Post/Author/DateTime	Post
TheChilliGod 03-25-05, 04:55 PM	I'm not quite sure on how to go about this problem. I've just finished making the starting points for my first campaign. Nearly everybody playing is going to have it be their first go. It's my first shot at DM'ing (not PC'ing, tho) and for 3/4 other characters it's the first time doing any sort of RPG like this. The other character is the only experienced one. (She was going to be the DM but made me DM instead) It's a 3rd lvl game, if you need that. Now the problem. One character (Wizard) is Chaotic Evil, inside and outside game. He wants to cause widespread death and destruction. Another is a Paladin. (LG, of course) The third is a Neutral Ranger and the last a NE (Drow, though nobody knows it) Cleric. (there may be a rogue but it hasn't been confirmed yet.) The Ranger guy says to me just after we finish character design that if he is annoyed for any reason, he'll kill whoever annoyed him with alchemist's fire, (he thinks it can kill anything, poor guy.) which is extremely un-neutral. The Wizard's player says that he'll do everything he can to kill anybody, especially do-gooders, which the Paladin is, and killing the Paladin will upset the Ranger. The Paladin's player doesn't want to be a part in this quarrel at all and the Cleric's player (the experienced one) isn't going to say a word about this to me, leaving it all to a first-timer DM (me). She isn't giving me any advice, and I get threats of quitting if I change anything, especially what the PC's can and can't do (which I don't know I want to do anyway) so what should I do? So far, I've got, 'keeping Wizard under some sort of geas by the Paladin and hope no backstabbings happen,' which isn't very assuring. Suggestions, anyone? Oh, the game hasn't even started yet, we've only got filled-out PC sheets at the moment.
Drachasor 03-25-05, 04:59 PM	That party can't work. For one, the Paladin can't adventure with evil characters; he'll lose his status. For another, the party is all over the place with alignments and motivations...did they not get together to decide what kind of party and campaign to have? You are going to have to put your foot down...probably best to have everyone make new characters together. -Drachasor
Plastik 03-25-05, 05:00 PM	Give 'em cheap Alchemist's Fire and let them at it. They'll learn that PCK is not the way to go, in that they'll all end up dead. And if one lives, have him come upon a ranger in combat. Hey, he shot an arrow! Hey, it hit your bag! Hey, it burst a bottle of Alchemist's Fire! Hey, you're dead!
Abulafia 03-25-05, 05:01 PM	As a first-time DM, you should not be trying to run a game with a bunch of contrary-alignment characters and psychotic players. Stop this right now, and put some sort of alignment (i.e., no evil) or conduct (i.e., no random PKing) rule into place. No justification necessary -- just say this is your first game and you don't need that kind of crap. Evil games and player-conflict games have their place, but not when you're trying to figure out how to work the CR tables.
CzarGarrett 03-25-05, 05:01 PM	As DM it is entirely within your power to say that no one can play Evil alignments. I suggest you do that, especially as a first time DM. A Paladin with any sort of evil characters is asking for problems. A Chaotic Evil character moreso than normal. Best course of action: Talk to the players with the CE Wizard and NE Cleric. Tell them to make a bit of a change and go for at least neutral characters, if not good. If you're willing to take a risk down the road, promise them that you'll try to run an evil campaign at a later point, once you get some experience with DMing. If the players are unwilling to compromise and play good characters now in exchange for evil ones later, then boot them. Their insistance on being evil characters will destroy the game before it starts.
VirgilCaine 03-25-05, 05:03 PM	I would have suggested first level PCs for first-timers... ...but you have bigger problems. You can either A) Let the rest of the campaign world (guards, good NPC adventurers in the same/nearby Inn, or Gods forbid, Angry Mobs of commoners, activated militia units, and Thieve's Guild hunting parties, etc.) back up the Paladin and help him stay alive against his "newfound companions." Or B) Ask each player, individually, why they want to spread death and destruction. Ask them if they could play a good character or at least a true-to-alignment Neutral one. BTW, you DID specify Good alignments only, right? Or you could just take the Paladin player and try and find a new group that doesn't want to play Grand Theft Auto Public Rampage Mode in D&D. And if one lives, have him come upon a ranger in combat. Hey, he shot an arrow! Hey, it hit your bag! Hey, it burst a bottle of Alchemist's Fire! Hey, you're dead! ROFL.
adnauseum 03-25-05, 05:13 PM	Seems to me the only player not striving to be a completely troublesome influence is the paladin. That being said, he's the guy you want to play with, not the 'kill everything I come across wizard' and certainly not the 'hey I'm aware it's your first stint as DM, so I'll not only refuse to help you, but I'll play a contrary alignment just to watch you fail' former DM turned player. The latter person in particular should know better. Being that it's your first time, it will be alot easier if everyone plays good characters. Evil characters can ONLY be played by a mature game group. Immature players (which you seem to be surrounded by) cannot portray an evil party effectively, and it will reach critical mass game one. If they choose to walk because you want to do things right, so be it, let them walk. Trust me, you'll be much better off than trying to babysit the whining, pouting melee that will ensue with that group of characters.
