Why ban alignments?

[Desiani]

In the group that I play with once a week the GM has this irritating rule about NO NE or CE, I can slightly understand CE because of some of the stuff it allows people to do. To this extent the reason he gives for allowing LE is because 'I can dictate how their evil.' The caveat to LE though is thathe doesn't allow Anti-Paladin or any cleric of the LE alignment.

Why would some one outright BAN any alignment at all? I truly don't understand the reasoning. When I GM for our group, I don't mind if there is a lone evil dude in the with our 2 usual paladins. I just tell the person that they have been hired to spy on these individuals for the BBEOrganization and give him an Amulet of Non Detection... I do tell them that they have to RP In such a way that his alignment isn't revealed by his or her actions.

Can some of the other people here help me understand why people ban random alignments?

[Extra Anchovies]

CE, NE, and to a lesser extent LE and CN, are often used by players as excuses to be jerks and derail the campaign. Also, making an NE/CE player character begs the question of why they're making long-term alliances with good-aligned PCs. Having a mostly/entirely good- or neutral-aligned party just makes more sense, story-wise. Having a Knight of the Weave, a Rainbow Servant, a cleric of Pelor, and an Assassin just doesn't make sense. At least, not for long campaigns.

That's my two bits, at least.

[Alaris]

In the group that I play with once a week the GM has this irritating rule about NO NE or CE, I can slightly understand CE because of some of the stuff it allows people to do. To this extent the reason he gives for allowing LE is because 'I can dictate how their evil.' The caveat to LE though is thathe doesn't allow Anti-Paladin or any cleric of the LE alignment.

Why would some one outright BAN any alignment at all? I truly don't understand the reasoning. When I GM for our group, I don't mind if there is a lone evil dude in the with our 2 usual paladins. I just tell the person that they have been hired to spy on these individuals for the BBEOrganization and give him an Amulet of Non Detection... I do tell them that they have to RP In such a way that his alignment isn't revealed by his or her actions.

Can some of the other people here help me understand why people ban random alignments?

It really is simple. The DM wants the party to be cohesive. To work together.

Alignments such as Chaotic Evil are literally the antithesis of this. Neutral Evil is better, but not necessarily by much.

Some DMs just don't want to deal with the possibility of players killing one another. And I can't blame them... trust me, it's quite the hassle.

Put simply, if you don't like the restriction, talk to your DM. Or find another game. Those are your only real options.

[paperarmor]

Part of it is simply a maturity thing, CE is not something you want in your group if the players don't understand things like the comfort level of the group. I've had a DM that banned lawful good just because they didn't understand how the alignment is supposed to work.

[Vortenger]

The only reason I can surmise is that the DM wishes the campaign to play out a certain way. If the plot requires the PC's to be heroes, many DM's cannot fathom an evil character fitting that mold (regardless of whether it can be done or not). If they cannot fathom it, they do not allow it. (Many are not comfortable with the idea of an antihero, as well)

[Seppo87]

I allow every alignment as long as the players play their characters with a cooperative attitude towards the rest of the party. No killing, no stealing, no betraying. I ask this in advance, so they can't hide behind "that's what my character would do". You were required to not create such a character in the first place.

[Blackhawk748]

CE, NE, and to a lesser extent LE and CN, are often used by players as excuses to be jerks and derail the campaign. Also, making an NE/CE player character begs the question of why they're making long-term alliances with good-aligned PCs. Having a mostly/entirely good- or neutral-aligned party just makes more sense, story-wise. Having a Knight of the Weave, a Rainbow Servant, a cleric of Pelor, and an Assassin just doesn't make sense. At least, not for long campaigns.

That's my two bits, at least.

I agree on the majority of this, except for the Assassin bit, considering their evil because they get payed to be, and the fact that i played an evil assassin with a group of good guys because my Assassin realized that they could help him get revenge.

[NecessaryWeevil]

I agree on the majority of this, except for the Assassin bit, considering their evil because they get payed to be, and the fact that i played an evil assassin with a group of good guys because my Assassin realized that they could help him get revenge.

Or perhaps they're evil because they're willing to be paid to act evil?

[Extra Anchovies]

I agree on the majority of this, except for the Assassin bit, considering their evil because they get payed to be, and the fact that i played an evil assassin with a group of good guys because my Assassin realized that they could help him get revenge.

Fair enough. I was originally going to say Ur-Priest instead of Cleric of Pelor, but I couldn't think of any rogueish classes/PrCs that require nonevil alignment, hence good-aligned god-botherer and evil skillmonkey.

[Urpriest]

In general, DMs ban alignments because they don't believe that they can just request players behave maturely. Sometimes, this is because the DM isn't able to play maturely either.

[Blackhawk748]

Or perhaps they're evil because they're willing to be paid to act evil?

theres always that side of it

And you always could have said Cleric of Erythnuul :smallwink:

[Desiani]

To give an example of the the PrC I want to go into:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo/s-z/souldrinker

The story behimd the character is that the BBEG killed her Family as well as her adopted Daughter. She is so distraught and wants revenge. She stumbles across a book that details the existence of Abbadon and the Four Horsemen as well as how they eat/use souls.

She essentially understands how the Horsemen don't want anything other then the complete obliteration of all existence and what that means for her even though she now Venerates them. Her soul wont be tortured or anything. She will either be turned into a Daemon or her soul will be eaten by her Patron.

She HAS to be NE in order to this PrC. I figure that since she has the same goal to kill, or in her case, eat his soul and send it to Abbadon, the grouping with the party ( this is a replacement for my dead one) and doing the bidding of her Patron will be satisfied since she just eats the soul of any enemy they face.

How would you handle this character concept at your table? Just give me a amulet of Non Detection? current group set up is a Paladin, TN druid CN Fight and Barbarian and a Lawful Neutral Cleric of Asmodeus. This is in the pathfinder Golarion setting.

[Skysaber]

There was once a game called Paranoia, which was infamous for routinely having party members slaughtered by their own party. TPK was a standard gaming session.

People ban evil alignments to prevent D&D from becoming the same thing.

[Blackhawk748]

Holy crap theres a LN cleric of Asmodeous in that group? didnt see that coming, honestly by an amulet of Non-detection and you should be fine, honestly the only two that would have a guaranteed problem with you is the Cleric and the Pally, the other would probably be really creeped out but would get why. The Druid may have a problem too but this depends on his stats on soul munchery

[torrasque666]

In the group that I play with once a week the GM has this irritating rule about NO NE or CE, I can slightly understand CE because of some of the stuff it allows people to do. To this extent the reason he gives for allowing LE is because 'I can dictate how their evil.' The caveat to LE though is thathe doesn't allow Anti-Paladin or any cleric of the LE alignment.

Why would some one outright BAN any alignment at all? I truly don't understand the reasoning. When I GM for our group, I don't mind if there is a lone evil dude in the with our 2 usual paladins. I just tell the person that they have been hired to spy on these individuals for the BBEOrganization and give him an Amulet of Non Detection... I do tell them that they have to RP In such a way that his alignment isn't revealed by his or her actions.

Can some of the other people here help me understand why people ban random alignments?

Usually its because people pick NE/CE to be *****. I've seen GMs ban NE/CE/CN because they see those alignments as only being taken for an excuse to be a jerk/selfish to the group and then hide behind "It's what my character would do!" My current GM would allow only LE out of the Evil spectrum because Lawful Evil will still work with Good, so long as it works out their favor in the end. They want control, not destruction. If they get that control by working with Good, so be it.

For example, look at the Paladins. A Paladin of Honor(LG) can work with a Paladin of Freedom(CG) and feasibly, a Paladin of Tyranny(LE) because Tyranny will work with the Honor so long as Honor is stronger than him, and thus will follow Honor. A Paladin of Slaughter(CE) will not.

[Desiani]

Holy crap theres a TN cleric of Asmodeous in that group? didnt see that coming, honestly by an amulet of Non-detection and you should be fine, honestly the only two that would have a guaranteed problem with you is the Cleric and the Pally, the other would probably be really creeped out but would get why. The Druid may have a problem too but this depends on his stats on soul munchery

Lawful Neutral. Asmodeus is Lawful Evil and you have to be within one step of the deity's alignment

[Blackhawk748]

whoops typo, fixed that now.

[Sartharina]

For the same reason you'd ban any type of alignment - your game has the banned faction as the antagonist. Good and Evil are forces in D&D. Not monolithic, but people who share an alignment are still aligned with each other. That's what that term means.

Even if CE/NE/LE players aren't always ***** to other player characters, they rarely extend the same courtesy to the DM, as well. "I don't want to run a game for Evil" is a very legitimate option. He's the Dungeon Master, not the Dungeon Slave, merely running a game for the enjoyment of the players.

[Divide by Zero]

For the same reason you'd ban any type of alignment - your game has the banned faction as the antagonist. Good and Evil are forces in D&D. Not monolithic, but people who share an alignment are still aligned with each other. That's what that term means.

Even if CE/NE/LE players aren't always ***** to other player characters, they rarely extend the same courtesy to the DM, as well. "I don't want to run a game for Evil" is a very legitimate option. He's the Dungeon Master, not the Dungeon Slave, merely running a game for the enjoyment of the players.

"Why would we want the lich to win?"
"...Because we're evil?"
"And that makes us all one big happy family? Screw that!" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0668.html)

[Sartharina]

"Why would we want the lich to win?"
"...Because we're evil?"
"And that makes us all one big happy family? Screw that!" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0668.html)

They don't want the Lich to win, but they have a similar goal as the lich. They still share an alignment, and are loosely unified by a desire to screw over the world.

[Divide by Zero]

They don't want the Lich to win, but they have a similar goal as the lich. They still share an alignment, and are loosely unified by a desire to screw over the world.

That's assuming "screw over the world" is your goal. If someone is doing evil in "your" territory, you're probably going to want to make them leave. If you want to rule the world, then you probably don't want some other evil to rule it first. If you have any goal, evil or otherwise, that involves the world not being destroyed, then you are probably going to want to stop the world from being destroyed. And so on.

Having some morally similar goals doesn't necessarily mean anything other than having some morally similar enemies.

[ImperatorV]

I personally believe all alignments can work together in all situations. Even in long term campaigns.

Want examples? Will Save World For Gold. It's 4th ed, but the alignments part still applies. The SilverClawShift campaign journals come to mind as well (the second campaign). In fact, I would say having evil and good working together for long periods of time creates interesting dynamics.

The stereotype that evil cannot co-exist with good comes from bad roleplayers who think CE characters have to kill everything in sight. They can have redeeming features. Even if they are very minor, and only apply to certain people.

DMs who ban alignments either have bad roleplayers or are afraid of having to deal with a more complex party dynamic.

[Sartharina]

That's assuming "screw over the world" is your goal. If someone is doing evil in "your" territory, you're probably going to want to make them leave. If you want to rule the world, then you probably don't want some other evil to rule it first. If you have any goal, evil or otherwise, that involves the world not being destroyed, then you are probably going to want to stop the world from being destroyed. And so on.

Having some morally similar goals doesn't necessarily mean anything other than having some morally similar enemies.

Not necessarily goal, but definitely reactions. The world doesn't care who's screwing them over - it's still getting screwed over. That's what makes them Evil. Yes, they fight each other, but their infighting just causes more Evil. Not all evil wants the world to be destroyed - Evil doesn't care if the world's destroyed or not. A destroyed world is a case of where Nobody Wins.

A person who's Evil but fights against forces trying to destroy the world is still making the world a worse place (at least locally) for those he crosses paths with, even if he ultimately saves the world (The destruction of the world isn't inherently an evil act... such as if it's destroyed by a wayward meteor or sudden natural disaster)

A DM who bans Evil is saying "I don't want players fighting against what's good in the world".

[Blackhawk748]

A DM who bans Evil is saying "I don't want players fighting against what's good in the world".

Or they believe murder-hoboing will be turned to 11, which could very well happen.

[Anlashok]

Generally alignments are banned because the DM has had bad experiences with players using that alignment as a justification to play dumbly or because the DM is under the misguided impression that said alignment won't "fit" his campaign.

[Waker]

I personally ban alignments for two primary reasons.
1. In my experience, players are more likely to play their alignment than play their character. That is, rather than ask what would their character do, they instead say "Well, I'm chaotic, soooo...." I know other people's experience will be different from mine, but alignment tends to encourage bad roleplaying more often than it does good.
2. It annoys me when I see or am forced to get involved in alignment arguments, trying to figure if an action would be construed as Lawful/Evil/Good/Chaotic. Aside from the fact that they will never find a suitable answer until perhaps after the heat death of the universe, it also bugs me on a thematic level. In D&D, alignment isn't philosophy or religion. It is an indisputable fact, a law as provable as gravity or magnetism. There are beings who are literally made up of their respective alignment and to quote another poster out of context, "For all we know, Balors are composed of malecules and cruelectrons."

As for how banning alignment changes the game, it doesn't really. Instead of alignment, I have characters give me a description of how a character acts and likely responses in a given situation. A few spells and class abilities get changed (Smite Evil=Smite), while others might get axed entirely.

[Pan151]

Or they believe murder-hoboing will be turned to 11, which could very well happen.

Because murder-hoboing will definitely not be turned to 11 anyway, even with an all - good party...

[Curmudgeon]

Banning alignments is a simplistic (check box) attempt at banning disruptive behavior. Frankly, I've found more persistent disruptive behavior from stick-up-the-posterior Paladin players (Lawful Good), and those who think professed noble intentions can excuse anything (Chaotic Good).

In general, you shouldn't care about your fellow adventurers' alignments; those are largely between themselves and their deities. What you should care about is their contribution to the group's goal. A Lawful Good character who spends most of their time and energy mistrusting companions they suspect aren't up to their high standards is a poor party member. On the other hand, a Chaotic Evil character who dithers about whether to brutally slaughter opponents or make them flee in terror can still contribute usefully to the group's objectives (overcoming obstacles and accomplishing missions) and is thus a helpful party member.

[Baroknik]

I personally ban alignments for two primary reasons.
1. In my experience, players are more likely to play their alignment than play their character. That is, rather than ask what would their character do, they instead say "Well, I'm chaotic, soooo...." I know other people's experience will be different from mine, but alignment tends to encourage bad roleplaying more often than it does good.
2. It annoys me when I see or am forced to get involved in alignment arguments, trying to figure if an action would be construed as Lawful/Evil/Good/Chaotic. Aside from the fact that they will never find a suitable answer until perhaps after the heat death of the universe, it also bugs me on a thematic level. In D&D, alignment isn't philosophy or religion. It is an indisputable fact, a law as provable as gravity or magnetism. There are beings who are literally made up of their respective alignment and to quote another poster out of context, "For all we know, Balors are composed of malecules and cruelectrons."

As for how banning alignment changes the game, it doesn't really. Instead of alignment, I have characters give me a description of how a character acts and likely responses in a given situation. A few spells and class abilities get changed (Smite Evil=Smite), while others might get axed entirely.

I've done similar, except alignments aren't entirely gone for me. Creatures with alignment subtypes retain those alignments, and players have the options to take feats to gain those subtypes. These feats already exist for the good/evil axis (I treat exalted characters as subtype good, and vile subtype evil), and I have introduced Axiomatic/Anarchic feat chains as well.
Largely, I've set it to be viewed as a 25 alignment system where any non-extreme value is treated as N for mechanical purposes.

[Troacctid]

The game is different when you play as the bad guys. A lot of DMs aren't interested in writing and running that sort of campaign.

[Curmudgeon]

The game is different when you play as the bad guys.
I disagree. Adventurers are, by their intrinsic nature, bad guys: they spend their time going about killing people and taking their stuff. If that happens because another group attacked the adventuring party first, it's fine. However, restricting the characters to non-Evil alignments encourages the players to checkbox mentality (Orc = often Chaotic Evil = kill on sight). I dislike that quite intensely, and will (as a DM) have the local law-keepers track down the perpetrators of such unwarranted slaughter. Hate crimes aren't a good thing in a game any more than in real life.

[NichG]

To give an example of the the PrC I want to go into:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo/s-z/souldrinker

The story behimd the character is that the BBEG killed her Family as well as her adopted Daughter. She is so distraught and wants revenge. She stumbles across a book that details the existence of Abbadon and the Four Horsemen as well as how they eat/use souls.

She essentially understands how the Horsemen don't want anything other then the complete obliteration of all existence and what that means for her even though she now Venerates them. Her soul wont be tortured or anything. She will either be turned into a Daemon or her soul will be eaten by her Patron.

She HAS to be NE in order to this PrC. I figure that since she has the same goal to kill, or in her case, eat his soul and send it to Abbadon, the grouping with the party ( this is a replacement for my dead one) and doing the bidding of her Patron will be satisfied since she just eats the soul of any enemy they face.

How would you handle this character concept at your table? Just give me a amulet of Non Detection? current group set up is a Paladin, TN druid CN Fight and Barbarian and a Lawful Neutral Cleric of Asmodeus. This is in the pathfinder Golarion setting.

Primarily, I'd ask you what exactly you expect to happen when inevitably the party discovers that you're eating souls. Secrets always come out, no matter what you try to do to protect them. There's a Paladin in the group - they literally cannot let that go unquestioned. So this particular character concept seems like either it will inevitably end in PvP in the group, you or the paladin leaving, or you or the paladin ending up changing alignment and losing class features.

If you were willing to play this character completely openly behind the scenes but in secret out in front, and if the other players also unanimously agreed to let you play this character and said they were okay with either the possibility of PvP or meeting your character half-way, then I'd probably adjust the alignment rules to have more give so that the game doesn't self-destruct when the paladin finds out about you. But I wouldn't let things run 'as is' and blind to the other players, because it'd be a recipe for the game collapsing a few sessions down the road.

The thing is, playing a character like this requires a lot of maturity. Generally thats true for any evil-aligned character. It can certainly be done, but its a lot easier to tell the group 'evil alignments are banned' rather than tell individual players 'I don't think that you personally are mature enough to pull this off'. The former shuts down some options, but the latter makes people feel singled out and insulted.

[Dalebert]

Evil does not equal stupid. When I play an evil character, I generally have a policy of I don't poop where I eat. In other words, the party is my bread and butter. I need them as allies to keep me alive. I need them to trust me. I will do evil things but I will keep it discreet and not target the party. Don't steal from the party. It's a very risky endeavor that's just not worth it.

Go ahead and be evil but be smart evil. Everyone in the party needs strong reasons for being there that will last through a campaign. If you start acting overtly evil in front of a mostly good party, they will kick you out, IF you're lucky, or worse. It will be the end of that character's involvement in the game one way or the other.

Also, evil people have friends and people they care about, people they will KILL for (hehe). They may not put their own lives on the line all the time for them. When things get heated, folks might see a clue at your actual alignment. Ultimately, you're out for #1 but you will fake it as long as you can.

[Troacctid]

See, but if you never do anything overtly evil, you could just be playing a neutral character.

[Dalebert]

See, but if you never do anything overtly evil, you could just be playing a neutral character.

Oh, you're doing it. You're just smart enough to not get caught!

[Troacctid]

In which case you're secretly working against your teammates and creating awkward asymmetrical information between players where they have to pretend they don't know you're doing it. :smallannoyed:

[Sartharina]

I disagree. Adventurers are, by their intrinsic nature, bad guys: they spend their time going about killing people and taking their stuff. If that happens because another group attacked the adventuring party first, it's fine. However, restricting the characters to non-Evil alignments encourages the players to checkbox mentality (Orc = often Chaotic Evil = kill on sight). I dislike that quite intensely, and will (as a DM) have the local law-keepers track down the perpetrators of such unwarranted slaughter. Hate crimes aren't a good thing in a game any more than in real life.
I strongly disagree here, at least in my experience.

[jjcrpntr]

As a DM alignment is probably the only thing I'm pretty restrictive about. Mostly for reasons given here.
I only allow my players to take the "good" alignments and LN.( LG, CG,NG,LN)

Mostly this is because as people say it's just easier than having to deal with "well i'm just playing my character" stuff, it also stops players from being *****. I wouldn't mind running an evil campaign someday but for now it's just more work than it's worth. And in reality none of my players really have a problem with it. Save one who plays just about every character as though it's CN borderline CE, even though I think his current character is LN. But that's just because of the player.

[jjcrpntr]

Evil does not equal stupid. When I play an evil character, I generally have a policy of I don't poop where I eat. In other words, the party is my bread and butter. I need them as allies to keep me alive. I need them to trust me. I will do evil things but I will keep it discreet and not target the party. Don't steal from the party. It's a very risky endeavor that's just not worth it.

