So, having played the demo, the first thing that struck me was - characters are going to violently disagree with each other. After all, in the 40K fiction, Chaos is shown to be endlessly betraying and warring with each other- why would your PC's be any different?

So, I'm hoping that their is a large section on advice and suggestions for handling this - what binds PC's together, what happens if one PC kills (or costs another a Fate Poiunt) another - how do they proceed when they are at each others throats? What happens to your game when it circles into endless betrayal?

SJE

There are a lot of RPGs already where players may end up playing the bad guys, and most of them contain a small section that discusses exactly this topic. I've got a drow sourcebook, for example, where this is the case - and I don't think Black Crusade will be different, given what I've read of FFG so far.

In short, it really comes down to the players. If they want, they can defuse pretty much any situation with minimal, if any, violent action - likewise, players that want to screw up things can do so already, and they don't need Black Crusade for that. Just think of the many funny situations that can happen in Dark Heresy when person A plays a Psyker and person B plays a religious fanatic.

"Evil" isn't a bunch of loners. Just like any group of people, villains stick together for mutual protection or to increase their chances of achieving their goals. The tone in a Chaos party will certainly be rougher, but I would presume that the characters will quickly establish a "pecking order" with either the strongest or the most intelligent character at the top - or with the strongest being the official leader whilst being manipulated by the intelligent. The others will become the inner circle and submit. It doesn't take much bending of one's character concept to explain said submission either with the character just biding his time or acknowledging that he may rise to power in the shadow of this leader.

And if conflict truly evolves into violence, who says it has to become deadly? Punching the guy who dared defy the leader into the wall may well be enough to "resolve" the situation, as both players get what they (hopefully) want to maintain character consistency: The leader gets his position confirmed, and the rebellous gets a good reason to back down.

In short, your players simply have to want to keep things from getting ugly. It's not too hard to come up with ways to solve a conflict without dead people.

I agree with Lynata.

If you have characters with interwoven backstories, coherent and cohesive group motivations, and/or that can perform/fill a function/role that is both unique to that character and essential to the group/game you should have no issue.

Expect to run into issues if you have characters without interconnected backgrounds, disparate and divisive goals/motivations, and/or there is significant role overlap. Be wary of any combat monsters who have no skills/motivation outside killing things; more than one of such a character will likely fatally derail your game.

D&D example: I once played an all evil game where everyone was a follower of the same evil god. It was one of the more smoothly running games I've ever played in. Really. No one could really abuse anyone else as everyone had a specific skill set that no one wanted to do with out. You couldn't screw over the cleric, or you just lost your healing. You couldn't screw over the wizard, not if you wanted to know what was written on those strange clay tablets or if you wanted teleported out of trouble. And no one wanted to stymie the others much more than necessary, as our god would turn us into cinders if we failed. The only person we had any issue with was our rogue, who we knew we'd need to procure an item at a later date. He tried to pull a coup once, got beat down by our fighter and denied healing by our cleric; leaving him to limp around on 1 hp for about a session and a half. It was a bit of a risk, but he learned a good lesson about group power dynamics.

Sometimes 'evil' works together better because they know they have to work together to get what they want.

You could also look to White Wolf players and forums for advice. Those games have dealt with this sort of stuff from the start. Usually a sufficiently deadly outside threat will bring disparate PCs together quite nicely. Also, as the many White Wolf games show a little group tension and infighting can be fun and provide lots of plot hooks.

Draggah said:

I agree with the above with one caveat: make sure you look in the right place. You're best luck will probably be in the Vampire or Exalted forums, where the PCs can be powerful, political, and easily at odds with one another. You would probably have less luck in the Werewolf forums. (Werewolves tend to good, innate group cohesion in my experience; akin to loyalist Space Marines.)

Backstabbing games can be the most fun, though...as long as everyone KNOWS it's a backstabbing game and everyone is happy with the implications of that. Paranoia is one that springs to mind.

Difficulties arise where a player is particularly invested in his character and his "friends" suddenly shoot him/throw him into a shark tank/blow him up/crush him etc, especially if that's totally at odds with the tone of the game up to that point. Then things can get awkward.

Of course, Paranoia dealt with this by giving everyone multiple "lives," something not really ideal for 40k. Perhaps the best way to deal with this in Black Crusade is not to see your character as a really kewl antihero, but as a really nuanced and developed villain, who deserves the Best. Death. Ever.