Lord_Anthrax 03-25-05, 05:18 PM	Let them go at each other, then have some Great Wyrm Dragon show up and eat the winner. Then see if they'll create a group of characters that will get along and work together. If not, find a new group. Good luck to you, friend.
ShadowDragon8685 03-25-05, 05:20 PM	Boot Mr. Psychopath, completely. Tell the ranger he's an idiot, and that Alchemist's Fire sucks. Tell the ex-DM that she's gunning to watch you fail, and that she is also excused from the burden of playing. Take the Paladin and the Ranger, find a new group, enforce "Good Only" alignments, and work out some cheesy IC reason why any Evil actions or actions against the other party result in an instant GodSmack(TM).
Arrowhen 03-25-05, 05:21 PM	the Cleric's player (the experienced one) isn't going to say a word about this to me, leaving it all to a first-timer DM (me). She isn't giving me any advice, and I get threats of quitting if I change anything, especially what the PC's can and can't do (which I don't know I want to do anyway) so what should I do? You should double dog dare her to come on these boards and defend her actions. Seriously, what's she trying to do, ensure that your first game is so miserable for you that you'll never want to DM again?
adnauseum 03-25-05, 05:27 PM	Seriously, what's she trying to do, ensure that your first game is so miserable for you that you'll never want to DM again? That was what immediately came to my mind also. Either she's jealous that you will be DM, or you were such a pain in the south end in her game she means to pay you back. In either case, her apparent goal is to make your first DM experience horrible, and it shouldn't be that way. If you decide to proceed with this imminent disaster, I would advise bringing something non-game related to read. That way, when the stupidity starts, you can close your game books and retreat into something sensible. When they start asking you to adjudicate, simply point out that you are there to run your game, not referee a pen and paper demolition derby.
Tuneless Bard 03-25-05, 05:29 PM	I'll put my vote for let all heck break loose... start the campaign...have the paladin sneak attacked...have some hound archons come to the aid of thier devout worshiper....wipe the floor with the evil characters and then just say: "okey...anyone else want to do something evil?"
AramilWindwalker 03-25-05, 05:36 PM	Tell them to be sensible about their actions, especially since if they are 3rd level, then they(possibly) could have been traveling together already, so they couldn't have been the way they are. Or for a good plot twist right to start, drop them into the middle of a convention, a paladin convention(I can't take credit for this idea though). The evils will either be preached to or sliced to ribbons, they'll probably refer the ranger to a psychologist, and the pally will join the convention and do paladinish things(beats me what). Also talk to the experienced one and ask why she is doing this, and try to dissuade her from it, and tell the wizard that "rape, kill, pillage, and burn" is no way to live a life, fictional or otherwise, and tell the ranger that alchemist's fire does suck, except if you are bookburning, in which case it works quite well
Frostwind 03-25-05, 05:42 PM	I think it would be better for you to ask everybody to start again. If you don't, you'll end up with a bunch of friends now hating each other and even worse, they might not want to play DnD ever again. Even if the game is "in theory" about being able to do what you want, its even more about having fun. A TPK during the first session is not really what i would call fun... Just ask the player to create new PCs and tell them why you do that. They will certainly understand and create a workable party. If they don't... Well you have a big problem. Sometime after a couple of TPK, player understand that they should create a workable party. Again, if they don't... We can't do anything with it. It seems harsh, but i would recommand to find new player, along with the paladin and maybe the ranger.
Plastik 03-25-05, 05:57 PM	I figured out a better one. Stick them in the Temple of Pelor and have some Divine Wraith placed against them. -5 to Cha or something. Make them run a quest for Pelor to get the wraith nullified. But here's the catch: it's a quest for Pelor, so they have to kiss the Pelor Tome to start it. When the evil ones touch their lips to it, BOOOM! no more head. Also, have that ranger load up on Alchemist's Fire before he kisses the tome. As a neutral character, he'll be knocked on his ass. Upon being knocked on his ass, he'll crush his bag. The Fire will explode, burning away a good chunk of his pants, as well as his buttocks themselves. As a penalty, he can't sit for 2d6+2 days.
