Help, My Players Turned Evil

I wasn't sure where to post this, as this is really more about group dynamic than an issue or question about roll20. I'm a DM for a group of four players in D&D 4e, and we've been playing around 6 sessions and got up to level 3. Half-Orc Rogue Deva Wizard Human Paladin Kalasthar Cleric They've been morally ambiguous during the entire campaign, the cleric especially, e.g started to attack, rob, murder and mutilate a faction as soon as they got gold in their pockets, reinforced by observing a few rotten apples. Most of their quests were about reinforcing the resistance, riling up this faction and getting a civil war started. Nearing the end of their quest they were asked to dispose of a necromancer, whom they've met before - but not face to face. After an exchange of a few words, he started to read their contract out loud, and tells them it was one of the best investments he ever made. He then asks the party to join him in the coming civil war, in exchange for whatever they desire - money, power, land or even an (undead) army. This was what my campaign was all about, not to have a big bad death knight, but a scheming necromancer who was working behind the scenes. The cleric jumps at this, and the rogue and wizard actually agrees with her. They want to join him. The only one who doesn't is the Paladin, who hurls a bolt at the necromancer which gets this response: I corrupted them, it all led up to this moment, I succeeded. ... and I'm not happy it. TL:DR My players turned bad, are planning to join villain and turn on the Paladin. What do?

Have an out-of-game conversation with your players about where this is going to go and whether the Paladin's player can imagine a way to go along with it that is consistent with established characterization. If he can't, he can make a new character that will and hand his old one over to the DM as a possible future NPC/foil. Or the other players have their characters see the error of their ways and go back to the path of righteousness. Bottom line is discuss it as a group, agree on something that is fun for everyone, and do that. It's simple enough advice and often overlooked. Also note that fair PVP is not supported by D&D mechanics. So if they're going down the road of killing the paladin, I recommend letting the paladin decide what happens to his own character, no mechanics, no rolls. A couple of links you may find helpful (some NSFW language here for comedic effect): 11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer You are Not Your Character

That's all fine and dandy, it's the Evil alignment that is my primary source of concern. First of all I can't keep exploiting that grey area of moral ambiguity, and there is no question they are going to do just about everything my necromancer tells them once the deal is set. There's also the tendency to get hostile in every social encounter that occurs, which I might be able to fix, but it's by no means pleasant. The characters have no quarrel in killing, intimidating or torturing people, and there's no sense of caution, strategy or roleplaying at all. Everything I like as a player and as a storyteller is compromised when they are evil, it's like there is no point in playing --- sigh To me it's game over, regardless of what 'epic' campaign I put up after that.

Moved to Off-Topic. - Gauss

Alignment doesn't matter at all in 4e except for some corner cases where it ties into domains. All that matters is what the players choose for their characters to do - alignment is no excuse. (It isn't an excuse to act a certain way in previous editions either, but that's neither here nor there.) You control what the necromancer tells them. So tell them things that are fun to do. Hostility during "social encounters" is often a sign that the social encounters are boring to them, either because of the way you're running them or that they'd rather the game's focus be elsewhere. So ask them directly what they think about social encounters and how they can be improved or glossed over in favor of other game elements that will interest everybody. If you feel that they should not be killing, intimidating, torturing, or that they should play with caution or strategy (here's the definition of roleplaying since you used it in an odd way in your post), then that is deserving of an out-of-game conversation to see if you can all agree on something that will work for everyone. If you can't, then the game (at least that one) is done. This should normally be done during Session Zero . If you didn't conduct Session Zero at the start of this campaign, now's the time. Good luck.

If the turn of events upset you then the best thing to do is wrap up the campaign, let evil win this one and move on. If you are not having fun then as a GM, you are at risk of taking that displeasure out on the players and that will destroy the group. Just think maybe a few months later, you start another campaign and you have your players start off with new characters in that world. They now have to face against their old characters and the necromancer. There are other possibilities that you can look at doing also and other people here will tell you what you should do but my two cents is this : Do what you feel comfortable with. If you are comfortable with running the game with the group being evil then have the armies of good start coming after them. Play the intrigue, have npc's try to climb the ladder of power by backstabbing, betraying, or anything else you think they could do. As for the paladin, talk to the player and/or the group like Headhunter says/

