Good PC in an evil-neutral party [Archive] - Wizards Community

Good PC in an evil-neutral party [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Rania
02-05-08, 04:40 PM When my group started, most of the characters were either good or neutral, with one person playing LE. However, the group's alignment has started shifting towards evil. Not necessarily that I've a problem with that, just that I'm the only Good (CG) PC in the group.

In our game world, most of the magic vanished around 500 years ago, and we're trying to return it to the world.

Time-line of the relevant points:
- Beginning of game, character creation
- Game where only two players, me and the bard, showed up. Aside from getting some REALLY COOL stuff, the bard made a deal with an imp (LE), who is still with the party.
- Game where I was absent, but from what I've heard, the party made peaceful contact with a vampire, and brought some negative energy / evil magic into the world.

These few sessions had a lot of stuff in them, so they'll be separate points
- Party attacked by an ettin and a green hag. Defeated them. The hag told us where to go, but we found out she was lying; when she was subdued and captured, we were debating what to do with her -- the bard has a magic dagger that can cast Zone of Truth, so I suggested that -- when the rogue (the LE character) said that he/she (male player, female character) slit the hag's throat.
- (We did end up making it to castle, our destination.) A Shadow djinn confronts us and -- blocks off the sun, stars, and moon. Introduction of "Adam", the musteval (guardinal, technically NG but the DM forgot so he's played as CG).
- In the castle, Sly (the imp) tells the bard that he's found something that shows the location of the Book of Vile Darkness. The bard says cool, he'll look for that.
- During a confrontation with the owner of the castle (evil, necromantic, Shadow-supporter) and his animated furniture, we get "possessed" by undead, giving us bad***** powers.
- Everybody gets offered Tomb-Tainted Soul as a bonus feat (healed by negative, harmed by positive energy); my PC is the only one who doesn't take it.
- The bard kind of dies (it's complicated), and gets brought back to existence by the lich under the castle as a necropolitan.
- After the castle's defeated (ginormous animated object, no kidding), we're thanked by the denizens of below the castle (the abovementioned lich, a blackguard, and something else I can't remember) by either bonus XP or a level in an evil prestige class; except for the bard, because of the undead LA. Everybody else takes the latter reward; I choose the former.
- The party got split up. The musteval's prone and dying after taking a hit from a treant that would have killed my character. When everyone else arrives, the LE rogue shoots the musteval (with encouragement from Sly, but would have done it anyways) instead of the treant that's actually attacking us.
- My character consented to a deal with the imp; in exchange for the musteval's life, I wouldn't work against him.

That's pretty much it for the evidence. I can see that I would have been fine just playing a CN character, if it hadn't been for the introduction of the musteval.

This is the first (and only) group I've been playing with, and it's everybody in the area (small university) that's interested in D&D.

So, am I in the wrong with this stuff? Should I change my alignment to CN, or kill off the character and start a new one? Can I deal with these issues? Is the LE rogue being a malicious jerk, or am I just over-sensitive?
toucanbuzz
02-05-08, 05:57 PM You're not oversensitive. Most gamers don't like to play evil characters, but some do. That doesn't mean you need to change your style to accomodate theirs.

I grew up in a small town and had the good fortune to have some like-minded players, but given the option between playing a game and not enjoying it or doing something else that I do enjoy, I'm going with something I do enjoy every time.

With all the thought that has went into the "evil" aspects of the adventure, I can't imagine this is a one-time experiment to play characters who have no moral considerations. Stick to your guns and chat with them about this not being the type of game you signed up for.

If it's gonna be an evil campaign all the way, go do something you're gonna enjoy rather than roll dice with people who enjoy slitting throats, making deals with demons, and bringing evil into the world.
pigknight
02-05-08, 11:51 PM As much as I hate saying this...no actually I love saying this, I DON'T SUPPORT EVIL CAMPAINS!!!! This is because they give DnD a bad(der) name.

