Unanimous Good

[Mastikator]

So you can play a Good character with an Evil party, but it takes doing (both to remain Good and to actually achieve something) - and maybe party members not being high-note Evil and more utilitarian Evil? Not sure how playing a single Evil character in a Good party would go.

Pragmatic evil can easily survive in an all good party, considering an all good party's goals are often compatible with an evil character. Power and wealth and all that.A pragmatic evil character will always insist on getting paid, never show mercy, never forgive betrayal, often suggest unsavory methods. I think it's the "often suggest unsavory methods" that may nag the good party, and constant shut downs may frustrate the evil character. But none of that is nearly as bad as a good character tolerating an evil party doing evil stuff, especially unnecessarily evil stuff.

Chaotic evil characters however do not jive with an all or mostly good party, they do bad things without permission which often ends up not only irritating the players but also sabotage their quest. (which is why I don't like to mix good and evil party members and make evil characters if any other player makes an evil character, on paper or in practice)

[Satinavian]

I was about to clarify myself and describe why I gave the example that I did, but I will not talk to people who respond to me attempting to explain my opinions in good faith with such pompous, passive-aggressive mockery.

Nothing I have said calls for that kind of response. Genuinely am disappointed in the kind of behavior I'm seeing here.

I certainly did not mean it as mockery, but tone transmit badly and i appologize if i hurt you.

[King of Nowhere]

It's impossible to have a comprehensive guide to morality in a forum post, but I will try and be brief.

In my opinion, good and evil is about how causing or alleviating suffering.

The desire to alleviate suffering is good. The desire to cause suffering is evil.

You then balance it with one's own needs.

In my game system, I label morality as:
Martys who will sacrifice their own needs to alleviate suffering.
Alrtuits who try and alleviate suffering but put their own needs first.
Indifferent folk who don't care about causing or alleviating suffering.
Mercenaries who try and alleviate suffering, but put their own needs first and will cause suffering if the reward is big enough.
Villains who care nothing for others and will cause suffering as needed to achieve their own goals.
Sadists who enjoy causing suffering but will put their own needs first.
And diabolical folk who will sacrifice their own needs out to hurt others.

IMO, the first two are good, the middle two are neutral, and the last three are evil. BUT of course their is the matter of scale, and a mercenary could conceivably fall to evil pretty easilly. Its mostly about having limits and balancing out harm with good intentions.

you are contradicting yourself.
first you say that the desire to cause suffering is evil.
then you say that "villains who care nothing for others and will cause suffering as needed to achieve their goals" are evil.
those villains do not desire to cause suffering, they do as part of their goals. heck, even the guy murdering a traveler in the wood and stealing his stuff is doing what he's doing for simple utilitarian purposes, with no desire to cause suffering.

anyway, that definition of "villains who care nothing for others and will cause suffering as needed to achieve their goals" is exactly the kind of evil that works well in a party with good people.
and sure, they must restrain themselves a bit, because a paladin will certainly not condone murder for theft. but think of the pros and cons: is it really worth to kill a random stranger in the forest to steal his stuff? how much riches can he really have, anyway? (and if he has many riches, chances are he can defend himself and potentially kill you). and while the chances of you being discovered are, as you pointed out, rather low, it's still not impossible. especially in a world with divination magic.
so you are potentially incurring the risk of angering a clan for a very meager gain that you don't need. bad deal.
on the other hand, by not killing people to steal their stuff - or, rather, by killing only the bad people that the rest of society wants you to kill, and only steal their stuff - you can be friend with the paladin. it means you have someone trustworthy and dependable to watch your back. you don't need to worry about him pilfering part of your loot. you don't have to worry about him knifing you in the night and running away with your loot. having a heroic reputation means you can ask help and trade favors. even in a brozne age society with little organization, being owed favors is always useful.
on the other hand, the paladin - if he's not played like miko - may well comprimise a bit himself. you are useful. you solve problems. and you're doing a lot less evil by adventuring with him than you'd be doing otherwise, so he's actually trying to redeem an evildoer. as long as you don't cross certain lines. murder for futile reasons? big no. stealing stuff that's needed for the plot? well, he may refrain to ask you how you got it. torturing prisoners? his code obliges him to stop you, but right now he's taken a toilet break, if you don't hurt those guys too much and you get him informations that save lives, the paladin may let it slide.

if that's not evil enough for you - wait, I'm not sure, didn't you say you wanted to play a hero? so you can only play a hero or a total psyco? if those are the only options, and neither are viable, I suggest you either comprimise a bit on what you want to play, or look for another game. No hurt feelings, creative differences happen.

But pop culture seems to think that the "scoundrel" archetype is more of a CN sort. Cat Woman, Han Solo, Jack Sparrow, etc. are typically listed as neutral, and they frequently engage in larcenous acts for purely selfish reasons. More strait-laced hero types typically have no problems working alongside them, the same is not true for out and out villains.

unsurprisingly, pop culture is quite inconsistent. sure, those characters are supposed to be thieves, but I don't remember having ever seen them actually steal anything on screen, except perhaps to the main villains. AND they oppose an evil much greater than themselves.
Han solo is smuggling stuff and evading fees, but those fees would be paid to the evil empire who would use them to fund more warships to crush the freedom fighters. If han solo lived in a normal place and we'd see the story of a single mother with a disabled child whose social security fund is reduced because smugglers evading taxes have caused a financial collapse in the state's finances - and then she loses her job because someone who evades taxes is undercutting her honest business - then the moral judgment of han solo would be very different.
similarly, jack sparrow is supposed to be a pirate, but i've never seen him actually assault a ship of honest merchants, kill those who resist, take away all goods. Nor have I ever seen people starving because some pirate took their stuff. no, the poor people are poor because of the injust taxes of the evil government, and the scoundrel only steals from the government. it works because the government is a greater evil.

[Quertus]

Well, if you actually feel that way, you should not play any evil characters under a GM who only allows not crazy evil.

Simple, isn't it ?

If (some of) the other players manage to create PCs you recognize as villains (not milquetoast) that the GM thinks are ok, why can't you ?

If (some of) the other players manage to create PCs you recognize as heroes (not milquetoast) that can coexist with said villains, why can't you ?

If it basically boils down to "You can't imagine characters that are not disruptive and against the GMs wishes and still not boring to play", well, you shouldn't play in this group.


Again, only important is that you try to understand what your GM means with evil not crazy and follow this intent. All the rules lawyering about "evil" and questioning of "crazy" is utterly unnecessary unless you eventually plan to argue with your GM about your character fitting those criteria or not. If you are preparing for such an argument you already are set on not following your GMs intent. Don't do that.

If you are really uncertain, ask your GM for clarification. Don't stay intentionally uncertain to later use it as a shield in the way of "I really didn't understand what you meant".

And after many hints about how to play group compatible evil characters, an advice about good characters, even heroes :

Make them about protecting innocents, but not about punishing evildoers. There will be many more groups they will fit in and they will be no less heroic for it. And "not hurting innocents" is something most evil characters can accept as a price to get a powerfull ally.

Nail? Head? Hit it, you have.

In my opinion, good and evil is about how causing or alleviating suffering.

