Post/Author/DateTime	Post
FroMagnum 01-13-07, 05:18 PM	Okay, I've started my campaign but the only problem is I have a defiant PC in the party. He is a LE Drow Monk. The only problem is, he's Lawful Evil, and the rest of the party is nuetral or nuetral good. I have a problem with this because his character doesn't fit with the party, and as LE he doesn't fit with the adventures I set. I tried thinking of a way to change his alignment, but he doesn't want to be any other lawful. Now he is pretty hard to work with when it comes to his character (It took me 20 min. to get him to drop the idea of playing a 'monster' race). Now I can't force him to change his alignment because it is his character. But I though about making the entire party alignment-less. Would this work?
Olskool 01-13-07, 05:24 PM	You're the DM. You can totally "force" him to change his alignment if you want to. DMs do it all the time.
Sildatorak 01-13-07, 05:32 PM	Here are a pair of questions for you. Is the problem player a friend out of game? Will the other players back you up in telling him that he can't play evil PC's? These are the keys to solving the problem. If there is no out of game reason to keep him, I'd let him know that you plan on running a different sort of game than he wants. If he doesn't want to play the game the way you and the other players do and is unwilling to change, politely but firmly uninvite him. You're better off with a party with 1 fewer members than with a disruptive player plus the others. If he is a friend, you probably should appeal to his friendship. Let him know that everyone else wants a game different from his, and that if he wants to play he's going to have to adjust a little. You can liken it to a group of friends who like to play basketball except for one guy who is keen on soccer. If the guy who likes to play soccer starts kicking the basketball around, he is treading on the rest of the people. If he did it every time, you'd question why he is even hanging out with them. To answer your specific question: Removing alignments from character sheets won't change the situation at all. Actions are what matters in game, and a word on a piece of paper isn't going to determine how a player interacts with the game world. If he is playing LE without acting evil there is no problem. If he is playing alignmentless as LE then you haven't solved anything.
Free1983 01-13-07, 05:52 PM	But I though about making the entire party alignment-less. Would this work? Nope :noway: If he is playing alignmentless as LE then you haven't solved anything. This is why. Tell your player that it is a game for good & neutral only. No evil characters allowed. Just inform him on what kind of game you're going to play. Perhaps you can tell a bit about the adventure and what you expect from the party. You might be taking away suprise a bit, but perhaps the player will understand this better than just saying: "no evil". Hope the player turns by. Cheers
Cold Napalm 01-13-07, 05:58 PM	easy fix, NO EVIL in my game. A lot of DM do this because...well a lot of times people play evil as STUPID. God I hate those people... No so easy fix, talk with the group and see how his character concept would work as a working member of the party.
SokenzanMarauder 01-13-07, 06:03 PM	And I doth quote from the book of Cryosilver: "Steve, you're being a douche. Stop. Stop it now." -Gene
Thubby 01-13-07, 06:05 PM	this is why, before even stating what the adventure is (and before characters are made). i set down the house rules usualy "no (insert alignment)" ive done evil campaigns, so id say "no good guys" then go into specific classes and/or races. if they can use monster races. all that you are perfectly within your rights as a DM to tell him he cant have an evil character. though personaly i wouldnt mind the lone evil guy in the party. just let him know they're not gonna do the whole evil "thing", and dont want to have to deal with a criminal/psycho problem. if hes content to be evil without doing too much evil, let him.
Azezel 01-13-07, 06:23 PM	I have a very simple rule - many many other DM's have the same rule. 'No Evil Player Characters'. No negotiation - you cannot start as Evil, and if a Good or Neutral PC becomes Evil, he also becomes an NPC and the player makes a new character. I strongly suggest that you impliment the same rule in future. As for what you can do right now: If the Player is your friend, then he will accept your request that he not play an Evil or Monstrous character - because he is your friend. If he is not your friend then why exactly are you playing Dungeons & Dragons with him?
