For my d&d game i have began preparing a quest which involves breaking into the mayor's house and stealing some wine for a shady figure who sent them. I had this in mind as one of my player's background is thief and alignment is chaotic evil and so could tie into that aspect. However the other player has a neutral good alignment and so may not be as willing to do the quest.
In general, is it a good idea to have the opening quest of a story be more on the evil and unlawful side or should i try to go for a more helpful and heroic approach?
I think it can be, especially if the context is skewed.
Think the A-Team and their time in Hanoi. Hannibal and company were sent to raid the Bank of Hanoi, per the orders of Colonel Samuel Morrison, in a desperate attempt to bring about the end of the war. When the colonel was found killed, the A-Team were convicted of the crime, with the military police going with the story that Hannibal shot Morrison for wanting out of a heist that was purely for their own gain. It wasn't until five seasons later when the A-Team were finally caught and put on trial that it was revealed Morrison was a double-agent, who gave the Viet Cong information for money.
So let's say the party's sent to the Mayor's house. The story is he's corrupt, that he stole this bottle of wine that's been stored for the local innkeep's daughter's wedding day when said daughter refused the Mayor's hand in marriage. As they get there though, they find no wine but instead something that's no doubt worth considerably more. The staircase creaks. The party has to make a decision: do they take this, search for the wine, or skedaddle? The Mayor might well be corrupt, but he's not that bad, or it's better him than anyone else, and should the party try to make that change, they might be hunted down for the rest of their days unless they can redeem themselves. But if someone has a problem, if no-one else can help, and if you can find them...
Point being to find a way to appeal to the neutral good player as well.
Whatever happens, I wish you and your team the best of luck! ^^
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
Just as an aside - if your players are new, having a "chaotic evil" character usually adds a lot of (not fun) tension to the game, especially when the others are neutral or good. It can totally work as described above, but I would highly recommend having your players think about more than just alignment for the characters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
As above: Catering to your chaotic evil player at the expense of everyone else seems ... unlikely to be well received.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Chaotic evil is pretty extreme for a character and I think it's fair to say that a chaotic evil characters would be as likely to burn down the mayors house as stealing the wine (or after stealing the wine if they have a modicum of intelligence).
Overall, I an generally not too fussed across the lawful-neutral-chaotic side of alignment spectrum, although i often feel players misunderstand chaotic to being "free". Chaotic is, in my understand, more about actively eroding law whereas neutral lives with it, but doesn't necessarily follow it all
However, I get very wary on the good-neutral-evil side of alignment if there isn't a similarity within a group. I'm not saying you can't play evil - but that having evil and good characters in the same group will inevitably lead to confrontation. As long as you are aware of that, and prepared for it - best of luck.
In terms of starting with an evil deed - it can be a good opener, especially if the group is somehow tricked into doing something they though to be a simple job, but turns out to have been a darker deed than originally though - especially if it is an early link to a BBEG or shady organisation that the group ends up confronting.
Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust. Demons and red dragons are typically chaotic evil.
This can be very difficult to work into a party unless the whole party are chaotic evil murder hoboes. I would suggest emphasizing that if they want to play an evil character, they play one who is savvy enough not to act on evil whims that will potentially end up having the party turn on them or break the group apart.
I do think that the wine heist could still work. HexTherapy's suggestions are great for that. But I would make sure the player wanting to play an evil character understands the balance they'll have to strike for it to make sense for the rest of the party to keep them around.
Chaotic evil implies that the character has a twisted mind and soul that seeks pleasure in inflicting pain and for which (in one form or another) hurting people is the goal, not a mean to an end.