The desire to alleviate suffering is good. The desire to cause suffering is evil.

So my Paladin has a genocidal quest to kill all life, and Animate it as Undead, to end all suffering, as the pinnacle of Exalted Good.

I like.

Woah.

The idea that coming to the table with a fleshed out personality is a good way to AVOID conflicts with the rest of the group is imo, completely ass backwards.

You’ve dodged the question. Let me try again.

You’ve been playing your character for a while now. Hopefully they have a personality, no?

Now, imagine I show up at your (GM’s) doorstep, and join your game in progress. I present a list of potential characters, and described them via this “goals and methods” model.

For reference, that list was… “Swing an axe to protect people”, “use magic to bring joy to the world”, “post on the Playground to stave off ennui”, “hack to make money”, “steal from the rich and give to the poor to destabilize the unjust government”, “Animate the dead to take over the world”, “copy and improve the toys of others to have the most fun”, “slay the gods to set right what’s wrong with the world”, “act as scout to protect others from truths that would destroy them”. And I’ll add, “slay all living beings to end all suffering”.

(Yes, obviously, one or two of those would be in trouble if this was their first experience with a fantasy world, and should have more relevant motivation given, like “upgrade this backwater with construct-based labor”.)

How would your character react to having such individuals in the party? What would you say wrt my proposed list of potential characters? That was the question I put to you, to give you experience with this model, and thereby let you see how it works.

As for that feeling backwards - do you think it somehow better for party cohesion for me to join your game and play a “mystery box” that neither of us knows how it will turn out?

Well, I have trouble imagining someone who is actually evil but doesn't suffer from some sort of mental illness.

And the rest of the party is evil. Actual, capital E evil, at a minimum of not having seconds thoughts about utilitarian murder.

Trying to play a "good" character in such a situation is just not going to happen, a good person is not going to travel with and assist evil people.

If I am barred from playing evil myself, the best I can hope for is to play a neutral character who lacks conviction and goes along with their evil plans rather than actually taking initiative and coming up with plans of my own.

I suppose it might be possible to play some sort of mastermind who manipulates and directs them into doing what I want, maybe like some sort of Amanda Waller type, but that's not really a character or group dynamic I think anyone is really interested in.

My experiences with Amanda Waller suggest that she is about the *last* person one should use as a model for “party cohesion”. She seems better suited to the role of “antagonist it feels so satisfying to kill”, IMO.

That said, if you struggle to conceptualize characters outside the set [insane (“evil”), milksop (“neutral”), actively desires to harm and oppose others (“good”)], then I can see why you’re having problems making a character that works well with others without being a milksop.

So… play milksops while observing the characters others play that actually work with one another without being milksops? Continue playing milksops until you think you know how such personalities work… then test one or more or in one-shots? And maybe drop your words like “good”, “evil”, and “insane”, and instead just look at how people like authors define and describe personality while you’re at it?

[Lvl 2 Expert]

For my group this dilemma was kind of solved by playing Curse of Strahd. We had express permission to be evil because that could work in this campaign, but I only found out after a character died that he was in fact supposed to be evil. When everything around you eats babies for breakfast you don't really have a choice but to fight it all.

That said, we are a group of mostly newerish players and we do metagame a bit in the sense that we want the adventure to move forward and will try to play our characters in such a way that they can make the story work. I'm sure more creative and/or less restricted players could still have found plenty of ways to be evil torturing cannibals terrorizing the realm, even with exactly the same DM and house rules.

I might have been closer on the money than I figured with this post. We've been out of Barovia for seven sessions now, and during this week's session I actually found myself contemplating what I could build as an evil character for our evil party if the necromancer was really going to try and kill that nice local librarian/healer/power-druid that she herself had started picking a fight with. This is not the player that originally tried to play an evil character, and the necromancer being a necromancer doesn't actually make her that much more wicked than previous "incarnations". The DM had this one covered though. The best part is I (through some bad rolls, some dumb luck and not being overly paranoid) got to sort of cause this week's clash with the druid. I laughed a lot this session.

[gbaji]

Well, I have trouble imagining someone who is actually evil but doesn't suffer from some sort of mental illness.

This might be the root of your problem. I think you need to expand the range of what you define as evil, to include people who are not insane, and who act in an otherwise rational manner, but simply have a moral compass that says "it's ok to cause harm to others as long as it benefits me", when most people would put much higher threshholds on when harm is ok than that.

You don't have to be a psychopath to be evil. And I honestly think the easiest measurement is the theft scenario. If you would only steal from someone if there is some other "cause" that benefits from it and justifies it, then you aren't evil. If you're willing to steal just because the other person has something and you want it for yourself? That's evil. If that's the type of morality you express regularly, then your alignment is evil. Whether you kill the person or not is beside the point. Just the theft decision alone is enough to qualify.

I was about to clarify myself and describe why I gave the example that I did, but I will not talk to people who respond to me attempting to explain my opinions in good faith with such pompous, passive-aggressive mockery.

Nothing I have said calls for that kind of response. Genuinely am disappointed in the kind of behavior I'm seeing here.

I'm sorry if I offended you with my comment. It was not meant that way. Just the shortest, pithiest way to respond. Sure, a little snarky, but it got the point across. I was presented with what I saw as a massive gap in the range of what could be evil, and pointed it out. And yeah, after already saying in more words and more politely "hey, it's possible to be evil without randomly killing people for no reason" several times, I'm going to try a different tactic at some point.

unsurprisingly, pop culture is quite inconsistent. sure, those characters are supposed to be thieves, but I don't remember having ever seen them actually steal anything on screen, except perhaps to the main villains. AND they oppose an evil much greater than themselves.
Han solo is smuggling stuff and evading fees, but those fees would be paid to the evil empire who would use them to fund more warships to crush the freedom fighters. If han solo lived in a normal place and we'd see the story of a single mother with a disabled child whose social security fund is reduced because smugglers evading taxes have caused a financial collapse in the state's finances - and then she loses her job because someone who evades taxes is undercutting her honest business - then the moral judgment of han solo would be very different.
similarly, jack sparrow is supposed to be a pirate, but i've never seen him actually assault a ship of honest merchants, kill those who resist, take away all goods. Nor have I ever seen people starving because some pirate took their stuff. no, the poor people are poor because of the injust taxes of the evil government, and the scoundrel only steals from the government. it works because the government is a greater evil.

And I think this might be where some of the confusion/hesitancy lies. We have a lot of characters in popular stories that are "heroes" in the minds of the audience, but who do engage in questionable/illegal behavior, if not on screen, then as part of their backstory. And this causes a problem when we try to consider something like alignments in a game in any sort of objective fashion because it causes us discomfort to realize that some of these hero/protagonists in stories we love maybe really weren't such great people if slotted into an objective alignment format, so instead of adjusting our perception of those characters (cause heaven forbid!), we instead make adjustments and carve outs in the alignment system itself.

Which leads us to a mess. We either have to conclude that pirates and smugglers are evil people due to the selfish nature of the harm they cause in their work unless they are funny roguish rapscallions with a personality we like, and a cool gun belt or something *or* we have to decide that smuggling, piracy, theft, etc just isn't "bad enough" to quality as evil in the alignment system. And I suspect it's the latter concept that has lead to "nothing but unrepentant murderers are actually evil" position in this thread.

