New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 351

Thread: Unanimous Good

  1. - Top - End - #31
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grod_The_Giant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Unanimous Good

    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
    5e doesn't do this, but I am pretty sure our OP is running a hybrid system related to 3.5?
    It's definitely a huge improvement over 3.5's WBL, but magic items still exist as both treasure and the only real defined place to spend large amounts of money. They're shiny and they make you more powerful and you want them.

    The system does work fine if the GM is stingy with magic items-- the important thing is that everyone partakes in them equally. If half the party make heavy use of magic items and the other half doesn't...
    Hill Giant Games
    I make indie gaming books for you!
    Spoiler
    Show

    STaRS: A non-narrativeist, generic rules-light system.
    Grod's Guide to Greatness, 2e: A big book of player options for 5e.
    Grod's Grimoire of the Grotesque: An even bigger book of variant and expanded rules for 5e.
    Giants and Graveyards: My collected 3.5 class fixes and more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use

  2. - Top - End - #32
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Unanimous Good

    I don't care about PC alignments nearly as much as I do about player approaches.

    The basic unit of D&D isn't the PC; it's the party. A player who is willing for his or her PC to disrupt what the party does is a menace to the game, whether it's the one assassin in the Good party, or the one paladin in the den of thieves. [And an assassin in the Good party, or a paladin in the den of thieves, can be made to work if the party works together.]

    So regardless of what else is part of the PC's motivation, supporting the party must be included. "But it's what my character would do" isn't a reason to disrupt the game. It's a reason to design a different character.

    The best solution is to play with people who want to get along and play as a team. This usually (but not always) means a party with no Evil characters. But it always means players who want to get along with each other.

    The best advice I can give is to know your players, and (ideally) for them to know each other, before starting the game. It's much easier to form a loyal D&D party out of a bunch of friends than to form friends out of random D&D-playing strangers.

    I once ran a True Neutral Thief in a AD&D 2e game. He was the only non-Good PC. But he always supported the party. I occasionally had to remind the DM, "No, Ornrandir is not Good. But he has found that adventuring with a Paladin is much more lucrative than stealing ever was, so he doesn't steal any more. This is not a moral stance; it's purely practical and self-serving."

    In another game, a Flashing Blades game set in 17th century Paris, I had a Rogue who designed a "Code of Honor" for himself. But most of it had nothing to do with honor. It was for his own protection and advancement while looking like he was trustworthy.
    1. Never steal from the poor; they have no money.
    2. Never betray the party; they know where you sleep.
    3. Never betray anybody who will ever be behind you with a weapon.
    3. Don't try to keep secrets from Cardinal Richelieu; he already knows.
    etc.

  3. - Top - End - #33
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia

    Default Re: Unanimous Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay R View Post
    The best solution is to play with people who want to get along and play as a team. This usually (but not always) means a party with no Evil characters. But it always means players who want to get along with each other.

    The best advice I can give is to know your players, and (ideally) for them to know each other, before starting the game. It's much easier to form a loyal D&D party out of a bunch of friends than to form friends out of random D&D-playing strangers.
    This is the ideal case, for sure. But if you're playing, or running, "pick up" games at clubs or on line, having some "rules" like "all good or all evil" becomes a sesnible idia to discuss
    I love playing in a party with a couple of power-gamers, it frees me up to be Elan!


  4. - Top - End - #34
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Unanimous Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Duff View Post
    This is the ideal case, for sure. But if you're playing, or running, "pick up" games at clubs or on line, having some "rules" like "all good or all evil" becomes a sesnible idia to discuss
    That seems like it's trying to not quite address the problem. The problem isn't PC alignments; it's player decisions. How about this:

    "Players will design and play PCs who will work with the party, not against them."

  5. - Top - End - #35
    Titan in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Unanimous Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay R View Post
    That seems like it's trying to not quite address the problem. The problem isn't PC alignments; it's player decisions. How about this:

    "Players will design and play PCs who will work with the party, not against them."
    As with a marriage, We > Me.
    I suspect that video and computer game culture (particularly single player games, or games like Diablo that can be played SP or MP) which is very much "all about me" may inform how some players approach their characters in a TTRPG. I have even heard/seen folks refer to their PC as their 'alt' or their 'toon'
    Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Works
    a. Malifice (paraphrased):
    Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    b. greenstone (paraphrased):
    Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct!
    Second known member of the Greyview Appreciation Society

  6. - Top - End - #36
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Batcathat's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2019

    Default Re: Unanimous Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay R View Post
    That seems like it's trying to not quite address the problem. The problem isn't PC alignments; it's player decisions. How about this:

    "Players will design and play PCs who will work with the party, not against them."
    I agree. This feels a bit like banning sports cars in order to prevent speeding, rather than just setting a speed limit.

