Tyranny of Dragons DMPC

[CollectorOfMyst]

Uh, hey all. So, I had a question regarding a home game that I am planning to run hopefully within the next month or so, at least by the New Year.

Currently, I have four players;

Firbolg Fighter, planned Battlemaster, NG. I've only been able to communicate with him over text, so I don't know his equipment, background or stats yet. He is one of my two 'half-experienced' players.
Dragonborn Druid, CE. She's the most inexperienced player, and we need to roll stats for her, but she's pretty much ready. I plan on buying the Druid Spell Cards deck so she can look at them to prepare them. From what I know of the player, she'd like to work with damage and utility, but is the only first-level healer.
Tiefling Sorcerer, Draconic Bloodline, CG. For the most part, I think he'll be a damage-focused caster, but he'll be a mid-range one, I feel. Just equipment is left to sort out for him.
Halfling Paladin, NG. From the character, I'd predict that she'll be Oath of the Ancients, Oath of Devotion or Oath of Redemption. She's my other 'half-experienced' player, and my sister IRL. I helped make this character from scratch, she's just missing a Bond.



For the most part, all of these players are inexperienced, and while I know that a DM Player Character is generally frowned upon and difficult to play, I can't help but want to add one to the game as partly a security net and partly for my own selfish reasons of wanting to play, since I haven't had that chance in a while. I don't want any of my players to be shunted into 'you're only allowed to do this' territory, especially since they look to be pretty versatile in this time.

I'm trying to come up with a way for this character to fill in the roles that the players can't - and having heard in the past that Bards are fairly versatile, my plan is to make him a Variant Human Bard under the College of Swords, Sebastian Nighthill, with the Noble background. If you know the module (Tyranny of Dragons, Horde of the Dragon Queen), you can probably figure out his tie-in. If not, well; the Governor of the first town in the game, Greenrest, is a human by the name of Tarbaw Nighthill. My plan is to make Sebastian his nephew, and he'd be caught out in the city during the attack. I'm weighing out whether or not he'd stay behind after Episode 2.

His stats are as stands: STR 12 (11+1) DEX 14 (13+1) CON 14 INT 12 WIS 12 CHA 18

He carries a rapier, shortbow and a one-handed harp, and wears leather armour. He is also completely devoid of gold, since he technically bought the bow, and haggled his dagger for the quiver and arrows.

My plan is for Sebastian to have a selection of all 'spell types' - healing/support, control, damage and utility. At level 3, he'd go into the College of Swords and take the Dueling style.

At level 4, he'll take Medium Armour Master, and at level 8, he'll put +2 to his dexterity. I'll probably have a weapons and armour merchant travelling with the characters on the road, so they'll be able to acquire some better gear if they want it later on.

At level 10, my plan for Magical Secrets is Conjure Woodland Beings (for the blink dogs or the satyrs), and either Counterspell or Prayer of Healing. At level 14, I have no idea.

Does this look like a viable build for a character made primarily as someone to augment the party's freedom, or am I way off the mark? And does anyone have reccs for changes in this plan or just for spell choices? He's starting with Cure Wounds, Sleep and Thunderwave, as well as one other.

TL;DR: I'm making a bard to help my party of mostly inexperienced players play the game. He won't have any godly knowledge, or impossible luck, but he's there to make things easier for at least the first few levels. Your thoughts?

Thank you, in advance.

[Man_Over_Game]

Good questions! I like controversial issues like this. I think DMPCs can be ran just fine, as long as you follow this formula:

Make a DMPC that:

Does stuff other players cannot
Does things that don't draw attention to themselves
Does things that are important for the plot
Does things that supports the party



Notice how you already have 2 players that use Charisma, 2 players that are equipped with Heavy armor (and one with medium armor), you have two half healers (Druid and Paladin).

I think a Swords Bard, who uses Charisma, Medium Armor, healing and spellcasting will have a lot of overlap with your current players.

So what are they missing?

A ranged utility specialist. Specifically: A Rogue.

Now, we don't just want any kind of Rogue. We want a Rogue who won't take the spotlight, one that supports their team.

There are two kinds of Rogues that fit this bill: Mastermind and Thief. Because Mastermind focuses heavily on supporting the team, and can easily be off doing plot-important actions with his disguises, I think that's going to be your best bet.

With a Mastermind, the only things you'll be doing in combat are attacking and providing advantage to attack. You'll aid the party in taking care of rogue-like events as needed (like picking locks or disarming traps), and when the party is in town, he'll just sneak away and get information for the party, so he never actually interferes with the party's thought process and actions during social events. When the party is stumped and doesn't know the next direction to take, Sebastian returns and "just so happens" to have learned about an important piece of information from his contacts.

