Players Have Say, DM Should Too

[Kajhera]

Tangent: Yeah that's why I can only play Lawful Above Good and Evil very well when I play Evil.

I need a morality that makes sense guiding me, even if it's terrible and twisted and will throw the world into a dystopia if I have too much success pursuing it.

The main appeal of Evil for me is a ruthless practicality in pursuing goals that actually have an idealistic bent to them ... albeit that might be being convinced everyone would be better off as a lemure in Malbolge, and trying to save them from salvation ... the lack of normal moral compass just makes so much more possible in the means.

[veekie]

Well, Evil characters are still people, so if I ever run an Evil game I'd be sure they have actual goals, attachments and things they care about. Unless you're caricature evil like a demon, theres no reason why you can't be evil and still be a functional human being. Most of the time you just see Evil = Sociopath.

[kevin video]

Most of the time you just see Evil = Sociopath.

Well that's because that's what CE and NE usually are.

[caelic]

Good points.  The thing a lot of players overlook is that, in general, even evil people want a lot of the same things the rest of us want.  They want a comfortable place to live, they want a certain amount of security, they want to eat their dinner without getting poisoned.

They just aren't squeamish about how they get those things.

In general, I think (and there are exceptions) most evil people would prefer to live in a basically-good civilization, if for no other reason than that it means less competition.

Likewise, an evil character who ISN'T a moron isn't going to casually screw over the people who are going to be standing watch while he or she sleeps.  If there's great PROFIT to be had from betraying an ally, sure--but being evil doesn't mean not being able to do basic math and say,  "The paladin has five buddies, and I have none.  I'm going to get my butt kicked."

[oslecamo]

In general, I think (and there are exceptions) most evil people would prefer to live in a basically-good civilization, if for no other reason than that it means less competition.

On the other hand, the good people are much less likely to close their eyes when the evil dude goes around being evil. In evil society, you're a tree in a forest so you can probably get away with more stuff like those rape orgies and children breakfasts. Heck, they may even be "legal" by the local law!

[veekie]

Good points.  The thing a lot of players overlook is that, in general, even evil people want a lot of the same things the rest of us want.  They want a comfortable place to live, they want a certain amount of security, they want to eat their dinner without getting poisoned.

They just aren't squeamish about how they get those things.

In general, I think (and there are exceptions) most evil people would prefer to live in a basically-good civilization, if for no other reason than that it means less competition.

Likewise, an evil character who ISN'T a moron isn't going to casually screw over the people who are going to be standing watch while he or she sleeps.  If there's great PROFIT to be had from betraying an ally, sure--but being evil doesn't mean not being able to do basic math and say,  "The paladin has five buddies, and I have none.  I'm going to get my butt kicked."

Basically yes.
A basically altruistic society is more likely to step in and intervene when you're harming innocents in pursuit of your goal, however, if you keep a low profile, its superior to other societies, since only overtly evil ACTS are dealt with.
A basicially evil society is more likely to have someone just fuck you over for their own benefit, you'd have to be on watch more of the time.

What you probably want is a lawful neutral society, where as long as you follow the law nobody really cares if you're a jerk.

Evil characters in parties would be tied by bonds of loyalty and friendship, just like anyone else. Sure they'd screw over the party if its to their benefit, but it'd have to be a pretty large benefit compared to the unquestioning support and trust of the others. Instead, they'd more likely turn their malice outwards, where they can get away with it.

Murdering shop owners and taking their stuff for example, is not generally something you'd easily get away with. Said people are well armed(so its dangerous), well connected and regularly supply violent individuals with gear, who would not be pleased at all that their special commissions just got smashed with their favorite shop.

Evil games probably do best when the evil characters aren't near the top dog of the setting. Powerful evil characters ride roughshod over their lessers, because they can get away with it, and can profit by it.

[Libertad]

I think that the problem with evil PCs is that some players get into certain activities a little too much, or believe that the "it's just a game!" is an excuse.

The thing is that on some level, we want to care for protagonists, even if they're bad guys.  Good movies, books, and games with villainous protagonists can pull it off because the main character has some redeeming qualities.  The Sopranos worked because we got to see the gangster's human sides.

But this is D&D, where the prime focus on the game is dungeon exploration and combat.  Unless you create in-game incentives for PCs to have an active social life and help out friends and family, then you'll get many characters who are blank slates with no backstory.

