PDA

View Full Version : In an evil party but PC isn't evil



hydroplatypus
2011-06-11, 10:05 AM
In a previous game: officially no one in the party is evil, because our DM bans evil alignments, but 3 people in our group (of 5 players including me) picked neutral and just play it as evil. Generally speaking they will not care about innocents, and are willing to horribly torture etc. prisoners for no good reason.

We were playing sunless citadel, and we all died because our DM decided that he wanted to teach us to be more cautious. (In retrospect he was blatantly obvious that a particular door was horribly trapped but we decided to try to go through anyway [the rogue searches and finds 18 traps]). However I want to know what to do if this ever comes up again.

Due to the ban on evil alignments I decided to play an NG sorcerer, thinking that this would not conflict with party dynamics. When the party started pulling off its evil antics I started to realize that the way I had envisioned my sorcerer wouldn’t work, and tried to figure out justifications for why he wouldn’t try to kill the party, (low level, but probably could have pulled it off due to general party stupidity). However we all died before this could be resolved.
If anyone wants to know the incident that pushed my PC to this point (wanting to kill them), it was an interrogation. We had captured a goblin and wanted to interrogate him. My sorcerer didn’t speak goblin and so left the room, thinking they would be fine to interrogate him (probably a bad move in retrospect). When my sorcerer came back they had horribly tortured the goblin, despite already finding out all that he knew, as well as horribly tormented a kobold that was working for us (they also later killed him for no reason).
Basically what do I do if I end up unexpectedly playing a good character in an evil party? How do I justify my PC not killing them?
P.S. in my current game with this group I am playing TN

Dark Kerman
2011-06-11, 10:18 AM
Charm person? Suggestion? :smalltongue:

Saint Nil
2011-06-11, 10:19 AM
This situation seems like it should be solved out of character if possible. Their characters would most likely stab you, but if you tell your friends that your not comfortable playing with murderers and sadists, then they might be willing to ease up on the torture.

If not, then in-character you need to find a reason why they shouldn't. Same of the most tried and trued examples are that torture produces unreliable information, and anyone else you capture won't talk if your group has a reputation for inflicting pain for pleasure even after they learn what they want to know.

Or, if you character has a low enough wisdom score and another PC has a high enough bluff check, just have them trick you constantly so IC you wouldn't know. This lets you keep your good alignment without having to kill or arrest every other member of the party.

Worst comes to worst a maximized fireball into a tiny interrogation room could send a message.:smallwink:

Conners
2011-06-11, 11:29 AM
By.... heck.... Do you play with muggers and sociopaths? I suggest never being alone with them somewhere deserted, seriously--they sound creepy as heck.

As someone mentioned, you might want to talk to them about how... you aren't keen on the torturing (I hope you aren't). Plus, I don't like people to do something as stupid as play Neutral, then act Evil.

Draken
2011-06-11, 11:40 AM
Plus, I don't like people to do something as stupid as play Neutral, then act Evil.

Aye. If there is a ban on evil alignments, you will likely be going against many, many evil things. So just go with good and assume that everything that is usually evil is a demon deserving nothing but suffering and death (aka: Lawful Stupid).

As for the "what to do if this ever comes up again" bit...

If you mean the obviously ubertraped door, that one is easy. Don't try to walk through it. Go as far away as you can and fireball it.

If you mean the evil-but-not-really-evil part... The easy way out is to avoid good alignments with this group.

The hard way out is to discuss things with your group, and maybe see with your DM about making a full-fledged evil campaign, try to get the evil out of their systems, or at least the Stupid Evil. Stupid Evil can get old pretty quick.

hydroplatypus
2011-06-11, 11:50 AM
Although in the current game the party still has evil leanings the DM has blatantly told them that they will be hit by divine retribution (in his words " you get hit by a lightning bolt and take 200 d20 of damage) if they were that evil again. And yes I have given up on good characters for this group for this reason.

In retrospect they have also agreed that they went a little too far, so that particular scene is unlikely to repeat itself.

I still have the problem of them being more evil then my PC (I can't really play evil well), but with TN its more manageable. That being said should it come down to it how should I justify my character not killing them if I run into a similar situation? (also bluff wouldn't work as I walked in in the middle of the interrogation)

Also in response to conners they are not evil in real life just in game. I think they took it as a joke that went way too far (even acknowledging this in next few sessions).