Which also ties in why he's not hanging around his father. He used his father's reputation to make a name for himself in the underworld. Would be rather cool, and you won't step on your party's roles of healer/caster/melee/face that they can already fill themselves. He learned about the stuff that's going on, and he needed bodyguards (the players) to protect him during his investigations.

[Unoriginal]

My advice:


Don't give him PC stats. Make him a Noble NPC with some magic and a harp.


Maybe upgrade him to the Bard NPC statblock in a while, after the PCs helped him become better through a subquest.

[MaxWilson]

For the most part, all of these players are inexperienced, and while I know that a DM Player Character is generally frowned upon and difficult to play, I can't help but want to add one to the game as partly a security net and partly for my own selfish reasons of wanting to play, since I haven't had that chance in a while. I don't want any of my players to be shunted into 'you're only allowed to do this' territory, especially since they look to be pretty versatile in this time.

*snip*

TL;DR: I'm making a bard to help my party of mostly inexperienced players play the game. He won't have any godly knowledge, or impossible luck, but he's there to make things easier for at least the first few levels. Your thoughts?

Thank you, in advance.

This seems dangerous to me on Czege Principle grounds. ("When one person is the author of both the character's adversity and its resolution, play isn't fun.") It's really hard to sit there and do nothing when players are overlooking an obvious solution, especially if you've been hankering to play yourself.

I would take this really slow and cautious, and maybe consider just joining another table to get your player-side kicks. The one exception would be if you really don't want to play that much, you just want to have fun rolling some dice and making attacks alongside the other PCs, instead of always being the bad guy. That could potentially work out, but think really hard about what it is that you're hoping to get out of playing both sides of the table this way.

[Vogie]

I was also going to suggest Mastermind Rogue as a DMPC class. They'll have a single shot, attack wise and largely just be handing out advantage to the party. If you also wanted to mix in some Bard levels for VM, the Song of Rest feature, and the occasional BI, that's perfectly fine. I'd actually go with a more support role, like Lore or Valor Bard.

The best thing a DMPC can do is not draw attention to themselves, both in the storyline and in the party. The DM PC should aspire to be like Navi, from the Zelda games, or Elizabeth, from Bioshock Infinite.

[Keravath]

If you don’t need a DMPC then I’d tend to avoid it. I sympathize with the desire to actually PLAY .. but often your own game isn’t the best way since you can get too invested wanting to play them rather than use the character as an NPC.

The times I’ve seen DMPCs work well are usually when you have a shared campaign with rotating DMs .. the DMPC stays in the game .. earning XP and rewards but most of the decisions for the character are made by the other players and not the DM. It essentially becomes a Player run NPC.

Other than that, most of the time a custom/character NPC is the better choice .. the only difference between a custom NPC and a DMPC is that the DM thinks of a DMPC as theirs .. which is usually not a good idea.

Finally, unless it was a typo, having a CE Druid mixed with an all good party will be a recipe for intra-party conflict. If the evil Druid is role played correctly then the rest of the party is likely to have issues with the actions they take.

[MaxWilson]

Finally, unless it was a typo, having a CE Druid mixed with an all good party will be a recipe for intra-party conflict. If the evil Druid is role played correctly then the rest of the party is likely to have issues with the actions they take.

Though it must also be said that intra-party conflict is not always bad. Just make sure everyone is on the same page RE: what the game is about. Is the party collectively smoothly-oiled monster-killing tactical machine, or the cast of a monster-fighting sitcom?

[CollectorOfMyst]

Good questions! I like controversial issues like this. I think DMPCs can be ran just fine, as long as you follow this formula:

Make a DMPC that:

Does stuff other players cannot
Does things that don't draw attention to themselves
Does things that are important for the plot
Does things that supports the party



Notice how you already have 2 players that use Charisma, 2 players that are equipped with Heavy armor (and one with medium armor), you have two half healers (Druid and Paladin).

I think a Swords Bard, who uses Charisma, Medium Armor, healing and spellcasting will have a lot of overlap with your current players.

So what are you missing?

A ranged utility specialist. Specifically: A Rogue.



Snipped that a bit. Okay, well, I see a few things here that aren't quite correct (Callie, the paladin, has a STR of 11 - she can't use Heavy Armour! She does have DEX 18 and a shield, though) but I guess I can see your point, even though I have a few hang ups.

For one, Sebastian is a 'vault character' - I made him some time ago, and he was always meant to be a Bard. I'm reluctant to let go of that, since I rarely decide to play spellcasters.

There's also the fact that the Sorcerer has the criminal background, and there's already a 'Rogue' NPC party member that exists - Jamna Gleamsilver. Jamna is described as sticky fingered, and also persuades her superiors to not commit mass murder - meaning that she's going to be cautious. I might be interpreting that wrong, but hey, I'm the DM.

