PDA

View Full Version : Dealing with Evil Characters



Trask
2016-05-27, 02:39 PM
In a game I've been running for a couple of weeks now, my friends all came to this idea in the beginning that one character hired the rest of them as mercenaries for his various expeditions. He is an alchemist obsessed with finding a way to become immortal through alchemy. This seemed all well and fine to me, but its been increasingly apparent that this player is playing his character as pretty evil. He hasnt done anything evil stupid but in general he runs the party's course like a tyrant and one of my others players has come forth about it and how he doesnt think its fun. Of course in character this is absolutely his prerogative as he hired the adventurers, but i think my party is starting to feel trapped by the goals and ambitions of their party leader in my semi-sandbox game.

As a side note its actually pretty difficult to get the party to care about anything going on in the world with a leader who is evil. Any tips for how i could help massage the situation without being too obtrusive into the roleplay? I dont like to interfere with party dynamics as a DM if i can but this situation is complex to me, as its not necessarily an "evil" game that im running but it has an evil party leader who wields all decision making authority because of the roleplay backstory we created.

When this was first coming up i thought it would play out more like OOTS style where Roy leads the party but hes not a tyrant and they function together. It has not turned out this way.

Geddy2112
2016-05-27, 02:52 PM
If the evil players goal is to become immortal through alchemy, I don't explicitly see how this requires him leading a bunch of people around like a tyrant, have any say in decision making, or be allowed to care about other things happening in the world. I don't see how or why he can't let them do things. In these kind of situations, high water raises all boats so he can profit on their victories. Remind the player of this in and out of character.

These are mercs, not slaves. They could up and leave his tyrannical ways if they wanted. He should realize that good help is hard to find, and treating his hirelings like jerks is a good way to end up with no followers, or killed in his sleep. Remind the player and the party in and out of character.

In addition, ask the player if he could be open to being less of a tyrant, and letting the other players have input. Even if he is the in game leader, the game is a team game.

Trask
2016-05-27, 02:57 PM
The problem is that he believes he is just roleplaying how his character would roleplay. And a character threatening to leave isnt exactly a serious threat because what are they gonna do? Quit the campaign? Thats no good.

Cernor
2016-05-27, 03:08 PM
Make the evil (?) quest giver alchemist an NPC. The player makes a new PC. The alchemist can still give the party quests, and aspire to immortality, but the player has no more say than anyone else in how their mission is accomplished once they decide what they're doing.

Genth
2016-05-27, 03:10 PM
And a character threatening to leave isnt exactly a serious threat because what are they gonna do? Quit the campaign? Thats no good.

Yes. If the game isn't fun, they might quit the campaign.

My suggestion would be to throw something in that the Mercs really want, or have to stop, but the Alchemist doesn't care about or even better wants to go a different way. If for example the Mercs care about the poor quarter of the city, perhaps a reagent supplier is using the children of the city as Guinea pigs. Including friends of the Mercs. They find out but can't report it so they want to go kill this supplier. The alchemist needs access to the goods. This puts the choice on the Alchemist (and the player) has he decided that his 'friends' are more important than his research, or is he going to have to take on his former mercenaries?

Aside from that, talk to the alchemist player. Does he see his character as utterly separate from the rest of the party? Does he really want a solo game with supporting cast members? He's allowed to want it but you don't have to provide it

JNAProductions
2016-05-27, 03:15 PM
Seconding talking to the player. This is an issue that should be addressed OOCly.

kyoryu
2016-05-27, 03:23 PM
The problem is that he believes he is just roleplaying how his character would roleplay. And a character threatening to leave isnt exactly a serious threat because what are they gonna do? Quit the campaign? Thats no good.

This is exactly why this needs to be dealt with OOC. It's an OOC problem - if it was IC, the characters would quit or murder the tyrant evil dude, no problem.

This is one of those "sit down, talk to the dude, and explain why it's not working" situations, and try to find a compromise that makes everyone happy.

icefractal
2016-05-27, 03:27 PM
The problem is that he believes he is just roleplaying how his character would roleplay. And a character threatening to leave isnt exactly a serious threat because what are they gonna do? Quit the campaign? Thats no good.That's the problem right there - you've given this player all the leverage by saying that the "camera" will always follow him.

So, don't. If some of the other characters want to go off and do something else, spend part of the time on what they're doing. If more people did that than stayed with the alchemist, spend more time on them.

Also discussing it OOC would be good, but I'd consider this part of that.

Geddy2112
2016-05-27, 03:34 PM
The problem is that he believes he is just roleplaying how his character would roleplay. And a character threatening to leave isnt exactly a serious threat because what are they gonna do? Quit the campaign? Thats no good.

