Well, I'm getting ready for a 5e campaign, and I have the characters, but one of them doesn't fit the campaign nor the party.

So far the party consists of:

- A relatively standard dragonborn paladin, concerned on protecting the crown and helping inocent people
- A young elf mage too pure for this world
- A honorbound warrior seeking a way to restore her families honor and help people
- and... an artificier that doesn't feel anything that puts a façade of a happy person and would have no problem in hurting innocents (without killing them) in exchange for eternal life. Also he would push a button that explodes the world just for curiosity.

The objetive of the campaign is simple: kill four demons that are ravaging the world and save it, "you are the light that will clear the darkness", as they are refered in-game, as a profecy marked them as the ones that will save the world from this demons (there is a bit more to it, but it's irrelevant to this topic). They all knew this before making the characters, by the way.

Yeah, you can see the problem, I guess. Is it a dick move to ask him to modify the character so it fits better?

Quote from: LagiaDOS;1093884Well, I'm getting ready for a 5e campaign, and I have the characters, but one of them doesn't fit the campaign nor the party.

So far the party consists of:

- A relatively standard dragonborn paladin, concerned on protecting the crown and helping inocent people
- A young elf mage too pure for this world
- A honorbound warrior seeking a way to restore her families honor and help people
- and... an artificier that doesn't feel anything that puts a façade of a happy person and would have no problem in hurting innocents (without killing them) in exchange for eternal life. Also he would push a button that explodes the world just for curiosity.

The objetive of the campaign is simple: kill four demons that are ravaging the world and save it, "you are the light that will clear the darkness", as they are refered in-game, as a profecy marked them as the ones that will save the world from this demons (there is a bit more to it, but it's irrelevant to this topic). They all knew this before making the characters, by the way.

Yeah, you can see the problem, I guess. Is it a dick move to ask him to modify the character so it fits better?

No.

There may have been dick moves involved, but if you explained the campaign setting idea to the players and one still created the sociopathic artificer, then that is where the dick move is happening.

Absolutely not!

Remember, just like race, class, background, spells, feats, multiclassing, trinkets, monsters, equipment, etc., PC spectrum of alignment and personality is just as much within GM campaign purview. If someone wants to make a deliberately disruptive character without showing you can trust them to be collaborative -- with your campaign or the other players! -- then you are wholly within your (GM) Master of Ceremonies rights and responsibilities to call on the disruptive participant to conform.

Yeah I can see that having a Paladin in the group could be a problem.  Maybe they could respec it as something else instead?

The problem probably is with the player, not the character.

If the player is exactly what he seems from your brief description of the situation, then you can ask him to change the PC, but you're likely to have problems later, during the campaign, because the guy really likes to be a contrarian and he'll finds ways to be even if his character is a paladin.

There also is the (less likely) possibility that the player actually can be collaborative, and he chose a disruptive character because he just felt like doing something different, or because he felt your set up had too high a molasses factor. Only you can know the player's actual personality, and in particular if you can reason with the player.

If this is the case, what I would do is the following. I'd take the player aside, discuss the issue, and offer him a deal. I'll let you have this character you want, and I'll let you create some friction within the PC party, because after all this offers variety and lots of roleplaying opportunities. BUT you promise to be open to curveballs I'll be throwing at your PC, and if things change, the PC should be ready to change, too.
Then I'd make the PC discover that he has a child he never knew of. Or something like that. The sort of thing that makes you reassess the survival of the world. And the role of innocents. Who said alignments can't change?

It's a gamble, of course. But only you, since you're the only one knowing the player, can decide if it's too risky, or not.

It sounds good to me...as long as the player is playing it for role-playing potential rather than to be disruptive. There's often a character in fiction that is a misfit to the rest of the group, the "Dr Smith" from Lost in Space and so on.

Yup, exactly Michele. It is a warning flag that The Talk may be necessary. Some players have histories which have shown that incredible trust is safely warranted in them when they play such a potentially disruptive PC. But those are exceptions, not the rule -- and almost never as a first impression.

Do your best LagiaDOS! And remember most of us have been there, too, and learned the lesson the hard way. Better small tears now than explosions and big tears later!

Welcome aboard LagiaDOS!!!

