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

[FormerlyHemlock]

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).

They both try to do the right thing, but Lawful Good considers structural factors (precedent, escalation, tragedy of the commons, etc.) when determining "the right thing" while Chaotic Good sees only immediate concrete factors, and Neutral Good has no strong bias. Think about the difference between Captain America and Tony Stark in Captain America: Civil War, when it comes to signing the Accords. Steve Rogers is clearly Lawful Good--he sees good in the Accords, but he's also worried about intangibles like "What if they send us somewhere we don't think we should be? What if they refuse to send us somewhere we need to be?" Structural factors and the precedent he's setting weigh heavily on him. It never even crosses his mind to sign the Accords today and then just ditch them if they become inconvenient.

Tony Stark, in contrast, has zero problems signing the Accords today in order to keep the team together, and then unilaterally abrogating them later on when they become inconvenient. In fact he does exactly that, twice, in this exact movie. (One time more blatantly than the other--the second time is at the very end where he refuses to take orders and puts his nominal superior on hold rather than help fix the prison break.) He's either Neutral Good or perhaps Chaotic Good.

Both Steve and Tony are trying to do "the right thing," which is what makes it such an interesting movie. Neutral Good and Lawful Good and Chaotic Good are all types of good, none of them more virtuous than the others--but they have different ways of perceiving what the right thing is.

 

[Lanefan]

It's one thing I get out at every Session 0: As a player I dislike PvP, as a DM I dislike PvP.

I'm starting to wonder if part of the problem is the very term.

"PvP" implies player vs. player - which it's not; or shouldn't be provided your players can keep their own feelings separate from those of their characters. Maybe "CvC" for character vs. character would be more appropriate.

Lanefan

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

It doesn't even have to go that far in order to count as evil. Edmund Blackadder probably isn't a homocidal sociopath, and he probably doesn't care enough about other people to enjoy inflicting pain per se, but all the versions of him I can think of are pretty clearly explicitly evil. And yet he is very funny to watch, for me at least, and it's easy to imagine a campaign in which I'd enjoy seeing someone play a Blackadder as a foil to the other PCs. (It's also easy, as a DM, to think up fun situations to subject Blackadder to and adventure hooks to build around him. "Blackadder has offended the wrong nobleman by seducing his sister and gotten himself, and all of you, exiled to Patagonia for two years...")

 

[ad_hoc]

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.

He did have respect for an authority. That authority was defeated in war so it's not around anymore. That doesn't mean he doesn't still follow it as best as he can.

It's possible to fight a war and still have a lawful alignment even though you are going against the law of at least one nation. If you are in conflict you are likely going against the law somewhere.

 

[Oofta]

maybe the rule should be, in general no evil characters, but talk to me so we can define what that means.

I do agree with this. I've had lawful good (dwarves) kill helpless orcs because orcs are 100% evil. All of the time. Not killing them would have just meant they would eventually cause harm to the next person they came across. It was done with no more hesitation than they would have hesitated taking out a nest of black widow spiders that was in the eaves of a house. Like the ones we found at our house last year.

Now, I get that some people may have considered that an evil act because they apply modern concepts of destiny and innocent until proven guilty that we would (rightly) apply to people. Problem is, orcs aren't people. D&D is not the real world. Orcs (in that setting) were always evil monsters.

But I see what you're saying. Some people seem to think that if you do anything that could be considered "sinful" or "not nice" automatically makes you evil incarnate. In my campaign, being a greedy thief does not make you evil. Being a thief that kills random people walking down the street to take their stuff is evil. A onetime act of evil that you regret for the rest of your life does not make you evil. Giving money to charity while indulging in your hobby of torturing kittens does not make you neutral.

So yes, alignment is a shorthand for behavior and it may make sense to have a discussion with your players about what you mean.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I'm starting to wonder if part of the problem is the very term.

"PvP" implies player vs. player - which it's not; or shouldn't be provided your players can keep their own feelings separate from those of their characters. Maybe "CvC" for character vs. character would be more appropriate.

Lanefan

Oh that's very much part of the problem. With my players who have known each other for decades invariably one of them will try to get another one's goat either through whatever game we are playing or out of it. We might be able to mature past that one day, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[BookBarbarian]

He did have respect for an authority. That authority was defeated in war so it's not around anymore. That doesn't mean he doesn't still follow it as best as he can.

It's possible to fight a war and still have a lawful alignment even though you are going against the law of at least one nation. If you are in conflict you are likely going against the law somewhere.

I don't see it that way. the Independents were just that independent. They may have briefly come together for a common cause, but as far as I can tell there were no plans to install a new overarching authority over them in place of the Alliance.

 

[Boscogn]

Just because a PC is evil doesn't mean they can't be in the game with good characters. They would join the group and use them to attain their goals. If your evil and join a group of "good guys" you're not going to be stealing from them or killing babies in front of them. Then at some point you betray the group or simply leave and the easiest thing to do is join the evil the group is fighting for more power or whatever the motivation is for that evil character. Nobody really has any hard feelings about it and generally after it happens they think it was a good plot twist. Also just because they've defected and joined the other team who's to say they won't betray again in their personal quest thus indirectly helping the group.

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk

 

[eayres33]

As to being a longstanding group that tries to needle each other from time to time, this is very much my game as well. I play with most of my wife and mostly her family and friends, I am the newest member and have been hanging around for almost a decade, so all the player’s character’s throw jabs at one each other.

It’s all in good fun and nothing goes beyond the game, and everyone enjoys it so I always let a little PVP. The only damage ever done is one time someone smacked another player with the blunt end of a weapon, (and they deserved it) but it was all in good fun. Funny aside these were first level character’s and the 4 damage that attack set up the Bugbear character, named Bonk, to go down on a Hobgoblin attack later. The whole group got a good laugh at that and talks about it to that day. However for a group of strangers I could see how this would cause tension, so if I had a group of new player’s I would not allow even mild PVP until I felt they could handle it.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Some players say, "hey! I'm a loner! You can't force relationships on me!" These players should probably be playing video games instead.

They should join a soccer or softball league and develop some social skills...