Having/Playing morally grey/evil characters in larp

Community Larp discussion
#21

Something else that strikes me, which Stephanie just reminded me of.

Whenever one plays the villain, the monster, the bad guy, it is indeed imperative that one goes out of one’s way to display that one as a player is not the evil character one has just portrayed. Letting others know that they played well, that there are no hard feelings, and so on.

However, it is just as imperative that other players treat one with respect in reverse. It should never be acceptable to ridicule, insult or mock another player outside of the game, regardless of whether the player has just been the one who emerges ‘victorious’ in a conflict.

I can think of several examples where respect wasn’t shown between the players of characters that were antagonistic while in game, but ostensibly friends outside of it. Respect is another key word I’m taking away from this discussion.

I can also think of a personal example where I ‘lost’ an IC confrontation soundly with another player, and it was not a pleasant feeling to have. However, I acted as an adult, and engaged that player in conversation as soon as possible outside the game, ensuring no hard feelings or unaired issues existed between us. Because of this, that player and I have been able to enjoy an antagonistic relationship as characters while still retaining respect for each other as players.

#22

[quote=“Indiana Dave”]So, personally, I think unless you are being quite obvious and consistent with clues about the true nature of the character, then a victory by betrayal is actually a rather cheap victory in these sorts of larps. It really is not a surprise that someone can “win” in this sort of thing. Unless they set out to purposely loose, or at less give obvious hints and clues out over the course of the campaign to give a reasonable chance of of being found out, then it would be a surprising for them to lose, in my opinion.

So when someone is “victorious” in this sort of way, I think others can feel hard done by, because really they had little chance to spot the evil among them and are pretty much powerless to do anything about it.[/quote]

Personally I am confused over the concept of ‘winning’ in a Larp. I see the goal as having a great roleplaying experience and to me the things that happened in Teonn may not have been what some players wanted but the experience was richer for it.

It might be that Larps in the past were about the hero’s winning the scenario but from the way the GM’s described things at the end Teonn was not a game of that style. It was what we made it and I for one felt it was better for the twists. We played the game, we got an ending and we got some amazingly powerful scenes from it. Without the twist I think it would have been less emotional and had much less impact.

#23

[quote=“Mandos”]Personally I am confused over the concept of ‘winning’ in a Larp. I see the goal as having a great roleplaying experience and to me the things that happened in Teonn may not have been what some players wanted but the experience was richer for it.

It might be that Larps in the past were about the hero’s winning the scenario but from the way the GM’s described things at the end Teonn was not a game of that style. It was what we made it and I for one felt it was better for the twists. We played the game, we got an ending and we got some amazingly powerful scenes from it. Without the twist I think it would have been less emotional and had much less impact.[/quote]

Yeah, there was a reason I was putting quote marks around the use of win and victorious in my post. I wasn’t actually talking about “winning the larp”. I was talking about winning the in-game situation, not the larp. Winning a larp is about having a good experience. Having a bad in-character ending, can be really good, playing out negative emotions can be a good experience.

But I was talking about the in-game situation. If the secretly evil person is betraying the heroes, then he is doing for some goal, he is trying to stop the heroes achieve their goals or cause misery, or pain or whatever. When he pits himself against the other characters, he is far more likely to win the situation, if he has remained secret about his motives and picks his time right. It may lead to good roleplaying experiences for all. But it might lead to hurt feeling, which I can see why… I don’t really think it is playing fair, because of things being so stacked in the favour of the secretly evil character coming out on top, unless they telegraph their evilness to a significant degree.

If we were watching a movie or reading a book, you would expect there to be some clues and hints along the way that the evil person on the good guys side was really evil. If there are no clues then it is not a well written story. The audience should have some chance of guessing, and the heroes normally guess just in time to foil the villains.

But in larp the audience are the participants. And because of the nature of the game, the fact it is all make believe, and the heroes and often twisted, screw up individuals which make it easy for a villain to hide in their midst, it becomes harder for the other players to guess what is going on until the villain among them is victorious.

And, as I said before, I am not talking about the specifics of Teonn. I haven’t had enough to do with any of the characters involved to know if there was telegraphing or not, and I wasn’t there for the last game. My comments are about larping in general.

#24

Weighing in with my 2c, and two key points.

