PDA

View Full Version : Would this cramp your gaming?



Kiero
2007-08-20, 03:48 AM
NB: This isn't a thread about the RPGA, but about whether the two restrictions below would sit well with you.

There was a comment in this thread (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=349716) about some of the rules for RPGA's Living Greyhawk campaign. Now most of what I hear about the RPGA (and particularly the reliance on modules, which I loathe) doesn't appeal, but these didn't sound too bad to me.

Namely: No Evil characters and no intentionally attacking other PCs.

Wouldn't have ever given me trouble as player or GM adhering to those. What about you?

Zincorium
2007-08-20, 03:55 AM
The RPGA always seemed to me like you were paying to play a specific character, in specific adventures, with specific people, and tightly held to the rules that were come up with by people outside the game.

If I wasn't paying for the 'privilege', I might consider it, but just regular old gaming sessions have always seemed a lot more fun.

Kiero
2007-08-20, 03:59 AM
The RPGA always seemed to me like you were paying to play a specific character, in specific adventures, with specific people, and tightly held to the rules that were come up with by people outside the game.

If I wasn't paying for the 'privilege', I might consider it, but just regular old gaming sessions have always seemed a lot more fun.

What about the question of the bar on Evil characters and attacking other PCs? Since that's what I was asking, not about opinions on the RPGA.

Sacrath
2007-08-20, 04:04 AM
I almost never allow PCs to attack each other anyway. Free will has its place but in the end people come to the table to play a co-operative game and character combat is hardly any fun for anyone.

Overlard
2007-08-20, 04:08 AM
That's how I play in one of my groups anyway. Evil characters and attacking each other tends to lead to the DM acting as a referee anyway, and that's not the kind of game I like to play in.

KillianHawkeye
2007-08-20, 04:10 AM
Isn't that just common sense? I mean, the PHB already discourages playing an evil character. You generally need the DM's permission to do so.

And I know that sometimes it's hard to get along with certain people/characters, but IMO you should always avoid attack fellow PCs if possible. (Unless playing one of the aforementioned evil PCs, of course... :smallwink: ) Intra-party conflict generally leads to one or more players in the group not having a good time, so it should be avoided OOC on those grounds alone. A smoothly running game is a happy game, and the PCs should always be more pissed at the BBEG than at each other.

nagora
2007-08-20, 04:12 AM
NB: This isn't a thread about the RPGA, but about whether the two restrictions below would sit well with you.

There was a comment in this thread (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=349716) about some of the rules for RPGA's Living Greyhawk campaign. Now most of what I hear about the RPGA (and particularly the reliance on modules, which I loathe) doesn't appeal, but these didn't sound too bad to me.

Namely: No Evil characters and no intentionally attacking other PCs.

Wouldn't have ever given me trouble as player or GM adhering to those. What about you?

Players who attack (as opposed to constantly niggle) other players' characters simply aren't mature enough to game yet and need to be barred if they persist. Obviously, an argument over something in-game could justify the occassional scuffle.

Evil characters, on the other hand, are perfectly fine. I can't see any rule that would prevent Belkar joining the game as a positive thing. An entirely evil group would be different, I think, although I've never had to deal with it. But one evil character here or there is no big deal.

Dhavaer
2007-08-20, 04:23 AM
Doesn't sound like a problem to me. Isn't that normal?

tannish2
2007-08-20, 04:26 AM
i never really looked into RPGA stuff but i didnt think you had to pay, that being said:

if it were me i would say no paladins without armor with a constant attonement effect so they couldnt EVER hijack a party(with the "but... ill lose my paladin abilities if we dont just charge in" excuse or the "but... if we take time to research and figure out what were up against the BBEG will kill the innocent villager and ill lose my paladin abilities" excuse).

the occasional evil character is fun(funnest character i ever played was evil, and the occasional in character conflict adds fun to the game, and the funnest characters ive ever played were on the evil end of chaotic neutral), and if im paying for the privilage of playing a game that i payed for the books/software/equipment to play, then im going to do whatever i damn well please, and if they want to limit me, they dont need my money.

the "no intentionally attacking PCs" thing seems a bit dickish to me, sometimes a PC vs PC conflict is simply called for, sometimes someone is duped by the BBEG and its the DMs fault! maybe the DM is texting the actions to the PC who the other players dont know is dominated... it makes these things more obvious and really, i like to know if im in a group with the kind of bitch who would join a group, and start killing off other players first thing so i could leave and never come back, or so that he could be kicked out early.

Badgerish
2007-08-20, 04:45 AM
those are general rules that i GM by and play by. They are not final written-in-stone rules that can nver be changed though.

a well-played evil char (but with limits) can add alot of depth to a game or setting (Belkar in OoTS, Jayne in Firefly), and player vs player (but not to the death) fights have their place.

so, 99% of the time i would prefer/require these rules, but that 1% of time can happen, needs the right player/otherplayers/DM/setting combo though.


all comments are IMHO ofc

warmachine
2007-08-20, 04:58 AM
A total ban on evil characters indicates an inability to handle unconventional ideas. Evil is a broad term and need not be disruptive to the PC team. The evil PC could be out to mess around with NPCs. This requires the DM's OK that it doesn't conflict with the campaign and the player's OK that their characters wouldn't be philosophically opposed, or at least detect the unacceptable behaviour, but they should take in their stride.

Not attacking each other should not need to be mentioned. If a PC attacks another PC, the player must be asked why he thinks he's not spoiling the game for others, let alone why it's appropriate for the character. AD&D is a team game. If he can't give a satisfactory answer, then he's not interested in AD&D in the first place and he should play Paranoia instead.

Kiero
2007-08-20, 05:17 AM
Course I'd say there's a rejoinder attached to the second condition, that the "don't be a d*ck clause cuts both ways. That means not constantly trying to provoke other players into attacking you, knowing that it's not allowed.

Ashtar
2007-08-20, 05:25 AM
Well, it depends on the attack...

I.E. Grappling one PC to save him from doing something really really bad / stupid / suicidal is something I allow when I DM. Dropping a fireball on the rogue (or fighter or monk) who has tied up the enemies and asked to be fireballed (à la Miko) should be allowed.

But apart from those occasions, putting a ban on evil chars and attacking your groupe wouldn't bother me or my group.

Pauwel
2007-08-20, 05:31 AM
Assuming that by "attack" they mean the attack action...

