The old LG vs CN problem….

[Wellby]

The old LG vs CN problem….

Folks, the last session ended on a bitter note, and I'm hoping there's a workaround.

Half the party is lawful good, half chaotic neutral. To avoid a fight, and keep things calm, the LG Cleri
offered a band of five evil brigands, who had clearly just done some horrible things, 'treasure' if they were
to stand at the back of the room and let the adventurers get past a trapped door to rescue someone.
they've now done that, and the CN bard whispers, ok, let's kill these horrible men. The paladin, monk and
cleric are in a very tough bind. They already can't stand how much the bard, and other two CN characters just don't about 'deals', but they also know that these brigands were involved in the murder of a priest they knew and cared for. The LG characters were saying a deal is a deal, but let's tell them they
have to go into this certain room, we'll lock it up and go. the CN characters think it's crazy.
**my idea: have an NPC that I control indicate that the deal was to share treasure, nothing more,
tell the brigands they are under arrest, and/or must drop all their weapons, then into the room, or some such, that the brigands won't go for, and then the LG characters can properly slay them.

What do you think? is that a reasonable out? LG can be so difficult to play, the characters hate these brigands but don't want to appear treacherous. thanks for any advice.

 

[Umbran]

Well, the deal was for treasure, not their freedom. Someone trying to stick to the good side of LG would then say, "You can use some of that money for your legal defense - we are taking you to town to face justice for murder."

 

[N'raac]

"I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it further."

"We said we would give you some of the treasure - we never said that we wouldn't lock you in a room with it and leave you to starve." Why not just give them the treasure, then kill them and take it back - "we said we would give it to you, not that we would let you keep it."

It seems less than LG scrupulous to attempt to void a deal based on "that wasn't precisely what was stated, so it's OK to Deal Lawyer my way out".

the characters hate these brigands but don't want to appear treacherous

So their concern is appearances? That sounds like a bunch of characters who want to be perceived as LG without actually living up to any ideals.

The real problem seems to be an incombatible team of PC's. If the situation doesn't boil over here, will it happen the next time? Maybe the time after that? if the LG characters are working to twist the deal so they can honour the letter of the deal while violating its spirit, perhaps the best solution is to have them recognize they are really more CN than LG anyway, and now everyone can get along.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'd say the biggest problem here is that you have both sides semi-conflicted over what's going on here, and people have done things which "violate" (note quotes) their alignment.

A nominally LG person, who is certain someone is guilty of actions both criminal and morally wrong, probably shouldn't make deals with the guilty person/group. Making a deal like that was already a concession to the CN members--"we can't afford to be divided on this, and we might not be able to beat them, so I do this but under duress."

Now, the CN group members are pushing for even more concessions--"we got what we wanted, now let's take the rest--you know you want to kill them."

The principled adherence to rules side of Lawful, and the do not attack parties that are not overtly hostile side of Good, now conflicts with the justice must be served side of Law, and the those who do harm must be stopped side of Good. The CN group, meanwhile, is under no particular restriction.

My suggestion to you would be to take your players aside, individually, and ask them to explain their character's values without using the words "lawful" or "chaotic." I would normally say "without using alignment words at all," but "good" and "evil" would probably be difficult to dispense with--but if you can, try to discourage using any alignment words at all. Get people to tell you the principles their characters believe in. Compare these principles between the various party members (this is why it is essential that they be separated from the group when they give these descriptions--you cannot afford cross-pollination). If you see a common thread, bring that up after this has passed. With luck, you'll be able to find a stable platform on which the group can resolve their differences. If not, your group may need to roll new characters, because the party they have truly does have "irreconcilable differences."*

As for this particular situation? The LG characters need to decide if upholding their word, even when no one would know they broke it and many--even police--would applaud them for breaking it, is morally superior to punishing known evildoers who are only non-hostile because their lust for wealth overpowers their desire for violence. There are perfectly legitimate cases for both angles. The former is the "individualistic" side of Law: "I uphold my principles even when it would be to my advantage, and of benefit to my reputation, to break them." The latter is, essentially, what any LG infiltrator or double-agent must choose to believe: that lies and deceit in the name of a good cause are permissible sins.

