Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8467945" data-attributes="member: 18">The "Evil PC" point goes to the heart of the "Is this character suitable for the campaign", and whether that's really being considered in a reasonable way, because in the longer run, it's rarely alignment that's actually the issue, it's usually how the character is played that's the issue, not their alignment.In particular, what can disrupt or derail a campaign almost always comes down to whether the player sees sticking to their alignment at all costs (often even failing to RP more nuanced stuff they've described about their character) as vital, or whether they're willing to be flexible and thoughtful, and play their alignment, but in a way that's productive and engaging for the group.We had a good example of this issue in a Dungeon World campaign a while back. One PC was Evil, but he was clever, thinking kind of Evil, who didn't wear black and murder shopkeepers in public and stuff, and he actually acted to keep the group together quite effectively, because his "Evil goals" aligned pretty well with those of the Good and Neutral PCs. Sure some scary stuff sometimes happened when he was around, but was he disruptive? No. In fact he was absolutely an asset to the group.Whereas one of the Good PCs was nothing but a stick in the mud, frequently causing problems for the group, refusing to talk to certain NPCs or work with them for genuinely petty reasons (we're not talking slavers or serial killers or something), even when it furthered their goals, and trying to force all the other PCs to do likewise (he chilled out eventually, thankfully).I have come across the Evilman McDarkside type, who dresses in black, wants to murder everyone and generally commit Crimez(TM), steal from the party, etc. but not from a player aged over 22 at the time. Here's the though: you don't want that guy even in an all-evil group.(For an example of this, please see the movie HEAT. Basically all the criminals are arguably "Evil", but it's only Waingro who is actually causing a problem, because he's not just "a bad guy", but sadistic and impulsive. Waingro is "that effin guy")Evilman McDarkside is disruptive, boring, and annoying. Personally I think it's important to consider the player if you know them well enough, too (which is why I tend to like to play fairly MoR campaigns with new players). If I think of my main group, I'd say 4/6 I'd be happy with them playing an Evil or Evil-adjacent character, because I know they'd play them in an ultimately cooperative way, and they're not going to turn it into "The Evil Guy Show" or intentionally create party-destroying situations. The other two? I'd try to steer them on to a safer path, but luckily neither particularly likes to be Evil.Thinking about that and the "Character vs Campaign" stuff discussed here, it actually seems to me the main two kinds of disruptive character come from two sources - just in my experience:1) Certain players just really like potentially show-off-y and disruptive concepts, in absolutely any campaign, in any RPG. These guys you need to watch. If you're self-aware you can avoid doing this yourself, but not everyone is. It's more about the player than the character though, with them, and particularly they can make even seemingly-appropriate PCs cause issues.2) Other players will create really good PCs most of the time, but "act out" unconsciously when presented with a setting/campaign they don't actually want to be part of, but maybe the rest of the group is perfectly happy with. So instead of arguing, or sitting out (and it may be reasonable for them to not want to sit out, if it's a regular group and there was no real "Yea/Nay" discussion), they create a PC who is going to be a problem.Again, note this is often unconscious. I did it with a Castle Falkenstein game once. I loathed what I saw as the "bootlicking" tone of Castle Falkenstein, which despite being from fairly "woke" (for the era) designers, basically seemed to think the 1800s were only really bad because of the British Empire, and everyone else, all the aristocracy and etiquette and associated bollocks designed to repress people was totally awesome, quaint, and fun. Everyone else wanted to play it though and I did like the system (I thought), so I made a PC. I made an ill-mannered, hot-tempered gunslinger from the American West, and was basically intending to shoot anyone and anything which tried to make me bow or "follow etiquette" or the like. At the time it seemed perfectly reasonable - after all, he was from the right time period and there was a backstory to how he was in Europe, and that he was "plausible" was all that mattered, right?A few years later I cringed just thinking about it. The campaign didn't get far, but if it had, he'd have been a huge problem. Ever since then I've kept an eye on myself to avoid doing that and look for it in others too. I think one thing the article misses is that, with an established group at least, the DM has a duty to discuss what they want to do, and ensure everybody is on board with it, and I think you need to keep checking on that during chargen.</blockquote>

Verification