Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Blacksworddragon 06-26-07, 01:38 AM	I'm currently running a campaign where there are roughly 8-9 PCs playing in any given night. I've gotten the hang of giving everyone the same stage time but my problem has to do with the group's alignment. The group is almost equally divided between Lawful good, some kind of evil and the same amount of neutrals. the evil guys do the dirty work behind the good character's backs and are pretty good at it. I can't seem to find a way to keep the group together in game. I need suggestions.
Kouk 06-26-07, 01:42 AM	I would suggest limiting your game to only one extreme of alignment + neutral. So that you can only be good or neutral, or you can only be evil or neutral. Otherwise, you can't do anything without putting some kind of curse on them that forces them to work together.
Lawlicron 06-26-07, 01:46 AM	Split the group up into two groups. Thats a great idea, but I don't think your willing to do this. Beyond that your just going to have to wrangle eight or nine different people with varying alignments. It will be difficult to get the evil ones to go along with the good ones, it sounds like their just being evil to act as devil's advocate to what the good players are doing.
Vaelan 06-26-07, 01:47 AM	Here's how it works: Evil people like Good people. Good people don't screw them over like other Evil people do. Good people don't know that the Evil people are Evil. There's no problem. Or... DM: You're splitting up? Okay, decide amongst yourselves which group is making new characters.
danielinthewolvesden 06-26-07, 03:58 AM	"Rule One: No Evils. This includes sociopathic CN played as Evil." Look, it is Ok to run an ALL Evil campaign once in a while as a change- if you are ALL both experienced and mature. Note both usages of the word "ALL". So you just started, just tell the folks who wrote "E" on their sheets to change it. Tell them in a few games down the road you will run an All-Evil campaign too.
Vaelan 06-26-07, 04:25 AM	Someone is jumping the "Ban Evil" gun a bit. This problem could just as easily manifest in a party of Good and Neutrals. The Good people want to help others, the Neutral people don't care about others. A situation comes up that puts a personal interest of the party up against helping people. The Good people want to help at the cost of themselves and the Neutral people. The Neutral people don't. I know you just love to butt in with this suggestion every chance you get, danny, but it doesn't fix every problem and, most importantly, it doesn't fix this one.
danielinthewolvesden 06-26-07, 01:44 PM	Someone is jumping the "Ban Evil" gun a bit. I know you just love to butt in with this suggestion every chance you get, danny, but it doesn't fix every problem and, most importantly, it doesn't fix this one. Read the OP "the evil guys do the dirty work behind the good character's backs and are pretty good at it. I can't seem to find a way to keep the group together in game." Seems like the problem HERE is having Good and Evil in the same party. And the other two posters here agree. Mixed Good and Evil parties do not work, as is evidenced here.
Ebonarc 06-26-07, 02:18 PM	Mixed Good and Evil parties do not work Quoted For Truth. Mixing the two is an invitation to disaster.
Paladin_Hiroshi 06-26-07, 02:32 PM	you do need to remember, Evil and good parties do not work together. BUT it is not automatically correct to tell the evil players to roll up, or change alignment! I've been playing evil players for 2/3 years now, and it's not always the evil that should go. It could be, but maybe try writing up a list of the pros and cons, before acting like the lawful stupid paladin, who whacks whatever pings up on his evil-dar :rolleyes: Just my :twocents:
Ebonarc 06-26-07, 02:38 PM	BUT it is not automatically correct to tell the evil players to roll up, or change alignment! I don't want to Quote For Truth twice in one thread, but you're tempting me. To the OP: You may want to consider talking to the entire group in person at once, and asking them to decide on either a good/neutral party or an evil/neutral party. If they don't come to a consensus, you may want to run two groups, or have somebody DM one while you DM the other.
criticalstriker 06-26-07, 02:58 PM	I can't seem to find a way to keep the group together in game. I need suggestions. What do you mean by that, exactly? Are they in-fighting(note: that does not mean beating each others head in). Or are they consistently going in different directions? "Rule One: No Evils. This includes sociopathic CN played as Evil." Look, it is Ok to run an ALL Evil campaign once in a while as a change- if you are ALL both experienced and mature. Note both usages of the word "ALL". So you just started, just tell the folks who wrote "E" on their sheets to change it. Tell them in a few games down the road you will run an All-Evil campaign too. Tell the ones who wrote E to change it? You've got to be joking? You have gotten all of a few lines of information, and its already the evil persons fault? You really should start getting more information before jumping to a conclusion. Just one more thing, why do people always think its evils fault? Why can it never be the "good" guys who are attacking the evil guys for no reason? Other than their "evil-dar(hehe, I like that one)" picked it up?