Also in response to draken : I meant the evil party thing not the door, with that we were just idiots :smalltongue:

Hiro Protagonest
2011-06-11, 11:50 AM
This situation seems like it should be solved out of character if possible. Their characters would most likely stab you, but if you tell your friends that your not comfortable playing with murderers and sadists, then they might be willing to ease up on the torture.

If not, then in-character you need to find a reason why they shouldn't. Same of the most tried and trued examples are that torture produces unreliable information, and anyone else you capture won't talk if your group has a reputation for inflicting pain for pleasure even after they learn what they want to know.

Or, if you character has a low enough wisdom score and another PC has a high enough bluff check, just have them trick you constantly so IC you wouldn't know. This lets you keep your good alignment without having to kill or arrest every other member of the party.

Worst comes to worst a maximized fireball into a tiny interrogation room could send a message.:smallwink:

If the OOC thing doesn't work, just send in the fireball immediately, skip the other two, as they would torture him even if they didn't get the info, and the second requires you to be wilfully ignorant.

hydroplatypus
2011-06-11, 11:54 AM
If the OOC thing doesn't work, just send in the fireball immediately, skip the other two, as they would torture him even if they didn't get the info, and the second requires you to be wilfully ignorant.
Ya OOC they agreed to stop being so evil (still moderately evil) but I asked so that I have advice should this general idea (evil party good PC) happen again

Also when I say low level I mean level 2 so fireball wouldn't work

Hiro Protagonest
2011-06-11, 12:06 PM
Ya OOC they agreed to stop being so evil (still moderately evil) but I asked so that I have advice should this general idea (evil party good PC) happen again

Also when I say low level I mean level 2 so fireball wouldn't work

Magic missile or burning hands then. Or sleep, then coup de grace. Or color spray. Or sleep or color spray, then magic missile or burning hands. Or ray of enfeeblement.

Honest Tiefling
2011-06-11, 12:27 PM
I think your DM and all of the players, maybe even you, need a chat. Sounds like the players want one thing, and the DM is forcing them to play another. I would solve this first, before attempting anything else.

Also: Ask your buds if they mind RPing that your sorcerer is a longtime friend. The sorcerer doesn't want to kill his buddies! Maybe they have a good reason. WHAM! Fallen Sorcerer.

DonEsteban
2011-06-11, 12:42 PM
I don't mean to turn this into a general alignment debate, but: most good or even neutral characters wouldn't just kill them all just because they did something evil. They would first try to talk them out of it or bring them to justice (as in "turn them in to the police"). Of course this depends on the circumstances, it's more difficult in a wilderness, archaic or anarchistic setting. But just killing them would almost certainly not be a good act. Fun maybe, but nod good. ;)

Otherwise: Yeah, just try to make it clear that you're not enjoying yourself when the party is evil. And try to make sure that the DM is really consequent about it. He seems to understand the problem.

Conners
2011-06-12, 02:14 AM
Also in response to conners they are not evil in real life just in game. I think they took it as a joke that went way too far (even acknowledging this in next few sessions). That sounds better, then. You get the mental image of some really sadistic smiles, on really sadistic people, when you discuss how they all decided to torture a character without any need.

Bit different if they're all leaning back in their chairs belly-laughing, saying, "then we still torture them, even though we don't need to, just for the heck of it." That is still a bit disturbing in the wrong context, but it shows they aren't taking it seriously.

absolmorph
2011-06-12, 02:31 AM
I don't mean to turn this into a general alignment debate, but: most good or even neutral characters wouldn't just kill them all just because they did something evil. They would first try to talk them out of it or bring them to justice (as in "turn them in to the police"). Of course this depends on the circumstances, it's more difficult in a wilderness, archaic or anarchistic setting. But just killing them would almost certainly not be a good act. Fun maybe, but nod good. ;)

Otherwise: Yeah, just try to make it clear that you're not enjoying yourself when the party is evil. And try to make sure that the DM is really consequent about it. He seems to understand the problem.
Lawful Good characters might try to talk them out of it or turn them in to the authorities, but Neutral Good or Chaotic Good characters might be more keen to handle things without those pesky rules and regulations getting in the way of what they see as justice. Killing evil people would be, in general, at least a neutral act. Killing them to defend other sentients from pointless malice? Probably a good act.

EDIT: On the actual topic, it sounds like you have it well handled.

