Would this cramp your gaming?

[Kiero]

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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... ) 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]

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 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]

Doesn't sound like a problem to me. Isn't that normal?

[tannish2]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 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]

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]

My party is discouraged from playing even neutral characters (not my my DMing, by the cleric's love of Holy Smite), 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. you proved me wrong you scamp.

[Skjaldbakka]

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]

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 other players' characters. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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.