D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[CreamCloud0]

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.

i recognise that some people just don't want to play with evil teammates and it's less stressful to be able to say 'there's no evil' and that's entirely fair but at the same time i think you're exactly proving my point: for you, what it takes for you consider evil 'Evil' is 'gonzo evil', it's requirements to qualify are pushed to extreme thresholds where players torture npcs in unspeakable ways and are itching to knife their team in the back as soon as a good enough opportunity presents itself.

the way you present evil makes it sound like it's some unspeakable tainting thing that only manifests in the most vile of acts, there is no 'lesser evils' in your view and so thus there can never be an acceptably evil character other than in a group explicitly designed for evil to exist in, leaving 'evil' to be capable of like i said 'only psychopaths and irredeemable monsters'

 

[FrozenNorth]

One thing I never understand about this whole argument is how freakin' obsessed people are with picking a race. Compared to all the decisions you can make during the character build phase, much less the freedom of direction and choices you make during a campaign, it's really danged insignificant.

I think it is a good example precisely because it is so insignificant.

In a world in which gods and high-level spellcasters exist, I’d like to play a satyr isn’t a big ask. Maybe you come from the valley next over where no one’s even been. Maybe you fell asleep under a tree and woke up transformed. Maybe you’re a foundling and you don’t know where you’re from.

If a DM is unwilling to budge on something so small, it’s an indication that they are unwilling to budge on pretty much anything.

 

[FrozenNorth]

no, I said nothing about that part. Why is it that the ‘DMs are evil tyrants’ side always have to twist words, is that just coincidence…

This makes no sense. All the people posting here, @Neonchameleon, @EzekielRaiden and me, are DMs ourselves.

Why would we think DMs are evil?

 

[Oofta]

i recognise that some people just don't want to play with evil teammates and it's less stressful to be able to say 'there's no evil' and that's entirely fair but at the same time i think you're exactly proving my point: for you, what it takes for you consider evil 'Evil' is 'gonzo evil', it's requirements to qualify are pushed to extreme thresholds where players torture npcs in unspeakable ways and are itching to knife their team in the back as soon as a good enough opportunity presents itself.

the way you present evil makes it sound like it's some unspeakable tainting thing that only manifests in the most vile of acts, there is no 'lesser evils' in your view and so thus there can never be an acceptably evil character other than in a group explicitly designed for evil to exist in, leaving 'evil' to be capable of like i said 'only psychopaths and irredeemable monsters'

It's not just "gonzo evil" that I don't want, I was just relaying something I've seen. I thought I made that clear. It's also the LG PC in the same group with the LE hitman who has no issue murdering otherwise innocent people. It's the PCs that decide burning down a tavern because it's the easiest way to take out the bad guy is perfectly fine, even if a few innocent workers also die (another real world example of a game I stopped attending). I don't want to run a game where someone is so morally ambivalent that if killing off a few innocent people if it's expedient and achieves a goal that it's the best option. Setting up a protection racket for pocket change isn't my idea of fun.

I'm okay with a PC that doesn't necessarily run into a burning building to save the orphans but that just makes them neutral, not evil. If you don't torture, murder innocents, don't burn down that tavern to get the BBEG, then why say you're playing an evil PC? That and I'm pretty up front that I prefer heroic campaigns, they're just more fun for me to run.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I am currently a near perma-GM who has run open tables for years. I've learned from some really good GMs and some not so good GMs. I'd say that despite having run open table for literal years and only having experience of about a dozen GMs I've run into four actual serious problem GMs in that time, and only three problem players (plus two I worked out of being problems). And in every case if a problem (including the GM who saddled us with one DMPC for each member of the party) the fundamental problem has been a preciousness the GM had over their world and an unwillingness to let things happen in ways that didn't fit their vision.

Exactly this. A GM that puts in a bunch of restrictions, or railroads the party, or includes a DMPC, isn’t necessarily acting in bad faith. I honestly believe that they think their ideas are awesome or groundbreaking. Or that if they give an inch their players will walk all over them.

Telling them “it’s their game” and that “when the rubber hits the road, it’s their decision” ultimately does a disservice to them.

 

[FrozenNorth]

A lot of tables I've been at would've devolved then into who's the outsider. 'Well, he's an Arab poet... how about I play a Greek priest and I'm his translator' and then someone wants to be an English longbowman and it spirals. Sometimes, it gets tiring yes-anding and trying to find a way to work these ideas in that really aren't so much a roleplaying thing as 'Oh, I just discovered Sorlocks and I want to try it'

If a GM pitches a Viking game and none of the players want to play Vikings, I don’t think it’s fair to put that on the players.

This actually happened to me. I pitched a Neverwinter intrigue faction-based game. When two characters (out of four) were a ranger who had never been in a city and a barbarian who had no interest in politics, I pivoted the focus of the game.

 

[Oofta]

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?

Dragonborn have never existed in my world, creatures that look somewhat like dragonborn have always been antagonists. Yet somehow people are just supposed to shrug when what they consider a monster (right or wrong) walk into the local tavern?

Which is one of the issues I have with drow and Drizzle Drizzt. First, I've had an issue with how drow are represented which is a whole other topic. But in the FR it was established that drow are the boogeyman, the knife in the dark that sneaks into houses at night killing everyone, perhaps leaving one innocent alive to increase the terror and suffering. They only appear on the surface world to go on murder sprees. Yet a drow walks into town in broad daylight and the people that react negatively to what should rightly be considered an imminent threat are the bad guys. In a world where there are literal monsters, treating a monster with caution and suspicion is logical.

So while I didn't use drow at all for a long time (theoretically they existed, I just never used them) I simply couldn't square the circle so to speak. Much like a wild tiger walking into a village would be killed on sight because they were an imminent danger to all individuals, a drow would also be attacked on sight. Whether that was ethically good or evil wasn't the issue, it was just a logical extension of the lore of drow and every previous interaction people had ever had. I want NPCs to have realistic reactions to races they encounter, it's part of what adds depth to the world for me.

It's not inconsequential to me to add a new race, especially since I've run, and expect to continue to run, in the same campaign world.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I don’t think a DM or a olayer should have to compromise- if they are not willing to. They can both say “my way or the highway,” and that is ok - but compromise is generally better IMO.

All that is true. However, I think if your starting position is “it’s the DM’s game” or “it’s the DM’s ultimate decision”, you make compromise more unlikely and more difficult.

 

[FrozenNorth]

That's true. I don't see how this applies to the case of a problematic player approaching the table with a disruptive request though.

Why default to a problematic player coming in with a disruptive request though?

I don’t think there is meaningful disagreement on the thread on dealing with problematic players.

Does your response change in any way if it isn’t a problematic player that brings the request?

 

[FrozenNorth]

I've been wanting to see a Loxodon in play for a while.

One idea I've had is anthromorphic race campaign. Planet of the Apes style. Plus lizardfolk, loxodons, tabaxi etc.

That could really work in a Far East or South-East Asian inspired campaign.