mcnoo 01-13-07, 06:55 PM	Personally, I'd let him play it, but suffer the consequences of his actions. Of course he'd get run out of town or strung for being a drow on first sight. Next he'll have to convince the party somehow that he's actually with the, as opposed to just another monster to kill. Next you have the bit where he has a chance to actually DO evil things, and when he does, the party will disagree. Tell them they are under no obligation to be nice due to the invisible "party force" that holds groups of adventurers together. (Research shows that each gaming group contains both a "Strong party force" holding them together and a "Weak party force" pushing them apart. Should the weak force ever overcome the strong force, it results in a vast destructive burst of energy and complete annihilation.)* Then again, I like people to learn by having their lips kicked off by the city watch for their errors. Alternately, state the above facts to your party member as reasons why "It just won't work in this campaign." Tell him you've written it with non-evil plot hooks and goals, what he's playing just doesn't FIT into the game you've written, he'll spend all day mooching around town saying "I wish I gave a damn that the mayor's daughter had been kidnapped" while the heroic troupe battle Kamakazi Zeppelins piloted by Aboltehs in the skies over Sigil. *Yes, this is a gratuitous particle physics analogy, and no, I'm not going to say I'm sorry.
kelvinaw273 01-13-07, 07:34 PM	It's really simple. You tell him the focus of the adventures and the party, and that it is up to HIM to fit his character into them. If he fails or does not want to, he can create a new character that does fit. If he does not want to do that, he can't play. If he keeps trying to get with the party and still acts evil, let him deal with the consequences of his actions - usually getting booted by the party and dealt with by the watch, after which you pass him a blank character sheet.
shadowfox628 01-13-07, 09:01 PM	Ah, alighnments... How I normally go on rants... Luckily, rants don't go well for me when I put them on the internet. Anyway, on a purely theoretical basis, he could work with the party with minimal problems. Through experience, people seem to take D&D alignments as extremes. Lawful Neutral people HAVE to be fair in all occasions, Lawful Good people NEVER lie, Lawful Evil people ALWAYS are out to do something utterly diabolical, etc. Here's the deal: there are different levels of Good and Evil, levels that not many seem to understand. Now, although alignment just generalizes what the character should do, always remember these different levels. Now, this PC is Lawful Evil. So, he has a set code, uses logic over emotion in a great majority of the cases, and has evil qualities. That doesn't mean that he doesn't want to save the proverbial Princess from the dragon, though. If he's intelligent, he'd know that dragons usually have large amounts of treasure, which, although is sometimes enough to motivate anyone, is most likely more than enough to motivate an extremely greedy character (Evil). Now, I'm not saying that being greedy is a trait of evil... Those of the Good alignment can be greedy. But, here, we're talking more along the lines of a Scrooge-type person. Now, with that out of the way, I'll go on with this: if he's being incredibly, generically evil, it's probibly not good. If he's causing a lot of issues, tell him he's changing his alignment to a Neutral or a Good. If he refuses, tell him that it's either that, or he's out of the campaign. Hold true to your threat. Being evil doesn't always cause disruption to a campaign. Or, should I say, it doesn't need to. Paladins are a particularly sensitive case, since, I believe, they cannot knowingly be in a party with an evil person (something, as well as a Paladin's code of honor, that I think is a bunch of bull). Good and evil can co-exist, has to co-exist. Sure, there's always the BBEG, but still, sometimes it's not enough. I'm not saying to just deal with the annoyance of the LE Drow. If he's causing problems, tell him about it, and offer him a solution that, in a sense, appeals to all (in this case it would be changing his alignment against being kicked from the campaign, assuming he wants to play D&D). He's causing you trouble, as well as possibly the other PCs. Take action, but, for the love of god, if there's one thing you remember, remember that there are different levels of good and evil, and that the alignments aren't set in stone. But, yeah... Confront him about it.
