| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31799 Posts |
 Posted - 20 Apr 2003 : 10:11:40
|
Greetings,
I am posting this question because I am curious. Several fellow DM's I know where telling me in a conversation we had yesterday, that they have alignment restrictions for their own campaigns. It struck me as odd, since I had never placed restrictions on a PC's alignment.
So basically I just wanted to know whether there are other DM's out there who do the this. Do you place restrictions on a player's alignment, such as no CE or LE PC's allowed in a party, and if so please explain why?.
Thanks all...
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
zemd
Master of Realmslore
France
1103 Posts |
Posted - 20 Apr 2003 : 10:26:17
|
NO restrictions. After Elaith is Evil and share friendship with Danilo.
That's why i allowed a LE blackguard and a CE rogue. In fact i asked the players to play them during 2-3 sessions (at the end the first one was killed by the group adn the latter stole an artifact and escaped)
Since the group is mostly good aligned an Evil guy won't last long, but i allow it |
 |
|
|
Yasraena
Senior Scribe
USA
388 Posts |
Posted - 20 Apr 2003 : 10:54:16
|
It would really depend on the adventure I was running.
My current campaign is based on fighting a greater evil throughout the multiverse, and I couldn't see an evil person wanting anything to do with that. So for that reason alone, I didn't allow evil alignments when the PC's were first created. In another type of campaign, sure I'd allow them. Playing an evil PC can be a challenge and offer some great role playing scenarios in the game. |
"Nindyn vel'uss malar verin z'klaen tlu kyone ulu naut doera nindel vel'bolen nind malar."
Yasraena T'Sarran
Harper of Silverymoon |
|
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1288 Posts |
Posted - 20 Apr 2003 : 18:22:04
|
I like to mix alignments, but I do not allow Paladins to adventure with evil characters. This has actually caused player arguments becasue one wanted to play a paladin, and one evil. SO I made one of them give. I ran a campaign with a Chaotic neitral Dark elf Fighter/Thief, and Lawful good cleric of Ilmater. The dark elf thief was more of a fighter than a thief, so he hired alot of 0-level hirelings. WHY? TO FIND TRAPS.
Merc: I am not going in there
Dark elf: I am paying you good money to go in there
Merc: I am not going
DE: Then you are not getting paid
Merc: Duh OK <trap goes off>
DM: Your find traps shows a pressure plate on the floor
Dark elf: Evryone get back ten feet
Dark elf and Wemic fighter: Throw the merc onto the pressure plate. Trap disarmed. CLERIC VERY VERY MAD.
I also had a similar incident where the Dark elf theif had a gem that would grant restoration spells. (Great for undead) But it had to suck a soul before giving one. SO the Lawful Good cleric was ALWAYS in the dilemma of allowing the thief to have this gem, which he would ask poor peasants to hold (thus sucking their souls) and killing them, but at the same time saving his friends. Note the thief would not do this in the presence of the cleric. and the gem could hold a total of 20 levels. SO that meant the thief was clearing a village of 20 people:)
|
A wizard is Never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he Early. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to... |
|
|
|
kahonen
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
358 Posts |
Posted - 21 Apr 2003 : 01:00:16
|
I tend to run long term campaigns and I don't believe an evil character would fit into this particularly well. I don't believe that good aligned characters would willingly and knowlingly associate with an evil aligned character. My last party, had a priest of Tyr (the God of Justice) who certainly wouldn't have associated with an evil character (or at least not for any longer than it took to collect the evidence ...).
Even allowing for PC's not knowing each other's alignments when their characters are created, how long would it be before the evil character's alignment became apparent? If it takes a long time then I would question whether the player was actually role playing his character. In addition there's the added complication of what happens when the rest of the party find out and refuse to continue with him (which, of course, as good aligned characters they would be perfectly entitled to do).
