Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6686377" data-attributes="member: 6790260">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</blockquote>

Verification