Forcing Players to create GOOD characters...

[d4]

i prefer all-good parties when i DM (and play for that matter) because it fits the style of heroic gaming that i most enjoy.

also, it's a lot easier to get them motivated to go on adventures. from my experience, good parties have a general mood of "What can we do to help?" which of course makes it very easy to get them involved in all sorts of adventures.

neutral parties tend to have a general mood of "What's in it for us?" it can get a bit tedious when the DM needs to bribe the party to get them to go on any adventures...

also, in my experience, i've seen a lot of people play neutral characters (especially CN) as "evil-in-all-but-name," as if being "not-good" were a justification for being able to do whatever you want, without caring about the consequences. neutral PCs have often been just as disruptive as evil PCs.

i hate disruption and nasty intraparty conflict, so i tend to discourage those types of characters.

 

[heimdall]

I think it is unfair to assume a DM who says only good is a poor DM. As some have previously said, the DM may have a certain concept for a campaign. That campaign doesn't work with non-good characters. As long as this is communicated up-front, players have a choice to play or not play. No one is having their arm twisted.

 

[Sabaron]

You know, I think the whole "evil causing problems" thing is overstated. I've been a DM for a long time, and I've always banned evil alignments from my game (the one time I chose not to merely reaffirmed my choice). I think that the Chaotic alignments really cause more trouble with party dynamics than the evil ones do. Why? Because Chaotics are self centered! It's much more difficult to motivate even a Chaotic Good character than it is a Lawful Evil one.

Let's see... how do we motivate a Chaotic Good? Well, they're rebels, right? I know! I'll make an adventure where good peasants are rebelling against an evil overlord and ask for her help! Well, that didn't work... she didn't feel like helping them. She's on a personal quest to kill hobgoblins today.

How about the Lawful Evil guy? The same rebellion adventure would certainly motivate him, although probably to the wrong side. It's easy to get Lawfuls to go on pretty much any adventure you can think of: simply tie it in to the maintenance of order. Chaotics don't (usually; clerics don't count) care about spreading chaos; they do it incidentally. Lawfuls care about spreading order.

Now why, you might ask, would I be claiming chaos is more disruptive than evil while banning evil but not chaos? Many players seem to equate chaos with evil, that's why. A well-played Lawful Evil or maybe even Neutral Evil could get along fine in my campaigns, but Chaotic Evil is the most disruptive alignment possible and it's what I get when I allow evil.

 

[jester47]

I allow any alignment into my game. With one rule- "Your character finds the party to better fit his or her goals and therefore preserves it to continue his or her own agenda."

Sometimes the villans are neutral, and somtimes they have to fight good characters who will cast anti evil spells against them. A good example is Tomb of Abysthor. There are areas where evil is hampered. If the party casts protection from evil, then the evil characters get the stick. My party is good enough to know how much to roleplay thier differences and how far they will take them.

Aaron.

 

[Particle_Man]

Hmmm...I was actually thinking of getting the BoED and having an all-Exalted campaign (never mind "mere" goodness...let's go all the way to super-heroic!).

I don't think that a DM with an "all-good" rule makes for a bad DM. It might just make for a DM that likes to eat while she DMs the game. Or one that is not interested in DMing mercenaries, and wants to see Heroes in action.

But back to the original poster, are you stuck in a town that has all and only DMs that require all-good parties? If not, why not just find a DM that is more suited to your style?

 

[Luddite]

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.

I will take this one step further.

* No Psychotic Characters
* No Anti-Socail Characters

For the most part, a player that thinks Evil means they can be psychopaths, are usualy players that I will weed out over time. Also I have had too many "Lone Wolf agianst the world of Evil." characters as well. Which also destroys party functionality.

I tell my players all up front. The party comes first. You all must work as a team. Intra-party Rivalery is okay, but not Intra-party strife and fighting. As long as the players work together as a party, I realy don't care if they decided to murder babies and burn churches.

-The Luddite

 

[Luddite]

I think it is unfair to assume a DM who says only good is a poor DM. As some have previously said, the DM may have a certain concept for a campaign. That campaign doesn't work with non-good characters. As long as this is communicated up-front, players have a choice to play or not play. No one is having their arm twisted.

The key here is communcation and not just edicts.

Running a Theamed campaing, where the DM wants to realy play on the Good v Evil aspects of the game is not slight of the DMs ability. But as long as I know as a player that is the Campaigns focus, then I am okay with that.

As a player, I like to know what the DM has in mind for the Theam or style of campaing. It could be as simple as "High Magic Heroics in Forgotten Realms," or "Dark and Despair of Ravenloft."

-The Luddite

 

[Ferret]

The only time i ever properly DMed I premade the plays characters as only some new anything about D&D. The other oneshots I DMed I have said good characters because I know they will make evil characters and kill everyone in the town. I saw this happen in a friends campaign, but when they play Good characters they still push the moral boat out, "Should i kill them? They've surrendered..." So it works

 

[Quasqueton]

A good role player should be capable of taking on the role of any kind of character the campaign may require.

So a DM requests/requires the PCs be of Good alignment -- if a Player complains about this, it must be for one of two reasons: (A) The Player feels a need to cheat. Neutral characters can't be motivated except when the Player feels like it. Don't want to let the DM have it easy -- make him hook your character specifically. (B) The Player lacks the ability to play a heroic character. He doesn't trust the DM to not constantly put him in moral minefields.

I think it is ironic for a Player to complain about being forced to play a certain kind of character -- be it alignment, class, race, or motivation. A good Player should be able to play any character, without whining to the DM about restrictions or guidelines or directions.

You think *every* D&D campaign should be left wide open for whatever *you* the Player wants to play? Some campaigns can work that way, but some work better with an all Good group of adventurers.

I take it as a sign of a weak or problematic Player if my rule of No Evil PCs is questioned or argued. And if a DM says he wants a campaign of all Good PCs, I'd happily and eagerly play along.

Quasqueton

 

[JoeGKushner]

Unless I'm running an evil campaign, it's simply easier to go with the no evil sign. Many players take the evil alignment as an excuse to do what they want, regardless of what they should actually be doing.

I agree that it can be fun playing an evil campaign but if you've got one paladin, a cleric of torm, a robin hood theif and Elric with Stormbringer, someone's going to die, and that someone is usually the GM's campaign.