Kiero
2011-06-12, 07:13 AM
In a previous game: officially no one in the party is evil, because our DM bans evil alignments, but 3 people in our group (of 5 players including me) picked neutral and just play it as evil. Generally speaking they will not care about innocents, and are willing to horribly torture etc. prisoners for no good reason.


So the players completely ignored the ban on evil characters, and aren't even bothering to pay lip service to their nominal alignments?

hydroplatypus
2011-06-12, 02:56 PM
That sounds better, then. You get the mental image of some really sadistic smiles, on really sadistic people, when you discuss how they all decided to torture a character without any need.

Bit different if they're all leaning back in their chairs belly-laughing, saying, "then we still torture them, even though we don't need to, just for the heck of it." That is still a bit disturbing in the wrong context, but it shows they aren't taking it seriously.

The joke was that they were trying (with stupid ideas) to try and stop my sorcerer from entering the room. Mid way through this the DM had the goblin tell us some useless info, and basically show us he knew nothing. Most of the party was laughing at the antics that were delaying my PC and decided to continue the interrogation because the joke (keeping sorcerer out) was too funny. The joke was funny enough that they didn't realize that they had crossed a line until later.


So the players completely ignored the ban on evil characters, and aren't even bothering to pay lip service to their nominal alignments?

Basically yes

Aidan305
2011-06-12, 08:26 PM
This is pretty much the reason why I'm very particular when starting games about specifying what I do and don't allow in terms of alignment. Saying "No evil" means you end up with a party full of morally ambiguous socio/psychopaths who would just as happily kill a child as befriend it. And then argue when you point out just how evil this is.

Grollub
2011-06-12, 11:46 PM
I don't mean to turn this into a general alignment debate, but: most good or even neutral characters wouldn't just kill them all just because they did something evil. They would first try to talk them out of it or bring them to justice (as in "turn them in to the police"). Of course this depends on the circumstances, it's more difficult in a wilderness, archaic or anarchistic setting. But just killing them would almost certainly not be a good act. Fun maybe, but nod good. ;)

Otherwise: Yeah, just try to make it clear that you're not enjoying yourself when the party is evil. And try to make sure that the DM is really consequent about it. He seems to understand the problem.

It may not be that simple if you think about it. You are in the middle of "nowhere" with 3-6 other people who are psychopaths, killing , torturing people for the fun of it, etc.. would YOU really say anything to them. At best I could see you fleeing the group, getting help THEN taking them to justice. Otherwise you're just asking for them to murder you.

The Valiant Turtle
2011-06-12, 11:53 PM
Lawful Good characters might try to talk them out of it or turn them in to the authorities, but Neutral Good or Chaotic Good characters might be more keen to handle things without those pesky rules and regulations getting in the way of what they see as justice.

Note that this depends completely on the law. Historically speaking laws have often been quite draconian and it's entirely likely that the LAWFUL good thing to do would be kill them, it's the NG and CGs that might be willing to go against the law and give them a chance at rehabilitation.

Erik Vale
2011-06-13, 01:35 AM
I very much agree with TVTurutal (short). However i think at that point even nutrel or chaotic good/nuetrel characters would happily grab a knife. However i would play the run away, than come back leading a larger party of the same level played to catch the evil doers. (ofcoarse with dm's co-op).

However, if your character would get pushed to breaking, then yea, go all out, start shooting and see how many rounds the combat will go before it ends.

DabblerWizard
2011-06-13, 08:25 AM
A second issue is the DM's mediocre enforcement of his own rule.

When the players depict their characters taking on clearly evil (and disturbing) actions, right at that moment the DM should say something like "whoa guys, hold on there... we agreed not to play evil characters..."

The DM might have to keep setting limits on the players' actions as long as they are acting inappropriately.

One way to set a limit would be to simply ignore anything said by a player that is clearly offensive / evil. Second, tell them outright "that's not happening". I'm sure others could think of other OOC ways of handling this behavior.

Tiki Snakes
2011-06-13, 09:08 AM
One option would be to simply feel bad about it and try and minimise their potential to do harm where possible.
For example, euthanising potential prisoners as mercifully as possible (if their's any chance of a similar scenario cropping up), keeping them from fighting with guards (By, say, agreeing to cast sleep on any that cause trouble in exchange for them not slitting their throats afterwards, etc) and so on.

