Forcing Players to create GOOD characters...
- Thread starter wolfen
- Start date
DWARF
First Post
Conan was definitely a heroic character, but was he good?
How did it go again? "Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!"
Not exactly the Paladin helping the little old halfing across the street, now is it.
But what am I talking about, I read Nietzsche and Sartre, and play using Arcana Unearthed since I like people to think about ethics in a realistic manner, instead of assuming some DM-centric set of morals to spank my players over...
How did it go again? "Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!"
Not exactly the Paladin helping the little old halfing across the street, now is it.
But what am I talking about, I read Nietzsche and Sartre, and play using Arcana Unearthed since I like people to think about ethics in a realistic manner, instead of assuming some DM-centric set of morals to spank my players over...
Norfleet
First Post
The "problem line" that people tend to draw when they say "No Evil" or "Good Only" is, if you take the classical D&D axial map, where North is Good, South is Evil, West is Lawful, and East is Chaotic, a horizontal line.
However, from play experience, the *REAL* problem line is actually a diagonal line that begins somewhere on the southeast area of "Chaotic Good", runs through the Chaotic Neutral area, through the southeast sector of the True Neutral box, through Neutral Evil, and ending somewhere on the southwest part of the Lawful Evil box. Characters who are aligned above that line work fine: People who are below the line have a pronounced tendency to cause problems in groups, either through being unharmonious, incooperative, or backstabbing, or being very difficult to motivate. In short, characters with chaotic tendencies can cause problems. Characters with evil/non-good tendencies can cause problems. When a character has both of these, the odds of a problem occurring become that much likely. Obviously, the most problematic character is a chaotic evil character. The term "Chaotic Evil Party" may as well be an oxymoron.
Drawing the line at "no evil characters" is really overgeneralization. The real problem isn't "evil" chracters, it's Chaotic Evil psychotic characters. If I were picking people for a heroic party, I'd rather have a lawful evil character onboard than a chaotic neutral one. The lawful evil character fits into a party of do-gooders by being the anti-hero. The chaotic neutral character is simply a loose cannon. The party may very well be appalled by the callousness of the LE character, but at least he can be counted on to have the same goals.
However, from play experience, the *REAL* problem line is actually a diagonal line that begins somewhere on the southeast area of "Chaotic Good", runs through the Chaotic Neutral area, through the southeast sector of the True Neutral box, through Neutral Evil, and ending somewhere on the southwest part of the Lawful Evil box. Characters who are aligned above that line work fine: People who are below the line have a pronounced tendency to cause problems in groups, either through being unharmonious, incooperative, or backstabbing, or being very difficult to motivate. In short, characters with chaotic tendencies can cause problems. Characters with evil/non-good tendencies can cause problems. When a character has both of these, the odds of a problem occurring become that much likely. Obviously, the most problematic character is a chaotic evil character. The term "Chaotic Evil Party" may as well be an oxymoron.
Drawing the line at "no evil characters" is really overgeneralization. The real problem isn't "evil" chracters, it's Chaotic Evil psychotic characters. If I were picking people for a heroic party, I'd rather have a lawful evil character onboard than a chaotic neutral one. The lawful evil character fits into a party of do-gooders by being the anti-hero. The chaotic neutral character is simply a loose cannon. The party may very well be appalled by the callousness of the LE character, but at least he can be counted on to have the same goals.
Last edited:
G'day
I have on occasion asked that all the players in one of my campaigns play good characters.
I have on occasion asked that all the players in one of my campaigns play evil characters.
I have on occasion asked that all the players in one of my campaigns play rich characters.
I have on occasion asked that all the players in one of my campaigns play poor characters.
I have on occasion asked that all the players in one of my campaigns play characters who are members of the Order of St John who were not in Antioch when it fell in 1291.
I have on occasion asked that all the players in one of my campaigns play detectives working for the same private detective agency.
I have on occasion asked that all the players in one of my campaigns play detectives working for the Imperial Justice Department.
I have on occasion asked that all the players in one of my campaigns play characters who were among the complement of the same Imperial Survey vessel.
I have on occasion asked that all the players in one of my campaigns play mid-Victorian explorers.
I have on occasion asked that all the players in one of my campaigns play members of the campus community at Walpurgis University in a specified period.
I once asked that all the players play immortals, exemplars of excellence from periods of national greatness such as Periclean Athens, who had received omens that they interpreted as meaning that they ought to be at Delphi at noon on the 21st of September 1988.
I once asked that all the players in one of my campaigns play friends who were on a caving trip together on a long weekend.
I have once asked that the players all play flamboyant young men of good families from the city of Charn in the highlands of Bethan, aged between 18 and 20, without much worldly experience, and members of the same half-file of the militia.
And yet I do not consider myself a bad GM or an addict of railroading. You see, sometimes I have a campaign idea that will not work if one character is a wizard, another is a film noir PI, and a third is a space marine. That is unremarkable. Rather less often I have a campaign idea that has more specific requirements.
Of course, I don't always require the same thing. But on the other hand I have seen a lot of players over the years make one of the non-Good D&D alignments an excuse for time-wasting anti-social play that just bogs the campaign down and bores or irritates the other players. Playing a game without alignments or with stronger genre conventions is a better idea, but I understand the temptation.
Regards,
Agback
I have on occasion asked that all the players in one of my campaigns play good characters.
I have on occasion asked that all the players in one of my campaigns play evil characters.
I have on occasion asked that all the players in one of my campaigns play rich characters.