The Half-Orc Wizard 03-25-05, 06:21 PM	Running "evil" adventures always gives DMs trouble, even the most experienced ones. I once tried it as an inexperienced player. It lasted a few sessions, before my fellow player back-stabbed me, eventually leading to us both being caught (I won in the end, as i got him sentenced to 17 years in prison by lying that he used "black magic" to "control" me). Don't try it at least until every single player has plenty of experience, and the DM has run several campaigns. For you're current problem, though, you have to be firm. You may be tempted to let them try this, and although it has its merits and will lead to the players much deserved demise, it will only hurt everyone. The jerk cleric who won't help you will likely accuse you of "fixing" their failure. The wizard sounds like he would side with her, being an apparent idiot, as would the Ranger. The Paladin will be hurt that you let it happen. Everyone will be angry (they shouldn't be, but people are stupid). What I suggest is putting your foot down, but in a cool, collected way. Don't use your power as a dictator, but rather as a president. You are chosen to be the DM by the players, and they expect you to make the decisions. They don't want to be FORCED to do anything. Be persuasive, but, again, firm. Sit them down and say that there is no way this is going to work. Ask them to reconsider characters. Tell them how you feel. Don't be mean, just be firm. Hope I helped.
VirgilCaine 03-25-05, 06:39 PM	and the pally will join the convention and do paladinish things(beats me what). Feed crippled leper orphans, of course.
Raynard the Black 03-25-05, 06:43 PM	Occasionally you need to let the train-wreck occur! Clean up the pieces afterwards and start over. I've been there myself. I had a group of players that designed characters which had no business being together. Eventually their squabbling came to a head and the evil party members killed off the good members of the party, then turned on each other. Once the fight ended it made for a pretty anti-climactic an end to the campaign. Everyone decided to pick up the pieces, move on and make a more cooperative party of characters. If everyone is that bent on doing what they want this may be the only way to teach them that parties need to work together to survive. Good luck with your situation.
amethal 03-25-05, 06:57 PM	Occasionally you need to let the train-wreck occur! Clean up the pieces afterwards and start over. I've been there myself. I had a group of players that designed characters which had no business being together. Eventually their squabbling came to a head and the evil party members killed off the good members of the party, then turned on each other. Once the fight ended it made for a pretty anti-climactic an end to the campaign. Everyone decided to pick up the pieces, move on and make a more cooperative party of characters. If everyone is that bent on doing what they want this may be the only way to teach them that parties need to work together to survive. Good luck with your situation. I agree. Design your first campaign with original party disaster in mind - it shouldn't be too hard unless your story relies on the original 3rd level characters saving the world. Whoever dies can roll up new characters and re-join the group. If this doesn't appeal to you, explain to the players that they have lined themselves up for an interesting RPG experience, but not one that you feel comfortable DMing so they either need someone else to swap with you or more compatible characters. EDIT in the interests of fairness, I would make sure all the players are aware that intra-party conflict is a possibility, so that any "team players" don't get a nasty surprise.
Afarian 03-25-05, 07:30 PM	Wow!! All I can say is if you decide to give this campaign a shot, it will be without a doubt a terrible failure, although I think it will be quite amusing. Therefore I would the players play it out and see what happens just so you can get a good laugh and then tell everyone to play Good characters or nuetral IF they play Rational nuetral characters. So let me get this straight. The player who has a wizard has announced out of game that he wants to kill at least one of the party members. That results in the Ranger's Player saying he'll kill the wizard. The Paladin's player doesn't want to get involved in this OOC argument and the Cleric hasn't told anyone she's NE or Drow but won't help you at all!! That's INSANE, how the heck could the player's expect you to run any kind of adventure when everyone knows they are all going to try to kill each other! IN any case I think it would quite interesting to see how the fight goes (if you allow it) and let us know what happens. Also if you want the Paladin to win (which is probably what would happen since he's probably the only one who can keep his character), you could always send a little divine intervention to him, especially since he's obviously the innocent victim here!
Raynard the Black 03-25-05, 08:06 PM	I don't think that the DM needs to choose sides in this fight. Just act as referee. Make sure everyone is following the rules and see it to it's finish. I wouldn't place restrictions on what alignments the party can/should play. This just leads to resentment towards the DM and doesn't do anyone any good in the end. Sometimes you just need to let player's vent and eventually they will come to their senses and make cooperative party members again. Occasional restlessness creeps into every player at one time or another. You just need to work through it and move on. If however your players don't come around eventually and every adventure turns into a player versus player free for all, I suggest you take the gamers that have a similar view of playing with you and abandon the rest. You only really need 1 player and a DM to have a good time.
