D&D 5E Evil character in the party

[Mouseferatu]

I mean, hey - if the players are having fun killing off each others' characters while my carefully-designed adventure wanders by in the distance, who am I to complain?

You're a participant in a game that's supposed to be fun for everyone, that's who. That includes the DM. If someone's the kind of DM who can sit back and enjoy what you're talking about, great. But if not, he has just as much right to ask for a change in group behavior as anyone else.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

All you need to do is role play well, and everything else should be expected from you out of courtesy. The typical instance of stealing from the party, for example, would be taking treasure you find without declaring it, to keep a bigger share for yourself. Is that really a disruptive behavior? I don't think so, but the said character might go through other characters' packs and pick their pockets, too. If they're caught, they can be reacted to in-character without spoiling the game. The characters can ask them to leave, but they also might arrest them and take them to the town constable.

While the situation can be dealt with in-character, the crux can be that the other players would rather spend their gaming time moving the plot forward than dealing with disruptive situations.

As for stealing from other PC's directly, good-aligned Kender can be forgiven, however annoying they can be. They will offer up the items or money taken if they're needed, and innocently ask if you're looking for this. (They really don't consider themselves thieves when they take things.)

I played a kender once and to demonstrate their unwitting kleptomania the GM would remove items from one player's sheet and put them on mine without anyone knowing. When the other players discovered a missing item they always got it back but the situation came to a head because they were tired of having to put the plot on hold every session to have the "Where's my rope?", "I was just holding your rope for you.", "Don't take my rope anymore.", conversations.

In the end we scrapped the character not because it couldn't be dealt with but because it was a pain in the neck for the other players to deal with.

(And of course if the issue is enjoyed by everyone at the table, there's no reason to change.)

 

[SirAntoine]

That they're not having fun. And while 'fun' is subjective, if your players aren't having it according to whatever standards they set then you have a problem.



Actually, neither. As I said above, the issue isn't evil characters per se (you can get the exact problem with the "jerk Paladin", and it's just as much of a problem then).

But it's not even an indicator that the player is a jerk - it's funny how often people can do things like this and not even consider that others could have a problem with it.

In such a case, my recommendation would be to talk to the player, explain that the way he's running his character is making the game less fun for everyone else, and ask him to adjust his portrayal accordingly. That still doesn't mean he needs to abandon the evil PC - just change the way that they evil PC interacts with the rest of the group.

Now, if you have that discussion and he refuses to change, then that's an indicator that the player is a jerk. But then it may well be the player, not the character, who you ban from your table.



"I'm only playing my character" is a lousy excuse for doing so in a way that makes the game less fun for everyone else. The player chose that character and the player chooses how that character will act in any given situation.

If those choices make the game less fun for everyone else, choose differently.

"Less fun" is insignificant, or insubstantive. The benchmark should be "is there a problem".

 

[SirAntoine]

Wow. I can't even begin to explain how wrong I think this is.

It any group activity among friends, it is the responsibility of everyone to do what they can to make the experience a good one for everyone. That doesn't need to be, and often shouldn't be, their only goal--but it should always be present.

The DM may be most responsible for making sure everyone enjoys a game, but everyone at the table shoulders some of that responsibility. And sometimes that means not doing something that would be fun for you, because it would ruin the enjoyment of others.

I compliment you on your idealism, but in practice that is being very nice, it's not part of how the game is supposed to be played. When you decide what to do in D&D, you don't put it to a vote or ask for the others' opinions for permission. You get to decide, and letting everyone do so is what makes the game fun and possible. What I wrote seems draconic, especially if taken out of context like this, but it's just reality and it's also nothing draconic after all. You just take for granted you make up your mind, and you have fun automatically. If someone voices a problem, then you discuss it, but your goal in thinking what to do isn't dependent on if the others would find it fun. It should just come naturally to you.

 

[SirAntoine]

You're a participant in a game that's supposed to be fun for everyone, that's who. That includes the DM. If someone's the kind of DM who can sit back and enjoy what you're talking about, great. But if not, he has just as much right to ask for a change in group behavior as anyone else.

I think he knows that. In his campaign, the players are welcome to do as they wish.

 

[SirAntoine]

While the situation can be dealt with in-character, the crux can be that the other players would rather spend their gaming time moving the plot forward than dealing with disruptive situations.



I played a kender once and to demonstrate their unwitting kleptomania the GM would remove items from one player's sheet and put them on mine without anyone knowing. When the other players discovered a missing item they always got it back but the situation came to a head because they were tired of having to put the plot on hold every session to have the "Where's my rope?", "I was just holding your rope for you.", "Don't take my rope anymore.", conversations.

In the end we scrapped the character not because it couldn't be dealt with but because it was a pain in the neck for the other players to deal with.

(And of course if the issue is enjoyed by everyone at the table, there's no reason to change.)

