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

>Maybe if i tell Veeky Forums jargon i'll make my argument valid and don't need to post actual reasoning. - The post.
Go ahead and explain why it would be less fun, i know you won't do it but it will be funny see you sperging.

i'm fine if interplayer conflicts come up in the game, but I wouldn't be cool with it if one of my players started out that way with the intention of causing problems.
Hell, my last campain ended up being a comedy of errors where there ended up being three factions of players rather than them all joining up. The wizard ended up suicide bombing. It was kinda funny.

/thread

He literally spelled it out for you. That you can't understand basic human interactions is your own problem, sperglord.

Because I don't play DnD so one player can be a shitlord who colludes with the DM to kill me for forced "drama" that nobody else is going to enjoy. Are you literally retarded?

>still no reasoning
priceless
i'll give you one more chance before i stop pity replying you
Who here said anything about it being DnD or me working with the player? If he wants to try and kill the party he's all on his own, same with the rest of the party, i don't take sides while GMing.

I partially, cautiously unsheathe my sword, showing that I am armed.

>Pity replying
>Not shitposting to keep your own shit thread going.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this after it's already been explained 3 times.

If you are intentionally allowing a player to make a character that is actively going to try to sabotage or otherwise be a negative influence on the type of campaign that everyone else wants to play, both you and the player are massive faggots. That you don't even have the basic self-awareness to see this is the truly pitiable part. In b4 another shitposting reply that only cements this complete lack of basic social functionality for the entirety of everyone who wasted their time reading your shit topic to begin with. It was a regrettable waste of time for everyone involved, as it usually is with you That Guys.

My players regularly fight and subvert each other in game from the day we started. Its a game and they are adults so it was never an issue. They are smart enough to be able to fight over stuff IC without it being a fight to the death. And also smart enough to not carry a thatguy tier grudge because they lost some hit points to another player.

Not to mention its what real people do, the alignment OP is describing is essentially the default. And if you dedicate yourself to suspending it, you are getting grade school level role play. Have fun in the safebox never experiencing the pcs who don't like each other finally settling their differences to become the hardest of duos or the selfish one turning his shit around.

>I don't take sides while GMing.
Not taking sides is fine. Not giving your players basic direction for the tone and the feel of the campaign is a big problem, however. The GM is there to make sure everyone has fun together, not that one person has fun at the expense of everyone else at the table. You are there to make sure that DOESN'T happen. Someone has to be the adult in the room, and it's supposed to DM, because the alternative is leaving it to your players, and any of THEM who are actually adults are going to walk away and find better people to run games for them.

In WoD it is not uncommon for the entire party to end up like that. The internal conflicts or betrayal can lead to some really nice confrontations near the climax of the chronicle. Somehow this has never prevented the party from working as a team most of the time, but I've been blessed with great players and storytellers, and that seems to be an exception.

>In b4 another shitposting reply that only cements this complete lack of basic social functionality for the entirety of everyone who wasted their time reading your shit topic to begin with.
>he said it one a taiwanise carpet forum
like i said in the post above, i don't take sides, he's free to try and do what he wants, same as the others.
if he wants to prepare a trap for the party go ahead, i won't stop him.
but so can the party search for clues to who did it, and i won't stop them either.
but please, post more jargon, maybe, just maybe you'll be right some day.
they have a direction, and who says they won't have fun? My favorite moment in playing was uncovering the plot to assassinate an emperor that we traced back to one of our party members.
like i said above, i'm not putting a clearly murderhobo player as a villian, it will be someone i personally testify as a good roleplayer. not that my players are murderhobos to begin with, a worse one the that always wants to play the girl character

And you (supposed) last reply was to move the goal posts and try to change your argument. Bravo. Glad you're (supposedly) done shit, err, I mean "pity"posting now. You can let your spam topic die now, thanks.

>57608014
>And you (supposed) last reply was to move the goal posts and try to change your argument
AHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA
4/10 droped the ball, no more (you)s mister

I had a player try this once
>party figured it out
>they fucking ganked him when he tried to do something evil
>he was legitimately surprised that they did this
He didn't come to subsequent sessions. Good players are hard to find when you're underway on an aircraft carrier.

Yeah, I don't understand why anyone would plan to betray the party and then become shocked when the party finds out and murders the shit out of them.