THIS. We are not our characters, we are not interacting for months in one small town, where we have time to get to know each other, pick up on subtle signs, can learn over time to trust each other. In a game, we often have to make snap decisions based on a very narrow perception of a character that can be portrayed any way the player wishes. Often we have to take things at face value as we’re told, because if the fantasy world were real, there would have been much more obvious signs, like say, a glimmering magical wall or an evil aura about an object, or even less obvious signs which our characters would have been able to pick up on. Yes, you have to be obvious, because we don’t have all that rich history and accurate portrayals and perceptions that we would have if our characters are real.

My second point is that if you choose to play an evil/morally gray character (and I’m all for that, it adds diversity and drama), you have to ADD to EVERYBODY’S game. And this is entirely controlled by our out of character choices. Playing a serial killer is all well and good, but if you start just luring people into the woods and picking them off, then of course people are going to be upset. I liked George’s story, and Mandos’ method of playing, because it was dramatic, made sense, and didn’t spoil the game for anyone - it actually added to the game. I do not doubt that at any point George could have asked Meg to come look at something in a deserted room and then kill her, but that would not have added to everybody’s game. Han didn’t have to step back into the middle of Cormere, he could have remained on the edges attacking those he didn’t like during the chaos of battle, but that would not have added to everybody’s game. In Wolfgang’s I came into this catholic order as a witch in disguise (not unique or particularly evil I know … but it is the closest personal example I have to draw on), I went in knowing and accepting that I might get burned at the stake, and with the goal of adding to everybody’s game. After Cinder’s big outburst at Blaze I went back ooc just to make sure everything was ok, and when Blaze came wandering out of jail I didn’t insist on him going back in, because ooc that just wouldn’t have been fun for him. This is a collaborative effort and we’re all here to have fun, but if you come in with a character who’s sole goal is to jerk everybody else around … well, of course feelings are going to be hurt. We do have to fudge the reality of the game so everybody has fun, the truly artful can make evil characters which can stay true to themselves, without hurting ooc emotions.

Also, for all those who feel that the Teonn betrayal made the end game better because of the high emotions … put yourself in the position of the elementals, and you’d think otherwise.

#25

The major issue is that often players don’t see hints coming if you hit them over the head with them. Over the course of the campaign I…

Openly plucked still beating hearts out of the chests of dead NPC’s and crushed them in my fist.
Showed little or no remorse over deaths
And at one point was told loudly that all the women I had killed I had done for no reason, to which I yelled back that all the killings had been right and still no-one spotted the serial killer in their midst.

I was told that another character and myself were two little peas in a vile little pod and so watched carefully and you know what all the signs were there. Players just don’t get hints, they are wrapped up in their own stories and often miss what you think may be obvious.[/quote]

A slightly unrelated issue, but one I think that feeds int to this, is the fact that they were NPCs that you did that too. As a crew member I have seen a tendancy that NPCs are less important characters. Yes they are, in terms of their story, but if we try to treat them with the same level of IC concern and respect (don’t worry we get tonnes OOC :slight_smile: ) then some of these clues wouldn’t pass by like the crushing of their still beating hearts.

#26

The “Teonn betrayal” made my game substantially more enjoyable. If it had not happened, then I would have failed what my character set out to do in a very big way.

Firstly there were multiple hints it was happening, but everyone ignored them cause they were hung up in their own stuff.

Secondly there were multiple instances to fix it.

Thirdly the rules were outlined in game 4 I believe:
If the Morhkin did nothing, they would win for their race.
If the Humans succeeded they would never be slaves again, but the Morhkin would be.
If the Elementals won, humanity would be enslaved, and the elementals would rebuild their cities of human backs.

The other races weren’t mentioned.

There was no ending where everybody got everything they wanted.

#27

In my experience, with any kind of storytelling, most of the fun of a good betrayal comes from the fact that it’s well set up and that you know it’s coming, but the characters don’t. In TV and such, they generally accomplish this with things like scenes of the traitor-to-be actively conspiring, because a part of the goal of good storytelling is to let the audience in on things like that so they don’t come out of left field and ruin the verisimilitude of the story.