  7. - Top - End - #37
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2022

    Default Re: Unanimous Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay R View Post
    That seems like it's trying to not quite address the problem. The problem isn't PC alignments; it's player decisions. How about this:

    "Players will design and play PCs who will work with the party, not against them."
    Totally agree. Character alignment is less important than players agreeing that they are members of a "party", and therefore should create characters that will work together for some common goal. If a player is choosing to have their character do things that actively hinders the advancement of the entire group, then they are a problem, regardless of the alignment written on the character sheet.

    That said. Simple resonse is "stop playing games with alignments". Then, players have no excuse for harmful behavior within the group (and I do honestly believe that most of the time alignment is actually just used as an excuse for the player to engage in disruptive behavior). And if you are playing a game with a rigid alignment system, if you have problems with this, then yeah, set requirements for alignment, er... alignment, among the PCs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Hall View Post
    I've referred to this as the "Troll with an Axe". In Shadowrun, a troll with an axe can be a VERY effective character, and there are a couple good ways to build them (cyber or adept). But if your entire schtick is "I have an unreasonable strength and toughness, and a very effective axe", chances are, you're gonna wanna use the axe. And if the plan doesn't include something where you CAN use the axe, you're going to either be bored, or, often, useless. And so many "Troll with an Axe" players wind up creating situations where they get to use their axe.

    Which doesn't work too well if the plan is "get in, get out, walk calmly down the street."
    Yeah. That's true. But there's plenty of other ways to get the Troll with an Axe involved. Classic double cross by your employer scenario works great. We once had a job that went smoothly (too smoothly!), so naturally suspected a double cross at the drop off. Meet's on a yacht at the end of a dock. We were super suspicious, so we all arranged ourselves in the area to provide support and sent our Troll out alone with "the goods". And sure enough, when our supposed payoff consisted of mercs popping up and shooting, Troll got to pull out the grenades he'd really been holding in his pockets, lob them, and jump into the water, while the rest of us opened up on them from the shore.

    Or, what happened more often than not, getting in went smoothy, but getting out involved explosives and other violence. So everyone got to play.

    Had a lot of fun playing Shadowrun back in the day. Probably my third or fourth most played game of all time.

  8. - Top - End - #38
    Troll in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Italy
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Unanimous Good

    Quote Originally Posted by gbaji View Post
    . Simple resonse is "stop playing games with alignments". Then, players have no excuse for harmful behavior within the group (and I do honestly believe that most of the time alignment is actually just used as an excuse for the player to engage in disruptive behavior).
    I never saw that happen. I think alignment is supposed to actually do the reverse, i.e. force people to be good.


    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post

    My very first horror story was something like this, when the fighter was bullying my rogue throughout the whole campaign and almost got me killed, so I back-stabbed him in his sleep one night, and then the DM, who didn't notice any of the earlier stuff, came down on me hard both in and out of character.
    to be honest, you handled it poorly. first by letting that fighter bully you throughout the campaign, and then by escalating.
    but then, it's not easy to defend properly against passive aggressive.

    i still blame it all on lack of party cooperation. my party never does anything without the players deliberating first, and because of that they always play together flawlessly - and they are very effective. all of your tables seem to have a policy of "i do what i want and you do what you want and don't you ever think of telling me what my pc should do". so if the party cannot plan, manipulating and bullying the other players into a certain course of action is the only thing left.
    and when it comes to bullying and manipulating, obviously evil characters are better suited to it and win. not much because of any "stupid good" trope, but because the evil characters can declare that they pillage and burn and the good guys are forbidden the only way to stop them.
    Last edited by King of Nowhere; 2023-01-17 at 06:02 PM.
    In memory of Evisceratus: he dreamed of a better world, but he lacked the class levels to make the dream come true.

    Ridiculous monsters you won't take seriously even as they disembowel you

    my take on the highly skilled professional: the specialized expert

  9. - Top - End - #39
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Unanimous Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Easy e View Post
    I have no idea why, but this seems to be a D&D problem, as I rarely have run into it in other games.

    I have no idea why, but there is something about the way D&D operates that encourages bad behavior instead of discouraging it. Perhaps it is the games history, the way XP use to be handled, the way "Always Evil" races happen, etc. I am not sure of the root cause, but I rarely run across this issue when I play other game systems.

