GM/DM questions

I wanted to tap the GM/DM audience and ask a few questions.  I am GM'ing a D&D 4.0 game and have a few new players coming in.  One specifically wants to play a chaotic evil Character.   Most of the other players are unaligned and 1 is good, but no others are ce.  Would most of the community allow this and just roll with it or should the person be swayed for best interests of the group? Discuss...

Alignment is for the most part purely fluff text, very few if any effects are keyed off of alignment. But to answer your question look at how chaotic evil is described int the player's handbook. "Chaotic evil characters have a complete disregard for  others. Each believes he or she is the only being that matters and kills, steals, and betrays  others to gain power. Their word is meaningless and their actions destructive. Their worldviews can  be so warped that they destroy anything and anyone that  doesn't  directly  contribute to their interests."   That does not sound like anyone I would want to adventure with, put my life on the line with, or even go camping with. In my experience most players asking to do something like this just want an excuse to break  Wheaton's Law  , a rare few might see it as a  role playing   opportunity and want to add to the story of the group.  I don't think I would trust a player I haven't gamed with before to be in that second group.  

Just say no.

I'm a firm supporter of the GM shifting a character's alignment in-line with their actual actions (if the CE character starts saving villages &c. start shifting them upwards on the morality scale; if they show that they've saved the kingdom so that they can assassinate the king and rule with an iron fist, they can go back to being CE). At the same time, I'm a supporter of actions having consequences (if the CE character goes around murdering babies, I'm not going to stop the LG character from launching into PvP). The flipside is also true! A LG character that strays towards the CE end of the spectrum with his or her actions gets shifted down. A LG character that does LG deeds draws the attentions of evil beings intent on stopping him or her. Neutral characters are no different. Alignment is fluff, but as a GM, it's fluff you can work with .

I would allow it. if a player wants to be a CE, then they better bring their A~Game and actually prove they can be manipulative, creative, destructive, insane, and act like a deranged Mastermind from a comic book, or a good movie, and actually play cat & mouse games with the other players, while concealing their true identity as the crazy sonofabitch team-killing bastard they are trying to portray.   Otherwise, simply make an alignment shift, or ask the player to remake their character.

Yea I am going to more likely allow it. I see that it could open up some interesting plot twists but in the end it boils down to the player.  They will either do a good job or not live long.  Once you start ticking off the other players and then towns people and monsters I don't think life expectancy to be very long. I have always been interested in an alignment shift idea (were in you start off in what you want but your actions actually dictate your alignment).

Alignment has almost no mechanical value in 4e (and that's a good thing). You could ignore whatever they put on their sheet and probably never see it come up in game, mechanically. Explain that to the player. The real issue is how the player will be interacting with the other players. This is deserving of a discussion between that player and the other players (including the DM) before play. You should not unilaterally decide it's okay or not okay unless there is already an agreement in place to eschew evil PCs during Session Zero . (Did you even have a Session Zero?) Ask the group what they think. If a way can be found and agreed upon to make it interesting and move the game forward, then do it. If not, then the player will have to choose to play a character that works better with the existing party. It is the responsibility of players to make characters appropriate to the campaign's theme and the party's makeup. Everyone can probably recount what bad experiences they've had with players who choose an evil alignment and then use it as an excuse to act like a jerk the whole game. The thing is, it's not their alignment that is causing the jerky behavior - it's the player just being a jerk. Players need to learn to take FULL CONTROL of their characters. Saying "My character wouldn't do that" or taking actions that work against the party and blaming it on alignment are not acceptable behavior in a cooperative game. The latter is somewhat forgivable if the players trust each other and it goes somewhere interesting but it's not really the expected norm in D&D which is based around heroic fantasy. That's especially true of 4e. Your group may benefit from reading this article, " 11 Ways to be a Better Roleplayer ." Pay special attention to #4 and #5 which apply to your situation. There is a follow-up article linked as well that discusses #3 and #4 in more detail both of which separate a mediocre group from a great one in my opinion. (Fair warning: Some colorful language used in the article for comedic effect.)

