D&D 5E (2014) Evil character in the party

[Astrosicebear]

Agree with good advice all around.

Easy way to test the party's loyalties... Next time the rogue goes off while the party is occupied, he will find himself in trouble, either monsters or a trap... will be funny to possibly watch the rest of the party ignore his death wails.

 

[marcelos]

Wow! Thanks for your remarks, people!

It sounds like you didn't have a Session Zero or have players make characters together to fit a particular agreed-upon party premise. These are both ways to avoid the issues you're beginning to see in your game. It's never too late, by the way, to have a discussion to get everyone on the same page before moving forward.

Thanks for your input. For the first time I used pre-generated characters, and let them change a few things. The problem was that the pre-generated backgrounds for LMoP are not connected to each other, and this may have created the problem.

The player in question is actually playing his alignment decently, but I think that the other players are not, due to their respect for the guy. In my mind, the moment a party member steals something from the group, I would probably want him off the group or I would be the one to leave.

At one time, the wizard of the group (which do not like the rogue, in game) got into a really bad situation with an owlbear. The rogue literally laughed and did not join the fight. If I was the player, I would never accept working with a partner like that. But that would probably mean bad feelings off-game.

These guys know each other for more than ten years, and I think that's the reason why the situation did not solve itself in-game.

I'm going to guess that an experienced player knows full well how much damage his character would do to a sleeping character. From this, I extrapolate that the player must have had some other reason for asking the question, most likely a means of communicating facets of the character's personality to group.

This could be an effort to illustrate the evilness without having to act on its extremes. In which case, the rest if the group ought to be able to moderate on their own by establishing parameters of acceptability.

That's exactly what happened. He was asking this just to create tension.

 

[Shiroiken]

We started HotDQ last night. DM rule was no evil characters. One player created a neutral character (Rogue) but tried to play him as evil. The other players shut him down pretty fast. Example: After capturing a cultist and bringing him in for interrogation, the rogue wanted to cut off one of his fingers as a trophy. The cleric told him if he so much as tried, he'd be put down like a dog. That was that. I suspect he'll keep trying to be evil here and there, but the precedent has been set that the other characters aren't going to let it fly.

And that is exactly how you do it. The PC wanted to take an action, and the other PCs reacted in kind. They had a problem, and resolved it in game without outside interference. If the thief player isn't happy about it, they're much better off finding another group.

 

[Mallus]

The player is experienced, and his character is a female rogue. He often tries to take treasures they find for himself, has been asking how much damage he would do if he attacked a sleeping character he does not like, and wanted to take over leadership of a bandit group they defeated. During most of the battles he avoids staying near the main action, and often explore other areas while their colleagues are fighting.

So how do you guys deal with this kind of behavior?

Behavior like this wouldn't come up with either of my groups. That said, here's some advice, since you asked:

Talk the entire group before the next session. Ask them straight out: "Do you want to play this campaign in competition against each other? Up to and including intra-party theft and murder".

If the group unanimously agrees, then it's fine (so long as you're cool running it). If even a single player objects, then tell the rogue player to adjust their character's behavior.

It boils down to this: the group has to be playing the same game. A group where one player plays against their fellow players while the rest play cooperatively with each other cannot stand.

 

[iserith]

Thanks for your input. For the first time I used pre-generated characters, and let them change a few things. The problem was that the pre-generated backgrounds for LMoP are not connected to each other, and this may have created the problem.

Yes, I could see that. I recommend using the character bonds from Dungeon World. Ask each player to establish one bond with at least two other people, drawing upon whichever ones they like. Then ask the player to whom a bond is established to elaborate on it to flesh out the history behind it. Once you've gone around the table, you've got a ton of context to draw on for how and why the characters work together.

The player in question is actually playing his alignment decently, but I think that the other players are not, due to their respect for the guy. In my mind, the moment a party member steals something from the group, I would probably want him off the group or I would be the one to leave.

There is no obligation in the game for players to play their alignment, traits, ideals, bonds, or flaws. (Inspiration can be used to reward this, however.) In any case, as I said above, I don't think it's cool for a player to do things that annoy other players and say, "Hey, it's my alignment" or "That's what my character would do." That player has, at least in that moment, ceased being fun to play with and that's pretty much Job One when it comes to playing games with other humans, right?