TheChilliGod 03-25-05, 08:27 PM	Gee, thanks for all of this support. I've given it a bit of thought... and I've decided to go with a combination of 'letting the fight happen, everybody dies by an ambush of what-ever' that most of you seem to suggest... possibly a ranger to explode the alchemist's fire as Plastik said, and then have them resurrected by clerics of Pelor and have them on some sort of geas, also Plastik's idea. (sort of) Better yet, the paladin's deity is Pelor so that could work in really well. Now I'm wondering if there's any problems with that... Ranger-He annoyed me, I shoot him again. Me-You killed him. Okay, now get your pencil. Ranger-What about it? Me-you see that word 'Neutral'? It's just above the Alignment line. Ranger-What about it? Me- put the pencil on the space after the 'L' in 'Neutral'... Ranger-Yes... Me-And write these four letters. E--V--I--L. Ranger-What?!? No fair! Me-Well, you seem to like killing your fellow adventurers for no apparent reason so... I was just correcting your character's true alignment. Ranger-But still... Me-Oh yes, and three elder bronze dragons the local militia appears, having heard sounds of illegal infighting. Anyone wanna roll initiative? That'd probably work. And only the cleric would be smug, Both she and I know this is going to happen, and I know she'd be neutral with the idea. Just so's you know, the cleric's player hasn't DM'ed before either, but she's PC'ed 10 times longer than I have, and she gave me DM's position because "I'd be more able to handle a group like this." We're all friends btw as well. I've also had a chat with the Wizard, I might be able to shift his alignment a bit, probably to Chaotic Neutral as far as I can go. I'll have to try talking to the Cleric too. Um, OOC talks & threats aside, is there anything maybe I could do to keep it like that? I just want to be prepared. Thanks in advance. :D
VirgilCaine 03-25-05, 08:33 PM	Um, OOC talks & threats aside, is there anything maybe I could do to keep it like that? I just want to be prepared. Thanks in advance. :D First of all, DON'T use dragons. Or anything obscenely powerful or very much above their CR. Adventurers and city watchmen, single NPCs a few levels above them, yes. Show them the reasonable consequences of their actions, not that you can make dragons appear from nowhere.
Jkol the Butcher 03-25-05, 08:47 PM	My thoughts would be to choose the path of least resistance. Ask the player with the paladin pc if they wouldn't mind creating an evil character instead, and offer to let them use the paladin in a later campaign that is good centred -- or to immortalize him/her as an npc in the current campaign. The fact is that a paladin is not going to work with this group and stay as a paladin for long! (Maybe that is the players intent) Other than that -- I suggest that you build a quest oriented upon obtaining an object of significant destructive power. The party is in a race against do-gooders and other groups of evil to discover it. The point being that they have a reason not to go around killing everyone, because law enforcement is only going to slow them down. Ideally, you would make it so that each party member has some need to keep the other party members around. I imagine that it is going to be a highly paranoid party -- and wiping each other out at some point is pretty much going to be a self fulfliling prophecy. But if you can give them a reason to stick together until the end and then let them cut loose in a no-holds barred backstabbathon over the ultimate artifact It will be a memorable selff fulfilling prophecy
Raynard the Black 03-25-05, 08:48 PM	I personally don't use a GEAS spell except under very unusual circumstances. Forcing players to do things with their characters that go against the way they want to play them is not good. It angers players and doesn't make things easy for the DM. They will start to feel railroaded and will intentionally start to make things harder for you as the game goes along. My suggestion remains as before. Let things run their course and see what happens.
Thelandrach 03-25-05, 08:56 PM	Tell them what you told us, that they're going to kill each other off, and the one reasonable PC can't adventure with two of the others. Point out also to the guy playing the Drow that there aren't that many races with black skin, white hair, and pointy ears... and that in case they didn't know, the Paladin can tell at a glance if somebody's evil. Then ask if they'd like to create a party that can work together, or not. If they say no, play it out. Carnage ensues. Once the party is dead or disbanded, say "Okay, time to create new characters. If you want to create characters that will kill each other off, you have five minutes. If you want to create a team that will work together, you can take as long as you'd like. The clock starts... now." If they choose the five minute option, have them kill each other off. Start the "campaign" with a bar fight. Then give them the choice again. And again. and again. and again. until the Get The Freaking Point.