Sometimes it's just the way that PCs are. It's a lot harder to really play the good guy. If we're linking stuff, here's a podcast entry that touches on this: Playing the Good Guys Dark Characters In one game I ran, i had a player who thought he would steal from the other PCs. What I decided after that was that Player Fun has to come first, and it isn't fun (usually) for players to have other players do invisible things around them, or to encounter a situation, and only THEN realize their toy or their key to the puzzle was gone. This same player then proceeded to make a monk with the Quivering Palm ability (lets you attack someone once a day, and if you hit, you can will them to die up to 15 days later and they do). While I didn't want him to lose the power, I definitely wanted him to be unable to kill a PC with it. My current house rule is pretty simple: If you direct an ability using game mechanics at another player, they get the choice to let it happen. If they want it to, it works as normal, with saves, opposed rolls, whatever. If they don't, you wasted the ability, and it auto-fails (ie, that player catches you in the act of stealing from him, no matter how high you rolled your stealth, and that once a day ability could be precious to you.) This only applies to things that are not incidental. you'll still take damage if your fighter is in the range of the sorcerer's fireball, and it's up to you in character to bug him about it. It's heavy handed, yes. it's unrealistic and dissociative from the game world. It also means I don't have inter-player fighting. I know, off topic. I ranted a little. There are also some campaigns made for evil PCs that might be worth looking into for this group if you wanted to run them. I've been enjoying Way of the Wicked a lot, but as a player (and i haven't read it ahead).

Definitely talk to the players. Reading your recap of events, I can't really blame them for accepting the necromancer's offer. However, it sounds like the campaign is going in a direction you do not like. The game must be fun for everyone , yourself included. Being the GM involves a lot of work outside the game, so you should at least be able to enjoy yourself as much as the players are when you finally do meet to play. If, after your discussion, the game continues to not be fun then thank the players for their time and end it. Everyday there are posts from new players, looking for a game to join and no doubt a few of them would be well-suited for the kind of game you want to run.

Headhunter Jones said: Alignment doesn't matter at all in 4e except for some corner cases where it ties into domains. All that matters is what the players choose for their characters to do - alignment is no excuse. (It isn't an excuse to act a certain way in previous editions either, but that's neither here nor there.) You control what the necromancer tells them. So tell them things that are fun to do. Hostility during "social encounters" if often a sign that the social encounters are boring to them, either because of the way you're running them or that they'd rather the game's focus be elsewhere. So ask them directly what they think about social encounters and how they can be improved or glossed over in favor of other game elements that will interest everybody. If you feel that they should not be killing, intimidating, torturing, or that they should play with caution or strategy (here's the definition of roleplaying since you used it in an odd way in your post), then that is deserving of an out-of-game conversation to see if you can all agree on something that will work for everyone. If you can't, then the game (at least that one) is done. This should normally be done during Session Zero . If you didn't conduct Session Zero at the start of this campaign, now's the time. Good luck. While I deserve most of this criticism or advice as a new DM, I have to clarify a few things. This was all planned. The Paladin had a 'shoot first, ask questions later' kind of attitude, and I simply turned that against him. The only hostile encounters were towards the faction in question, so I don't think they're necessarily bored with my social encounters so far. What I meant to say is that I fear they would turn into two dimensional characters, and resort to violence whenever things don't go their way - because why not? I did conduct a session zero, but I didn't think this would be an issue. And I haven't punished them for this because it was all according to plan, I cannot stress this enough - the campaign has been largely successful up to this point (they want to play more at least) . But yes, I see that talking to my players, and ask them to be even more discreet about their actions as evil characters is the best way to go. I'll simply have to punish whoever draws their weapon in social encounters to put this concern at rest.

Embrace it.

Headhunter Jones said: Have an out-of-game conversation with your players about where this is going to go and whether the Paladin's player can imagine a way to go along with it that is consistent with established characterization. If he can't, he can make a new character that will and hand his old one over to the DM as a possible future NPC/foil. Or the other players have their characters see the error of their ways and go back to the path of righteousness. Bottom line is discuss it as a group, agree on something that is fun for everyone, and do that. It's simple enough advice and often overlooked. Also note that fair PVP is not supported by D&D mechanics. So if they're going down the road of killing the paladin, I recommend letting the paladin decide what happens to his own character, no mechanics, no rolls. A couple of links you may find helpful (some NSFW language here for comedic effect): 11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer You are Not Your Character I read the first article, I'm usually a GM, but I've been waiting for my players to come online... And I have to say that Rule 8, Paragraph 1 is by far, the ABSOLUTE greatest paragraph written on the subject of rpgs EVER!!!

