If they roleplay their alignments problems will surface. It is possible for alignments to change over time so your MT might become neutral/evil, or vice versa.
The lawful part of LE helps but good/evil have opposite POVs regarding the sanctity of life. (possibly varying for 'civilized' races versus 'uncivilized') How those POVs manifest themselves into the game is up to you. (Eg. In a dungeon crawl alignment issues might not come up. In a city they could/should.)
No magic solution/recommendation for you - the PCs should be heading for a separation, or alignment change.
The player's ability 'as a player' is muddying the situation. It's a metagame issue, but could be used to effect an alignment change if you desire.
My 2 cp.
This is only a problem if someone does not enjoy inter-party conflict. As long as all the players are cool with it, what is the problem?
It only takes one player not to enjoy it. If that is the case, then maybe a new character is in order.
Talk to your players and find out what they want out of the game.
I am not quite sure what your after; what I generally tell my groups regardless of alignments; it is pretty much the group against the rest of the world; so dont crap where you live.
Valegrim summarizes what we all thought, although in a crude way :D
Seriously, i cannot believe you, as a DM, or your players, as a group, didn't think about that earlier, when you started playing this adventure.
Beyong alignment, there are some issues which can cause trouble in a group, such as races, classes, cultures, factions, guilds and so on.
On important point to consider when assembling a group of adventurers is to wonder if they will be able to work together for more than 5 minutes before killing each other.
Putting together a aasimar paladin, a drow assassin, a vampire and a kender can seem fun at first thought, but that's actually a very bad idea.
A group should have a minimum of cohesion at least. The characters should have a good reason to stay together. Even if the world is at stake, they need to be able to stand each other.
That's the responsability of every one, including the game master.
|
Alignment issues between characters can be the most retarded reason for dissent. We have a player who has almost gotten us killed multiple times just because he's CN and he decided to do something random. Most of the group wants him dead, even the exalted monks (that's from their player's perspective out of game, otherwise just for thinking that they would lose exalted). As of last session he's started to become a little more of a team player, but I think he's going to continue with his disruptiveness in the near future.
We have a NE Rogue in the party also, and he's contributed much more to the party then the CN Cleric. It's fine to roleplay out your alignment, unless it conflicts with the party. If your alignment say that you should kill a party member or otherwise inconvenience them "just because" then ignore it. The Rogue worships Nerrul and he's been paying for the party's inn rooms and food, but when he gets a chance (like in battle for instance) he will disembowel someone without a second thought.
My opinion in a sentence: Party loyalty beats alignment no matter what.
EDIT: Also, NE Tiefling Rogue in the same party as an LG Aasimar Sorcerer, and 2 exalted monks. The rogue stays in everyone else's good graces while committing his own personal brand of evil in secret. The CN Cleric doesn't give a crap, he waves his broken Rod of Wonder at us at every chance he gets. He's already hit us with several fireballs and lightening bolts, but the DM said that if we kill him our characters will suffer a heart attack.
Party discord can be fun to play when it's a set situation, such as a number of random people stuck in a haunted house who have to band together against the horrible monsters or they won't survive, and thus you'll have the paladin, the druid and the assassin all banding together for the big combat.
Party unity is another matter. Once people have gotten out of whatever horrible dungeon or whatever else made it so they had to stick together, they have to have a reason to continue to do so. Fun is good. Profit is another. Just because they're all played by a bunch of people sitting around a table? Not so much.
Basic pronouncement to my players: "Come up with a character concept where the rest of the party won't try to ditch you at the next town."
Current game? Came up with a simple pronouncement: "Come up with a character who's vaguely good, but not ludicrously so, and not evil either. No paladins, no warlocks. Nothing with crazy vows or other obligations which will get in the way of basic adventuring."
It's an interesting quandary though. The strength of the player overshadows the characters' alignments, making the evil characters want to keep on the goody-goody character's good side.
But I have played in games where alignment was just something written on a character sheet.
If no one sees a problem is it really there?
The trouble with "No one sees a problem" is that you get into the "Don't tell the paladin" scenario, and the paladin is played as more clueless than Dudley Do-Right.
There's also generally a problem with the "psychotic clown" character type where they keep blowing everything up, including the party.
|
|
If no one sees a problem, then there isn't one. But I've seen more than a few sessions go awry because someone wanted to "be true to their character" and try to screw over the whole party. Or when they refuse to do something good for the party because it would be "out of character" or "outside of my alignment". It can be interesting, but I've seen it get in the way of good fun more than I've seen it encourage it. I guess it all comes down to playing your character or just being plain disruptive. If it isn't disruptive to the party, have fun.
Well, the only thing more argued about in DnD is rules on illusion and polymorph etc.
My group played with a character who was committing random acts of unwarranted violence only to discover he had been playing our arch nemesis! It was great. However, I fail to see how a NG PC would team up with a CE one unless they had a very binding mutual cause or some other logical reason.
Sure, wiping the floor with goblin vermin etc would be no hassles as CEvils don't care who they inflict pain upon, but surely characters don't just "switch" their behavior merely to be convenient. To me, this would make alignment utterly redundant and you may as well not bother even using that part of the game in your adventures.
Also, as mentioned above, it's way too simplistic to assume that CE characters MUST screw over the rest of the party. In my view, the best way to use a CE PC is to give them a good reason to screw over the party but to do it in a very sneaky manner. You have an assassin on board - what a perfect scenario for some plot hooks! Maybe he/she is trailing/infiltrating the group for info or to get closer to their real target (maybe someone the PC's know - maybe their employer!). Maybe they need to get close to another evil agent and the best way to do that and survive is to blend in with the group and make use of their skills. The possibilities are endless and you don't have to have problems with alignment - use them to your advantage and enrich the game (and by default, your characters too).
