"I only allow Neutral Alignments for PCs"

[Creamsteak]

I was curious to what the reprecussions would be to set a blanket rule, "All humans must be a type of neutral, either chaotic neutral, lawful neutral, or true neutral. No good or evil humanoids are born, they must be developed. The only exception is if you want to play a Cleric or Paladin."

I wouldn't consider it, but I'm curious as to what would happen. I've seen may people that blanket "no evil characters." Saying "no good characters because humans are inherently self serving or evil" is also a rather humerous belief that I could talk about...

The reason I ask, is because I realized that of three new players I'm prospectively looking at, I have two chaotic neutrals and one neutra. This caught me off guard because a year ago I was whining that chaoitic neutral tended to be a prick alignment, but I've overcome that problem by changing my DMing style, and now we simply let people play however they feel they should. It just so happens though, that none of my players are ever interested in the common good, or helping people as a benevolent hero. They tend to aim for "we kill stuff for money" and "we hunt down artifacts FOR OURSELVES, HAHAHAHA!" But they also don't want too be the kind of characters that are known as evil.

But blanket neutral... how strange of a world would it be? The heroes must not enjoy good or evil as thier primary choice of lifestyle. Strange, no?

 

[alsih2o]

creamsteak, can you shorten your sigbox so i can see your posts without scrolling?


signed,
lazy potter

 

[Creamsteak]

Removed it from the post for convenience.

However, another good trick along those lines is to change your view on the toolbar and switch to the smallest text size you can see, and use that. It makes Enworld s little nicer to view...

If your eyesight isn't too bad, and your comp isn't too slow, it should work just fine.

 

[alsih2o]

thanks for the advice creamy one!

 

[Zappo]

Most people who ban evil characters don't do it because humans are inherently good, but because they want PCs to be heroes.

 

[Sulimo]

Most people who ban evil characters don't do it because humans are inherently good, but because they want PCs to be heroes.

Or they want to avoid any intra-party back-stabbing which given the right knid of players could cause a campaign to self-destruct.

 

[Darkness]

Blanket neutral alignments would make for a strange world indeed.

After all, CN equals "true chaotic" - and LN equals "true lawful..."

 

[Drawmack]

I don't band any alignments but I limite them. What I do is as soon as the players are set for the campaign I make them all vote on if they want to be a good or an evil party. If they are a good party then I don't allow evil alignments, if they are an evil party then I don't allow good alignments. I justify it by saying a party is not going to be made up of both. I only had one player complain and he was shot down very quickly.

 

[Magius del Cotto]

As one of those who bans evil PCs, I have to say that I ban it because I don't want the players playing evil characters. Not that anyone in my group would, but still, if they do, bad things will happen to them.
Now, having said that, I have to say that humans are a race of extremes. Humans are probably the only race that can have the brightest heroes as well as the darkest villains. Also, even following Tabula Rasa strictly, the characters have had at least through puberty to define their alignment, whatever it may be.

 

[Alchemist]

Flatten alignments to where it becomes Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic? That sounds like OD&D, where there was no good or evil, only law or chaos. Of course we always considered Lawful=Good and Chaotic=Evil, but whatever.

The struggle is then no longer against evil, but against the destructive forces of chaos and the stifling forces of law. Different fun from what most people are used to, for sure.