Evil character in a good party...

[Mers15]

I'll give a little background; our party of four is on a good old "save the world by stopping the bad guys because the prophecy says so" kind of quest (3.5). We have a NG Druid (me), a LG Cleric, a CN Ranger, and a CE Hexblade. I'm not really one of those people who needs the whole party to be morally perfect characters; I think the evil character could be really cool if the player was a little more subtle and tried to hide his intentions from the rest of the party, but lately he's been being really obvious and pretty antagonistic about it. He's tried to torture captured NPCs, kill friendly NPCs, and recently decided he'd punch my character over some loot. I tried to play it like I was ignoring him for the good of the group, but he kept bothering me to take nonlethal damage, etc. It seems like he's trying to pick a fight. The issue is that if we played our characters honestly, we'd probably kick him out of the group or kill him or something, but we don't really want to do that for out-of-game reasons.

So my question is, how do you guys deal with situations like this?
We have another session in a few days and I'm pretty sure it's gonna escalate. I'm tempted just to wild shape into a snake and constrict him until he calms down a bit, but I'm pretty sure he'd throw a fit.

[Red Fel]

So my question is, how do you guys deal with situations like this?
We have another session in a few days and I'm pretty sure it's gonna escalate. I'm tempted just to wild shape into a snake and constrict him until he calms down a bit, but I'm pretty sure he'd throw a fit.

In-character conduct merits in-character consequences. While I wonder whether this is actually a manifestation of an out-of-character issue, the in-character issue is clear.

Your first question should be this: Why do the other PCs keep him around? "For the good of the group" only counts if he benefits the group more than causing harm or inconvenience. If I had a group of friends who went out to eat together, and one spent that time beating us up and breaking plates and costing us money and skipping on the bill, I wouldn't keep inviting him "for the good of the group."

If he continues to contribute, then this merits an in-character lesson. With mild violence. If he becomes antagonistic, stop him - in-character - and issue a stern warning that you've taken all you're going to take and you won't take no more. If he remains very clearly evil, and antagonistic towards the party, ditching or fighting him in-character is entirely merited. If he doesn't contribute as a partymember, but is frankly a nuisance, skip the stern warning and go straight to the ditching.

I'm not saying that Good parties can't have Evil members. I happen to think a little Evil makes the party more interesting. I am saying that Good parties can't have Stupid Evil, Jerk Evil, or Crazy Evil members. And this character is clearly at least one of the three.

Let me make one further point - if you abide his openly Evil conduct, or worse enable it by shielding him from consequence, I wouldn't be surprised if your GM started imposing alignment penalties on you.

Bottom line: You are under no obligation to continue to adventure with a party member who is morally abhorrent to and openly antagonistic towards the party. Let me be clear - I am not saying to drop the player. But based upon your description, it would be totally merited, in-character, for the party to drop the character. Get over your out-of-character hangups and give him the in-character consequence his in-character conduct merits.

[Alejandro]

Why is a LG cleric tolerating being openly associated with an outright evil bastard? Much less their deity still granting them spells?

[PersonMan]

Why is a LG cleric tolerating being openly associated with an outright evil bastard? Much less their deity still granting them spells?

Because they're not an egotistical maniac who puts their own not being offended and having to deal with someone whose morals don't line up with them over the lives of, literally, the entire world, and their god isn't, either?

Unless you're playing some kind of Lawful Stupid Cleric of a deity with the same alignment, I doubt that working with someone Evil to, you know, save the planet would lose your divine support.

Plus, which is more Good: keeping the guy in line so all of his violent tendencies are unloaded on the wicked who need to be gotten rid of anyways (the group can keep him from torturing and killing people), or cutting him loose in a village full of people who can't defend themselves?

[Ansem]

I can recall a story about a party with a Cleric in it, who eventually teamkilled the entire party at the end of the campaign because he was evil. The party never found this out as he prepared cure spells and hid his alignment.
So its doable :D!