Play a good but troubled character, his penance for some past sin or failing is not to redeem, slay or imprison his morally bankrupt friends, but to do what he can to moderate and channel them so as to protect everyone else from their predations...

Or just have the character leave in disgust and introduce a new, more morally compatible character. *shrug* :smallsmile:

[edit] as to divine lightning to enforce no-evilness, I think that's a really bad idea. I agree that the DM needs to enforce his no-evil rule if it's to have any meaning, but I can see a much less confrontational way. Simply put, much like in some systems with insanity or corruption mechanics, in his game PC's are good or neutral. If you are Evil, you are an NPC. So if they act Evil often enough as to change alignment, then the characters become NPC's. They aren't smote by lightning, they aren't swallowed by the enraged earth, they just aren't suitable as Player Characters anymore.
Roll new characters and continue, with the added dangers of the Evil former-PC's loose in the world to deal with.

Just_Ice
2011-06-13, 10:16 AM
There's no real solution to this problem.

The evil players will complain about anything that stops their senseless murder spree and the game will explode. Trust me on this.

Archwizard
2011-06-13, 11:08 AM
A second issue is the DM's mediocre enforcement of his own rule.

This was my first thought. If the DM sets up a world, it's his job to make sure it happens.

If he fails to do so... well look what you get. I would talk to the DM, it's his mess to fix or not.

DabblerWizard
2011-06-13, 12:03 PM
Tiki Snakes Quoted
One option would be to simply feel bad about it and try and minimise their potential to do harm where possible.
For example, euthanising potential prisoners as mercifully as possible (if their's any chance of a similar scenario cropping up), keeping them from fighting with guards (By, say, agreeing to cast sleep on any that cause trouble in exchange for them not slitting their throats afterwards, etc) and so on.

Play a good but troubled character, his penance for some past sin or failing is not to redeem, slay or imprison his morally bankrupt friends, but to do what he can to moderate and channel them so as to protect everyone else from their predations...

Or just have the character leave in disgust and introduce a new, more morally compatible character. *shrug* :smallsmile:

[edit] as to divine lightning to enforce no-evilness, I think that's a really bad idea. I agree that the DM needs to enforce his no-evil rule if it's to have any meaning, but I can see a much less confrontational way. Simply put, much like in some systems with insanity or corruption mechanics, in his game PC's are good or neutral. If you are Evil, you are an NPC. So if they act Evil often enough as to change alignment, then the characters become NPC's. They aren't smote by lightning, they aren't swallowed by the enraged earth, they just aren't suitable as Player Characters anymore.
Roll new characters and continue, with the added dangers of the Evil former-PC's loose in the world to deal with.

Wow! Tiki Snakes, I really like your suggestion that repeated evil acts turn PCs into NPCs. *Hands you a cookie*. :smallsmile:

This rule uses the eventual loss of autonomy, as a punishment for acting evil. I could see people arguing against both elements of that statement. *gets the popcorn*

Flame of Anor
2011-06-13, 05:45 PM
Basically what do I do if I end up unexpectedly playing a good character in an evil party? How do I justify my PC not killing them?
P.S. in my current game with this group I am playing TN

Well, basically, you have a few options. In ascending order of extremity:


Your character would rather not adventure with evil characters, but considers it acceptable as long as greater evils are being defeated. Like Roy adventuring with a whole party of Belkars.
Your character can't take it and turns evil himself. Kind of a player cop-out, unless you role-play it really well.
Your character can't justify it to himself and leaves the party. Roll up a ruthless bastard. I don't like this one, because it means you're just giving up your character because the other players are betraying their characters' supposed alignments.
Your character sees it as his duty to wipe out the other members of the party. This could provoke OOC trouble, so only do it if you're sure it's justified IC. (And if you're sure you have a good chance of winning.) But if you do go for this, it could be a lot of fun. I've always wanted to try PCvPC combat. See how many you can kill before they notice it's you!



Tiki Snakes Quoted

Wow! Tiki Snakes, I really like your suggestion that repeated evil acts turn PCs into NPCs. *Hands you a cookie*. :smallsmile:

This rule uses the eventual loss of autonomy, as a punishment for acting evil. I could see people arguing against both elements of that statement. *gets the popcorn*

I agree! That's a great idea. I would say Diabolically clever, but that would imply a different end of the alignment pool, so I'll say Tiki Snakes is Angelically clever.

