti-hero still be the hero part? Ideas?
Also, evil characters can be friends or allies with good characters. They might not always get along or agree, but there's nothing to stop them from traveling or fighting side by side.
Do you have any examples of how E and G characters can/do become a party? I want to do what I can to help facilitate my PCs becoming an adventuring party, I'm just not sure what that looks like for those of opposite alignment.
Good characters can do things that cause horrible things to happen. Evil characters can do things that cause good things to happen. The difference is their motivations, not the end result. Also, good characters will feel guilt if bad things happen because of their actions. Evil characters won’t care about anything but themselves.
I would encourage you to read the Dragonlance novels surrounding Raistlin Majere. He is one of the greatest "Evil Heroes" I have ever read. He's so conflicted. The Twins trilogy has the most focus on him, but there's plenty of good stuff there. And if you decide to let them, I would encourage your player to read them as well.
@hair_razorUsually a common enemy can accomplish that. Or a common goal or interest could do the same. Basically just find something that they have in common; something that they would want to work together toward. Introducing a common threat might be the fastest way to throw people together, but getting them to stay together would require something like a common interest, or something that they would need each other's help for.
You might find some examples of G/E and rivals working together here:
Boromir tries to take the ring because of the overpowering supernatural draw it exudes. It seems to promise power; the ability to be stronger than Sauron and defeat him that way. The ring is extremely magical, a super-artifact perhaps in D&D terms. Boromir is no more evil than any other man.
Having anti-hero types in a campaign where other players have more conventional types of characters is difficult. The players never follow the plan that the DM has, unexpected things happen all the time and so on... Its not theater where the characters follow a script to a pre-determined ending, and its not really like improv either. For me its about getting together, rolling dice, exploring an imagined world, slaying monsters, finding treasure and improving your player character (or building a world if you're DM). Epic and tragical moments happen sometimes but that can't be scripted. In D&D they almost always happen because it isn't scripted. If you know its going to happen, it doesn't feel epic or tragic. That's how I feel about it.
My advice is to not have PCs that are on some pre-determined path to becoming villains or anti-heroes at all. Let anti-heroes arise if and when they do, but if the character dives into that the player should be prepared to draw a lot of flack from the other players. Players who make their characters sneaks, thieves, power-mad or perhaps worst of all cowards, almost never become popular. I've even seen them not getting invited to the table anymore.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
TLDR: A basic concept I just cannot quite wrap my head around. I have a two players that are wanting to make their next PCs evil and I don't know how to drive that in the story when the others want to be heroes. Is that possible? Advice and examples please!
I run a hero-PC role-play and story-focused campaign. We've been playing about 2 months now (weekly for 3-4.5 hours) so I asked everyone to go ahead and create secondary characters as a backup. All but 1 is a new player and all have expressed concern over not being able to continue playing if their PC dies in a battle. My requirements for their first PCs were : no evil alignments, use PHB for class and race, and pick where you are from in my home-brew world (gave them an in-color map). I didn't reiterate this as I assumed (fatal mistake) my players knew this would still apply. 2 of my current 4 (soon to be 5) players are interested in playing evil alignments and I don't want to tell them no if I can make it make sense in-game for some heroes and some unsavory types to team up to bring good to the world. Story matters to my players and they all put in the work to come up with amazing backstories they want resolution for their current PCs. We play very open world and I homebrew events based on their choices, so I can tailor to what they create if I can figure out how to. Advise and examples would be greatly appreciated!
Evil means different things to different people. It really depends on how the players are going to portray evil. I would put it back on them, they know the themes of the campaign and the existing party.
Tell them your concern, ask them to explain how they plan to make their evil character work well as part of the group and why the character would end up doing the heroic things that will happen in the campaign.
If they have good plans, great, give it a go. If not, let them know the character is not a fit for the campaign as is, remind them of the restrictions put in place up front, and ask them to modify the character or make another. There are infinite interesting characters to play, they will find another they will enjoy, that won't break your game.
