Okay, almost my entire party has gone evil, now what?

[farscapesg1]

Bah, tell the one person with a problem to "suck it up"

Honestly, I don't think anything should be done. If the player hasn't figured out that the other characters have gone to the dark side, he probably won't until the end. Then you can point out that, until that point, he was having fun and enjoying playing in an evil campaign

 

[werk]

Ya, once they turn evil, all they care about is killing creatures and taking their stuff.

Yeah, that pretty much sums up all the evil campaigns/characters I've run into. And people quit working together to accomplish group goals, everyone just worries about their own pursuits or intentionally try to screw the other characters.

 

[TheGM]

In my latest campagain (we want to get to epic levels so none of us want to quit it) almost my entire party except for one character has gone evil. We didn't plan on playing a dark game but it's ended up being that way. Several characters wen't dark independantly and one of the others was corrupted by another character.

You. as the GM, failed.

You knew there was someone that felt this way in the group, and alignment changes in-game don't "just happen" to the entire party.

It did not have to come to this point, you made it go there. So suck it up and tell the person who doesn't play evil.

My recommendation to him if it were HIM posting here would be to find another group. For people who don't like them, who believe that the game is supposed to be about the good guys, "it just happened" isn't going to cut it.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Yeah, that pretty much sums up all the evil campaigns/characters I've run into. And people quit working together to accomplish group goals, everyone just worries about their own pursuits or intentionally try to screw the other characters.

I'm just going to hazard a guess that painandgreed was being ironic. After all, what do good adventurers do? They kill things and take their stuff. Sometimes they save people too, but evil characters might save people by accident purely by killing the monsters that have all the treasure and XP. See Order of the Stick for more details.

 

[iwatt]

You. as the GM, failed.

How exactly has he failed? He distinctly said his players have had a blast playing, that he's had the best roleplaying effort out of them ever. To me that sounds distinctly like success. Nowere does he mention that the "heroic" player has not been having fun.

You knew there was someone that felt this way in the group, and alignment changes in-game don't "just happen" to the entire party.

IME, real alignment changes in games do "just happen". Haven't you ever had a LG character start to feel the strictuers are stopping them from doing the greater good, and slowly start breaking the rules. This usually leads to a slow but clear shift from Law to Chaos. I've also had PCs start "good" and slowly become frustrated by "losing" to the bad guys. They slowly start using the same tactics of their enemy, without noticing that they finally have turned in to that which they despised.

If this change happens during the evolution of the game (as the OP suggests), I see no reason I as a DM should curtail this behaviour.

It did not have to come to this point, you made it go there. So suck it up and tell the person who doesn't play evil.

Actually, I think this is the crux (sp?) of our disagreement. I don't think he (as the DM) is responsible for the actions that the PCs took, actions that ultimately led to an alignment shift. What I "get" from the OP is that as the sessions came and went, the alignemnets shifted while evrybody was having fun. IMO, if that is true it can't be wrong.

My recommendation to him if it were HIM posting here would be to find another group. For people who don't like them, who believe that the game is supposed to be about the good guys, "it just happened" isn't going to cut it.

On this we completely agree. Some people just don't like playing in games like the OP described. As a DM I prefer high fantasy uber heroic games myself, tending to larger than life save-the world plots. But we might all be pleasantly surprised by the player actually enjoying having his character discover that his "friends" have gone to the dark side. He could even decide to redeem them.

 

[TheGM]

IME, real alignment changes in games do "just happen". Haven't you ever had a LG character start to feel the strictuers are stopping them from doing the greater good, and slowly start breaking the rules. This usually leads to a slow but clear shift from Law to Chaos. I've also had PCs start "good" and slowly become frustrated by "losing" to the bad guys. They slowly start using the same tactics of their enemy, without noticing that they finally have turned in to that which they despised.

If this change happens during the evolution of the game (as the OP suggests), I see no reason I as a DM should curtail this behaviour.

Actually, I think this is the crux (sp?) of our disagreement. I don't think he (as the DM) is responsible for the actions that the PCs took, actions that ultimately led to an alignment shift. What I "get" from the OP is that as the sessions came and went, the alignemnets shifted while evrybody was having fun. IMO, if that is true it can't be wrong.

The GM is responsible for letting PCs know that they're going down that path. It's great if everyone is having fun, but alignment tracking and fair warning are up to the GM. And knowing that it might cost them a player, perhaps even a little nudging to keep things from going completely dark. They didn't just wake up one morning evil, and if they did it is still the GM's responsibility because in that case he did it to them or is allowing them to radically change a characters personality on-the-fly.

Warning PCs about their actions and the effect on alignment (IME) generally gets them thinking about who their character is, and about whether the character would stoop to the methods they're trying to fight. And I've never had it happen to an entire party. One character sick of fighting "by the rules"? Yeah. One character willing to slit the throats of prisoners to keep them from blabbing? Yeah. But the entire party? Please.

At this point the deed is done, and the best that the poster can get out of it is to tell the person and then decide as a group where to go from there.

 

[Barak]

I don't really get the whole thing. Some people don't like to play clerics, some people don't like to play elves, some people don't like to play evil characters.

As long as they don't actually steal from him, stab him in the back, or actively work against the goals he's working for, why in the hallibut should he care if the others are all elves, clerics, or evil?

