Chaotic Evil Party NPC

[EluinHexblade]

So I'm a new DM, and I'm going to run Lost Mines of Phandelver for a few of my friends. Looking through literally just the first section, there's this bugbear named Klarg, and I just really like his personality. I mean, who DOESN'T like a crazy character who talks in the third person? Anyways, I was wondering if there was a way to make this guy an NPC for the party after fighting him. My idea was that his dreams of conquest and being a warlord could also be against other monsters, as long as he got glory in the process, and joining strong people could help him reach his goals (while being quite brutal with his methods all the while).

p.s. Do you think a bugbear could wrestle an owlbear into submission?

[Hackulator]

I suggest strongly against running what would functionally be a DM PC, and especially when you are new to DMing. DM PCs are problematic for a lot of reasons and not a good additional difficulty to add if you're already new to a difficult job.

[JNAProductions]

I suggest strongly against running what would functionally be a DM PC, and especially when you are new to DMing. DM PCs are problematic for a lot of reasons and not a good additional difficulty to add if you're already new to a difficult job.

I'll second this. If-and ONLY if-the players really like him and ask him to come join them, I'd consider bringing him along. If the players do not have a clear interest in bringing him along... Don't bring him.

[Zhorn]

I suggest strongly against running what would functionally be a DM PC, and especially when you are new to DMing. DM PCs are problematic for a lot of reasons and not a good additional difficulty to add if you're already new to a difficult job.

Thirded. A DM adding an NPC to the party outside of a limited quest is ill advised. If The party liked Klarg and THEY were to ones seeking to bring him along, that changes things, but only slightly. Even then, I'd limit it to him helping kill King Grol, and then promptly leave the party.

[Kaptin Keen]

There is actually nothing wrong with GMPC's - in general - so long as they're used right. I've done it many times, primarily because I've played a number of solo games, where a GMPC is kinda required, because there are so many risks for a single PC to randomly fail with no recourse.

My rule of thumb is that NPC's are never heroes, and perform no heroics. Whether the PC's want them to or not: If an npc joins the party in combat at all, he or she rarely performs particularly well, and generally contributes story, but no real combat effectiveness.

This includes PC's who take the leadership feat. It gives you a bunch of followers - but it gives you precisely zero cannon fodder.

[MoiMagnus]

1) Would you let a player play your NPC on top of his other character?
Yes -> Cool. Consider doing so, because you already have a lot of job as a DM.
No -> What you are trying to do is to play both as a player and a DM. This isn't a good idea. There is a huge risk of "playing with yourself" while the other are just spectators.

2) If a player took the control of this NPC, would the NPC be more interesting to play than his other character?
Yes -> There is a problem. It may be the PC that are uninteresting. But you most likely created a "Jack Sparrow", so a character intended to be a secondary character, but ends up being the only character peoples really care about. While those character make cool stories, they are problematic in RPG. Alternatively, the NPC may be way to strong compared to the PCs.
No -> Cool. Make sure he isn't to complex to play either, he shouldn't be "more interesting rule-wise" than the PCs.

3) Do the player have the choice to reject his offer to join?
Yes -> Cool.
No -> Not a good answer.
I want them to accept -> This is a "quest NPC", not a "party member". Keep him irrelevant unless when he is required for the plot. Don't try to force him into the group once his quest is completed. (He can even maybe wait the group in the next town they meet rather than following them).

[Pauly]

Well if the party want to add a CE NPC to their party I wouldn’t stop them. But I would make sure that the NPC lived up to Chatic with a capital C and evil with a small e. The NPC cannot be relied on to help and will happily steal any item that isn’t welded to a PC.

[The Kool]

I'm going to throw my voice behind the "No DMPC" crowd here. I did that when I was younger, it was awkward and caused problems. I've had the occasional NPC that tags along but the trick is to basically forget about them in encounters (combat or otherwise) because they completely take a back seat for anything other than roleplay. Still, what I recommend doing here is to have him be a recurring NPC. If the players invite him along, have him tag along for his quest then leave. Once the players have parted ways with him, if they enjoyed the encounter, have him keep showing back up from time to time. Be careful not to feed your own enjoyment here and completely overlook the players, that's how you get people uninterested in returning. But if they love him as much as you do, keep him coming back every once in a while.

