D&D 5E Evil character in the party

[Mouseferatu]

If a DM doesn't (for example) enjoy running a campaign with evil characters, he's perfectly within his right to say "Don't create an evil character." As with everything else, it's a continuum of give and take, and each group will find their own.

But the idea that the DM must sit back and take it if the campaign goes completely off course* is as unfair to the DM as many of the concerns mentioned in this thread are to the players.

*I don't mean "off course" as in railroad. DMs should be up to handling that sort of thing. I mean if, for instance, I agreed to run a story-heavy campaign and all of a sudden half the group is more interested in backstabbing and one-upping each other rather than follow up any of the hooks. Is that a valid way to game? Sure. But if it's not what I signed on for, I'm not required to put up with it.

 

[Lanefan]

If a DM doesn't (for example) enjoy running a campaign with evil characters, he's perfectly within his right to say "Don't create an evil character." As with everything else, it's a continuum of give and take, and each group will find their own.

But the idea that the DM must sit back and take it if the campaign goes completely off course* is as unfair to the DM as many of the concerns mentioned in this thread are to the players.

*I don't mean "off course" as in railroad. DMs should be up to handling that sort of thing. I mean if, for instance, I agreed to run a story-heavy campaign and all of a sudden half the group is more interested in backstabbing and one-upping each other rather than follow up any of the hooks. Is that a valid way to game? Sure. But if it's not what I signed on for, I'm not required to put up with it.

The way I see it, a DM signs on to DM; and while said DM might have some plans for the game she also needs to be fully and completely aware that no DM plan ever survives first contact with the players.

The time for any such discussion is before the campaign ever begins. Also, it's down to the DM to invite players in who might best suit the game she wants to run. But once the puck is dropped whatever happens, happens...the DM might have wanted a story-heavy game going in - and got it, for maybe 6 sessions until the players collectively realized the DM's story idea just wasn't cutting it and they'd rather go sandbox and write their own. And said player-driven story might start with Rezdar the Thief putting his shortsword through the neck of Ponce the Paladin as a red-flag announcement that instead of working for the local Baron the party's goal has instead become to take him down and replace him.

For my current campaign I specifically invited players in who I knew (or thought) were capable of entertaining each other and - by extension - me. I was then promptly broadsided over the first half-dozen sessions or so by just how crazy things ended up getting! Roaring laughter at every turn; occasionally some adventuring happened as well, and things continued in much this vein for several years. It wasn't entirely what I expected but in hindsight I wouldn't change a thing.

Lan-"it's the DM's job to build a world; it's the characters' job to save it from some horrible fate while in the process making a complete mess and slaying countless sentient beings, sometimes including each other"-efan

 

[Mouseferatu]

*shrug*

My own view of the social contract includes everyone committing to a general style of campaign from the start, with nobody obliged to keep playing--or running--if that changes in a direction they dislike. Not everyone has to do it that way, of course. But I'd be exceedingly wary about DMing for a group that didn't.

 

[SirAntoine]

*shrug*

My own view of the social contract includes everyone committing to a general style of campaign from the start, with nobody obliged to keep playing--or running--if that changes in a direction they dislike. Not everyone has to do it that way, of course. But I'd be exceedingly wary about DMing for a group that didn't.

The important thing is be open to try things your players ask for. Of course, if it gets to a point you would rather not even DM, talk to the players. Maybe someone else can DM, or everyone can agree to play differently. It needs to be fun all-around.

As general advice, the DM should try to accommodate anything and everything, and every player needs to feel free to play their character how they wish. Talking about expectations before the game begins is also very important, but you also need freedom to make changes when they're needed. Involve everyone equally in the decision making.

 

[EvanNave55]

Getting back to the earlier idea of characters that are against the flow of the group I recently started in a campaign in which I (secretly) play a cn rogue with the cover of being a merchant who is with the group to take some of the less standard treasures adventurers might leave behind (I.e. paintings and such) because he is being pursued by some dangerous people. So far he has offered up a part y members special trinket (through hidden magic) to appease the messenger of a god, attempted to kill a party member (and he was even the one to start it) and had an obvious secret the rest of the party has been trying to figure out.
It was by far the most fun any of us have had in a session and since then the others in the party have changed their characters to add new flavors and secrets like mine.
My point is you can have party members that greatly contrast with the others and still enjoy it. Just make sure that the other players don't have a problem with it.

 

[Valetudo]

I dont use alignment in my campaigns. But I have noticed that my players are very true to the hobemurderer code. They dont kill random civilians but anyone else is fair game. They where also hired to protect a cemetary that houses nobles ancesters from cultist grave robbers, but have robbed a few graves themselves.