Agreed, and my comments are in assumption of gaming with known friends rather than strangers.
Right, due to various circumstances I haven't had such a group in several years, so when I run I'm inclined to limit the options available instead of risk unknown variables ruining the game.
So far, so good... ...and yet some of the most entertaining and memorable characters I've ever seen were, at their core, psychopaths.
I have yet to have this experience at any table wherein someone has played and anti-party type.
The trick is to not confuse "ruin a game" with "take a game in directions you had no idea were coming". The former, of course, is bad. The latter is often excellent.
Right, so far in my experience, the only direction these players I've played with have taken it is ruin, so my experience falls in favor of preemting ruin with certain limitations.
Not "at this table", as the characters aren't at a table. But "in this party", maybe - depending on how open-minded the rest of the party is. (and, out of character, how accepting the players and DM are to characters who don't fit some predefined mold). Closed-minded parties that take the attitude "we'll only run with those who are just like us" are awful unless "just like us" is what you want to play all the time.
Sounds like you forgot to loot them the first time.
I don't think it's just a matter of open-minded-ness. It's different than say, being willing to accept an elf or a guy playing a girl at the table or in the party, it's also a matter of the party's objective capability to resolve a situation. Parties that are constantly struggling with one or two players or their characters who are constantly "acting out" instead of accomplishing the goals of the game: adventuring, fighting monsters and having fun.
It was an auto-resurrect, as soon as he hit 0 it restored him to full health. I then subsequently killed him again.
The key thing here is the psychotic characters were given a chance to go wrong, took it, and met the consequences; all in character. This is just fine - excellent, in fact. Where I get very annoyed is when such characters aren't allowed in the game at all (usually by DM decree), or where they are pre-emptively killed by the party after a simple "Detect Evil" pulls them, before even having a chance to co-operate...or not.
This is one reason I like editions with the option to play without an alignment. I don't like the alignment system and I don't like the way it feeds in to situations where people can "know your alignment" and it somehow means they know your character. Even when I do play with an established alignment in mind, I'm not going to
tell people about it because I enjoy that bit of wonder.
I was on the wrong end of this a few years ago - brought in a Necromancer-Assassin with intent to play her as a cross between evil Maxwell Smart and Jack Sparrow: an inept spy. Party found her in mid-adventure, took her in, she ran as a useful (if unpredictable) party member for the rest of the adventure. On getting back to town a party goody-good decided her E alignment was reason enough to kill her in cold blood, and did so. Problem was, he picked a town run by Assassins as where to do this; he was caught, put on trial (!), found guilty and forced to pay whatever was needed to revive her. This was done (with much grumbling) and my character went on to win our annual "Most Entertaining Character" award once and be in close running a couple of other times.
As a DM, I would likely interject that such an action is not in alignment with being a goodie-goodie and that person would instantly switch to the "chatoic evil" alignment.
True, but there's a big difference between "stab everyone in sight" and "not get along with the party".
True, but I think there are very few people who understand this, which is why it usually doesn't work out well.
I just had a character - probably the nastiest one I've ever played (and that's saying something!) - voluntarily leave her party because she figures she can be far more useful (and have far more fun!) operating behind enemy lines as a one-woman terrorist cell. And, she doesn't have to worry about these annoying things called morals - the more disruption and destruction she can generate the better.
When I DM, I don't allow the party to be split. Leaving the party, even if your character continues on their goals, makes them an NPC, essentially a fancy plot device. I don't have the desire to run
two games, one of which for only one person. But a character is always free to leave.