PDA

View Full Version : Need help with player playing same character every time.



elvenranger14
2012-09-23, 06:24 PM
Hi Playgrounders,
This is my first time posting on here so i'm sorry if this doesn't go here. As you can tell by the title I need a little help. I have a player in my current Pathfinder group who always plays the evil tiefling. Even before we switched from 3.5 to Pathfinder he played this same character. The only difference between the characters has been their class choices.

I was wondering if you guys could help me figure out how to solve this conundrum. I really want him to try playing the good guy at least once but I don't see that happening. I also would like for him to try another race. Any way I could try to come to an agreement with him?

I really am at a loss on what to do.

pffh
2012-09-23, 06:25 PM
Well the easiest way to get him to play another race is simply create a campaign world where Tieflings don't exist.

Water_Bear
2012-09-23, 06:30 PM
Is the player being disruptive? If so, tell them not to do whatever they are doing which disrupts the game. If not, why is it a problem in the first place?

Some people have preferences as to the Race, Class, Alignment, or even just the style of characters they want to play. As long as they are being respectful of other players and the setting there shouldn't be an issue with that.

elvenranger14
2012-09-23, 07:04 PM
I guess the biggest thing isn't that he always plays a tiefling, that is me just being arrogant... sorry. the biggest problem is him always wanting to be evil. And always wanting to kill everything. An example would be when we were interrogating an evil cleric, he was starting to tell us all he knew. Just as he started telling us what we needed to know, he killed him.

I guess the biggest thing is that his characters are always the same personality.

PaperMustache
2012-09-23, 07:18 PM
Well Pathfinder has the advanced race guide which gives you a huge range of races to choose from. If the only thing he wants to play is a tiefling after flipping through that thing, there's no hope for him!

As for always being evil, perhaps he doesn't realize that even evil characters don't always murder indiscriminately. They have things that they want and perhaps relationships that they would like to preserve. If he's travelling with a party of non-evil characters it doesn't make sense for him to murder randomly in front of them. He can be predisposed to such behaviors but he should have to be sneaky about it. If he chooses not to act like a sane member of the party there should be consequences.

Gamer Girl
2012-09-23, 07:55 PM
1.You can simply stop the Evil. It's a bit of rocks falling railroading, but not only is it worth it, but if done right the player won't even know.

For example:Evil Cleric starts to talk and Guy kills him....ok, fine let that happen. But then have the evil cleric ghost hang around for say a minute and tell all.

You could also do the classic of having 'evil guy #2' who does the tell all after the Evil Cleric is dead. Or you could have the important plot information not in a kill-able form...make it a talking scroll, for example.

2.Distract the player. So while the group is talking to evil cleric plot voice...oh, look an angel falls from heaven as a waiting target for the guy. Or add in a locked chest full of 'evil' or such.

3.Crank up the Evil! My favorite. Drop the game into the Abyss. Show the player what real evil is....this can have a huge effect. In general, it's only fun for a player to play evil in a good world. For evil to be fun, you need an ordinary world to ''rebel' against. A 'good' world does not have lethal traps, or ambushes or such...but an evil world would. Just think of the Evil Guy going to Magic Mart, handing over 50,000 gold and then having the shopkeeper teleport away so the poor character looses all the gold and gets nothing. Or going to an evil cleric for a heal/cure, and when you let your guard down they further hurt/curse you....that they will fix for an additional charge. Or even just where the guards don't ''try and capture him aline for a fair trial'', but just shoot to kill.

elvenranger14
2012-09-23, 08:08 PM
3.Crank up the Evil! My favorite. Drop the game into the Abyss. Show the player what real evil is....this can have a huge effect. In general, it's only fun for a player to play evil in a good world. For evil to be fun, you need an ordinary world to ''rebel' against. A 'good' world does not have lethal traps, or ambushes or such...but an evil world would. Just think of the Evil Guy going to Magic Mart, handing over 50,000 gold and then having the shopkeeper teleport away so the poor character looses all the gold and gets nothing. Or going to an evil cleric for a heal/cure, and when you let your guard down they further hurt/curse you....that they will fix for an additional charge. Or even just where the guards don't ''try and capture him aline for a fair trial'', but just shoot to kill.

I think this one is my favorite of those. I had the idea of doing a campaign in the Underdark (which would lead to the abyss I know.) decided against this. Now I am rethinking that. you have definitely given me some ideas to think on.

