Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Zephania 12-18-06, 09:38 PM	OK, this is for all the creative DM's out there. My campaign is starting to wrap up, and my players are slowly considering they're new party. However, we've hit a crossroad - most of the party wants to play evil(which is fine with me), but 2 want to play good characters(an angel and a half celestial paladin no less). Now, from the role-playing perspective, this is going to be quite fun. However, I'm at a loss quest-wise. So my questions are: 1. How do I set up a situation where they have to work together for extended periods of time? 2. What kind of quests would they go on, and how would they motivate both perspectives? Tricky, yes, but it could be very fun!
theotherdraxen 12-18-06, 09:44 PM	Tried it, and please don't do it to your players. I assure you, the game will end in frustration. Once the Blackguard tries to Deathknell the fallen enemy, and the Paladin *has* to tackle him...well, things get ugly, and it's always bad mojo to have players fighting players.
Zephania 12-18-06, 09:52 PM	Well, luckly there are no complete opposites in this(no blackguard) to the best of my knowledge, its going to be the angel and paladin for good, and the necromancer, pranking bard(might be neutral), and an evil sorc.
theotherdraxen 12-18-06, 10:00 PM	Ah, that's a little more manageable. You have to find a goal they all have in common. Are they lawful at all? Honor is how I usually bind good and evil together IMC (I use subjective alignment, as opposed to the RAW objective alignment). If you have a pally, I suggest making sure that the main enemy is evil. Do a Nintendo class scenario, where the evil sorc wants revenge, and the pally wants justice. You should find a way to fudge the associates clause: maybe his diety grants him special permission to work with evil? Or you could reflavor the paladin so he can.
DragonSamurai 12-18-06, 10:01 PM	I can't see this working as a long term campaign. The half celestial paladin is not going to stand for any evil act commited in his/her presence, let alone the angel. It can only end in disaster. Might be intersting for a single adventure or mini campaign where they are forced to work together but very unlikely. If you go ahead with it let us know how it works out.
stargate525 12-18-06, 10:09 PM	they're the people chosen to take out a threat that is threatening both the good and the evil, and that they have to work together, at least until the mission is over?
johnkretzer 12-18-06, 10:19 PM	OK, this is for all the creative DM's out there. My campaign is starting to wrap up, and my players are slowly considering they're new party. However, we've hit a crossroad - most of the party wants to play evil(which is fine with me), but 2 want to play good characters(an angel and a half celestial paladin no less). Now, from the role-playing perspective, this is going to be quite fun. However, I'm at a loss quest-wise. So my questions are: 1. How do I set up a situation where they have to work together for extended periods of time? 2. What kind of quests would they go on, and how would they motivate both perspectives? Tricky, yes, but it could be very fun! What is the campaign world like? Withut knowing full details: The party members could be related in some way. They might have grown up together. They might belong to the same country. They might have a common enemy. They might share a mutual friend. The angel and the paladin might be trying to convert the others to good( Though this only works if the players like role-playing and don't go for the conversion by the sword routine)). As to the quest: Provide multiple motivation. For instance if you set up a classic dungeon crawl have be teeming with evil that needs to be stopped, have the bard gain access to the notes of the greatest prankster, the sorc. hear rumors that a powerful sorc. magic item is there( this assumes he is out for power;you don't need to have it there but put a clue to it's location). Again what brought themtogether can also keep them together.
theotherdraxen 12-18-06, 10:20 PM	they're the people chosen to take out a threat that is threatening both the good and the evil, and that they have to work together, at least until the mission is over? I tried this one. A good start, but it can subvert the emotional purposes to work together, and thus cause quarreling where there should be butt-kicking.
Someone 12-19-06, 01:09 AM	Well, there is that minor detail of "paladins cannot associate with those of evil alignment" in their code of conduct. So in this case, I don't think good and evil will be working together any time soon. However, a good/evil mixed party can still work. Just keep the alignment tension on the level most campaigns keep the lawful/chaotic tension.
