I quit 4e-DM after my first day.

[Mikaze]

One would expect at least one of them to at least say "We're the Aristocrats!"

 

[Mikaze]

As soon as he got to the dragonborn starting to eat people I came to the conclusion that this was a troll; both the story and the idea of blaming the game for this struck me as too absurd to take seriously. In particular, he explicitly says they've played together before, at least twice (since there were two different editions involved), presumably without such a result or he would have mentioned it. Does it make sense to anyone that he would then turn around and quit the game over something like this?

It distresses me to see so many people, including familiar names I know to be generally intelligent, take this story at face value when it seems so clearly the sort of thing one posts just to get a reaction.

While the extreme reaction of "I quit" does make it come across as a possible troll, and to be honest that was my first reaction upon reading the OP, this kind of stuff does happen with some groups. Dragonborn eating people is downright passe compared to some of the PC horror stories that have been told over the years.

Regardless of whether or not it did happen, it has led into the topic of the importance of well defined social contracts and guidelines before beginning play, so the thread, even if it was a troll, is heading somewhere productive.

Hell, I'm likely running an evil sandbox game tomorrow, and I'm sure as hell going to stress the importance of "don't be Stupid Evil" and "give the other PCs a reason to want you around".

Then again, they've been around the block enough times to not need that reminder, I think.

 

[Phaezen]

Hell, I'm likely running an evil sandbox game tomorrow, and I'm sure as hell going to stress the importance of "don't be Stupid Evil" and "give the other PCs a reason to want you around".

I have played in an evil sandbox game which ran very well. The mos important thing is having all the players on the same page with how they are expected to act.

In our game we had the setup of one of the players was the son of a noble in an evil kingdom with the other players acting as his retainers and advisers. The father had fallen out of favour in court and was gifted a small barony on the furthest border of the kingdom against the wildlands.

Our group was using it as an opportunity to grow our own political power by influencing locals, tracking down and recovering items which could aid the party and it's leader in gaining influence. While there was no slaughtering of the innocents, there were some very nice examples of evil play.

As an example we came across a manor where the entire family had been turned to stone on the daughters wedding day several decades previously. After clearing the manor out we dragged the statues, except for that of the daughter, outside and proceeded to smash them to pieces and summoned an earth elemental to bury the rubble deep below the manor. We then revived the daughter with the part leader giving her a love potion to "calm her down", thus gaining his own piece of land. Cue party's druid using his abilities to help the land to become very fertile, while subtly cursing the surrounding farms to be less productive.

Other examples were geasing a paladin to try and redeem the blackguard's soul.

Good luck with your game, hope you guys have as much fun as we did.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

It sounds very much like the group had no focus, aside from being, well, sociopaths and a fallguy. While I feel sorry for both the OP and the poor fellow playing the paladin I also feel that he is placing the blame on the wrong source. Heck, it sounds to me like they may have done this just to jerk around the paladin's player.

I don't like 4e, but this was most decidedly not the fault of the rules, but rather a failure of social dynamics. So, hanndle it in the manner that they have outlined by their own behavior - Kill your players, and take their stuff, splitting their wallets with the paladin.

The Auld Grump

 

[ppaladin123]

Hell, I'm likely running an evil sandbox game tomorrow, and I'm sure as hell going to stress the importance of "don't be Stupid Evil" and "give the other PCs a reason to want you around".

I like how many stories I hear of people playing evil characters as completely insane and with no regard for self-preservation. When did evil get defined as unable to predict the consequences of one's actions? The world would be a much better place if the evil were really so dumb.

 

[steenan]

Celebrim speaks with great wisdom (and I, unfortunately, cannot give him an XP at the moment).

I don't mean the part about statistics of chaotic evil - I don't have a big enough sample of players to meaningfully support or reject this.