I just might accept it, but I wouldn't like it. In the end if it's appropriate for my character to attack another PC I wouldn't like being limited by outside rules. It's not often it happens, but it does occur.
So no, I wouldn't want to play with such rules.

nagora
2007-08-20, 05:41 AM
NB: This isn't a thread about the RPGA, but about whether the two restrictions below would sit well with you.

There was a comment in this thread (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=349716) about some of the rules for RPGA's Living Greyhawk campaign. Now most of what I hear about the RPGA (and particularly the reliance on modules, which I loathe) doesn't appeal, but these didn't sound too bad to me.

Namely: No Evil characters and no intentionally attacking other PCs.

Wouldn't have ever given me trouble as player or GM adhering to those. What about you?

It's worth pointing out that the RPGA's "No evil PCs" rule is simply a PR exercise to avoid issues with certain groups that want to paint everyone who can think for themselves as being in league with Bad Things.

Tormsskull
2007-08-20, 05:53 AM
It would cramp my gaming a bit. The old "There's a traitor in the midst" is a very good plot device that groups can run, and I think that it honestly leads to better roleplaying. I've often had one of the players ask me to be able to run an evil character, and I always ask them what their reason for doing so is.

If they want to try to kill the other PCs, then no, because that is not a good enough reason. If they want to play the evil character on his way to being redeemed, I'd be ok with that. And sometimes I ask one of the players, away from the other players, to run an evil character. It might only be temporary, and they have to be willing to die (because they are very likely too).

I know some groups speak of this unwritten code that no players are allowed to attack/steal/lie to other members of the group, but I think that just puts a big stifling on creativity.

The Prince of Cats
2007-08-20, 05:53 AM
My party is discouraged from playing even neutral characters (not my my DMing, by the cleric's love of Holy Smite (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/holySmite.htm)), but I let them spar.

To be fair, the worst intra-party damage was a stage-show that went wrong. A ranger with thAC0 of 3 (2e, equivalent to +17 attack bonus) and a rogue (I think it was a rogue) with a fairly good thAC0 too tried shooting apples off one another's heads. Since then, the party don't even risk it...

Skjaldbakka
2007-08-20, 06:01 AM
but . . . most people are nuetral.

I was quite annoyed by the 'can't attack PCs' rule. I believe it was implemented to prevent immature players from rolling the party with their 'teh uber charactar'.

It doesn't help that LG actually promtes inter-party strife through their factions system, while not allowing you to use violence, which, like any other tool, is useful when applied appropriately.

I tried out some LG, and even ran a few modules as a fund-raiser for the local gaming group. None of the modules that were run at that event were any of the following:

Well-written
Appropriately CR'd
Intellectually stimulating

I also played in exactly one LG game, in which I played a wizard, got to roleplay 2-3 hours of not-finding-the-plot-hook, and then got to roll initiative and get shot through the neck and die. Not a fun experience for me.

Thanatos 51-50
2007-08-20, 06:09 AM
No really, I generally play like that, anyway.

Although, at low levels, my rogues tend to be aggressive in punching stupid and/or loud PCs in the face to teach them to "SHUT UP!".

Swooper
2007-08-20, 06:16 AM
I don't think this needs to be even said in regular groups; either they don't want evil alignments, or they are fine with them, either of which causes no problems as long as the group agrees with it. And if PCs are attacking other PCs on a regular basis, your group most likely has more serious problems.

Were-Sandwich
2007-08-20, 06:17 AM
but . . . most people are nuetral.

I was quite annoyed by the 'can't attack PCs' rule. I believe it was implemented to prevent immature players from rolling the party with their 'teh uber charactar'.

It doesn't help that LG actually promtes inter-party strife through their factions system, while not allowing you to use violence, which, like any other tool, is useful when applied appropriately.

I tried out some LG, and even ran a few modules as a fund-raiser for the local gaming group. None of the modules that were run at that event were any of the following:

Well-written
Appropriately CR'd
Intellectually stimulating

I also played in exactly one LG game, in which I played a wizard, got to roleplay 2-3 hours of not-finding-the-plot-hook, and then got to roll initiative and get shot through the neck and die. Not a fun experience for me.

I'm not familiar with RPGA, how did you raise money for your group by running modules? *prepares to take notes* I'm mercenary enough to run a totally crap module to bunch of strangers if I can turn a quick profit.

Neon Knight
2007-08-20, 06:32 AM
The two listed restrictions would cramp my style a bit. I tend to play the manipulative Lawful Evil type, and the occasional bout of inter party conflict can be interesting.

Keep in mind, I am not saying that Chaotic Stupid and PCs killing PCs should be allowed.

Ulzgoroth
2007-08-20, 06:40 AM
I doubt that it would limit my play, most of the time, but I object to the restriction on principle. D&D is a team game so long as the characters are a team...which isn't necessarily all that long, if things shake out badly. And refusing to make an attack roll against each other under stress is wildly out of character for the typical adventuring band, which generally shoots trouble repeatedly, then sneaks up and cuts its throat to be sure.

As for no evil, I simply see no reason for it. If someone makes a Chaotic Stupid parallel killer (serial killers are inefficient), boot the character for being radically unsuited to the game or any form of remotely civilized existence, not for being evil. If someone makes Thog, you're probably fine, and won't have atrocities unless somebody else in the party wants you to.

Evil DM Mark3
2007-08-20, 06:45 AM
I have seen the second of those rules taken to illogical extremes (no you can't attack the cominated PC). My rule is you may PvP, and you may take the consiquences.

The first is downright dumb. In many ways LE is an easier aligment to get into a group than CG or CN. NE can work. I used to have a no CE rule, untill I read OotS. :belkar: you proved me wrong you scamp.

Skjaldbakka
2007-08-20, 06:54 AM
I'm not familiar with RPGA, how did you raise money for your group by running modules? *prepares to take notes* I'm mercenary enough to run a totally crap module to bunch of strangers if I can turn a quick profit.

As a student organization, we are able to 'rent' space from the university for free. One of our newer members was an RPGA sanctioned judge, and he volunteered to organize a sanctioned LG event, for which we were able to charge entry. Small change compared to what we made from UKon, but we raised some additional funds for the Gencon room.

