"Mixed alignment" parties: recipe for disaster? [Archive] - Wizards Community

"Mixed alignment" parties: recipe for disaster? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Parker_W
03-07-06, 04:57 PM Ok here we go again; I am in yet another group in which a PC wanted to be of evil alignment, and the party as a whole wasn't evil. The DM is lazze faire about alignments, and so now we have a LE assasin in the party along with good and neutral PCs. Now evil PC's can NEVER come in just one, when someone is evil, at least one other player will want to be evil.

I have tried the "mixed alignments" thing once or twice and it has NEVER worked well. Sure, for the first couple of levels things are ok, but it seems like all of the mixed alignment parties I know of have decended into Party vs Party PVP-style conflict by 13th level.

Thoughts?
GreyEagle
03-07-06, 09:20 PM OK, first of all, why does someone else being evil pose such a threat to the party? Is not what adventurers do mostly of a questionable nature anyhow? Kill, loot, etc. The only problem I've ever had in a party of mixed alignment was when I played a CN Rogue ( stole a lot of stuff, lied and cheated alot) with a very stupid dwarven paladin in the party ( Int: 4 ) who was also the strongest party member. I went under the title " Scholar" for longer than I care to remember.
But that problem has never come up again and I've been in mixed alignment parties nearly that entire time. We made it work because we each stuck to our own business and when someone wanted a particular piece of treasure, we gave it to them. If they didnt like it, they had to face the rest of the party. But we always sought the middle ground. Evil is not stupid and unreasonable.
The neutral people shouldnt care anyway, and the good people should tolerate it because thats what good people do. besides, having a guy in the party whos willing to lie, cheat, steal and poison your enemies is never a bad thing. I am currently playing in a campaign where we have adjusted the alignment rule and am playing an assassin character. And if theres strife over someone else wanting to do something you're against, let them do it. Go your own way, maybe the others will follow. or maybe you'll die. Either way, your worries are over. ;)
Seeker95
03-07-06, 09:33 PM It will become PC vs. PC. Eventually. Decide if you are going to allow it. In my campaigns, I state up front I do not allow evil PCs. If a player doesn't like that, I don't force him to be in my campaign.
Mitchell
03-07-06, 09:46 PM *IF* the good characters want to maintain their good alignment, eventually there will be a problem. One of the evil characters will do something evil, and just turning your back won't cut it.
If you play alignment drift, no problem. As the "good" characters, and possibly even the neutral ones, ignore the evil happenings, they start drifting that way. Of course, then the risk is that someone will just decide to be really evil and mess everything up. You know... "Oh, I have watch? Cool. I'm going to Coup de grace this guy because they said I was stupid".
You know your players. If they can handle it, fine, but you don't sound like you believe this. There is nothing wrong with declaring certain alignments (or classes, or races, or...) off limits for your game.
Melpomene
03-07-06, 10:00 PM To paraphrase, being evil doesn't make you a Death-Eater.
Pagasis will fight Annubis because he doesn't want the world to end.
Vegita will fight Friesza as a matter of pride.

Evil does work with good. The DM needs to make the rival powers strong and encompassing enough to keep evil (and chaotic) charicters attentive. Other than that, it's all fair game.
Yak of Darkness
03-08-06, 01:21 AM Tell your group to watch Firefly.

I mean, mostly just as a matter of course (it's a good show), but if you want this to be on topic, it also shows how to work a party of mixed-aligned people, even with some interparty conflict, and not have it all go to pot. The tips that I can see from it are:

(1) As said above, "evil" doesn't have to mean "senseless psychotic lunatic."

(2) Most all people aren't inflexible fanatic paragons of their alignments, whatever those may be.

(3) When you need to survive, you'll work together with people you might not have considered before.

(4) Friendship (or at least a mutual understanding) goes further, on a person-to-person level, than abstract constructs like alignment.