In general, it would seem that modern society favors the latter interpretation. That is, we do not consider things like police stings and undercover operatives to be a grave mark of dishonor or a shameful display of betraying one's principles. In the case of your described group, while the Cleric may have fully intended to make good on the deal, if the other LG people had misgivings about this promise in the first place, they could (if they so choose) easily justify their behavior as "I never wanted to make that deal at all." The Paladin in particular has good reason to renege on the deal--most Paladins swear an oath to some organization or other which upholds the rule of law. By dint of such a promise, the current one couldn't be valid in the first place, since the Paladin is sworn to uphold that justice.

There is, of course, the LN "we never promised we wouldn't kill/imprison you" solution, too, but I figure the other solutions I've mentioned are more likely to get buy-in.

*As a note, you're essentially having the most polarized possible alignment relations in a typical RPG campaign. Most DMs won't allow evil PCs, so by default Chaotic Neutral absorbs the vast majority of Evil tendencies. Thus, CN inherits both the "unbearably frustrating prankster/troublemaker" and the "I want to play an Evil PC but I'm not allowed so this is my excuse" players. Lawful Good is about as diametrically opposite that as you can get. Failing to have moderate voices somewhere in the middle makes this an extremely difficult situation to resolve, since there are, from surface appearances, no ideological grounds along which the two sub-groups agree

 

[GMMichael]

the CN bard whispers, ok, let's kill these horrible men.

That's not CN, that's NE or CE.

and then the LG characters can properly slay them.

That's not LG. That's any non-good.

Aren't there any watchmen about? Has it occurred to any of your players that these brigands didn't choose to be brigands - the harshness of modern life drove them to it? That they might have little brigand-children that need loving?

My poor PCs killed a circus trainer who was despicable towards his trained monkeys, and had possibly kidnapped a PC pet. The PCs were put on trial and almost hung for it. One kill!

 

[pemerton]

What do you think? is that a reasonable out? LG can be so difficult to play, the characters hate these brigands but don't want to appear treacherous. thanks for any advice.

Is the problem you are asking about a problem at the table, or a problem within the fiction?

If it's an at-table problem - the actual group of game participants is in danger of fracturing over this issue - then my advice is to try and reach a resolution via reasonable, out-of-character conversation.

But as you present it the issue is primarily an in-fiction one - not about conflict between players but conflict between characters. In which case, I say let the players sort it out - or, if each side has about the same numbers then let them dice to see who persuades whom - perhaps each PC gets 2d4+CHA, and each side gets to total their results and the higher total wins the argument.

In my 4e game, a situation a bit like the one you describe arose when the "chaotic/evil" PCs made a promise in the name of the dwarf paladin when he was absent, which they didn't intend to keep. The paladin then turned up earlier than expected, and the NPC appealed to him on the strength of the promise made in his name, and he chose honour over justice and kept the promise. The other PCs went along with this because he imposed his will on them. (At the table, the issue was resolved by discussion and the player of the paladin was successful in persuading the others, grudgingly, to keep the promise they'd made in his name.)

 

[delericho]

To avoid a fight, and keep things calm, the LG Cleri
offered a band of five evil brigands, who had clearly just done some horrible things, 'treasure' if they were
to stand at the back of the room and let the adventurers get past a trapped door to rescue someone.

The LG characters probably shouldn't have made that deal. Having made it, though, they should now honour it - and not just the letter of the agreement, but the spirit of it also.

they've now done that, and the CN bard whispers, ok, let's kill these horrible men.

That seems fair enough to me.

**my idea: have an NPC that I control indicate that the deal was to share treasure, nothing more,
tell the brigands they are under arrest, and/or must drop all their weapons, then into the room, or some such, that the brigands won't go for, and then the LG characters can properly slay them.

Actually, I'd just let the intra-party conflict play out: there's no clear right way here, so if the LG characters want to go one way and the CN ones want to go another, let them have the debate accordingly.

But bear in mind that as soon as things get heated the Evil Cultists will hear the debate going on, and should react accordingly - they sure as hell won't be giving up any weapons, and they most likely will attack the party at the first sign of treachery. Or, if they know they're outmatched, they'll take the first opportunity to flee, and then proceed to blacken the party's (and especially the LG characters') good name back in town. Because, sure enough, they were promised treasure to stand aside, they held up their side of the bargain, and they didn't get the treasure.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Something else that I think really should be addressed, here, because it's an incredibly important and yet frequently unstated thing:

All characters need to earn the respect of their colleagues. Unfortunately, some character archetypes give people the notion that they deserve respect, which leads to conflict. The Paladin is especially vulnerable to this notion.