Just look at
It's not hard to understand that these retards actually exist.

if he is actually a good player, then sure, but he shouldn't be surprised when the party eventually kicks him out or murders him

>blames a role playing concept instead of a bad player.
Who's That Guy again?

>Poster count literally went from 12 to 13 when posted
>IT'S STILL THE SAME GUY! THERE'S NO WAY MULTIPLE PEOPLE COULD DISAGREE WITH ME!

Weren't you supposed to be done with the "pity" replies like a dozen posts ago?

My answer: Ask the other players, if they're all on board then we'll set down some guidelines for how this is going to work.

You can't directly kill the other party members ect... If even one other player isn't in favour then no, play something else.

Who said anything about samefagging?

They get the nope because they said they wanted internal conflict specifically.

You can play an avaricious character while also not bluntly declaring you want to cause discord. You can even be "ruthless, pragmatic and with a wicked sense of humour" if you want, but if yiu say you specifically want to be a dick who wants to cause discord, fuck the fuck off

Are they capable of forward thinking and possess interpersonal skills?

Are they able to actually understand that personal gain is often best and most easily achieved through the help of others?

Relating to the first. Are they able to convey this in a meaningful manner beyond trying to nickle and dime everything, betraying literally everybody and inevitably turning on the party? If their interests and the parties no Longer align are they capable of thanking the group and taking their leave so the player can re-roll?

if the answer to at lest two of these is yes, then let them play.
>t.NE player who actually understands how teamwork works

I mean I might allow it. But like I think the problem will almost definitely resolve itself. If it's just a selfish character then worse scenerio is him stashing some loot instead of sharing.
If he goes for "betray the party/join the bad guy muhahaha!!" I don't think it'll go super far in a lot of scenarios. The 4 others will roflstomp 1 dick fairly consistently, and most villains I run aren't chill with "you've killed chunks of my gang/cost me money/foiled my plans and now I'll reward you".
So like a lot of the potential issues aren't fatal, and if he's a good player than it can make better role play.
Of course that role play has to involve a reason why this group is hanging together after 5 minutes. Which if he's a shitter probably won't work out, but if he's worth something it might

Inter-party conflict doesn't remotely have to mean "we're going to come to blows" It can be as simple as jabbing the moralfag or refusing to listen to the cleric's preaching on the glory of good. If everyone else is heroic then the hired mercenary tracker will cause some minor conflict simply via clashing ideals

I say DUH! we -are- playing Vampire: the Masquerade being a ruthless self serving cunt is LITERALLY in the name of this thing.

on second thought yeah I'm agreeing with . Re reading the OP my "if he's a twat he can't do it" criteria has already been fulfilled by his initial question.

Yeah yeah, whatever, roll 3d6 down the line and get in the dungeon already.

Our campaign is the story of the party and what they did together. You can have whatever motivations you want, but it's your responsibility to come up with a reason that your interests align with the others for the foreseeable future. If you leave the party, your part in the story ends, and you'll need to either quit or reroll.

Sure, but they have to come up with a convincing persona to present to the rest of the team as to why they should be included, and also present to me a compelling personal reason for their character to undertake this ruse in the first place.

You can play the character you like, and it will be more interesting if you can pull it off, but there has to be a strong pull to enter that social contract so that there can be that uneasiness or feeling of potential betrayal.

Basically if you can't present a and rewarding character, you can't play a rewardingly complex character.

this

>Basically if you can't present a rewardingly complex character, you can't play a rewardingly complex character.
Fixed. I have no idea how that got posted.

Wait, there are actually people who would kick a player out of their group for that suggestion?

In a young group of people who just met, it might make sense for various reasons.

I wouldn't but if he played like a murderhobo he wouldn't play with us again anytime soon.

Good all social contract around the table: present the idea and concept to every over player, see if everyone is ok with the idea, and if no one has any objection, find another group.

More seriously, if everyone is ok and ready for what it implies, no problem. If anyone has any issue, don't. Simple as that.

Are you also going to ask every player if they are okay with every single encounter you might throw at them?

I sigh dejectedly, ask him not to, and then either,
>Look at whether the player has had a history with the group and let them do it, though probably plot some easy outs if he becomes a problem
>Decline his entry into the group because this is not how you make a good first impression

Does a agreement against murder around the table need to list every single specific way a murder could occur to be operative?
I trust other players to be able to manipulate broader-encompassing categories, with no loss of time for the minutiae.

