Alignment and Party Dynamics

[Nifft]

Preempting this by killing the party in it's sleep will earn you, the player, major douche-bag points among the other players unless done very carefully. Doing so will also lead to the DM issuing a 'No Evil PC' decree.

Yeah. Possibly a "no evil PLAYER" decree, too. :\

Internal squabbling can be fun, but only if all sides are set for it.

Cheers, -- N

 

[WyzardWhately]

Play an evil character who carefully hides his alignment from the other PCs. Should the other players find out the Main villain is IN the party, then it is PVPPP time.

Preempting this by killing the party in it's sleep will earn you, the player, major douche-bag points among the other players unless done very carefully. Doing so will also lead to the DM issuing a 'No Evil PC' decree.


If the DM is being honest he issues a 'No Evil PC' decree. If he is not being honest, "Karma" kills the character before his time.

I'll be even more honest than this. I'll put it right out front that if you want to have an inter-party feud, the players involved should work out where it's going to go and what the limits are before-hand. I know this goes against what a lot of us have been taught, but I've seen it lead to very satisfying play.

And the 'I kill the whole party in their sleep' deal? Never happens unless the other PCs have, in my opinion, asked for it. They just wake up the next morning and that character's gone. Or was never there. That's right, I'll ret-con your ass. You may say that's heavy-handed, or even abusive, but I view it as the prime duty of the GM to keep a handle on things. You try to ruin the other player's fun and the rules go out the window.

If I think the game as a whole is better off without a given player or character, I can solve that problem real quick.

 

[pemerton]

I remember Elves being Chaotic and Orcs being Lawful ("... terribly Lawful, like Vogons", as one DM explained it to me).

In Moldvay/Cook Basic/Expert, Elves were Neutral and Orcs Chaotic.

In the 1st ed AD&D monster manual Orcs were Lawful Evil, but the 1st ed DMG referred to them as being Chaotic (I assume a legacy reference lingering from single-axis alignment).

 

[pemerton]

When talking about 4E, I think a big part of the change has to do with how alignment affects the game mechanically, not necessarily to try and make it more morally ambiguous.

I agree - though in my opinion, non-morally-ambiguous RPing also becomes easier without alignment rules, because the players can appeal directly to their own moral intuitions. If the players are not on the same page with respect to these, and don't agree to keep the game out of those areas of activity in which they disagree, then no amount of alignment rules will solve the problem, because the alignment rules just become a third party to the moral argument - they have no special moral authority (and in fact, in my experience, most authors of alignment sections of rulebooks are not all that impressive moral philosophers).

I enjoy having alignment in my game, mostly because if I don't, the players turn into hideously immoral mercenaries.

<snip>

I find alignment is necessary to my game, otherwise, the players go ape.

Do your players find the alignment rules chafing when you impose them? Or are they actually looking for an external source of discipline to bring their PCs' behaviour into line?

 

[Li Shenron]

Even if alignment sometimes causes problems to players that play it as a restriction, there is some danger in completely drop it from the game: that suddenly, everyone at the table end up roleplaying like Chaotic Neutral. Once there is not even a vague moral idea to follow, it's all too easy for a player to be the guy who simply does what is best for himself, and who cares about the rest. What kind of nightmare would it be?

For this reason, I am very sure that alignment isn't going completely away!

 

[The_Fan]

The cases I've seen of inter-party conflict were handled maturely. The closest we ever came to actually trading blows in the party it was a highly memorable and comedic scene right out of a movie. Ironically, the two characters who were squabbling were only one step away from each other alignment-wise (CG vs. CN).

 

[Kwalish Kid]

I'm going off of the OP's second reason for this thread - that the designers themselves have stated that alignment will be downplayed in the upcoming edition.

Really? Where is this said? I can only find this quote:
"In the end, there's still alignment. There will be some changes though. There'll be some tweaks... Even non-gamers know what a 12th level lawful good paladin is."

And this quote:
"It’s not going to be what it is now. Alignment is part of the story, part of the character. It is a useful shorthand, but too many books and too many players mistake it for limitation. We want to treat alignment as something bigger than that. We won’t get rid of it, but we don’t want it to be a replacement for character and personality."

I understand the temptation to rampant speculation, but let's throw some cold water on this no alignment fantasy.

 

[Cadfan]

My interpretation of those quotes was this:

Alignment will be downplayed for PCs, but played up as a cosmic force.

That's obviously a bit speculative. Its maybe a little bit wishful thinking as well.

 

[TerraDave]

Just to clarify, regarding our own Col Pladoh:

-Gary Gygax put the evil Assasin Class in the PHB.
-Gary Gygax put the rules for Drow as PCs in Unearthed Arcana
-Gary Gygax never played a good PC as far as I know, and has refered to playing an evil half orc a few times.
-Gary Gygax, on these boards, has criticized 3rd edition for implying (in the PHB) that you cannot have evil PCs (I will try to find the quote).
-It was after Gary Gygax left that TSR made such an effort to "de-evil" the game.
-On a slightly more speculative note, Paladin's could only be lawful good, and adventure with like minded souls, as a penalty that, along with a high charisma, balanced out all the stuff the class got. I don't think such a penalty should be seen as a norm.

 

[FourthBear]

Just to clarify, regarding our own Col Pladoh:

-Gary Gygax put the evil Assasin Class in the PHB.
-Gary Gygax put the rules for Drow as PCs in Unearthed Arcana
-Gary Gygax never played a good PC as far as I know, and has refered to playing an evil half orc a few times.
-Gary Gygax, on these boards, has criticized 3rd edition for implying (in the PHB) that you cannot have evil PCs (I will try to find the quote).
-It was after Gary Gygax left that TSR made such an effort to "de-evil" the game.
-On a slightly more speculative note, Paladin's could only be lawful good, and adventure with like minded souls, as a penalty that, along with a high charisma, balanced out all the stuff the class got. I don't think such a penalty should be seen as a norm.

That would make more sense to me. If you look at his primary fictional inspirations for D&D, I think you'll find it really dominated by morally questionable protagonists and out-and-out anti-heroes. Many of his noted inspirational fantasy works were often getting away from black-and-white heroism. Conan, Elric, Cugel, Fafrd and the Grey Mouser and many others were a far cry from the Companions of the Ring.