PDA

View Full Version : Dealing with Evil PCs



Tough_Tonka
2007-01-09, 09:15 PM
In my first Eberron campaign I've found that half my party, 2 people, are heading toward evil alignments one being more cruel than evil, but doing what he can to keep his alignment in CN. I had no intentions to run an evil campaign and I'm struggling to deal with a group where 3/4th of the group act as if they have no scrupples.

I'm not sure if I should really be awarding this kind of behavior, but I feel like I'm railroading the party when i consider the thought of justice reaching the PCs. I also feel bad about the single member of the group that wants to play a good aligned character among the crowd that wants to find ways to kill, steal and cheat their way to the top.

Really my question is this.

Is it wrong for a GM to reward good actions and only provide evil and dishonest actions with shortrun benefits and eventually "punishment"?

And is it so wrong for evil PCs to meet justice at the end of the campaign if they show no intentions of turning from their ways?

Krimm_Blackleaf
2007-01-09, 09:20 PM
In my first Eberron campaign I've found that half my party, 2 people, are heading toward evil alignments one being more cruel than evil, but doing what he can to keep his alignment in CN. I had no intentions to run an evil campaign and I'm struggling to deal with a group where 3/4th of the group act as if they have no scrupples.

I'm not sure if I should really be awarding this kind of behavior, but I feel like I'm railroading the party when i consider the thought of justice reaching the PCs. I also feel bad about the single member of the group that wants to play a good aligned character among the crowd that wants to find ways to kill, steal and cheat their way to the top.

Really my question is this.

Is it wrong for a GM to reward good actions and only provide evil and dishonest actions with shortrun benefits and eventually "punishment"?

And is it so wrong for evil PCs to meet justice at the end of the campaign if they show no intentions of turning from their ways?
Hmm...how about showing them what comes to evil people. They may get what they want in the beginning but soon find themselves paying for it at the end of a paladin's sword. I've noticed that's what naturally ends up happening according to logic is they live the high life when they want it, but as mentioned before, pay for it.

Deathcow
2007-01-09, 09:30 PM
Short-term gain, long term loss is definitely the accepted MO of evil-character morality tales, anyway.

Raum
2007-01-09, 09:35 PM
And is it so wrong for evil PCs to meet justice at the end of the campaign if they show no intentions of turning from their ways?
I'm not sure I'd wait till the end of the campaign. The DM plays the environment / world just as players play their characters. The world should react appropriately to the PCs' actions.

I'd feel somewhat cheated if the world remained static no matter what I did as a PC. If I rob someone I expect to have to cover my tracks...and if someone recognizes me I expect to have to run from the city guard. If caught, it's a chance for an escape attempt. Hopefully I've remained close enough friends with party members to get their help...if not it's probably time for a new character anyway. Intraparty conflict gets old fast.

Aximili
2007-01-09, 09:52 PM
I think that the right thing for a DM to do here is force their characters to follow the adventure by whatever means are reasonable. Don't be a tyrant, just make sure that their characters want to do this quest as much as the good one in the party. And make sure that the good one in the party is "of value" to them (so they won't kill him).
The first part can be acomplished easiest through threats. The second is just a matter of making their life depend on his somehow.

I say this because I'm 100% in favor of reasonable evil characters. If they are simply out of control, do unrealistic stuff and have absolutely no scrupples, than they entirely deserved being punished for it.

Do what Krimm said, and show them whats gonna happen if they don't get in line. If that doesn't work... well, I think you got it already.

Jack_Simth
2007-01-09, 10:07 PM
Staple of the genre:
Something horrid happens, so adventurers investigate by some means or other.

If a party member is doing a lot of horrid things, other adventurers may just investigate.

Is the theif that stole the King's Crown immune to Locate Object? Commune? Discern Lies / Sense Motive / Intimidate on the fence he sold it to? Scrying repeated for when the investigators get a decent sketch of the theif? Detect Evil?

Did the evil character get injured on a murder? Blood is really handy for a Scrying spell (-10 to the subject's Will save to avoid it).

Unless the PC's are unique, it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Sure, it may be a pretty low chance that any particular Evil action will be investigated, but if it's kept up, it will eventually catch up to the character.

Mechanical suggestion:
Pick a percentage (low, I suggest something under 10% to start), and roll a d100 every time the character does something that people would reasonable want investigated/stopped/fixed. Each time the character fights off adventurers that successfully show up (do remember to give them appropriet difficulties for any precautions the Evil character used), the character has picked up something of a reputation (caught at it, even if got away from justice; they let somebody know who they were after, or at least clues to it), and is more likely to be investigated in the future; increase the chance that any given action will be investigated.

Bouldering Jove
2007-01-09, 10:22 PM
Honestly, this sounds like something you need to discuss with your players rather than attempting to deal with by "punishment." If they want to play as the "rowdy adventurers" who'll gladly pillage as well as fight monsters, you need to give them consequences for their actions, but you shouldn't let those consequences be punishment from above rather than further challenges to have fun overcoming. Otherwise, you'll basically be turning the game into one 3/4 of your players feel constricted in.

For the record, "heroes" being bandits half the time has solid precedent, if you look at figures like Heracles or the Argonauts.

Renegade Paladin
2007-01-09, 10:23 PM
As soon as they screw up, drop the hammer on 'em. Good-aligned NPC adventurers, the baron's troops (and champion, if they're high level), the local paladin order, or whatever the hammer of justice in your world is should react appropriately the minute they start doing evil stuff that attracts notice and don't adequately cover their tracks.

psiryu
2007-01-09, 10:45 PM
In my opinion it really depends how "evil" the player is. Just because he is evil doesn’t mean that he is going to go around slaughtering innocents and commiting other atrocities.
I generally play the more selfish and self centred evil character which shouldn’t give you any problems if your PC plays that way.
Now if your PC does go in for the "KILL MAIM BURN" evil then well…. Send in the paladins, the militia, random low level adventures who have high hopes but short lives and a few batman style vigilantes.

Aximili
2007-01-09, 11:01 PM
Now if your PC does go in for the "KILL MAIM BURN" evil then well…. Send in the paladins, the militia, random low level adventures who have high hopes but short lives and a few batman style vigilantes.

That is: make his life difficult.

Tormsskull
2007-01-09, 11:05 PM
As soon as they screw up, drop the hammer on 'em. Good-aligned NPC adventurers, the baron's troops (and champion, if they're high level), the local paladin order, or whatever the hammer of justice in your world is should react appropriately the minute they start doing evil stuff that attracts notice and don't adequately cover their tracks.

No offense to anyone else, but focus on this response. It is the best advice.

A Pointy Object
2007-01-09, 11:09 PM
How should you deal with evil PCs?

I suggest a vorpal greatsword.

Still, make sure you get through to the players that being evil isn't easy, and that if they are found out, they are in for a world of hurt. Mercy for them in tight spot gives them a feeling of invulneribility (God, I hope I spelled that right).

Emperor Tippy
2007-01-09, 11:10 PM
Remember the cursed object the Helm of Opposite Alignment. Next time they do something evil some paladins come along and force it on each of their heads. You then make them role play their alignments as the description says that the hat makes you not even able to think about going back to your previous alignment.

Mewtarthio
2007-01-10, 12:05 AM
Remember the cursed object the Helm of Opposite Alignment. Next time they do something evil some paladins come along and force it on each of their heads. You then make them role play their alignments as the description says that the hat makes you not even able to think about going back to your previous alignment.

That's just like saying "Hey, I don't like how you're playing, now play the game the way I want you to." Just have them suffer realistic consequences for their actions. If they're clever enough to cover all their tracks and don't do anything to attract the notice of high-level characters, they've earned a reprieve, but eventually they'll have to do something big (unless they want to play a game revolving around petty theivery, but most evil characters either want to do something huge like taking over the world or are simply very selfish and mercenary in their outlooks). When they do, they get caught, and bad things happen.

Shazzbaa
2007-01-10, 12:13 AM
I've played in games where the DM made it clear that good acts were rewarded and evil came to justice. You could certainly mention to your players that this is likely to happen. I can totally understand being uncomfortable with running an evil campaign that you never wanted to run.

