General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
I was giving some thought to character creation last night, when it occured to me that party dynamics shouldn't always be open and honest.
Let's say you have a character that is lawful evil, but finds herself working alongside characters that are generally good. While she can be a "team player" and advance the goals of the group, her alignment might make it impossible for her get along with the more religious characters. In this case, the player would be best served by having the character hide her true alignment, or even pretend to be a worshipper of a good deity.
I think it would be really interesting, especially if the character's true colors started to show after a while. How would her new friends react?
Providing the GM is entirely aware of what is really going on, and is prepared for any scenarios that might develop, how would a lying character be played from a metagame perspective?
Would the other players be able to make insight or even diplomacy checks to learn more about their companion? How would that work?
I'm assuming that within the framework of the adventure - if not the campaign - the character is willing to work with the player characters. She may want to rule the world, destroy various enemies, or even find pleasure in killing and violence. These motives are not difficult to cover up, at least temporarily. My question is how they can be covered up while giving the other players an opportunity to figure things out.
I was giving some thought to character creation last night, when it occured to me that party dynamics shouldn't always be open and honest.
Let's say you have a character that is lawful evil, but finds herself working alongside characters that are generally good. While she can be a "team player" and advance the goals of the group, her alignment might make it impossible for her get along with the more religious characters. In this case, the player would be best served by having the character hide her true alignment, or even pretend to be a worshipper of a good deity.
I think it would be really interesting, especially if the character's true colors started to show after a while. How would her new friends react?
Providing the GM is entirely aware of what is really going on, and is prepared for any scenarios that might develop, how would a lying character be played from a metagame perspective?
Would the other players be able to make insight or even diplomacy checks to learn more about their companion? How would that work?
It sounds like a great idea.
Speaking from a LOT of experience, let me just tell you. It's not. Party distrust turns to party violence and player bitterness.
Speaking from a LOT of experience, let me just tell you. It's not. Party distrust turns to party violence and player bitterness.
IME (30+years) I think it depends on the group.
A couple of years ago, I played a Neutral Evil Fighter/Rogue who did keep some of the treasure he found concealed, who did pick on the frail wizard (in a manner disguised as macho joviality), and so forth...
And it was a Good-aligned PC Cleric who got himself in trouble with the Prince for evangelizing in his region without permission, earning him a quick exile and derailing the campaign.
One thing I've found that helps is right at character creation, tell your players that each character must have links to at least two other characters. Some fundamental element that provides a reason for these people to tolerate each other's presense. They don't have to be friends, but, there has to be some reason why they won't come to blows.
Then, enforce a PVE rule. No player vs player combat. You can do whatever you want, short of outright attacking another player. Be very upfront that breaking out the D20 when you get into an argument is NOT an option. Leave it up to the players to figure out other means of conflict resolution.
Once that's out of the way, I've found that evil parties, or evil PC's in a good party can work rather well. When everyone is aware that their actions have consequences, but, they cannot simply solve those with violence, people start being very creative with both introducing conflicts and resolving them.
What I've found is that players start dancing around each other in much more interesting ways. Instead of someone being very directly confrontational, the players start trying to justify each other's actions. Looks a lot like an episode of the Sopranos, where you have all these bad people, who given a really good chance, might off one another, working together and acting very politely to each other most of the time.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
I was giving some thought to character creation last night, when it occured to me that party dynamics shouldn't always be open and honest.
I agree. One of my house rules is that only I (the DM) and the PC's player know a PC's alignment (barring divinations and such). I ask the players not to write their alignment on character sheets or any other place another player might see it.
I've also played in campaigns where PCs killed other PCs, and it wasn't a problem. Groups that can handle such stuff are rare, though, and my current house rule is that PC vs PC conflict must be nonlethal.
Let's say you have a character that is lawful evil, but finds herself working alongside characters that are generally good. While she can be a "team player" and advance the goals of the group, her alignment might make it impossible for her get along with the more religious characters. In this case, the player would be best served by having the character hide her true alignment, or even pretend to be a worshipper of a good deity.
I've run into this scenario quite a few times.
Being evil does not mean you are a monster, it more than likely means that you are a self-centered SOB who only has your own interest in mind.
Like most of my characters.
First of all I make myself valuable to the party, effective in combat and a team player. This helps make the sins I am caught with seem a bit more tolerable.