Mrs. McGenericname: So what did you and your friend do this DnD session.
Bob McGenericname: Well, Rob slit a guys throat, Chuck made a pact with a demon, and Dave killed a helpless person. I was a goody goody, and I'm proud.
Mrs. McGenericname: DnD IS the game of the devil!
Enmarnacu
02-06-08, 12:12 AM Seems to me like you have a few questions to ask yourself. Are you having fun? Would you have more fun complying with the party? Do you think you can portray your character as CG without submitting to the influence of the group? Can you avoid being the odd-man-out who destroys party cohesion?

Then there are similar questions to have with your group. If you really don't like being in an evil campaign, tell them. Ask if they really want to be evil or if it's just becoming more convenient. If you're only worried about causing issues being good-aligned, have a talk. In a good (meaning skilled) gaming group things like alignment issues can be overcome and turned into an interesting story dynamic. If you or your group think it would be too hard, then find out where to go from there.

Finally, the rogue is being a chaotic jerk, confusing evil with being all random murder.

pigknight: It depends on the people playing. I'm in an evil campaign now and I daresay it's the best game I've played yet. Random throat-slitting and deals with devils are so one dimensional when it comes to evil.
pigknight
02-06-08, 12:15 AM Actually I did that scenerio because that is what happened in the OP's game.
Guardian1
02-06-08, 12:42 AM You're not being oversensitive. Playing an evil character and not end up with the party disintergrating is quite difficult to do, and is something that should really only be attempted by a group that can already work well together. To be honest, it sounds like that rogue forgot one of the Rules for Party Success: "Thou shalt not screw over those who watch thy back!" What is the average age of your group's members? It's been my experience that the maturity required to play evil characters well usually doesn't hit until about 23-24 years of age, but it can occur sooner. My suggestion would be to obtain a copy of the DMG, and after reading it a bit, offer to DM a non-evil campaign. Playing a non-evil character can be just as fun as playing evil characters. In some cases, it can be more fun, just due to amount of in-world support offered to the more "goody-goody" types.
Rania
02-07-08, 12:02 PM Thanks for all your help everyone. I probably should talk with them about it; I have issues doing so (with anyone and on any topic), but I need to work through them.

Everyone in the group is in university; I'm the youngest at 18 (just turned that age a few weeks ago), and the DM's the oldest at, I'd assume around 22.

The DM has said that anyone who wants to DM an adventure of their own for a day can do so. Aside from figuring out what the plot's going to be, statting up monsters, calculating xp rewards, etc etc, I also have to figure out how I'll keep the players (read: LE rogue) from killing all the NPCs.
jage
02-07-08, 12:42 PM I don't see why a CG character wouldn't roll with an evil party if they could convince themselves doing so was/is for good in the end (bringing magic back to the world). Everybody being all evil seems kind of boring. Just look at is as an opportunity- you probably won't ever play the CE character in a mostly good group so here is your chance to be the good lone wolf. Hey that could be a reason enough, the CG player thinking maybe they'll be a positive influence on the group, after all if you weren't there the musteval would have died and you had a hard choice (I'm assuming the deal with the Imp wasn't an easy choice.)

In character make a deal with the rogue that you won't slit his throat in the middle of the night if he'll stop slitting random throats without the party's consent. After all offing the rogue in the middle of the night would prevent countless innocent murders and be essentially a CG act.
Rania
02-07-08, 01:15 PM I don't see why a CG character wouldn't roll with an evil party if they could convince themselves doing so was/is for good in the end (bringing magic back to the world). Everybody being all evil seems kind of boring. Just look at is as an opportunity- you probably won't ever play the CE character in a mostly good group so here is your chance to be the good lone wolf. Hey that could be a reason enough, the CG player thinking maybe they'll be a positive influence on the group, after all if you weren't there the musteval would have died and you had a hard choice (I'm assuming the deal with the Imp wasn't an easy choice.)

In character make a deal with the rogue that you won't slit his throat in the middle of the night if he'll stop slitting random throats without the party's consent. After all offing the rogue in the middle of the night would prevent countless innocent murders and be essentially a CG act.The thing is, there's good magic, bad magic, and morally neutral magic. It's the equivalent of bringing a society to a higher technological level -- better medicine, but better ways to kill and hurt people too.

