D&D 5E Group Rule Deal-Breakers

[Li Shenron]

We have a no evil PC rule at our table.

That is the short form of it. It is really a 2 part rule:

1. No outright intra-party conflict. The party is a team, characters can disagree and have tension but cannot attack, steal from, sabotage, etc. other PCs.

2. No brazenly evil acts. This one is like porn, can't define it but we know what it is when we see it.

-- Example 1: Usually the PCs have a choice of plot hooks to follow to end up in different adventures. One of these hooks happens to be an old tomb that is rumoured to have treasure buried with its occupant. Robbing the tomb is desecrating it. This is an evil act, but it's not brazenly evil. Some PCs in the party argue that the dead aren't using it and if they had it they could accomplish more, so it is for the greater good.

-- Example 2: A merchant has something the PC wants so the PC kills the merchant. This one is just flat out not allowed. It's just not fun for our group and allows 1 PC in the party to dictate the course of the game.

Excellent house rules.

I don't actually enforce alignment on the PC, so I would allow your example 2, but it's obviously an evil behaviour.

The problem you highlight with rule 2 also has something to do with the increased voyeurism of the media in the last 30 years, and how it has affected culture and morals (just notice the % of movies or series that seem to be required to show intercourse scenes, when it is already perfectly clear that character X and Y are having a relationship). So to me it makes a huge difference whether the player of an evil PC says "I am going to kill the whole town (period)" or instead indulge in the detailed description of how he kills one bad guy. I would allow the former even if it's a greater evil act, but disallow the latter (the description, not the act).

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I like a DM who sees their role as supporting the PCs to be heroes in a tough but fair kind of way and allows players a say in elements of how the world works. Too many house rules usually means that's not the case. This often points to a DM who wants the players to know their PCs are hemmed in by restrictions to all sides and to just sit back and let the DM lead them onwards in his/her glorious story.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Warmaster Horus]

They're not banned.... But bad things tend to happen to bad people. (including those who write one alignment on their sheet but then play as if they were evil anyways) So you might get tired of making new characters....

This is a key issue with evil PCs in a primarily non-evil party. Playing an evil character does not mean the other characters have to accept them or their ethos as it becomes known.

On the other hand, all-evil parties can be fun on occasion.

 

[Sunseeker]

On the other hand, all-evil parties can be fun on occasion.

At least if they're goal-oriented evil parties. Random acts of baby-killing isn't something I want to run at a table.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

At least if they're goal-oriented evil parties. Random acts of baby-killing isn't something I want to run at a table.

Good point. In my experience they work best as a limited campaign with adults who can exercise some restraint and nuance with their characters.

 

[Sunseeker]

Good point. In my experience they work best as a limited campaign with adults who can exercise some restraint and nuance with their characters.

I'm saving a Drow campaign for the day I find some of these people.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I'm saving a Drow campaign for the day I find some of these people.

Been there and had a lot of fun with a great group. The fun part was, no matter how evil we thought we were, our opponents were waaaay worse.

 

[Salamandyr]

All nonhuman campaigns.

3e/PF games with all the dials turned to the right. I want to spend more time playing than building by character, or be told, I can't do this or that cool thing, because I haven't taken the right combination of feats/class abilities.

Games where we're all kids. I didn't like being a kid the first time, and I have no desire to relive the experience.

If I get into the game, and I feel like the DM sees his job as "try as hard as I can to never let you succeed at anything", I'm out.

If the DM doesn't appear to have a good grasp of the rules, I'm probably out. I don't mind houseruling. In fact, often I like it, but I like the DM to know he's houseruling and not following RAW.

And I don't necessarily want community theater, but if there's somebody at the table making it hard for me to at least occasionally get into my character, either through turning every interaction into a joke, or , well the skies the limit I guess. You've all met the disruptive guy.

 

[Eltab]

I like my gaming to be PG or PG-13, with a light dash of rated-R material.
I will decline to join (or bow out after session ends) if...

- Group-destructive or mission-destructive Evil characters. Characters who do things that bring out the National Guard and/or persuade the authorities to mobilize the feudal levy are too much. Evil characters in and of themselves can be playable. In contrast: In Hoard of the Dragon Queen, I suggested that we kill a pool of tadpoles (so they could not grow up into the next generation of Bullywug warriors). This suggestion of tribal extinction was met with "But you're the Paladin!" I was - a Paladin of Nature, not of Righteousness.
-Chaotic characters who cannot be relied upon to follow the general plan and keep the goal of the operation in mind.
- Players who cannot speak a sentence without inserting some cuss words, it.
- Alcohol to the point that the player cannot keep track of what is going on around him.
- Players whose BF/GF characters have an X-rated scene together, while the rest of the group must be voyeurs.
- Play does not begin until maybe an hour after scheduled start, because not everybody has arrived yet.

I'll think of more after I get away from the computer, no doubt.