It sounds overly formal, but perhaps also a discussion between players at the start over how they handle this angle might be the best way forward? Get everyone to agree that the tone of the game suggests that the characters MIGHT betray and murder each other, and that all the players should be prepared for this possibility, and to roleplay this out as best as possible for the good of the overall story?

I disagree with much of the above because of the metafiction of the 40K setting. Lets say, you have a group of firm, human friends (or Astartes) who rebel against the Imperium. They slowly turn to Chaos and follow the different paths of power laid out before them. The angry one turns to Khorne, the sly one bargains with Tzeentch, another catches a horrible disease and his only surival lies with Nurgle.

As we see from every bit of fiction ever (including all the Chaos Marine novel series), Chaos worshippers betray each other, in part because their gods are opposed and hate each other and so will they to garner their patrons favour, but mostly because strong willed, ambitious people have agendas which only support their success longterm - and the PC's are all going to be strong willed and ambitious, 'cos if they are not, then its life as a Chaos Spawn.

For example, look at the Night Lords series by Dembski-Bowden - you've got a Chaos Marine Apothecary, with his own sense of honour, who has fought alongside his Astartes brothers throughout the Great Crusade and Heresy and the Long War- and he cant even trust a member of his own squad, let alone another brother to treat his wounds - he has more trust in a human serf in fact. And every time the Legion tries to work with another Legion, betrayal inevitably follows. Same for the Iron Warriors, Word Bearers - everyone with mixed Chaos God allegiances.

Thats the future that awaits every Black Crusade PC -inevitable betrayal when your aims and patrons diverge!

SJE

Betrayal in novels is a plot element . Just like cohesion.

Apart from BL novels just being an individual author's interpretation of GW's setting, if there'd ever be a Chaos novel, I would not be too surprised to see the protagonists stick together until the very end if it serves the story. And for a Black Crusade campaign, it will "serve the story" just as much to prevent the group from breaking apart simply because Chaos has a tendency for betrayal. It's exactly the same as with drow, and it works there, too.

Every betrayal needs a motif (the character thinking he can actually pull this off, and what he would gain) as well as careful preparation. Both of these things can be denied depending on how the group works.

If Abbadon or Miriael can do it, so can you.

It's a thin line to walk between character consistency and playerkills, hence it depends a lot on the players. But as I said, you have this in the other RPGs already, be it with a Psyker in Dark Heresy or with an Ork in Rogue Trader.

Its not a theme- it seems to be a defining trait (at almost DragonLancian levels that "Evil always turns upon itself" ) - it goes back to the Heresy - Horus was the great Betrayer and all of human Chaos seems to follow in his image. Heck, it even started in the Heresy when the Emperors Children got bored with besieging the Emperors Palace and went off to torture civilians across Terra - their adherence to their own pleasures and selfish impulses (a defining Slaaneshi trait) caused them to betray the cause they had previously committed to.

My point is this - given enough time (and in our Broken Chains demo that was under 2 hours), Chaos followers ALWAYS will put their own selfish interests above the common goal (or grow worried that the Khornate Bezerker is a liability, and he'd be better dying in battle than failing to snap out of his Frenzy and turning on your unarmoured human ass) and start betraying or fragging each other to survive or keep the upper hand.

As for Abaddon, he routinely blames his 13 failures on betrayal, and as we see in Soul Hunter , he more than ready to betray and kill other Chaos Space Marines if they dont put his goals first.

SJE

Of course Chaos followers will always put their own selfish interests above the common goal - the secret in preserving group cohesion is thus to make sure that these selfish interests somehow still remain compatible. This is something that the GM and the players should work on together, though the party's leader undoubtedly plays a large part in this in that he has to "sign off" on the big plan at the end.

Chaos betrays each other. But they don't do it all the time, else not a single Black Crusade would have come to be. This RPG will do nothing other than to ape which has existed before.

SJE said:

See? That's a perfect example for how the leader can keep his other PCs in line. They now have a reason not to mess with him and everyone can keep pursueing the common goal!

@Poor ****- Thanks for pointing that out, I'd forgotten to.

