>Make a homebrew campaign and ban the party from making evil characters because I plan the campaign to be about being heroism
>Everyone comes to the table with either Chaotic Stupid bullshit or "Neutral" characters who are just evil characters in disguise.
ITT:
Playing Against the Party, or, How Not to DM.
The solution is to make the campaign better suited to them, confront the group explicitly, or trash the group and find a new one.
>>46001995
Should've enticed them to the idea of a crusading paladin only party. Chaotic crap/neutral can mesh in that pretty decent.
>>46001995
Should have asked them what type of game they wanted to play, instead of just deciding beforehand without confirming it with them.
Also
>Letting players to show up to the table with characters, without any discussion with you or the rest of the group about how to make it fit into the party
I think you got exactly what you wanted.
A bunch of unclean, unwashed murderous brutes with no stake in the world that you can turn into heroes.
Get to work OP
This is why you find out what kind of game people want in a general sense BEFORE you begin planning
>>46002054
>>46002054
>>46002680
>>46003009
The ST should not have to run a game he doesn't want to. If I tell my players "I want to run a game about heroism" and they all make asshole characters, I'm not going to be excited about that.
The ST is not a fucking slave. You don't have to run games you don't want to. Yes, it's a good idea to ask what people want. But if you tell people you're interested in running a certain type of game--because that's the type of game you're interested in running--then they should either say "I'm not interested" or make characters that fit the game. If you say "I want to run a game using the actual Pathfinder Society" and everyone makes a bunch of unaffiliated murderhobos (as opposed to the Society's affiliated murderhobos) or Aspis Consortium agents...? To fucking bad for them, they clearly don't want to play the game OP was offering to run. He's not obligated to give them what they want.
>>46002953
While that is one way to go, not everyone wants to run a Darkest Dungeon game, either. I mean, if the guy says "I want to run a game inspired by The Hobbit" or whatever, people shouldn't bring characters who are dark and edgy.
It bothers me when /tg/ acts like the GM has an obligation to do what the players want.
>>46001995
>"Sorry, guys, but these aren't heroic characters. I was thinking like paladins, royal knights, heroes. That kind of thing. You guys will have to rethink your characters."
Simple.
>>46001995
>>46002054
>>46003971
Really, it comes down to communication.
If the DM told the players he wanted to do a heroic thing about good guys, and they all showed up with "totally not evil," then fuck those guys.
If the DM forgot to mention that and just banned evil alignments, then it's his bad and he needs to either adjust his plans or convince the players to switch to heroic characters.
If he tells them what he wants and they tell him that's not going to work for them, then they all need to sit down and figure out something that'll work for everyone (which may end up being "find other groups").
>>46001995
If you told them you wanted to run a campaign about heroism your group sucks
If you didn't, you should have
That's the reason why you discuss concepts infdividually with a few sms, then make a commoncreation short session.
Character development.
It sounds like a lame concept with flat characters.
>>46001995
>because I plan the campaign to be about being heroism
Did you tell them that, in those words or in more detail? Do not assume that banning evil PCs will make them think that you are tying to make the game more heroic. Most of the time when a ban on evil characters is done it is for reasons other then "I want my PCs to be heroes". The top reason for banning evil characters is to be able to say "you can't do that because of constructed and contrarian reasons X Y Z, and that would make the character you are playing very evil". Most of the time when I see a ban evil on PCs it is to take freedom away from players and to have a stronger grasp on the plot.If I hear a DM say "No evil characters" and they do not give a reason for why that is a border line red flag to me.
Disclaimers...
First off I normally play very LN PCs. Mostly business with a small touch of professional honor. They try not to have feelings or opinions about the jobs they to in order to not get hurt as much. Their biggest vices if asked would be feeling the need to to avenge wrong bystanders and to give mercy to hired help ( NPC just tried to kill me because its his job, I do not take it personally). I play that type of character because it is easy to fit with most other types and because it helps focus the party on the quest goals. Which in turn helps to keep the party on the plot.
Even playing the inside man among the players trying to get them to do what the DM wants I find much the time when a ban evil on PCs is enforced called up on a given action it is bullshit.It just comes down to "I do not want you to do this for plot reasons and I do not directly say that".
Secondly I will say that if you do not reign in the players sometimes they will play the most evil little shits. Because of that sometimes you need to reign them in.
