Rewarding good actions

[Elf Witch]

With all the threads lately on alignment and questions asking is this an evil act and suggestions on how to "teach" PCs that doing evil acts will have negative consequences it has made me wonder if doing good deeds gets you ingame rewards and good consequences?

For example if a PC shows mercy to a prisoner and spares their life are you more likely to use it later and have the ex-prisoner show up amd do something to make the PC pay for their mercy or do you have the NPC do something later saying something like "allright with giving you this information my debt to you is paid"?

Lately in my DnD game I have come to the conclusion that being good aligned is just not worth it. It is just easier to be neutral. Then you have the freedom to do what you need to do with out the pesky "would a good person do this." Because there are really no rewards for being good there does not seem to be any motivation to play a good alignment. Why tie your hands?

In my DnD game before this one the DM was very good at giving both postive and negative consequences to a PCs actions I played a good aligned character and I had no doubts that my actions often made a difference and that showing mercy often had a good outcome.

I am just wondering what other people's experiences with this has been?

 

[Berandor]

With all the threads lately on alignment and questions asking is this an evil act and suggestions on how to "teach" PCs that doing evil acts will have negative consequences it has made me wonder if doing good deeds gets you ingame rewards and good consequences?

That's not the way hypocrisy works

Seriously:
Even though I don'z like (nor use) alignments as a determining factor for punishment or something like that, yes, I give PCs and some NPCs a reputation. This reputation is based on their previous deeds and extends as far as these deeds might allow.

So, the barkeep might say, "When I tell Gungar what I know, he'll go beat up the bad guy. If I don't, the things I've heard make it likely he'll destroy my bar."
The noble might think, "I know Faralei is a good one, but he's prone to talk. If word got out that I know what I know.... no, better not think too much about it."
Or, the merchant might come and say, "please help me, noble Salahad. If you bring me the goods back that some bandits stole from me, you will be rewarded sufficently. You may also take what you need from the stolen goods - I trust you not to be too greedy."

Of course, it's up to the players to stay true to their reputation or not.

It's also a good way to get them into the adventure, when the bad guy starts tarnishing their reputation, and suddenly they are thought of as crooks

B

 

[hong]

I very much prefer to run a campaign where the PCs are good guys, and so I try not to engineer situations where their altruism comes back to bite them. That means no (or few) treacherous NPCs, and no (or few) situations where they have to give up treasure to someone else. I also try to slip in opportunities to make a difference, on a personal scale.

A few sessions back, the knight IMC rescued a female assassin who was about to get crumped by a monster. Since then, she's been hanging around with the (good-aligned party), acting as a scout and rogue substitute. The group also got her out of a nasty ambush by her ex-associates, who didn't want her spilling their secrets. If she hangs around with them for long enough, she'll probably end up slipping over to the good side.

 

[Thresher]

Aye, Im inclined to agree with you completely. Even if you just take it from a purely game mechanic point of veiw all you get is screwed over as a good character, its tough to roleplay as well and its much, much easier to be a 'fence sitting' nuetral in both respects.
As a player Ive seen most nuetrals quite happily wander around with a mix of good and evil aligned items from time to time, sure they dont get the maximum of either but neither do they suffer any consequences it seems.
Plenty of advantages there, especially to defeat things like damage reduction, no penalty for the use and xp at the end of it.

Its very tempting to play a nuetral sometimes from the mechanic point of veiw, simply because of several reasons.
Theres nothing to specifically target you. (holy/unholy weapons)
Theres nothing specifically designed to hedge you out (ie: Protection from good/evil)
What there is is a minor inconvenience at best (ie: Holy/unholy word)

Apart from the modifications of the above in regard to law/chaos, but most NPC's and players alike rarely memorise them and I cant remember the last time one was used since starting 3-3.5 a year or so ago.

From a roleplaying point of veiw, DM's rarely pay any attention to a nuetrals behaviour, its easier to pick on the paladin it seems for that, and Ive seen them behave consistenly (mostly the CN players) usually from a canon description of NE or CE behaviour without any noticable change to alignment for a very long time.
But if a LG or CG sets a foot wrong, yep sure as heck theres a DM picking on you for something or other and considering a 'slip' for some one-off event, not noticing the campain of genocide the nuetral is happily commiting elsewhere and without any remorse.

But I digress. Theres plenty of places to fall and very few seem to remember a good act or any reward to playing a good character committing good actions. Plus, if you do let some evil SoB off once they invariably bury the boot in your arse at some later date.
Is it any wonder most 'good' characters kill, massacre and scorch the earth where evil is concearned?
No, of course not! Its purely self defence to leave no bastard alive to come back!

