Forcing Players to create GOOD characters...

[Wormwood]

In my experience, Evil characters (and some mercenary Neutrals) are more disruptive to the game than Good characters.

I don't need the headache, so I don't allow Evil characters any more.

Am I a 'bad DM'? Maybe.

But our game goes much smoother now that nobody uses alignment as a fig leaf for obnoxious behavior (like abandoning their party members to certain death, stealing from the party, refusing to help someone in need without first spending 20 minutes on contract negotiations)

edit: Took a chance on a new player (playing Chaotic Neutral, naturally). Last week he proclaimed that his character would look for opportunities to hide treasure from the rest of the party and keep it for himself. He said, "That's the kind of guy he is!".

Once we knew what kind of guy the player was, he wasn't invited back.

 

[Psion]

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

I have a standing "no evil unless you clear it with me" policy. All too typically, a player who is interested in an evil character is just out for it to mess with the other players. For that matter, I require additional commitment on the part of CN characters.

It is easy to appeal to a good character's sense of right or a lawful character's sense of duty in order to motivate them towards to goals of the adventure and keep the story flowing. Evil and CN characters are very often disruptive and you have to twist their arms to get them to do anything. I refuse to do that game after game.

If I have a CN character, I require the player provide reasons that they would hang out with a group like a typical adventuring party. The reason can be as simple as personal desire to be the best, but there has to be a motivation.

Likewise, an evil character would have to have goals that would compel them to go along with such a party.

 

[Merova]

Exploration of Theme

Hi all!

Thematic exploration can be a rewarding style of gaming. When a GM delineates a requirement like "only good" or "no elves," it is because they want to focus on certain challenge types, which would be diluted if the restriction were not imposed. However, there are two big problems:

1) Exploration of theme is a difficult style of play. An inexperienced GM is likely to trip in the execution, resulting in a bad playing experience. Furthermore, there is an implied "social contract" here, which delineates the player's participation, which, if violated, causes great disruptions within the game. The fault isn't in the scenario design choice, but in the GM's or player's abilities.

2) Theme-based play needs to be interesting to the players. Playing "Merchants & Markets" can be very rewarding, but not if you're interested in High Heroic gaming. The GM needs to design her game around the interests of the players. If her group wants to play evil bandit warlords, then the thematic "Good only" is a selfish and misguided choice.

I like being clear with my players about the style of game that I'm running. As a player, I appreciate the GM being honest in telling me what type of behavior is expected. I loath GMs who have expectations of their players, but never give any hints as to what they are expecting, resulting in passive-aggressive scenario design when the expectations are not met. Grrr.

That's all IMO. YMMV.

Thanks for reading.

---Merova

 

[heimdall]

It could be as simple as "High Magic Heroics in Forgotten Realms," or "Dark and Despair of Ravenloft."

Exactly. With the way powers checks work in Ravenloft, I've told my players no evils and we've banned CNs as well (though that ban was asked for by the players after the campaign started). Last thing a player wants is to work on a character but due to the way Ravenloft works lose that character into my fold of NPCs. Naturally, all good characters have the best chance of remaining with the players. In a previous Ravenloft campaign I did have a neutral go towards evil and he lost his PC pretty quick. He was disappointed but came back playing a lawful good cleric. I know he missed his original character, though. I'd rather save my current players from that disappointment.

 

[Gothmog]

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.

Sabaron, you've hit the problem directly. Most players see chaotic as an excuse to do whatever they want and antagonize other characters, which does equal chaotic evil. Unless you are playing a seriously mentally ill character, evils and chaotics DON'T just do whatever they feel like. IME, chaotics tend to be MUCH more disruptive to gorup play than evils do- and its one of the reasons I don't usually allow chaotics of any sort in my campaigns, even CG. The other thing is that too many people use alignment to dictate a character's actions, rather than what it is better suited for- as a reflection of the character's actions.

The absolutes of alignment in D&D sometimes get to me as well. One of the most interesting RPing experiences I ever had was playing a LE leader of a mercenary company in a heroic campaign. He fully supported the LG king during a war, and was good friends with the LG paladin in the group. Valdemar (my LE cahracter's name) was an exiled noble from another kingdom, and made a deal with the king for financial and political support during the war in return for backing when he took back his homeland from his CE brother. While LE, Valdemar wasn't a psychopath- he was very good to his men, stern, sometimes brutally efficient, but he respected the laws of the kingdom and worked within in to his advantage, even if he didn't always agree with them. Valdemar and his troops made a big difference in the planning and strategy of the war, and were instrumental in the victory of the Good guys, and the king honored his deal with Big V in the end. At one point Valdemar and his men were accused of witchcraft against another noble house (who had lost lands and titles during the war, and Valdemar was a personal enemy of the CG leader of the house). During the investigation and trial, the paladin was instrumental in clearing Valdemar's name, and bringing the noble to justice for faking witchcraft. In standard D&D alignments, the paladin and Valdemar would never be allowed to associate, but luckily the DM in this case used alignment as a guideline instead of a straighjacket. The end result was one of the most enjoyable, bad-ass characters I have ever played, and the relationship (and sometimes tension) between Valdemar and the paladin added a lot to the game.

 

[Teflon Billy]

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"...

My policy (pre the adoption of my "Get rid of Alignment" rules) was pretty much a clone of Jester's.

I don't care what your alignemnt is, or how you intend to behave ( I can deal with anything on that front), but you had better have a credible In Character reason for being part of this adventuring party.

 

[pogre]

My policy (pre the adoption of my "Get rid of Alignment" rules) was pretty much a clone of Jester's.

I don't care what your alignemnt is, or how you intend to behave ( I can deal with anything on that front), but you had better have a credible In Character reason for being part of this adventuring party.

Very similar to my philosophy. I don't really care about alignment - I just use it because it's convenient for parts of D&D. The key is: does the player work to make the group work? If not, play in someone else's group. People who think it is funny to "mess with" other PCs have no place at my table. Go be a player character killer on one of the MMPOG.

 

[Teflon Billy]

...People who think it is funny to "mess with" other PCs have no place at my table. Go be a player character killer on one of the MMPOG.

Spot on. Wish I had included that in my post.

 

[Geoff Watson]

Most players who complain about a Good-only restriction do so because they want to play a evil so-and-so whose main objective is annoying the other players, though they'd call themselves neutral, and the annoying stuff "in character". The secondary objective is annoying the DM by refusing to follow any of the plot hooks.

Geoff.

 

[Ogre Mage]

Good vs. Evil

No offense, but I think this is representative of an overly simplistic view of evil.

The selfish fighter, loyal to his friends but callous and indifferent to others, who gets pleasure from destroying his enemies; he's LE but hangs with good guys, and they don't mind because he doesn't shake his evil at them, just the party's foes. That's just one example. Speaking as a dm who's run mixed-alignment parties a lot, I've found that the good guys pick the fights at least as often as the bad guys.

Edit: ...and that such parties can do quite well for years without breaking apart.

You are reading too much into my original post. I never put the blame for inter-party disruption solely on the evil characters trying to pick fights.

I still maintain that if a party has both good and evil characters in it and everything remains relatively harmonious, someone is not playing their alignment properly.