Forcing Players to create GOOD characters...

[wolfen]

OK, I've been in several campaigns that have required the PC's to choose a Good alignment. I hate this requirement in so many ways. I don't want to create an enormous post about it, especially because I'm sure it's been hashed out.

I've always taken it this way: (A) The DM feels a need to cheat. Making horribly evil guys is like cat nip for a party of good heroes. It's a way of forcing players to behave more predictably and not demand too much from the DM. (B) The DM lacks the ability to trust the players to develop deep characters with worthwhile relevant motivations.

The DM's resulting subconscious argument is: "I'm not sure my ideas are any good, and I'm not sure you're any good. So let's make your character 'Good' and eliminate a whole set of variables that might reveal just how lame we both might be. I'll make a bad guy, you'll go after him...yadda yadda yadda, we'll both get to roll dice."

I like movies that start with neutral or bad guys that slowly take a real interest in their world and the people around them...until suddenly they are powerful Good guys. Can a D&D experience be like that?

Thoughts? Observations?


wolfen

 

[thundershot]

I never force them to make GOOD characters, per se. I do, on occaision, tell them NO EVIL characters for a certain campaign...



Chris

 

[Gothmog]

IME, DMs who REQUIRE good characters are often poor DMs, just as you suspect wolfen. They have bought the cliche standard fantasy tropes hook, line, and sinker, and don't want to or are uncomfortable going outside the confines of what they know. They also tend to be plot-nazis, and have VERY one-dimensional worlds with extremely linear adventures that the PCs are herded through. Morality also tends to be extremely black and white, and very simplistic, with obvious cues as to what the DM expects the characters to do. BORING!!!

Some of the most enjoyable and memorable games I have been in or run have been from the perspective of shady characters, or ones with questionable morality. They tend to have a greater depth of character, as long as hack-n-slash is avoided. That said, I don't tend to allow CN or CE characters in games I run, simply because I find most players have no idea how to play them, or play chaotics simply to antagonize other people in the group for no good reason.

 

[Kichwas]

A lot of DMs assume evil = psychotic. Largely because many players play it that way.

I've recently changed my 'no evil characters' restriction to 'no psychotic characters'. I don't care if your character is mean and or immoral, just as long as they can function in society or a group without going nuts.

 

[rushlight]

I disagree. I usually implement such requirements in my game. And it's not to make things simpler on me - but to keep the game on track.

See, when you just let anyone make anything with no guidelines, you'll end up with a mix of characters that make no logical sense. A chaotic evil assassin in a party with a lawful good paladin just will not work. Therefore, someone should decide what the game will be about, and what the general atmosphere will be. That someone should be the person writing the game - the DM.

You could make similar guidelines about keeping the entire party evil, or whatever. I feel there should be some logical ties that bind a group together. After all, Tolkien didn't have Wormtongue as part of the Fellowship...

 

[hong]

Some of the most enjoyable and memorable games I have been in or run have been from the perspective of shady characters, or ones with questionable morality.

Mmmm, ninjae.


Hong "but are they... TEENAGE ninjae?" Ooi

 

[mmu1]

I've only had one DM who allowed only good characters, and he was in fact a complete control freak. (had plenty who didn't allow evil ones, and that's something I usually completely agree with)

However, I don't think there's anything wrong with it, in principle, and it doesn't have to be a sign of limited ability - at least, as long as the DM doesn't make it a requirement in every single game he runs.

 

[Krieg]

A lot of DMs assume evil = psychotic. Largely because many players play it that way.

VERY well said.

Most of the DMs I've met who limit alignments etc do so because of negative experiences they've had in the past with immature or maladjusted players.

It only takes one bad player to scar a DM for life...don't you read KoTD?

 

[Haradim]

I will rarely, if ever, allow Evil characters at the start of a game.

If a character develops into an Evil character in a plausible way during the course of the game, that's a different story. But I'd rather not risk having someone go nuts, and ruin the campaign before it has even really begun because they want to play a raving lunatic, and kills half the party over tiny, petty things.

A chaotic evil assassin in a party with a lawful good paladin just will not work.

I also seek to avoid things like this. Aside from the alignment restriction (which more or less puts everyone in at least tolerable relations, in most cases), I also make sure to advise that people make characters that are actualy going to be able to function in a group, without any friction (loners who never do anything, highly opposed characters that will probably just end up killing each other, etc).

 

[Mouseferatu]

And sometimes, the DM just doesn't want to deal with it.

Most of my campaigns--not all, but most--have a "no evil" characters requirement. And I prefer good, though I'll go with neutral.

I'm not a plot nazi. My campaigns have stories, but I do not force my players to choose which way they go, and I'm more than happy to adapt to their choices, rather than the other way around. And there are some campaigns in which I do allow, or even encourage, evil characters.

The truth is, though, that yes, I prefer my fantasy heroic. I haven't "bought in" to anything. I've read and enjoyed all sorts of fantasy. At the end of the day, though, I simply like heroic fantasy better.

That said, none of this is carved in stone. I do often enjoy darker characters. (Heck, of the various [as yet unpublished] novels I've written involve characters who are by no means good.) And even in a campaign where I say "no evil," I'm more than happy to consider exceptions if one of my players has a good idea. Frankly, if one of my players had a character that began neutral or evil and slowly became good, I'd be thrilled. But the fact is, most of the people I play with game for the story first, with character-development a distant second. So I haven't seen such a thing yet. (That's not necessarily a bad thing; it's just a difference in styles.)

So it would be more accurate, I guess, to say I strongly prefer and encourage good (or at least non-evil) characters. But if someone can convince me that they can play an evil character in a way that won't disrupt the party, I'll certainly consider it. Fact is, though, there aren't a lot of players who can play evil without being disruptive. Some, yes, but not many. (IME, of course.)