Personally, I have similar difficulty with CN or N characters in my heroic campaigns. Everyone wants be be Han Solo, nobody wants to be Luke.
I'm going to approach this from a slightly different direction: forget alignment.
Firstly alignment doesn't really serve any mechanical purpose in the game, so why put so much weight on it. Secondly, alignment is, at best, a fluid thing that changes based on each given scenario. Thirdly, alignment is a suggestion on how a character views the world, not a hard and fast descriptor of a character.
You've said that your preferred gaming style is story and roleplay focused, make that the determining factor as to whether the characters will be viable going forward. It seems your players are willing to put some time into who their characters are and why they're doing the adventuring. Have them explain their motivations, have them explain their goals, and have them explain how they feel their characters will benefit the story. Sometimes an evil character is built so that the player can explore a redemption arc, sometimes they just want to watch the world burn. You know what is going to work for the story, they know what they're trying to accomplish in the story, if the story and proposed characters won't mesh, then it's easy enough to change the parts that don't work.
As a thought: I created a character for Heist just the other day. I am helping a friend learn how to DM so I get to play and I wanted to resurrect an old character idea. I am playing a Drow Sorcerer who is bent on becoming the most powerful caster in the world. His ultimate goal is to destroy the noble house he was born under in Menzoberranzan, wipe them completely out. This is an evil character, he will do anything he has to in order to obtain this power. However, he's able to work with the party since he understands that it will take more than himself to acquire these powers. He may never befriend the party, but he does understand the merit of working with others in order to obtain his goal.
I'd tell them the restrictions still apply, you've gave them the rules for character creation already, and I don't see how just because it is the second character they somehow don't apply. You can't renege on the restrictions now because that isn't fair for the other 2 players who *are* following the restrictions correctly. At that point they will feel cheated.
I remember one time we played in a home brewed full metal alchemist world where spontaneous casters was not thought to be possible. Think how Edward could transmute without needing a transmutation circle... And then the GM's twin brother Multi-classing into Bard, but it was allowed because "insert long B.S. explanation here." Everyone else felt like they we're unfairly being treated and that the GM was playing favorites.
Basically, if you have a campaign restriction, stick to them.
I have an evil character that is evil because he lacks compassion. This affects my role playing and motivation, not the story nor the other characters. This type of evil character works. I have played with "evil" characters that do nothing but ruin other peoples characters. This type of evil character does not work.
Essentially, evil as an excuse to be a jerk won't work. Evil as a motivational source does.
Most often, a player that wants to be "evil" really just wants to be a "murder hobo" and have no consequences. If these are "slaughter hobo" types, your options are to make there be consequences and have this be a "Story point", to role with it and have a short lived everyone gets board with it slaughter fest video game like campaign, or make them understand that what they are intending shall be boring.
If they are not wanting to be a "murder hobo", then make them detail in their history why they are evil and how that affects tehir game play. Then rule on if it shall work in your campaign or not. Be sure include how this shall affect party interaction.
Regardless of which and how, everyone at the table must be on board.
trick question, all PCs are evil
Thanks Mael! That was my current train of thought, I'm just so unsure about it. One player wanted to have his PC break into a naval yard to steal weapons and we had to have a game break so I could chat with him about how if his PC does this and gets caught the ramifications of a hero being caught doing this will be long-lasting, so he decided not to. His character is neutral, and he totally channels Solo...
Thank you! This was floating voidlessly in my head that I felt like there was some way to give them a chance to try it but I couldn't figure it out. I also love your example!
If I decide to change it for these two, I will definitely be informing the group that after some contemplation the secondary characters can be of any alignment. Thanks for pointing out the importance of consistency for all my players!
Thank you for this clarification. I'm afraid I think of evil alignments as murder hobo jerks. I will be better able to discuss with them because of these 3 sentences, I feel so relieved.
