Would this be overly mean/petty?

[Silus]

Ok, so the players in my group were tasked with retrieving this self-aware construct (Think Legion from Mass Effect in a sense) for an engineering guild. The construct asked to be let go when captured, saying that they (the guild) wanted it to be something it wasn't (a mechanical replacement for the boss' dead daughter). They returned it anyway.

Would it be too dickish to have the PCs try to extract the golem from the facility and find it torn in two, oil oozing from its eyes and moth, whimpering things like "...pleas stop, I promise I'll be good...I promise I'll behave..." In a defeated, broken tone? I kinda want to hammer home that their greed and actions can have unforseen consiquences without really taking it out on the players themselves.

Also, the players seem to be taking a "kill and steal from everyone" mentality. Would ot be inappropriate to have a future patron to hit'em with a Geas to keep them from murdering innocent people?

Seriously, the cleric kidnapped, experemented on then killed and dissected A KID because he was heckling him. I see a manhunt coming his way in the near future.

[TheCrowing1432]

......this is the point where you start sending paladins after them.

Im assuming they're all evil aligned.

[Kelvin360]

My two cents - That first one isn't mean so much as 'legitimate consequences' in that context. Though I should note that if your players are all playing sociopaths, it might not work like you intend. In such a case, it's equally likely they might view it as free spare parts they can sell in the market.

Personally, I find Geases just a little trite. Normally, if you've reached a point where you need something that powerful to control PC's, it's either too late or you need something more out of the ordinary. Not to mention that Geas is like Wish in that you need to phrase it very carefully or they can find absurdly simple ways to either remove it or ignore it entirely.

If they're not so crazy as to be beyond all hope, my suggestions would be to either turn the tables or make selfishness start actively hurting them.


Option 1 (Turn The Tables): If they keep it up, their next patron happens to be a very crafty rogue who will gladly backstab them both literally and metaphorically in every way possible if they don't do what he wants and how. If you leave them just their clothes and bad experiences, this can have the same effect as the Geas, but you don't need to word anything. This can also include such fun tricks as the farmer being a retired adventurer, the merchant's league being composed of wizards and rogues, and so on.

Advantages: Part of being an adventurer is threat assessment. You don't randomly kill and rob people who can kill you with a thought. It might not solve problems with wayward commoners, but it'll certainly make them think twice about betraying any of their employers or plot-central NPCs.

Disadvantages: Heavy 'buyer beware' here. If you don't hit the right balance between 'scary threat' and 'ridiculously overboard', every last one of them is going to get pretty mad. At the least, you might get accused of railroading. And there's a limit to what you can actually take from them before you actually become mean (for example, NEVER NEVER NEVER take away their hard-earned gear or XP, they will kill you in your sleep).


Option 2 (Backstab Themselves): Hey, know what happens when you lie and cheat and steal in real life, aside from prison? Everyone knows that you lie, cheat, and steal. Merchants will stop trading with you. Plot hooks formerly provided by townsfolk will start drying up. Even if they have no fear of legitimate authority (guards have stats, and are therefore killable), being stuck at a dead end with no place to sell off their haul or buy cool new stuff will be terrifying.

Advantages: This actually presents more roleplaying opportunities than it removes, since now they have to really work at making themselves actual heroes, or at least getting into contact with less scrupulous employers (who are probably as hard to kill as they are to find, see #1). Once they realize that asshattery doesn't pay off for the purposes of legitimate adventuring, they have a lot more incentive to be nicer. However...

Disadvantages: If they're overly spiteful, they might straight-up leave. I'm of the personal opinion that anyone so dedicated to acting like bloodthirsty idiots that they leave if it has consequences isn't worth it in the first place, but the risk assessment is up to you. Also, again, accusations of railroading may well ensue. Make it very clear that they have to do something to get a good rep. Drop anvils instead of hints if they don't get it right away.


Keep in mind that both of those (moreso #2) only really apply to a neutral or good party. If you're running an evil campaign, well, 'kill and steal from everyone' is pretty appropriate, though the horde of paladins that start chasing around marauders that get too famous might not see it that way.

Anyway! That's just my duo of suggestions. As always, as a DM, you can take all of them as ideas, some of them, or none at all!

Semi-EDIT - Woaaaah. I wrote the above under the assumption this was a good or neutral campaign. There might still be some ideas in the text (thus why I didn't erase it), but bear constantly in mind that you are now officially running an evil campaign. Tugging at their heartstrings simply is not going to cut it.

This is tricky because your only real options are going to involve some form of threat. A geas might work, but like I said, they'll probably figure a way out of it unless you're really clever. However, your options are somewhat expanded in that NPCs as callous, cruel, crafty, and cumbersome are not only acceptable, but practically expected. Heck, your players might just be waiting for an interesting good-aligned NPC antagonist to take the stage, or the need to wage a war against a fellow evil organization out for the blood of these random stooges cutting into their profits.

Also, don't be afraid to toss in really tough encounters of bounty hunters. But remember to add in a clause of 'lots more gold if they're alive' to their contracts, since a TPK isn't necessarily fun for anybody, but figuring out a way to escape from the king's super-cells just might be. Take into account your player's playing styles and what they like. 9 times out of 10, players off the rails are just bored. Give them challenges that play to what they love, and they're putty.

[Silus]

......this is the point where you start sending paladins after them.

Im assuming they're all evil aligned.

Well two are Lawful Evil and the third is Neutral Good.

And I was thinking (at level three) about ten lvl 3 Magus police officers with Merciful spells and weapons for non-lethal damage.

[Kelvin360]

Ten of them might be overkill. I didn't touch upon scaling in my last post, but remember the best way to avoid accusations is to avoid making it obvious you want a no-win scenario. At level 3, a Geas is almost certainly out of the question, as a caster capable of that could kill the entire party with one spell anyway.

Also, if it helps justify much fewer than hordes upon hordes of people out for their blood, remember that level 3 adventurers are experienced, somewhat, but still virtually nobody. I doubt a kingdom or settlement would bring out the big guns until quite a few of their squads disappear. Like I said, scaling.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Would it be too dickish to have the PCs try to extract the golem from the facility and find it torn in two, oil oozing from its eyes and moth, whimpering things like "...pleas stop, I promise I'll be good...I promise I'll behave..." In a defeated, broken tone? I kinda want to hammer home that their greed and actions can have unforseen consiquences without really taking it out on the players themselves.

I'd expect no less, honestly. What would they expect to find if they had sold a human into slavery, then met up with them again later?


Also, the players seem to be taking a "kill and steal from everyone" mentality. Would ot be inappropriate to have a future patron to hit'em with a Geas to keep them from murdering innocent people?

Depends. One they can't refuse? Yes, definitely too heavy-handed and inappropriate. The patron refusing to hire them unless they voluntarily accept the Geas? Okay. I wouldn't do it as a player (WAY too many ways I could be screwed over by this) but if they'll do it, sure.


Seriously, the cleric kidnapped, experemented on then killed and dissected A KID because he was heckling him. I see a manhunt coming his way in the near future.

Err, I could be wrong, but it sounds to me like you're upset with the player, not the character. This might be the time for an out-of-character talk, not in-game retribution.


EDIT: That said, if this *isn't* an out of character problem, might I suggest making up a unique antagonist looking after revenge on the PCs instead of a magus death squad? Perhaps a relative of the kid who was killed?

[Silus]

Ten of them might be overkill. I didn't touch upon scaling in my last post, but remember the best way to avoid accusations is to avoid making it obvious you want a no-win scenario. At level 3, a Geas is almost certainly out of the question, as a caster capable of that could kill the entire party with one spell anyway.

Also, if it helps justify much fewer than hordes upon hordes of people out for their blood, remember that level 3 adventurers are experienced, somewhat, but still virtually nobody. I doubt a kingdom or settlement would bring out the big guns until quite a few of their squads disappear. Like I said, scaling.

Well Magus take the social role of Paladin in the world I'm running. Maybe level 2s or like three lvl 3s. Technically he murdered two people--the kid and a guy helping the golem escape. Stabbed the guy several times while he was tied up, put him in a sack and dumped the body in the river. After learning there is no slave trade in the city they are in.


Err, I could be wrong, but it sounds to me like you're upset with the player, not the character. This might be the time for an out-of-character talk, not in-game retribution.

Oh no no. The player is cool and the way he plays his character is superb. I just get the feeling that he and the other LE player have it in their heads that their characters can pull evil acts left and right without consequences.

Edit: and the Magus "death squad" would be doing all non-lethal damage to bring them in for questioning. Zone of Truth woot woot!

[BWR]

In-game actions should have in-game consequences. If someone knows that this cleric kidnapped, tortured and killed a kid, everybody should be up in arms and the local law-enforcement should be hounding him.
If the cleric was careful not to be seen, then he shouldn't be hunted for it.

In regards to the OP, yes, that description would be entirely appropriate IF that is the sort of game you want to run. When I was fairly new to RPGs, we had one game where we were technically neutral (or good) with one exception, yet for laughs we did gruesome stuff. Annihilated entire villages of people in ways that the board rules probably forbid me to elaborate on.
We just thought it was fun and the DM did too.
If this is not the type of game you want to run, then don't. If you're players are under the impression that you are running this kind of game, perhaps you should warn then OOC that their actions will have consequences.

Harmony and conservation of fun are paramount around a gaming table and players can feel put-upon for being punished for doing something they didn't know wasn't approved of by the DM. In cases like this, perhaps you should have a brief talk with them where you tell them what will happen if they continue but are willing to let previous infractions slide in interests of keeping things fun.

[Silus]

In-game actions should have in-game consequences. If someone knows that this cleric kidnapped, tortured and killed a kid, everybody should be up in arms and the local law-enforcement should be hounding him.
If the cleric was careful not to be seen, then he shouldn't be hunted for it.

In regards to the OP, yes, that description would be entirely appropriate IF that is the sort of game you want to run. When I was fairly new to RPGs, we had one game where we were technically neutral (or good) with one exception, yet for laughs we did gruesome stuff. Annihilated entire villages of people in ways that the board rules probably forbid me to elaborate on.
We just thought it was fun and the DM did too.
If this is not the type of game you want to run, then don't. If you're players are under the impression that you are running this kind of game, perhaps you should warn then OOC that their actions will have consequences.