DarkRhystar 01-13-07, 09:09 PM	Lawful Evil people ALWAYS are out to do something utterly diabolical, etc. I call BS on this. Lawful Evil can easily fall into the realm of "Indiscriminate hero." This is the kind of hero that bad guys can actually fear too. Good heroes are easy to predict and manipulate. Hold a bus load of nuns hostage and you win. Lawful Evil heroes will sacrifice the nuns to defeat you. The normal bad guy tactics just don't work on them because they don't care. They'll take the low road; they'll fight dirty. The BBEG takes one of the PCs hostage, the Lawful Evil PC will take the entire BBEG's family hostage. Having a Lawful Evil party member can be all kinds of awesome and they solve so many moral dilemmas just by being cold and ruthless. :D
Jaisin 01-13-07, 09:33 PM	I call BS on this. Lawful Evil can easily fall into the realm of "Indiscriminate hero." This is the kind of hero that bad guys can actually fear too. Good heroes are easy to predict and manipulate. Hold a bus load of nuns hostage and you win. Lawful Evil heroes will sacrifice the nuns to defeat you. The normal bad guy tactics just don't work on them because they don't care. They'll take the low road; they'll fight dirty. The BBEG takes one of the PCs hostage, the Lawful Evil PC will take the entire BBEG's family hostage. Having a Lawful Evil party member can be all kinds of awesome and they solve so many moral dilemmas just by being cold and ruthless. :D This is a GREAT description of Lawful Evil. Also, if your player is willing to work with you on it (and you him), reading the old "Scarlet Brotherhood" (2E, 1E) Greyhawk sourcebooks will give him a new idea on how to play LE. LE as a paradigm shift, a set of amoral (not immoral) rules, and a lack of compassion are perfect. When you think LE, think the SS of WWII, or the American perception of the KGB during the Cold War. Amorality should define LE. Problem: LE character needs money. Solution: Kills neighbor, kidnaps females, sells into slavery; or traffics drugs. "The ends justify the means" is their motto, they don't care how they get there, as long as the objective is accomplished, and it is done in a logical manner. But, a surface drow? I know that people are fascinated with the drow for their power and vileness, but it just doesn't work. Even mighty Drizzt was hiding his face in the North after nearly 20 years of defending it against evil, and he still does, because it takes people thirty seconds to even think that a drow could be the Drizzt Do'Urden that they hear all the GOOD stories about. Drow are hated EVERYWHERE, and killed on sight. Drizzt doesn't go anywhere without his very noticeable friends, and only alone in extremely safe circles. Low-level PCs aren't going to have that luxury, and he should be persecuted. Also, a Lawful drow? He should be hunted by his own people as well. The +2 LA should also make him fall rapidly behind his partymates, and he might get bored with the power his race granted him. Hope that rambling helps some. :)
shadowfox628 01-13-07, 09:38 PM	To DarkRhystar: Alright. This is absolutely of no offence to you, as I can personally see how this sort of thing can happen. But, the quote of mine you, um, quoted... That was just a wide-spread generalization from responces from other board members I've read in the past as well as PCs that I play with. I, in no way whatsoever, support the set-in-stone mindset of alignments that so many people see to have.
Elsydeon 01-13-07, 09:46 PM	This is just how I'd handle it: I feel that ability scores, skills, and special abilities are mechanics. Appearance is aesthetics. So if I DM a game, I let everyone pick a 'race' that describes their abilities, and pick a race that is their appearance. So if they want to apply that ridiculous LA race and still be able to interact, go nuts. They'll just die to LA stupidity and never catch up to the regular human who is, in game, an elf. This removes the race issues. Then remove alignment from your game and it fixes the issue 'IF' (BIG BIG if) the players aren't dumb. Many players can't handle it, and think it's a free pass to abuse rules or have a paladin played slaughtering towns to make sure he gets the bad guy (extreme example, but I saw it happen once). Alignment is a guideline and restriction for players who aren't advanced enough to play a personality. It lets them choose an archetype. And on occasion it factors into class mechanics. Beware though, rare is the game group that can handle, perfectly, a lack of alignment mechanics.
Mr_Crepsley 01-13-07, 10:05 PM	hmm, I let my PC's start out at neutral, and they gradually turned to evil. as for consequences? i try to make them minimal, for instance, clerics immediately distrusting them, etc. I personally felt that it was way more fun to play how I wanted to back when i was a PC. A few times, various DMs forced me to be a certain allignment, which wasnt fun at all, to keep hearing "can't do that" I would let him play, and see how it turns out.
