How to deal with megalomaniac players

[It Sat Rap]

Hello everyone,

in many campaigns, each PC follows a personal quest besides the main plot. The DM usually asks the player at the beginning of the campaign what personal goals his character has and develops a side plot out of it. Maybe the PC wants to revenge the death of his family, wants to found a guild, wants to find the long lost sword of his family tribe, etc. You get the point. However, I know a player that usually has veeeeery ambitious goals for his characters. Some of his goals were:
-Destroy Hell
-Kill the Pope
-Topple the government and the church
-Become a god
-Become a king
-Seal all the evil plains to keep out all evil outsiders

Each of these goals would fit for the main plot of a campaing as well. On top of that fullfilling his goals would usually cause an enormity by changing the way the world works. There are no other issues with this player, he is a good lad at the gaming table, besides his occasional megalomania.

How would you, as a DM, react if your player is so megalomaniac? Would you accept such an ambitious personal quest and develop a plot for the player, or would you tell him to pick something smaller? I usually say: "Okay, if you really want to do that, fine, go for it. But it will be extremely difficult!" None of his plans worked so far, but that didn't change his mindset.

[BWR]

I'd warn the player that these things are highly unlikely to occur and that you won't be throwing him any stories about his attempt to do these things, and if he tries to derail the game to get them done, he will be punished. The best punishment is to let him try in game. Most of these goals have some major players who have a vested interest in the status quo and will mostly ignore people who try to stop them (you think no one else has tried to destroy Hell? No one better than you? What do you think the current king thinks about someone who wants to take his position?) and ruthlessly squash the PC if he gets too annoying. Perfectly legal, perfectly logical in game responses to a character's actions and perfectly justified out of game as well.
If the player keeps insisting on this sort of thing and refuses to see how it's not only unrealistic but not what I intended for the game (rather than just having fun with a megalomanic character), I'd just restate that I'm not having any of it and ignore anything he tries to do to further those goals.

[Steampunkette]

Looks like you've got a great campaign in the making!

Ask him to set a smaller goal, for tne time being. Then start planning a campaign Birthright style. Have his character represent the end of a bloodline trying to vye for control of the kingdom. The other party members are nobles with land and resources they pledge to put him on the throne in exchange for favors and increased lands when he succeeds.

If using Pathfinder, The River Kingdoms makes a great place for this kind of campaign. Whether he wants a River Kingdom or he was exiled there and is returning with an army.

[JAL_1138]

The Kingmaker adventure path (set in the aforementioned River Kingdoms and maybe what was being referenced) is literally about the PCs starting a kingdom, with rules for managing a country, and appropriate challenges and threats.

[Lorsa]

I am not sure megalomania is the right word, as the player merely stated his character's goals, not indicated whether or not he thought them possible to achieve at this point in the campaign.

Many RPGs at the high-end part of the experience point curve, feature characters for whom all these goals are actually possible. So it could be that the player is simply thinking much further ahead than the rest. Try to ask him what his character wants to accomplish now, rather than later.

I don't think you should discourage players from having long, ambitious plans. That means they'll be interested in playing their character for quite some time. Just add in more short-time goals and it should be fine.

[goto124]

Does his tone of voice display arrogance and self-importance? Does the rest of his char conflict with the other PCs, especially RP wise? Elf and elf hater for example.

[Strigon]

Warn him that this will be difficult (impossible, if it it's impossible in your world), and give him the chance to change them. If he doesn't, he had the chance - either he tries and fails, slowly starts building up to the point where he can do it, or abandons the idea altogether. In any case, no harm done.

[Nifft]

It totally depends.

- Is the player DRIVEN and AMBITIOUS? Does s/he keep the party ON-TASK and MOTIVATED? Does the player remember details relevant to his or her ambition? Does the player (even halfway) convincingly portray an ambitious character?

If yes, then write a campaign around the player's ambition. You are in for an awesome player-driven game. Encourage the other players to also have similar ambitions, too.


On the other hand...

- Does the player want super-awesome things handed to him or her for no good reason other than the momentary feeling of stimulation? Does the player give up easily, get distracted, and try to convince you out-of-character rather than engaging with the game?

If yes, then kill this player, and take his or her stuff. Or at least don't cater to the player's whims.

[Kaveman26]

Monkey's Paw his goal. He wants to be a god? Sure...but his followers are in some way an incredible nuisance or irritant. Like pixies that are all convinced that peppering him with garlic and onions is the surest path to divinity.