If characters continue being evil, the above advice is good. But I don't think it would be a bad idea to point out that a world where evil gets justice is, quite simply, the game you wanted to run.

Aximili
2007-01-10, 12:21 AM
Remember that having a couple evil PC does not mean you are running an evil campaign.

An evil character can very well perform a non-selfish mission if he's given the right motivation. In most cases, this motivation is money, but it could be many more things.

A Pointy Object
2007-01-10, 12:23 AM
Motivation-wise, survival is also a great reason.

Or greed. Followed by survival.

Baron_Dex
2007-01-10, 12:28 AM
That's just like saying "Hey, I don't like how you're playing, now play the game the way I want you to." Just have them suffer realistic consequences for their actions.I agree, and must condemn the heavy-handed approach. Anything like this is wholly unrealistic, it detracts from your game and reeks of railroading.

Think about it this way. If the PCs are good, there are no armies of helm-bearing paladins, nor angels of wrath swooping in to stop their antagonists. It's unrealistic, and would ruin all the fun of stopping those villains for the players.

If the players are taking a turn towards evil, well, you can talk to them about that, be sure to mention it, and say whether or not you want to deal with it. I've had players willing to lie, cheat, steal, and torture, but for noble ends. I've also had some who wanted to destroy entire cities. The former we dealt with in game, the latter agreed to create a new character; he just did not get along with the others.

But if evil characters remain as PCs, the consequences of their actions should be reasonable, like the d% roll suggested above, or some bounty hunters, paladins, and the like, but the old rule remains, "let the punishment fit the crime."

Diggorian
2007-01-10, 01:05 AM
Good topic, Tonka.

I'm with Mewtarthio and Baron Dex. Their story, though differently flavored than you may desire, should still be told. If they're doing high profile evil stuff, they get noticed. If they are smart enough to hide things, they get by for a while.

I've had to deal with these type of PC's, the players take steamventing a bit too far. I deal with it with divine judgement:

Subtle hints about the darkness of their path come up. A crazy old hermit pointing accusingly at them but saying nothing. Encounters with these hints should feel eery.

Whenever a PC does something that falls under any of the three evil alignments, list a check by their name in your notes. If they were good I'd intensify the hints per check for the powers trying to warn them harder. A paladin in my game got two checks towards LN; his armor wouldnt shine anymore, just a dull grey.

If they do two things that fall under any of the good alignments, erase one check. 2:1 ratio for the seductiveness of evil.

When a PC racks up three checks, the gods a have decided they're now evil. Dont tell them. Just no more odd hints and continue the story as regular.

It's more dramatically potent for them to discover it on their own. A GM anouncing checks and an alignment shift makes you seem restrictive and punishing. Best for it to feel like a natural process they created and that you're neutral about. This is the story they're creating.

Sam K
2007-01-10, 01:21 AM
I'd suggest you start off by talking to your players and see why they're acting the way they do. Are they being evil because it's convenient, because of RP reasons, or because they're just being daft bastages?

If they're being evil for convenience, they may just feel that being good doesn't pay off enough. If the players work hard and take constant risks in the name of good and feel they get shafted for the reward, taking the easier way out is a natural reaction.
This could be remedied in several ways. You could give different awards for being good, such as giving people who do the right (but usually more complicated and less monetary rewarding) thing more experience; after all, taking the easy way doesn't usually teach you much, while facing hardship and moral dilemas will teach you more about yourself. This may encourage people to play more benevolent characters. Alternatively, you may just want to let good deeds have a better payoff. Killing the villagers may give you their measely posessions, but helping the village prosper may give you a strong base of operations and many potential allies.

If your players are being evil because they enjoy RPing that way, the first step would be to really look at their characters personality. So Bob the fighter is evil, but what KIND of evil is he? Most kinds of evil doesn't prevent a harmonious party, and even evil people can be loyal friends. Reward good RPing, and encourage the players of evil characters to make belivable evil characters that you can work into the campaign. Alternatively, you may wish to run a side campaign with evil characters, or get someone else to run one. People get tired of playing the same thing, and if your group has done alot of heroic RPing in the past, they may just be needing a break from it.

Finally, if they're just being evil cause they're daft, start smacking them with some reality. If they comit attrocities, they will be tracked down. There's always some adventurers that want to gain money and fame (and a higher level) by tracking down villans and bringing them to justice.

Thomas
2007-01-10, 01:38 AM
Is it wrong for a GM to reward good actions and only provide evil and dishonest actions with shortrun benefits and eventually "punishment"?

And is it so wrong for evil PCs to meet justice at the end of the campaign if they show no intentions of turning from their ways?

Is it okay to make your RPG into a morality tale, you mean?

Yes, provided you made it clear at the outset that the campaign was meant for good characters. If you didn't ... well, maybe you will do it next time. Stiffing characters & players because they didn't know the campaign was for good characters is bad. Giving them "what's coming to them" when they knew the campaign's for good characters is fine.


Personally, I do try to model the values of the appropriate society in my games; but since the game where that usually applies is RuneQuest, that's easy as pie, since in Glorantha, morality exists for a reason. If you kill a kinsman, a Chaotic monster pops into existence and starts destroying your community. If someone is raped, a succubus demon takes form and starts destroying the community. If somebody commits suicide after being viciously shamed or dishonored, it's demon time again. And so on. People don't do some things because they're Bad in a very real, tangible way, and communities tend to be strict on enforcement because of this.

Of course, all of this is very clearly "foreshadowed" - characters are given a lot of clear-cut examples of both good and bad behavior, offered wisdom from the elders, maybe even stories or parables. The myths they re-enact are all about how to live a good life according to this god (and the culture ultimately created by that god in the God-Time). Of course there's going to be the occasional departure into "the grey zone," but those stand out as tricky situations precisely because they've learned what's good and what's bad.

So if my players decide to start murdering kinsfolk, breaking the rules of hospitality, dishonoring their gods, and so on, they won't be surprised when their actions ruin them, often indirectly and later on, and in a very "steamrolling" fashion - a horde of Chaos creatures or an alliance of enemies made descends upon their clan and wipes it out, or something of the sort.


Now, this is all subject to the campaign world, obviously. In Cyberpunk 2020, there's no mystical backlash. However, there are SWAT teams with 20mm cannons as standard side-arms, megacorporations that can destroy your life one piece at a time, at their leisure, and crime bosses who can make you wish you were dead. Of course, there the morality tale should be something different - it should be about making the right choices even when they make your life harder, so the Ref's problem is coming up with suitable, plausible ways to reward the players (if not the characters) for these actions.

In most game worlds, you can use a sort of combination of factors. There's the local community, society, or government, probably with its laws and rules and some way to enforce them in a world of wizards, clerics, and high-level fighters. (Usually that way includes wizards, clerics, and high-level fighters...) There's the gods (but you need to make clear early on, by examples not related to the PCs' actions, what kind of a role the gods play in punishing and rewarding the unjust and the just). There's reputation - if you're known as a bloodthirsty monster, paladins will come after you, common people will not do business with you, and groups of savage humanoids will be willing to serve you (which may seem great at first, but just wait until the best and brightest of them decide they're worthier of rulership).

As a rule, evil characters should be given a chance - but they shouldn't get off scot-free. But if the good characters are rewarded for their deeds, and make enemies of villains, then the converse could surely apply to evil characaters.

Leminex
2007-01-10, 02:22 AM
Had to speak up here as nobody had really taken the setting into account. While it’s hard to say exactly what sort of level of evil you are talking about without examples, Eberron definitely lends itself to moral ambiguity. Indeed as a player I'd be disappointed to run in a typical black vs white crusading campaign. In my eyes Eberron is all about people doing the right things for the wrong reasons and the wrong things for the right reasons.

That being said I see two sides of the coin here. As a GM and Player my major concern is first off that everyone is having a good time (game and all remember) and to me that means a good suspension of disbelief. Thus as a GM I play consequences that would logically follow the players (and NPCs) actions. But I don't like leaving it there, because people do err and dice do botch, thus I'm quite willing to tilt things in my players favour IF and only if it doesn't break that suspension of disbelief.