    The mechanics or game set-up somehow rewards bad behavior, but it is beyond me on why exactly.
    It's not the game; it's the first few DMs players encounter when they first play. The first few DMs delegate how the player will play. If the DM encourages or allows evil behavior, the player will think being evil is fine and dandy. Some players just want to see the world burn. The DM must not let them and never accept "I'm just roleplaying my character" as an excuse. If that player quits and continues his bad behavior ways in other games, then yes I accept that player is just a Donkey Cavity. It's his fault. If the DM punished good behavior, the player will think being good is to be a chump. This is more common. The friendly NPC was the BBEG all along. Surprise! The prisoner is let go and comes back later seeking revenge. Prisoners never divulge information when questioned. Having Saved The Day for 8 levels already NPCs still treat them like nobodies. If Heroic Efforts of Goodness are not reinforced and reflected in the game world, then the player sees no point in being the Hero and will seek his jollies doing other things.
    Quote Originally Posted by OvisCaedo View Post
    Rules existing are a dire threat to the divine power of the DM.

  10. - Top - End - #40
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Oct 2007

    Default Re: Unanimous Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay R View Post
    "Players will design and play PCs who will work with the party, not against them."
    Good advice, but I think the OP's situation could still arise.

    It's possible to have an evil party that works together well, is functional and not "chaotic stupid" type of evil ... and I still wouldn't want to play a good-aligned character in that party. No, not even if they were very accommodating and hid the evil from me so there was no IC problem. I'd still be playing "the chump who unwittingly helps evil", and that's not a role I'm usually interested in.

    By contrast, I'm generally fine with playing "the bad/amoral guy who gets roped into helping save the kingdom/world/whatever, because it is after all where he keeps his stuff", and maybe having a heel-face turn in the process.

    So like in the OP's example, if the party seems in any likelihood of going evil, I'm gonna lean that way myself. Which I suppose could create a tragedy of the commons situation if everyone else does the same thing - but that's one reason I'm more likely to go "character who's ok with evil" over "character who actively promotes it"

  11. - Top - End - #41
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2022

    Default Re: Unanimous Good

    Quote Originally Posted by King of Nowhere View Post
    I never saw that happen. I think alignment is supposed to actually do the reverse, i.e. force people to be good.
    If that were true, there would be no neutral or evil alignments available. And if that were the case (only good as an option to play), there would be no need for alignments at all, right? All games would be "good guys defeat bad guys".

    IME alignments are often used by players to excuse disruptive/harmful behavior. That's the same for the Lawful Good paladin insisting that "we can't attack these people without giving fair warning first", or the chaotic character randomly lighting things on fire, or the evil character stealing, killing, ploting, or otherwise causing problems for the group. Those actions are commonly excused by "I'm just playing my alignment".

    Again though, I would argue that if you have a group of players for whom that isn't the case (which is great btw!), then you don't actually need an alignment system at all. Well, except to the degree that the game system you are using has mechnical rules involving alignment in some way.

    Good players find ways to have their characters work within the party dynamic to achieve goals rather than disrupt it. And yes, bad players may choose to put their own short term character benefits ahead of party unity. But again, IME, those bad players will *always* use alignment as a shield for their actions in any game system where alignment can be used as such (like D&D). That doesn't mean that they don't exist in other games, but that they have no shield to hide behind to rationalize it other than "I'm just a player who likes to disrupt the fun of the other players".

    Now, to be fair, some games allow/promote this anyway. I've played lots of Strormbringer and Paranoia, so there's that...

  12. - Top - End - #42
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia

    Default Re: Unanimous Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay R View Post
    That seems like it's trying to not quite address the problem. The problem isn't PC alignments; it's player decisions. How about this:

    "Players will design and play PCs who will work with the party, not against them."
    Among strangers this could fail. A healthy party lives somewhere between "Everything anyone does needs approval from the whole party" and "Do whatever the hell you want". But what part of that line your table can live in needs working out
    I love playing in a party with a couple of power-gamers, it frees me up to be Elan!


  13. - Top - End - #43
    Librarian in the Playground Moderator
     
    LibraryOgre's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Unanimous Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay R View Post
    "Players will design and play PCs who will work with the party, not against them."
    Monica Rambeau: You people will by God act like a team, or at least like people who know each other, or I'll incinerate the bunch of you here and now.
    The Cranky Gamer
    *It isn't realism, it's verisimilitude; the appearance of truth within the framework of the game.
    *Picard management tip: Debate honestly. The goal is to arrive at the truth, not at your preconception.
    *Mutant Dawn for Savage Worlds!
    *The One Deck Engine: Gaming on a budget
    Written by Me on DriveThru RPG
    There are almost 400,000 threads on this site. If you need me to address a thread as a moderator, include a link.