NikitaDarkstar
2012-09-23, 08:15 PM
So the race isn't the actual problem here it's disruptive behavior? Because preferring to play specific races really shouldn't be an issue unless there's a good reason for them not being available to players.
Heck, even playing Evil doesn't need to be a bad thing if the player can do it in a mature manner, but it sounds like your player can't.

So here's what I'd do. I'd inform the player that yes he is free to player the character however he wants to, it is his character after all, but the world will react accordingly. Murdering in broad daylight for example would end up with an arrest and jail time or possibly the character getting executed.
Also encourage roleplay if you don't already. Bonus XP for good roleplay and smart out-of-the-box solutions to problems can help.

And ask your player WHY he plays these characters, he clearly thinks they're fun, but as him what he's expecting out of it. Some people like to play characters that have extra obstacles to overcome (such as playing a tiefling in a world where tieflings aren't trusted and looked down upon.) and if possible cater to it somewhat (without ignoring the other players of course). But if it's just because he likes to "kill stuff" I think you need to inform him that he does need to develop a better play style.

Hanuman
2012-09-23, 08:19 PM
Is it his mentality that bothers you or is it his actions?

His mentality is his choice, his actions are within your world and you decide what that means for him.

elvenranger14
2012-09-23, 08:29 PM
So the race isn't the actual problem here it's disruptive behavior?

yes, that is it. I do my best to keep everyone in character when roleplaying. I have done my best to deal with it but now I feel as though it will get in the way of our next campaign.

Also, I do like the idea of having him executed. With the last DM the happened once, so I see no reason why it can't happen again. :smallbiggrin:

NikitaDarkstar
2012-09-23, 08:34 PM
yes, that is it. I do my best to keep everyone in character when roleplaying. I have done my best to deal with it but now I feel as though it will get in the way of our next campaign.

Also, I do like the idea of having him executed. With the last DM the happened once, so I see no reason why it can't happen again. :smallbiggrin:

If you go down that route, make sure you warn the players that the world will be more responsive to the characters actions that it has in previous campaigns, both good and bad actions, and it's even for all characters. Don't single anyone out. If he does something that gets him sent to the noose, fine, but the same should go if the partys paladin decides to lop of the head of someone simply because they where evil. (Not saying that will happen, but if you do go with a more responsive world it's imperative that it's equal for all, it's very easy to accidentally cause someone to walk away from the game with this.)

elvenranger14
2012-09-23, 08:39 PM
If you go down that route, make sure you warn the players that the world will be more responsive to the characters actions that it has in previous campaigns, both good and bad actions, and it's even for all characters. Don't single anyone out. If he does something that gets him sent to the noose, fine, but the same should go if the partys paladin decides to lop of the head of someone simply because they where evil. (Not saying that will happen, but if you do go with a more responsive world it's imperative that it's equal for all, it's very easy to accidentally cause someone to walk away from the game with this.)

Thank you so much! I would not have thought of that had you not brought it up.

Jay R
2012-09-25, 11:34 AM
He wants to do evil things. As long as there is no consequence to doing them, he will continue.

When you build a world with an actual civilization that punishes evil acts, he will claim that you are just trying to spoil his fun. There will be no point arguing with him, because it's true - you have changed the game to stop him from doing what he is there to do.

So you might as well admit it from the start: "Joe, your behavior is keeping others from having fun, and wouldn't work in a real world in any case. Starting now, evil acts from players will not be tolerated by the world at large. You can either play the new way or not play. It's up to you."

Hanuman
2012-09-25, 06:06 PM
Just because the world changes to make his life difficult it doesnt mean that it will ruin his fun, it just means he will have to show discretion and intelligence in his actions as a character would in Shadowrun4.0. Anything that would ruin the plot is going to get him into a lot of trouble, and make enemies with the parties npcs and players, and they may decide he isnt worth keeping around in-context.

nedz
2012-09-25, 07:03 PM
I think you are stuck until he gets bored with this.

You might try to engineer some peer pressure from the other players, but you would have to be covert in doing this.

I suspect, though I can't know, that if you force him to play something else he may very well walk ?

elvenranger14
2012-09-25, 08:06 PM
Thanks for all the help guys, i talked to him about it and he said he was already considering switching over to play a good guy. Even if he only does it once, I will be happy that he is at least giving it a chance.

