Running an alignment-ambiguous campaign: please help me not to screw up

[the_brazenburn]

After the unmitigated disaster of the previous adventure I played in (Atlantis-themed dungeon with numerous castrations, assassinations, and the selling of souls), it has been decided that I'm too awful a player, and Ivor too generous a DM, to continue with those roles. Accordingly, I am switching to DM.

I had planned to run a campaign set in Ravnica, and had spent numerous hours making random encounter tables and such. Unfortunately, Ravnica is very, very, very ambiguous about alignment. For those who don't know the setting, it's basically a huge city ruled by ten guilds in various stages of corruption.

I've put too much work into the setting to abandon the idea completely, but I also don't want two campaigns to fall apart in a row. How can I make sure the party doesn't devolve into PvP in such a faction-based campaign?

[smcmike]

Don’t allow PvP.

[bc56]

PVP should definitely be disallowed.

Moreover, evil alignments can lead to stupidity.I assume you don't want a party of serial arsonists, so require each character to have motivations beyond being evil to be evil or good to be good. Likewise, they need a reason to function within the party.

I have an evil character, and my DM required me to have an explanation of why he can work in a group, and moreover an entirely good group. He's an LE druid, and he respects the pack mentality of wolves and sees the party as his pack. He has a set of laws he lives by which are all themed after a pack of wolves, and they prevent him from going too far off the deep end.

[Unoriginal]

After the unmitigated disaster of the previous adventure I played in (Atlantis-themed dungeon with numerous castrations, assassinations, and the selling of souls), it has been decided that I'm too awful a player, and Ivor too generous a DM, to continue with those roles. Accordingly, I am switching to DM.

I had planned to run a campaign set in Ravnica, and had spent numerous hours making random encounter tables and such. Unfortunately, Ravnica is very, very, very ambiguous about alignment. For those who don't know the setting, it's basically a huge city ruled by ten guilds in various stages of corruption.

I've put too much work into the setting to abandon the idea completely, but I also don't want two campaigns to fall apart in a row. How can I make sure the party doesn't devolve into PvP in such a faction-based campaign?

Three points:

-Alignments are not important. Not more important than Flaws, Bonds, Ideals or any other character trait, in any case.

-You COULD say that all the PCs are from the same Guild. Or make them belong to the same inter-Guild secret faction. Call it the Midnight Crew or something.

-In any case, give the PCs a reason for sticking together.

[Uzgul]

It really helps to let the players create the party as a group. So that the PCs already know each other before the campaign.

I am currently playing in a game, where all PCs are part of a mafia family. All PCs are evil, but can trust each other. So far, it's been working really well.

Or give them a goal, that doesn't take alignment into account. Evil characters can work together pretty well, if they share a goal.

[the_brazenburn]

Three points:

-Alignments are not important. Not more important than Flaws, Bonds, Ideals or any other character trait, in any case.

-You COULD say that all the PCs are from the same Guild. Or make them belong to the same inter-Guild secret faction. Call it the Midnight Crew or something.

-In any case, give the PCs a reason for sticking together.

Ah, I see what I did wrong. Sorry.

What I meant by "Alignment-Ambiguous" was not the alignments of the characters themselves, but that there's so much secret evil in the setting that I'm worried about. I love messing with people and having them seduced into evil (it's a CoS thing), but I don't want them accidently joining the Dimir and assassinating some poor innocent guy.

And please, don't just say "don't have them join the evil guilds". I'm not going to put training wheels on an adventure, nor am I going to limit player freedom (beyond "Don't kill each other". I'm definitely going to do that.).

[Coec]

Learn from the mistakes of the last campaign. PvP is a no win situation. Don't let it happen. Don't let little squabbles like stealing from other players happen. If you're concerned about the campaign try ruining a published one like Storm kings thunder or curse of strahd.

From what I read about your last campaign in a previous thread, it may be a good idea to have a serious conversation upfront about your expectations and the expectations of the players about the upcoming game.

From an outside perspective there definitely seemed like an unfriendly air between some players so it's best to get that out of the way of possible. If that's not the case then that's great.