If it gets to be a nuissance because it's boring and repetitive, that's another problem. The players should be able to work it out among themselves.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I compliment you on your idealism, but in practice that is being very nice, it's not part of how the game is supposed to be played. When you decide what to do in D&D, you don't put it to a vote or ask for the others' opinions for permission. You get to decide, and letting everyone do so is what makes the game fun and possible. What I wrote seems draconic, especially if taken out of context like this, but it's just reality and it's also nothing draconic after all. You just take for granted you make up your mind, and you have fun automatically. If someone voices a problem, then you discuss it, but your goal in thinking what to do isn't dependent on if the others would find it fun. It should just come naturally to you.

You're arguing extremes. I'm talking about something in the middle.

No, of course you don't take a vote for every action. Of course people should play the characters they created.

But...

If you're playing with a group where most of the people dislike evil characters, and you create an evil character despite that... That's being a jerk. That's making a decision to sacrifice the group's fun for your own.

That's the sort of joint responsibility I'm talking about. And if that makes me idealistic, well, it's an idealism that my groups have lived up to 90% or more of the time, so I'll gladly keep it. (And it is, AFAIAC, how the game is "supposed" to be played.)

 

[pming]

Hiya.

A friend of mine named Dave (he died a couple years ago; great guy) was playing a kender-like character (I believe he was a halfling named Teeble) once when I was a player. He stole something from my characters pack...iron spike, jar of honey, something like that. Anyway, there was some point in the adventure where we were all gonna be hurting bad if we didn't do something quick. I told the DM I "Get the [item] out of my pack and cram it in the hole before it erupts in flame again!" (or something like that; this was 20'ish years ago)...."You don't have [item]". Short version, we look at the 'kender' and say, "Well? You have it, you do it". The look on Daves face when he realized that his character might actually die because of his kleptomania was absolutely priceless! We all sat there, perfectly willing to let all our characters die, including his. The backpedaling and word-sputters uttering forth from the kender-player's mouth was quite delicious! In the end, he made the dice rolls and stopped the trap, IIRC. Of course, this only spurred on delusions of grandure on Teebles part...but it was still worth it.

Sorry for the mini-diversion there...

As for evil PC in non-evil group. I let players use "player gut feelings" with a wide berth in this regard. I mean, if an NPC joins the group, and suddenly money, gems etc. start disappearing, or start appearing in the NPC's pouches after a successful dungeon delve...players will put two and two together REAL fast. Evil NPC's just wouldn't last long in the group after that; extra watching, sneaky spell casting, detecting evil, baiting, etc. As soon as the NPC "gets caught" doing that ...roll initiative. So...evil-PC's who try and pull that stuff get the same treatment as an evil-NPC who did. It usually ends in the evil-PC's player rolling 3d6, in order (call it Karma... ).

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[SirAntoine]

You're arguing extremes. I'm talking about something in the middle.

No, of course you don't take a vote for every action. Of course people should play the characters they created.

But...

If you're playing with a group where most of the people dislike evil characters, and you create an evil character despite that... That's being a jerk. That's making a decision to sacrifice the group's fun for your own.

That's the sort of joint responsibility I'm talking about. And if that makes me idealistic, well, it's an idealism that my groups have lived up to 90% or more of the time, so I'll gladly keep it. (And it is, AFAIAC, how the game is "supposed" to be played.)

Okay. The thread has seen some interesting suggestions for how to approach the question of evil characters, and this comment of yours hits home.

 

[Lanefan]

You're a participant in a game that's supposed to be fun for everyone, that's who. That includes the DM. If someone's the kind of DM who can sit back and enjoy what you're talking about, great. But if not, he has just as much right to ask for a change in group behavior as anyone else.

Perhaps. Or perhaps he merely needs to exercise his right to sit back, crack open a beer, enjoy the entertainment given him by his players, and be ready to make rules calls if necessary.

Put another way, it's not really the players' game at all if the DM is going to tell them not just what to play* but how to play it.

* - as in, pretty much everyone agrees the DM is within rights to ban certain races, classes, etc. to suit the setting he's using. As both DM and player I'm cool with this. What I'm not cool with is being told that my character has to have (or not have) certain sensibilities, ethics, loyalties, etc. that don't line up with the characterization I have in mind.

While the situation can be dealt with in-character, the crux can be that the other players would rather spend their gaming time moving the plot forward than dealing with disruptive situations.

An assumption true in some groups and not in others.

Another variable is pacing. If the plan going in is to play out a 1-20 or 1-30 campaign in a year (bleah!) there's not much time to mess around then yeah, anything stalling the plot is a nuisance. But if the plan is the campaign is to be open-ended and last as long as anyone wants to play it then who cares? The plot will still be there next session, or next month, or next year; so disrupt away - just be entertaining and amusing about it, is all I ask.

Lan-"one thing I've found is that when something "disruptive" happens there's usually lots of player engagement"-efan