[Erik Vale]

So, a stupid [as in lacking survival instincts... more so] Belkar?

Mark of Justice if you can, if not, I'm having trouble seeing why your characters would tolerate him.

[BWR]

Because they're not an egotistical maniac who puts their own not being offended and having to deal with someone whose morals don't line up with them over the lives of, literally, the entire world, and their god isn't, either?

Unless you're playing some kind of Lawful Stupid Cleric of a deity with the same alignment, I doubt that working with someone Evil to, you know, save the planet would lose your divine support.

Plus, which is more Good: keeping the guy in line so all of his violent tendencies are unloaded on the wicked who need to be gotten rid of anyways (the group can keep him from torturing and killing people), or cutting him loose in a village full of people who can't defend themselves?

In the world there are most likely more worthy people to work with. Much of the point of Good is not compromising for the sake of convenience. The whole "Good is stupid for not tolerating evil" is a terrible argument.

[Tengu_temp]

He will never learn unless he suffers consequences for his actions. Next time he tries to do something evil, punish him accordingly.

[Drakefall]

Perhaps it would be best to talk to the player?

Explain your alignment stance: It's cool to have an evil party member in the group.

Explain your problem:... But, it isn't cool to have what appears to be a somewhat suicidal* and greedy jerk in the party, and that is kind of how the character is coming off.

Suggest a compromise: So maybe be somewhat more subtle and party friendly with your evil? The character does apparently want to, or need to, hang around with these guys. It would be in his best interests to form an amicable working relationship with them.

Murder an npc your character really hates out of view of the party and law enforcement officials and taking his shinies? Sure!

Attempting to steal from and assaulting a druid you're meant to be working with for whatever reason? You cray cray. Druids are scary! Why would you want to start a fight with one? He'll cast horrible spells on you and then turn into a giant spider and TOUCH YOU WITH HIS GIANT SPIDER LEGS AAAAAAGGGGHHH!!!!


Hmm... I'm not sure if I'm coming across as diplomatic enough. Be more diplomatic than me to be on the safe side.

*I mean, openly trying to commit murder and theft in a dnd-esque society doesn't seem to me like something an intelligent and sane individual would do unless they were super powerful.

[Ansem]

Pretty much ^
Evil and Chaotic doesn't equal douchbag and jerk
Same way Good and Lawful don't equal hippie and the generic airport security in the US who are triggerhappy for anyone breaking a rule.

[jedipotter]

So my question is, how do you guys deal with situations like this?
We have another session in a few days and I'm pretty sure it's gonna escalate. I'm tempted just to wild shape into a snake and constrict him until he calms down a bit, but I'm pretty sure he'd throw a fit.

A little more accurate might be ''A Jerk in a Normal Group''.

You could just ignore the jerk stuff, though it works better if the DM does as well. I often let Evil Jerks just run wild without effecting the game. Like:
Player 1 "I walk over to talk to Raldon the merchant"
Player 2 "My evil hexblade kills the Raldon the merchant! Muhahaha! And cut him up into little pieces!"
DM Raldon "Well met how can I help you?''
(Blinks around the table)
Player 1 "Um, we need to buy some salt"
Player 2 "I killzed the guy dude you can't talk to him! I killed him! I killed him!"
DM Raldon "Of course, how much do you need?"
Player 2 "But DMs I killed Raldon! How is he still talking?
DM (shrughs) it is a mystery.....




But there is no reason you can't just strike back. Why do you care if he throws a fit? Let him.

There are tons of ways you can take him out, and stop his character from doing anything. Even more so as your a spell caster. You can be nice and just knock him out, or do worse things.

The best is if you knock the character out or otherwise stop them.....then just destroy all the characters stuff. So when evil hexblade wakes up, he just has a pair of shorts on....

[ElenionAncalima]

Its sounds like you have one of three scenarios on your hands, and you need to talk to the player to figure out which you have.

a) He is just trying to roleplay the character by testing the party's limits. He is acting this way because your characters let him. If you provided in game consequences, he would change his actions accordingly, with no out-of-game hard feelings.