Best of luck

[ChaoticHarmony]

Ah, I see what I did wrong. Sorry.

What I meant by "Alignment-Ambiguous" was not the alignments of the characters themselves, but that there's so much secret evil in the setting that I'm worried about. I love messing with people and having them seduced into evil (it's a CoS thing), but I don't want them accidently joining the Dimir and assassinating some poor innocent guy.

And please, don't just say "don't have them join the evil guilds". I'm not going to put training wheels on an adventure, nor am I going to limit player freedom (beyond "Don't kill each other". I'm definitely going to do that.).

Why would they have to assassinate "some poor innocent guy"? In a setting like this where every faction has some level of corruption or deceit, why not have that "poor innocent guy" have a secret side to him that makes him not so innocent. This way you could have a way to potentially raise the stakes depending on who was killed.

For example; if they joined the Dimir and they're first assignment is to assassinate a factionless public figurehead that opposes the Dimir, and is quickly rising to power, you could have him be a sleeper agent to one of the other factions, one who would have caused massive damage if he did rise to power. Or maybe he worked for the Dimir as well and the assignment came from a mole within the faction who is trying to undermine it.

Unless you are including a faction who's primary goal is mass slaughter of the population and they don't care who gets hurt, there is always a secret you could give a target that could make their death ultimately deserved or necessary, a secret that could come back to haunt your players

[the_brazenburn]

Unless you are including a faction who's primary goal is mass slaughter of the population and they don't care who gets hurt, there is always a secret you could give a target that could make their death ultimately deserved or necessary

Cough Rakdos cough.

[Contrast]

-In any case, give the PCs a reason for sticking together.

This is the most important point and it's not primarily the GMs responsibility (other than flagging it up with players I guess).

The most important part of making any character (which often gets forgotten with evil PCs) is giving them a reason to want to engage with the rest of the party and whatever the mission at hand is. If a player can't come up with a reason why their character would work with the rest of the party then they either need to rework the character or start again with a new character because they've just made an NPC.

A lot of people are vehemently against PVP (actual or perceived). I don't draw the line quite so strongly but the important thing is that it should always have clear buy in from all of the players involved (so not, for example, while they're missing a session :smallwink:).

This advice all assumes you're aiming to play a typical team style game of course.

[ChaoticHarmony]

Cough Rakdos cough.

I'm not familiar with the setting 😅 that's a little embarrassing on my part

[the_brazenburn]

I'm not familiar with the setting 😅 that's a little embarrassing on my part

Sorry. Rakdos is essentially a demonic cult that worships a huge balor demon. The members are sadists and nihilists who want to see everybody destroyed, including themselves, in a huge fiery revel that will consume the world.

Not the sort of thing you want your players accidentally joining.

[The Jack]

I've played a lot of World of Darkness, and many PCs would be considered "evil " by DnD standards (or at least "ambiguous", rarely does pvp happen, but that's because players are playing people, not caricatures (ok, they play caricatures, but it's not the same thing..) There's a lot of one-upmanship and trying to get others to owe them, but you'll only really see PKs (more often "arrests" than direct kills) when one player breaks the law spectacularly or tries to betray the party and fails, even then that's sometimes more -the system- than agency. It's a horror setting, if **** happens, the table isn't going to destroy itself.

Players should think of characters first and allignment second. " I want to play chaotic evil, a Drow bard fits the bill!" will usually be much worse than "I've got this idea for a drow bard, I've thought of various bonds, flaws and personality factors, I guess she'd be considered CE"

Alignment's there for magical effects and a few creatures (hags, fiends, celestials) that're defined by their alignment. It doesn't ever make good, grounded characters.

If you're doing a game where players can be bad, the first thing you should do is have a session zero and determine what they could have in common, what bonds they could have to eachother, what differences in opinion should they tone down if it'd really be a problem for co-operation.

[ChaoticHarmony]

Sorry. Rakdos is essentially a demonic cult that worships a huge balor demon. The members are sadists and nihilists who want to see everybody destroyed, including themselves, in a huge fiery revel that will consume the world.

Not the sort of thing you want your players accidentally joining.

