Is it wrong to ask players to retire their characters

[Ronnocius]

I've been struggling in my D&D with a couple characters, but one in particular. I decided that I am going to ask them to retire their characters and create new ones. Here is the post. The character was evil and had been derailing it by murdering civilians (mayor, guards, innkeep), fighting other party members, etc

Guys, I am going to be honest. This might sound kind of salty (or it might sound like it is related to the one-shot) but I would rather just say it now and I wish I had said it earlier. I don't want to DM for evil characters, characters who cause interparty conflict, characters who are not interested in adventuring, or other troublesome characters. I'm not having fun running for these characters. In most D&D groups evil characters are banned so this request hopefully doesn't seem too unreasonable. I am going to ask anyone with these kinds of characters to build a new character with the same level and XP total. I don't want to call people out but I think it is not very helpful if I don't so I am just going to do it: Torskar and (not an issue lately, but previously) Thok.

I know that some people might not want to hear this, or are unwilling to change their character. In that case I am really sorry. I don't want the group to fracture, so if we can come to a consensus everyone agrees with I can have someone else pick up DMing this campaign, or maybe some kind of co-DMing arrangement. Personally I do enjoy DMing in general but just not lately.

Since we are possibly introducing a new member it would be a good opportunity to retire old characters (they can still exist as NPCs) and bring in new ones. Not sure what else to say but if you want to ask me a question feel free.

Is this out of line? Is there anything I can do to smooth things over?

[DeTess]

This sounds perfectly reasonable to me. It's definitely a bit more open than the alternative means of removal(you've murdered all these people, so here's an 8-man lvl 15 bounty hunter squad out for your head).

I'd also take this experience into account for your next campaign, and set some limits in advance, or make the campaign in such a way that it doesn't matter.

[Coffee_Dragon]

This is not only wrong, it may be illegal !! !

Or rather, what a strange question. Of course you shouldn't be expected to run a game you don't like, and of course it's a good idea to communicate your feelings on the matter to the players and ask for their thoughts.

[Unoriginal]

It's infinitely better to ask them to retire than to DM a game you don't like.

Now, do you know *why* the players have been playing those characters like that? Because asking them would be useful to try to find a way everyone can have fun.


If it turns out your favored playstyles don't match, well, no worry. Nothing wrong with not enjoying playing RPGs with someone, but one shouldn't force it if it's not fun for them.

[Yora]

If it doesn't work, it doesn't work.

If the campaign can be salvaged by switching out some PCs, it's a reasonable move to do so.

Just tell the players that the new characters have to fit into the remaining group. I always do this at the start of the campaign because this is not an uncommon problem, but when it does come up in an already running game, better fix it now.

[Yunru]

I plan (once I get a game running) to give my characters a group veto on anyone else's character. That way any character that wouldn'f get along in the party should be avoided.

[hymer]

I don't want to call people out but I think it is not very helpful if I don't so I am just going to do it: Torskar and (not an issue lately, but previously) Thok.


Is this out of line? Is there anything I can do to smooth things over?

It seems that part could be said in private. For some people, that may be a good or a bad idea.

(Also, there's a typo in 'interparty'. I expect you man 'intraparty'. :smallwink:)

[Seto]

It's not wrong - it's one of those things a DM sometimes has to do - but it is delicate. In general, you should make sure that not only are there good reasons for it, but that it will make the game as a whole better than it was.

Which in this case it totally sounds like it would. Sure, you made a mistake when you didn't specify what you wanted out of the PCs - to work as a team and be decent "heroes" -, but now that you've identified the problem, the best you can do is to openly explain it, and take the measures needed to correct it. And next time you'll know to specify it in advance. It might be a hard conversation, and, depending on the players, it might make the game better or make it implode. But better that than being stuck running a game you don't want to run.

[Krobar]

As a previous poster mentioned, since they're murdering people here comes the high level party of bounty hunters. WANTED: DEAD OR ALIVE.

Or maybe a thieves guild is tired of their protection racket being wrecked and hired the assassins guild to take care of them.

Either way, they've brought it on themselves.

[Samayu]

(I don't know your backstory or who these people are.)

You can ask them to retire, but you can't force them. If they refuse, it's you who has to retire.

Then, once you're no longer DMing for them, they need to decide whether they want you back, of if someone else will DM. And whether they're mad enough not to invite you to play. So if you're worried they'll kick you out, you might want to be as polite as possible. Suggest upfront that you're not going to DM for these types of characters, and the group needs to come to some sort of consensus about the way forward.

