I think this is a great answer and I have upvoted it accordingly, but I'm not sure they really froze him out of "all workplace functions". They are still working with him, they just don't socialize.

OP seems remorseless, and knows what he did wrong, he's just choosing to act dumb. OP will have to suck it up and apologize for acting that way.

There's also a lot of blame for the DM and perhaps the other players in even allowing them to roll a chaotic evil character in a cooperative game.

@CBauer I think that would depend on his actual experience with tabletop RPGs, no? As someone who has very limited experience with them (i.e. I know a bit about how they are played but have never participated myself), it doesn't seem like a deliberate wrong move. They thought they were being clever about what their character would do without considering the social aspects of the game. In the game universe it was wrong because it was in character. It's the out of game implications that he never considered the wrongneess of.

OP is acting chaotic stupid and wondering why there are consequences.

I would substitute "cordially" for "politely" (which is a different thing to me). And I agree with nvoigt: I don't know that the coworkers aren't still treating him politely. They're just not treating him as a friend, and rightfully so.

Edit suggestion: not "ruining THE game" (recall he wrote "but still having fun"). Instead, "ruining the game FOR THEM". Or something to that effect. A subtle distinction that should nonetheless be strongly stressed. There are people who do deep roleplay, and those who do not. The apology is for reading the latter group wrong.

@Hurkyl But it isn't simply a problem of the OP and the coworkers having different expectations. The problem was that the OP made no effort to understand what the expectations of his coworkers were, and didn't give any consideration to how his actions would be perceived. It was a bone-headed move that could easily have put strain on relationships within a circle of close friends; in the context of coworkers that are new acquaintances, the playstyle differences become secondary to basic interpersonal skills.

@Hurkyl While I get that some people's preferred playstyle is to treat Chaotic Evil as a justification for intra-party fighting, again, I don't feel this is strictly about "both parties just had different expectations". New players in an existing campaign are always better served by making an attempt to assess the playstyles of the other players. Likewise, any player who likes to have intra-party fighting is doing themselves a disservice if they don't have any awareness that not everyone enjoys that style of play, and that it can ruin a campaign if not everyone is on the same page.

"You deliberately ruined a long-running game" - "the campaign was about three sessions" - I might be somewhat ignorant here, but three sessions doesn't seem particularly 'long-running' to me.

Thank you all for your comments. There are too many to reply to each but I've edited my answer to incorporate the points you've raised. I'm being deliberately harsh in my second paragraph to make it clear to the OP that he did drop the ball here (as did the group) but I'm not judging him. I did something very similar once but was fortunate to have a DM who realised the potential for out-of-game conflict and who let things play out to everyone's satisfaction. Tensions can run high because people are so invested in these games but as long as OP recognises that I think he can easily mend things.

I've played a few rounds of DnD before. I enjoy the game. But, they DO realize this is just a game, right? I mean, we played with pen and paper. Could they not just undo what he did? Good grief.

Even after your edits, I feel like this answer remains very judgmental (e.g. "you really screwed up") and harsh.

@Sid - understanding that this was a screw up and the extent of it (or lack there of) will help him approach repairing the relationship, therefore completely valid.

I've never really understand what the point of ANY game rules were if people can't follow them without real life repercussions. What that means in effect is that there are some rules for some, and different rules for others. That defeats the purpose of codifying any rules. You may as well just make the game up as you go along, lest you upset anyone. And if the game rules are such that they are likely to upset people, then that's just a poorly designed social game.

@BradThomas: these games ARE make it up as you go to some extent, because you can't codify everything that might happen in a story and the whole appeal of story-oriented roleplaying games is that they allow for anything that might happen in a story. That is why they are usually either cooperative or have clear boundaries about what is or is not acceptable.

"deliberately ruined" is WAY too presumptive here Lilienthal. The existence of Chaotic Evil characters and their danger to your party is well established in these games and your answer is, IMO, far too presumptive and harsh.

He had it coming! I think he just failed to approach his friends right on the spot to be like! Sorry guys! He did not apologize and their friends are playing along with each other and giving him the cold friendly shoulder. With time this will pass! If I were the OP, I wouldn't even care about these so called friends, in which to my perspective seem very fake friends to me!

@DoritoStyle I've added a "from their point of view" to the front of that which was also a useful suggestion by @Hurkyl. I'm avoiding going into the details of the game though as that's not really something to explore on this site.