It seems like Rakdos would give plenty of hints towards what they are truly up to if that's the case though. You could work it so that may become apparent. You don't have to railroad then into making a specific choice or force them to do something, but for things you have worry about, you could make it clear that these may not be the kind of people you want to hang around. Beyond that, it's like everyone else is saying, talk with your players to get a feel of how they mesh and what they may go for during the adventure

[FelineArchmage]

I had planned to run a campaign set in Ravnica, and had spent numerous hours making random encounter tables and such. Unfortunately, Ravnica is very, very, very ambiguous about alignment. For those who don't know the setting, it's basically a huge city ruled by ten guilds in various stages of corruption.


What I meant by "Alignment-Ambiguous" was not the alignments of the characters themselves, but that there's so much secret evil in the setting that I'm worried about. I love messing with people and having them seduced into evil (it's a CoS thing), but I don't want them accidently joining the Dimir and assassinating some poor innocent guy.



Sorry. Rakdos is essentially a demonic cult that worships a huge balor demon. The members are sadists and nihilists who want to see everybody destroyed, including themselves, in a huge fiery revel that will consume the world.

Not the sort of thing you want your players accidentally joining.

Preface: I do not know much about the Ravnica setting.

However, from what you've described already, the setting is basically a landmine for conflict. Now, not necessarily a bad thing - HOWEVER - with the last couple threads that you and Ivor have posted about, I don't think you should move forward with this setting unless you have strict and enforced rules that the party needs to follow. So no pvp, must cooperate, etc. If you are worried about players falling into evil archtypes and screwing players over, I think you need to eliminate it from the setting so there is no temptation to fall back into evil character habits until the group has learned to cooperate and play together without castration and selling other peoples souls.

I know you worked hard on the setting and encounter tables - and good job! I'm proud of you for doing that since that's a lot of work - but I think you should put it on the backburner until the group has matured as a whole and you can work together. In AND out of character. Please go pick up a pre-made adventure.

[KorvinStarmast]

If you're doing a game where players can be bad, the first thing you should do is have a session zero and determine what they could have in common, what bonds they could have to eachother, what differences in opinion should they tone down if it'd really be a problem for co-operation. Brazenburn, is your group capable of this?
I ask because of the previous diary entries (well, forum posts) from the various folks in your group on this forum.
Only you all, as a group, can answer this question honestly. The Jack offered some really good advice, right there.

[the_brazenburn]

Brazenburn, is your group capable of this?
I ask because of the previous diary entries (well posts) from the various folks in your group on this forum. Only you all, as a group, can answer this question honestly.

We can handle that. I might not make it an actual session, but I will certainly make sure that they have both IG and OOG incentives to work together, and that they all know how it's going to work.

Nobody really enjoyed the previous PvP game (except possibly the rogue), so I don't think it will be too much of a problem.

[Ganymede]

I always tell my players this: "You can be complicated, you can be flawed, you can have a shady past, you can even be an antihero... but you can't be capital E Evil."

That helps nip lots of issues in the bud.

[Coec]

We can handle that. I might not make it an actual session, but I will certainly make sure that they have both IG and OOG incentives to work together, and that they all know how it's going to work.

Nobody really enjoyed the previous PvP game (except possibly the rogue), so I don't think it will be too much of a problem.


I want to believe this for all the right reasons and I hope that it works...

But based on what I've read about the group from the other posts as well as this post. Add only what information I've gleaned about the type of campaign you're thinking of running, I fear it will end in disaster. I hope not and that I'm wrong, but it wouldn't hurt to have a backup plan after session 0 just in case it goes poorly.

I think you've got a lot of good advice here from everyone. Now it's up to you to take it or leave it.

[FelineArchmage]

We can handle that. I might not make it an actual session, but I will certainly make sure that they have both IG and OOG incentives to work together, and that they all know how it's going to work.

Nobody really enjoyed the previous PvP game (except possibly the rogue), so I don't think it will be too much of a problem.

I think you should make it an actual session. With the problems your group has been having, it needs to be clear - from the start and as blunt as possible - that X, Y, and Z need to be done and that this is what the group is getting from you. I think you need to have a session 0 and be as clear cut as possible with the group on the rules and expectations.