  14. - Top - End - #44
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2022

    Default Re: Unanimous Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Pex View Post
    If the DM punished good behavior, the player will think being good is to be a chump. This is more common. The friendly NPC was the BBEG all along. Surprise! The prisoner is let go and comes back later seeking revenge. Prisoners never divulge information when questioned. Having Saved The Day for 8 levels already NPCs still treat them like nobodies. If Heroic Efforts of Goodness are not reinforced and reflected in the game world, then the player sees no point in being the Hero and will seek his jollies doing other things.
    Ah. The "DM vs the party" method. Seen it. Got the t-shirt. That is the number one cause of really bad players out there, and many DMs often don't even realize they are doing it. There is a tendency for DMs (and not necessarily just new ones) to think that their job is to thwart the plans of the players. Yes, you are supposed to create antagonists and have the players face against them, but if you are yourself injecting 'twists" to effectively ensure that any action by the players results in some negative down the line, you can't be surprised when players respond by eventually just burning everything they encounter to the ground to ensure that it doesn't happen.

    That's not to say you can't occasionally use this plot twist, but it should be rare. So rare that your players don't just assume that the friendly NPC they helped is really a bad guy in disguise, or that the guys they helped free are also going to come back to hurt them, or the folks they arrested rather than kill, or well any other "good" action will end up backfiring on them.

    One of the most difficult things for GMs to learn to do is how to let the players win.

  15. - Top - End - #45
    Troll in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Italy
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Unanimous Good

    Quote Originally Posted by gbaji View Post
    If that were true, there would be no neutral or evil alignments available. And if that were the case (only good as an option to play), there would be no need for alignments at all, right? All games would be "good guys defeat bad guys".
    I think the game was supposed to have the party be good, and the opponent be evil. then you could kick down the door, cast detect evil, and you knew those are sentient beings you can massacre without moral problems because they are bad.

    of course, nobody plays the game as it was originally supposed to be played. d&d has lived so long because it is flexible and people keep reinventing it.

    as for players, i think bad players will use everything available as an excuse. while good players will use everything in a positive way. well, they can make mistakes sometimes and disrupt the party accidentally, but once talked to they will amend themselves, because they are good players.
    i once had a new player try to steal from the party because he thought since he was a chaotic rogue he had to do it. there was some drama, but everything got sorted out, because everyone involved was a decent person, and the new player learned better, and there were no more accidents.
    whereas a bad player would just find different excuses.
    In memory of Evisceratus: he dreamed of a better world, but he lacked the class levels to make the dream come true.

    Ridiculous monsters you won't take seriously even as they disembowel you

    my take on the highly skilled professional: the specialized expert

  16. - Top - End - #46
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2020

    Default Re: Unanimous Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay R View Post
    That seems like it's trying to not quite address the problem. The problem isn't PC alignments; it's player decisions. How about this:

    "Players will design and play PCs who will work with the party, not against them."
    Or, simply accept that characters with different goals will get in conflict and build a game around that. There's more than one way to skin the cat; the actual problem the OP describes is not with alignments or PvP, it's in tenets of forced group play clashing with player desires.

    In non-forced group play, a game master might not stop one player's character from doing something the others don't like, but they also won't stop said other from retaliating. All the tools the players have regarding each other, their characters also have. If a player does not approve of a game, they can always quit playing; just as well, if their character does not approve of a party, their character can leave. If players find some of their lot to be disruptive, they can vote or request that player be removed; just as well, their characters can vote or request someone be cast out of a party. The players can use all legal actions and resources, both in terms of a game and actual law, to pursue their case; just as well, characters in a game can use all allowed game actions and resources to enforce their decisions.

    D&D alignments are ultimately a red herring. The actual issues have to do with small group dynamics, and they are recursive. Players and their decisions also have alignments in the plain English sense of the word. Talakeal's group in particular is constantly strained by him and his co-players wanting different things, by his own admission. Remove the fiction of player-character-separation, and what you've got is someone becoming a worse person due to peer pressure.

  17. - Top - End - #47
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    BlueWizardGirl

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Unanimous Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Hall View Post
    I've referred to this as the "Troll with an Axe". In Shadowrun, a troll with an axe can be a VERY effective character, and there are a couple good ways to build them (cyber or adept). But if your entire schtick is "I have an unreasonable strength and toughness, and a very effective axe", chances are, you're gonna wanna use the axe. And if the plan doesn't include something where you CAN use the axe, you're going to either be bored, or, often, useless. And so many "Troll with an Axe" players wind up creating situations where they get to use their axe.