If he wants to be a king....have a group ready to install him as ruler if he can just manage to undo the curse on their kingdom...then have their kingdom be a small thorp or hamlet.

Just make sure it overlaps your central story and creates conflict. And it needs to be conflict not malicious. Don't railroad him into a horrific subversion of his goals...just make those goals slightly off center from what he envisions,

[Hawkstar]

Wow... there are a LOT of petty and vindicative responses in here...

I say "Give him his small steps, and don't let him dominate the campaign". Wherever he ends up on his path is where he ends up.



Monkey's Paw his goal. He wants to be a god? Sure...but his followers are in some way an incredible nuisance or irritant. Like pixies that are all convinced that peppering him with garlic and onions is the surest path to divinity. Eh... to stop this, abuse them to the point they're dependent and fearful of him.


If he wants to be a king....have a group ready to install him as ruler if he can just manage to undo the curse on their kingdom...then have their kingdom be a small thorp or hamlet. Totes Legit start for a rise to power.

[Geddy2112]

in many campaigns, each PC follows a personal quest besides the main plot. The DM usually asks the player at the beginning of the campaign what personal goals his character has and develops a side plot out of it. Maybe the PC wants to revenge the death of his family, wants to found a guild, wants to find the long lost sword of his family tribe, etc. You get the point.
So you have a session zero, and the DM asks for player input to get the involved in the story. That's good.



-Destroy Hell
-Kill the Pope
-Topple the government and the church
-Become a god
-Become a king
-Seal all the evil plains to keep out all evil outsiders
A bit ambitious, but a tier 1 caster can do all of these things. Maybe not in a single day, but given enough time, certainly.



Each of these goals would fit for the main plot of a campaing as well. On top of that fullfilling his goals would usually cause an enormity by changing the way the world works. There are no other issues with this player, he is a good lad at the gaming table, besides his occasional megalomania.
And not a single one of these is a problem for anybody? These goals are feasible and at least theoretically possible in the campaign? So he likes to swing for the fences and aim big. His actions are causing no problems, so let em be ambitious.



How would you, as a DM, react if your player is so megalomaniac? Would you accept such an ambitious personal quest and develop a plot for the player, or would you tell him to pick something smaller? I usually say: "Okay, if you really want to do that, fine, go for it. But it will be extremely difficult!" None of his plans worked so far, but that didn't change his mindset.
While these things are difficult, improbable, or borderline impossible, they can happen. In our real world, people do become president, pope, go into space, cheat death, and a bunch of other improbable but not impossible things. His plans may fail, but people have overcome failure and become successes before. The fact that he has failed but keeps going adds depth, and will make that victory all the sweeter.

I don't know if I would want my entire table to be shooting this big, but I would not tell them no. I certainly prefer my players have big, campaign arching goals to the alternative; mindless vagrants who cannot be bothered to care about any story arc, adventure, the other PC's, or the world at all.

[Nifft]

How would you, as a DM, react if your player is so megalomaniac? Would you accept such an ambitious personal quest and develop a plot for the player, or would you tell him to pick something smaller? I usually say: "Okay, if you really want to do that, fine, go for it. But it will be extremely difficult!" None of his plans worked so far, but that didn't change his mindset.

Okay, so more detail. Let's talk about Destroy Hell as a goal.

Low-levels would be about figuring out what Hell actually means:
- What do the sages and legends say about Hell?
- How can we verify or invalidate these myths?
- What did the myths get wrong?

This will mean traveling to distant places, having adventures along the way, and meeting interesting people and dragons and Outsiders.


Mid-level adventures would be about gathering the tools and allies to enact the plan:
- Traveling to many different planes, including the Heavens and the Abyss, to recruit allies.
- Brokering a very tentative peace between Celestials and Demons? Good luck with that.
- Doing recon on every layer of Hell.
- Finding and tricking or otherwise silencing most of the important Diabolical cults on the Prime.
- Dealing with the many consequences of the preceding step.


High-level adventures would be about enacting the plan, whatever it is, and facing the concerted opposition of Hell. Possibly staging a full scale invasion of Hell.

[It Sat Rap]

Thanks for the response.

The player tried often to convince the other players to support him in his plans, but they rarely want to do that. It's not that big of a problem, because the player in question usually gives up after some time and doesn't bother them any longer. (Until he has a new plan, of course)

The main problem is that this player never accomplishes any personal goal. While the other players achieve a personal triumph from time to time, he never gets there because his goals are almost impossible to reach.