Dausuul
2007-08-20, 07:20 AM
Players who attack (as opposed to constantly niggle) other players' characters simply aren't mature enough to game yet and need to be barred if they persist. Obviously, an argument over something in-game could justify the occassional scuffle.

Evil characters, on the other hand, are perfectly fine. I can't see any rule that would prevent Belkar joining the game as a positive thing. An entirely evil group would be different, I think, although I've never had to deal with it. But one evil character here or there is no big deal.

Belkar has attacked (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0085.html) other players' (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0125.html) characters (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0322.html). And if I were Belkar's DM, he would have gotten smote a long time ago. He's hilarious to read about, but in a real-life game he would be a serious problem player.

As to whether PCs attacking the characters of other PCs should be barred from doing so... that depends a lot on circumstances. I have been in games where combat among PCs took place for eminently sensible reasons and people were okay with it because of those reasons. I have been in others where it was, as you say, somebody being immature.

I think "no attacking other PCs" is a good policy for gaming with strangers, although I would extend that to "no messing with other PCs"--that is, if the rogue steals the wizard's spellbook and burns it, that should count as an attack.

The "no evil characters" rule is obnoxious, particularly given the amount of disagreement over where the dividing lines between "good," "evil," and "neutral" lie. I suppose the goal is to make sure nobody goes over to the Dark Side and joins the bad guys.

Tengu
2007-08-20, 07:41 AM
I don't play DND and therefore don't use the alignment system, but when I GM, I always make the rule that player characters must be non-evil, have a reason to do something (I hate Neutral Idle almost as much as Chaotic Stupid), and be willing to cooperate with the others - so basically, in the spirit of the rules Kiero mentioned in the original post. None of my players ever complained.

Citizen Joe
2007-08-20, 07:54 AM
Personally, I've hated the alignment system all the way back to second edition. At one point, I even asked the DM if I could play an animal just so I wouldn't have an alignment. I tend to play the Lawful Neutral type, the ones that plan out everything and stick to the plan. They don't deal with moral issues. They view adventuring as their 'job' and to that end typically are in the employ of someone.

As to the no intentionally attacking other PCs, I don't take any guff from other characters. Like I said, I typically adventure as if it were a job and I get hired by someone to do it. If someone threatens that job, I'll get them fired, and replaced. Once the PLAYERS realize that their character's position is not locked in, they tend to fall in line. That being said, on a couple of occasions, my characters have left voluntarily due to interparty strife that couldn't be resolved.

So, the answer is No, that wouldn't cramp my style at all. Everything ELSE about RPGA would, but not the alignment or PvP stuff.

leperkhaun
2007-08-20, 09:26 AM
in my group we are allowed to play evil characters in some campgnies, but there are some rules that go with it.

If we decide to go evil we better work as a team. Sure we might not like each other, but if it gets to the point where it just becomes a battle royal between the characters then the DM just lets us kill each other and the adventure ends.

So as gamers its in our best intreast to mesh the group together.

The second thing is remembering the law and all that jazz. That includes not just say the city watch, but other organizations retaliation.

Doing it right you can go ahead and kill that cutpurse (or who ever). However if you kill the wrong one or more than one, the thieves guild will take notice. Even if that guild is not powerfull enough, well the Big Bad Boy of the block thieve guild might take notice and shut you down to prevent the same from 1) happening to them 2) show that THEY run the city, not these guys.

Then you got players who will go to some out of the way village and slaughter the people. Well true no one in the hamlet will be able to stop you, but the king of that realm wont be happy to find one of his villages utterly destroyed.

Good evil is hard to play, which is why i think most DMs dont allow it.

As to the dont attack another PC, well our DM allows it to happen, again within the rules. Also within our group if someone kills another PC its likely that the rest of the party will end them.

Ranis
2007-08-20, 09:30 AM
I have a player who wants to be evil, but is smart enough to know that everyone else is good and that if he were to turn evil, or do something that would shift his alignment, that the paladin would kill him, because he's stretching it pretty thin as it is right now.

They can attack each other if they want. The happenings of the world will still happen normally, and if they cripple themselves by killing each other off, then it's their fault, not mine.

Kurald Galain
2007-08-20, 10:35 AM
In regular play? Yes. But then, I also play Vampire (the Masquerade, not the D&D monster), and there being "evil" is pretty much a prereq.

In Living Campaigns? It makes sense that way, most of those rules are to prevent players from feeling cheated, or to be disadvantaged by other players and/or GMs. Of course they're not 100% effective at that, but still.

RAGE KING!
2007-08-20, 12:00 PM
meh, not at all, I might ask the dm if i could let out some temper on my team, as long as it was followed by healing and apologies, but that would only be if we had no good combat in a long time.

Curmudgeon
2007-08-20, 12:14 PM
Evil characters are perfectly fine with me. Evil generally means self-interested and selfish, not wantonly sadistic. Evil characters will expect to be paid for their efforts and won't volunteer for "experience-only" adventures like rescuing kidnapped orphans, but that doesn't cramp my DMing style. I do have a problem with chaotic alignments, because they're a recipe for wasting game time on random behavior.

I wouldn't outright forbid players attacking each other, either. This can be dealt with inside the game. Most players will know that they can't succeed alone, and killing off other members of the party will reduce their chances of success. And in a world with magic it's really hard to avoid repercussions, because even the stones on the ground will rat the murderer out. I've never needed an out-of-game rule for this, and it's hardly ever been an issue.

Elderac
2007-08-20, 12:18 PM
I don't allow evil characters in my games. I feel they would be too disruptive to the group.

I don't prohibit characters from attacking one another, but I do strongly discourage it. In my many years of GMing, there have been very few instances on PvP action.

Morrandir
2007-08-20, 12:20 PM
I prefer playing evil, so yes, that would cause problems.

Now, before someone jumps to conclusions, this is not the "slaughter entire cities and eat the survivors while kicking puppies" sort of evil. Just the "Look out for number one" evil.

Once I explain that, most groups don't have a problem. The only ones that do have a paladin in them, but sometimes they'll let me run one anyway, just for some interesting RP scenarios.