RealSorceror 06-26-07, 03:39 PM	I think we need a little more information here about the players and their characters. Parties with mixed alignments can work. I've personally done it and I've seen other people do it successfully as well. What you need to understand with mixed parties is that: 1). Paladins and their evil-o-vision ruin everything, especially if the character is Lawful Stupid. Aviod them like the bane, unless you have very good storyline reasons for having them. 2). Characters who are Psychotic Evil ruin everything. Being evil, even choatic evil, does not imply that you have no self-control or sense of preservation. Aviod them even more than the Paladins. 3) Greater evils (aka powers greater than the party) are one of your best options for uniting a mixed party. Hell doesn't reward evil mortals. They're real big on irony. 4) Do not allow players to plot against eachother without due reason. The evil PCs should not be plotting to kill the good PCs for no better reason than kicks and giggles. Likewise, the good PCs have no reason to kill people who are not actively evil (that assassin may show up as "Evil" on your scanner, but if hes just sitting around in a bar eating lunch, then the PCs have no damn reason to kill him). Agian, ban all Lawful Stupid and Psychotic Evil. As an example, I was in a mixed party consisting of a LG Cleric, a CG Fighter, a N Ranger, a LN Wu-Jin, and a NE Dread Necro. I was the lone evil character. The game was excellent, for the following reasons, among others: 1) An empire of Mind-Flayers and their allies presented a greater threat. Our personal differences where unimportant compared to the immediate threat of the illithids. 2) I played Nuetral Evil like its supposed to be played. I looked out for myself first, and by extension, I looked out for the party, because I needed them to survive. I did not wantonly kill innocent people. I did not steal when money and supplies where readily available. Although the Cleric and I occassionaly butted heads, it never came anywhere near violence. He knew I wasn't hurting anyone, and he knew that I was useful to his cause. I said all that just to tell you to ban all forms of stupidity and idiocy, which are the true evil. But I'm sure you already new that.
Velcro Zipper 06-26-07, 03:47 PM	I've played in and run games with drastically mixed alignments. One party even had a character of every alignment. Give the party a common enemy that needs all of their combined abilities to stop. If the party still manages to come up with reasons to separate, engineer encounters where Ranger X, the Chaotic Good Ranger, and Necromancer V, the Lawful Evil Necromancer, have to rely on each other to stay alive. If it comes down to the evil guys going off to do evil things for the benefit of the party, encourage one or two of the good guys to get curious and decide to tag along or trail the evil guys to see what they're up to.
danielinthewolvesden 06-27-07, 03:34 PM	I don't want to Quote For Truth twice in one thread, but you're tempting me. To the OP: You may want to consider talking to the entire group in person at once, and asking them to decide on either a good/neutral party or an evil/neutral party. If they don't come to a consensus, you may want to run two groups, or have somebody DM one while you DM the other. You folks are correct and I agreed :"Look, it is Ok to run an ALL Evil campaign once in a while as a change- if you are ALL both experienced and mature." But in this case it seems like this is a new group and a fairly new DM.
JakeTheSnake 06-27-07, 03:46 PM	good and evil can coexist perfectly well together assuming everyone is mature about things. Back in the day I had an evil half-orc who was in with a good and neutral group and he loved it. The good people "used" the orc all the time to talk to warlords and various monsters who wouldnt listen to a good char, and my evil orc used the group as a base of power to slowly build himself up, after all he knew that the good chars wouldnt betray him or leave him to burn, because they relied on his fighting abilities to much. In the end a strong friendship based on nessecity formed between everyone and what alignment everyone was hardly mattered. Just because you are CE does not mean you cannot care about people, and he was "caring" about them for as long as they could help him, which, as it turned out, was a very long time
Vengeful_Deity 06-27-07, 04:01 PM	The problem I think alot of people are getting hung up on is that Evil = Badguys and try to destroy the world. Evil can simply mean you take a fair amount of satisfaction in the required killing or is entirely okay with torturing someone for information. Evil doesn't mean they have to actively work against the Good characters in a group, that they would rather spend their time with goblins, demons, and undead...or even that the good characters must instantly be revolted by their evil companions and slay them wonce they find that they are NE instead of Pure Neutral. I've always noticed that people put too much emphasis on archetypal alignments. I mean, I've played a game with a Paladin who saw a random evil person in a Tavern, screamed "Evil!!!" then attacked him. The Paladin was arrested and hanged for murder. When they got pissy I pointed out that they forgot about the "Lawful" aspect of their alignment...and told them it didn't stand for "Ridgid hardass that has no tolerance or respect for life".
