You are the GM for a fantasy campaign. During character creation...

You are the GM for a fantasy campaign. During character creation, one of your players has this to say about her character:

>If it's okay with you, I'd like to spice this campaign up by giving our party a little internal conflict. I'm thinking about playing a more ruthless, pragmatic and perhaps even evil character than the rest of the group. You know, someone motivated primarily by personal gain, rather than any loyalty to the rest of the team or whatever employer they might serve. I feel like this would be much more interesting than just a party made up entirely of good guys. What do you think?

How do you react?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=e-0hgP1tNH8
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

That's not a bad idea, and could certainly be interesting, but I'd rather not worry about PvP this campaign, so I'd appreciate it if you just made a cooperative character.
Thanks for actually talking to me about it and not just rushing ahead with it, though.

>Her character
>Her

Jokes on you, I'm not cool enough to get women to play with me and my grognard friends!

...

Depends on the group and, even more importantly, on that particular player's ability to roleplay.

I've had a guy play lots of dickass thief characters who just never explain anything and eat up tons of DM time doing secret stuff that never becomes relevant to the rest of party.

I might chock that one up to bad DMing as well, but my point is you still have to interact with the party to make it interesting.

"Sure, go right ahead, but you don't get any plot armor when the party decides to kill her for being more trouble than she's worth and and an all around bitch. And don't get mad out of character when they all vote to kick you from the group IRL, because I'm gonna back up that vote if it's unanimous."

They can clearly string the idea together better than "I want to play an evil character".

I'd warn them that if they arent careful about it, they might be righteously smited by another player and i wont stop the other player from doing that if her character outs herself to quick.

Your premise fails on the standing that I, the GM, already would have discussed tone and themes with the players, and they would already know if such a character would be a fit for the campaign.
> I feel like this would be much more interesting than just a party made up entirely of good guys
This is the part where I get a sidelong look. It says a lot about the player, and informs me that this player may be an issue.

"If you want to do something like that to spice up the campaign, everyone has to be on board with the idea. So what does everyone else think?"

We are here to have fun collectively and I have to approve this with the other players. If not accepted, I'm sorry but I have to ask you not to play that way or leave.

>m'lady

You are the GM for a fantasy campaign. During character creation, one of your players has this to say about her character:


>If it's okay with you, I'd like to spice this campaign up by giving our party a little internal conflict. I'm thinking about playing a more big, huge and perhaps even gigantic character than the rest of the group. You know, someone motivated primarily by masks, rather than any loyalty to the rest of the team or whatever employer they might serve. I feel like this would be much more interesting than just a party made up entirely of small guys. What do you think?

How do you react?

>I feel like this would be much more interesting than just a party made up entirely of small guys
For you.

It would be extremely creative

In my experience, most TTRPG characters are motivated primarily by personal gain. They aren't necessarily assholes, but the default character is definitely a pretty mercenary individual.

Anyway, I'd say it's fine. In fact, I'm not sure why it even needs to be brought up (unless the campaign has a specific concept that isn't in line with this), though I'd appreciate that they did so. I think it should be assumed that players will make characters with varying, sometimes clashing personalities. That's how tabletop roleplaying works, it's one of the big things that differentiates it from just playing vidya or a wargame.

Seriously what's the issue here?

Can we start answering "depends on the player" on a regular basis to these threads?

"I think the answer to the question you asked is contextual to the the group of people playing" is one I like because it applies to many other questions alike.

"You kidding son?? When have ANY of you played a character that wasn't morally questionable?? The first game I ran you guys made a gang. The second one you made a cult. The third one you became LITERAL TERRORISTS. Now in this fourth game you were pragmatic cut-throat merchants, which is probably the most moral you've ever been. But if you want part conflict with THIS group you'd probably want to go Paladin."

"Depends on the playerS" then?

So Liliana Vess?
I feel like she could have a good campaign.

Objectively correct answer.

not out of the question

but how good is this character idea?
how good is this player?
how long does the rest of the group know each other?

and finally, assuming its fine (which it probably is)- to ensure that the campaign goes smoothly i will be having a larger input on the character than normal- so aspects of their backstory/circumstances will be decided by me

This. If the "internal conflict" you want ends with you getting your ass kicked, don't cry about it.

I'm facing that same situation here. One of my players wants to play a caotic/evil rogue in a mostly good party, because "his statistics are shit and wants to spice things up through roleplaying".
Problem is I've known him for years, and he's not That Guy, but he's a sly motherfucker and will try to pull one over me at any small chance he gets, and I also know he won't give a fuck about alignment either; he just wants to be evil because reasons.

I don't really care. He can play whatever the fuck he wants, but I'm pretty damn sure that he will play the "but my character is evil aligned,bro!" and "I'm chaotic/evil, not chaotic/stupid!" cards eventually, and that kind of shit gets me on my nerves.

It's okay for me.
In fact, this kind of people are very common irl. So common that I would say they're actualy the majority

I'm not against it, but we should have this conversation with the rest of the group because they might not want to deal with internal conflict

>people still get baited into replying to these threads

What's so bad about it?