Harmony and conservation of fun are paramount around a gaming table and players can feel put-upon for being punished for doing something they didn't know wasn't approved of by the DM. In cases like this, perhaps you should have a brief talk with them where you tell them what will happen if they continue but are willing to let previous infractions slide in interests of keeping things fun.

Well the kid thing I'm gonna run with, as the Cleric had to talk his way past the kid's dad to steal said kid from his bed under the guise of the kid being sick.

So angry mob/police will be inbound in the next session.

And I'll try to remember that if they insist on playing evil characters, that there will be consequences to their actions, be they secret or otherwise.

[Souju]

Keep a close eye on their skills, feats, and favorite spells.
Build a team of Magi or find some monster specifically designed to counter their favorite spells, give em teamwork feats that play to the party's weaknesses, and just generally build these guys to not necessarily be a death squad, but to be their *nemeses*
If they're going to want to kill everything willy-nilly, give em something that will scare the pants off of them :)
Like having the kid come back as some kind of undead. An attack by Attic Whisperers in the night would be fairly interesting (they're CR4, so they'd be a big enough challenge to a lvl 3 party without being completely overpowered, with the added bonus of having a hilarious ability that can be rather...disconcerting...to the rest of the party.

[Silus]

Keep a close eye on their skills, feats, and favorite spells.
Build a team of Magi or find some monster specifically designed to counter their favorite spells, give em teamwork feats that play to the party's weaknesses, and just generally build these guys to not necessarily be a death squad, but to be their *nemeses*
If they're going to want to kill everything willy-nilly, give em something that will scare the pants off of them :)
Like having the kid come back as some kind of undead. An attack by Attic Whisperers in the night would be fairly interesting (they're CR4, so they'd be a big enough challenge to a lvl 3 party without being completely overpowered, with the added bonus of having a hilarious ability that can be rather...disconcerting...to the rest of the party.

Ooh hoo hoo, that bugger's nasty =D

And I'm thinking a pair of Magi and a Gunslinger with a shotgun (With Merciful ammo) of either equal level or, if there's more than the three players, a level above.

[Souju]

make the gunslinger's bullets non-magical. It's fairly easy to crib non-lethal ammo, since it's something that actually exists (rubber bullets, ice bullets, etc.) One of the downsides to giving the magi so many magical weapons is, if you miscalculate and the players kill them, you just gave them a bunch of magical weapons they can try to hock.
Worse still, merciful weapons make GREAT torture implements O_O

[Silus]

make the gunslinger's bullets non-magical. It's fairly easy to crib non-lethal ammo, since it's something that actually exists (rubber bullets, ice bullets, etc.) One of the downsides to giving the magi so many magical weapons is, if you miscalculate and the players kill them, you just gave them a bunch of magical weapons they can try to hock.
Worse still, merciful weapons make GREAT torture implements O_O

Ugh, so true :smalleek:

As bad as it sounds, I kinda just want the players to behave themselves. But I don't want to directly ask them to do it because it would feel wrong on my part.

[Souju]

there IS a way to make their lives miserable without giving the magi magical weapons...it just takes 3 feats and a 5 GP weapon
Whip Proficiency, Weapon Focus (Whip), and Whip Mastery. You may need to fudge the rules or give them a level in fighter, though.
Whips do non-lethal damage without a penalty, and have crazy reach. You can literally trip up the party with a team full of these guys. make 3 of them, have them move in formation, and have them use their actions for trip maneuvers. When the party members stand up, they provoke. When they move in to attack, they provoke.
And if they DO kill the magi? Nope, no special magical items...just a 5 GP whip.

[Silus]

there IS a way to make their lives miserable without giving the magi magical weapons...it just takes 3 feats and a 5 GP weapon
Whip Proficiency, Weapon Focus (Whip), and Whip Mastery. You may need to fudge the rules or give them a level in fighter, though.
Whips do non-lethal damage without a penalty, and have crazy reach. You can literally trip up the party with a team full of these guys. make 3 of them, have them move in formation, and have them use their actions for trip maneuvers. When the party members stand up, they provoke. When they move in to attack, they provoke.
And if they DO kill the magi? Nope, no special magical items...just a 5 GP whip.

The magus in the party is actually a whip magus =P

And wouldn't lvl3 Human Whip Magus have the feats needed?

[Cheiromancer]

I think you need to talk with your players OOC, not try to deal with the situation in game. There is plenty of discussion around that deals with evil players and evil campaigns. This thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15416755#post15416755) for instance. It sounds like you want the players to dial back on the 'sick evil', but that is better done by talking, not by punishing them in game. My contribution to the thread refers to a book called 'way of the wicked' which includes the following tip:


The solution is to allow the action but to keep the descriptions and details in the realm of a PG-13 movie. A great example of PG-13 villainy comes from the most famous space opera of all time. The black clad villain about to interrogate the princess strides into her cell.

“And now, your highness,” he announces, “we will discuss the location of your hidden rebel base…” The movie then cuts away with a close up of a fearsome floating torture implement sporting a cruel hypodermic needle. The cut is the important lesson. Who knows what the villain did to the princess? Was she threatened, beaten, drugged or worse? Doubtless. But the movie doesn’t dwell on the specifics and neither should your game. Instead, roll an intimidation skill check and perhaps a will save. Then cut back to the villain emerging from the cell.

So if your player wants his character to do something awful, don't let him describe it. Keep it PG-13.

[Slipperychicken]

Seriously, the cleric kidnapped, experemented on then killed and dissected A KID because he was heckling him.

How did he not fall from that?

[Silus]

How did he not fall from that?

The guy's Lawful Evil and, essentially, a necromancer doctor.

[Slipperychicken]

The guy's Lawful Evil and, essentially, a necromancer doctor.

I'm not sure what you expected, then.

[Silus]

I'm not sure what you expected, then.

Less of a petty reaction to a kid pointing out that Herr Doctor's assistant is a zombie would have been nice.

[The Fury]

How did he not fall from that?

Presumably he was evil and his god was OK with that kind of thing.

The Magus/Gunslinger team out to deliver a non-lethal smackdown is a pretty good idea. That said, are adventuring parties fairly common/easy to hire in this setting? If they are, then there's at least one grieving parent thanks to the player party. Though maybe that could be a challenge for later in the game.

edit: Darn! I got ninja'd hard!

[Silus]

Presumably he was evil and his god was OK with that kind of thing.

The Magus/Gunslinger team out to deliver a non-lethal smackdown is a pretty good idea. That said, are adventuring parties fairly common/easy to hire in this setting? If they are, then there's at least one grieving parent thanks to the player party. Though maybe that could be a challenge for later in the game.

edit: Darn! I got ninja'd hard!

Alternatively, the PCs wake up with a very, very large mob descending on their position with them yelling "Give us the doctor!". Torches, pitchforks, maybe a proper sword or two, and a length of rope tied into a noose.

Have the mob do grappling as a swarm does damage. Basically stay ahead of the mob or else they'll grapple you, drag you to some close location, and lynch you in a form of mob justice.

[Water_Bear]

I'm not sure what your goal is here, and that seems like the most important question when deciding how to proceed. You've mentioned you want Evil acts to "have consequences" and are looking for ways to bring the PCs to heel, but at the same time you've praised at least one player for being so good at roleplaying an Evil character and you don't seem to have problems running an Evil group.

If you want to present a living world where actions have consequences, then the solution is to always ask yourself "Cui Bono" (who benefits) and "Cui Plagalis" (who is penalized) when the PCs do something. For example, killing a child benefits the local rulers because they have a cause to rally people behind them with, and it penalizes the common people who will now fear for their own children. This act's natural consequence is for the PCs to face a disproportionately large manhunt.

If you want to make a sort of karmic punishment/reward structure, where Good acts pay off for those who do them and Evil acts never really pay off, then you need to reconsider what Evil means. In my opinion, Evil in D&D comes from either amoral pragmatism or strong emotion/poor impulse control, so if Evil never prospers you've lost half of your villains; it's not very pragmatic to do something which will ultimately cost you more than what you gain. This applies to the PCs as well; if they see Evil constantly backfires, that's a strong incentive to start playing Good or Neutral characters. That might be good or bad depending on how much you like character consistency.

As for the Construct, I'm not so sure about the idea you're suggesting. Putting what is effectively child abuse into the game doesn't have much of a payoff compared to a less emotionally risky option like having it suddenly being a creepy Stepford Kid or just having the employer saying off-hand that it "was defective and needs to be replaced." Same result with a lot less potential for weirdness.

[Silus]

I'm not sure what your goal is here, and that seems like the most important question when deciding how to proceed. You've mentioned you want Evil acts to "have consequences" and are looking for ways to bring the PCs to heel, but at the same time you've praised at least one player for being so good at roleplaying an Evil character and you don't seem to have problems running an Evil group.

If you want to present a living world where actions have consequences, then the solution is to always ask yourself "Cui Bono" (who benefits) and "Cui Plagalis" (who is penalized) when the PCs do something. For example, killing a child benefits the local rulers because they have a cause to rally people behind them with, and it penalizes the common people who will now fear for their own children. This act's natural consequence is for the PCs to face a disproportionately large manhunt.

If you want to make a sort of karmic punishment/reward structure, where Good acts pay off for those who do them and Evil acts never really pay off, then you need to reconsider what Evil means. In my opinion, Evil in D&D comes from either amoral pragmatism or strong emotion/poor impulse control, so if Evil never prospers you've lost half of your villains; it's not very pragmatic to do something which will ultimately cost you more than what you gain. This applies to the PCs as well; if they see Evil constantly backfires, that's a strong incentive to start playing Good or Neutral characters. That might be good or bad depending on how much you like character consistency.

As for the Construct, I'm not so sure about the idea you're suggesting. Putting what is effectively child abuse into the game doesn't have much of a payoff compared to a less emotionally risky option like having it suddenly being a creepy Stepford Kid or just having the employer saying off-hand that it "was defective and needs to be replaced." Same result with a lot less potential for weirdness.

My initial goal at this point is how to manage evil characters without outright asking the players to change their characters to some non-evil alignment. Essentially, how can I deal with the characters in such a way as to 1) keep the story going in a moderately "good" direction (saving the world) 2) keeps them from killing an excessively large number of NPCs that for the most part don't deserve it (innocents), and 3) how to do it without having to invoke Rule 0 or railroading tactics like Geas or the like.

