Opposing Alignments working together (Law V. Chaos, Good V. Evil)

[atemu1234]

I want to run a campaign with a good mix of alignments, probably one character for the four extremes (LG, CG, LE, CE) and I was wondering what would be a good reason for them working together. Anything goes, basically, apart from really stupid things.

[Angelalex242]

Well, I do remember there being an example in the DMG of what would happen if one character of each alignment was in a party. I believe the example had the CN and the NE characters die, the CE character was a coward and tried to bully the party after it was weakened, and the TN character passively watched.

...suffice to say, this road leads to madness. Imagine an Archon, an Eladrin, a Devil, and a Demon told to get along.

The Devil and Demon immediately start the Blood War. The Archon and the Eladrin jump in to kill both of them. The Archon and Eladrin, having won, peaceably part ways.

[Renen]

Well... it all depends on just how bad the CE is.
Because probably the only thing that wont make them kill each other, is saving the world from a clear evil that is looking to destroy it all.

So the characters might go "well, I hate you all but since I dont want the wold to end, and you are the ONLY ones that can help, i suppose we can work together."
So as long as CE isnt crazy enough to want the world to end, but is simply selfish enough to save his own hide, then they can all work together however poorly

[Red Fel]

I want to run a campaign with a good mix of alignments, probably one character for the four extremes (LG, CG, LE, CE) and I was wondering what would be a good reason for them working together. Anything goes, basically, apart from really stupid things.

As long as none of them have Paladin-style codes preventing them from working together, it's possible, but messy. Here's how.

Step one is background. The characters would have to have a mutual, friendly background that gives them reason to trust one another and work together. By way of example, I was in a Dragonlance campaign with vastly varied alignments, ranging from CG to LE, NG to NE. They were all over the place. It worked because they were all friends, they'd all grown up in the same village, they had common bonds. The NG Druid and NE Black Robe Wizard were school chums. The LE samurai owed a life debt to the CG swordsman. The LN construct was designed to obey the first gnome it met, who was a CG craftsman. And so forth.

Step two is concealment. This places a burden on Evil characters. Evil characters will have to conceal their motives. The thing is, if Good characters regularly engage in Evil acts, they will suffer alignment shift. That's how it works. The inverse is not necessarily true; an Evil character can engage in Good acts, even regularly, provided they accomplish some Evil aim. So the party will be overtly Good, even if some of the members are covertly Evil, if only to enable everyone to indulge their alignments. Again by way of illustration, in the Dragonlance campaign, our Black Robe Wizard worked with the party to destroy an ancient Evil - a Good act. Unbeknownst to us, however, on her regular trips to restock her supplies in the Tower, she would make pit stops in isolated villages, slaughter the populace, and raise them as her skeletal minions. Her adventure with us allowed her to increase her power, which enabled her to spread her dark influence in the isolated regions of the world.

As mentioned, step two places a somewhat heavy burden on the Evil characters. It's hard to be Good in an Evil party, or Evil in a Good party; complacency when the party is against you should generally lead to alignment shifting. You could simply ignore the effects of different alignments working together, but if you do that, what's the point? Without question, it will be difficult, and in all likelihood few characters will remain where they started on the board. But it's possible.

[atemu1234]

Remember they're all human. The outsiders example is flawed because those are pure representations of the alignments. Doesn't make it impossible for humans (as far as I know) to get along.

[Thealtruistorc]

Provided they don't discriminate against opposed alignments, they can all work fine.

Order of the Stick represents this concept well, as we have three of the four extremes covered among the party (LG, CG, and CE). My own party covers most of the spectrum and can work together fine if we have a common goal.

[Angelalex242]

In that case, we need to look at that example in the DMG of 9 people in a party of every alignment.

They fought some monsters, the CN and NE people died, and the argument over loot went something like this.