Shan_TheBabau_Burke 12-19-06, 01:20 AM	Part of this is on you. Make them an offer they can't refuse, haha. That is, make whatever happens for the good of everyone. The paladin and angel will do it because it benefits others and the evils will do it because it benefits them. Give them a dragon or some similar powerful evil to go after first. By the time they reach the levels to take it on, they should have figured out a believable way to stay together. If they all want to keep their characters, THEY will learn how to get along. Some outside assistance may be required, but it's easy to make it believable and interesting. Unlikely alliances happen every day.
darksyngr 12-19-06, 01:31 AM	you could pull it off for a short period but very easily there will be internal conflict that could result in death for one or two party members. If you and your group are okay with this simply have your characters make alternates in case. Also, it would be fun as a DM to manipulate your PC's to break their alignment pushing all of them towards a more neutral ground. Then again my players and I love that sort of intrigue in our games and it might not be the same for you. The most cliche method of a good/evil party working together is the classic 'enemy of my enemy is my friend'. You have an evil so great that the good simply want to destroy it and the evil members see this antagonist as an upset to their own power and ambitions. Give both sides a part of a puzzle or artifact that forces them to work together whether they like it or not.
Maniacal_Cackle 12-19-06, 01:52 AM	Okay, the "paladin's can't associate with evil" is something I just did away with- it messes up too many fun situations like this one. Off the top of my head, my favorite suggestions was: Simply magically bind them together. The two can't go more than say 100 feet from each other. If one tries to teleport away, it fails. If one tries to walk away, he meets an invisible wall. If he falls off a cliff, he "lands" a 100 feet down. Angel is friends with the pally, goes around with him trying to help him out. The bard is secretly involved with it, and is just along for the fun. The other evil guy might have sworn an oath (if lawful), simply be friends with the guy (evil has friends too!), or in some other way be obligated to stick around. Course, the obvious solution is to kill the second half of the link... If they do that, they have to cart around a dead body, it starts stinking, they decide raise dead. Might think of something else later... Wow, I like that idea, now I want a campaign like that :D
darksyngr 12-19-06, 01:57 AM	Okay, the "paladin's can't associate with evil" is something I just did away with- it messes up too many fun situations like this one. Off the top of my head, my favorite suggestions was: Simply magically bind them together. The two can't go more than say 100 feet from each other. If one tries to teleport away, it fails. If one tries to walk away, he meets an invisible wall. If he falls off a cliff, he "lands" a 100 feet down. Angel is friends with the pally, goes around with him trying to help him out. The bard is secretly involved with it, and is just along for the fun. The other evil guy might have sworn an oath (if lawful), simply be friends with the guy (evil has friends too!), or in some other way be obligated to stick around. Course, the obvious solution is to kill the second half of the link... If they do that, they have to cart around a dead body, it starts stinking, they decide raise dead. Might think of something else later... Wow, I like that idea, now I want a campaign like that :D I like that idea too :) wish I thought it first, lol
Maniacal_Cackle 12-19-06, 02:01 AM	I like that idea too :) wish I thought it first, lol Believe me, I was shocked when it came out, most of my stuff is pretty sub par. Guess I should post more often :)
Boshi 12-19-06, 03:33 AM	Simple, have it be a political/military campaign nothing like good old nationalism and zenophobic hysteria to overcome little differences like good and evil. I'm sure every real life military has its share of good and evil people and they manage to work together somehow...
