D&D 5E Goals for a party - why should they even go anywhere together?

[Oofta]

What you did here though is explain to your players the sorts of behavior you want and expect in the game. You didn't just say "No evil alignments!" and expect everyone to know what that entails. That was my original objection to the position you and [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] took.

All I would say is that I do not consider Han Solo evil (at least based on what we've seen in the movies). Chaotic neutral perhaps, but not evil. I'd say the same of Captain Reynolds of Firefly fame who once killed a prisoner who promised to hunt the crew down and get his revenge once he was released. Was it a good act? No. It may have even been "evil", but there's a difference between being proactive on your self defense strategy and murdering someone who means you no harm.

On the other hand there was a mention of a different character that claimed to be chaotic neutral serial killer. Unless he really meant cereal killer (and what's wrong with Cheerios?) I would say that a person who gets their jollies from murdering innocent people is Evil.

Like many things in D&D, I consider alignment a shorthand. If I have a player that has a question about where I would draw the lines, we can discuss that.

Anyway, we've already hijacked this thread enough.

 

[schnee]

Our current group ranges from a human LG Paladin to a NE Tiefling Sorcerer.

We're all united in our quest to kill the Big Bad, for various reasons. As players, we all agreed up front to make it a spirited clash of opposites, we're all role-playing the interpersonal conflicts with glee. As characters, the adventure is giving us plenty of reasons to make the group help each other.

It's fun seeing the Paladin lecture the Tiefling when he got a bit too enthusiastic about how he dealt with the opposition when there was some wiggle room to be merciful, and the Tiefling, knowing he has no friends (he's an emo kind of evil), uncomfortably acceding.

Let's face it, D&D is about murder. Lots and lots of murder. And, literature is full of terrible characters that were redeemed, or uncomfortable alliances being formed out of necessity. We're messing around with that, and having fun with it.

It can work!

 

[ad_hoc]

The traditional "Players walk into a bar" scenario doesn't happen in any of my games.

Player Start is an excellent opportunity to set the stage exactly how you want too, especially if you are the type of GM (like myself) who tends to let their players loose in the world.

So, there is always some grand premise, and this almost always involves all of the players. For example, all the characters were trapped in a dreamworld and just recently escaped. They all are part of an ocean's 11 heist group run by a head-goon. They are all spirit-bound to one another through an artifact.

Something like this keeps them together outside of the simple "Pretend you want to be together" schtick/unwritten rule that every good Tabletop player sticks too if they know what they are doing.

How is Ocean's 11 different from everyone walking into a bar?

Also, wanting to 'let your players loose in the world' is the opposite of a 'grand premise'. If they have a divinely mandated purpose tying them together then they are not free agents in the world.

 

[Nagol]

How is Ocean's 11 different from everyone walking into a bar?

Also, wanting to 'let your players loose in the world' is the opposite of a 'grand premise'. If they have a divinely mandated purpose tying them together then they are not free agents in the world.

The fundamental difference is one person is choosing talented specialists that fill gaps he expects to encounter on a particular mission. Sort of like the original Mission Impossible series.

Guys walking into a bar may be specialists, but there is no certainty that they cover all the expected gaps and don't overcompensate for other types of gap and the usual expectation is they are in it for at least the medium-haul not just a single effort.

 

[Havelok]

How is Ocean's 11 different from everyone walking into a bar?

Also, wanting to 'let your players loose in the world' is the opposite of a 'grand premise'. If they have a divinely mandated purpose tying them together then they are not free agents in the world.

Player choice and freedom is paramount in any "Open World" game (which is the type of game I always run). Tabletop games have the potential to be the ultimate realization of this. However, many GMs do indeed inflict their grand premise on the players without the option to break with their story. I do not. My games follow a structure pretty much exactly like any Elder Scrolls game. The Main Quest is there, but it is optional.It teases you rather than forces your hand. It can also be approached from an unlimited number of ways. This, in my view, is the ideal.

Say we go with the Heist Campaign example. Sure, they've agreed to be part of a Heist. We start the campaign in a room with the leader describing "the plan". But, because the players have absolute and total agency, they have free reign to change the plan, leave, or even cut the Leader's head off and take control if they want to. This does not offend me. In fact, it excites me.

The moment the players take control of their character, they are free to do what they want.

However. The Grand Premise is there just in case they want a central plot to partake in. And it serves the purpose of binding the group together.

 

[Imaculata]

*Whoops, double post. Please ignore*

 

[Imaculata]

Let's face it, D&D is about murder. Lots and lots of murder.

What D&D is about depends entirely on the campaign, its DM, and its players.

Usually though, it is about adventure, fighting monsters, and acquiring treasure. And hopefully that also includes a cool story. But that last one is just my personal preference.