    Which doesn't work too well if the plan is "get in, get out, walk calmly down the street."
    D20 Star Wars had a similar concept to this adressed in Power of the Jedi, they called it "Lightsaber Syndrome." Which in short, you are playing a Jedi, you have a lightsaber and force powers, why not lightsaber and force powers all the time.
    --
    Alignment doesn't really factor into this kind of thing, for example our most disruptive leaning player has needed reigning in playing cyberpunk 2020, which doesn’t use any alignment stuff. And good-neutral-evil tend to fall by the wayside in favor of player temperament.
    My sig is something witty.

    78% of DM's started their first campaign in a tavern. If you're one of the 22% that didn't, copy and paste this into your signature.

  18. - Top - End - #48
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Batcathat's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2019

    Default Re: Unanimous Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Duff View Post
    Among strangers this could fail. A healthy party lives somewhere between "Everything anyone does needs approval from the whole party" and "Do whatever the hell you want". But what part of that line your table can live in needs working out
    While that's probably true, I'm guessing that an even blunter rule like "no Evil characters" would probably be even more likely to fail at the same objective.

  19. - Top - End - #49
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2020

    Default Re: Unanimous Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Hall View Post
    I've referred to this as the "Troll with an Axe". In Shadowrun, a troll with an axe can be a VERY effective character, and there are a couple good ways to build them (cyber or adept). But if your entire schtick is "I have an unreasonable strength and toughness, and a very effective axe", chances are, you're gonna wanna use the axe. And if the plan doesn't include something where you CAN use the axe, you're going to either be bored, or, often, useless. And so many "Troll with an Axe" players wind up creating situations where they get to use their axe.

    Which doesn't work too well if the plan is "get in, get out, walk calmly down the street."
    Quote Originally Posted by Witty Username View Post
    D20 Star Wars had a similar concept to this adressed in Power of the Jedi, they called it "Lightsaber Syndrome." Which in short, you are playing a Jedi, you have a lightsaber and force powers, why not lightsaber and force powers all the time.
    --
    Alignment doesn't really factor into this kind of thing, for example our most disruptive leaning player has needed reigning in playing cyberpunk 2020, which doesn’t use any alignment stuff. And good-neutral-evil tend to fall by the wayside in favor of player temperament.
    You're talking of a related but different thing than Talakeal.

    The common saying that covers what you both are after, is "when all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail". There's a whole bunch of game design principles that can contribute to or alleviate the issue, to the point this would deserve its own thread.

  20. - Top - End - #50
    Titan in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Unanimous Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    D&D alignments are ultimately a red herring. The actual issues have to do with small group dynamics, and they are recursive. Players and their decisions also have alignments in the plain English sense of the word. Talakeal's group in particular is constantly strained by him and his co-players wanting different things, by his own admission. Remove the fiction of player-character-separation, and what you've got is someone becoming a worse person due to peer pressure.
    While true, a lot of people like a fig leaf / excuse to try and hide or rationalize (antisocial) behavior.
    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    The common saying that covers what you both are after, is "when all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail". There's a whole bunch of game design principles that can contribute to or alleviate the issue, to the point this would deserve its own thread.
    Indeed it does, I wonder who will start such a thread?
    Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Works
    a. Malifice (paraphrased):
    Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    b. greenstone (paraphrased):
    Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct!
    Second known member of the Greyview Appreciation Society

  21. - Top - End - #51
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Unanimous Good

    Good vs Evil, Law vs Chaos, Pink Mohawks vs Mirror Shades, it’s all obfuscation of the real core issue, which is a question of acceptable party dynamics and how to build them. Which itself may be the wrong layer of abstraction compared to the social contact and interpersonal relations between players.

    Personally, I prefer to play with people mature enough to be able to roleplay characters with differences of opinions, and be able to resolve these differences.

    Now, this can be implemented many ways, including the Thief who realizes they’re better off suspending their thievery while allied with the noble Paladin, or the noble Paladin who is clueless that the Assassin sold their enemies diseased blankets shortly before their big fight.

    The trick is designing characters who can work together, and having the maturity to accept as many definitions of “working together” as possible. See also “I prefer to play with people that possess emotional maturity not found in these horror stories”. Which… includes plenty of 7-year-olds, so it’s not like it’s an unachievably high bar.

    I’ve played the “Troll with an axe” who is all too happy to not have to swing that axe, who is glad to have “mirror shades” friends who keep everyone safe by reducing how many times the axe must fall. Whereas said Troll keeps everyone safe by swinging that axe when it *is* necessary, *not* by swinging it when it causes unnecessary problems. This isn’t rocket science, clue-by-fours were invented for a reason.