Lastly, there's also your recommendations for Mastermind and Thief. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of the rogue aristocrat, but as I envision his personality, he isn't the one who'll take charge and go off on his own - unless he gets into an argument with his father, of course. That's something you got spot on. ;) Essentially, he's a little bit naive and socially awkward - even when he puts on an air of confidence. He'd rather take a back seat and step into a conversation when he thinks things are going awry - he's more of an information bank with a sword, TBH.

And since I saw your edit in time, I'll add this; the overlap is, though not my main focus, something I was aiming for in part. Sebastian is meant to be a fluid character, so if the druid and sorcerer aren't able to cast spells, or the paladin and fighter go down, he'll step into the gap they leave.

EDIT: Woah, okay, there's a lot more replies now! I'll be responding to those, then...

[MaxWilson]

Snipped that a bit. Okay, well, I see a few things here that aren't quite correct (Callie, the paladin, has a STR of 11 - she can't use Heavy Armour! *snip*

Yes she can. She just has to ride a horse or get a Longstrider or settle for being a bit slow when she's wearing full battle rattle.

[CollectorOfMyst]

My advice:


Don't give him PC stats. Make him a Noble NPC with some magic and a harp.


Maybe upgrade him to the Bard NPC statblock in a while, after the PCs helped him become better through a subquest.

Something that I've considered myself, tbh, but the main issue I find with NPCs is that they're given a share of the EXP but they don't get more HP. I don't have Volo's, so I can't really grab the Bard stats, but I will definitely keep looking for it.


This seems dangerous to me on Czege Principle grounds. ("When one person is the author of both the character's adversity and its resolution, play isn't fun.") It's really hard to sit there and do nothing when players are overlooking an obvious solution, especially if you've been hankering to play yourself.

I would take this really slow and cautious, and maybe consider just joining another table to get your player-side kicks. The one exception would be if you really don't want to play that much, you just want to have fun rolling some dice and making attacks alongside the other PCs, instead of always being the bad guy. That could potentially work out, but think really hard about what it is that you're hoping to get out of playing both sides of the table this way.

Oh, believe me, I know it's going to be hard. The way I intend him to be is essentially the 'Daphne' (Scooby Doo character) of the group - he's the damsel in distress, but he's not helpless or useless. I'm intentionally going to have him needing to be rescued once or twice - there's a doppleganger encounter that he'll fall victim to, for example. And if I knew about any other tables, I'd leap at the chance. No such luck, in these parts. But yeah, my general hope is to make some attacks with the other players and not be just the bad guy. I also won't shy away from using him as a pin cushion either.


I was also going to suggest Mastermind Rogue as a DMPC class. They'll have a single shot, attack wise and largely just be handing out advantage to the party. If you also wanted to mix in some Bard levels for VM, the Song of Rest feature, and the occasional BI, that's perfectly fine. I'd actually go with a more support role, like Lore or Valor Bard.

The best thing a DMPC can do is not draw attention to themselves, both in the storyline and in the party. The DM PC should aspire to be like Navi, from the Zelda games, or Elizabeth, from Bioshock Infinite.

Hmm - that's two of you that recommended that. I'll have some time to think about switching him to the Rogue class, at least, and there's going to be plenty of time during play regardless to think about his subclass.

Also, I've never played LoZ or Bioshock, so forgive me, but I have no references there other than Link's unending murderous hatred towards Navi


If you don’t need a DMPC then I’d tend to avoid it. I sympathize with the desire to actually PLAY .. but often your own game isn’t the best way since you can get too invested wanting to play them rather than use the character as an NPC.

The times I’ve seen DMPCs work well are usually when you have a shared campaign with rotating DMs .. the DMPC stays in the game .. earning XP and rewards but most of the decisions for the character are made by the other players and not the DM. It essentially becomes a Player run NPC.

Other than that, most of the time a custom/character NPC is the better choice .. the only difference between a custom NPC and a DMPC is that the DM thinks of a DMPC as theirs .. which is usually not a good idea.

Finally, unless it was a typo, having a CE Druid mixed with an all good party will be a recipe for intra-party conflict. If the evil Druid is role played correctly then the rest of the party is likely to have issues with the actions they take.

Again, the main reason Sebastian exists for them is to alleviate some of the newer player's worries and allow them to figure out how they want to play it. I am not unprepared for him to stay in Greenrest while the other players finally set off on their journey - it all depends on the players in their first few levels.

And, well - yes, I do regard Sebastian as mine. I do intend for him to take as many hits as the others, though, and I'm more than willing to kill him as a reminder that they're not immortal. If you have any advice on how to make him less 'mine', I would gladly hear it.