I don't think they want to be evil. They probably want to be cool, like an anti-hero. The truly evil beings in most D&D campaigns are really distasteful creatures: bullies, murderers, sadists, robbers, liars if they are CE or NE, or friendless, destructive, totalitarian tyrants that destroy far more than they achieve if they are LE. A vast majority of D&D players don't really have the stomach to really RP a character like that. Why would they want to? Games where you attempt to roleplay truly amoral and depraved beings were a rage during the nineties, but I feel those games are for adult children who have no real experience of the more disgusting aspects of life.
Someone can be evil aligned and still want to do what's right. If you take greater good types, for example. They want what's best for everyone and they aren't opposed to nefarious means of achieving that. Remember that despite their "alignment" most if not every character believes that they are good, or that they are doing the right thing. They might even be aware that they are "evil," but they still think that they are right, or that they are doing good. Also, evil characters can be friends or allies with good characters. They might not always get along or agree, but there's nothing to stop them from traveling or fighting side by side.
I think you are most likely right, DMsven. I just don't see the draw or how to do a story for an anti-hero as innately as I do for classical hero stories.
Boromir (and even he is still pretty traditionally heroic) is the one I just can't quite wrap my mind around the motivation of in LOTR - you can't take the Ring to Gondor, basically everyone involved and with knowledge of it says no, obviously don't do it. I only see doing that anyway as selfish and leading to a bad ending. Now, for my players, I can see how to dangle choices like that in front of them, but I want to be able to have the world react to their character in a way that doesn't default bring destruction. How do I let Boromir take the Ring to Gondor and not have the world end in darkness? I guess that's more my question... How do I let an anti-hero still be the hero part? Ideas?
Do you have any examples of how E and G characters can/do become a party? I want to do what I can to help facilitate my PCs becoming an adventuring party, I'm just not sure what that looks like for those of opposite alignment.
Easiest is, good folk team up to "give a good example" such that the baddie shall reform. But it really depends on motivations.
Good characters can do things that cause horrible things to happen. Evil characters can do things that cause good things to happen. The difference is their motivations, not the end result. Also, good characters will feel guilt if bad things happen because of their actions. Evil characters won’t care about anything but themselves.
I would encourage you to read the Dragonlance novels surrounding Raistlin Majere. He is one of the greatest "Evil Heroes" I have ever read. He's so conflicted. The Twins trilogy has the most focus on him, but there's plenty of good stuff there. And if you decide to let them, I would encourage your player to read them as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raistlin_Majere
@hair_razor Usually a common enemy can accomplish that. Or a common goal or interest could do the same. Basically just find something that they have in common; something that they would want to work together toward. Introducing a common threat might be the fastest way to throw people together, but getting them to stay together would require something like a common interest, or something that they would need each other's help for.
You might find some examples of G/E and rivals working together here:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EnemyMine
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RivalsTeamUp
Boromir tries to take the ring because of the overpowering supernatural draw it exudes. It seems to promise power; the ability to be stronger than Sauron and defeat him that way. The ring is extremely magical, a super-artifact perhaps in D&D terms. Boromir is no more evil than any other man.
Having anti-hero types in a campaign where other players have more conventional types of characters is difficult. The players never follow the plan that the DM has, unexpected things happen all the time and so on... Its not theater where the characters follow a script to a pre-determined ending, and its not really like improv either. For me its about getting together, rolling dice, exploring an imagined world, slaying monsters, finding treasure and improving your player character (or building a world if you're DM). Epic and tragical moments happen sometimes but that can't be scripted. In D&D they almost always happen because it isn't scripted. If you know its going to happen, it doesn't feel epic or tragic. That's how I feel about it.
My advice is to not have PCs that are on some pre-determined path to becoming villains or anti-heroes at all. Let anti-heroes arise if and when they do, but if the character dives into that the player should be prepared to draw a lot of flack from the other players. Players who make their characters sneaks, thieves, power-mad or perhaps worst of all cowards, almost never become popular. I've even seen them not getting invited to the table anymore.