D&D General How Good or Evil Have the Adventuring Parties You've Played In/DM'd for Been?

[Hexmage-EN]

I remember in the very first game I ever DM'd (back in high school) the party was captured by bandits. When they broke out they chose not to save the fellow prisoners, but jab at them in their cells with spears for a bit to scare them before leaving them behind (though they did take care of the bandit problem...violently). In another session a player got a bag of tricks and kept throwing the animals he pulled out of it into a pit of acid until he got a weasel. In the first 5E campaign I DM'd, one player got mad at a quest giver and set him on fire for not paying more, while later on another killed a small group of non-combatant mephits because she thought the creatures were annoying. In my current 5E campaign a player who was supposed to be tailing a suspected serial killer instead essentially started helping her secure a new mark until the party cleric interceded (player of said cleric later refused to heal a dying NPC who had spread rumors about them).

In my experience so far, most of the time players have their characters act nice so long as its convenient. When they get the whim and feel there will be no consequences, though, they can go full GTA and engage in wanton violence or thievery for fun. The PCs in my current campaign have been fairly well-behaved compared to previous ones, possibly due to focusing it on a recurring central location full of recurring NPCs rather than have the party be wanderers constantly meeting new NPCs.

I'm curious if others have had similar experiences, or if they have perhaps been in or DM'd for more consistently morally upstanding parties.

 

[Savage Wombat]

My players have never really done that - but all of my long-term games have been with college students and up. Didn't do a lot of regular playing in my wild youth.

 

[mrpopstar]

My group is most interested in straight-forward heroic principles.

Evil acts, narrative agitation, or disruptive behaviors always make me wonder what it is that people are trying to work out through their fantasy.

 

[humble minion]

Never been involve in a group anything like the one the OP describes, and to be honest i don't think I'd have much fun if I was.

There was a guy in a university group who tried at every turn to grimdark a campaign the DM intended to be all about noble chivalry ("I'll play Good Duke Trueheart's illegitimate son by rape, who now acts as his secret assassin..."), but in general, we've always stayed on the more-good side of things (though there was a Star Wars game where basically every force-user turned Dark Side at some point, just cos red lightsabers are cool...)

I do have a house rule when I'm GMing - if intraparty conflict happens to the point where the party would no longer adventure together, the PC who turned the more evil becomes an NPC. Though of course this wouldn't really apply to a party where ALL PCs are gleeful sadists...

 

[Redwizard007]

Been there. Done that. It wasn't my favorite experience. Usually this was an issue with people not being invested in the game.

 

[iserith]

My players tend to do what's funny and gets them XP without a lot of regard for good or evil.

 

[Oofta]

I have a "no evil" policy in my games, I simply don't enjoy murder hobo games.

But even when I was younger we never really did it. I did quit a game because they were okay with being murder hobos. I had a player quit because he wanted to play an evil PC.

So you're not alone, there are people who enjoy playing evil PCs. Personally? I don't get it. If I want to play evil characters I can always DM.

 

[Argyle King]

In the past I've caught flak for saying that I don't typically like changelings. What was mentioned by the OP is part of why. Anecdotally, it often seems to be problem gamers who are attracted to playing them at local tables. They can wreck havoc on a town while wearing somebody else's face. (I've also mentioned elsewhere that it was actually a GM over-using changelings which pushed me over the edge, but that's a different story.)

Most often, there are two groups with which I play home games. There is some overlap between members of the groups, but there are enough different faces to consider them two groups.

Group A is a group I've known the longest overall. Overall, I would say they lean towards good, but they seem fine with being smugglers, outlaws, and so-on. Mass genocide? No. Being willing to shoot first in a standoff with the authorities? Yes. Typically, their intentions are good, but whether or not you'd say they're good depends on if you believe the end justifies the means. We have had a few "evil" campaigns, but, even then, I think there are lines that most of the group feels it isn't cool to cross.

Group B has 2 players who I know from the same circle of people who form Group A; there are also 4 people who are newer to gaming. My perception is that Group B takes obligations more seriously. For example, the guy playing a cleric pays attention to what his deity views as good/bad and tries to adhere to a code of conduct. I also find that Group B is more willing to consider diplomacy and puzzling things out rather than brute force and shooting through problems.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

I forgot to mention the time I was playing in a campaign where the party temporarily had a white dragon wyrmling ally while we drove goblins from territory formerly claimed by kobolds. We heard sounds on the other side of a door, and one of the party members told the dragon to bust it down and unleash its breath weapon. It did so, flash freezing a bunch of noncombatant goblins. Our reaction was along the lines of "whoops" and a determination to check behind doors first from now on.

In a one-shot game where I was playing a Lawful Good paladin the party's monk just straight-up killed an NPC in front of the quest giver, describing how she ripped the dude in half. After a moment of stunned silence from everyone I had my character say (after remembering that this was the only session) "okay, we're gonna have to have a talk later, but right now this guy has something important for us to do", which got a laugh.

The closest I got to playing an evil PC was a Circle of Spores druid in a mini-campaign who was unknowingly leading a Zuggtmoy cult. I had re-flavored the retainers from the noble background into followers (unfortunately, my favorite follower got killed; my PC "honored" her loss by transforming her into a fungal zombie). At one point during an interrogation I had my PC cast Blindess/Deafness on a prisoner and deceived them into thinking it would be permanent unless they answered our questions about the location of a wererat bandit lair.

Oh, once in another campaign I and another player followed an NPC to his home to steal one of his spoons for some reason I don't recall while another player was going on a dinner date with another NPC.

 

[Shiroiken]

In my high school and college days, selfish motivations and cruelty were pretty common. In one college game it came to a head, with the group dividing into two games within the same campaign, as each half was focused on different motivations (heroics vs villainy). A player in the villainous group immediately said "they've got some good loot walking out of here." If the DM hadn't interfered, it would have gotten ugly.

My modern games vary by characters and campaign. In the campaign we just started, two characters were particularly vengeful to the bandits who ambushed us: the damphir (semi-undead) and teifling warlock they immediatly dropped to 0 HP. The other campaign that's been going on for a long time has almost entirely heroic characters (the wizard has a few selfish tendencies, but nothing bad). My first 5E campaign was full heroic, while my last campaign I DM had characters of a more neutral outlook.