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

[Greenstone.Walker]

Edit: I see you edited in a clip of Mal gratuitously torturing someone to prove your assertion that Mal is Lawful Good. Seriously?! We have very different standards for what constitutes good and evil.

Obviously, because I see nothing gratuitious in that scene. Or torturous, either.

 

[Kalshane]

Obviously, because I see nothing gratuitious in that scene. Or torturous, either.

He's stabbing a guy because he's a jerk/deserves punishment and because Mal thinks it's funny. I wouldn't call it torture, but it's definitely an evil act. (It does not make him evil, however.)

I put Mal more in the Neutral Good category (with pre-war Mal probably being lawful good) in that he constantly struggles between his inherent desire to do what is right, while maintaining the level of practicality necessary to engage in his profession as a smuggler/merc/whathaveyou.

In Serenity (the movie) Mal and the rest of the crew sacrifice a lot to get the message about what the Alliance did out, though how much of that is "doing the right thing" and how much is Mal getting revenge against the Alliance that had cost him so much isn't explicitly stated. (And I'm sure Mal himself would agree it was a mix of both.)

 

[Imaculata]

Not necessarily in and of itself--I just think it's weird that you gave that video clip as part of your PROOF that Mal is Lawful Good. It's not like you gave it as a caveat, either ("he's generally Lawful Good but sometimes he messes up big time, like this time"). You just inserted it without explanation and then asserted Mal's Lawful Goodness in the next breath.

The reason I included that video, is because it has Mal actually commenting on his own alignment. I thought it was fitting given the discussion on what makes a character good. Although it is really the episode itself that gives the viewer a deeper insight into Mal's moral compass. There's an excellent scene where Inara tries to teach him the basics of sword fighting, and he gives his reasons for accepting the duel in the first place. Couldn't find a clip of it though.

Perhaps. You know them better than I do of course. But if they resorted to torture often enough for me to flip the switch and say, "Your alignment has just changed, and your Robe of the Neutral Archmagi no longer functions," that wouldn't render the campaign unplayable.

I agree.

In Serenity (the movie) Mal and the rest of the crew sacrifice a lot to get the message about what the Alliance did out, though how much of that is "doing the right thing" and how much is Mal getting revenge against the Alliance that had cost him so much isn't explicitly stated. (And I'm sure Mal himself would agree it was a mix of both.)

That's an odd thing to say, given the fact that there's an entire scene dedicated to the reasons Mal and his crew want to uncover the Alliance' painful secret. It is definitely not revenge.

[video=youtube;1VR3Av9qfZc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VR3Av9qfZc[/video]

And this is why Mal is definitely Lawful Good. You can't get more clearer than that. It is stated very explicitly.

"Somebody has to speak for these people..."

Mal doesn't want revenge against the alliance. This is stated at the start of the movie, when Mal and his crew rob an alliance depot, and it is stated here. The war is long gone for him. He doesn't live in the past. He wants to do what is right.

 

[Istbor]

*Jumps with glee* It's happening!

I think I am going to make a point however, I see Mal as Chaotic Good. He may do things that follow a code, or things that break a law. He typically is doing something that he believes is right or may produce a positive outcome. Never necessarily sticking to lawlessness or to his own set of rules. It makes him more dangerous to his enemies. That unpredictability. By and large though, you can depend on him to do what is 'right' for the common folk, or innocents.

Reading through these comments though, we all have our own moral compass, and it does not match up perfectly with another's. I think that is great! It makes the differences in people stand out and matter, and that can be reflected in a D&D campaign too.

I don't shy away from a game with some evil player characters in it whether I am DMing or playing. I can totally understand how some cannot, and I have seen the slippery slope that an all chaotic evil party can create (had more success with neutral and lawful evil party make up).

You may watch this video and see a Lawful Good man giving a great speech about doing what is right. I watch this video and see a Chaotic Good man giving a great speech about doing what is right. Someone out there watches this video and sees some other alignment altogether.

 

[Imaculata]

*Jumps with glee* It's happening!

I think I am going to make a point however, I see Mal as Chaotic Good. He may do things that follow a code, or things that break a law. He typically is doing something that he believes is right or may produce a positive outcome. Never necessarily sticking to lawlessness or to his own set of rules. It makes him more dangerous to his enemies. That unpredictability.

I think you could definitely make that argument. Mal is in a bit of a gray area, and D&D alignments are just rough indicators.

By and large though, you can depend on him to do what is 'right' for the common folk, or innocents.

I would argue that this is what makes him Lawful Good. You can always rely on him to do the right thing. Lawful Good characters are reliable like that. Where as Neutral Good characters would probably be closer to Han Solo, or Mad Martigan from Willow. They are good people, but they have their faults, and might have a bit of a selfish streak to them.