Changling_Bob 12-19-06, 05:13 AM	I was going to say ZMOBIES!, but you've got a necromancer. But any kind of 'we need to survive' kind of scenario could work, where they are forced to work together or they'll all die. Can't really think of anything other than a zobmie infestation at the moment, but I suppose they could've been shunted onto a different plane, or some kind of island (think king kong), or something like that. re: palladin: I'm not going to go here because I'll get moaned at whatever I say :)
Falln 12-19-06, 05:22 AM	In my campaign we have: one priest of good luck, one bard (jester), two fighters (human viking and a dwarf) who are all good and the last member is an evil priest of cold (drow elf). The only reason why this evil guy joined the party is to survive (because other drow are hunting him). The only reason the party allows him to stay with them is because they have ever seen him doing evil stuff. That player know, the moment the other players notice something evil, they may react in whatever why they want to. We have one house rule that says: never fight within the party. This rule won't be followed when someone wants to play evil in a good campaign setting
IceFractal 12-19-06, 05:40 AM	Simple - just ask them "Ok, now why are your characters adventuring together?" And have that be the deciding factor. As long as they can make a reason, then fine. If they can't find a reason, they can't play those characters (if a majority are good/evil, have the others shift to neutral, if it's a tie, they all have to shift closer to neutral or find some other compromise). Maniacal_Cackle's idea seems like a good possibility - you might mention it to them. Another possibility - I notice that the two evil characters are both spellcasters. What if the BBEG is someone like Karsus, who's trying to disrupt/control the weave? If this happens, the magical backlash could kill huge numbers of people (good reason for the Paladin and Angel to step in), and cut off the source of magic (good reason for the Necromancer and Sorcerer to step in). As for the Bard? This is a legend in the making right here, and the best place to see it all is from the inside.
Millennium 12-19-06, 10:08 AM	Mixed-alignment parties can be made to work, but it's extremely difficult, especially if there's a paladin involved. However, you've already spotted the biggest problems (keeping everyone together and keeping them from killing each other) and you're looking for solutions. So you've got a good head on your shoulders about this. The paladin, however, really complicates things. Associating with Evil characters is a violation of the paladin's code, and this is something you must deal with one way or another. It's entirely within your rights to say that this is not a major enough violation to cause the paladin to Fall, and in fact I urge you to do that, since otherwise he's not going to be a paladin for very long. But travelling on friendly terms with a necromancer should at least be earning him dirty looks and skepticism from other paladins. There might not necessarily be any mechanical penalties, but there should certainly be some flavor-wise stigma. Talk with the player about this beforehand so that he knows it's coming; this isn't something you want to surprise people with. Furthermore, even though you don't intend for the paladin to Fall, the paladin doesn't know that. He should be aware that he risks Falling by continuing to associate with these folks (even if he never actually will), and he needs some reason to believe that it's worth the risk. Talk with the player about this, and work out something together. Once you've got the paladin properly motivated, the rest of the characters will be a lot easier to work with. That's why I suggest getting the paladin out of the way first.
Calilove 12-19-06, 11:07 AM	Honestly, although you can shoehord this party together, it really bends alot of the lore and rules on this stuff. Seems like this is asking for players to represent their classes/aligns poorly, will lead to constant conflict, and is based more on having powerful characters than putting together a great adventure/story. If your players INSIST on it, I'd imagine some kind of trapped/beseiged scenario or geas scenario would be good. This could be a very cool 1-2 shot scenario, espescially if you let them start off at higher levels to really let the good vs evil powers fly (maybe a fight to the death at the end?). Seems like a bad first step for a long journey. I'd say ask someone to change.