[Kurt Kurageous]

And do tell your players what will be expected of them.

Have that out in a session zero.

Up front, no PVP. My rule on that is there may be secrets between characters, but none between players. No notes passed to DM, etc. How does this work?

The rogue can try to cheat on things, the bard charm allies, BUT the actions and die rolls will be out in the open. The player better understand that, if the character gets caught by the rest of the party, they are done until the come up with a whole new sheet AND the party loses the service of the rogue/bard. No, they don't get to play the same class again, weakening the party.

Anybody who STILL PVPs needs to be out of the group if they do not come around.

[the_brazenburn]

We rolled up new characters, and I had a session 0 in which I told them explicitly "No PVP". They all agreed.

And then they told me what guilds they are affiliated with. I bet you can guess what they picked.

That's right. Two out of four chose to be members of Rakdos, the demonic nihilist cult. The other ones picked Dimir, the guild in charge of secrets, spying, and assassinations, and Izzet, the science-mage guild that can occasionally level city blocks with their experiments.

My hopes for this campaign have skyrocketed.

[Fire Tarrasque]

This always happens.
Inter party civil wars have become somewhat common around here.

[the_brazenburn]

We rolled up new characters, and I had a session 0 in which I told them explicitly "No PVP". They all agreed.

And then they told me what guilds they are affiliated with. I bet you can guess what they picked.

That's right. Two out of four chose to be members of Rakdos, the demonic nihilist cult. The other ones picked Dimir, the guild in charge of secrets, spying, and assassinations, and Izzet, the science-mage guild that can occasionally level city blocks with their experiments.

My hopes for this campaign have skyrocketed.

Anybody know what I can do about this? Right now, it looks like I'm just going to run an evil-ish campaign.

[ProsecutorGodot]

We rolled up new characters, and I had a session 0 in which I told them explicitly "No PVP". They all agreed.

And then they told me what guilds they are affiliated with. I bet you can guess what they picked.

That's right. Two out of four chose to be members of Rakdos, the demonic nihilist cult. The other ones picked Dimir, the guild in charge of secrets, spying, and assassinations, and Izzet, the science-mage guild that can occasionally level city blocks with their experiments.

My hopes for this campaign have skyrocketed.

Unless they have exceptional reasons to be heroic "I want the entire world to die" cultists you probably shouldn't allow that.

Unless I'm mistaken doing a quick read through of the wiki, the only thing they could do in that Guild other than be supremely violent and masochistic is being an entertainer, catering, menial labor, with a side of cannibalism and meaningless violence... oh and also as slaves which is apparently agreed to in the guildpact, lets hope they weren't signed up on that list because it is prettybinding. There's also the note of the Guild Signet, which according to the wiki can't be considered complete unless it's been used as a murder weapon. So they're also murderers.

This actual magic of the Guildpact seems pretty hardcore. It's apparently unbreakable and Jace Beleren(Elminster level NPC, pretty close to a demigod) is the physical embodiment of it now, so I'd imaging those players willing to join that guild would also be the same players who would "accidently" break the guildpact and end up out of the game.

Short answer, veto it. With the shenanigans that run rampant at your tables I wouldn't trust the players to run with the entertainment industry or laborer side of Rakdos. If you're intent on letting them stick with this choice make sure they know that breaking any law in the Guildpact could end up a lot worse than handcuffs and a jail sentence.

On a side not, the Color Pie (https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Color) does give alignment examples for the guilds and certain colors in MTG indicate a group or characters motivations. It's actually more descriptive than 5e's alignment system. Rakdos is Black/Red which boils down to CE when you take their actions into account. I don't see why someone at your table would pick Rakdos if they intended to behave themselves.

[the_brazenburn]

Unless they have exceptional reasons to be heroic "I want the entire world to die" cultists you probably shouldn't allow that.

Unless I'm mistaken doing a quick read through of the wiki, the only thing they could do in that Guild other than be supremely violent and masochistic is being an entertainer, catering, menial labor, with a side of cannibalism and meaningless violence... oh and also as slaves which is apparently agreed to in the guildpact, lets hope they weren't signed up on that list because it is prettybinding. There's also the note of the Guild Signet, which according to the wiki can't be considered complete unless it's been used as a murder weapon. So they're also murderers.