This is one of the reasons why I dislike D&D alignment. I'd rather someone play their character than play their alignment. Thats why unless I have a good reason to do otherwise all characters in my campaign start out as NN. Their alignment will change as their actions dictate. That way their alignment is a reflection of their actions rather than the other way around.
Totally agree. Those are the people who wreck a good game.
The irony is that they usually claim to be better role players when in fact it isn't a very imaginative way to game.
As I adopt my alter-ego I should also be more exact with the "problems".
The fighter was slain and raised, but the location didn't allow him to retain his alignment...so he came back "tainted" now Lawful Evil and worshiping a death god...which I will say is great as he's played him as well as one could. The player playing the cleric joined the group (I having slain his other character) as a cleric following the same god looking to use the fighter as a "PR Advertisment" for the god they both worship, hoping to attract more followers.
I guess my problem is more that things now depend on the player of the Mystic T. to keep things under control. He's saved the fighter's life twice and the fighter will do whatever he says...the cleric follows the fighter (who's his ticket to big time). But the alignment issue clouds things and puts the player of the Mystic T. having to do more work than maybe he should (although I do think he does like it)...I guess if that's my worst problem then it isn't that bad...
I was just wondering what the opinion was of other outside eyes...
I think the question is if all the players are enjoying playing their characters this way. Telling people to play a different alignment and then micromanaging how that alignment is played is always a problem.
Another problem of alignments is the assumption that every alignment comes with religious fanaticism as a part of it. Like my first experience as a player where the DM told me that as a CE character, I could not rescue the princess and marry her. My attitude was "Why not? The King has a pretty sweet benefits package, and if I get tired of it, I can always push her out the window."
DM: "But that doesn't serve the gods of chaos and evil!"
Me: "So? If they want me to ravage and sacrifice her, they need to outbid the king."
An utter sociopath is in many ways more frightening than yet another Toady of the Dark Gods.
My attitude was "Why not? The King has a pretty sweet benefits package, and if I get tired of it, I can always push her out the window."
DM: "But that doesn't serve the gods of chaos and evil!"
Me: "So? If they want me to ravage and sacrifice her, they need to outbid the king."
An utter sociopath is in many ways more frightening than yet another Toady of the Dark Gods.
That's hilarious. My props to you for hilarious and awesome RP moment. Did he let you get away with it? (He damn well should have with that answer.)
|
The NG person will not be able to really "get on" with the others, they won't understand their outlook on life. How many times can the Assassin shout "Look a banana" and while the NG looks for the banana cuts the captives throat? I would think that the NG will slip from NG to an uncaring N after a while then perhaps join in the fun and go whole hog to NE? Just your party as is too weighted in favour of evil for the NG to possible play anywhere near that type of alignment in any sort of "believable" fashion.
S.
They are good points. Maybe come up with a stronger reason for him to be involved with the rest of the group.
Secondly, to the poster who had the King's Daughter scenario;
I think you had it sorted. Just because you're chaotic, doesn't mean you can't plan things a bit or give the appearance of rational behaviour. Maybe the chaotic side surfaces in other ways - mood swings or something, haha. :)
Just like lawful is not unblinking adherence to laws to the point of self-destruction, neither is chaotic bat-guano crazy attention deficit disorder on caffiene.
I still say, they should have said "Good vrs Evil, Order vrs Chaos". It takes off a bunch of the problems with interpreting "lawful", and by proxy, removes a lot of the "chaotic" interpretations that are hard due to cross referenceing "lawful".
Chaotic characters change their minds. They go with their gut. They try something new, even when the status quo works. They make promises, and keep them until it becomes a problem. They make plans, and smile and say "I told you so" when the plan gets messed up.
Orderly (lawful) characters try to do things by the book. If theres a guideline for something, follow it. They make plans, and try to stick to them. They make promises, and try to keep them, even if only to keep the peasants happy while they skim off the top of the taxes.
|
|
In the current game I'm running the following has happened. I have a party where one character is good (neutral good to be exact), and the rest are either evil or nutty in the case of the gnome warlock. I'll mention the party is composed of a Mystic Thergue (I've likely spelled that wrong), Lawful Evil Fighter, Lawful Evil Cleric, Chaotic Evil Assassin and a Gnome Warlock who while not evil is always causing trouble.
However the MT is played by the best player I've played with and he's the party leader. They all follow him as he's saving the party's bacon all the time and he's quite smart (the player) and he knows how to lead. So the fighter (who is very powerful himself) follows and the cleric who is tied to fighter through worship of the same god follows the fighter. The assassin is new to the party and he'll do what the fighter says. The players are all very good, but the MT's player is another level above...so I'm left having to balance things hoping each session goes well without too much chaos.
The problems are minor, but any input would be great.
As has been said, if the players don't mind inter-party conflict, then its okay.
Aside from that, the best way I could reconcile this gap between alignments is that while the characters may not see eye-to-eye, several may seem to have a grudging respect for each other.
Fighter and Cleric for the MT and vice-versa. They may disagree upon beliefs and methodology, but they find that they work well together, and recognize each others effectiveness.
The assassin could be explained as seeing the group as his best chance for survival, so while helping them out isn't necessarily an evil act, its not a good one since he's protecting them to help protect himself.
The Warlock, he probably is either crazy enough to not know this isn't the best group for him, or he sees the group as a means to get him out of the trouble he seems to love to get himself into.
Totally agree. Those are the people who wreck a good game.
The irony is that they usually claim to be better role players when in fact it isn't a very imaginative way to game.
Kender.
'In character' is not an excuse to make an arse of yourself.