D&D 5E Goals for a party - why should they even go anywhere together?

[Oofta]

Listen, this whole thread has dredged up memories I'd rather not dwell on. To this day I wonder if I should have/could have done more about the guy I knew in college.

If I'm playing a character in a game with another player that my character has reason to believe is evil* I would not continue with that game since I don't play evil characters.

If your group is ok with evil characters more power to you. Just don't expect me to join the game. Unless I'm truly a good aligned character going undercover to eventually bring y'all to justice.

Anyway, I'm outta' here. Good gaming.

*Having evil thoughts only does not make a character evil in my opinion.

 

[Lidgar]

While our group does not have any hard "rules" about disallowing evil PC's, all of our players recognize that:

1. The game is designed to be about a group of adventurers that band together to accomplish certain goals, and

2. To accomplish those goals, it means helping each other out to improve their chances of success, hence

3. Evil PC's are not apt to help out their comrades, so are not a great fit for an adventuring party, at least not long term.

So while we get plenty of parties full of fairly selfish neutral characters, none have included downright evil PC's. It just does not fit in the spirit of most adventures.

Getting back to adventure hooks though: that's what backgrounds are for.

As others have said, give the players some background on the campaign (where they are starting, rumors, etc.), then have the PC's develop their backgrounds together at a Session 0. That will shape your ideas on how to craft hooks.

For example, for our PotA campaing, one PC said their character's background was a teifling "fire dancer" that grew up in the rough streets of Waterdeep.

That pinged the idea that she had friend who was also a tiefling fire dancer named Vanifer who killed their benefactor/employer, stole all of his funds, then ran away, last seen in the Sumbar hills. She is now searching for her to avenge the death of her mentor.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I simply disagree. Evil in D&D is perhaps more clear cut than in the real world, but there are evil people. I would not willingly associate with an evil person.

I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. I knew a guy I considered evil. I refused to associate with him once I realized it. End of story.

"One evil person did X. Therefore ALL evil people do X." where X is anything from "gave in to their urges" to "committed crimes which had no legitimate explanation" to "got caught".

There's also "I won't associate with a specific evil person, therefore anybody who is not evil will not associate with any evil person".

Both of these are just assuming that the general case matches the specific case. It's a fundamentally flawed argument.

Then why are they evil? if they never act out on their "evil nature" then IMHO at worst they are neutral. That gets into semantics.

For sake of argument I would only consider someone evil if they commit evil acts. Someone that fantasizes about robbing banks is not a bank robber. Someone that thinks about doing evil but never acts on it is not IMHO evil.

As others have pointed out, most D&D characters spend their careers killing and looting, if in the name of a good cause. If your character would do those questionable deeds regardless of the good cause, aren't they evil? If your character is simply going along with the good cause in order to get away with those actions, aren't they evil?

Heck, if the 'good cause' is saving the world, then most evil creatures will still want to save the world. If hanging out with the party is the expedient way to do that, so be it.

I don't know of any spells in 5E that detect alignment but I could easily be forgetting something.

Glyph of warding and being the caster of spiritual guardians are the straightforward ones. Sending someone to an outer plane, or summoning a sprite to use heart sight are also possibilities.

 

[iserith]

I think the ensuing discussion has revealed the weakness of the "No evil-aligned characters" position: It doesn't actually get at the specific behaviors you do or don't want to see in your players. It just slaps a prohibition on a game mechanic and forces everyone else to make assumptions about what that means. Of course, individual groups may, through their personal history and experience together, share the same assumption and understand what the prohibition implies... but the same cannot be said of strangers on the forums!

 

[ccs]

Two(ish) questions.
Why play an evil character in a non-evil party?

I played a pair of evil characters in our recently concluded PF campaign.
(Due to group instability for a bit thanks to jobs/health/family/etc, the DM wanted everybody to have two characters. The idea was that if there were only a few of us on game night we'd still have a 4 person party. At 3 players only 1 person would be running 2 characters (we decided to rotate that duty). At 4+ players we'd choose one of our characters to be active that session.)
I did this for a few reasons:
1) I just simply had a really good idea for a pair of Lawful-Evil characters. (a chevalier & a divination wizard)
2) One of the players LOVES to play paladins. It's his favorite class. Unfortunately he's also really really bad at it RP wise. He almost always ends up falling (wich is not his intent). I decided to act as his foil. So I challenged him to be a better hero than me. I also challenged him to convince at least one of my characters to change their alignment - something he'd only be able to do through RP, over time.
And if something awful had to be done? Well, my characters aren't going to be harmed by getting their hands dirty.
3) SAVING THE WORLD. Extreme self-interest. Yeah, my characters are evil. And they each have plans. But those plans won't matter didly if the world is consumed by the Abyss!