Solution: Start giving him in-game consequences and see how things play out

b) He doesn't realize that the way he is acting is making it difficult for the other players.

Solution: Make him aware that his character's action is creating stress for the other players. Have an open discussion to get everyone on the same page as to whether roleplaying or party cohesion are more important to the table. If everyone agrees that party cohesion is more important, the Hexblade should tone down his character, as long as the rest of the party doesn't try to force him out. If everyone agrees that roleplaying is more important, the Hexblade can continue playing his character, but the other players shouldn't feel inhibited from making him face in game consequences. Make sure that Hexblade player's opinion is being respected in this discussion and that he isn't just being bullied out of his character.

c) He just wants to play his character and doesn't care if it ruins the game for everyone else. If you try to force his character out, get ready for a tantrum.

Solution: You are dealing with a problem player, not a problem character. At that point it is up to the group whether you want to put up with him or boot him, depending on everyone's stance on booting and their pre-existing friendships with the player. (Hopefully this isn't the case)

Of course, your player could fall somewhere in the middle of two of these examples...or there could be an entirely different scenario that I didn't think of. Regardless, the important thing to do is talk to him.

[Ravian]

In the world there are most likely more worthy people to work with. Much of the point of Good is not compromising for the sake of convenience. The whole "Good is stupid for not tolerating evil" is a terrible argument.

Isn't that what Roy does in OOTS all the time? Belkar is specifically less dangerous when he has the party to limit him, and he's a very capable ally in the saving of the universe deal. Evil doesn't mean they can't be useful for good. When they stop being an asset and start becoming a liability than it's a good idea to off them but if the good outweighs the evil than you don't have to off them simply for the sake of righteousness (Especially if the cause of good is actively harmed by the removal of a capable (if self-interested) agent for it).

It's something I've always hated about the paladin code, since knowingly associating with an evil person can cause a fall it automatically becomes the paladin's (or other lawful good character's) job to become a moral police. It removes depth from adventuring parties, restricts players that want to explore non-conventional alignments, and generally gives good the impression of a bunch of intolerant sticklers for perfect behavior.

Obviously this situation involves someone who's evil behavior is actively harming the group's enjoyment, but I absolutely understand why they wouldn't want to just ditch the character or kill him. Most groups are based off of groups of friends (or at least acquaintances that enjoy each other's company) and people will often become attached to a character. So often a character's removal could be misinterpreted as targeting the player. In this case the best solution would be to talk with the player. Tell him that while the party is entirely willing to tolerate an evil character, it may be good to dial back on the blatant antagonism. Remind them that evil generally has to be subtle when it mixes with good groups, and will usually avoid making a target of itself. This doesn't have to mean that they have to dance along to the others morality, only that they try to make themselves more useful to keep around then to remove.

[Tengu_temp]

Isn't that what Roy does in OOTS all the time? Belkar is specifically less dangerous when he has the party to limit him, and he's a very capable ally in the saving of the universe deal. Evil doesn't mean they can't be useful for good. When they stop being an asset and start becoming a liability than it's a good idea to off them but if the good outweighs the evil than you don't have to off them simply for the sake of righteousness (Especially if the cause of good is actively harmed by the removal of a capable (if self-interested) agent for it).

Belkar has killed innocents on more than one occasion. The only reason the others tolerate his existence is because he's a fellow PC (and because his fanboys would throw a tantrum if he died). If he wasn't, he'd be pushing up daisies a long time ago. "He's less dangerous when he's controlled" is an excuse - he'd be even less dangerous if he was dead.

[PersonMan]

In the world there are most likely more worthy people to work with.

If you argue this, then you run into the question of 'why do the PCs go through the quest instead of gathering a band of other people at every opportunity.