I'd really just like the evil players to calm their tits and stop trying to swindle and/or murder everything if they figure they can make a quick buck. Seriously, it's like taking the "kill them and take their stuff" to new levels. And I can't think of how to deal with it IC (as at least to me it seems like a character issue as opposed to a OOC issue) without resorting to the above heavy handed Rule 0 level tactics.

*Flails arms in an exasperated "I don't know what to do" way*

As for the Construct, I was going for more of "beaten slave" instead of "child abuse".

[Water_Bear]

My initial goal at this point is how to manage evil characters without outright asking the players to change their characters to some non-evil alignment. Essentially, how can I deal with the characters in such a way as to 1) keep the story going in a moderately "good" direction (saving the world) 2) keeps them from killing an excessively large number of NPCs that for the most part don't deserve it (innocents), and 3) how to do it without having to invoke Rule 0 or railroading tactics like Geas or the like.

Well then it seems like you don't really want an Evil party. If their goals are Good and their actions aren't particularly Evil, they really don't qualify for Evil alignments at all. Evil doesn't have to be disruptive but it does have to be there.

As for the railroading, there isn't much you can do. Your goal is to constrain what the PCs can do against what their Players want; that's kind of automatically a railroad situation. Other than talking it out OOC, any action you take towards that end will necessarily be railroady.


I'd really just like the evil players to calm their tits and stop trying to swindle and/or murder everything if they figure they can make a quick buck. Seriously, it's like taking the "kill them and take their stuff" to new levels. And I can't think of how to deal with it IC (as at least to me it seems like a character issue as opposed to a OOC issue) without resorting to the above heavy handed Rule 0 level tactics.

What do the Players enjoy in the game and what do their Characters want? If you know that you should be able to keep them engaged by giving them hooks which tie into those goals and desires, which ought to cut down on the random murders. Although you may be disappointed if it turns out swindling and murdering everyone is what they're there for.


As for the Construct, I was going for more of "beaten slave" instead of "child abuse".

I may have misinterpreted, but it's being used as a stand-in for a child right? That and the childlike "I'll behave..." is what made me think that.

[Silus]

Well then it seems like you don't really want an Evil party. If their goals are Good and their actions aren't particularly Evil, they really don't qualify for Evil alignments at all. Evil doesn't have to be disruptive but it does have to be there.

As for the railroading, there isn't much you can do. Your goal is to constrain what the PCs can do against what their Players want; that's kind of automatically a railroad situation. Other than talking it out OOC, any action you take towards that end will necessarily be railroady.



What do the Players enjoy in the game and what do their Characters want? If you know that you should be able to keep them engaged by giving them hooks which tie into those goals and desires, which ought to cut down on the random murders. Although you may be disappointed if it turns out swindling and murdering everyone is what they're there for.



I may have misinterpreted, but it's being used as a stand-in for a child right? That and the childlike "I'll behave..." is what made me think that.

*Annoyed sigh* Suppose I ought to have a talk with some of the players :smallfrown: Though I swear I'm deducting gold if they ask about Goblins or Kobolds again.

I'm pretty sure my aversion to the murdering and swindling is less that I'm uncomfortable with evil PCs, but more of a "I worked hard on coming up with this world and this plot and all ya'll wanna do is see it burn for a profit". Regardless of what happens I think I ought to learn to take a step back and come to terms with the fact that stuff will get ruined.

And the construct was a sort of stand in child, but...more of someone in their late teens if anything? The idea is that the dismantling is less outright malicious and more of a callous disregard for the apparent pain of the golem. "Yes, we KNOW you're in pain from all of this, but we want to know HOW you're feeling it and WHY. Oh stop crying, this is for science."

[Souju]

The magus in the party is actually a whip magus =P

And wouldn't lvl3 Human Whip Magus have the feats needed?

No, because the base requirement for Exotic Weapon Proficiency and Weapon focus is +1 BAB, and Magi don't get +1 BAB until level 2. A fighter DOES get +1 BAB at level 1, so a human fighter could take all 3 feats at level 1, while a magi can't.
I'm actually a little intrigued to know how your "whip magus" managed to be proficient in his weapon until level 3, unless he picked a race that has weapon familiarity with the whip.

[Silus]

No, because the base requirement for Exotic Weapon Proficiency and Weapon focus is +1 BAB, and Magi don't get +1 BAB until level 2. A fighter DOES get +1 BAB at level 1, so a human fighter could take all 3 feats at level 1, while a magi can't.
I'm actually a little intrigued to know how your "whip magus" managed to be proficient in his weapon until level 3, unless he picked a race that has weapon familiarity with the whip.

I think he took the Heirloom Weapon trait for the proficiency.

[Souju]

Heirloom Weapon is only for Simple and Martial weapons:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/equipment-traits/heirloom-weapon
Unless you houseruled it to include whips (which, I'll be perfectly honest, they should be martial weapons anyway. It takes less training to learn how to use a whip in RL than it does a longbow, which is a martial weapon)

[Logic]

Something you might want to consider:

The heckling kid probably had wealthy relatives. I say this because if he was a poor kid, he would be more likely to get out of the way of an armed and armored man. A kid from the upper class is used to having his "daddy" solve his problems for him.

So I give you a potential scenario:

Heckling kid's father notices his child has gone missing. Pays a spellcaster to find out what happened to him. With spells like Scry, locate object and speak with dead, this could be a modest fee to someone of the upper class (or a worthwhile fortune to a middle class merchant.)

So now that daddy knows what happened to his kid and who is responsible, he hires the paladins, or Maguses (is the plural of Magus Magi?)

[Souju]

(is the plural of Magus Magi?)

yes, the plural of magus is magi

[Mr Beer]

If they're conducting random child murder for kicks, it's just unwarranted sadism and more to the point, stupid. I would have it haunt them for years.

So yeah, a big mob chasing them out of town but I'd also have them recognised and widely despised in the entire country once word has had time to spread.

Stuff they have to buy is unavailable or more expensive because people don't like dealing with kid killers. They have to buy from shifty, unreliable merchants because the good guys won't even talk to them.

Law enforcement will sometimes recognise and try to arrest them, wherever they happen to be at the time. Killing the town guards will make everything much worse by the way.

They will have paladins chasing after them as mentioned above. If the local ruler takes on the case and decides to make an example of them, perhaps they get tracked by professional assassins. These killers never have any decent treasure by the way. Good stats and skills, no coins or magic swords.

[LokiRagnarok]

If they're conducting random child murder for kicks, it's just unwarranted sadism and more to the point, stupid. I would have it haunt them for years.

If you go that ballistic on their collective behinds, you must offer them a conceivable way out, short of rolling up new characters or a permanent Disguise Self. Maybe an Atonement?

[Amidus Drexel]

My initial goal at this point is how to manage evil characters without outright asking the players to change their characters to some non-evil alignment. Essentially, how can I deal with the characters in such a way as to 1) keep the story going in a moderately "good" direction (saving the world) 2) keeps them from killing an excessively large number of NPCs that for the most part don't deserve it (innocents), and 3) how to do it without having to invoke Rule 0 or railroading tactics like Geas or the like.

I'd really just like the evil players to calm their tits and stop trying to swindle and/or murder everything if they figure they can make a quick buck. Seriously, it's like taking the "kill them and take their stuff" to new levels. And I can't think of how to deal with it IC (as at least to me it seems like a character issue as opposed to a OOC issue) without resorting to the above heavy handed Rule 0 level tactics.

*Flails arms in an exasperated "I don't know what to do" way*

As for the Construct, I was going for more of "beaten slave" instead of "child abuse".

Hrm... As someone who's DM'd an evil campaign before, and as someone currently playing in an evil campaign, I'd say the most important thing to make sure your players get is consequences. Keep track of what illegal/horribly unethical things the characters do, and make sure (in-game), that each and every one of them that you thought was over-the-top gets followed-up in the plot. For example: In the campaign I'm playing in, we've slaughtered an entire town and lied about it for pretty much the entire game so far. I expect there to be consequences of some sort later in the plot.

Bounty hunters are a good idea; just make sure they're capable of surviving the character's attacks, without making them impossible to beat. (the bounty hunters should be about even in power with the party).

The second most important thing to remember is that "stupid evil" quickly turns into "dead", because of consequences. :smallamused:

As for 1), evil people should want to save the world too - you have to have a place to enjoy the things you forcefully took from the NPCs. :smallamused:

[TeChameleon]

Well, one simple option (depending on the players, of course) is to have the destroy-the-world evil people at least passingly aware of the players' actions, and loudly consider them to be petty thugs at every opportunity. Have the cleric's god yell at him for ******* around with pointless stupid stuff while the god's rival is getting ready to remake the world in his/her own image. Hell, bring in 'Bubba the Love Troll' from Shadowrun (check the Dumpshock forums if you're not familiar with Bubba... or just be thankful for that lack of familiarity <.<) when they inevitably get caught and chucked into prison.

Also don't forget that real-life child-killers tend to have a fairly short life expectancy in prison. It's one of those crimes that has a major backlash. As far as the whole 'rob/murder everyone'- notoriety. They will make their own lives very, very hard, very very quickly. The good guys are going to be after them for obvious reasons, and the bad guys aren't going to want to deal with them because they're unhinged psychopaths.

... in other words, like at least one other person has said, 'consequences'.

[Kornaki]

If you're afraid of being accused of railroading when a mob of paladins attacks the party out of nowhere, then while they're in the middle of a city square just have someone point at them and say "They killed my kid!" and charge them with a dagger, or maybe even just unarmed. The party's evil, so they'll probably just cut your level 1 commoner down. At that point everyone else gets in on it. "They killed bob! Murderers!" and get the mob justice rolling. At the very least it will teach them to be more circumspect about who they kill

[Mr Beer]

If you go that ballistic on their collective behinds, you must offer them a conceivable way out, short of rolling up new characters or a permanent Disguise Self. Maybe an Atonement?

They would need to think of a way to fix it and then try to implement it.

A possibility is simply moving far enough away that it's no longer a problem. Another one would be doing some kind of deal with the local ruler to call off the heat, maybe doing them a much-needed and dangerous favour, coupled with substantial compensation for the deceased's family.

Atonement is just a cop-out and anyway doesn't fit with their alignment. They don't need to Atone because their deity won't be unhappy about the child murder.