[NichG]

This might be the root of your problem. I think you need to expand the range of what you define as evil, to include people who are not insane, and who act in an otherwise rational manner, but simply have a moral compass that says "it's ok to cause harm to others as long as it benefits me", when most people would put much higher threshholds on when harm is ok than that.

You don't have to be a psychopath to be evil. And I honestly think the easiest measurement is the theft scenario. If you would only steal from someone if there is some other "cause" that benefits from it and justifies it, then you aren't evil. If you're willing to steal just because the other person has something and you want it for yourself? That's evil. If that's the type of morality you express regularly, then your alignment is evil. Whether you kill the person or not is beside the point. Just the theft decision alone is enough to qualify.

I'm sorry if I offended you with my comment. It was not meant that way. Just the shortest, pithiest way to respond. Sure, a little snarky, but it got the point across. I was presented with what I saw as a massive gap in the range of what could be evil, and pointed it out. And yeah, after already saying in more words and more politely "hey, it's possible to be evil without randomly killing people for no reason" several times, I'm going to try a different tactic at some point.

And I think this might be where some of the confusion/hesitancy lies. We have a lot of characters in popular stories that are "heroes" in the minds of the audience, but who do engage in questionable/illegal behavior, if not on screen, then as part of their backstory. And this causes a problem when we try to consider something like alignments in a game in any sort of objective fashion because it causes us discomfort to realize that some of these hero/protagonists in stories we love maybe really weren't such great people if slotted into an objective alignment format, so instead of adjusting our perception of those characters (cause heaven forbid!), we instead make adjustments and carve outs in the alignment system itself.

Which leads us to a mess. We either have to conclude that pirates and smugglers are evil people due to the selfish nature of the harm they cause in their work unless they are funny roguish rapscallions with a personality we like, and a cool gun belt or something *or* we have to decide that smuggling, piracy, theft, etc just isn't "bad enough" to quality as evil in the alignment system. And I suspect it's the latter concept that has lead to "nothing but unrepentant murderers are actually evil" position in this thread.

Or, you gain the ability to decouple the idea of heroism/villainism (or protagonism/antagonism) from the idea of good vs evil from the idea of obeying/disobeying social mores, and become able to imagine evil heroes, good villains, etc, and to develop nuances in the places where those concepts don't fully align. And even further, separating the idea of 'the type of person society cannot coexist with to mutual benefit' and 'the type of person I/a hero/a good person/etc cannot coexist with to our mutual benefit', and thereby understand better how a complex party could function...

And that's how you get characters like Taylor from Worm or Walter Tye from Never Die Twice or Callum Wells from Paranoid Mage, where different people can legitimately hold different judgments over 'would I want this person to live in my society?', 'could I work with this person?', 'am I rooting for this person to succeed in their plans?', etc.

[Talakeal]

If (some of) the other players manage to create PCs you recognize as villains (not milquetoast) that the GM thinks are ok, why can't you ?

I did.

If (some of) the other players manage to create PCs you recognize as heroes (not milquetoast) that can coexist with said villains, why can't you ?

They did not.

If it basically boils down to "You can't imagine characters that are not disruptive and against the GMs wishes and still not boring to play", well, you shouldn't play in this group.

I had a character. It was going fine. Then mid-session the GM threw us a curveball and said, "I said evil characters were allowed, but crazy characters are not."

Which retroactively invalidates my character as her PTSD is a big part of her personality and why she is willing to travel with the group.

Bob's character is, IMO, a text-book narcissist and worse. The ogre and the fairy are played as fairly typical of their race, which IMO would be insane by human standards as fairies are chaotic and alien creatures and ogres are sadistic and suffer from extreme eating disorders. The other two are new enough I don't have a grasp on their characters to play armchair psychologist yet.

Only a really small minority of examples from me or King of Nowhere or gbaji fit the "smugglers and scoundrels" category. How glorified by pop culture or actually evil those are is not really important here.

I would say Quark definitely does; he is selfish and motivated by financial gain, but he doesn't actually like it when people get hurt as a result of his schemes, and the few episodes where he gets an opportunity to make money by hurting people he always agonizes over it and makes the right choice in the end.

As for Garak and Phillipa, I think I would label them more as pragmatists. They don't display any real sadism or selfishness, they are just willing to do whatever it takes to get the job done. Honestly, Phillipa is kind of a bad Terran, as the mirror universe is depicted as utterly self destructive with all the betrayal, to the point where the society shouldn't actually work (much like the FR drow), but she never betrays anyone IIRC.

This is certainly the alignment Bob always plays on the rare occasions when we do an actual heroic good campaign. And, honestly, my character could well fall into this category, although I think she is a bit too emotional for that myself, but I don't think it would actually stop people from complaining OOC about how evil I was when it came to it.

Neither is important whether you think you can find some disorder they might have (which is generally futile with fictional characters anyway).

Again, only important is that you try to understand what your GM means with evil not crazy and follow this intent. All the rules lawyering about "evil" and questioning of "crazy" is utterly unnecessary unless you eventually plan to argue with your GM about your character fitting those criteria or not. If you are preparing for such an argument you already are set on not following your GMs intent. Don't do that.

If you are really uncertain, ask your GM for clarification. Don't stay intentionally uncertain to later use it as a shield in the way of "I really didn't understand what you meant".

The problem is that Brian is pretty hypocritical about morality, and I feel like uses it more as a shield than a rule.

His characters, both PC and NPC, engage in every evil act you can think of; murder, rape, torture, slavery, extortion, biological warfare, cannibalism, violence towards children, black magic, kidnapping, robbery, arson, etc. But periodically when similar tactics are used against his characters (again either PC or NPC) he will get mad and say that he isn't interested in a game with such problematic elements and will X-card the scene or threaten to leave / kick players out of the game.

But yeah, the idea of playing a villain who isn't crazy isn't a logical one; its like asking someone to play a wizard without spells or an elf without pointy ears, it is just an apparent paradox to me.

I might be able to get him to give me a solid definition, but I doubt he actually has one in mind.

Originally you opened the thread to ask if others have similar problems to you. The overwhelming majority says they don't.

It wasn't a problem so much as an observation. And I don't see it as being one sided, especially not overwhelmingly so, as there are a fair number of posters on both sides.


So two things happened in my last gaming session (I will try and be brief).

We came across two poachers on the road transporting drugged baby monsters that they had stolen from their parents and were taking to sell to an arena. They weren't actively hostile. The DM put it in as a sort of moral test. I responded by slipping a slow-acting antidote to the monsters so that they would wake up in the middle of the night, eat the poachers, and escape. This was really bugging me, as they didn't really deserve to die, but at the same time I felt like they needed to be stopped. And then the monsters deserve to be free but might die so far away from their homes and their mother, or they might go on a rampage and cause trouble for innocent people. It felt like a problem with no good solution, and I really wished I had been playing a more stand-up hero character and could have justified actually going to the trouble of finding an equitable solution.
That was what inspired me to make the thread.

