Forcing Players to create GOOD characters...

[Felix]

What, so Neutral characters can develop personalities better than GOOD ones? Feh. The character development of a PC has absolutely nothing to do with his alignment, and everything to do with the player. Have a player interested in character development, and you will have a well developed character, regardless of if he's GOOD or not.

And could another possible reason for requiring GOOD be that the DM likes his style of game a certain way? Maybe he likes his moral crisises to be GOOD flavored... just because a PC is GOOD doesn't mean that they can't have questions about the morality of what they are going to do...

What you say wolfen implies that GOOD characters are morally Immune. Bollucks. That's absurd.

 

[The_Gneech]

I don't allow my players to play evil characters because I personally am neutral good and would be spending all my time wanting to defeat them. Ain't worth the heartache.

-The Gneech

 

[Silverglass]

I could see doing it for flavor reasons but all the time might get old. I usually play good characters but I like to have the choice. Choice is a good thing often, though limitations can push creativity sometimes it's good to have the opportunity to try something totally different. For instance I've only played one evil character, but I had a blast in doing so, glad I had the chance (most of the campaigns I've played in say no evil characters so I grabbed it while I could).


Now what I wonder is anyone out the has a no good characters rule?

Vist the 13 Kingdoms hosted here and check out the kingdom of Paludosus (especially when the Kingdom Gazeteer is republished), while I haven't said no Good Characters I had to create a specific province to allow people to easily play good characters - most of the Lingdom is LN or LE, the good guys are not going to be welcomed with open arms in most cases, just tolerated).

 

[National Acrobat]

I never tell a player that they have to play a certain alignment, but I always warn them if they choose evil to remember that they have to deal with the consequences of their actions and persona should problems arise. Eventually, even the best played evil characters encounter trouble, either within their own group, with allies of the party or with powerful mentors. I've seen it happen so many times, and I always have to remind them of the risks they agreed to take when they decided to play an evil character. I never alter situations in game just because someone takes a specific alignment. Simple enough.

 

[Teflon Billy]

AU isn't alignment-free anyway. It has Champions of Light (Good) and Darkness (Evil).
Monte's view on alignments (as written in AU anyway) is really simplistic and shows he doesn't understand how they're supposed to work...

I must be misreading soemthing here (but I can't see how); did you say Monte Cook doesn't understand how alignments work?

I'm not the biggest fan of Monte's earlier adventures, but I think we can at least agree that Monte very likely understands D&D.

 

[Geoff Watson]

I must be misreading soemthing here (but I can't see how); did you say Monte Cook doesn't understand how alignments work?

I'm not the biggest fan of Monte's earlier adventures, but I think we can at least agree that Monte very likely understands D&D.

He probably does.
The reasons he gives in Arcana Unearthed for not using alignment are really dumb though (eg: If you use alignment, there's only nine possible personalities for characters; if you use alignment, a good person never has conflicts with any other good person, etc).

Geoff.

 

[Clint]

Let me humbly offer my campaign as an example of an interesting Good campaign.

We started out as a simple Good vs. Evil campaign, but is now really a Good vs. Good campaign.

There's a ton of Evil stuff under the large city that is the setting, locked in a vault (the Banewarrens, by Monte Cook). After PC efforts, it's mostly contained and sealed, but still mostly unopened and unexplored. The largest, most powerful organization (LG church) wants to open it to get a long-lost relic of theirs back. The party, which is NG/CG, disagrees and thinks that it's too much of a risk to the people of the city to unlock an unknown but definitely large quantity of evil. The LG church says that they're going to open it with or without the party, and retrieve their lost relic. The party is now working against the LG organization. The party scurries around town, looking to make as many friends as we can to hinder the LG church, while trying to slow down their "noble" intent. These characters get their divine magic from the same source as our clerics. To me, that's interesting. All of our campaigns find similar, significant nuances in play; it's never just, "There's the bad guy. Get him, heroes!"

In short, Good campaigns can be incredibly interesting and extremely fun. It's much more complicated and satisfying game when you have to remove "physically attack your enemy" from your list of options.

And I agree with the statements on party harmonics. It matters much more than Good/Evil. I prefer when morality isn't a game rule, but D&D can work despite that. Good doesn't have to be railroading or uninteresting, it's just one option of... well, three.

-Clint

 

[DeBhaal]

Lemme just say, first off, "Bleh" on all of you who say that Neutral is just another way of playing evil, without the name.

Yer players have got to be pretty crappy if thats all they do. Hell Neutral doesnt even mean indescisive, it means you have a different out look, that doesnt blindly follow good, or evil. Ive *never* played a Neutral character as someone that just did evil things. Now, I have started a Neutral Good character that basically fell through, towards Neutral Evil, but that was completely in game, and was something to do with his heratige, and some personal failings.

Ive also played Chaotic Neutral characters, which I find to be a fun alignment, andactually have an EASIER time getting those characters to go on an adventure, than my good characters. Because I play Chaotic Neutral as a mostly fun seeking alignment, that will do what he can to be entertained, if that involes killing someone .. hey, who cares? but normally more likely to help out someone, because they tend to be more pleasent about it, than "Teh EVUL Warlord!"

 

[qstor]

I think players should generally be allowed to play good or neutral characters. Having good and neutral characters allows enough variation that there can be an interesting level of inter-group conflict without having the game break down. Anyway, forcing players to good alignment kinda limits some of the classes. How many times can you play the "robs from the rich, gives to the poor" CG rogue anyway?

On a related note, it's a bad idea to have both good and evil characters in a party. If the players are roleplaying correctly, there should be a massive amount of intergroup conflict which can and should rip the party apart. An all evil party, however (with no good characters) can be an interesting change of pace with mature roleplayers. Be cautious, however. With immature players an all-evil group quickly gets out of control.

I agree 100%. I do think the ONLY good PC's is a bit much. I let people play CN but I think at times that can get out of hand. But I throw it in there cause its my best friends favorite alignement
He tends to play more LN or Choatic good though not strictly CN.

Mike

 

[Endur]

Well, I guess it sort of depends.

What sort of NPC/monsters do you want to run for the PCs to fight?

Orcs and demons? (if the PCs are good)

or

Paladins, Unicorns, and Elves? (if the PCs are evil)

(note the above are generalizations, I'm well aware that evil can fight evil and good can fight good)

I don't allow my players to play evil characters because I personally am neutral good and would be spending all my time wanting to defeat them. Ain't worth the heartache.

-The Gneech