D&D 5E Goals for a party - why should they even go anywhere together?

phantomK9 · Mar 21, 2017

The only hard rule I have at this stage is: No evil alignments.
Seriously, I've been there, many times. It ruins games.

The great thing about 5e is that character motivation is build in right from the beginning. Really try to make use of the background traits to help tie the story into the characters' personal bonds and motivations. It may be hard at first, but if you start there you should be able to draw the characters in.

iserith · Mar 21, 2017

phantomK9 said:
The only hard rule I have at this stage is: No evil alignments.
Seriously, I've been there, many times. It ruins games.

As I'm setting up a new campaign right now, I was asked if the players can use some monstrous races from Volo's. My response was "Sure." Then I added that Evil is also fine, but remember that you still have to know and work with the other PCs and you have to have a reason to engage with the content I'm presenting.

So really, I don't think it's Evil alignment that's the problem in many games. It's a player not adhering to some very basic premises about working as a team and engaging with the content. If a player can do that, it really doesn't matter what the character's alignment is in my view.

Fleetwood C. DeVille · Mar 21, 2017

Flexor the Mighty! said:
...they are a bunch of adventurers and tomb robbers who met at a bar and got drunk and decided that going into the Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun is a good idea. They sure wouldn't go in there sober after all.

Hold my beer.

CydKnight · Mar 21, 2017

Magzimum said:
I notice everywhere that typical parties are formed by a real ragtag of characters (because everybody just chooses whatever they want), ranging from chaotic to lawful and from good to evil. What could be some good examples of ultimate goals for a quest that would unite a random selection of players? I cannot come up with a single goal...

I find that it is easier to go about this in reverse of what you have proposed. Usually the goal is provided by the DM and the characters come up with their own motivations/reasons for pursuing the goal. That is if we are talking about the main goal(s) of the adventure campaign. The characters can still have separate goals unique to them.

The bottom line is that if the characters do not find common ground to accomplish shared goals they aren't going the get very far and neither will the adventure. The DM should work with you on your PCs background, alignment, etc. and steer it in a direction that he feels is at least workable (for him and you) to keep a campaign moving forward.

Wepwawet · Mar 21, 2017

First start with the meta rule #1: Don't be a jerk. Role playing is nice and all but it should never be an excuse to be a jerk to the other players.

Meta rule #2: D&D is a cooperative game.

It is simply assumed that the players will work together, even if they have opposing alignments. In game you can come up with millions of explanations for that, from "they all grew up together" to "they randomly met once in a tavern and instantly got along with each other and even though they don't have anything in common they work together because it's fun".

As a DM feel free to expand their backgrounds and connect details that you think would work together. The game works much better when the characters have an actual connection to the game world and some of the other adventurers.

If a player wants to play an evil character with the intention of causing conflict, point to meta rule #1 and don't allow that character. Also be careful with that player or you'll have trouble down the line and your campaign will collapse because people get fed up of putting up with a player who uses role playing as an excuse to be a jerk.

It's much easier to outright ban evil characters. I always felt that it is much harder to explain why a group of evil people would stick together along several adventures without killing each other.

In my game I ruled that there are no evil PCs, and if someone becomes evil they become and NPC.

phantomK9 · Mar 21, 2017

iserith said:
So really, I don't think it's Evil alignment that's the problem in many games. It's a player not adhering to some very basic premises about working as a team and engaging with the content. If a player can do that, it really doesn't matter what the character's alignment is in my view.

Can't really argue with that. Honestly, the problem most of the time is the player just using the evil alignment as an excuse to be an asshat at the table.

Mad_Jack · Mar 21, 2017

It's actually pretty easy to come up with a motivation for any character to be adventuring with almost any other character, unless you specifically build a reason not to do so into their backstory or personality...

"I am pursuing X goal, and hanging out with these people provides me with the gold/firepower/influence/excitement/respectability/alibi that I need to accomplish that goal..."