green_yawgmoth 01-13-07, 11:02 PM	I call BS on this. Lawful Evil can easily fall into the realm of "Indiscriminate hero." This is the kind of hero that bad guys can actually fear too. Good heroes are easy to predict and manipulate. Hold a bus load of nuns hostage and you win. Lawful Evil heroes will sacrifice the nuns to defeat you. The normal bad guy tactics just don't work on them because they don't care. They'll take the low road; they'll fight dirty. The BBEG takes one of the PCs hostage, the Lawful Evil PC will take the entire BBEG's family hostage. Having a Lawful Evil party member can be all kinds of awesome and they solve so many moral dilemmas just by being cold and ruthless. :D Damn straight! LE is the best evil alignment because it doesn't just think "me me me, me". It will think about any problem without the typical 'good' issues of not letting anyone die, or worrying about bystanders getting injured, etc. Saying "oh noes my player wants to be LE my whole game will be ruined :weep:" is right up there with crying about how orb spells do damage with no save. Just let him play the character how he wants, and let him know that if he becomes disruptive his character/his ass will get booted. In a related note, I have a CE player in my game, and there have as of yet been no issues, present or foreseeable. Know why? Because at the beginning I said that evil was fine, so long as the character could be a team player. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Vaelan 01-14-07, 12:03 AM	Okay, I've started my campaign but the only problem is I have a defiant PC in the party. He is a LE Drow Monk. The only problem is, he's Lawful Evil, and the rest of the party is nuetral or nuetral good. I have a problem with this because his character doesn't fit with the party, and as LE he doesn't fit with the adventures I set. If he doesn't fit in with the party or the adventures, it will either be an issue that is quickly solved by his character being kicked out of or leaving the party or it won't be an issue at all. Good and Evil characters can, in fact, get along, if there is some reason for them to trust each other and the Good/Evil difference isn't constantly brought into the spotlight. Until the players show that they are not able to deal with this friction in a mature manner, you need to stay out of it.
stefan_mi 01-14-07, 01:16 AM	I'd let him play it, but penalize his XP award unless he acted the evil part. If he just wanted the LE alignment so he could be dark and broodingly mysterious and he isn't acting according to his evil code by seeking to bring down good people and institutions, then the rest of the LE community (including the Gods) are going to consider him a wimpy poseur and react to him accordingly... Bullies will disrespect him openly and the true badasses will take his lunch money and beat him up. Eventually he might discover that his "baromer of alignment" has shifted to LN or NE. While the rest of the party are gaining new levels he would be lagging behind because his XP penalties due to alignment infractions. I've noticed many DMs give alignment infraction penalties to good aligned PCs who do bad things, so, in the spirit of fairness, I think evil aligned PCs who don't behave in a manner consistent with their chosen alignment should be similarly penalized. Now if he played the role to the hilt, unless he is clever and sticks to certain towns and areas where his behavior is deemed acceptable, his life will be short. Of course, areas where people of evil alignment are tolerated tend to be pretty dangerous anyway, so his life might end early anyway... Drow represents an even bigger problem --- simply because everyone who looks at him in most settings on the surface world will ASSUME he is evil. So if he walks into an inn to buy food or a place to rest, the innkeeper and servants will run for it, call for the watch or attack --- simple because they will assume that the drow is intent on attacking them and killing them. Of course, his alignment and actions are likely to cause other members of the party to come into conflict with him. If good aligned PCs notice their evil drow comrade is robbing merchants, kicking puppies and stealing from the church poorbox and they DON'T do anything about it, two things will happen: A) they will get alignment penalties from having allowed such actions to occur right under their noses and B) they will pick up a bad reputation --- suddenly the town guard will not permit them to enter the town, the innkeeper will claim to have no vacancies, merchants will close up their shops and lock the doors if they see them coming... Hanging around with criminals will make you unpopular.
Vaelan 01-14-07, 01:59 AM	I'd let him play it, but penalize his XP award unless he acted the evil part. Then a situation comes up where acting Evil would be utterly moronic and you penalize him for not being stupid? Yeah, whatever. There are many very good reasons why XP penalties are warned against in the DMG, many of which are tied to the very purpose of alignment itself, making this "solution" as irrational as it is immature.
Krusk 01-14-07, 02:14 AM	Let him play it, but ask the group "would you guys travel with someone evil?" if they say no, say "roll a new character you were just voted off the island." Another approach would be to say "hey guys, you want to go on adventure, he does not, leave him he will be back when your done." compare it to when everyone wants to go to DQ for blizzards, but one guy wants taco bell. The solution? "have fun, we will be at DQ"
Orbb_was_railed_by_God 01-14-07, 05:01 AM	I never quite understood the concept of XP penalties. Did the character just unlearn something?
stefan_mi 01-14-07, 09:00 AM	I never quite understood the concept of XP penalties. Did the character just unlearn something? Well, you lose XP in 3rd edition when you enchant magic items --- which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If you are a magic user, shouldn't practicing your craft by manufacturing magic items actually make you better at it? Doesn't everyone learn from 'on the job experience?' The game designer would argue, 'We introduced the XP loss for magic item manufacture to keep player characters from just sitting around making magic items... they should be out adventuring.' So XP penalties make sense (to me at least) in the same way. If I needed a rationale, I'd just think of the XP loss as a loss of favor from the Gods. I like RPGs to be about player choices. If the player chooses an evil alignment, there will be some advantages and some disadvantages. If he chooses an evil alignment while everyone else at the table is good or neutral, he's making a choice with some serious in-game consequences. Maybe its not a perfect solution, but I think it's better than telling people what alignments they can and cannot play.