In LARPs it’s a bit different, because the ‘audience’ is also responsible for the characters’ actions. The problem, I think, comes from the fact that people don’t trust one another to keep a clear divide between IC and OOC knowledge, so anyone who’s doing something not completely obvious (whether with their backstory or during the game) tends to be absurdly secretive about it. Because of that, we lose out on one of the staples of storytelling - namely, knowing more than the characters about what’s going on.

I know from my own experience that when I found out after the fact that one of my friends had, in a campaign game, been working against me the whole time, I felt betrayed. It wasn’t the in character betrayal that bothered me, though; it was the fact that he hadn’t seen fit to mention it to me out of character. We could’ve made a more interesting story together if I’d known, but that chance was missed. Hell, even if everything in game had been done exactly the same, just knowing OOC about the ongoing duplicity would have made it more exciting for me. Finding out after the fact is like a retcon of all the interactions you’ve ever had with that character, leaving you completely powerless in them.

I think there’s a balance to be met there. Obviously there are some reveals which are just better for everyone involved if only a select few know of them OOC beforehand, but I think that when you’re actively conspiring against other players, you should be up front about it and work together to make it more fun for everyone. Note that this doesn’t necessarily mean revealing all your plans; while there are cases where that might be prudent, sometimes it’s enough to just make sure that the people you’re screwing over IC are aware OOC that you’re playing a duplicitous, conniving snake (possibly called Cauchemar :stuck_out_tongue: ). It’s about getting a good read of the situation, and of the effect of your intended actions, and trying to make sure that you’re not putting your fun ahead of everyone else’s.

Obviously that does bring up the issue of metagaming - but frankly, if individuals can’t keep themselves from acting IC on information that their character has no way of knowing, then this may not be the hobby for them. If you can pretend you don’t know how many HP the barbarian prince has, you can pretend you don’t know that he’s shafting you on the trade deal. Same thing. If a subpar roleplayer like me can pull that off then it shouldn’t be any trouble for anyone else.

Now, to be clear, I’m just talking about campaign games here. Obviously it’s different in one-offs, and depends on things like the sensibilities of the GM/writer and whether the game’s been run before. That’s a whole 'nother kettle of fish though.

#28

Another big problem I have seen, and experienced personally, with playing a bad guy and letting players know things - is they find an excuse to know about it in character and completely ruin it.

I had a character who was a very, very evil person - but was working for the greater good. Whenever there was a potential to stop him being evil, if I talked about it OOC or people knew about it, they would move to stop it and then invent a reason on the spot and tell me they didn’t need to justify it, they were just doing it.

Thats my problem with handing out OOC information.

#29

Yes. Which is why there was a thread on the Teonn forum where Marius killed a priest in cold blood, and I was appalled that nobody did anything. NPC’s are people too!

(back to topic)

#30

I don’t like hearing information when out of game. A couple of time I got people asking if they were okay with me being kidnapped for a torture scene in a weekend game. All I could think was “Why are you asking me?” It takes away the surprise and just makes any scene redundant. There are some things we can easily double-think away but huge game changing things like “this person is secretly out to get you” is another thing entirely. Leave that in the game.

When it comes to making the game better for everyone, this can’t mean everyone has to win all the time. These games and characters come with the assumption of conflict, and that’s what makes for a lot of good stories. From what I’ve heard from Teonn I think Bjarn’s betrayal worked really well. There were many opportunities to find him out, the simplest being asking on the other seers about Blaze, and he had good reasons that fit with his character. In character, most of our character would never know so could only react to how things happened to be in front of us. It’s fantastic and hearing about it after the game was one of the best laughs of the campaign. As for the game effects it had, I probably just don’t understand. I find roleplaying defeat or a hard choice is just as rewarding as roleplaying victory, since I do this to play a character. The character goes into a situation, and the challenge is knowing how they would react to it.

I think Jerome was also very morally ambiguous character. I played him with genuine intentions, making him probably the opposite to Bjarn. He never intended to betray anyone and was trying to help in the ways he knew how to. The problem was his background was one that put him immediately into conflict with a large and powerful group. His society considered his greed, self-centredness and arrogance to be virtues, and everyone’s suspicion of his efforts to negotiate and find out more about the Dark Mother by talking to her was simple confirmation of his belief that Humans and Elementals are barbarians who are incapable of civilisation. Despite his good intentions, he was met with nothing but threats. Despite clearly communicating his intentions, this all built up to a pirate lynch mob forming at the Piha game, which I was not expecting Jerome to walk away from.