Thus the easy way to deal with this is abstract it, say to yourself 'If I had a random NPC do the same thing in this situation, what would happen.' Is it likely he'd be discovered? Would the watch bother to hunt him down if he fled? Heck Eberron actually has well defined laws and its possible to be plenty evil without ever even breaking those. (And on the flip side, the last game I ran had the very good-aligned players breaking laws all over the place, took some creative explaining to keep them out of jail).

That aside I also believe the GM has the right to have fun, and I easily realize that most people don't do very well with evil players. In thus case its an out of game problem and should be dealt with by talking to the players.

Last suggestion would be to really edge away from some of the heavy handed methods suggested here. I find them to be trite in campaigns where such forces of good might make sense, but most of them fly directly in the face of Eberron.

I mean it'd be odd if the God's which nobody knows for absolute certain exist suddenly start giving little dream messages on if they think you're doing an all right job in life. Not even getting into the fact that some of the Dark Six are worshiped by good people (in so much as a 'please don't bring me ill fortune' way).

And honestly I find a horde of Paladins with an alignment changing helm to be outright vile in any setting, hallo lobotomy.

Unless your players are being villainous instead of just evil, any notable bastion of Good should probably have better things to be doing. That said evil isn't one big loving alliance. If I was an 'evil' PC running around killing random peasants in town, I'd be a lot less worried about the town guard and more concerned that I might have killed cousin in the Boromar Clan (ie the Mob), cause they'd be taking me for a long walk off a short pier rather then the court house.

Sam K
2007-01-10, 03:45 AM
I find that when you have to resort to heavy handed methods to keep the players in line, the campaign should probably be put on hold so you can work out what exactly is going on. Some of the suggestions I've seen here are bordering on what I still call the "poopypants syndrome": way back when I started RPing (we were 9 or 10), one DM would regularly 'solve' the problem of players doing something 'wrong' by having his character poo his pants. If people still insisted on acting the 'wrong' way (wrong could be something like going left when the DM wanted you to go right) your colon would explode and you'd die. Really, I wish I was making this up...

Point... Im sure I had one...

Oh yeah, when you get to the point that you feel you have to 'slap your players down', be it by the forced application of helms of opposite alignment, rocks falling from the sky for no good reason, or spontanious bowel combustion, is the game really fun, or are you just being vindictive? If the game turns into a war between players and the DM, it usually stops being fun.


Last suggestion would be to really edge away from some of the heavy handed methods suggested here. I find them to be trite in campaigns where such forces of good might make sense, but most of them fly directly in the face of Eberron.

I agree 100%. Really, unless the characters are very closely tied to a specific diety, or if they're major players in the fate of the world, gods should stay out of their actions. I'd apply this even in a setting with active gods, such as forgotten realms. Gods are not a messaging service that'll drop little hints on what you should be doing. If they did, it'd quickly get silly.

Goodius, the good god of goodness and sunshine may be omnipotent and aware of all a characters sins. He may decide it would be a good idea to drop a subtle hint about sinning being bad for you. However, Evilus, the evil god of evilness and puppies (eeeeevil puppies, mind you) is ALSO omnipotent and aware of all a characters sins. He's gonna be just as eager to drop subtle hints about sinning being totally awsome. What would likely happend is that they'd spend all their time blocking eachothers subtle hints- otherwise people wouldn't get anything done for all the divine portents that kept popping up. It'd be like all those popup windows that refuse to close.

Paladins and clerics would have it worst of all. I would never give a paladin or cleric a warning about what they're about to do compromising their alignment. They're suppose to KNOW, it's what being a holy man/woman/inanimate object is all about. Clerics shouldn't get told the proper way to act, they should be able to tell OTHERS about these things. If a player asks the DM about the moral implications of his actions, it's different. The player likely hasn't devoted the same time to his gods teachings as the character has, so they may be given a hint. I'd base it on the result of a knowledge: religion check, though. You DID take knowledge: religion, riiiight...?

Ardantis
2007-01-10, 03:47 AM
This is my first post on the forums, but I'm coming off of a one-shot game this weekend where my PC, a former gladiator, realistically and through backstory made a CN to CG shift.

Meanwhile, my money-grubbing manager (and friend and fellow PC,) realistically and through backstory made a CN to CE shift.

Obviously this caused some problems.

After we had overthrown the leaders of the local thieves' guild, the gladiator (a fighter/barbarian) became angry at the manager (a rogue) for having murdered an innocent as the quick and dirty solution to a gauntlet puzzle. In response, and in keeping with the manager's alignment shift, he brutally murdered the gladiator (who had just come out of barbarian rage with 2 hp left.)

We both, as roleplayers, appreciated the consequences of going evil AS WELL AS the consequences of going good.

I always see roleplaying from a player's perspective, presumably because I think it's all about the experience involving them in the end. DMs create living worlds that respond to character actions, but logically and not retributively. If players get off track from the quest, or from each other, it's up to the DM to, heaven forfend, make his world respond.

In a medium that is so dependent upon interaction, I resent the DM that should be a novelist, refusing to let players act out of the "intended" setting.

Now, this isn't a lot of other people's point of view on gaming, and I tend to play a LOT more one-shot and more relaxed, free-form games, so take this with a grain of salt. But even in a more rigid campaign setting, the players must be accomodated to a certain degree. By all means, send the guards after him if that's what he's earned, but don't force his hand or kill him off unless he acts truly foolishly.

And in the future, learn which players want to play your game. I agree wholeheartedly with Raum, don't force characters to do your bidding, incentivize them. Even evil characters will save the world for the gold or if threatened realistically, and then the good characters can see the cost of going good.

As a parting note, I often find myself, as DM, throwing the odd NPC or situation at a party that incentivizes the opposite aims of my meta-plot. It helps everyone fit in by making those that go against the grain feel appreciated, and those that go with it realize that it's not all about them all the time.

As always, my advice is worth what you pay for it.

paigeoliver
2007-01-10, 07:43 AM
From my experience I have found that eventually a party containing at least one appropriately played good character and one properly played evil character will eventually disintegrate. Sometimes it takes one session, sometimes it takes many, but it always happens eventually, with chaotic evil or lawful good characters accelerating the issue.

I have seen this party breakdown happen as early as the very first encounter that included both alignments.

A mixed group of characters that included a Lawful good and a neutral evil are traveling down a road that goes along a river. They spot a group of lizard men sitting at the side of the road fishing, with a few giant lizard mounts tied to a tree. The lizard men glance at the characters and then go back to their fishing.

Of course half the party immediately attacks the lizard men. In the ensuing melee the Lawful good character ends up fighting against the party trying to subdue them and protect the lizard men (who are interested in nothing more than running away). The only casualty in the battle is one of the giant lizard mounts, although the lawful good character is eventually subdued, the other party members dump the unconsious body off at the nearest town and go on there way.

Three days later they are met by their ex-companion and "Otis" a high level lawful good fighter from a nearby town. Otis gives the party a choice, either they can do exactly what he says to make the situation right, or he can dispense justice to them right then and there for engaging in banditry on "his" road.

Otis ends up marching the party into the lizard man village, making them apologize to all of them, and pay the cost for them to replace that giant lizard.

That same party is still playing in the same area, although the Neutral-Evil character has moved to true neutral, the Lawful Good character never rejoined them, and they are all really careful not to do anything to piss off Otis.

We had two evil characters when we played "Keep on the Borderlands", and the party managed to essentially complete the module before all hell broke loose. In this case the evil characters had planned all along to be nice and cooperative until the party had all the loot, and then try to get it all.

I have only seen one properly played evil character last a long time in a mixed party. That one is a neutral evil warlock who has made it to 9th level in a mixed party. Although a large part of the cooperation was based on the fact that the party was trapped away from civilization with the character for a long time and they were all sort of scared of him, and he always funneled his evil towards his opponents.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-10, 08:03 AM
You know, I was just thinking about something similar. The party I play in tends toward Neutral and Evil, and I was wondering: What's so bad about evil characters? Must every campaign be about heroes stopping the BBEG? Why not a collection of anti-heroes who are mostly interesting in their own safety, who end up accidentally saving the world?

I suppose it's not in your campaign, but what if instead of a BBEG, they had a BBGG? Or better yet, what if the PCs were the ones TRYING to take over the world?

paigeoliver
2007-01-10, 08:28 AM
My campaign world has a large area where the struggle isn't really good versus evil but law versus chaos with the "bad guys" of the story being lawful (and often good).