EDIT

As said above, it's about consequences. It's not so much that I personally don't want players running around being child murderers, although that's a factor, it's more about not be stupid. In terms of evil characters, a cunning serial killer is playable for a campaign, a deranged spree-killer is unlikely to survive that long.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

There's an old story about Heaven and Hell, in which each is materially the same as the other; in both there is a massive table full of the most delicious food imaginable, but the people there may only use strange, meter-long utensils to eat it. The difference, of course, is that everyone in Hell starves, while those in Heaven are enable to enjoy the bounty because they feed one another.

The application here being that, in embracing the sort of a villainous life the party's so determinedly undertaken, they're going to put themselves in with a pretty bad crowd of people. Next time they bring the golem (or whatever) to the guild leader (or whomever), they get poisoned instead of paid. The guy the pay to hide them from bounty hunters? He keeps the money and sells them out to the bounty hunters so he can get the party's payment and the reward; they wake up to coup de grace attempts if they don't make the perception checks to be awoken. Killing the party by pure DM fiat is bad, putting the party in a very-slim-chances or no-win scenario because of the decisions they've made is totally fair.

[Silus]

Well, I'm gonna see if I can get one of the players (who is a magus guru around here) to see about writing up a mad optimized 25-point-buy level 3 whip magus to be used as cops.

Just need to poke around the Ultimate Campaign for those rules on building mobs and I think I'll be set.


The application here being that, in embracing the sort of a villainous life the party's so determinedly undertaken, they're going to put themselves in with a pretty bad crowd of people. Next time they bring the golem (or whatever) to the guild leader (or whomever), they get poisoned instead of paid. The guy the pay to hide them from bounty hunters? He keeps the money and sells them out to the bounty hunters so he can get the party's payment and the reward; they wake up to coup de grace attempts if they don't make the perception checks to be awoken. Killing the party by pure DM fiat is bad, putting the party in a very-slim-chances or no-win scenario because of the decisions they've made is totally fair.

While I totally 100% agree with this course of action, I am held back by paster experiences where a DM threw a horrible no-win situation at us (Assassins arrived and we were all either incapacitated, coked off our butts, or poisoned).

[NichG]

You have to be very clear on goals here. If you're trying to get the evil characters to fall into line and not act so evil and follow the 'good' plotline there's going to be tension and railroading. There's a big difference between sending the authorities after the evil PCs because its the natural consequence of their action, and sending the authorities after the evil PCs because you as GM want to pressure them to change, even if the mechanics and power level of the authorities are identical in both cases. The difference is mostly in how you will react to what the players do next - assume that they crush the authorities, escape them, or are otherwise victorious; if you take this to be a failure on your part, your instinct will be to escalate, and it turns very oppositional. If thats just how the story went, then you can move on (there was a consequence, they dealt with it).

What it comes down to fundamentally is that 'their' story may not be the story you planned. You had an idea for a save the world (or at least in some sense help the world) plotline, which is honestly best for good-aligned characters and the like. The reason its best for good aligned characters isn't that its a good deed, its that it takes good aligned characters to see a problem and just sort of decide to make it their problem. The evil characters aren't going to be doing very well if the world turns into a cinder, but other people should risk their lives first after all.

So if 'the' story isn't 'their' story, you need to figure out what 'their' story might be. If they're evil, the motivations have to be deeply personal, not abstract. Right now they're running around making power grabs for character resources because thats kind of the default evil, like saving the world is the default good. 'More power to me' without a real task to put it towards. So accept that they're going to want to make power grabs, and give them something that will motivate them on a personal level that gives those power grabs meaning. Its really good to start early on this, because PCs naturally tend to avoid doing things that give them weaknesses to be targetted.

So e.g. if they don't have a favorite bar, you can't have some slum lord burn down their bar and make them want revenge. If they don't have anything they care about, it'll be twice as hard to find out what random thing you can float their way that they will spontaneously decide to care about. So you really want to encourage them to form attachments early. Then have your villains utterly destroy those things they're attached to. Now you have the makings of an evil game with meaning: the PCs are motivated purely by 'negative' emotions: hate, desire for revenge, etc, but are still doing it all for some reason rather than 'for the evulz'. Heck, it could just as well be that the emperor of some huge country decides to sentence their best friends for death for pickpocketting and they swear to turn that country into burning ruins. But first they need to have those attachments.

[Lothmar]

If it's been discussed already feel free to ignore but I was interested in learning of what is that status of the childs corpse? Did the doctor destroy or properly dispose of the body or is it something that could be stumbled upon etc? If it's something that could be discovered then a few basic 1st level divinations can likely reveal that the doctor is a 'person of interest' or 'suspect' in the kids murder at which point a few wanted posters with his face could easily lead to things happening one way or another.

People would be suspicious and nervous and guards on alert and on patrol possibly even asking them to come into the station etc if the players are like 'what the heck' and decide to go figure out 'what is this about' and attempt to clear their name you can attempt to interrogate them.

But yeah i've learned that mobs against adventurers can easily turn into 'oh look, all the xp is gathered in one place for us how considerate of it. AOE!'. lol

[Silus]

If it's been discussed already feel free to ignore but I was interested in learning of what is that status of the childs corpse? Did the doctor destroy or properly dispose of the body or is it something that could be stumbled upon etc? If it's something that could be discovered then a few basic 1st level divinations can likely reveal that the doctor is a 'person of interest' or 'suspect' in the kids murder at which point a few wanted posters with his face could easily lead to things happening one way or another.

People would be suspicious and nervous and guards on alert and on patrol possibly even asking them to come into the station etc if the players are like 'what the heck' and decide to go figure out 'what is this about' and attempt to clear their name you can attempt to interrogate them.

But yeah i've learned that mobs against adventurers can easily turn into 'oh look, all the xp is gathered in one place for us how considerate of it. AOE!'. lol

As far as I am aware, he "disassembled" the body into usable parts (bones, blood, organs, etc.. The only apparent slip up is that the kid's father saw and talked to the cleric, so he knows what the guy who took his son looks like. And with magic so prevalent in the world I'm running, I figure there's someone on the local city watch that can do a Detect Thoughts and Silent Image to brief the guards on who to look for.

As for the mob, I think I'll use the CR8 one from the 3.5 book Cityscape. Sure, it's 5 levels higher than them, but it's the best I got at the moment.

[Zeful]

If you go that ballistic on their collective behinds, you must offer them a conceivable way out, short of rolling up new characters or a permanent Disguise Self. Maybe an Atonement?

No. You don't. Part of a GM's duties is verisimilitude, or the appearance of reality where none exists. Do you really think a medieval realm is going to let a piddly thing like Atonement, that you can buy, actually change their opinion of a known murder, necromancer and child-killer? 'Cause I don't. They made their bed, they get to lay in it.

Besides there are far more permanent ways out of the situation that can't be dispelled and provide the very convincing illusion that they're dead.

[Kornaki]

How hilarious would it be if the party was captured, manacled, thrown in a jail cell and left to rot. The players then assume that they have to make their way out, but really the DM is just playing out their jail sentence until the players quit. Things like


"I take 20 on a strength check to break the manacles"

"You fail, they're too strong"

"I take 20 on a search check to find any needles or pins that may be lying around the cell"

"OK you find one"

"I take 20 on open lock"

"OK, your manacles are unshackled. *roll* Two guards apparently hear your shackles fall to the ground as they rush up to the cell and shout "Prisoner break! Prisoner break"

"OK I cast magic missile"

"Sorry, you haven't been allowed eight hours of rest, you have no spells remaining"

"I try to unlock my allies' chains"

"*roll*. Nope. You need an 18 or higher. One guard opens the door, and the other walks in and grapples you"

Ten minutes of grapple rules, and one round later

"OK, you're back to being manacled on the wall. What do you do?"

[NichG]

How hilarious would it be if the party was captured, manacled, thrown in a jail cell and left to rot. The players then assume that they have to make their way out, but really the DM is just playing out their jail sentence until the players quit. Things like


It'd be pretty crappy gaming on both sides of the table, honestly.

Skipping forward 5 years till when some nobleman with a scheme that requires disposable assassins makes a deal for their release? Sure, that keeps things moving OOC and even if the PCs are irritated at the guy, hey, the plotline then becomes about making him rue the day he went to them for disposable assassins and they get to be evil to a deserving bloke.

Saying 'you are in manacles in a jail cell for 5 years; lets play it out' is just a passive aggressive way of saying 'the campaign is over, I'm not running for you guys anymore'.

[Kornaki]

Saying 'you are in manacles in a jail cell for 5 years; lets play it out' is just a passive aggressive way of saying 'the campaign is over, I'm not running for you guys anymore'.

The point isn't to make the game better, it's to punish the players for being too evil obviously

[Zeful]

The point isn't to make the game better, it's to punish the players for being too evil obviously

There are far better ways to do this than, "I'm taking my ball and going home," which that suggestion was.

If you want to punish evil behavior, you only need to do three things:

1: Make the army/guard a legitimate threat to the players, and send them after the players whenever it's sensible (don't dog their heels, but walking into a town should start a timer the players know exist about when the army arrives).

2: Make shopkeeps and people looking for adventurers not do business with the PCs, and where they do, make these people terrible individuals and describe background noises of torture, vivisection, ritual sacrifice (lots of terrified screaming and pleading, and disgusting squishing noises). Then have them blackmail the PCs into doing unplesant jobs for ****ty pay because these people can in fact just turn them over to the aforementioned guards/army.

3: Make any and all rescued NPCs abjectly terrified of the players, and have them rather brave hostile terrain alone and unprepared rather than go with the PCs.

In short, make being evil suck worse than being good.

[SethoMarkus]

There are far better ways to do this than, "I'm taking my ball and going home," which that suggestion was.

If you want to punish evil behavior, you only need to do three things:

1: Make the army/guard a legitimate threat to the players, and send them after the players whenever it's sensible (don't dog their heels, but walking into a town should start a timer the players know exist about when the army arrives).

2: Make shopkeeps and people looking for adventurers not do business with the PCs, and where they do, make these people terrible individuals and describe background noises of torture, vivisection, ritual sacrifice (lots of terrified screaming and pleading, and disgusting squishing noises). Then have them blackmail the PCs into doing unplesant jobs for ****ty pay because these people can in fact just turn them over to the aforementioned guards/army.

3: Make any and all rescued NPCs abjectly terrified of the players, and have them rather brave hostile terrain alone and unprepared rather than go with the PCs.

In short, make being evil suck worse than being good.


Even with this, you'd have to be careful or risk turning into a crappy DM who is just out to make the player's have a horrible time. The game is about fun. If you aren't having fun as DM, then talk to the players OOC. If you and the players can't come to an agreement about a playstyle, maybe it's time to find new players or for you all collectively to find a new DM/new game that suits your needs.

