PDA

View Full Version : Roleplaying Evil Players / Party conflict



Ixtellor
2018-05-31, 02:21 PM
1) I didi a search, didn't find a thread like this.

2) The following is based on my experiences in a decade long group

The core question: "Is inter-party conflict something you allow, or encourage, in your role playing?"

In my longest running group there was a tendency for players to gravitate towards evil alignments. This would occasionally lead to inter-party conflict and result in character deaths.

(My crew only ever played one character at a time, and we were very emotionally invested in our characters)

So this naturally could be a very disruptive occurrence to both the campaign and peoples emotions.

After looking back I actually believe these were the most enjoyable and memorable campaigns. As people mature and get more experience role playing I think it becomes more rewarding to actually play out your character without regard for its implication on the game itself.
Example:
One of my favorite characters that I had been playing for over a year (high school - 5 sessions a week) was in the process of trying to establish a small principality, when a small encounter with some ghouls resulted in me getting paralyzed. My RL companion a cleric, saw me go down and setupon by all the ghouls and decided to walk away and let me die, even though he easily could have turned them all. It pissed me off to high degree and I stormed out and ripped up my character. Later my RL friend explained that his character despised my character because I had made no effort to help him establish his religion in my new domain, it was an affront to his deity, and I deserved the Karmic retribution.

Eventually you get over and but you never forget the campaign. Over the many years, several characters were killed by other characters because it fit the narrative and personality based on the situation.
This includes murder on the very first session because the DM clumsily tried to introduce new party members to a group of lawful evil mercenaries.

So, IMHO, party conflict is memorable, good role playing, and more emotionally satisfying than a typical encounter with an NPC.

Grog the level 8 Fighter standing over the body of his dead mage companion. " I told you 4 months ago, don't cast fireballs too close to me".

Blymurkla
2018-05-31, 02:59 PM
Read this blog post: https://gnomestew.com/player-perspective/playing-characters-gamers-hate/

Party conflict can be great. Player conflict is the worst. Don't keep secrets between players, have them among PC's. If you don't understand the difference, party conflict isn't for you.

The phrase ğI want your character to backstab mineĞ should be just as common as ğI backstab youĞ. Played that way, you can have the sort of complicated relationships between (anti)heroes that we remember so fondly from so many stories whilst remaining friends.

Extra Anchovies
2018-06-01, 08:51 AM
Roleplaying games are about shared storytelling. Good shared storytelling requires that players share the story and work together out-of-character to keep things constructive in-character. Knocking down someone else's block-castle isn't cool, but adding to it can be. The cleric letting you die because you're a heretic is destructive. What next? It's a storytelling dead end. I think the cleric should have intervened, and then pressed you into helping them proselytize because you really owed them a big one for saving your neck. Repent and get to work, sinner! I'm also an advocate for occasional out-of-character sharing of ideas or questions to help the game move forward as one roughly cohesive story told by six or so people, instead of six or so different stories competing for spotlight.

Ixtellor
2018-06-01, 09:22 AM
Party conflict can be great. Player conflict is the worst. Don't keep secrets between players, have them among PC's.

1) I read the article and its really more about playing a character that you have decided is going to do dumb stuff. Not running an evil PC game. Sabotaging your party because your trying to role play 'crazy' is different. Thats what games like Paranoia are for, silly game play.

2) Player conflict is the worst, is an opinion. In my group it was common because people enjoyed it. I find it adds a nice dash of realism and not just contributing to another trope of the evil character who isn't actually evil. If your character is based on the premise 'I don't take s*&t from anyone' actually role play that and don't give PC's a pass.


Roleplaying games are about shared storytelling. Good shared storytelling requires that players share the story and work together out-of-character to keep things constructive in-character. Knocking down someone else's block-castle isn't cool, but adding to it can be. The cleric letting you die because you're a heretic is destructive. What next? It's a storytelling dead end. I think the cleric should have intervened, and then pressed you into helping them proselytize because you really owed them a big one for saving your neck. Repent and get to work, sinner! I'm also an advocate for occasional out-of-character sharing of ideas or questions to help the game move forward as one roughly cohesive story told by six or so people, instead of six or so different stories competing for spotlight.

1) First I want to disagree about one point. Role playing is about having fun first and foremost, and hopefully that involves great story telling but fun is more important.

