Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Mr. Bludgeon 10-18-04, 07:16 PM	I am DMing for five people, but I have problem, one of those people wants to be a pacifistic chaotic neutral character, and the other wants to be a lawful evil drow ranger. I don't want to restrict them by forcing them to all be good or neutral, but the other three are good, and the pacifist chaotic evil guy just doesn't seem to work. How will I get the Drizzt clone to not be a Drizzt clone. I also want to make this fun for the players, but the two evil characters have not played before. Also, some of my campaign will create a lot of contreversy between the characters. Can anyone help me out here?
astute1 10-18-04, 07:26 PM	Wait, a chaotic neutral pacifist or chaotic evil pacifist? I think a chaotic neutral pacifist might be a fun character, although not really useful in combat. Perhaps he only fights to defend himself? I'm thinking like Cadderly from the Cleric Quintet. I think Chaotic Evil is impossible for a pacifist - a chaotic evil character will commit violent acts just out of nature. I'm sure some people will disagree with me here. As far as a Lawful Evil Drow (or an Evil pacifist) - just let him know that you don't want any Evil characters. They can switch their alignment or roll up new guys. End of story.
Antigone 10-18-04, 07:45 PM	Why don't you want to restrict the players? I'm probably in the minority on this, but I have flat-out forbidden evil characters. If somebody wants to play an evil character that badly, they can go find another DM. I'm just not interested in running a game in which the characters kill and maim innocents or get their jollies in unwholesome ways. And if they're not doing that sort of thing, then why are they "evil?" And having one evil character in a party full of good characters is even worse. I say, decide what you want to run and tell the players to come up with characters that fit that campaign. They'll still have lots of room for creativity and self-actualization, everything will run much more smoothly, and everyone will have more fun in the long run. As for the Drizzt clone, while I can't abide Drizzt, I'd let him do it -- just warn him that, unlike Drizzt, Salvatore won't be there to deus ex machina him out of all his scrapes.
Hero of Sshamath 10-18-04, 07:59 PM	If you don't want any evil PC's in your campaign...I guess I can understand the logic behind that...but on the other hand, I allow them. I just have PC's that understand that having an evil alignment doesn't mean you can kill everything in sight just because you're evil...Like in real life there are ramifications to all actions...good and evil...if most of your party is on the good end of good and evil...they may attempt to apprehend and bring the evil PC to justice if he's overtly evil in their presence...or worse yet, a group of rangers paladins and clerics may hunt the party down for a "frontier justice" extermination party... I will close with saying that honestly for fairly new PC's and DM's the restriction on alignment may be a good idea...It can be a huge hassle...but with a good role-playing group and a DM with alot of forsight it can be really fun and rewarding. :D
General Dorsey 10-19-04, 12:26 AM	In my games there are three things I do not allow at all, no debate. 1) Evil PCs. Too many people think it gives them license to screw up the game. To avoid it, and allow the PCs to be heroes, I disallow it. 2) Kender PCs. Too many people think it gives them license to screw up the game. To avoid it, and allow the PCs to be heroes, I disallow it. 3) Drow PCs. I have seen too many Drizzt clones. I have seen too many articles and adventures dealing with drow. I am sick of them. The yuan-ti are getting that way now and will be hitting my list soon. You aren't restricting your players by telling them that they can't be a couple things. You are placing requirements on PCs. You don't consider them starting at a certain level a restriction, why a particular alignment or race. If they are truly creative, then they can work within the structure of the game as you have it set up. If not, then they can learn.
Mr. Bludgeon 10-19-04, 09:40 AM	thanks for the help, I'll restrict them from being evil, and I'll get rid of the drizzt clone, it is over used, and quite powerful.
Adraedan 10-19-04, 11:24 AM	Read the back of the BoVD, the little blurb on evil characters in good parties, specifically the anti-hero part. An evil character CAN be good, but it requires a kind of subjective view of good and evil. Example, The Crow, easily can be seen as a CG character with a bit of a violent streak. But you could also think of him as NE or even LE. He takes his revenge on those who wronged him in very painful and evil ways, but those people just happen to also be evil. LE is the easist alignment to play for an Anti-hero, you have a code of honor (no children, no women, no innocents, no betraying friends) but when you do get in a fight, or capture a POW, you're the first one to torture him for information, the first one to crucify your enemies, you're just an evil badass working on the side of good.
timotheus_k 10-19-04, 11:41 PM	They can switch their alignment or roll up new guys. End of story. WORD. UP. You know, it might seem like by restricting the two guys you are going to make it less fun, but I can almost promise you that is the opposite of the truth. The worst that you can let them go is true neutral. Period. And they had better get a hell of a back story cooking as to why they don't give a damn and are still adventuring. Most folks do this so that they can be that attention center of the party, and it only gets worse. Also, If the said characters are brash or selfish in combat, make sure that your 'Good Alligned' characters, or other neutral characters pay no mind to their safety and well being. Make sure they realize that the party will not be their Lawful Good Doormats, but instead that lawful good recognizes that Evil or neutrality should not be rewarded, Party members or not.
ganda1f 10-19-04, 11:45 PM	I guess I'm currently blessed by players who, when they play evil characters, don't assume it gives them license to be Hannibal Lector. Nor do they assume that their characters enjoy killing, death, and mutilation just because they've got an 'E' on their sheet. That said, I have run some games in the past where players *do* assume that Evil equals insanely psychotic killsprees, but after their characters are hunted down and killed by an NPC Adventuring party they soon see the errors of their ways. If Player Characters can hunt down villains, there is no reason why an equally (or more) powerful NPC group can't do the same if a player is slaughtering innocents. Especially since in D&D the dead can speak ...
Arcen 10-20-04, 12:33 AM	With them being first time players I would disallow it. Maybe with more experience someone could play an evil character hiding amoung good. (Maybe a Raistlin type character).
ermedic 10-20-04, 08:50 PM	I also tend not to allow evil PCs unless the player has a really good background that explains his morality. Also, if I allow the character, they have a few restrictions: 1) NO psychotic baby killers 2) no stealing or keeping trasure from other PCs (lets face it, this kind of roleplaying simply causes disention among the players) 3) no plotting against, threatening or attacking other PCs (same reason as #2) They can still do good things, just not for the right reason or in the best way. One easy way to adress the Drizzt clone is to start with 1st or 2nd level characters (Which I would suggest if you have new players anyway). Drow have a level adjustment of +2 making it impossible to use the race.
Mr. Bludgeon 10-20-04, 10:37 PM	the one who wanted to be a chaotic evil pacifist wanted to be evil so bad that he decided not to play, and the drizzt clone is an elven ranger (chaotic good), who will take archery. I have some...interesting characters, but everything worked out, the CE pacifist probably would have screwed up my campaign, or would have attempted to do so. So everything ended up working out, thanks for the advice.