    Unless you’re one of those oddballs who actually *likes* it when a PC causes problems for the party, when a PC causes problems for the party, you break to OOC and address it right then, retconning if necessary. Again, clue-by-fours were invented for a reason.

    However, does a bit of torture, cannibalism, and animation of the bones really cause problems for the party? No? Then it’s not an issue worth caring about, and that’s all there is to it. Don’t bring a character who will make issue with things that aren’t issues.

    Shout out to this bit of advice:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay R View Post
    So regardless of what else is part of the PC's motivation, supporting the party must be included. "But it's what my character would do" isn't a reason to disrupt the game. It's a reason to design a different character.

    The best solution is to play with people who want to get along and play as a team.
    If your Paladin wants to murder the surrendered prisoner after they’ve been interrogated, maybe give them the wisdom to ask the rest of the party, “will doing so cause us any problems, unforeseen to me?” *before* doing the deed. Or be willing to let the group retcon that you did so when it was you, the player, who failed to foresee how that could be an issue - and work on self improvement and learning to have your character confer with others before making unilateral decisions that hurt the group.

    And if it’s not in character for your PC to do that, bring a new PC - one who is capable of working with a group.

  22. - Top - End - #52
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Unanimous Good

    I don't think its fair to say this is necessarily an issue about someone wanting to be disruptive or anti-social.

    It can legitimately be just a difference of opinion / interests.

    Some people fantasize about being the hero, others the villain. Other people have totally different opinion's on what constitutes good or evil, likely based on a difference in upbringing, religion, politics, or other things we shan't talk about here.

    If Bert's fantasy is playing a three-color hero and upholding truth, justice, and the American way, and Ernie's fantasy is being a big strong brute straight out of a Gor novel who kills anyone who challenges him and takes what he wants by force, they are going to have issues if they try and play these characters in the same group, even if there is nothing antagonistic about it and they are good friends and mature gamers.

    Quote Originally Posted by animorte View Post
    Yes, I unwittingly expected your "evil" to instead be an underlying "good" for the table overall.
    I don't think that's inaccurate?

    I am saying I am playing a character who goes along with the group OOC rather than one I personally would prefer to keep the game running smoothly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    However, does a bit of torture, cannibalism, and animation of the bones really cause problems for the party? No? Then it’s not an issue worth caring about, and that’s all there is to it. Don’t bring a character who will make issue with things that aren’t issues.

    Shout out to this bit of advice:

    [indent]

    If your Paladin wants to murder the surrendered prisoner after they’ve been interrogated, maybe give them the wisdom to ask the rest of the party, “will doing so cause us any problems, unforeseen to me?” *before* doing the deed. Or be willing to let the group retcon that you did so when it was you, the player, who failed to foresee how that could be an issue - and work on self improvement and learning to have your character confer with others before making unilateral decisions that hurt the group.

    And if it’s not in character for your PC to do that, bring a new PC - one who is capable of working with a group.
    The thing is though, unless you are playing someone who is very detached and neutral, that sort of thing waters down your character to an incredible degree.

    Most people play RPGs to be larger than life heroes and the like. If you found NPCs engaged in "torture, cannibalism, and animation of the bones" you would give them a righteous smiting, but if it's a party member doing it, not only is your supposed hero not stopping it, they are actively supporting it by giving the evil characters a split of the treasure and protecting them from their enemies, who may in fact be legitimate forces of good or lawful authorities.

    The Giant used to have an advice article on the sidebar here that I never quite grokked, where he said that the paladin is uniquely bad because it forces the rest of the party to behave, but I always felt that the opposite was more the case, evil characters force people to abandon any pretext of being a hero and actively take part in atrocities.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    You're talking of a related but different thing than Talakeal.

    The common saying that covers what you both are after, is "when all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail". There's a whole bunch of game design principles that can contribute to or alleviate the issue, to the point this would deserve its own thread.
    Its close.

    These are different but similar; the guy who resorts to violence because they are bored and the guy who does something evil both tend to trump any other plans that the rest of the group may have had.
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

  23. - Top - End - #53
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2020

    Default Re: Unanimous Good

    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
    While true, a lot of people like a fig leaf / excuse to try and hide or rationalize (antisocial) behavior.
    It is completely normal for games to give special permission to do something that is otherwise unacceptable. You wouldn't normally try to punch your friend in the face, but in a boxing match, that is core part of the activity. You wouldn't normally lie to your friend, but in a game of Werewolf or Murder, that is core part of the activity. You wouldn't normally make jokes about your mom getting silicon breasts, but in Cards Against Humanity, that is core part of the activity. You wouldn't normally point a loaded weapon at a friend, but in airsoft or paintball, that is core part of the activity.

