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

[Oofta]

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.

I've never seen an episode of Dexter (not a big fan of the "anti-hero" genre) but torture is evil. As far as killing others, killing is not necessarily evil. A soldier that takes pride in what they do is not necessarily evil. But there's a difference between enjoying a fight and getting your rocks off by murdering people.

And ... for the umpteenth millionth time if you and your group are ok with evil characters more power to you. Just don't expect me to join your game.

 

[Saeviomagy]

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.

Problem: it's explicitly stated by Mal in a motivational speech. This doesn't actually inform us as to his motivations: it informs us as to his ability to keep his crew motivated. An evil character looking to destroy the alliance no matter what it took would say the exact same thing in this situation if he thought it would convince his crew.

 

[Caliban]

I thought Neutral Good always did "the right thing" and Lawful Good did good while trying to remain within the law (either of the local political body or of whatever organization has their loyalty).

I'd argue that Mal is Chaotic Good - he's wants to do the right thing, but he's going to be somewhat unpredictable about what he considers "right" and in how he goes about it.

 

[Imaculata]

Problem: it's explicitly stated by Mal in a motivational speech. This doesn't actually inform us as to his motivations: it informs us as to his ability to keep his crew motivated. An evil character looking to destroy the alliance no matter what it took would say the exact same thing in this situation if he thought it would convince his crew.

It's up to the viewer to decide if what Mal was doing was just a motivational speech, or whether he was speaking from the heart. Are we given any reason to suspect that he does not mean what he says? Throughout the show and the movie, Mal often voices his thoughts, and they are consistent. His speech is entirely consistent with what we have seen of his character throughout the show and the movie.

I thought Neutral Good always did "the right thing" and Lawful Good did good while trying to remain within the law (either of the local political body or of whatever organization has their loyalty).

I'd argue that Mal is Chaotic Good - he's wants to do the right thing, but he's going to be somewhat unpredictable about what he considers "right" and in how he goes about it.

You could definitely make that argument as well, he definitely is unpredictable, and occasionally also does pretty bad things (like kicking one of Nishka's uncooperative henchmen into the engine of Serenity).

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

Lawful Good doesn't mean staying within the Law though. The law that a Lawful Good character follows can also be a personal code. It is an alignment that leans heavily towards honor, justice, commitment to oppose evil, helping those in need, and stopping injustice.

In one of the first Firefly episodes, called the Trainjob, Mal and his crew steal a precious medical cargo. But when he finds out whom he is stealing from, and how badly the people there need the medicine, he decides to return the stolen cargo, despite angering one very angry Nishka. Is this Lawful Good behavior, or Chaotic Good? Maybe a bit of both.

 

[Oofta]

...like kicking one of Nishka's uncooperative henchmen into the engine of Serenity...

This was one of my favorite scenes in the series and one that stands out. The henchmen had just given a speech about how he would never stop trying to kill Mal and the crew and would not rest until they were all dead.

When Mal dealt with the situation, my wife and I just looked at each other and said "Chaotic Good". To heck with convention, just do what's right.

So many times the heroes follow the old comic book code that recurring villains can't just be dealt with and here was the captain taking care of the situation with the only option he had available.

We always thought chaotic instead of lawful because while he followed a personal code of honor, he never showed much respect for any authority and simply did what was right.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I've never seen an episode of Dexter (not a big fan of the "anti-hero" genre) but torture is evil. As far as killing others, killing is not necessarily evil. A soldier that takes pride in what they do is not necessarily evil. But there's a difference between enjoying a fight and getting your rocks off by murdering people.

And ... for the umpteenth millionth time if you and your group are ok with evil characters more power to you. Just don't expect me to join your game.

Oh I have no problem with you deciding not to play with evil characters. I understand it even. But there are always new players and DMs looking at this forum deciding what type of game they are going to play, and I think reading different perspectives helps. It certainly helped my a couple of years ago.

 

[BookBarbarian]

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

The adventurers at the table may want to slap each other, they may be predisposed to do so, but "it's what my character would do" does not trump "players are expected to find reasons for their characters to work together" at my table.

It's one thing I get out at every Session 0: As a player I dislike PvP, as a DM I dislike PvP. I've tried it, it's just not fun for me and I play to have fun. I notice you enjoy it at your table, and that's awesome. Maybe your group is more mature than mine (myself included).

 

[Oofta]

Oh I have no problem with you deciding not to play with evil characters. I understand it even. But there are always new players and DMs looking at this forum deciding what type of game they are going to play, and I think reading different perspectives helps. It certainly helped my a couple of years ago.

A few years back I had a player join the campaign for a while (a friend of a friend) who really wanted to play an evil character. I discussed my "no evil" rule, what I considered justification for an evil alignment (which seems to be more lenient than some people) and why I made the rule.

He ended up not staying for the followup campaign, and I was fine with that. Not every campaign, not every DM is going to be a good fit for every player. There were no hard feelings.

When I'm indulging in recreational fantasy, whether it's books, TV, movies, video games or D&D I want the heroes to be ... well heroic. The heroes should be good guys, or at least the guys doing the best that they can with the options they have. If you enjoy indulging in fiction where the protagonist (or PC) is a homicidal sociopaths or someone who enjoys inflicting pain then we simply have different tastes.

That may mean I miss out on Grand Theft Auto games, lose a player now and then, or don't participate in a campaign here and there. Fortunately there are plenty of other options out there.

 

[BookBarbarian]

A few years back I had a player join the campaign for a while (a friend of a friend) who really wanted to play an evil character. I discussed my "no evil" rule, what I considered justification for an evil alignment (which seems to be more lenient than some people) and why I made the rule.

He ended up not staying for the followup campaign, and I was fine with that. Not every campaign, not every DM is going to be a good fit for every player. There were no hard feelings.

When I'm indulging in recreational fantasy, whether it's books, TV, movies, video games or D&D I want the heroes to be ... well heroic. The heroes should be good guys, or at least the guys doing the best that they can with the options they have. If you enjoy indulging in fiction where the protagonist (or PC) is a homicidal sociopaths or someone who enjoys inflicting pain then we simply have different tastes.

That may mean I miss out on Grand Theft Auto games, lose a player now and then, or don't participate in a campaign here and there. Fortunately there are plenty of other options out there.

Fair enough. I can't stand GTA games, but I love every book with Logen Ninefingers in it, and the Bloody Nine is a straight up evil. (The First Law Trilogy by Joe Abercrombie for anyone who cares).

For the record I think your handling of it with that player was the best way to go. As I've mentioned in another post on this thread I have very similar feelings about PvP.

Honestly, in 99.9% of my games I do prefer to play a heroic character. I'll actually be Starting a game of Adventures in Middle-Earth soon. It straight up says in the Player's Guide that the game assumes you to be an enemy of the Shadow, and it has codified rules for committing misdeeds. Including lying, cheating, stealing, and being violent to normal people. I'm really curious to see how my table will deal with them.

 

[eayres33]

What I have gathered from this thread is to never have a “no” anything since no one seems to be able to define anything. At first I thought I should say something because I play a lot of evil character’s and no evil seems overly restrictive.

But over the course of this thread I’ve seen what I would consider as evil character’s being described as neutral and in some cases even stretched to good. So in retrospect maybe, if you don’t like evil characters (which I totally understand, some people want Pollyanna murder hobo’s) maybe the rule should be, in general no evil characters, but talk to me so we can define what that means.

To each their own, and no offense just a post half in jest.