Another example: We played in a homebrew Pathfinder-like setting, high-magic, but there is no such a thing as ressurection. If you die, you are DEAD, end of discussion!

Guess what his first personal quest was when he heard that ressurection doesn't exist? To bring back to life his old friend who sacrified his life to enable the retreat of the rest of the group. How to do that? Just find a way to heaven without dying and persuade the gods to make an exception for this one case. :smallsigh:

He often wants to play exotic races from the monster manual, but he doesn't demand special gear or their like. He is a bit of a powergamer, but a tolerable one.

Maybe I will run a campaign where the main goal is some of his mad plans, but then I have to convince the other players first to go with it...

[goto124]

If yes, then kill this player, and take his or her stuff.

I hope you meant the PC.

Now that I've read the OP's response... yes, that player is at least a bit in over his head. The goals he described would've been neat in the hands on a more mature and experienced player, but not him unfortunately.

I suppose the main problem to fix, would be 'how to get him to not drag the entire party down in his unrealistic and not-well-thought-out attempts to achieve his goals?'

Don't Monkey Paw his goals. It's not much more mature than the way this player has handled to reach his goals.

To the below poster: Look at OP's post right above mine. It's not that case it seems.

[mikeejimbo]

Are you sure he actually wants to have his character achieve it in game? It could just be a background motivation. Or maybe he just doesn't want to come up with anything, like how in 7th grade when I had to write a stupid long term goal every week I wrote "learn calculus."

[Lord Torath]

Hello everyone,

in many campaigns, each PC follows a personal quest besides the main plot. The DM usually asks the player at the beginning of the campaign what personal goals his character has and develops a side plot out of it. Maybe the PC wants to revenge the death of his family, wants to found a guild, wants to find the long lost sword of his family tribe, etc. You get the point. However, I know a player that usually has veeeeery ambitious goals for his characters. Some of his goals were:
-Destroy Hell
-Kill the Pope
-Topple the government and the church
-Become a god
-Become a king
-Seal all the evil plains to keep out all evil outsiders

Did he have reasons for his goals? Why does he want to topple the government? Is it corrupt? Is the Pope (I assume this just means the high priest of the predominant religion in the region) evil and/or corrupt? The fact that he wants to destroy Hell and seal off the evil planes implies he thinks he's a Good person, but unless the current government and religion are evil, toppling them without reason would be an evil act.

Plus, his first and last goals are almost certainly impossible or impractical. If you destroy Hell, where do all the lawful evil mortals go when they die? If none of the current pantheon of Good gods has managed to seal the evil planes, what makes him think he can do it?

Founding a Kingdom is certainly something he can try to do, and even becoming a god (although that's extremely unlikely, and he should be told this).

[Vercingex]

Just to expand on what lord torath said, the character should have strong personal reasons for dedicating themselves to such ambitious goals.

In the case of being a king or god- again, power is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. No one gets power just to have it- they want to change their society, be respected by everyone, or just enjoy the perks a powerful position offers.

As far as attacking the government or the church or Hell- why does the character feel this personal vendetta against these organizations or forces? Did Hell kill his parents? Did the government throw him in jail unjustly? Has he witnessed countless corrupt church officials exploiting the poor? Why is he dedicated to destroying the structure and not individuals within it?

As a final note, your player might want to just be "The guy who accomplished X"- essentially, looking for bragging rights. Not that this can be a bad thing. It's even a pretty good character goal (Who wouldn't want to be remembered as the guy who took down Hell itself?).

[Spartakus]

I fail to see the problem. Does the player have fun with such megamomaniac chars? Can he play them without being disruptive to the party? If both answers are yes, just let him. There's nothing wrong with a char that has impossible goals. It means he can strife for these goals as long as this char lives. I know of settings where elves die in the moment they achive the main goal of their life.

[Geddy2112]

The main problem is that this player never accomplishes any personal goal. While the other players achieve a personal triumph from time to time, he never gets there because his goals are almost impossible to reach.

Another example: We played in a homebrew Pathfinder-like setting, high-magic, but there is no such a thing as ressurection. If you die, you are DEAD, end of discussion!