Later on, we were attacked by a group of (raiders?). One of them slipped behind our lines, ignored the combat, and attempted to strangle the child I was protecting. When I caught him, I attempted to interrogate him, and the DM said he "passed out from pain". I cast a spell on him that forced him to remain conscious but did not heal his wounds, and tried again. He still remained silent. I threatened to feed him to the ogre. He still remained silent. So I told the ogre to go ahead and eat him. The DM then asked if I was going to dispel the spell first, and I asked why I would waste magic doing that, at which point the DM, aghast at the idea of being eaten while alive and conscious, got mad and came up with the rule that crazy characters are no longer allowed in evil parties.

At this point I'm probably just repeating myself, but I don't understand why your character – whether good, neutral or just a different flavour of evil – would just default to going along with whatever the party was doing.

Because I am trying to avoid OOC conflict.

Make them about protecting innocents, but not about punishing evildoers. There will be many more groups they will fit in and they will be no less heroic for it. And "not hurting innocents" is something most evil characters can accept as a price to get a powerful ally.

Punishing evil doers never crossed my mind.

I was only talking about protecting the innocent.

The problem is, that would include protecting them from your own party, and as I said above, unless they are harming innocents, they are not, imo, an evil party.

And again, this is descriptive vs prescriptive, quibbling about the definition of where the line of evil is doesn't matter, as I am describing parties that I consider evil, regardless of what you might label them.

you are contradicting yourself.
first you say that the desire to cause suffering is evil.
then you say that "villains who care nothing for others and will cause suffering as needed to achieve their goals" are evil.
those villains do not desire to cause suffering, they do as part of their goals. heck, even the guy murdering a traveler in the wood and stealing his stuff is doing what he's doing for simple utilitarian purposes, with no desire to cause suffering.

There is no contradiction. I said causing suffering is evil AND so is the desire to cause suffering. I didn't say causing suffering without intent wasn't evil.

anyway, that definition of "villains who care nothing for others and will cause suffering as needed to achieve their goals" is exactly the kind of evil that works well in a party with good people.
and sure, they must restrain themselves a bit, because a paladin will certainly not condone murder for theft. but think of the pros and cons: is it really worth to kill a random stranger in the forest to steal his stuff? how much riches can he really have, anyway? (and if he has many riches, chances are he can defend himself and potentially kill you). and while the chances of you being discovered are, as you pointed out, rather low, it's still not impossible. especially in a world with divination magic.
so you are potentially incurring the risk of angering a clan for a very meager gain that you don't need. bad deal.
on the other hand, by not killing people to steal their stuff - or, rather, by killing only the bad people that the rest of society wants you to kill, and only steal their stuff - you can be friend with the paladin. it means you have someone trustworthy and dependable to watch your back. you don't need to worry about him pilfering part of your loot. you don't have to worry about him knifing you in the night and running away with your loot. having a heroic reputation means you can ask help and trade favors. even in a brozne age society with little organization, being owed favors is always useful.
on the other hand, the paladin - if he's not played like miko - may well comprimise a bit himself. you are useful. you solve problems. and you're doing a lot less evil by adventuring with him than you'd be doing otherwise, so he's actually trying to redeem an evildoer. as long as you don't cross certain lines. murder for futile reasons? big no. stealing stuff that's needed for the plot? well, he may refrain to ask you how you got it. torturing prisoners? his code obliges him to stop you, but right now he's taken a toilet break, if you don't hurt those guys too much and you get him informations that save lives, the paladin may let it slide.

That requires more compromise on both sides than I have ever actually seen work at a table. It is absolutely possible, but IMO the whole thing is a balancing act which is either going to end in conflict (either IC or OOC) or with one side just caving and letting the other do whatever they want.

I don't think anyone in my group is capable of that.

if that's not evil enough for you - wait, I'm not sure, didn't you say you wanted to play a hero? so you can only play a hero or a total pshyco? if those are the only options, and neither are viable, I suggest you either compromise a bit on what you want to play, or look for another game. No hurt feelings, creative differences happen.

Total psycho? No.

But I am not interested in playing a perfectly logical robot who pursues everything efficiently and without emotion.

So my Paladin has a genocidal quest to kill all life, and Animate it as Undead, to end all suffering, as the pinnacle of Exalted Good.

I like.

You have also caused an immense amount of suffering in bringing about your goals, and eliminated any pleasure along with alleviating suffering.

But yes, that is a rationale line of though; its not terribly different from the outlook of the BBEG in my game.

My experiences with Amanda Waller suggest that she is about the *last* person one should use as a model for “party cohesion”. She seems better suited to the role of “antagonist it feels so satisfying to kill”, IMO.

I agree, I was just trying to think of a neutral(ish) character who is able to manipulate a group of actively evil characters to accomplish her own ends and that is the closest I could come up with.

That said, if you struggle to conceptualize characters outside the set [insane (“evil”), milksop (“neutral”), actively desires to harm and oppose others (“good”)], then I can see why you’re having problems making a character that works well with others without being a milksop.

So… play milksops while observing the characters others play that actually work with one another without being milksops? Continue playing milksops until you think you know how such personalities work… then test one or more or in one-shots? And maybe drop your words like “good”, “evil”, and “insane”, and instead just look at how people like authors define and describe personality while you’re at it?

I didn't say neutral had to be a milksop. I said a good or neutral character who was going along with blatantly evil characters is going to be a milksop.

Likewise, I would only say "harm" is part of the definition of good because its a game of action and adventure, and is going to occur regardless of alignment.

But yes, good does oppose evil. And vice versa. Just like law opposes chaos and vice versa.

So… play milksops while observing the characters others play that actually work with one another without being milksops? Continue playing milksops until you think you know how such personalities work… then test one or more or in one-shots? And maybe drop your words like “good”, “evil”, and “insane”, and instead just look at how people like authors define and describe personality while you’re at it?

Ha. Ha. Ha.

I am constantly tying myself in knots trying to keep the party together.

The idea that I could just passively sit back and watch a functional party form is ludicrous.

Based on every time I have tried something similar in the past, the answer is that they will kill one another's characters and then storm out of the house.

This might be the root of your problem. I think you need to expand the range of what you define as evil, to include people who are not insane, and who act in an otherwise rational manner, but simply have a moral compass that says "it's ok to cause harm to others as long as it benefits me", when most people would put much higher threshholds on when harm is ok than that.

To me, that seems to be more or less a textbook sociopath.

You don't have to be a psychopath to be evil. And I honestly think the easiest measurement is the theft scenario. If you would only steal from someone if there is some other "cause" that benefits from it and justifies it, then you aren't evil. If you're willing to steal just because the other person has something and you want it for yourself? That's evil. If that's the type of morality you express regularly, then your alignment is evil. Whether you kill the person or not is beside the point. Just the theft decision alone is enough to qualify.

We aren't going to agree here.

I don't see the concept of ownership as inherently one of morality.

Theft is an issue of law / chaos, not one of good and evil.

If the baker is going to throw out his unsold bread, it is absolutely a good act to steal it and give it to starving orphans IMO.

Not that it really matters, as nobody in my current party is really playing a thief, and I wouldn't care one way or the other if they were.