Of course, having a mixed-alignment party free of psychotic nonsensible idiocy mandates that you have a group of players who aren't psychotic nonsensible idiots. If that isn't true, then no amount of roleplaying advice will help.
Kerri_Evanwood
03-08-06, 01:43 AM As a DM, I don't neccessarily disallow evil PC's, but I disallow disruptive characters (and players, for that matter). Through my experiences, about 95% or more of the evil PC's I've seen played have been disruptive to the campaign (and often blatantly). Therefore, I only allow a player I know and trust to play an evil character properly. This rules out all but one of the people I play with regularly. So in theory I don't allow it, although in practice I do.

It is neccessary for a party of mixed-alignment characters to consist of players mature enough to handle the situation.
Gallameed
03-08-06, 01:48 AM Ok here we go again; I am in yet another group in which a PC wanted to be of evil alignment, and the party as a whole wasn't evil. The DM is lazze faire about alignments, and so now we have a LE assasin in the party along with good and neutral PCs. Now evil PC's can NEVER come in just one, when someone is evil, at least one other player will want to be evil.

I have tried the "mixed alignments" thing once or twice and it has NEVER worked well. Sure, for the first couple of levels things are ok, but it seems like all of the mixed alignment parties I know of have decended into Party vs Party PVP-style conflict by 13th level.

Thoughts?

Like all things D&D, it depends on the group. If your gonna play your characters like a bunch of one dimensional cartoon characers then yes, it probaly is a recipe for disaster.
Silverthumb128
03-08-06, 05:19 AM Groups of differing alignments can work together, its much more a matter of how each member's separate perogatives sync up.

If the Fighter's just looking for the dragon that slayed his uncle, the Wizard wants to just burn the hell outta something, and if the Rogue wants a crap-load of cash, it really doesn't matter what alignment they are.

You can have about any alignment, assuming the party is of the understanding that working together will be the best outcome.
Someone
03-08-06, 01:31 PM Most, if not all, of the time, the problem is the disruptive player, not the character. Its the same sort of thing as "CN as an excuse to do blatantly irrelevant things", replacing CN with evil. Good and evil characters can get along just as well as lawful or chaotic ones (unless one of them is a paladin, of course).

Evil does not automatically imply making sacrifices to demons. I mean, how many good characters make offerings to celestials? And evil isn't about to stab their buddies in their sleep, because from the evil point of view, their buddies being alive helps themselves stay alive.
Herald@Large
03-08-06, 03:06 PM Most, if not all, of the time, the problem is the disruptive player, not the character.

Well said. A party can be composed of characters with identical alignments, yet still fail and fall apart because one player has a personal agenda. A party can consist of nine characters, each with a different alignment, and succeed because the players work together as a team. It's not mixed alignments which are a recipe for disaster - it's players with mixed goals.
Seeker95
03-08-06, 05:32 PM It's not mixed alignments which are a recipe for disaster - it's players with mixed goals.If we take a step back and examine this statement in the larger context...

Players with different alignments inherently have mixed goals. The player that [i]wants[/]i to play an evil PC in an otherwise good party is already stating a difference in objectives and even metagame view.

The *player* knows the rest of the party is not evil.
The *player* knows what Evil in D&D means.
The *player* knows the interaction between Good and Evil in D&D.

If you have a player that wants to play an evil PC in an otherise not-evil party, you already have a disruptive player. Letting him play the evil PC is like handing a lighter to the pyromanic gas station attendant.
Super Guy
03-08-06, 09:20 PM Mmm... yeah... sounds like disaster. When I see someone who wants to play an Assassin I think "Ooh, someone who is obsessed with Assassin's because they are l33t r0x0rz kewl"

That's... yeah, that's pretty much the only type of person that plays an Assassin. It's very rare to find someone who isn't coming from that angle. Someone coming from that angle will *not* wind up making it easy for an alignment mix. They'll do something stupid.

Evil can work with good, but it's rare, and it requires effort. Mainly on the part of the evil PC. As for my rules of thumb...

