D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't really follow your "inability" to GM for evil PCs - I mean, for a start, wouldn't the motivation normally come from the players of those PCs, rather than the GM?

I find it extremely difficult to frame scenes where interesting choices can occur, under the rubric of (as noted) genuinely unrepentant evil. Most things that fall short of that, I have something to work with. But someone who is consciously wicked, and has no desire to change that (and where player intent is that that not change)...I just start drawing blanks. I don't know how to speak to that. How to give it interesting scenarios--other than ones that would, in one way or another, be pushing away from genuine, unrepentant evil.

But if we allow that such a thing is possible, then why could it not apply to other "modes of being" for PCs, including reptilian ones. After all, PC race is more than just the colour of their outfit, isn't it?

While it may be more than the color of an outfit, surely it is much less than a (by player design) baked-in desire to do wicked things, particularly one that is (again, by player design) not amenable to change.

If I had to choose one of those two to declare which one "reptilian physiology" was closer to, I would absolutely choose "color of outfit," rather than "fundamental values and behavior."

 

[Zardnaar]

I find it extremely difficult to frame scenes where interesting choices can occur, under the rubric of (as noted) genuinely unrepentant evil.


While it may be more than the color of an outfit, surely it is much less than a (by player design) baked-in desire to do wicked things, particularly one that is (again, by player design) not amenable to change.

If I had to choose one of those two to declare which one "reptilian physiology" was closer to, I would absolutely choose "color of outfit," rather than "fundamental values and behavior."

Well evil is generally banned outside of players I know well.

Tony Soprano evil is fine, CE fish malk and screw the party over not so much.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well evil is generally banned outside of players I know well.

Tony Soprano evil is fine, CE fish malk and screw the party over not so much.

I don't know the Sopranos all that well, so I can't directly comment on that.

But if I had a player who wanted to play a former mafioso, or someone trying to get out of "the business," or someone who (say) has been a cop on the take before, or an undercover cop who has become a little too comfortable with their cover identity...all of those have things I can work with. They're either repentant evil or non-evil suffering from temptation or other interesting character dilemmas.

"I'm a mafia hit man and loving it," on the other hand...I just don't have it in me to frame scenes worth the player's time playing through. I could probably brute force it for a little while, but inevitably it would crash.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I've already said--repeatedly--that there are ways to do this right. I just haven't actually seen people use them. I have given my players, for example, one such way of saying no: "I do not run games for evil PCs. This is not because I don't want you to run evil PCs. It is because I know I am not capable of running an enjoyable campaign for evil characters. The things I am able to do that motivate and reward character behaviors won't work for truly, sincerely evil characters. If you want to play someone who was evil but is seeking redemption, even if they stumble along the way, that's perfectly fine. Or someone that is good, but suffers terrible temptation (and may, on occasion, succumb to it), that's fine too. But someone who is just evil and comfortable with that...I can't give you what you need for that."

Let's continue this hypothetical for a minute. So a player asks you, as a DM, to play an evil character. You respond as above: that they can't since your abilities as a DM simply don't extend to making an enjoyable campaign for an evil character. The player then responds: "But you're such a great DM! I have the utmost faith in your abilities! I've been thinking about this character for weeks... I've got all the details worked out, this incredible back story. I've put so much effort into this... I'm positive that you can make this work."

What happens now?

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't know the Sopranos all that well, so I can't directly comment on that.

But if I had a player who wanted to play a former mafioso, or someone trying to get out of "the business," or someone who (say) has been a cop on the take before, or an undercover cop who has become a little too comfortable with their cover identity...all of those have things I can work with. They're either repentant evil or non-evil suffering from temptation or other interesting character dilemmas.

"I'm a mafia hit man and loving it," on the other hand...I just don't have it in me to frame scenes worth the player's time playing through. I could probably brute force it for a little while, but inevitably it would crash.

Well they're in "the life" but are probably less violent than a typical adventurer.

The do hitman stuff of course. Restrained or sane evil not blow up world type evil.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

At least, not for them. That's the thing: one unhappy player does not necessarily make a bad game, but an unhappy DM does.

Personally, an unhappy player impedes on my enjoyment of the game as DM. Because if the players aren't having fun, what's the point?
But I think usually my problem isn't that a player wants to play a Dragonborn in a no-Dragon campaign or whatever. More that the campaign direction isn't what they hoped, their character feels out of place and similar reasons. That can be my responsibility as DM because my campaign pitch might have lead the player to make wrong assumptions, or maybe I actually diverged from it, and it requires figuring out what to do.