Hopeless
2012-09-26, 04:44 AM
Just in case how about the next time he goes to upgrade his equipment have the crafter return it with an item they've apparently overlooked say a helm or ring something they have the opportunity to walk off with since if he is playing an evil character he won't hink twice about it BUT the item in question is cursed so once he's picked it up he can't get rid of it without a remove curse BUT the side effect of the curses removal also causes his alignment change nothing drastic just enough so he's no longer evil aligned and told if he reverts he runs the chance of haing the cursed item return.

The item incurs a -4 penalty but only in situations that have him doing something that needless endangers the party or that helps him only, the cursed item can only be removed if he atones for his past evil actions which is why if he reverts it returns.

Too much?

Sidmen
2012-09-26, 06:12 AM
Too much?
I'd say so, yes.

If you go to that extreme, you may as well have a god will itself into existence and punch the player (not character) in the face whenever he does something you don't like.

At least then there would be some fun discussions about it afterward.

NikitaDarkstar
2012-09-26, 06:31 AM
Just in case how about the next time he goes to upgrade his equipment have the crafter return it with an item they've apparently overlooked say a helm or ring something they have the opportunity to walk off with since if he is playing an evil character he won't hink twice about it BUT the item in question is cursed so once he's picked it up he can't get rid of it without a remove curse BUT the side effect of the curses removal also causes his alignment change nothing drastic just enough so he's no longer evil aligned and told if he reverts he runs the chance of haing the cursed item return.

The item incurs a -4 penalty but only in situations that have him doing something that needless endangers the party or that helps him only, the cursed item can only be removed if he atones for his past evil actions which is why if he reverts it returns.

Too much?

Far to much, yes. And pointless. Something like this could work if the CHARACTER was the problem and the player actually wanted to change but for whatever reason couldn't find an excuse to change their character. But it won't work then the PLAYER is the problem. The only thing it will do is upset the player and most likely make him (justly) complain about getting punished for his play style. (Heck even my suggestion is a bit out there, but it's more about having the world react in a way that's closer to reality... your suggestion is all about singling out one specific player.)

obryn
2012-09-26, 08:10 AM
In pretty much 100% of cases, an out-of-game solution is the best way to solve an in-game problem.

It's tempting to try and solve things in the context of the game, because there you (as the DM) have unlimited power ... whereas, in the real world, you are on equal footing. Resist this temptation; it only leads to feelings of ill-will and resentment at best. Resolving interpersonal issues between friends shouldn't have that sort of power dynamic.

-O

Katana_Geldar
2012-09-26, 06:49 PM
I'd say so, yes.

If you go to that extreme, you may as well have a god will itself into existence and punch the player (not character) in the face whenever he does something you don't like.

At least then there would be some fun discussions about it afterward.

I prefer Gary's lightning bolts, myself.

Slipperychicken
2012-09-27, 08:59 AM
Talk to him about it. And talk to other players about it.

"Hey, we know you enjoy it, but we think this 'Evil murder-hobo' shtick is getting kind of old, and clashes with the way we want to play. Would you like to try out playing a different kind of character?"


"If you do want to keep playing this way, beware that your character will probably get himself smited or arrested."

Roderick_BR
2012-09-27, 01:11 PM
1.You can simply stop the Evil. It's a bit of rocks falling railroading, but not only is it worth it, but if done right the player won't even know.

For example:Evil Cleric starts to talk and Guy kills him....ok, fine let that happen. But then have the evil cleric ghost hang around for say a minute and tell all.

You could also do the classic of having 'evil guy #2' who does the tell all after the Evil Cleric is dead. Or you could have the important plot information not in a kill-able form...make it a talking scroll, for example.

2.Distract the player. So while the group is talking to evil cleric plot voice...oh, look an angel falls from heaven as a waiting target for the guy. Or add in a locked chest full of 'evil' or such.

3.Crank up the Evil! My favorite. Drop the game into the Abyss. Show the player what real evil is....this can have a huge effect. In general, it's only fun for a player to play evil in a good world. For evil to be fun, you need an ordinary world to ''rebel' against. A 'good' world does not have lethal traps, or ambushes or such...but an evil world would. Just think of the Evil Guy going to Magic Mart, handing over 50,000 gold and then having the shopkeeper teleport away so the poor character looses all the gold and gets nothing. Or going to an evil cleric for a heal/cure, and when you let your guard down they further hurt/curse you....that they will fix for an additional charge. Or even just where the guards don't ''try and capture him aline for a fair trial'', but just shoot to kill.
I disagree with the 1st. You are allowing the player to mess up the game and get away with it. The 2nd is practical, but not useful in the long term.
Now, 3 is an interesting way to show stuff... but it can encourage the player to try harder.