The only time we've had players attack each other is when it was actually important to do so (forced into an arena, one party member was actually a doppelgangar, etc.) So, really, I can't comment on part 2.

tainsouvra
2007-08-20, 12:20 PM
Namely: No Evil characters and no intentionally attacking other PCs. I have not explicitly stated these rules, but they are more-or-less in place anyway. I've played/DMed primarily good-aligned campaigns, and an Evil character who actually behaved evilly enough to justify the alignment would very likely be identified as such and kicked out of the party entirely in-character--and knowing this, the players simply don't make one in the first place. Attacking other PC's, other than grappling and subdual damage, is too disruptive for a casual-fun game and simply hasn't happened.

In other words, my games don't need these rules, we already know how to get along without spelling it out for the commonsense-impaired :smalltongue:


this is not the "slaughter entire cities and eat the survivors while kicking puppies" sort of evil. Just the "Look out for number one" evil. Are you sure you were actually playing Evil, rather than just Neutral, then? Neutral people can still put their own wellbeing above that of anyone else's, but if they don't actively seek to do harm to others, it won't give them an Evil alignment. Nongood, yes, but not Evil.

nagora
2007-08-20, 12:28 PM
Evil characters are perfectly fine with me. Evil generally means self-interested and selfish, not wantonly sadistic. Evil characters will expect to be paid for their efforts and won't volunteer for "experience-only" adventures like rescuing kidnapped orphans, but that doesn't cramp my DMing style.

That sounds much more like CN than anything evil. The CN character does what s/he wants/needs to do and doesn't go out of their way to help or harm others while doing it. Classic "Nothing personal, just business/looking after #1" type. Evil does go out of their way to harm others.

The evil character will rescue the orphans and then sell them back to their parents; the CN will rescue the orphans for money. There's a fine difference.

greyhoundpoe
2007-08-20, 12:31 PM
Personally, I think there are far more elegant ways of disposing of other players than attacking them directly. Why would you waste those big buckets of trap-triggering, monster-attracting HP that the DM calls your party? There's no prohibition on looting the corpses afterwards, after all.

PaladinBoy
2007-08-20, 12:41 PM
These rules wouldn't annoy me at all. Personally, part of the fun of RPing for me is being able to play a paladin or similar character that is pure Good. I almost never play evil characters.

I do think that a bit of PvP can be fun and is good RPing sometimes, but not all the time. I wouldn't mind no PvP. Again, my characters are the type to talk out problems with fellow PCs rather than fight them.

Zim
2007-08-20, 12:47 PM
I try to discourage evil PC's since the campaigns I run are aimed at making the PC's the heroes, not the villians. The one thing that a party of evil PC's often fail to realise is that some group of good-aligned NPC adventurers might take exception to their behaviour and take them out in the course of their own adventuring careers. :smallamused:

As a player, I consider it a matter of good etiquette not to attack other characters. This has the potential to ruin someone else's fun, so I won't do it unless pressed (ie one or both of us are Dominated etc...). Even then, I'd resort to non-lethal options if I can.

horseboy
2007-08-20, 01:15 PM
RPGA play is different from standard RPG play. It's designed for "tournament" style play. When you go to a con, you're going to be playing with people you don't know from Adam. You also only have around 3 or so hours to get through the mod. I know this is a Thromsskull sized generalization, but generally people who play evil characters are ***** looking for an excuse to preform dickery in game without getting in trouble for it. I don't have time for that, and the inevitable retribution that will follow.

Point 2, evil clerics break mods. Rebuke undead is horribly broken when in the hands of a PC. In fact, it's so bad even good and neutral clearics of Wejas aren't allowed to use their powers anymore without accumulating "evil" points.

Point 3 they do allow for PvP when it's dramatically worth it. My buddy has a cleric of Fharlanghn who's been possessed by an evil relic in LG. They're supposed to have some big PvP event involving him and everybody trying to stop him. Of course, it's a cleric made by a heavy optimizer who suddenly has "Slaying: Non-dyvers". Good luck to them.

In general does it affect my roleplaying? Not really, don't play D&D outside of LG, so I don't have to deal with the alignment system.

Tormsskull
2007-08-20, 01:23 PM
I know this is a Thromsskull sized generalization, but generally people who play evil characters are ***** looking for an excuse to preform dickery in game without getting in trouble for it.

Why do the people that disagree with me always end up being bad spellers? :smalltongue:

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-08-20, 01:39 PM
Broad, over-arching rules against certain characters = Bad

That being said, those rules would be good for a group of new players.

Xuincherguixe
2007-08-20, 01:41 PM
Yeah. Evil is way too cool in my mind to limit it just to the bad guys. While I suppose part of it is that Evil is actively encouraged to use effective and efficient plans, I encourage the good players to do the same thing.

My games tend to be complicated, and dark. Sure there are easy answers. They're everywhere. They're also the wrong ones.

Or more often just a bit silly. And evil is a lot of the time hilarious. "Hey! Where did all the orphans go?" *whistle innocently*

It's also hard to think of adventurers as things that aren't evil. Going around murdering everything, looting everything, walking into peoples houses and smashing all their pots, bringing the dead back to life (we're not even talking about making zombies which are little more than robots. This is outright defying the natural order for their own selfish reasons). There's a lot more to evil than twirling ones mustache.


The no attacking each other rule is fine. That almost never helps roleplaying. You should only be playing sociopaths. I suppose really it's not the attacking thing that's the problem, it's the eliminating of characters. (Even death isn't a problem if you can come back to life)
If you fall to inter party conflict though, chances are you weren't really the chosen ones after all.


I wouldn't want to really play in a normal D&D game though anyways. Tedious Grind annoys me.

Curmudgeon
2007-08-20, 02:19 PM
That sounds much more like CN than anything evil. The CN character does what s/he wants/needs to do and doesn't go out of their way to help or harm others while doing it. There's nothing chaotic about doing what's in the character's best interests. A truly chaotic character does what they want to do, regardless of whether that helps or harms them, and regardless of whether they have to "go out of their way" to satisfy their wants.

Evil means you get the best reward for you. You rescue the rich Baron's daughter, not kidnapped orphans. If you rescue the Baron's daughter and also find some orphans in the same dungeon you'll rescue them, too, only if you think the good PR value of that effort is worth the extra hassle. If you think it's not worth the effort, you'll cast a Silence spell on the orphans so the Baron's daughter doesn't get distracted as you lead her out. You don't spend time slaughtering the orphans, because there's no reward in wasting the time doing so.

Now if there's some valuable magic artifact that you want and it requires the blood of an orphan to get it, you'll have no problem slicing up an orphan for that purpose.