The important part is that one cannot make assumptions concerning other's playstyle preferences unless he knows them very well. An implicit social contract is, in most cases, a short way to a catastrophe. Telling people to create characters and play them as they like, with no additional guidelines - and then expecting the play to fit with your plans - just doesn't work. And it is not the players' fault any more than GM's. It is not them being dicks. They just did what they were told to.

It is extremely important to get everyone on the same page before the game starts. Discuss the goals and preferences, find a compromise acceptable to everyone (or change the group if it is impossible - it's better then getting frustrated with incompatible players). Talk about what kind of persons will the PCs be, what plot hooks are fun for the players, how "sandboxy" or "plotty" should the game be.

Only after making sure that you understand one another and really want the same thing (or, at least, similar things) from the game start creating the characters and preparing the setting. At this point everybody knows the social contract and, if they are not douchebags, will abide by it.

 

[Mikaze]

Good luck with your game, hope you guys have as much fun as we did.

Thanks! Also, dastardly story.

I like how many stories I hear of people playing evil characters as completely insane and with no regard for self-preservation. When did evil get defined as unable to predict the consequences of one's actions? The world would be a much better place if the evil were really so dumb.

I don't know. I wish I did. Maybe it's the "freedom from morality" that goes to their heads and makes them crazy. Hell, whenever I read stories about evil PCs going absolutely nuts I count myself lucky when they turn out like the OP's story rather than venturing into "players indulging their rape fantasies" territory.

How about GM's start playing their villains along those lines?

Paladin : Alright, we need to find the Cult of Hell's Gate before they can do any more harm.
Rogue : I'm gonna check around town, see if anyone's seen anything suspicious. Rolling Gather Infor-
GM : Across the street you see a bakery going up in flames. Two men are beating an old couple to death in the middle of the street and a woman is covering herself in the blood of slaughtered children yelling "IA IA HAIL SATANNUS!" and another man is committing a felony with a horse.
Rogue : ...
Paladin : Detect Evil...I guess.
GM : If you want. Oh, they've just started fighting each other.

I just wish evil PCs leaned more towards Dr. Phibes than a band of little Caligulas.

 

[firesnakearies]

How about GM's start playing their villains along those lines?

Paladin : Alright, we need to find the Cult of Hell's Gate before they can do any more harm.
Rogue : I'm gonna check around town, see if anyone's seen anything suspicious. Rolling Gather Infor-
GM : Across the street you see a bakery going up in flames. Two men are beating an old couple to death in the middle of the street and a woman is covering herself in the blood of slaughtered children yelling "IA IA HAIL SATANNUS!" and another man is committing a felony with a horse.
Rogue : ...
Paladin : Detect Evil...I guess.
GM : If you want. Oh, they've just started fighting each other.

You've just given me material for my game.

 

[Mephistopheles]

I like how many stories I hear of people playing evil characters as completely insane and with no regard for self-preservation. When did evil get defined as unable to predict the consequences of one's actions? The world would be a much better place if the evil were really so dumb.

The dreaded tenth alignment: Stupid Evil.

 

[renau1g]

Errr...so you are saying...

"I've never seen groups with this playstyle so it can't be the default assumption of anyone" ['Envisioning a villianous sandbox game isn't the default assumption of anyone who has played the game before']

...isn't actually refuted by...

"My experience is otherwise, so it can be."?

Are you sure about that? Generally speaking, if you say something like 'isn't the default assumption of anyone', I don't think it a logical fallacy to suggest that this claim is disproved by the existance of at least one group where that isn't true. My claim was that you needed to ammend your statement to "isn't the default assumption of anyone in my experience", which may well be true, but it is a very diferent claim.

Well as your experience could be considered statistically insignificant (or within an acceptable amount of error) than no, I wouldn't say that this single statement is enough to refute that. The largest sample size for D&D available is the LFR, which is strictly non-evil, therefore the largest pool of publicly available data is that group's play non-evil games. We sometimes forget that us who come on this site are not always representative of the gaming world as a whole (what with us spending long hours here).