And about being a positive influence, Alsyni (my PC) isn't really thinking about that; and even if she was, it wouldn't work out. The latest tally of the group is:

CG musteval (Adam); can cast Magic Missile and saved Alsyni's life once
(LN?) skarn monk with a level of Disciple of Mephistopheles
LE halfling rogue working for shadowshaper (or whatever it's called); wants to kill Adam
necropolitan!elf bard; previously non-lawful good, now no idea what his alignment is; has a sword of pure evil
LE imp (Sly); also wants to kill Adam; trying to get the BoVD
half-orc barbarian/rogue; no clue about alignment; can deal out ridiculous amounts of damage

The DM HAS said that we'll be going to a Good source of magic some time soon; I just don't know how it'll work out.
mudbunny
02-07-08, 02:10 PM I don't see why a CG character wouldn't roll with an evil party if they could convince themselves doing so was/is for good in the end (bringing magic back to the world).

Doing evil in the name of good is still evil.
Doing good in the name of evil is still good.
jage
02-07-08, 03:33 PM Doing evil in the name of good is still evil.
Doing good in the name of evil is still good.

I disagree. Whether that is or is not true from an absolute point of view (external to the character), we're talking about character alignment. If a character has devoted their actions to good and it turns out to be evil, they've "done evil" but it doesn't make them evil, and it doesn't make their actions evil. In retrospect they may regret what seemed good at the time but turned out to be evil, but even if you're doing something ostensibly evil in the name of good (say murder) that doesn't make it evil.

And vice versa- if my LE character gives 100,000 pps to the local church it certainly looks good, but the underlying motive to my character is really what makes it good or evil, and thus following alignment or not.
Firesti
02-08-08, 10:50 AM Doing evil in the name of good is still evil.
Doing good in the name of evil is still good.