Calling stealing wine or even stealing diamonds chaotic evil is ludicrous, unless there is a further intention (stealing the wine to have an innocent accused and punished… to hurt emotionally the mayor since the wine is the last remaining memory of its father…since they want to substitute it with poisoned wine)
Working for as a contractor for shady figures or even organized crime is not heroic for sure, but even not evil
Personally, I don't see the problem of starting off an evil campaign, so long as everyone in the party knows what they're getting up to. Hell, you can do what I did, and ask them all to make Gothic Fiction characters. One of my friends made a Halfling butcher whose meat pies were to die for, and the other was a Changeling Rogue who knew just who to wear for the fanciest of occasions, especially after making sure that whoever he was portraying would be taking some rather permanent time off from the local festivities.
You could make it a challenge to see what sort of crimes they could commit behind the scenes, whether they'd be willingly working together, or plotting behind each other's backs, and (if they ever got caught), exactly what lengths they might go to in order to either escape, or to ensure that the news never got out. You can have them play a part in the local gang wars, overthrow the city leaders, try to take over the world, and/or attempt to burn everything to the ground. Not to say there won't be heroes and adventurers waiting around the corner, in order to try to stop them from completing their nefarious deeds, but there's also no saying they can't find even more nefarious allies to help them, and whether said fickle friends might have their own evil plans, for what's to come...
I’m not an expert, but it seems like a really bad idea to have a chaotic evil and a neutral good character in the same party. They’re gonna have opposite goals.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I really like D&D, especially Ravenloft, Exandria and the Upside Down from Stranger Things. My pronouns are she/they (genderfae).
I’m not an expert, but it seems like a really bad idea to have a chaotic evil and a neutral good character in the same party. They’re gonna have opposite goals.
This is not always true - it is possible to have the two characters’ goals align, even if they have opposing methods to accomplish that goal. With a competent DM who is capable of creating a superseding threat that unifies the party and competent party members who realise they can play opposing alignments so long as they roleplay a reason to be in a party together and can divorce conflicts between characters from becoming conflicts between players, this can make for an interesting and fun party dynamic.
The problem comes not from the alignments per se, but from the players and DM. LG and CE also each have their own problems, since they disproportionality appeal to problematic player types. LG disproportionately appeals to folks who have very strict ideas of what D&D is and who want to play Stereotypical Hero Campaign, while CE appeals to murder hobo type players who just want to cause chaos (not to say all LG and CE characters are those archetypes—just those types of player are more likely to gravitate to those alignment). Those players can be problematic in any campaign, but they mix like iodine and ammonia when placed in the same group. Again, not the fault of the alignments, that’s a player dynamic issue that would likely manifest regardless of what type of character each was playing.
I’m not an expert, but it seems like a really bad idea to have a chaotic evil and a neutral good character in the same party. They’re gonna have opposite goals.
This is not always true - it is possible to have the two characters’ goals align, even if they have opposing methods to accomplish that goal. With a competent DM who is capable of creating a superseding threat that unifies the party and competent party members who realise they can play opposing alignments so long as they roleplay a reason to be in a party together and can divorce conflicts between characters from becoming conflicts between players, this can make for an interesting and fun party dynamic.
The problem comes not from the alignments per se, but from the players and DM. LG and CE also each have their own problems, since they disproportionality appeal to problematic player types. LG disproportionately appeals to folks who have very strict ideas of what D&D is and who want to play Stereotypical Hero Campaign, while CE appeals to murder hobo type players who just want to cause chaos (not to say all LG and CE characters are those archetypes—just those types of player are more likely to gravitate to those alignment). Those players can be problematic in any campaign, but they mix like iodine and ammonia when placed in the same group. Again, not the fault of the alignments, that’s a player dynamic issue that would likely manifest regardless of what type of character each was playing.
Oh ok. Would this be true for neutral good too? The character in the example is neutral good, not lawful good.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I really like D&D, especially Ravenloft, Exandria and the Upside Down from Stranger Things. My pronouns are she/they (genderfae).
I’m not an expert, but it seems like a really bad idea to have a chaotic evil and a neutral good character in the same party. They’re gonna have opposite goals.
