D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[pemerton]

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.

I've got a shelf of Greyhawk material, and quite a bit of Shadow World, OA and other material also. But I don't assume and nothing else is true.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I've got a shelf of Greyhawk material, and quite a bit of Shadow World, OA and other material also. But I don't assume and nothing else is true.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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?

Anyone who actually knows me well enough to be able to say such things would not actually do so (as they would be knowingly speaking falsely), so the question is moot. I understand what you are going for--you want to produce an irreconcilable conflict. The whole point of the thread, it seems, is that a lot of people think nearly every such question is irreconcilable and thus you absolutely have to have someone make a display of power to permanently silence discussion. I reject this notion, both because it relies on zero-sum thinking, and because it simply ignores that, in practice, extremely few such things are actually so pointed.

If the player is willing to discuss it with me and we can find something--anything--that falls short of, as I said, "unrepentant evil," then perhaps I can provide them what they seek. They will almost certainly need to make sacrifices, probably quite a few sacrifices, to their as you put it "incredible back story." I certainly am prepared to make such sacrifices when I bring concepts to a table.

It would be honestly quite flattering to be told I am a great DM (something I still struggle with believing.) And to know that they have invested a lot of work into it is great, I love supporting genuine and sincere enthusiasm. But the fact of the matter is, I cannot provide enjoyable gameplay for truly, unrepentantly evil characters in anything like a "campaign." I can't even roleplay one as my own character (every time I've tried, I've failed. And I really did try on the second go round, even going as far as cannibalism! The IRL guilt caught up with me.)

If we can do literally anything short of "unrepentant evil," I can probably make it work. Like I said, former evil, tempted good, bastard neutral, person plagued with insanity or possessed by some other force...there's all sorts of stuff we can do that includes dark themes and connections to evil. I find it fairly unlikely that anyone who has such a positive opinion of me would be truly so unwilling to consider anything but the absolute, line-by-line perfect retention of what they brought to the table. (Which, to reiterate yet again, that's not what compromise is.) If they can't meet me in the middle, then I definitely can't run a game for them, not because of any preference issue but because they're being just as demanding and problematic as the DM who says, "I won't let you do X because I think it's stupid, we will not discuss this further or you're out."

Your intended example has already crossed that line: they refuse to discuss, they demand only fulfillment of their original story (constructed in isolation, without consulting me or, presumably, anyone else) and will accept nothing less. There is no difference between this and the DM who simply rejects a player request to play tiefling or dragonborn or whatever without discussion, demanding only fulfillment of the terms they unilaterally declared and accepting nothing less.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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?

From my position, that must be established by the player from the outset. A player who has no interest in pursuing any such behavior will ensure that the character does not, regardless of whether the character might have the potential.

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.

And I cannot produce such things in the quality I expect of myself. They will be simply subpar, and almost certainly repetitive.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this.

It seems perfectly clear to me. Part of the premise with the "it's not in my notes so you can't play it" is that the notes are the sum total of what is possible within the world. They define, first to last, what exists therein. Anything not in the notes simply does not exist: "I presume the notes, and nothing else is true."

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Anyone who actually knows me well enough to be able to say such things would not actually do so (as they would be knowingly speaking falsely), so the question is moot.

Well, seeing as we're not discussing you in particular but the statements you've been making in this thread, the question is most definitely not moot!

I understand what you are going for--you want to produce an irreconcilable conflict.

I'm trying to get you to see the contradiction in your previous statement actually. Up to this point, you've been saying that whatever a player brings to the table is negotiable. In the sense that absolutely saying no to that request is wrong. But this latest statement from you seems to be saying that you're okay with others acceding to a specific person's opinion... as long as that opinion doesn't clash with your world view or wants.

The whole point of the thread, it seems, is that a lot of people think nearly every such question is irreconcilable and thus you absolutely have to have someone make a display of power to permanently silence discussion. I reject this notion, both because it relies on zero-sum thinking, and because it simply ignores that, in practice, extremely few such things are actually so pointed.

That's really not what's been happening in this thread at all.