Any good alignment can work together.
Any good alignment can work with neutral alignment, except for non-Chaotic Good and Chaotic Neutral couplings.
No good can work with Chaotic Evil.
Non-Paladin good can sometimes work with Neutral Evil.
Non-Paladin good can more often than not work with Lawful Evil.*

*= As long as it's not an Assassins/Thieves (by nature of the player) or Clerics (by nature of the class). Usually works best with wizards, because not only do wizard players tend to be more responsible, wizards don't neccesarily have to be maniacs who want to plunge the world into darkness. A wizard would want to have good friends because he knows they will not betray him if he does not betray them. And why would he? It's good to have good friends as opposed to evil ones.
Kresalak
03-08-06, 10:43 PM Personally, I feel that it would be harder for a party of mixed alignment on the ethical (Law/Chaos) scale to work together then one of mixed moral alignment. Think about it-good and evil may have different goals, but law and chaos are ways of doing things. And there has been so much more conflict on how to do something then there is on why to do something.
Rocketboy13
03-08-06, 10:51 PM The best way to solve this is to set up this simple rule:
"My game is a group game. You are free to act as you will in the interests of yourself and the group. If you act against the group in a harmful or disruptive way, your character is either destroyed, or becomes an NPC under the control of the DM. You are then free to create a new character, but this rule is universal and unquestionable."
You can add some other things, but this works well. :cool:
Ivelios2
03-09-06, 01:47 AM In regards to paladins working with evil character unless the dm houserules it no they cannot work together. If a paladin knowingly associates with an evil person for any great amount of time example two weeks or more they immedatly lose all their deivine powers. The moment the paladins detect evil senses this guy or even if he observers a fair number from evil acts from one person he must immedatly part ways with aht person if not openly fight him.
Parker_W
03-09-06, 02:18 AM In regards to paladins working with evil character unless the dm houserules it no they cannot work together. If a paladin knowingly associates with an evil person for any great amount of time example two weeks or more they immedatly lose all their deivine powers. The moment the paladins detect evil senses this guy or even if he observers a fair number from evil acts from one person he must immedatly part ways with aht person if not openly fight him.

In that sense then, are paladins "disruptive" to the game to some extent? Everyone would be working well together, but as soon as a paladin entered the group, it would destabilize?
Kerri_Evanwood
03-09-06, 02:42 AM In that sense then, are paladins "disruptive" to the game to some extent? Everyone would be working well together, but as soon as a paladin entered the group, it would destabilize?

In this case, yes. If I had a party of mostly CG, CN, TN, etc. party members and a player came along wanting to play a paladin, I'm afraid I'd have to deny the request, unless he wanted to play a Paladin of Freedom from UA. I might let that happen, even though PoF's are pretty disruptive in their own right. Then again, if I'm DMing for lots of chaotic characters, I will have probably found some way to cope.
Parker_W
03-09-06, 03:03 AM Thanks for all your thoughts...now let me ask you this follow-up question;

Suppose that the game descends into PC vs PC. Can this be a good thing? Can it be fun it all? Or should it never happen in a good DnD campaign?

Thoughts?
Kerri_Evanwood
03-09-06, 03:32 AM Thanks for all your thoughts...now let me ask you this follow-up question;

Suppose that the game descends into PC vs PC. Can this be a good thing? Can it be fun it all? Or should it never happen in a good DnD campaign?

Thoughts?

It can be fun if everyone's comfortable with it. Most people aren't, including me.