Why would an evil character not cheat/kill/steal from the goody-two-shoe who deserves it?

Because that would be completely out of character for the evil PC in question?
Because there's something more pressing to do?
Because those goody-two-shoes don't deserve it?
Because those goody-two-shoes are vital to the mission(s) at hand?
Because they are more useful to my own plans alive & equipped than dead?

If you commit evil acts, why would others in the party not stop you, have you arrested or kill you? If you never commit evil acts, why play an evil character?

Most of the evil acts my two characters committed were in their backstories. Just because they weren't currently doing anything (too much) worse than any other party member doesn't erase years of taint. Or automatically change attitudes & beliefs. Thus, still evil....
Besides, I WANTED the paladin player to stop me from doing evil things. So I'd set him up with oprotunities & provoke him. To his credit he's why I wasn't doing things too much worse than the rest of the party.
As for killing me? Our characters (paladin vs chevalier) did trade blows a few times. Out-of-character he was reminded just how far ahead of him in system-mastery I am. In-character he learned that our characters fates were tied together (that was an awesome reveal). So we decided to shelve the all out PvP until after we'd saved the world.
Still, until late in the campaign he viewed me as an enemy. From my PoV? He was a useful tool in my efforts to save the world.
It was noted after the campaign ended that neither of my characters had ever attacked a fellow party member 1st (as in initiating it, just winning the initiative roll is different), never stolen from the group, never cheated the group, nor betrayed them.

 

[Lanliss]

I played a pair of evil characters in our recently concluded PF campaign.
(Due to group instability for a bit thanks to jobs/health/family/etc, the DM wanted everybody to have two characters. The idea was that if there were only a few of us on game night we'd still have a 4 person party. At 3 players only 1 person would be running 2 characters (we decided to rotate that duty). At 4+ players we'd choose one of our characters to be active that session.)
I did this for a few reasons:
1) I just simply had a really good idea for a pair of Lawful-Evil characters. (a chevalier & a divination wizard)
2) One of the players LOVES to play paladins. It's his favorite class. Unfortunately he's also really really bad at it RP wise. He almost always ends up falling (wich is not his intent). I decided to act as his foil. So I challenged him to be a better hero than me. I also challenged him to convince at least one of my characters to change their alignment - something he'd only be able to do through RP, over time.
And if something awful had to be done? Well, my characters aren't going to be harmed by getting their hands dirty.
3) SAVING THE WORLD. Extreme self-interest. Yeah, my characters are evil. And they each have plans. But those plans won't matter didly if the world is consumed by the Abyss!




Because that would be completely out of character for the evil PC in question?
Because there's something more pressing to do?
Because those goody-two-shoes don't deserve it?
Because those goody-two-shoes are vital to the mission(s) at hand?
Because they are more useful to my own plans alive & equipped than dead?




Most of the evil acts my two characters committed were in their backstories. Just because they weren't currently doing anything (too much) worse than any other party member doesn't erase years of taint. Or automatically change attitudes & beliefs. Thus, still evil....
Besides, I WANTED the paladin player to stop me from doing evil things. So I'd set him up with oprotunities & provoke him. To his credit he's why I wasn't doing things too much worse than the rest of the party.
As for killing me? Our characters (paladin vs chevalier) did trade blows a few times. Out-of-character he was reminded just how far ahead of him in system-mastery I am. In-character he learned that our characters fates were tied together (that was an awesome reveal). So we decided to shelve the all out PvP until after we'd saved the world.
Still, until late in the campaign he viewed me as an enemy. From my PoV? He was a useful tool in my efforts to save the world.
It was noted after the campaign ended that neither of my characters had ever attacked a fellow party member 1st (as in initiating it, just winning the initiative roll is different), never stolen from the group, never cheated the group, nor betrayed them.

I currently have an Evil pirate character whose goal is to save people on land, so that they can die at sea for his patron, Davy Jones. Evil doesn't have to mean stupid, despite what so many seem to think. I am not sure I will even bring my alignment up at the table, since he will mostly be acting more like CG (What ever it takes to save as many people as possible, even if that means killing a few to save many). I only have him marked as evil because of his goal (for them to all die later, in a way that is beneficial to him), and how much he is willing to do to accomplish it (Just about anything).

 

[Afrodyte]

I'm a newbie player in D&D, and I just started writing some scenarios/quests for fun.

I notice everywhere that typical parties are formed by a real ragtag of characters (because everybody just chooses whatever they want), ranging from chaotic to lawful and from good to evil. What could be some good examples of ultimate goals for a quest that would unite a random selection of players? I cannot come up with a single goal...

