Pathfinder 1E Help - Way of the Wicked character having cold feet (spoilers!)

[carborundum]

(DM ONLY - Spoilers galore)


Hey folks, we got off to a great start with this campaign and the party have just delivered the arms to Sakkarot. Next step, tidying up, then on to Balentyne and Aldencross.
Except... I just got an email from a player who says his character is having second thoughts at the idea of a bugbear horde slaughtering several thousand men, women and children. He wants to start by sabotaging the signal rocket and maybe leaving clues for the good guys. I thought I'd been clear about the whole "evilness" of the campaign, and we'd already discussed the PG-13 evil line too.

I'd appreciate some tips - what to say to the player, and what to do to the character when the Pact kicks in. Anyone got any ideas?

 

[Ramaster]

IMO, this is improper behavior from the player.

"Ok gang, what do you want to do?"

"Let’s play an evil campaign!"

"Sure, why not? I've got Way of the Wicked right here"

"Awesome! Only now I don't want to play it!"

Talk to her out of character. If you all decided that the PCs are going to be evil, then she is stuck being evil. Having to re-write the campaign for this player is unfair to you - heck, it's unfair to the other players who wanted to participate on a evil campaign! Don't be a dick about it, though. Say what you have to say on a respectful manner, but remind her what you all agreed on the first place.

 

[Celebrim]

I'd appreciate some tips - what to say to the player, and what to do to the character when the Pact kicks in. Anyone got any ideas?

How do you think everyone is going to feel if a player wants to get off the railroad? Do you think the other players can control themselves to respond to this IC, or do you think this is likely to break out into OOC conflict?

How prepared are you to ad hoc a sandbox when you thought you had the nice easy job of train conductor?

At the very least you should say, "Ok. Fine, treachery is an expected part of being evil. However, I must warn you that if your treachery is discovered I will take no action and use no DM force to protect you from your fellow players, who are playing entirely ruthless characters that won't blink at killing someone who gets in their way."

Honestly, I consider this sort of play a good thing, it just may be really disruptive if you thought the story was on rails and aren't prepared to deal with changes to the story. However, as a DM, I'd never really want to get in the way of a player taking the story seriously. If a player is bothered by the slaughtering of the innocent and they are actually taking the story that seriously, then I consider it a good thing.

One thing you should consider if you really think this is going to cause problems is to ask the player to think about the process and consequences of becoming evil, and to play out that process. That process is going to include the discarding of scruples, and the steeling oneself against any feelings of compassion, pity, mercy, or loyalty. There is the possibility of some really good character development here if your group is into literary depth and melodrama.

Unfortunately, to be frank, in my experience 75% of all players cannot play anyone but themselves. If you are playing an evil campaign with one or more people who are actually scrupled, chances are you will have table conflict because chances are they won't be able to give up those scruples any more than you can easily get the someone without them to play noble heroes instead of murder hobos. Most players get by by having no particularly strong feelings one way or another, so that regardless of their behavior, they are just playing for a team and are loyal to the 'white hats' or 'black hats' even if their behavior of the character doesn't strictly speaking follow suit. The ability to distance yourself from the character and hold the character's stance rather than your own, and to hold contrary stances if you are a different character is a developed skill. And most of the players that have that skill end up being GMs.

 

[gamerprinter]

One approach is to ask your concerned player to think of himself as an actor. Actor's portray roles within a storyline. Some play the antagonist and even a villain. The actor's portraying this role often are very nice and scruppled people as themselves, but the role they are playing often have unsavory goals and actions based on best serving that role. Playing evil requires a certain amount of evil activities that can include instigations of the massacre of innocents - something that heroes would never do, but anti-heroes would. Playing evil PCs in an evil campaign requires evil actions and intentions. What does this player consider the line in the sand he won't cross? Insure that the player understands his place in the storyline and the goals of the arc, and how his or her participation will help achieve that.

 

[TarionzCousin]

One approach is to ask your concerned player to think of himself as an actor.

This would be my intial response, too. I would suggest creating the character's personality together with the player. What does he like, dislike, do for fun, etc. Why is he "evil"?

 

[Celebrim]

Playing evil requires a certain amount of evil activities that can include instigations of the massacre of innocents - something that heroes would never do, but anti-heroes would.

That's a misuse of the word anti-hero. When you play an evil campaign, you aren't an anti-hero, you are a villain. In some cases you might be an anti-villain, as in a story where Lex Luthor saves the world from some greater evil than himself or a revenge story where a crook goes after the other crooks that double crossed him, but you are never an anti-hero. An anti-hero is a person who lacks some of the expected traits of a hero, but which nonetheless is a force for good. In an campaign like Way of the Wicked, you are explicitly a force for evil, and hence, not an anti-hero.

 

[gamerprinter]

You're right. At least Way of the Wicked leans towards lawful evil with LE, NE, N and LN as the required PC alignments - its still rather evil, though. It could be darker without those restrictions.

 

[carborundum]

Sorry I never got back to you folks sooner, RL problems. I had a chat with the player, and that fixed everything. He wasn't bothered about the evil at all, he was just trying to help by giving me some tension/hooks to play with. Aaaargh!