Yes, sadistic pervs who get off on torture are evil. But that's mostly a sexual disfunction, and being evil just facilitates acquiring the victims to satisfy the perversion. You don't need to have your wiring screwed up that way to be evil. Just look out for #1 at the expense of all others.

....
2007-08-20, 02:25 PM
The ban on all evil characters is so no one plays evil PCs.

See, one or two evil characters could be fun/interesting/cool, if they were played well.

But lets be realistic. If the RPGA let people be evil you'd have a hundered assassin/blackguard/ninjas out there who's whole goal would be to kill other PCs or raze cities to the ground.

While that would be a cool thing to fight against, it would create way to much OOC hostility as the bodycount rose.

Logic
2007-08-20, 03:02 PM
No evil characters doesn't bother me much, but cannot attack other party members is not very good. Sometimes, a player does something so stupid, that the most realistic response is to attack him.

For example, I was running a game, and began a session (not a campaign)

Me: You guys are all shipwrecked on a large Island
Dwarven Druid: I don't like boats. I wasn't shipwrecked. I am there, on the beach already.
Me: Ok....:smallconfused: So, you see your 4 other comrades washed up on the beach, half-drowned.
DD: I go over to the Barbarian, and begin poking him...
Barbarian: :smallconfused:
Me: :smallconfused:
Evil Psion: :smallconfused: :smallamused: :smallbiggrin:
Barbarian: What are you poking me for, ye blasted dwarf!
DD: I poke him in the eye!
Barbarian: I am raging, and attacking him.
DD: :smallconfused: What? Why?
Me: Roll initiative.

The barbarian deals a grievous wound to the Druid, but the druid has enough HP to sruvive another attack. Then, the Evil Psion decides to use his "Spooky powers" to finish the dwarf off. The total damage was exactly 10 greater than the druids remaining HP.

After the battle

Everyone but the Evil Psion, to the barbarian: Why did you attack him?
Evil Psion: (Bluff check: Succeeded) Wait, he was attacking you?

Xefas
2007-08-20, 03:25 PM
I'm good with evil characters in my games AND party conflict, however, I like to think I adequately enforce the rule of "Do whatever you want, so long as it's still fun for everyone".

I encourage the use of nonlethal damage if intra-PC conflict arises. My rational is that if you've been adventuring with someone for a long time, and have come to know them, and have likely saved each others' asses before...that even if they tried to mess with you first, you wouldn't just jump to the conclusion of "Die!". You'd probably smack them with the hilt of your sword, or kick them in the shins, or have some kind of grappling affair until you're both good and satisfied.

But, ironically, the biggest problem I've had so far was just a PC killing some NPCs- chaotic evil NPCs, to boot. One of the other players had become friends with them, and they'd actually stuck their necks out to help the players defeat this big beastie. Then, after that, one other player just says "Okay, I'm going to kill them". Everyone at the table, including me, said that he shouldn't and he was being an ass because he kept insisting. It wasn't even in character or anything; he was Lawful. So, to prevent things escalating, I just let him do it, ended the game session then, never invited him back to another session (it wasn't as simple as that, but thats the short version), and the guys he killed came back as friendly ghosts later. We haven't had any problems with anything since.

That all said, if someone told me "I'd really like you to not be evil, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't do any combat with other party members- not even nonlethal" I'd say "Okay, not a problem.". There are plenty of good character concepts that are non-evil, and I think it's only decent to honor the wishes of the DM, especially when they're so simple as no party conflict.

horseboy
2007-08-20, 03:44 PM
Why do the people that disagree with me always end up being bad spellers? :smalltongue:

CuZ w3 r d3 Ub3r! :smallbiggrin: and your name isn't in the spell check. :smallwink:

nagora
2007-08-20, 04:00 PM
There's nothing chaotic about doing what's in the character's best interests.

It's pretty well the definition of Chaotic in D&D: the individual's needs/wants trumps society's every time. The means of how you look after your interests is what distinguishes CG from CE.

Tiki Snakes
2007-08-20, 05:34 PM
It's pretty well the definition of Chaotic in D&D: the individual's needs/wants trumps society's every time. The means of how you look after your interests is what distinguishes CG from CE.

Not really. Chaotic isn't so much a rejection of society, it's a rejection of Order, and Regulation? Chaotic Good may very well dedicate his entire existence to helping society at large. He's just unlikely to do so through a process of judicial reform.

Kylos
2007-08-20, 06:20 PM
I prefer my campaigns to stay away from evil alignments for the most part. Every once in a while, someone comes up with an interesting evil character that won't disrupt things, and I'll give them the okay. More often, someone will want to make an evil character solely for the hint of an excuse to wreak havoc, which isn't fun for anyone else. Incidentally, I usually see a lot of 'looking out for number one' characters, which I have no problem with. Selfishness can just as easily be neutral as it can evil, so long as it's not taken to extremes, and the best selfish characters have their moments of altruism.

In-party fighting is something I'll allow to an extent. It often adds drama to the campaign if the PCs don't get along all the time, and even have a few minor scuffles from time to time. But my players know that if anyone gets killed or disabled (as in the rogue burning a spellbook example earlier in the thread), I won't be scaling down the difficulty of the encounters. So as would be the case were they the adventurers themselves, keeping the other PCs alive and competent is the most prudent course of action, regardless of how they feel about one another.

RandomNPC
2007-08-20, 06:28 PM
my group still thinks evil means its ok to kill of a character that gets annoying. granted that one time he deserved it. these two go hand in hand for my group. so i enjoy these rules, for different reasons, it just helps the game go on longer.

nagora
2007-08-20, 06:59 PM
Not really. Chaotic isn't so much a rejection of society, it's a rejection of Order, and Regulation? Chaotic Good may very well dedicate his entire existence to helping society at large. He's just unlikely to do so through a process of judicial reform.

Exactly: the character may help a society but as an outsider who's unlikely to take orders even from LG leaders who can not also demonstrate ability. Chaotics generally see people, not job titles.

psychoticbarber
2007-08-20, 07:26 PM
I tend to discourage evil, and I won't allow it without a discussion about how the character is going to be played and why it is necessary for the character that the player wants to play to be evil.

PvP isn't outright banned either, but I have very little patience for it most of the time. If my players are interested in it I might run some PvP outside of normal play, but it's not exactly epic (small "e") adventuring to be hacking your comrades to death, even if you don't agree with them.