Last, no, it wasn't a typo. The druid is Chaotic Evil - and I will admit, I've gone through some turmoil over it, even if I'm letting the player choose her character's alignment. However, that doesn't mean that the character is a murderer. There's actually a bond in the module that she's taken which gives her a hit-list of characters she wants to kill to avenge her family. And even an evil being knows that trying to kill powerful people alone is a bad idea.

[Helldin87]

Good questions! I like controversial issues like this. I think DMPCs can be ran just fine, as long as you follow this formula:

Make a DMPC that:

Does stuff other players cannot
Does things that don't draw attention to themselves
Does things that are important for the plot
Does things that supports the party



Notice how you already have 2 players that use Charisma, 2 players that are equipped with Heavy armor (and one with medium armor), you have two half healers (Druid and Paladin).

I think a Swords Bard, who uses Charisma, Medium Armor, healing and spellcasting will have a lot of overlap with your current players.

So what are they missing?

A ranged utility specialist. Specifically: A Rogue.

Now, we don't just want any kind of Rogue. We want a Rogue who won't take the spotlight, one that supports their team.

There are two kinds of Rogues that fit this bill: Mastermind and Thief. Because Mastermind focuses heavily on supporting the team, and can easily be off doing plot-important actions with his disguises, I think that's going to be your best bet.

With a Mastermind, the only things you'll be doing in combat are attacking and providing advantage to attack. You'll aid the party in taking care of rogue-like events as needed (like picking locks or disarming traps), and when the party is in town, he'll just sneak away and get information for the party, so he never actually interferes with the party's thought process and actions during social events. When the party is stumped and doesn't know the next direction to take, Sebastian returns and "just so happens" to have learned about an important piece of information from his contacts.

Which also ties in why he's not hanging around his father. He used his father's reputation to make a name for himself in the underworld. Would be rather cool, and you won't step on your party's roles of healer/caster/melee/face that they can already fill themselves. He learned about the stuff that's going on, and he needed bodyguards (the players) to protect him during his investigations.

This^. Mastermind makes an awesome DMPC. You use a shortbow to pew pew and bonus action help as often as possible. Be a skill monkey. You aren't magically solving the party's problems with actual magic (healing and such) but you are subtly helping them succeed by making them better. Most players won't miss a lost opportunity to unlock a door but may feel cheated by a missed opportunity to slay something or allow their own utility belt of magical options win the day.

Best of luck!

[SirGraystone]

Having a DMPC to help a new group is like training wheels on a bicycle. It can be good to start with, but they should be let ride on their own after a time. I would make a npc that can follow the group for a chapter then go away, others npcs can also come and go as the story move along.

I wouldn't try to fix a hole in the group either, I would make a dwarf cleric that can bless the group in battle and take care of keeping them alive with healing if needed. But outside of combat, let the players take care of the rest of the adventure.

They are new, and they will make mistakes but the will learn and get better, we all started somewhere.

If you want to role play then you have the shy maid, the boostfull drunk, the friendly innkeeper, the greedy merchant, and dozens more npcs to play with.

[Zorrah]

Tyranny of Dragons, if you are starting on Dragon Queen chapter 1, I would make your DMPC a tank's tank. A fighter or barbarian, that could survive a nuke, and then, Have him get murdered by the half dragon champion. It is not needed past chapter 1, and it will be a good mental blow to your party, and it will make them pull out all the stops to kill him in chapter 3.

[Malifice]

You have an inexperienced party and you're allowing a CE PC in the group featuring mostly G aligned PCs and a Redemption Paladin?

You have bigger problems on the horizon than needing a DMPC.

[Clone]

I've tried about a dozen different methods of DMPCs, NPCs, followers etc and so I feel I've a decent grasp on what they should be like to work, if you do intend to run them.

First and foremost:
They are not, and never should be, written like a PC. Those abilities and systems are what make the PCs heros. Your NPC isn't a hero they're a supporter.
They can totally have spells, or maybe some martial abilities, but only in a minimalist sense. Spellcasters in the DMG or Volos have cool spells yes but they don't have arcane recovery, sorcery points, warlock invocations etc. If they are very special, like a bard or ranger, they can get may one or two of those class' defining features like an animal companion or bardic inspiration but those are rare and should be kept to a minimum.

Second:
I think the idea of them being full support is nice, but then what happens when they leave? As mentioned it can be like training wheels and sometimes makes the PCs unintentionally overdepend on the NPC making them less independent. I feel that making them have abilities the PCs specifically don't have and have it be a work-like relationship. Think of it as he's a man for hire, but in the beginning he's working for free to repay the party back for helping the town. That way they get to see what he does and shows how he can be useful but when he decides that he then wants to be paid the party can decide if he's worth it. This makes it seem like they're bringing him along and feel smart for planning ahead, instead of you moving strings behind the curtain.