Guess what his first personal quest was when he heard that ressurection doesn't exist? To bring back to life his old friend who sacrified his life to enable the retreat of the rest of the group. How to do that? Just find a way to heaven without dying and persuade the gods to make an exception for this one case. :smallsigh:


Somebody needs to learn to crawl before they can walk. To quote Boromir, "One does not simply walk into Mordor" or in this case, Heaven. Traveling to an outer plane is high level business, and once you get there it is more than just pearly gates and legions of angels. You have to be able to convince a deity to break the rules and laws of the world, to make an exception. So you have to have some pull and reason for a deity to listen to you(and not just be killed on sight). Could a level 20 cleric do this? Probably. Could a level 1 Joe Blow do this? Not a chance in hell.

It is all about the journey. Gaining favor with the gods, gaining levels and power, finding ways to go to heaven and come back, learning the mechanics of planar travel etc. Wanting to bring a friend back in a setting with no resurrection, knowing one will have to stand before the gods and win their favor is a great personal story arc over the course of a campaign. But you have to have some goals in between, and these goals should help the character achieve the ultimate goal. Nobody is going to run a marathon if they can't run a 5k, and nobody is going to run a 5k if they have never run in their lives. Let the player have grand designs, but have them set some milestones along the way.

[NichG]

For me, it depends on what exactly the player expects and is going to do about it.

If the player will take it upon themselves to spontaneously figure out how to pursue and potentially accomplish the goal, I'd call them a wonderful generator of plot. That kind of player will drive the game and takes a lot of load off of the GM to motivate the group. It's really great to have such a player in the group.

If the player doesn't spontaneously try to make their goal happen, but doesn't have the expectation that the GM will make it happen/be possible, then they provide a useful opportunity, but its also possible that their goal will just not really be relevant. Its a useful opportunity because they're basically going to jump at things that hint at a possibility of accomplishing their impossible goal, so you can get them to act when you need someone to do something potentially dangerous or foolhardy or even just break up a slow moment or a 'what do we do next?' type situation. But if the player doesn't see some kind of incremental progress or potential, they'll lose interest, and that's a problem.

If the player expects that the GM will go out of their way to make the goal possible, regardless of how extreme it might be, then that's a problem. That kind of situation is very unstable, because it can mean that in order to satisfy them or even just keep them from getting upset, you'll have to make other players upset by breaking the integrity or consistency of the game, giving more advantages to some players than others, etc. So in that case, its important to really establish that the goal isn't well-suited for the campaign at hand.

[It Sat Rap]

To the question what his motivations are: He usually plays good, but very straight-forward and drastic characters.
"The king is evil? I would be a better king!"
"The church is corrupt? Let's kill their leader! (Don't ask me how this will improve the overall system)
"My god has a feud with devils? I have to destroy Hell!"
"Oh no, my friend died a heroic dead to save my life! I have to break the rules of the world and bring him back to life!"

Some of his goals would make sense if he would be high-level, but he has this mindsset right from the beginning. By the way, it doesn't mean that he's not caring about the main plot of the campaign, he is participating well in it. However, I don't know how to please him really. I don't want to say: "No, your character can't do that", because that is the last lie you want to hear from a GM. But I don't want to destroy the integrity of the world, if he somehow against accomplishes the impossible.

[Red Fel]

Some of his goals would make sense if he would be high-level, but he has this mindsset right from the beginning. By the way, it doesn't mean that he's not caring about the main plot of the campaign, he is participating well in it. However, I don't know how to please him really. I don't want to say: "No, your character can't do that", because that is the last lie you want to hear from a GM. But I don't want to destroy the integrity of the world, if he somehow against accomplishes the impossible.

How does it destroy the integrity of the world? Political and religious leaders get assassinated all of the time. Revolutions and ascensions to the throne are a major fact of history. Admittedly, apotheosis and planar destruction are a pretty big deal, but those are long-term goals and will likely form the capstone to a campaign. What's wrong with letting him have big aspirations?

Let the guy dream. There's nothing wrong with wanting something. Most of my characters desire godhood; many of them take active steps towards attaining it. That doesn't derail the campaign, and it's no guarantee that they'll even succeed, let alone before the campaign ends.

And what if he does kill the king? Well, he becomes a wanted fugitive. Or maybe he dies in the attempt. So what? Those are consequences, and he seems to be playing well enough. He'd probably take the consequences if they follow logically. ("You broke into a palace swarming with soldiers and attempted to kill the monarch. Yes, they're going to summarily execute you." "Oh, crud. Well, it was fun, huh?")

PCs don't have to have short-term personal goals. It's nice if they do, but not mandatory. You can suggest that maybe he should break his big goals down into more manageable pieces, which serves both your goal of distracting him from godhood, and his goal of taking a step in that direction. But I don't see why it's so distressing a concept that he wants nice things.