I will always respond to "I attack X party member" with "No, you don't." I do not tolerate PvP in my games, and make it clear to the players beforehand.
RottingColossus
03-09-06, 03:47 AM I've never been a DM so my experience on dealing with mixed alignments is literally nil. However i'm playing a party right now where there is a NE Orc Psion. Thankfully the player is quite experienced and mature in his role and only suggested hints of betrayl in character. Infact my character who seems to have become the neutral (NG) facilitator of the party is actually a close friend of the NE character, both having the largest INT scores in the party i'd imagine they consider each other academic equals. His evil aspects are less to do with his actions as they are more to do with his philosophical outlook on life. He tends to condescend stubbornly to individuals he considers below himself, vehemently despises a majority of his own race (due to his traumatized past being a genius among a savage tribe) and tends to view morality as an inconveniance to be dealt with. Basically what i'm saying is allow a mixture of alignments according to how mature and reasonable your players are. Are they going to create some exciting tension in the party or will they just disrupt the game entirely? DM's discretion is the key! :D
Silverthumb128
03-09-06, 04:33 AM I will always respond to "I attack X party member" with "No, you don't." I do not tolerate PvP in my games, and make it clear to the players beforehand.

Not under any instances? Not even if the roleplaying reaches that level? It seems rather harsh to limit where the PCs can and can't go, given that fighting doesn't equal killing. I've seen it roleplayed where the party just goes in different directions at an early level, and continues to clash as they progress.

I think that saying "No, you don't" in any situation sunders the idea of fair roleplaying. The other character doesn't need to fight back, they can always use other methods to keep from getting killed, its up to the player to use their head.

The "no fighting" policy seems like too heavy-handed of a way to keep your PCs in line. Not every group of PCs is itching to ditch their greatswords and snuggle. Conflict's bound to happen, and a smart DM should be able to find ways to keep PCs from killing each other. And if the players get so out of hand that they just openly attack another player out of spite, then tell them they should calm down or they aren't invited back to the table.
kerveroc
03-09-06, 05:26 AM I admit it is rather difficult to combine different alignments (evil/good) in
campagins, but is doable. I play both DM and Player, so once I tried and
played a LE 12th lvl Rogue (Zhentarim Spy-Exemplar) with greater choker of
eloquence. So I had a disguise/bluff +27 (plsu take 10), undetectable alignment, Int 18 (for adequate skill points to invest on other stuff other than hiding myself from the other players). Their highest spot with a natural 20 was 28 at the best, I on the other hand had +25 (plus take 10). I had a similar agenda with the rest, and I tried to manipulate them to my own needs. ie destroy the artifact rather than delivering it to the guild wizard. I didn't want to kill them, I wanted their help, so I tried to gain their trust by self-sacrificing a couple of times. My problems were... I could be struck down by a smite evil, or be uncovered by protection from evil, PLUS I was disguising as a different gender to get the deep cover bonus from the Zhentarim spy, so when I died, they saw I wasn't female... hehe I still
covered it up, and convinced not only the characters but the players as well
that I was hiding from someone.
My point it is that if you REALLY want to do it, you can build a few scenarios and make it possible, but only if it's going to aid you to your campaign and not totally screw it.
As I later found out, the artifact would probably divide us according to Law/Chaos and not Evil/Good.