The elves in my world do the "Elven retreat" thing about once every thousand years or so where they (as a group) leave the forests of the continents of the world and retreat to a chain of islands. Well the last time they came back to their islands they discovered that "their" islands had been "discovered" and settled for almost 500 years by humans and dwarves. The elves managed to push the humans off one island, and have been trying to get them off the other 10 for about 100 years now. The humans claim the elves abandoned the islands and now they have been on them for many generations, while the dwarves claim (truthfully) that the elves had never even established a presence on the island they claimed.

The game has been working quite well with bad guys that are essentially Lawful good, while the good guys are are a mix of chaotic humans, and Lawful/neutral dwarves. Oddly enough my players who usually have no problems injecting evil characters into entirely inappropriate storylines have come up with NO evil characters at all for this setting.


You know, I was just thinking about something similar. The party I play in tends toward Neutral and Evil, and I was wondering: What's so bad about evil characters? Must every campaign be about heroes stopping the BBEG? Why not a collection of anti-heroes who are mostly interesting in their own safety, who end up accidentally saving the world?

I suppose it's not in your campaign, but what if instead of a BBEG, they had a BBGG? Or better yet, what if the PCs were the ones TRYING to take over the world?

Tormsskull
2007-01-10, 08:42 AM
You know, I was just thinking about something similar. The party I play in tends toward Neutral and Evil, and I was wondering: What's so bad about evil characters? Must every campaign be about heroes stopping the BBEG? Why not a collection of anti-heroes who are mostly interesting in their own safety, who end up accidentally saving the world?

I suppose it's not in your campaign, but what if instead of a BBEG, they had a BBGG? Or better yet, what if the PCs were the ones TRYING to take over the world?

It can work, but I'd say it is more difficult than a standard campaign. If everyone is neutral or evil there is less teamwork, less incentive to help each other out, etc. Often times the only reason an evil group stays together is because they are forced to by the DM.

I think most of the time players don't actually want evil characters, they want no-restriction characters. They want to be able to act how they want to at any given time without having to worry about the morality/consequences behind it or hearing "Your character wouldn't do that." They feel that being evil is the easiest way to get around these restraints, and so they select evil.

IME I have also noticed that being evil in an all evil party is actually not what most players who want an evil character are looking for. They want to play an evil character in a good party so they can sneak around, hide stuff from their party members, have secret information that no one else has, etc.

Wolf53226
2007-01-10, 08:52 AM
First question, is what they are doing hurting anyone's enjoyment of the game? And I mean you should examine how you feel and how the good character(s) player(s) feel.

If so, and I am guessing since you are writing hear that it is:

Have a talk with the "evil" players, let them know that while they don't have to be good, being blatantly evil is messing with the enjoyment of the game for either you, your other player(s) or both. Stress to them that while you will allow them to play evil characters, there are groups inside the world that would actively search out those evil characters.

If they still want to be evil, change their alignment and have some paladins go after them.

I cannot stress this enough, these are supposed to be friends of yours, TALK TO THEM FIRST.

MrNexx
2007-01-10, 08:56 AM
From my experience I have found that eventually a party containing at least one appropriately played good character and one properly played evil character will eventually disintegrate. Sometimes it takes one session, sometimes it takes many, but it always happens eventually, with chaotic evil or lawful good characters accelerating the issue.

I think it highly depends on the nature of the evil. Sure, the berserker, kill everything type evil is going to cause problems... but a more subtle evil is going to cause a lot less. We've had evil characters who've gone and hired assassins when the party split up in town (to go after minor bad guys the rest of the party let go). It doesn't work if you have a paladin (because paladins aren't allowed to try to convert people, apparently), but someone who is more subtle about their evil, in a largely good party, can function successfully.

Om
2007-01-10, 09:19 AM
We both, as roleplayers, appreciated the consequences of going evil AS WELL AS the consequences of going good.
While Ardantis' post as a whole was excellent I do feel that this point has to be emphasised. Every action that a player takes should have consequences but these consequences should not be limited to the "bad" characters.

Having an evil PC suddenly ambushed by righteous paladins is both unexpected and undesirable. On the other hand having him be approached by the local thieves guild, either with an offer of business or orders to get off their turf, is a logical extension of meddling in the local crime scene.

By the same token an overriding moral tone should be avoided. There may be times when perhaps the brutal path is actually the best way to achieve results - but it must be the decision of the PCs.

If you are looking for a practical way to keep the party together then I'd suggest that the PCs incur the wrath of a common foe. A self-righteous paladin or church that is more lawful than good would be a stereotypical example. Or perhaps the BBEG doesn't care if some PCs are evil - he simply wants them all dead and will hunt them down unless he himself is killed.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-10, 09:42 AM
In our game, our evil group holds together because our head wizard is so charm (person)ing.

pestilenceawaits
2007-01-10, 09:43 AM
One of the first things I do when playing with new people is tell them that we have no evil PCs in my game. They can be morally ambiguous and trying to find a path in life or formerly evil and trying to redeem themselves but actively evil characters don't have any reason to take part in the campaigns I run. With that being said, if the PCs start acting evil knowing what the rules are ahead of time I show them there are consequences for their actions. People will start looking for them and want just for the wrongs they have committed at first it won't be so bad but if they continue in their behavior it will get harder and harder for them to adventure because they are constantly be hunted and punished by the powers that be. so to sum up my thoughts and what seems to be the consensus of the thread.

Talk to them first.:smallsmile:
Then punish.:smallyuk:

Saph
2007-01-10, 10:15 AM
From my experience I have found that eventually a party containing at least one appropriately played good character and one properly played evil character will eventually disintegrate. Sometimes it takes one session, sometimes it takes many, but it always happens eventually, with chaotic evil or lawful good characters accelerating the issue.

I have to agree with this. I've seen parties with mixes of good/evil characters and it's never ended well. Usually the players try to push it under the carpet for a while, just so they can keep playing, but eventually everything goes wrong. If one of the characters in the party is good, and is actually making an effort to play them as good, then they're going to have trouble with the fact that Stabbity the Psycho spends his spare time murdering random passers-by.

I suppose in theory a smart, subtle evil type could manage for a long time in a good/neutral party . . . but I've never seen it, for the same reason Tormskull mentions. Most players who want to be evil don't want to be subtle evil, they want to be no-restrictions-do-what-I-want evil, and they tend not to think much about consequences.

The plus side of this, if you're DMing, is that I find you don't generally need to 'punish' evil characters with any kind of DM intervention or deus ex machina. They'll handle it all by themselves. Either they'll get on the nerves of someone much bigger and stronger than them and get killed, or they'll kill each other in a fight over how to split the treasure. Hopefully they'll learn their lesson for the next time, but don't count on it . . .

- Saph

Thomas
2007-01-10, 10:46 AM
Having an evil PC suddenly ambushed by righteous paladins is both unexpected and undesirable.

Say the what on the what now?

That's called an adventure seed (or an opening scene, or whatever), and it's a good one, since it stems from the character and the character's action (and the player's decisions). Good guys get ambushed by bad guys; bad guys get ambushed by good guys (and bad guys, too). The good guys often have the advantage, since their organizations tend to be bigger and government-supported (depends on the campaign world and the area, obviously).

If my players run around pissing off the Zhentarim, they get targeted by the Zhentarim. If they run around pissing off Alustriel, Taern, the Harpers, the Churches of the Triad, etc., they get jumped by a bunch of heroes.


I suppose in theory a smart, subtle evil type could manage for a long time in a good/neutral party . . . but I've never seen it, for the same reason Tormskull mentions. Most players who want to be evil don't want to be subtle evil, they want to be no-restrictions-do-what-I-want evil, and they tend not to think much about consequences.

Boring evil is easy. I won't speculate into the psychology of it, though I've developed some theories. Basically, I don't think it should be allowed. If a player wants to play evil, it has to be the kind of evil that will not disrupt the campaign. It's perfectly doable - in fact, one old player of mine did it in every game and campaign.

