From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd
On Sun, 23 Aug 2026 07:45:48 -0700, Justisaur <
justisaur@yahoo.com>
said this thing:
On 8/20/2026 12:22 PM, The True Melissa wrote:
Evil in a party of goods doesn't ever work, I've seen it time and time >again. Even those on the border of evil (CN.) The only time I've seen
evil work was with a party of all evil, but I've also seen that not work.
Ah, the old D&D alignment system strikes once again. It's probably
destroyed more adventuring parties than dragonflame. ;-)
Evil characters /can/ work, but they add a lot of extra difficulty to
the game. They also don't fit well with extended campaigns, because
--if they're being true to the character-- eventually they will start
working against the party... and in a game so dependent on
team-mechanics, that's a killer. But it can be made work, and it can
make for some interesting storylines. After all, a huge number of
movies and novels are based on the whole idea of heroes reluctantly
inviting a villain to their table, so it's no wonder some players want
to try and replicate that idea. But it's really hard to get it right.
That's why I generally put my foot down when it comes to evil
characters, usually forbidding them outright. You have to make a
_really_ good case for me to allow it, and even then it also needs
buy-in by the other players. Even when you can get having an evil
character to work in the party (something that's not easy when the
evil character is often all about lying and backstabbing and the
like), some people are just uncomfortable with the whole idea.
Unfortunately, if you don't get the buy-in from the start, it's
usually too late to salvage once the problems come to a head. The best
you can do is try to get one or the other player to give up their
character (usually the evil one is sacrificed), but by the time people
start complaining there's just too much water gone under the bridge,
and the players have taken too-solid positions on why they're right
for any real compromise.
Try to keep things civil, try to get both sides to each acknowledge
that there's no real right or wrong --that each side just has
different wants and expectations from the game-- and then make the
necessary break.
If you're /really/ good, you can 'split the party' and run two
separate campaigns, one for each group, and keep the other team
advised on what their counterparts are doing. Optimally, you might
even be able to merge the two groups together. I ran a similar
situation once
[In my case, the division was more between role-playing vs
gaming; the latter group just wanted raw dungeon-crawls
while the former liked a more sandbox simulation]
and this method was sort of working; both sides showed interest in
what the other side was doing and even (loosely) interacted with one
another... but I had to give it up because it was just too much work
for me to maintain. I never got the parties back together, and had to
abandon one of the campaigns (I sacrificed the dungeon crawlers). But
a more energetic DM could probably manage it.
More likely, you just have to cut your loses. It happens. I've said it
before: the key to a good game is having players and DM in sync with
each other. Once you find a group that manages that, D&D is an
experience like none other. But it's not something that happens easily
and you'll often have players joining who are disruptive
-intentionally or not- to that goal. Part of the job of a good DM is
to try and identify these problems and cut them off before they come
to a head (or at least, minimize the pain on both sides when they do).
It's probably the hardest part of the game... especially when friends
and you're own emotions are involved too.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2