    You wouldn't normally act like murder, torture and theft are acceptable ways to get ahead in life, but in a D&D game with Evil characters, those are core parts of the game; it's the role you are playing. It is contradictory to try to make a game specifically about playing roles and then turn around and say that playing a role cannot excuse anything.

    People only ever try "it's just a game" , "it's just a joke", "I'm just playing my role" or "it's what my character would do" because there is a domain of life where that is an adequate justification. Failing to admit this eventually leads to either condemning or missing the point of the original activity - f.ex., if there's never an excuse to punch a friend in the face, either boxing ought to banned as immoral, or headshots ought to be removed from it, altering the sport completely. In the field of roleplaying games, this is visible as pointlessly condemning everything from PvP, to Evil characters, to thieves or paladins, to a enemies burning the magic-user's spellbook.

    If you want to vet out bad people, the correct way to do that is to look at how they behave when and where they do not have special permission to act in a particular way.

  24. - Top - End - #54
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2022

    Default Re: Unanimous Good

    Quote Originally Posted by King of Nowhere View Post
    I think the game was supposed to have the party be good, and the opponent be evil. then you could kick down the door, cast detect evil, and you knew those are sentient beings you can massacre without moral problems because they are bad.

    of course, nobody plays the game as it was originally supposed to be played. d&d has lived so long because it is flexible and people keep reinventing it.
    When you say "was supposed" and "was originally supposed to be played", which edition are you referring too? First edition D&D states that thieves should "mostly be evil", with neutral available as well, and good possible, but requiring some pretty hefty explanation (I could quote the exact text, but that's the gist).

    The Assassin class had to be evil because: "(perforce as the killing of humans and other intelligent life forms for purpose of profit is basically held to be the antithesis of weal)"

    So as "origninally supposed to be played" D&D included player playable classes which had to have evil alignments to be played. So, no, the original intent was not purely about a group of automatically assumed good guys kicking down doors and killing the automatically assumed evil guys inside and taking their stuff. D&D assumed there would be interparty intrigue and conflict, but also assumed that the players and DM would determine some sort of "look and feel" to their own game table and decided how that would play out.

    Which is pretty much what we should be doing today as well. If you play at a table full of people who love backstabbing eachother and having to be just as careful about the other players as the NPCs, then let it be that form of no-holds-bared situation. It's what the players want. If you have a table full of folks who want to play herioc adventures working together for a common goal (my preferences btw), then you have to set some sort of "table rules" for behavior between the PCs.

    This does not preclude having "evil" characters in a group. It does mean that if you are at a more "common goal" oriented table, those who play evil characters have to pick some personality for their characer that will prevent them from actually doing direct harm to their fellow party members. They may joke about it, threaten, etc, but their "evil" should be restricted to external actions that occur "on the side" and that at worst cause minor issues, and maybe a plot hook or two along the way. There are a ton of characters in popular fiction that manage to fill this sort of role (being "evil", but somehow never managing to actually seriously hurt the main characters, and then always seeming to find their own objectives alignning, so they tend to work with them instead). It's not hard to do, just takes a litle creativity, and most importantly a player who actually gets that this is what is preferred at this sort of table.

  25. - Top - End - #55
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2022

    Default Re: Unanimous Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    The Giant used to have an advice article on the sidebar here that I never quite grokked, where he said that the paladin is uniquely bad because it forces the rest of the party to behave, but I always felt that the opposite was more the case, evil characters force people to abandon any pretext of being a hero and actively take part in atrocities.
    I think Rich's point was that the Paladin is the only class that actually requires it to impose it's own moral compass on the rest of the PCs in a group. It requires every party that includes a paladin to be the very same "good guys doing good deeds" standard. Which yeah, works some of the time, but is a constraint.

    While I trend against interparty backstabbing at my tables, I find a party full of nothing but goody-goodies to be boring. Shades of grey can be fun to play. Characters who are ok with taking advantage of situations for personal gain, but also still wanting to stop the evil bad guy works great IMO. Having a rogue in the group who slinks off to get info from various contacts and maybe shaking down some folks works. Sure. We don't ask where he got those earings he's fencing today (maybe with some blood stains on them?) because he got the tickets to the ball we needed, so we can go in and save the day or something. And maybe we just don't ask how our wizard knows so much about graves and human anatomy, cause he's helping us as well.