LG:We should divide it equally, first setting aside some to resurrect the dead people
LE:Dividing equally is fine, that's in the contract, but I don't recall anything about setting aside for dead people! Screw that!
LN:Fortunately for you two, I've got the written copy of the contract right here, and we're following it to the letter.
NG: Certainly we should help pay for the fallen to rise again.
CG: Raise 'em. It's the right thing to do.
TN: No opinion, will only act to restore the balance.
CE: I've got all my HP, you guys don't, so I'm going to take all the treasure...and if you don't let me, I'll finish you off and kill you all! MWAHAHAHHA!
Had CN been alive, he'd flip a coin on his position
Had NE been alive, he'd certainly want to be raised, and hope nobody noticed he stole a gem not intended to be part of party loot.

[Curmudgeon]

Gee, people do this sort of thing all the time. Think of your average workplace, with people of different political, religious, and sexual orientations. They can still cooperate for common goals (producing a product or whatever in order to make money). In fact, disclosures about these orientations are entirely optional; it's the shared goal that's important.

Really, there's no problem unless you purposely set out to create one.

[atemu1234]

You all seem to be misunderstanding; I'm looking for a backstory. I can recognize their ability to work together, but the will to do so is more important.

[FidgetySquirrel]

It would depend a lot on the particular characters. In general, it would require an obvious threat to the world itself, and a CE character who would actually care. Basically it could work like this...

LG: Preferably non-paladin, willing to work with evil to defeat greater evil.

CG: Must be willing to tolerate the lawful PCs more domineering attitudes for the greater good. The LG probably wouldn't be a problem, but a typical LE is tyrannical by nature. The CG must be willing to deal with that.

LE: Simple enough, how can you rule the world if someone else destroys it?

CE: Definitely the most difficult PC to get to cooperate. Must have enough self-interest to help fight the BBEG.

The BBEG must not have ANY reason to bring any of the PCs into the fold, otherwise one of them WILL defect. This must be win or die, for everyone involved. If not, PvP is inevitable and the campaign will collapse around you. Tread carefully, these are dangerous waters for a DM. You're braver than I.

[Renen]

CE can actually be a mercenary group hires to kill BBEG. So as long as they are paying him, and are too much of a pain to kill, he will likely tag along

[Red Fel]

You all seem to be misunderstanding; I'm looking for a backstory. I can recognize their ability to work together, but the will to do so is more important.

See step one, above. Give the players a common origin when building their characters, or encourage them to develop one amongst themselves. The thing to remember is that a character is a person, not just an alignment; just because I'm NE and my best friend is CG doesn't mean he stops being my friend, it simply means that I do a little less puppy-kicking when he's around. Unless we've both had a few drinks and he's unlikely to notice. Because man, Dwarven rum, am I right?


Basically it could work like this...

<CLUE>
But here's how it really happened...

*hallway full of corpses*
</CLUE>

[FidgetySquirrel]

*hallway full of corpses*Well at least half of the PCs thought it was a party!

[XmonkTad]

The motivations of the CE party member are only suspect if he is sure he is going to die, but pulls a heroic sacrifice and stays in the fight anyway.

It's also fine for these characters to like each other and agree on lots of things. A CE Dwarf and a LG Dwarf probably both like alcohol.

[Pan151]

People are not alignments. People are personalities. Alignements are assigned to these personalities, not the other way round.

A LE person does not have to be a tyrant. They could in fact be kind and just, more so than any LG person even, except that they abide to a slightly different set of ethics.

A CE person does not have to be a murderous psychopath. They could be someone who values strength over all else, and as such they admire the rest of the party enough to not antagonise them on every step of the way.

Likewise, a LG person could be someone who forcuses of the "do good" rather than the "root out all evil" side of things, and a CG person could merely be a miscievous, if well-meaning person rather than a sworn enemy of all tyrants.