Third:
The Rogue Mastermind is a good choice, but I'd play out a session or so and see what the players need.
I'd also have him completely stay out of combat entirely, or at least doesn't fight himself if he can help it. I'd also recommend swapping him out with the previously mentioned Rogue character and have him fulfill the same role she does. I'm AWB and haven't gone through the adventure in a while, but I'm sure with a few tweaks it'd be easy enough to do.

TL:DR
-Don't give him proper PC stats, its only adding layers of complication that you shouldn't need to worry about and can steal the other players' thunder at times.
-Make the PCs WANT him to come along at the start. Make him offer his services (whatever you decide them to be) and never take the lead in either RP or combat. This will make the PCs feel validated that someone else is following them rather than them following DM suggestions.
-Be flexible with the idea and how he comes into the story. Its super easy to become married to a concept or character idea but sometimes they don't fit the setting or scenario and can feel forced. Its a hard DM lesson but the sooner you adapt to throwing away preconceptions and adapting to the story in front of you, the better a DM you'll become.

Hope this helps somewhat!

[CollectorOfMyst]

You have an inexperienced party and you're allowing a CE PC in the group featuring mostly G aligned PCs and a Redemption Paladin?

You have bigger problems on the horizon than needing a DMPC.

A potential Redemption paladin. She's not decided yet. As it is, the players playing the Paladin and Druid are best friends, and the Druid won't be actively trying to sabotage the other players or vice versa - that's one thing I won't allow. The player is very aware of what she'll need to do, and even if she 'slips up' in terms of RP, she can be Chaotic Neutral, anyway.

[MaxWilson]

Oh, believe me, I know it's going to be hard. The way I intend him to be is essentially the 'Daphne' (Scooby Doo character) of the group - he's the damsel in distress, but he's not helpless or useless. I'm intentionally going to have him needing to be rescued once or twice - there's a doppleganger encounter that he'll fall victim to, for example. And if I knew about any other tables, I'd leap at the chance. No such luck, in these parts. But yeah, my general hope is to make some attacks with the other players and not be just the bad guy. I also won't shy away from using him as a pin cushion either.

Even this is dangerous--it's a DMPC demanding spotlight time. This isn't problematic if you are fully prepared to treat him like a disposable NPC instead of a DMPC--if the players shrug their shoulders and let him get eaten, are you going to shrug and get on with the story (which may include the players later finding his half-eaten remains somewhere)?

The safest course is to be prepared to have the NPC be boring and forgettable, but able to engage whenever it's appropriate to not be boring, which may possibly be never, but could be when you're e.g. setting up a bang! for the PCs. For example, if the NPC goofs up in a way which results in one of the player characters getting kidnapped and needing rescue, then the NPC is moving the plot forward but the spotlight is on the PC in distress, not the NPC.


Having a DMPC to help a new group is like training wheels on a bicycle. It can be good to start with, but they should be let ride on their own after a time. I would make a npc that can follow the group for a chapter then go away, others npcs can also come and go as the story move along.

Another thing that can possibly happen is that the NPC gets promoted to PC when a PC dies. It can be convenient to have someone already onstage for the player to take over.


Tyranny of Dragons, if you are starting on Dragon Queen chapter 1, I would make your DMPC a tank's tank. A fighter or barbarian, that could survive a nuke, and then, Have him get murdered by the half dragon champion. It is not needed past chapter 1, and it will be a good mental blow to your party, and it will make them pull out all the stops to kill him in chapter 3.

+1. This is a great idea.


-Make the PCs WANT him to come along at the start. Make him offer his services (whatever you decide them to be) and never take the lead in either RP or combat. This will make the PCs feel validated that someone else is following them rather than them following DM suggestions.

This is also good, although I think this is more "hireling" than "DMPC." IME, players feel really good when they get to hire an NPC meatshield, even if it's just a 3rd level sword-and-shield fighter or other "unexciting" PC. Not only does it give them something to spend their gold on, it increases their perception of their own social importance (getting to give orders to someone who actually listens and obeys!) and it makes them feel safer. This can get quite amusing if the PCs go too far and start trying to recruit everyone they meet to be their minions, at which point you might want to introduce the idea of occasional moles, cowards, and treachers.

But even if you just give them one chance to hire the town drunk, Elmo, and equip him with chain mail and a sword, the players will feel good about that and will try to keep Elmo alive.


Last, no, it wasn't a typo. The druid is Chaotic Evil - and I will admit, I've gone through some turmoil over it, even if I'm letting the player choose her character's alignment. However, that doesn't mean that the character is a murderer. There's actually a bond in the module that she's taken which gives her a hit-list of characters she wants to kill to avenge her family. And even an evil being knows that trying to kill powerful people alone is a bad idea.