Sure why not, don't come back whining when the other players want you out or kill your character because he was an asshole.
Be evil and have your own objectives as you wish but I still need you to work with the team to a minimum extent, fail to do that and you are out or have to make a better character

But you tired

This bait is really getting old

What is a gradual but inevitable betrayal like?

Why bump a thread you acknowledge as bait?

Depends really.
Agreed beforehand, a game of political backstabbing where every player can and will at some point dick with the others can be good fun if everyone involved knows to behave (given how even just some games of Diplomacy can go, that remains a big if).
Just don't lie to others and say or even just let linger the implication that this going to be a coop group thing before things start though.

Because people who are baiting unintentionally might learn to stop, and ask their questions more fruitfully.

i just asked you a question, no need to to be passive aggressive on me.

You asked someone else the question, I'm just answering it straight. Don't project your passive aggressiveness on me.

>He thinks every post is a bump
How new are you exactly?

If you're sensible and sort threads according to last post rather than bump order, every post is a bump.

>he doesn't sort by last post
Newfags get out ree

This character your're describing is my brother. and what i said was

>sure man

And no one has had a problem with it since.

I roll my eyes and remember how this went the last 5 times, and make sure to encourage all the other players to enact their grand keikekus as well.
If you're all gonna play murderhobo's, why should murderhobo's of other PC's behind each other's backs be any different? Teach yourselves the lesson not to pull that shit.

Why would you do this, youngling?

Tell me if im that guy

>playing wizard
>Fighter is always late to session
>at least 20 mins some times an hour
>never seems to care
>im by far the most upset about it every time
>we save some caravaners from a band of drow
>they reward our party
>tell fighter he should give the rest of the party equal share of his reward (took 2 sessions for small sub quest)
>says no
>Sleep.exe
>take the gold he just recived
>hand it out to the rest of party
>only one other guy didnt want it
>fighter wants to fight me now
>magic missle him into swiss cheese
>he soon quit coming to DnD night

I know there was no in game reason for my actions but im not going to fuck around the once a month i get to play.

Autism speaks.

Yes, you are.

>How do you react?
"Josh, your idea of 'roleplaying' is saying 'I hit him with my axe' in character every time you attack, and you think you can manage to be likable enough to not have your character backstabbed anytime you talk?"

Nah, if his story actually happened as he says then he doesn't really qualify. Anyone who screams "FITE ME BITCH" and then doesn't like the outcome has everything coming.

>Sit down to play a cooperative tabletop RPG where the premise is PvE with roleplay elements.
>"Hey guiz, ya no what'd be cool, if I let the team fucktard turn the game into PvP, especially in a game where characters aren't balanced around PvP so it just ends up as an errant clusterfuck where nobody gets shit done.

The fact that they explicitely said internal conflict is a red flag.

If they just said "can i be evil" i'd be like "k"

This sounds like someone who wants to sabotage

...

i never have to deal with this because my whole group plays it like an elder scrolls game. i see a guy with a cool hat, i plan a murder.

>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?

"No, I don't allow that at my table. Be a team player both in-game and out-of-game, or find another group."

>her character
>her
Kick immediately

>>still no reasoning
otay, Gruk tell you rizoning.
If you say "yes", other players will likely not enjoy gaem, and only traitor-guy will have fun.

You can have inter-party conflict without being "evil" or "pragmatic (see: evil)". Vetoed.

Literally every character in my home game is a self-involved, opportunistic, impulsive murderer. So I'd say: "Welcome to the club"

Also; my games are awesome

I've DMd a game where this worked out pretty well. These other autists either don't know how to play a game right or never played with a cohesive group where the person in question isn't a That Guy.

>first time playing tabletop
>pathfinder with a group of friends
>edgy one plays character like that
>immediately pickpockets my bonded item upon introduction
>fail my perception check
>they run away and throw it in the trash in a large city
>my character wouldn't know where to find it
>basically helpless for a session and a half, including two combats, until DM Deus Ex Machinas it back to me

Team sabotage adds nothing but tedium. Fuck these people.