Go ahead and be evil but be smart evil. Everyone in the party needs strong reasons for being there that will last through a campaign. If you start acting overtly evil in front of a mostly good party, they will kick you out, IF you're lucky, or worse. It will be the end of that character's involvement in the game one way or the other.

Also, evil people have friends and people they care about, people they will KILL for (hehe). They may not put their own lives on the line all the time for them. When things get heated, folks might see a clue at your actual alignment. Ultimately, you're out for #1 but you will fake it as long as you can.

This is true. It's also true how LG doesn't always mean lawful stupid.

[dascarletm]

In which case you're secretly working against your teammates and creating awkward asymmetrical information between players where they have to pretend they don't know you're doing it. :smallannoyed:

Not necessarily. Evil doesn't always mean counter to good. You could be achieving the same/similar goals, but just going about it in different ways.

The jerk Baron Hans Von Jerkface won't let us pass through his mines to fight <insert bad guy>. While the good members are taking time arguing through the proper channels, bringing it up with counsel members, and what have you, Sneaky McMurder kills the baron in his sleep. It looks natural, and his son Baron Wolfgang Von Reasonable is the new head of state. He lets the party through, in time to save the day no-less!


I am currently playing a Chaotic Evil character, and he has been the most self-sacrificing for the party as anyone else.

He's chaotic because he's a free spirit. He doesn't take any stock in traditions for the sake of tradition, or really care about authority. This doesn't mean he goes around stealing, or being generally disruptive. He has 18 int, he understands the concept of consequence.

He's Evil because he doesn't care for the sanctity of life (with a few exceptions). He won't hesitate or feel any remorse for a second taking someones life. He doesn't go out of his way to kill people (what is there to gain?), but he does care about three things...

The party members. The backstory for this guy is that the other players are the only family he ever really had. He's a Sylph in a town that didn't understand or tolerate what that was. Grew up on the streets with only the other party members giving a damn about him. He has put himself in dire situations for their sake, and has risked his life for them without hesitation.

I very much dislike when people are of the opinion that evil or chaotic = disruptive to the party. It just isn't. I understand that people try to use it as a band-aid to prevent this sort of thing, but that's treating the symptom not the cause, which is the player.

[VoxRationis]

I disagree. Adventurers are, by their intrinsic nature, bad guys: they spend their time going about killing people and taking their stuff. If that happens because another group attacked the adventuring party first, it's fine. However, restricting the characters to non-Evil alignments encourages the players to checkbox mentality (Orc = often Chaotic Evil = kill on sight). I dislike that quite intensely, and will (as a DM) have the local law-keepers track down the perpetrators of such unwarranted slaughter. Hate crimes aren't a good thing in a game any more than in real life.

The infamous "murderhobo" behavior comes from a lack of proper role-playing as good guys. The fact of the matter is that a well-designed adventure has a good reason for why the PCs are fighting the people they're fighting, and outside of those situations, well-roleplayed characters act like reasonable, well-adjusted people. I'm playing in a campaign where we, without intentionally defining that our characters are particularly after diplomacy, went out of our way to resolve conflicts peaceably where possible. (And my character isn't even Good!)
As for the "oh, they mass-murder orcs, just because they're orcs" argument: You've ignored a crucial series of logical steps in that line of thinking. The orcs, just because they're orcs, are usually doing stuff like pillaging and raping innocent villages, and the PCs strike back to end the situation, which is entirely reasonable and logical. While it is true that the PCs don't conduct psychological evaluations on each individual orc, the particular group of orcs the party is fighting have usually made their guilt quite clear well before the first initiative roll.

[Troacctid]

Not necessarily. Evil doesn't always mean counter to good. You could be achieving the same/similar goals, but just going about it in different ways.

The jerk Baron Hans Von Jerkface won't let us pass through his mines to fight <insert bad guy>. While the good members are taking time arguing through the proper channels, bringing it up with counsel members, and what have you, Sneaky McMurder kills the baron in his sleep. It looks natural, and his son Baron Wolfgang Von Reasonable is the new head of state. He lets the party through, in time to save the day no-less!


I am currently playing a Chaotic Evil character, and he has been the most self-sacrificing for the party as anyone else.

He's chaotic because he's a free spirit. He doesn't take any stock in traditions for the sake of tradition, or really care about authority. This doesn't mean he goes around stealing, or being generally disruptive. He has 18 int, he understands the concept of consequence.

He's Evil because he doesn't care for the sanctity of life (with a few exceptions). He won't hesitate or feel any remorse for a second taking someones life. He doesn't go out of his way to kill people (what is there to gain?), but he does care about three things...

The party members. The backstory for this guy is that the other players are the only family he ever really had. He's a Sylph in a town that didn't understand or tolerate what that was. Grew up on the streets with only the other party members giving a damn about him. He has put himself in dire situations for their sake, and has risked his life for them without hesitation.

And if evil characters were disallowed, this character could easily be played as any type of neutral with only trivial modifications to the fluff. Evil PCs who are ruthless but controlled and rational tend to be indistinguishable from neutral. The only real functional difference is how much of a jerk they are.

[Zubrowka74]

I personally believe all alignments can work together in all situations. Even in long term campaigns.

Want examples? Will Save World For Gold. It's 4th ed, but the alignments part still applies. The SilverClawShift campaign journals come to mind as well (the second campaign). In fact, I would say having evil and good working together for long periods of time creates interesting dynamics.

The stereotype that evil cannot co-exist with good comes from bad roleplayers who think CE characters have to kill everything in sight. They can have redeeming features. Even if they are very minor, and only apply to certain people.

DMs who ban alignments either have bad roleplayers or are afraid of having to deal with a more complex party dynamic.

I find Raistlin Majere a good example of properly played Evil.

[Summerstorm]

Hm, yes the alignement-system. One thing i really weirdly like about D&D (Most people seem to desperatly try and ignore it from what i have seen)

So, my DM bans all evil alignments in his campaigns. I had a few discussions with him about it already (the honorful lawful evil devil is one of my favourite archetypes)
And at the moment one of my characters is "disguised as lawful neutral" - its what is on my character sheet, but not how i play him/envision him. My DM didn't notice.

Also pretty much the most "evilest" character i played... one was a Neutral good Dragon Shaman, the other a true neutral druid. The first is so feverish working on destroying evil that he ruins himself and others, the other is vindictive and cruel in combat with only one friend in the world which fears and despises him (he is an anthropomorphic animal - a freak). Both don't want to do evil, and the DS tries his best to make the world a better place...

On the other hand the most fun, nice and friendliest character i played was a CN sorceror. My CG Psion tried to order the execution of unarmed prisoners (We were fighting a guerrilla war against "mostly evil" invading factions - He thought we couldn't control them, and releasing them would endanger the civilians and our operation - some of the prisoners were ordinary mercenaries, some evil cultists)

What i am saying: Alignment is just the outlook and a portion of actions of an character (Also no one is "just" of one - you are fluctuating and sometimes have to do seemingly opposing things).

Hell in real life i have know people who really described themselves as "evil *******s", really good friends though (Well they were lawful evil, and you could predict them *g*)

So, you shouldn't ban alignments in my opinion, but characters who doesn't fit.

[dascarletm]

And if evil characters were disallowed, this character could easily be played as any type of neutral with only trivial modifications to the fluff.

When it comes to character personalities, the fluff is everything. That's the whole point. It is all the personality is made of. "Trivial modifications" that you are suggesting would not be trivial. That's the entire point of this character.

Secondly, I'm not arguing against banning evil. I do think there is a time and a place for it. However, doing that as a tool to "fix" inter-party fighting or problem player behavior, is what I am against. It goes along with the mentality that evil=scumbag and evil=stab everyone in the back. I mean I can change any character with these so-called "trivial modifications to the fluff" to make them any alignment I please, but that's not the point.


Evil PCs who are ruthless but controlled and rational tend to be indistinguishable from neutral.

That's not correct in my view. Rational and controlled tends to be along the lines of lawful, not good/evil. Being ruthless however is in the evil category (most of the time).

Also, being able to distinguish someone as evil/good doesn't really change what alignment they are. If a LE senator puts a lot of time and effort to make himself look LG, it doesn't make him LG; unless of course he becomes LG.


The only real functional difference is how much of a jerk they are.

The thing is, Evil does not equal jerk. Jerk equals jerk. I'll kill anyone no matter how nice they are, if they get in my way. That is evil. You can be nice about it. I hate to bring this up, but V, from V for Vendetta isn't a jerk to the people he kills. (that can be debated but let's go with it). He's quite cordial and polite especially to the doctor, I forget her name, even though he is killing her. He makes it painless for her, but he is still killing someone who is remorseful and wants to repent. This person no longer poses a threat, the murder is solely for revenge. It is evil. However, I wouldn't call him a jerk.

[thematgreen]

I think it depends on the group the DM is playing with. We played a campaign where the group was

Cleric
Paladin
Monk
Fighter
Barbarian
And me, a NE bard and an amulet of non detection

My character went along with the plans of the mostly heroic group because he was subtly manipulating them to his goal, taking over the kingdom we were adventuring in. He would always help the group with their goals at first, then he started working the citizens, talking the group up, making the group more and more well known.

My started orchestrating attacks on the city from local orc tribes and made sure the group was in line to defeat the threat before the lords of the city knew what was happening. Always he was talking, telling the citizens that their lords didn't care about them, telling them that strangers to the city were doing more to help the common man.

Over time the group started seeing things my way, noticing that the lords never defended their citizens and never seemed to care (Never noting my spread of misinformation).

Eventually we overthrew the just and rightful lords of the city and I crowned myself the new lord..and then then Paladin noticed his god given powers abandoned him, since overthrowing just rulers in a bid for power is not a good act, and the group realized what I did and we had an epic battle, them against me and my new bodyguards.

So much fun. The whole thing took months and was totally a better ending than "You beat the badguys, the end!", in my opinion.

None of that would have been possible without letting players be players.

[jjcrpntr]

I think it depends on the group the DM is playing with. We played a campaign where the group was

Cleric
Paladin
Monk
Fighter
Barbarian
And me, a NE bard and an amulet of non detection

My character went along with the plans of the mostly heroic group because he was subtly manipulating them to his goal, taking over the kingdom we were adventuring in. He would always help the group with their goals at first, then he started working the citizens, talking the group up, making the group more and more well known.

My started orchestrating attacks on the city from local orc tribes and made sure the group was in line to defeat the threat before the lords of the city knew what was happening. Always he was talking, telling the citizens that their lords didn't care about them, telling them that strangers to the city were doing more to help the common man.

Over time the group started seeing things my way, noticing that the lords never defended their citizens and never seemed to care (Never noting my spread of misinformation).

Eventually we overthrew the just and rightful lords of the city and I crowned myself the new lord..and then then Paladin noticed his god given powers abandoned him, since overthrowing just rulers in a bid for power is not a good act, and the group realized what I did and we had an epic battle, them against me and my new bodyguards.

So much fun. The whole thing took months and was totally a better ending than "You beat the badguys, the end!", in my opinion.

None of that would have been possible without letting players be players.


This sounds awesome. But I think it all goes back to the how mature your players are. If you have someone that does what you did that can be a lot of fun. I couldn't let players do that in my current group because it would cause a lot of drama (mostly one guy who thinks anyone he meets and spends a day or so hanging out with should become his best friend later in the game).

It's like in a flaws thread awhile ago someone said they let their players brew up their own flaws. I'd love to do that but like allowing some alignments, depending on the players in your group it can be more trouble than it's worth.

[thematgreen]

This sounds awesome. But I think it all goes back to the how mature your players are. If you have someone that does what you did that can be a lot of fun. I couldn't let players do that in my current group because it would cause a lot of drama (mostly one guy who thinks anyone he meets and spends a day or so hanging out with should become his best friend later in the game).

It's like in a flaws thread awhile ago someone said they let their players brew up their own flaws. I'd love to do that but like allowing some alignments, depending on the players in your group it can be more trouble than it's worth.

It was, and i think it was more enjoyable because I never let on OOC what I was actually doing, so it was a surprise in character AND OOC for the group. Of course, the DM knew so that I wouldn't drop it on him, but everyone loved the sudden turn and there were no hard feelings, even when the Barbarian, Cleric, and Figther all died alongside my Bard. It was a mature group and so we could keep in game hard feelings out of real life.

Were I to play with my other, less mature, group I wouldn't have tried to do what I did because they take IC and make it OOC and vice versa. In that group I have seen a persons character attacked and killed by another player because they drank the last soda and other petty stuff. I don't really play with that other group, though.

[Troacctid]

When it comes to character personalities, the fluff is everything. That's the whole point. It is all the personality is made of. "Trivial modifications" that you are suggesting would not be trivial. That's the entire point of this character.

Secondly, I'm not arguing against banning evil. I do think there is a time and a place for it. However, doing that as a tool to "fix" inter-party fighting or problem player behavior, is what I am against. It goes along with the mentality that evil=scumbag and evil=stab everyone in the back. I mean I can change any character with these so-called "trivial modifications to the fluff" to make them any alignment I please, but that's not the point.
Disagree. Things like killing for revenge are within the realm of Neutral; things like rape or the slaughter of innocents are unambiguously Evil, and are incompatible with a Good character. Similarly, someone who habitually performs selfless, self-sacrificial deeds to the point of maintaining Exalted status is not going to be Evil by any stretch (at least not unless they pull a Face-Heel Turn and start doing Evil stuff). Yes, intent matters, but when the rubber hits the road, characters are defined by their actions.

For the record, killing the innocent is Evil; killing the guilty is Neutral. Relevant passage:

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

[...]

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
From what I know, V does not kill innocents, and I believe he would ping as Chaotic Neutral. So while the "Evil = Jerkface" trope can be subverted, V is not an example. I'd have gone with Zaheer from Legend of Korra, or perhaps Mayor Wilkins from Buffy. (Of course, these characters are still unambiguously villainous--their affable manners are meant to be an ironic contrast to their evil deeds--and they would not be suitable as PCs in a standard heroic campaign.)


[cool evil-twist-ending campaign story]
See, that's cool, but it's a different kind of story than a typical heroic campaign. Not all DMs want to tell that kind of story in their game. Not all groups would enjoy being betrayed at the end. Just because it can be done well doesn't mean it should be done often.

[VoxRationis]

I never thought of Zaheer as affable, so much as calm. Every word he ever spoke carried, at least to me, a threat behind it, and his constant yammering about philosophy and mysticism did not make him approachable or easy to talk to.

[Troacctid]

True. Not a jerkface, though.

[thematgreen]

See, that's cool, but it's a different kind of story than a typical heroic campaign. Not all DMs want to tell that kind of story in their game. Not all groups would enjoy being betrayed at the end. Just because it can be done well doesn't mean it should be done often.

I agree, it's wasn't typical, but I felt safe playing it that way, it was me playing against the group and the DM without being a jerk about it, and playing WITH the group by being evil without being a disruption.

The campaign was a typical "Help a kingdom in need" campaign for loots and recognition and I didn't want to do the same kind of thing again so made my decision in the first day of play.

I wouldn't play that character again with the same group because in the next campaign they expected me to be evil and I never was. I wouldn't play like that in most other groups because I could easily see the group getting mad that I caused a Paladin to fall and wasn't obviously evil to any of them. For example, at the end when I turn I could see the group degenerating into an argument about how I couldn't be evil because I helped people so it makes no sense and ignoring my characters actual goals and how doing good led to evil.

I would never restrict alignment in a campaign, but I also tell people to leave their alingment blank and just play the character and I determine the alingment behind the scenes and decide reprecussion from that. If they insist on putting something I don't stop them whether it be LG or CE and anything between. When that LG Paladin has been doing things that are not LG and calls on his power and discovers that he has been fired by his god he can't blame anyone but himself for his actions. Yes, his character sheet says LG, but mine says CN because of his actions.

I let players have the freedom to do what they will, but concequences are concequences, if they are all playing crazy evil people then NPCs will spread the word and they may be banned from cities or hunted down.

I guess I can see banning CE since most people I have encountered play CE as "I RAPE AND EAT THE LADY AND KILL EVERYONE I SEE BECAUSE I AM CHAOTIC EVIL!!1!!!" the same as people who play Chaotic Neutral still play as a whackjob mental patient and it's just easier to nip it in the bud, but I will never do so.

[Fax Celestis]

I allow every alignment as long as the players play their characters with a cooperative attitude towards the rest of the party. No killing, no stealing, no betraying. I ask this in advance, so they can't hide behind "that's what my character would do". You were required to not create such a character in the first place.

Yeah. There's absolutely no reason that Neutral Evil Bobby McVenger can't party up with a mostly-good party: maybe he's evil because he does nefarious deeds with land ownership and evictions. "Hi. I just killed a dragon and bought your entire town with the money I made from its hoard. Get the hell out." Maybe he's evil because he's sold his soul to the devil for some sort of Faustian pact powers so he can get revenge on the pirate captain that killed his family fifteen years ago, and the thirst for revenge has twisted him so much that he'll do anything he has to to get back at Captain McGuffin. Long story short, having an E in your alignment line doesn't mean you're going to rape and pillage and leave a wake of destruction behind you, not even for CE. It just means that you do bad things for bad reasons.

[hamishspence]

And sometimes bad things for good reasons, if the things are especially bad and the DM is especially strict.

[Sartharina]

People who play Evil characters in a campaign not meant for evil characters are usually pissing off at least one player no matter how loyal they are to the party, because not every game is about the party.

[dascarletm]

Disagree. Things like killing for revenge are within the realm of Neutral; things like rape or the slaughter of innocents are unambiguously Evil, and are incompatible with a Good character.

Your quote doesn't talk about revenge-killing directly, so there is no basis to saying it is neutral territory. Revenge killing is done because you will take satisfaction from murdering someone who wronged you. Honestly from a philosophical standpoint, this is in the realm of immoral. Murdering someone who called you a "bad name" is revenge murder. I doubt anyone would consider that neutral.



Similarly, someone who habitually performs selfless, self-sacrificial deeds to the point of maintaining Exalted status is not going to be Evil by any stretch (at least not unless they pull a Face-Heel Turn and start doing Evil stuff). Yes, intent matters, but when the rubber hits the road, characters are defined by their actions.
So is this a complete off topic response, or are you injecting character attributes like maintaining exalted status. There is no altruism. Evil people can have feelings for others. They can experience love.



For the record, killing the innocent is Evil; killing the guilty is Neutral. Relevant passage:


Any Murder is an evil act. Period, pg. 30 of the Fiendish Codex II. Cold blooded murder is the second most corrupting thing on that list. (the type of killing I described without "minor changes to fluff.")

A lawful execution is on the lawful scale. However since you we are arguing my character's alignment I'll inform you this is no lawful execution. I also wouldn't assume when we say "a character that kills" we are assuming only lawful executions.



From what I know, V does not kill innocents, and I believe he would ping as Chaotic Neutral. So while the "Evil = Jerkface" trope can be subverted, V is not an example. I'd have gone with Zaheer from Legend of Korra, or perhaps Mayor Wilkins from Buffy. (Of course, these characters are still unambiguously villainous--their affable manners are meant to be an ironic contrast to their evil deeds--and they would not be suitable as PCs in a standard heroic campaign.)


V's alignment is something that has been debated. Hence my disclaimer. I'll just leave this post from Topat here. I'm not super versed on the subject, but I'd go on with it to my ability in another thread if that is desired.

Movie V is definitely CG. the only people he actually kills are horrible people (barring the doctor who he offs with poison). Evey also asked to be rendered without fear. Hes very much "The Ends justify the means".

As far as the comic is concerned, V is a CE anarchist against a LE Dictator. Hes not really in it for the people.

[hamishspence]

Any Murder is an evil act. Period, pg. 30 of the Fiendish Codex II. Cold blooded murder is the second most corrupting thing on that list. (the type of killing I described without "minor changes to fluff.")
BoED went into some detail on "non-evil killing".

It should have Just Cause (primarily, targets should be evil and guilty of crimes the heroes are obliged to stop- not just evil on its own)

It should have Good Intentions - preventing further acts of evil - rather than "revenge" (paying them back for past acts) - which it specifically calls out as Not Good Intentions.

It must be Discriminatory (avoiding killing noncombatants when the enemy force is a mixture of combatants and noncombatants, like an orc tribe).

BoVD acknowledges that acts of vengeance are not always evil - but that might not include killings.

[thematgreen]

People who play Evil characters in a campaign not meant for evil characters are usually pissing off at least one player no matter how loyal they are to the party, because not every game is about the party.

I disagree with this. Nobody was angry when I played evil in a heroic campaign. They were shocked when they realized what I had been doing, but nobody was mad, and it made a better ending than the standard.

It really depends on two things:

1 - How are you playing evil? If you are a monster then it will be disruptive for the group and that pisses people off. If you are affably evil and work within the confines of the group then it can enrich the storytelling.