What you did here though is explain to your players the sorts of behavior you want and expect in the game. You didn't just say "No evil alignments!" and expect everyone to know what that entails. That was my original objection to the position you and @Oofta took.

-But I do think it is generally good advise, especially for a new group. Often when a player wants to make an evil character, it spells trouble.

So I think it is best to do both. Don't allow evil alignments (unless you know and trust your players enough), and be clear in a session 0 what sort of campaign you want to run, and how their characters fit into all of that.

If one player objects, and says "But I want to play a weirdo who eats his enemies!", the DM can always say: This doesn't fit with the sort of campaign I want to run. It is important that everyone is on the same page, and that your players create characters that will fit your campaign.

I recently joined a campaign where our DM (this is her first time as a DM) said: "This is a low magic campaign, I would like to ask you to not pick any magic-types when creating your characters. And also, no evil characters please."

And I think that is a very good idea to discuss with your players before running your campaign.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

All I would say is that I do not consider Han Solo evil (at least based on what we've seen in the movies). Chaotic neutral perhaps, but not evil. I'd say the same of Captain Reynolds of Firefly fame who once killed a prisoner who promised to hunt the crew down and get his revenge once he was released. Was it a good act? No. It may have even been "evil", but there's a difference between being proactive on your self defense strategy and murdering someone who means you no harm.

Jayne is indistinguishable from Brutish Evil though, and he doesn't disrupt the show. In fact he adds a lot of humorous moments to it.

Mal Reynolds might be evil--it's hard to say how bad his offscreen activities are. Remember, this is the guy who would kill a shipful of refugees in order to save the lives of (only) his crew. If he intensely regrets that act, he's probably still good. If he secretly, in his heart, thinks that those idiot yokels aren't worth saving in the first place, he's probably evil.

It's hard to know a man's heart from only the actions that are written in the script.

 

[Imaculata]

Jayne is indistinguishable from Brutish Evil though, and he doesn't disrupt the show. In fact he adds a lot of humorous moments to it.

Without turning this into a Firefly discussion, Jayne is more chaotic neutral (and maybe even chaotic good in Serenity). He does whatever fits him best, and is mostly loyal to his crew, unless the money is too good. He is not a bad guy, and there is in fact one episode called Jaynestown, that shows another side of his character. Where he shows empathy for others. Likewise, in Serenity he's the one who says: "If you can't do somethin' smart, do somethin' right".

[video=youtube;VnuGC3reAkc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnuGC3reAkc[/video]

Mal is Lawful Good. He has a sense of nobility to him, and follows a code. He is willing to risk his life for the honor of a woman he loves. In the end, he's a good guy, even if he's also a criminal. I think both the show and the movie make that pretty clear.

But what works well for a show, does not necessarily work for a D&D campaign. The characters in a tv show don't have to work together, and in fact the show is often better for it when there is conflict. The actors aren't going to take it personally, because the script dictates their character's actions, and they aim merely to entertain an audience.

D&D is exactly the opposite. Conflict between players and/or their characters can ruin the fun of the game, and disrupt the campaign entirely. If one PC is actively working against the rest, they often will take it personally, and that causes trouble.

Of course you can have a campaign in which a player's betrayal is the whole point of it all, but that is a very specific case. Usually though, players don't appreciate that sort of stuff if it comes out of the blue.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Without turning this into a Firefly discussion, Jayne is more chaotic neutral. He does whatever fits him best, and is mostly loyal to his crew, unless the money is too good. He is not a bad guy, and there is in fact one episode called Jaynestown, that shows another side of his character. Where he shows empathy for others.

We must have watched different Jaynestowns. The main thing you learn from that segment is that (1) Jayne will stab anyone in the back for cash; (2) Jayne feels rotten about himself but has no intention of changing.

There's nothing Jayne does that an evil character wouldn't do. He's either evil or indistinguishable from it. It's a good thing he's not in charge.

Jayne illustrates something else too--just because he's selfish, petty, and arguably evil doesn't mean he's doomed to "actively work against the rest of the [crew]." That doesn't follow. He's afraid of Mal, and Mal is in charge, so when Mal tells him to go bust heads he does exactly that and enjoys it. You can have an evil (N)PC with exactly that mentality, and as long as his boss (presumably another PC) plays well with others, everything works just fine. This whole idea of "all evil PCs must inevitably betray the party" isn't a real thing.

I'll give you this much though: if you define a world full of cartoonish evil NPCs, not only will guys like Jayne look good in comparison, but you also won't have any qualms about murdering as many evil NPCs as you can catch, which means it's great for D&D. Evil DMs create evil worlds full of evil people so the PCs can kill them without being evil.

Edit: I see you edited in a clip of Mal gratuitously torturing someone to prove your assertion that Mal is Lawful Good. Seriously?! We have very different standards for what constitutes good and evil.