@Lilienthal I don't think you're being too harsh. The issue isn't so much the respective gaming preferences, the issue is the OP's social ineptness and you're spot on. Ruining their colleagues' game for their own amusement and then calling them childish so justify not wanting to apologise... This sounds like your stereotypical teenager testing out boundaries and then being surprised about having to suffer the consequences.

@DoritoStyle I also think the OP deliberately ruined the game. Of course the problem was that they weren't all on the same page about PvP and chaotic evil characters (apparently it was OK for the DM?). The point where the OP screwed up was not asking the others in advance if PvP was OK. He just assumed and he assumed wrong; he's now shown them that in cooperative games he's that guy who takes advantage of the others - and they have to go on "playing a cooperative game" with him every day .

Why do people play games if they aren't prepared to accept the outcome of the game? Surely the point of board games is to win - no one enjoys losing, I feel for OP here. If people care more about the outcome of a board game than the friendship itself I wouldn't want to be friends with them anyway.

@EdmundReed The game in question wasn't a board game, it was a pen-and-paper RPG. If you're not familiar with them, they're co-operative storytelling games and generally don't have a win condition. Saying that you "win" an RPG by killing all your teammates is absurd - it's like claiming that you can "win" a football match by giving food poisoning to all your teammates so that you're the only one on field against the opposing team.

@EdmundReed PNP RPGs are social events. I've been a gamer for nearly 40 years now. PKs are definitely a no-no and are a one way ticket to getting thrown out of the social group.

Killing off your party is just slightly less socially acceptable than peeing in a punch bowl at a party

@Moyli Thanks for correcting me - no I'm not familiar at all with DnD, so granted my opinion should be taken with a pinch of salt. But from a completely outside perspective, it is still a game, correct? And what OP did was within the rules, correct? Where your analogy, poisoning the enemy team is not only against the sport rules, but probably also illegal. If this is such a big no no, why is it not part of the rules?

@EdmundReed "it is still a game, correct? " yes and no. It is a social event where you hang out, BS with your friends, play the game, eat, BS with your friends some more. The game is the excuse to get together and have a good social time. What he did is comparable to getting together to watch a sporting event on TV, and have someone pull the plug at the last seconds of the the game.

@RichardU Not a sports fan, but great analogy! Can see how it was inappropriate now.

You all make great points, and RichardU you're right about Chaotic Evil vs Chaotic stupid, BUT

I'm of the opinion that it's not the place of The Workplace to chastise a questioner, and I also think such things make an answer less helpful.

That's pretty much what got me started on that question, that and the pile-on that happened.

That's why i like this answer by Yakk

It helps OP realize their problems without saying You Are Bad and you should feel bad.

@DoritoStyle as you know, I don't mince words. What you get from me is the truth. Since the OP didn't seem to get how bad of a move it was, everyone had to be a bit blunt. Playing "Chaotic stupid" with workmates is a SEVERE CLM. Better for him if we err on the side of being too harsh, and getting through to him, than letting him continue with his delusion.

Also, he was bad and should feel bad.

@EdmundReed LOL, I am not a sports fan either, but I figured people would understand that one.

@RichardU Could you help me understand a bit better? I've been playing D&D regularly for about 6 years, including a stint of a year or so where my character was chaotic evil and hiding it from the party due to an encounter with a wererat.

I can't understand why youd allow someone to play a chaotic evil charcter if you werent cognisant of the fact that they could betray the party

I take your point about Chaotic Evil vs. Stupid Evil, but everyone has to admit that stupid and evil aren't mutually exclusive, and chaotic evil characters can do things that are a detriment to themselves in the long term because they think it gives them some short-term gain.

@KevinDriscoll Well, CE doesn't mean you're afflicted with Chronic Backstabbing Disorder. (Think Starscream). Evil doesn't mean short-sited. In fact, evil can play a very long game (the long con, for example). A CE character can still be loyal. For example, would a CE character murder his pregnant wife just for the Evulz?

@RichardU Yea I wouldn't argue that his CE alignment REQUIRED him to backstab the party. But at the same time, I can imagine a CE character doing that; it's consistent with the range of CE characters you trypically see within a D&D campaign.

Moreover, there's the whole bit about this being a game, playing with friends, so, as a META reason, it's better to play CE as "I will betray anyone, except for my TRUE COMPANIONS(tm)

Also, in a D&D campaign, there are all sorts of nasty little magics and creatures that could "rat out" a CE character who did that.