This actual magic of the Guildpact seems pretty hardcore. It's apparently unbreakable and Jace Beleren(Elminster level NPC, pretty close to a demigod) is the physical embodiment of it now, so I'd imaging those players willing to join that guild would also be the same players who would "accidently" break the guildpact and end up out of the game.

Short answer, veto it. With the shenanigans that run rampant at your tables I wouldn't trust the players to run with the entertainment industry or laborer side of Rakdos. If you're intent on letting them stick with this choice make sure they know that breaking any law in the Guildpact could end up a lot worse than handcuffs and a jail sentence.

On a side not, the Color Pie (https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Color) does give alignment examples for the guilds and certain colors in MTG indicate a group or characters motivations. It's actually more descriptive than 5e's alignment system. Rakdos is Black/Red which boils down to CE when you take their actions into account.

One of the two Rakdos people actually doesn't care too much about the guild. He wants to play a character based off the Marvel character Ghost Rider, i.e. a flaming skeleton who hunts down evildoers so he can send their souls to his demonic master. I suggested that he should probably play Rakdos if he wanted anything to do with demons, so that's what we have going on now. He probably shouldn't be the problem; his character is a vengeance pally who's LE and has promised not to kill any group members or innocents.

The other Rakdosian had never heard of the guilds before. I gave her a brief summary of each one, and she thought that the Rakdos sounded cool. Her character (a demon cleric) was essentially built around the guild, and I'd hate to make all that research for nothing.

So, I don't feel like I can just scrap Rakdos entirely. I'll assign the cleric a job as a circus ringleader, where she can still kill people, but where it's apparently legal.

[Unoriginal]

Anybody know what I can do about this? Right now, it looks like I'm just going to run an evil-ish campaign.

Tell them "sorry, guys, but thinking about it I don't think I can run this campaign with those guilds".


If the troubles on the horizon are so big you see them coming already AND it's hurting your enthusiasm for the campaign, you should avoid them.

[the_brazenburn]

Tell them "sorry, guys, but thinking about it I don't think I can run this campaign with those guilds".


If the troubles on the horizon are so big you see them coming already AND it's hurting your enthusiasm for the campaign, you should avoid them.

It's only a problem if I try to run a good-aligned campaign. If I can expect all the sadism and gore in advance, I can deal with it by making it the status quo. I'm just asking if there's a way I can make them "accidentally" do some helpful stuff.

[ProsecutorGodot]

It's only a problem if I try to run a good-aligned campaign. If I can expect all the sadism and gore in advance, I can deal with it by making it the status quo. I'm just asking if there's a way I can make them "accidentally" do some helpful stuff.

This was literally the problem with your last campaign, why would you want a repeat?

[the_brazenburn]

This was literally the problem with your last campaign, why would you want a repeat?

Because last time, we were expecting a good campaign and got an evil one. That was an unpleasant surprise, especially when coupled with an overabundance of PvP.

If I run an evil campaign without PvP now, at worst I'll get what I expect, and at best I'll be pleasantly surprised at a heroic campaign. I'm just asking for ways to make the possibility of an "accidental" good campaign more likely.

[Unoriginal]

It's only a problem if I try to run a good-aligned campaign. If I can expect all the sadism and gore in advance, I can deal with it by making it the status quo. I'm just asking if there's a way I can make them "accidentally" do some helpful stuff.

Helpful to whom? They're probably going to do stuff in exchange of a reward that interest them, so they could be motivated to do stuff that is helpful.

Also, I strongly second ProsecutorGodot's question.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Because last time, we were expecting a good campaign and got an evil one. That was an unpleasant surprise, especially when coupled with an overabundance of PvP.

If I run an evil campaign without PvP now, at worst I'll get what I expect, and at best I'll be pleasantly surprised at a heroic campaign. I'm just asking for ways to make the possibility of an "accidental" good campaign more likely.

alignment ambiguous is not the same as evil. You want to run a good campaign trust me, and at worst a neutral campaign. I'm pleading with you as the main problem of the last campaign not to run this one into the dirt by encouraging an evil campaign.