[Keltest]

Id nod, say something sagelike, such as "Uh huh, sure." And carry on with the game. I don't really care what the player's goals are until and unless they start being problematic. If theyre unrealistic goals, then its fun to joke about.

[Nifft]

To the question what his motivations are: He usually plays good, but very straight-forward and drastic characters.
"The king is evil? I would be a better king!"
"The church is corrupt? Let's kill their leader! (Don't ask me how this will improve the overall system)
"My god has a feud with devils? I have to destroy Hell!"
"Oh no, my friend died a heroic dead to save my life! I have to break the rules of the world and bring him back to life!"

Some of his goals would make sense if he would be high-level, but he has this mindsset right from the beginning. By the way, it doesn't mean that he's not caring about the main plot of the campaign, he is participating well in it. However, I don't know how to please him really. I don't want to say: "No, your character can't do that", because that is the last lie you want to hear from a GM. But I don't want to destroy the integrity of the world, if he somehow against accomplishes the impossible.

Yeah, good instinct about not saying "no" to potentially good stuff.

Here's what I'd do:

- "That's very ambitious and will take a lot of time. Let's talk about how you can START on that long-term project."
- Use that starter stuff for some plot-hooks.
- Incorporate more into the campaign as the characters level up.


As another example, "The king is evil? I would be a better king!"

Low-level:
- Build up a reputation as a hero and a leader.
- Learn about the local aristocracy, the neighboring states, and the competition for the throne.

Mid-level:
- Meet the local aristocracy.
- Build up a power base of your own (i.e. a Stronghold with followers, etc.).
- Do local and international politics, and build up a reputation for being good at politics.

High-level:
- Assassinations ahoy! (Now that you're a credible rival, you will get attempts regularly.)
- Invasion ahoy! (The moment that your kingdom looks weak -- e.g. when a nobody takes the throne in the face of much opposition -- that's when the smart enemies attack.)

[Tvtyrant]

I really hope his plan to infiltrate the palace or castle to kill the king is via shadow puppet play.

[Magic Myrmidon]

Yeah, I'm with Red Fel. Also, I'm surprised by how many people think these goals are ridiculous, or should be discouraged. If a player came to me with these plot hooks, I'd be thrilled, because it lets me know what that player wants out of the game, gives me directions to take the plot, and offers plentiful plot hooks that can last throughout the entire campaign.

Besides, player characters are supposed to be special, right? At least, in most games. They're the main characters, and the main characters should certainly be influential, and the ones to make a mark on the world. Sure, NPCs act as well, and they certainly make changes, but if the players can't make a meaningful difference in the world, why bother playing, really?

Admittedly, the destruction of hell or the first resurrection in a setting are sure to have big consequences. But that doesn't mean it ruins the setting. In fact, it can enhance it. By thinking about what might change in a setting after something like that, you can come up with some really unique, memorable quirks in a setting that are unlikely to evolve without players.

For example, I once gave my players a wish in my setting. One of the players wished for a country for dwarves to live and rule over. Now, that's a pretty drastic change, considering dwarves were scattered and had a much more clan-based set up in my world thus far. However, I let the players make a difference. As a result, my setting now has the Dwarven Anarchy. It is indeed a country (as the other nations recognize the soveignty of the conglomeration), but there is no central government, because every clan coming together has created power struggles in which every clan thinks they have the right to rule.

If my players didn't have such lofty goals, and I didn't let them pursue them, then my setting would be bereft of one of its more unique ideas.

[goto124]

Also, I'm surprised by how many people think these goals are ridiculous, or should be discouraged.

Probably due to the kind of player he is...

[JAL_1138]

Probably due to the kind of player he is...

Nothing the OP's said really suggests he's a bad player though, just an incredibly...er...direct one, when it comes to setting goals. "The king is a tyrant? Kill the king," etc. Apparently he participates well enough in the campaign and at least doesn't overdo it with trying to get the group to go along with his plans. That's not a bad player, just an idiosyncratic one.

EDIT: I'd once again recommend maybe trying to run the Kingmaker adventure path for this guy. I don't have any direct experience with it, but from what I know, it starts with the PCs as a gaggle of random mercenary schmucks and around the middle or last third has them in charge of a kingdom.