I don't shy away from a game with some evil player characters in it whether I am DMing or playing. I can totally understand how some cannot, and I have seen the slippery slope that an all chaotic evil party can create (had more success with neutral and lawful evil party make up).

Its exactly this slippery slope that is the reason I tend to advise against it. I've been a DM for a 100% evil party myself, and if you know your players it can work. But I wouldn't consider it a best practice for new players.

 

[BookBarbarian]

All I would say is that I do not consider Han Solo evil (at least based on what we've seen in the movies). Chaotic neutral perhaps, but not evil. I'd say the same of Captain Reynolds of Firefly fame who once killed a prisoner who promised to hunt the crew down and get his revenge once he was released. Was it a good act? No. It may have even been "evil", but there's a difference between being proactive on your self defense strategy and murdering someone who means you no harm.

On the other hand there was a mention of a different character that claimed to be chaotic neutral serial killer. Unless he really meant cereal killer (and what's wrong with Cheerios?) I would say that a person who gets their jollies from murdering innocent people is Evil.

Like many things in D&D, I consider alignment a shorthand. If I have a player that has a question about where I would draw the lines, we can discuss that.

Anyway, we've already hijacked this thread enough.

Does one have to murder innocents to be evil? How about Dexter Morgan, He tortures and murders strictly for his own pleasure, but only preys on other monsters. If a player brought a character like this to my table I could make a good character that could work with this evil character toward a common goal pretty easily.

Would our characters have disagreements? Constantly.

Would we get in to PVP? Never.

*Please note, I am not telling you you should play at a table with evil characters. I'm just saying that there are different kinds of evil characters, and some of them make for interesting Books, TV, Movies, and gaming sessions.

 

[Lanefan]

A lawful good character does not have to be a character that always does the right thing, or follows the law. A lawful good character can have bad character traits just like any other alignment can. Just because the character has a good heart, doesn't mean he's nice, or likeable. Han Solo is a good guy, although you wouldn't be able to tell at first. But when it comes down to it, he shows up in the nick of time to help Luke blow up the Death Star. He's the kind of guy who says he doesn't care about it all... but in the end, he pulls through (He leans towards neutral good though).

Han is loyal to those he considers his friends. That's it.

Any alignment - all 9 of 'em plus Neutral Greedy - can pull that off.

I've always seen Han as CN with sometimes a bit of G tossed in.

A lawful good paladin for example, could be a fanatic who doesn't show her enemies any mercy at all.

Thus explaining quite a few of the 364,237 Paladin arguments on these boards, other boards, and around gaming tables since about 1978.

Lan-"alignments, Paladins, and table rules for characters all in the same thread...this is gonna be fun"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

Whether they enjoy torturing, or just commit an act that inflicts pain on an enemy to punish him, are two very different things. Mal giving his defeated opponent two extra pokes with his sword, was obviously not doing the right thing there. But does that make him evil, when he is teaching his opponent a well deserved lesson and also sparing his life?

In my current pirate campaign, the players play more morally gray characters. They are pirates, so they are already ignoring the law. But they do have ethics. They do protect the weak and innocent, while even sometimes showing mercy to their enemies. But they have on occasion also subjected one of their enemies to torture, to extract information. Yet despite that, they are good characters at heart.

One immoral act or poor life decision is not what determines a character's alignment in my view. Even a good character can do the wrong thing at times.

With this I more or less agree; while noting the reverse is also true: a usually-evil character can now and then do a good thing while still remaining evil at heart.

That said, you've hit the key to solving many alignment arguments: they're all shades of gray.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

Does one have to murder innocents to be evil? How about Dexter Morgan, He tortures and murders strictly for his own pleasure, but only preys on other monsters. If a player brought a character like this to my table I could make a good character that could work with this evil character toward a common goal pretty easily.

Would our characters have disagreements? Constantly.

Would we get in to PVP? Never.

Not even an occasional in-character fistfight or face-slap? Seems rather tame, particularly when one thinks that adventurers as a whole tend towards violent solutions to most other problems they face, which in turn indicates those characters who go adventuring would tend to be either predisposed toward violence going in or quickly become so after a few tours of duty in the field.

Lan-"a face only a fist could love"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

Hearing that, I have to wonder how awful that adventure is.

I liken it more to a hockey game where at some point a ten-minute bench-clearing brawl breaks out. I'll watch the brawl just as happily as I'll watch the rest of the game.

In a D&D setting I'll happily watch or referee the fights (as DM) or join in (as player, in character) just as happily as I'll participate in the rest of the game.

Lan-"two for instigating, five for fighting, and a ten minute misconduct"-efan