I also strongly believe that D&D is about fighting the great evils in the world and representing the greater good. I can't see how an evil character would fit into this and tend to keep evil characters as NPCs. Having said that, however, I have DM'ed a few games where ALL of the PCs were evil (either chaotic or neutral) and it was a good laugh. The main problem for me as the DM, was that I could no longer guess how the players would react to a given set of circumstances. Very difficult games to DM  |
Edited by - kahonen on 21 Apr 2003 01:10:19 |
|
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1288 Posts |
Posted - 21 Apr 2003 : 01:20:16
|
| Well said Kahonen. IT was difficult enough with the Chaotic Neutral (who at this juncture is actually more CHaotic Good thanks to the influence of certain clerics), but though I allow it, it makes for a difficult situation. A similar situation I had is when there was DWARVEN/ELVEN conflict in the party. OH it was the BEST party breakup I ever went through. We had to scrap the campaign and start a new one, but everyone loved it. The Dwarven Cleric got so annoyed at the elves (Long story) he would not heal them. THis led to a HEATED argument, and the players actually had to separate from each other for a few moments after because the emotions got a little frantic. But the reason I say the breakup was so good was all of the emotion was INCHARACTER, and perfect. |
A wizard is Never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he Early. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to... |
|
|
|
Wood Elf Ranger
Senior Scribe
USA
627 Posts |
Posted - 08 May 2004 : 05:16:39
|
That is soo funny 
I've never DMed before but if/when I do I would certainly put an alignment restriction. I tend to think a lot like kahonen and my first few attempts at DMing would certainly be geared towards good-aligned parties. But after that I may experiment. I may even go so far as to set an alignment for the campaign somewhat similar to the Temple of Elemental Evil CRPG where you can only be one space away from your party alignment  |
~Lee N.
"Breaktime yes?!.. Yes?.. Maybe?.. Noo, baaack to work.." -Grovel the Goblin from NWN: HotU |
|
|
|
Fireheart
Learned Scribe
USA
109 Posts |
Posted - 08 May 2004 : 05:32:33
|
I do. No Evil and no CN. As a new DM, I am still working on learning the nuances of Dming a campaign where the characters are supposed to be the heroes. I don't feel that I am ready to deal with possibility of interparty conflict.
I don't allow CN, at least right now, because too often, I see players use it as an excuse to play "I do whatever I feel like" type of character, including random killing...no matter the impact it has on the party.
Personally, I need the structure of a good group to work with so I can concentrate on handling the DMing part.
~Fireheart |
I believe in what I see/I believe in what I hear/I believe that what I'm feeling/Changes how the world appears
-Rush "Totem" |
|
|
|
Purple Dragon Knight
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1796 Posts |
Posted - 08 May 2004 : 06:49:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
Merc: I am not going in there
Dark elf: I am paying you good money to go in there
Merc: I am not going
DE: Then you are not getting paid
Merc: Duh OK <trap goes off>
DM: Your find traps shows a pressure plate on the floor
Dark elf: Evryone get back ten feet
Dark elf and Wemic fighter: Throw the merc onto the pressure plate. Trap disarmed. CLERIC VERY VERY MAD.
IMO, the Ilmater cleric should have "stepped up to the plate" and insisted on walking through the corridor, arms raised in the air, saying "Ilmater! grant me the strenght to endure the pain that these poor, helpless souls would suffer! let me take this burden on their stead!!"
That kind of roleplay would have made the Dark Elf reconsider using mercs as cannon-fodder, for he would remember the last time he tried this and the cleric (which is coincidentally, his lifejacket) opposed himself by risking his life "to take the pain of others."
Good roleplay on behalf of the dark elf, not so good roleplay on behalf of the Ilmaterian... |
|
|
|
Bookwyrm
Great Reader
USA
4740 Posts |
Posted - 08 May 2004 : 06:54:24
|
Interesting. I was talking about D&D with two friends today, and alignment came up. One friend was surprised to find you could actually play non-good characters. His brother (the other friend) had said he wouldn't want to play an elf because they're too "good." He was speaking more in the way of being unflawed (he's thinking of Tolkein elves here), but I joked he could play a dark elf. I had to amend that a bit, since dark elves are something different in Tolkein's world.
My friend: " You can play evil characters?"
I said yes, but with a qualifier. After all, if you're not 'good' in the campaign, you get punished, typically. The campaigns from WotC aren't designed for evil characters to win. You also loose a lot of extra points, unless your DM is rewarding extra evils.
Personally, I can't roleplay an evil character unless he's supposed to be a villian. I'm too "good" I guess; but I'm not going to appologize for having a hard time promoting a evil person in the hopes he'll win. |
Hell hath no fury like all of Candlekeep rising in defense of one of its own.
Download the brickfilm masterpiece by Leftfield Studios! See this page for more. |
|
|
|
Purple Dragon Knight
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1796 Posts |
Posted - 08 May 2004 : 07:00:26
|
As to the original question, yes I impose AL restrictions: no evil alignment, no evil Patron deities.