In this case, though, the reason for working with them is the same as them not finding others. If you read the OP, you'll find that the PCs are being led by a prophecy. Given the weight these often have, chances are that there's a significant chance in-game that they need this group, that not just anyone can save the world.

Much of the point of Good is not compromising for the sake of convenience.

So you agree with me? I dunno, kicking out the Evil guy so you can do your quest Your Way and dumping this murderous psycho on the innocent people of the world doesn't sound like "not compromising for the sake of convenience".

The whole "Good is stupid for not tolerating evil" is a terrible argument.

It's not my argument, though. "Good is not cutting loose anyone who has morals that don't match up with yours when the world is at stake and you can actually reduce the damage they deal to the innocent" is. Belkar and Roy actually make a very good example here - Roy is making the Good decision of not cutting Belkar loose so he can happily murder his way through several innocent villages, even if it bothers him.

If there were a prophecy saying 'and this group including a murderous hafling, X, Y, Z, etc. saves the world from the Snarl', then that would give another reason for him to keep Belkar around.

[neonchameleon]

In the world there are most likely more worthy people to work with. Much of the point of Good is not compromising for the sake of convenience. The whole "Good is stupid for not tolerating evil" is a terrible argument.

Another point of Good is redemption. People surrender to good armies much more readily than evil ones because they know they won't be tortured or killed out of hand. On the other hand if a good person decides you need to die it will happen, quickly and cleanly. No making you squirm or beg. No torture. Nothing you can evade, stall, or come back from.

But if he's killing friendly NPCs he''s threatening the party and the quest. Belkar works with the party because it gives him an opportunity to get rich and kill more stuff. He reins it in. He makes sure not to be obviously evil (and carries round a sheet of lead). Your PC is doing none of that. They are obviously evil and a direct threat to the party. Geas/Mark of Justice them - and if that doesn't work, kill them and either take their stuff or give it to the families of those they have murdered.

If you think there are OOC issues involved sit down with the player and talk to them. Tell them what you think and feel and ask what the hell they think they are doing.

[Segev]

Yeah, the most straight-forward option is just to attack him back if he hits your character. I don't know too many adventurers who wouldn't fight back against somebody hurting them.

Entangle is a decent place to start.

Let your animal companion pin him to the ground and maul him a bit.

Basically brutalize him to an inch of his life and ask him if he's ready to say "uncle" yet. It's the only language CE brutes understand.

[Leviathan]

I think the onus in any group with different moral perspectives is that the player(s) in the minority realize that often they'll have to yield in the interest of group cohesion. The Decide to Act Differently section of this article is really helpful in that regard.

[Mers15]

Let your animal companion pin him to the ground and maul him a bit.

I have a goat (its a long story), so this isn't really an option. Thanks though guys- I'll see how it goes. I'm probably going to just let things play out, but if he gives my character any crap again, he'll definitely fight back this time, even if it's just to entangle him and give him a time out.

[Thialfi]

I am perfectly fine with evil characters in a party. I am not fine with stupid evil or cartoon character evil in a party.

Evil people can have friends and loved ones. Evil people can be on a quest to save the world and work with good people. An evil person can give his life for another if they love them enough. Evil is about what you are willing to do to strangers to accomplish your goal.

Evil doesn't mean torturing captives when you know you are not going to be backed up by the party.
Evil doesn't mean bullying or attacking other party members when it isn't in your best interest.
Evil doesn't mean betraying the party just because you are evil.

I'd love a party with a lawful good guy and a chaotic evil guy arguing over how the party should approach a problem.

I'd hate a party with the evil guy turning into Snidely Whiplash and forcing confrontations when he is being specifically motivated not to do so by the game's story.

[Sebastrd]

So my question is, how do you guys deal with situations like this? We have another session in a few days and I'm pretty sure it's gonna escalate. I'm tempted just to wild shape into a snake and constrict him until he calms down a bit, but I'm pretty sure he'd throw a fit.

Never solve out-of-character issues in-character. Tell the guy he can knock it off or go bother someone else's gaming group.