Doing an evil act in the name of good is not evil if (intentional) good comes of it.
Doing a good act in the name of evil is not good if (intentional) evil comes of it.
Rania
02-08-08, 11:51 AM Just a quick service announcement: Alignment threads galore can be found in the Mature Topics forum.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Rania 02-05-08, 04:40 PM	When my group started, most of the characters were either good or neutral, with one person playing LE. However, the group's alignment has started shifting towards evil. Not necessarily that I've a problem with that, just that I'm the only Good (CG) PC in the group. In our game world, most of the magic vanished around 500 years ago, and we're trying to return it to the world. Time-line of the relevant points: - Beginning of game, character creation - Game where only two players, me and the bard, showed up. Aside from getting some REALLY COOL stuff, the bard made a deal with an imp (LE), who is still with the party. - Game where I was absent, but from what I've heard, the party made peaceful contact with a vampire, and brought some negative energy / evil magic into the world. These few sessions had a lot of stuff in them, so they'll be separate points - Party attacked by an ettin and a green hag. Defeated them. The hag told us where to go, but we found out she was lying; when she was subdued and captured, we were debating what to do with her -- the bard has a magic dagger that can cast Zone of Truth, so I suggested that -- when the rogue (the LE character) said that he/she (male player, female character) slit the hag's throat. - (We did end up making it to castle, our destination.) A Shadow djinn confronts us and -- blocks off the sun, stars, and moon. Introduction of "Adam", the musteval (guardinal, technically NG but the DM forgot so he's played as CG). - In the castle, Sly (the imp) tells the bard that he's found something that shows the location of the Book of Vile Darkness. The bard says cool, he'll look for that. - During a confrontation with the owner of the castle (evil, necromantic, Shadow-supporter) and his animated furniture, we get "possessed" by undead, giving us bad***** powers. - Everybody gets offered Tomb-Tainted Soul as a bonus feat (healed by negative, harmed by positive energy); my PC is the only one who doesn't take it. - The bard kind of dies (it's complicated), and gets brought back to existence by the lich under the castle as a necropolitan. - After the castle's defeated (ginormous animated object, no kidding), we're thanked by the denizens of below the castle (the abovementioned lich, a blackguard, and something else I can't remember) by either bonus XP or a level in an evil prestige class; except for the bard, because of the undead LA. Everybody else takes the latter reward; I choose the former. - The party got split up. The musteval's prone and dying after taking a hit from a treant that would have killed my character. When everyone else arrives, the LE rogue shoots the musteval (with encouragement from Sly, but would have done it anyways) instead of the treant that's actually attacking us. - My character consented to a deal with the imp; in exchange for the musteval's life, I wouldn't work against him. That's pretty much it for the evidence. I can see that I would have been fine just playing a CN character, if it hadn't been for the introduction of the musteval. This is the first (and only) group I've been playing with, and it's everybody in the area (small university) that's interested in D&D. So, am I in the wrong with this stuff? Should I change my alignment to CN, or kill off the character and start a new one? Can I deal with these issues? Is the LE rogue being a malicious jerk, or am I just over-sensitive?
toucanbuzz 02-05-08, 05:57 PM	You're not oversensitive. Most gamers don't like to play evil characters, but some do. That doesn't mean you need to change your style to accomodate theirs. I grew up in a small town and had the good fortune to have some like-minded players, but given the option between playing a game and not enjoying it or doing something else that I do enjoy, I'm going with something I do enjoy every time. With all the thought that has went into the "evil" aspects of the adventure, I can't imagine this is a one-time experiment to play characters who have no moral considerations. Stick to your guns and chat with them about this not being the type of game you signed up for. If it's gonna be an evil campaign all the way, go do something you're gonna enjoy rather than roll dice with people who enjoy slitting throats, making deals with demons, and bringing evil into the world.
pigknight 02-05-08, 11:51 PM	As much as I hate saying this...no actually I love saying this, I DON'T SUPPORT EVIL CAMPAINS!!!! This is because they give DnD a bad(der) name. Mrs. McGenericname: So what did you and your friend do this DnD session. Bob McGenericname: Well, Rob slit a guys throat, Chuck made a pact with a demon, and Dave killed a helpless person. I was a goody goody, and I'm proud. Mrs. McGenericname: DnD IS the game of the devil!
Enmarnacu 02-06-08, 12:12 AM	Seems to me like you have a few questions to ask yourself. Are you having fun? Would you have more fun complying with the party? Do you think you can portray your character as CG without submitting to the influence of the group? Can you avoid being the odd-man-out who destroys party cohesion? Then there are similar questions to have with your group. If you really don't like being in an evil campaign, tell them. Ask if they really want to be evil or if it's just becoming more convenient. If you're only worried about causing issues being good-aligned, have a talk. In a good (meaning skilled) gaming group things like alignment issues can be overcome and turned into an interesting story dynamic. If you or your group think it would be too hard, then find out where to go from there. Finally, the rogue is being a chaotic jerk, confusing evil with being all random murder. pigknight: It depends on the people playing. I'm in an evil campaign now and I daresay it's the best game I've played yet. Random throat-slitting and deals with devils are so one dimensional when it comes to evil.