It seems fairly clear to me that the CN characters in this group have no respect for the LG characters. Chaotic (and even some Neutral, on the L/C axis) characters generally do not give a flip about official authority or powers vested in someone by an organization. Thus, if they do not respect or care for (as Machiavelli would put it, "fear" or "love") an LG person, they won't give two figs about what the LG person thinks is "right" or whatever. This will lead to inter-party strife. Similarly, the LG characters (and the Paladin in particular) will try to appeal to rules of good conduct/common decency, as well as their own moral authority e.g. "I'm a good person who plays by the rules, and so should you," and when others snub them specifically for doing that, they will become upset and fail to respect those people. This, too, will lead to inter-party strife.

In my Dungeon World group, one of the characters is more-or-less Chaotic Neutral (many moments of good, but occasional moments of some pretty despicable/selfish/wicked things, too--more of a scoundrel than Han Solo, but not a lot more). The other (a Fighter) was, originally, also Chaotic Neutral in the more "might makes me right, I will push through ANY obstacles that get in my way" kind of thing. My Paladin is, of course, Lawful Good, with the emphasis on the Good even though some temporary party members have called him a "law-doer" before. The key reason our group works, though, is that my Paladin has legitimately worked, patiently and without (much) complaint, to earn the others' trust and respect. He treats them fairly, defends them as best he's able, trusts their judgment, and most of all he makes no bones about how much he'd endure to make sure they're safe. His selfless attitude, in fact, actually managed to inspire the CN Fighter to become CG--which is ironic, since the Fighter's original perspective on my Paladin was "he is soft; I will make him hard like me," that he would teach me not to be so naive and that the world is a hard place where people must make hard choices and do terrible things to accomplish their goals. The whole group is now extremely close; they recognize that they don't see eye to eye on every issue, but they trust and respect each other, and will listen when someone makes an impassioned plea.

So, that's another line along which your group can try to repair this rift in-fiction: both sides caring enough to try to earn the other's respect. For the CNs, it could be "these idealists are going to get themselves killed one day--we gotta teach them how it really works." For the LGs, especially the Paladin, it would be like my character above. But the whole point about "teaching" someone is that you have to 'speak their language,' you have to think about things in terms of what they want, and showing how there is a way to do that better than the way they currently use.

Thus, for the CNs, they need to look at it as: what do our goody-two-shoes friends care about? Punishing crime and evil, maintaining a good image, always keeping their promises, defending the weak. Well, we don't really care about any of those things, really, but we think they're mistaken for holding all of them. So: how can we show that these goals cannot all be met? By accomplishing the ones that seem most important (say, punishing evil and defending the weak) are mutually exclusive with some of the others (say, the good image and always keeping promises). We need to find ways to show them that telling lies can save lives, that doing something people will hate you for might be the only way to punish evil.

For the LGs, the situation is flipped--same idea ("speak their language") but now they need to consider what the CNs value and care about. Are they all about the money? Show them that ill-gotten goods actually do fail to produce happiness. Do they specifically enjoy the idea of double-crossing people? Show them how breaking your word is worse in the long run. Etc. It's harder to structure this simply, since the conflicting goals of the LG group are pretty obvious but the potentially-conflicting goals of the CN group are not, but I'm sure there are ways.

Earn a person's respect, show them (DON'T just tell them) your philosophy works, show how your philosophy accomplishes their goals, and respect their ability to make decisions about what to do.

 

[Grogg of the North]

Is this a small part of a larger trend in the entire campaign? Because it sounds to me that the party is breaking into LG vs CN camps often.

What I would do is let the party rescue their friend, they go to leave and the brigands break the deal and attack. Now the party can get their murder-freak on without feeling bad.

After that adventure is wrapped up, if the party is frequently splitting into alignment camps, I would have everyone sit down and ask them "Do we want to continue with this party? Is alignment going to be a problem?" And then decide if the story is going to follow the LG or CN group with some of the players rolling up new characters.

 

[Celebrim]

Half the party is lawful good, half chaotic neutral.

How did this party even form in the first place? Do they have any common objective? Do they have any prior relationship that ties them together despite their differences? I bring this up because I used to DM with a very light hand on character creation - just show up with something to play - and I got tired of the inevitability of this going bad in predictable ways as well as the forced nature of having PC's working together despite all rational and reasonableness suggesting that these persons who don't like each other, don't agree with each other, and are working cross purposes would never hang out together in the first place. (Unless, he's your brother, in which case, what are you going to do?)