I could have played him differently, in a way that wasn’t as antagonistic maybe, but that wasn’t the character I made. In a similar matter I could argue that the pirates shouldn’t have been as hostile, because it seemed to scare off players who assumed if they played an elf they’d just get ganked unless they played one who was an outcast. But these were the characters we made and the conflict and constant efforts to undermine each other - a very muscle against politics situation - was the best part of the game for me.

#31

Great points Dave, I think you hit the nail on the head.

#32

From my experience, it is less the evil characters that are the issue, but the manipulative. I think there is a greater danger for the ‘good’ character to make the game shit for evil characters than vice versa, that is coming from personal experience. Manipulative characters tend to hit people in their pride more and when pride gets hit people get really pissy.

I think it is very important to remember that even very highly experienced players will still hurt others and sometimes damage their game. It is never intentional and almost always happens through bleed. I’m a fan of the personal responsibility approach where I accept that I fucked up, failed to see the blow coming and appreciate the situation and the play. However, that comes later.

Witchhouse had one of my favourite ending, where I got one of the worst endings possible. Worst in an absolutely great way. The way I handled it was to stay quiet until the emotional baggage dissipated and I could truly enjoy the tragic end to my character.

A tragic ending is just as valid as a classically good ending and can often teach you more from the situation that it comes from.

If you have played in a larp for long enough, you have almost certainly made the game shit for another player at one point or another, and made a larp great for another player too.

#33

I don’t mind tragic endings in larps (caused by evil characters). In fact, most of the larps I’ve had the best time in have tragic endings. What really annoys me as a player is when the other player decides they’re going to “train track” the entire thing so I have no choice in how my characters’ ending plays out. Yes, this could be good roleplaying. It could also be a sign of being a poor sport.

I’m of the view that people are right to be upset when this happens, and players who do this should be prepared to face OOC consequences. Peole, especially in campaigns, where people are heavily invested in characters, do not take kindly to that. Yeah, in a perfect world, all that stuff could be kept IC and in game. But again, emotional investment is OOC; all the energy devoted to things like costume, character sheets, online rp: that’s OOC effort, and people don’t like to feel like that’s wasted, which they are entitled to feel. I’m of the mind that feelings are never wrong, only how you act on them.

And it’s not necessarily only bad/evil characters who do this. Say I have a paladin, who has a sword that will slay the big bad. Now, anyone can weild the sword, but he has kept this information from the other players, because he’s looking to be the Big Damn Hero and sway the outcome in his faction’s favour (say, the shiny knights of fluffiness and cute cat macros). When he slays the big bad, he and his faction get to effectively decide the endgame, and have taken the choice away from other players.

I don’t mind evil or morally grey characters. It really adds to a game when you can’t quite trust your fellow players. That makes it interesting. What I really hate is when anyone railroads.

I fall on the side of trying to make the game better for other players. Sometimes I’ve affected someone’s game negatively by accident: I killed a character (not knowing) and the player was playing dead, for about forty minutes. Which I apologised for afterwards, which the other player was gracious enough to accept. But if it wasn’t ok, then I would have given the other player space to get over their annoyance.

Now, this is how I prefer to play. If some players choose differently, I’m not going to ask them to change. But there’s no harm in being made aware of the different feelings about this in the community, and how to make a best informed decision about how they choose to play their characters.

#34

Prema, it might be worthwhile reposting that video you put on Facebook. I think the FB conversation has been deleted. I thought it had some great points on emotions in LARP which are applicable.

#35

Here it is:

youtube.com/watch?v=AtjeFU4mxw4

#36

I have had a great deal of fun playing an evil character in an otherwise non-evil(ish) larp (St Wolfgangs, Marcus). I started off pious enough, and my fall was in game and completed in time for me to join the NPC’s. My final fate was, appropriately enough, met by one of my former friends from the PC’s. In part my evil wasn’t overly harmful to other characters - I stole a whole bunch of evil stuff, was chastised for this (in a fantastic scene that somehow ended up with my accusers failing to find the items I had stolen), and then fled, but I did not kill or even wound any other players (I did put one chap to sleep, and he returned the favour by paralyzing me, and got one of my own friends to betray me so I walked into his trap… it was all rather fantastic). It worked really well with me then upgrading my character to an NPC who occasionally popped up, summoned some nasties, and got to attempt to persuade my former comrades that my actions were all in the right.