I've never had the "guts" to allow evil PCs, for a few reasons:
1. I like to control my game, and I don't like when PCs pop surprises on me. I like to be in control... 
2. I don't trust most players to know how an evil PC would really behave in front of do-goodders... 90% of everyone I know who'd like to play "evil" characters would suck at it 
3. Just a gut feeling, but with the coming of 3.0/3.5, I have the distinct impression that the groups I've DMed have reduced their roleplay substantially... the game is taking an unmistakeable turn towards "wargaming", as the fights have been taking 80% of our gaming time in the last two years. The good PCs don't really talk to each other anymore, so allowing evil PCs would, I think, go without a hitch, and the good PCs would not care too much as they're always busy fighting for their lives anyway (I'm running CotSQ right now, and evil or good would not make much of a difference I must admit)... and I don't like that at all! D&D should remain heroic in style, more so than Star Wars which is doing a better job at it right now (no alignment in Star Wars, but after too many Dark Side points, you're PC is gone, and the rulebook is clear about it -- it doesn't encourage "Dark Side" campaigns)
My two coppers anyway!
PDK |
|
|
|
Sarta
Senior Scribe
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 08 May 2004 : 09:16:51
|
Personally, I don't care as much about the alignment that a player writes down on their character sheet. I care about a well-thought out character concept. This is especially true of evil characters.
I frankly do not care whether a character is evil as long as the concept they are playing will enrich the game and not simply cause it do devolve into in-fighting and the end of the campaign. This means people who play evil characters have to give a lot of thought as to why they would adventure with this group of people and not simply loot them in their sleep and sell them into slavery.
Also, players of any character in my games -- evil ones especially -- have to be prepared to retire a character when it becomes overwhelmingly obvious that he or she cannot continue to adventure with the group.
A couple of concepts that I have seen work well:
I played a neutral-evil dual class fighter-thief for a very long time who's main goal was to achieve as much political power as possible through using the rest of the group as his pawns. He eventually succeeded far too well and was retired from play. He is currently a duke of a neighboring country and a recurring npc/villain who will occasionally aid the party or work to thwart the party depending on the circumstances and his agenda. Even in play, he was the guy you needed with you, but hated having around.
A player in one of my games played a chaotic-evil half-orc barbarian who was defeated in single-handed combat and spared by the party's paladin. He offered his life to the paladin and became his "squire". Over time, his chaotic-evil impulses have been curbed and he is currently neutral and moving toward neutral-good.
Sarta |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31799 Posts |
Posted - 08 May 2004 : 14:55:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Purple Dragon Knight
D&D should remain heroic in style, more so than Star Wars which is doing a better job at it right now (no alignment in Star Wars, but after too many Dark Side points, you're PC is gone, and the rulebook is clear about it -- it doesn't encourage "Dark Side" campaigns)
My two coppers anyway!
PDK
I have to disagree there, even though it means taking this now-resurrected topic...off-topic. The SWd20 campaign doesn't prevent you from running 'Dark Side' campaigns. It simply limits the options a GM can use in order to expand the campaign in that direction. However it has been said by several of the game designers on the SWd20 WotC Message Boards that this was entirely a rules decision, and should not prevent gamers from expanding their own 'Dark Side' campaigns in what ever manner they wish. In fact, most of the designers have run purely 'Dark Side' campaigns. It's not that difficult, just follow the optional rules in the 'Dark Side' sourcebook.
I've even ran entire SW campaigns that operate entirely under the option of Sith-based PCs...it's great fun.
Sorry Alaundo... And now back to the wall...
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Wood Elf Ranger
Senior Scribe
USA
627 Posts |
Posted - 08 May 2004 : 18:27:08
|
Resurrected thanks to me  There are tons of old scrolls laying around that could be discussed by some of us newer members
Anyways since you started this scroll I thought you would be the one most interested in the on-topic answers. I should have known better  hehe
Well back on topic has anyone ever made a campaign a certain alignment? For example lets say you design a campaign specifically Neutral maybe it has something to do with keeping the Balance. Has anyone done this before? I think it would be cool to design specific campaigns for each of the alignments. |
~Lee N.
"Breaktime yes?!.. Yes?.. Maybe?.. Noo, baaack to work.." -Grovel the Goblin from NWN: HotU |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31799 Posts |
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 09 May 2004 : 16:07:26
|
I would never run a D&D campaign with evil PCs, or play in one with players who even wanted to play them. I doubt Ed would allow evil PCs either.