Also make some donations to local good churches and orphanages, especially those with character involvement. If you donate alot of gold, wait a while before stealing it back, it will be less obvious.
__________________ "Democracy must be something more than two gnolls and an elf voting on what to have for dinner."
I'm assuming that within the framework of the adventure - if not the campaign - the character is willing to work with the player characters. She may want to rule the world, destroy various enemies, or even find pleasure in killing and violence. These motives are not difficult to cover up, at least temporarily. My question is how they can be covered up while giving the other players an opportunity to figure things out.
The character must be witty... there must always be a good reason for the action.
Gold is stolen and put aside as a special donation to a charity. The evil character may even set up a phony charity to donate to, and convince other characters to donate too. Yes, I had done that and gotten away with it.
If you kill someone, it was for a valid reason. That innocent looking farmer may have been a terrorist in hiding, or may have been a wanted person. I had an evil Cleric that would cast commune with dead spells and relay fake messages back to the party. Being in an evil group, I suspected that they were lying to me too.
Soon enough even the densest player will catch on that maybe all these evil actions are not a coincidence.
__________________ "Democracy must be something more than two gnolls and an elf voting on what to have for dinner."
The character must be witty... there must always be a good reason for the action.
Gold is stolen and put aside as a special donation to a charity. The evil character may even set up a phony charity to donate to, and convince other characters to donate too. Yes, I had done that and gotten away with it.
If you kill someone, it was for a valid reason. That innocent looking farmer may have been a terrorist in hiding, or may have been a wanted person. I had an evil Cleric that would cast commune with dead spells and relay fake messages back to the party. Being in an evil group, I suspected that they were lying to me too.
Soon enough even the densest player will catch on that maybe all these evil actions are not a coincidence.
While playing the classic thief or sociopathic murderer can be fun, I have a soft spot for complex characters suffering from internal conflict.
Certianly the template of the evil character has plenty of room for inner struggle. Think of the adventurer whose heart has been turned to ice through trauma. Perhaps she suffers from a revenge fueled tunnel vision.
Or, and this is my current character idea, a young girl who grew up surrounded by dark magic and dreadful secrets, and never formed the moral compass given by mainstream society. As a result, she has constructed her own convoluted ethical framework that borrows heavily from the stories told to her by necromancers and power hungry scholars of the arcane.
She might have a good heart, and maybe her interactions with a good party will change her for the better, but she would certainly be lawfully evil.
It seems to me that if you allow your character to reject the system of right and wrong proposed by a god like Pelor or Avandra, then they can construct their own, leading to incredibly interesting roleplay situations.
I can't remember the name, but there was a society in Frank Herbert's "Dune Messiah" that would, without fail, leave a path of escape open to its victims. Something like that would be really thrilling to incorporate into a character.
In my experience, things work out best if the players know that the character is evil, even if the characters don't. This sort of thing can be pretty fun unless the players are complete failures at keeping player knowledge and character knowledge separate.
__________________ In California? Enjoy gaming? Then you don't want to miss PolyCon.
In my experience though, being evil does not have to mean being incapable of working with others. It doesn't even have to mean being on the "evil" side of every imaginable conflict.
An evil character might not give about altruism, but he might not want to ruin his revenge plot by cutting himself off from the most effective murder weapon he can think of: the rest of the party. The goody two shoes brigade may be annoying at times, but they're your best chance to put the most effective hurt on your arch-enemy, mr BBEG. You bide your time, try to blend in. Besides... those plucky rascals are starting to grow on ya. Even evil guys can have friends, ya know. When you take over BBEG's kingdom, you should totally give them their own titles and some of your land to manage The paladin gets the stinky little undead-infested swamp everyone hated slogging through so much, of course. heh! Should you tell him before you do that about how you didn't exactly kill the lich that lives (unlives?) there so much as you just ticked him off really, really badly and made your escape with the artifact? Nahh, he'll figure it out eventually...
of course if there's reason to believe the party might be threatened by that before or during the final fight, you might want to say something, but you already know that
__________________ Obligatory self-promotional website link: art website
The paladin gets the stinky little undead-infested swamp everyone hated slogging through so much, of course. heh! Should you tell him before you do that about how you didn't exactly kill the lich that lives (unlives?) there so much as you just ticked him off really, really badly and made your escape with the artifact? Nahh, he'll figure it out eventually...
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