TheChilliGod 03-25-05, 09:26 PM	I personally don't use a GEAS spell except under very unusual circumstances. Forcing players to do things with their characters that go against the way they want to play them is not good. It angers players and doesn't make things easy for the DM. They will start to feel railroaded and will intentionally start to make things harder for you as the game goes along. Maybe 'geas' was too harsh a word to use. I meant something more of a debt of life sort of thing, along with the hint that unpaid debts are always paid in one currency or another. Jkol the Butcher is a psychic. Becoming an ex-paladin is that guy's very objective, which is why I'm not so worried about alignment conflicts. And what Thelandrach may be the least straining solution, but it doesn't exactly save time. (which I desperately need, as a side note) But yes, a good talk may get them together after the first or second time they smash each other & restart, and any, "All I said was that if they **** me off, I 'fire' them," or "I'm still going to cause ultimate death," will have to be squished, right? ... Right?
Kalithor 03-25-05, 09:51 PM	nevermind... go with Thelandrach's suggestion
danielinthewolvesden 03-26-05, 04:32 AM	As DM it is entirely within your power to say that no one can play Evil alignments. I suggest you do that, especially as a first time DM. If the players are unwilling to compromise and play good characters now in exchange for evil ones later, then boot them. Their insistance on being evil characters will destroy the game before it starts. Ditto. And I also agree with VirgilCaine - start any new campaign- esp as a new DM- with starting PC's. Ok, maybe 2nd level.That's it. Look, it takes a very experience DM- and very mature Players- to have Evil (or even CN sometimes) PC's. You don't have either. There is no reason not to do as AramilWindwalker mentioned- set them up as a group of a "band of brothers" that have already been togther for a level, and thus they trust and like each other.
danielinthewolvesden 03-26-05, 04:34 AM	I think it would be better for you to ask everybody to start again. If you don't, you'll end up with a bunch of friends now hating each other and even worse, they might not want to play DnD ever again. Even if the game is "in theory" about being able to do what you want, its even more about having fun. A TPK during the first session is not really what i would call fun... On second thought- listen to this man. Do not let the train wreck even start. I have seen grudges carried over from PC to PC. There is no reason to even give this a tiny chance of happening.
Gekkepop 03-26-05, 05:39 AM	One character (Wizard) is Chaotic Evil, inside and outside game. He wants to cause widespread death and destruction. Wait, you said the wizard's players' goal is chaotic evil and wants to cause widespread death and destrucion OUTSIDE THE GAME? Report him to the authoruities and never go near him again. Then find a new player who isn't a hazard to your life.
Shandrakor 03-26-05, 07:44 AM	As a first-time DM, you should not be trying to run a game with a bunch of contrary-alignment characters and psychotic players. Stop this right now, and put some sort of alignment (i.e., no evil) or conduct (i.e., no random PKing) rule into place. No justification necessary -- just say this is your first game and you don't need that kind of crap. Evil games and player-conflict games have their place, but not when you're trying to figure out how to work the CR tables. He speaketh the truth. Raynard made a good point too -- let them slaughter each other mercilessly, and when the dust clears, have whoever's left (unless it's the paladin) arrested, marched off to jail, and executed for slaughter, mayhem, and disturbing the peace (Of mind, yours, the DM). That's if your players are mature; I usually classify this as having completed schooling and been in the real world for awhile. It sounds as if the concensus is that your players aren't all that could be hoped for. They'll grow into it; your job is to help them grow. The 'kill-5 min new char-kill-5 min new char' method is quite nice if the group's older; if we're talking mid teens or earlier, I'd go with the 'THOU SHALT BE GOOD' approach. Pelor didn't like them, and killed them (the uncooperative pcs) the moment they were conceived. I would encourage Floppy Fish all around. With a new group of players, I usually start them off with the classic 'Golden City' adventure. It was my first, and most folks seem to enjoy it. Nice and simple; keeps things moving and fun when they're trying to figure out what a d6 is.