<a href="https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/384830/losing-your-players-trust#post-390353" rel="nofollow">https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/384830/losing-your-players-trust#post-390353</a> I started this thread a couple weeks ago and the similarities are striking. My players are in a land (Karrnath in Eberron) which is led by the kinda bad guys. They have unwittingly become ensnared in a plot by really bad guys to overthrow the rulers and start a war, with the lie that they are trying to STOP a war. basically they will eventually learn the truth, be betrayed and become undead. Yes, I know from the other thread that everyone HATES this idea of forcing them to become undead. Not the point. :) What I am saying is that in my campaign they have options and a way out. In becoming undead they are also finding the key to "curing" the undead curse - if they choose. I say find a way to give them a reason to get out of being evil. If they are just there for loot then just move them along to some dungeon crawls where they have less chance of being evil. In this instance it will be hard as you are mid-action. In my game I am banking on my players as wanting to be the good guys. They think they are doing the right thing, even though the clues they are receiving are that things may not be as they appear. We will see if they can read the signals. They have been taking a shoot first mentality, which only makes it easier to "trick" them. Doing so is a very, very shady prospect. If this weren't friends of years I wouldn't be doing it, but i can pretty much judge how they will react. The concern, of course, is that forcing them one way or the other (you forcing them good, me forcing them evil) can also force them out of the game. Just make sure they have an exit strategy in case they want to jump off evil train. As a perennial paladin player this is one of the hardest parts of the class. Especially if you are playing it fully, no holds barred LG. If this is how your player plays it then he should hopefully be okay with dying for the cause. And then maybe he makes an evil character and you go on your evil way. I am in an 'evil' campaign now, and though I am not a fan it is different and kind of fun. It allows me to play something I never would have otherwise, which is cool. Talk to the pally separately, and the players as a group and see where they really want to go and what motivates them.

Simon V. said: While I deserve most of this criticism or advice as a new DM, I have to clarify a few things. Definitely not criticizing. :) This was all planned. The Paladin had a 'shoot first, ask questions later' kind of attitude, and I simply turned that against him. The only hostile encounters were towards the faction in question, so I don't think they're necessarily bored with my social encounters so far. Did you turn it "against" him in a way that everyone enjoys? Because it sounds like you're no longer enjoying it. Some collaboration out-of-game may have gotten you to a place you all wanted to be. (Hindsight is 20/20, of course.) What I meant to say is that I fear they would turn into two dimensional characters, and resort to violence whenever things don't go their way - because why not? That doesn't mean they're two-dimensional. Choose to imagine them as otherwise and consider asking simple questions during play like "What does Ragnar think about that?" or "How does this relate to Mialee's troubled past?" Or "How much does Lidda trust other rogues?" "Or "Why do you seem to hate orcs so much, Soveliss?" Ask this stuff during combat. Dig. Be curious. Use the answers to build content. Part of social exploration in D&D can be just the DM and players talking about the characters just like they might be talking about the Lannisters on Game of Thrones . It's out-of-character but that's okay. You're still engaged in the act of fleshing those characters out just by talking about them. Enjoying combat and being confrontational in social encounters does not mean they're two-dimensional or will become so. It just means they're engaged by that aspect of the game. Help them explore the characters' depth in the elements they enjoy for now. When they've built up enough context by answering your questions, you might find them engaging in social encounters in other ways. I did conduct a session zero, but I didn't think this would be an issue. And I haven't punished them for this because it was all according to plan, I cannot stress this enough - the campaign has been largely successful up to this point (they want to play more at least) . But yes, I see that talking to my players, and ask them to be even more discreet about their actions as evil characters is the best way to go. I'll simply have to punish whoever draws their weapon in social encounters to put this concern at rest. That's unfortunate. Punishing characters for their players' choices is not in the purview of the DM's role. If you don't like the player's choices and it's not fun for you, then you take that up with the players outside of the game. Attempts at behavior modification through the use of in-game consequences has a very poor track record in our hobby. Please do talk to your players directly before going down this road. Sometimes Session Zero agreements need to be revisited and added to or revised. You all have the same incentive to make a fun game. You're not spoiling anything or abdicating your role by working directly with them to make it the game you all want to play. Good luck.

I'm not a 'punishing' DM at all, I was talking about consequences for their actions. I don't kill PC's, PC's kill themselves in my games.