EDIT AGAIN: After a bit of Wiki-ing, apparently they start running a settlement relatively soon, rather than middle/end, but do still start as random schmucks and work up to it, both themselves and their kingdom (which starts as wilderness until the PCs clear out enough bandits and monsters, and becomes a small settlement which must be defended and grown). There's still some actual adventuring to be done at that point as well, rather than sitting on their thrones all day, as well.

[GungHo]

Maybe he plays computer games.

[Sacrieur]

Characters can do whatever they want.

I've never understood a scripted plot. Why not just read a book?

[Nifft]

Yeah, I'm with Red Fel. Also, I'm surprised by how many people think these goals are ridiculous, or should be discouraged. If a player came to me with these plot hooks, I'd be thrilled, because it lets me know what that player wants out of the game, gives me directions to take the plot, and offers plentiful plot hooks that can last throughout the entire campaign.

I suspect it's the phrasing in the thread title.

"How to deal with" -> implies there is a problem

"megalomaniac" -> negative characterization

"players" -> very negative characterization

So most people didn't bother to do more than skim through the post and ended up responding mostly (or entirely) to the tone implicit in the thread's title.

[Spartakus]

Well, this thread definitely deserves a cookie for inspiring the spambots.

One had just started the thread "Crowdfunding megalomaniac players"
Somehow sounds like the best idea ever:smallbiggrin:

[Jay R]

My answer to him would probably boil down to "I really don't think my game is the right one for you. Good luck finding somebody to play with."

If somebody wants to murder a complete stranger (kill the pope), cause chaos that hurts hundreds or thousands of people (topple the government and church, before finding out what they are like), then he's not likely to enjoy my game, in which actions have consequences.

I don't particularly want somebody trying to change my world and the rules of my game against my will (destroy Hell or seal off planes).

Wanting to become a god is the worst way to become one. He'd be better off wanting to earn the level of power needed to (for instance) protect all farmers, or assist all dwarves.

And the desire to become a king, totally separate from seeing a tyrant who must be stopped, or a land in chaos that needs strong leadership, or wilderness that could be cleared and made productive, has no meaning.

If he wants to create a long-term goal based on my actual world and his place in it, then I'd be happy to work with him to do so. That makes a game more fun for everyone. But a desire to break things just to break them has no place in my game.

[It Sat Rap]

Jay R just hit the sweet spot. It would be okay to have such high goals if they are reasonable for his character to have, but it seems like the player just likes the idea to throw the world into turmoil for the fun, not for the goal itself. Yes, an evil king is a problem, and yes, the PCs might want to do something about that at the right time, but to start a revolt at level 1 when all the other players want to do some good old beginners quest doesn't add up.

I will tell him that these kind of goals don't fit into my campaign. There is no way I would kick him out, his is a very good player besides this issue.

[Segev]

The best advice seems to be to ask him not to tone back his goals, but to come up with milestones that form his plan, and help calibrate them by level.

Overthrow the king? "Get famous as a hero" is a good start, and that can send him on adventures all by itself. Just make sure to give him opportunities to pursue glory (vain or otherwise). He may also seek leadership opportunities. Let him.

encourage him, but make sure he sees the obstacles he'll have to overcome. Don't make them cartoonish; make them realistic. Let him plan how to build his power base and how to overthrow the king.

Assassinate the king? First he needs to figure out how to get close to him. There ar ea number of avenues towards that, and all take effort and training and time.

Destroy Hell? Ask him how he plans to do it. Don't tell him he can't, but make him figure out a way. If you want t ocome up with a way, go ahead, but make him earn figuring it out. If you don't want to, let him come up with theories and plans, and you determine what they really do. Also, remember that anything he is likely to try along these lines will take a very, very long time.

If you're concerned mainly because he never gets anywhere, again suggest he come up with milestones to achieve along the way. These represent successes along the way. It's not telling him "no," but it is making sure while he works towards it he can actually do something that gets marked as a personal success. He can make progress without having to get there.

[Shadowsend]

I would just allow the world to respond to him as the DM. The things he says are likely to get him thrown in jail or chastised by whatever people actually LIKE the system the way it is, or warned by the people who have already been hurt by it. In this way, he gets a preview of the consequences through talking about them before the real consequences of action. (AKA failed assassination/inciting revolt = beheading) If these are just asides to the players, they may get annoyed, and it's up to the DM to make sure the players can still get along and play the game, or the players to sort it out between themselves. If at that point, no agreement between the players can be reached, then you have a problem.

[Arbane]

Let the players upend the world. You weren't saving it for later, were you?