Evil character moral dilemmas ?

Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil situations. That is all.

Pragmatic evil vs Muhahaha evil

>>48933462
>>48933485
k unhelpful

Tell your players to give their characters some sort of goal or motivation other than being aimless murderhobos

>>48933620
probably a good idea, tho i figured i can "pull them into character" rather than ask them to. in good campaigns i used to be able to make a player figure out his personality as the game passed just by presenting him with dilemmas that made him choose a stand. Its really hard to do that on evil characters tho

>>48933454
same way you would for any other character in principle,

Option 1 has the character follow their morals and code of conduct and is how they would wish to act

Option 2 is the pragmatic route that promises to achieve the desired results in a more convenient fashion

if the characters are driven by nothing more than pragmatism/bloodlust/desire for power and display no other character traits have the two options be short term pragmatism vs long term pragmatism or something

>>48933684
>>48933620
also this, characters with no motivation and goals just become wandering murderers

>>48933684
Just do the opposite. Present the players with situations that pit what few scruples they have against greater gain.
Are they willing to kill a stranger because he saw their face too near the scene of the crime?
Are they willing to scam a city desperate for aid against invaders by selling them scrap in the shape of weapons, knowing that the city will be put to he sword as a result? Are they willing to open the gates themselves? How far will they go before even Evil has standards?

>>48933454
Have realistic consequences to their actions.

If they constantly skullfuck their way through their problems, everyone will smite their asses.

>>48933454
I think part of the problem is what your players think evil *is*. Try persuading them to play characters who are evil by virtue of being so utterly self-centered that they cannot possibly care about the impact of their actions upon others, or that the lives of others may have value. Trying to think purely in terms of self-interest can be a real eye-opener.

>>48933454
As always, it largely depends on the system you are running, as those all imply different kinds of "evil". Since you mentioned alignment, I will assume we are talking D&D here.

The basic assumption about the evil alignment in D&D specifically is that they are not bound by morales to achieve their either lawful, neutral or chaotic goals. As such, a classic "moral dilemma" is almost impossible to pull off.

If the sole purpose here is to not let them always pick violence and just give them some meaningful choices, there are still tons of ways to do that.
For example, you can always pit long-term goals versus short-term goals. Sure, violence might the easiest solution to deal with the city guard, but that might lead to problems later on when the party is invited for an audience with the king, which they desperately need to gain the military support to get revenge on the Pope or whoever else rules in the next country that has rubbed them the wrong way.

Also, as
>>48933462
said, you can put the different evil alignments into conflict with each other. A chaotic evil character might always want to burn the city down, but the lawful evil character will be strongly opposed to that, since they value order. Now a netural evil character might have to chose between which of the two they aid. Neutral Evil is the "selfish evil" variant, so offer them boons on both sides: The lawful evil guy promises them money and titles, the chaotic evil one offers them loot from pillaging the city. Make sure the rewards both matter to the character!

Lastly, and most difficult, if you want to actively force the players to confront the evil nature of their characters with decisions, first of all be prepared for the moment when they won't. Some people just want to blow of steam and have the greatest fun being murderhobos. Trying to force morality on them will not be fun for them, as a result fail, and not be fun for you either.

>>48933772
(cont.)


Otherwise, you have a few options:

First, you might try to pit the players against their characters: Lead the characters down a path where they commit worse and worse acts to see just far they and their players are willing to go. Some might eventually be uncomfortable with what their characters are doing and will start thinking of way to tone it down all by themselfes. Once that happens, you encourage said development by offering them the choice to go along with everyone else, or try to do the right thing amidst all the wrong. It does not have to be a redemption arc, small gestures of morality are enough.

Secondly, there is always reality against the characters: It often comes as a surprise to the players, but being a dick to other people often leads to other people being a dick to them. If a character is truly evil for the evil, then try to put them in a situation where being nice is just a lot more effective to achieve their goals. Then you have a reverse "moral dilemma": Do they stick to their principles and act evil, or do they take the much more effective approach of being good.

File: Close-to-Nature-11.jpg (249KB, 730x1095px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 730x1095px

Play on their selfishness.

Offer bargains and deals for power - and then ENFORCE the deals and bargains.

Test the limits of their evil. Will they kill a child? A mother? Will they do it to save someone else?

Present them with a heinous act that is undeserved: an angel, tortured, horribly maimed, cruelly treated. They an release it or kill it, but to do nothing earns the wrath of it's kin....and it lets them know this.

Don't give them moral dilemmas. Give them ethical ones.

>evil characters
>moral dilemma

I can tell that you're thinking about this the wrong way. If you want to present them with dilemmas, you need to think along different lines: Revenge vs personal gain, or short term vs long term profit. Or just find out what the characters care about(provided they're not just murderhobos) and make them really think about it: Would they rather handle an assassination quickly and efficiently, or would they land in the middle of the village riding a skeletal dragon and challenge the target into a duel in a manner that'll be remembered for generations? Do they hit the gunpowder warehouse to cause the bitching explosion to destroy the castle, or do they risk an assault to steal the king's famed chef? Do they forego their reputation as cruel but honourable now or do they save the treachery for when it makes the most difference?

>>48933756
Very possibly true. They all essentially play the same character, with the difference of abilities and pointy ears or not.
>>48933772
>>48933786
Thanks that is helpful. Yet it seems like the dilemmas you give as example are logical dilemmas rather than moral dilemmas, which may also work but I wanted something to reflect on personality rather than logic.
I think they DO want to be just murderhobos, but I am not sure if they enjoy it as much as they thought. Alot of players come with a simplified characters to my games but gain meaning through it, i want to pull them out of the murderhobo mentality.
I do like your idea of "how far will they go" and i think I will try that on the next session.

Maybe it will help if I give information about the game: They are currently looking for a cursed sword in a forest, and just murdered a camp of wizards on an expedition to obtain more information about the sword. They are heading towards a ruin plagued by demons as the scrolls suggest the sword is located at.

>>48933811
Maybe I am looking at it the wrong way. But can't evil characters have personal dilemmas? Something they care about?
I want to make the characters CARE about something, then make it a dilemma. but i cant seem to pull it off.