2 - The group it'self. If the group insists "We are all good and that's it" then an evil character, no matter how well played will just make them mad. If the group is more open to actual roleplay then this shouldn't be an issue. Referring again to my evil bard in a group of players who considered themselves evil, I never disrupted the group and actually gave them what they wanted in my steps to take over a kingdom. The Face Heel Turn was a shock only when they realized what I was actually doing and everyone enjoyed that I had played my character to the T.

[Fax Celestis]

People who play Evil characters in a campaign not meant for evil characters are usually pissing off at least one player no matter how loyal they are to the party, because not every game is about the party.

Really? The summoner who cons fiends and angels alike into doing his bidding through labyrinthine, draconian contracts for selfish reasons (LE) is disruptive to the party? How do you even know what it says on his sheet?

[EisenKreutzer]

In the group that I play with once a week the GM has this irritating rule about NO NE or CE, I can slightly understand CE because of some of the stuff it allows people to do. To this extent the reason he gives for allowing LE is because 'I can dictate how their evil.' The caveat to LE though is thathe doesn't allow Anti-Paladin or any cleric of the LE alignment.

Why would some one outright BAN any alignment at all? I truly don't understand the reasoning. When I GM for our group, I don't mind if there is a lone evil dude in the with our 2 usual paladins. I just tell the person that they have been hired to spy on these individuals for the BBEOrganization and give him an Amulet of Non Detection... I do tell them that they have to RP In such a way that his alignment isn't revealed by his or her actions.

Can some of the other people here help me understand why people ban random alignments?

For some games, evil alignments just don't fit. The GM might have epic tales of heroism and bravery in mind, and the evil alignments don't lend themselves as naturally to those kinds of stories as the good and neutral alignments do.

In other cases, a GM might look at those specific alignments, CE and NE, and see that they are the most selfish of all the alignments, and could cause unneccessary intra-party conflicts. Thos two alignments are also prone to backstabbing and working against the other characters in the party.

Those are just the two reasons that spring to mind, there might be lots of others.

[Urpriest]

Really? The summoner who cons fiends and angels alike into doing his bidding through labyrinthine, draconian contracts for selfish reasons (LE) is disruptive to the party? How do you even know what it says on his sheet?

Bad example. That summoner would typically be good aligned, in order to take the Malconvoker PrC.

[sktarq]

One of the simplest reasons to ban alignments is for the DM's ease. Evil characters in mostly good parties are unpredictable from the DM's point of view. They could be totally LE but may be major sources of friction within the party and until proven otherwise have to be treated as such. Evil characters have tendencies of blowing off adventures or through them in ways that leave the DM unhappy with the story and all the work they put into it. Also as alignments are the area of the game that can, in general, cause more intra-game tensions, strife, at table distraction etc than almost any topic, they want to minimize this effect by bounding the problem. Also evil characters generally take more mental and energy to DM for because of all the negative things mentioned above and the DM just may not want to deal with that, especially if they have had negative experience it.
Also some DM's just don't find it fun to run games that involved the "heroes" very much fun.

[hamishspence]

Bad example. That summoner would typically be good aligned, in order to take the Malconvoker PrC.They could just be a wizard that summons both fiends and celestials, and hasn't bothered to take the PRC.

[dascarletm]

BoED went into some detail on "non-evil killing".

It should have Just Cause (primarily, targets should be evil and guilty of crimes the heroes are obliged to stop- not just evil on its own)

It should have Good Intentions - preventing further acts of evil - rather than "revenge" (paying them back for past acts) - which it specifically calls out as Not Good Intentions.

It must be Discriminatory (avoiding killing noncombatants when the enemy force is a mixture of combatants and noncombatants, like an orc tribe).

BoVD acknowledges that acts of vengeance are not always evil - but that might not include killings.

That would fall out of the scope of "murder." I don't disagree with you on what you say, it's more just out of the scope of the point I'm discussing.

[hamishspence]

That would fall out of the scope of "murder." The tricky part is Slayers of Domiel - which are basically Exalted Good Assassins. It's very hard to define assassination as anything but murder.

At which point we get debates over whether "murder" in D&D is meant in a moral sense, rather than a legal sense.

[Fax Celestis]

Bad example. That summoner would typically be good aligned, in order to take the Malconvoker PrC.

I was thinking Thaumaturgist.

[dascarletm]

The tricky part is Slayers of Domiel - which are basically Exalted Good Assassins. It's very hard to define assassination as anything but murder.

You could fill a container with seemingly contradictory things from that book.

[Urpriest]

They could just be a wizard that summons both fiends and celestials, and hasn't bothered to take the PRC.

I guess my position on this is that one of the major reasons people play evil characters (or characters of X race, or X class, etc.) is because that alignment (race, class) gives them some ability that makes their character concept work better. A character that would not only be more effective, but better matched represented in a thematic sense by being good-aligned is a poor example if you're looking for a situation when being an evil character is justified.

It seems more appropriate to describe an evil character who embodies a concept that can't be well-represented by good-aligned characters. For example, a divine caster who rejects the gods. :smallwink:

Considering how many campaigns focus around "the evil lord of evil is a god, or the high priest of a god, or the puppet of a god..." an Urpriest makes a welcome addition to many heroic campaigns, while still being emphatically evil.

[hamishspence]

You could fill a container with seemingly contradictory things from that book.Probably - it's the DM's job to pick the bits they like most, and leave out the bits that make the least sense.

[Fax Celestis]

I guess my position on this is that one of the major reasons people play evil characters (or characters of X race, or X class, etc.) is because that alignment (race, class) gives them some ability that makes their character concept work better. A character that would not only be more effective, but better matched represented in a thematic sense by being good-aligned is a poor example if you're looking for a situation when being an evil character is justified.

It seems more appropriate to describe an evil character who embodies a concept that can't be well-represented by good-aligned characters. For example, a divine caster who rejects the gods. :smallwink:

Considering how many campaigns focus around "the evil lord of evil is a god, or the high priest of a god, or the puppet of a god..." an Urpriest makes a welcome addition to many heroic campaigns, while still being emphatically evil.

Agreed wholeheartedly. However, alignment is not necessarily mechanical. I personally vastly prefer when it isn't.

[hamishspence]

The whole "harming souls is one of the vilest things possible" from BoVD, means that you could, if you wanted to Stay Evil while still "playing well with the rest of the party" - pick appropriate soul-busting spells or feats, and use them in battle, but otherwise, act exactly like your average Good character.

Result - you're not in any danger of losing your Evil alignment - but at the same time, you're not doing things that will aggravate the party, in out-of-combat situations.

[Thurbane]

In my own game I am currently running, players must be CG, NG, LG, or LN. They can also be true Neutral, but only if a divine caster of a true Neutral deity. Evil alignments and CN are not allowed for PCs.

This is a flavour based decision for my campaign, as evil alignments and Chaotic Random don't fit the overall theme of the protagonists, given the forces they will be trying to oppose.

I guess some people will consider me a horrible, "Mother May I?" ogre type - but the funny thing is no player batted an eyelid at the alignment restrictions and all are OK with it.

[thematgreen]

In my own game I am currently running, players must be CG, NG, LG, or LN. They can also be true Neutral, but only if a divine caster of a true Neutral deity. Evil alignments and CN are not allowed for PCs.

This is a flavour based decision for my campaign, as evil alignments and Chaotic Random don't fit the overall theme of the protagonists, given the forces they will be trying to oppose.

I guess some people will consider me a horrible, "Mother May I?" ogre type - but the funny thing is no player batted an eyelid at the alignment restrictions and all are OK with it.

It is your game and your rules, but I would have had to give a serious thought to if I wanted to have restrictions like that. By telling them what they can and cannot play you limit their ability to roleplay and get into their characters. It would have me worried that if I didn't follow your restrictions I could end up being punished in game because I wasn't following your script and out of game becuase of the same reason. Also, I feel like if you dictate how players can use their characters then you may inadventently roll into dictating other things.

I've always felt that a DM's job was to build the world and set the story, and let the players play it out.

[EisenKreutzer]

I've always felt that a DM's job was to build the world and set the story, and let the players play it out.

I think that in addition to these responsibilities, a GM should provide direction for the campaign. I try to point my campaign towards a theme, and provide directions for my players so they create characters that all pull in the same direction.
Seen in that light, restricting alignments and classes can be a potent tool.

[NichG]

The whole "harming souls is one of the vilest things possible" from BoVD, means that you could, if you wanted to Stay Evil while still "playing well with the rest of the party" - pick appropriate soul-busting spells or feats, and use them in battle, but otherwise, act exactly like your average Good character.

Result - you're not in any danger of losing your Evil alignment - but at the same time, you're not doing things that will aggravate the party, in out-of-combat situations.

The party does contain a paladin, so one thing at least that will aggravate that party is 'making another PC lose his powers by agreeing to travel with you'. The paladin was also there before, so the OP is proposing bringing a new evil character into a party with an established paladin (as opposed to at the start of the campaign one guy saying 'I want a paladin' and another guy saying 'I want an evil character' where both are making a choice that restricts everyone else and are ostensibly on equal footing). That's kind of a worrying thing to me - if the player doesn't realize that this could cause problems, are they really mature enough to play a nuanced 'work with the party' type of evil? Players who want to play evil have to be mature enough to realize that there are metagame considerations that are more important than 'playing your character accurately' and 'having a good time for themselves', such as whether or not their choices are going to make everyone else in the group pissed off at them OOC.


It is your game and your rules, but I would have had to give a serious thought to if I wanted to have restrictions like that. By telling them what they can and cannot play you limit their ability to roleplay and get into their characters. It would have me worried that if I didn't follow your restrictions I could end up being punished in game because I wasn't following your script and out of game becuase of the same reason. Also, I feel like if you dictate how players can use their characters then you may inadventently roll into dictating other things.

I've always felt that a DM's job was to build the world and set the story, and let the players play it out.

The DM is also responsible for making a game which is enjoyable and stable and generally mediating conflicts between players. This includes all sorts of things beyond just building the world and story, such as helping to deal with differences in OOC skill level, differences in player tastes (player 1 really likes combat, but player 2 hates it and really likes RP scenes, but player 3 would rather solve puzzles), personality conflicts between players, etc.

[Thurbane]

It is your game and your rules, but I would have had to give a serious thought to if I wanted to have restrictions like that. By telling them what they can and cannot play you limit their ability to roleplay and get into their characters. It would have me worried that if I didn't follow your restrictions I could end up being punished in game because I wasn't following your script and out of game becuase of the same reason. Also, I feel like if you dictate how players can use their characters then you may inadventently roll into dictating other things.

I've always felt that a DM's job was to build the world and set the story, and let the players play it out.

I can see your points, but in my group I am actually a very permissive DM. I'm pretty much the only one that will give people carte blanche when it comes to feats and prestige classes. I am also the first to allow ToB in play. Most of the other DMs (we take it turns) either allow:

A.) Core only (PHB & DMG, sometimes including MM, and never expanded material from the SRD like psionics)
B.) Core only + PHB2
C.) Core only + any one other book of your choice

Apart from setting starting alignment, I try to never dictate what course of action the party or individual characters should take. I also run my campaign with a sandbox approach - I have an overall enemy and encounters in mind, but if the group decides to wander off to another town instead, or parley with the Cult of Dispater instead of destroying them, I am open to those possibilities, and will shift the adventure path to suit.

Also, I am desperately trying to avoid my "age of player entitlement" rant where it seems as of the advent of the internet and/or 3.X onwards, players seem to demand DMs cater to their every whim, and any DM who so much as says "that doesn't fit with my campaign world" gets called an overbearing tyrant because he dared to question the player's 1/2 Vampire Dvati [insert obscure class/prestige class combo here]; and is crushing the players dreams and stifling their creativity! I wonder how these players would ever have gotten by in the AD&D days. :smalleek:

[TandemChelipeds]

In my own game I am currently running, players must be CG, NG, LG, or LN. They can also be true Neutral, but only if a divine caster of a true Neutral deity. Evil alignments and CN are not allowed for PCs.

This is a flavour based decision for my campaign, as evil alignments and Chaotic Random don't fit the overall theme of the protagonists, given the forces they will be trying to oppose.

I guess some people will consider me a horrible, "Mother May I?" ogre type - but the funny thing is no player batted an eyelid at the alignment restrictions and all are OK with it.

If your players think Chaotic Neutral means "lolrandom", you need to get better players. When I play Chaotic Neutral, I basically play it as "Chaotic Good, but willing to stoop lower". You know, the way everyone else plays Lawful Neutral.

And I think it's hilarious that you bemoan the effects of newer editions and the internet, seeing as the entire CN=lolrandom attitude is an artifact from AD&D, when the game designers were still trying to wrap their heads around the idea of chaos not being implicitly evil(though arguably, they still haven't quite figured that out; see the de facto evil Slaadi in 3e and the axing of all non-evil chaotic alignments in 4e).

[hamishspence]

(see the de facto evil Slaadi in 3e and the axing of all non-evil chaotic alignments in 4e).4e just shrugged and made all slaadi CE.

5e went back to CN with the Slaadi.

I figured 4e as the same, basically, as Eric Holmes 1978 D&D - 5 alignments, representing the 4 corners and the center.

Only LE and CG aren't called that any more.

[Oudyn]

Neutral evil and even Chaotic evil can have a goal that works within a good party. Vengeance. When an evil character thirsts for revenge, especially against another evil character, there is NOTHING that he won't do. Siding with the good guys? Sure. And a chaotic good party would likely consider such an ally a necessary evil. Really, though, that's a better role for an NPC than a PC, but it can work.

[hamishspence]

Conversely, a Good character could slip into Evil alignment through an obsession with Vengeance - while still retaining many traditionally Good goals and attitudes.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

Here's why Evil is banned at my friend's table. He allowed Evil alignments, and the players were ultimately disruptive. As the ONLY non-evil member of the party, I was made a victim of numerous inter-party conflicts, and when the campaign was growing closer to its climax, the rest of the party was going 'we don't care that the world is getting invaded. We're just gonna bunker up. If the plot finds us, we're backstabbing everybody."

[Fax Celestis]

-LawfulNeutralChaotic
Good"I do good things because they're right.""I do good things because I want to.""I do good things because the law is wrong."
Neutral"I do things because they're fair.""I do things because they're important.""I do things because society is unfair."
Evil"I do bad things because I'm allowed to.""I do bad things because I want to.""I do bad things because everyone else is wrong."

[Divide by Zero]

If your players think Chaotic Neutral means "lolrandom", you need to get better players. When I play Chaotic Neutral, I basically play it as "Chaotic Good, but willing to stoop lower". You know, the way everyone else plays Lawful Neutral.

Indeed. My last CN character was an escaped slave, whose primary motivation was eradicating slavery and opposing overly controlling authority figures in general. His goals were generally good, but he was willing to use more questionable means to accomplish them. Thus, CN.

[Sartharina]

Really? The summoner who cons fiends and angels alike into doing his bidding through labyrinthine, draconian contracts for selfish reasons (LE) is disruptive to the party? How do you even know what it says on his sheet?Because the Party Member players aren't the only players you might be pissing off playing an Evil character.

[Fax Celestis]

Because the Party Member players aren't the only players you might be pissing off playing an Evil character.

Who else then? The vague conceptual non-player? The DM? Why does the DM care as long as the player isn't disruptive? Playing an evil character isn't necessarily disruptive--I can play a disruptive or non-disruptive character regardless of their alignment.

[squiggit]

chart

A bit narrow in my opinion, alignments are way more flexible than most people give them credit for (especially the TN. There's more than a few who don't care about what's important)... but generally a good estimation overall.


The big takeaway here is that a player being disruptive or something is using their alignment as an excuse, not playing poorly because of it. A LG, LN, NG, TN, et al can cause just as much damage if their alignment is overdone or played stupidly.

[atemu1234]

I'd say it's because the players need to work together more cohesively. Because CE and CN are often used to kill and betray your teammates for no reason, and neutral evil just to betray them over the long term. If I were DM, I wouldn't allow a player to be CE because they'd steal the show; they're supposed to be a team, not with one member selfishly killing the others for no reason.

[Divide by Zero]

I'd say it's because the players need to work together more cohesively. Because CE and CN are often used to kill and betray your teammates for no reason, and neutral evil just to betray them over the long term. If I were DM, I wouldn't allow a player to be CE because they'd steal the show; they're supposed to be a team, not with one member selfishly killing the others for no reason.

That sounds like a player problem. Having a C in your alignment doesn't automatically make you Chaotic Stupid, and Evil characters can still have people they care about. Not to mention that killing your allies for no reason generally isn't conducive to accomplishing your other goals, unless your only goal is to be a murdering psychopath with no concept of consequences.

[Brookshw]

Also, I am desperately trying to avoid my "age of player entitlement" rant where it seems as of the advent of the internet and/or 3.X onwards, players seem to demand DMs cater to their every whim, and any DM who so much as says "that doesn't fit with my campaign world" gets called an overbearing tyrant because he dared to question the player's 1/2 Vampire Dvati [insert obscure class/prestige class combo here]; and is crushing the players dreams and stifling their creativity! I wonder how these players would ever have gotten by in the AD&D days. :smalleek:

I feel your pain :smallfrown:

[Pan151]

I'd say it's because the players need to work together more cohesively. Because CE and CN are often used to kill and betray your teammates for no reason, and neutral evil just to betray them over the long term. If I were DM, I wouldn't allow a player to be CE because they'd steal the show; they're supposed to be a team, not with one member selfishly killing the others for no reason.

Anyone can steal the show regardless of alignment. Anyone can act selfish regardless of alignment. If you have to ban something, ban the behaviour you dislike - the alignment is irrelevant.

[Anlashok]

I feel your pain :smallfrown:

Maybe you should rethink the way you run games if vitriolously mocking people who do things differently and having an absurdly narrow scope of play options are requisite in order to run a "good" campaign.

But no. Everyone else is just a terrible person for thinking options are good.

[Extra Anchovies]

Maybe you should rethink the way you run games if vitriolously mocking people who do things differently and having an absurdly narrow scope of play options are requisite in order to run a "good" campaign.

But no. Everyone else is just a terrible person for thinking options are good.

I'd say this is a matter of different strokes for different folks; I love having thousands of character options, but some other people prefer a narrow, simpler set of game mechanics.

Besides, their criticism isn't of players who want obscure content from lots of supplements; it's of players who complain when they ask for those and are told, "no".

[SiuiS]

Banning an alignment is an easy to do and difficult to lawyer shorthand for banning the personalities and behaviors that would prompt a player to choose that alignment in order to justify themselves.

[Pan151]

Besides, their criticism isn't of players who want obscure content from lots of supplements; it's of players who complain when they ask for those and are told, "no".

The problem arises when players are told no for no valid reason.

[atemu1234]

Anyone can steal the show regardless of alignment. Anyone can act selfish regardless of alignment. If you have to ban something, ban the behaviour you dislike - the alignment is irrelevant.

There's a line between acting out of alignment and behaving a certain way and having an alignment that is conducive to the behavior. The alignment is highly relevant. You don't see Lawful Good characters killing their allies for their shares of the loot because that's what their alignment says to do.

[Fax Celestis]

There's a line between acting out of alignment and behaving a certain way and having an alignment that is conducive to the behavior. The alignment is highly relevant. You don't see Lawful Good characters killing their allies for their shares of the loot because that's what their alignment says to do.

No, they just tell the party rogue to stop sneaking around and picking people's pockets because it's illegal.

Disruptive is disruptive, regardless of alignment.

[atemu1234]

No, they just tell the party rogue to stop sneaking around and picking people's pockets because it's illegal.

Disruptive is disruptive, regardless of alignment.

If the rogue's lawful, then he shouldn't be doing it anyway. If he's chaotic evil, then he's supposed to be doing that. And that's why you ban that alignment.

[Sartharina]

Why does the DM care as long as the player isn't disruptiveBecause the DM wants to play a certain style of game that's incompatible with a party with an evil player. Players don't like in when other players screw over their characters. DMs don't like it when players screw over their world.

[Snowbluff]

There's not such thing as a bad alignment, just bad players and DMs.

[Fax Celestis]

If the rogue's lawful, then he shouldn't be doing it anyway. If he's chaotic evil, then he's supposed to be doing that. And that's why you ban that alignment.

And if he's chaotic good, stealing from bad people to provide to the poor?


Because the DM wants to play a certain style of game that's incompatible with a party with an evil player. Players don't like in when other players screw over their characters. DMs don't like it when players screw over their world.

You still haven't demonstrated how playing, say, Faust is "screwing over their world".

Alignment is descriptive, not defining.