Best thing is to call him aside, and ask him to not do that. "We are trying an hero/mercenary game, and you randomly trying to be evil and killing stuff is disrupting the game. Please stop, or I'll stop DMing, or just stop inviting you over". Ask your other friends to argument with him.
He'll get upset that you won't let him "roleplay". Get to a consensus. Promise an evil themed game later (that may actually be fun), or ask him to make a more controled character. Maybe a warrior that lusts for blood and glory in the battlefield. He'll fight anytime, but will avoid fighting children, old folks, pregnant women, wounded, inexperienced, and captured enemies, since "there's no glory in beating a fallen opponent", or just a plain mean guy that likes to cause pain, but will not brainless attack everything with HP (not while the other characters still need those NPCs, at least).

Palegreenpants
2012-09-27, 02:12 PM
I have a player who does this.

Every time we start a new campaign, he plays an evil eladrin wizard.
Nothing can dissuade him from playing one. At least he's a good role-player. :smallyuk:

BootStrapTommy
2012-09-27, 05:40 PM
Make perimeters for your next campaign.

Tell everyone that they have to play good characters, because it is a good campaign and then limit them somehow in their race choices. If you know your other players well, choose the races that you will allow in the campaign so that they will likely appease everyone else but the tiefling guy. Possibly limit them just to the normal races (elf,human,gnome,halfing,dwarf,the halfzies). Or, since tiefling has a level adjustment, just ban races that have a level adjustment for the campaign.

And then say no if he begs to be a tiefling.

You make, based on your rule giving power as DM, the party play a completely good campaign within perimeters. If you do it this way, he won't feel like you singled him out, because everyone else has the same limitations.

Deepbluediver
2012-09-28, 11:02 AM
When I read anything along the lines of "I want to play an evil character" or "my players all play evil characters" what it really seems like they are saying is "I want to be allowed to do whatever I want with no consequences". Which isn't really evil, so much as it is just selfish.

The real question is: why haven't you been instituting the appropriate reactions for your player's style of roleplaying? This is one side of the DM spectrum (the other one being "Rocks fall...") in that the DM seems paralyzed by the assumption that what the players are doing is always "right". If this one player continuously acts against the moral code of the remainder of the party, why do they continue to adventure with them? If the entire party is evil (or follows around and supports an evil figure) why is every paladin, law-man, and bounty-hunter on the continent not gunning for their necks?

Also, it doesn't have to be just "good guys" that are targeting the player(s). Maybe in the course of his kill-happy murder spree he off'ed some NPC another BBEG need for HIS world-domination schemes, and he's not happy about it. Or maybe the loot he nabbed contains cursed or magical artifacts that other creatures also want to get their hands on. There are lots of things you can do to show the player what his roleplay is going to bring down on him, without banning or forcing him to play something else.

I don't really have an issue with player playing as an "evil" or destructive character, but I won't be playing a "good" character alongside them for very long. And if I'm playing a [email protected]$$hole to their evil-bastard, then my response isn't "oh noes! he died and we need to spend the money to raise him!" it's "loot his corpse, sell the body to local butcher for whatever we can get".

Doug Lampert
2012-09-28, 11:31 AM
I guess the biggest thing isn't that he always plays a tiefling, that is me just being arrogant... sorry. the biggest problem is him always wanting to be evil. And always wanting to kill everything. An example would be when we were interrogating an evil cleric, he was starting to tell us all he knew. Just as he started telling us what we needed to know, he killed him.

I guess the biggest thing is that his characters are always the same personality.

What did the other players do? If I'm an adventurer and someone pointlessly kills someone I'm talking to I KILL THEM and take their stuff. I'm an adventurer, killing evil things and taking their stuff is what I do.

And this isn't just a random evil thing, it's an evil thing that has just gone out of its way to inconvience me to be pointlessly evil. I often play evil as do my players, none of us would put up with that crap. If you're that erratic a mass-murderer then you're not to be trusted.

And good adventurers really WANT to kill evil things (and take their stuff), why would they adventure with one? Roy puts up with Belkar precisely because Belkar doesn't pull this crap when with Roy, and because Belkar is doomed anyway.

