Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Al" data-source="post: 436655" data-attributes="member: 2486">As has been repeatedly mentioned, it all depends on the context.For a one-shot campaign, it may work.  Characters of wildly divergent alignments may be working together for one specific goal, albeit with different motivations.  It is perfectly plausible, for instance, that a former henchman of an evil warlord (who was exiled) would seek revenge on said warlord and work with good PCs to accomplish that aim.However, paladins aside, it is unlikely that a long-term campaign could last with a good/evil party dichotomy.  That is not to say that a mature and sensible evil campaign cannot be successfully run (mature and sensible excluding the ridiculous 'eeevil' denigrated quite correctly in this thread).  Indeed, a neutral/evil campaign could work.  Yet good/evil doesn't.  Why?The point is moral objection.  Even aside from the evil PC raping, pillaging and murdering; and even aside from the more evangelical side of goodness (characterised by iconic paladins), there is a point at which the good PCs will find the evil ones too objectionable to continue adventuring.  At some point, the nature of the evil characters will make itself known- when they perform an act of 'evil'.  Eventually, the evil character will seize the opportunity to further either himself or his diabolical creed.  Evil characters may well work with good to achieve an ultimate aim, but the point is that the evil character always has his eye on that ultimate aim, and it is unlikely to be a benevolent one.  When the ultimate aim becomes clear and near, a truly good character will have to dissent.</blockquote>

Verification