[squiggit]

Players don't like in when other players screw over their characters. DMs don't like it when players screw over their world.

Neither of which require an evil alignment!

In fact I'd say by far the most disruptive and problematic alignment based issue I've had was from a pacifist NG druid. Nothing quite like someone constantly trying to stop the party thief from... thieving or the party fighter from doing the only thing he's competent at. Constantly.

I'll take CE over that **** any day... or not, because ultimately a player is the problem, not the alignment.

[Divide by Zero]

Because the DM wants to play a certain style of game that's incompatible with a party with an evil player. Players don't like in when other players screw over their characters. DMs don't like it when players screw over their world.
Aside from an Exalted campaign or something similar, what style of game is incompatible with an Evil character? There are anti-heroes in every genre.

If the rogue's lawful, then he shouldn't be doing it anyway. If he's chaotic evil, then he's supposed to be doing that. And that's why you ban that alignment.
"Ok guys, here's the plan. First, the rogue will sneak over here, and then..."
"Sneak?! That's cowardly. I loudly announce our presence and charge forward!"

"We're going to have to bluff our way past these guys."
"No, I refuse to lie."

Any alignment can be disruptive if you take it too far.

[atemu1234]

Aside from an Exalted campaign or something similar, what style of game is incompatible with an Evil character? There are anti-heroes in every genre.

"Ok guys, here's the plan. First, the rogue will sneak over here, and then..."
"Sneak?! That's cowardly. I loudly announce our presence and charge forward!"

"We're going to have to bluff our way past these guys."
"No, I refuse to lie."

Any alignment can be disruptive if you take it too far.

He's a rogue. If he has ranks in bluff, he's inclined to bluff. If he doesn't, don't make him. And sneaking isn't a chaotic action. Wanton stealing from people is, and if he's pulling a robin hood he wouldn't be stealing from everyone.

[squiggit]

He's a rogue. If he has ranks in bluff, he's inclined to bluff. If he doesn't, don't make him. And sneaking isn't a chaotic action. Wanton stealing from people is, and if he's pulling a robin hood he wouldn't be stealing from everyone.

Which doesn't change any of his points. The hyper disruptive ideologue paladin will find any stealing, regardless of who you're stealing from, to be reprehensibile and any sneaking or bluffing to be dishonorable and therefore something he cannot tolerate.

And that's only if you're lucky and he doesn't consider it Evil (and therefore kill you on the spot).

[Ettina]

I'd say it's because the players need to work together more cohesively. Because CE and CN are often used to kill and betray your teammates for no reason, and neutral evil just to betray them over the long term. If I were DM, I wouldn't allow a player to be CE because they'd steal the show; they're supposed to be a team, not with one member selfishly killing the others for no reason.

Belkar hasn't killed any party members, and he's Chaotic Evil. Richard from Looking for Group is another Chaotic Evil character who stays loyal to his party.

[Brookshw]

Maybe you should rethink the way you run games if vitriolously mocking people who do things differently and having an absurdly narrow scope of play options are requisite in order to run a "good" campaign.

But no. Everyone else is just a terrible person for thinking options are good.

You're a funny guy, and apparently one who wasn't around for older editions. Now get off my lawn.

[Sir Garanok]

Being CE/NE in a good party causes a lot of problems most of the time.

To surpass those problems,and avoid pcs killing each other,
you have to makes acts an evil character would never do,which is bad rp and a bad choise.

We usually make a mini-conference before starting a campaign and decide the
general alignment-direction of the party.

[Fax Celestis]

Being CE/NE in a good party causes a lot of problems most of the time.

To surpass those problems,and avoid pcs killing each other,
you have to makes acts an evil character would never do,which is bad rp and a bad choise.

Ettina just gave two examples where this isn't the case.

Seriously, no one in the NE/CE Is Unilaterally Disruptive camp is bothering to actually give non-anecdotal evidence.

[torrasque666]

The problem arises when players are told no for no valid reason.

And who gets to determine what's a valid reason?

[Zanos]

Maybe you should rethink the way you run games if vitriolously mocking people who do things differently and having an absurdly narrow scope of play options are requisite in order to run a "good" campaign.

But no. Everyone else is just a terrible person for thinking options are good.
Meh, I'm personally a very permissive DM but I've encountered character concepts that were outright ridiculous for the setting, and people who complained when I calmly explained to them why that character was inappropriate. I wouldn't say that it's an "age of player entitlement", as I've found that people who have trouble grasping the concept of an inappropriate character have trouble grasping a large number of other concepts.

I do agree in general that alignments shouldn't be banned. Evil characters can have friends and agree that party enemy X needs to die. There's certainly cause to give Evil characters more intense scrutiny because you may need more plot hooks than "because it's the right thing to do", or you might get someone who rolls a CE slaughterer, but that's a per character basis. You could also have a paladin who kills people for jaywalking.

[atemu1234]

Belkar hasn't killed any party members, and he's Chaotic Evil. Richard from Looking for Group is another Chaotic Evil character who stays loyal to his party.

Belkar is both atypical and has come shockingly near killing his party. Quite frankly he hasn't yet because he knows the others would kill him. Plus, he's a ranger, so poor sneaking skills.

[Divide by Zero]

He's a rogue. If he has ranks in bluff, he's inclined to bluff. If he doesn't, don't make him. And sneaking isn't a chaotic action. Wanton stealing from people is, and if he's pulling a robin hood he wouldn't be stealing from everyone.


Which doesn't change any of his points. The hyper disruptive ideologue paladin will find any stealing, regardless of who you're stealing from, to be reprehensibile and any sneaking or bluffing to be dishonorable and therefore something he cannot tolerate.

And that's only if you're lucky and he doesn't consider it Evil (and therefore kill you on the spot).

This was my point, yeah. You're looking at it from the perspective of a reasonable player, and none of the alignments are necessarily disruptive if played by a reasonable player.

[Jeff the Green]

If the rogue's lawful, then he shouldn't be doing it anyway.

That's not even remotely true. Lawful means you follow a code, not that you follow the laws of wherever you are. Or do you think that Paladins become violent racists when they visit Thay?

A thief who follows a strict code of who he steals from and then returns stolen goods when he unwittingly steals from the wrong person is absolutely fine. For example, Indiana Jones steals repeatedly and unashamedly, but Complete Scoundrel pegs him as LG. Likewise, just about anyone in the Mafia is LE. In fact, of all the classes called out by WotC, only two must be chaotic. One of these is the sacred thief of a CN deity and so has the same restrictions as a cleric, and the other specifically focuses on stealing from LE devils.

[Pan151]

And who gets to determine what's a valid reason?

Common logic.

Wanting to prevent thing X is a valid reason for banning thing X itself.

Wanting to prevent thing X is not a valid reason for banning an entirely independent thing Y.


In short, if an alignment itself is specifically undesirable, then you ban that alignment. Say, if the story is that the party was specifically chosen by the god of Balance to eradicate all extreme alignments and bring true balance or something, then it would make perfect sense that you would not allow a LG, CG, LE or CE character, because such a character would not have been chosen by the god in the first place.
However, what people in this thread seem to specifically have a problem with is disruptive behaviour, which is irrelevant from alignment and thus banning specific alignments is misguided and pointless.

[Thurbane]

If your players think Chaotic Neutral means "lolrandom", you need to get better players. When I play Chaotic Neutral, I basically play it as "Chaotic Good, but willing to stoop lower". You know, the way everyone else plays Lawful Neutral.

Actually most (all?) of my players are quite mature and non-disruptive. The alignment restriction was written into the campaign document not because I feared my players would be intentionally disruptive to the theme of the campaign, but merely there to avoid any confusion later on.


And I think it's hilarious that you bemoan the effects of newer editions and the internet, seeing as the entire CN=lolrandom attitude is an artifact from AD&D, when the game designers were still trying to wrap their heads around the idea of chaos not being implicitly evil(though arguably, they still haven't quite figured that out; see the de facto evil Slaadi in 3e and the axing of all non-evil chaotic alignments in 4e).

Never really played 4E, so can't comment on that. I suppose the CN = Chaotic Insane viewpoint has existed since 1E; I mean AFAIK that is the first time that alignment existed.

In my personal view, Law vs Chaos could actually be a very interesting campaign, like the Jedi vs the Sith, or the Vorlon vs. Shadows (although everyone has their own take on whether those conflicts fall directly into Law vs. Chaos or not). The current campaign I'm running, however, is focused on Good vs. Evil, and that's my choice as a DM.

I still personally believe there is a "new age of player entitlement", but whether it's specifically connected to 3.0 onwards and/or the popularity of forums where people gather and, among other things, dissect the faults (real or imagined) of their DM is up for debate. I guess I'm very old school in the fact that I believe if someone is good enough to give up a significant chunk of his time to DM for us and create a fun world/campaign for us to game in, I tend to view them with respect and accede to the occasional ban or restriction during character creation.

[Raven777]

I wonder why it isn't Paladins that get routinely banned? It is hard to argue that their class features flat out encouraging them to interfere with what other party members / players can or cannot do doesn't make them disruptive.

[Darkweave31]

I normally just 'ban' all alignments and tell my players to make interesting characters without using a cobbled together ethics system as a crutch or excuse.

[Thurbane]

I normally just 'ban' all alignments and tell my players to make interesting characters without using a cobbled together ethics system as a crutch or excuse.

That's a good point. I should point out, in addition to my above posts, that I tend to use a character's alignment as a guide rather than a hard and fast rule. I'm never going to tell a player "No, your character can't do that, you're NG!". I might have an alignment shift if multiple and flagrant violations of alignment guidelines occur, but this will have little impact for non-Paladins. As to how that fits in with my campaign guidelines, it hasn't come up so far, but I like to think I'm a reasonable and approachable DM, so I'd discuss it with a player to try and reach a mutually agreeable outcome.

[Jeff the Green]

I'm never going to tell a player "No, your character can't do that, you're NG!"

Yeah, the closest a DM should come to saying this is "This seems really out of character given your previous generosity/nobility/murderhoboness; what's your character's reasoning or motivation?" or "Okay, I think we may have pegged your character's alignment wrong. He's really acting more like Lawful Evil than Lawful Neutral."

In D&D the one thing the player has control of is their character, and it isn't the DM's job to usurp that except within very narrow game mechanics (e.g. enchantments). It is the DM's job to help the player improve their roleplaying of a realistic character.

[Troacctid]

Ettina just gave two examples where this isn't the case.

Seriously, no one in the NE/CE Is Unilaterally Disruptive camp is bothering to actually give non-anecdotal evidence.

I don't think Ettina's examples count as non-anecdotal. :smalltongue:

The point isn't that it's impossible for NE/CE not to be disruptive, it's that they have the capacity to cause a specific kind of disruption that will never, ever occur with other alignments. There is a line. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoralEventHorizon) Evil characters can cross the line. Non-evil characters, by definition, cannot. Banning evil alignments is just another way of saying "You can play your character how you like, as long as you never cross this line."

Edit: The way my last DM played it was that you were allowed to become evil, but if you did, your character would become an NPC, and you'd have to make a new one. The NPC would then become a villain in the campaign, thus allowing the player to go through with it if they really felt it would be true to their character to do so, but without creating a situation where the rest of the party is socially pressured into cooperating with them.

[squiggit]

I don't think Ettina's examples count as non-anecdotal. :smalltongue:

The point isn't that it's impossible for NE/CE not to be disruptive, it's that they have the capacity to cause a specific kind of disruption that will never, ever occur with other alignments. There is a line. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoralEventHorizon) Evil characters can cross the line. Non-evil characters, by definition, cannot. Banning evil alignments is just another way of saying "You can play your character how you like, as long as you never cross this line."

Eh. A non-evil character can cross that line (or other, just as bad lines) with a little more creativity.

[Troacctid]

Eh. A non-evil character can cross that line (or other, just as bad lines) with a little more creativity.

But in doing so, they would, by definition, become evil.

[Pan151]

The point isn't that it's impossible for NE/CE not to be disruptive, it's that they have the capacity to cause a specific kind of disruption that will never, ever occur with other alignments.

So what? Every alignment has the capacity of being disruptive in ways that do not occur with other alignments (See examples of LG bossy paladins and CG Robin-Hood-wannabes. Also LN characters that get crazy around laws. Also NG characters with Vows of peace and non-violence. etc.)

[squiggit]

But in doing so, they would, by definition, become evil.
Only if it's not "justified". Over the top ideological Lawful Stupid paladin sees the party rogue lying, cheating or stealing and kills him on the spot because he can not tolerate wicked acts such as those. Or any act that can be perceived as even mildly evil.

Or, frankly, there's plenty of non-violent ways to ruin another player's experience. Again, said paladin shouting down the rogue whenever he tries to lie or be stealthy or steal because it's dishonorable. You don't need to kill someone to make them feel miserable.

Or uh, anyone with Vow of Peace (or a similarly flavored character). That's a good way to turn someone evil (because after a few sessions of that the party fighter will sorely want to kill him in his sleep).

[Pan151]

But in doing so, they would, by definition, become evil.

If you choose to adhere to an absurdly strict definition that causes people to turn evil after just a single evil act, regardless of circumstances and motivations, yes.

If you use a reasonable definition, no.

[NichG]

Common logic.

Wanting to prevent thing X is a valid reason for banning thing X itself.

Wanting to prevent thing X is not a valid reason for banning an entirely independent thing Y.


But its not 'entirely independent'. Its actually highly correlated. Yes, you can come up with particular characters who would be able to be evil and work with the party, and you can come up with particular characters that are not evil but would be as disruptive as an evil character. But the thing is, its not about whether its possible to play evil without being disruptive, its about whether playing evil tends on average to create disruptive behavior. Isolated counter-examples do not change an overall trend.

Its sort of like saying 'Wizards aren't powerful because I can build a wizard who wastes all of his spell slots and ends up being a glorified commoner'. Yes, you can do that. It doesn't mean that in general it will be done.

When you have players who are not perfect, which is basically 100% of the time, then its a given that they will act out in various ways that cause problems. The thing is then to manage that inevitability by limiting the options that tend to encourage or amplify their worst behaviors, as well as options that end up being used as excuses for that kind of thing. A very common player failing is to not consider the metagame consequences of their actions - they do disruptive things and justify them based on 'its what my character would do', 'my alignment says thats okay', etc. It requires a lot of empathy and maturity to 'choose to react differently' in such situations, and while we may want all of our players to possess those traits, we cannot make it so simply by wishing (and its impractical and often undesirable to kick everyone from the group who does not possess those traits in abundance).

Yes, that player could end up playing a CG jerk, but its unlikely. For the one thing, they may honestly think that 'being evil = backstab the party' - that's a very common view and its pretty hard to get people to understand how to play evil well without doing that (again, it requires a deep level of skill and careful thought on the part of the player, and while I'd love if all players could pull it off it isn't often the case). So he's playing a jerk because the system (in his mind) is requiring it of him, and CG doesn't come with the same baggage. The other thing is that the style of 'CG' disruptions tends to be far more acceptable than the style of 'CE' disruptions. A character going around and stealing from the rich to give to the poor is not actually all that disruptive compared to someone who betrays the party or initiates PvP or goes on murder sprees or decides to graphically torture NPCs to a level that it squicks out the players and the DM.

As far as banning the behavior instead of the alignment, that's also a reasonable approach that can work. But both tools have their places. It depends on what kinds of players you're dealing with and what the forms of misbehaviors you're trying to prevent are. If the behaviors are very clearly defined (such as PvP), then banning the behavior can be sufficient. But something like 'don't be a jerk!' is pretty vague, and I've known a lot of players who will justify their behavior to themselves by 'I'm not being a jerk, I'm playing my character' without realizing that they could be doing both. So, like a lot of things, banning alignments outright is a tool - it isn't always called for, but sometimes it's the right tool for the job.

[Troacctid]

How would you go about banning a specific behavior, anyway? Just make a list of things you cannot do? "1. Backstabbing the party 2. Rape 3. Massacring civilians..." etc? The players will always think of something you didn't, and then they'll be like, "Hey, it's not on the list of things we can't do!"

[Pan151]

But its not 'entirely independent'. Its actually highly correlated. Yes, you can come up with particular characters who would be able to be evil and work with the party, and you can come up with particular characters that are not evil but would be as disruptive as an evil character. But the thing is, its not about whether its possible to play evil without being disruptive, its about whether playing evil tends on average to create disruptive behavior. Isolated counter-examples do not change an overall trend.

What trend exactly? One based on anecdotal evidence?

I could argue, based on anecdotal evidence, that good characters are more disruptive than evil ones. That still doesn't mean a damn thing though. It doesn't change the fact that alignment has nothing to do with whether or not one is disruptive or not - it's just that you may assign different alignments depending on how exactly they are disruptive.


How would you go about banning a specific behavior, anyway? Just make a list of things you cannot do? "1. Backstabbing the party 2. Rape 3. Massacring civilians..." etc? The players will always think of something you didn't, and then they'll be like, "Hey, it's not on the list of things we can't do!"

Simply ask them to try to not be disruptive. If they are still disruptive, then its the players that are the problem, not the characters' alignment.

Seriously, if your group's attitude is "Hey, it's not on the list of things we can't do!" then you should leave them asap and find a group that doesn't suck...

[atemu1234]

What trend exactly? One based on anecdotal evidence?

I could argue, based on anecdotal evidence, that good characters are more disruptive than evil ones. That still doesn't mean a damn thing though. It doesn't change the fact that alignment has nothing to do with whether or not one is disruptive or not - it's just that you may assign different alignments depending on how exactly they are disruptive.



Simply ask them to try to not be disruptive. If they are still disruptive, then its the players that are the problem, not the characters' alignment.

Seriously, if your group's attitude is "Hey, it's not on the list of things we can't do!" then you should leave them asap and find a group that doesn't suck...

He isn't using anecdotal evidence. The description of the alignments states that an evil being does these things.

If you're running an evil character, but have to behave good or neutral, you may as well be good. If it makes no difference at all and I just kick puppies off screen, or can't at all, I'm just a good guy with a bad label.

Let's face it, alignment is as alignment does. Eliminating a behavior is eliminating an alignment, like it or not.

[NichG]

What trend exactly? One based on anecdotal evidence?

I could argue, based on anecdotal evidence, that good characters are more disruptive than evil ones. That still doesn't mean a damn thing though. It doesn't change the fact that alignment has nothing to do with whether or not one is disruptive or not - it's just that you may assign different alignments depending on how exactly they are disruptive.

The experience that matters is the experience of the person applying the ban. If a given DM has had problems with people playing evil characters and being jerks, then it doesn't really matter if you haven't had that problem - it makes sense for that DM to ban evil characters. If a different DM has had problems with Lawful Stupid Paladins in their group, then it makes sense for that DM to ban Paladins.


Simply ask them to try to not be disruptive. If they are still disruptive, then its the players that are the problem, not the characters' alignment.

Seriously, if your group's attitude is "Hey, it's not on the list of things we can't do!" then you should leave them asap and find a group that doesn't suck...

It's not actually very helpful to say 'the players are the problem'. The problem is always the players and/or DM because everything in the game is about the interactions between the people playing it - nothing exists without a table to instantiate it. But those problems are modified by the game system, the rules, etc. No one lives in a perfect world, and all players have some or other problem. You can't just kick everyone from your group who isn't a perfect being or you will just never play the game. Instead, you have to recognize that some people need help to control their disruptive tendencies. Removing temptation can be part of that.

[squiggit]

He isn't using anecdotal evidence. The description of the alignments states that an evil being does these things.

None of the evil alignments' descriptions do anything of the sort. I just checked. Not even CE.


If you're running an evil character, but have to behave good or neutral, you may as well be good.
Yikes, that's some serious goalpost shifting. There's a huge amount of space between "good character with an evil tag" and "ruining the game for everyone else because dark evil darkness". You could fit the grand canyon a few dozen times between those two.


Eliminating a behavior is eliminating an alignment, like it or not.
Nope. Eliminating a behavior is eliminating a behavior and nothing else. Mindless backstabbery is no more a necessary component of Evil than your prototypical lawful stupid is a necessary component of playing a paladin. To suggest otherwise goes back to the earlier arguments of it being user error or a lack of imagination. Alignments are not nearly as one dimensional as you seem to be implying.


Isolated counter-examples do not change an overall trend.
That seems like an odd position to take when the entire basis of the argument in favor is based on "Well this one time I was in a campaign and...". To then turn around and claim that anecdotes aren't good enough in the contrary is... silly.

[Windstorm]

I find these kinds of discussions quite entertaining, partly because I've seen how some games turn out from the flip side where people were just dealing with jerkish behavior but otherwise let people have free reign.