Vaelan 06-27-07, 04:06 PM	Seems like the problem HERE is having Good and Evil in the same party. I will admit that it is a possibility, but we don't know enough. Two sentences being adjacent is rarely enough to distinguish a correlation in the absence of any other indication. And the other two posters here agree. Mixed Good and Evil parties do not work, as is evidenced here. Believe it or not, multiple people can be wrong. Mixed parties work, as I and others have evinced just as authoritatively as anyone has evinced the opposing point (not at all, to be specific). Just because you can't make it work and a few other people can't make it work doesn't mean that nobody can make it work. The sheer hubris of your reasoning in this regard is, quite frankly, revolting.
WolfHati 06-27-07, 04:22 PM	The problem isn't necessarily good or evil, they can get along fine under the right circumstances, but whether the evil players are doing unlawful and unethical things behind the rest of the party's back. Which appears to be the case. Working together in general, even with the same alignment requires some level of maturity, moreso if the characters have different alignments and motivations, but don't rule something out just because of alignments. Not all paladins kill evil people on sight-in fact that's an evil thing to do-and not all evil people want to stab their party in the back at first opportunity, especially when they know their allies are powerful and not actually out to get them. Being in a good adventuring party is a real profitable deal. Though with 8-9 PCs, you could probably just run two games if the two factions decide to go their separate ways. If you have the time, of course. I'd say let the players work it out themselves, and if you can, offer to have two different games for the groups if it appears that them working together is no longer gonna happen. EDIT: and just to add my own experience, I played in a group of similarly mixed alignments as a monstrous evil character, and my only problem was with one of the other evil characters, as his selfish actions were a danger to my characters life, and my character was not as forgiving as his comrades.
Vengeful_Deity 06-27-07, 04:26 PM	The problem isn't necessarily good or evil, they can get along fine under the right circumstances, but whether the evil players are doing unlawful and unethical things behind the rest of the party's back. Which appears to be the case. Working together in general, even with the same alignment requires some level of maturity, moreso if the characters have different alignments and motivations, but don't rule something out just because of alignments. Not all paladins kill evil people on sight-in fact that's an evil thing to do-and not all evil people want to stab their party in the back at first opportunity, especially when they know their allies are powerful and not actually out to get them. Being in a good adventuring party is a real profitable deal. Though with 8-9 PCs, you could probably just run two games if the two factions decide to go their separate ways. If you have the time, of course. I'd say let the players work it out themselves, and if you can, offer to have two different games for the groups if it appears that them working together is no longer gonna happen. EDIT: and just to add my own experience, I played in a group of similarly mixed alignments as a monstrous evil character, and my only problem was with one of the other evil characters, as his selfish actions were a danger to my characters life, and my character was not as forgiving as his comrades. What he said.
Prince_of_Parkness 06-27-07, 06:22 PM	I also think it all depends on maturity. If they play well, it can be very interesting since players rely on eachother but disagree with the others methods. As long as they choose words and compromises instead of swords to solve interpary disputes this should only increase enjoyment
Scottevil912 06-27-07, 07:59 PM	You know, I never understood why people had such a problem with the good vs. evil, yet very little problem with the Lawful vs. Chaotic. If people were roleplaying their alignments correctly, there should be more difficulty in a Lawful Good person and a Chaotic Good person getting along. For example: The town's tax collector could very well be lawful evil, taking joy in going to the poor farmers house and taking the last few coppers he has for his lord, and then forcing the Farmer out because he still wasn't able to pay his taxes. The Chaotic Good guy that steals from the tax collector to give to the poor. Now who would the Lawful Good person have more of a problem with? The tax collector: who maybe enjoys his job a little to much, but still was just doing that - his job. -Or- Robin Hood: who broke laws, potentially caused a lack of funds to the State, and could potentially get the tax collector in trouble for not being able to return with the taxes he was supposed to collect. In both cases the individuals did something that contradicts how the LG person feels, but in regards to the tax collector, no matter how crappy a person is - if that person is still following the laws the lawful good person still has to go along with that person's duty (though perhaps the LG person may try to gain audiance with the lord and explain his opposition to the tax collector). The Robin Hood just broke laws which could in the end cause more harm than good, and if the LG person had any way of stopping it but just kinda looked the other way, that's more of a chaotic act than a lawful one.
