They can. LG and LE cavaliers or fighters in the same army, on the same side of a cause (exterminate the chaotic evils, wipe out the neutral evil thieves guild, drive back the LE megalomaniac threatening out great and diverse nation). Spellcasters from the same school and traditions (class-mates?) with outlooks that do not differ in the lawful realm but with bonds preventing pvp.
Friendship that crosses the alignment aspect, because they have helped and aided eachother so much. Yeah the monk is evil, but he is our evil monk, lol.
When I put effort into evil npcs that help or aide the party, they have been liked and kept around across games. It is all in the implementation and the larger context beyond alignment; which some don't think is that important or the central axis which characters are based around.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
LG vs CG.
Both fight for the greater good, but one fights for order, to achieve the greater good, whilst the other, fights for freedom, to achieve the greater.
Both, fight to the death, for their righteous cause, and as such, may kill each other, in the fight for the greater good.
Now, you see that just because two are both good, doesn't mean they cannot be mortal enemies.
Yep, especially if larger loyalties crop up--clan, king, nation, religion.
Or an important resource is in play that not everyone can have--land, minerals, a crucial fortress, powerful magic items.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again though, it's totally possible (clearly not in this thread's original context though) to have evil characters who also fight for the greater good. It's just that rather than doing so out of principle, it's because of the fringe benefits. Saving the world has a tendency to leave you living like a king and all. That can really pay off for a self-centered bastard who takes the long view.
When a player says in response "I know what I'm doing", you say "So what are you doing?" When I've run games and a player presents a potentially disruptive character and I know the player well enough to know what they might be up to I say yes or no based off that. If I'm not sure, I'll ask for details.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The NE PC's thoughts are, he wants to wreak vengeance on the elves in northern Varisia and gather lordly power for himself. That's going to be really hard if the Runelords return and take over the region - he knows they won't share power.
The (mostly good) party's reasoning is, the enchanter is a Thassilonian scholar, he's never harmed them or done anything overtly evil (as far as they know - fools), he's just a rude, greedy, condescending sonofab+$+! that is up to something... But it seems not to concern them, and with the fiendish awakened raptor he has on perma-charm, he's one of the party's most powerful characters. He's doing a lot of good with them!
Anyway, I would certainly understand any GM's hesitancy regarding evil characters. I think it really requires the right player - if they really understand the importance of intentionally not interfering with other players' fun, it can be done, and add a lot to the game.
But it has added a lot of work and a bit of stress to me as the GM :)
|
The big difference that leaps to mind is that the subject of the thread's initial goals were "@#$% the world". He wanted to open a rift between the world and a plane full of daemons that want nothing less than the death of all that lives and to devour every soul that exists.There's quite a distance between someone like that and party-friendly villains like Magneto(when written by people who aren't Grant Morrison(I love some of Morrison's work to death, but the man cannot write Magneto to save his life)).
This is a problem I agree should be a addressed with the player.
If you are LE, you want open a portal to hell to take over the world and restore order. Evil order, but order none-the-less.
Unless he has some plot to take advantage of the chaos, he wouldn't be interested in just watching the world burn for no reason.
|
|
** spoiler omitted **
Anyway, I would certainly understand any GM's hesitancy regarding evil characters. I think it really requires the right player - if they really understand the importance of intentionally not interfering with other players' fun, it can be done, and add a lot to the game.
But it has added a lot of work and a bit of stress to me as the GM :)
In that campaign it isn't hard to find a motivation for some types of evil characters
Becoming a runelord is likely pretty good motivation for an evil caster....
As long as they are willing to work with the group against the greater evil, and are valuable to the group in this endeavour, it can work.
His ultimate goal is to open a rift into Abbadon in order to cull the weak. His character is planning on taking levels in Inquisitor next level. I really think I'm just gonna make him into the BEG at the end of the campaign at this rate since he has a better evil plot than I do!
Wouldnt that be more NE?
** spoiler omitted **
Anyway, I would certainly understand any GM's hesitancy regarding evil characters. I think it really requires the right player - if they really understand the importance of intentionally not interfering with other players' fun, it can be done, and add a lot to the game.
But it has added a lot of work and a bit of stress to me as the GM :)
Interesting. How is this turning out?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why can characters with lawful and chaotic alignments get along just fine but characters with good and evil alignments can't?You have to ask that question? A LG and CG character may quibble about the means from time to time, but both serve the cause of good ultimately. LG and LE may be both lawful but that is where the similarity ends. Their goals are at extreme ends. One serves good, the other evil. They cannot coexist for long. Can we say PVP will be lit eventually and it will be Monk on a spit?
People of lawful alignment might disagree on how the law is enforced. Should we be allowed to torture prisoners for information? Is it the spirit of a contract or the letter of a contract that is important? But in the end they maintain a stable and functioning society. LG and CG may both be good but that is where their similarity ends. One serves to uphold the laws of the land, the other could care less and will trample them if it suits his/her needs. See where I'm going with this...?
If your lawful and chaotic aligned players don't have disagreements from time to time then at least one of them is actually playing a neutral alignment despite what their character sheet says. Or at best a lukewarm lawful or chaotic.
"but I think his luck will soon run out and get kabobed on the Rangers Arrow."
provided he's not overtly doing evil acts in the presence of the party (and/or is covering his tracks well), merely existing as an evil alignment within the vicinity of a good character does not mean instant smiting.
instant smiting would be murder (which is inherently not a good act), which is both wrong and unjust (especially if they have no proof). he could be cursed/branded/etc. to give off that alignment for all they know, and shame on them for jumping to the worst possible conclusion--they're supposed to be "the good guys".
also might be morally questionable to kill him despite him saving their ass repeatedly in battle or after doing various deeds of questionable good (like founding a monastary--leaving out that it's for his evil sect of monks).
Is the player evil or the character?