I don't see why that wouldn't work, you have nothing that is mutually exclusive. The fact that you guys are actually wanting a little interparty tension just means that your becoming better role-players.
My only suggestion is that you not let in-character snubs turn into real life slights. Take 5 minutes at the end of a session to talk it out and laugh about it. I've personally been a part of a group that let this sort of thing irritate us personally. One of the the guys picked on the fighter about getting fat which ticked off the clerics player, who was actually getting fat; even though his character was constantly scheming against the fighter for the attention of a particular NPC. Now it didn't break us up but it made the rest of the session a little tense.
Communication is key to this sort of thing.
I don't think this is all that diverse, actually. As far as Good versus Evil, you are all either Good or Neutral. The Neutral people will most likely go with the flow of whatever the Good people are doing. As far as Law versus Chaos, the two neutral people, again, will most likely do whatever the others do. The other two are Lawful, and only one is Chaotic. That one Chaotic person is the only one likely to stir up any real drama, if he ends up breaking rules or something that the two Lawful people would normally follow. Maybe the two Clerics won't always see eye to eye since they worship different gods. I don't see a huge issue here, though.
Personally, the alignment rules don't affect my group at all unless it has to do with game mechanics. My character is technically Chaotic Neutral, bordering on Neutral Evil. The rest are mostly combinations of Good and/or Neutral, but they roleplay evil acts if it fits their character (for example, killing to avenge someone). The other characters just know my character is kind of a be-otch that will sometimes do her own thing. They expect that out of her. But as a player, I know when it's not appropriate to roleplay her in such a way that it will complicate life for the other players. I think your group will be fine.
It's pretty much about the question: Are the players willing to have their characters agree on compromises?
In our group, (LG paladin of Sarenrae, LG fighter worshiping Aroden, NG cleric of Desna/sorceress, CG wizard worshiping Nethys, CN rogue / cleric of Cayden), the rogue is smart enough to do several of his things without announcing this to the lawful faction. Likewise, the paladin can be talked into voluntarily breaking the law if she is convinced that doing so serves the greater good.
If the players refuse to budge and the discussions start to devolve into 'Nah, nah... you don't have the right to tell me anything' vs. 'I refuse to deal with this in any manner unless it's the official way: talk to the guards' (whom we suspect to be corrupt), such a mixture won't fly.
However, this might indicate some problems with the players, rather than the characters.
Which do you believe is better and why?
It just so happens my latest party has finally finished their campaign. The group is made of avid roleplayers, and everyone takes their roles and background seriously in relation to the plot. We had a good run with our former group and it finally became time to retire them, afterwards we discussed what we enjoyed and what we felt was missing, and surprisingly enough we all had a complaint, not with the DM, but instead with ourselves.
Our party was made up of Neutral Good and Lawful Good characters, five in total and there were three gods split amongst the five. The characters for all intents and purposes treated each other as siblings and family, and there was never any sense of resentment between them, prefering to come to an agreement quickly so that action was followed up against threats.
The characters never needed to mature, and so the lack of arguments at the table made leveling quick and easy.
This has lead us to deciding to create a very diverse group, and attempting to make it work without bending the background of Golarion too much, preferably very little.
We now have:
A Lawful Neutral Wizard of Abadar
A Neutral Good Cleric of Sarenrae
A Lawful Neutral Fighter of Asmodeus. (Hellknight in the making)
A Chaotic Good Rogue of Cayden
A True Neutral Cleric of ZyphusAre we in over our heads here, or is such a group possible to form?
Id like to test the waters with your experiences before I jump into this pool.
What do you think of Diverse groups, and would you recommend them, why or why not?
I have GM's for mixed parties of evil and good people. It can work.
Alignment is not a barrier to getting along, nor does it guarantee you will get along. The character's personal opinion's are a bigger obstacle.A neutral person who does not like showing mercy is more like to bother a paladin than an evil person who for whatever reason has no problem with not killing someone.
I dislike the relatively crude tools a GM has to use to keep together a party that really doesn't 'belong' together.
Quite easy: I am a dictator in this regard.
I tell my players beforehand that I want to play a campaign and while I am happy to tie the characters into the story (I actually, I try to catch the characters with personal hooks), I want them to build a party that actually works together. This has little to do with alignment; I have been playing in a party that contained both NG and NE characters, and things went quite smoothly.
The rogue stealing from the party funds, claiming it's just good roleplay, and as long as no character notices, it's all well (even if it leads to deaths in the party, due to not having the things you needed)? The PC assassin who accepts a job on a party member, and goes through with it? Well, maybe that's your idea of a cool character, but when I call for a cooperative group in a certain campaign or setting, you might want to play in a different campaign I offer, or with a different GM.
I wish for everyone at the table to have fun (which does include myself). If you insist on playing a style that throws a wrench into the rest of the party, you're spoiling their fun. If you just have to play the game of 'let's see how much the GM is going to bend the adventure to avoid my actions killing the party', or purposefully try to derailing the plot whenever you see the chance, you are spoiling my fun.
So, if you insist on playing destructively, because working together is so 'goody two-shoes boring', I suggest you play at another table.
The characters never needed to mature, and so the lack of arguments at the table made leveling quick and easy.
While this sort of tension can be created within the party, it doesn't have to be; Conflicts can also happen with the NPCs or anytime there is a question of what's right. While a diverse group provides tough questions and character growth, it isn't always necessary.
What do you think of Diverse groups, and would you recommend them, why or why not?
Depends on the group. It depends on how much a player is willing to let their concept evolve past their initial view. Since this is something your group is craving, then I think it might actually work out.
I like a bit of party conflict. One game I'm in is a store game with a lot of people playing characters of different levels. I have a NE level 4 beguiler and a CG level 9 duskblade (it is Pathfinder but they converted a few 3.5 classes). One day I show up and there is a table of each tier and one of the GMs says to me that it's my choice which table. However, the lower level table is all good and one neutral, the higher level is all evil with one neutral. It would have been easy to play the evil character at the good table, undetectable alignment and she keeps her head down anyway. The good character was definitely going to be tougher no doubt, but I went for it. At one point one of the evil characters (who was designed to be an annoying pain in the ass) threatened to kill an NPC's family. We had it out and I roleplayed out setting up several layers of protection for this family. And now I'm constantly watching him. It was intense, and a lot of fun, and now I have an enemy within the campaign. Of course, he knows that if he goes too far I'll have to take him out and that's part of the fun, he wants to see how far he can take it.
The party make-up is like an african quadruped: Irrelephant.
What matters is that, by what you say, the group is made of experienced and mature players that like to roleplay, and most important, has agreed and planned on the party conflict so it's higly unlikely that the conflict will spill out from the characters to the players. It will depend on how well can the players separate "in-character" and "out of character". You keep the disagreement between the characters, it can work. If the players start to disagree, change the game.