3 Evil characters with 1 good character

[ImSAMazing]

Hi guys,

Me and my group really need your help. We have a campaign with 3 evil characters, and 1 good character. The player who plays the good character HATES playing evil characters, and the other 3 players would really like to try out the evil side of the alignments. But, sadly this doesn't work. The evil characters killed a guard because it was about to discover they had a hoard of undead with them, but because of that the good character attacked the killer. Causing the party to attack him. Leading to his death.

The problems we have in solving this issue is:
- I really want every player to have no limits on what they can make for type of characters. As long as it follows the rules of course, but I dont really want to restrict their alignments too. I can do it ofcourse, but I want to keep it as a last resort.
- Also: the three evil characters are really loved by their players, and me and the good character-player doesn't want to force the other 3 players to change characters.

I really need you guys their advice. Anything is helpful.

[Lombra]

Attacking the murderer of someone isn't exactly a good aligned action in my opinion, anyways, by my experience big differences in alignment just don't work unless one of the two parts (generally the evil one) acts without the other knowing. Can't the good character player play a neutral character for once and simply don't care about evil actions? There should be more dialogue out of character before the creation of PCs in my opinion.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

In real life I'm probably Chaotic Good. On a national level, if necessary to defeat a greater enemy I'd support an crooked dictator who pushed drugs for a bit.

On a more personal level, I'd go Jack Bauer on folks threatening my kids and sometimes I worry I'd do it a week or two later.

Perhaps your good character could be one of the "Chaotic" / "Pragmatic" goods I think elves lend themselves to. Something where he/she puts up with the suicide squad like folks he is with for the greater good.

Keeping a moral compass around will probably keep you as DM from having to put up wanted posters for the evil members of the party and roleplaying them trying to stay out of prison endlessly.

[Master O'Laughs]

I have not tried but thought it would be fun to play in an evil campaign where one player is an incredibly dull lawful stupid Paladin. The basic premise is the evil characters have to guise their actions and plans as if they are good deeds to the Paladin, convince them the mayor is an evil necromancer and he must be killed to prevent the town from being overrun. In actuality, the mayor is a nice enough guy, can sometimes be a jerk but not always, but he is suspicious of the evil characters so they plan to take him out.

If the good aligned playing is okay with with playing his character not knowing evil stuff is happening while him as a player does, it could be fun.

[solidork]

Unfortunately there really isn't an easy solution for this. If I was in the shoes of the person who doesn't want to play an evil character, I would just bow out, but that's the kind of thing a player has to decide for themselves.

It wouldn't be easy, but maybe the good PC has a really strong bond with one of the evil PCs? Like siblings or something. This is more or less the relationship between Raistlin and Caramon in the Dragonlance novels.

Maybe good-sibling is angry but eventually accepts the guard's death since all of the alternatives involve even more people dying or evil-sibling being captured or killed. Evil-sibling considers good-sibling short sighted, but will end anyone who lays a hand on them. The good PC would have to sometimes be able to convince the rest of the party to do the right thing over the expedient thing. I don't think I could pull that off in game, probably not even if I was writing fiction, so you'd have your work cut out for you.

If the evil PCs are of the "lets murder and torture people for fun", there probably isn't any way for the good PC to play in the game.

[jaappleton]

A few things. And these are all very important things.

1. The characters obviously don't get along. That can be fine. Do the PLAYERS get along? Like, are they separating the characters from the players? Omin and Binwin don't have to be friends, they can hate eachother, so long as Jerry and Scott are cool.

2. For the sake of RP, it can help a lot if they're working toward a common goal. The Good Fighter can work with the Evil Cleric if they're both going after someone they both hate. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Even if its just an alliance of convenience, it can be helpful.

3. Really, this is unfortunate, but you may need to sit everyone down and say the following: "Hey. Put your ****s away. Have fun. Alignment isn't an excuse for behaving like a jerk."

[Trampaige]

- Also: the three evil characters are really loved by their players, and me and the good character-player doesn't want to force the other 3 players to change characters.


Okay then, the good player is outnumbered. The 3 evil guys want to be evil, you're ambivalent to it because you want sandbox, and the good player wants to be good. That's 3:1 with 1 abstaining. The good player needs to make a character that fits the campaign.

Simple as that.

Under no circumstances should the majority of the party be told to play to the whims of one player. It sounds like there was no session 0/discussion in advance of the game, otherwise you clearly would have stopped this in advance.... right? Or there was pre-planning, and the good player decided to make a problematic character anyway, and then caused pvp.

The problem is your 'good' player.

[coolAlias]

- I really want every player to have no limits on what they can make for type of characters. As long as it follows the rules of course, but I dont really want to restrict their alignments too. I can do it of course, but I want to keep it as a last resort.
I would recommend against this. It's fine to allow players to make whatever they want so long as all of the characters that are made can work together.

It helps if you have a Session 0 so the players can all make characters together and/or to set out expectations such as "This game is going to focus on being (good|bad) guys, plan accordingly."

Other than that, unless you want PvP, simply don't allow it. If things start going that route in-game because so-and-so's character would do it, then tell that player out of character: "Sorry, this is a cooperative game. Come up with a reason for your character to remain cooperatively in the group or create a new character."

That doesn't mean that the character has to like everything the other characters do, but they shouldn't use those actions as an excuse to start PvP. If their character feels so strongly about it, that character should become an NPC.