That should be fine. Most cats are Chaotic Evil AFAICT, but they still get along with "their" humans.

[Malifice]

A potential Redemption paladin. She's not decided yet. As it is, the players playing the Paladin and Druid are best friends, and the Druid won't be actively trying to sabotage the other players or vice versa - that's one thing I won't allow. The player is very aware of what she'll need to do, and even if she 'slips up' in terms of RP, she can be Chaotic Neutral, anyway.

So... she wont be playing her alignment with regards to the other PCs? Why is she playing that alignment then?

Are the other PCs expected to sit around while she does evil stuff to NPCs (murder, torture, harm etc)? And why would they trust her PC when she lies and uses everyone around her?

Conflict is inevitable. The real question is, are your players mature and experienced enough to deal with it without everything coming to a screeching halt.

As a DM I would have serious reservations about a CE PC in a game with newbies and inexperienced players. You really need to know your players really well (all of them) before you let ithat kind of powder keg in your game.

I'm not saying it cant work, but you really need to right group for it to work.

[Clone]

A potential Redemption paladin. She's not decided yet. As it is, the players playing the Paladin and Druid are best friends, and the Druid won't be actively trying to sabotage the other players or vice versa - that's one thing I won't allow. The player is very aware of what she'll need to do, and even if she 'slips up' in terms of RP, she can be Chaotic Neutral, anyway.

TBH I'd just tell your players not to have alignments, as it may encourage things which is out of character. Most new players look at their alignment and think "what would be the ___ thing to do" instead of what the PC would do. From what I've seen this is one of the ways evil PCs get into the most trouble, when they act evil not because its what the PC or player would do but because they think thats simply the evil thing to do in that situation.

Also tell your CE PC, if you haven't already, that regardless of their alignment they're still supposed to be in a party. Sure they can be evil and scheme etc but they know that they need to be in this party for the story to progress. One of my favourite examples is a Long Death Monk in my Princes of the Apocalypse game where I was a player. The monk was SUPER evil, as he was a follower of the goddess of Pain Loviatar, but he never once directly impacted the party because of it. He'd do evil things, make us feared at times, sometimes being antagonistic, but he never let it affect the party in a way most evil characters do. Think about it like a schemer: You want to destroy the world but right now you need the help of your party, and they wont want to travel with you if you steal from them or stab them in the back

[CollectorOfMyst]

So... she wont be playing her alignment with regards to the other PCs? Why is she playing that alignment then?

Are the other PCs expected to sit around while she does evil stuff to NPCs (murder, torture, harm etc)? And why would they trust her PC when she lies and uses everyone around her?

Conflict is inevitable. The real question is, are your players mature and experienced enough to deal with it without everything coming to a screeching halt.

As a DM I would have serious reservations about a CE PC in a game with newbies and inexperienced players. You really need to know your players really well (all of them) before you let ithat kind of powder keg in your game.

I'm not saying it cant work, but you really need to right group for it to work.

For one, I think you're vastly exaggerating the idea of what the Evil alignment is. It's not a requirement of being Evil to torture, and harm and murder comes with being adventurers, in this case. Even if she does, hey, that's a brilliant time for some RP! But all being Chaotic Evil means is that the character is self-interested and cares for her own freedom. She will be ruthless, she will be brutal, and unpredictable, and power-hungry. But this doesn't mean she will cause a conflict of interest in the party that stops it in its tracks.


TBH I'd just tell your players not to have alignments, as it may encourage things which is out of character. Most new players look at their alignment and think "what would be the ___ thing to do" instead of what the PC would do. From what I've seen this is one of the ways evil PCs get into the most trouble, when they act evil not because its what the PC or player would do but because they think thats simply the evil thing to do in that situation.

Also tell your CE PC, if you haven't already, that regardless of their alignment they're still supposed to be in a party. Sure they can be evil and scheme etc but they know that they need to be in this party for the story to progress. One of my favourite examples is a Long Death Monk in my Princes of the Apocalypse game where I was a player. The monk was SUPER evil, as he was a follower of the goddess of Pain Loviatar, but he never once directly impacted the party because of it. He'd do evil things, make us feared at times, sometimes being antagonistic, but he never let it affect the party in a way most evil characters do. Think about it like a schemer: You want to destroy the world but right now you need the help of your party, and they wont want to travel with you if you steal from them or stab them in the back

This is what I've done, and will continue to do. The player is perfectly aware of what the game is about - cooperation. She has a hit list, but everyone on it is incredibly powerful - more than she'd be able to manage on her own. And that means her interests and theirs align - for now.

[Malifice]

TBH I'd just tell your players not to have alignments, as it may encourage things which is out of character. Most new players look at their alignment and think "what would be the ___ thing to do" instead of what the PC would do. From what I've seen this is one of the ways evil PCs get into the most trouble, when they act evil not because its what the PC or player would do but because they think thats simply the evil thing to do in that situation.