Actions should certainly have realistic consequences, no matter whether the players are good, evil or whatever. I do agree with Headhunter Jones however that its better to discuss your concerns with your players "out of character" before surprising them with something they might not be expecting. Having everyone on the same page is essential and I think that is the primary problem here. You *all* have to know what is expected and where you stand.

Steve S. said: It's heavy handed, yes. it's unrealistic and dissociative from the game world. It also means I don't have inter-player fighting. What if inter-player fighting is fun?

Steve S. said: It's heavy handed, yes. it's unrealistic and dissociative from the game world. It also means I don't have inter-player fighting. It's not heavy-handed actually nor unrealistic nor disassociated from the game world. Unilateral PVP is the thing that is heavy-handed because it's about taking control of someone else's character without their consent. Your house rule mitigates that by allowing the outcome to be determined by the target, giving them the option to participate or opt out. If the player thinks it's fun, then they'll consent. If they don't, then they don't have to and can describe the result as a block, parry, or whatever. It's not unrealistic because in the fiction it is resolved the same as any other battle - a series of exchanged blows and an outcome. It's not disassociated from the game world for the same reason. Where it is disassociated is with the game mechanics, but arguably the game mechanics for many games are designed to resolve conflict between the characters and the world/villains/monsters , not between player characters . So you're good on all counts, amigo. Barry/Neo said: What if inter-player fighting is fun? Inter- character fighting can be fun if everyone involved agrees. When it's unilateral, it is unacceptable behavior at the gaming table in my opinion and the house rule that Steve S. suggests deals with it handily. Inter- player fighting is a separate issue and really much of the PVP I've seen over the years has been player conflict using the characters as proxies. Which is really passive aggressive and lame. Not to mention, the most popular games out there don't really support PVP in a fair and balanced way.

Headhunter Jones said: Barry/Neo said: What if inter-player fighting is fun? Inter- character fighting can be fun if everyone involved agrees. When it's unilateral, it is unacceptable behavior at the gaming table in my opinion and the house rule that Steve S. suggests deals with it handily. Inter- player fighting is a separate issue and really much of the PVP I've seen over the years has been player conflict using the characters as proxies. Which is really passive aggressive and lame. Not to mention, the most popular games out there don't really support PVP in a fair and balanced way. We are constantly and naturally at odds with each other. If anything, to assume one is immune to another would be the unilateral behavior. Also, inter-player and inter-character fighting is fun. Especially if you win.

Conflict between characters within a party can be disruptive when it becomes PVP combat. A couple of things to consider are: 1. Are the players involved acting within their alignment? If not penalties should apply. 2. If in the middle of an an adventure a fight breaks out in the group they will be making quite a bit of noise. Throw a wandering monster into the mix. 3. If this fails to impress upon them the cooperative spirit of the game, it's time to eject some players.

Barry/Neo said: We are constantly and naturally at odds with each other. If anything, to assume one is immune to another would be the unilateral behavior. Also, inter-player and inter-character fighting is fun. Especially if you win. You find it fun because you're bought-in to that dynamic. Other people may not be bought-in to that dynamic and so they don't find it fun. As well, the game may not support such a dynamic, depending on what you're playing. A good approach if you're not sure whether a fellow player is up for it is to either ask if they're cool with it or to just refrain from it. There's a whole world of monsters and villains whose player (the GM) doesn't get pissed off if you steal from or attack them, so maybe that's a good place to start before setting upon your fellow players' characters. Ron A. said: Conflict between characters within a party can be disruptive when it becomes PVP combat. A couple of things to consider are: 1. Are the players involved acting within their alignment? If not penalties should apply. 2. If in the middle of an an adventure a fight breaks out in the group they will be making quite a bit of noise. Throw a wandering monster into the mix. 3. If this fails to impress upon them the cooperative spirit of the game, it's time to eject some players. That's not actually how alignment works (or at least that's not how it's intended by design). Characters don't have to act within their alignment. Their alignment is dictated by their actions, not the other way around. That could mean (in some editions of D&D) that their alignment changes such that they lose class features. In any case, using alignment as a weapon to modify player behavior has a very sad history in our hobby. I can't get behind #2 and #3 either because, like your alignment suggestion, they attempt to fix a player problem with in-game approaches which also has a sad history in our hobby. Player problems are fixed easily (sometimes by ejection, as you say) with a direct, out-of-game conversation. It's not the character's fault the player is acting like a dick. Take it up with the player instead!