It sounds like a Good vs. Evil campaign so upfront, I would have limited the alignments to LG/CG/NG. I wouldn't have even made LN/N/CN as options because its not that kind of campaign, as neutrals aren't light clearing darkness. In fact, I may have even said, go make LG heroes.

However, your situation depends on the sociopath artificer's player. Simon W brings up a good point about the Lost in Space, Doc Smith concept. If the player is cool, then the artificer will keep up the happy face for most of the campaign...until they come across the shiny red destroy the world button. Then the PC suddenly dropping the happy mask would actually be a great reveal and very cool...as long as the player is cool with their artificer getting hacked down by the other PCs.

Quote from: Shasarak;1093887Yeah I can see that having a Paladin in the group could be a problem.  Maybe they could respec it as something else instead?

Found the dick move.

I'm inclined to agree with Simon W. I'd suggest have a talk with him and find out if he's going to support the other players & be a bit of a foil, or if he's planning to be a dick and trash the campaign.

Re the question, yes it is fine to make players redo PCs to fit the campaign concept.

It is entirely fair to yourself and the other players to make sure that one player doesn't kill the campaign.  Whether or not the potential issue is a player issue, character issue, misunderstanding, etc. is something ideally worked out ahead of time, as others have indicated.  That said, it's not impossible to allow a character "on probation" with a clear understanding to the player that it's fine as long as they keep it within pre-established limits.

Knowing that the whole campaign is going to be about a certain plot is way too meta for me.

Still, you need to take the player aside.
Are they really being disruptive, or are they just trying to have a character be more organic and not "We're Big Damn Heroes out to Save the World and we know it!" from the moment their boots hit the ground?

Since you know so much about the character's psychology, I assume that's been written down or communicated to you.  It also sounds like you're adding quite the touch of hyperbole to it.

But, it seems pretty clear that the player has deliberately made a character diametrically opposed to the campaign's premise.  You should find out why.

Realize, though, there's no real reason that character can't engage with the premise.  You don't need to be Captain America to save the world, you just need to like living on it.

Quote from: Simon W;1093890It sounds good to me...as long as the player is playing it for role-playing potential rather than to be disruptive. There's often a character in fiction that is a misfit to the rest of the group, the "Dr Smith" from Lost in Space and so on.

I'm currently playing a NE assassin in my brother's campaign, which is pretty much good guys. I did it partly as an experiment in playing an evil character in a good group. I based this character a bit on Garak from DS9, but Dr. Smith is a good example as well.
The trick is, While my character will get away with what he can, he also is using the group as protection from his enemies, and so can't go too far. And that's what worries me about the OP's description of the character. An amoral or even evil character in a good party can work, and can be a great contrast to the good-two-shoes, the player should still be trying to make the game fun for everybody, and not just themselves. If not, it will just wind up disruptive and the party will end up having to turn on him.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1093939I'm currently playing a NE assassin in my brother's campaign, which is pretty much good guys. I did it partly as an experiment in playing an evil character in a good group. I based this character a bit on Garak from DS9, but Dr. Smith is a good example as well.

That reminds me of one of the classic storyhours at ENWorld, (contact)'s Return to the Temple of Evil. One of the two main PCs was a champion of CG, and their favorite and most long-running henchman was a LE assassin. And it worked, because they emphasized the things help them stay together as a party, like the loyalty part of LE.

As has been noted several times upthread, it's really about the players, not the PCs. You can make nearly anything work if you want, and conversely if a player wants to be disruptive they'll find a way even if the character concept seems perfect. Always deal with it at that level: Person to person. The solution is never arbitrary restrictions based on game mechanics.

As others have noted. It is likely not a bad thing to do as this does seem like a problem just waiting to happen.

Easiest thing to do is ask the player what they intend with the character as it looks really suspiciously like its built to crash the campaign? Ask and figure out if the player has some intention other than how it appears. And if later they turn out to have lied. Then theres the door. Ta-ta. Otherwise problem solved as the heartless character may be well intentioned, under a curse, etc?

But...

This sort of character has a surprisingly high tendency to get DOA ASAP for the very same reason if they are the problm they initially foretell to be. Once the dust settles tell them to roll a new character and to tone it down, not be contrary, etc. But talk it out with the player before and after.