Currently, I am thinking of an evil character who is also really rich and in possession of some powerful items. That should attract the good guys to kill him for reasons of justice/honor/etc., and the neutral/evil ones to get the loot and the powerful items. How do the more experienced DMs solve this obvious problem? the two solutions that I can think of have obvious disadvantages:
1. Limit the alignments that are allowed in a quest, so that everyone has the same or comparable motivation: not nice for the role-players.
2. Work with multiple parallel goals for all players so that completely different characters will at least go the same direction, and fight the same monsters: not nice for the DM, it's complicated enough as it is.
3. (is there a 3rd way?)

I searched online, but I probably did not figure out the currect keywords because I didn't find an answer.

Honestly, I'd suggest taking a page out of FATE Core's book and use the Phase Trio to define how each of the characters know each other.

And, if you want to make their drive to get the bad guy stronger, ask them to come up with a reason why they personally have it out for this villain.

 

[Nagol]

I'm a newbie player in D&D, and I just started writing some scenarios/quests for fun.

I notice everywhere that typical parties are formed by a real ragtag of characters (because everybody just chooses whatever they want), ranging from chaotic to lawful and from good to evil. What could be some good examples of ultimate goals for a quest that would unite a random selection of players? I cannot come up with a single goal...

Currently, I am thinking of an evil character who is also really rich and in possession of some powerful items. That should attract the good guys to kill him for reasons of justice/honor/etc., and the neutral/evil ones to get the loot and the powerful items. How do the more experienced DMs solve this obvious problem? the two solutions that I can think of have obvious disadvantages:
1. Limit the alignments that are allowed in a quest, so that everyone has the same or comparable motivation: not nice for the role-players.
2. Work with multiple parallel goals for all players so that completely different characters will at least go the same direction, and fight the same monsters: not nice for the DM, it's complicated enough as it is.
3. (is there a 3rd way?)

I searched online, but I probably did not figure out the currect keywords because I didn't find an answer.

PCs (and players) will tend to work together when it serves their rational self-interest. It serves their interest when the benefit-to-risk ratio from working together is perceived to be lower than that of working alone. How to accomplish this? There are a bunch of ways.

• First, the D&D game generally rewards specialists over generalists. Having a variety of dangers and impediments between the PCs and the rewards will reward groups over loners.
• Second, "higher-level" rewards tend to scale faster than linear growth so a 5th level treasure is greater than five first level treasures further pushing the PCs towards working together to tackle tougher challenges.
• Third, don't be gentle when someone does decide to split form the group. That PC dying to something the group could handle (bonus points if the group could handle it trivially) reinforces the point about whole being greater than the sum of its parts.
• Fourth, (use this one very gently if at all), the PCs are the only ones the players generally truly trust. NPCs can come with ulterior motives or hidden baggage.
• Fifth, created enemies need not discriminate between the person who generated the enmity and the team with them. Self-preservation of the survivors when a couple of most remote members get attacked will tend to reinforce clumping behaviour.
• And lastly, tell the group you have neither time nor inclination to run N solo campaigns. Anyone who deliberately departs from the group for more than a short period runs the risk of involuntary retirement at your discretion.

 

[Lanliss]

3. Evil PC's are not apt to help out their comrades, so are not a great fit for an adventuring party, at least not long term.

This is the point I see come up a lot in talks about Evil PC's, and all it ever tells me is that people think "Evil" means "Stupid". Allow me to lay out a quest line for you.

The world is going to end, and be devoured by the Great Old ones. Quest ensues to stop it from happening. "Evil PC" is an upcoming thief, with plans to take over the local guild, before enlarging it to a global guild. "Adventuring party" comes into play, and looks actually capable of saving the world.

Now, wouldn't it be in the best interest of "Evil PC" if the party completed their quest, so that his plans can continue? What possible reason would he have to stab them in the back, unless he was a complete idiot?

 

[Campbell]

This does not have to be your responsibility. I often leave it up to the players.

One of my favorite approaches to running a D&D game is to run a West Marches game. Basically you lay down a basic framework for the setting, players create one or more PCs, than outside of the game they collectively decide where they want to go and what they want to do. This is done outside of game time using a message board, email list, or Google+ group. Does not matter. Then the players are responsible for scheduling things with the DM and giving the DM time to prep the session. As the DM you can always veto something if it does not interest you. Over time this becomes easier as more details get filled in.

The great part about a West Marches game is there is no need to do the hard work of forcing disparate PCs together, or hooking them to adventures. They do that for you. The other cool part is introducing new players becomes much easier. They are own of several adventurers in the town.

Rollplay: West Marches shows this sort of game in motion.