This is not always true - it is possible to have the two characters’ goals align, even if they have opposing methods to accomplish that goal. With a competent DM who is capable of creating a superseding threat that unifies the party and competent party members who realise they can play opposing alignments so long as they roleplay a reason to be in a party together and can divorce conflicts between characters from becoming conflicts between players, this can make for an interesting and fun party dynamic.
The problem comes not from the alignments per se, but from the players and DM. LG and CE also each have their own problems, since they disproportionality appeal to problematic player types. LG disproportionately appeals to folks who have very strict ideas of what D&D is and who want to play Stereotypical Hero Campaign, while CE appeals to murder hobo type players who just want to cause chaos (not to say all LG and CE characters are those archetypes—just those types of player are more likely to gravitate to those alignment). Those players can be problematic in any campaign, but they mix like iodine and ammonia when placed in the same group. Again, not the fault of the alignments, that’s a player dynamic issue that would likely manifest regardless of what type of character each was playing.
Oh ok. Would this be true for neutral good too? The character in the example is neutral good, not lawful good.
I would say this holds true for any set of alignments - the issues come not from the alignments, but from the players acting in a manner that creates problems, often using their alignment as a shield to try and justify their bad behavior.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
For my d&d game i have began preparing a quest which involves breaking into the mayor's house and stealing some wine for a shady figure who sent them. I had this in mind as one of my player's background is thief and alignment is chaotic evil and so could tie into that aspect. However the other player has a neutral good alignment and so may not be as willing to do the quest.
In general, is it a good idea to have the opening quest of a story be more on the evil and unlawful side or should i try to go for a more helpful and heroic approach?
I think it can be, especially if the context is skewed.
Think the A-Team and their time in Hanoi. Hannibal and company were sent to raid the Bank of Hanoi, per the orders of Colonel Samuel Morrison, in a desperate attempt to bring about the end of the war. When the colonel was found killed, the A-Team were convicted of the crime, with the military police going with the story that Hannibal shot Morrison for wanting out of a heist that was purely for their own gain. It wasn't until five seasons later when the A-Team were finally caught and put on trial that it was revealed Morrison was a double-agent, who gave the Viet Cong information for money.
So let's say the party's sent to the Mayor's house. The story is he's corrupt, that he stole this bottle of wine that's been stored for the local innkeep's daughter's wedding day when said daughter refused the Mayor's hand in marriage. As they get there though, they find no wine but instead something that's no doubt worth considerably more. The staircase creaks. The party has to make a decision: do they take this, search for the wine, or skedaddle? The Mayor might well be corrupt, but he's not that bad, or it's better him than anyone else, and should the party try to make that change, they might be hunted down for the rest of their days unless they can redeem themselves. But if someone has a problem, if no-one else can help, and if you can find them...
Point being to find a way to appeal to the neutral good player as well.
Whatever happens, I wish you and your team the best of luck! ^^
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
Thank you so much! that actually helps a lot.
Just as an aside - if your players are new, having a "chaotic evil" character usually adds a lot of (not fun) tension to the game, especially when the others are neutral or good. It can totally work as described above, but I would highly recommend having your players think about more than just alignment for the characters.
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
As above: Catering to your chaotic evil player at the expense of everyone else seems ... unlikely to be well received.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Chaotic evil is pretty extreme for a character and I think it's fair to say that a chaotic evil characters would be as likely to burn down the mayors house as stealing the wine (or after stealing the wine if they have a modicum of intelligence).
Overall, I an generally not too fussed across the lawful-neutral-chaotic side of alignment spectrum, although i often feel players misunderstand chaotic to being "free". Chaotic is, in my understand, more about actively eroding law whereas neutral lives with it, but doesn't necessarily follow it all
However, I get very wary on the good-neutral-evil side of alignment if there isn't a similarity within a group. I'm not saying you can't play evil - but that having evil and good characters in the same group will inevitably lead to confrontation. As long as you are aware of that, and prepared for it - best of luck.