stefan_mi 01-14-07, 09:12 AM	Then a situation comes up where acting Evil would be utterly moronic and you penalize him for not being stupid? Yeah, whatever. There are many very good reasons why XP penalties are warned against in the DMG, many of which are tied to the very purpose of alignment itself, making this "solution" as irrational as it is immature. If there is no reason to choose one alignment over another, why not just take alignment out of the game entirely? If there are no penalties for not acting your alignment, then there are no reasons not to act however best serves the most metagame, munchkinny agenda... One solution to the original poster's problem is to simply tell players what alignments they can and can't play --- which is what the 3e rules suggest and what many of the people who responded suggest as well. I'm just offering my own solution -- maybe not by the book according to 3e, but there WAS a game called Dungeons & Dragons before the release of 3e... I'm at a loss as to why the DM dictating to the player what his or he PC's alignment can be is more "mature" than introducing consequences for player choices.
icarus1863 01-14-07, 10:53 AM	I'm with Mcnoo, Let him play what alignment he wants, but ensure that all the good aligned players play their part as well. When he attempts to peform evil, its their belief to stop that evil. Aslong as their is more of them than him. The problem will resolve itself. The story is what matters here would a paladin (LG), kender (NG), or Robinhood (CG) travel with a drow not likely (except maybe the kender). But would any of them allow him to perform acts of evil: epecially any listed in the BoVD, or Fiendish Codex in their presence....The storyline would insist that Good PC would put a stop to it. If they dont, they need to evaluate their own alignments. About the third dead drow, he'll quit or see how pointless it is. Life is Cruel, Game Hard.
Nephlite 01-14-07, 11:07 AM	I'm with Mcnoo, Let him play what alignment he wants, but ensure that all the good aligned players play their part as well. When he attempts to peform evil, its their belief to stop that evil. Aslong as their is more of them than him. The problem will resolve itself. The story is what matters here would a paladin (LG), kender (NG), or Robinhood (CG) travel with a drow not likely (except maybe the kender). Robinhood and Kender would. Paladins are sticks in the mud (not their fault code); they can't travel with evil people even to redeem them. Kender love every one. Robinhood would let LE join as long as he doesn't cause too much trouble. LE is the most party friendly. He has a code: no one breaks it, no one dies. Enemies usually break it. Example Code 1: No innocents get hurt. (innocents depend on his views). Break it you die. Think Hiei from Yu Yu Hukasho. Very LE, but fights to save the world because of his code (plus he lives on the world).
Vaelan 01-14-07, 11:08 AM	If there is no reason to choose one alignment over another, why not just take alignment out of the game entirely? There is a reason to choose one alignment over another: one more accurately represents your character's general moral and personal attitudes. That is, after all, the explicitly stated purpose of alignment in the PHB. If there are no penalties for not acting your alignment, then there are no reasons not to act however best serves the most metagame, munchkinny agenda... This really speaks for itself, doesn't it? The claim that people cannot operate on a higher ethical level than simple stimuli-response tells us so much about you. Unfortunately, you will not be punished for posting such rubbish on these forums and thus you will probably continue. I'm at a loss as to why the DM dictating to the player what his or he PC's alignment can be is more "mature" than introducing consequences for player choices. I never made any such claim. I take the time to read and understand your posts, rather than using that time to construct straw men. Please extend the same courtesy to me.
stefan_mi 01-14-07, 12:07 PM	I never made any such claim. I take the time to read and understand your posts, rather than using that time to construct straw men. Please extend the same courtesy to me. OK -- clearly for some reason that -whooooosh- passed me by you have taken an active dislike to me and you seem to percieve insults where none are intended. Sounds to me like you need a hobby...