My favorite character I have ever played was a neutral-evil wizard. not because he was capital E evil (he wasn't) but simply because he had the capacity to get the job done while the rest of the PCs couldn't or were to squeamish to. (OOC one observer commented he was more of a hero in the plot than the other PCs, even if he was an amoral self-preservationist)

Evil can be done well and convincingly as long as you as the player ask yourself the hard questions of what defines this character as evil. make sure that the answers aren't something that would be disruptive to your campaign environment and you're fine. on other notes: understand the other player's desires and give a little/take a little, some groups utterly hate pvp, others don't mind it as long as it has boundaries.

some examples of party-freindly neutral evil characters (you may notice a theme)

mercenary wizard who will do most things for coin or items of power
angered subordinate or victim that is bent on pure revenge
necromancer who is driven by (insert prophecy here) to work with a group
cleric sent by a deity to ensure the balance of forces is not upset by the party
amoral rogue who sees more profit in working with successful treasure hunters for a big cut than robbing them and dying for it


it can be done, but it requires thought and if you have an LG/CG cleric/pally in the party its usually a good idea to talk to them and get your acting hat on to work as eachother's foils (rest of the party being in on it optional)

edit: there are plenty of good examples of evil characters that can work with generally good groups without constant conflict, but my favorite to date has to be Deep Space 9's Garak. some may find that puzzling, but if you go back and watch the series, you'd be surprised how many plots are wrapped up simply by garak quietly killing the right people at the right time.

[Troacctid]

some examples of party-freindly neutral evil characters (you may notice a theme)

mercenary wizard who will do most things for coin or items of power
angered subordinate or victim that is bent on pure revenge
necromancer who is driven by (insert prophecy here) to work with a group
cleric sent by a deity to ensure the balance of forces is not upset by the party
amoral rogue who sees more profit in working with successful treasure hunters for a big cut than robbing them and dying for it


All of those concepts could be played as Neutral except maybe the "Token Evil" cleric. You wouldn't even need to alter the blurb.

[Windstorm]

All of those concepts could be played as Neutral except maybe the "Token Evil" cleric. You wouldn't even need to alter the blurb.

actually some of them do, especially the necromancer, since there is still the problem of some spell effects or prestige classes requiring evil or forcing you into the alignment simply by repeated use.

likewise most of these characters can be expected to do/have done acts that are 'objectively evil' often enough to be firmly evil as the D&D system understands it.

thats part of the underlying problem, in D&D alignment is objective, in Real life alignment is subjective and very much based on point of view.

[NichG]

That seems like an odd position to take when the entire basis of the argument in favor is based on "Well this one time I was in a campaign and...". To then turn around and claim that anecdotes aren't good enough in the contrary is... silly.

I'd argue that the burden of proof is highly asymmetric in any case in which you're debating the reasons why it would make sense for a particular group to do something. Essentially, to show that there is no reason why a group could reasonably choose to ban alignments, you have to show that in every single case there is no benefit to doing so. Showing a particular example in which the action would be unnecessary doesn't show this.

On the other hand, I'm arguing a much less strong statement - that is to say, that there are often situations in which it can be beneficial to do so. Single anecdotes aren't terribly useful for demonstrating that either, I'll admit, but there's much less distance that they have to travel towards setting up a body of evidence for that position.

Furthermore, I would disagree that the entire basis of the argument in favor is anecdotal, as you suggest. The core of it is that most of the arguments against bans admit that there can be problematic situations with some players being jerks. However, they assert that 'the problem is with the player, not with the alignment'. A big point to the counter-argument is that there will always be problems with players - that's inevitable - but depending on the circumstances those problems can be more or less severe. I'm making the claim that alignment can serve to be a big component in exacerbating those problems to the point where they pose a greater risk to the stability of the game.

So if we want to avoid anecdotal evidence, then that would be the main point of contention.

[atemu1234]

None of the evil alignments' descriptions do anything of the sort. I just checked. Not even CE.


Yikes, that's some serious goalpost shifting. There's a huge amount of space between "good character with an evil tag" and "ruining the game for everyone else because dark evil darkness". You could fit the grand canyon a few dozen times between those two.


Nope. Eliminating a behavior is eliminating a behavior and nothing else. Mindless backstabbery is no more a necessary component of Evil than your prototypical lawful stupid is a necessary component of playing a paladin. To suggest otherwise goes back to the earlier arguments of it being user error or a lack of imagination. Alignments are not nearly as one dimensional as you seem to be implying.


That seems like an odd position to take when the entire basis of the argument in favor is based on "Well this one time I was in a campaign and...". To then turn around and claim that anecdotes aren't good enough in the contrary is... silly.

Are we reading the alignment section from Player's Handbook, because the one I've got describes them as hot-tempered, disloyal and arbitrarily violent.

It's not shifting goalposts because alignment and actions are highly linked. What is an alignment in d&d? It's not a lofty concept. It's what you do. I could source BoED here.

[Fax Celestis]

You are your alignment because of what you do, not the other way around.

If someone is being a jerk at your table, it has nothing to do with their alignment line and everything to do with the player being a jerk.

[morkendi]

I played a game where alignment system was just dropped, you acted the way you wanted. The gods kept thier portfolios, and if a cleric or pally didnt act to his goods portfolio, he could fall then. Dropped alignment for classes to. Most goods had paladins for example. There powers depended on the god. Like a palladin of cyric would spread lies and murder things. He would harm instead of heal. He still had the basic chassis, but tweaked a little. It was a much better system to play in i thought.

[atemu1234]

You are your alignment because of what you do, not the other way around.

If someone is being a jerk at your table, it has nothing to do with their alignment line and everything to do with the player being a jerk.

I'm arguing that your actions are your alignment; therein banning an action is banning an alignment.

[Fax Celestis]

Correlation does not imply causation.

[atemu1234]

Correlation does not imply causation.

Thank you for the stock statistics quote, but I think it's accepted that alignment is based on actions.

Therein I posit that banning an action is banning an alignment. Of course, it's logical to ban PvP actions in non-PvP, but either action resolves the issue if the player is playing their alignment correctly.

[sktarq]

If someone is being a jerk at your table, it has nothing to do with their alignment line and everything to do with the player being a jerk.

Perhaps in theory but there is a rather large subset of players for whom that is not true. While it is a matter of degree for each player just about everyone picks actions based on what is written on the various lines of a character sheet. Your wizard is not likely to swing a sword because of what's written in weapon proficiencies line. What is written on the sheet bounds the player likely or considered behaviors and choices. It's similar to if you hear hoofbeats you think horses not zebras type idea.


And while yes jerk behavior can occur in any alignment many players do take the lesser moral bounds of an evil written on their sheet to let their inner jerk out. So there a correlation. So while every character is a jerk risk, evil characters run a higher risk. If the DM feels that risk is too high then banning the use of those alignments makes sense. A similar case of risk of "disruption" could also be made.

[squiggit]

Are we reading the alignment section from Player's Handbook, because the one I've got describes them as hot-tempered, disloyal and arbitrarily violent.

Ruthless, brutal, and does to do whatever his own greed drives him to do. Nothing about that necessitates pissing all over the rest of your party.

It's not shifting goalposts because alignment and actions are highly linked.
It's shifting goalposts because it's not the point. Alignment and actions are linked, yes. That doesn't change the fact that there is a significant difference between the two points. "Hey, I'm not going to try to make the game less fun for everyone" is not the same as "I'm going to be good but preyed I'm evil". Conflating them, or trying to make the latter the point is shifting goalposts, kind of by definition.


I'm arguing that your actions are your alignment; therein banning an action is banning an alignment.

Only if you're banning an action intrinsic to that alignment. Being a jerk and ruining other players' fun is not a necessary component of any alignment, therefore asking a player not to be an ass does not preclude them from playing any alignment.


And while yes jerk behavior can occur in any alignment many players do take the lesser moral bounds of an evil written on their sheet to let their inner jerk out. So there a correlation. So while every character is a jerk risk, evil characters run a higher risk. If the DM feels that risk is too high then banning the use of those alignments makes sense. A similar case of risk of "disruption" could also be made.
This same argument applies to paladins (or anyone else playing LG, the term "lawful stupid" has existed for a long, long time) and any Exalted character too. They're liable to cause more damage than any evil schmuck can hope to.

[137beth]

Perhaps in theory but there is a rather large subset of players for whom that is not true. While it is a matter of degree for each player just about everyone picks actions based on what is written on the various lines of a character sheet. Your wizard is not likely to swing a sword because of what's written in weapon proficiencies line. What is written on the sheet bounds the player likely or considered behaviors and choices. It's similar to if you hear hoofbeats you think horses not zebras type idea.


And while yes jerk behavior can occur in any alignment many players do take the lesser moral bounds of an evil written on their sheet to let their inner jerk out. So there a correlation. So while every character is a jerk risk, evil characters run a higher risk. If the DM feels that risk is too high then banning the use of those alignments makes sense. A similar case of risk of "disruption" could also be made.

IME the alignment that is most attractive to disruptive player behavior is Lawful Good. Not because there is anything inherently problematic about the alignment, but because players who want to be disruptive think that writing 'Lawful Good' on their character sheet is an excuse to treat everyone else (PC and NPC) like crap.

[Raven777]

Yep. Not only are Paladins endowed with everyone's "my character would not do this" button, they also have an extra "your character cannot do this" remote as a class feature. In my humble opinion, that is the best argument in favor of Evil : it can play well with anyone ; Good cannot.

[NichG]

Paladins are also a problem, yes. That's part of the reason why so many tables do things like altering or removing the restrictions of the Paladin's code. In general, no one player should be able to make a solitary decision by fiat that compromises what everyone else is playing. Bringing a paladin into a group of cutthroats and thieves does that just as well as bringing a necromancer into a party of Pelorites.

This is a good argument for setting the theme and boundaries early on, during character generation. Rather than 'hey, bring your character to game!' it should be 'lets discuss what kind of party we are going to be'. And that can involve setting limits, such as 'we want this to be a Good, no-shades-of-grey campaign' or 'we want this to be an Evil campaign' or 'we want a lot of moral ambiguity and tough decisions and you can't tell who the good guys and the bad guys are'.

There's more to it than just that as well. From the DM side, these things require different approaches. The uncompromising-Good campaign will by its nature tend to be a bit more reactive - the DM can expect the party to respond to certain drives in a consistent way. If someone is in trouble, then the heroes are morally obligated to get themselves involved, so its easy to provide things for the party to do.

In the Evil campaign, its going to be all about carrot and stick - you have to entice the characters' particular vices (in a way that as a whole they all want to go along with the plan, which can be difficult since different characters will care about different things), and you have to threaten them all personally enough that they have to work together for their survival. So the Evil campaign has the potential to have much more proactive players, but it also requires that the characters share some degree of common interest for that to work - the guy who wants vengeance, the guy who wants riches, and the guy who wants personal arcane power will all want to pursue different plot hooks, and if there isn't some threat pushing them together then the game will often bog down in arguments over which plot hook to follow.

In the morally ambiguous campaign, inter-PC drama is often what drives things. Generally the recipe there is 'create a situation where the party will be divided on what to do and see what they eventually decide'. The stick can also work here, but the carrot is less effective than in the Evil campaign (because often someone is playing the conscience of the group and will actively damp down purely greedy pursuits). If the party all shares strong positive bonds, then there can be a 'lets help eachother' kind of dynamic, but it tends to be a bit brittle (if only one game in six is about things you care about, it gets old fast). So, similar to the Evil campaign, you need some kind of pressure which helps to unify goals enough that the party shares a common path. Essentially there needs to be a reason why these disparate people should continue to travel together, or the second there's a moral crisis there's a risk of 'my character isn't going to help your character do these horrible things, either you go or I go' kinds of splits.

[sktarq]

IME the alignment that is most attractive to disruptive player behavior is Lawful Good.

That would be a perfectly good reason for you to ban LG then. I've seen that at certain tables. Or banning Paladins etc. Still totally valid and in no way invalidates those who feel that the NE/CE types are more disruptive.

[...]

I allow every alignment as long as the players play their characters with a cooperative attitude towards the rest of the party. No killing, no stealing, no betraying. I ask this in advance, so they can't hide behind "that's what my character would do". You were required to not create such a character in the first place.

I agree with this in full. Give this man a cookie.

[Ettina]

I'm arguing that your actions are your alignment; therein banning an action is banning an alignment.

But it's not true. Two Chaotic Evil characters could act completely different, only sharing disdain for laws and a willingness to harm innocents. Saying 'you can't do PvP in this game' or something like that isn't stopping someone from making a Chaotic Evil character who isn't inclined to attack his party members. Meanwhile, there are non-evil characters who engage in PvP. Even a Lawful Good paladin could do it, if he decided (rightfully or wrongly) that a party member was Evil and needed to be crushed. He may fall for it, but he could do it.

[Tragak]

I allow every alignment as long as the players play their characters with a cooperative attitude towards the rest of the party. No killing, no stealing, no betraying. I ask this in advance, so they can't hide behind "that's what my character would do". You were required to not create such a character in the first place. Thank you. Why don't more people get this?

[draken50]

I am a GM, and here's my stance.

I don't want to run an evil campaign, and I don't want to deal with evil Player characters. I do not have fun running games with or for those characters. You may have good reason for why you want to play a evil character, or in an evil campaign, and while I respect that. It will not be in my campaign, or my game.

If you want to play an evil character, or in an evil campaign. Find a different game to play them in.

If you want to argue with me about it after I clearly stated that I don't have fun running a game like that... find a different game.

[Brookshw]

Thank you. Why don't more people get this?

So basically.......soft ban isn't a ban :smallconfused:

[Fax Celestis]

I am a GM, and here's my stance.

I don't want to run an evil campaign, and I don't want to deal with evil Player characters. I do not have fun running games with or for those characters. You may have good reason for why you want to play a evil character, or in an evil campaign, and while I respect that. It will not be in my campaign, or my game.

If you want to play an evil character, or in an evil campaign. Find a different game to play them in.

If you want to argue with me about it after I clearly stated that I don't have fun running a game like that... find a different game.

My Lawful Evil lawyer character is disappointed that he is being painted in such unfair light. He follows the rules!

[atemu1234]

My Lawful Evil lawyer character is disappointed that he is being painted in such unfair light. He follows the rules!

The Letter of the Law, if not the Spirit.

[draken50]

My Lawful Evil lawyer character is disappointed that he is being painted in such unfair light. He follows the rules!

Heh, I understand... just out of curiosity, as these differences can vary tremendously from game to game. What is it that makes your lawyer character lawful evil, rather than lawful neutral?

I'll admit, the descriptions in the 3.5 player's guide basically seem to imply than any selfish use of the law makes the char evil. So that's why I wonder. The distinction between "evil" where a shopkeeper shortchanges customers, and "Evil" where a shopkeeper serves his customers orphan flesh raised in slave farms for that sole purpose is kind of gm discretion, and I consider the former to be neutral, while the latter is Evil.

[Tragak]

So basically.......soft ban isn't a ban :smallconfused: It's still technically a ban, it's just banning jerk behavior (which some jerks happen to use game mechanics to justify) rather than banning game mechanics (regardless of whether they would've been used jerkishly or not)

[Fax Celestis]

The Letter of the Law, if not the Spirit.

Exactly! I'm not doing anything wrong. I'm just taking the reading of the law that is most beneficial to me.


Heh, I understand... just out of curiosity, as these differences can vary tremendously from game to game. What is it that makes your lawyer character lawful evil, rather than lawful neutral?

I'll admit, the descriptions in the 3.5 player's guide basically seem to imply than any selfish use of the law makes the char evil. So that's why I wonder. The distinction between "evil" where a shopkeeper shortchanges customers, and "Evil" where a shopkeeper serves his customers orphan flesh raised in slave farms for that sole purpose is kind of gm discretion, and I consider the former to be neutral, while the latter is Evil.

I had a landowning PC like this. He told his tenants that they didn't need to pay rent for two months if they did work around the property to fix it up. They did. Then he indicated in their contract where if they failed to pay rent in 45 days, he had the right to evict them. Since they hadn't actually paid rent (even though that rent was 0gp, no money had exchanged hands, so no 'payment' was made), he legally was able to threaten them with eviction. However, instead of evicting them, he just doubled their rent.

Evil isn't always about murder. Sometimes it's about extortion!

[torrasque666]

However, instead of evicting them, he just doubled their rent.

0*2=0

you're such a nice landlord.

[Fax Celestis]

0*2=0

you're such a nice landlord.

0gp for that two-month period, after which it went back to their standard (then doubled) rate. It's all in the contract, man.

Extension of this would be a lawful evil summoner who does this to called creatures. Or a binder who does the same to vestiges. Or a bard who manipulates people with charms and glibness into doing ethically satisfactory but morally reprehensible things.

I Fought The Law (And The Law Won) is about a man who runs up against a Lawful Evil person.

[dascarletm]

Heh, I understand... just out of curiosity, as these differences can vary tremendously from game to game. What is it that makes your lawyer character lawful evil, rather than lawful neutral?

I'll admit, the descriptions in the 3.5 player's guide basically seem to imply than any selfish use of the law makes the char evil. So that's why I wonder. The distinction between "evil" where a shopkeeper shortchanges customers, and "Evil" where a shopkeeper serves his customers orphan flesh raised in slave farms for that sole purpose is kind of gm discretion, and I consider the former to be neutral, while the latter is Evil.

There is varying degrees of evil, like there is varying degrees of good.

A shopkeeper can shortchange his customers for various reasons, that will make this shopkeeper good/neutral/evil

Good: He shortchanges people a few coppers here and there, when they wouldn't even miss it (maybe by some tricky rounding or what not) so that he can donate it to the local orphanage/church of Pelor/steryotypical good reason and still keep food on the table for his family. Debatable, but probably good by DnD standards.

Neutral: He does the same as above, but instead he keeps the money to help support his son go to wizard school. This is probably neutral.

Evil: He does the same as above, but instead keeps and hordes the money so he can buy <insert vice X>. He especially enjoys ripping off those who could use it for themselves, or that orphanage/church of Pelor/steryotypical good thing especially. Probably evil.

Vile Evil: He does the same as above, except he uses the money to fund the "Feed Innocent People Alive to Vicious Outsiders and Torture Club." (FIPAVOTC for short).

[thematgreen]

I am a GM, and here's my stance.

I don't want to run an evil campaign, and I don't want to deal with evil Player characters. I do not have fun running games with or for those characters. You may have good reason for why you want to play a evil character, or in an evil campaign, and while I respect that. It will not be in my campaign, or my game.

If you want to play an evil character, or in an evil campaign. Find a different game to play them in.

If you want to argue with me about it after I clearly stated that I don't have fun running a game like that... find a different game.

May I ask why? What if the group is mature enough to not play evil as "I eat babies and rape everything that moves, and doesn't move! I kill EVERYTHING bcuz I am evil!"

For example (My story from earlier):

We played a campaign where the group was

Cleric
Paladin
Monk
Fighter
Barbarian
And me, a NE bard and an amulet of non detection

My character went along with the plans of the mostly heroic group because he was subtly manipulating them to his goal, taking over the kingdom we were adventuring in. He would always help the group with their goals at first, then he started working the citizens, talking the group up, making the group more and more well known.

My started orchestrating attacks on the city from local orc tribes and made sure the group was in line to defeat the threat before the lords of the city knew what was happening. Always he was talking, telling the citizens that their lords didn't care about them, telling them that strangers to the city were doing more to help the common man.

Over time the group started seeing things my way, noticing that the lords never defended their citizens and never seemed to care (Never noting my spread of misinformation).

Eventually we overthrew the just and rightful lords of the city and I crowned myself the new lord..and then then Paladin noticed his god given powers abandoned him, since overthrowing just rulers in a bid for power is not a good act, and the group realized what I did and we had an epic battle, them against me and my new bodyguards.

So much fun. The whole thing took months and was totally a better ending than "You beat the badguys, the end!", in my opinion.

None of that would have been possible without letting players be players.

So you would rather have a rigid "YOU ARE GOOD THIS IS GOOD" campaign than something like the above?

It's your game, but I think being afraid to explore other avenues besides good really limits you.

[Troacctid]

May I ask why? What if the group is mature enough to not play evil as "I eat babies and rape everything that moves, and doesn't move! I kill EVERYTHING bcuz I am evil!"

For example (My story from earlier):


So you would rather have a rigid "YOU ARE GOOD THIS IS GOOD" campaign than something like the above?

It's your game, but I think being afraid to explore other avenues besides good really limits you.

Maybe the group is also mature enough to play in a Call of Cthulhu-style horror game, or a detective game inspired by film noir, or a game based in a homebrew Star Trek/Pokémon crossover setting. They might still be fun, but they are different games.