2) Its not the end of the story, its the end of that characters story. A good campaign can withstand the death of a PC. If a PC's can't die or be held accountable for their actions then their actions don't matter.

I personally find it far more rewarding both intellectually and emotionally knowing that your PC is in danger and their are consequences to 'adventuring'. We aren't bar keeps.

3) It sounds like your advocating that players never be the villain. A lot of people want to be the villain, and if you can't act like one... then you aren't one. I think of all the PC games with PvP, a huge portion of us do enjoy 'knocking down your castle'. (See Goonswarm [I'm not like this, fyi]).
So in summary, I disagree, let players be villains it can be just as much fun and rewarding.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-06-01, 09:50 AM
It depends on the game. I love PvP, but it has no place in certain games. It's a bad fit for games that are about a party working together to overcome obstacles, like D&D. And that's because individual party members really aren't important in games like D&D, the game is about the party instead of individual people and they kind of break down if individual components of the party start fighting each other.

I also prefer games that offer you subtler methods of PvP than "I stab you until you are dead". Another strike against D&D in that regard. When the only tools the game gives you is combat, then every problem looks like combat. I prefer systems where you can manipulate people's characters with your words using the mechanics instead. Outright killing people is a last resort.

Seto
2018-06-01, 11:50 AM
In my games, I ban PvP. I define PvP as fighting, stealing from other PCs, bestowing a curse, any hostile action that will result in someone modifying their character sheet. There is one significant exception to this ban: it's allowed if both players, out-of-character, agree to the conflict, and define how far it's allowed to go. For example they could say "sure, steal from me, and I'll hit you nonlethally once if I find out". Or "we fight until someone has no HP left, but in any case the loser will be unconscious, not dead". Or "let's go, to the death this time".

This is my personal balance between running a collaborative game where no players get pissed off at each other, and allowing the fun story opportunities of intraparty conflict.

As an aside you'll note that NOT helping another player, like your Cleric friend did, is not strictly banned by my rules. But it's still a **** move, unless you know your friend (the player, not the character) is cool with it. As a player, I probably would resent it outside of specific circumstances.

GrayDeath
2018-06-01, 12:30 PM
1) I didi a search, didn't find a thread like this.

2) The following is based on my experiences in a decade long group

The core question: "Is inter-party conflict something you allow, or encourage, in your role playing?"

In my longest running group there was a tendency for players to gravitate towards evil alignments. This would occasionally lead to inter-party conflict and result in character deaths.

(My crew only ever played one character at a time, and we were very emotionally invested in our characters)

So this naturally could be a very disruptive occurrence to both the campaign and peoples emotions.



Since someone ahs to say it: Do not PLAY WITH EVIL PLAYERS!
They might threaten you, steal your shared food, or your car, intentionally sabotage your fun, or maybe even worse stuff!

Now evil CHARACTERS, thats another story. ^^


Now to the specific circumstances: Its always a question of what the group wants from the game.

if youa re aiming to tell a good story, keep Suspension of disbelief, and simply have a world that from the inside makes sense, such things are quite helpful.

If you mainly want to ahve fun, are not above metaing knowledge or see it more as a tactical simulation, not so much.

As with a lot of Role Playing problems, its a question of Group consensus and correct expectatins. :)

Blymurkla
2018-06-01, 12:34 PM
2) Player conflict is the worst, is an opinion. In my group it was common because people enjoyed it. I find it adds a nice dash of realism and not just contributing to another trope of the evil character who isn't actually evil. If your character is based on the premise 'I don't take s*&t from anyone' actually role play that and don't give PC's a pass. Am I getting this right: you like it when the players at the table aren't friends with each other?

Ixtellor
2018-06-01, 12:45 PM
Am I getting this right: you like it when the players at the table aren't friends with each other?

NO! My core D&D group for the 80's were all good friends.

All my old group are in their late 40's now, and when we reminisce about our glory days, its the pvp conflicts that are the highlights of our memories.

My best friend lost his favorite character of all time, an evil monk, to a party conflict, he threw his character sheet in the fireplace (20 pages longish) stormed out and didn't talk to us for like 24 hours.

But he still recalls that moment, says it was his funnest time, and considers it a fine ending to his character.