- You have been KeRvErIzEd!
Seeker95
03-09-06, 07:15 AM Not under any instances? Not even if the roleplaying reaches that level?You don't change the rule to allow the exception. Doing so changes the boundary to a point where there is just a new exception. The stricter the rule up front, the less distruptive the exceptions.I think that saying "No, you don't" in any situation sunders the idea of fair roleplaying. The other character doesn't need to fight back, they can always use other methods to keep from getting killed, its up to the player to use their head.While your statements are true for the encounter, they are disruptive to the game. Unless your *players* want inter-group fighting *all the time*, allowing what you have described even once ends party cohesion. And that ends *player* fun unless killing each other off is their openly stated objective.
The "no fighting" policy seems like too heavy-handed of a way to keep your PCs in line. Not every group of PCs is itching to ditch their greatswords and snuggle.Again, you are thinking from a PC perspective. The game is played by players. Once the mistrust of another player's character steps into the mix, it will degrade as each player seeks to keep his or her PC alive.Conflict's bound to happen, and a smart DM should be able to find ways to keep PCs from killing each other.A smart DM is pro-active, not reactive. A smart DM sets a rule ahead of time, so they don't have to do what you offered as a reactive solution:And if the players get so out of hand that they just openly attack another player out of spite, then tell them they should calm down or they aren't invited back to the table.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Parker_W 03-07-06, 04:57 PM	Ok here we go again; I am in yet another group in which a PC wanted to be of evil alignment, and the party as a whole wasn't evil. The DM is lazze faire about alignments, and so now we have a LE assasin in the party along with good and neutral PCs. Now evil PC's can NEVER come in just one, when someone is evil, at least one other player will want to be evil. I have tried the "mixed alignments" thing once or twice and it has NEVER worked well. Sure, for the first couple of levels things are ok, but it seems like all of the mixed alignment parties I know of have decended into Party vs Party PVP-style conflict by 13th level. Thoughts?
GreyEagle 03-07-06, 09:20 PM	OK, first of all, why does someone else being evil pose such a threat to the party? Is not what adventurers do mostly of a questionable nature anyhow? Kill, loot, etc. The only problem I've ever had in a party of mixed alignment was when I played a CN Rogue ( stole a lot of stuff, lied and cheated alot) with a very stupid dwarven paladin in the party ( Int: 4 ) who was also the strongest party member. I went under the title " Scholar" for longer than I care to remember. But that problem has never come up again and I've been in mixed alignment parties nearly that entire time. We made it work because we each stuck to our own business and when someone wanted a particular piece of treasure, we gave it to them. If they didnt like it, they had to face the rest of the party. But we always sought the middle ground. Evil is not stupid and unreasonable. The neutral people shouldnt care anyway, and the good people should tolerate it because thats what good people do. besides, having a guy in the party whos willing to lie, cheat, steal and poison your enemies is never a bad thing. I am currently playing in a campaign where we have adjusted the alignment rule and am playing an assassin character. And if theres strife over someone else wanting to do something you're against, let them do it. Go your own way, maybe the others will follow. or maybe you'll die. Either way, your worries are over. ;)
Seeker95 03-07-06, 09:33 PM	It will become PC vs. PC. Eventually. Decide if you are going to allow it. In my campaigns, I state up front I do not allow evil PCs. If a player doesn't like that, I don't force him to be in my campaign.
Mitchell 03-07-06, 09:46 PM	IF the good characters want to maintain their good alignment, eventually there will be a problem. One of the evil characters will do something evil, and just turning your back won't cut it. If you play alignment drift, no problem. As the "good" characters, and possibly even the neutral ones, ignore the evil happenings, they start drifting that way. Of course, then the risk is that someone will just decide to be really evil and mess everything up. You know... "Oh, I have watch? Cool. I'm going to Coup de grace this guy because they said I was stupid". You know your players. If they can handle it, fine, but you don't sound like you believe this. There is nothing wrong with declaring certain alignments (or classes, or races, or...) off limits for your game.
Melpomene 03-07-06, 10:00 PM	To paraphrase, being evil doesn't make you a Death-Eater. Pagasis will fight Annubis because he doesn't want the world to end. Vegita will fight Friesza as a matter of pride. Evil does work with good. The DM needs to make the rival powers strong and encompassing enough to keep evil (and chaotic) charicters attentive. Other than that, it's all fair game.