[thematgreen]

Maybe the group is also mature enough to play in a Call of Cthulhu-style horror game, or a detective game inspired by film noir, or a game based in a homebrew Star Trek/Pokémon crossover setting. They might still be fun, but they are different games.

I don't understand your point.

[Troacctid]

To use a more extreme example, if I offered to DM a game of D&D and the players said, "That's great, but we want to play Monopoly! Will you be the banker?" I would be less than enthused.

It is a different experience. It might be fun for some, but it is not the experience I prefer.

[Jeff the Green]

To use a more extreme example, if I offered to DM a game of D&D and the players said, "That's great, but we want to play Monopoly! Will you be the banker?" I would be less than enthused.

It is a different experience. It might be fun for some, but it is not the experience I prefer.

I sympathize with draken50 somewhat. I'm fine playing well-intentioned extremists, Knights Templar, and people whose goals lie outside of alignment and are willing to stoop to a sort of miasmic evil exemplified by Fax's lawyer and landlord, but I don't like playing straight up bad guys even in CRPGs where the 'RP' is a paper-thin veneer. I keep finding myself rooting for the people I'm supposed to be killing.

That said, ruling out as a DM even the "benign evil" like people who cheat, steal, raise undead, or extort questgivers for extra rewards seems to go too far to me.

[Fax Celestis]

people whose goals lie outside of alignment and are willing to stoop to a sort of miasmic evil exemplified by Fax's lawyer and landlord

"Miasmic evil" is a flawless description of that character: clings to everything, has an unsettling air, and not something you want to be around. God, now I have to dig him up to play him again.

[Jeff the Green]

"Miasmic evil" is a flawless description of that character: clings to everything, has an unsettling air, and not something you want to be around. God, now I have to dig him up to play him again.

I do have my moments. :smallamused:

[thematgreen]

To use a more extreme example, if I offered to DM a game of D&D and the players said, "That's great, but we want to play Monopoly! Will you be the banker?" I would be less than enthused.

It is a different experience. It might be fun for some, but it is not the experience I prefer.

Ah, I see. That's not my point. I was honestly curious why the guy would want to cut out so much storytelling RP opprotunity because he doesn't want to deal with it. I assume he had a bad expierence where the evil players just acted like jerks and subverted everything. That sucks if it's true, but not all players are like that. When I DM I don't restrict anything. I feel that a player should be able to play the alingment they want, but deal with the consequences that come with it.

For example, I DM'd a group that was neutral leaning towards evil. One player, who after a career of just pointless cruelty and evil finally got caught after he raped and killed a shop owner . He was hunted down by bounty hunters, jailed, tried, and executed for his crimes.

The player was mad, telling me that I allowed for any alignment. I replied that I do, but I also have behind the screen reputation notes. So, go ahead and act like a psycopath because "I'm chaotic evil!" and, just like in the real world, you'll be stopped.

I think it allows for a richer world when not only are people allowed to play what they want, but also have to suffer consequences for their actions. Just saying "No Evil" is just limiting and I don't think I would play in a game where the DM couldn't provide a real reason for restrictions besides "my game, my rules".

Another example of evil in a good game. I played a kobold sorcerer named Sic Sic who wasn't evil as far as he was concerned, I just played him using a little monsters sensibilities. Dead bodies were food, a quick solution to stopping the monster in the woods was to burn down the woods with the monster in it, bigger monsters were mortal enemies that had to be exploded, theft was fine as long as you werent caught, and the lectures on morality from the group Paladin meant nothing to Sic Sic. He understood like 15 languages, but refused to speak in any language but Kobold, so the group IC and OOC had no idea if he understood them or was just following them around (I wrote things to the only other player who finally discovered I understood goblinish).

In one session we were in an inn on the docks and a sailor threw Sic Sic in the water. He went back that night to burn the docks and the boats in retribution, but the DM, being clever, started a breadcrumb mystery for me to solve, which revealed more of the story. Instead of burning down the docks and all the boats Sic Sic ended up entertaining warm blood children with Prestidigitation.

So, technically Sic Sic was evil, but wasn't all crazy.

[kreenlover]

My two cents:
Banning CE/NE does not mean there will be less party conflict. Most party conflict in my games is when the Paladins disagree on which bad guy is the most evil.

I'm not kidding here either. Two separate occasions, and the second time resulted in the party being split down the middle, half of them almost dying, and the rogue and one paladin firing flaming arrows at the horse of the other paladin. And then proceeding to laugh when they realized that the were the ones who had ended up with the wand of cure spells.
And then proceeding to plot the downfall of not only the paladin who had 'betrayed them' but the government of the nation that the paladin had sided with...

TL;DR: When two paladins are in the party, watch out for one trying to kill the other over differences of ideology. More common than you'd expect.

[atemu1234]

My two cents:
Banning CE/NE does not mean there will be less party conflict. Most party conflict in my games is when the Paladins disagree on which bad guy is the most evil.

I'm not kidding here either. Two separate occasions, and the second time resulted in the party being split down the middle, half of them almost dying, and the rogue and one paladin firing flaming arrows at the horse of the other paladin. And then proceeding to laugh when they realized that the were the ones who had ended up with the wand of cure spells.
And then proceeding to plot the downfall of not only the paladin who had 'betrayed them' but the government of the nation that the paladin had sided with...

TL;DR: When two paladins are in the party, watch out for one trying to kill the other over differences of ideology. More common than you'd expect.

A lot of people ban paladins too. We're going with the perfection fallacy here. If we can't eliminate all bad actions, why bother trying? Also, for those arguing anecdotal evidence, here is a perfect example.

Now, in my experience, extreme alignments do lead to conflict. But certain alignments -encourage- them, such as evil alignments encouraging selfish and others-screwing-over-thereof. A Paladin's problem isn't their alignment, it's their code of conduct requiring everyone else to follow their morals. Therein, it's a different problem, with a different solution. Banning evil alignments is reasonable.

[...]

I hate that everyone forgets about "*******" evil. You know, the kind that can function in society fine and is a great party member, but just is perfectly fine with screwing people over.

[atemu1234]

I hate that everyone forgets about "*******" evil. You know, the kind that can function in society fine and is a great party member, but just is perfectly fine with screwing people over.

Parties aren't society. Also, if they aren't doing anything bad, and actions determine alignment, then why are they evil?

[Fax Celestis]

Parties aren't society. Also, if they aren't doing anything bad, and actions determine alignment, then why are they evil?

Unethical != immoral.

[atemu1234]

Unethical != immoral.

The definition of unethical: not morally correct.
Immoral: Not conforming to acceptable standards of ethics.
What's more, unethical is listed as a synonym for Immoral, and Unethical likewise.

[Anlashok]

Sounds like someone needs to take a course on the difference between ethics and morals.


A Paladin's problem isn't their alignment, it's their code of conduct requiring everyone else to follow their morals.
No. That's a facet of good in general. A good character tolerating evil because it's more convenient might as well be neutral (sound familiar?).

Banning evil alignments is reasonable.
You've still yet to establish this. Or at least, have failed to establish this in a vacuum. You've made a reasonably compelling argument for playing a game where everyone has to be TN.

[...]

Parties aren't society. Also, if they aren't doing anything bad, and actions determine alignment, then why are they evil?

Actually, outlook equally determines alignment. To add to that, even if you only base alignment on actions, not all evil acts are strictly punishable. Remember, "wanton theft and murder" isn't one of the seven sins.

[atemu1234]

Sounds like someone needs to take a course on the difference between ethics and morals.

Irrelevant. Since actions determine alignment in this game, having morals and committing evil makes no difference, any more than acting good and having no morals makes one evil. In this game, ethics and morals are functionally the same.


No. That's a facet of good in general. A good character tolerating evil because it's more convenient might as well be neutral (sound familiar?).

Maybe they're tolerating it because they can accomplish more for good by keeping the evil little bugger on a leash instead of killing them in their sleep?

Evil is encouraged to murderhobo. Good is not. Evil encourages PvP. Good does not. Again, a reason to ban Paladin because of their code of conduct.

[atemu1234]

Actually, outlook equally determines alignment. To add to that, even if you only base alignment on actions, not all evil acts are strictly punishable. Remember, "wanton theft and murder" isn't one of the seven sins.

Um, envy and wrath ringing any bells?

[...]

Um, envy and wrath ringing any bells?

Arguably, the actions caused by them are not at fault, but the culprit is the brooding emotions at your enemy itself. Whether or not you kill the person, your undying hate and/or jealousy is what got you into the evil-aligned-plane-of-the-day. That said, the seven sins obviously aren't the only thing that can get you in there, of course.

[Anlashok]

Maybe they're tolerating it because they can accomplish more for good by keeping the evil little bugger on a leash instead of killing them in their sleep?
You've just successfully made an argument for not banning evil (with a little application of find and replace).


Evil is encouraged to murderhobo. Good is not.
Yeah it's not like the vast majority of enemies you're going to run into get a "usually evil" tag somewhere in their class block that you're encouraged to massacre wholesale. Doesn't fly.


Evil encourages PvP. Good does not. Again, a reason to ban Paladin because of their code of conduct.

You don't need to be a paladin to smite the corrupt. A good character actively attempting to destroy an evil character (or a neutral or good character committing a morally ambiguous act) is perfectly valid, extremely common, and by the numbers encouraged behavior.

Unless you're not a ****. But, of course, we're not discouraging bad behavior, just "bad" alignments.

[draken50]

May I ask why? What if the group is mature enough to not play evil as "I eat babies and rape everything that moves, and doesn't move! I kill EVERYTHING bcuz I am evil!"

So you would rather have a rigid "YOU ARE GOOD THIS IS GOOD" campaign than something like the above?

It's your game, but I think being afraid to explore other avenues besides good really limits you.

I gave the reason why, but I'll reiterate it. I don't have fun running that kind of game.
I get that players can play characters that aren't just slaughter rapers, but I still don't have fun running evil games.
I don't want to run a game where the players are a bunch of slavers, or international businessman trying to make loads of money off child labor. I don't find evil games fun to run.

And no, I don't have a rigid, you are good... that's it, rule. I'm fine with Neutral. I don't have an issue with a non-saint character, and my current campaign setting doesn't even really work for that pure goody goody kind of thing. However, Evil is not neutral in my games. It's not, you burglarized a shop for supplies, it's more the tied up the shopkeeper and his family and left him in the building while you burned it down.

I understand I have created a limit. However, that limit is: I must have fun running the game, or I will not run the game.

A player making a more evil decision for their character is not the same to me as a player running an evil character. My party in the last game hunted down and murdered a warrior that attacked a member of their party. Basically killed him in cold blood. However, they felt justified, and it's not been their normal behavior. It was extenuating circumstances that I orchestrated. The party has been slighted, and dealt with it. this particular NPC cost a PC their eye and left them bleeding in an alley, while their archer looked helplessly on.

[atemu1234]

Arguably, the actions caused by them are not at fault, but the culprit is the brooding emotions at your enemy itself. Whether or not you kill the person, your undying hate and/or jealousy is what got you into the evil-aligned-plane-of-the-day. That said, the seven sins obviously aren't the only thing that can get you in there, of course.
No, what condemns you is the action.

Which is better, to have been born good or to have overcome your evil nature?
Granted, it's not D&D, but I like the quote. If you overcome your nature and don't commit the evil, at worst you're going to a neutral afterlife (if you haven't done anything evil). The alignment books are quite clear that actions determine alignment. A guy poisons a well because he's convinced the people there are demons. Even if he thinks he is good, he's evil, and will ping as such.


You've just successfully made an argument for not banning evil (with a little application of find and replace).
No, I made a successful argument for not murderhoboing. The difference being you have to be -stronger- than the evil player. If you're not, and even if you are, it's going to disrupt the party, and wind up with you dead or damaged.

Yeah it's not like the vast majority of enemies you're going to run into get a "usually evil" tag somewhere in their class block that you're encouraged to massacre wholesale. Doesn't fly.
And here you were just encouraging the wholesale murder of all things evil. Odd, sounds similar, doesn't it?


You don't need to be a paladin to smite the corrupt. A good character actively attempting to destroy an evil character (or a neutral or good character committing a morally ambiguous act) is perfectly valid, extremely common, and by the numbers encouraged behavior.

Unless you're not a ****. But, of course, we're not discouraging bad behavior, just "bad" alignments.
Excellent strawmanning. Politicians would be proud.

I'm not saying you should kill everything that pings as evil. I'm saying that a player who is evil is more likely to commit evil acts in future, and unlike good alignments it is entirely in line for them to steal from and murder their fellow players.

LG isn't encouraged to disrupt the party. Paladins are by their code of conduct. Learn the difference.

[Anlashok]

And here you were just encouraging the wholesale murder of all things evil. Odd, sounds similar, doesn't it?
To illustrate the fact that the thing you insist is only a facet of evil clearly isn't.


I'm not saying you should kill everything that pings as evil.
I never said you did.


I'm saying that a player who is evil is more likely to commit evil acts in future, and unlike good alignments it is entirely in line for them to steal from and murder their fellow players.
And said good player is entirely in line for butchering (or imprisoning, or other things) the other player out of hand for doing anything that crosses his arbitrarily defined moral line in the sand.


LG isn't encouraged to disrupt the party.
An LG player is encouraged to do everything the Paladin is. It's just not enforced unless you're a paladin. That doesn't change the fact that it's a perfectly valid and extremely common roleplay option for that player.

The really ironic thing is that your argument has become "Well you don't have to do that if you're good!" when that's the same argument you've been asserting doesn't count for whatever reason for an evil character.

[Fax Celestis]

For you no-evil folks, what would you say if I put Lawful Selfish on my sheet?

[...]

No, what condemns you is the action.

So if a person is planning to poison the water supply of a large city, but the city is raided by orcs and he is killed before he can start his plan, he is not evil?

[atemu1234]

So if a person is planning to poison the water supply of a large city, but the city is raided by orcs and he is killed before he can start his plan, he is not evil?

The action is to poison the water supply. Once he has done that, he is evil. Thinking about poisoning it and deciding not to do so or avoiding doing so does not make him evil.

[atemu1234]

To illustrate the fact that the thing you insist is only a facet of evil clearly isn't.


I never said you did.


And said good player is entirely in line for butchering (or imprisoning, or other things) the other player out of hand for doing anything that crosses his arbitrarily defined moral line in the sand.


An LG player is encouraged to do everything the Paladin is. It's just not enforced unless you're a paladin. That doesn't change the fact that it's a perfectly valid and extremely common roleplay option for that player.

The really ironic thing is that your argument has become "Well you don't have to do that if you're good!" when that's the same argument you've been asserting doesn't count for whatever reason for an evil character.

The thing is, good is not encouraged to murderhobo. Evil is. It's in the description of the alignments in the Player's Handbook.

And I have been entirely patient in providing counterarguments to your reasoning. So no, it's not ironic, in that it is not happening. Evil IS encouraged to steal and murder. Controlling them is a waste of time and effort when a player could just roll up and roleplay a good character. Controlling and not murdering an NPC who is evil is appropriate, because it's part of the game, built in. Unnecessary PvP is not.

[draken50]

For you no-evil folks, what would you say if I put Lawful Selfish on my sheet?

Lawful Neutral would suffice.

[Fax Celestis]

Lawful Neutral would suffice.

Not really. Neutral would imply I actually do good things once in a while. Selfish would mean that I don't do anything that doesn't specifically benefit me.

[atemu1234]

Not really. Neutral would imply I actually do good things once in a while. Selfish would mean that I don't do anything that doesn't specifically benefit me.

All depends how it plays out. You take good actions when they benefit you, right?

[Fax Celestis]

All depends how it plays out. You take good actions when they benefit you, right?

Sure but I won't go out of my way to make them happen, and I have no compunctions going back on something if it would benefit me. And there is nothing I won't stoop to for a few coppers.

[Jeff the Green]

I gave the reason why, but I'll reiterate it. I don't have fun running that kind of game.
I get that players can play characters that aren't just slaughter rapers, but I still don't have fun running evil games.
I don't want to run a game where the players are a bunch of slavers, or international businessman trying to make loads of money off child labor. I don't find evil games fun to run.

And no, I don't have a rigid, you are good... that's it, rule. I'm fine with Neutral. I don't have an issue with a non-saint character, and my current campaign setting doesn't even really work for that pure goody goody kind of thing. However, Evil is not neutral in my games. It's not, you burglarized a shop for supplies, it's more the tied up the shopkeeper and his family and left him in the building while you burned it down.

I understand I have created a limit. However, that limit is: I must have fun running the game, or I will not run the game.

A player making a more evil decision for their character is not the same to me as a player running an evil character. My party in the last game hunted down and murdered a warrior that attacked a member of their party. Basically killed him in cold blood. However, they felt justified, and it's not been their normal behavior. It was extenuating circumstances that I orchestrated. The party has been slighted, and dealt with it. this particular NPC cost a PC their eye and left them bleeding in an alley, while their archer looked helplessly on.

I think there may be mismatched alignment definitions that has exacerbated this. If you don't count a pattern of doing things like robbing the store of a not-super-wealthy, generally decent person for supplies or going way beyond the lex talionis as something that would put you solidly in the Evil alignment in the absence of counterbalancing factors, you are much more hesitant to apply the Evil label than most Playgrounders and, in my experience, most DMs and players.

As an example, a player in a sandbox PbP I'm in plays a wonderful LE ranger of Mystra. So far no atrocities, just absolutely no compunction about killing not-particularly-nice people for her own benefit or refraining from killing civilians of a defeated goblin tribe mostly because it would be a waste of arrows. She got along fine with the CG elf abjurer, my LG-eventually-slipping-to-LN-for-cannibalism-don't-give-me-that-look Cleric of Kelemvor. For that matter, so did the CE ruthless Barbarian/Swordsage mercenary, who'd held kids for ransom and murdered some people in his past but done little more objectionable, and the NE Factotum who mostly just knowingly provided details to an assassin about future targets when paid to do so. Burn-down-the-orphanage levels of evil couldn't have fit in, though, and would probably indeed require an Evil game. And a rather unsubtle one at that.

[draken50]

I think there may be mismatched alignment definitions that has exacerbated this. If you don't count a pattern of doing things like robbing the store of a not-super-wealthy, generally decent person for supplies or going way beyond the lex talionis as something that would put you solidly in the Evil alignment in the absence of counterbalancing factors, you are much more hesitant to apply the Evil label than most Playgrounders and, in my experience, most DMs and players.


I do count a "pattern of doing things" I don't care as much for individual instances. Basically, I can run a game where in the pursuit of their goals a player decides that they need both the supplies and their cash to accomplish them. I don't care to run a game, where the character's solution is always to rob the store and bog down what could simply be a a shopping trip, or even better between game ect. item purchasing trip becomes a bigger deal becuase they're "evil". A neutral character can rob a store to meet their overarching goals. An Evil character robs a store, because they want to rob the store... and because it's there's to take.

The big difference to me between Neutral and Evil is both the motivation for their actions, and their specific methods. A character who attempts a robbery who takes steps to limit casualties, and who is willing to leave with nothing vs. endangering an innocent within is different than one who's plan for getting spotted is to drop a fireball on the passerby.

I don't like running games with character who rob or kill because they can vs. characters who are pursuing specific goals. Additionally, I do not like running games where the characters methods are definitively evil. I don't much care to run interactive scenes that enable or encourage torture, slaughter, or abuse. That is not to say that I'd say games cannot or should not have them, I simply don't enjoy it, and don't want to run it.

A simple parallel, is that I strongly dislike onions. I won't eat food covered in onions regardless of how good it may otherwise be. Doesn't mean I would tell others that they can't eat onions, or that it's somehow wrong. However, I won't order my food with onions because someone else likes them. In this case the game is the pizza I'm ordering, and it's not going to have onions... if you want onions, get your own pizza.

[nyjastul69]

For you no-evil folks, what would you say if I put Lawful Selfish on my sheet?

Without reading any further in this thread I would tag you as CN.

[Roxxy]

Why would some one outright BAN any alignment at all?I don't like GMing for non-Good groups, so on the not common occasions where I do use alignment I ban non-Goods. I play Pathfinder to tell tales of the selfless heroes. Not the mercenaries, the selfish prigs, or the bad guys. I usually find it easier to just remove alignment altogether and tell players to write up heroic characters.

[TandemChelipeds]

Not really. Neutral would imply I actually do good things once in a while. Selfish would mean that I don't do anything that doesn't specifically benefit me.

This is why I don't like that the word "selfish" gets thrown around when people talk about alignments. It's too vague. I'd say neutral and evil characters are both selfish, but in different ways. Evil characters are egoistic, willing to throw anyone under the bus for their own gain, while neutral characters have personal motives, ranging from revenge to making money to political agendas to saving loved ones. Neutral characters act in the interests of whoever or whatever they have bonds with, while evil characters regard those bonds as nothing more than tools.