pigknight 02-06-08, 12:15 AM	Actually I did that scenerio because that is what happened in the OP's game.
Guardian1 02-06-08, 12:42 AM	You're not being oversensitive. Playing an evil character and not end up with the party disintergrating is quite difficult to do, and is something that should really only be attempted by a group that can already work well together. To be honest, it sounds like that rogue forgot one of the Rules for Party Success: "Thou shalt not screw over those who watch thy back!" What is the average age of your group's members? It's been my experience that the maturity required to play evil characters well usually doesn't hit until about 23-24 years of age, but it can occur sooner. My suggestion would be to obtain a copy of the DMG, and after reading it a bit, offer to DM a non-evil campaign. Playing a non-evil character can be just as fun as playing evil characters. In some cases, it can be more fun, just due to amount of in-world support offered to the more "goody-goody" types.
Rania 02-07-08, 12:02 PM	Thanks for all your help everyone. I probably should talk with them about it; I have issues doing so (with anyone and on any topic), but I need to work through them. Everyone in the group is in university; I'm the youngest at 18 (just turned that age a few weeks ago), and the DM's the oldest at, I'd assume around 22. The DM has said that anyone who wants to DM an adventure of their own for a day can do so. Aside from figuring out what the plot's going to be, statting up monsters, calculating xp rewards, etc etc, I also have to figure out how I'll keep the players (read: LE rogue) from killing all the NPCs.
jage 02-07-08, 12:42 PM	I don't see why a CG character wouldn't roll with an evil party if they could convince themselves doing so was/is for good in the end (bringing magic back to the world). Everybody being all evil seems kind of boring. Just look at is as an opportunity- you probably won't ever play the CE character in a mostly good group so here is your chance to be the good lone wolf. Hey that could be a reason enough, the CG player thinking maybe they'll be a positive influence on the group, after all if you weren't there the musteval would have died and you had a hard choice (I'm assuming the deal with the Imp wasn't an easy choice.) In character make a deal with the rogue that you won't slit his throat in the middle of the night if he'll stop slitting random throats without the party's consent. After all offing the rogue in the middle of the night would prevent countless innocent murders and be essentially a CG act.
Rania 02-07-08, 01:15 PM	I don't see why a CG character wouldn't roll with an evil party if they could convince themselves doing so was/is for good in the end (bringing magic back to the world). Everybody being all evil seems kind of boring. Just look at is as an opportunity- you probably won't ever play the CE character in a mostly good group so here is your chance to be the good lone wolf. Hey that could be a reason enough, the CG player thinking maybe they'll be a positive influence on the group, after all if you weren't there the musteval would have died and you had a hard choice (I'm assuming the deal with the Imp wasn't an easy choice.) In character make a deal with the rogue that you won't slit his throat in the middle of the night if he'll stop slitting random throats without the party's consent. After all offing the rogue in the middle of the night would prevent countless innocent murders and be essentially a CG act.The thing is, there's good magic, bad magic, and morally neutral magic. It's the equivalent of bringing a society to a higher technological level -- better medicine, but better ways to kill and hurt people too. And about being a positive influence, Alsyni (my PC) isn't really thinking about that; and even if she was, it wouldn't work out. The latest tally of the group is: CG musteval (Adam); can cast Magic Missile and saved Alsyni's life once (LN?) skarn monk with a level of Disciple of Mephistopheles LE halfling rogue working for shadowshaper (or whatever it's called); wants to kill Adam necropolitan!elf bard; previously non-lawful good, now no idea what his alignment is; has a sword of pure evil LE imp (Sly); also wants to kill Adam; trying to get the BoVD half-orc barbarian/rogue; no clue about alignment; can deal out ridiculous amounts of damage The DM HAS said that we'll be going to a Good source of magic some time soon; I just don't know how it'll work out.
mudbunny 02-07-08, 02:10 PM	I don't see why a CG character wouldn't roll with an evil party if they could convince themselves doing so was/is for good in the end (bringing magic back to the world). Doing evil in the name of good is still evil. Doing good in the name of evil is still good.
jage 02-07-08, 03:33 PM	Doing evil in the name of good is still evil. Doing good in the name of evil is still good. I disagree. Whether that is or is not true from an absolute point of view (external to the character), we're talking about character alignment. If a character has devoted their actions to good and it turns out to be evil, they've "done evil" but it doesn't make them evil, and it doesn't make their actions evil. In retrospect they may regret what seemed good at the time but turned out to be evil, but even if you're doing something ostensibly evil in the name of good (say murder) that doesn't make it evil. And vice versa- if my LE character gives 100,000 pps to the local church it certainly looks good, but the underlying motive to my character is really what makes it good or evil, and thus following alignment or not.
Firesti 02-08-08, 10:50 AM	Doing evil in the name of good is still evil. Doing good in the name of evil is still good. Doing an evil act in the name of good is not evil if (intentional) good comes of it. Doing a good act in the name of evil is not good if (intentional) evil comes of it.
Rania 02-08-08, 11:51 AM	Just a quick service announcement: Alignment threads galore can be found in the Mature Topics forum.