[Ronnocius]

Thanks for the responses (and spelling tips). I had messaged the player previously asking them to change his behavior and repeatedly suggesting ways for his character to change alignment but the character was still doing things that were annoying (looting bodies while leaving friends to make death saves, etc)

The question was a bit rhetorical but I wanted to get as many viewpoints as possible. I put out an anonymous poll asking whether the players agreed or disagreed and so far everyone has chosen the agree option so hopefully this is going to end without anyone leaving the group, although if that is what it comes down to then that is what's going to happen.

[Gtdead]

You have every right to want to play the game a certain way. However, I don't consider an evil PC any different than an evil NPC. If he is evil enough to cause problems, the party should deal with him, expel him, kill him, turn him over to the authorities, whatever.

It doesn't matter if I'm playing good or evil players, there is always the chance to derail a campaign. I'm ok with other characters to not like my character's morals and behaviors. I'm also ok with the world dealing harshly with something my character did.

I consider this a good rule. Opposites create conflict, those who like to deviate should expect to be treated accordingly. If it's ok for an evil NPC to be arrested and imprisoned, I don't see why it's not for an evil PC.

If it was an all evil party, the good player would be the opposite, and perhaps the party would take advantage of him or kill him. The whole point is to be aligned with the party interests. Having different story arcs is ok as long as staying with the party is vital to your goals. The moment a PC doesn't need the party, he should retire and be replaced.

[Sigreid]

I don't know that the line about most tables banning evil characters is accurate. You certainly hear that a fair amount on this forum, but there are a lot of tables and most of them aren't represented on this forum.

That said, it's not unreasonable for the DM to not want to DM for evil characters or to insist that the game be heroic. That won't appeal to everyone, but it's a valid way to want to play and as a DM you have wind up putting more work into the game than the other players. If your hobby involves work, you should enjoy it.

[Samayu]

looting bodies while leaving friends to make death saves, etc.


That doesn't sound evil so much as dumb. How does he expect to get anywhere if he keeps letting his minions allies get killed?

And why do the other players put up with this? I think that this sort of thing is best dealt with in character, but not everybody can do that, for both game reasons and personal reasons.

[Ronnocius]

I don't have any statistical evidence for the 'no evil characters' rule but I assume that it is probably true, at least based on what I've read online. Also I decided against resolving it in character (I was planning on having the criminal character hanged, a revenant killing him, etc) but I didn't want to waste session time, I felt it was immature, and I didn't want to create resentment.

In general I am fine with evil characters, but this one character in particular was actively killing party members, murdering NPCs they were tasked with saving for no personal gain whatsoever, killing NPCs that were rude to him (and NPCs who weren't rude to him) on a regular basis, hoarding loot from the rest of the party, looting bodies in combat while allies were making death saves, etc etc etc

[Yunru]

I didn't want to create resentment.

this one character in particular was actively killing party members
These two things are not compatible.

[Mitsu]

RPG should be fund for everyone at table- including DM.

If you don't have fun DMing this party anymore- voice your concerns and ask them to start new characters.

You not having fun DMing is same as players not having fun playing with "I am a boss here" DM types.

Everyone should have fun.

[Chad.e.clark]

How does the world you DM in treat NPC's who behave as this PC does?

Life is full of choices. Choose to behave as a murderer, you will be treated as a murderer. You don't have to justify anything in how the world you are managing responds to the choices that any player in said world makes.

Drop subtle hints if you want, wanted posters and such. See if the player makes different choices.

Oh, and if he is leaving his allies for dead, I am certain one of them could have ties to some diety, a diety who needs their chosen to complete their assigned task and would not be troubled to bring divine justice upon any ally who would betray them. Just a thought.

[Sigreid]

How does the world you DM in treat NPC's who behave as this PC does?

Life is full of choices. Choose to behave as a murderer, you will be treated as a murderer. You don't have to justify anything in how the world you are managing responds to the choices that any player in said world makes.


This is why evil and murder hobo PCs need to follow the golden rule: No live witnesses. :smallbiggrin:

[Ronnocius]

These two things are not compatible.

I disagree; if everyone is on board for such a game it would be fine. My main issue is that the game I'm running isn't a sandbox or evil campaign and so it interrupts the game when someone is going off and committing crimes, or wasting sessions fighting each other.

[furby076]

I plan (once I get a game running) to give my characters a group veto on anyone else's character. That way any character that wouldn'f get along in the party should be avoided.

bye bye paladins, lol


@op, also allow them chance to about face on behavior. they may want to keep their pc, but will play them good

[Ronnocius]

bye bye paladins, lol


@op, also allow them chance to about face on behavior. they may want to keep their pc, but will play them good

I've asked the player about this a few times and while some behavior such as murdering NPCs has changed, the character still hides loot from the party etc. In a recent one-shot they made a supposedly good character who also attacked other party members so unfortunately it might end up being a player problem rather than a character problem but I'll give them another chance to see if anything changes.

