(and thus, if you haven't watched the series, then I guess this idea won't mean much to you)
There is much re-occuring discussion about the problems with characters of radically different alignments getting along.
In Fire Fly, we see the character of Jane being a clear example of being chaotic evil.
Captain Mal is clearly lawful good( in his own way)
They get along for 2 simple reasons:
(reasons that apply nicely to a role playing game)
Mal( for the most part) doesn't try and punish Jane for his poor attitude and behavior.
Jane doesn't act like an idiot. Simply being evil and chaotic for the sake of itself. He talks a lot about how they should do nasty and selfish things, but the important part: He doesn't act on it. He understands that he is better off with the group, and with the group not thinking he is a total dick.
The point should be that people who insist "alignment in characters causes needless conflict between players" could benefit from looking at their favorite non-D&D fictions and seeing how the characters and their conflicting personalities can be reflected by differing alignments, and most importantly how the personality conflict serves the story instead of stopping it.
Like Buffy the Vampire Slayer:
Buffy Summers: Neutral Good. Doesn't care about mortal authority (either as love or as hate), but holds herself and other demon-hunters to an incredibly high (if informal) standard in the supernatural world.
Rupert Giles: Lawful Good. Cares very much about the rules and traditions that have kept demon-hunting organizations alive for thousands of years, even though he still gives Buffy room to prove herself when she is smarter then the others. Even if he hates a tradition for being potentially dangerous in most cases, he's not going to step in and go against his Lawful Neutral superiors unless it proves immediately dangerous in Buffy's specific case, and he will accept the punishment for his disobedience for years before challenging it as unjust (and even at that point he was still just expanding on the ball that Buffy had already got rolling against the superiors).
Willow Rosenberg: Chaotic Neutral. Will will certainly risk her life to fight against evil, protect her friends, and break whatever mortal (or supernatural) rules are necessary (or convenient) to do so, but tends to only worry about people's basic comfort and survival over helping them more completely, and not in a tough-love "good is not nice" sense, but more of an egocentric "me and my friends are too busy, leave us alone" sense. Can be extremely controlling at times, but always in a personal, informal sense rather than Lawful, systematic rule-booky sense like Giles.
Xander Harris: Somewhere between True Neutral and Chaotic Good, but beyond that I'm not really sure how to peg him specifically.
Also, it's Jayne, with a y.
), it can be said of most TV and movies where teams of characters interact, there is invariably one or more diametrically opposed pair, but they equally invariably get along for a wide variety of reasons. D&D players need to realize that dynamic more: just because you are playing a LG paladin does not mean you have to hate and kill on sight that CE rogue.Regardless of the kvetching (by the way, great word use ), it can be said of most TV and movies where teams of characters interact, there is invariably one or more diametrically opposed pair, but they equally invariably get along for a wide variety of reasons. D&D players need to realize that dynamic more: just because you are playing a LG paladin does not mean you have to hate and kill on sight that CE rogue.
Well earlier editions of D&D didn't realize that either. It used to be that the paladin could not knowingly and willingly work/travel with evil characters.
Regardless of the kvetching (by the way, great word use ), it can be said of most TV and movies where teams of characters interact, there is invariably one or more diametrically opposed pair, but they equally invariably get along for a wide variety of reasons. D&D players need to realize that dynamic more: just because you are playing a LG paladin does not mean you have to hate and kill on sight that CE rogue.
Well earlier editions of D&D didn't realize that either. It used to be that the paladin could not knowingly and willingly work/travel with evil characters.
Then my friends and I in college (1993-1994) broke the RAW in 2e. We played the Dragon Mountain boxed set module and we had a Paladin and Anti-Paladin in the same group. In fact, the players and DM figured out a way to make it work - the Anti-Paladin "fell out of favor" and the Paladin was attempting to convert the Anti-Paladin. The A-P was still CE and had most of his powers. It was a GREAT campaign.
Regardless of the kvetching (by the way, great word use ), it can be said of most TV and movies where teams of characters interact, there is invariably one or more diametrically opposed pair, but they equally invariably get along for a wide variety of reasons. D&D players need to realize that dynamic more: just because you are playing a LG paladin does not mean you have to hate and kill on sight that CE rogue.
Well earlier editions of D&D didn't realize that either. It used to be that the paladin could not knowingly and willingly work/travel with evil characters.
Then my friends and I in college (1993-1994) broke the RAW in 2e. We played the Dragon Mountain boxed set module and we had a Paladin and Anti-Paladin in the same group. In fact, the players and DM figured out a way to make it work - the Anti-Paladin "fell out of favor" and the Paladin was attempting to convert the Anti-Paladin. The A-P was still CE and had most of his powers. It was a GREAT campaign.
I love the Dragon Mountain module. And we also used Anti-Paladins. Personally I never cared much for the RAW alignment restrictions and we almost always had at least one evil character in the party with a paladin.