Enlightened self-interest - the universal motivation.

On the other hand, your motivation for working with the party could be as basic as lack of anything better to do.

A Lawful or Good character might join a Chaotic or Evil party to try to reign in or tone down their impulsiveness.
A Chaotic character joins a Lawful party because he knows they're going to be doing interesting things.
A Neutral Evil character joins a good party because, righteous crusade or not, they're going to be spending a lot of time fighting and looting and manipulating people.
Etc.

Oofta · Mar 21, 2017

phantomK9 said:
Can't really argue with that. Honestly, the problem most of the time is the player just using the evil alignment as an excuse to be an asshat at the table.

I've seen the same thing with Chaotic Neutral. "I'm stabbing my buddy in the back just to see what it feels like" is not the act of a neutral character. It's the act of a jerk (maybe "Don't be a jerk" should be my rule 0).

Imaculata · Mar 21, 2017

So, it seems the basics are out of the way of both keeping the party together, and getting players to work together. I think @iserith and @Oofta covered most of this pretty well. But once you all agree to work together, and your players have created their characters... how do you get them on the road to adventure?

I find that the easiest way to get them to work together, is to drop them into an exciting situation right away. If they have to work together immediately, then they are less likely to go at it alone later on.

Then there are the stakes. So what if the evil dragon is threatening the nearby kingdom? Why should they risk their necks? Part of this can already be tackled in session 0. You could simply agree with your players that the premise of the campaign is all about defeating the dragon, and so with that established, it is now up to them to direct their characters in that direction.

But another way to solve this issue, is to give their PC's a personal stake in the matter. In some cases these stakes can already be established during character creation (The human rogue has a debt to settle, so he needs the job. The paladin has sworn an oath to defeat the dragon, etc), and other times you can let these stakes emerge during the campaign. A dear friend (and npc) of the party could ask them for help.

I did all of this in my current pirate campaign:

Session 0
-I first agreed with my players that they would form a band of pirates together in an aquatic/naval campaign, which would be all about exploration, adventure, and piracy.
-I agreed that although they were pirates, they were basically good guys, and not evil (well, they're alright, but they are not murderous thugs).
-I agreed with them that they would work together, and not attack each other, or steal from each other.
-I agreed with them that the premise was that they would get a ship, gather crew, gather allies, and eventually face a huge enemy fleet in a climactic end battle. The rest was up to them.
-During character creation, I gave them some backstory options that they could use. I also asked them to think about whether any of their characters perhaps were already related to one another.

During play
-I dropped them into an action scenario. Half of the party was locked in a horrid prison tower, while the other half was climbing said tower in an effort to free them. As they escaped the tower, they made some allies and enemies along the way. Having escaped from the same prison gave their party a foundation on which to build further adventures.
-I made them care about the world and the people in it.
-I lured them into various (side)-quests with treasure and adventure.

Oofta · Mar 21, 2017

iserith said:
As I'm setting up a new campaign right now, I was asked if the players can use some monstrous races from Volo's. My response was "Sure." Then I added that Evil is also fine, but remember that you still have to know and work with the other PCs and you have to have a reason to engage with the content I'm presenting.

So really, I don't think it's Evil alignment that's the problem in many games. It's a player not adhering to some very basic premises about working as a team and engaging with the content. If a player can do that, it really doesn't matter what the character's alignment is in my view.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. If someone is playing an evil character, in all likelihood they will at some point commit evil acts.

How should the good members of the party react? Mr Stick just murdered some children in their sleep, why would Holy Hannah not kill Mr Stick or at least turn him over to the authorities? Without heavy-handedly forcing player decisions (telling Hannah she can't do what her character should do for whatever reason) how does this not break up the group?

Which is why I let people vote, in secret if necessary. If even one person doesn't want an evil character I don't allow it.

Up to a certain point I don't really care what people's alignments are. However, some world views are just not compatible with one another.