So we get players who create evil characters with no redeeming qualities and are little more than vehicles for wretched personal fantasies; in a piece of fiction, they would come off as totally unlikable.  Having characters get into graphic description of rape and torture, and the players enjoy it, can really put a damper on the fun and enjoyment of everybody else.  Some gamers may think that there's something wrong in the head with these players.

Let me put it this way: the PCs are technically the main characters of the story and world in a game.  Some stuff can cross a lot of people's comfort levels.  Kevin Video's comfort level in his last advice thread was crossed because stuff like that happened too often and these events became emphasized too much in the game.

If you must have evil characters, create an incentive for them to not be sickos.  They have to have redeeming qualities and compelling goals, and they must never, EVER, cross the Moral Event Horizon!

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoralEventHorizon

[nijineko]

nice comments.

[Libertad]

nice comments.

And yet my Recognition still remains at a 2 as of this posting.

I think that on some level many of us want to go all out, when we deal with repressive events of every-day life.

I think that psycho players are the result of many factors: a way of giving the middle finger to perceived tyranny of the DM, the belief that tabletop RPGs are a safe environment to have players engage in anti-social activities without real-world consequences, and because many players think that "evil is cool and gets all the nice stuff."

The "No Evil PCs" isn't just a common houserule; it's also an attempt to avoid potential campaign-wreckers.

[kevin video]

The "No Evil PCs" isn't just a common houserule; it's also an attempt to avoid potential campaign-wreckers.

Hence why if they do pull that crap on me next cycle, despite me saying not to in my rules, the world means nothing to me, and they'll all end up in a horrible way that'll be far worse than death.

[BrianTheBrain]

I always use this thought experiment when questions arise about the good-evil axis: imagine your character some how came to life in the real world. If the acted as you describe them to act, how would you expect the media to view them. If they are seen as general boons to society, with only a few detractors calling them the antichrist, then they would be good. If they are controversial, with some saying they're actions are extreme while others say they're justified, they would be neutral. If they would be considered monsters, they're evil. Try sitting down with each player and asking "do you really believe that your 'burn people to watch them burn'/'bomb builder who explodes others on purpose'/'guy who injures people who disagree with him' character would be seen as anything other than a monster?"
Also good on you for putting something to a vote. I despise DMs who railroad right out of the gate. It just making the players observers of your story rather than fellow storytellers. When you force your players to do something they don't want to do, no one has fun, not even you.

[kevin video]

"do you really believe that your 'burn people to watch them burn'/'bomb builder who explodes others on purpose'/'guy who injures people who disagree with him' character would be seen as anything other than a monster?"

Oh I can answer that easily for you, on their behalf. "Nope. I'm a monster. Now what are you going to do about it? Send people after me? Good. I'll kill them, burn them, torture them, and bomb them too. Then you'll give me xp. Then you'll do it again, and again, and again, and I'll become a god. What are you going to do then? That's right, nothing. Because I'm better than anyone on your world. Bring in celestials and demons, I don't care. They'll be worth even more xp. I say bring it on. I like leveling up every session. And if you somehow manage to kill this character, I'll make another one just like it. We all will. And you don't like it, there's the door because this is my place and there are five players to one DM. One of us can fill the role easily. We've all had experience. We can all make throw away worlds to obliterate with our god powers. Make your move."

[veekie]

Theres a very strong temptation to unleash some Gygaxian Naturalism on them with massively over-CR'ed encounters upon hearing that.

[Halinn]

Send enemies with too high or low CR to grant them any experience. Template excessively if that is what's required to get there.

[darqueseid]

First off,
As DM you set the campaign world thats true, but you want to make a world that is enjoyable to your players.  Giving some leniency about characters and what they create is good, but the best way to deal with players that want to play evil is to talk to them like they are adults and let them know that evil will face serious disadvantages in the coming campaign(just let them know they will spend most of thier formative levels in jail or get hanged and they'll get the picture).  Most people don't want to run an evil character in a good campaign.