Also tell your CE PC, if you haven't already, that regardless of their alignment they're still supposed to be in a party. Sure they can be evil and scheme etc but they know that they need to be in this party for the story to progress. One of my favourite examples is a Long Death Monk in my Princes of the Apocalypse game where I was a player. The monk was SUPER evil, as he was a follower of the goddess of Pain Loviatar, but he never once directly impacted the party because of it. He'd do evil things, make us feared at times, sometimes being antagonistic, but he never let it affect the party in a way most evil characters do. Think about it like a schemer: You want to destroy the world but right now you need the help of your party, and they wont want to travel with you if you steal from them or stab them in the back

I just play my alignment in a realistic and naturalistic way, in addition to playing my reaction to other people in such a way.

If Im playing a 'Good' aligned PC, then when I see a murder, or torture or similar act of evil, I do something about it.

The issue arises when a fellow PC does it. In most cases I wouldn't (at a minimum) want that person around me anymore (just like in real life).

It can work, but it takes a fair bit of maturity and experience, and for a player to be OK with when it doesnt work (and be prepared to walk the Evil PC out of the story when it doesnt).

Some examples of Evil protagonists working in a non evil group include Titus Pullo from HBO's Rome (CE) working (and being best friends with) Lucius Vorenus (LN).

Even they come into conflict all the time, and its more over the Lawful Vorenus conflicting over Pullos Chaotic nature than him opposing Pullo morally (Vorenus being Neutral, he finds Pullos evil distasteful, hthe major conflict between them is between one being unpredictable and uncontrolable as opposed to Vorenus being a man of honor and family).

You could throw out LE Punisher working with the NG Daredevil briefly in Netflix' Daredevil, but they conflicted often as well despite having similar goals, they dramatically differed in how they choose t pursue them. I couldnt see anything more than a brief alliegance between the two ever forming before conflict over their different moral coldes got in the way.

[Malifice]

For one, I think you're vastly exaggerating the idea of what the Evil alignment is. It's not a requirement of being Evil to torture, and harm and murder comes with being adventurers


It's your game, so alignment is what you say it is.

From where I sit, (in my games) I hold a dramatically different view. Good aligned people (and yes that includes adventurers) dont engage in murder. They only harm others when such harm is reasonably needed to protect others from harm, and is proportionate to that threat.

They'll put themselves in harms way to stop a murderer, or evil dragon, or demonic horde or marauding Orcs, resorting to violence if reasonably needed, and in a proportionate manner to the threat of those doing the violence.

An evil person OTOH has no such compunctions or reservations in the use of violence. They'll use it to gain an advantage when they think they can get away with it, and it's in their best interests to do so. If torture gets them the information they need, they'll use it. If murdering someone helps their cause, or advances their interests (and they're sure they can get away with it) they'll do it.

A good person doesn't knowingly hang around with such a person unless forced to. In fact, they're kind of devoted to stopping such murderous fiends.

In real life it's not an issue as you can just walk away, choose a different friend or travelling companion, and there is no 'PC/ NPC' divide. In the game, your Goodly adventurer, who refrains from violence unless attacked or threatened with imminent attack, who puts himself in harms way, protects others, is kind, merciful and charitable (Good aligned) wont be willingly hanging around with a person who murders, tortures, only cares about themselves, cant be trusted and so forth (evil) unless you can come up with some in game contrivance to make it work.

Like; Daredevil, Cyclops or Superman might work with the Punisher, Magneto or Lex Luthor towards a common goal if forced to for some reason for a short period of time, but such a pairing will be fraught with constant conflict over different methods for handling conflict (the Evil protagonists will urge more lethal means of dealing with issues) and is doomed to eventually fall apart once the common goal is achieved.

In RPGs that conflict (that causes the temporary allegiance to fall apart) causes the game to come to a screeching halt, because the dissolution of that union means either one player loses their character, or the game comes to a screeching halt. In comics or literature, it's no big deal.

It can work well with the Good PCs trying to redeem the evil/ morally dubious PC though. Kind of a Colossus and Deadpool situation. They know the evil PC is skietchy or an outright cad, but there is some common ground towards that person redeeming or reforming.


in this case. Even if she does, hey, that's a brilliant time for some RP! But all being Chaotic Evil means is that the character is self-interested and cares for her own freedom. She will be ruthless, she will be brutal, and unpredictable, and power-hungry. But this doesn't mean she will cause a conflict of interest in the party that stops it in its tracks.

If the players are playing their alignments, it certainly does hold the very strong possibility of stopping the game in its tracks.

If I'm playing a Good aligned protagonist I would want a very good reason 'in game' why my character is travelling with such a brutal, unpredictable and murderous person.

