Forked Thread: Dealing with sociopathic PCs (Was: Stop being so paranoid)

[LostSoul]

How is this railroading? The PCs are completely free to act as they want, and their actions can have a dramatical impact on the world.

Because you suggest a step-by-step list of what will happen if they progress along the same path:

Stage 1: Free Lunch
Stage 2: Shaming
Stage 3: Web of Lies
Stage 4: Pariah
Stage 5: Anathema
Final Stage: Doom

What if my PC, through his sociopathic actions, actually makes the world a better place? Maybe it will be hard - that's your job as DM - but to pre-define the outcome if I stay on the same path means that the choices I make and the rolls I get are meaningless. You've decided that things will happen this way. Unless my PC starts acting nice, Final Doom will happen.

Take this example. I'm playing a heartless bastard of a PC. I kill and slay. Bad things start happening. I use violence to solve those problems.

But I can never solve those problems; you've already decided that my methods are what's causing the problems, and I'm just making them worse. Unless I choose to be nice, I will never get what I want.

For me, making that choice is important; I want to be able to (try to) say that Might Makes Right without the DM deciding for me that no, it doesn't, end of story. Since that choice is important to me, I consider it railroading.

 

[catsclaw227]

You first have to get them to understand why a social contract is needed in the first place. Like I said, I'm assuming that these are either newbies or other people who simply haven't had any real experience with good role-playing.

For example, if they derive their knowledge of RPGs from computer RPGs, they might stick to such behavior because it works and has few consequences in them.

In my experience, explaining why a social contract is needed is not very difficult. You simply explain the reasons and move on. If we are talking about adults, then this is easy.

If we are talking about adolescents, then they're sociopathic behavior may just be one of immaturity, and then all your lessons won't matter anyway.

The same way they may end up dying at the hands of Evil NPCs early on in the campaign if they want to play Good?

Good PCs generally hunt evil, seek it out and squash their plans. Good NPCs would do the same. More so (in my experience gaming) than Evil hunts out good. Evil NPCs generally scheme, and if a Good PC gets in the way, then they will seek them out to eradicate them, but generally, the Good hunts the Evil. Evil MOBS may attack good, like orc armies or goblin tribes or whatever, but the BBEG behind the scene generally waits. Note, I didn't say they ALWAYS wait, just generally.

Why should the two be mutually exclusive?

Look, I said that I don't want to waste 12-18 months of my precious and infrequent gaming time, as a DM, to teach players lessons about gaming. I want to game. I didn't say this is how everyone should do it. They are mutually exclusive, FOR ME, because I don't have the time to invest that heavily in DMing game that I don't want to play. Even if I run a sandbox game, I don't want to DM murderous sociopaths. It's that simple.

 

[robertliguori]

Because you suggest a step-by-step list of what will happen if they progress along the same path:

Stage 1: Free Lunch
Stage 2: Shaming
Stage 3: Web of Lies
Stage 4: Pariah
Stage 5: Anathema
Final Stage: Doom

What if my PC, through his sociopathic actions, actually makes the world a better place? Maybe it will be hard - that's your job as DM - but to pre-define the outcome if I stay on the same path means that the choices I make and the rolls I get are meaningless. You've decided that things will happen this way. Unless my PC starts acting nice, Final Doom will happen.

Take this example. I'm playing a heartless bastard of a PC. I kill and slay. Bad things start happening. I use violence to solve those problems.

But I can never solve those problems; you've already decided that my methods are what's causing the problems, and I'm just making them worse. Unless I choose to be nice, I will never get what I want.

For me, making that choice is important; I want to be able to (try to) say that Might Makes Right without the DM deciding for me that no, it doesn't, end of story. Since that choice is important to me, I consider it railroading.

The other problem is that if there exist aforementioned world-ending threats, and if the PCs engage in sociopathic slaughter of the threats, then it's not likely that they will remain in the position of anathema or even pariah for very long. What happens when the PCs don't engage in a web of lies, but announce straightforwardly "Yes, we did that, and we'll do worse, but it's us or the horde of ninja orc zombies." and then win the ensuing war?

The lesson you seem to be teaching is "Stop being an ineffective murderous bastard.", not "Don't be an murderous bastard." It can be that standard sociopathic PC actions can lead to the realm being destroyed, yes, but it is not necessarily so, and even if it is, a lot of evil players would get a lot of kicks out of remoulding the realm in their twisted image.

 

[Mercule]

If you're okay with DMing sociopaths, I say "let 'em". Hopefully, everyone will tire of it after one campaign because I don't think steeping in that is overly healthy.

If you're not really okay with it, but willing to give it a try, let them know that there are natural consequences in play and follow up appropriately.

If you're definitely not okay with it, tell them so -- "Good heroes and evil-hating neutrals, only". If they whine and complain, don't DM for them. Seriously. DMing for a group at totally cross purposes with you won't give you the satisfaction you want and will turn into a job pretty quickly.

 

[Korgoth]

Really? B/c I find that the best assumption to run under is that the PCs are largely a band of greedy and violent mercenaries who destroy evil for money and power.

Pretty much. Conan, Grey Mouser, Cugel, etc. The main characters are often at least egotists. It can be fun being heroes, but often the characters are rather mercenary.

I also agree with what Umbran said.

On the issue of "All combat all the time is boring." - I agree with that. That's one reason why I prefer a system in which the lion's share of XP comes from securing treasure. Because if you give XP for killing things, they'll want to kill everything.

Basically, it works like this: they'll do what gets them XP. If you give no (or little) XP for combat, they'll learn to avoid it. If they get no XP for treasure, they won't care about treasure. If they get no XP for composing Sonnets about your NPCs, they won't do that either. So figure out what you want them to do and tell them that's how they get XP. They'll either do it or decide your game is lame and quit.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

I didn't say that I want to do them, nor that it amuses me. I am asking if this is generally YOUR gaming philosophy.

It is now.

And before you engage in supporting PvP, pick a winner and back them.

If the biggest looser at the table starts winning, slap them around and say they are playing a sociopath.

Let the players you like eat the setting.

It is what people actually do, though they usually lie to each other and to themselves.