Sildatorak 01-14-07, 12:12 PM	If there is no reason to choose one alignment over another, why not just take alignment out of the game entirely? If there are no penalties for not acting your alignment, then there are no reasons not to act however best serves the most metagame, munchkinny agenda... The penalty for not acting your alignment is that your alignment will change. For most PC's this just means that some magical items and spells will interact with them differently, and that is plenty of reason. I'd let him play it, but penalize his XP award unless he acted the evil part. If he just wanted the LE alignment so he could be dark and broodingly mysterious and he isn't acting according to his evil code by seeking to bring down good people and institutions, then the rest of the LE community (including the Gods) are going to consider him a wimpy poseur and react to him accordingly Two things: How does the LE community even know what his alignment is? Short of magic or carefully watching his actions over a long time period they have no way to figure that out. D&D is not Fable; you don't grow horns as you go about slaughtering orphans. Secondly, why does this guy have to have an evil code or actively try to bring down good people and institutions? Evil simply implies hurting people for your own benefit. Even the PHB says that only some evil characters are willful champions of evil who go about attacking good. This guy could easily be the Diet Coke of evil and keep his alignment without causing problems on the short-term. Long-term the party will probably start to grow ill-at-ease with his consistent minorly evil acts, but there is a big difference between "cheating your customers evil" and "baby-eating evil."
sorites 01-14-07, 12:34 PM	I read the OP, but skipped much of the discussion, so here's my 2c fwiw. The problem is not about alignment. The problem is about playing with the group. Everyone at the table needs to understand that D&D is about playing with a group. The LE drow character might be really cool, but if he doesn't play well with others, you are going to have problems. The party needs to a) have basic trust in one another; and b) at least a couple broad, common goals. My advice is to not worry about an in-game solution so much as an out-of-game one. Talk the guy and explain that his character should be an individual who can work with the group. Give him a chance to modify his character's behavior so it's conducive to group play. If it doesn't work out, then let him create a new character that can work with the party.
Longarms 01-14-07, 01:53 PM	"Here's the deal: there are different levels of Good and Evil, levels that not many seem to understand. Now, although alignment just generalizes what the character should do, always remember these different levels." This is an excellent point. The D&D alignment system does not have enough granularity, gray area. That's why I house-ruled an alignment sytem, that seems to be very popular with my players and other DMs that try it. http://www.pisian.com/rules.html You might want to look at my alignment sytem, and talk to your player about how little goodness his character has in him. Is he a fairly common slightly selfish person with a goodness of only 3-4, or is he an extreme personality with zero goodness and no internal motivation to help others? As DM, you might allow the former and not the later in your campaign.
AntiDjinn 01-14-07, 02:00 PM	As the DM, your job basically comes down to entertaining your players (and yourself) while the game is in session. If having this one player means you will have one person enjoying himself and four or five others at the table ticked-off, bickering, not getting things done, and generally just enduring the session, then something is wrong. Fix it; you owe that to the other players and yourself. Do talk to the other players because they are the ones who will be paying the price more than you. If they are OK with the situation and enjoy running in a party with discordant alignments then the game can proceed. If not, then the guy is the odd man out. It is not a situation of the DM forcing a single player to play a particular character, it is the party simply deciding with whom they will associate. If you allow this character because you want to refrain from using your DM fiat, then you are basically using your fiat against the rest of the party by forcing them to accept him as a member.
stefan_mi 01-14-07, 02:02 PM	...there is a big difference between "cheating your customers evil" and "baby-eating evil." Well, I will only speak of how I would run the situation --- but in my game, "cheating your customers evil" would probably be neutral evil, not lawful evil.
DracoPhoenix 01-15-07, 11:13 AM	How important are the alignments going to be? If they're more flavour info, then it won't be a problem. If he's going to try killing PCs in their sleep (and try the "but I'm LE, I can do that!"), pull him up sharp. (Especially as LE wouldn't kill allies until they're no longer useful. Which would imply he no longer plans to play in the group.) But otherwise, I'm in the "House Rule: Non-evil PCs. No Chaotic Neutral doesn't allow you to do that either." camp. It's not an unreasonable rule. I think 99% of the time it's implied (especially for inexperienced DMs).
grey_archer315 01-15-07, 09:17 PM	Really, the player should be asking if what he's going to play is alright. Drow can cause a lot of problems, so a DM might not want them in their game. I like to play the odd and unusual, but if told no by a DM, i'll play something more standard. The DM is running the game, thry know what kind of distractions the story can handle. If the player is going to argue this, what's going to happen when something eles comes up in the game he does not agree with? Who ends up running the game, the Dm or the problem player? ON the flip side, there should be an effort by the DM to work with the player, and reach a compromise. Having a Dm who won't work with the players to acheive a fun game for all can be just as bad as a player who won't try to fit in.