In terms of starting with an evil deed - it can be a good opener, especially if the group is somehow tricked into doing something they though to be a simple job, but turns out to have been a darker deed than originally though - especially if it is an early link to a BBEG or shady organisation that the group ends up confronting.
Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust. Demons and red dragons are typically chaotic evil.
This can be very difficult to work into a party unless the whole party are chaotic evil murder hoboes. I would suggest emphasizing that if they want to play an evil character, they play one who is savvy enough not to act on evil whims that will potentially end up having the party turn on them or break the group apart.
I do think that the wine heist could still work. HexTherapy's suggestions are great for that. But I would make sure the player wanting to play an evil character understands the balance they'll have to strike for it to make sense for the rest of the party to keep them around.
Stealing some wine doesn’t seem chaotic evil.
Chaotic neutral, at worse.
Chaotic evil implies that the character has a twisted mind and soul that seeks pleasure in inflicting pain and for which (in one form or another) hurting people is the goal, not a mean to an end.
Calling stealing wine or even stealing diamonds chaotic evil is ludicrous, unless there is a further intention (stealing the wine to have an innocent accused and punished… to hurt emotionally the mayor since the wine is the last remaining memory of its father…since they want to substitute it with poisoned wine)
Working for as a contractor for shady figures or even organized crime is not heroic for sure, but even not evil
Personally, I don't see the problem of starting off an evil campaign, so long as everyone in the party knows what they're getting up to. Hell, you can do what I did, and ask them all to make Gothic Fiction characters. One of my friends made a Halfling butcher whose meat pies were to die for, and the other was a Changeling Rogue who knew just who to wear for the fanciest of occasions, especially after making sure that whoever he was portraying would be taking some rather permanent time off from the local festivities.
You could make it a challenge to see what sort of crimes they could commit behind the scenes, whether they'd be willingly working together, or plotting behind each other's backs, and (if they ever got caught), exactly what lengths they might go to in order to either escape, or to ensure that the news never got out. You can have them play a part in the local gang wars, overthrow the city leaders, try to take over the world, and/or attempt to burn everything to the ground. Not to say there won't be heroes and adventurers waiting around the corner, in order to try to stop them from completing their nefarious deeds, but there's also no saying they can't find even more nefarious allies to help them, and whether said fickle friends might have their own evil plans, for what's to come...
I’m not an expert, but it seems like a really bad idea to have a chaotic evil and a neutral good character in the same party. They’re gonna have opposite goals.
I really like D&D, especially Ravenloft, Exandria and the Upside Down from Stranger Things. My pronouns are she/they (genderfae).
This is not always true - it is possible to have the two characters’ goals align, even if they have opposing methods to accomplish that goal. With a competent DM who is capable of creating a superseding threat that unifies the party and competent party members who realise they can play opposing alignments so long as they roleplay a reason to be in a party together and can divorce conflicts between characters from becoming conflicts between players, this can make for an interesting and fun party dynamic.
The problem comes not from the alignments per se, but from the players and DM. LG and CE also each have their own problems, since they disproportionality appeal to problematic player types. LG disproportionately appeals to folks who have very strict ideas of what D&D is and who want to play Stereotypical Hero Campaign, while CE appeals to murder hobo type players who just want to cause chaos (not to say all LG and CE characters are those archetypes—just those types of player are more likely to gravitate to those alignment). Those players can be problematic in any campaign, but they mix like iodine and ammonia when placed in the same group. Again, not the fault of the alignments, that’s a player dynamic issue that would likely manifest regardless of what type of character each was playing.
Oh ok. Would this be true for neutral good too? The character in the example is neutral good, not lawful good.
I really like D&D, especially Ravenloft, Exandria and the Upside Down from Stranger Things. My pronouns are she/they (genderfae).
I would say this holds true for any set of alignments - the issues come not from the alignments, but from the players acting in a manner that creates problems, often using their alignment as a shield to try and justify their bad behavior.