It didn't work for you last time, starting evil will only create more problems.

I'm not even sure you want advice, since even still you're hounding the rogue player as the problem of the last campaign. I do not recommend playing an evil campaign in your group unless you want a really short campaign that blows up spectacularly in your face.

[the_brazenburn]

Helpful to whom? They're probably going to do stuff in exchange of a reward that interest them, so they could be motivated to do stuff that is helpful.

Also, I strongly second ProsecutorGodot's question.

You mean, to tell people that they can't pick Rakdos? I could do that, I guess.

I'll let the "casual" Rakdosians (the ones that haven't given me a suitable reason for being in Rakdos) pick a new guild. I can probably get away with that.

Thanks for all the advice, Unoriginal and ProsecutorGodot. I really will need to completely change our group dynamics for this campaign.

[Ivor_The_Mad]

You mean, to tell people that they can't pick Rakdos? I could do that, I guess.

I'll let the "casual" Rakdosians (the ones that haven't given me a suitable reason for being in Rakdos) pick a new guild. I can probably get away with that.

Thanks for all the advice, Unoriginal and ProsecutorGodot. I really will need to completely change our group dynamics for this campaign.

Izzets still cool right? And what about my character? Want me to use someone else or is he cool?

[the_brazenburn]

Izzets still cool right? And what about my character? Want me to use someone else or is he cool?

Izzet is fine. I can take or leave your character. Maybe you could switch to somebody else (Golgari, Boros, or Gruul would all be decent approximations).

And I'll talk to the Dimir character about possibly changing as well.

[Jamesps]

I used to use a special rule for PVP actions:

"When taking an action against another player that involves a roll the player acted against decides the results of the roll."

This keeps players from feeling unrealistically restrained in how they respond to a situation, but avoids any nonconsensual PvP.

[the_brazenburn]

Two sessions into the Ravnica campaign, and I'm pleased to say that I haven't screwed up yet!

I managed to convince the players not to play Rakdos or Dimir, and they all agreed to switch. There's been no PVP whatsoever, and the rogue actually leaped into a crowd of raging barbarians to save the rest of the party, at great risk to himself. So, I've started to realize that I really was the problem with our group, and I've apologized to him. I'd also like to issue a formal apology to the forum at large for continually ignoring your pleas to stop hounding the rogue and for plugging the forums asking for advice I didn't keep. I'm sorry.

I do have one problem, though. It concern's Ivor's character, and I'd rather he didn't see any of this. Ivor, read no farther than this, please. If you violate my trust, I will punish you in-game.

So, Ivor agreed to switch his Ghost Rider-inspired character to be affiliated with the Orzhov, essentially a mashup of 15th century Roman Catholic Church and the Mafia, but with lots of ghosts. I was absolutely fine with this, and then was completely off guard when he asked me to discuss his backstory.

He's asking me if I can have his character secretly be a minion of the leader of the Rakdos (who is named Rakdos), and at some point wants to show his true colors and switch guild allegiances. He seemed to think that this, in addition to a bizarre soul-magic thing, is a fair trade.

I told him it would happen when Avernus freezes over and lizards crawl out of Asmodeus's Golden Arse. (I have some quite interesting curses.) Eventually, he managed to talk me into it, but I said that when he does turn his cloak, his character will become an NPC and he'll need to roll another one. He didn't like this, but what can I do?

So, where it stands now, I am going to take away his character if and when he decides Orzhov has become boring, but he's not quite on board with that plan. Would you say that my decision was a good one? I'm not quite sure myself.

[Unoriginal]

Just tell him something like:

"I changed my mind, you can't be a turncoat. I said no Rakdos nor Dimir, and that's final.I'm sorry, I shouldn't have let you talk me into it."

[the_brazenburn]

Just tell him something like:

"I changed my mind, you can't be a turncoat. I said no Rakdos nor Dimir, and that's final.I'm sorry, I shouldn't have let you talk me into it."

Yeah, that's what I'm going to do. I just wanted a second opinion. Thanks!