Sildatorak 01-15-07, 11:03 PM	Well, I will only speak of how I would run the situation --- but in my game, "cheating your customers evil" would probably be neutral evil, not lawful evil. Either of those flavors of evil could run the gammut from Lawful to Chaotic depending on the entirety of the character. I'm just pointing out that the evil alignments include people who aren't even malicious but just a bit too selfish. Usually complaints about evil PC's fall into the more extreme examples of evil.
kyeudo 01-16-07, 01:06 PM	I didn't restrict my player's ability to choose evil alignments, I just put the simple restriction on them that they would have to play their evil charectors party friendly. As long as there is no paladin in the party and the evil player is out for gold/power/slaughter and his character believes the best way to get those is by sticking with the party, then all is fine. You'll still have party team work, and some of the resulting roleplay will be better.
Grand Theft Otto 01-16-07, 03:20 PM	But I though about making the entire party alignment-less. Would this work? Even without the alignment system, characters will typically drift in patterns that could be generalized. If the other three are compassionate and loyal and the fourth overbearing, vindictive and mean spirited, they arent likely to get along. And that's what I tell my players whenever we start a game - make characters who like each other. Its possible to create the wrong type of character for the game. Running a BOVD campaign and someone shoes up with Sir Puppyhugs? He made the wrong character as well. Its best that everyone be on the same page when the campaign starts, about what style of game is going to be played. If three players and the DM (more importantly the DM) want to run heroic swashbuckling adventures and the 4th guy wants to burn villages and beat up oprphans... sorry man, you're outvoted. Run something that fits, or sit this one out.
Dunsel 01-16-07, 05:58 PM	The real irony of this string: most people who have problems with the alignment system and don't think it is viable are chaotic likely in nature. The ones who are more accepting, are lawful. No amount of point and counterpoint will change someone's nature. This arguement has been around since 1978 and 3.5 didn't make it any easier to understand. It is a dead issue. Since the beginning, DMs have disallowed evil alignments in a predominantly good party b/c it is simply easier to DM. If an evil PC is thrown into the mix, the result is conflict, squabbles or even fights. This causes bad blood between characters and even players. Sometimes these feuds can last for months and may cause players to quit. What is my motivation? This is a good question for anyone who wishes to play an evil character mixed in with good ones. Why would you want to had good for company? Why aren't you with evil people? Why would you want to rescue the mayor's daughter? I have always allowed any alignment the player wants. I run a Dark Sun campaign. In that world, any alignment goes and sometimes there are strange bedfellows to achieve a goal. Example: One of my players refused to give the evil PC a magic item he rightfully roled for and won. The evil PC attacked him right in front of the other PCs. The rest of the party retaliated and killed him. The situation took care of itself. The evil PC player was very angry b/c the others helped out the other PC. Imagine that, evil being honorable! He stormed out and returned the next week. While rolling up his new PC, he mentioned several times he wanted something to kill the other PC. He said this in front of the other players! Naturally, the situation repeated and he stormed out again never to return. He was a good player. I saw him later and asked him to come back but he wouldn't b/c the others weren't roleplaying their alignment. Three of the PCs who attacked him were lawful good even though the one he attacked was ng. He said lg alignments wouldn't stick up for a ng. I reminded him that he was evil and the party knew this since the cleric had cast a know alignment on him when he joined the group. I advised him to run him own campaign with those rules and let me know how it turns out. :rolleyes:
DarknessEternal 01-16-07, 06:16 PM	Evil as an alignment is not a problem for any group of players or any campaign based solely on "evil". The evil alignment does not require one to be a jackass or kill babies on a daily basis. In fact, any alignment can be the former. Evil, as defined by D&D, means only giving greater care for oneself than others. It doesn't even say evil can't care about others, only that they care more about themselves.