[Geddy2112]

+1 to no DMPC, and if the party recruits this NPC they stay as an NPC that just works with, follows, and hangs out with the party. Your goals and motivations for the NPC should never overshadow the party. If the party goes down that road, then the NPC would be lock step in goals. Otherwise, the NPC might choose to kill the party rather than join them. Interesting if they do try to diplomance themselves out of that particular encounter, and good on you for being open to them doing so.

Generally, chaotic evil won't play well with others and the party bringing around an evil monster is going to cause a ton of problems in the long run. This is a classic setup for "curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal". Villagers and other civilized folk might attack the party on sight for having a bugbear with them.

Also, a bugbear could probably wrestle an owlbear, its kind of a toss up.

[kyoryu]

There is actually nothing wrong with GMPC's - in general - so long as they're used right.

There's nothing wrong with tightrope walking between two skyscrapers without a parachute either, so long as you do it right.

The problem isn't that GMPCs are always bad. It's that there's a high chance they'll go bad, especially for a new GM, and due to the nature of the issue it's also more likely that the players will not make their issues known.

Almost any problem that can be solved with a GMPC can be solved in another way that has less risk associated with it.

That said, if it works for you, go for it. But as generic advice "yeah, do this, it's totally cool, and really just a generally good idea"? No. Can't get behind that, especially without mentioning the large and frequent downsides.

[EluinHexblade]

Thanks everyone, I really appreciate the input! While I may be new to DM'ing, I am aware of the problems DMPC's can cause, and don't want this character to become one. I also got a DM friend to play in the campaign to help give pointers along the way, just in case.

The current conclusion I've come to is to give the party the option of whether or not to accept him (getting the exp for the encounter either way), and if they do accept him, he wouldn't impose on the party's goals and would be along for the ride for the sake of killing stuff (will be doing milestones to avoid having this potentially impose on the party's exp gain). Even then, he'd likely dispatch from the party after they kill King Grol, possibly popping up again at a later point if the party enjoyed his presence. Does this sound effective?

(Also, sticking around until King Grol gives him the chance to wrestle the Owlbear in Cragmaw Castle.)

[Studoku]

Thanks everyone, I really appreciate the input! While I may be new to DM'ing, I am aware of the problems DMPC's can cause, and don't want this character to become one. I also got a DM friend to play in the campaign to help give pointers along the way, just in case.

The current conclusion I've come to is to give the party the option of whether or not to accept him (getting the exp for the encounter either way), and if they do accept him, he wouldn't impose on the party's goals and would be along for the ride for the sake of killing stuff (will be doing milestones to avoid having this potentially impose on the party's exp gain). Even then, he'd likely dispatch from the party after they kill King Grol, possibly popping up again at a later point if the party enjoyed his presence. Does this sound effective?

(Also, sticking around until King Grol gives him the chance to wrestle the Owlbear in Cragmaw Castle.)
Case in point- you've gone from "he wouldn't impose on the party's" goals to talking about him wrestling an owlbear in a single post. If you have suitable brave, powerful, or foolish PCs, one of them might want to wrestle it.

I'd strongly recommend against doing an encounter with the expectation of this guy surviving and returning. If the players do decide to spare him, great. If, however, your players don't like him as much as you do, you'll end up annoying everyone when you try to keep your pet NPC alive.

[RifleAvenger]

I cannot say I share the majority of posters' disdain for NPC party members. I just wrapped up a campaign where the party was holding down a safehouse in an apocalypse scenario, which eventually came to comprise a population of ~40 people including 8 who were essentially combat ready cohorts. My players readily made use of the NPC's in combat and out of it, to the point that I had to contrive a reason to limit them to two in-party NPC's at the climax (the rest held back to defend the safehouse in case the PC's failed/TPK'd).

It's just a matter of having the NPC's be 1. liked by or useful to the party 2. the party is in command of them/they respect the party's decisions (only violated if the PC's severely break the NPC's trust, with ample forewarning) 3. the players control or command the NPC's in combat, so even if the NPCs do something cool the party can credit themselves as leaders.

As long as the PCs remain the main characters, with the NPCs as a supporting cast, NPC helpers or even party members aren't as hard to implement as people think. The issue is a number of awful modules and experiences at private tables where the party was essentially carrying an NPC's luggage (a lot of 80's and 90's Forgotten Realms modules for D&D were atrocious in this regard).

[kyoryu]

There's a difference between a henchman/hireling type of NPC, and a DMPC.

A DMPC is generally a character that is in all ways treated like a "regular" PC (gains exp, levels, etc.) but is run by the GM.