LongVin
2007-08-21, 12:41 AM
I prefer evil campaigns. There is a alot less thinking about what is acceptable for your character to do, instead of "is it right to do to this?" it is "what are the chances of me getting caught?" That doesn't mean the group doesn't work together, it just means it works together in a different way. Hell, I think in the games where we played all evil parties we worked better together because everyone was thinking about "What are they going to do if I'm not there." Which lead to less "I'm going this way and doing it my way!"


As for PvP, I pretty much allow it in my games and all the games I've played in have had it to varying degrees. Be it just a fist fight between characters to player killing. As long as it isn't done for BS OOC reasons it is allowed. Normally it would result in a little fight fight that would be settled and forgotten. If it appeared to be escalating to a full blown party wipe either I or whoever was DMing that game would step in with either an NPC arriving in time to break up the fight or something that requires the PC's immediate attention and cooperation together.

Morrandir
2007-08-21, 01:57 AM
Are you sure you were actually playing Evil, rather than just Neutral, then? Neutral people can still put their own wellbeing above that of anyone else's, but if they don't actively seek to do harm to others, it won't give them an Evil alignment. Nongood, yes, but not Evil.

Best if I give an example. I'm Lawful Evil (most common for me). One or more of my party members end up in one of those slow-but-certain death traps (sand filling room, walls are a giant vice, etc.) I have the opportunity to save them, with a risk of me being trapped as well. Now, if it furthers my own schemes, I'll most likely give it a shot. If not, then I feign being too distracted to help. Doesn't seem all that "probably Neutral" to me.


And I play LE, as I prefer being Lawful more than I do being Good, and Warlock is, by far, my favorite class. So, I'm rather limited in my alignment options.

Matthew
2007-08-21, 02:57 AM
You could always just ignore your Alignment and kill Drizzt anyway...

Anywho, no it wouldn't bother me much if Player's were expressly forbidden from Attacking one another, as they generally don't. If I wanted to allow it, i would just House rule it in, much like everything else I want to permit or forbid from the game.

Turcano
2007-08-21, 04:07 AM
As other people have said/implied, the reason for the ban on evil characters is because a lot of people who play evil characters do so for the wrong reasons. I know it's a stereotype, but there really are a lot of people who use the alignment to kill everyone in sight, attack and/or steal from other players, and generally act like a giant douchebag. Add some sexual frustration to the mix and things start to get really ugly. And these people usually won't or can't restrain themselves in public games (e.g., con games and Living Greyhawk), so the moderators punish the innocent with the guilty, um, as it were. Long story short: idiots who live the stereotype ruin things for everyone. I wouldn't normally play an evil character (I'm more of a NG kind of guy), so it really doesn't affect me much.

Relatedly, people to kill other players are generally the kind of jackasses who you don't really want to play with anyway (see above).

nagora
2007-08-21, 04:16 AM
Best if I give an example. I'm Lawful Evil (most common for me). One or more of my party members end up in one of those slow-but-certain death traps (sand filling room, walls are a giant vice, etc.) I have the opportunity to save them, with a risk of me being trapped as well. Now, if it furthers my own schemes, I'll most likely give it a shot. If not, then I feign being too distracted to help. Doesn't seem all that "probably Neutral" to me.


All sane characters will act in what they think is their interest, even if that is a very abstract "If everyone was nice then everyone would be happy" sort of interest - that's not an alignment issue so any character might rescue the trapped person if they have a reason to do so. Failing that, a general outline would be, I think:

A Good character will rescue the person unless they are Evil (some will still do so even then).

An Evil character will enjoy the show as they sink/get squashed.

For the neutral character, personal convenience and risk/reward are likely to be the only factors. There is no satisfaction in seeing a sentient creature suffer, nor any warm fuzzy feeling from having saved a life.

Whereas a CE might simply enjoy the trip of having the power of life or death over the trapped character - topped off with their realisation that the CE character is not going to rescue them, the LE may well draw additional pleasure from the belief that weeding out fools who set off traps makes the remaining group/society stronger.

KillianHawkeye
2007-08-21, 10:04 AM
Evil means you get the best reward for you. You rescue the rich Baron's daughter, not kidnapped orphans. If you rescue the Baron's daughter and also find some orphans in the same dungeon you'll rescue them, too, only if you think the good PR value of that effort is worth the extra hassle. If you think it's not worth the effort, you'll cast a Silence spell on the orphans so the Baron's daughter doesn't get distracted as you lead her out. You don't spend time slaughtering the orphans, because there's no reward in wasting the time doing so.

This part actually seems more neutral to me. An evil character doesn't rescue the rich Baron's daughter, they kidnap her and hold her for ransom. Taking the example of the orphans: a good character would try to rescue them; a neutral character might rescue them or leave them alone if there was nothing in it for them, or if they were in a hurry, or if they were ugly; an evil character would skewer them and hang them from the walls because they thought the room needed redecorating. For an evil character, the reward is like how a good character feels from cuddling with puppies, and thus it doesn't seem like a waste of time to them.


Yes, sadistic pervs who get off on torture are evil. But that's mostly a sexual disfunction, and being evil just facilitates acquiring the victims to satisfy the perversion. You don't need to have your wiring screwed up that way to be evil. Just look out for #1 at the expense of all others.

Just to point out, sadistic torture is NOT mostly a sexual disfunction. Certainly, one could apply it in their sexuality, but it's more common that the person just likes causing excruciating pain in a completely non-sexual way.

Going out of your way to cause others harm is an evil act, and people who do it a lot have evil alignments. But the phrase "just looking out for yourself" would imply that you are simply refraining from taking good actions when the risk to your self is too great, which is neutral.

Even if you let somebody die in a horrible squishing trap, and all you did was not try and save them, that's neutral. Okay, maybe if you enjoyed watching it a little too much, then it's evil...

AKA_Bait
2007-08-21, 10:16 AM
For the 'no evil characters' rule, I will frequently dictate the alignment range that players are allowed to choose from. It really depends upon the campagin I have set them up for. If the story arc involves working for Asmodeus then a 'no good characters' rule is just as likley.

Regarding 'no attacking other players': I find this restriction abhorrent and arbitrary as a DM. Some of the most fun I've had in a gaming session is where two characters come to very minor blows over something that happened in game. A CG character may very likley haul off and punch another party member for something they did and I don't want to take that rp option away from my players.