@SJE- I think you may be pushing the whole 'Chaos turns on itself' thing a little too hard. Sure there will be backstabbing and betrayal, but that doesn't have to ruin a good game.

I find the notion that "Chaos will always turn against itself in the end" to be a bit hard to swallow; yes, it has some elements of truth, but the Imperium is equally succeptable to turning against itself, if not more so. Wars of faith, secular schisms, Inquisitorial Shadow Wars, long-standing political rivalry and the conflicts of Rogue Trader houses erupt across the galaxy seemingly at the drop of a hat, and that's not even including conflicts involving Chaos. Those who follow the Dark Gods may not always see eye-to-eye, but they're practical enough in most cases that an uneasy alliance is preferable to outright destruction.

There are many ways to put this point across to the players; if one of them is giving indications that he's going to take down a fellow player because he worships his deity's rival in the pantheon, and you wish to avoid this, make it clear in no uncertain terms that their God does not wish this to happen....yet. Things can always change down the line, but if they wave their faith at you as an excuse to go around killing other party members, let them know that their master's ire will fall upon them. Why? For what reason does their Dark Lord wish for them to travel with this heathen scum, perhaps even ordered to keep them alive? Well STFU, it's not the servant's place to question the master and they'd better **** well do it. The advantage of having immensely powerful beings (which may not even be the Chaos Gods themselves, but rather their own direct servants) is that they can always turn up and spell things out for players who don't pick up on the subtler hints, plus it works as a great way to generate stories.

Sometimes players will gun for each other over profit; after all, that Forsaken Chaos Marine is wearing a treasure-troves worth of bartering material. His armour will fetch a hefty sum for any other Marine whose looking for spares to fix his own power armour, and the Dark Mechanicus will probably pay through the nose for samples of Gene Seed (usually it's too corrupted for Chaos Space Marines to use themselves to produce new warriors). So how do you stop a player hatching a plan to harvest their fellow players for cash? This one is harder to counter since, personally, I agree with some of the core elements to it; if a player is not smart enough to keep that bad-ass daemon blade, then they deserve to lose it. If you're looking to avoid it happening between players however, the best way I can think of is to make sure that whatever they could want from another player, there's always someone in the story who has something better, that's worth more, or just generally more fun to acquire. Most people who'd kill a felow player for some item or piece of equipment will generally redirect their focus if you present an NPC who has similiar or slightly better gear, allowing them to attempt their insidious harvesting while leaving the other player free to enjoy their own toys.

At the end of the day though, if players want to go at each other, then they will find means and excuses to do so, no matter what. In a good play group with mature players, this can be a lot of fun, adds tension to every game and often ends with a spectacularly epic final confrontation where one player finally conquers the other. For some groups, it will end in an hour-long *****-fest that can bring the game to a screeching halt and fracture friendships. If you're GMing a game like this, it's essential to know the kind of playgroup you have and react accordingly.

SJE said:

Did that actually happen while you played the demo? Because then your players weren't very smart. As far as I know the adventure is set on an Imperial prison ship. In that case the party has to stick together. Evil doesn't equal dumb. If you leave the berzerker behind as a distraction for the first group of enemies you will lack help later. The goal is to leave. It doesn't matter if you are evil or not, alone no one has a chance.

SJE said:

It should never go that far. What should bind the characters together is a common purpose. The party has to be designed in a way to fit together. Just like it's a very bad idea to put a mutant and a sister of battle into the same group in Dark Heresy, or a Crimson Fist Kill-Marine and an Ork Kommando in Rogue Trader. But tell me, do you think Chaos Marines of the same squad kill each other for fun? Or do they team up to kill their Chaos Lord? Not unless the Chaos Lord does something incredibly stupid. Why? Because a single Chaos Marine is a bit of a sad sight when he comes to plunder a planet. They need each other to achieve their goals.

For those thinking that Chaos doesnt turn in on itself, I challenge people to name one 40K novel with Chaos as the POV character, in which the anti-hero is not betrayed or betrays either his Chaos allies or his Chaos God.

It doesnt exist.