But I'll bet the other players all put up with it because "he's a PC". That's bad roleplaying, it really is. Yes, you should make a character who can fit in a group and yes you should try to accomodate other players, but my character doesn't see any glowing rune of PCness on your forehead, he sees someone he's joined into a group with for mutual advantage who's too pointlessly evil and destructive to be a worthwile companion.

If the other players are all willing to put up with this, then go with it. Maybe they get run out of town occasionally, but PCs are typically pretty strong, maybe they destroy and loot the town instead.

Maybe the odd GOOD adventuring party comes after them, and if so it need not be a level appropriate encounter, it says right in the DMG that 5% or so of encounters should be overwhelming things you can't fight, sucks that they've given that 5% a reason to think your players' characters are dangerous maniacs they should kill on sight rather than weaker people they can work with.

But it's a game, if they're all fine with being evil scum and one guy prefers it then you should probably make a world where evil scum can adventure.

Just remember, a world where there are no consequences to being blatantly evil scum is one where most people they meet are unlikely to see anything wrong with poisoning their beer and taking their stuff. If this were seen as really wrong, then the rest of the population would impose some consequences to being blatantly evil.

If the other players are NOT fine with being evil scum then why do the other players put up with it? The solution then is to tell everyone that their characters can react appropriately to another player character's evil actions and that they're EXPECTED to be every bit as suspicious of a new join up as they would be of the damsel in distress they've just rescued who's doing everything short of yelling "I'm a succubus in disguise".

DougL

mistformsquirrl
2012-09-28, 05:21 PM
I personally just outlaw evil PCs in most games I DM for reasons exactly like this.

I guess it basically boils down to this:

For a lot of the people I've gamed with (not all, but a large percentage) - playing Evil seems to be viewed as a license to be Chaotic Stupid. There's usually no nuance, no motivation, no... anything, just "Is there something there that's alive? Stab it until it stops being alive!"

There's also a tendency among some of the folks I've gamed with to IMMEDIATELY jump to Book of Vile Darkness territory; regardless of how anyone else at the table feels about it. (Frankly it's made me worry about a couple of the folks I've gamed with... that was some nasty stuff.)

So yeah, my solution is just to disallow evil. It also helps keep inter-party conflict down. True, you do lose some potentially interesting roleplaying moments - but those are few and far between, and the disruptions caused by someone thinking an Evil alignment is a license to be a jackass just never proved worth it.

Not perhaps the most elegant of solutions, but it does work <. .>

beforemath
2012-09-28, 07:03 PM
I had a player who generally liked playing evil characters and throwing the party out of whack. Ironically, when the entire party was full of evil characters, he tended to be one of the more well-behaved of the group, more sinister than violent. Of course, he was more than capable of playing the flamboyantly good character, but he seemed to have more fun as an evil character.

I eventually realized that having an evil character in a group of good characters just doesn't work. The players, more or less, have to agree on whether to play the heroes or the villains.


If you're going to run an evil group, remember that you're not there to stop them from being evil (at least not any more than you're trying to stop a good group from being heroes). You're not trying to compensate by making everyone else even *more* evil. You're not even trying to keep them in line long enough to get the plot done -- the plot reacts to what they have done.

Say, if your party keeps murdering hobos, eventually the police get involved. If they kill the police, *more* police get involved until they finally have to have a confrontation with the entire force. If they kill off the police, then the gangs will start to take control and want the players to pay them tribute. If they decide that they'll take on the gangs (and if they win), then they're the sole form of political power in the town (maybe even taking over what's left of the old gangs), until a "new sheriff" shows up, etc. My players eventually got the concept that they could cause real and lasting harm to the world and ran with it.


The one real downside is that you tend to have a lot more humanoid antagonists for an evil group than you do for a good group, and it gets a little difficult to set them apart.

Deepbluediver
2012-09-28, 11:09 PM
I personally just outlaw evil PCs in most games I DM for reasons exactly like this.

I guess it basically boils down to this:

For a lot of the people I've gamed with (not all, but a large percentage) - playing Evil seems to be viewed as a license to be Chaotic Stupid. There's usually no nuance, no motivation, no... anything, just "Is there something there that's alive? Stab it until it stops being alive!"
*snip*
Not perhaps the most elegant of solutions, but it does work <. .>

Here's my problem with that: you can ban some one from writing "evil" on their character sheet, but banning any particular action is much harder, and you start having to nit-pick just what counts as "evil", and it either turns into a whine-fest or an arms race as the player continuosly tries to circumvent your increasingly specific rules.
I've seen it happen.