In Rage of Demons, I could explain it on account of us being imprisoned together and needing each other to escape the Drow (but even then, I'd bid farewell to such a person at the first safe opportunity).


This is what I've done, and will continue to do. The player is perfectly aware of what the game is about - cooperation. She has a hit list, but everyone on it is incredibly powerful - more than she'd be able to manage on her own. And that means her interests and theirs align - for now.

Exactly. And what happens when those interests no longer align, or when her methods (torture, murder, treachery) get in the way of the Good PCs moral sensibilities?

You have conflict.

This isnt necessarily a bad thing mind you. I'd just be super wary of it in a game with inexperienced players.

I know plenty of experienced players (and mature players) who dont handle it well. It really takes a particular group for it to work, and they're (in my experience) very rare. In the vast overwhelming number of cases, it implodes spectacularly and you wind up with a disgruntled player and real life conflict and some messy personal situations where a character (or worse, a player) is forced to leave the actual game.

Just my 2 cents mate. It might work for you, in which case more luck to you.

[CollectorOfMyst]

*A very large snip*


All right. Thank you for your input - even though there are some parts that I do disagree with, I greatly appreciate it, and I'm glad you shared them. I'm going to be keeping a close eye on this character regardless, and if I deem it necessary, I'll ask her to shift into Chaotic Neutral.

I think this is all I'll need for today, folks. Thank you so very much for taking time out of your day to help me out with this.

and if anyone else wants to add their thoughts, feel free. I'd be more than happy for you to do so.

[Malifice]

All right. Thank you for your input - even though there are some parts that I do disagree with, I greatly appreciate it, and I'm glad you shared them. I'm going to be keeping a close eye on this character regardless, and if I deem it necessary, I'll ask her to shift into Chaotic Neutral.

I think this is all I'll need for today, folks. Thank you so very much for taking time out of your day to help me out with this.

and if anyone else wants to add their thoughts, feel free. I'd be more than happy for you to do so.

No worries, just speaking from personal experience.

Id also suggest refraining from a DMPC. They invariably serve as Dues ex machinas by DMs to bail the PCs out of trouble. They either have to be failing at everything (in which case they're a liability) or alternatively if they ever actually succeed at anything, it just detracts from the game by stealing the limelight from the players.

Your players are the protagonists, not you. You're the director.

You know how Quentin Tarantino has that annoying thing where he inserts himself in his own movies? Dont do that.

[Guy Lombard-O]

No worries, just speaking from personal experience.

Id also suggest refraining from a DMPC. They invariably serve as Dues ex machinas by DMs to bail the PCs out of trouble. They either have to be failing at everything (in which case they're a liability) or alternatively if they ever actually succeed at anything, it just detracts from the game by stealing the limelight from the players.

Your players are the protagonists, not you. You're the director.

You know how Quentin Tarantino has that annoying thing where he inserts himself in his own movies? Dont do that.

Second that. I think the reasons it's bad here are obvious and manifold - the DMPC is a Cha character who'll probably have better face skills than the rest of the party (as a bard), on top of which he's the most important person in the party (the nephew of the mayor), on further top of which you have an admitted hankering to play (understandable, but ripe with danger here). This character would be the natural face of the party, if you followed any sort of logic in-game. That's shaping up to be a really, really bad idea, I'd say.

Don't do it.

[MaxWilson]

Second that. I think the reasons it's bad here are obvious and manifold - the DMPC is a Cha character who'll probably have better face skills than the rest of the party (as a bard), on top of which he's the most important person in the party (the nephew of the mayor), on further top of which you have an admitted hankering to play (understandable, but ripe with danger here). This character would be the natural face of the party, if you followed any sort of logic in-game. That's shaping up to be a really, really bad idea, I'd say.

Don't do it.

I'll mention in passing that a good rule of thumb for NPC interactions is: when NPCs are talking to PCs, roleplay it in detail most of the time. When NPCs are talking to other NPCs, just summarize what happened.

Nobody wants to watch the DM talk to himself, not even the DM.

[Great Dragon]

I'll mention in passing that a good rule of thumb for NPC interactions is: when NPCs are talking to PCs, roleplay it in detail most of the time. When NPCs are talking to other NPCs, just summarize what happened.

Nobody wants to watch the DM talk to himself, not even the DM.

I agree with this.
I refuse to RP NPC to DM/NPC encounters.

IME, I've been with many 1 on 1 games, and I will run a DMPC (and only one) to help them.
I'll even let the Player choose what Class they want to help them. For the most part, this DMPC will have stats and abilities of a PC, but mostly to showcase that Class's abilities. The Player is in complete charge of where the Story goes.

I rarely will use a DMPC for groups over three Players.