My evil character is totally, absolutely, completely evil (well, he'll tell you he's amoral, not immoral - morality is a crutch for the weak and a tool of subtle oppression for the strong, after all, and those of True Will break free of it, et cetera... you know, standard double-talk to justify and excuse being a monster)... but he's a pillar of the community as far as anyone can tell. He's a teacher, and close friends with the good guys - knights, royal guards, the "protagonist" sorts who go after the mysteries and the courtly intrigues and try to solve them and set things right. Why would he not? They make great allies, and if they succeed, he won't get hurt. Meanwhile, he'll happily benefit from alliances with the other bad guys, and work his evil, years-spanning plans in secret.

A nice, recent example for me is Bishop from NWN2. He's the kind of evil you can work with. He'll keep his actions in check because he doesn't want to get into trouble, and because he has to restrain himself in order to get whatever it is he wants. But he's evil, in that uncaring, ruthless, "eat or be eaten" way. (He's also a nasty bastard, which is a little disappointing, but I suppose it does go with his character.) There's also a solid story reason for taking him along (to begin with; I don't know why my paladin character would let him hang around afterwards, though I suppose I did take that treacherous mage in, too...).

Person_Man
2007-01-10, 10:56 AM
I have two simple alignment rules that I require all of my PC's to follow:

1) Regardless of what your alignment is, you cannot lie to or purposefully work against other PC's, nor can you shut down the game for everyone else by going off and doing your own thing for an extended period of time. If hurting/lying to/betraying other PC's is "what your character would do," you need to play another character. Even Chaotic Evil Blackguards can have friends, family members, and respected overlords/minions that they work with and trust.

2) Most of the people in my game world are basically Lawful Good. If you break laws or do blatently Evil things, and are caught, society will try to punish you.

Once everyone in the group accepts this, things tend to work out fine.

There is no need to "punish" Evil characters. They must simply accept that D&D is a colaborative game, and that if they walk around breaking the law or summoning demons then the law enforcement and Paladins of the world will show up to try and stop them, if they learn of it...

Om
2007-01-10, 12:12 PM
Say the what on the what now?
Let's assume that the PC murders an old man deep in the forests. Two minutes later he's jumped by a dozen paladins here to "punish him for his crimes". You see nothing wrong with that?

As I said in my above post there are consequences to every action. This does not excuse the DM suddenly springing half a holy order on the party because he disagrees with their actions or moral path.

Matthew
2007-01-10, 12:13 PM
Don't worry about Alignment. You determine that based on the actions and intentions of the Player Characters and you need never tell them what Alignment they are.

Whatever the Player Characters do should have plausible consequences, both good and evil (not in the D&D sense).

You and the Players are best advised to agree outside of the game what sort of game you want to play (or story you want to tell) and prepare accordingly.

Mewtarthio
2007-01-10, 12:48 PM
It's possible to have Good and Evil in one party. Granted, the Evil guys can't run around disemboweling every Commoner they see and the Good guys can't spend all their time lecturing the Evil guys, but so long as the party works together, it can be done. Look at Firefly: Jayne is pretty Evil, but he manages to party with Good characters such as... um... Simon (minus the Ariel incident)? Zoe, maybe? It helps that Mal (LN) is their leader, of course.

JadedDM
2007-01-10, 01:12 PM
At the request of my players, I once ran an all-evil game. That is, the PCs were all evil (well, ironically, one player--who just had to be different, played TN instead) and the theme of the game was that the PCs would become powerful villains one day (as opposed to heroes).

I figured the worst thing that could happen is the PCs would get themselves all killed or finish each other off, right?

Not exactly. The entire group fell apart. I don't know if they were just really immature (which would be sad, since they were all in their 20s except for one) or if playing evil just brought out the worst parts of their own psyches. But eventually everything became personal, every IC attack was fueled with OOC motivation ("He killed my character! Well, I'll show him!"), and after only a handful of sessions, nobody was enjoying themselves anymore (especially me--and rule of thumb, if the DM isn't have fun, why bother spending days setting up sessions?)

I wound up ending the campaign after about...12 sessions or so, I think. But I was too late. The damage was done. And group fell apart, embodied with bitterness and anger, and I wound up having to start over with a new group.

In conclusion, I'm never doing that again.

To the original poster, this is my advice.

First, if you don't all ready, start writing a summary of each session after the game. Make sure to include all the heinous acts the PCs commit. When the game is over, make sure to show the PCs just what they did. You'd be surprised how often a player will not fully realize what they have done until it's shown to them and pointed out. ("Uh...I raped how many young virgins? I ate how many puppies?") It may discourage them from that route in the future (maybe).

Second, just remember one of the most important rules in roleplaying: Real consequences for real actions. Sometimes, if they are clever (or lucky) enough, the PCs can really get away with murder. But most of the time, there will be consequences. The local authorities will come after them, good-aligned adventurers or monsters will seek them out, or they will develop a reputation so vile that most NPCs will refuse to deal with them. Imagine having to sneak into every town you visit, because if you just walk through the front gate every constable there will be on you.

Playing evil is not nearly as much as some gamers think.

Dausuul
2007-01-10, 01:20 PM
I have to agree with this. I've seen parties with mixes of good/evil characters and it's never ended well. Usually the players try to push it under the carpet for a while, just so they can keep playing, but eventually everything goes wrong. If one of the characters in the party is good, and is actually making an effort to play them as good, then they're going to have trouble with the fact that Stabbity the Psycho spends his spare time murdering random passers-by.

I suppose in theory a smart, subtle evil type could manage for a long time in a good/neutral party . . . but I've never seen it, for the same reason Tormskull mentions. Most players who want to be evil don't want to be subtle evil, they want to be no-restrictions-do-what-I-want evil, and they tend not to think much about consequences.

I love playing subtle evil characters in good parties. It's fun to provide a moral contrast to the rest of the party, while still being a staunch ally and not so objectionable that they turn on you. Lately I've been toying with the idea of making a "black knight" sort of character--very honorable, forthright, and loyal, but also cold-hearted, callous, and merciless. I've also played evil wizards planning to take over the world, ruthless assassins, and quite a few others. As long as you make sure your character is loyal enough to stand by his/her friends, sane enough not to go around killing at random, and smart enough to avoid getting caught doing anything heinous, you can make it work.

On the other hand, I've also met the sort of players you describe, who just want to wallow in gore while everyone else looks on in bemused distaste. But that has more to do with the player than the alignment... those people drift into wanton brutality even when they claim to be playing paladins.

Regarding the all-evil campaign, I've run those successfully, but you need reasonably mature players and you have to run a pretty tight ship. Make sure the PCs are under heavy pressure from an external source, like a BBEG (or BBGG) who wants to kill them all no matter what alignment they are, and keep the pressure on hard so they don't have leisure to turn on each other. Otherwise, the party is apt to self-destruct in spectacular fashion--and possibly the gaming group as well.

Thomas
2007-01-10, 01:23 PM
Let's assume that the PC murders an old man deep in the forests. Two minutes later he's jumped by a dozen paladins here to "punish him for his crimes". You see nothing wrong with that?

Yes, it's stupid, assuming nothing unusual about the context.

If we were dealing with, say, Glorantha, and the scenario is "Son murders father secretly and disposes of the corpse," then "broos wander into his lands and impregnate his cattle with their foul seed; the larvae burst from the cattle, killing them, and scuttle off into the nearby woods, from where they harry the clan, and the murderer's stead, for years to come" is perfectly reasonable.

In most fantasy games, provided you've laid out the groundwork (like I've already gone over in my previous post), it's also perfectly acceptable to decide that Deity X sees the murder and takes some sort of action (beneficient, malicious, punitive, manipulative, whatever).

You put up a ridiculous straw man, but that's not quite enough to qualify as an argument. Anyone and everyone can easily determine what is a reasonable consequence for evil in a situation. If your world/game incorporates something like "evil begets evil," there are a thousand ways to make it come true.

In your example, you're neglecting a lot of realistic considerations. The old man is going to have family. The body could be discovered, the murder scried with magics, the murderer located with more magic, etc. The old man could be the father of a great paladin, who will spare no effort to locate the murderer upon receiving word of his father's gruesome death (that's called poetic justice, and, wouldn't you know it, it's pretty typical in fantasy and legends). Justice could come the next week or five years down the road, but like I said, there's many reasonable ways to do it.