"I'm just roleplaying my character" might as well be the Nurenburg defense of roleplaying games. I have never seen or heard this statement used unless it follows as a defense to wash clean the horrible actions a character/player has committed against the party/game.

If you don't mind this, then yes, don't be surprised if you end up with players quitting the campaign. Or they will roll up characters just to fight his, and create a vicious cycle of bad blood.


This is exactly why this needs to be dealt with OOC. It's an OOC problem - if it was IC, the characters would quit or murder the tyrant evil dude, no problem.

And if this player wants to roleplay his character like this, he should understand the natural in character responses it might generate.


This is one of those "sit down, talk to the dude, and explain why it's not working" situations, and try to find a compromise that makes everyone happy.
But I second this, instead of going for some kind of harsh punishment for the group or telling the player that "I'm roleplaying my character" does not give him permission to be a total jerk, ask him how he could include the group and their goals with his.

Temperjoke
2016-05-27, 03:50 PM
I agree with the point that this needs to be an OOC discussion before your entire game falls apart. If he refuses to change his ways, however, you could point out that he's not being a very good boss to the other players who he apparently sees as his minions. That tends to have fatal consequences for a boss. If you're tired of his personal quest taking over the story, instead of paying attention to events going on in the world, make him care about them. Have them intrude. He needs certain ingredients for his potion? Have them about to be wiped out by an impending battle between two armies. Maybe an even greater evil has heard about him through his network of spies and attempts to interfere. Maybe the locals refuse to sell them goods, because they're afraid they won't have enough to pay tribute to the local bandits/dragon/whatever.

This player doesn't see your events as relevant to him. This is partially your fault for not nipping it in the bud immediately, after all you're the DM, you're the one who allowed him to create this character and this story line. So now you have to make it relevant to him. I hope your game doesn't break up, but if you don't make this character see he's a part of your world, and not the other way around, it will fall apart.

Trask
2016-05-27, 04:51 PM
I'll talk to him ooc more. I think the dynamic can still work but he should understand a few things. Whats tricky is that not all the pcs resent this setup, a few are pretty typical chaotic neutral amoral murderhobos who are perfectly content just following orders but we have 2 good characters one of which dislikes not being able to help people but ive been trying to encourage him to go off and do what he can to help villagers and such anyways.

Honest Tiefling
2016-05-27, 05:04 PM
He's roleplaying his character in a way he knows is not fun for others. While he might be staying in character (as pointed out, being a jerk to others isn't always the best way to get what you want), he isn't properly roleplaying with the party. Tell him that his ways aren't making it fun for the party, and try to come up with solutions so that everyone is happy.

If he's still stubborn...Consider leaving the PC or the player behind. The attitude of 'my way or the highway' or 'my fun comes first' can be hard to break and if they show no signs of correcting this behavior it might only get worse later on.

That said, it's a trap many newbie RPers fall into, and if it helps a lot of people eventually get over it. Do gently remind him that as fun as the character might be, everyone having fun is more important.

Satinavian
2016-05-28, 04:43 AM
It can be resolved OOC or IC or both.

Either the players talk it over and find an interpretation of character concepts that work together.

Or the merc renegotiate with the alchimist and leaving is an option.



Both work. Both are not something you as DM can do. It's player stuff.


And it has nothing to do with being evil. There are crappy leaders of any alignment.

BWR
2016-05-28, 05:43 AM
"I'm just roleplaying my character" might as well be the Nurenburg defense of roleplaying games. I have never seen or heard this statement used unless it follows as a defense to wash clean the horrible actions a character/player has committed against the party/game.


To go off on a slight tangent, while it is often misused, 'I'm just roleplaying my character' and effectively being a **** to the party has IME often been fully justified in the game and around the table and been a source of great RP moments and tons of fun.
The important thing to note is if you, the player, make and play a **** character then try to excuse yourself by saying it's just what the character would do, you're being a **** to everyone else (given they don't like what you're doing - I have made this sort of character, to everyone's enjoyment).
Establishing personalities that are not necessarily dickish and having situations develop through play where PCs might work against each other also falls under 'I'm just roleplaying my character' but is far more interesting and people are far more likely to accept and enjoy the intraparty conflict that ensues.

Most importantly, it boils down to group and game expectations. It's vitally important that everyone agrees beforehand what sort of things are acceptable to do in the game. When disagreements pop up, as they inevitably will, it's important to talk these issues through OOC before people become too resentful or displeased.

Steampunkette
2016-05-28, 06:45 AM
i have found, in my near 20 years of experience, that the safest, fastest, and most thorough solution to the dilemma posed by evil characters is a high caliber bullet to the brainpan. Alternately, just don't.

Seriously... I just don't allow evil characters at my table unless I'm sure the player won't be creating problems for the flow of the game.

Talk to the player. If you can't resolve the issue make a mental note for the next game and remove them in the most effective way, currently, without appearing to be a massive tool about it.