You are allowed to think and do whatever you like. Be aware that I will not be concerned if they kill your stupid ass for doing it, and that they are not stupid or complacent. Be it on your own head for choosing this foolish route when there are many other less deadly routes to take..

This, and warn them not to try anything retarded

Your DM could've prevented the whole thing by ruling that you noticed the pickpocketing.

Why do you reduce both your position and your targets to such 2-dimensionality? Don't you have any self-respect? Basically instead of having an interesting, fruitful conversation about it you'd rather look like a moron.

True, but he decided to have us roll off for it, which was his general preference. I think he was worried about favoritism. Sleight of Hand vs. Perception to see if it was noticed, and I didn't have nearly as many skill ranks creating a large difference, so I specifically didn't get to notice it until i tried casting something.

I don't even know why you're asking? The entire party's played nothing but money-grubbing mercenaries every other campaign we've ever played, so uh, good luck with the whole 'doing something new', user.

I tell every one of my players that I want them, and only them, to run someone with a hidden ruthless pragmatic side that only comes out at the most opportune moment.

Then I play the game and eagerly await the fireworks.

Much like how it's no fun being the only sober guy at a party, it's no fun being the only evil guy in a party. But it can be a lot of fun if everyone is secretly evil. That could lead to some great roleplaying, where each of them slowly - or very abruptly - realizes the others are pragmatic and ruthless too, and start to adjust to some kind of begrudging mutual interest rather than genuine helpfulness.

Sorry, this isn't enough.

There are two things to remember when you're begging to play a character: one is to try and entertain the one holding the rocks above your head and the other is to give that players... Mmm. A convincing reason why they shouldn't kill you. But you haven't managed to do either one of those things. So let's hear it!!

What obligation do you have to play an Evil character anyway?

I'd say great idea, but another player already had it. They'll be the secret evil one this time out, and you'll be a good guy. You can play the evil one next time. See how they react to that...

>I'm thinking about playing a more ruthless, pragmatic and perhaps even evil character than the rest of the group.
The group is already filled with pragmatics, stop being that faggot.
>You know, someone motivated primarily by personal gain, rather than any loyalty to the rest of the team or whatever employer they might serve.
This is why Greedy is not allowed in my campaign.

I'd ask the rest of the players. They are the ones who are going to have to work with the asshole.

Oh but we already have one, he rolls a new char every session.

You can play an evil char, and the party also CAN murder/abandon/mutilate you.

Planned problems are not somehow better than unplanned ones. If party conflict arises as a result of well written characters who just so happen to have ideological differences, thats fine, but making party conflict your mission statement is cheating yourself out of the full range of game experiences.

First of all, I would never allow women in my group.

Second, I wouldn't allow any player to play anything but realistic characters with realistic goals and approaches to life. Good or Evil is bullshit. You'll do what you have to do to survive or reach your goals.

Did I strike a nerve?

>This whole thread
Why is it that Veeky Forums cannot understand that alignment is a spectrum? Not every "evil" or "selfish" character is going to crank the money grubbing up to 11 or attempt to kill the party. Evil need not be stupid. So why do you insist that it is and then ask your imaginary players to present a thesis on their ideology and goals when Jonny the farmhand-turned fighter is A-OK?

I've played an evil character, it worked with the party because a burden shared is a burden halved. Fuck I'm playing something chaotic evil in my current game, and guess what? He's not tried to murder the party or run completely counter to it. It's not hard
>Why join the party?
Because they accepted my character's approach and he's usful
>Why stay?
Money and murder. Excitement and Entertainment
>Whats stopping them from killing you?
Nothing. They simply have not considered that fight a better option then trying to steer me

I'm actually mad, I've taken the bait. Tell me Veeky Forums Tell me how I'm wrong, lieing, a normie or somehow Not doing it right

I've had a lot of players be evil or selfish. I've had the party convert them to being good and I've also had the party kill them. I'm sorry if you can't understand having a multi-faceted character who is more than two dimensional.

Ever had the party just fucking WORK? Ever had the group come to a compromise if the moralfags can't handle a different worldview?

You're not, but people here will say so thanks to their 0 hours of tabletop experience

I tell him that he can play an evil character as long as their interests align with the group. If he's going to be some sort of brooding lone wolf who would betray the party in a heartbeat, he can fuck off.