You need to be good friends to play realistically.

Mordar
2018-06-01, 01:12 PM
Party conflict can be great. Player conflict is the worst. Don't keep secrets between players, have them among PC's. If you don't understand the difference, party conflict isn't for you.


Player conflict is the worst, is an opinion. In my group it was common because people enjoyed it. I find it adds a nice dash of realism and not just contributing to another trope of the evil character who isn't actually evil. If your character is based on the premise 'I don't take s*&t from anyone' actually role play that and don't give PC's a pass.

I think that you guys are using "conflict" differently. Blymurkla's conflict looks to me to be "real hard feelings that make people intensely dislike one another" while Ixtellor's conflict is really more "competition" based, where you can be in opposition but still be having fun together. You know, the "I'm POed you dunked on me like that...now let's go eat wings and relive it all!" kind of thing.


NO! My core D&D group for the 80's were all good friends.

All my old group are in their late 40's now, and when we reminisce about our glory days, its the pvp conflicts that are the highlights of our memories.

My best friend lost his favorite character of all time, an evil monk, to a party conflict, he threw his character sheet in the fireplace (20 pages longish) stormed out and didn't talk to us for like 24 hours.

But he still recalls that moment, says it was his funnest time, and considers it a fine ending to his character.

You need to be good friends to play realistically.

I'd take exception to the last line...but I get your meaning. You have to be good friends to weather the kinds of emotions you might face in that style of game, particularly when younger, and still be able to enjoy each other and playing again.

- M

denthor
2018-06-01, 03:35 PM
So this is a thing. Evil players turn on each other. Especially after they have been run off the field.

I have noticed that evil NPC that are run by the DM never turn on each other after being run off the field. They simply regroup and attempt to retake the field after a,spell set. The DM says they all have the same pact. Do what you want to others but we will not turn on each other. Add to that the p.c.'s have unexhaustable supply of reinforcements. Even though we are all 10th 11th and the new guy is 6th.

I have been told I do not see the executions because I do not follow and find out. I call bull. You figure out the next word.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-06-01, 04:01 PM
There's nothing intrinsically linking evil characters to backstabbing or good characters to quality teamwork.

KillianHawkeye
2018-06-03, 03:32 PM
So this is a thing. Evil players turn on each other. Especially after they have been run off the field.

I have noticed that evil NPC that are run by the DM never turn on each other after being run off the field. They simply regroup and attempt to retake the field after a,spell set. The DM says they all have the same pact. Do what you want to others but we will not turn on each other. Add to that the p.c.'s have unexhaustable supply of reinforcements. Even though we are all 10th 11th and the new guy is 6th.

I have been told I do not see the executions because I do not follow and find out. I call bull. You figure out the next word.


There's nothing intrinsically linking evil characters to backstabbing or good characters to quality teamwork.

Yeah, sometimes it makes sense for allies (regardless of their alignment) to break up or turn on each other, especially after a loss. Other times it makes more sense for them to regroup and carry on.

Honestly, as Player Characters are more often a ragtag group of misfits, it makes more sense for them to have some rough edges as a group. PCs frequently have their own personal motivations for taking part in an adventure, and those differing motives can lead to differences of opinion and to intra-party conflict. This is especially true when players make their characters on their own rather than cooperatively, because you end up with a group of characters that have no reason to be together other than the fact that they're all PCs.

Compare that to NPC groups, which can sometimes be in the same boat as PCs but also have a decent chance of having a unified group mentality. Evil cultists all believe in their fiendish overlords. Orc warriors always follow the strongest, and while a loss might cause a challenger to usurp leadership, it's usually the case that the tribe will all follow whoever wins rather than splintering into factions.

Usually, a villainous group will only experience that kind of internal conflict when it makes the story more interesting, simply because doing so takes effort to be set up ahead of time. So you might find a group of villains where two rivals are constantly vying for control of their forces, where the underdog is willing to lend a surreptitious hand to the PCs if they're useful or could be persuaded to turn against his superior at a critical juncture with the right external nudging, but not unless that's part of the story.

Similarly, you won't ever meet the bitter, deposed leader of the group of bandits you're chasing after unless the story is about how the bandit attacks have gotten worse since the old leader was replaced by literal demon-spawn or whatever.

