My gaming group is already planning a few details for our next campaign after we get the three we're simultaneously doing out of the way.
What's looking to be a future problem that no one else sees is one of the guys wants to play an evil incarnate assassin. I, on the other hand, want to play an over the top, heroic, overly charismatic, hopeless romantic, good aligned bard. Another one of the players might be playing an evil inclined rogue and I'm not sure about the last one.
Well, the future DM has no problems with evil PCs and thinks to have the ideas on how to hook them into a "save the world" plot. Still, I'm a bit worried that we'll end up with two heroes and two anti-heroes in the party that may only just drive each other crazy.
Anyone have any insight into situations like these? We still have several weeks to go before we start, so there's still time to make changes.
Get your group together and discuss why (yes, WHY, not IF) your guys aren't going to be murdering each other in their sleep.
It's quite possible to work out a background. Might not be easy, might take some compromise, but a party with both Evil and Good members can certainly work.
But the key is to communicate what you want to play before you start, and to want to work together (as players) and not kill each other off (as characters)
You can make it work.
First and foremost, the evil players should remember that "evil" doesn't necessarily mean "backstabbing". Evil masterminds rarely get far if they betray/kill their most useful allies. Even if the characters disagree with each other's methods, they can still respect the worth of the other's contributions, most of the time. Even evil characters can have truely valued friends.
Here are a few ideas you could consider to make the party coherent:
- A greater threat has forced the good and evil characters to ally (if temporarily). If they party fails to work together, everyone dies. This gives the evil characters incentive to cooperate, because even evil characters have a desire for self-preservation.
- Irrational romance. Sometimes, you tolerate people that do things you abhor, simply because you love them. You might be conflicted about it, in denial, or even eventually decide it's not worth it, but it's a starting point. This works especially well if the good characters are trying to "fix" or "redeem" the evil characters, while the evil characters aren't entirely comfortable with their actions. Alternatively, the evil characters might find it a convenient cover, an amusing diversion, or an ideal love that seems unrealizable because of their amorality.
- The evil characters are attempting to reform themselves, consciously or unconsciously. Perhaps they were or are extremely evil, and have a desire to reform on some level, but aren't able to. The evil characters might have latched on to the good characters as role models, in an attempt to learn how to act morally (possibly succeeding, or possibly failing in a tragic manner).
I agree with the above, and have something (that doesn't appear to have been said): Evil varies. An Evil character is - generally - one who doesn't care about others' lives. In other words, someone who is willing to torture and murder to accomplish his goals, and who may see no reason to help others if it won't benefit him.
And he may not murder your goody-two-shoes bard because he wants to break that happy soul and turn him into a shriveled, pathetic wretch (at first).
Yeah, talking it out beforehand is invariably a good idea, even if all the players are playing good-aligned characters. Alignment is so dodgy anyway; I'm much more interested in the PC's motivation, outlook on life, choice of actions, etc. than some label. Maybe the assassin is committed to only killing enemies of his religion, and everybody shares the same religion. That would still make that kind of character tough to be around if you have a code against killing but at least you're taking the level of animosity down from murdering the other guy in their sleep to having the occasional IC argument.
As a player, it's up to you to find a way to figure out how you blend in with the group, not the other way around. I will say that I generally frown upon people playing evil characters because, well, too often "evil" is player-speak for "I want to kill/loot/****/steal everything and everyone I want without facing any consequences". If a player has created an assassin with a backstory and motivation that works for everyone else, they may not actually be playing an evil PC in actual game terms and therefore you have to decide how you're not going to be adversarial.
I don't allow evil PCs in my game for many reason. The game is designed around good players doing good deeds. I think the game would have to be set up differnt for evil characters.
Not matter what people say evil PCs almost always turn on the good players. Its the nature of gamers for some reason.
I think it would be more reasonable to have the guys be netural. Would make everything seem to tie in togther better without having the inevitable PC vs. PC that happens
Thanks a lot for the responses. I'll be sure to bring it up next time we get together. Hopefully we'll be able to work it out so the over the top hero and the silent killers don't end up stepping on each other.
Only COMMUNICATION amongst everyone will save the game. However, I'd remind the DM that Evil characters have no particular motivation to save the world - the general gist of evil is that THEY are the ones wanting to destroy it. Evil and Good in the same party might be able to work - but only if everyone sets aside sanity -- and all the reasons for DIFFERENTIATING between Good and Evil in the first place.