Comus 06-27-07, 08:10 PM	If people were roleplaying their alignments correctly, there should be more difficulty in a Lawful Good person and a Chaotic Good person getting along. You're correct. As an example of Law vs Chaos being more important than Good vs Evil, I cite the Blood War. After all, it's assumed the players have a common goal, so that minimizes the whole Good vs Evil angle and puts the focus on methods. Hm. One of these days, I need to run an Evil character in a Heroic game and just have him get along well with the party. No reason he can't consider them his friends, or why he couldn't have a personal honor code against torture and the like.
dknight100 06-27-07, 08:32 PM	To add my 2 coppers; You don't have to get rid of the evil ones, or the good ones. The dynamic the two create can be vastly more intriguing than a harmonious party - for the awesome example, Raistlin in dragonlance. Everyone knew he was to an extent, an uncaring, curel even, self centered and potentially evil person, however, they all held out hope that they could bring him around. It made for great dynamic, until Weiss and Hickman let other people write the books.
danielinthewolvesden 06-28-07, 01:40 AM	I also think it all depends on maturity. If they play well, it can be very interesting since players rely on eachother but disagree with the others methods. As long as they choose words and compromises instead of swords to solve interpary disputes this should only increase enjoyment Read the OP "I can't seem to find a way to keep the group together in game."
danielinthewolvesden 06-28-07, 01:57 AM	You don't have to get rid of the evil ones, or the good ones. The dynamic the two create can be vastly more intriguing than a harmonious party - f. Read the OP: "I can't seem to find a way to keep the group together in game."
dknight100 06-28-07, 06:39 AM	Read the OP: "I can't seem to find a way to keep the group together in game." heh, my error. regarding the group in question, then if they cant find a way to overcome their differences then they just need to work on that. Not necessarily re roll all evil or all good, but talk together and figure out some reason the party would be together.
Ainianu 06-28-07, 09:14 AM	Ive found good and evil can work in the same party, but there needs to be common goals, or goals that make the players all go in same direction at least, or make sure the players 'need' one another. But i think to keep a group that size together it would need a fairly epic story line, promise of fame, wealth, saving the world etc all in one, and that may force them all to travel together out of necessity. - Something like the origional dragonlance saga, Raistlin seemed fairly evil and did eventually leave the party, but he remained with them for a long time despite it.
Ainianu 06-28-07, 09:23 AM	heh, my error. regarding the group in question, then if they cant find a way to overcome their differences then they just need to work on that. Not necessarily re roll all evil or all good, but talk together and figure out some reason the party would be together. That seems the best way actually. Here are some suggestions. Having one of the evil ones a family relative of a good one, or an old friend since childhood. Having one of the evil (or good) ones having some kind of controll over another member, via a spell, an old debt. Because one of each evil and good has high social standing with important factions (rulers of a city, thieves guild, whatever) Common Goals: (the evil villain has the paladins fathers sword, has killed one of the evil ones best friends, has someone captured and ransoming her.. etc)
Forfeit 06-28-07, 12:02 PM	Good and evil mixed parties usually dont work together (and they shouldnt, since it goes against roleplay). But, if you really need to do that, you will need to give them a big enough reason to work together. I saw an adventure years ago where a group of evil characters were cursed, and the curse was the following: if one of the characters died, another one of the group would die too. The problem is that no one knew who they were atached with. Which means that if they were to atack and kill one of their group members, there was a huge chance they were going to die too. You could do something similar to your group. And abracadabra, you already have a quest where the characters have a common goal (break the curse), where they will have to work together (and suffer together), and you also give a chance for the evil characters to change their alignment (remember, you can change only one rank by week). You can give them a common enemy (like a dragon for example, where their only chance of surviving is working together), or a common objective (like getting the huge reward ofered by the king). Of course, you would need to talk out of the game with the evil characters and see if they are willing to change their alignments for the benefit of the whole group.