    Imagine a paladin flying on Serenity with the crew. Would ruin the entire group, right? That's the point the Giant was making. You can still be "heroes" without having to always be "good guys".

  26. - Top - End - #56
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Batcathat's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2019

    Default Re: Unanimous Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    The Giant used to have an advice article on the sidebar here that I never quite grokked, where he said that the paladin is uniquely bad because it forces the rest of the party to behave, but I always felt that the opposite was more the case, evil characters force people to abandon any pretext of being a hero and actively take part in atrocities.
    Again, I don't see how having Evil characters in the party means the Good characters are forced to go along with their behavior, any more than having Good characters means the Evil characters are forced to go along with their behavior. It's a possibility, but not the only one.

  27. - Top - End - #57
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Theoboldi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Unanimous Good

    Quote Originally Posted by gbaji View Post
    Imagine a paladin flying on Serenity with the crew. Would ruin the entire group, right? That's the point the Giant was making. You can still be "heroes" without having to always be "good guys".
    I mean, to voice my agreement with Talakeal on this issue, there is also an easy counter-example. Imagine a power-hungry, evil necromancer flying on the Enterprise as part of the crew. It would just as much ruin the overall vibe of the story, and make the heroes come across as silent enablers of his villainy.
    Last edited by Theoboldi; 2023-01-18 at 04:15 PM.
    Always look for white text. Always.
    That's how you do it! Have a cookie!
    Quote Originally Posted by ezekielraiden View Post
    You don't win people over by beating them with facts until they surrender; at best all you've got is a conversion under duress, and at worst you've actively made an enemy of your position.

    You don't convince by proving someone wrong. You convince by showing them a better way to be right. The difference may seem subtle or semantic, but I assure you it matters a lot.

  28. - Top - End - #58
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2010

    Default Re: Unanimous Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Batcathat View Post
    Again, I don't see how having Evil characters in the party means the Good characters are forced to go along with their behavior, any more than having Good characters means the Evil characters are forced to go along with their behavior. It's a possibility, but not the only one.
    I think the important bit is more about the way in which people's differential willingness to abide by social norms about OOC tabletop RPG behavior leads to a concentration of agency in some attitudes over others is the important bit, and that can be a real effect. At any given table, the hard lines and the soft lines tend not to be at the same place - hard lines being things that get you explicitly called out or asked to change or kicked from the group, soft lines being the sorts of things people do out of a pro-social desire for the group to actually function smoothly but which the group would be hesitant to actually consider misbehavior if they weren't followed.

    If one person prioritizes group cohesion and another person prioritizes doing stuff that is most relevant for their character, when the first person's character needs conflict with the second person's character needs, the second person is going to more often get their way. Because the first person might pull back short of something that would lead to making the game about that conflict out of respect for those soft lines or even just because of their own norms and expectations, whereas the second person will push through and just do their thing. Internet discussions tend to go to the most extreme and exaggerated examples like torture and murder and PvP and whatnot, but I've evem seen a much much more subtle version of this in my group - given a question 'what are you planning to do / what would you like to do next time?' I've had players say 'well I had things relevant to my character to get done, but I don't think they'd be interesting for the other players so I didn't suggest that we do those things'. In fact, at least once I had basically every player independently say this and confirm their thought process after the fact, resulting in a session where no one did anything because everyone didn't want to do something that might not have been relevant to one of the other players. That's its own kind of extreme example perhaps, but I think it serves to demonstrate the range of the phenomenon.

  29. - Top - End - #59
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2020

    Default Re: Unanimous Good

    NichG, you seem to be describing the Abilene Paradox, or something close to it, at work.

    To wit, this paradox is why I dislike consensus play, and why I'm more willing to promote honest-to-God PvP over forced party play.
    Last edited by Vahnavoi; 2023-01-18 at 04:30 PM.

  30. - Top - End - #60
    Troll in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Italy
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Unanimous Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    I don't think its fair to say this is necessarily an issue about someone wanting to be disruptive or anti-social.

    It can legitimately be just a difference of opinion / interests.
    No.
    When people have difference of opinions/interests, they talk about it and find some acceptable compromise.
    when someone stabs important npcs on a whim without the consent of the party, and generally tricks/bullies/drags people into playing a different style, that's disruptive antisocial behavior. when people react with rage at the slightest mention that maybe they should ask other players before doing something, that's disruptive.

    the difference is between working with others to find common ground, and imposing on others
    In memory of Evisceratus: he dreamed of a better world, but he lacked the class levels to make the dream come true.

    Ridiculous monsters you won't take seriously even as they disembowel you

    my take on the highly skilled professional: the specialized expert

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •