Why do I tend to be evil ?

[Tuzenbach]

Why do I tend to be evil ?

Because "evil" spelled backwards is "live", and we ALL want to do that, don't we?

 

[merelycompetent]

I think that's where you went wrong. Next time, try the following.

Crimelord: I will give you the information you want if you kill some of my enemies for me.
You: You want us to do your dirty work? Insult my integrity one more time and it'll be your corpse the city watch finds floating in the harbor. Now try again, please.

Or something like that.

Agreed, and in a similar vein, taken from one of my old groups:

You: Murder? I don't think so. Since you won't accept a reasonable trade in exchange for the information, perhaps your successor will be more cooperative. (Turns to cleric) You have Speak with Dead memorized, right?

 

[Torm]

Because "evil" spelled backwards is "live", and we ALL want to do that, don't we?

But a word backwards is its own undoing. Think that's why undead are usually evil?

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Lots of good advise upthread.. but I think we have gotten to a part where the building blocks of this problem should be at least pointed out. As Gold Roger noted, there was a lack of communication and an assumption made fo what the players were looking for.
As it stands, it appears that only 1 of the 4 players is actively desiring an evil, cut thier hearts out and eat it kind of game.

What could have happened was to ensure the characters motivations are focused on the overall goal. That would keep the game going despite changes of alignment here and there.
Also, having in character reasoning for why they are a group...

Then, as the Necromancer has his epiphany, the roleplaying could get very interesting as they attempt to come to terms with most of the group wanting to be 'good'...not to mentin all the concerns about being a necromancer
There should already be some very interesting roleplaying around as the NE Cleric, the Druid, and the Necromancer sort out thier differing views on death.
I am sure the Barbarian would just sit back, sharpening his club and wondering why 'civilization' is something to attain if all it gets is bickering arguments over the afterlife

But, back on point..
The key to having 'good' characters is rewarding the characters through support of those they fight to protect. Dei has some good specifics upthread. For evil characters, the logical response instead of 'protect the party' is also applicable.
Having the bad guys kill hostages when you show up, then fight to the death because they know they wont get any mercy from you... well, that wouldn't be much fun.


And an amusing ancedote from a previous game.. I was playing a CN {with evil tendancies} Dwarven Rogue travelling with a group that included a Palidon. An event occured where we learned of the impending doom for the entire world unless we were able to slay this witch. I decided that it would be better to head into town and enjoy the last week or so of life. The Palidon disagrees and we ended up fighting.. didn't last that long
My next character was much more ameniable to lost causes and sacrificing for the greater good....




Oh...., the witch slaughtered us


Anyway, if I were you, I would convert to a 'good' alignment and work with the other so inclined to get the Dwarf on board with a new, less violent agenda. Then head out to save the world with or without him. No silly flashing PC signs allowed.

 

[Gold Roger]

When the DM is afraid to "punish" evil behavior when logical but consistently rewards it, yes. I recal a thread back when where the entire party had been captured and I suggested that as a DM I might institute a "rescue mission" mini adventure for a good party but not the evil one under discussion. I got jumped all over for "punishing the group's RP choices" and was told that such a plot twist should be somehow contrived at equal cost for any party or I was being unfair.

Combine that sort of thinking with unrealisticly effective results for torture and other evil acts and sure its easier. But as some greek guy said a couple thousand years ago, there are practical reasons for mercy.

Personally I don't have a problem with the world reacting apropiatly to the party's evil actions. The problem with that is simply that since the "slip" the party was in no part of the world where it would have been apropiate. The party was first in total wilderness and now they are in the worst town of the world, a haven of utter corruption and crime.

Lots of good advise upthread.. but I think we have gotten to a part where the building blocks of this problem should be at least pointed out. As Gold Roger noted, there was a lack of communication and an assumption made fo what the players were looking for.
As it stands, it appears that only 1 of the 4 players is actively desiring an evil, cut thier hearts out and eat it kind of game.

Well, and only one player out of three actively desires a good game.

There should already be some very interesting roleplaying around as the NE Cleric, the Druid, and the Necromancer sort out thier differing views on death.

Actually there isn't. The players are actively not very interested in inter party conflict and both druid and cleric came into the game when the necromancer was already there. That was after a encounter that killed the two only good characters in the party and the point where I think the "shift" happened. Anyway, the three characters have a view of death that pretty much meshes.

But, back on point..
The key to having 'good' characters is rewarding the characters through support of those they fight to protect. Dei has some good specifics upthread. For evil characters, the logical response instead of 'protect the party' is also applicable.
Having the bad guys kill hostages when you show up, then fight to the death because they know they wont get any mercy from you... well, that wouldn't be much fun.

That's actually quite a problem, the party always ends up killing their major leads.

Change your own mindset. Instead of thinking of enemy NPC's as people who will come back with reinforcements, think of them as recurring characters - trust your DM to give you appropriate challenges. After all, you're going to have fight new opponents anyway, why not have it be with ones you already have a history with?

This is my personal aproach. If I let my opponent run I don't know if he will later stabb me in the back. Perhaps he'll even redeem himself. But I do know that things will get more interesting and I'd actually feel cheated if such a character simply disappeared.

However, I don't think this is actually a metagame consideration by my players. It's simply that they tend to think from the position of the characters, but more or less always play pragmatic or jaded PC's. I think the most extreme reaction I've ever seen on the killing of prisoners was "I turn my back while he does it.".


I'm not exactly sure how I'l handle all of this. While rythm rampage may have pulled back his wish for change (most likely in favor of game functionality, it's a tradition in this group to always keep in favor of game functionality), this whole thing made me realise one thing:

On pure gameplay this has been my best campaign so far. However, while not the pathfinder guy that helps old ladies over the street, I consider myself to have developed a solid moral compass. In computer games I could never pull through the evil game options. While not appaled by violence at all (I can sit through fairly violent films all the time happily eating popcorn or whatever) I feel unconfortable if I can't feel like there's a justification or condoning (I'm not a great fan of Sin City, while my players are).

I've found myself repeatetly incredulous at the parties reaction to various moral dillemas. I feel if you play a roleplaying game and not only a one shot, the PC's should be realistic characters, but also the good guys. Not necessarily the shining flawless heroes, but the guys you are rooting for.

This still holds true when I DM. While I will throw hell at the PC's when the game calls for it (one TPK, at least one nigh TPK, various PC deaths and countless hard situations ), I'm still always rooting for them to pull through and proof themselfs to be the cooler guys in the end. With a group such as the current it just doesn't sit with me.

On the other hand I've sworn myself I'd finish this game. Due to various reasons my earlier games have always ended prematurely and this is likely the last time I'll DM for them. Appart from this one problem, the game it's all running great.

Further I love to DM, I hate to go any time without DMing and once I've moved it maybe some time before I get a new group. Starting a new game, however, may not be worth it anymore.

 

[rythm_rampage]

Ok here's my decision:

I'm gonna stick to CE or maybe CN (rather not) because:

#1: A redesign of the character behavior is not appropiate at the moment. Maybe later.

#2: I'm still a necromancer casting evil spells and animating dead, so there's no reason not to be evil.

#3 The character is definetely chaotic, since he doesn't care about law and order. Furthermore is he evil because of the spells and of his personal behavior. He did quite a change since the start of their travel.

 

[Nifft]

But a word backwards is its own undoing. Think that's why undead are usually evil?

Sure... MROT!!!!1!

-- N