Now, as far as how to make evil behavior have in-game consequences? I think Zeful's suggestions would work very well. It isn't enough to throw guards at the PCs, you need to throw guards that have the power and skill to defeat the characters in combat. This isn't rigging the fight against the PCs, but it shouldn't be easy for them to escape or defeat the guards; they should have to run away from the fight, and expend valuable resources to do so. As several people have said, make the NPCs in the world react accordingly. The only people that will do business with the PCs now are seedy and untrustworthy, willing to sell out the PCs for 2gp if given the chance. Normal people are terrified of the PCs if they have a reputation. The princess that the PCs are supposed to rescue/kidnap/whatever sees the PCs coming and tries to cut her own wrists or run away into the wilderness rather than be taken into the PC's custody.

Make the players see that evil characters have to deal with problems, too; it isn't a free pass to do anything they want and still get anything they want when they want it. However, the game should still be fun and playable for them. I never understood or agreed with the DM vs. Player attitude. That would be like playing basketball and the ref stabs the ball with a knife going, "haha, try to play now!"

[Silus]

What about bringing in a sufficiently bigger bad than the PCs?

Example: The PCs are putzing around town when this magical research station violently explodes and implodes simultaneously into a planar rift (unheard of and incomprehensible to the people on the world I'm running). Out walks a thing from the deepest recesses of one's nightmares (really just a Denizen of Leng with levels in Summoner). It's obvious, even without any Detect Evil that this thing is EVIL and wants to do more harm to the world than just conning people out of their money and eviscerating toddlers.

[Water_Bear]

The point isn't to make the game better, it's to punish the players for being too evil obviously

I really do not understand this attitude. Why would you (universal you, not just Kornaki) want to do this? What purpose does it serve?

"Punishment" makes the game less fun (unless it's an entirely different sort of roleplaying), it doesn't serve any real narrative purpose or enhance realism to an appreciable degree, and it doesn't even sound all that interesting to run from a DM standpoint. But every time someone pretends to kill an imaginary kid it's suddenly priority #1 on half of the forum's agenda.

Maybe if the Player vivisected an actual kid during the gaming session maybe then punishment is appropriate, although I'd still leave that to the cops personally, but why risk wrecking your game because a PC was "too evil" in an Evil game?

[SethoMarkus]

What about bringing in a sufficiently bigger bad than the PCs?

That can certainly work, although I think it would be important to do it with the mindset of showing the PCs that they aren't invincible and there are bigger fish in the sea than them, rather than throwing this new big bad as a meta-game punishment for their in-game actions. If the new big bad is going to seek the PCs out personally, maybe make it so that the BBEG wants to recruit/enslave the PCs as minions (this still allows for the players to play evil characters, but should push their focus onto survival rather than harming others).

Or, if the new bigger bad isn't going after the PCs personally, then be prepared for the players to decide on running away and leaving the town to its fate.

[Amidus Drexel]

What about bringing in a sufficiently bigger bad than the PCs?

That can work. Make sure the bigger bad guy has goals that strongly conflict with what the PCs want. Like say, ending the world. It's hard to rob and torture everyone if there is no everyone to rob and torture. If you don't want to have him try to end the world, you could instead have him destroy things the PCs like to get them to go after him in revenge. Somebody said something to that effect much more elegantly above, I think.

I'll second the "someone makes a deal to get you out of prison to work as disposable assassins" idea. I may have to borrow that one, actually... :smallamused:

[Silus]

That can work. Make sure the bigger bad guy has goals that strongly conflict with what the PCs want. Like say, ending the world. It's hard to rob and torture everyone if there is no everyone to rob and torture. If you don't want to have him try to end the world, you could instead have him destroy things the PCs like to get them to go after him in revenge. Somebody said something to that effect much more elegantly above, I think.


Or, if the new bigger bad isn't going after the PCs personally, then be prepared for the players to decide on running away and leaving the town to its fate.

Well in-story, planar travel is all but unheard of, so something of this magnitude will be earth shattering. The idea (I think) is as follows:

1. Party is in a bar, divvying up money from "selling" the golem.
2. Man tries to knife the Cleric, shouting things of the "He took my son" nature. Seeing as the Cleric is clearly from out of town and the man yelling the accusations is generally considered to be an upright and more or less truthful citizen, people start to back'em up.
3a. A hard diplomacy or bluff check later (like 30+ I'd say) and the PCs walk out, likely to find a new pub. Are eventually waylaid by officers investigating a murder by the river (where the Cleric dumped the body of the guy that was helping the golem).
3b. Alternatively, the checks fail and now the party has to outrun a VERY angry CR8 mob (at level 3). Will keep all damage as non-lethal and focused on grappling and dragging. End result, hopefully, will be dragging the party to a square and prepping them for a mob-justice hanging.
4. An explosion/implosion rocks the town. The mob disperses/officers stop their questioning and rush to help. The rift opens up, spilling out the BBEG and his "pet" (when the PCs get there).
4a. Failure to go to and investigate the rift ('cause hey, free distraction) causes them to get picked up by the royal guard who have been assigned to search for them by the Queen. Leads to a "You either work for me or I execute you" kind of scenario with the Queen (who could likely take on the party all on her own).
4b. Upon witnessing the rift open up, deposit the BBEG in their world then see him/it port away, they're stopped by the royal guard, who say that they (the PCs) are to come with them to the palace as they got the best look at whatever it was.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

While I totally 100% agree with this course of action, I am held back by paster experiences where a DM threw a horrible no-win situation at us (Assassins arrived and we were all either incapacitated, coked off our butts, or poisoned).

I don't know about the context of the example, but there is something of a difference between "you made somebody mad and thus assassins arrive out of nowhere" and the party knowing that the assassins/bounty hunters/cops are coming and either making the mistake of trusting someone like themselves to hide them or even simply realizing that they can't trust anyone to help. As you say, the "good people" of the town aren't likely to help them, given the rumors of horrific child-murder and such, while the kind of people who aren't disgusted by them would sell them up the river without a second thought. It's not about them getting specifically ambushed or whatever so much as it is making them realize that they've basically placed themselves in a situation where they cannot trust or rely on anyone to help them. Next time they sell loot? Legitimate merchants refuse to serve them and quickly summon the guards at the first of trouble. They go to the black market? They get robbed. It doesn't even have to be life-or-death, so long as the party realizes that they're essentially alone against an increasingly hostile world.

[Ionbound]

Well in-story, planar travel is all but unheard of, so something of this magnitude will be earth shattering. The idea (I think) is as follows:

1. Party is in a bar, divvying up money from "selling" the golem.
2. Man tries to knife the Cleric, shouting things of the "He took my son" nature. Seeing as the Cleric is clearly from out of town and the man yelling the accusations is generally considered to be an upright and more or less truthful citizen, people start to back'em up.
3a. A hard diplomacy or bluff check later (like 30+ I'd say) and the PCs walk out, likely to find a new pub. Are eventually waylaid by officers investigating a murder by the river (where the Cleric dumped the body of the guy that was helping the golem).
3b. Alternatively, the checks fail and now the party has to outrun a VERY angry CR8 mob (at level 3). Will keep all damage as non-lethal and focused on grappling and dragging. End result, hopefully, will be dragging the party to a square and prepping them for a mob-justice hanging.
4. An explosion/implosion rocks the town. The mob disperses/officers stop their questioning and rush to help. The rift opens up, spilling out the BBEG and his "pet" (when the PCs get there).
4a. Failure to go to and investigate the rift ('cause hey, free distraction) causes them to get picked up by the royal guard who have been assigned to search for them by the Queen. Leads to a "You either work for me or I execute you" kind of scenario with the Queen (who could likely take on the party all on her own).
4b. Upon witnessing the rift open up, deposit the BBEG in their world then see him/it port away, they're stopped by the royal guard, who say that they (the PCs) are to come with them to the palace as they got the best look at whatever it was.

That is quite genius actually. It gets the party to go along with the plot while still sorta letting them be lolevil and makes them realize actions have consequences (CR8 Mob).

[SethoMarkus]

I don't know about the context of the example, but there is something of a difference between "you made somebody mad and thus assassins arrive out of nowhere" and the party knowing that the assassins/bounty hunters/cops are coming and either making the mistake of trusting someone like themselves to hide them or even simply realizing that they can't trust anyone to help. As you say, the "good people" of the town aren't likely to help them, given the rumors of horrific child-murder and such, while the kind of people who aren't disgusted by them would sell them up the river without a second thought. It's not about them getting specifically ambushed or whatever so much as it is making them realize that they've basically placed themselves in a situation where they cannot trust or rely on anyone to help them. Next time they sell loot? Legitimate merchants refuse to serve them and quickly summon the guards at the first of trouble. They go to the black market? They get robbed. It doesn't even have to be life-or-death, so long as the party realizes that they're essentially alone against an increasingly hostile world.

I second this. Whatever you do, don't railroad the players. It's fine to make them face a tough decision, but ultimately it is up to them to decide what to do. Sending the Royal Guard after them is a fine way of handling it, and a great way to get the players to understand things are getting out of control, but make sure that there is a chance, even if slim, for the PCs to evade or escape the guards. Of course, then the Queen is going to send even more powerful bounty hunters and Royal Guards after the PCs, so they'll have to start being more discrete.

[Silus]

Regarding the Queen and the evil PCs, how ought I handle a possible fight? I'm not going to make it seem like she's anything more than she appears (Elf girl looking around 20-25 in human years), though she'll likely be a high level Sorcerer with metamagic feats out the yinyang.

Ought the fight go straight (They try to kill her so she mops the floor with them) or in a "You cannot hope to beat me" sort of way followed by a Mass Hold Person spell?