TheChilliGod 03-26-05, 02:30 PM	So now I've got contradictory statements. One saying that I should be doing what I was planning on doing and one that says I should just stop it before all my friends turn on all my other friends. (we're all 'friends' OOC) I guess It all depends on how they'll take it. So, if I do the former, I may not have changed anything at all, because of, "Look, he killed me last time, I Fireball him!" If I do the latter, Most of the PC's (especially the wizard) will not like the idea and may fight me to protect their alignment. On the good side, stopping it before it starts will stop it before it starts, and teaching them a lesson will teach them a lesson better than stopping it before it starts. This is where it gets confusing. I thought that I had it sussed out, but now... :confused:
Alynn 03-26-05, 02:43 PM	Ok, first off, anyone that takes a character and they know they are going to be jerks, and therefore killing the other PC's, and takes the grudge over to the next PC, or worse, out of game, shouldn't be playing D&D to begin with. Next, I say let them go at it, the first evil thing anyone does will have the Palidin trying to take them in to the athorities, they will refuse to go peacefully, fighting ensues... reroll start over... Let them learn on their own
Frostwind 03-26-05, 02:44 PM	Simple choice, hey? :D If your friendship can take it and if you know they will be ready to play DnD again, go with the former. If your player will take it personnal and/or won't want to play DnD again, go with the second choice. Good luck with your game. Frostwind
FriendoftheDork 03-26-05, 04:09 PM	Many good points here, but I don't think it's a good idea to let the train rwreck, burned children fear fire, but that means they won't be riding the train any more. There are several ways to solve this. First of all, backstabbing or not, a paladin cannot adventure with evil people, so either the pally or the evil gyus have to change characters. Secondly, since this is not a mature group of any kind, you'd better off banning player killing right away. Tell them straight up that if they kill other PCs on purpose they won't be playing any more. Then gather all the players and ask them what kind of campaign they want, good, neutral or evil. Majority decides (it looks like this one is going evil), and no one may play an alignment more than one step away (no good in evil campaigns, and no chaotic in lawful campaigns. etc.). Remember you have veto right since you're the DM, so you can force the players somewhat. No DM=no game. Still, if there's a clear majority you should go with that if you can. No players=no game. Bottom line, you cannot please them all, so try to please as many as you can.
Raynard the Black 04-02-05, 09:15 PM	I still think that forcing players to change anything about their characters, including alignment is only going to lead to resentment and unhappy players. Remember, you are the DUNGEON MASTER, not the PLAYER MASTER. Players should be able to make any kind of character they want within the bounds of the initial rules agreed to by the group. These decisions should not be the perview of the DM only. The players should have a say in what they can play. A possible alternative is that you could ask them to provide a way to mask their alignment from the paladin if they choose to field an evil character. This way it makes sense that the paladin would adventure with them. There are plenty of ways to circumvent conflicts that arise within the make up of the party.
AramilWindwalker 04-02-05, 09:25 PM	There is no reason not to do as AramilWindwalker mentioned- set them up as a group of a "band of brothers" that have already been togther for a level, and thus they trust and like each other. I will reiterate this idea again, make the storyline be that they have been together long enough that they know about each other, and work well together. Kinda solves the in game problem, the out of game(in theminds of the wackos... err players you are with) might be tougher. I also still like dropping them in a paladin convention. :plotting: :evillaugh :plotting: :evillaugh
The Wasp 04-02-05, 09:39 PM	I still think that forcing players to change anything about their characters, including alignment is only going to lead to resentment and unhappy players. Remember, you are the DUNGEON MASTER, not the PLAYER MASTER. Players should be able to make any kind of character they want within the bounds of the initial rules agreed to by the group. These decisions should not be the perview of the DM only. The players should have a say in what they can play. The players have the right to choose their character - within the limits set by the PC. I strongly recommend barring evil characters. #1: it makes the party intrinsically impossible. A paladin cannot adventure with evil characters. Period. #2: drastic alignment conlfict leads to perpetual PC conflict, and possibly PC v PC fighting. Once this occurs, you no longer have an adventuring party. At this stage in the game, the players have little invested in their characters. they haven't actually played them yet. Having a characer concept nerfed is not a big deal; having your PC killed by one of the others after 4 months of playing is enough to destroy a friendship. By the way, I know plenty of very experienced DM's who ban evil characters. I am one of them. I would need good convincing to convince me otherwise. I would certainly never allow a wantonly destructive character in my campaign. Is there room for evil PCs in D&D? Sure. But it requires a very mature player. Don't allow it for a first time player
Phantom Reaper 04-03-05, 01:58 AM	If you don't mind please tell us what happens.