I am currently running a group where most of the players are good and one is an evil assassin. The evil character is using the rest of the group to help him achieve his goals and the rest of the group is none the wiser. In the adventure, the assassin was hired to kill the main villain for failure to pay his tributes while the rest of the party is after the villain for attacking the local town. So they all have the motive to work together and cooperate.
An adventurer's career is tough, and 4E encounters are designed to reward teamwork. An evil PC who kills his allies is unlikely to get very far, thus he has incentive to keep them around, even if they annoy the crap out of him. Especially the Bard, who will be directly healing him.
I think the biggest thing that your group needs to discuss is setting the simple ground rule that there will be no intra-party killing. DnD is a cooperative game, and it kind of falls apart if players are overly antagonistic toward each other. After that is agreed upon, then each player needs to sort out the details of why this works in the best interest of their character regardless of individual motives and conflicts. Furthermore, while disagreements between characters for how the party must proceed can be fun to roleplay, there must be a way for the group as a whole to come to a consensus/compromise, and all of the players need to respect that. The players will be responsible for determining why their characters compromise or concede (especially the evil ones). For an assassin, they may secretly plan to pursue their own agenda later, or bring it about through more subtle means. For example, if the party is trying to protect a priest that the assassin wants killed, he may stealthily kill him in the chaos of battle, making it look like an enemy actually did it. As long as this doesn't interfere with the progress of the party through the story (i.e. your DM might have some extra work), the good/evil conflict could be viable.
Only COMMUNICATION amongst everyone will save the game. However, I'd remind the DM that Evil characters have no particular motivation to save the world - the general gist of evil is that THEY are the ones wanting to destroy it. Evil and Good in the same party might be able to work - but only if everyone sets aside sanity -- and all the reasons for DIFFERENTIATING between Good and Evil in the first place.
Nonsense. Evils (especially of the Lawful variety) don't necessarily want to destroy the world - and they especially don't want someone else to destroy it while they're still alive and kicking! You think that Evil Fighter who's spent the last thirty years butchering people so he can finally live in a beautiful house with a beautiful wife/consort/whathaveyou is just going to let it all go to the hells just because some whackjob necromancer wants to resurrect Tharizdun? No way! He's going to strap on his armor, break out the +10 Vorpal Swords, call back the rest of the party and mount the guy's head on his wall, because he's enjoying life and would like to keep enjoying it.
Playing an evil character in a group of good characters requires a very skilled role player who understands that "evil" does not mean "stupid." My favorite player is an evil character who routinely adventures in good groups, but he's a sort of special case since he's somewhat insane and believes himself to be lawful good.
When I play an evil character I play that character to be pursuing his own self-interest. For that to work in a group means that the goal of the group has to be simultaneously a good goal to the good characters and one that fulfills my character's own ambitions. That can be as simple as joining a group to help dispose of an evil rival, or it can be as complex as the goal the group is pursuing being apparently good, while still producing a desired evil outcome. For example, the group could be trying to remove an evil Ogre who demands tribute from a town, but doing so reveals that the evil ogre and his minions was actually holding back a more evil white dragon.
It can be done. But to do so means the evil character has to be played realistically. An evil rogue in such a situation should be intelligent enough to realize that backstabbing party members, or stealing their stuff would not be in his own self-interest since he needs the group to fulfill the goal. Now an evil rogue might well pickpocket a group member to see what they had, and then return it without their knowledge while planning how to steal it later, once the goal is met...
It can be done, but it has to be done cleverly, and the DM and the evil character's player have to discuss what the situation will be and how far the evil character will go before revealing his true intentions. In most of my times playing an evil character, his nature is eventually revealed, but the situation requires further cooperation. Of course this doesn't work with paladins much...
Great stuff.
Note that we've all gamed together in the past and I know not one of these guys would ever do something in game that would harm the party as a whole (unless it's the stupid barbarian dropping a highly volotile explosive). So I know they won't be trying to kill their own team members, I just don't see it working organically.
We'll talk it over with the future DM and see how it'll work out.
However, I'd remind the DM that Evil characters have no particular motivation to save the world - the general gist of evil is that THEY are the ones wanting to destroy it.
You want to do WHAT to the world I'm having fun torturing villagers in????
From some of the situations you want the evil character to act more netural then evil. Which is a fine option and I think the players should play netural. Evil can only team fwith good players for so long.