[Sariel Vailo]

Some evil characters have actual motivations and will help the group if some scenarios are present.
Helps defeat or dominate a rival,
A band of roving do gooders makes the best place to be should the need for a picked pocket or two.
Some elongated goal that is made easier by travelling with the party. Eg " I was a slave and fighter in a gladitorial arena sentenced their because I had failed to entertain the tyrant emperor. I only one for everyone looked down on the skinny elf, I had to kill to survive, I intend to burn his empire to the ground in a bloody revolution."

[DeTess]

Some evil characters have actual motivations and will help the group if some scenarios are present.
Helps defeat or dominate a rival,
A band of roving do gooders makes the best place to be should the need for a picked pocket or two.
Some elongated goal that is made easier by travelling with the party. Eg " I was a slave and fighter in a gladitorial arena sentenced their because I had failed to entertain the tyrant emperor. I only one for everyone looked down on the skinny elf, I had to kill to survive, I intend to burn his empire to the ground in a bloody revolution."

Yeah, a single well played evil character can work in a heroic campaign. That takes a player playing his character really well, and understanding that he's there to be a foil to the heroic characters, not that the other players are there to be his unwitting pawns, to be used as he pleases. If that was the case in this game, the OP wouldn't be asking us whether it'd be fine to ask his players to retire. Overall, just banning evil characters for campaigns in which random npc's getting murder for the lulz or because they had something shiny is a problem would be better. If a player that you know and trusts then approaches you with a character concept that's evil, but would fit, you can always make an exception.

[Sigreid]

Yeah, a single well played evil character can work in a heroic campaign. That takes a player playing his character really well, and understanding that he's there to be a foil to the heroic characters, not that the other players are there to be his unwitting pawns, to be used as he pleases. If that was the case in this game, the OP wouldn't be asking us whether it'd be fine to ask his players to retire. Overall, just banning evil characters for campaigns in which random npc's getting murder for the lulz or because they had something shiny is a problem would be better. If a player that you know and trusts then approaches you with a character concept that's evil, but would fit, you can always make an exception.

Murdering the NPC for their shiney bobvle is the sign of an amateur anyway.

[Sariel Vailo]

I agree with signed amateur move

[DarkKnightJin]

I had/have a Lawful Evil Eldritch Knight. Son of a monopoly-holding weapons mogul.
He's used to getting what he wants, but found resistance with dear old dad on where his life was going. He grouped up with a party because safety in numbers, and he made some friends along the way.

Yes, he executed a mayor. After said mayor stiffed the party on promised reward for completing a job.
The guy was yearning to see his (dead) wife, and with the help of the party Warlock creating a Silent Image of said wife being happy.. My EK gave him peace.

The Bard wound up becoming the new mayor.

[monkey3]

How about giving this for them to read (my new favorite link)
http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html

[Ronnocius]

How about giving this for them to read (my new favorite link)
http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html

Thanks for the link. I'll be sure to share it as it summarizes several of my thoughts on characters very well.

[DarkKnightJin]

I had/have a Lawful Evil Eldritch Knight. Son of a monopoly-holding weapons mogul.
He's used to getting what he wants, but found resistance with dear old dad on where his life was going. He grouped up with a party because safety in numbers, and he made some friends along the way.

Yes, he executed a mayor. After said mayor stiffed the party on promised reward for completing a job.
The guy was yearning to see his (dead) wife, and with the help of the party Warlock creating a Silent Image of said wife being happy.. My EK gave him peace.

The Bard wound up becoming the new mayor.

Forgot to mention: He is/was the only Evil party member of that group.
Yet somehow, he was also the only one that wasn't a d*ck to people for no reason..

[The Jack]

I plan (once I get a game running) to give my characters a group veto on anyone else's character. That way any character that wouldn'f get along in the party should be avoided.

I feel this would only work in character. I feel players should work out characters together, but the power of outright veto should be left to the GM.

OoC
-Bad players are just going to hide things.
-You remove the chance of pleasant surprises
-The quality of the character pitch can vary substantially from the quality of the character in play. It's very easy to overstate or understate an aspect of your character that can be a boon or a problem.
- Bad players, perhaps seeking the limelight, might veto anything that. Or
- Charismatic players can have huge sway compared to the decisions of less charismatic players.
- People get upset when their characters get vetoed and things get petty.
- a few players are unfortunately shy and don't want to open their character up to intensive scrutiny and criticims.