nephtis 04-03-05, 05:45 AM	Ouch that sounds like it's going to be a very disappointing game for both the players and the DM. If it's possible avoid DMing this group. A Paladin is simply not going to work with this group, I can't think of a reason he'd travel with those people. Paladins are difficult yet predictable. There's evil? Don't compromise. Your Wizard doesn't sound like the kind of guy that would survive long enough to actually become powerfull enough to go around mass murdering. He's a 3 lvl, for gods sake, no problem to show him his place should he openly show his intentions in a world of magic. He has to realise that he's not much more than an apprentice and threatening people doesn't go unpunished and will likely get him killed before he has the means to back up his threats. Those might be long terms plans, but if he intends to be around 'long term' he should keep them to himself and be a little more discrete maybe even earn the trust of people who would be willing to help him survive. Hide your true self in order to gain the trust of people to use them for your means is an evil act as well, but it's one that is playable in a good or neutral group. He has to see that his group is more worth to him alive than dead, so he should be willing to avoid suspicion and try to be a little more discrete. The character is a wizard he should have a high enough intelligence score to come to this conclusion, even if the player hasn't. What else... Oh how the hell is a third level drow (Level adjustment 2 wich means if your other players are 3rd level, this player is a 1 level cleric) going to hide that she's a drow? There shouldn't be powerfull enough magic items in this party to disguise her face/alignment and a paladin should be able to check for alignment. She'll be killed on side if the players share the usual -in this case maybe justified- surface predjuces and will have almost no chance to survice this. If the other players don't care, the first town they come to probably will. And for the ranger... mmmh, I've never played nor DMed an absolute neutral ranger, though his attitude sounds more like he's going for chaotic neutral with a bad temper. This sounds like s strange character concept. I know rangers are known for their devotion to hunt down a certain enemy with a passion, but if he didn't chose humans as his first enemy (which would make him evil) there's no reason to kill everyone that he feels has wronged or annoyed him. And as a true neutral he might not even be inclined to take sides in a fight between the good Paladin and the evil Wizard since those two extremes might just cancel out each other and Neutrality is the winner. (Not likely, maybe he'll feel loyality for one side or decide to war against the winner just for the fun of it.) Talk about alignments and character concepts with this group! Tell them you can't have evil and good characters in the same group, go for a good/neutral or evil/neutral group. If the group is evil, work out a reason for this group to work together before hand. Include the players in this! Being a gang ambushing travellers, spend some time together in prison and escaped together (you could have them meet on a ship were they were sentenced to row as slaves and have them organise a prisoner uprising getting the whole ship under their command...). Common interests like hunting down the members of a lawfull organisation because they make 'buiseness' for the local mob impossible... Belonging to a guild were disloyalty is severly punished... They're lowlevel enough to simply disappear should they go against their superiours. Whatever you do, as it is now, it won't work.
snowlynx 04-03-05, 11:54 AM	If these were my players... I would get all of the players together and have them explain their characters honestly to the group. I would then tell them, flatly, that they have created characters that are unlikely to work together- either they can figure out why they're working together, they can modify their character concepts to work together, or they can all recreate, taking care to make compatible characters. If they object to this, tell them you're willing to run the game, and let them kill each other; then ask to start a new game since obviously the last one wasn't working out. (Don't plan too hard for the first game....a barroom fight breaking out or some similar cliche is probably enough to start them interacting and you already know the consequences.) If they fight about who has to change their character, I don't know how to mediate...you either have to say "this one works best with my plot, so can you others modify your characters for this?" or you'll want to pick the ones with the best background history to stay. Encourage your players to tell you why their characters are the way they are and how they're going to hide their appearence and alignment (in the drow's case.) You need to make it clear to the players that games are not supposed to be DM vs Player, and it is your job to tell a story, not to try to kill them or make their life miserable. In order to tell the story, it is much better to know what to expect from characters- thus, you need to know what's going on with the character. If they choose to recreate, make them make characters together, so they know what's going on.
Velderan 04-03-05, 04:05 PM	Wow, has anyone else noticed that this party sounds eerily similar to 8-bit? Personally, depending on your DMing style, I think that having one evil character in a party can be a lot of fun, sort of like comic relief compared to everyone else, when his wicked plans fail. (I played an imp once, it was sooo fun). And, if you're mature and experienced enough, it can be a lot of fun to play characters that hate your friends' characters, but not for a first-time DM. I don't, however reccomend telling them that they specifically can't play particular alignments in their first game, because it will irritate your players. And the whole "A ranger suddenly comes in and blows up your alchemists fire" is really obviously cheap, arbitrary railroading. This is what I would do, which is a little more subtle: -Tell your players ahead of time that this party might not work out, and then suggest to them that if it doesn't, you'd like them to make characters that will work together more easily next time, so it's easier on you as DM (play the guilt card...play it!) -start the players in a situation where they depend on eachother. Maybe they're fighting off orcs, maybe they're already in the middle of a dungeon with only each other to rely on, etc etc. They won't have time to backstab if they're too busy trying to fight for their lives. DO NOT start them off in a tavern and let their initial character interaction be completely player directed. Just don't do it. -paladin-min/max the stuffing out of him. It will be really funny if the mage continually fails to kill him, as he will probably be unable to do so for at least two more levels. Don't have everyone make thier char's together. Select the best feats for him (when you help him make his char), fudge a few die rolls (Oh, you only rolled a 3 for this level of HP? go ahead and reroll, its not a big deal), let him have a warhorse to start (Well, you'll be getting one next level anyway), even hop over to the character optimization boards if you have time. Also, for roleplaying perspective, ask him if he minds being a little stupid or naive. Maybe he doesn't realize the mage is a bastard or thinks the best of his intentions. Some people have a lot of fun RPing slightly dopy paladins. -Ranger-I can't say that I never RPed with the inention of killing whoever annoyed me when I first started, so you have to accept that he's a newbie. Tell him that nuetral does NOT mean he doesn't care about anything and can do whatever he pleases, it just means that what he cares about isn't tied to morals or ethics. Then ask what he does care about. And using alchemists fire will free him of the notion that its really really cool (esp if he lights himself on fire, or his beloved forest, or the tent he's using for shelter, etc etc. -Wizard-Everyone's first char that I've ever seen has been either a cheeseball destructive char, or boring as can be (my first was a dual katana wielding bladesinger......so lame.....), so I'd cut him some slack. This kind of character eventually self destructs by not working with the team, or getting cocky and nuking the local watch when it angers him. Wanting to kill the paladin isn't really bad roleplaying, actually, I know experienced players who have made PCs bent on killing other PCs, as long as everyone knows its just a game, it isn't a big deal. A little bit of play into the game and he'll realizie how dependent on the others for survival he is. -Cleric-As the "experienced" player, you don't have to treat her with kid gloves. Firstly, she really sucks. You do realize that she manipulated you into DMing by saying you could "better handle the group" because she didn't feel like doing it right? Is she just somone's girlfriend who wasn't really into it, but got invited along because she wants a unicorn or wants to tell the guys what to do, because those players rarely stick with it. I would tell her that, as DM, you're only allowing core PHB races, because you arn't experienced enough to deal with more complicated chars yet. And if she still wants to make a "ballbreaker" char (mmm.....drow priestesses), I would just allow her character to get herself killed somehow(smarting off to the orcs who captured them, angering the wizard, etc etc). I would then kindly suggest that she try to help you out, by at least being an easy pc to work with, and making her new character be a bit more in line with party work, so that her char doesn't die again. If she has a problem with that, I would not-so-kindly suggest that she DM, or quit complaining about your DMing.
DmMagnus 04-03-05, 06:19 PM	She isn't giving me any advice, and I get threats of quitting if I change anything, especially what the PC's can and can't do (which I don't know I want to do anyway) so what should I do? So far, I've got, 'keeping Wizard under some sort of geas by the Paladin and hope no backstabbings happen,' which isn't very assuring. Suggestions, anyone? Oh, the game hasn't even started yet, we've only got filled-out PC sheets at the moment. PCK and backstabbing is the biggest fun killers! It always ends with angry people around the table! Tell them to think about how they are going to roleplay this! A paladin would never share camp-fire with a Evil wizard! If he is a good roleplayer he would kill him or put him behind bars! The wizard that want to kill all the good guys, will kill the paladin. Somethimes it`s better to decide alignment before character creation, but I`m no fan of limits! Do whatever you feel like doing! If your players don`t support your dissision, don`t ceare! Remember the rule: You are the dm! If they really hates your dissision they will maybe leave your game and you have to find a new player or two. a question: Why won`t the experienced player/dm help you?
TheChilliGod 04-04-05, 02:40 AM	Well, there's a great number of constructive comments coming from here, and a few questions for me as well, as well as facts and plot twists I think I should point out to make this all a bit more complicated/easy. First of all, I think I could be able to sort out alignment problems out. The necromancer, with a bit of talking, is well on his way to becoming some form of neutral, and the cleric has two scrolls of Undetectable Alignment (and two scrolls of Dance of Ruin, I just hope she doesn't use those :) ) which should take care of evil problems, since it's rather impolite for a paladin to Detect Evil twice on a lady, isn't it? Also, Cleric has a mask & complete covering of clothes, so she should be sweet. Paladin hasn't much done anything to change his character (not that I said he should) and Ranger... is so stubborn. If I have to kill off someone, I'd choose Ranger. He's still got the sort of "I couldn't care less if we have to do something but by golly, if you **** me off, I'll empty Alchemist's fire down your pants when you're sleeping!" attitude to this game, and while the others are cooperative, he's not budging. I need one helluva serious chat with him. a question: Why won't the experienced player help you? I don't know. She just says that she shares my pain (no, we're not boy/girlfriends!) and I'll be able to figure out something. Oh, and she worships Xerrox, or something. First I'll ask to look at her Book of Vile Darkness (for Dance of Ruin too) then I'll decide whether or not to tell her to convert. She'll understand, being mature. If you don't mind please tell us what happens. I will, If this topic still lives when we start gaming. Might get a chance this weekend, if not next weekend definitely. So, it seems this is almost sorted out. Thanks very much for your comments!