Blacksworddragon 06-28-07, 02:10 PM	The problem isn't that the evil characters play chaotic stupid, they are actually very good about at keeping the stupid to a minimum... well except form the rogue that happens to be the highest level character and very quick to steal from other characters. The problem is that the group has encountered a moderately powerful enemy and his army of undead they've escaped to a city that is hoped to have information on how to defeat him. The entire group has seperated and have no idea how to find each other. The evil rogue has made it clear that he has no intentions of going back after the necrophile and his horde. I can force him to go but I'd rather give an in game purpose to his involvement. That is what I needed ideas about.
dknight100 06-28-07, 05:06 PM	heh, classic We're all having this big discussion of good and evil working together, examples where it can, examples where it can't, and the OP meant his post in the most literal way possible. What motivates the rogue? perhaps suggest to his player that if this moderately powerful BBEG is allowed to get too much more power, then its going to greatly threaten his lifestyle, and like we're all told of global warming, will be much harder to stop if we only act when its MORE of a problem. This could result in quite a cool moment, if you have the rogue lag behind the group as they set off to attack the bbeg, meanwhile the rogue gets to roleplay his change of mind, and having to hustle to rejoin the group.
Vaelan 06-28-07, 08:49 PM	Good and evil mixed parties usually dont work together (and they shouldnt, since it goes against roleplay). Read up on alignments. They represent a broad range of attitudes and people are not perfectly consistent. It is, in fact, entirely possible for a Good and Evil person to work together without "going against roleplay". If you want to play an oversimplified caricature of an alignment and call it roleplaying, I don't particularly care about what you think "goes against roleplay". The problem is that the group has encountered a moderately powerful enemy and his army of undead they've escaped to a city that is hoped to have information on how to defeat him. The entire group has seperated and have no idea how to find each other. I usually assume that the PCs are able to find each other fairly easily unless someone is trying not to be found. They spend a lot of time together, so they probably know each other fairly well. Also, Gather Information can be used to find people. The evil rogue has made it clear that he has no intentions of going back after the necrophile and his horde. Honestly, I can't blame him. I can't imagine that many Rogues would find fighting an undead army terribly appealing. Also, I'm not seeing the Rogue being Evil as the problem, daniel. I can force him to go but I'd rather give an in game purpose to his involvement. That is what I needed ideas about. They're all in a city. The city has some interest in stopping the undead horde. Evil characters tend towards having ridiculous egos and liking material rewards. The city is in a position to offer material rewards and to decide who to offer these material rewards to in a way that exploits the ridiculous ego Evil characters tend to possess. To be honest, it seems to me that the Rogue's player isn't terribly interested in your campaign.
Blacksworddragon 06-29-07, 12:19 AM	To be honest, it seems to me that the Rogue's player isn't terribly interested in your campaign. that's what I was beginning to think but after talking to him I realize that he's fallen in love with his sneak attacks and I have a thing for Constructs and Undead... its not really a match made in heaven, but I'm willing to find a compromise. I think that now that they're in a city and he is in his element he is just remiss to leave. By the way the magistrate is trying to pretend like the zombie infestation isn't happening because the king is visiting the region. Maybe he will offer the rogue and the party some money... they've opporating under the radar, maybe I'll change that.
dknight100 06-29-07, 02:01 AM	A compromise could of course, be the clerics/necromancers/wizards controlling them. Unless they are undead too, then they are vulnerable to his sneak attacks. And oh yea, if they are undead, change most of them. I have a DM who also loves his undead, but it makes any roguelike character a tad useless. Plus, lots of undead and construct fights get boring really fast, and meld together till its one big meh undead and construct fights. I like undead too, and some constructs, but i find the impressiveness of anything wears off really fast under constant exposure. Its like Doom 3. Someone really needed to tell ID Software during development that the first couple of times a wall collapses and there is a monster behind it is kinda freaky. But when it feels like an in game joke seeing a powerup next to a wall, and knowing 100% that it will collapse... thats not freaky.
Vaelan 06-29-07, 09:19 AM	that's what I was beginning to think but after talking to him I realize that he's fallen in love with his sneak attacks and I have a thing for Constructs and Undead... its not really a match made in heaven, but I'm willing to find a compromise. Perhaps part of the aforementioned monetary reward is a Greater Truedeath Crystal?
Blacksworddragon 06-29-07, 11:14 AM	Perhaps part of the aforementioned monetary reward is a Greater Truedeath Crystal? What's a Greater Truedeath Crystal? I've never heard of it, but the name alone sounds like my kind of gem.
Comus 06-29-07, 12:29 PM	I don't know what the above item is, but I get the impression it gives an effect similar to gravestrike - that is, it allows sneak attacks on undead. If so, that'd be a great item to give him.
Blacksworddragon 07-02-07, 12:22 AM	I'm thinking of causing some sort of mayhem that has my evil rogue brought to the attention of the authorities and inadvertantly being force onto the same bath as the rest of the group. It even gives me an excuse to invade my city with a massive army of undead... I just have to find a way to spice things up. My PCs are a little tired of undead but this story arc requires them (plus zombies and morgh rule!) Where can I find the rules for gravestrike- is it in the DMG?