At one time, the wizard of the group (which do not like the rogue, in game) got into a really bad situation with an owlbear. The rogue literally laughed and did not join the fight. If I was the player, I would never accept working with a partner like that. But that would probably mean bad feelings off-game.

These guys know each other for more than ten years, and I think that's the reason why the situation did not solve itself in-game.

I can't recommend trying to deal with what is an out-of-game problem with in-game solutions. If the player is acting in a way that is not fun for other people, the recourse is to the player, not the character. Be direct, be polite, be clear on what you want, and ask for that player's help to achieve it. In-game solutions often result in hard feelings, get-backs, and escalating tensions. It's not worth trying it, in my view, since you can just resolve it directly with a conversation between friends outside the context of the game.

Good luck!

 

[Meliath1742]

After learning early on the issues that an evil character brings to the table its been my only hard and fast house rule: NO EVIL CHARACTERS.

 

[Joe Liker]

We started HotDQ last night. DM rule was no evil characters. One player created a neutral character (Rogue) but tried to play him as evil. The other players shut him down pretty fast. Example: After capturing a cultist and bringing him in for interrogation, the rogue wanted to cut off one of his fingers as a trophy.

There is nothing neutral about that act. If he had actually done it, as DM I would have said, "OK, fine, your character is evil now, which is against the guidelines we established, so he's now an NPC. Would you like to reroll at level 1 or retire from the campaign?"

Being neutral doesn't mean you get to be evil whenever it suits you. It just means you probably don't go out of your way to be good.

 

[Gecko85]

There is nothing neutral about that act. If he had actually done it, as DM I would have said, "OK, fine, your character is evil now, which is against the guidelines we established, so he's now an NPC. Would you like to reroll at level 1 or retire from the campaign?"

Being neutral doesn't mean you get to be evil whenever it suits you. It just means you probably don't go out of your way to be good.

That was brought up by the DM, actually, but the player argued that cutting of the finger as a souvenir wasn't actually evil. He argued that the cultist was evil, having attacked the town, and the souvenir was to be a warning to the other cultists, and finally that it wasn't torture because he wasn't doing it to extract information from the cultist. It was a weak argument, but the DM allowed it (with a warning that he was pushing the boundaries). That's when the cleric character stepped in.

 

[Lanefan]

In my mind, the moment a party member steals something from the group, I would probably want him off the group or I would be the one to leave.

If you're the DM in this situation you really ought to remain neutral. If you're a fellow player in this situation, if your character knows a party member stole something then the reaction should come in-character; and if your character doesn't know anything then play it that way. In other words, keep player knowledge and character knowledge completely separate.

That said, if the thief's player is foolish enough to announce what the thief is doing (rather than just passing the DM a note) such that the other players know of it out-of-character, said thief is probably in trouble as the other players will (wrongly, IMO) use that metagame knowledge against him.

That's exactly what happened. He was asking this just to create tension.

If all he did was ask, and did nothing with the knowledge, that's brilliant!

A party where all the characters are expected to have the same agenda and never act as individuals is a party with no character at all. Even if the party is entirely (in theory) good-aligned there should still be some independent thoughts and actions by all involved now and then, along with arguments, discussions, romances, jealousies, and all the other things that happen when a group of people hang out for a while.

Lan-"given how adventurers would be seen in the game world, 'get rich quick' would realistically be the most common reason for adventuring at all"-efan

 

[Taronkov]

I've played an evil character before and the rest of the party thought I did pretty well with it. I never once tried to steal from them or backstab them in any way, they knew I could be expected to keep my word and not have to watch their backs. Instead I tried to slowly corrupt their morals over time and shift their alignments. It's a good use of the whole 'necessary evil' concept, they needed me initially due to information I could provide. We had the same overarching goal(kill the badguy, he was evil to them and bad for my particular organization) so it worked out well.

Basically what I'm saying is yes having an evil character can cause problems, if the player is a problem. However it can also create a great story along the way and this is again an if, if the player does it well and works with the party and inside the limits of common sense and decency. If they wanted to play an evil character they should have made one that could fit into the group without causing a serious issue. If they can't do that then they either need to make a new character that fits in better or they need to find a new group. If they can play nice and not be a douche, then by all means play on.

If you want a truly amazing example(in my mind) look no further than C.S. Friedman's "Coldfire Trilogy" of how exactly an unquestionably evil character can work for the greater good.