In terms of repeating the experience, things I would look to do are:

Utilize ‘evil’ that doesn’t involve murdering other PC’s. Stealing powerful magic items, engaging in morally repulsive but non-triggering behaviours (I quite like the idea of using flaying of skin as a metaphor for invasive abuse), and/or coordinate with the GM’s to mastermind some threats to the PC’s, e.g. being the one who summons/hires a whole bunch of nasties who come and attack the players. If GM’s provide good opportunities for this, use them, and I would encourage GM’s who are so willing to create ‘official evil activities’ that people can engage in, for example heresy, flaying (as I suggested above), practicing illegal or dark magic, or making deals with powerful and malign entities.

Coordinate with the GM’s. Chances are they’ll be able to provide some help and ideas and coordinate things so they work with the rest of the structure of the game. Being upgraded to NPC is awesome (if you’re lucky it can be like getting a massive xp boost in exchange for GM’s helping you do evil stuff).

Be righteous in ones evilness. The best evils are the ones that sound like they are somehow good or just or at the very least morally equivalent to things the PC’s are doing (like murdering poor peasants who have nothing so have resorted to banditry to survive, for example). Makes for some great arguments with ones former friends, and I did actually manage to persuade some that I was in the right as Marcus!

#37

What strikes me about this thread is that I think what we are really discussing is intrinsic conflict.

Choosing to create a character that is diametrically opposed to the general thrust of the campaign naturally leads to direct intrinsic conflict with the bulk of the PCs. This would be true if the thrust of the campaign was evil in nature (e.g. most PCs playing a bunch of Nazis doing groundbreaking experiments in living human subjects) and you chose to play a compassionate good person who wants the experiments to end, and the prisoners to be set free.

The reality is that if you play with an agenda that is at odds with the bulk of the player group, and you make decisions that impact the bulk of the player group (which are seen, subjectively, as negative by the majority of that group), then it is axiomatic that many players will be displeased with the outcome.

What is important is whether your contrary character is externally consistent with their hidden agenda. If they have an open agenda (that is, explicitly stated goals of which the other PCs are aware), and succeed, then everyone else had it coming, IMO.

If you keep your agenda hidden to the point that it has no impact on your character at all, then the other PCs will experience a massive cognitive dissonance between the public actions of your character (up to the point of betrayal) and the subsequent betrayal. This will likely result in OOC repercussions as I think may have happened to Mark. Nobody saw it coming, and the reactions were possibly quite acute. As Bryn has identified, you need to inoculate the at rest of the player base by providing an appropriate amount of information, such that - as in a really well-scripted movie twist - those who were paying attention go “Aha ! I knew it !” when your character executes the betrayal. If everyone goes “WTF?” then cognitive dissonance is the next result. In other words, it is about maintaining external consistency relevant to internal agenda.

If effect, the fully hidden agenda strikes at the heart of the larping social contract. We all agree to play be a set of rules, both explicitly (as in the Teonn ruleset) and implicit (as in our larping culture’s expectations of conduct in the shared experience). IMO, the implicit contract requires sufficient information from which the participants (both PCs and crew) are able to draw accurate conclusions about the nature of the environment in which they are collaboratively creating a shared reality. If an agenda is kept hidden then we are not really sharing in the full nature of the reality. Working with the GMs is a good way to develop ways in which your character’s agenda can be publicly expressed.

Even if you have a publicly understood agenda, you may wish to also consider the impact of an adroit execution of that agenda.

For example, Sir Xenith was a Knight of the All. The rules said “All Morhkin must be destroyed”. If I wanted, I could have ganked Morhkin PCs in the first Teonn game. It would have been in keeping with the setting, but I considered the negative impacts, and discarded it as an approach. Instead, I played him hard-out racist against Morhkin and gave them all shit. It created many shared roleplaying moments.

I suppose the thesis is that if you wish to play a character that is diametrically opposed to the majority of the other players, then you need to take extra care to design your character with the implicit contract in mind.

#38

My wife Kelsie was chatting to me about this. She suggested that she’d expect a certainly amount of foreshadowing from a player who was playing contrary to the majority of the players.