SuperFerret
2011-06-13, 05:54 PM
Tiki Snakes Quoted

Wow! Tiki Snakes, I really like your suggestion that repeated evil acts turn PCs into NPCs. *Hands you a cookie*. :smallsmile:

This rule uses the eventual loss of autonomy, as a punishment for acting evil. I could see people arguing against both elements of that statement. *gets the popcorn*

It's punishment for not following the rules, not "acting evil". If a similar ban was placed on PCs having good alignments, the same should apply.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-06-13, 05:56 PM
Your character sees it as his duty to wipe out the other members of the party. This could provoke OOC trouble, so only do it if you're sure it's justified IC. (And if you're sure you have a good chance of winning.) But if you do go for this, it could be a lot of fun. I've always wanted to try PCvPC combat. See how many you can kill before they notice it's you!

This one. It's one thing to play evil, another to play sadistic evil. It's not justified to kill them if they're just evil, but these guys continued torturing the goblin after he gave the information, so this action is immediately justified.

Tiki Snakes
2011-06-13, 09:18 PM
It's punishment for not following the rules, not "acting evil". If a similar ban was placed on PCs having good alignments, the same should apply.

Exactly.
Also, I really can't take any credit for the idea, given there are already systems out there that pretty much suggest exactly that. Still, worth suggesting to the GM in question, because I think it could possibly help.

DabblerWizard
2011-06-13, 10:22 PM
It's punishment for not following the rules, not "acting evil". If a similar ban was placed on PCs having good alignments, the same should apply.

Just for argument sake, those two points aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

"Acting evil" might be a specific instance of rule breaking in terms of committing actions that lead to game disharmony (if there's a clear group intention towards playing "non-evil" characters). In that instance, "acting evil" leads to player vs. player conflict (as opposed to PC vs. npc conflict) which some groups dislike.

The above paragraph could also be seen as rationale for "bad form" behaviors that aren't necessarily "rule breaking", per say. Thus, my original comment stands, that removing player autonomy can be a punishment for acting evil in itself.

hydroplatypus
2011-06-14, 10:49 AM
[edit] as to divine lightning to enforce no-evilness, I think that's a really bad idea. I agree that the DM needs to enforce his no-evil rule if it's to have any meaning, but I can see a much less confrontational way. Simply put, much like in some systems with insanity or corruption mechanics, in his game PC's are good or neutral. If you are Evil, you are an NPC. So if they act Evil often enough as to change alignment, then the characters become NPC's. They aren't smote by lightning, they aren't swallowed by the enraged earth, they just aren't suitable as Player Characters anymore.
Roll new characters and continue, with the added dangers of the Evil former-PC's loose in the world to deal with.

will suggest this thanks

Tanuki Tales
2011-06-14, 08:44 PM
Just want to take a shot here and toddle off; but I tend to notice that this forum has some major bias against allowing sadistically evil characters to be played in games (just like they seem to think that the DM acting outside of the written rules as DMs should do is morally wrong). Take what I say as you will, because I'm gone after saying this, but there's nothing wrong in playing The Joker and you don't have to be a morally questionable and unbalanced person to want to play one.

Tiki Snakes
2011-06-14, 09:11 PM
Just want to take a shot here and toddle off; but I tend to notice that this forum has some major bias against allowing sadistically evil characters to be played in games (just like they seem to think that the DM acting outside of the written rules as DMs should do is morally wrong). Take what I say as you will, because I'm gone after saying this, but there's nothing wrong in playing The Joker and you don't have to be a morally questionable and unbalanced person to want to play one.

I agree entirely. Well, almost entirely.
The proviso being, of course, that you should make sure the DM and to a smaller degree the rest of the players are happy with you possibly playing the Joker.

The Dm in this case is not happy with it, so they really should have kept the psychotic clowns to a minimum here, for example.

hydroplatypus
2011-06-15, 11:33 AM
I agree entirely. Well, almost entirely.
The proviso being, of course, that you should make sure the DM and to a smaller degree the rest of the players are happy with you possibly playing the Joker.

The Dm in this case is not happy with it, so they really should have kept the psychotic clowns to a minimum here, for example.

If we had agreed on an evil campaign beforehand then this wouldn't be a problem, however the DM and I both didn't want an evil campaign (fairly new to D&D so wanted to play stereotypical hero first). It was also a problem because it conflicted with the character I built (as a hero), as I had trouble thinking up reasons that he wouldn't have killed the party.