Blacksworddragon 07-02-07, 05:22 PM	I'd like advise for the same campaign but a different issue. One of my players is now fighting in the arena for a promoter. Instead of having every fight take a chunk of our D&D sessions what I'm thinking of doing is having roll a check similar to the Performance check and giving him winnings or losses according to the result but I'm not sure how the scale should be set or whether its a good idea or not. As always, any suggestions are welcome.
Vengeful_Deity 07-02-07, 05:41 PM	I'd like advise for the same campaign but a different issue. One of my players is now fighting in the arena for a promoter. Instead of having every fight take a chunk of our D&D sessions what I'm thinking of doing is having roll a check similar to the Performance check and giving him winnings or losses according to the result but I'm not sure how the scale should be set or whether its a good idea or not. As always, any suggestions are welcome. Could always have him come in half an hour early or stay half an hour later to do the arena fights so they don't hold everyone up.
Ebonarc 07-02-07, 07:28 PM	I'd like advise for the same campaign but a different issue. One of my players is now fighting in the arena for a promoter. Instead of having every fight take a chunk of our D&D sessions what I'm thinking of doing is having roll a check similar to the Performance check and giving him winnings or losses according to the result but I'm not sure how the scale should be set or whether its a good idea or not. As always, any suggestions are welcome. Use the GP payouts from the Perform skill. Have the bonus for the "Perform (arena combat" check be based on his attack bonus for his primary weapon, and/or his AC. It might be the same, it might be lower, but it should be a combination of the two.
Blacksworddragon 07-03-07, 12:43 PM	Use the GP payouts from the Perform skill. Have the bonus for the "Perform (arena combat" check be based on his attack bonus for his primary weapon, and/or his AC. It might be the same, it might be lower, but it should be a combination of the two. I'm actually designing a system that uses Base Attack, Str or Dex(which ever is higher), the number of combat oriented Feats and their standings within the Arena Circuit to add bonuses to a d20 roll. The roll determines whether the match was a win or loss, how much earnings were made and whether the PCs standings increases. I think it will make for a pretty cool system but I'm not sure.
Meep: War Bunny 07-03-07, 02:48 PM	I strongly recommend a group charter. This gives the characters an opportunity to agree to work together, regardless of motives. It's an easy work-around for your "two parties, one group" situation. The guidelines are in PHBII if memory serves. In general, the party drafts a simple document and the characters all sign agreement. For example: Discovered gold is party gold, to be split evenly. No thievery from fellow party members. PCs can take a professional approach to their adventuring, and joining a charter is a professional document. That doesn't mean the CE Barbarian won't rape the horses and ride the women when everyone takes their two weeks of down time, but when the party rides, he contributes. As far as your gladiatorial combat goes, CW has some perform (weapons drill) rules which aren't reasonable for most PCs. It does cover gladiatorial combats, however. In my current game, we had a PC fighting, three others rooting (morale bonuses), and one making extensive bets. The side action was just as, if not more interesting than the combat sequences.
solbergb 07-03-07, 04:24 PM	break it into two campaigns, one centered around the good characters, one around the evil characters, with neutrals joining one sider or the other. You can even have the two groups be rivals if you want, pursuing similar goals, the more active being the more successful. This will solve a number of issues. #1, sufficient "spotlight" time at the table for everyone. #2, incompatable party goals. Then every once in a while, run a crossover adventure where the two parties interact directly. Maybe get a stunt-DM to help assist.
RadicalTaoist 07-03-07, 09:39 PM	Split the group up into two groups. Thats a great idea, but I don't think your willing to do this. Beyond that your just going to have to wrangle eight or nine different people with varying alignments. It will be difficult to get the evil ones to go along with the good ones, it sounds like their just being evil to act as devil's advocate to what the good players are doing. break it into two campaigns, one centered around the good characters, one around the evil characters, with neutrals joining one sider or the other. You can even have the two groups be rivals if you want, pursuing similar goals, the more active being the more successful. This will solve a number of issues. #1, sufficient "spotlight" time at the table for everyone. #2, incompatable party goals. Then every once in a while, run a crossover adventure where the two parties interact directly. Maybe get a stunt-DM to help assist. Boom, thread over. I wonder why people couldn't resist the alignment debate when the most elegant solution was mentioned right off the bat. Reflex, maybe? You can't keep the group together. Your group is really big. Problem virtually solves itself.