I have on occasion asked that all the players in one of my campaigns play poor characters.
I have on occasion asked that all the players in one of my campaigns play characters who are members of the Order of St John who were not in Antioch when it fell in 1291.
I have on occasion asked that all the players in one of my campaigns play detectives working for the same private detective agency.
I have on occasion asked that all the players in one of my campaigns play detectives working for the Imperial Justice Department.
I have on occasion asked that all the players in one of my campaigns play characters who were among the complement of the same Imperial Survey vessel.
I have on occasion asked that all the players in one of my campaigns play mid-Victorian explorers.
I have on occasion asked that all the players in one of my campaigns play members of the campus community at Walpurgis University in a specified period.
I once asked that all the players play immortals, exemplars of excellence from periods of national greatness such as Periclean Athens, who had received omens that they interpreted as meaning that they ought to be at Delphi at noon on the 21st of September 1988.
I once asked that all the players in one of my campaigns play friends who were on a caving trip together on a long weekend.
I have once asked that the players all play flamboyant young men of good families from the city of Charn in the highlands of Bethan, aged between 18 and 20, without much worldly experience, and members of the same half-file of the militia.
And yet I do not consider myself a bad GM or an addict of railroading. You see, sometimes I have a campaign idea that will not work if one character is a wizard, another is a film noir PI, and a third is a space marine. That is unremarkable. Rather less often I have a campaign idea that has more specific requirements.
Of course, I don't always require the same thing. But on the other hand I have seen a lot of players over the years make one of the non-Good D&D alignments an excuse for time-wasting anti-social play that just bogs the campaign down and bores or irritates the other players. Playing a game without alignments or with stronger genre conventions is a better idea, but I understand the temptation.
Regards,
Agback
MrFilthyIke
First Post
arcady said:
I like Arcady's view (from the beginning of this thread).
People play evil = sociopathic, frothing, mudering moron.
I'm more for good group dynamics. I usually ask people to stick
with Lawful Good, Neutral Good, Chaotic Good (and even then, I try
to keep these few), Lawful Neutral, and Lawful Evil. These are the
alignments that work well together, and keep the party cohesive
(Chaotic Good is in there for the "spice" of party debate). I don't
force them to play that, just suggest it for party unity. Most gamers
I work with these days are cool with that.
Once they start play "schiziod", it's time for a DM to Player chat...
MrFilthyIke
First Post
DWARF said:
That's silly, any DM with half a brain can just say "we're not using alignment in this campaign" and move along without dropping $$$ for AU. What you are saying is very snobbish of standard D&D, which remember, is what your are playing when you play AU. It's all the same game system.
If you want to snub the D&D alignment rules, play White Wolf, or GURPS, or Cthulhu, or whatever.
Geoff Watson said:
I don't disagree with your experience. However, here's what I find...When people are supposed to all be the same alignment, they wind up deferring to the most confident/most vocal Goodie of the party. It's always some guy who seems calm, composed, and rational -- but annoyingly stubborn and a bit self righteous as a player. (note: control freak) No one the DM is going to eject, so the players have to find a way to deal with him.
Every party I've played in has had that self appointed pseudo-leader who winds up making decisions for the party, and insisting since his motivation is GOOD, then opposing him is wrong. And the weaker personalities at the table simply let him have his way.
So I prefer to have at least one character that doesn't defer to the argument "Well, we all have the same goal, so this is obviously what we should do." If nobody else plays a neutral character, I like to. It doesn't have to be a trouble-making type of thing. Some people are just non-conformists by nature. It doesn't have to be CHAOTIC neutral, either. Even a level-headed Lawful Neutral character can simply offer an alternative view that might be important. It gives the pseudo-leader's detractors another option.
"Hey, this evil prince's mansion is too heavily defended. Let's grab a coupla beers at the pub and try to figure this thing out instead of charging on with your super-tricked-out uber plan. I mean, I know his evilness has really got your panties in a twist. But I'm in no hurry to die about it. How about we come up with something as a team? "
"But he's evil! We gotta get this guy! That's what we're here to do!" (out of character: "You're not behaving very heroic!")
"Yeah, you mentioned that. But y'know, I'm not feelin' it. I'm thinkin' you don't care how many of us get killed for your little crusade -- and I do. I think we can take a few steps back and look at this thing more rationally. So what if we lose a day. At least we'll all be in agreement about the best way to handle this." (out of character: "Whatever.")
This is ONE (not the only) reason I like a neutral guy in the party. I only bring it up because there's a lot of discussion around the idea that alignment may or may not produce genuine teamwork -- and I agree with those who say it does not.
DWARF
First Post
MrFilthyIke said:
Except for the fact that a good deal of the magic system is built around the alignment system. And you can't expect the characters to be balanced if you strip away all of their "detect alignment" and "protections from X" spells.
There's a lot more built into the basic system that uses alignment than just the 2 pages that goes over it in the PHB, it's a fundamental assumption of the system and to get passed it, I feel I need to use a system that was designed from the ground up without it.
And thanks for the thinly-veiled insult at my intelligence, by the way...
DWARF said:
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.
Last edited:
Mouseferatu
Hero
Actually, I've found it very easy to run a game where these spells either don't exist, or (as I'm doing now) only function against outsiders or other creatures of an innate "aligned" nature.
That said, there's nothing wrong with switching to AU for such a game, and AU may indeed be better suited to alignment-free gaming. I use alignment-light and relative-alignment games, rather than alignment-free, so I haven't felt the need to find a totally "alignment-free" system.