I am not going to kick someone out of a heroic party for playing a thief, so unless you are suggesting that I should simply play a thief and then use that to justify hanging out with a bunch of murder-rape-cannibals because we are both on team evil, I am not sure how you think that me lowering my bar of evil to include theft is actually going to change anything?



Edit: @Quertus: Yes, I am aware I am dodging your question. Its a toughie and I am still trying to wrap my head around exactly what you meant.

[Batcathat]

Because I am trying to avoid OOC conflict.

I think this is a big part of why most people aren't having the same problem. In most groups an IC conflict won't lead to an OOC conflict so having a good character trying to push an evil party into doing good (or for that matter an evil character trying to push a good party to do evil) isn't much of an issue. It can get old, of course, but that's true of pretty much any character dynamic.

[gbaji]

We came across two poachers on the road transporting drugged baby monsters that they had stolen from their parents and were taking to sell to an arena. They weren't actively hostile. The DM put it in as a sort of moral test. I responded by slipping a slow-acting antidote to the monsters so that they would wake up in the middle of the night, eat the poachers, and escape. This was really bugging me, as they didn't really deserve to die, but at the same time I felt like they needed to be stopped. And then the monsters deserve to be free but might die so far away from their homes and their mother, or they might go on a rampage and cause trouble for innocent people. It felt like a problem with no good solution, and I really wished I had been playing a more stand-up hero character and could have justified actually going to the trouble of finding an equitable solution.
That was what inspired me to make the thread.

Maybe you aren't cut out to play an evil character? This seems exactly like what an evil character (but who is not a crazed killer) would do. You're "helping", but in a way that causes pain and suffering, and maybe some random violence down the line, but hey, all you did was free the monsters, right? Of course, you also could have killed the poachers, then taken the monsters, kept them for yourself, and trained them as pets, or maybe sold them yourself for a profit. That might be even more on the evil side. Kinda depends on how committed you are to dealing with these monsters yourself.

Later on, we were attacked by a group of (raiders?). One of them slipped behind our lines, ignored the combat, and attempted to strangle the child I was protecting. When I caught him, I attempted to interrogate him, and the DM said he "passed out from pain". I cast a spell on him that forced him to remain conscious but did not heal his wounds, and tried again. He still remained silent. I threatened to feed him to the ogre. He still remained silent. So I told the ogre to go ahead and eat him. The DM then asked if I was going to dispel the spell first, and I asked why I would waste magic doing that, at which point the DM, aghast at the idea of being eaten while alive and conscious, got mad and came up with the rule that crazy characters are no longer allowed in evil parties.

I've got a couple questions on this one.

First off. The GM is having an NPC ignore the combat against the opponents his side is fighting (the PCs) in order to strangle a child, but he has a problem with the PCs feeding that guy to an Ogre? Holy cognitive dissonance Batman!

Secondly, the game system you are playing apparently has a spell that ensures people remain conscious even when having taken damage sufficient to render them unconscious, but not a spell to say compel someone to speak the truth, or read their thoughts, or something? Er... And you guys don't see why that might lead to torture of enemies?

It looks like the GM's objection wasn't to killing the NPC, or even killing him by having the Ogre eat him, but that you kept the spell on him that ensured he would stay conscious and feel it? Er... Sorry. I can't wrap my head around that one. In a game where people are constantly having grave wounds inflicted on them, only to be healed and walk it off a minute later, this just seems backwards to me. I'm in no way condoning torture as a means to get information, but let's put this a bit in perspective here. Doubly so if your character is actually supposed to be evil.

That by no means falls into the "crazy not evil" conditions previously set.

I don't see the concept of ownership as inherently one of morality.

Theft is an issue of law / chaos, not one of good and evil.

If the baker is going to throw out his unsold bread, it is absolutely a good act to steal it and give it to starving orphans IMO.

You keep contriving cases to inject some assumed positive moral motivation. Stop doing that. If someone steals the baker's bread, not because they are starving, or to give it to orphans, but to sell it for their own profit, that is evil. Doesn't have to kill anyone. Taking stuff from someone purely for your own beneifit is an evil act. Period. Full Stop.

I find it baffling that you don't see property theft as an issue of morality. And no. It's not law/chaos. While there's some element of "doesn't follow the rules" in a chaotic alignment, trying to follow a strict "breaks the law" as an indicator of a chaotic alignment and only a chaotic alignment is an exercise in silliness. Evil acts are evil because of the harm they cause and the reasons that harm is caused. The fact that those things may also be "against the rules" doesn't make them only an issue of law/chaos. Otherwise nearly every single evil act would cease to be evil and become chaotic instead. Which will totally skew any alignment system you try to use (and not in a good way).

[Talakeal]

Maybe you aren't cut out to play an evil character? This seems exactly like what an evil character (but who is not a crazed killer) would do. You're "helping", but in a way that causes pain and suffering, and maybe some random violence down the line, but hey, all you did was free the monsters, right? Of course, you also could have killed the poachers, then taken the monsters, kept them for yourself, and trained them as pets, or maybe sold them yourself for a profit. That might be even more on the evil side. Kinda depends on how committed you are to dealing with these monsters yourself.

I kind of agree, that's kind of my whole problem. I don't like playing evil characters, but I do it anyway because it avoids group drama.

First off. The GM is having an NPC ignore the combat against the opponents his side is fighting (the PCs) in order to strangle a child, but he has a problem with the PCs feeding that guy to an Ogre? Holy cognitive dissonance Batman!

Secondly, the game system you are playing apparently has a spell that ensures people remain conscious even when having taken damage sufficient to render them unconscious, but not a spell to say compel someone to speak the truth, or read their thoughts, or something? Er... And you guys don't see why that might lead to torture of enemies?

It looks like the GM's objection wasn't to killing the NPC, or even killing him by having the Ogre eat him, but that you kept the spell on him that ensured he would stay conscious and feel it? Er... Sorry. I can't wrap my head around that one. In a game where people are constantly having grave wounds inflicted on them, only to be healed and walk it off a minute later, this just seems backwards to me. I'm in no way condoning torture as a means to get information, but let's put this a bit in perspective here. Doubly so if your character is actually supposed to be evil.

That by no means falls into the "crazy not evil" conditions previously set.

That is my feeling as well.

AFAICT the DM has an objection not to violence, but to torture. Killing him is one thing, but eating him alive is another. Although he has engaged in torture as a PC and NPC often enough himself.

We have a healer and a necromancer in the party, we do not have a diviner or beguiler, so our options are somewhat limited.

You keep contriving cases to inject some assumed positive moral motivation. Stop doing that. If someone steals the baker's bread, not because they are starving, or to give it to orphans, but to sell it for their own profit, that is evil. Doesn't have to kill anyone. Taking stuff from someone purely for your own beneifit is an evil act. Period. Full Stop.

I find it baffling that you don't see property theft as an issue of morality. And no. It's not law/chaos. While there's some element of "doesn't follow the rules" in a chaotic alignment, trying to follow a strict "breaks the law" as an indicator of a chaotic alignment and only a chaotic alignment is an exercise in silliness. Evil acts are evil because of the harm they cause and the reasons that harm is caused. The fact that those things may also be "against the rules" doesn't make them only an issue of law/chaos. Otherwise nearly every single evil act would cease to be evil and become chaotic instead. Which will totally skew any alignment system you try to use (and not in a good way).