Yak of Darkness 03-08-06, 01:21 AM	Tell your group to watch Firefly. I mean, mostly just as a matter of course (it's a good show), but if you want this to be on topic, it also shows how to work a party of mixed-aligned people, even with some interparty conflict, and not have it all go to pot. The tips that I can see from it are: (1) As said above, "evil" doesn't have to mean "senseless psychotic lunatic." (2) Most all people aren't inflexible fanatic paragons of their alignments, whatever those may be. (3) When you need to survive, you'll work together with people you might not have considered before. (4) Friendship (or at least a mutual understanding) goes further, on a person-to-person level, than abstract constructs like alignment. Of course, having a mixed-alignment party free of psychotic nonsensible idiocy mandates that you have a group of players who aren't psychotic nonsensible idiots. If that isn't true, then no amount of roleplaying advice will help.
Kerri_Evanwood 03-08-06, 01:43 AM	As a DM, I don't neccessarily disallow evil PC's, but I disallow disruptive characters (and players, for that matter). Through my experiences, about 95% or more of the evil PC's I've seen played have been disruptive to the campaign (and often blatantly). Therefore, I only allow a player I know and trust to play an evil character properly. This rules out all but one of the people I play with regularly. So in theory I don't allow it, although in practice I do. It is neccessary for a party of mixed-alignment characters to consist of players mature enough to handle the situation.
Gallameed 03-08-06, 01:48 AM	Ok here we go again; I am in yet another group in which a PC wanted to be of evil alignment, and the party as a whole wasn't evil. The DM is lazze faire about alignments, and so now we have a LE assasin in the party along with good and neutral PCs. Now evil PC's can NEVER come in just one, when someone is evil, at least one other player will want to be evil. I have tried the "mixed alignments" thing once or twice and it has NEVER worked well. Sure, for the first couple of levels things are ok, but it seems like all of the mixed alignment parties I know of have decended into Party vs Party PVP-style conflict by 13th level. Thoughts? Like all things D&D, it depends on the group. If your gonna play your characters like a bunch of one dimensional cartoon characers then yes, it probaly is a recipe for disaster.
Silverthumb128 03-08-06, 05:19 AM	Groups of differing alignments can work together, its much more a matter of how each member's separate perogatives sync up. If the Fighter's just looking for the dragon that slayed his uncle, the Wizard wants to just burn the hell outta something, and if the Rogue wants a crap-load of cash, it really doesn't matter what alignment they are. You can have about any alignment, assuming the party is of the understanding that working together will be the best outcome.
Someone 03-08-06, 01:31 PM	Most, if not all, of the time, the problem is the disruptive player, not the character. Its the same sort of thing as "CN as an excuse to do blatantly irrelevant things", replacing CN with evil. Good and evil characters can get along just as well as lawful or chaotic ones (unless one of them is a paladin, of course). Evil does not automatically imply making sacrifices to demons. I mean, how many good characters make offerings to celestials? And evil isn't about to stab their buddies in their sleep, because from the evil point of view, their buddies being alive helps themselves stay alive.
Herald@Large 03-08-06, 03:06 PM	Most, if not all, of the time, the problem is the disruptive player, not the character. Well said. A party can be composed of characters with identical alignments, yet still fail and fall apart because one player has a personal agenda. A party can consist of nine characters, each with a different alignment, and succeed because the players work together as a team. It's not mixed alignments which are a recipe for disaster - it's players with mixed goals.
Seeker95 03-08-06, 05:32 PM	It's not mixed alignments which are a recipe for disaster - it's players with mixed goals.If we take a step back and examine this statement in the larger context... Players with different alignments inherently have mixed goals. The player that [i]wants[/]i to play an evil PC in an otherwise good party is already stating a difference in objectives and even metagame view. The player knows the rest of the party is not evil. The player knows what Evil in D&D means. The player knows the interaction between Good and Evil in D&D. If you have a player that wants to play an evil PC in an otherise not-evil party, you already have a disruptive player. Letting him play the evil PC is like handing a lighter to the pyromanic gas station attendant.