[Naanomi]

This is the opposite of the usual 'disruptive evil character' but similar in many ways; including the need to find a way to make the party cohesive. All the above suggestions are good; and might I suggest to the 'only plays good' player that there are plenty of ways to play a 'heroic' evil characte; and you don't need to be eating babies and the like to be evil. A Lawful Evil vengeance paladin; willing to work with anyone to work towards taking down greater threats... a neutral lizardman, who could care less about undead and these other 'stupid taboos' the soft skins have in place... a mercenary who is civil and friendly but at the end of the day the paycheck wins over morality... lots of fun RP to explore

[Vaz]

Put it on the other foot. 1 Evil and 3 good characters. If the evil person cannot get along with the good characters, they don't have a part in the game.

Talk out of character and say 'look, this is a game where I'm allowing evil characters. The players can commit evil actions, but there are consequences if they're found out, in the same way as you do if you get caught in real life. If you do not want to play in an evil game and actively are going out to sabotage their ability to have fun, well, there's the door."

[Dankus Memakus]

Ive had ALOT of experience with this. Ive had evil parties of like 7 people with one lawful good paladin. My question is, what alignment are they exactly? Lawful Evil? Chaotic Evil? And i assume your good character has to remake his character due to his demise so what specific good alignment is he currently leaning towards?

Edit: if your good player doesnt want to be evil has he considered neutral? I mean most neutral players can get along with evil and he may be able to get away with lightly policing them in a way that wont get him killed.

[Puh Laden]

What is the party? Are they treasure hunters? Mercenaries? Bounty hunters? Those who have banded together to take down the Xanathar? A military squad? What to do depends on what the party is.

[PaxZRake]

What is the party? Are they treasure hunters? Mercenaries? Bounty hunters? Those who have banded together to take down the Xanathar? A military squad? What to do depends on what the party is.

The important thing to me comes from the above here: Why were these 3 evil guys traveling with this 1 good guy? What binds the party together despite their differing moral compass?

[clash]

I have been in the case there is one evil guy in a party of do-gooders. It works so long as he isnt too disruptive and generally goes along with the majority of the party in order to achieve his own motivations. If his motives are strong enough then he can tolerate the party only causing issues sometimes. The reverse is true here. If the character wants to be good in an evil party it is his responsibility to have motivations that keep him tied to the party and while he can do good or try to prevent evil acts from the party, he needs to be smart enough to realize that he is working with evil men and he cant just attack them for what they do. As a general rule only a character that is being far too diruptive should ever be attacked by other party members. If he wants he can cast shield on someone about to be murdered or throw himself in between the people or shout a warning, but he needs to be smart enough to not attack the evil party members. They are the majority here. Play your character but dont be too disruptive as too cause problems.

[Isaire]

I think the dynamic of a good but rather.. uninsightful character can be quite fun. Like Fighter from 8-Bit Theatre :D

[Gnaeus]

Many of my gaming groups come from a LARP background, and we're totally cool with everyone's PC acting however they need to IC and rolling with the consequences. Here, that would be a dead paladin and that player can find a character that works with the team or get used to being regularly murdered or rejoin next campaign. But the other suggestions also work for different groups. It's really all about what your players are comfortable with.

Edit: if the situation were reversed, our good PCs wouldnt murder the evil one, they would more likely abandon him and recruit a replacement at the next convenient opportunity. Which OOC works out pretty much the same.

[KorvinStarmast]

Me and my group really need your help. We have a campaign with 3 evil characters, and 1 good character. The player who plays the good character HATES playing evil characters, and the other 3 players would really like to try out the evil side of the alignments. But, sadly this doesn't work. And it won't.

Your problem is that your four characters are treating this like a video game, with each character being created in isolation, and then forming a group when there is no rational reason for all four to be on the same team doing things together (in game, not IRL where you all get together to play).

A lot of people forget: the RPG Dungeons and Dragons was built from the get go as a team event and still is. The party is supposed to work together (in the broad sense) and benefit from the synergy and complimentary skills each brings to the adventure.

Having a profound disagreement on some fundamental things that "we do" and "that we don't do" as a team matters.

Go back to team building 101, and build a team. Get on the same page. Then go and have a bunch of adventures.

Or don't, and get used to bickering and disagreement in-character.

[JellyPooga]

And it won't.

Your problem is that your four characters are treating this like a video game, with each character being created in isolation, and then forming a group when there is no rational reason for all four to be on the same team doing things together (in game, not IRL where you all get together to play).

A lot of people forget: the RPG Dungeons and Dragons was built from the get go as a team event and still is. The party is supposed to work together (in the broad sense) and benefit from the synergy and complimentary skills each brings to the adventure.

Having a profound disagreement on some fundamental things that "we do" and "that we don't do" as a team matters.

Go back to team building 101, and build a team. Get on the same page. Then go and have a bunch of adventures.

Or don't, and get used to bickering and disagreement in-character.

I disagree with this sentiment. Just because 3 giys are "evil" and one is "good" doesn't necessarily mean they can't be a team.

[jaappleton]

I disagree with this sentiment. Just because 3 giys are "evil" and one is "good" doesn't necessarily mean they can't be a team.

I didn't take that away from the post at all.

I took, "Form a foundation for why you're together in the first place, in order to avoid 'go along with what we evil people want or we'll kill you'"

[Alberic Strein]

Well, beyond going to the player playing the good character and telling him : "You can play what you want as long as you respect the social contract and accept to play with the other players." No turning on the party, no killing his allies, he plays the good dude, gives to an orphanage, and close his eyes when the party does something incredibly evil.

There are ways to work around this, but that's the bottom line. He has to play WITH them, no matter what.