Headhunter Jones said: Barry/Neo said: We are constantly and naturally at odds with each other. If anything, to assume one is immune to another would be the unilateral behavior. Also, inter-player and inter-character fighting is fun. Especially if you win. You find it fun because you're bought-in to that dynamic. Other people may not be bought-in to that dynamic and so they don't find it fun. As well, the game may not support such a dynamic, depending on what you're playing. A good approach if you're not sure whether a fellow player is up for it is to either ask if they're cool with it or to just refrain from it. There's a whole world of monsters and villains whose player (the GM) doesn't get pissed off if you steal from or attack them, so maybe that's a good place to start before setting upon your fellow players' characters. Our positions are reversed: If one is not sure whether a fellow player is up for it or not, one should assume anyone and anything is fair game so long as it is within the rules and mechanics of the game. If one wishes to make themselves immune, they must make the effort to do so. I'm saying PvP should be the natural thing. I agree with you that some people don't enjoy that, but if they don't they're the ones that need to make their case.

One should only assume that if the game you're playing fully supports and expects PVP such as Paranoia or Dogs in the Vineyard . If you're playing games that do not (and D&D is among those games), then assuming such is folly.

Headhunter Jones said: One should only assume that if the game you're playing fully supports and expects PVP such as Paranoia or Dogs in the Vineyard . If you're playing games that do not (and D&D is among those games), then assuming such is folly. It has always been supported and expected. For example, contested dice rolls are a thing almost every rulebook talks about. Whether or not it is actually balanced is a separate matter (D&D is horribly imbalanced, doesn't mean it's not supported as a gaming system and expected to be such).

Contested dice rolls are generally meant for contests between player characters and GM-controlled characters (monsters, NPCs, villains, etc.) unless the game states otherwise. Most games will straight up tell you if PVP is expected and how to resolve it within the bounds of that rule system. If it doesn't, then you can safely assume that it does not. If you need to smack around and steal from other players' characters, you're well-advised to find systems that support it explicitly.

Metroknight said: If the turn of events upset you then the best thing to do is wrap up the campaign, let evil win this one and move on. If you are not having fun then as a GM, you are at risk of taking that displeasure out on the players and that will destroy the group. This is great advise, especially if when you started you told the group you would not be allowing evil pc's. On the other hand, if you never specified pc's had to be good or follow a certain alignment, then you may have left open a hole in the game. If the game isn't what you want it to be, give the players the option of "going evil" and wrap up the game, or "staying good" and you keep running it. They may resent this as rail-roading, but if you said at the beginning, "no evil characters", then they were warned. Also, give the players the option of one of them picking up the task of GMing since you are not comfortable running an evil game, my guess is they would rather play in a good game than run an evil one. :)

Real quick question that I didn't find the answer to as I was searching the thread; what is the domain/deity of the cleric? Kalasthar as a general rule follow a belief system that would be at odds with mercenary and morally gray behavior, though of course PCs do not always follow the general belief systems of their race. Still, if he's suddenly doing things at odds with his belief system that is a pretty bad thing, for a cleric. It's quite possible that the player will find himself constrained by his previous choices (unless he's willing to surrender some of his clerical power). That could change things from a 3 vs 1 to an even split for the party.

The Kalasthar Cleric had no clue what domain/deity she had, I asked him, but we decided to brush it off. Besides, I didn't want someone preaching their shtick. As for what happened, it got down to getting the Paladin over to the dark side. I tried to progress the story by bribing him with gold, holding the entire populous hostage, but he wouldn't budge. In a gut decision I opted to let the Paladin try and defeat the villain on his own, it got somewhat of a poor reception, as if he actually stood a chance. Turn 1 - the paladin heals himself, throws his hammer at the villain and deals a whole 19 damage. In response he gets dominated. Turn 2 - I decide to put him on his knees, and he doesn't manage to save. The villain walks towards him slowly, and focuses. Turn 3 - he rolls a 16 on the saving throw, but I explain it's doesn't work when the villain focuses. He thrusts his hand through the paladin's chest, gets a hold of his heart and &lt;natural 20&gt; rips it out. I decide to let the villain infuse some dark power into the paladin's heart and put it back in, and let the paladin fall unconscious. In a private conversation I tell him he is now a Black Guard and is much easier to corrupt, he follows up by telling me he has amnesia and it all works out. Letting them join the villain did create a major plot hole, but I managed to sort that out by the end of the next session. I didn't manage to use the content I had laid out though, no civil war, no siege on the castle, no walking over all the creatures they had slain and no final boss. I'm now running a continuation, and I got a great twist on this entire story line, and it sparked interest in having the players make their own campaigns.