>baited

What people successfully get baited into doing, myself included, is replying to your posts.

i totally trolled you into having an interesting discussion about party composition! HAHA OWNED!

'her'

>I'll allow it...
>If... you get on your knees and suck this fat chode

>just a party made up entirely of good guys
I conceal a snigger.
"Right, so each of you have six reincarnations, and are working for the Allseeing God. You are tasked with finding out the heretics and cultists and magic users in this town , where everyone worships the Allseeing God. Please now pick up the note cards in front of you which tell you which cultist group you belong to, and what magic power you have."

Okay sure. How confrontational are we talking? Will you be stealing things from them? Would you potentially backstab them? Will there be violence or the potential for it? Or are you more insinuating that you want to play a character that's just not AS good as the rest of the party; maybe someone who would rather kill all prisoners, tend to be more cruel and pragmatic than the rest of them, causing party tension mostly through roleplay and a clash of ethics? If it's the former, I'm not sure how well it'd work out, since PvP rarely ends well, but the latter I could see being a great roleplay opportunity. Thanks for asking me first; let's get this ironed out.

I'd say:
>Who are you and why you keep breaking up into my house during game days? Go away!

These people are absolutely not the majority, what sort of hellhole do you live in?

>>If it's okay with you, I'd like to spice this campaign up by giving our party a little internal conflict.
It's funny how there's always one guy who wants to be the party betrayer and they never ever see getting backstabbed themselves coming.
Because an NPC being a competent espionage agent or personal motivation is too far-fetched for a fantasy game.

depends on the player

I'll say no to That Guy but someone I trust wouldn't be a problem

Yeah I don't get it either. In my experience, not only are most PCs more self-centered but the game is much more fun for that fact. Moralfag characters have their place but an entire group of them? Sounds kinda boring.

I dunno if my experiences are an oddity or if most fa/tg/uys don't actually play games and simply wish they were in a game where all you do is slay dragons and rescue virtuous princesses.

You need to come up with an ironclad reason why your interests align with those of the party for the foreseeable future. Our campaign is the story of “these people, and what they did together”, and if you aren’t part of it you’re either rerolling or quitting. You don’t have to be nice all the time, but you need to stay on board the bus, or it’s leaving without you.

>more ruthless, pragmatic and perhaps even evil character
no, fuck off
this ruins the spirit of adventure

Reminder "ruthless" doesn't automatically mean "works against the party at all opportunities".

>perhaps even evil
Unless everyone else is also being neutral/evil, no one is being evil.

Can still work.

It's honestly more a player thing than a concept thing. Vast majority of the time, my players just bring their characters and play and I don't really start needling them about motivation or alignment or whatever. I don't really care and rarely has it ever been an issue. If what OP posted has to be brought up and explained in such detail in the first place then there's a lot more going on than just the character motivation. My assumption as a GM is if you have to sell me on your character then you already know it won't work.

Jesus fucking Christ, barely the previous thread got auto-saged and you start another baitfest.
Kill yourself already!

This is basically the campaign I'm running now, and it's actually a lot of fun. Of course, I don't allow PvP combat, so my players are forced to plot each other's downfalls through subtler means.

10/10 answer. It's a perfectly fine idea, but one that you really need everyone on board with and need to plan around, which was not prepared for here. Good job of explaining reasons why it's a no-go without coming across as an ass-hat, and leaving the character idea open for a more fitting game later.

Fpbp.

>tfw make an upstanding paladin character and the rest of the party end up being criminals or sociopaths
Honestly, I've been tempted to drop a few times due to how incongruous the characters are with mine, and I had no way of knowing that was going to happen.

Talk to GM like adults, ask to make another character, make something that fits now. Obviously they need a healer.

Depends on the player doesn't it? It'd be fine if it's someone I can trust to be responsible enough not to just use an evil PC as an excuse to shit on everyone else's fun.

I see no problem with that. Backstabbing party members is D&D tradition and this isn't even to that degree, so I don't see a reason to blink twice at this.

Some traditions shouldn't have been allowed to become traditions.

How does one play an evil healer?

That's like your opinion man.

Be a doctor who charges outrageous prices for your services. You don't do this to the people you actively work with because that's shortsighted and a good way to get yourself killed. When it comes to helping other people though you bleed them dry when you have the chance and move on to the next opportunity.

>As long as you have a character arc in mind, and as long as you won't just fuck the party over at the first opportunity.
>Basically, just don't do anything that will make them want to kill you, because if it comes to that point then I'm not going to lift a finger to stop it happening.
>Basically just don't be a cunt and it'll probably be okay.

Dunno man, I kind of want the party to be working together out of a sense of camaraderie. I don't mind you playing something closer to the evil side of the spectrum, but evil can still have loyalty to their comrades, allies and friends, yeah? Why not play something like that?

Also, if you initiate PvP at the table, or I think you have provoked it, I'm going to drop rocks on your character because fuck that noise. I've made my stance on this fairly clear over the years.

It's a reasonable jumping off point for a discussion, even though most of the responses boil down to 'Depends on the player', which is fine, because it mostly does.