In stories, heroes overcome impediments (including evil characters) to win boons and enlightenment. Evil protagonists are simply lexically null in the grammar of story. Playing an evil character is either tasteless (if you gloss over the evil) or psychologically risky (if you try to play it rigorously and intensely). No fun either way. And not suited to the Realms, which is an inherently optimistic version of sword and sorcery and whose protagonists lean towards chaotic good. |
|
|
|
Sarta
Senior Scribe
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 09 May 2004 : 20:17:09
|
Elric
Corwin of Amber
Odysseus (although arguably more neutral than evil)
My argument for the evil protagonist is that they must merely be heroic within the context of the storyline. Less evil than their impediments.
The argument for the evil principal is almost non-existent. I find that a common misconception that many players and dm's run into is that in every game, every player character must be a protagonist. This simply isn't true. As a group activity, it is just as viable for merely one or a small group of the party being the protagonists while the rest of the party are support characters. As support characters, or principals, moral restrictions are not as constricting if one is trying to stick to more traditional heroic frameworks.
The two characters I outlined above were never protagonists of their stories. They were principals who fulfilled various supporting roles. The neutral evil dual-class fighter-thief was willing to get his hands very dirty in order to accomplish tasks that the party ultimately needed done, but would have raised moral objections to. The chaotic evil barbarian was a support character whose entire storyline became one of redemption.
Sarta |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 09 May 2004 : 22:42:36
|
quote:
My argument for the evil protagonist is that they must merely be heroic within the context of the storyline. Less evil than their impediments.
I agree, but I don't think such antiheroes fit in the Realms (which is good-evil balanced but shot through with hope; and Odysseus is a straight hero in the framework of Greek legendry).quote:
As a group activity, it is just as viable for merely one or a small group of the party being the protagonists while the rest of the party are support characters.
It can happen that way, but in my experience playing such supporting roles is usually through some failure (of playing, DMing, nerve) rather than intent. The model of the Realms -- the Knights of Myth Drannor and other adventuring companies -- veers to fellowship more than leader+sidekicks. Evil sidekick to good leader can work but the evil often either gets glossed over or becomes a focus in play that distracts from what most of the players are interested in. |
Edited by - Faraer on 09 May 2004 22:43:30 |
|
|
|
Mystery_Man
Senior Scribe
USA
455 Posts |
Posted - 10 May 2004 : 13:27:56
|
IMC it's a "good" campaign so my players must have a "good" in their alignment.
Mostly Kahonen said it all. |
|
|
|
SoulLord
Seeker
Mexico
62 Posts |
Posted - 10 May 2004 : 17:24:53
|
Personally i dont allow evil alignements in my campaign
they have a lot of trouble either with the rest of the players paladins specially or with society in general.
So as a general rule no, but exceptions may be made if they can convince me |
|
|
|
Mystery_Man
Senior Scribe
USA
455 Posts |
Posted - 10 May 2004 : 17:58:22
|
Plus you have more fun with demons sockin' it to 'em with their alignment specific damage.  |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31799 Posts |
|
|
kahonen
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
358 Posts |
Posted - 11 May 2004 : 12:38:59
|
The other thing I do as a DM which some regard as strange is that when a player creates a character they do not allocate (or choose) an alignment.
I monitor a character's behaviour up to the point where they reach third level. At that point I discuss the character traits with the appropriate player and from that discussion we decide which alignment best fits the character from the descriptions in the DM's Guide.
This means that a player can get used to a new character for a while without having to worry about alignment. This is particularly good for new players who can learn game mechanics without unnecessary complications. |
|
|
|
NightElf
Seeker
![]()
United Kingdom
97 Posts |
Posted - 11 May 2004 : 13:58:10
|
| I find Kahonen's idea quite interesting. It has the advantage that there is no risk of the player acting "out of alignment" because their alignment is based on how they act. Plus it gives the player a chance to play in their own style without the restriction and worry of adhering to their alignment until they are sure of their char. But I would expect it to cause problems for the DM when he comes across characters which the Cleric or Paladin class who need a specific alignment... |
"Those who watch their backs meet death from the front" |
|
|
|
Lysander
Learned Scribe
USA
183 Posts |
Posted - 11 May 2004 : 16:48:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by kahonen
This means that a player can get used to a new character for a while without having to worry about alignment. This is particularly good for new players who can learn game mechanics without unnecessary complications.
quote:
Originally posted by NightElf
But I would expect it to cause problems for the DM when he comes across characters which the Cleric or Paladin class who need a specific alignment...