Thanks all reading and enjoying all the feedback!  I do have a session like session zero you mention, i don't call it that or really gave it a name but Yea, @Headhunter Jones good info.  I like the link TY.

Glad you like the link. I'm giving it to my various groups as part of our Session Zero discussions. There are plenty of guides on how to be a better DM and only a few on how to be a better player. Players should read it and recognize their bad habits. Not everything is on the DM to make things better - it's a team effort! On that note, you might consider my standing rule governing PVP: If you attack, steal from, or otherwise attempt to hinder another player's character, the target character's player decides the outcome. No dice or game mechanics (which don't support this sort of conflict anyway) will be used. Character conflict can be fun, but only when it's by the consent of the players involved. So if your CE character wants to steal my paladin's gold, I get to decide if he succeeds or not. If I think the CE character stealing my gold is interesting, then I'll agree and he succeeds. If I don't, then it ends right there. If I decide to retaliate? The CE character decides if my punch to the jaw lands or not.  This has a way of totally short-circuiting unilateral acts from one character against another, which are often just proxies for player conflict anyway. It gets the game's focus back on what it was meant to be: heroic fantasy action/adventure.

Forget about the "text in the player's handbook", you have to approach the player and ask them how *they* intend to play the character, specifically how they intend to interact with their fellow players. If the answers you get lead you to beleive that it will work in your game then go for it. If not, then either refuse or tell them they will have to modify their "chaotic evil" behavior so that it will fit into your campaign. It's entirely possible that the player might have a good idea for making an interesting chaotic evil character that will be an assets to your campaign, but if you blindly follow the player's handbook text and simply refuse then you will never know what an asset that character might have been.

In my experience it is not an easy thing to do a chaotic evil character 'right'.  Most people just want to use it as an excuse to 'do bad things and hurt people', often to the other players.  As such, I make it clear 'no crazies'.  Especially when you are recruiting random people off the internet and not people you have gamed with before.  If you are doing a campaign where all the players are expected to be evil masterminds, then that's different.

Alignment just doesn't matter all that much, so as long as the player is making the game more fun for the other players instead of less fun it all should work out. In 4e chaotic evil is essentially "crazy evil" just look at my first post in this thread, maybe just have the character be Evil. "Evil characters don’t necessarily go out of their way  to hurt people, but they’re perfectly willing to take advantage of the weakness of others to acquire what they want.   Evil characters use rules and order to maximize personal gain. They don’t care whether laws hurt  other people. They support institutional structures that give them power, even if that power comes  at the expense of others’ freedom. Slavery and rigid caste structures are not only acceptable but  desirable to evil characters, as long as they are in a position to benefit from them." That is a little better to work with than chaotic evil. One of the best things 4e did was almost remove alignment from the game  completely .  When I run 4e I don't think it has ever comes up, I just assume characters are either good or unaligned.

Most players that want to do this are jerks and will go to kill party members or dominate them, and cry "the GM approved it" then turn on you as GM and call you names then Quit "in disgust at the childishness of people that can't handle roleplaying." MOST not all. I have seen a guy once in my game history which spans decades of pulling this off where it didn't thereaten to destroy the group by causing all sorts of unhealthy conflict. If you make this move ask him is he going to try to kill PCs, is he going to try to kill npcs? What is he getting out of being CE specifically. Point blank though, someone asks me if they can play CE? no, hell no. Seen it and seen it always end in tears except for once. Good luck.

The best way to be CE is to say "I am only working with the other players for my personal safety and benefit....the rest, F*** 'em". Any violation of that and they aren't even using a decent survival instinct. At that point they aren't playing evil, they are playing stupid. Any backstabbing of the rest of their players, IE the minions, and they are not evil so much as they are stupid as they are removing their pool of social protection. Wormtongue doesn't kill off King Theoden because it benefits him longterm. Hans Gruber doesn't kill his teammates because he needs to get inside the vault. Scar doesn't get rid of the hyenas because they benefit him. Don't tick off your minions, the rest of the PCs.