Combat, for example.

Amphetryon
2016-05-28, 10:54 AM
Ahem. Paging Red Fel, Red Fel, Red Fel.

Leewei
2016-05-28, 11:11 AM
The mercs themselves should be the focus of the plot. If their current boss isn't working out, they have other in-character employment opportunities. Faced with the possibility of being stripped of his minions, the alchemist PC should be a lot more amenable.

Xuc Xac
2016-05-28, 11:55 AM
"I'm just playing my character" is never an excuse because you could play them differently. Characters change and develop over time. Even if they don't change, they can justify almost any action as being "in character".

Remember when Darth Vader shot down Luke Skywalker and successfully defended the Death Star so the galaxy could be ruled with an iron fist? It's too bad Han Solo, the selfish mercenary smuggler, just took his money and ran because that's what his character would do. If only he had found his own reasons for hanging around and helping out, the galaxy might have been saved.

Red Fel
2016-05-28, 01:49 PM
Ahem. Paging Red Fel, Red Fel, Red Fel.

http://i.makeagif.com/media/3-18-2015/nDl92y.gif

Hell, it's about dang time.


In a game I've been running for a couple of weeks now, my friends all came to this idea in the beginning that one character hired the rest of them as mercenaries for his various expeditions.

Love the character connection.

Worry about giving one character that kind of authority over others.


He is an alchemist obsessed with finding a way to become immortal through alchemy.

Aren't we all?


This seemed all well and fine to me, but its been increasingly apparent that this player is playing his character as pretty evil. He hasnt done anything evil stupid but in general he runs the party's course like a tyrant and one of my others players has come forth about it and how he doesnt think its fun. Of course in character this is absolutely his prerogative as he hired the adventurers, but i think my party is starting to feel trapped by the goals and ambitions of their party leader in my semi-sandbox game.

And this is exactly why. This isn't about a character being Evil, it's about the fact that you gave one character absolute control over the other characters.

Fortunately, as with any job you hate, the characters have a simple way out: Quit. I don't mean quit the game, I mean quit their employment. But let's hold that thought.


As a side note its actually pretty difficult to get the party to care about anything going on in the world with a leader who is evil. Any tips for how i could help massage the situation without being too obtrusive into the roleplay? I dont like to interfere with party dynamics as a DM if i can but this situation is complex to me, as its not necessarily an "evil" game that im running but it has an evil party leader who wields all decision making authority because of the roleplay backstory we created.

And the answer there is this: You do nothing. This is an in-character situation. The characters are increasingly frustrated with their employment. Let them quit. If the players come to you, you tell them one of two things.

Option the first: Tell them to react in character. If their characters don't like their situation, have them abandon this character en masse. Problem solved.

Option the second: Tell them to talk to the offending player. Promise to be a neutral mediator. When players have problems with players, they need to express them to the player.

But getting involved and trying to fix things yourself will generally make things worse before they get better.


When this was first coming up i thought it would play out more like OOTS style where Roy leads the party but hes not a tyrant and they function together. It has not turned out this way.

OOTS is a comic strip. A delightful comic strip, with good writing and a phenomenally classy forum, but a comic strip nonetheless. Much of what happens in OOTS might not work in your typical campaign.

There's also the fact that Roy leads the party because the rest of them respect and trust him. (Except for Belkar, but he's magic.) Roy didn't come to them and announce himself the leader; he became the leader based on his intelligence, patience, and other leadership qualities. According to what you've said, this PC became the leader because he was paying the bills. That doesn't make him a leader; it makes him an employer.

tomandtish
2016-05-29, 11:15 AM
There's also the fact that Roy leads the party because the rest of them respect and trust him. (Except for Belkar, but he's magic.) Roy didn't come to them and announce himself the leader; he became the leader based on his intelligence, patience, and other leadership qualities. According to what you've said, this PC became the leader because he was paying the bills. That doesn't make him a leader; it makes him an employer.

I suggest looking at Glen Cook's "The Black Company" for a suggestion on mercenaries. In short, by paying them he may get to tell them generally what to do (make sure I arrive safely at Waterdeep). He doesn't get to tell them how to do it, what to do in their off-time, or anything else. And if he is abusive they can (and should) terminate the relationship.


The problem is that he believes he is just roleplaying how his character would roleplay. And a character threatening to leave isnt exactly a serious threat because what are they gonna do? Quit the campaign? Thats no good.

They don't have to quit the campaign. They just have to quit him (the character).

"You know, we've figured out enough of what's going on and where we're going... why do we need to take you? We can kidnap Alchemist X and have him turn us all immortal".

Or for that matter use him to turn them immortal. He obviously needs them to get where they need to go (or he wouldn't have hired them). And he can't become immortal if he's dead.