Quote from: Omega;1094126A contrarian character can work. But it needs the right type of player and group to pull off most often. Situation may throw unlikely characters together as well. And sometimes you can get opposing character types that oddly mesh well together for whatever reason.

Most players don't know how to do it right and the character (and eventually the player) will 99.9% of the time come off as unlikable. I do not advise it unless a player has a solid track record.

Quote from: rawma;1094192I think you should find out how the player thinks this character is going to work with/within the party, but it's certainly not unreasonable to ask him to make a more thematic character. A character who is motivated by wealth or ambition could well work out; Han Solo joining the Resistance.

If it turns out the one with the elf who is too pure for this world is the problem player, the irony would be too delicious and if it happens, you must, must, must tell us about it.

Valid point, but there is a difference between just being selfish to "OH LET ME PUSH THIS BIG RED NO BUTTON." which blows up the world.  The former is just morally gray while the other is a psycho just waiting to ruin every thing the group had built up.

If you told the players what the campaign was about in the pitch then it is absolutely fair to ask the one player to rework their character, and in fact is probably necessary to be fair to the other players as well as the GM.

If you didn't have a clear game pitch then this is on the GM, but it's still smart to bite the bullet and ask the player to come up with another character.

Agree with above posters that you've got some warning signs of lolrandumb, "I'm just playing my character" stupidity.  First step is always talking things out like adults, but if you run across problems of that kind after play starts then you may simply need to drop the player.

Quote from: Snowman0147;1094246Valid point, but there is a difference between just being selfish to "OH LET ME PUSH THIS BIG RED NO BUTTON." which blows up the world.  The former is just morally gray while the other is a psycho just waiting to ruin every thing the group had built up.

If there is a button that blows up the world is that the Pcs fault or the DMs fault?

If the Pc does not care about good vs evil then the Dm should have some kind of mystery for him to investigate with a button to push.

God damn it is not rocket science.

Quote from: Shasarak;1094251If there is a button that blows up the world is that the Pcs fault or the DMs fault?

Good question. If the GM puts a sign on the button that says "Do not push! Will blow up the world!", and the PC pushes it, is it the PCs fault or the DMs fault?

And where the hell are these world destroying buttons coming from?

Quote from: Shasarak;1094251If there is a button that blows up the world is that the Pcs fault or the DMs fault?

You know what I meant with that example so don't act smart with me.  If it isn't the end the world button, then it is a fireball to the party just for the lulz.  Either way the party gets fucked over and the player will just say, "What?  It is well within my evil aligned character to do so."

Quote from: Snowman0147;1094257You know what I meant with that example so don't act smart with me.  If it isn't the end the world button, then it is a fireball to the party just for the lulz.  Either way the party gets fucked over and the player will just say, "What?  It is well within my evil aligned character to do so."

It was your stupid example so dont get pissy.

Besides if the Artificer gets hit and killed with a trap that he sets off himself then that solves the issue nicely and the DM can say "What?  It said not to push"

Quote from: Shasarak;1094258It was your stupid example so dont get pissy.

It was the OP's example, not Snowman's

Quote from: Bren;1094368It was the OP's example, not Snowman's

Thank you for pointing that out.

I don't think it's useful to dig too much into exact wording of the OP. Different players and different concepts are different. A player can be a dick playing all sorts of characters -- a righteous paladin can be just as annoying as an amoral artificer, and likewise a pacifist healer or any other types.

Conversely, though, characters against type can be very positive. I've seen and played some great characters who are foils to the rest of the party -- the mercenary along for the ride, the mad scientist tolerated for his genius resources, and so forth.

I'd generally agree with Simon W and S'mon earlier -

Quote from: S'mon;1093907I'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's fair to make him redo it, but conversely, I would advise against forcing change just because it doesn't fit one's preconceptions. Players bringing in unexpected ideas or concepts is one of the things that can make GMing really awesome, in my experience. I will say no to some things, but I won't shut something down just because it's different than my expectations.

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.
- 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.

So it's your right as the GM to ask 'em to change it if you don't like it or don't think it fits. 100%.

But I'd encourage you to potentially leave it and let 'em play this. Why? I see a lot of RP opportunity here for that player. Maybe the player can turn this into a damn fine story. A quest where a character isn't always the best person but might come around to learning differently could bring a lot of interesting moments for your game. See if the player is open to his character's personality changing over time. Maybe the artificer grows to actually care about his compatriots trying to save the world. Maybe it's not the world he wants to save by the end...it's them. (And honestly even if he doesn't want to change it, I still think his character has to help save the world. He wants eternal life for his character. Logically, no eternal life if he lets his dumbass character get obliterated by demons, so as motivations go...'eternal life' is a good one.)

Of course, I've also had some players who hear a campaign like 'this is about saving the world' and immediately make a character who'd end it just to troll the game. If you think he's trying to do that with his concept, show him the door until he's willing to grok that this game isn't just about him.

I think you're being very fair by allowing him to redo the character. The other option is excluding him from the game, and you're giving the player the choice. An unfair approach would be to boot him from the game without allowing him to self-correct his error.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1094588I think you're being very fair by allowing him to redo the character. The other option is excluding him from the game, and you're giving the player the choice. An unfair approach would be to boot him from the game without allowing him to self-correct his error.

If he has a history of backstabbing the party, kicking him out preemptively is very OK. Some people you just don't want to game with.  

My personal rule of thumb for contrarian characters is simple: they can have different points of view than the other party members, but when push comes to shove, they have to work with the rest of the party and not work against them.

So a character who attacks his own party members gets instantly NPC-ified, and the player probably won't be welcome any more.

A character who runs away from combat and refuses to help the rest of the party because their alignment is Asshole Pacifist gets the same treatment.

For instance, I'm currently playing the ship's astromech in a sci fi campaign, and my character "isn't a killbot." But I find lots of ways to be the backup utility player for the group instead. I fix stuff, I'm a field medic, I'm a mobile sensor platform and the ship's hacker. I'm armored up so I can serve as cover in a firefight. And if my companions are in mortal peril, I will pick up a gun and shoot a bad guy if it's the last resort.

Quote from: Lurkndog;1094622If he has a history of backstabbing the party, kicking him out preemptively is very OK. Some people you just don't want to game with.  

If he has such a history then he's obviously had a chance to self-correct and he blew it.

I think this might be the largest collection of agreement on TheRPGSite. And it is still ongoing!