[Lord Torath]

I have a goat (its a long story), so this isn't really an option. Thanks though guys- I'll see how it goes. I'm probably going to just let things play out, but if he gives my character any crap again, he'll definitely fight back this time, even if it's just to entangle him and give him a time out.

When's your next session? Please come back afterward and tell us what happened.

[veti]

The issue is that if we played our characters honestly, we'd probably kick him out of the group or kill him or something, but we don't really want to do that for out-of-game reasons.

First, whatever happens, don't kick him out of the group. You do that, then the best-case result is you have a new villain out there with a grudge against you (and intimate knowledge of your goals, resources and routines). Worst case is the player insists on continuing to play the character, and you have a long-term split party. No, if things get to that point - kill him dead.

Second, there's a whole raft of things you can do to discipline him, provided all other members of the party are on the same page. Demand fees for services that he probably takes for granted (e.g. healing). Fine him shares of loot. Beat him up, and when you do it, none of this "nonlethal damage" man-cow poo-poo: leave him on single-figure hitpoints (positive or negative, really doesn't matter at that point), and when he's finished ranting at you, calmly explain the facts of life to him.

But the bottom line is, always, "shape up or die". There is no "kick out of the party", and if you're wise, you also won't allow him to leave the party voluntarily. You do not want this guy outside your tent.

[Mastikator]

Because they're not an egotistical maniac who puts their own not being offended and having to deal with someone whose morals don't line up with them over the lives of, literally, the entire world, and their god isn't, either?[snip]

You make it sound like whether you're OK with murdering people in cold blood is a matter of taste akin to whether you prefer strawberry or cherry. (a bit of an hyperbole, but still). "Morals not lining up" is a very abstract way of discussing whether you want to give powers to someone who would associate with an unrepentant murderer. A murderer who for all we know would be more likely to endanger "the lives of, literally, the entire world".

Edit-
I was gonna say stuff to OP but ElenionAncalima basically /thread'd this thread.

[Ravian]

Belkar has killed innocents on more than one occasion. The only reason the others tolerate his existence is because he's a fellow PC (and because his fanboys would throw a tantrum if he died). If he wasn't, he'd be pushing up daisies a long time ago. "He's less dangerous when he's controlled" is an excuse - he'd be even less dangerous if he was dead.

And why is he accepted with the rest of the party? (it's not just the fanboys I'll tell you that)

It's because he's useful, when you point him in the right direction you end up with a lot of dead enemies, which brings you that much closer to saving the world. Kill him and you have to go at reduced firepower or put the whole saving the world deal on hold until you can find another member.

Never compromise is a philosophy that really can't be held in a situation where others can die if you fail. Yes he's killed innocents, and ideally he will be tried and found guilty for his actions, (though that's probably not going to be a problem) but that can really wait until after he's done helping with the saving of the world thing.

Personally I've always preferred a more gray version of the alignment scale, evil is at its heart about selfishness, helping yourself at the cost of others. That encompasses a wide range of people, some of which are fully capable of working with good and living as functional individuals in society. A particularly skilled general in an army that has less regard for collateral damage and proper treatment of prisoners, is probably evil, and a good individual would certainly attempt to curb that behavior, but if he's winning the war against the gnoll hordes, and his removal could mean the lines break before a new commander assumes control, it might be a better idea for good to try him for war crimes following the end of the war. Same goes for a corrupt official known for taking bribes but extremely adept at keeping the caravans coming, yes smuggling will probably be a problem, but if the nation's on the brink of famine from new immigrants pouring in the disruption of supplies could kill thousands.

We often don't have the luxury of avoiding compromise with disreputable individuals. Especially in worlds RPG's often exist in.

[Mastikator]

And why is he accepted with the rest of the party? (it's not just the fanboys I'll tell you that)

It's because he's useful, when you point him in the right direction you end up with a lot of dead enemies, which brings you that much closer to saving the world. Kill him and you have to go at reduced firepower or put the whole saving the world deal on hold until you can find another member.[snip]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0125.html

Except for that time when he tried to murder Elan for XP. The group banded together and coerced him to not kill any of the group.