To avoid a fight, and keep things calm, the LG Cleric offered a band of five evil brigands, who had clearly just done some horrible things, 'treasure'...

Wait... why? Why is the LG cleric dispensing with justice, offering bribes, and making deals with evil doers who show no signs of repentance? Did they beg for mercy? If so, why now do they get a share of treasure? What possible legal claim could they make on it, and what legal claim did the cleric have to give it away if it was stolen goods? What about the victims of the brigands? How will the LG cleric answer them when they cry out for justice? What about the lawful authority of the land? How will the cleric answer him when he asks whether the cleric is obeying and upholding the law?

Why in the heck did the Paladin go along with this? Isn't he sworn to bring evil doers to justice? I mean, the best he can do is swear they'll receive a fair trial. He can't make deals that violate the law to get something he wants, and he can't allow others to do so.

The behavior of the lawful good group thus far is more like Neutral or Chaotic Neutral. In brief, the logic of the characters is Utilitarian, Pragmatic, and Self-Interested. The brigands are obstacles in the way of accomplishing what they want to do, but are otherwise unimportant. Their stolen goods aren't stolen goods to be returned to the persons who rightfully own them, but 'treasure' to be claimed which they can distribute as they see fit.

Now, what about the 'CN' group.

they've now done that, and the CN bard whispers, ok, let's kill these horrible men.

Ok, so that isn't merely pragmatic. That's treacherous. You've just entered into an agreement with this group, and now you are going to backstab them. You have deceived them, and now having successfully deceived them you are going to take advantage of them. If they had an objection to the deal, they should have voiced it ahead of time.

That behavior is not Chaotic Neutral. That's Chaotic Evil.

The paladin, monk and cleric are in a very tough bind.

Well, duh. They acted like a bunch of Chaotic Neutrals and are in the habit of associating with evil backstabbing persons. It's a bind all of their own making.

The LG characters were saying a deal is a deal, but let's tell them they have to go into this certain room, we'll lock it up and go. the CN characters think it's crazy.

Well, the CN characters are right in a sense. This is crazy. Ok, first, the LG characters can't go back on their word. Even if what they just promised was unwise, they can't go back on it now. Even if they didn't have the right to do so, they can't just back out. If they break their word and are faithless (and IMO, they are faithless regardless of how they act now) because a lawful authority points out they didn't have the right to enter into this agreement, then at best they lose class abilities until they atone for their rash act.

But now the solution that they are proposing is to act faithlessly immediately, lock them up and possibly leave them to starve and die?!?!? Depending on the motives, that is either lawful or chaotic but regardless that's Evil. The supposedly LG characters made a deal in bad faith and now intend to act cruelly and vindictively. That's just evil. If they justify that by the fact that by the letter of the agreement they didn't say they wouldn't lock up or otherwise mistreat the brigands, that's lawful evil - devils make similar sorts of agreements, not paladins. If they go through it because now that they think about it they are willing to go against their agreement because they actually hate the brigands because they killed a friend, that's chaotic evil. If they entered into the agreement merely because they knew that they wouldn't keep their word anyway, the brigands would be forced to defend themselves, and then they could kill them only after having sadistically manipulated and deceived them (what you call 'properly slay them'), that's neutral evil. Regardless, if they go through with it, immediate loss of clerical powers and paladin class powers. I'd have to seriously consider this willful, you are now permanently a bad fighter.

LG can be so difficult to play...

To be perfectly frank, no it isn't. I have met many people who are incapable of playing anything other than LG no matter what they put on their character sheet, simply because their instincts for fairness, mercy, justice, and honesty are so strong that in play they can animate anyone that doesn't act according to those instincts.

In my experience, about 80% of players are only able to play a single alignment. I'm not sure entirely why this is, and I think there are at least two equally valid explanations, but that is what I've observed. In general, in play, CE is a very common alignment, and your party all seems to lean that way. This happens I think because in real life, personal self-interest is a major influence for most people, and because perhaps even more commonly since this is a game people tend to treat it primarily as something to win at any cost without seriously contemplating the moral aspect (interestingly, people under age 13 or so rarely play or act as CE characters, possibly because they take the play far more seriously or possibly because kids really are more innocent.) D&D in particular, by leaning toward 'Kick down the doors, kill the monsters, and take their stuff', seems to breed a 'murder hobo' attitude to the game particularly in groups that don't do much reflecting when they move from a more dungeon based play to supporting something more like a story.