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

Definitely straight, if you ask me. What's the Queen's interest in using Hold Person? If they go with 4b, maybe, since they're the ones with information, but if they choose 4a, I don't any reason the Queen wouldn't just do away with them. At the point they're fleeing a mob for slaughtering a child, it's pretty clear that they're monsters. Up until the Queen's ultimatum, though, they could still be useful monsters; once they elect not to work for the Queen (and/or try to kill her) I think they stop being reliable enough to be of any use. She can find some other third-level adventurers who will be more cooperative. Then again, I don't really see why the mob is doing nonlethal damage, honestly. :smallwink:

Personally, I don't like the "Now that I've harmlessly immobilized you, I'll give you one more chance," move, especially as a player, even if it wasn't me that got the party into this. If anything, it feels more railroad-y for the party to be kept alive and forced down a path than just straight-up killed because we did something dumb, you know? I guess what I mean is that the party's out-of-combat decisions should be weighed the same way as tactical ones; you wouldn't spare the party a TPK if they all thought it was a good strategy to lay prone in front of a band of orcs and provoke attacks of opportunity by trying to shoot at them point-blank with crossbows, would you? Just like combat, you shouldn't just auto-kill them (maybe their dumb crossbow idea will prevail, somehow), but death should be a very real possibility for similarly idiotic decisions that happen to be made out of combat.

[Kornaki]

Subvert expectations. Mass hold person, "you cannot possibly defeat me", followed by a delayed blast fireball and a TPK after they beg for their lives. Get a little karma symmetry going with what they did to their victims

[Silus]

Then again, I don't really see why the mob is doing nonlethal damage, honestly. :smallwink:

Well if I'm going by the stats given, the mob deals an automatic 5d8 for anyone caught in said mob. Granted they only have a 20 movement speed, but still, it would be a matter of out flanking the PCs with a mostly anamorphic creature.

Edit: Also, as players, how big of an issue would it be if I dropped a "Yeah, I lied" about things like the BBEG or other (as of right now secret) NPCs in the world? Like "Yeah, you know how I said there are no dragons at all (as everyone in the world knows)? Well this guy's one of the last dragons" or the like?

[Amidus Drexel]

Edit: Also, as players, how big of an issue would it be if I dropped a "Yeah, I lied" about things like the BBEG or other (as of right now secret) NPCs in the world? Like "Yeah, you know how I said there are no dragons at all (as everyone in the world knows)? Well this guy's one of the last dragons" or the like?

I'd suggest that if you're going to drastically change what the players know about the setting or an NPC (like with your dragon example), that you do it by revealing more information about it, rather than by making their old information wrong.

You can pull something like that, though, but you can't do it more than once in a campaign, because they'll disbelieve everything. (unless you want them to disbelieve everything, just so you can play it straight and have them not catch it. :smallamused:).

[Souju]

Rather than Mass Hold Person, go with this spell: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/o/overwhelming-presence
It has the same basic effect, but with the added bonus of Wisdom Drain, thereby punishing the players in a way that makes sense...of COURSE a sorcerer queen would have access to this spell. Hell, you can make it an effect on an artifact she carries.

[Water_Bear]

Also, as players, how big of an issue would it be if I dropped a "Yeah, I lied" about things like the BBEG or other (as of right now secret) NPCs in the world? Like "Yeah, you know how I said there are no dragons at all (as everyone in the world knows)? Well this guy's one of the last dragons" or the like?

If it makes sense from an in-universe perspective and doesn't feel like you pulled it out of your ass it can work. As long as they trust you, you're competent, and you aren't using it as a metagame punishment it should be fine.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

Well if I'm going by the stats given, the mob deals an automatic 5d8 for anyone caught in said mob. Granted they only have a 20 movement speed, but still, it would be a matter of out flanking the PCs with a mostly anamorphic creature.

Oh, no, I understood the mechanics. I just mean that I don't see why the mob wouldn't just kill them; as a player, I'd expect to die if they caught up with me, in that situation.


Edit: Also, as players, how big of an issue would it be if I dropped a "Yeah, I lied" about things like the BBEG or other (as of right now secret) NPCs in the world? Like "Yeah, you know how I said there are no dragons at all (as everyone in the world knows)? Well this guy's one of the last dragons" or the like?

The party can't really be mad that you didn't give them extra metagame knowledge; it's not like they'd prepare Shivering Touch in case a dragon showed up if they and everyone else firmly believed no such thing existed, anymore. As somebody else said, it is pretty much a once-a-campaign trick, though; the cool twist of "Dragons still exist oh em gee!" is kind of ruined if it's followed by "The queen is a demon oh em gee!" the next session, then "The demon Queen is being controlled by an illithid oh em gee," and so on.

[SethoMarkus]

To be honest, in the situation that you have described I think it might be best to either talk it out with the players and change game expectations out-of-game, or for you to change your campaign to align better with what the players seem to be interested in (as depicted by their character's actions). You can still attempt to steer them away from torturing and killing children with in-game consequences, but perhaps they wouldn't try to go out of their way to do such a thing if they have ample opportunity to kill/maim and rob to their hearts content in other situations. Sort of a "raping* and pillaging" campaign, where there is no BBEG they need to defeat to save the world. It really sounds like you and your players are looking for two different games, and I don't believe that any amount of in-game action is going to change that. If you are continually turning to strong-arming or cheating the PCs into behaving a certain way, it seems like there is a fundamental flaw in the group and campaign chemistry.


*I do not condone of rape in even a game setting, and definitely do not approve of such an act in real life.

[Silus]

If it makes sense from an in-universe perspective and doesn't feel like you pulled it out of your ass it can work. As long as they trust you, you're competent, and you aren't using it as a metagame punishment it should be fine.

Oh I've had it planned for a while now. I wanna try to play it as a "The world is a lot stranger than you know" kinda thing as opposed to "Surprise! The DM lied to you!". Defiantly gonna be some buildup to it, though how much depends on how clever the PCs are. Don't want them guessing things too early.


Oh, no, I understood the mechanics. I just mean that I don't see why the mob wouldn't just kill them; as a player, I'd expect to die if they caught up with me, in that situation.

Eh, I feel it's better in a cinematic level to have them hauled to the center of a square while the mob shouts for "justice" as the nooses are being put around their necks.


I do not condone of rape in even a game setting, and definitely do not approve of such an act in real life.

Yeah, rape would earn an instant "Your character dies, roll a level 1 with minimum gold. No evil characters either" at least.

[BWR]

It depends on the game and the players. If you have a bunch of players and a GM who understand the setting and the difference between characters in a game and tacitly or explicitly condoning it in real life, it can add a dimension to the story.
Basically, if rape occurs in your game, you can handle it with your players. Heck, I've played rapists (cruscader in Ars Magica), and basically had one PC in a game I ran raped (unfortunate marriage, with player's consent). It's an unfortunate fact of life, in addition BBEGs sacrificing orphanages to bring about the zombie apocalypse.
We don't dwell on it, go into detail on it or pretend it's cool and fun or anything, but accept it as part of the setting.

[Madeiner]

I'd really just like the evil players to calm their tits and stop trying to swindle and/or murder everything if they figure they can make a quick buck. Seriously, it's like taking the "kill them and take their stuff" to new levels. And I can't think of how to deal with it IC (as at least to me it seems like a character issue as opposed to a OOC issue) without resorting to the above heavy handed Rule 0 level tactics.
.

I recently ran an evil adventure and feared i would have the same problems.
What i did was:

- inform the players that i did not want them killing random npcs or working against each other
- gave them a covert mission so they couldn't just go around killing people
- they worked for a god (actually, he wasn't a real god, but they didn't know that). He told them what to do and that if anybody misbeahaved, the entire group would have suffered.
- the game was set in a campaign where the PCs have been playing in for years, only it was set to let them see the BBEG side of things by playing as his minions. I hinted not to make too powerful characters because, later, they would have ended up meeting their own main characters.... and they cared about them, and also the NPCs :)
- based on the fact that they were playing in the same world as their main characters, they knew how efficiently the good guys can react to some things (because they PLAYED the good guys)

[Silus]

Well apparently the problem was that I wasn't giving the players any obvious, overt incentive to follow the plot.

Though honestly I feel that it's pretty stupid to outright say that the ruler of a nation will hire them on as a royally sanctioned adventuring party should they go investigate a weird explosion+implosion that creates a very VERY out of place planar rift. It's all "NOPE WE'RE SKIPPIN' TOWN REGARDLESS OF WHAT WORLD ENDING ENTITY JUST BULLDOZED ITS WAY INTO OUR WORLD". :smallannoyed: It's like they're intentionally ignoring any plot hooks I dangle in front of them to mess with me. And their argument is that it's a carrot and a stick thing and that they're not seeing the carrot.

Seriously, it's like I have to hold their hand instead of the PCs being naturally inquisitive. So now I'm working on a ruin for them to explore and find information about the Queen which I would put cash money on them ignoring in favor of the vast amounts of gold and magic items that I'm likely gonna stock the place with. And the only reason I'm gonna stock the place with such loot at all is because the players are complaining about a lack of gear and loot because they won't follow the fething plot and want to go off and conduct illegal activities and get in trouble with the authorities :smallmad: Maybe if they bit at a plot hook they'd find those riches and magic items they so sought instead of forcing me to write up a premature dungeon and stat up a Revenant Assassin of the farmer they killed to hunt them down and murder each of them one by one :smallfurious:

Though some good came from last session. I now have it in my head to stop any and all OOC -> IC shenanigans, even if I have to pull Rule 0 on them.

[Water_Bear]

You and your players seem to be operating at cross purposes here.

You obviously intended them to see this big dangerous-looking thing and go "let's poke around!" on a metagame expectation that that is where the plot is. The players reactions imply that they're using IC reasoning instead (why would their characters risk their lives for nothing?) and probably see it as more of an open-ended sandbox rather than a plotted story. These are really different ways of approaching RPGs so this is going to need some compromise.

Either talk them into following the hook OOC, or realize that your plot hooks need to hook into character and player motivations. This hook would only work on Knight-in-Shining-Armor types and/or the deeply stupid, because it relies on the PCs chasing something obviously dangerous without any reason other than that it's dangerous. If you want to get them to want to kill it then have it destroy their house or their favorite bar, or have it's minions steal their gold/items to fund a ritual, or have someone hire them to deal with it, but you have to give them some sort of reason.

Also, it is a very bad idea to DM while angry. If you are upset with the PCs talk to them instead of throwing undead assassins at them. It tends to work better.

[NichG]

Well apparently the problem was that I wasn't giving the players any obvious, overt incentive to follow the plot.

Though honestly I feel that it's pretty stupid to outright say that the ruler of a nation will hire them on as a royally sanctioned adventuring party should they go investigate a weird explosion+implosion that creates a very VERY out of place planar rift. It's all "NOPE WE'RE SKIPPIN' TOWN REGARDLESS OF WHAT WORLD ENDING ENTITY JUST BULLDOZED ITS WAY INTO OUR WORLD". :smallannoyed: It's like they're intentionally ignoring any plot hooks I dangle in front of them to mess with me. And their argument is that it's a carrot and a stick thing and that they're not seeing the carrot.