The evil member of the OP's group physically attacked the OP. The group should at the very least band together and attack him. Not stand idly by as their friend is assaulted by their other repugnant friend.

[Lord of Shadows]

I have seen several (and played in a few) of these "save the world" campaigns where the party is a melting pot of all different alignments, sort of representing the world saving itself, if it can. Sometimes it is even "arranged" that way by the deities on purpose, to see if this little ball of dirt is worth any more effort.

That being said, none of the scenarios I am familiar with have had a CE component. LE and NE yes, and they can actually work together with others toward a common goal, especially once they realize it means saving the world. A CE character, on the other hand, may not be able to see above his own motivations. A real challenge, there, especially for the LG cleric. If the gods are on board with this saving the world thing, maybe that should be pointed out to the character, that everyone's deity is depending on us all to make this "saving the world" crap succeed. If he is going to be an obstacle to that, well, guess what, he becomes part of the adventure and is removed. If he is just being himself, and can't help but be CE all the time, a good thwack on the head might be in order.

Or perhaps your Cleric could hit him with a Quest, or get someone to Geas him. Rather extreme, yes, but if the shoe fits... well...
.

[Rhynn]

It seems like he's trying to pick a fight. The issue is that if we played our characters honestly, we'd probably kick him out of the group or kill him or something, but we don't really want to do that for out-of-game reasons.

You've got that all backwards.

If a character behaves antisocially in a party, the party (multiple, group, 1+) should kick them out.

The (one, single, 1, lone) player playing the antisocial character should be the one who modifies their (one, single, 1, lone) character's behavior so as to not get kicked out; or, better yet, creates a character who isn't antisocial.

The short of it is: it is every player's responsibility not to give the rest of the party good cause to kick their PC out of the group.

To enforce this, the rest of the party should kick antisocial or misfit PCs out of the group. (In-game, not out-of-game.) The ousted PC doesn't get to split the GM's attention, though: they just disappear as the focus remains on the party. The player makes a new character and plays nice.


Edit: Of course, it's possible that the troublemaker is only picking on one player's character, and the other players don't feel like doing anything about it, in which case the solution is just as simple: LEAVE. Don't play with a bunch of jerks.

EditEdit: All of the above applies just as much to a CE troublemaker trying to make a party of paladins fall as to a NG goody-two-shoes who keeps ratting out the rest of the NE party to the authorities. It's got nothing to do with alignment or morals or ethics, and everything to do with being disruptive in a group.

[Ravian]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0125.html

Except for that time when he tried to murder Elan for XP. The group banded together and coerced him to not kill any of the group.

The evil member of the OP's group physically attacked the OP. The group should at the very least band together and attack him. Not stand idly by as their friend is assaulted by their other repugnant friend.

Obviously when he starts attacking others in the group he proves he's becoming more of a liability and it becomes much more beneficial for everyone involved if they remove him there.

I'm not excusing the evil member of this party, he's crossed from functional evil into jerk evil with his actions. I just object to the general concept that certain players have a moral duty to kill evil party members just on principle.

Evil characters can be disruptive, and if they refuse to limit their behavior they're best removed, but they can also make for good stories if they're played right. (and can often be useful for certain situations) But a moral policeman just makes the game less fun for everyone involved.

[theNater]

Belkar has killed innocents on more than one occasion. The only reason the others tolerate his existence is because he's a fellow PC (and because his fanboys would throw a tantrum if he died). If he wasn't, he'd be pushing up daisies a long time ago. "He's less dangerous when he's controlled" is an excuse - he'd be even less dangerous if he was dead.

Belkar is kept around because he's more of an asset than a liability. Both Roy and Haley have pointed this out; neither of them resorted to "he's a PC" as an argument.