Super Guy 03-08-06, 09:20 PM	Mmm... yeah... sounds like disaster. When I see someone who wants to play an Assassin I think "Ooh, someone who is obsessed with Assassin's because they are l33t r0x0rz kewl" That's... yeah, that's pretty much the only type of person that plays an Assassin. It's very rare to find someone who isn't coming from that angle. Someone coming from that angle will not wind up making it easy for an alignment mix. They'll do something stupid. Evil can work with good, but it's rare, and it requires effort. Mainly on the part of the evil PC. As for my rules of thumb... Any good alignment can work together. Any good alignment can work with neutral alignment, except for non-Chaotic Good and Chaotic Neutral couplings. No good can work with Chaotic Evil. Non-Paladin good can sometimes work with Neutral Evil. Non-Paladin good can more often than not work with Lawful Evil.* *= As long as it's not an Assassins/Thieves (by nature of the player) or Clerics (by nature of the class). Usually works best with wizards, because not only do wizard players tend to be more responsible, wizards don't neccesarily have to be maniacs who want to plunge the world into darkness. A wizard would want to have good friends because he knows they will not betray him if he does not betray them. And why would he? It's good to have good friends as opposed to evil ones.
Kresalak 03-08-06, 10:43 PM	Personally, I feel that it would be harder for a party of mixed alignment on the ethical (Law/Chaos) scale to work together then one of mixed moral alignment. Think about it-good and evil may have different goals, but law and chaos are ways of doing things. And there has been so much more conflict on how to do something then there is on why to do something.
Rocketboy13 03-08-06, 10:51 PM	The best way to solve this is to set up this simple rule: "My game is a group game. You are free to act as you will in the interests of yourself and the group. If you act against the group in a harmful or disruptive way, your character is either destroyed, or becomes an NPC under the control of the DM. You are then free to create a new character, but this rule is universal and unquestionable." You can add some other things, but this works well. :cool:
Ivelios2 03-09-06, 01:47 AM	In regards to paladins working with evil character unless the dm houserules it no they cannot work together. If a paladin knowingly associates with an evil person for any great amount of time example two weeks or more they immedatly lose all their deivine powers. The moment the paladins detect evil senses this guy or even if he observers a fair number from evil acts from one person he must immedatly part ways with aht person if not openly fight him.
Parker_W 03-09-06, 02:18 AM	In regards to paladins working with evil character unless the dm houserules it no they cannot work together. If a paladin knowingly associates with an evil person for any great amount of time example two weeks or more they immedatly lose all their deivine powers. The moment the paladins detect evil senses this guy or even if he observers a fair number from evil acts from one person he must immedatly part ways with aht person if not openly fight him. In that sense then, are paladins "disruptive" to the game to some extent? Everyone would be working well together, but as soon as a paladin entered the group, it would destabilize?
Kerri_Evanwood 03-09-06, 02:42 AM	In that sense then, are paladins "disruptive" to the game to some extent? Everyone would be working well together, but as soon as a paladin entered the group, it would destabilize? In this case, yes. If I had a party of mostly CG, CN, TN, etc. party members and a player came along wanting to play a paladin, I'm afraid I'd have to deny the request, unless he wanted to play a Paladin of Freedom from UA. I might let that happen, even though PoF's are pretty disruptive in their own right. Then again, if I'm DMing for lots of chaotic characters, I will have probably found some way to cope.
Parker_W 03-09-06, 03:03 AM	Thanks for all your thoughts...now let me ask you this follow-up question; Suppose that the game descends into PC vs PC. Can this be a good thing? Can it be fun it all? Or should it never happen in a good DnD campaign? Thoughts?
Kerri_Evanwood 03-09-06, 03:32 AM	Thanks for all your thoughts...now let me ask you this follow-up question; Suppose that the game descends into PC vs PC. Can this be a good thing? Can it be fun it all? Or should it never happen in a good DnD campaign? Thoughts? It can be fun if everyone's comfortable with it. Most people aren't, including me. I will always respond to "I attack X party member" with "No, you don't." I do not tolerate PvP in my games, and make it clear to the players beforehand.