Technically, it comes down to DM laziness, but I don't usually consider that a bad thing. DMs can't do everything and need to find some areas to be lazy in so they can spend their time on other parts. It's just easier to have all the goblins be on the same team all the time because that makes them totally interchangeable. You only need a couple important ones statted out, and the rest always fall in line because they're generic enemies rather than real characters. So if the DM or whoever wrote the adventure doesn't plan for the bad guys to have individual thoughts and goals (because that's a ton of extra work to do and who has time for that), you just won't see those break downs in their group dynamics.

If your main villain is enough of a badass, the pathetic minions basically have no choice but to keep following to their deaths no matter what. If the enemies the party faces are all one-dimensional stat blocks whose only purpose is to be fodder for random encounters, there won't be any dissent amongst their ranks.

Bulhakov
2018-06-03, 04:37 PM
I have a strong dislike of party conflict, unless all the players are into it or it is kept in check somehow (e.g. the characters have a common goal that trumps it).

The worst thing to happen is when you have 1 or 2 pvp-oriented players in an otherwise cooperating party.

Guizonde
2018-06-03, 07:21 PM
I have a strong dislike of party conflict, unless all the players are into it or it is kept in check somehow (e.g. the characters have a common goal that trumps it).

The worst thing to happen is when you have 1 or 2 pvp-oriented players in an otherwise cooperating party.

my current group doesn't actively strive for party conflict, but we got into that mess in a silly fashion. namely, i'm a dildo for getting my character possessed by a necronomicon-like book and there's a paladin in the group. there's also a very unscrupulous monk, and an oracle that has a disregard for social conventions on par with sherlock holmes. let's just say things get heated at times and our characters solve it in a mature way. namely, fist-fights and drinking contests.

what we do that directly helps counter-act the potential toxicity is after every session we do a breakdown/play-by-play of the session, the likes and the less-appreciated parts. it helps both the dm sharpen his skills at story-telling and the players remember we're friends outside the game and the conflict is just our different characters' personalities.

hope this helps.

RazorChain
2018-06-03, 08:40 PM
As the OP says that when we mature we realize this, inter party conflicts where rampant when I was a teen. Then we grow up and find that inter party conflict about some stupid crap is boring, if there is a conflict within the group then it's much better when it's done amicably by the players.


The funny thing here is when I was in the military I couldn't pick out people who I could trust, it wasn't up to me. When I moved to private security, I could put together teams to work with. In many situations trust trumps ability. Why would your adventurer put his life on the line with people he/she can't trust?


"Yeah...I brought Sleezy McQueen along to disarm the booby traps, he hates my gut and wants me dead, I hope he does a good job"

Glorthindel
2018-06-04, 08:09 AM
I have a couple of rules on whether to allow/engage in PVP in a group.

Firstly, ensure there is an actual sensible reason for the betrayal. If a character is just doing it for the lols, or to "beat" the other players, then it isn't going to work. Have your player come up with a reason why he is working for the villain, and what he intends to get out of it. This is important, because it makes his character more nuanced than "just oppose the other players", and also means that events in the game could shake his loyalty to the villain (and could lead to betraying him, and throwing in with the party for real), or allow him to convert the rest of the party to the villains side.

Secondly, right from the start your player needs to prepare himself for the fact that 99% of the time a betraying character is going to end up dead in a ditch at the hands of the party. And he has to be ok with that possibility.

Thirdly, be absolutely sure of the parties relationship out of game. If the players have been friends for years prior to the game, have a good out-of-game friendship, have a healthy understanding of the seperation between things that happen between characters and their players, and aren't the sort that take things that happen in a game personally, then run with it. But if one of them is the type of person who broods over things, and has a bit of an unhealthy attachment to their character (the sort that sees everything that happens to their character a personal attack on them the player), or there are personal anomosities between players outside the game, then it would be best to steer clear, as this could create a personal rift that could bring down the game completely.

All points amount to basically the same thing - what is most important to the players, the story as a whole, or the personal success/wealth of the individual characters? If it is the former, you can use a bit of in-party betrayal to craft a fun story everyone will remember vividly after. But if it is the latter, and the players are putting their own characters loot and rewards ahead of the story of the party, then you are heading for hurt feelings and a flat ending.