Limits on character creation: Opinions?

[Elder-Basilisk]

Limits are necessary and, IMO actually give players more freedom to roleplay than not having them.

Is your campaign set in the Theocracy of the Pale in Greyhawk? You'd better decide whether it's a campaign for supporters of the church or about opponents of the church of Pholtus. A party with a paladin of Pholtus and a cleric of Tritherion in that environment will degenerate very very quickly.

Similarly, the "no evil" limit that is often applied to games actually serves to give players more freedom. Without it, players who want to be able to participate in the game with the rest of the group can't rely on their ability to create characters with any kind of independent moral compass. Paladins? Not if there's an evil character. The cleric of Heironeous wouldn't be able to travel with a ninja wannabe. Even the Lawful Evil cleric of Hextor may not be a viable option of the party turns out to be mostly good aligned.

More restrictive backgrounds can actually give players more freedom too. What do a former cattledrive turned apprentice wizard, a dwarf fighter from the mountains, a cleric of Brandobaris from a neighboring Duchy, and a smooth swashbuckler whose dream is to become a king's musketeer have in common. Absolutely nothing except their status as landless, masterless men/adventurers. If they come together, it is only likely to be because they were tossed together by fate or because they seek gold and glory.

If the party must all be inhabitants of Duvik's pass, a small mining town in the Rakers and they come from one of two families (a human family, an elvish family, the half-elves born from the union of those two families, their servants families, and (possibly) their dwarven friend), the party has enough ties binding them together that it is much more plausible for them to travel together on a more specific common purpose. (Perhaps to discover what's wrong with the ore in the mine, to inspect one of the family's aquisitions in an outlying village, or to recover a stolen macguffin important to the family).

 

[RC Hagy]

Down with Limits...

and up with Campaign Flavor!


I plan on having (to start) an all human party. Limits on classes, weapons, feats (bonus feat will be based on the tribe they are from) as well as skills.
As they travel and meet other races, creatures and classes they may then adopt what they wish. Well, their wish may not matter. I plan to try and make them need the particular stuff which is at the beginning not available, when possible.

Then again after third level players will be able save a single feat and a single levels worth of skill points also.

Anyhow... the less random or the more thought you put (or at least seem to put) into your choices/reasoning should smooth things over if they seem contentious to your players.

'sides things or more interesting when one has a little less than when they have extra... in theory at least.


Hagy
Vermont

 

[Wombat]

I look upon the material presented in the PHB as more or less generic, to be tailored to fit particular campaigns.

In my current campaign, for example, I have several limits: no monks, no paladins (replaced with Holy Warrriors from The Book of the Righteous), different takes on both the Ranger and Bard, sorcerers must have elven blood, the races are very different -- no hobbits, gnomes, or half-orcs, but add in half-dwarves, no psionics at all, PrCs only by GM discretion, etc.

I try to have everything fit into the world as I present it, with feedback from my players.

Each world is necessarily going to be unique. So, yes, there are limits on, and changes to, the presented character generation process. OTOH, I am very upfront about these changes; my players are used to similar restrictions with multiple games I have run.

To allow everything is to create a bland world, one where there is no theme, only players; by putting in restrictions, the world comes alive and the characters fit into a larger context.

Much more fun!

[oh, and we are also having fun working without any alignments!]

 

[s/LaSH]

Heck, rules are restrictions all by themselves. I can't make a first-level Dragon God With Nuclear Arms And A Katana in any system I can think of, and that's a good thing. Adding further restrictions is really a tiny thing compared to the infinite possibilities that you simply can't access because of the fact that they're stupid or unbalanced.

That said, I haven't really restricted anyone in my current campaign - I made up new races just to cater to player whim. On the other hand, I'd be perfectly at home enacting draconian restrictions on player choice if I thought it'd make a better story.

 

[Xavim]

I'm amazed that everyone views evil as such a bad thing (no pun intended). IME the evil members of the party had more than enough reasons to work with the other PCs. The Paladin might work with an evil PC if they were part of the same mercenary company and the evil guy didn't go around beheading the peasantry. I seem to get this image that everyone thinks a Paladin immediately begins lopping off heads in the middile of town just because he sees an evil aura. Running up and decapitating someone at a barstool is illegal in pretty well every country in existence, and the maniac paladin is extremely likely to wind up in prison or hanged. Randomly murderous Paladins are just bad role playing.

Here's my favourite way of having Paladins work with evil, the Paladin is there to try to both a)convert the heretic and b) make sure that he doesn't commit any evil acts, or c) he just doesn't know the character is evil. Sure the detect evil ability makes this pretty hard at low levels, but its not that hard to bypass.

Evil is fun. Its liberating, and allows your character to do things you could never bring yourself to do. It allows the player to player something diametrically opposed to his own moral compass and that is true roleplaying.

 

[maddman75]

Heck, rules are restrictions all by themselves. I can't make a first-level Dragon God With Nuclear Arms And A Katana in any system I can think of, and that's a good thing.

I can see that someone has never played RIFTS.

As for evil characters, it's fine IFF the campaign is set up to handle it. Most of my games an evil character isn't going to have much of a reason to get involved in the plotlines. Indeed, a self-serving evil character would most likely either join with the antagonists or get the hell away from the area.

IME, most people who want to play evil in a standard group either want to disrupt or have a poor understanding of alignment. If you want to play evil so you can 'do anything you want', play a neutral. Play evil if you actively enjoy bringing pain and suffering to others.

 

[Sir Whiskers]

I'm amazed that everyone views evil as such a bad thing (no pun intended)...Evil is fun. Its liberating, and allows your character to do things you could never bring yourself to do. It allows the player to player something diametrically opposed to his own moral compass and that is true roleplaying.

I can't speak for everyone, but my personal experience has been that allowing players to play overtly evil characters leads to a campaign self-destructing in record time. Literally every instance of inter-party combat I've been involved in has been because of one or more players who used their alignment as an excuse to disrupt the game. Banning evil (and CN) is one viable way of limiting such things. And while I can't speak for everyone, most (though by no means all) of the stories I've heard from others suggests that many groups have the same problem when evil characters are allowed.

Also, I personally prefer to roleplay heroes. Sure, we sometimes get a bit out of hand (like the time we extorted the owner of that bar...) But a game where the player characters end up being a bigger threat to the average npc than the local villains has little appeal to me. Not because playing evil character is "wrong" or "bad", just not what I generally enjoy.

 

[the Jester]

Firm believer in limiting choice based on the needs of the world. While I don't think I've ever said "no evil" I love to build the game around the repercussions of pcs' actions, and evil pcs tend to generate more repercussions than good ones.

But I certainly don't think a game where you can play anything at all has much versimillitude- unless it's somehow justified in the context of the campaign (...and actually, I played in one like that in the ol' 2e days). It's just hard to believe in a game where your party consists of a drow, a tako and a celestial running around dungeoneering.

 

[S'mon]

Limits are necessary and good. With limits you can create characters who belong in the campaign world, in the PC group, and in the scenario.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The Paladin might work with an evil PC if they were part of the same mercenary company and the evil guy didn't go around beheading the peasantry. I seem to get this image that everyone thinks a Paladin immediately begins lopping off heads in the middile of town just because he sees an evil aura.

While I agree that Paladins are not required to kill anyone who blips on their radar, I can't agree about working with an evil PC.

"Associates: While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good."

Once that radar pings, the character in question is not someone the Paladin can go adventuring with. It's in the class description.

-Hyp.