I prefer to play good characters, either CG or LG mostly but I also have an NG thats active and no neutrals. Because at heart, D&D is heroic fantasy and I think it dosnt deviate into grey areas very well, plus I figure youre an adventurer who is going to be doing something.
If youre good, go out and make the world better.
If youre evil, go stamp it under your foot.
If youre a nuetral, then why are you bothering? Stay at home, its safer and probably more profitable (experts can make lots of $$$!)

Recently we started playing an evil game, simply because we hadnt done it in years and needed a breather. The acts those characters did, while diametrically opposed, slaughtering villagers, razing temples and carrying on in a generally naughty way. Where simply acts that good characters do, except they're just doing it from the other side.

Human villagers------------Orc Villagers
Temple of Heironious-------Temple of Lolth
And many other occasions which serve as a primer for home invasion
But essentially the same stuff, different side.
Which reminds me of a saying-
"One mans freedom fighter is anothers terrorist"... or something like that.

We can but live in hope that the upcomming book of good guys will be a rewarding and fun experience for good aligned players. As is, its lots of fun being a naughty character thanks to the BoVD

But thats my rant done for now and I'll crawl back into my hole and watch the trolls chew on it.

 

[Umbran]

Well, now you know what they mean in Star Wars, that the Dark Side is the easy way.

Yes, being Good is more difficult. And it doesn't give you any real advantage, as far as the rules are concerned. If what you're looking for is in-game advantages, don't play Good.

D&D is designed as a role playing game. Not everything in it is about gaining advantage for your character. Much of it is about playing a role. And one of the roles you can choose is that of a hero, or a fundamentally Good person. If you don't get personal satisfaction out of meeting the challenge of the more difficult role, then don't choose that role. Very simple.

 

[AeroDm]

I try to reward good aligned actions whenever I remember to. The last thing I want is to dissuade people from being good aligned! I think it is important to do such as well, however you must leave a bit of a gap for dramatic affect. If they release the prisoner, the prisoner shouldn't help them for at least a few sessions. This is where I get in trouble, because either the campaign ends or I forget. Either way, the party feels like they weren't rewarded for being good aligned. That is why I usualyl just give them xp.

 

[hong]

Well, now you know what they mean in Star Wars, that the Dark Side is the easy way.

Yes, being Good is more difficult. And it doesn't give you any real advantage, as far as the rules are concerned. If what you're looking for is in-game advantages, don't play Good.

D&D is designed as a role playing game. Not everything in it is about gaining advantage for your character. Much of it is about playing a role. And one of the roles you can choose is that of a hero, or a fundamentally Good person. If you don't get personal satisfaction out of meeting the challenge of the more difficult role, then don't choose that role. Very simple.

The challenge for people who like playing good guys (or at least for me) is in enacting meaningful change for the better in the campaign world. That change could be on the personal scale (eg reforming an assassin) or on the regional scale (defeating an army of orcs) or on the epic scale (stopping a BBEG from destroying the world). The challenge is not to see how many times I can cut off my nose to spite my face.

 

[Hand of Evil]

I define evil in my games (soap box) players that preform these acts are marked, which means in many cases visiting clerics and temples asking forgiveness. If the marks get too many the players alignment changes and they find themselves unable to recieve healing!

For players that are good (performing good acts and doing just to do good) they are rewarded with extra healing, lesser cost to be brought back from the dead with lesser exp loss, and possible CHR increases.

 

[S'mon]

IMC good acts tend to have good consequences, evil acts tend to have evil consequences. I see this as realistic more than anything. If you murder someone and word gets around, chances are bounty-hunters and brave adventurers will start hunting you. If you spare the life of a defeated foe, in most cases they'll be grateful and will tend to think better of you as a result - in some cases they may even betray their former allegiance. This isn't so true for mindless undead, of course.

 

[S'mon]

In my DnD game before this one the DM was very good at giving both postive and negative consequences to a PCs actions I played a good aligned character and I had no doubts that my actions often made a difference and that showing mercy often had a good outcome.

This sounds like a DM I'd like - I think this is particularly appropriate for D&D and most heroic settings, maybe not for 'Paranoia'. I remember once a PC (Upper_Krust's Thrin) spared the life of an assassin, Allase. She ended up one of his most loyal followers and now he's the (LG) god of swords, she's the (neutral) demigoddess of assassins and conspirators