Nonsense. Evils (especially of the Lawful variety) don't necessarily want to destroy the world - and they especially don't want someone else to destroy it while they're still alive and kicking! You think that Evil Fighter who's spent the last thirty years butchering people so he can finally live in a beautiful house with a beautiful wife/consort/whathaveyou is just going to let it all go to the hells just because some whackjob necromancer wants to resurrect Tharizdun? No way! He's going to strap on his armor, break out the +10 Vorpal Swords, call back the rest of the party and mount the guy's head on his wall, because he's enjoying life and would like to keep enjoying it.
Again, communication. VERIFY this is the attitude that the players WILL take. Just because it's possible for it to all work out doesn't mean that the situation is sunshine and roses.
From some of the situations you want the evil character to act more netural then evil. Which is a fine option and I think the players should play netural. Evil can only team fwith good players for so long.
Nuetral? What is this nuetral? We have no more nuetral here. We are all unaligned.
Of course, even so, there are plenty of reasons for evil folks to hang out with good folks and not stab each other in the back.
- Give the characters some degree of understanding about the world and how levels work - if only in a vague sort of way. Evil person wants to become more powerful. Way to become more powerful is to defeat things. Evil person has no problem with this whatsoever. Most functional unit in which to defeat things is to run around in a party, with people to heal you and people to stand in front and get hit in the face so you don't have to. This can work. The character is pretty antisocial - doing things like killing most of his enemies (except for the ones that he keeps alive briefly to torture for information/pleasure) lying whenever it suits him and exploiting random NPCs as hard as he can - but he appreciates the value of having this guy willing to heal him and that guy willing to stand in front and get hit in the face, so he's not going to do anything that'll *really* mess up this good deal he's got going. Also, they're good - which means that as long as he keeps his behavior from being *too* offensive to them, he can pretty much trust *them* at *their* word - which is nice, because it means he can sleep easy at night. He really isn't concerned at all with quests, above and beyond any reward he may get for them, but they keep the bard happy, so that's okay.
- Obliviousness on the part of the good characters. You're playing a bard. He's high-charisma, and almost certainly low-wisdom. Make your wisdom an 8. He has all of these glorious heroic ideas about what the party is doing and why, and is in a fair degree of denial about exactly how immoral his fellow party members are. Take a look at piffany from the Nodwick comic for a good example of how this one can play.
- Compulsion on the part of the good and/or evil players. The good guys need to do certain quest things to keep the Bad Stuff from happening, and there just aren't enough goodguys around to get the job done properly. Either the good characters recognize this, and are willing to tolerate their evil companions because ends justify means to a degree (or because their god has told them to), or the evil characters have been magically bound to assist/obey the good characters in some way, and the good characters are seeing this as a way to get some honest work out of them and possibly reform them.
From some of the situations you want the evil character to act more netural then evil. Which is a fine option and I think the players should play netural. Evil can only team fwith good players for so long.
Nuetral? What is this nuetral? We have no more nuetral here. We are all unaligned.
Of course, even so, there are plenty of reasons for evil folks to hang out with good folks and not stab each other in the back.
- Give the characters some degree of understanding about the world and how levels work - if only in a vague sort of way. Evil person wants to become more powerful. Way to become more powerful is to defeat things. Evil person has no problem with this whatsoever. Most functional unit in which to defeat things is to run around in a party, with people to heal you and people to stand in front and get hit in the face so you don't have to. This can work. The character is pretty antisocial - doing things like killing most of his enemies (except for the ones that he keeps alive briefly to torture for information/pleasure) lying whenever it suits him and exploiting random NPCs as hard as he can - but he appreciates the value of having this guy willing to heal him and that guy willing to stand in front and get hit in the face, so he's not going to do anything that'll *really* mess up this good deal he's got going. Also, they're good - which means that as long as he keeps his behavior from being *too* offensive to them, he can pretty much trust *them* at *their* word - which is nice, because it means he can sleep easy at night. He really isn't concerned at all with quests, above and beyond any reward he may get for them, but they keep the bard happy, so that's okay.
- Obliviousness on the part of the good characters. You're playing a bard. He's high-charisma, and almost certainly low-wisdom. Make your wisdom an 8. He has all of these glorious heroic ideas about what the party is doing and why, and is in a fair degree of denial about exactly how immoral his fellow party members are. Take a look at piffany from the Nodwick comic for a good example of how this one can play.
