Forcing Players to create GOOD characters...

[ciaran00]

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!!!

Totally correct. DM's with alignment restrictions (A) often don't have a game with consequences built in, (B) have a world that is two-dimensional enough for the evil character to exploit, ie... simplistic rules of society etc are easier to exploit (esp. by players who build these characters for that very reason) than a whole mess of them like the real world would. I allow any alignment in parties (in Dark Sun it's almost idiotic to say... hey, no one can ever hope to become a Defiler Dragon, THE most developed advanced class in the setting), with the caveat: #1 point of the game is to have fun. If the other player(s) aren't having fun directly because of something YOU did (and I think that this feeling is legitimate) then I will either rip your character out of the game completely, or force you to change him (no matter what it takes) so that this doesn't occur. The other side of the coin for the DM is: (A) The DM is the one to create divisiveness... if the players are doing that on their own they're a party waiting to get killed and that's no fun for the DM. (B) Any DM loathes to run players separately, and if my players start doing this too much, again they will be forced to change.

So you have to find a middle ground, is what I'm saying. You can't assume that the player will screw up but IF he does, you have to come down on him. It's not cheesy... it's within your power.

Edit: Also, in Dark Sun this problem is massively alleviated by character trees. If people come up with character concepts, they will also need concepts of their own that work with the other characters made. This way, we can play a spectrum of alignment flavours with like-minded characters.

ciaran

 

[ThirdWizard]

The second game I DMed in college I had a have to be good rule. Everyone had to pick a good alignment and play a good character. I did this because some players were saying that they wouldn't play good because it was too restrictive and that they couldn't do anything fun. They would never have played a good character had I not implemented this rule. And, now a person in my group who would never have wanted to play a good character loves to play good characters (as well as other alignments).

Another player *always* plays neutral character. Completely neutral characters, what in 2nd edition would be called True Neutral, Neutral Neutral. All the time. Every character. We forbade him from having neutral anywhere in his alignmnet from here on until he plays something else (his neutral characters are apathetic characters).

Running Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, I required that all the characters be good, since that module is about the struggle of good versus evil. The players then put the requirements that they would all play short races. Many good halflings and gnomes everywhere!

By far my most successful campaign was one where I put the requirement that none of the PCs could be good. Well, I didn't disalow it, but I did say that any good PCs would probably not stick around with the others. I didn't say they had to be evil, and I pointed out that it would mostly revolve around syndicated crime and dealing with Bad People. They played a healthy balance of neutral and evil characters and worked together quite well against their common enemies (who they always had). If you're running with evil PCs, my advice is to always keep a common enemy in place, and never let them think they're completely safe. When I did this, it didn't degenerate at all.

Finally, in a game I'm playing in, the DM specifically said every character must be of Lawful Good alignment. We had a lot of fun making those characters, they include a minotaur monk and a half celestial paladin (my character) who guard the Gate Town of Mount Celestia, all worshippers of the same god. It's a great campaign and it wouldn't be possible to do this campaign without those requirements placed on us.

So, I'm all for alignment restrictions in certain circumstances. A game has to mesh and sometimes players need to broaden their horizons. And, some games just have to have a particular mindset to work.

 

[Seule]

For my current campaign I stipulated no evil or chaotic characters. This is because the setup was that everyone was on the city watch of a sizeable city, with pretty good recruitment practices, and I wanted a unified outlook in the party on some things. Plus, it makes Order's Wrath a much more effective spell.
Personally, I believe that evil PCs have no place in a game I play for fun, most of the time. I want to fight evil, not have to try to justify tolerating it in my party, and I have interparty conflicts, someone usually ends up unhappy.

There are a few games where evil is fine, but either they are one-shots, or the campaign has to be set up for it.

--Seule

 

[Ace]

I hadn't realized Nietzsche and Sartre were still writing game supplements; the two of them have converted over to AU now, huh? I had been excited over Sartre's proposed line of solo adventures but never could find them, and I'm still waiting for Nietzsche's supplement, The Uberdark.

Oh well, guess I'll be disappointed, like when I got Kafka's monster book and found it was all vermin.

LOL!

 

[Teflon Billy]

I hadn't realized Nietzsche and Sartre were still writing game supplements; the two of them have converted over to AU now, huh? I had been excited over Sartre's proposed line of solo adventures but never could find them, and I'm still waiting for Nietzsche's supplement, The Uberdark.

At least with the release of his Beyond Good and Evil supplement, we might get a set of playable mechanics for "D&D With No Alignment".

Oh well, guess I'll be disappointed, like when I got Kafka's monster book and found it was all vermin.

Giant Vermin

 

[hong]

Totally correct. DM's with alignment restrictions (A) often don't have a game with consequences built in, (B) have a world that is two-dimensional enough for the evil character to exploit, ie... simplistic rules of society etc are easier to exploit (esp. by players who build these characters for that very reason) than a whole mess of them like the real world would.

Indeed, such a game would be the worst game ever. Rest assured that should I ever come across such a campaign, I would be on the Internet within minutes, registering my disgust to the entire world.

I allow any alignment in parties (in Dark Sun it's almost idiotic to say... hey, no one can ever hope to become a Defiler Dragon, THE most developed advanced class in the setting), with the caveat: #1 point of the game is to have fun. If the other player(s) aren't having fun directly because of something YOU did (and I think that this feeling is legitimate) then I will either rip your character out of the game completely, or force you to change him (no matter what it takes) so that this doesn't occur. The other side of the coin for the DM is: (A) The DM is the one to create divisiveness... if the players are doing that on their own they're a party waiting to get killed and that's no fun for the DM. (B) Any DM loathes to run players separately, and if my players start doing this too much, again they will be forced to change.

With all this forcing going on, clearly the force is strong in this one.


Hong "as seen by the (superfluous (and (possibly) overused (but (at least) not unbalanced))) parentheses" Ooi

 

[DragonLancer]

Totally correct. DM's with alignment restrictions (A) often don't have a game with consequences built in, (B) have a world that is two-dimensional enough for the evil character to exploit, ie... simplistic rules of society etc are easier to exploit (esp. by players who build these characters for that very reason) than a whole mess of them like the real world would.

ciaran

You are so wrong. I run games where evil characters are not allowed but it focuses highly on consequences and repercussions of actions.
I will admit that my world is not fleshed out so fully in the political sense but its not simplistic not in any sense of the word.

 

[heirodule]

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?

I like those movies too.

But there is no guarantee that the CN loving player will "wise up" in the course of the game. Too many non-good players get off on "I'm just playin' my alignment, man", working for money, personal fame etc. That kind of player might get irritated if the GM keeps throwing distressed damosels, small cute kids, or other "good" hooks into the plot.

Group dynamics suffer if one of the PCs goes off with his cash reward in the middle of things and avoids the sacrifical assault on the fortress, even if he's going to make his way there on his own and save the day. D&D works best as a continuous team effort.

 

[ciaran00]

You are so wrong. I run games where evil characters are not allowed but it focuses highly on consequences and repercussions of actions.
I will admit that my world is not fleshed out so fully in the political sense but its not simplistic not in any sense of the word.

Then why don't you allow evil characters? The very point of consequence is that a particularly evil act doesn't occur in a vaccuum.

ciaran

 

[hong]

Then why don't you allow evil characters? The very point of consequence is that a particularly evil act doesn't occur in a vaccuum.

ciaran

Learn the difference between "evil character" and "evil act".