Well they're completely right. There's no carrot here for evil characters. Some horrible thing is happening, why should they in particular be the ones to jump in front of it if they're evil? Let someone else deal with it and save your own hide. Its not that they're trying to mess with you, its that since they're playing evil characters, the things that drive them are different than what drive most heroic parties.

For evil characters, motivations have to be personal. World-scale stuff isn't good for evil characters unless you can somehow make it so the characters end up saving the world despite themselves. They won't step in if someone destroys a village; they'll step in if someone destroys their favorite sword.



Seriously, it's like I have to hold their hand instead of the PCs being naturally inquisitive. So now I'm working on a ruin for them to explore and find information about the Queen which I would put cash money on them ignoring in favor of the vast amounts of gold and magic items that I'm likely gonna stock the place with. And the only reason I'm gonna stock the place with such loot at all is because the players are complaining about a lack of gear and loot because they won't follow the fething plot and want to go off and conduct illegal activities and get in trouble with the authorities :smallmad: Maybe if they bit at a plot hook they'd find those riches and magic items they so sought instead of forcing me to write up a premature dungeon and stat up a Revenant Assassin of the farmer they killed to hunt them down and murder each of them one by one :smallfurious:

Though some good came from last session. I now have it in my head to stop any and all OOC -> IC shenanigans, even if I have to pull Rule 0 on them.

Again, to make a really good evil game, you have to put reasons that personally drive each character. Otherwise the default is going to be all about 'how do I get more money/power' since thats kind of what people default to when their character doesn't really have a goal or a purpose.

The problem is basically to do with how shallow characters of different philosophies will respond to the world. By default pretty much all PCs are shallow - if they get depth, its from what happens in play, not how they start out (there are players who come in with deep PCs, but this can cause other kinds of problems).

Shallow Good characters: Oh look, trouble. I run towards it. 'cause Good means you try to deal with problems because they're problems.

Shallow Evil characters: Oh look, trouble. I loot the nearest shop while everyone else is running away. 'cause Evil means doing bad things for selfish reasons.

The thing to realize is, its too much to expect your players to have deep characters. And if they are deep, the plot has to be customized to them because otherwise you get things like:

Somewhat deeper Good character: This village is being attacked by some monstrosity. I don't know if I can beat it; if I can't, and no one survives, then there is no one to warn my home town of X. And my wife and children will be without support. So I should flee the place and inform the religious authority of what happened, and go organize the defense of my hometown.

Somewhat deeper Evil character: This village is being attacked by some monstrosity. It seems to be heading eastwards, towards that city with the really awesome casino where I make all my bank and the dealers are all sexy ladies. I'd really rather it go attack the religious headquarters of that stuck up paladin order. Maybe if I get people to flee in that direction, it'll chase them there?

[Silus]

You and your players seem to be operating at cross purposes here.

You obviously intended them to see this big dangerous-looking thing and go "let's poke around!" on a metagame expectation that that is where the plot is. The players reactions imply that they're using IC reasoning instead (why would their characters risk their lives for nothing?) and probably see it as more of an open-ended sandbox rather than a plotted story. These are really different ways of approaching RPGs so this is going to need some compromise.

Either talk them into following the hook OOC, or realize that your plot hooks need to hook into character and player motivations. This hook would only work on Knight-in-Shining-Armor types and/or the deeply stupid, because it relies on the PCs chasing something obviously dangerous without any reason other than that it's dangerous. If you want to get them to want to kill it then have it destroy their house or their favorite bar, or have it's minions steal their gold/items to fund a ritual, or have someone hire them to deal with it, but you have to give them some sort of reason.

Also, it is a very bad idea to DM while angry. If you are upset with the PCs talk to them instead of throwing undead assassins at them. It tends to work better.

Well the ruins I'm gonna run are gonna be...on par difficulty-wise. Nothing they can't handle, two easy fights, a medium/CR appropriate and a boss with slightly above average loot. The idea is that there's not gonna be a hook there that's all "Oh hey you guys really have to do this thing" but more of a hindsight "Oh....OH!" kinda thing. Maybe. Unless the players (who have YEARS of experience on me) sort it all out ahead of time :smallannoyed: The trick, the seemingly impossibly difficult trick regarding these veteran TTG players, is giving their characters a reason to go back to the city where 1) They pissed off the captain of the guard, 2) Are involved in at least three murders of innocent people, and 3) Where a planar rift opened up thus heralding the end of the world.

All I have for plot hooks, without beating the PCs over the head with the'ol Clue-Bat, is a long dead researcher's journal (that the PCs will probably skip over for loot) and the overall BBEG stealing a Manuel of the Planes right in front of the PCs then Dimensional Dooring away. It's either that or have the Queen (who the PCs need to talk to, but won't because they're evil and she's like the ultimate authority) post a bounty for anyone with information about the rift, and the only person with any knowledge is the Magus who, as a player, won't really stand up to the other players due to an apparently majority vote. And even if they DO go on the bounty, I have to wonder why she's even posting a bounty in the first place. And that only takes care of 1/3 of the "evil" players.

*Rubs bridge of nose and swears colorfully*

And the undead assassin is somewhat justified in-game. The father of the kid that the Cleric killed was shanked by a PC in a jail cell. He meets the "requirements" for a Revenant and would give the PCs some sort of...villain(?) to fight while enforcing a sort of "You keep doing these bad things and they'll keep compounding" kind of message. The assassin levels are just there for some extra spice. Alternatively I could make him a Shadow Dancer or something and have him stalk the party as they go from place to place.




For evil characters, motivations have to be personal. World-scale stuff isn't good for evil characters unless you can somehow make it so the characters end up saving the world despite themselves. They won't step in if someone destroys a village; they'll step in if someone destroys their favorite sword.


*Evil grin*

Now this might enter the "petty revenge" territory, but destroying their stuff to get them to go after the BBEG (or at least head in that direction) is a pretty good idea. A Maximized Shatter spell on the Fighter's newly built chain-greatsword for example. And in escaping with the above mentioned Manuel, causes a magical backlash that destroys the Cleric's cart that he's so fond of...

Edit: A..."friend" that I play various online games with suggested that I have the Queen post the aforementioned bounty then screw the players out of the reward on the ground that, since she's well over 1000 years old and almost living-god in power, that she's moved beyond the need/draw of money and wants to see people do the right thing because it's the right thing, not because they'll get paid for it.

[Water_Bear]

All I have for plot hooks[...]

See, this is the problem. None of these "hooks" have, well, a hook.

There's a journal which warns that the BBEG is bad news, dangerous enough to threaten the entire world. So why would the PC's decide to fight it knowing it's even more dangerous than it initially seemed? If the Gods and high-level adventurers can't deal with this thing, smart money is that the PCs would try to join it before they fought it.

The BBEG steals a book... okay? So why should the PCs care?

The bounty one is a little better, because there's an actual benefit to doing it, but the Risk versus Reward is completely off. They have to sneak into the city past the Guard, into the Palace, and then hope the super-powered Queen doesn't toast them on the spot before giving them their money. Again, it's not a great motivation.


Now this might enter the "petty revenge" territory, but destroying their stuff to get them to go after the BBEG (or at least head in that direction) is a pretty good idea. A Maximized Shatter spell on the Fighter's newly built chain-greatsword for example. And in escaping with the above mentioned Manuel, causes a magical backlash that destroys the Cleric's cart that he's so fond of...

Now this, this is perfect. It's infuriating to lose your items, and at least 90% of that fury is going to be focused on the BBEG. In my experience as a DM, even LG characters will risk life and death against superior foes because they were insulted much less robbed. This is an excellent way to get them invested.


Edit: A..."friend" that I play various online games with suggested that I have the Queen post the aforementioned bounty then screw the players out of the reward on the ground that, since she's well over 1000 years old and almost living-god in power, that she's moved beyond the need/draw of money and wants to see people do the right thing because it's the right thing, not because they'll get paid for it.

This... less so. Unless you want the PCs to hate the Queen and work tirelessly for her downfall, possibly even joining up with the BBEG to do so, this is a poor plan. Because that is what would happen, either that or a TPK in the throneroom after they attack her.

[Silus]

See, this is the problem. None of these "hooks" have, well, a hook.
*Annoyed facepalm* So it's in my best interest to, as NichG more or less suggested, appeal to the the simple stuff like greed and power and build the hooks around those "objectives"?

My God. Next time I decide to run this campaign, I'll tell the players up front that it's a good/neutral campaign just so I can avoid all this crap.


The bounty one is a little better, because there's an actual benefit to doing it, but the Risk versus Reward is completely off. They have to sneak into the city past the Guard, into the Palace, and then hope the super-powered Queen doesn't toast them on the spot before giving them their money. Again, it's not a great motivation.

I've actually mentioned to the players, several times in fact, that the palace lies outside of the city in a very Black Forest type location. They could, with little or no trouble, skirt around the city and enter the woods, bypassing all the shenanigans in the city completely.


Now this, this is perfect. It's infuriating to lose your items, and at least 90% of that fury is going to be focused on the BBEG. In my experience as a DM, even LG characters will risk life and death against superior foes because they were insulted much less robbed. This is an excellent way to get them invested.

So basically:
"He sunders your weapon and your cart blows up."
"What the hell? Who was that guy?"
"Well you don't know, but you read in the journal that the Queen may know. And oh look, she's put out a bounty on information regarding things just like this. How...convenient."

[Mr Beer]

My God. Next time I decide to run this campaign, I'll tell the players up front that it's a good/neutral campaign just so I can avoid all this crap.

Or just tell them "You're going to be doing x. It's up to you to come up with a character motivation."

I mean, I'd make it a little more consultative than that, but getting some kind of agreement to be onboard with general campaign goals is obviously something you need to extract from these guys.

[Silus]

Or just tell them "You're going to be doing x. It's up to you to come up with a character motivation."

I mean, I'd make it a little more consultative than that, but getting some kind of agreement to be onboard with general campaign goals is obviously something you need to extract from these guys.

Well I plan on having a Q&A thing next session to clear up world-based stuff and to fill the players in on the general plot. I'll try to fit a "How can I get your characters to care" bit in there as well.