If the player is willing to discuss it with me and we can find something--anything--that falls short of, as I said, "unrepentant evil," then perhaps I can provide them what they seek. They will almost certainly need to make sacrifices, probably quite a few sacrifices, to their as you put it "incredible back story." I certainly am prepared to make such sacrifices when I bring concepts to a table.

But the fact of the matter is, I cannot provide enjoyable gameplay for truly, unrepentantly evil characters in anything like a "campaign." I can't even roleplay one as my own character (every time I've tried, I've failed. And I really did try on the second go round, even going as far as cannibalism! The IRL guilt caught up with me.)

If we can do literally anything short of "unrepentant evil," I can probably make it work. Like I said, former evil, tempted good, bastard neutral, person plagued with insanity or possessed by some other force...there's all sorts of stuff we can do that includes dark themes and connections to evil. I find it fairly unlikely that anyone who has such a positive opinion of me would be truly so unwilling to consider anything but the absolute, line-by-line perfect retention of what they brought to the table. (Which, to reiterate yet again, that's not what compromise is.) If they can't meet me in the middle, then I definitely can't run a game for them, not because of any preference issue but because they're being just as demanding and problematic as the DM who says, "I won't let you do X because I think it's stupid, we will not discuss this further or you're out."

Well, great! You're not willing to accept all requests but are willing to compromise under certain circumstances. So is pretty much everyone who has posted in this thread! You seem to be looking at posts in this thread as black or white. This thread is about having a discussion, not about making one person 'the winner' and everyone else 'the loser'.

It would be honestly quite flattering to be told I am a great DM (something I still struggle with believing.) And to know that they have invested a lot of work into it is great, I love supporting genuine and sincere enthusiasm.

I'm sure that you are and you do, your own personal doubts aside.

Your intended example has already crossed that line: they refuse to discuss, they demand only fulfillment of their original story (constructed in isolation, without consulting me or, presumably, anyone else) and will accept nothing less. There is no difference between this and the DM who simply rejects a player request to play tiefling or dragonborn or whatever without discussion, demanding only fulfillment of the terms they unilaterally declared and accepting nothing less.

Actually, they didn't refuse to discuss. All they did was to answer your polite refusal with an option to continue the discussion. Your response?

 

[Oofta]

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)

If the entire group (including the DM) want to allow evil PCs, that's fine. But in my experience the players that really wanted to play evil PCs did so to go gonzo evil. Which, without going into details, was disturbing. Even if it doesn't go to that level while I get that a lot of people enjoy evil anti-heroes, I don't.

But the other aspect is that I want the group to be able to come together as a group and far too often a mix of players who's outlook on life is what we would consider good and the other evil it just leads to PvP conflicts. It leads to unwelcome stress for a lot of people in a game that supposed to be relaxing escapism. Maybe not as big of a deal for one shot or short term campaigns, but I run long term campaigns.

 

[Oofta]

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."

So you acknowledge that you don't want evil PCs because you couldn't run a good game for them. Fair enough, that's one of my reasons as well.

All I ask is that you acknowledge that for some people this also holds true for an "anything goes" campaign. I don't expect you to like it, I don't expect you to join a game with a curated list, I just don't understand why you can't accept that some DMs simply have different expectations and desires, things that they don't feel they could run a good game for. I want race to be more than a rubber mask in my games and I can't do that if any race is allowed.

 

[FrozenNorth]

In this case, it seems more like the player wants to write the novel, at the expense of the DM and everyone else at the table (italics... where have you been all my life?).

How? If one player wants to play a dragonborn, how does that stop a 2nd player from playing a dwarven rogue, or the DM from running an intrigue heavy campaign?

Didn’t you just accuse @EzekielRaiden of employing hyperbole that undermined his point?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It seems perfectly clear to me. Part of the premise with the "it's not in my notes so you can't play it" is that the notes are the sum total of what is possible within the world. They define, first to last, what exists therein. Anything not in the notes simply does not exist: "I presume the notes, and nothing else is true."

I see. Something else can certainly exist, the notes can never be exhaustive. But one might assume that they would contain major points and we should extrapolate from those. Tolkien not mentioning warforged doesn't mean that them existing in the Middle-Earth is a logical extrapolation; quite the opposite.