Secondly for Broken Chains, you know there is a Khorne Bezerker PC in with a Psyker-Witch right? (with the 6 player table) - you wont always be able to create compatible characters, and even if you did (say all Night Lords Astartes) in the fiction that doesnt last either. In our table of Broken Chains we wanted to frag the Bezerker in the final battle, as we'd seen the difficulty he had of coming out of frenzy and didnt want to be his next victim when he ran out of Imperials to kill (we'd suborned the cannibals as our makeshift cult)

Sure you can play nice and friendly Chaos worshippers who completely co-operate and dont betray each other when its in their self-interest. But it wouldnt be 40K.

SJE

SJE said:

"Snares and Delusions" by Matthew Farrer. It's part of the Dark Imperium Anthology, though it may have also been reprinted elsewhere.

Not that novels have any relevance when it comes to canon. I'd still rather point at the previous official Black Crusades. Though they don't have their own books, they are a clear sign that Chaos, just like any group of villains that would otherwise not hesitate to stab each other in the backs, is clearly able to cooperate in pursuit of a long-term goal. If treason were to be tha t common and basically part of their daily life, there probably wouldn't even be any CSM Legions or Chaos cults left to pose a threat to the Imperium.

Secondly for Broken Chains, you know there is a Khorne Bezerker PC in with a Psyker-Witch right? (with the 6 player table)

So what? Khorne's hatred for psykers is pretty selective. He may not grant psyker powers and he may not allow witches to bear his mark, but those bloodletters don't exactly summon themselves. In fact, the Chosen PC pretty much looked like the most easy-going chaos character - he knows that if he killed the group, that's it. Even if he can kill every living being on the ship, he won't get off of it, spending eternity on a dead hulk when there's a galaxy of people to kill out there. So... as long as the witch doesn't steal his kills...

- you wont always be able to create compatible characters,

As a matter of fact, I think we will. Unless there's a paragraph in the rulebook that says "Every group must contain at least two characters that will be at each others throats within 10 minutes of the game starting", I'm pretty sure I can do the same thing I do in every other RPG: Talk about what characters everyone will play, what dynamics the group may exhibit and how we can avoid unwanted conflicts.

and even if you did (say all Night Lords Astartes) in the fiction that doesnt last either. In our table of Broken Chains we wanted to frag the Bezerker in the final battle, as we'd seen the difficulty he had of coming out of frenzy and didnt want to be his next victim when he ran out of Imperials to kill (we'd suborned the cannibals as our makeshift cult)

You do realize that Babaroth has a chance of 62% (WP52 + 10 Frenzy) to exit frenzy on the first try, which becomes 86% if he's prepared to blow a reroll (or if you happen to have a minion or two on hand - after all, the ability explicitly notes that he can attack NPCs first). Alternatively, just make sure noone stands within charging distance (12m) when the last enemy falls.

SJE said:

I think you've gotten a large section of advice right here on this thread as to how to potentially handle Black Crusade PCs. However, I think most of the advice is along the lines of "don't make characters that are incompatible", "make sure to have plenty of interlocking plot hooks", "have long term and short term group goals", and "betrayal in mature groups and/or at a dramatically appropriate time can be fun." I don't think any game should have to circle into endless betrayal. If you end up (unwittingly) in such a game, it is probably due to a deficiency in one or more of the group members.

With the above said, I'd like to expand on/reinforce some things other people have said and add a few of my own points:

1. Greed is not enlightened self-interest; and vice-versa.
2. What makes a good novel does not necessarily make a good game.
3. Practice smart character creation: utilize niche protection and mutually compatible goals.
4. Create adventures where all the characters are needed to survive.
5. Feel free to reject characters that wouldn't fit into, or would disrupt, the group dynamic, especially if you suspect a player can't handle playing such a character.
6. Betrayals should probably only occur at a dramatically appropriate time, such as when the action would garner enough infamy to allow the character to become a Daemon Prince at the climax of a campaign.
7. If you have mature players, feel free to play in a Paranoia/Diplomacy game style: it can be a lot of fun, but its a lot of work and requires very mature and experience players.
8. Consider troupe style play in the event of a major, in character, schism instead of playing out the end of Reservior Dogs

I've run mixed Exalted games where some characters motivations are, literally, to exterminate all life; yet, through a combination of interwoven character backgrounds, short-term situational need, and players/characters with long-term goals/planning, you can run a game just fine, even if one of the characters wants to see all the other characters, their families, friends, etc killed and/or tortured for all eternity; at least until the climax of the campaign.