[Mr Beer]

Well I plan on having a Q&A thing next session to clear up world-based stuff and to fill the players in on the general plot. I'll try to fit a "How can I get your characters to care" bit in there as well.

Different characters or same characters? If they are rolling up new ones, tell them to make their characters care. I'd offer a choice of two different campaigns, that way you're saying "Pick one" and then it's up to them to support the choice they made.

[Silus]

Different characters or same characters? If they are rolling up new ones, tell them to make their characters care. I'd offer a choice of two different campaigns, that way you're saying "Pick one" and then it's up to them to support the choice they made.

Probably the same characters. Last thing I want as a DM is to 1) have to figure out new characters and the mentality behind each and 2) to start the campaign over. I'd much rather run it and try to figure out how to make it work. I figure if I can work it with a party like thia then I'll be set to run it with just about any party.

[Zeful]

*Annoyed facepalm* So it's in my best interest to, as NichG more or less suggested, appeal to the the simple stuff like greed and power and build the hooks around those "objectives"?

No. You need to build your hooks around the players themselves. The basics of conflict are your friend here. What do the players want for their characters? Just money? Because that's easy as hell. Have the big bad you want them to fight recruit them, and then because he's an all powerful badass stiff them on their "rightfully earned" money. Set up the Big Bad as an obstacle they need to overcome to get rich.

The question you need to be asking yourself is, "how does my plot interfere with the goals of the player in the most obnoxious way possible?"

[NichG]

*Annoyed facepalm* So it's in my best interest to, as NichG more or less suggested, appeal to the the simple stuff like greed and power and build the hooks around those "objectives"?

My God. Next time I decide to run this campaign, I'll tell the players up front that it's a good/neutral campaign just so I can avoid all this crap.


Its not just building hooks around those objectives. Evil PCs are fundamentally better fits for certain kinds of campaigns than others. I'm saying you have to discard your idea that there is some particular plot, and your job is to entice the PCs to follow it. That can work for Good characters, it can work kind of eh for Neutral characters, but not at all for Evil.



So basically:
"He sunders your weapon and your cart blows up."
"What the hell? Who was that guy?"
"Well you don't know, but you read in the journal that the Queen may know. And oh look, she's put out a bounty on information regarding things just like this. How...convenient."

I'd stop trying to get the Queen involved. The players are playing evil characters. She is the ultimate authority figure, AND can TPK them trivially, AND seems to care more about people being 'good' and doing things 'for the right reason' than resolving the actual situation (namely, why would she skimp on a bounty that is almost worthless to her). This party will decide that taking down the Queen is far more important than any planar rift. This is just asking for more trouble I think.

Alternately, why not have the PCs end up helping the BBEG with his plans? They probably don't have any problem with what he's doing, and if its clear that what he's doing will eventually let him rewrite the rules of the cosmos or even just wipe that pesky Queen off the map, maybe they'll even try to get in on the action without you having to suggest it. Just drop enough info that somehow there's profit or power in it. They may then join the BBEG to get some of that power and profit and, like the evil characters they are, could eventually turn on him and try to grab it for themselves.

In other words, don't think of this like 'wow, if I can get these characters to follow the plot I can get any characters to follow the plot'. Instead think of it as an opportunity to flesh out the difficulties faced by evil on its path towards the climactic moment when it gets slaughtered by some party of adventurers. You can explore a side of the story that is usually handwaved away.

If you do want to force the initial plot, I'd strongly suggest encouraging the PCs to just all make new characters who are Good or Neutral and have a direct reason to help, aside from the general 'its a threat to everyone' thing.

[SethoMarkus]

*Annoyed facepalm* So it's in my best interest to, as NichG more or less suggested, appeal to the the simple stuff like greed and power and build the hooks around those "objectives"?

My God. Next time I decide to run this campaign, I'll tell the players up front that it's a good/neutral campaign just so I can avoid all this crap.


The more I read the more I come to understand that you are not running an evil campaign at all. You are running a (Lawful)Good Wolf campaign in (Chaotic)Evil Sheep's clothing.

It seems to me that your goal is to "reform" the evil characters, whether you are aware of that or not. It's fine to have consequences for evil actions, but don't try to convert the evil PCs to good unless the player wants to go in that direction as well.

Your campaign seems like it is a really great idea; I'm really enjoying the nuances of it. However, it doesn't seem like it is a good match-up for the characters that the players have created. The way I see it, there are two options left. Either A) adapt the entire story and campaign to be reactionary to the behavior of the PCs up to this point; make an evil goal/motivation, allow the PCs to run the show, and use basic greed and selfish behavior the major driving force. Or, B) ask the players to create new characters that are good/neutral aligned. Or at least if the character is going to be evil, make them "I want to rule the world" evil (probably Lawful Evil); this should give the players motivation to stop and BBEG that wants to destroy the world, since, it's kind of hard to rule when it doesn't exist anymore.

Right now, it seems like "you serial killing con-artists should save this village because, you know, good and stuff".

[Silus]

Alternately, why not have the PCs end up helping the BBEG with his plans? They probably don't have any problem with what he's doing, and if its clear that what he's doing will eventually let him rewrite the rules of the cosmos or even just wipe that pesky Queen off the map, maybe they'll even try to get in on the action without you having to suggest it. Just drop enough info that somehow there's profit or power in it. They may then join the BBEG to get some of that power and profit and, like the evil characters they are, could eventually turn on him and try to grab it for themselves.

I suppose that could work.

Evil characters offer to with with the Denizen of Leng that has forced his way into the world. Planar barrier falls, Leng bores its way into the world to set up permanent slaving lanes (along with all the other planes getting the jump on the PC's home world 'cause hey, unclaimed souls). And, since they opted to side with a Chaotic Evil slaving race, they can be the first ones enslaved :smallannoyed: . Or at least torn apart by miscellaneous evil planar beings. Or good planar beings. Or even neutral ones. All of which the PCs would have no way to fight against because the whole "Oh hey, you're getting jumped by ALL the Inner and Outer Planes" would come out of left field because the characters didn't look into or research anything :smallannoyed:.



The more I read the more I come to understand that you are not running an evil campaign at all. You are running a (Lawful)Good Wolf campaign in (Chaotic)Evil Sheep's clothing.

It seems to me that your goal is to "reform" the evil characters, whether you are aware of that or not. It's fine to have consequences for evil actions, but don't try to convert the evil PCs to good unless the player wants to go in that direction as well.

Your campaign seems like it is a really great idea; I'm really enjoying the nuances of it. However, it doesn't seem like it is a good match-up for the characters that the players have created. The way I see it, there are two options left. Either A) adapt the entire story and campaign to be reactionary to the behavior of the PCs up to this point; make an evil goal/motivation, allow the PCs to run the show, and use basic greed and selfish behavior the major driving force. Or, B) ask the players to create new characters that are good/neutral aligned. Or at least if the character is going to be evil, make them "I want to rule the world" evil (probably Lawful Evil); this should give the players motivation to stop and BBEG that wants to destroy the world, since, it's kind of hard to rule when it doesn't exist anymore.

Right now, it seems like "you serial killing con-artists should save this village because, you know, good and stuff".

Well I planned and built the campaign around the notion that the PCs would be some variety of "good". Having the PCs be evil (well two out of 5 being evil) really throws things off. It's like running the Second Darkness Adventure Path for Pathfinder (Drow trying to kill/block out the sun) and two of the players want to play Drow.

Since the next session is gonna be a standard dungeon crawl, I'll ask the players what their goals for their characters are and see what I can work with, 'cause I am tired of beating my brains out trying to figure out how this whole thing is gonna work. I figure I'll just tell'em that the planned campaign is scrapped at this time and let them run rampant over everything. Easier than trying to figure out how to retool a whole campaign for a bunch of greedy jerkass PCs :smallmad:

Alternatively, I'll just let them do as they please and have the plot run in the background. And then they'll wake up and there's a Blood War size fiendish/demonic/daemonic incursion to which I will respond to any shock/surprise/anger with "Well I gave ya'll plenty of opportunities to stop this".

*Greatly annoyed at this whole situation*

[SethoMarkus]

Well I planned and built the campaign around the notion that the PCs would be some variety of "good". Having the PCs be evil (well two out of 5 being evil) really throws things off. It's like running the Second Darkness Adventure Path for Pathfinder (Drow trying to kill/block out the sun) and two of the players want to play Drow.

So, let me get this straight. The majority of the players have characters with the alignment that you want. There are only two players that have evil characters. It seems to me that you are about to punish the entire group for something that a minority of the group actually was engaged in.

Also, why aren't the other, non-evil, characters stepping in and intervening with the evil characters? I mean, unless they are playing Stupid-Evil or something, they should probably care what their companions are doing.

I still say that either YOU need to change the story, or you need to ask the players to change to good aligned characters.

[Silus]

So, let me get this straight. The majority of the players have characters with the alignment that you want. There are only two players that have evil characters. It seems to me that you are about to punish the entire group for something that a minority of the group actually was engaged in.

Also, why aren't the other, non-evil, characters stepping in and intervening with the evil characters? I mean, unless they are playing Stupid-Evil or something, they should probably care what their companions are doing.

I still say that either YOU need to change the story, or you need to ask the players to change to good aligned characters.

Well one is Chaotic Neutral bordering on Chaotic Evil, a pair of Lawful Neutral and the two Lawful Evils.

*Sighs* I'll try changing up the campaign to suit the party...Do plan on sitting the players down to figure out how to hook their characters at least, 'cause right now I'm pretty much flying blind on 3 of the five (The CN is motivated by greed, which I can work with, and the LN Magus is the only one thus far to bite at any of the hooks). At this point in time, it's not really a matter of "I don't want to change the story", it's a matter of "I don't know how to change the story". The whole thing feels like...like Jenga. Pull/change the wrong thing and the tower/story comes crashing down.

[SethoMarkus]

At this point in time, it's not really a matter of "I don't want to change the story", it's a matter of "I don't know how to change the story". The whole thing feels like...like Jenga. Pull/change the wrong thing and the tower/story comes crashing down.

And I really sympathize with you on that. It sucks to have put all this work into something and have the players run it so far off base like what has happened to you. But it really just seems like the characters weren't a good match for the story. Maybe with a little retweaking and different fluff you can run the adventure again in the future, with characters that have Good aligned motivations. Or maybe you can find another group to run your original idea with.

Don't get me wrong, I empathize with you in this situation, but I don't think "getting back at the characters" will achieve anything. I think you're making the right choice.