Ardantis
2007-01-10, 04:56 PM
Don't get me wrong, when I promoted DM leeway for evil characters, I was not advocating poor roleplaying- poor roleplaying is poor roleplaying, no matter how you spin it. The overtly brutal CE character will be just as much of a pain to the party as the self-righteous LG paladin.

And players who want an unfair advantage through playing chaotic or evil are just as annoying as powergamers and munchkins who abuse multiclassing or prestige classes.

Well-played evil characters should understand the consequences of their actions, and strive to NOT GET CAUGHT, and if they do, to have a backup plan. The lizardman example doesn't show evil being played well, in my opinion- the evil characters should have been able to anticipate the reaction of the paladin, and the intervention of local law. If I had played the evil characters in that situation, I personally would have attempted to steal from the lizardmen, or engage them in a swindle that would have been less black-and-white.

Take The Giant's own characters in OOTS. When the Linear Guild first meets the Order in the Dungeon of Dorukan and they temorarily team up, the chaotic Thog and the evil Nale kill the guardians of the Elemental Sigils when nobody else is looking. They do self-serving things because those actions are in character, and hide them because they realize the consequence of those actions.

Evil can work together just fine- a good example is an "Adventure" game I GMed about a month ago. For the uninitiated, "Adventure" is as close to "Indiana Jones the Roleplaying Game" as you'll ever get- its a 1920's era pulp engine (although I've used it for everything from Victorian to WWII...)

I like to run a scenario called "Captain Zorbo and and his Sky Patrol Invade New York" in which the megalomaniacal (and German) Captain Zorbo invades New York with a fleet of Zeppelins. Whenever I run good, heroic groups through this scenario, they find a way up to the Zeppelins (usually by stealing an auto-gyro from the Sky Patrol...) and confront the insane Captain and his burly lieutenant, Hitzig, in order to save the city.

However, the last time I ran it, my players decided to be mobsters. These characters had no stake in the welfare of the city, or even who ran it- all they cared about was their criminal empire and personal wealth. In fact, they took no action against the Sky Patrol- until they learned that Captain Zorbo had secretly been meeting with a rival family. It was actually really funny, every time I mentioned that there was a fleet of zeppelins in the sky above, the characters just shrugged and continued on with their plans for underworld domination. They never even went up to the Zeppelins, they decided instead to strike against the rival mob family (requiring me to quickly put together the rival mob mansion and goonie stats.)

The evil mobsters worked together just fine- they just went about it diffently, using skullduggery and torture to glean information from enemies and pulling the ol' Trojan Horse number to sneak into the enemy compound disguised as contract killers for the opposing family.

I guess all I'm saying is that evil works as well as good if it isn't abused. That goes for chaotic as well, CN is the most often abused alignment ever.

It's all about well-done roleplaying, in the end.

Runolfr
2007-01-10, 05:21 PM
The local society should respond appropriately to the party's behavior, using the appropriate means at their disposal.

If the party is murdering and stealing, the local agents of justice should seek them out to punish them (unless it's a corrupt society and the party are greasing the right palms).

Also, don't forget that other organized criminals will see the party as rivals, so they can easily be getting it from both sides.

So, in a nutshell, you are in no way obliged to reward criminal behavior and completely justified in punishing it. You just need to do it in game and with reasonable force.

LordLocke
2007-01-10, 05:44 PM
Evil PCs can be an amusing addition to the party, but not if they're ruining the game with it.

The problem mostly comes when PCs decide that being evil means death and slaughter without rhyme or reason. Serial Killer PCs tend to live short lives in my campaign. Especially if they draw the attention of the shape-shifted Gold Dragon paladin who is working with the king he befrended a long time ago to keep order and justice in his fair city.

Yeah. I've got a few contingency plans for Evil PCs who can't keep it under control.

Normally, though, I find that evil is ok. If it's not directly disruptive to the flow of the game, I usually have no problems with it- it keeps the party on their toes, and occasionally letting the evil guy actually go through with a plan- say, upsurping the rule of a small hamlet with the assistance of a legion of goblins he had swear loyalty to him after the party stopped their king from ordering raids on said hamlet- keeps things a little fresher then just always being the heroic bunch of do-gooders.

The only time I definately find an evil character incompatable with a party is with a Paladin, a cleric of certain gods, or a Lawful Good Knight. In which case I pull aside the evil PC's player and generally let them know in advance that if it comes down to it, I'll probably side with player A being a paladin/cleric/knight then them being evil, since it's the less-disruptive of the two in a party setting. And if they can't keep it under grips/repetedly cause problems which slow down the game because of party disputes, it's when the small six-year-old child with a ring of three wishes shows up. "I wish we could all just get along..."

Dark
2007-01-10, 05:59 PM
Hmm. In the first post, you said "I had no intentions to run an evil campaign". I don't know if that means you really don't want to, or if it was just unexpected. But keep in mind that no matter how much you emphasize the consequences of doing evil, or how much you play up the forces of justice, doing so would still mean running a campaign for evil characters. And there's no point in running such a campaign unless you intend for the players to have fun with it.

If you really don't want to run an evil campaign, then no strategy that involves running a campaign for evil characters is going to get you what you want. I think your only option is to talk to your players and tell them you don't want to do this. At that point they have a few options:

1. Make their characters have a change of heart
2. Make new characters
3. Find a new DM

Option 3 seems harsh, but if you don't want to run the kind of campaign that they want to play, then you're all going to be better off with a new DM. You could still be a player in one of their games, so you wouldn't have to find a new group.

If option 3 would be unacceptable, then maybe you'd be ok with running an evil campaign after all :)

Note that in 1st edition AD&D, it was a common rule that a character who turned evil would become an NPC under the DM's control, and the player would have to make a new PC.

the_tick_rules
2007-01-10, 07:27 PM
it depends if evil is what ya wanna play. i know a guy who always plays evil characters and he quests solely for xp and stuff. so his characters kill first, and will not hesistate to steal from us. so it really depends on group dynamics.

Sergeantbrother
2007-01-10, 07:42 PM
Is it wrong for a GM to reward good actions and only provide evil and dishonest actions with shortrun benefits and eventually "punishment"?

And is it so wrong for evil PCs to meet justice at the end of the campaign if they show no intentions of turning from their ways?

I am going to say that is indeed wrong to do that, in fact I would probably leave the game and play with a DM who did something like this.

If you don't allow evil characters for what ever reason, you need to be upfront about it and explain it to the player out of character. You should say that you don't allow evil characters and that he needs to watch his behavior.

You should never punish somebody in game with Deus ex Machina ever. EVER. If a game comes to that you might as well quite playing.

Of course, if a character is acting like an idiot (good or evil) then let that idiocy have realistic in game consequences.

Tough_Tonka
2007-01-10, 10:27 PM
Let me clarify the situation, the party consist of four players and characters.

A NG Maenad Cleric of the Soveriegn Host
A LE Goblin Psion (Metacreative)
A C(leaning toward evil)N Warforged Barbarian
A LN(still undecided) Tiefling Articifer

The Psion acsts as if he lacked any scrupples whatsoever, and while the actions of the Barbarian are still just borderline nuetral, he's made some pretty evil suggestions. For example in the first adventure in the campaign the party seeking shelter from a hailstorm went into an ancient Hobgoblin crypt where they ran into a traveling noble, in disguise, who had also sought shelter. The first thing the player pointer out to everyone was to consider they where away from any athority figure and the only that the noble was probably easy pickings.

The Cleric is the only character that only wants to actively pursue good, and he is quite at odds with the the Barbarian and Psion. The rogue oddly enough is in the middle, but seems to have interest in the designs of the Psion and Barbarian.

They've made many plans to use con people out of their money with aplications of powers, spells and faulty products, but they have yet emplament them. I didn't say it was allowed but I warned them Bar and Psi that the two of them have an affective bluff skill of -3 and that the only idividual from a race that isn't extremely distrusted is the Cleric, so my warnings about their chances of success at this moment have worked so far.

And by final justice I mean should I bar the Cleric from alerting the authorities if the two begin to commit one of their most vile plans?

That and should the CR of encounters with the law be less than their level , equal to their level or more than their level?

mikeejimbo
2007-01-10, 10:43 PM
I'd start out with less than their level, because this would be more cruel in the long run. They'd probably defeat them, bringing in MORE trouble with the law...higher CR trouble.