- Compulsion on the part of the good and/or evil players. The good guys need to do certain quest things to keep the Bad Stuff from happening, and there just aren't enough goodguys around to get the job done properly. Either the good characters recognize this, and are willing to tolerate their evil companions because ends justify means to a degree (or because their god has told them to), or the evil characters have been magically bound to assist/obey the good characters in some way, and the good characters are seeing this as a way to get some honest work out of them and possibly reform them.
If you watch any movie any show the team up between good and evil is very brief
If you watch any movie any show the team up between good and evil is very brief
I'll just go with actual history then. In WW2 Franklin Roosevelt (good) teamed up with Josef Stalin (evil) for five years to defeat Hitler (evil).
This is just one obvious example of evil teaming with good to defeat a different evil for years and years and through massive sacrifice on both sides.
If you watch any movie any show the team up between good and evil is very brief
I'll just go with actual history then. In WW2 Franklin Roosevelt (good) teamed up with Josef Stalin (evil) for five years to defeat Hitler (evil).This is just one obvious example of evil teaming with good to defeat a different evil for years and years and through massive sacrifice on both sides.
Roosevelt didn't team up with Stalin. Stalin had a non-aggresive pact with germany. Germany violeted it. Then stalin join the allies. which included Edouard Daladier, and churchhill(who wasn't PM at the time)
Now to get to the point. The worked togther 4 years. That is a short time in the term of history. The two or three men didn't have to interact with each directly for to long.
We are talking about a small group of people who will be talking and interacting everyday. It can't last to long
History is detrimed by the winners. If the allies didn't win the way hitler might be hailed as a hero instead of the pentacile of evil.
Don't get me wrong hitler was evil, but history could have been easily rewritt en if things happened differntly. Evil in games in movies are much more to distginish then in real life.
Roosevelt didn't team up with Stalin. Stalin had a non-aggresive pact with germany. Germany violeted it. Then stalin join the allies. which included Edouard Daladier, and churchhill(who wasn't PM at the time)
Now to get to the point. The worked togther 4 years. That is a short time in the term of history. The two or three men didn't have to interact with each directly for to long.
We are talking about a small group of people who will be talking and interacting everyday. It can't last to long
History is detrimed by the winners. If the allies didn't win the way hitler might be hailed as a hero instead of the pentacile of evil.
Don't get me wrong hitler was evil, but history could have been easily rewritt en if things happened differntly. Evil in games in movies are much more to distginish then in real life.
"Roosevelt didn't team up with Stalin" "Now to get to the point. The(y) worked together 4 years."
Do you even comprehend what you are saying here? How is working together 4 years not teaming up? Talk about tortured logic, this is just laughable. Bwahahahahah!!!!
I'm not even going to address your bizarre moral relativism where you suggest Hitler might have been hailed a hero. I think your inability to comprehend your own statements is enough to provide a context for your moral relativism.
Again. "Bwaahahahahahah!!!" I haven't laughed like that in a while. Thanks, I needed that.
Roosevelt didn't team up with Stalin. Stalin had a non-aggresive pact with germany. Germany violeted it. Then stalin join the allies. which included Edouard Daladier, and churchhill(who wasn't PM at the time)
Now to get to the point. The worked togther 4 years. That is a short time in the term of history. The two or three men didn't have to interact with each directly for to long.
We are talking about a small group of people who will be talking and interacting everyday. It can't last to long
History is detrimed by the winners. If the allies didn't win the way hitler might be hailed as a hero instead of the pentacile of evil.
Don't get me wrong hitler was evil, but history could have been easily rewritt en if things happened differntly. Evil in games in movies are much more to distginish then in real life.
"Roosevelt didn't team up with Stalin" "Now to get to the point. The(y) worked together 4 years."Do you even comprehend what you are saying here? How is working together 4 years not teaming up? Talk about tortured logic, this is just laughable. Bwahahahahah!!!!
I'm not even going to address your bizarre moral relativism where you suggest Hitler might have been hailed a hero. I think your inability to comprehend your own statements is enough to provide a context for your moral relativism.
Again. "Bwaahahahahahah!!!" I haven't laughed like that in a while. Thanks, I needed that.
LoL you read the first sentace and stopped reading. Thank god you didn't read the whole sentence because then it would make sense. People should learn history, and you sir are one of them.