My last Star Wars campaign became somewhat frustrating for that because the story lead to some more Force/Jedi/Sith heavy stuff (I had to major conflicts in mind, but the players mostly went into one direction). Which was part group dynamics, the one player pushed towards, but the other player felt that this was the wrong direction for his character, so he eventually rolled a new one. Later ironically the player pushing toward the Force/Jedi/Sith aspect of the campaign was dissatisfied, he had originally intended to play his character morally ambigious, but the other players didn't like it as much, and so he went full light side, plus his vision for Jedi or Sith in Star Wars was just incompatible with what I had intended, and this became somewhat grating as the group grew in levels - force-users still have to treat many "mundane" NPCs as threat, and that just seemed off to him. Overall, he became less invested in combats and the story. We still managed to conclude the campaign, but it took some winds of my sails for DMing.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

If I pitch a campaign with character restricitions, it's because those restrictions support the theme of the campaign. So if a player wants to play a character against those restrictions, he's probably not very excited about the specific theme, he justs wants to play D&D, any D&D. Themed campaigns need player buy-in to be great, so I'd either ditch the player or ditch the campaign.

 

[pemerton]

I find it extremely difficult to frame scenes where interesting choices can occur, under the rubric of (as noted) genuinely unrepentant evil. Most things that fall short of that, I have something to work with. But someone who is consciously wicked, and has no desire to change that (and where player intent is that that not change)...I just start drawing blanks. I don't know how to speak to that. How to give it interesting scenarios--other than ones that would, in one way or another, be pushing away from genuine, unrepentant evil.


While it may be more than the color of an outfit, surely it is much less than a (by player design) baked-in desire to do wicked things, particularly one that is (again, by player design) not amenable to change.

If I had to choose one of those two to declare which one "reptilian physiology" was closer to, I would absolutely choose "color of outfit," rather than "fundamental values and behavior."

I guess my first question is, How do we know this character is incapable of change or repentance? Wouldn't that be something to be revealed in play?

More generally, I'm somewhat puzzled why it would be hard to come up with interesting scenarios for a character for whom (to quote Gygax) purpose is the determinant (ie they do not recognise moral obligations to others, nor ethical demands on their own conduct). Any sort of traditional logistical or means-end puzzle would probably do. For something more character based, Citizen Kane or Treasure of the Sierra Madre could provide ideas.

If, rather than Gygaxian tradition, you're going with 5e alignment descriptions, here are some possible starting points:

Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. Devils, blue dragons, and hobgoblins are lawful evil. Any sort of thief-oriented scenario would seem to work here; BitD probably has a lot to offer.

Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms. Many drow, some cloud giants, and goblins are neutral evil. Seems well-suited to dungeon-crawling, looting, politicking, frankly any sort of self-aggrandising activity, which D&D features quite a bit.

Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust. Demons, red dragons, and orcs are chaotic evil. This sort of character seems more like they would be a hanger-on or "secondary" character, rather than the principal protagonist. It seems like a barbarian, monk or fighter could all work well as CE (a MU or cleric not so well, insofar as they are more likely to play a dominant role in guiding the group's actions).​

 

[Crimson Longinus]

To me, the idea of a game's premise being everything in my folder of notes I've built up over the past few decades is true, and nothing else is allowed, seems a rather extreme premise! Especially if the players aren't allowed to peruse the folder of notes.

Seems pretty normal part to the premise for any campaign set in an established world. People even pay to get these sort of folders of notes written by other people. And of course these sort of notes tend to have GM and player facing sections.

Isn't Forgotten Realms a paradigm of "designed by a committee"?

It certainly feels that way and is a big part of the reason I don't like it.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Well they're in "the life" but are probably less violent than a typical adventurer.

The do hitman stuff of course. Restrained or sane evil not blow up world type evil.

honestly, i don't think there's anything wrong with playable evil PCs, it's just that the only way everyone and their dog can seem to concieve of an evil PC is the stereotype of a murder-torture-betrayal and burn down the orphanage for kicks one, the one who will join the cultists to summon eldritch horrors, the one who's group wakes up in the morning to find all the loot gone (or whos group didn't wake up at all)

but i don't doubt that there's a good portion of PCs out there who are already more than halfway into being Evil alignment(specifically the alignment not the concept, they're different things) they just don't admit or recognise it because 'they're the heroes' and 'doing it for a cause' and have a giant blindspot for morality where they themselves are concerned.

Evil alignment is a boogeyman because all the 'acceptable levels of evil' characters get no-true-scotsman'ed out of being considered 'actually evil alignment' leaving the only examples for 'real evil' being psychopaths and irredeemable monsters.

a mafioso hitman is probably only going to kill someone to save their own/boss's skin or if it's as a job, that's a good sight more restrained on the threshold for acceptable reasons for murder than some 'good' or 'lawful' PCs i've observed.

Edit: bonus fun game: name an evil aligned character from non-DnD media who you think could reasonably work in an adventuring party, my pick is captian barbosa from the pirates movies, lex luthor probably also fits but i'm only vaguely familiar with the nuances of the character. (although please do not try to debate peoples suggestions 'if they're really bad enough to be considered Evil', they're someone who someone considered evil and who could work in a party)