>not playing a ruthless evil character that never really gets into inter-party conflict because all he cares about is killing and looting and doesn't do "lol random ebil" stuff like burn down the inn the party is staying at for no reason while they're still inside

is it really that hard? I've played plenty of evil characters without going out of my way to ruin the game for everyone else

I react by wishing my group was mature enough to handle inter-party conflict without letting it spill into real life.

If I trust the player I would be fine with it.

ain't hard, friendo.

Is this character Bane? It sounds like Bane. Getting swol as fuck and crushing the little people

The healing is just an unintended side effect of whatever it is you're doing.

Bane?

aye.....

Is this what 20 Charisma with Expertise in Persuasion looks like?

fpbp

Well, the tone of the campaign has already been discussed before sitting down to make characters, so we already know if there's place for a character like that - probably there is, unless we had already agreed on something different.
In any case, a bit of intraparty conflict is good, unless it becomes too antagonistic. If it starts becoming an issue and disrupts games, I as a GM would ask the player to either tone it down or find a way to phase out the character. If they still really want to play a dick, next session it's Fiasco night.

Tell me about him. Why does he wear the mask?

It's a more meta problem than that though, I think I understand what the OP is saying.

Ever had a conversation with someone where they're just waiting for you to stop talking so they can talk? An RPG is a group activity that relies on players being able to work together. We can infer a character with solely selfish motivations would want the sessions to revolve around their agency instead of the group' coordination.

There needs to be group cohesion to maintain interest.

Why would you work with people that you wouldn't be able to bleed dry?

I get what you're saying. Nothing is fucking worse than a character who 1) claims he "doesn't need" the group, and 2) reminds the group of that constantly.

Reminds me of a thread I read a while back where the OP claimed he had a player who wanted his character introduced as someone who shows up and kicks the party's ass, then says he's gonna join them because they clearly need him.

Firstly, do I know this person?
Well?
Do I know they can RP properly and aren't just going to go full retard edge lord 'I'm going to kill the paladin because he wouldn't let me steal that orphans loaf of bread'?

And secondly, do the rest of the prospective party know and are they okay with there being a possibly evil character in the party?

If I can trust the player and no one else has a particular issue, I see no real reason not to at least let them try it.

This is just one of the many reasons why you should create characters together. So you can talk and make shit work.

>During character creation, one of your players has this to say about her character
Looks like that's exactly what's going on in the OP.

So how many more derivatives are you going to post before you're done with your social studies?

This doesn't spice up my group. This is my whole group. I haven't DM'd a non-verified campaign for years now. Not since they played members of the Children of Chaos that brought Elder Gods into the world then drained their power to turn themselves into Gods that are now traveling through the different doors of Sigil to corrupt the worlds beyond them.

*Non-evil. Stupid autocorrect

This. In a standard good campaign everyone should be working towards the same goals. In an evil campaign, fuck it have everyone backstab each other constantly and steal loot from each other.

"Cool idea, but as a DM this is a Good campaign and the very nature of the things we'll be doing are out of line with the intentions of a lawful, neutral, and especially chaotic evil characters so I'm afraid I'll have to say no."

And then we move on!

That strikes me as more than a little inflexible.

You could probably get away with anything from lawful good to maybe chaotic neutral but anything evil I'd say no.

The only fantasy setting I would concider running is Ravenloft in 2nd ed. This sort of thing really wouldn't work well there.

Aside from that, even under normal circumstances, I'd want her to run it by the rest of the group first and make certain theyre on board with it .

"Sounds fine to me, let's ask others if they want to deal with that"

(they propably would, they were fine with it in the past)

>Say hi to someone
>They say hi back
>"LOL fuckin dumbass, you just got fuckin baited, stay mindless roachie"

Good, I would've banned you for playing a character without moral depth.

either
>No, I dont think thats a good idea
or
>Yea, thats fine
depending on the person and setting

...

He's probably got an Inspiration die as well. Bards, man.

Can't people just play well adjusted characters.

youtube.com/watch?v=e-0hgP1tNH8

I'd tell them to watch this then have a discussion about having an evil character without being an asshole and co-operating to make a good story together.

I am actually playing this character right, the other players seem to like him despite the headaches he causes, they also enjoy knocking him off his high horse

All these things might be a breath of fresh air among these chucklefucks. The party is profound empathetic and selfless, but so autistic that those traits actually backfire. If you're pragmatic, and I don't mean a cunt that just uses the word as a flimsy excuse, then there's no amount of evil you can accomplish that these dogooders haven't done already.

ok but the second the party inconveniences her she would leave. There is no reason for an evil character to stick alongside a good character. Even world ending scenarios are a longshot

My ire rises.

Unless the party's doing shit all that's important, there's plenty of reason for any character to stick around.

I've got a reply for evil characters.
But that's not what you wrote.

What you wrote is basically every PC character anyway. So my answer to that player would be a long unblinking stare followed by "Yeah. Sure."

But I make all my characters like this

Does it means I'm a girl irl?

Probably not.

>I'd like to spice this campaign up by giving our party a little internal conflict.
Fuck off edgelord, no. Make a character that gets along with the other PCs and quit being a faggot, in whatever order is more expedient.