Hitler was a hero to his people and if hitler would have won the war he would be considered a hero to his people which would have been a good portion of the world.
again reread the whole statement. Stalin didn't join roosevelt, he joined the allies which had three leaders in it. Only after germany backstabbed the U.S.S.R did help the allies.
Which brings us to the whole point of this. Evil can only join good for so long and this is a example in real life of it
Roosevelt didn't team up with Stalin. Stalin had a non-aggresive pact with germany. Germany violeted it. Then stalin join the allies. which included Edouard Daladier, and churchhill(who wasn't PM at the time)
Now to get to the point. The worked togther 4 years. That is a short time in the term of history. The two or three men didn't have to interact with each directly for to long.
We are talking about a small group of people who will be talking and interacting everyday. It can't last to long
History is detrimed by the winners. If the allies didn't win the way hitler might be hailed as a hero instead of the pentacile of evil.
Don't get me wrong hitler was evil, but history could have been easily rewritt en if things happened differntly. Evil in games in movies are much more to distginish then in real life.
"Roosevelt didn't team up with Stalin" "Now to get to the point. The(y) worked together 4 years."Do you even comprehend what you are saying here? How is working together 4 years not teaming up? Talk about tortured logic, this is just laughable. Bwahahahahah!!!!
I'm not even going to address your bizarre moral relativism where you suggest Hitler might have been hailed a hero. I think your inability to comprehend your own statements is enough to provide a context for your moral relativism.
Again. "Bwaahahahahahah!!!" I haven't laughed like that in a while. Thanks, I needed that.
LoL you read the first sentace and stopped reading. Thank god you didn't read the whole sentence because then it would make sense. People should learn history, and you sir are one of them.
Hitler was a hero to his people and if hitler would have won the war he would be considered a hero to his people which would have been a good portion of the world.
again reread the whole statement. Stalin didn't join roosevelt, he joined the allies which had three leaders in it. Only after germany backstabbed the U.S.S.R did help the allies.
Which brings us to the whole point of this. Evil can only join good for so long and this is a example in real life of it
OK, I shouldn't have "bwaahahahahah'd" you so much. But man you are funny. You are still trying to twist logic and reason into a pretzel to avoid acknowledging a blatant historical truth.
Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt were not merely "teaming up" in WW2, they even had a team NAME! They called them the "Big Three" and the name of their team was "the ALLIES." As in ALLIED together. In fact if you look at a thesaurus you'll find that "teammate" is a synomym for.... ALLY! They met more than once to discuss strategy and make agreements about how to pursue the war.
Don't lecture me on history. Especially when you are only trying to twist reality into your own personal carnival mirror to avoid reality. I know I'll never convince you of anything, you seem obviously to be one of those incapable of admitting even an inconsequential error. In these internet debates I always leave the final judgment to the readers anyway. They will decide for themselves if Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin "teamed up" or not. Your opinion isn't really that important, especially when you torture logic to avoid saying "oh, duh, yeah that's an example I overlooked."
...right then, getting back on track...
I've always found that most people mistake 'evil' for 'psychopath'. And while an evil assassin might indeed be a bloodthirsty killer, he doesn't need to be. If you want the group to work, remind your fellow players that it is entirely possible to be evil -and- socially acceptable. The same principle applies to overly good characters. A paladin who chides every living thing for its moral failings will quickly find himself without any allies...and a good number of enemies.
In short, try not to be sucked into alignment stereotypes.
Indeed!
Personally, I figure that definitions of evil do shift around a bit between campaigns but that "I have no moral compunctions against anything at all so long as it gains me advantage, and I actively enjoy doing certain morally reprehensible things, and do them for the pleasure of it." ought to pretty clearly qualify as some form of evil in almost any campaign. It's entirely possible for a character like that to acknowledge that their goals are better served by working in a party with good people and by not upsetting same without developing any sort of morality in the process. You can even have people who are pretty much evil but value their reputation for fair dealing, and thus deal fairly. They eat live kittens in their days off and say discouraging things to orphans when the opportunity permits, just to watch those little faces crumple, but they hold to their word under any but the most catastrophic circumstances.
In short, try not to be sucked into alignment stereotypes.
Yeah. Play evil, but without being evil.
Point is there is nothing wrong with being stereotypical evil. There IS something wrong with mixing good and evil characters together in the same party WITHOUT any discussion among DM and players about what's to be expected - for obvious reasons.In short, try not to be sucked into alignment stereotypes.