@RichardU In fact, when my character was Chaotic Evil I was working on a very long plan. Our campaign was to destroy a very powerful evil artifact. I was hiding my alignment and intentions and planning to betray the aprty at the last moment and take the artifact for myself.

So, getting a reputation of being COMPLETELY untrustworthy would be a very bad idea

And it would have worked! In the actual end, I was the only character to not be completely incapacitated by the final boss fight. But alas, the aprty had discovered my intentions and does some stuff months earlier to shift my alignment back to what it was originally.

@RichardU Ya it would be a bad idea. But why should a character have to only have good ideas? I just don't understand why the only party members and the GM didn't see this coming and recognize as a legitimate roleplaying action for a CE character, and if they wanted ot exclude such action not allow CE characters

@RichardU Plus doesn't Starscream actively try to undermine Megatron and take over the Decepticons at some points?

@KevinDriscoll again, it's not a good idea when playing with friends. When I played an evil character, I had numerous "Kick the dog" moments, but would never (openly) betray the team, but I also let it be known that my character should not be completely trusted. (for gameplay's sake)

Yes, Starscream is the poster boy for "Chronic Backstabbing disorder".

Jonathan Harris who played "Doctor Smith" on "Lost in Space" knew that the "Token evil teammate" cannot be TOO evil or the rest have to either kill him off or be killed. So, he went for camp.

@RichardU I guess I just have a hard time thinkin the guy messed up because his GM and his party members let him play a CE character. it's like they consented to this happening.

@KevinDriscoll there's playing an evil character, and then there's just being a jerk.

Well that's the thing though. This is a roleplaying game.

@KevinDriscoll In AD&D, Lawful Good could screw the party harder than any other alignment, especially if you played a Paladin.

Again, it's if you want to be a jerk, or not.

The "My guy would do this" excuse doesn't work.

@RichardU Why not? Isn't the whole point of the game to do what your character would do and not what you would do>

And yea I recall that there were a lot of restrictions on Lawful Good and things like Paladins and Samurai that could make things difficult.

Though I never played AD&D myself

@KevinDriscoll, sure if you want no friends.

@KevinDriscoll You see, in playing lawful good as lawful JERK, those aren't restrictions, those are excuses.

You can do all sorts of fun things like telling LE of the locality that you have a thief in the party and he should be closely watched.

Oh, and then there's the whole "Donating everything the party got to charity"

Also, vigilantism

The point is that YES, you want to role-play, but incorporating everything into making it playable and enjoyable trumps all.

But, even thinking of it in terms of "my guy would do this" Really? Who has he betrayed before? If he's been adventuring, people would wonder what happened to his old mates. "Why are you the only one to survive?" et cetera. Also, he'd be known as having no close friends and being wealthy... hurm, I wonder what nasty nasty creatures would want to raid his home... not that any of the locals would rush to his defense....

See what I mean?

@RichardU But hte problem is that by saying you have to keep everyhting playable and enjoyable you're restricting the kinds of roleplay that are acceptable, but without any explicit acknowledgment that that's going on

But, the overriding point is that when playing, you don't want to play as a griefer.

I mean if someone says "I want to be CE" as a GM alarm bells should be going off in your head. "Is this guy gonna be a dick to everyone!?"

And OP said the party was just starting so I presume they were pretty low level. No one in the universe owuld know or care about them.

@KevinDriscoll No, I've played in a few campaigns where the CE character was VERY useful. Gee, I think the paladin is going to go into town and buy a few things... don't worry Paladin, the prisoner will be safe with us... no, I won't torture him at all (pssst, Cleric, I hope you have a few healing potions)

@RichardU Oh yea htat can happen too. But as a GM you've got to know it could go either way.

If you allow a CE characte rinto the party, you've got to have that conversation that says "hey I know CE characters can be interpreted as being jerks to everyone all the time and killing the party and stuff, but if you want to be CE we have to figure out how to avoid that"

@KevinDriscoll No. Not unless you know your dealing with someone who's a real jerk. The thing is that while it's a game, you don't want to be a griefer. There are REAL people playing, and it's a social event.

@RichardU I couldn't disagree more. I mean we had this conversation at the start of a campaign several years ago because we had a LE character in the party.

@KevinDriscoll I've never dealt with CE characters with chronic backstabbing disorder.