If, and I stress "IF" I'm running a good aligned campaign, I simply warn the players that if their characters become evil, I take control of them and use them as NPC's and the player can make a new character. There is, of course, a lot of wiggle room, depending on what actions the player took to change their alignment. One regrettable mistake, followed by the desire to repent, would not be enough for me to retire a character. But to become blatantly evil, in a campaign that is focused on "reasonably good" aligned characters, would result in GM possession ;)

So there's really no one here that's okay if their players turn evil? I'm actually constantly disappointed with my player's lack of evil. I expect it, and have descriptions of recently orphaned infants crying underneath the fresh, bleeding corpses of their parents ready for the moment they decide to turn to the dark side. Sure there's lots of fun to be had tearing society down. But when I finally do get my evil player, they will know about the pain they have wrought!

In my opinion, a game master should create the world and let the players explore it as they wish. If they decide to turn evil, then that is what they will do. This may result in a fight between party members, but it is not your job to stop that.

Keegan W. said: In my opinion, a game master should create the world and let the players explore it as they wish. If they decide to turn evil, then that is what they will do. This may result in a fight between party members, but it is not your job to stop that. Bravo! Help? With what? The game is about choices and decisions. A tip of the hat to your players wanting to experience something different. Perhaps more DMs should expand their horizons too & stop trying to coral players.

Billy R. said: So there's really no one here that's okay if their players turn evil? I'm actually constantly disappointed with my player's lack of evil. I expect it, and have descriptions of recently orphaned infants crying underneath the fresh, bleeding corpses of their parents ready for the moment they decide to turn to the dark side. Sure there's lots of fun to be had tearing society down. But when I finally do get my evil player, they will know about the pain they have wrought! I've known a few players who would have hunted down the infants :P I once had one party member attempting to trap and sell the souls of the other party members. Things ended badly for him when he bit off more than he could chew and went after royalty (who mobilized considerable resources to hunt him down and kill him). No one had a problem with this as it made sense, and it became a fun memory of a good cat and mouse chase. I agree with a whole bunch of people who have commented about choice, ultimately you shape the plot with your players - and half the fun for me as a GM is not knowing exactly what the hell is going to happen. Having said that, I think there should be plot driven consequences for evil. Players need to know that stirring the hornets nest will lead to getting stung (and bigger hornets sting harder). An evil bargain tends to end messily for the greedy. Loopholes, lies, deceit and backstabbing. Maybe the players will end up getting framed by the necromancer! Bugger guilt - what about vengeance, militia, curses, ostracism from shopping centers and divine wrath where appropriate. And most importantly, good aligned adventuring parties being hired to hunt down your adventurers! There is nothing in D&D more dangerous than a well balanced adventuring party, especially if the DM is doing the balancing and making them work as a team... (though they tend to carry a lot of magic items - first institute some sort of "soul bound" house rule for magic items carried by NPC's) If you don't have the fear of consequences then expect peoples dark sides to come out. I think it's ok to have evil characters, but their actions need to be constrained by consequences rather than morality - they need to ask themselves the question "can I get away with this?" But they should be free to give it a go if they think they can handle it! Whilst I have no problem with evil in the form of greed/deciet/double-crossing etc, I do find psychopathy or really sick acts distasteful and would stomp pretty heavily on that as a GM. It's utterly boring for everyone except for the giggling idiot. Keegan W. said: In my opinion, a game master should create the world and let the players explore it as they wish. If they decide to turn evil, then that is what they will do. This may result in a fight between party members, but it is not your job to stop that. I think that fighting between players is fine where everyone is joking around and having fun. But if someone is taking things personally and getting generally upset it is time for the GM to get involved to mediate the dispute or disband the group / remove the problem element. I've always found good and evil pretty relative in D&D - good players must seem pretty evil from and orc's point of view? It's not like players are known for rehabilitating monsters or integrating monster communities to create a society moving towards a common goal. Is killing monsters for the sake of XP, treasure and glory good? How much atrocity would a player be willing to allow to protect their favorite magic items!