SneakyPetey 01-16-07, 07:48 PM	Lawful evil, IMHO is the best kind of evil to work into a party of good characters. I've always thought of LE as using the law for their own gain. (Feel free to disagree, that's just my point of view!) Sure, they may be greedy or even bloodthirsty, but the have a healthy respect for discipline and order. Since they're more disciplined, LE characters would have an easier time "playing along" with the rest of the party while they hatch diabolical plots to unleash later. Will this still cause problems in the party? Maybe. If this character can temper his evilness with enough law and order (i.e. not be too greedy or bloodthirsty) this dynamic might serve the campaign in ways the DM has not yet considered. Personally, I think it would be interesting for the rest of the party to worry whether or not one of their own will eventually turn on them. If the player is smart, he will lay low and build alliances within the party, counting on their propensity to keep their word and fragment the party when he moves in to take control (or get something else he wants). A LE character should be especially good at manipulating LN and LG characters as they would all have a healthy respect for keeping promises. The biggest problem the OP has at this point is the rest of the party members KNOW THIS GUY IS LAWFUL EVIL! Now it is useless for the player to continue to play this alignment since the other players (and their characters) will always treat the LE character with a degree of suspicion and mistrust. Odds are this player will never get the full "benefit" of being LE in question since the rest of the party will most likely work to keep him in check. The best bet for a LE character in a good party is to keep their alignment secret! Now that the cat's out of the bag, it makes no sense (to me) to keep this character's alignment LE. You can use this argument to persuade the character to doff the alignment in this campaign with the promise of working a LE character into a later campaign... And doing it in a more sneaky (but still fun and fair) way! :) I hope this helps, have good gaming! :D
Ace_of_Diamonds 01-16-07, 09:03 PM	Don't paint yourself into a corner with this. His character is not getting along with the party, regardless of alignment. People don't tend to hang around people they don't get along with. If the other characters in the party have enough common sense they'll ditch him sooner or later.
Ace_of_Diamonds 01-16-07, 09:03 PM	I've always thought of LE as using the law for their own gain. Lawyers? ;)
Nephlite 01-16-07, 09:28 PM	What is my motivation? This is a good question for anyone who wishes to play an evil character mixed in with good ones. Why would you want to had good for company? They are trustworthy. Why aren't you with evil people? Evil people are less trustworthy. They might try to kill you unless LE also. But finding multiple LE's is hard. Why would you want to rescue the mayor's daughter? 1. Money 2. She is Hawt. 3. The Mayor owes me. 4. See #2. This is important.
SneakyPetey 01-17-07, 04:09 PM	Lawyers? ;) Possibly... Or a dictator, or a coniving polititian, or a general imposing "martial law" for the "good of the people," etc... Of course, I hope everyone realizes I'm not trying to start an "alignment war" with these statements... :)
Messer 01-18-07, 09:05 PM	Simple answer, "No, you can't play" "Why?" "Because we are playing Baseball and you wanna play evil lawyer" "What, no, we are playing D and D" "Right, and they are heroes of a sort, and you are not" "so" "so, I don't want that happening, I invoke the rule of DM takes all evil NPCs!" "You can't" "I believe I can, make a will save, failed? yes, still want to play?" "yes" "Sweet, then you want to play as a good aligned character" "but" "remember, you failed that will save vs. the DM" or, at least, thats how I plan my next interaction with the sneaky bad guys.
Ace_of_Diamonds 01-18-07, 09:11 PM	NHL player in the IIHF: (Referee whistles the play dead for icing) NHL player: Why did you blow it dead when it crossed the line? Referee: Because in the IIHF, we call icing when the puck crosses the line. NHL player: But in the NHL, a member of the opposing team has to touch it. Referee: This isn't the NHL, this is the IIHF. NHL player: But it's hockey. Hockey rules should be standardized. Referee: They are, for the most part, but every league and tournament has their minor tweaks to the rules. NHL player: But I want you to call icing when someone touches the puck! Referee: Get lost and go back to the NHL. NHL player: (spews a stream of expletives) (Referee ejects NHL player from the game for game misconduct).
danielinthewolvesden 01-18-07, 11:14 PM	"Rule 1, No Evils". See, simple. Drow just makes it worse. You are making him take the right La for a Drow, right?
Kitaki 01-19-07, 12:07 AM	I'm one of the few players my DM will allow to play an evil alignment, but that is because I do it well. Most of the time unless told otherwise the group is supposed to consist of good and neutral characters only, lay that down as a default house rule and you are set. PS Most of the time I play a neutral alignment anyway, evil is just for a little flavor everyonce and a while
ShadowDragon8685 01-19-07, 02:04 AM	I'd like to hear from the OP if this problem has been resolved by now. I have a stronger than no-evils rule in this game; I have a no non-Goods rule. Other than that... Just tell him, "Look dude... Your character needs to either be some flavor of Good, or you need to make a new character... Or you can't come back." If he's willing to play good, let him play a monstrous character, just enforce the LA rules.