I don't think we are going to agree.

The concept of "ownership" doesn't hold a lot of moral water for me, and is, in my opinion, a matter of law / chaos vs. good / evil.

Theft, by itself, is totally morally neutral. It is the harm which is done by depriving people of their possessions that is evil. But if someone has more than they ever need, there is no harm done there, and if you give it to someone who does have need, that is, in my opinion, a good act. Aladdin and Robin Hood are both good thieves because they take from people who have plenty and are living comfortably and give it to people who are poor and suffering. If they steal from people who have plenty and are comfortable and keep it for themselves, they would be neutral, and stealing from the people who are poor and suffering for their own benefit would be evil.

Again, this isn't really an issue of "the law" as the sheriff of Nottingham is evil even though his taxation of the poor is backed by authority.

For example, my first long term character was a NG druid. She thought the idea of land ownership was absurd, as nature has no master, and thought nothing of poaching on a noble's private grounds or even foraging in a farmer's orchard. But she would never actually take food from a hungry person even if she were herself starving.


But this is pretty similar to conversations I have had in the past about poison or necromancy. I don't believe that methods have an alignment, only the results.


Edit: I think more succinctly; stealing in a situation where the recipient of the stolen goods has a worse lot in life than the original owner is generally good, and if the recipient has a better lot in life than the originally owner it is generally evil, and if they are roughly the same it is generally neutral. The concept of property and ownership is inherently lawful, and violating that understanding is inherently chaotic, regardless of the actual written law of the land.

Again, this is all my opinion, but I have just talked it over with the DM and he agrees.

[King of Nowhere]

Later on, we were attacked by a group of (raiders?). One of them slipped behind our lines, ignored the combat, and attempted to strangle the child I was protecting. When I caught him, I attempted to interrogate him, and the DM said he "passed out from pain". I cast a spell on him that forced him to remain conscious but did not heal his wounds, and tried again. He still remained silent. I threatened to feed him to the ogre. He still remained silent. So I told the ogre to go ahead and eat him. The DM then asked if I was going to dispel the spell first, and I asked why I would waste magic doing that, at which point the DM, aghast at the idea of being eaten while alive and conscious, got mad and came up with the rule that crazy characters are no longer allowed in evil parties.

errr...
how is that crazy? the reasoning was sound. this is the kind of evil some of my good characters could condone, since the target had it coming. I mean, you tried to kill a child AND you're not even trying to cooperate? what else should we do with this guy? at my table we would at most complain that it is a waste of a potentially valuable witness and that maybe compulsion magic could work better. A question for the dm would be why this mook was so fanatical that he's willing to face death under torture rather than talk. Unless perhaps he was a mute, plot twist!
I also find it very peculiar that the dm is comfortable with a campaign where a mook attempts to strangle a child, but he's horrified when said mook is eaten alive. No, I can't judge whare other people put their lines, but I can find them peculiar, because in my book strangling a child is a lot worse than creatively executing an attempted child murderer.
furthermore, this is not even disruptive. you are not creating problems for the party.

That requires more compromise on both sides than I have ever actually seen work at a table. It is absolutely possible, but IMO the whole thing is a balancing act which is either going to end in conflict (either IC or OOC) or with one side just caving and letting the other do whatever they want.

I don't think anyone in my group is capable of that.

restraining from killing a random hobo to steal a few copper pieces doesn't seem such a great compromise. nor does closing an eye on moderate evil acts done against the villains - people you'd have no qualms attacking on sight anyway. I mean, isn't it silly? if you met them on a proper battlefield you'd be pulling out your holy sword and hitting smite evil on them, but poisoning would be a big no? What's the point? Do we have to kill this guy or not?

anyway, while most groups have no problems doing those kind of compromises - as showcased by so many people answering in the first page that yes, they handle morality differences like that and it works - I have to back up your assessment that in your group it may not be possible.

[icefractal]

I also find it very peculiar that the dm is comfortable with a campaign where a mook attempts to strangle a child, but he's horrified when said mook is eaten alive. No, I can't judge whare other people put their lines, but I can find them peculiar, because in my book strangling a child is a lot worse than creatively executing an attempted child murderer.
furthermore, this is not even disruptive. you are not creating problems for the party.

Honestly, from everything written here, this GM (Brian?) seems quite hypocritical - he's fine with "dishing out" evil (and maybe even enjoys doing so), but he can't "take it" when he's the one on the receiving end (even as an NPC). Normally I would suggest bringing that up (outside the session), but from everything Talakeal's written about the group, that would just result in anger and a completely unwillingness to see the point.

Also, if T has been the one more often being "the voice of reason" and/or holding the party together, then maybe the GM is holding a double standard - "it's fine for the other PCs to be psychopaths, but you're supposed to counter-balance them by being normal!" Which would be a crappy thing to do, but I have seen it even with less dysfunctional groups.

[Quertus]

Ha. Ha. Ha.

I am constantly tying myself in knots trying to keep the party together.

The idea that I could just passively sit back and watch a functional party form is ludicrous.

Based on every time I have tried something similar in the past, the answer is that they will kill one another's characters and then storm out of the house.

Sorry, I couldn’t help but give you the opportunity to point that out, lest anyone forget (and for the folks at home who are new to your threads).

Still, if the GM wasn’t (mis)using the words “evil” and “insane”, I’d suggest you’d benefit by dropping them in conversations about personality.

Edit: @Quertus: Yes, I am aware I am dodging your question. Its a toughie and I am still trying to wrap my head around exactly what you meant.

It’s… not meant to be tough. So… let’s rewind the thread, and look at one example conversation.

Suppose I suggest the “Troll with an axe” to a party of Mirror shades. They might immediately reckon that said Troll sounds pretty incompatible with their modus operandi, and point that out. However, it’s easy to tie working with them into the goal of the action: there are ways to protect people that don’t require the swinging of an axe.

That said, I / the Troll could point out how having a “heavy” could benefit *their* goals - they would no longer be forced to turn down lucrative opportunities just because they were (potentially) “too dangerous” for their group, nor would they be so readily outclassed by opposing heavies. Having a Troll with an axe who understands the value of subtlety adds options to their playbook, rather than removing them.

So then it’s just the question of whether the Troll also knows that, or, if they don’t, how and when we want the necessary revelation for their compatibility to occur. One of the easiest things might be to run through the character’s “job interview”, to let everyone get a feel for each other. If we don’t think it’s a good match, we now have experience to build off of.

Of course, given the nature of the problems you’re having, well, any sane replies are more intended for the folks at home who might be going through more normal versions of “how do we make a group work” problems. As is sadly normal, your problems are not a level-appropriate DC.

[Satinavian]

The problem is that Brian is pretty hypocritical about morality, and I feel like uses it more as a shield than a rule.

Because I am trying to avoid OOC conflict.

Out of character problems need out of character solutions.

And how is this again about Bob and Brian ? Didn't you recently tell, you have different groups as well with other people ?


Beside that i won't go deeper into your group(s) and recommendations for it. They are, as presented by you, way to different from any roleplaying experience i know.