Second, and perhaps on an opposite note, I think you should run an evil campaign.  I ran my group through an evil campaign with the setup that we had been playing in a particular created campaign world for years and everyone was ready for a change.  It was a collaborative world that each of the people who DM'ed had fleshed out a particular area etc.   Eventually, the 3 DM's in the group felt that we just didn't have anywhere else to go with this world and decided to get rid of it.  So we had our players create evil characters with a "4 horsemen of the apocalypse" theme and actually had some good roleplay.
I should mention that there was a significant amount of intervention by powerful evil deities and the group only went from 1-10th level before we  destroyed the world and moved on to a new campaign.  I feel we spent a good amount of time exploring the dark side though, and I actually found DMing an evil campaign around the same difficulty as DMing a neutral party.  A DM doesn't need any lofty motivations for evil characters, simply something that offers more power, or something evil and more powerful than them (of a kind that character likes) is usually enough. 
The point is, I gained some significant experience as a DM in knowing how to handle evil characters, and it helped me work with one-off evil concepts in future games. 
So now I don't balk if a singular character wants to be LE or even CE in a good campaign, there are ways to make it work.   Of course the party majority has to be in line with a particular concept, evil or good, depending on the campaign, so one-offs yes, but majority evil with a good setup doesn't work.  Thats why you have to let players know that the alignments they are picking will not work..

 PS.  Allowing my group to play evil, made them miss good.  The next game we ran there were no neutral or evil characters, people will come to miss being good, despite themselves

[caelic]

Oh I can answer that easily for you, on their behalf. "Nope. I'm a monster. Now what are you going to do about it? Send people after me? Good. I'll kill them, burn them, torture them, and bomb them too. Then you'll give me xp. Then you'll do it again, and again, and again, and I'll become a god. What are you going to do then? That's right, nothing. Because I'm better than anyone on your world. Bring in celestials and demons, I don't care. They'll be worth even more xp. I say bring it on. I like leveling up every session. And if you somehow manage to kill this character, I'll make another one just like it. We all will. And you don't like it, there's the door because this is my place and there are five players to one DM. One of us can fill the role easily. We've all had experience. We can all make throw away worlds to obliterate with our god powers. Make your move."

May I ask why you hang out with these people, if that's their attitude?  Seriously--if I want that kind of abuse, I'll take a part-time job at McDonald's.

[Ziegander]

Oh I can answer that easily for you, on their behalf. "Nope. I'm a monster. Now what are you going to do about it? Send people after me? Good. I'll kill them, burn them, torture them, and bomb them too. Then you'll give me xp. Then you'll do it again, and again, and again, and I'll become a god. What are you going to do then? That's right, nothing. Because I'm better than anyone on your world. Bring in celestials and demons, I don't care. They'll be worth even more xp. I say bring it on. I like leveling up every session. And if you somehow manage to kill this character, I'll make another one just like it. We all will. And you don't like it, there's the door because this is my place and there are five players to one DM. One of us can fill the role easily. We've all had experience. We can all make throw away worlds to obliterate with our god powers. Make your move."

May I ask why you hang out with these people, if that's their attitude?  Seriously--if I want that kind of abuse, I'll take a part-time job at McDonald's.

lol, my thoughts exactly. Screw D&D at this point. Do you honestly need to play the game so much that you're willing to play it with completely incompetent overgrown children that make the game absolutely unfun for you? That doesn't even sound healthy.

[Vasja]

Oh I can answer that easily for you, on their behalf. "Nope. I'm a monster. Now what are you going to do about it? Send people after me? Good. I'll kill them, burn them, torture them, and bomb them too. Then you'll give me xp. Then you'll do it again, and again, and again, and I'll become a god. What are you going to do then? That's right, nothing. Because I'm better than anyone on your world. Bring in celestials and demons, I don't care. They'll be worth even more xp. I say bring it on. I like leveling up every session. And if you somehow manage to kill this character, I'll make another one just like it. We all will. And you don't like it, there's the door because this is my place and there are five players to one DM. One of us can fill the role easily. We've all had experience. We can all make throw away worlds to obliterate with our god powers. Make your move."

May I ask why you hang out with these people, if that's their attitude?  Seriously--if I want that kind of abuse, I'll take a part-time job at McDonald's.

+1. What the heck kind of attitude towards playing is that?

[kevin video]

May I ask why you hang out with these people, if that's their attitude?

Probably because that wasn't their attitude when we started this. They were just grateful to get a game to play. Then it snowballed into this. It was like the ability to roll dice again corrupted and twisted them into hideous creatures.

[caelic]

If they're not good friends of yours, I'd walk away, personally.

If they're good friends, to be honest, I'd still walk away...after explaining that you don't really enjoy the kind of game they're demanding, and you'd rather not let it get in the way of the friendship.

That's just me, though.  I don't subscribe to the "Better bad gaming than no gaming" school of thought, and I definitely don't subscribe to the "DM is the employee and the players are the bosses" school of thought.