A system used by an old gaming group of mine would be about 1/2 way between the two - pick the alignment at character creation, but if they're acting of a different alignment, allow the switch before 3rd level. (Then again, it was a group house-rule that drastic character changed could take place - with DM veto - up to third level, minor between third and fourth, and if you're not playing the character you want after fourth level, something's wrong Changes aren't retroactive and must be made before a gaming session, so if a character took a beating one session, you couldn't "undo" it through character changes afterwards.)
Lysander |
|
|
|
NightElf
Seeker
![]()
United Kingdom
97 Posts |
Posted - 11 May 2004 : 20:18:03
|
| Personally I think that alignment isnt really such an important part of the game. It doesnt reflect the character well enough, ten chars of LG alignment aren't going to act exactly the same are they? I try to avoid putting characters into alignment groups. I use the wider groups of Good, Neutral & Evil to give 3 general choices instead of 9 specific. I put alignment restrictions on the players because I use individual modules with the players rarely using the same characters over a series of modules [unless of course they are a set such as the Avatar Trilogy or the Marco Volo modules]. But I have a set of players who have been playing for at most 6 months and so they havent quite got the working of the game yet. |
"Those who watch their backs meet death from the front" |
|
|
|
Lysander
Learned Scribe
USA
183 Posts |
Posted - 11 May 2004 : 20:49:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by NightElf
Personally I think that alignment isnt really such an important part of the game. It doesnt reflect the character well enough, ten chars of LG alignment aren't going to act exactly the same are they? I try to avoid putting characters into alignment groups. I use the wider groups of Good, Neutral & Evil to give 3 general choices instead of 9 specific.
Actually, that's interesting, since OD&D used Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic - I think in an effort to steer away from a good/evil dichotomy, not that it worked in the end. Even though I write alignment as a two axis (e.g. lawful good, true neutral) value, I tend to think of it having three axis - social, personal, moral - though that would give a "lawful chaotic good" - the character that follows all of the realm's laws to the letter, doesn't harm a butterfly, but boy is his cottage a mess! In that sense, I would argue that paladins could be "any-lawful-good" - they have personal discipline, are good, but would feel "neutral" or even "chaotic" towards a "lawful neutral" realm's laws that they find morally reprehensbile.
Lysander |
|
|
|
SoulLord
Seeker
Mexico
62 Posts |
Posted - 11 May 2004 : 20:57:10
|
In regards to different flavors of the same alignement
in a recent campaign I and one of my friends played LN characters
and they followed a different flavor of LN
they both followed the law of their respective kingdoms which was not the same, for example once a dangerous enemy dropped his sword and surrendered.
While i was set against executing an enemy who had surrendered, the other characted saw nothing wrong on it; As it was acceptable in his country to kill dangerous enemies even if they had surrendered. |
|
|
|
Bookwyrm
Great Reader
USA
4740 Posts |
Posted - 12 May 2004 : 00:31:17
|
I see the alignments as two different aspects in one. Namely, ethical behavior (law/chaos) and morality (good/evil).
My Jack Archer is Lawful Neutral. He sees the world as two aspects: human and nature. Nature is science, which is always lawful. Human behavior, on the other hand, is normally neutral. He'd prefer everything to be good, since as the philosopher said, it's the basic tendancy of the human condition to want things that are good. It's the disagreement that allows evil into things. So he believes that for people -- meaning humans, since until he came to Toril he never saw any other people -- you need to allow a little "evil" to combat evil.
Note the quotes, of course. He doesn't mean true evil, just that in order to have the greater good, you can't turn the other cheek. That might seem strange in respect to his religous beliefs, but it's more in the nature of defense, not agression. If there are others in trouble, he'll typically help the underdog unless he knows that person is in the wrong. If he's in trouble, he's more likely to turn the cheek than to seek revenge. He'll seek redress of wrongs made against him, but if it's not worth it (say, someone insults him), he'll just walk away.
However, that's a stance that came about on Earth. Now that he's on Toril, he'll come across evil things that will change this view. After all, once he meets his first fiend, he'll realize just what evil actually is. It's not social "wrong," as he's been treating it. In D&D, more so than in his home world, evil takes a stronger role than he's thought it could. So, in spiritual defense (so to speak), he'll shift to Good somewhere along the line.
I hope that makes my idea of alignment clear . . . . |
Hell hath no fury like all of Candlekeep rising in defense of one of its own.
Download the brickfilm masterpiece by Leftfield Studios! See this page for more. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Alignment Restrictions
What type of demons are we talking about here?.