We also talked explicitly about, for example, sexual violence being unacceptable, and some other kinds of things.

@KevinDriscoll So, would you risk your job relationships just to be a jerk as a CE character?

@RichardU Oh hell no! I mean I don't think I'd ever intentionally play a CE character. It ust happened to one of mine because he contracted lycanthropy. It wasn't a smart decision by OP and he should've explicitly cleared something like that with the GM before doing it.

I played an evil thief who would do things for the LOLZ, but would mess with the good ranger by Picking his pocket and ADDING to his purse.

But i put an even greater responsibility on the GM because they run the game. They decide what is acceptable and what isn't,

And they're responsible for what happens. If something is going wrong, you've got to deal with that.

@KevinDriscoll No, the responsibility for any action lies on the person who committed the action. Try getting away with anything like that in court. "Yes your honor, I stole from him, but it's his responsibility for what happened because he knew I was a thief". Watch an episode or two of Judge Judy for what happens.

Also, just no. It doesn't matter if you think that the GM should have done XYZ. The people obviously don't think that way.

@RichardU Well no your statment can't be true in general. For example, I put a gun to your head and I say "Push this button or I blow your brain out" and you do and it detonates a bomb. Clearly the person who pushed the button isn't morally responsible there. But that's a philosophical issue that's not worht getting into.

And yea clearly the person's coworkers don't think that way. But ought they?

@KevinDriscoll I think that was refuted at the Nuremburg trials.

@KevinDriscoll no, the OPs coworkers were used to having a nice game that they had been playing for a long time without any griefers.

A criminal trial cannot refute ethical claims. Law is not synonymous with ethics. And very few of the lower-level SS and Nazi officials were prosecuted. It was mostly the ringleaders. Some of them tried ot introduce evidence that they were only following orders but there was competing evidence as well.

They were. But then they brought in a new person, let that person play a character who's alignment would allow for griefing, didn't tell them that that wasn't acceptable, and then got mad about it. That doesn't absolve the griefer of responsibility; they still did something shitty. But you gotta look at that and say "My actions contributed to this situation"

@KevinDriscoll Here's another example. If I decided to join a game, play a LG Paladin, and be a complete... er, think of a nickname for Richard that rhymes with Rick... about it, I could make the game miserable for the entire party, and even get the whole party killed in a number of ways. If they got POed at me, would they be justified? Yes, because I decided to be a... Richard about it.

@KevinDriscoll every last character and/or alignment can be played as a griefer, CE is no special case. I've been playing RPGs for nearly four decades now. I know every last trick and excuse.

Yea no question you can grief as anyone (all the more reason to be explicit about what's not acceptable!). But there's clearly a stronger connection with CE characters, especially when it comes to explicitly attacking the party.

But in any case, I understand much more clearly now what people are saying here

Also, it doesn't matter what kind of argument you make or how right you think you are. If you get the label of "griefer", you are done.

@KevinDriscoll it should be pretty obvious as to what being a griefer is. If it hurts the party, people are going to be POed. If you want to keep friends, don't PO the party. If you want to keep relationships at work, DON'T kill off the party.

Well that's certainly right but that's just the practical consequences of how people actually act. It doesn't say much about what's justified and what isn't.

My advice to anyone would be, of course don't do this unless you explicitly clear it witht he people you're playing with first

@KevinDriscoll right, and it's incumbent on the new comer to learn the group dynamics.

@RichardU That's where we just have a fundamental disagreement. Or at least, I think your statement omits a key additional point that it is also encumbent on the group and the GM to be explicit about the norms of their game. If OP's actions were always and in every case unacceptable then I'd agree. But I can imagine groups that would be cool with this and thus see it as a fundamentally shared responsibility.

@KevinDriscoll that's great in theory, but in practice, who's going to get hit with the consequences?

@KevinDriscoll - Don't agree with your stand...player party cull destroys a game. As a new comer to the game, you don't intentionally destroy what others have created. You hold a house party, a guest destroys a vase, and you are told it's your fault as you did not explicitly inform that guest of the norms about not destroying your possessions. If you prefer sport, he joined a football game, shredded the ball in front of the players, and then wondered why nobody would play with him again.

cont...I guess the question of what is considered 'untold' rules vs ones that need to be stated comes up. I'm of the opinion that if you are invited to play a game, "don't take steps to destroy the game you've just joined" is an unspoken rule in close to any scenario.