Either let the players play the way they want, and have the rest of the game-world react appropriately: the heroic-heros get treasure, parades in their honor, and winsome lasses (or rugged lads, I guess) fawning over them. The villanous-"heros" get their faces stuck on wanted posters.
Or design a specific scenario and ask the player the roleplay within certain boundaries.

For example, rather than letting everyone make whatever they want, design a few templates and let people pick something within those boundaries. The game is supposed to be fun for everyone involved (even if it's a little more work for the DM). If a player is giving you grief, you are perfectly free to say "please try to work with the scenario I have set up for this one game, otherwise you are free to sit out for a few sessions".

Kelb_Panthera
2012-09-28, 11:24 PM
This is very plainly an OOC issue. You need to confront him and have a discussion about why this is a problem. Any passive-aggressive in-game solution is only going to breed bad blood between you. Don't even bring up his alignment or racial preference, they're immaterial. The root of the problem is the disruptive "kill 'em all and let the gods sort 'em out" attitude and its associate actions. It'd be just as big a problem if he was playing a smite-on-sight aasimar paladin.

Tell him flat, "This has become a problem. I'm going to ask that you play your character as a more intelligent, less murder-hobo character, not only because it's disruptive to the game for everyone, but also because it is going to be necessary as I'm going to start having NPC's react more realistically to everyone's actions. If this is a problem for you, say so now so we can discuss why that is and what we can do about it," or something to that effect anyway.

Riverdance
2012-09-28, 11:29 PM
I have a player who does this.

Every time we start a new campaign, he plays an evil eladrin wizard.
Nothing can dissuade him from playing one. At least he's a good role-player. :smallyuk:

Evil Eladrin? Not impossible but really weird.

mistformsquirrl
2012-09-29, 03:48 AM
Here's my problem with that: you can ban some one from writing "evil" on their character sheet, but banning any particular action is much harder, and you start having to nit-pick just what counts as "evil", and it either turns into a whine-fest or an arms race as the player continuosly tries to circumvent your increasingly specific rules.
I've seen it happen.

Usually this doesn't seem to happen in the groups I run. I'm aware of the potential; but I try not to play 'alignment police' and tell people they can't do things because of their alignment. Rather, I encourage them to actually think about their alignment and work with it - usually that ends up with people behaving reasonably so long as they don't take an Evil alignment (again, the whole 'license to idiocy' thing).


Either let the players play the way they want, and have the rest of the game-world react appropriately: the heroic-heros get treasure, parades in their honor, and winsome lasses (or rugged lads, I guess) fawning over them. The villanous-"heros" get their faces stuck on wanted posters.
Or design a specific scenario and ask the player the roleplay within certain boundaries.

That's kinda how it works actually. Like I said, the chief reason for banning the evil alignments is that it makes people think they have a license to be idiots. Siccing the cops on them just doesn't work - it takes a lot of time, takes away from the non-evil characters, and the evil PCs tend to whine if they get killed or captured.

I'm not saying it's a universal solution, but for problematic game tables it can work.




For example, rather than letting everyone make whatever they want, design a few templates and let people pick something within those boundaries. The game is supposed to be fun for everyone involved (even if it's a little more work for the DM). If a player is giving you grief, you are perfectly free to say "please try to work with the scenario I have set up for this one game, otherwise you are free to sit out for a few sessions".

I try not to do that because I really do like players to have as much freedom as I can give as a DM - the evil alignments thing really just comes down to too many sessions with people trying to rape, pillage and burn everything in sight. And I'm not kidding about any of that either - I dunno about anyone else but I'm uncomfortable as a DM when my players are trying to commit sexual assault; since that only ever comes up when they play Evil characters... you can see my perspective yes?

So I try to keep things as open as possible except the deep end of the alignment pool; and they tend to do just fine with it, and even create memorable and fun characters since they don't have the crutch of "I'm evil! *choppitystabstabsmash*" to fall back on.

Like I said, won't work at every game table, but it does often work at mine. (I suppose it really depends on the players you've got tbh)

Doxkid
2012-09-29, 06:10 AM
Have logical consequences that you (partially) warned him about. Have those consequences zero in on him, or whoever messed up.
---
Break an important artifact? Your Con is reduced by 3 from the backlash.

Slaughter an important cleric? The servants of that cleric's god come after him and him alone, out for blood.

Try to mess with an important wizard? He's a freaking wizard; roll a new character.
---
Or you could ask him to not be an jerk IRL