[Talakeal]

Beside that i won't go deeper into your group(s) and recommendations for it. They are, as presented by you, way to different from any roleplaying experience i know.

That's fine. The game is going fine and doesn't really have any major issues right now. This was mostly just me musing about how I preemptively make a villainous character in an effort to stave off the inevitable conflict.

Out of character problems need out of character solutions.

Very curious where you draw that line.

For example, if two people are RPing their characters to the best of their ability and their goals come into conflict so that the characters would actively try and stop / kill one another, or at the very least no longer be in the same party, is this an OOC issue or an IC issue? To me it seems to be an IC problem with an OOC solution.

And how is this again about Bob and Brian ? Didn't you recently tell, you have different groups as well with other people ?

I have been in a few online games recently, but I haven't been part of a different in person group in ~5 years now.

The online games are mostly bland, they don't tend to have as much conflict or drama, but are not nearly as fun either and are mostly tedious.

It’s… not meant to be tough. So… let’s rewind the thread, and look at one example conversation.

Suppose I suggest the “Troll with an axe” to a party of Mirror shades. They might immediately reckon that said Troll sounds pretty incompatible with their modus operandi, and point that out. However, it’s easy to tie working with them into the goal of the action: there are ways to protect people that don’t require the swinging of an axe.

That said, I / the Troll could point out how having a “heavy” could benefit *their* goals - they would no longer be forced to turn down lucrative opportunities just because they were (potentially) “too dangerous” for their group, nor would they be so readily outclassed by opposing heavies. Having a Troll with an axe who understands the value of subtlety adds options to their playbook, rather than removing them.

So then it’s just the question of whether the Troll also knows that, or, if they don’t, how and when we want the necessary revelation for their compatibility to occur. One of the easiest things might be to run through the character’s “job interview”, to let everyone get a feel for each other. If we don’t think it’s a good match, we now have experience to build off of.

Of course, given the nature of the problems you’re having, well, any sane replies are more intended for the folks at home who might be going through more normal versions of “how do we make a group work” problems. As is sadly normal, your problems are not a level-appropriate DC.

Sure, that works fine.

The issue is that a lot of players will at times either get bored OOC or decide they are RPing a stupid impulsive troll, and then decide to ignore the plan and cause some havoc.

But that still doesn't help when you have characters whose goals are fundamentally incompatible like "protect the innocent" and "murder anyone who I can get away with and raise as my undead slave". And that isn't some extreme worst case scenario, those are actual examples I have gamed with more than once.

[King of Nowhere]

Very curious where you draw that line.

For example, if two people are RPing their characters to the best of their ability and their goals come into conflict so that the characters would actively try and stop / kill one another, or at the very least no longer be in the same party, is this an OOC issue or an IC issue? To me it seems to be an IC problem with an OOC solution.

I would still call it an OOC problem: the two players made characters with incompatible goals.
It's a mantra that gets repeated all around here: each player is responsible for bringing a character that will want to cooperate with the team. Each player is responsible for making a character that fits with the team. this is why we have session 0.
I woulndn't blame either player, mishaps happen, especially in long campaigns where characters can have development. But it's absolutely a failure of character creation, i.e. and ooc problem.
An ic problem is stuff like "I can't fly and we keep engaging flying monsters, how can I contribute?" or "do I save my spell slots or do I spam everything I have at the first encounter?"

[PhoenixPhyre]

I would still call it an OOC problem: the two players made characters with incompatible goals.
It's a mantra that gets repeated all around here: each player is responsible for bringing a character that will want to cooperate with the team. Each player is responsible for making a character that fits with the team. this is why we have session 0.
I woulndn't blame either player, mishaps happen, especially in long campaigns where characters can have development. But it's absolutely a failure of character creation, i.e. and ooc problem.
An ic problem is stuff like "I can't fly and we keep engaging flying monsters, how can I contribute?" or "do I save my spell slots or do I spam everything I have at the first encounter?"

I fully agree. Everyone chooses and is fully responsible for the character they bring--if it's incompatible...choose differently. That's fully OOC.

[Talakeal]

I would still call it an OOC problem: the two players made characters with incompatible goals.
It's a mantra that gets repeated all around here: each player is responsible for bringing a character that will want to cooperate with the team. Each player is responsible for making a character that fits with the team. this is why we have session 0.
I woulndn't blame either player, mishaps happen, especially in long campaigns where characters can have development. But it's absolutely a failure of character creation, i.e. and ooc problem.
An ic problem is stuff like "I can't fly and we keep engaging flying monsters, how can I contribute?" or "do I save my spell slots or do I spam everything I have at the first encounter?"

Ok then, so why couldn’t it have an in character solution?

Like, say the witch-hunter comes to an in character agreement with the vampire that they can journey together so long as the vampire only feeds on criminals and heretics?

[Pauly]

Ok then, so why couldn’t it have an in character solution?

Like, say the witch-hunter comes to an in character agreement with the vampire that they can journey together so long as the vampire only feeds on criminals and heretics?

Because that isn’t actually an IC decision. That’s an OOC action disguised as an IC decision. It may depend a little on the setting but in the traditional setting witch hunters hunt and destroy evil magic and vampires are inherently magical and evil.

A less extreme may be plausible, such as lawful paladin journeying with a thief as long as the thief doesn’t steal while they are in the same party. But if the thief is a kleptomaniac and continues to steal then the thief/paladin conflict will eventually boil over.

[Talakeal]

Because that isn’t actually an IC decision. That’s an OOC action disguised as an IC decision. It may depend a little on the setting but in the traditional setting witch hunters hunt and destroy evil magic and vampires are inherently magical and evil.

A less extreme may be plausible, such as lawful paladin journeying with a thief as long as the thief doesn’t steal while they are in the same party. But if the thief is a kleptomaniac and continues to steal then the thief/paladin conflict will eventually boil over.

I don't know, I could easily see something like that happening in universe, and I can think of plenty of examples of single author fiction where similar things have happened.

Of course, you could say that it was still an OOC decision that happened by authorial fiat, but at that point the whole line between IC/OOC problems/solutions is so blurry that I am not sure they have much meaning anymore.

[KorvinStarmast]

I fully agree. Everyone chooses and is fully responsible for the character they bring--if it's incompatible...choose differently. That's fully OOC.

Summarized in two pithy terms:
DBAD
DBAE

Spoiler: E? What about MC^2?

Show

Where E = edgelord

[MoiMagnus]

Ok then, so why couldn’t it have an in character solution?

Like, say the witch-hunter comes to an in character agreement with the vampire that they can journey together so long as the vampire only feeds on criminals and heretics?

A in-universe solutions can be part of a OOC solutions. But around this in-universe agreement, there is always implicitly an agreement OOC about what this in-universe agreement actually means.

Notably, what has to be determined (possibly implicitly if the players are used to play together) is whether this agreement is bound by table rules, or if it's expected from the witch-hunter to police the vampire and constantly check that they're indeed keeping their part of the deal because the vampire might be dishonest (and that reciprocally the vampire has to worry about this deal not being an elaborate trap from the witch-hunter).