Yeah. Play evil, but without being evil.
Talk to an actor and ask them why they love to play the evil characters in the movies. It's because evil can do ANYTHING, while good is constrained to a limited set of options. Evil people act good all the time. Good people can't act evil. In fact to really perpetuate true evil, it is pretty much required to pretend to be good in order to seduce good people into doing what you want.
Playing an evil character is fun for the same reason. My wizard sails into a town he's never been in before where nobody knows him. Does he immediately start laying about with fireball and lightning bolt killing as many innocents as possible? Yawn. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. BUT, if he can trick the local paladin into an evil act.... whoah! That's fun! But to do that, he first has to convince the paladin that he's a good guy. OK, challenge accepted.
In fact to really perpetuate true evil, it is pretty much required to pretend to be good in order to seduce good people into doing what you want.
Or: Wipe out all the good guys. Keep it up long enough, and the "good guys" will be forced into less good methods to survive. Eventually, you get two sides of evil duking it out with each other.
In fact to really perpetuate true evil, it is pretty much required to pretend to be good in order to seduce good people into doing what you want.
Or: Wipe out all the good guys. Keep it up long enough, and the "good guys" will be forced into less good methods to survive. Eventually, you get two sides of evil duking it out with each other.
Yeah, this too. It really boils down to a question of style.
My evil cleric views the purest goal of his evil intentions is to corrupt the innocent. So he routinely acts like a good guy and is very sneaky and subtle.
My evil wizard is simply insane. There's really no telling what he will do.
I don't have ANY evil player who twirls his moustache while tying the Lord's daughter to the stake in front of the dragon while cackling maniacally. I've done those, but frankly I got tired of playing to the caricatures of Snidely Whiplash or Dr. Evil. Both of my remaining evil characters would be taken for sincere, decent helpful people MOST of the time.
Only COMMUNICATION amongst everyone will save the game. However, I'd remind the DM that Evil characters have no particular motivation to save the world - the general gist of evil is that THEY are the ones wanting to destroy it. Evil and Good in the same party might be able to work - but only if everyone sets aside sanity -- and all the reasons for DIFFERENTIATING between Good and Evil in the first place.
That's silly. Very few evil characters ever want to destroy the world. They have no motivation to do so, because they have nothing to gain. Setting aside non-player creatures like demons and such, most evil characters are concerned with power and personal gain, not senseless destruction. Destruction is a means to an end, not an end itself.
Not to mention the whole problem whereby destroying the world you live in kind of, you know, kills you too. Evil characters have some sense of self-preservation too.
That's silly. Very few evil characters ever want to destroy the world. They have no motivation to do so, because they have nothing to gain. Setting aside non-player creatures like demons and such, most evil characters are concerned with power and personal gain, not senseless destruction. Destruction is a means to an end, not an end itself.
Not to mention the whole problem whereby destroying the world you live in kind of, you know, kills you too. Evil characters have some sense of self-preservation too.
Since Roosevelt and Stalin have been mentioned (and I wholeheartedly agree that there was a team of good with evil), let us use Hitler as an example of an evil man here.
In the end Hitler wanted the destruction of the German race whom he felt unworthy of his efforts to elevate. (Read, for example, the histories of Richard J. Evans, or ,more easily, see the movie "Downfall.") Plus he committed suicide rather than face the consequences of defeat. Indeed, Goebbels and his wife not only commiteed suicide: they even murdered their five children rather than have them face a world without Nazism.
My gaming group is already planning a few details for our next campaign after we get the three we're simultaneously doing out of the way.
What's looking to be a future problem that no one else sees is one of the guys wants to play an evil incarnate assassin. I, on the other hand, want to play an over the top, heroic, overly charismatic, hopeless romantic, good aligned bard. Another one of the players might be playing an evil inclined rogue and I'm not sure about the last one.
Well, the future DM has no problems with evil PCs and thinks to have the ideas on how to hook them into a "save the world" plot. Still, I'm a bit worried that we'll end up with two heroes and two anti-heroes in the party that may only just drive each other crazy.
Anyone have any insight into situations like these? We still have several weeks to go before we start, so there's still time to make changes.
Outside of redressing the issue with the DM/Group and expressing your concern that the game looks like its heading for disaster, hope that the Rogue and Assassin are badass at bluffing I guess? Otherwise, if you sincerely think its doomed, maybe drop out. Not sure what else to tell you.