[Fax Celestis]

I don't like GMing for non-Good groups, so on the not common occasions where I do use alignment I ban non-Goods. I play Pathfinder to tell tales of the selfless heroes. Not the mercenaries, the selfish prigs, or the bad guys. I usually find it easier to just remove alignment altogether and tell players to write up heroic characters.

So no Han Solo, Frank Castle, or Spawn at your table, then?

[Fax Celestis]

Han wasn't good to begin with, he became good through character devolpment. He changes alignment as the story progresses. Frank Castle isn't good, or more to the point, The Punisher isn't good. Frank Castle shouldn't be confused with The Punisher. I have no knowledge of Spawn.

Which is why I used them of examples of characters that would be not welcome at the table.

[nyjastul69]

Which is why I used them of examples of characters that would be not welcome at the table.

:/ Yeah, I had a reading fail in regards to your post. I thought you were implying something else at first. Mea culpa.

[Troacctid]

To be fair, it's possible to play antiheroes as Good, too.

[Roxxy]

For you no-evil folks, what would you say if I put Lawful Selfish on my sheet?

Find a different GM.

[Roxxy]

So no Han Solo, Frank Castle, or Spawn at your table, then?I don't watch Star Wars, so no context, Frank Castle is definitely banned because I don't do evil characters, and I don't know who Spawn is.

[TandemChelipeds]

I don't watch Star Wars, so no context, Frank Castle is definitely banned because I don't do evil characters, and I don't know who Spawn is.

Han Solo's basically an archetypical lovable rogue. He's a smuggler on the wrong side of the law and the crime syndicate, who the heroes hire to take them across the galaxy, no questions asked. He's initially only in it for the money and plays the dirty, pragmatic and skeptical foil to Obi-Wan Kenobi and Luke Skywalker, but by the end of A New Hope he reveals a heart of gold by swooping in to cover Luke's back in the midst of the climactic battle.

As for Spawn, he's a 90s antihero who was a mercenary in life, but made a deal with the devil to come back from the dead as, essentially, a demonic supersoldier for the forces of Hell- and proceeded to use his powers to avenge himself, try to patch things up with his former family, and eventually rebel against Hell, all the while brooding and giving monologues on how miserable he is. Still a decent guy, though. Doesn't like seeing kids get hurt.

[ImperatorV]

There's no such thing as a bad alignment, just bad players and DMs.

I know it's been a few pages, but can I sig this? This is ultimately the be-all-end-all of the debate.

Also, to all the DMs that say "X alignment doesn't fit my campaign;" you are the ones acting "entitled." D&D is a cooperative game, the instant you let someone play in a campaign it's not just "your" campaign anymore. If you want power over what happens in the story, and who can be in it, I suggest you check out this thing called "writing." It's like DMing, but the players always do what you want.

Seriously, so many of the posts defending alignment bans in this thread sound like a person who likes power trips. "I want this game to be about heroes, it will be about heroes, because I said so."

Also, to anyone who actually believes that DMs should think like the above quote... I don't even know what to say. If you act like that there's no helping you.

[Sartharina]

For you no-evil folks, what would you say if I put Lawful Selfish on my sheet?
I'd say "Put down Lawful Neutral", and not let you screw over the world enough to make Mr Pump accuse you of taking at least three lives more than anyone else in the party. And every time you do manage to screw someone over, it will come around and bite you in the ass hard. You are free to act. You are also free to deal with the consequences of your actions. I like to run more idealistic games, where crime doesn't pay and what goes around comes around.
I know it's been a few pages, but can I sig this? This is ultimately the be-all-end-all of the debate.

Also, to all the DMs that say "X alignment doesn't fit my campaign;" you are the ones acting "entitled." D&D is a cooperative game, the instant you let someone play in a campaign it's not just "your" campaign anymore. If you want power over what happens in the story, and who can be in it, I suggest you check out this thing called "writing." It's like DMing, but the players always do what you want.

Seriously, so many of the posts defending alignment bans in this thread sound like a person who likes power trips. "I want this game to be about heroes, it will be about heroes, because I said so."

Also, to anyone who actually believes that DMs should think like the above quote... I don't even know what to say. If you act like that there's no helping you.

If someone doesn't like the way I run my games, they can run their own game. Until you are willing to run a game yourself, you are NOT an equal in voice at the table to the DM. Yes, we are entitled to make those rules. That's one of the perks of having the guts to sit behind the DM's screen. There are always more players to replace those that don't get along with my DMing style.
There's not such thing as a bad alignment, just bad players and DMs.

The PHB disagrees. Re-read the last sentence of each alignment given. The Good and Neutral alignments are explicitly called out as "The Best" alignments.

[Roxxy]

Also, to all the DMs that say "X alignment doesn't fit my campaign;" you are the ones acting "entitled." D&D is a cooperative game, the instant you let someone play in a campaign it's not just "your" campaign anymore.I'm the one writing the adventures, the NPCs, the setting, and everything else. It's mine, full stop.
If you want power over what happens in the story, and who can be in it, I suggest you check out this thing called "writing." It's like DMing, but the players always do what you want. You don't have to do what I say, you have to create characters that fit within the theme and the tone of the game. there is a difference.

Seriously, so many of the posts defending alignment bans in this thread sound like a person who likes power trips.
"I want this game to be about heroes, it will be about heroes, because I said so." The GM has the right to enjoy the game, too. I don't enjoy non-Good games. So, I present a game of doing Good things. If players want that, they can come play. If they don't, they can pass.

Also, you could make the argument that:

"I want this game to be about medieval fantasy, it will be about medieval fantasy, because I said so."

All games have restrictions. That's what sets the tone and theme.


Also, to anyone who actually believes that DMs should think like the above quote... I don't even know what to say. If you act like that there's no helping you.Yes. Horrible, horrible me for not being willing to go though a ton of GMing work to run something that isn't what I want to play.

[nyjastul69]

Han Solo's basically an archetypical lovable rogue. He's a smuggler on the wrong side of the law and the crime syndicate, who the heroes hire to take them across the galaxy, no questions asked. He's initially only in it for the money and plays the dirty, pragmatic and skeptical foil to Obi-Wan Kenobi and Luke Skywalker, but by the end of A New Hope he reveals a heart of gold by swooping in to cover Luke's back in the midst of the climactic battle.

As for Spawn, he's a 90s antihero who was a mercenary in life, but made a deal with the devil to come back from the dead as, essentially, a demonic supersoldier for the forces of Hell- and proceeded to use his powers to avenge himself, try to patch things up with his former family, and eventually rebel against Hell, all the while brooding and giving monologues on how miserable he is. Still a decent guy, though. Doesn't like seeing kids get hurt.

Han doesn't start off as a loveable rogue. He starts off as an asshat. He eventually becomes a loveable rogue.

[Ettina]

Han Solo's basically an archetypical lovable rogue. He's a smuggler on the wrong side of the law and the crime syndicate, who the heroes hire to take them across the galaxy, no questions asked. He's initially only in it for the money and plays the dirty, pragmatic and skeptical foil to Obi-Wan Kenobi and Luke Skywalker, but by the end of A New Hope he reveals a heart of gold by swooping in to cover Luke's back in the midst of the climactic battle.

As for Spawn, he's a 90s antihero who was a mercenary in life, but made a deal with the devil to come back from the dead as, essentially, a demonic supersoldier for the forces of Hell- and proceeded to use his powers to avenge himself, try to patch things up with his former family, and eventually rebel against Hell, all the while brooding and giving monologues on how miserable he is. Still a decent guy, though. Doesn't like seeing kids get hurt.

Han Solo is definitely not evil. He starts out on the border between Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Good, and ends up straight-up Chaotic Good.

Spawn I'd say is Neutral, not evil, at least as far as I've watched in that show.

[Fax Celestis]

Han Solo is definitely not evil. He starts out on the border between Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Good, and ends up straight-up Chaotic Good.

Spawn I'd say is Neutral, not evil, at least as far as I've watched in that show.

Person I replied to banned "non-good" alignments, which would presumably include neutral.

[geekintheground]

Han Solo is definitely not evil. He starts out on the border between Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Good, and ends up straight-up Chaotic Good.

Spawn I'd say is Neutral, not evil, at least as far as I've watched in that show.

spawn is probably the epitome of neutral. at least in the comics... but thats more because of the crappy D&D alignment mechanics. he's killed tons of demons AND angels (and the devil AND god). so it all balances out. he has evil tendency due to the selfishness.


debates like this make me question alignment in general...

[TandemChelipeds]

spawn is probably the epitome of neutral. at least in the comics... but thats more because of the crappy D&D alignment mechanics. he's killed tons of demons AND angels (and the devil AND god). so it all balances out. he has evil tendency due to the selfishness.


debates like this make me question alignment in general...

It should be noted that in Spawn's setting, angels are pretty morally suspect too.

[geekintheground]

It should be noted that in Spawn's setting, angels are pretty morally suspect too.

true enough, though i'd say they still qualify as good. then again, never really read the comics, just have general knowledge of spawn himself :smallfrown: like most comicbook characters :'(

[Fax Celestis]

Not to mention John Constantine, Hellboy, Doctor Manhattan, Ozymandias, The Comedian... These are all heroes or antiheroes that can't be played at a "no evil" table.

[NichG]

Not to mention John Constantine, Hellboy, Doctor Manhattan, Ozymandias, The Comedian... These are all heroes or antiheroes that can't be played at a "no evil" table.

Many of these wouldn't qualify as evil in D&D's alignment system. Out of them, I'd say that Ozymandias and the Comedian are the two sure bets. Build Hellboy as a Tiefling instead of a Half-Fiend and he might as well be CG.

And as far as a player wanting to play Ozymandias or the Comedian, surely its not hard to see how either of those could be highly disruptive. Ozymandias effectively manipulated and controlled the actions of the other PCs, so its a very asymmetric character that gives one player a lot more power than the others over the plot. The Comedian is a chaotic-stupid type who is generally going to ruin any chance of diplomacy or non-combat interaction for the party.

Is it impossible to run a satisfying game with characters like that? No, of course not. But for a lot of scenarios, themes, and even particular sets of players, characters like those are going to be a disaster.

[ImperatorV]

I'd say "Put down Lawful Neutral", and not let you screw over the world enough to make Mr Pump accuse you of taking at least three lives more than anyone else in the party. And every time you do manage to screw someone over, it will come around and bite you in the ass hard. You are free to act. You are also free to deal with the consequences of your actions. I like to run more idealistic games, where crime doesn't pay and what goes around comes around.

If someone doesn't like the way I run my games, they can run their own game. Until you are willing to run a game yourself, you are NOT an equal in voice at the table to the DM. Yes, we are entitled to make those rules. That's one of the perks of having the guts to sit behind the DM's screen. There are always more players to replace those that don't get along with my DMing style.

The PHB disagrees. Re-read the last sentence of each alignment given. The Good and Neutral alignments are explicitly called out as "The Best" alignments.

If you believe sitting behind a screen gives you absolute power, that's on you.

The PHB also says drowning heals you. Also, the "good and neutral are the best" is heavily influenced by RL prejudice, but let's not get into that. I accept most people don't believe "bad" members of society deserve respect, and arguing over will just get the thread closed. So let's drop that.


I'm the one writing the adventures, the NPCs, the setting, and everything else. It's mine, full stop.You don't have to do what I say, you have to create characters that fit within the theme and the tone of the game. there is a difference.

Seriously, so many of the posts defending alignment bans in this thread sound like a person who likes power trips. The GM has the right to enjoy the game, too. I don't enjoy non-Good games. So, I present a game of doing Good things. If players want that, they can come play. If they don't, they can pass.

Also, you could make the argument that:

"I want this game to be about medieval fantasy, it will be about medieval fantasy, because I said so."

All games have restrictions. That's what sets the tone and theme.

Yes. Horrible, horrible me for not being willing to go though a ton of GMing work to run something that isn't what I want to play.

To your first point, I will simply state that I don't think it should be up to one person to determine the "tone of the game." If you disagree than whatever.

The thing about medieval fantasy was funny, but it doesn't really apply since the game we are discussing is almost invariably about medieval fantasy (baring significant modifications). If we were discussing a system that allowed for more genres, I would say you can't force players into a genre if what they really want is something else.

If catering to your players is not something you want to do as a DM, then I suggest you either stop DMing or find a group of players who always (or nearly always) want the same thing as you do. If you have already done the latter than I'm not sure why you would have to ban anything ever though.



Ultimately, I think the difference of opinion here is due to my viewing the power of a DM as a privilege, not a right. I have a firm belief that no one in any kind of position of power should ever be able to utter the words "because I said so." If there is no reason beyond your personal emotions, there is no reason at all.

Of course, if a DM and several of his players collectively decide they want to focus on a certain alignment to the exclusion of the others, then I would feel differently about it.

[Roxxy]

To your first point, I will simply state that I don't think it should be up to one person to determine the "tone of the game." If you disagree than whatever. I create the game, and send out feelers about what I am running. Part of that is setting the tone so I can attract the players interested in what I am running.


The thing about medieval fantasy was funny, but it doesn't really apply since the game we are discussing is almost invariably about medieval fantasy (baring significant modifications). If we were discussing a system that allowed for more genres, I would say you can't force players into a genre if what they really want is something else.
If we are going with Pathfinder, it is as much renaissance than medieval. Going with straight medieval fantasy is in and of itself a modification.

If catering to your players is not something you want to do as a DM, then I suggest you either stop DMing or find a group of players who always (or nearly always) want the same thing as you do. If you have already done the latter than I'm not sure why you would have to ban anything ever though. The GM has the right to enjoy the game, too. I don't do all the labor of setting up the setting, writing the adventures, and GMing the games just because. I'm not going to cater to a player when it breaks the tone of the game or the theme of the setting. No playstyle accommodates everything. I'm open about what mine accommodates during recruitment, so players can avoid me if they don't want heroic magitech fantasy.


Ultimately, I think the difference of opinion here is due to my viewing the power of a DM as a privilege, not a right.I can set myself up whenever I want, so it is a right. What I don't have a right to is players.
I have a firm belief that no one in any kind of position of power should ever be able to utter the words "because I said so." If there is no reason beyond your personal emotions, there is no reason at all. Why did I put Asian elements into a setting if not because my personal emotions are pleased? Why did I put in trains? Or focus on heroic parties? Or choose Pathfinder over 4E? Every decision falls purely to personal emotion.


Of course, if a DM and several of his players collectively decide they want to focus on a certain alignment to the exclusion of the others, then I would feel differently about it.Why? I am the one doing all the (considerable) work. It is natural that I get the most say. My players are not my equals. If they were, I would not have been given sole arbitration over the rules, the setting, the adventures, and all disputes by the rules themselves.

[ImperatorV]

I create the game, and send out feelers about what I am running. Part of that is setting the tone so I can attract the players interested in what I am running.

If we are going with Pathfinder, it is as much renaissance than medieval. Going with straight medieval fantasy is in and of itself a modification.
The GM has the right to enjoy the game, too. I don't do all the labor of setting up the setting, writing the adventures, and GMing the games just because. I'm not going to cater to a player when it breaks the tone of the game or the theme of the setting. No playstyle accommodates everything. I'm open about what mine accommodates during recruitment, so players can avoid me if they don't want heroic magitech fantasy.

Why did I put Asian elements into a setting if not because my personal emotions are pleased? Why did I put in trains? Or focus on heroic parties? Or choose Pathfinder over 4E? Every decision falls purely to personal emotion.

Why? I am the one doing all the (considerable) work. It is natural that I get the most say. My players are not my equals.

I say you should enjoy the "work" part of it or you really shouldn't do it. I run games because I like creating things. If someone wants me to create something different than I originally intended, then I take their idea and make it awesome.

So your logic is that since you created the campaign world, you get to say what happens in it. Ok. That's reasonable. The same logic also dictates that since the players create the characters, they get all the say over what the characters are (mechanics permitting), including alignment.

"But," you say, "That alignment is affecting in my campaign world, and so I can control it!" Yes and no. Character alignment certainly affects your campaign world, which you created and therefore by your logic have power over. But alignment is also part of the character the player created, and by your logic he has power over. As a conflict of two jurisdictions I believe that the solution should be for both parties to work together and find a solution.

[Roxxy]

I say you should enjoy the "work" part of it or you really shouldn't do it.I'll do it if we can be the good guys. If not, it stops being enough fun to be worth the work.
I run games because I like creating things. If someone wants me to create something different than I originally intended, then I take their idea and make it awesome. The problem is, what if I don't like what they want me to create?


So your logic is that since you created the campaign world, you get to say what happens in it. Ok. That's reasonable. The same logic also dictates that since the players create the characters, they get all the say over what the characters are (mechanics permitting), including alignment. Yes, except for the fact that the alignment issue was brought up in recruitment. If it was unacceptable, they could have not joined.


"But," you say, "That alignment is affecting in my campaign world, and so I can control it!" Yes and no. Character alignment certainly affects your campaign world, which you created and therefore by your logic have power over. But alignment is also part of the character the player created, and by your logic he has power over. As a conflict of two jurisdictions I believe that the solution should be for both parties to work together and find a solution.It affects my game, not the campaign world. I recruited for a game of selfless heroes, and said up front it was a game of selfless heroes when you joined, and you brought a mercenary that only cares for money. If you don't want to play a selfless hero, don't try to sign up for a game about selfless heroes. I don't find that reasonable.

[NichG]

I say you should enjoy the "work" part of it or you really shouldn't do it. I run games because I like creating things. If someone wants me to create something different than I originally intended, then I take their idea and make it awesome.

So your logic is that since you created the campaign world, you get to say what happens in it. Ok. That's reasonable. The same logic also dictates that since the players create the characters, they get all the say over what the characters are (mechanics permitting), including alignment.

"But," you say, "That alignment is affecting in my campaign world, and so I can control it!" Yes and no. Character alignment certainly affects your campaign world, which you created and therefore by your logic have power over. But alignment is also part of the character the player created, and by your logic he has power over. As a conflict of two jurisdictions I believe that the solution should be for both parties to work together and find a solution.

The thing is, no DM has a duty to run for a particular group of players, just like no player has a duty to play in a particular DM's game (or with particular other players, or whatever). Not to mention that a given player is capable of enjoying a variety of games and a given DM is capable of enjoying running a variety of games. If those varieties intersect, then enjoyable gaming can happen between that player and DM. If they don't, then it makes sense for the player and DM to shop around for others to pair up with. Now multiply this by six to find a group with common interests.

Just because a random sampling of 6 people includes one guy who wants to play a lawful evil businessman who uses modern economic theory to assassinate someone, someone who wants to play a heroic robot, a guy who wants to play a moody cowboy good guy, someone who wants to play a potato farmer, someone who wants to play a summoned creature from the land of monsters, and someone who wants to play a hyperintelligent dinosaur bent on vengeance against the Kuiper belt for wiping out his species means that those people must play together (and inevitably step all over eachothers' toes). Instead, one DM can run an Adventure! campaign, another DM can run a gritty, realistic, medieval campaign, etc, and the players can self-sort themselves into the campaigns they find interesting.

The DM is basically setting up a shop selling a particular product. The players decide if they want to buy what he's selling. Sometimes the DM offers a menu rather than a single thing and players can pick what they like out of the menu. Sometimes the DM offers to customize the product in order to cast a wider net. But the restrictions that the DM sets are just part of identifying their product. If you as a player go to a "no-evil" or "heroic fantasy only" table then you know out of the gate that you won't have to deal with the other PCs being evil either. You know what you're getting. The DM was clear from the start about what they wanted to run. If you wanted to play an evil character, you should have gone to a different table and left your slot in the game open for someone who actually was interested in buying what the DM was selling.

[TandemChelipeds]

It affects my game, not the campaign world. I recruited for a game of selfless heroes, and said up front it was a game of selfless heroes when you joined, and you brought a mercenary that only cares for money. If you don't want to play a selfless hero, don't try to sign up for a game about selfless heroes. I don't find that reasonable.

But there are so many other things you can play that are neither totally selfless cut-and-dried heroes nor money-chasing mercenaries. What about a hedonist wizard? What about a cleric of a war god, driven to fight as religious observance? What about a bard who only seeks stories to tell, or a ranger who wants to hunt exotic game, or a cavalier seeking glory? What about an ubermensch investigator? What about a monk, seeking to break an old addiction with strict ascetic discipline? There are so many interesting stories to tell, and honestly, a party consisting entirely of faultless altruists sounds kinda boring.