There can be a problem with it if you have both evil characters and are allowed to attack other PC's. To me, it is up to the DM to sort this out with IN GAME motivations for the characters not to kill or betray one another. You can either have them working for some much more powerful bad guy who informs them that if they do so he will personally make them pay for messing up his plans. You can also make the characters need eachother to survive such that if they turn on eachother it is likley they will pay for it, heavily, later. Finally, you can simply request at the beginning of the campagin that the party know eachother, already be friends, and RP their characters that way. Even evil characters can have friends who they might get into a scuffle with but are highly unlikley to murder. Heck, a family of ogres probably beat the stuffing out of eachother for entertainment.

Yahzi
2007-08-22, 12:42 AM
IThey can attack each other if they want. The happenings of the world will still happen normally, and if they cripple themselves by killing each other off, then it's their fault, not mine.
That's my position.

The only rule I enforce is that the entire party has to be evil or good. Otherwise the game is very, very short.

:smallbiggrin:

tannish2
2007-08-23, 02:17 AM
It's worth pointing out that the RPGA's "No evil PCs" rule is simply a PR exercise to avoid issues with certain groups that want to paint everyone who can think for themselves as being in league with Bad Things.

anyone who bows to that crap may as well be part of it. dont do things differently just because there are intolerant people out there, aside from carrying a weapon. if you even do that.

and yes, a belkar-style evil character works great, as long as the evil character either takes care to conceal their evilnessosityisming or establishes themselves as a friend to the other PCs, who then keep them in line then evil character work GREAT, and you dont have to hit orphanages with combust to be evil, you can do it perfectly well in a dungeon filled only with enemies and traps without being anything other than nice to your fellow PCs... thats where PC fallen paladins come from. (that, and people playing paladins)

EDIT: oh, and a decent antihero is a good thing(as is interparty conflict), superman is boring.

also, an evil character would rescue the barons daughter, then have a friend magic jar her while he collected the reward, then have her place the note for him to find saying "mwahaha, kidnapped her ect ect, give $" then jump out the window(or use a scroll of teleport) but thats just me.

nagora
2007-08-23, 05:07 AM
anyone who bows to that crap may as well be part of it. dont do things differently just because there are intolerant people out there,


Maybe you don't remember how bad things got in the 80's with book-burnings of DMGs and crap like that, but I do and I understand the RPGA's approach in that light, although I would rather see them do as you say and stick two fingers up to the "moral crusaders".

Roderick_BR
2007-08-23, 05:17 AM
It's just an attempt to avoid PvP on online games. They know that if they don't write it down, people'll start doing it "because no one said they couldn't."
If you are playing with friends (in person, or using a private chat program) then the group can decide if they'll allow evil characters and combat among them.

Kurald Galain
2007-08-23, 07:00 AM
Regarding 'no attacking other players': I find this restriction abhorrent and arbitrary as a DM. Some of the most fun I've had in a gaming session is where two characters come to very minor blows over something that happened in game.

QFT. Well, it's not everybody's cup of tea, of course.

As a DM, I've had a few instances of characters fighting, or casting nasty spells on one another (or in one case, using a love potion on each other...) and even two or three player-vs-player kills. If the players are cool with it, I'm not stopping them.

Dausuul
2007-08-23, 07:27 AM
This part actually seems more neutral to me. An evil character doesn't rescue the rich Baron's daughter, they kidnap her and hold her for ransom. Taking the example of the orphans: a good character would try to rescue them; a neutral character might rescue them or leave them alone if there was nothing in it for them, or if they were in a hurry, or if they were ugly; an evil character would skewer them and hang them from the walls because they thought the room needed redecorating. For an evil character, the reward is like how a good character feels from cuddling with puppies, and thus it doesn't seem like a waste of time to them.

This is the problem I have with the way a lot of gamers (and non-gamers, for that matter) seem to think of evil--namely, the idea that evil people do evil for its own sake or for pleasure. Most evil people aren't sadistic or wantonly brutal, they're just selfish and callous.

From the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm):

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

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. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

So an evil character might very well rescue the rich Baron's daughter for a reward, as might a neutral character; but if the villains offered the evil character more money to slit the daughter's throat instead, he'd probably do it, which the neutral character would not.

Good means you're willing to take risks and make sacrifices for the sake of others. Evil means you're willing to hurt others for your own gain. Neutral usually means a "live-and-let-live" mentality, where you don't make sacrifices to help others but neither are you willing to hurt them to benefit you.


Going out of your way to cause others harm is an evil act, and people who do it a lot have evil alignments. But the phrase "just looking out for yourself" would imply that you are simply refraining from taking good actions when the risk to your self is too great, which is neutral.

Even if you let somebody die in a horrible squishing trap, and all you did was not try and save them, that's neutral. Okay, maybe if you enjoyed watching it a little too much, then it's evil...

That's kind of a grey area, and I think a lot depends on how much effort/risk you would have to face to rescue the person. If you'd have to risk life and limb to pull the victim out, then doing so would be a good act, and not doing so would merely be neutral. On the other hand, if all you had to do was pull a lever on the wall next to you... then I'd be more inclined to say it would be evil to not do so.

Coming back to the original topic, I've often found that evil characters can work in a campaign, even one which is generally good-aligned, so long as the evil character is played as being simply callous and unprincipled rather than actively sadistic, and so long as there aren't any self-appointed Alignment Police among the good characters. In fact, it can lead to a very interesting party dynamic, with the evil character playing (literally) devil's advocate when difficult decisions come up.

nagora
2007-08-23, 08:38 AM
This is the problem I have with the way a lot of gamers (and non-gamers, for that matter) seem to think of evil--namely, the idea that evil people do evil for its own sake or for pleasure. Most evil people aren't sadistic or wantonly brutal, they're just selfish and callous.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.


I wonder why so many people quote that bit of text and put it in bold as if to say that it means evil people are not, as you say, "wantonly brutal". To me it says, in fact, that they ARE wantonly brutal. Killing because its more convienient than, say, negotiating, is wanton brutality. The evil character who walks into a shop and, seeing there's no one about, just cuts the ower's throat, emptys the till and takes anything else they want are doing exactly what that emboldened text says. They may not be sadistic about it, they may not be "getting off" on it, they may have done it 'only' because it was more convienient to them at the time, but they are evil.