Leminex
2007-01-10, 11:53 PM
And by final justice I mean should I bar the Cleric from alerting the authorities if the two begin to commit one of their most vile plans?

That and should the CR of encounters with the law be less than their level , equal to their level or more than their level?

Vile? Well I'll grant you murder of a noble will certainly draw attention, though in Eberron I'd be less worried about the local law and more worried that the noble family hires House Deneith to deal with the PCs, if not something more shady. Though that depends heavily on if the noble family fines who is responsible and how powerful they are. Honestly I'd say more shame on the PCs for killing him when knocking him out while he's sleeping would work just as well for looting. After all killing draws too much attention and is the mark of an amateur.

As for the con-deal, I wouldn't call that vile in the least, definitely evil but doesn't measure up to the soul crushing evil of say the Lords of Dust. You had a good point that it'd probably be hard for them to pull off such a con, though honestly illusions would solve a lot of those problems. Regardless, I somewhat agree with quashing that, not so much because its evil but merely because its boring. Its really on par with a good party saying 'lets go grind goblins to protect the local town...and you know...get loot." However if you play the dark side of Eberron you can introduce plenty of good plot threads using the con as a spring board. Rather then trying to fix the PC's alignment, I'd work towards giving them a more constructive goal that still appeals to their selfish alignment.

But if you want to lay down the law, the Sharn sourcebook has an incredible section on laws, punishment, trials and local law enforcement. I'm not sure where the party is, but it's a good base line and honestly most of it isn't what one would consider epic with the best being the Redcloak Battalion, an elite unit that fought in the front of the Last War and even those are mostly 9th level with the majority of that being NPC classes with a few levels in PC classes. In the case you are talking about, I doubt they'd be call to deal with a few con artists.

As for punishment, con artist would likely fall under Crimes of Deception, specifically fraud with punishment pending mostly on whom was exploited and how much. Sharn definitely favours its wealthier citizens and unless it was a big con I doubt it'd even go to court. In the case they did, fines, branding and exile are the usual. (With branding being an arcane mark rather then a hot poker).

As for the CR, typically the city guard listed are low levels 1-5. Obviously not much to scare the PCs but really its in the best interest of the PCs to surrender or flee, you'll get out of a con with a slap on the wrist, killing a cop...well the Sharn watch isn't exactly a paragon of virtue.

Key thing to keep in mind with elite units is not so much to make them epic level but to make them very competent and good at what they do.

Tough_Tonka
2007-01-11, 06:39 PM
The Vile Acts I mentioned in my last post weren't their con-artist plans. The list of the these vile plans includes actions like this and worse.

PCs find a mine, and kill anything or anyone in it. They recruit "endenchered servants" and work them to death in the mine, I quote "perhaps we forget to feed them or an accident might happen", then use their bodies to animate zombies and skeletons to do the labor for free.

Renegade Paladin
2007-01-11, 06:55 PM
I am going to say that is indeed wrong to do that, in fact I would probably leave the game and play with a DM who did something like this.

If you don't allow evil characters for what ever reason, you need to be upfront about it and explain it to the player out of character. You should say that you don't allow evil characters and that he needs to watch his behavior.

You should never punish somebody in game with Deus ex Machina ever. EVER. If a game comes to that you might as well quite playing.

Of course, if a character is acting like an idiot (good or evil) then let that idiocy have realistic in game consequences.
Having the world react realistically to the characters' influences is not deus ex machina; it's simple good sense. If you go about killing people, then guess what? The Watch is going to want your hide. Cause and effect. Even higher order microbes have stimulus/response reactions; if your DM does not respond to the stimuli of the players through his campaign setting, then frankly he's not doing his job.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-11, 07:21 PM
I just build good/evil decision making into everything. The choice for what's good and evil is often pretty obvious, though there may be other unforeseen options that the players may invent (and often do, which I love to see). However, I set it up so that there are rewarding ways to play both- so long as you aren't stupid about it.

Just because you can resolve a situation the proverbial "good" way doesn't mean it's easier, gets you the best reward, or is better for you in the long run. It just often is. Evil acts are the converse of this idea. So, the best way to play in my campaigns if you're into power gaming is to stay neutral (with a slight lean to good) in every respect, and take advantage of every scenario where good or evil looks to be the most beneficial option. Just be careful- I throw curveballs a lot.

I also include law and chaos into this mix, but to a lesser extent typically. Law and chaos are means more then morale decisions, I figure.

Examples from my present campaign-

There's a forest that my PC's keep having to traverse. This forest is loaded with bears, and the god-appointed keeper of it is a proxie natural werebear that hardly ever (once the entire campaign) shifts out of hybrid form. Before this was known, a PC tried to lug 500 lbs of meat through the forest by wagon for a town he was supplying (and was a dictator of, and the meat was stolen). It attracted some of the bears, who he was forced to fend off. He ended up killing one and wounding two in the tussle. Shortly afterwards, he was approached by the werebear, who could smell the bear blood on him. He demanded to know why the PC attacked his family. The werebear was very apparently angered and ready to rip his head off. To get by this, the PC made a string of bluff checks and ended up blaming some particular bandits in the area that were troublesome for the PC, which he said he'd just fought. This was pretty clearly an evil way to get by all this, but the result? The werebear became friendly with him afterwards and drove the bandits out of the woods, permanently. If he'd been honest in the first place? He would have been the one driven out.

In another instance with this same PC, he once got in a fight with a paladin because the paladin was appauled at how he lorded over the goblin village he'd conquered. When the paladin came to address the legal ramifications of it all, the PC just decided to outright attack him. It got the paladin out and he stopped trying to argue with him, but that was a purely short term gain. Later on, the paladin's order came looking for him. He managed to evade going to prison, but is now barred from an entire city and he lost several thousands of gold due to the struggle. Like the first example, he chose the evil path. Unlike the first example, this ended very poorly for the PC, in a realistic manner.

Raum
2007-01-11, 07:25 PM
I'd even go a bit farther than Renegade Paladin. If the world isn't reacting appropriately to PC actions, you're either telling a story to observers or skipping through a series of scenes showcasing some kind of conflict. The interaction between PC and world is what separates role playing from war gaming.

Diggorian
2007-01-11, 09:07 PM
The Vile Acts I mentioned in my last post weren't their con-artist plans. The list of the these vile plans includes actions like this and worse.

PCs find a mine, and kill anything or anyone in it. They recruit "endenchered servants" and work them to death in the mine, I quote "perhaps we forget to feed them or an accident might happen", then use their bodies to animate zombies and skeletons to do the labor for free.

Tonka it sounds like your players are just jaw-jacking about wicked things they could do without any real evil going down.

A mine that stops reporting and making profit will get noticed. The more valuable the mine the harsher the response. Indentured service requires a contract the PC's gotta draw up, a sales pitch (Bluff) they gotta make, and gullible folk (Sense Motive +10 for them, cause goblins with hazardous employment packages arent trustworthy) . If they use psionics to make charmed slaves, they'll run off as soon as the effect wears off if the party doesnt constantly watch'em. Eventually they'll be missed from ther normal jobs, in comes the militia.

Base legal CR off the CR of the crime. A single pick pocketing is looked into by fresh recruits. A rash of it warrants a 5-6th level inspector with rogue/expert levels. Murdered and robbed nobility has family that afford divination spells and can offer top gp to attract mid- to high level PC classed avengers ... or, blackmail the party to kill other pesky relatives.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-11, 09:42 PM
The Vile Acts I mentioned in my last post weren't their con-artist plans. The list of the these vile plans includes actions like this and worse.

PCs find a mine, and kill anything or anyone in it. They recruit "endenchered servants" and work them to death in the mine, I quote "perhaps we forget to feed them or an accident might happen", then use their bodies to animate zombies and skeletons to do the labor for free.

Zombies and skeletons never tire and work for free, they're the perfect laborers. I personally see this as a most efficient business venture. Evil, yes, but I wouldn't say surprising or even anything to get worked up about.