Cainin 12-19-06, 12:59 PM	Since I encourage freedom of player choice, I tend not to narrow player choices. For alignment, I only ban CE. (Extreme violence and selfishness with no constraint by morals, forethought, or consideration of the results of your actions is simply too hard to control.) All others are allowed. First off, you need to make sure everyone understands this instinctive rule before you begin. There is a definite possibility of "evil" and "good" having to adventure together. Once the player base understands this, most are unlikely to play hard lined classes or races (paladins, outsiders, etc) in the first place. Secondly, you need to have a clear understanding between the GM and player base about what the communal definitions of "evil" and "good" are. Are they based off of a character's literal actions? Or is it based off of their intentions and motivations? Perhaps somewhere in between these? (In other words, just how literal are your interpretations of the DnD alignment system? They are already gray enough to be open to interpretation.) If you don't cover these key questions in the beginning, it will always leads to major debeats down the line that result in severe game disrupting problems. Third, you have to make sure that neither the "evil" or "good" players play extremes of their spectrums. Yes, I know this treads on the danger zone of limiting the self-expression of the players. Yet there will be extreme issues if the "good" players want to act like Mother Theresa. Or the "evil" character being such the scum of the earth that all intelligent creatures feel the need to put them down like rabid animals. Fourth, you need to manufacture a reason that characters of opposing belief systems are having to adventure around together. In the end, I usually use the cop out of some kind of threat of cosmic anihilation. The enemy force is so assurd of their own success that they won't allow defectors to join their cause. There will be none spared if they succeed. Everything and everyone will be destroyed in mind, body, and soul. Against something of such apocalyptic proportions, all will have to join together if they are going to survive this. Yet this plot line causes major player questions. Where did this enemy come from? Why are we capable of stopping them, as opposed to most of the NPC populace? What about divine intervention? Etc. Each of these repetetive questions needs to be anticipated and provided with either a mysterious or coherent answer to their question. In case of mysterious answers that I give out, it is often because I had never given a particular matter much thought and don't truly have an answer. Therefore I give a vague enough answer to buy myself time while I figure out in my own head where everything happens to fit in the story. Divinity is usually the main kicker with most people. These players are usually hard core followers of FR cosmology. They expect some deity to directly intervene and send some avatar to kick butt. Or for the gods to give a clear prophetic vision to all of their followers so that it spontaneously inspires a jihad of epic proportions. Yet the like most matters of faith, things are rarely that simple. Perahps the divine have already sent signs to the world of the coming end, yet most are simply too blind to see it. Or maybe there exists a higher set of cosmic rules that constrain the omnipotent power of the divine in ways beyond mortal comprehension. (My favorite.) Under this line of thought, the deities may have the power to stop the coming end. But they are powerless to exercise this power in order to save the cosmos and themselves. In the end, this system of running games tends to work overall with a generally co-operative and appreciative player base. The only real problem people (for there are always one or two) are the players that have hard lined views of "good" and "evil". They believe in the ethical ideals as presented by BoVD and BoED. Their evil characters will openly ritualistically violate an NPC to levels that even the other evil aligned characters want to kill them. Their good characters assassinate evil aligned characters in their sleep (unprovoked) because "good must vanquish evil." (I love that defense.) No matter how you try to reign them in and gently reprimand them for their actions, seem they are the only ones have a problem going along with the flow that has been set by the rest of the player populace. In the end, I find that there is rarely a solution that can be reached as the problem player always feels like you are singling them out and unfairly punishing their forms of self-expression. More often then not, these player either quit the campaign because it's no longer "fun", or I (as GM) have to poiltely kick them out. Otherwise, I find that "good" and "evil" games can actually work quite well together. Many players look forward to the potential conflicts in alignment philosophy as good RP opportunities. And this way, nearly every player gets to play what they want and be happy.
McSlugger 12-19-06, 01:17 PM	OK, this is for all the creative DM's out there. My campaign is starting to wrap up, and my players are slowly considering they're new party. However, we've hit a crossroad - most of the party wants to play evil(which is fine with me), but 2 want to play good characters(an angel and a half celestial paladin no less). Now, from the role-playing perspective, this is going to be quite fun. However, I'm at a loss quest-wise. So my questions are: 1. How do I set up a situation where they have to work together for extended periods of time? 2. What kind of quests would they go on, and how would they motivate both perspectives? Tricky, yes, but it could be very fun! As long as the good players dont insist on being a half celestial paladin and an angel, I dont see the problem. If they do, I cannot see how these two characters would ever knowingly agree to travel with an evil party. It would have to be a plot where they temporarily put aside their differences to pursue a common goal that both good and evil can agree on, like killing druids or something. However, they will run into alot of problems on the way because the evil characters behavior will likely generate conflict. I would say a scenario that could work is one in which the gods themselves (both good and evil ) are somehow threatened. The PCs must go on a quest to stop this threat.