[draken50]

But there are so many other things you can play that are neither totally selfless cut-and-dried heroes nor money-chasing mercenaries. What about a hedonist wizard? What about a cleric of a war god, driven to fight as religious observance? What about a bard who only seeks stories to tell, or a ranger who wants to hunt exotic game, or a cavalier seeking glory? What about an ubermensch investigator? What about a monk, seeking to break an old addiction with strict ascetic discipline? There are so many interesting stories to tell, and honestly, a party consisting entirely of faultless altruists sounds kinda boring.

Because I don't care how much you like onions, I'm not ordering them on my pizza. You have decided that non-evil =Faultless Altruists, not us. And I owe you as a player nothing. You are not in my game, you will not be in my game. The players in my games know my terms and expectations, they have decided that they are willing to explore the pizza I provide knowing that it does not, and will not have onions.

I have an obligation to the players in my game based on the social contract I make with them. If you are not in my game, I have no obligation to the players that aren't. I as a rule expressed to all of my players is that by default: "Your characters will get along." There have been intra party arguments, anger between characters over decisions, but ultimately, every time they work together of their own volition to achieve their goals. "But" some players may say: "aren't stories where one member of the team is forced to work with others they don't like and strongly disagree with potentially interesting, like bad guys with control chips and stuff?" and I say "Sure, but not in my games, if you'd like to do that, find another game."

I don't have to care what you like. I owe you nothing.

[Aka-chan]

I'm the one writing the adventures, the NPCs, the setting, and everything else. It's mine, full stop.

Well, except that you're not the one writing the main characters. And unless you have purely reactive players who don't have their characters do anything unless prodded by the GM, they're going to have a role in driving the plot too. Not to mention that most of the GMs I know will take PC backstories as jumping-off points for plot ("Okay, I'll set up the guy who killed Character A's parents as one of the antagonists, and at some point a situation will come up that threatens to reveal Character B's deep dark secret...oh, and Player 3 says that his character's goal is to find the lost city his deity used to rule before her apotheosis, so I'll work that in somehow..."). The story really is being jointly told by you and your players.


As far as banning alignment goes, I think that banning alignments outright eliminates a lot of interesting stories. One that comes immediately to mind is the archetype of the former villain seeking redemption. He may well be Evil-aligned at the start of the campaign, because 1) he hasn't yet done enough good to outweigh his past evil deeds, and 2) everybody who's trying to make a big change in their life backslides sometimes. I had a character like this in the first game I ran, and he was a compelling, interesting character who significantly contributed both to the party and to the richness of the overall story. Telling the player that he couldn't play that character would have been an immensely bad idea.

I also agree with the posters who've said that Good alignments can sometimes be just as disruptive as Evil ones. There's a thread in the main roleplaying forum, for example, where the OP talks about two parties he's run games for--one Good, one Evil. The Good party did such things as murdering town guards, while the Evil party did such things as warning an order of paladins about an approaching orc army. (Granted, the Evil party probably had a self-serving reason for doing so, like not wanting to get killed by the orc army themselves, but still.) And honestly, I feel like I've heard just as many stories about stereotypical stick-up-the-posterior paladins disrupting parties as I have about sterotypical CE murder-everything-that-crosses-their-path characters disrupting parties.

[Roxxy]

But there are so many other things you can play that are neither totally selfless cut-and-dried heroes nor money-chasing mercenaries. What about a hedonist wizard? [QUOTE]What about a cleric of a war god, driven to fight as religious observance? What about a bard who only seeks stories to tell, or a ranger who wants to hunt exotic game, or a cavalier seeking glory? What about an ubermensch investigator? What about a monk, seeking to break an old addiction with strict ascetic discipline? There are so many interesting stories to tell, and honestly, a party consisting entirely of faultless altruists sounds kinda boring.There are games where you can fit any one of those concepts just fine. I just don't run them. I write the sort of adventure hooks where there isn't ever going to be much reward. I can't stand the commonplace idea that people who fight for glory or money are anything other than evil. You are killing people because of the thrill and energy and the egotism of forming a legacy, or just so you can get paid. You can't justify that.

This is why I like best to just chuck alignment, and say "write somebody who is on the side of good". It makes it so much easier to accept wiggle room and have flawed characters, while also making it easy to demon the sorts of people who deserve to be demonized.

[TandemChelipeds]

Because I don't care how much you like onions, I'm not ordering them on my pizza. You have decided that non-evil =Faultless Altruists, not us.
Actually, that was Roxxy. Who I was responding to.


And I owe you as a player nothing. You are not in my game, you will not be in my game. The players in my games know my terms and expectations, they have decided that they are willing to explore the pizza I provide knowing that it does not, and will not have onions.

I have an obligation to the players in my game based on the social contract I make with them. If you are not in my game, I have no obligation to the players that aren't. I as a rule expressed to all of my players is that by default: "Your characters will get along." There have been intra party arguments, anger between characters over decisions, but ultimately, every time they work together of their own volition to achieve their goals. "But" some players may say: "aren't stories where one member of the team is forced to work with others they don't like and strongly disagree with potentially interesting, like bad guys with control chips and stuff?" and I say "Sure, but not in my games, if you'd like to do that, find another game."

I don't have to care what you like. I owe you nothing.

Well. Somebody's getting defensive over perceived slights.

[Fax Celestis]

After the latest few posts, anything further I could say on the subject will earn me a warning, so I will bid you adieu.

[Roxxy]

Well, except that you're not the one writing the main characters. And unless you have purely reactive players who don't have their characters do anything unless prodded by the GM, they're going to have a role in driving the plot too.Exactly. I want a plot of heroic deeds undertaken to protect those who cannot protect themselves. That sets the game up for a certain type of personality.
Not to mention that most of the GMs I know will take PC backstories as jumping-off points for plot ("Okay, I'll set up the guy who killed Character A's parents as one of the antagonists, and at some point a situation will come up that threatens to reveal Character B's deep dark secret...oh, and Player 3 says that his character's goal is to find the lost city his deity used to rule before her apotheosis, so I'll work that in somehow..."). The story really is being jointly told by you and your players.I have never once used a PC backstory as an adventure hook. I feel like it discourages from having backstories that aren't "all my loved ones and everything I ever cared about is gone" for fear the GM will use their pasts against them. Another GM may well be able to work with it well, but that's not me.



As far as banning alignment goes, I think that banning alignments outright eliminates a lot of interesting stories. One that comes immediately to mind is the archetype of the former villain seeking redemption. He may well be Evil-aligned at the start of the campaign, because 1) he hasn't yet done enough good to outweigh his past evil deeds, and 2) everybody who's trying to make a big change in their life backslides sometimes. I had a character like this in the first game I ran, and he was a compelling, interesting character who significantly contributed both to the party and to the richness of the overall story. Telling the player that he couldn't play that character would have been an immensely bad idea.He is still evil at the beginning of the campaign. That's a significant portion where the whole "selfless heroes" thing is thrown off.


I also agree with the posters who've said that Good alignments can sometimes be just as disruptive as Evil ones. There's a thread in the main roleplaying forum, for example, where the OP talks about two parties he's run games for--one Good, one Evil. The Good party did such things as murdering town guards, while the Evil party did such things as warning an order of paladins about an approaching orc army. (Granted, the Evil party probably had a self-serving reason for doing so, like not wanting to get killed by the orc army themselves, but still.) And honestly, I feel like I've heard just as many stories about stereotypical stick-up-the-posterior paladins disrupting parties as I have about sterotypical CE murder-everything-that-crosses-their-path characters disrupting parties.That sounds like an issue with the players, not the alignments.

[TandemChelipeds]

There are games where you can fit any one of those concepts just fine. I just don't run them. I write the sort of adventure hooks where there isn't ever going to be much reward.
Note that none of the characters I listed would necessarily turn down someone in need. They simply had amoral motivations, or fell into commonly villainous archetypes.


I can't stand the commonplace idea that people who fight for glory or money are anything other than evil. You are killing people because of the thrill and energy and the egotism of forming a legacy, or just so you can get paid. You can't justify that.
You can if they're fighting back. Or if they struck first. If there's already a war zone, is it evil to enter that war zone with the expectation of fighting? Is it evil to join a fight because it's where the fighting is, and fighting is what you love? Is it evil to stomp Nazis, given the opportunity? Not everyone can be a Gandhi, and not everyone who isn't a Gandhi is a Hitler. Gandhis need Pattons to protect them from Hitlers. It's simply a logical consequence of a world where good is gentle and evil is warlike. If the Pattons weren't around, the Gandhis would get stomped in a day.


This is why I like best to just chuck alignment, and say "write somebody who is on the side of good". It makes it so much easier to accept wiggle room and have flawed characters, while also making it easy to demon the sorts of people who deserve to be demonized.
And who deserves that kind of treatment? I'm all ears.

[Jeff the Green]

I have never once used a PC backstory as an adventure hook. It discourages players from having backstories that aren't "all my loved ones and everything I ever cared about is gone" for fear the GM will use their pasts against them.

Players actually do that? :smallconfused: The one character I did that with was unbearably dull because of it (in part), and the one I'm currently building to replace her has living parents she loves and gets on with, a number of friends and colleagues she likes, even an adult son.

[Roxxy]

You can if they're fighting back. Or if they struck first. If there's already a war zone, is it evil to enter that war zone with the expectation of fighting?If you entered that fight because you were paid to enter that fight, yes. You are basically killing people because you got paid to kill people.
Is it evil to join a fight because it's where the fighting is, and fighting is what you love?Yes. It is very much an evil act. You are killing people because you love killing. Of course it's an evil act.
Is it evil to stomp Nazis, given the opportunity?Are you stomping Nazis because they are bad or because they invaded your country? Then you are fine. Are you stomping them because you were paid to stomp them? You are the lesser evil and the Nazis the greater evil, but both of you are evil.
Not everyone can be a Gandhi, and not everyone who isn't a Gandhi is a Hitler.No, but killing people for money is kind of bad.
Gandhis need Pattons to protect them from Hitlers.Patton wasn't a mercenary. He was a glory hound, but he fought for something beyond glory, not just the glory itself.
It's simply a logical consequence of a world where good is gentle and evil is warlike. If the Pattons weren't around, the Gandhis would get stomped in a day.Good is not nice or soft, but it can't be paid off, either.



And who deserves that kind of treatment? I'm all ears.
Mercenaries
Those who fight solely for glory
Those who fight because they like to fight
Well intentioned extremists
Murderers
Rapists
Tyrants

[TandemChelipeds]

You are killing people because you love killing.


killing

You keep using that word. You're talking about killing. I'm talking about fighting. The joy comes in the struggle, the clash of blade on blade. The dodges and parries, the narrowly-avoided arrows. The dance of competing tactics and strategies, the minimization of losses, the maintenance and protection of supply lines, the seizing and loss of territory. The camaraderie, the unity of bodies in the operation of something far larger than any of the individuals involved. The game ends when someone dies. Defeat is the enemy, but so is victory. The fight is change. The fight is joy. The fight is life. You can water that down with your "causes". Or you can embrace it.

^and that's how you write a chaotic neutral war cleric

[Ninjaxenomorph]

I'll give you a scenario. We have this guy, he was driven from his home city for a crime he had nothing to do with, and joined the military to still support his family. Army is eventually beaten and he is forced to leave. The man joins a band of mercenaries to use his skills to continue providing for his family. That still evil?

[Roxxy]

You keep using that word. You're talking about killing. I'm talking about fighting. The joy comes in the struggle, the clash of blade on blade. The dodges and parries, the narrowly-avoided arrows. The dance of competing tactics and strategies, the minimization of losses, the maintenance and protection of supply lines, the seizing and loss of territory. The camaraderie, the unity of bodies in the operation of something far larger than any of the individuals involved. The game ends when someone dies. Defeat is the enemy, but so is victory. The fight is change. The fight is joy. The fight is life. You can water that down with your "causes". Or you can embrace it.When sharp and heavy weapons are involved, killing is exactly what fighting results in. You can't just divorce the two because you don't want to face the reality of what you are doing to people to have your thrills. Sure, you had fun. You also slit a young man's abdomen open because you wanted to take part in the greatest game around. Not because you were fighting for your kingdom, or your freedom, or to stop a great evil from being wrought. No, it was for your entertainment. You're no better than that necromancer who sacrifices screaming victims on the altar of her dark patron.


^and that's how you write a chaotic neutral war clericAnd that is why I like to trash the alignment system when possible. That vile sort of person shouldn't be allowed to claim neutrality instead of evil.

[Roxxy]

I'll give you a scenario. We have this guy, he was driven from his home city for a crime he had nothing to do with, and joined the military to still support his family. Army is eventually beaten and he is forced to leave. The man joins a band of mercenaries to use his skills to continue providing for his family. That still evil?As evil as the man who gut a shopkeeper to steal the wares to provide for his family.

[TandemChelipeds]

I'll give you a scenario. We have this guy, he was driven from his home city for a crime he had nothing to do with, and joined the military to still support his family. Army is eventually beaten and he is forced to leave. The man joins a band of mercenaries to use his skills to continue providing for his family. That still evil?

Hi, Jetstream Sam. Back from your stint in Revengeance?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLL3MVki46U&t=2955

[ImperatorV]

That sounds like an issue with the players, not the alignments.

The irony burns.

Also, I find your pathological hatred of "evil" things to be a little unhealthy. And somewhat hypocritical, given that in order to have a story of heroism, you must have something evil to pit it against. The only differences between an evil PC and a villain is who is controlling them and what side they are on. You are fine with having evil in your story as long as what? It doesn't have a good ending for the evil? Tell me, if evil always failed why would anyone do it? It makes virtue worthless if the alternative isn't just as viable, if not more viable. Resisting temptation is easy when the temptation is weak. I would postulate that the heroes you so love aren't heroes at all in your games; they had already won from the start! Is there any character development to be had at all?

[Ninjaxenomorph]

As evil as the man who gut a shopkeeper to steal the wares to provide for his family.

So in Berserk, Guts and Casca are evil? I also assume you've never read Schlock Mercenary.


Hi, Jetstream Sam. Back from your stint in Revengeance?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLL3MVki46U&t=2955

Not really helping my point having heroic mercenaries :smalltongue:

[TandemChelipeds]

When sharp and heavy weapons are involved, killing is exactly what fighting results in. You can't just divorce the two because you don't want to face the reality of what you are doing to people to have your thrills. Sure, you had fun. You also slit a young man's abdomen open because you wanted to take part in the greatest game around. Not because you were fighting for your kingdom, or your freedom, or to stop a great evil from being wrought. No, it was for your entertainment. You're no better than that necromancer who sacrifices screaming victims on the altar of her dark patron.
But it is, in fact, better. Cruelty for a cause is the worst kind there is. It allows you to delude yourself into thinking you're a different kind of person.


And that is why I like to trash the alignment system when possible. That vile sort of person shouldn't be allowed to claim neutrality instead of evil.
That's awfully judgmental.

[torrasque666]

Ok guys, can we move this away from Roxxy and their alignment beliefs? Its not the topic of this thread to grill one another over why someone is wrong to ban X alignment. Both sides have made their point and Roxxy's view is that its very Black and White when it comes to alignment on the good/evil axis.

And besides, if this keeps up we might end up in a similar incident as what kept happening with JP. And I know none of the Guild want that to happen again.

[Roxxy]

Also, I find your pathological hatred of "evil" things to be a little unhealthy. And somewhat hypocritical, given that in order to have a story of heroism, you must have something evil to pit it against. The only differences between an evil PC and a villain is who is controlling them and what side they are on. You are fine with having evil in your story as long as what? It doesn't have a good ending for the evil?Basically. I'm okay with the evil priest who carries out human sacrifice and molests children existing in the game. He is not there to be the hero of the story, however, and I have little interest in running a game for the villains.
Tell me, if evil always failed why would anyone do it?Heroes can't be everywhere, and they aren't common.
It makes virtue worthless if the alternative isn't just as viable, if not more viable. Resisting temptation is easy when the temptation is weak.If you want that kind of theme, play a gothic dark fantasy game, not this heroic fantasy game.
I would postulate that the heroes you so love aren't heroes at all in your games; they had already won from the start! Is there any character development to be had at all?Of course. You don't have to be perfect. You don't have to never dip into something questionable. Good characters don't even have to disagree with each other. You just have to fight because you believe in the correctness of your actions, not because you were offered a ton of gold or thought it would be fun, and you can't go and jump into a fight for the thrills or for the money.

[TandemChelipeds]

Ok guys, can we move this away from Roxxy and their alignment beliefs? Its not the topic of this thread to grill one another over why someone is wrong to ban X alignment. Both sides have made their point and Roxxy's view is that its very Black and White when it comes to alignment on the good/evil axis.

And besides, if this keeps up we might end up in a similar incident as what kept happening with JP. And I know none of the Guild want that to happen again.

Point taken. I will say, even if I disagree with Roxxy, she is far more articulate than that other one, and doesn't deserve to be lumped in with them. I simply happen to have a worldview that is diametrically opposed to hers, which I can live with.

[ImperatorV]

If you want that kind of theme, play a gothic dark fantasy game, not this heroic fantasy game.

That theme is real life. A certain quote by the Giant about "petty escapism" comes to mind. If you want your games to not mirror the real world, you know what you are doing. I, on the other hand, like to explore how emotions and motivations operate in a realistic (read: gray and darker gray) manner.

[Roxxy]

Point taken. I will say, even if I disagree with Roxxy, she is far more articulate than that other one, and doesn't deserve to be lumped in with them. I simply happen to have a worldview that is diametrically opposed to hers, which I can live with.Right. There is nothing wrong with not liking the way each other does things. I certainly don't expect everybody else to share my strict views on mercenaries or to not want to play Neutral characters. It's not for me to tell you not to do things at your table. I started out trying to explain why I personally ban some alignments, and from there I ended up getting defensive.


That theme is real life. A certain quote by the Giant about "petty escapism" comes to mind. If you want your games to not mirror the real world, you know what you are doing. I, on the other hand, like to explore how emotions and motivations operate in a realistic (read: gray and darker gray) manner.I am here for the escapism. I don't like the real world, so I don't want to replicate it.

[TandemChelipeds]

That theme is real life. A certain quote by the Giant about "petty escapism" comes to mind. If you want your games to not mirror the real world, you know what you are doing. I, on the other hand, like to explore how emotions and motivations operate in a realistic (read: gray and darker gray) manner.

It should be noted, however, that both Roxxy and draken50 have actually brought up that exact point. At this point, it isn't them imposing their values on the rest of us, it's them having different tastes from the rest of us and everyone else going "Come on, really?"

It doesn't really improve anything, and it's kinda unwarranted. I think it's basically a kneejerk reaction at knowing that we'll never be able to play that world-changing magnificent bastard chessmaster magus with a bone to pick with the gods in any of their games. Which really isn't a serious issue, when we consider the probability of ending up in either of their games to begin with. It's a non-sequitur, it's "But I wanna play Lelouch!"

[ImperatorV]

I am here for the escapism. I don't like the real world, so I don't want to replicate it.

Ah. Well, that explains your thought process. I think we reached our conclusion here, no need to continue the argument. Good debate everybody.

[TandemChelipeds]

Ah. Well, that explains your thought process. I think we reached our conclusion here, no need to continue the argument. Good debate everybody.

Wait a sec. Why does your quote name me as the poster?

[Ninjaxenomorph]

Banning alignments also depends on the players involved. You might trust them to play a layered and entertaining character, others you distrust as anyone with an extreme alignment.

[ImperatorV]

Wait a sec. Why does your quote name me as the poster?

Huh. Weird. I'll see if I can fix that.

[TandemChelipeds]

Banning alignments also depends on the players involved. You might trust them to play a layered and entertaining character, others you distrust as anyone with an extreme alignment.

Yeah, there's a guy I used to play with in New Brunswick who invariably played his characters as Chaotic Stupid and Stupid Evil as possible. Once the party was sneaking around a dark dungeon, rolled Perception, saw a pair of eyes in the shadows, and he pulled out the mandolin and started playing. It was a bugbear at level 1 and the (inexperienced)party almost got massacred. Then in another game he kept a goblin alive, tortured it, and stabbed its eye out for the lulz. But this was the same guy who was a self-professed sociopath, so he was pretty Chaotic Stupid Evil irl.

[ImperatorV]

Alright should be fixed now. I think the auto-reply thing brought the quote Roxxy was quoting from you in, and when I took that part out I must have deleted the start quote from her and left the start quote from you.

[TandemChelipeds]

Alright should be fixed now. I think the auto-reply thing brought the quote Roxxy was quoting from you in, and when I took that part out I must have deleted the start quote from her and left the start quote from you.

Yeah, it looks fine.