[Satinavian]

For example, if two people are RPing their characters to the best of their ability and their goals come into conflict so that the characters would actively try and stop / kill one another, or at the very least no longer be in the same party, is this an OOC issue or an IC issue? To me it seems to be an IC problem with an OOC solution.

That is usually an IC problem. That can be recognized by the players all agreeing that this was proper roleplaying and them not being upset about each others characters actions.

However, what we were just discussing was slightly different. It was a GM argueing with you about wheter your characters behavior was table appropriate. And you thinking he was a hypocrite in light of other, earlier decisions.

That is an OOC problem.

And i am not interested in discussing whether you or Brian are right in this instance. I don't really care. That it is between you and Brian and not between player characters in the first place makes it OOC.

[Talakeal]

That is usually an IC problem. That can be recognized by the players all agreeing that this was proper role-playing and them not being upset about each others characters actions.

However, what we were just discussing was slightly different. It was a GM arguing with you about whether your characters behavior was table appropriate. And you thinking he was a hypocrite in light of other, earlier decisions.

That is an OOC problem.

And i am not interested in discussing whether you or Brian are right in this instance. I don't really care. That it is between you and Brian and not between player characters in the first place makes it OOC.

Ok. I thought we were still talking about PCs with incompatible alignments.

I totally agree that the DM putting in a rule mid game about not allowing "crazy" characters is an OOC issue that needs to be solved OOC. I am not going to change my character's personality and backstory, and I do agree that arguing about semantic definitions of "crazy" and "evil" are totally pointless, although there may be an OOC solution involved if we can actually establish some objective ground rules.

No, I don't need your support or want you to validate my opinion, from my PoV Brian is clearly being hypocritical, and as you are hearing the whole story from my perspective it would be surprising if you came away with a different opinion based on that, thus rendering it meaningless anyway.

[King of Nowhere]

I don't know, I could easily see something like that happening in universe, and I can think of plenty of examples of single author fiction where similar things have happened.

yes, that's exactly the point!
many things could reasonably happen in-universe, and all players involved decide to push the narrative in the direction that will not cause intra-party problems. ooc solutions do not break a sensible narrative. it's not like the sky turns purple and a giant hand comes down separating the two conflicting characters.
the reason most gaing groups work without drama is that players involved can easily come to those sort of compromises. how much those flow naturally into the story is a matter of skill.

Of course, you could say that it was still an OOC decision that happened by authorial fiat, but at that point the whole line between IC/OOC problems/solutions is so blurry that I am not sure they have much meaning anymore.

look, the core point is very easy:
unless you specifically decided to play that kind of campaign, if you come to a point where pc A would want to attack pc B, then the table screwed up big time and must find a solution.
emphasis on the whole table, because before that kind of strife there are signs, and if the enmity became that bad then those signs were ignored by everyone.
corollary 1: if there were no previous telltale signs, then pc A would not want to immediately use violence. If pc A is the kind of guy who would attack a fellow at the first disagreement, then the player is responsible for playing an unstable madman.
corollary 2: if it's just one player being unreasonable, then it's still everyone's responsibility to fix the problem. in this specific case, it's everyone's responsibility to get the one unreasonable guy to see he's being unreasonable. if he won't, then it's everyone's responsibility to kick the troll.

characters have goals and personalities and that's great, but the very moment those become conflicting and threaten the stability of the party, then it immediately becomes an ooc problem.

I will concede that problems can be both ic and ooc at the same time. conflicting goals would be such. and in that case the solution must work both ic and ooc. the characters (in character) agree to compromise, while the players (out of characters) agree that their characters will find a compromise.

[Pauly]

I don't know, I could easily see something like that happening in universe, and I can think of plenty of examples of single author fiction where similar things have happened.

Of course, you could say that it was still an OOC decision that happened by authorial fiat, but at that point the whole line between IC/OOC problems/solutions is so blurry that I am not sure they have much meaning anymore.

The single author fiction where incompatible souls are in the same party usually have the party members chained together. Sometimes literally, sometimes with a high tech equivalent such as Amanda Waller’s neck bombs. Other times it’s a lifeboat scenario or an Anabasis scenario. It is commonly used to create in party conflict that has to be overcome as part of the plot.

Most RPG parties are, generally, a group of individuals who choose to work together. There is no in universe force compelling the party to adventure together. Even in the exemptions, such as a group of soldiers selected for a mission, there is nothing keeping the party together once the mission is complete. A vaguely competent commander will change out a team member if they find out having 2 individuals in their team together is mixing nitro and glycerine.

The problem with saying the I.c/OOC line is blurry that it’s a cop out. Yes you can have OOC issues resolved by IC handwaving, and that’s fine if it allows the group to have fun. Where it isn’t OK is where one person’s fun* gets sacrificed so the group can function.

(* by ‘fun’ I exclude trolling and being an asshat to annoy other players)

[Talakeal]

he problem with saying the I.c/OOC line is blurry that it’s a cop out. Yes you can have OOC issues resolved by IC handwaving, and that’s fine if it allows the group to have fun. Where it isn’t OK is where one person’s fun* gets sacrificed so the group can function.

I don't know how you can possibly have a group where that isn't the case as players tend to find their fun in such drastically different ways.

If one guy gets their fun from playing a heroic LG paladin who defends the innocent and another gets their fun from playing a villainous CE assassin who defiles the innocent, there really can't be a situation where both have fun working together; a compromise is going to have to be found both in and out of character.

[kyoryu]

I don't know how you can possibly have a group where that isn't the case as players tend to find their fun in such drastically different ways.

If one guy gets their fun from playing a heroic LG paladin who defends the innocent and another gets their fun from playing a villainous CE assassin who defiles the innocent, there really can't be a situation where both have fun working together; a compromise is going to have to be found both in and out of character.

Perhaps a different way of looking at it is, which side of this is driving? Sure, there can (and probably should) be an in-character justification for it, but the reason you're looking for that justification is the out-of-character factors. The players want to play together, and the characters don't get along, so we're going to find a way to make that work. In most cases, if the out-of-character factors didn't exist, the characters would either split or murder each other.

So, yeah, the final resolution should include OOC and IC bits, but it's really, at a fundamental level, the OOC that's usually driving it. And, perhaps more importantly, the IC stuff is fairly easy to figure out once the OOC bits are resolved.

Like, in your situation, if the assassin and paladin players decide that they're going to figure out how that they're going to work together, and how it's going to play out, and what restrictions each character will accept? Then figuring out the IC stuff is pretty easy. But if they don't, and the assassin player insists on killing everyone while the paladin player insists on defending the innocent? THere's no motivation to fix the IC stuff, so it won't get fixed. And until you fix it, any GM-imposed IC solutions will fall flat because the players will be trying to wriggle out of them.

[Satinavian]

Yes, compromises have to be found.

But ... most players actually don't find it particularly difficult to find workable compromises. Which is why most groups don't have such problems. I think the last time i have seen a problem with it was around 20 years ago ? And i had on average multiple RPG sessions per week those two decades with many groups coming and going.

And as those compromises tend to be bespoke, it is not really a solution the forum can give you. We could tell of many strange pairs in our groups that worked and how we made it work, but that will not really help your situation.