blackjackg 12-19-06, 01:51 PM	Once again, I am surprised by the narrowness of views on alignment. There are many ways to play Lawful Good, and many ways to play Chaotic Evil, and there are really a lot of ways that they can work together. There are some good suggestions up here for how to make it work, but in terms of general tips, there are two ways to approach the problem. For the character, remember that evil (and chaotic) do not translate to "stupid" any more than lawful and good do. A player who intentionally betrays his party members or wreaks random havoc in the town is not playing his character well and deserves what he gets. In order to thrive in a society that rewards lawful and good behaviour, evil characters must be subtle and patient and act at least lawful neutral most of the time (obey the laws and don't cause damage for the sake of causing damage). The true mark of an evil person is how they act in a situation with no potential consequences, and those are very rare indeed. For the DM, three main suggestions for encouraging party unity. 1) Sit down and talk with your players (separately is best, but together works too) about alignment and what the alignment they plan on playing means to them. That way you can judge if they'd be able to handle a mixed-alignment party, or offer suggestions if it looks like one player will be more difficult than the rest. 2) Spend more time in dungeons and wilderness and less time in towns and cities. Evil characters tend to misbehave more in cities and towns because there's little danger and more innocent victims to take advantage of. In the wild, it's kill or be killed and the paladin is too busy worrying about dragons to deal with the "evil" sorcerer who has saved her life several times. Finally, 3) consider nerfing the detect evil spell/class ability. It seems to me that this is a catch-all ability that justifies all kinds of dubious actions. If you make it so it only detects certain kinds of evil (extra-planar, undead, extreme, etc.) but ignores the minor subtleties of human behaviour (such as those exhibited by your average human or party member), then you won't have a real problem with your paladin smiting everything that sets off her alarm. Anyway, like I said, good suggestions above. Have fun and good luck. If you have mature, experienced roleplayers, you shouldn't have any problem.
ladyeve 12-19-06, 02:01 PM	Once again, I am surprised by the narrowness of views on alignment. There are many ways to play Lawful Good, and many ways to play Chaotic Evil, and there are really a lot of ways that they can work together. There are some good suggestions up here for how to make it work, but in terms of general tips, there are two ways to approach the problem. For the character, remember that evil (and chaotic) do not translate to "stupid" any more than lawful and good do. A player who intentionally betrays his party members or wreaks random havoc in the town is not playing his character well and deserves what he gets. In order to thrive in a society that rewards lawful and good behaviour, evil characters must be subtle and patient and act at least lawful neutral most of the time (obey the laws and don't cause damage for the sake of causing damage). The true mark of an evil person is how they act in a situation with no potential consequences, and those are very rare indeed. Anyway, like I said, good suggestions above. Have fun and good luck. If you have mature, experienced roleplayers, you shouldn't have any problem. yes but in a world where people can detect alignment, would an angel travel with an evil party?
danielinthewolvesden 12-19-06, 02:06 PM	There ARE many ways of playing alignment, and with a mature group of players a mixed alignment party MIGHT work- as long as everyone knows about it and buys in. But there's only one way of playing a Paladin with an evil party: well, two: gone or defrocked. So, no that party will not work.Sorry.
blackjackg 12-19-06, 02:06 PM	yes but in a world where people can detect alignment, would an angel travel with an evil party? If the alternative was travelling alone, yes. Like I said (or at least implied) above, much depends on the players and DMs and their views of alignment. Not everyone sees it as the be-all end-all of personality or of value to the world. Even Gollum wound up being of some use...
Zephania 12-19-06, 07:45 PM	OK, i do really like the "can't be more than 100 feet from each other" bit, and maybe a way to make it work. Evil lich lord or somehting, binds everyone with that spell, and so the party would more then likely team up for revenge(evil), and to slay evil(good)...then, it can also end in a massive PvP :D
CroBob 12-19-06, 07:48 PM	Are they lawful at all? Honor is how I usually bind good and evil together IMC (I use subjective alignment, as opposed to the RAW objective alignment). They're whatever alignment they think they are, then? How does that work?
dayrat 12-19-06, 07:51 PM	If the alternative was travelling alone, yes. Like I said (or at least implied) above, much depends on the players and DMs and their views of alignment. Not everyone sees it as the be-all end-all of personality or of value to the world. Even Gollum wound up being of some use... I agree that it is not impossible for good and evil characters to be in a party together. But I think that in a world like D&D where good and evil are actual forces, and you can detect their presence, there needs to be a solid back story to explain why the party is travelling together. I have had mixe parties in my games. Much also depends on how evil is being played. If its "smart evil", things tend to work out. If its "stupid evil", you may have a problem. That really depends on the player though. I had a player who played an evil character and used all his free time in town to kill anyone who gave him difficulty (innkeepers, lords, librarians). But it was a party of paladins. Once the paladins realized what he was doing, they had to turn him in.
theotherdraxen 12-19-06, 08:53 PM	While I wish you the best of luck, if you had a player like (and you didn't inform me in advance to make up a character that could fit the situation), I'd be quick to challenge the evil guy. Unless requested otherwise by the DM, if you're evil, then you're on the enemy team. So make sure your players know that they will be of opposite alignments before they begin, and maybe ask them to come up with how they work together. I once made a LN character that worked perfectly with a CG beguiler. I said I was his servant (backstory for it, too) and thus had to obey him. The other player was my brother, so he didn't abuse it. Anyway, good luck!
shadowfox628 12-19-06, 09:45 PM	Well, alignments are tricky. If I could, I'd go on a rant about how it's impossible to correctly play a Paladin due to alignments. But, here's what I'll say. Alignment really is based upon interpretation. For example, if I was DMing, I'd allow a Paladin to break laws, cheat, lie, and steal. However, in all of those cases, it must be justified. The Paladin can break laws if those laws are unfair (tyrannical laws). A Paladin can steal a powerful item from a really evil person (most likely BBEG or other major evil NPC). A Paladin can lie if they're not doing it to take advantage of people (evil people are the exception, like, again, BBEG). I'd let a Paladin attack an unarmed person, though, again, it has to be justified. If some random person attacks a party member, I'd let the Paladin initiate combat (person attacked team mate, fighting is justified in my eyes). However, I wouldn't allow a Paladin to use Smite Evil on the NE merchant because he's evil. That's just unjustified. Now, also, remember that when they say "evil," they don't mean the generic pure evil that pops into people's heads. You can be Lawful Evil, but only be greedy (*cough* Scrudge *cough* (sp?)). So, this really breaks down into the questions of "How evil are the evil people? How good are the good people?" Also, it depends upon interpretation. I'd actually suggest the following: Get the PCs together as a pre-campaign get-together. They can coordinate their characters to make sure they're not doing anything wrong, and they can discuss character personalities (the personality part is what I'd focus on). You and the PCs can then tell, before the campaign actually begins, weither or not certain character personalities and morals will clash. Minor clashing is OK, even fun (to RP) sometimes, but major clashes are what you should look out for (even moderate clashes).
Sphyre 12-20-06, 01:44 AM	There ARE many ways of playing alignment, and with a mature group of players a mixed alignment party MIGHT work- as long as everyone knows about it and buys in. But there's only one way of playing a Paladin with an evil party: well, two: gone or defrocked. So, no that party will not work.Sorry. Well, he did say that he was probably going to remove that restriction on the paladin so that this could work. Although, I agree with you with the point that there are many ways of playing alignment. They may have polar opposite morals but if their goals are the same then it doesn't overshadow much. In fact, evil would more likely enjoy partying with good because they know they will look out for them, whether or not they deserve it. I'd suggest more along the lines of make sure the players create personalities that merely show parts of their alignment. Remember your character is a person first, and alignment simply only reflects that. Just because you're evil doesn't mean you can't do good. Maybe the evil character only is evil when threatened? I had a character who was Neutral evil, he didn't care for anyone else without being persuaded by knowledge of magic to help, but he never killed anyone who didn't have intentions of killing him. He was evil, but just because he was evil didn't mean he couldn't act rationally. Another idea, which is kind of cliche, is have everyone create a backstory in which they all grew up together, or had some significant event together so they all know each other, despite their alignment differences.