MrNexx
2007-01-11, 09:55 PM
PCs find a mine, and kill anything or anyone in it. They recruit "endenchered servants" and work them to death in the mine, I quote "perhaps we forget to feed them or an accident might happen", then use their bodies to animate zombies and skeletons to do the labor for free.

Why not just animate the first set of things they killed?

Mewtarthio
2007-01-12, 12:54 AM
Zombies and skeletons never tire and work for free, they're the perfect laborers. I personally see this as a most efficient business venture. Evil, yes, but I wouldn't say surprising or even anything to get worked up about.

You mean minus the fact that the PCs have to explain the disappearance of large groups of people, the sudden change in the ownership of the mine, and the presence of undead hordes that look just like the missing persons? What options do they have?

A) Attempt to convince everyone that everything is just an odd convergence of coincidences. Yeah, good luck with that.

B) Kill anyone who investigates the mines. Eventually, people will be sent to investigate those disappearances. If they vanish as well, somebody gets suspicious, and lots of much stronger people get sent to demand the truth (and probably a lot of blood, too). If those people disappear, then it's quite obvious that a hostile force has taken control of the mines, and everyone reacts accordingly.

C) Ally with a strong benefactor who gets a nice cut of the profits. Good luck finding a benefactor who's willling to associate with you. Even the Evil guys would rather be less blatant about it.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-12, 01:03 AM
That's the whole problem with being an evil ruler. Darn do-gooders are always trying to foil your great new plans to bolster the economy.

What? The economy part? Well it's clearly evil.

Luc
2007-01-12, 07:24 AM
My experiences probably aren't particularly germane to your situation, but I'll share them anyway.

In the most successful campaign I've run as a DM, the main moral divide was a Law/Chaos one, not a Good/Evil one.

Backstory: thousands of years ago, there was an overgod of Law. You know all that stuff about overgods staying out of mortal affairs? Not in my campaign. This overgod ruled the world as a mostly-benevolent dictator, and his authority was absolute. The other gods eventually got sick of this; the last straw came when one of them created a new humanoid race (namely, humans) without the overgod's permission, and the overgod attempted to exterminate them. The other gods, not being particular fans of genocide, banded together to kill the overgod.

Turns out that when you leave the corpse of an overgod just lying around, it starts to attract scavengers. A race of evil astral beings began to feed on the overgod's corpse and multiplied over the next few millennia, polluting the astral plane in the process. At the time the campaign started, their population had just reached a critical mass of sorts, with all kinds of unpleasant effects: teleportation spells stopped working properly, arcane spellcasters started going insane, the souls of the dead were hanging around on earth instead of going to their proper resting places, and so on. Of course, the PCs only found out why all this was happening quite some time into the campaign.

After the party found out about the overgod and the astral beings, they split up and I ended up DMing for two parties at once. The Lawful party was composed mostly of LG and LN characters from a variety of races, who were trying to resurrect the overgod because they felt that he was the only entity with the power to wipe out the evil astral beings. The Chaotic party was mostly CN and CE humans, who were trying to destroy the overgod's corpse because they were afraid that he would try to exterminate them again if resurrected -- they were just kinda hoping that the astral beings would eventually die off on their own if their main food source was destroyed. The astral beings, of course, were quite happy to maintain the status quo, and were taking active steps to stop both parties.

I didn't intend for the lawful party to be mostly good and the chaotic party to be mostly evil; that's just how it turned out.

Looking back on it, there are a few reasons why the campaign worked as well as it did:

1) I was running it online, so I could DM for both groups at once without too much hassle. Characters could defect from one party to the other, although this didn't happen often.

2) Each party had an overriding common goal, and circumstances meant that doing nothing wasn't an option. At the start of the campaign, all hell was breaking loose and the party was more concerned about finding out what was going on than about doing good or evil. After they split up into two parties, every character was working toward the goal of either resurrecting the overgod or destroying it, and everybody was disrupting the astral beings' various attempts to kill them. In that context, putting aside minor disputes wasn't so difficult.

3) The players all knew each other pretty well outside of the game, and would make a real effort to avoid any intra-party conflict severe enough to bring a halt to the campaign. When intraparty conflict did happen, it was usually because the players had planned it in advance and knew roughly how it would be resolved.

(By the way, if you're curious about how the campaign ended, the Chaotic party got to the corpse before the Lawful party did, but one of the Chaotic characters betrayed her party at the last moment and modified the ritual that was supposed to destroy the overgod's corpse to instead transfer the overgod's remaining power into her own body. She was hoping to become a god; it didn't quite work out that way. Instead, her personality was mostly overtaken by the overgod's, and she became a new, somewhat less dictatorial incarnation of the overgod.)

wrath
2007-01-12, 12:33 PM
In my first Eberron campaign I've found that half my party, 2 people, are heading toward evil alignments one being more cruel than evil, but doing what he can to keep his alignment in CN. I had no intentions to run an evil campaign and I'm struggling to deal with a group where 3/4th of the group act as if they have no scrupples.

I'm not sure if I should really be awarding this kind of behavior, but I feel like I'm railroading the party when i consider the thought of justice reaching the PCs. I also feel bad about the single member of the group that wants to play a good aligned character among the crowd that wants to find ways to kill, steal and cheat their way to the top.

Really my question is this.

Is it wrong for a GM to reward good actions and only provide evil and dishonest actions with shortrun benefits and eventually "punishment"?

And is it so wrong for evil PCs to meet justice at the end of the campaign if they show no intentions of turning from their ways?

Given that the Eberron setting is less black & white than most D&D settings, I would be careful with rewards and punishments. After all, if the published material has good undead, evil metallic dragons and other oddities of alignment, there should be room for the players' alignments as well.

This is not to say there will not be consequences for repeated evil acts, only that the PCs should have the free-will to commit those acts in the first place. If this were my game, I would take a moment out of game to speak with all the players individually about their character, then together as a group about their party, to make sure that everyone is having fun with it, and is aware of the cause and effect in the campaign, do good, become a hero; do evil, become a villian. The only thing I would say is avoid intra-party conflict if at all possible, since it can lead to player-to-player anamosity and drag your plots to a halt.

Once everyone has had their say, and the group comes to a consensus on what style of play they will use, it should be great fun, no matter which way they chose.

Sergeantbrother
2007-01-13, 01:09 AM
Having the world react realistically to the characters' influences is not deus ex machina; it's simple good sense. If you go about killing people, then guess what? The Watch is going to want your hide. Cause and effect. Even higher order microbes have stimulus/response reactions; if your DM does not respond to the stimuli of the players through his campaign setting, then frankly he's not doing his job.

In my post I said it was reasonable to have realistic onsequinces for actions. If a DM designs a town where there are several 5th level guards and a bunch of first level peasants and then a 10th level party comes in to raise hell and suddenly there is a 20th level paladin living in the town then I say that's Deus ex Machina. If the PC's kill a random old man living in the woods and his son turns out to be a 20th level paladin who wants revenge then its Deus ex Machina.

If the DM decides that any evil actions on the part of characters will lead to their eventual failure then its not a realistic campaign. If its the DM's attitude that bad guys always lose then he needs to make that clear out of game instead of using Dm fiat to punish characters for their alignment.

Of course, being evil in a dumb way can cause trouble for characters and I am all for bad things happening for acting dumb. Then again, bad things can happen for being good and dumb too. And the DM shouldn't be harder on dumb evil behavior by characters than dumb good behavior by characters without explicitly saying out of character that he wants a good campaign.

Of course, if you have an evil party then maybe its a good plot hook for good guys to come after the characters. Just like its a good plot hook for heroic characters if evil NPCs start doing bad stuff. But, as a plot hook the heroic NPCs who search after the PCs should be beatable in some way or another.

Sactheminions
2007-01-13, 03:16 AM
I guess what stood out about the original post to me was the title. I was surprised that "dealing with" evil PCs was different qualitatively from DMing generally. Of course, I started out in Cyberpunk 2020 and Vampire so maybe it's just my angle, but...

From a DM's perspective, your job doesn't change. Level appropriate challenges come in all alignment-flavors. The PCs have different motivations, but the same job (this is D&D for heaven's sake, they barely have statistics for things other than killing monsters). I guess the challenge is to find a way to motivate them to -stay together- so as not to derail the game. I think a bit of time thinking about and talking about character backgrounds and motivations would help.