People do not have to be played to the extreme of their alignments, and there's nothing stopping, say, a LG person from cooperating with a LE person, or even choosing them over a LN one. Even a party of 4 outsiders of opposing alignments is not impossible, because a) most outsiders are intelligent enough to know that they don't stand a good chance in a 4-way free for all and b) there is nothing forcing them to behave like savages in the first place (yes, even demons can be civilised and peaceful - see Pazuzu). And especially Devils would find that kind of party particularly relaxing (what you say? Having to work together with 3 people that want to stab me in the front? And you call that a bad work environment?)

[atemu1234]

Even a party of 4 outsiders of opposing alignments is not impossible, because a) most outsiders are intelligent enough to know that they don't stand a good chance in a 4-way free for all and b) there is nothing forcing them to behave like savages in the first place (yes, even demons can be civilised and peaceful - see Pazuzu). And especially Devils would find that kind of party particularly relaxing (what you say? Having to work together with 3 people that want to stab me in the front? And you call that a bad work environment?)

I'd figure the devil would've been friends with the LG outsider from before he fell (see Fiendish Codex II) and the CG one would be friends with LG from some campaign against something or other (probably yuguloths) but the CE one would be interesting. How would a demon relate to this group?

[Brookshw]

Remember that in D&D Canon the blood war has halted briefly for significant reasons, albeit they were extremely volatile pauses balors and pit fiends have come together. They're still intelligent, suitable gains or threats can work (though I'm sure there'd be some jockying to best position themselves to betray one another).

[Seto]

In that case, we need to look at that example in the DMG of 9 people in a party of every alignment.

They fought some monsters, the CN and NE people died, and the argument over loot went something like this.

LG:We should divide it equally, first setting aside some to resurrect the dead people
LE:Dividing equally is fine, that's in the contract, but I don't recall anything about setting aside for dead people! Screw that!
LN:Fortunately for you two, I've got the written copy of the contract right here, and we're following it to the letter.
NG: Certainly we should help pay for the fallen to rise again.
CG: Raise 'em. It's the right thing to do.
TN: No opinion, will only act to restore the balance.
CE: I've got all my HP, you guys don't, so I'm going to take all the treasure...and if you don't let me, I'll finish you off and kill you all! MWAHAHAHHA!
Had CN been alive, he'd flip a coin on his position
Had NE been alive, he'd certainly want to be raised, and hope nobody noticed he stole a gem not intended to be part of party loot.

God where's that ? That's got to be the most stupidly caricatural understanding of alignments I've ever read ! The fact that you quote it from the DMG worries me... but I can't find it.

To the OP : these people are all... well, people. Not Exemplars. They can get along. The problem is that, while they might have no problem working together in everyday life, adventuring is something that forces you to make choices that define you. You can totally divide loot peacefully, even if that means that the greedy guy annoys you. If worse comes to worse, you just let him have one more shiny and that's it. You can also agree on the rule of majority : not every situation has directly something to do with alignment. For example, CE, LE and LG might agree that sneaking around the dragon is smarter than jumping on it. CG will just have to go along. Even when it does have something to do with alignment, every character can, for the same decision, have different motives directly in relation to the way they play their alignment : Hey, ogres make a very satisfying thump when they hit the ground ! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0212.html)
The problem is that, sometimes, you just can't compromise. No matter how much you want to work with those guys, when you see them set fire to the tavern with 40 people inside, because the owner looked at them funny, you just can't let them. And chances are your character will have no reason to work with them anymore. (This happened in my last game : my reason (that I have endeavored to find) for travelling with them now is that I seek to prevent them from causing too much mayhem, am not strong enough to directly fight them, and collect intel about them for later). When that happens, follow Red Fel's suggestions above.

TL;DR : - Make them friends. Or at least give them a strong incentive to work together.
- Ask your players to have some sort of power balance : the intra-party Cold War, if there is one, thus needs not become open war.
- It only truly matters on a few chosen occasions - most can be resolved.
- When that one occasion happens, I'd advise doing things the Good or Lawful way, since Chaotic or Evil characters do not have a moral duty to protect Chaos or Evil.

[Techwarrior]

It's in the 2ed DMG (or maybe PHB, I don't recall), they defined the alignments slightly differently back then.