And the Rod of 7 parts is good for that, since not completing the quest is bad for everyone, elves, humans, dwarves, clerics, rangers, good or evil.

 

[TheGM]

I don't really get the whole thing. Some people don't like to play clerics, some people don't like to play elves, some people don't like to play evil characters.

Good and evil invoke philosophical and moral issues, elves and dwarves don't. What's so hard to understand?

 

[iwatt]

The GM is responsible for letting PCs know that they're going down that path. It's great if everyone is having fun, but alignment tracking and fair warning are up to the GM.

I think this depends on GM style. Some GMs approach the game as if the "story" is solely their responsability. Other take the approach that the "story" is something that the PCs create, and he is solely responsible for providing a consistent environment. I will warn a player I feel is doing something without eralizing that it will affect his alignment, but I won't warn a player who is conciously taking this choice.

And knowing that it might cost them a player, perhaps even a little nudging to keep things from going completely dark.

I agree that compromise is the best. But hindisght is always 20/20. Maybe the other players weren't aware that this player had this issue?

Also, the majority is having fun. Isn't the onus on the one person to adapt to the "needs" of the others instead of the majority changing their fun for a single person? And if he can't adapt to what the majority wants, then surely it's best to step aside?

They didn't just wake up one morning evil, and if they did it is still the GM's responsibility because in that case he did it to them or is allowing them to radically change a characters personality on-the-fly.

But it's "their" character. If they want to change the personality on the fly (which isn't the case here anyway) it's their own decision. And my players would lynch me if I told them their characters had to act in a certain DM APPROVED manner.

Warning PCs about their actions and the effect on alignment (IME) generally gets them thinking about who their character is, and about whether the character would stoop to the methods they're trying to fight.

I play with mature adults who I assume are able to take responsibilties for their actions. It's personally tiresome to me to have to remind players every time they make a choice that it has erpercussions and their alignment might shift. Seems to much like PC herding to me.

And I've never had it happen to an entire party. One character sick of fighting "by the rules"? Yeah. One character willing to slit the throats of prisoners to keep them from blabbing? Yeah. But the entire party? Please.

Some people are innate followers. If the party leader is turning "evil" and getting results, others might follow the example. Maybe the GM is making things "too hard" on the PCs, and insstead of opting for the "I'll remain good no matter what" the players decide to cop-out for the easy way. Remember that the Dark side is attractive because it is an easy way to gain power D).

At this point the deed is done, and the best that the poster can get out of it is to tell the person and then decide as a group where to go from there.

Actually what I'd do is not tell him. When he finally does figure it out, I'd have an immediate time out and discuss that what has happened evolved naturally, and then have an open discussion with all the players of were they see this campaign going. If you discuss this in an open adult manner, the whole group can come to a conclusion. There's lots of options here. If the "good PC" player just can't adapt, but everyone still wants to play together, you can start a new campaign and play the "all evil PC" group as a side group with the others on a diferent schedule.

The thing is, I see this situation as something chock full of plot hooks, character development, etc instead of a game breaking event.

 

[phoenixgod2000]

I want to thank everyone for their ideas. I appreciate the feedback. This is a little outside my expertise as a DM. I'm a big fan of D&D being about heroism and not evil but This was a little different. It was done so naturally that I had to go with the flow and let it happen. the basic thrust of the storyline is this:

The adventurers were all formerly epic level heros in the distant past. World renowned and respected, they made a lot of enemies. In the twilights of thier careers, their enemies came together and in a massive battle defeated them. The ultimate punishment was that they were level drained back to first level, their mighty talismans were destroyed, and they were imprisoned in stasis so they could not experience the afterlife they so richly deserved after a life of heroism. Two thousand years later they were freed by wizard exploring the ruins of their civilization, long since destroyed because they were not there to save it.

So they set off to become heroes again.

one of the characters was an elderly cleric, basically the pope of his church. He awoke stripped of his mightiest powers and enfeebled by age. he struggled to maintain his faith but was too weary to rebuild his shattered church. He proved easy pickings for the temptation of Grazz't. Once fallen, he realized he would swiftly be discovred by the party paladin so he devised a method by which to change the paladins alignment and the paladin soon became an unholy warrior in service to Grazz't as well as imbued with the power of half fiend.

At the same time, the party ranger, last of his race, searched in vain for a method to return his people to life. He eventually succumed to the whispers of the dark god of nature who vowed to bring his people back to life in exchange for his service.

A second cleric/magic user who hated the undead with all his heart found a book that could transform him into a necromancer of great power. Deciding to destroy the book, he tried to destroy it but found he needed to use it--just the one time...

And then a second...

Each person fell to seperate temptations, some placed in the adventure by me and others they invented themselves. And each one fell on their own, in secret, from the rest of the party. You should have seen the gymnastics each did to prevent the others from finding out It was a thing of beauty. Normally our group is mostly hack and slash but each and every one of them did a great job figuring out what their character would do in the situation and then following through, regardless of the consequences.

I've decided that I will let it out naturally and then freeze the game in order to talk seriously about what the group should do. Hopefully it will go well. Any other advice anyone else has for running an evil campagain that won't dissolve into backstabbing would be great. I tend to be rather freefrom--probably how I got into trouble in the first place.