RottingColossus 03-09-06, 03:47 AM	I've never been a DM so my experience on dealing with mixed alignments is literally nil. However i'm playing a party right now where there is a NE Orc Psion. Thankfully the player is quite experienced and mature in his role and only suggested hints of betrayl in character. Infact my character who seems to have become the neutral (NG) facilitator of the party is actually a close friend of the NE character, both having the largest INT scores in the party i'd imagine they consider each other academic equals. His evil aspects are less to do with his actions as they are more to do with his philosophical outlook on life. He tends to condescend stubbornly to individuals he considers below himself, vehemently despises a majority of his own race (due to his traumatized past being a genius among a savage tribe) and tends to view morality as an inconveniance to be dealt with. Basically what i'm saying is allow a mixture of alignments according to how mature and reasonable your players are. Are they going to create some exciting tension in the party or will they just disrupt the game entirely? DM's discretion is the key! :D
Silverthumb128 03-09-06, 04:33 AM	I will always respond to "I attack X party member" with "No, you don't." I do not tolerate PvP in my games, and make it clear to the players beforehand. Not under any instances? Not even if the roleplaying reaches that level? It seems rather harsh to limit where the PCs can and can't go, given that fighting doesn't equal killing. I've seen it roleplayed where the party just goes in different directions at an early level, and continues to clash as they progress. I think that saying "No, you don't" in any situation sunders the idea of fair roleplaying. The other character doesn't need to fight back, they can always use other methods to keep from getting killed, its up to the player to use their head. The "no fighting" policy seems like too heavy-handed of a way to keep your PCs in line. Not every group of PCs is itching to ditch their greatswords and snuggle. Conflict's bound to happen, and a smart DM should be able to find ways to keep PCs from killing each other. And if the players get so out of hand that they just openly attack another player out of spite, then tell them they should calm down or they aren't invited back to the table.
kerveroc 03-09-06, 05:26 AM	I admit it is rather difficult to combine different alignments (evil/good) in campagins, but is doable. I play both DM and Player, so once I tried and played a LE 12th lvl Rogue (Zhentarim Spy-Exemplar) with greater choker of eloquence. So I had a disguise/bluff +27 (plsu take 10), undetectable alignment, Int 18 (for adequate skill points to invest on other stuff other than hiding myself from the other players). Their highest spot with a natural 20 was 28 at the best, I on the other hand had +25 (plus take 10). I had a similar agenda with the rest, and I tried to manipulate them to my own needs. ie destroy the artifact rather than delivering it to the guild wizard. I didn't want to kill them, I wanted their help, so I tried to gain their trust by self-sacrificing a couple of times. My problems were... I could be struck down by a smite evil, or be uncovered by protection from evil, PLUS I was disguising as a different gender to get the deep cover bonus from the Zhentarim spy, so when I died, they saw I wasn't female... hehe I still covered it up, and convinced not only the characters but the players as well that I was hiding from someone. My point it is that if you REALLY want to do it, you can build a few scenarios and make it possible, but only if it's going to aid you to your campaign and not totally screw it. As I later found out, the artifact would probably divide us according to Law/Chaos and not Evil/Good. - You have been KeRvErIzEd!
Seeker95 03-09-06, 07:15 AM	Not under any instances? Not even if the roleplaying reaches that level?You don't change the rule to allow the exception. Doing so changes the boundary to a point where there is just a new exception. The stricter the rule up front, the less distruptive the exceptions.I think that saying "No, you don't" in any situation sunders the idea of fair roleplaying. The other character doesn't need to fight back, they can always use other methods to keep from getting killed, its up to the player to use their head.While your statements are true for the encounter, they are disruptive to the game. Unless your players want inter-group fighting all the time, allowing what you have described even once ends party cohesion. And that ends player fun unless killing each other off is their openly stated objective. The "no fighting" policy seems like too heavy-handed of a way to keep your PCs in line. Not every group of PCs is itching to ditch their greatswords and snuggle.Again, you are thinking from a PC perspective. The game is played by players. Once the mistrust of another player's character steps into the mix, it will degrade as each player seeks to keep his or her PC alive.Conflict's bound to happen, and a smart DM should be able to find ways to keep PCs from killing each other.A smart DM is pro-active, not reactive. A smart DM sets a rule ahead of time, so they don't have to do what you offered as a reactive solution:And if the players get so out of hand that they just openly attack another player out of spite, then tell them they should calm down or they aren't invited back to the table.