Generally a player asking to play an evil character is one of my warning flags. Not that such things arn't possible, can't be interesting, or add to a game, but in my experience the players that ask that tend to be disruptive to a game. I'd suggest asking them why they want to be evil, what they are looking for from it, and how they'll fit into the game. If you're happy with the answers, go ahead, if not then there's nothing wrong with saying no.

Headhunter Jones said: On that note, you might consider my standing rule governing PVP: If you attack, steal from, or otherwise attempt to hinder another player's character, the target character's player decides the outcome. No dice or game mechanics (which don't support this sort of conflict anyway) will be used. Character conflict can be fun, but only when it's by the consent of the players involved. So if your CE character wants to steal my paladin's gold, I get to decide if he succeeds or not. If I think the CE character stealing my gold is interesting, then I'll agree and he succeeds. If I don't, then it ends right there. If I decide to retaliate? The CE character decides if my punch to the jaw lands or not. Love this; stolen for all of my future campaigns.

There's actually a slight mechanical reason I would think about going chaotic evil in 4th edition, and that would be to use the channel divinity of an evil divine path/domain. If that's the case, it could easily be overcome by you saying to the player "choose something else and you'll get the same benefit as the evil one" - because your the dm and you can rewrite any rule. Also, sometimes a dm wants to run an evil campaign. With regards to rewriting any rule, you could offer up a "chaotic evil / evil divinity" that has the precept of having to - essentially - cooperate with the group of pcs - because in your campaign you write the world as the dm. Perhaps an item that is living and evil as well, and exerts a will to travel with the group and cooperate with them. Perhaps the evil character is on the run from another evil character - a villain haha - and needs the heroes to survive throughout the entire campaign, hahaha. Might want to look at it differently. However, me and the others on this page and probably in the campaign might not like it if that player is going to be evil to the group , so put those cards on the table with the player so they don't do that. Headhunter Jones said: On that note, you might consider my standing rule governing PVP: If you attack, steal from, or otherwise attempt to hinder another player's character, the target character's player decides the outcome. No dice or game mechanics (which don't support this sort of conflict anyway) will be used. Be aware of that pvp nonsense. I wonder if it's an example of "Yes, and" where the dm and the player could together create a story about that evil character which makes it more fun? If you don't feel comfortable doing something like that yet, then maybe you should just do something else.

Headhunter Jones said: If you attack, steal from, or otherwise attempt to hinder another player's character, the target character's player decides the outcome. No dice or game mechanics (which don't support this sort of conflict anyway) will be used. I'm glad a few people quoted that, I missed it when I first read the thread. It's an interesting approach, but not one I am sure you always want to persue. It does discourage impositions on another player's character they don't want, but I am not sure you always want to ignore whatever system you have. The fighter should be capable of physically subduing the courtier, even if in recounting the event afterwards they can ensure he's seen in a poor light for doing so. Where these things are good natured then it is rarely an issue anyway, but when they're not I think they're better delt with away from the table. If you're running a game your job isn't to be impartial in such matters, but to ensure your players are all having fun. If one player's fun is at the expense of another's then that's something you should talk with them about. If you can't find a solution that works for everyone and the behaviour continues to be problematic then you probably have to ask yourself, do you really want that player in your game?

I'm glad some of you like that little rule. It works well. The key thing is that with everyone agreeing to that rule before play the only PVP you get at the table is the kind that everyone involved agrees should happen. Nothing is unilateral. If the game system you're using has mechanics for PVP (e.g. Paranoia), then use it. Where I see that sort of play the most is in D&D which doesn't support character-vs-character conflict. It is designed to fairly resolve conflict between PCs and the game constructs controlled by the DM. For my part, there's a whole world of monsters and villains out there who don't get pissed off when you attack and steal from them. Maybe it's best to look there for conflict first, eh?