[RifleAvenger]

There's a difference between a henchman/hireling type of NPC, and a DMPC.

A DMPC is generally a character that is in all ways treated like a "regular" PC (gains exp, levels, etc.) but is run by the GM.Assuming this is aimed at me, I'd dispute that all the NPCs in my game were merely "henchmen."

Excepting a small number who were written in by the PCs as part of backstory (most of whom were safehouse bound, not the ones that could reasonably accompany the PC's off-base), every NPC was a survivor the PC's encountered or an enemy they showed clemency to. They were mostly GM characters originally, not PC inventions, class features, or something bought off a table.


The 8 I mentioned that were cohort strength (max level = highest level PC-2) and leveled when the PC's did, so long as they'd been doing missions with the PC's or were performing a dangerous job off-screen. They didn't take XP from the party though, I just assumed/handwaved that they came by their own elsewhere.


They weren't devoid of agency or opinions. Any NPC with the party usually got their two cents on a decision or situation in, if they cared to share it. They just fell in line with the PC majority decision unless they seriously disagreed with it (and the PC's were canny about not taking given NPC party members on missions that might offend their ethics).


They weren't devoid of narrative impact after they joined the party. Many NPC's had personal arcs or side-missions the PC's could undertake if interested. Every named NPC had a hidden "morale" stat the party could infer in-game in general terms using the Sense Motive/Insight/Empathy equivalent, which determined their overall outlook on the situation as well as their loyalty to the party's cause.


The party spent resources, in a low-wealth, low-gear game, on the NPCs. Mostly by hand-me-downing old or unwanted items, but they still could have tried to sell or scrap that stuff instead to keep their wealth confined to the PC's.


The two NPCs they took on the climatic mission were geared to pretty much the same extent as the PC's, using the party's wealth to do so.

I guess if that still falls under "henchmen," I'm not seeing where henchmen/cohorts end and GMPC begins.

[The Glyphstone]

Perspective, mostly. Everyone's line is different, but the closest thing to consensus is "if the NPC is of equal or greater narrative status/importance to the PCs, they're a DMPC".

[Bohandas]

I'm going to throw my voice behind the "No DMPC" crowd here. I did that when I was younger, it was awkward and caused problems. I've had the occasional NPC that tags along but the trick is to basically forget about them in encounters (combat or otherwise) because they completely take a back seat for anything other than roleplay.

What if you just let a random player control them each combat (or whatever situation)?

[Studoku]

What if you just let a random player control them each combat (or whatever situation)?
Then you have a character with no agency of their own, another statblock and set of actions to bog down combat, and will have problems down the line if the players try to sacrifice the NPC. In return you add very little; you may as well not bother.

[EluinHexblade]

Case in point- you've gone from "he wouldn't impose on the party's" goals to talking about him wrestling an owlbear in a single post. If you have suitable brave, powerful, or foolish PCs, one of them might want to wrestle it.

I'd strongly recommend against doing an encounter with the expectation of this guy surviving and returning. If the players do decide to spare him, great. If, however, your players don't like him as much as you do, you'll end up annoying everyone when you try to keep your pet NPC alive.

I can understand what you're thinking here tbh, so I'll clarify that I don't intend to give this NPC any special privileges over the PC's. The PC's always come first. If someone else wishes to wrestle the owlbear, I won't stop them. And if they don't like him too much, I'll find a way to remove him from the party, even if it has to be him suddenly tripping and falling out of a window. I'd only bring him back if the party actually enjoyed him being there and wanted to see him again.

As for a player directly controlling the NPC, it all depends, but seems a bit iffy. As for the party giving orders to the NPC, that could definitely work.

Edit: Realized you were referring to when they actually fight Klarg when you said "I'd strongly recommend against an encounter with the expectation of this guy surviving and returning". I don't expect them to let him live, but if they do, then cool. I know not to hold expectations like that, as the PC's are in control in that situation.

[kyoryu]

Assuming this is aimed at me, I'd dispute that all the NPCs in my game were merely "henchmen."

I think you're attaching too strong of a meaning to "henchmen".

Those NPCs:

* Didn't travel with the party all of the time
* Didn't have a say at all in party decisions
* Didn't get a share of party loot
* Were deliberately kept at a lower level than the PCs.

Thus, not GM/DMPCs.

Really, the key for a GM/DMPC is "if someone from the outside looked at what was happening and didn't know who was playing what character, would they assume that the NPC was a party member? If so, DMPC." That test doesn't seem true of your NPCs.