I saw an interview once with a guy who did just this - in the end he had killed almost 150 people across America just because he "couldn't be bothered" to pay for things. That's evil. It's a casual evil rather than a determined effort to advance the cause of death and destruction but it's no better.

Not trying to save someone because you can't be bothered, as opposed to not seeing any way to do it, is a blatantly evil act even if you don't gloat.

kamikasei
2007-08-23, 09:30 AM
I wonder why so many people quote that bit of text and put it in bold as if to say that it means evil people are not, as you say, "wantonly brutal". To me it says, in fact, that they ARE wantonly brutal. Killing because its more convienient than, say, negotiating, is wanton brutality. The evil character who walks into a shop and, seeing there's no one about, just cuts the ower's throat, emptys the till and takes anything else they want are doing exactly what that emboldened text says. They may not be sadistic about it, they may not be "getting off" on it, they may have done it 'only' because it was more convienient to them at the time, but they are evil.

I don't think anyone's claiming that the emphasized part of the quote excludes such people from being evil. Obviously that's what their alignment falls under. Rather the point of emphasizing that part is that you don't have to be that evil just to be evil. You can still be evil and have no particular inclination to murder and rob someone just because there aren't any witnesses. An evil PC in a party might just be much quicker to kill prisoners rather than waste food on them, for example, if they've no value as hostages.

Dausuul
2007-08-23, 10:21 AM
I don't think anyone's claiming that the emphasized part of the quote excludes such people from being evil. Obviously that's what their alignment falls under. Rather the point of emphasizing that part is that you don't have to be that evil just to be evil. You can still be evil and have no particular inclination to murder and rob someone just because there aren't any witnesses. An evil PC in a party might just be much quicker to kill prisoners rather than waste food on them, for example, if they've no value as hostages.

Well spoken. The guy who shoots shopkeepers because he can't be bothered to pay is an extreme example of evil. But another example would be a warlord who decides to deal with rebels in a city by laying siege to the city, blocking all food shipments, and starving the entire populace, rebel and civilian alike. That warlord is not being wantonly brutal, but he is most certainly killing people for the sake of convenience.

Jayabalard
2007-08-23, 10:34 AM
I wonder why so many people quote that bit of text and put it in bold as if to say that it means evil people are not, as you say, "wantonly brutal". it's the word some

Some != all

AKA_Bait
2007-08-23, 10:37 AM
The raging alignment debate here seems to have gotten a bit off of the OP's topic of if it would cramp game play.

Hence, I've started another thread for the "'killing the shopkeeper debate' (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54658)

Fhaolan
2007-08-23, 11:58 AM
Okay, what everybody has to realize is that the RPGA is for gaming at cons and other public events. Which means anyone could show up. Anyone. Little children, parents, reporters, etc. You play a graphically evil character in a situation like that, you are just being deliberately obtuse and beligerent.

I've gamed at cons, and I can say that the kinds of people who game at cons who want to play evil characters are 90% utter dickweeds who just want an excuse to screw up other people's enjoyment of the game. In other words people who *are* deliberately obtuse and beligerent.

In fact I used to be roommates with a fellow who would go to cons and game as evil characters just because he liked creating misery. If anyone called him on it, he would say "I'm just roleplaying!" He'd also go online and join all the MUCKs so he could play the most sick and twisted entities just so people would get upset. He got banned from nearly every con, online forum, and kept a running scoreboard of how many people he pissed off in each venue before he got banned.

I've played evil characters, but I don't do it in public places. That's just being asinine. You're not being rebellious, you're not proving a point, you're just being immature and thoughtless.

AKA_Bait
2007-08-23, 12:19 PM
I've played evil characters, but I don't do it in public places. That's just being asinine. You're not being rebellious, you're not proving a point, you're just being immature and thoughtless.

QFT

Context of the game does matter. With the OP's question, yes it would hinder my playing style but then, I only play with my friends and in the quiet of one of our apartments. Were I running a massive game at a Con rules like that would be needed.

Kizara
2007-08-23, 02:12 PM
NB: This isn't a thread about the RPGA, but about whether the two restrictions below would sit well with you.

There was a comment in this thread (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=349716) about some of the rules for RPGA's Living Greyhawk campaign. Now most of what I hear about the RPGA (and particularly the reliance on modules, which I loathe) doesn't appeal, but these didn't sound too bad to me.

Namely: No Evil characters and no intentionally attacking other PCs.

Wouldn't have ever given me trouble as player or GM adhering to those. What about you?

While I wouldn't like to NEVER be able to play an evil character, or to be outright banned from fighting another PC if it came to it, I would certinally be willing to respect a DM's desire for a non-evil party and to not have a PvP atmosphere.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-08-23, 02:18 PM
I allow evil players, but it's a hassle to keep them in line enough to advance the story when other players are good. I could definitely play in a non-evil, no PvP campaign without any trouble.

MandibleBones
2007-08-23, 03:51 PM
A Non-evil caveat would cramp my style, mainly because I enjoy playing darker, antiheroic characters just as much as I love playing Heroic Paladins (in fact, the game I'm about to start in last night is evil, and I plan on him being a very, very fun, dark-humoured, reasonable elven being).

A don't attack the party clause would likewise cramp my style - while any player should be able to understand that you don't stab the backs of the people you need to protect you, I don't want all "traitor-in-your-midst" plots being foiled because we automatically know the PCs can't do it. Nor do I want to be foiled in my lawful neutral cleric's reaction to finding out the chaotic neutral rogue stole his holy symbol and pawned it for beer money: break all his fingers so he never does it again - I can heal him if I need him to pick a lock or something.

I generally go with a "plays well with others" caveat - if you're playing a CE psychopath, play one with high INT who knows he needs the party to protect him until he can gain enough phenominal arcane power such that he doesn't need them anymore (read: Raistlan Majere). If you're playing someone who is willing to / going to attack the party, make sure she has a good reason for doing so, and likewise, make sure the in-character consequences of that action are brought to thier full conculsion: If I, as the visciouslly psychotic halfling ranger, stab the bard in the face because he accidentally hit me during the last combat, I should remember that the fighter, the rogue, the cleric and the wizard are going to wipe the floor with me before I have initiative again.

As with all things, of course, your mileage may vary.