| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Mumadar Ibn Huzal |
Posted - 05 Dec 2002 : 15:24:35
Fellow DMs (or players with an opinion on this matter...),
How would you deal with characters who seem to antagonize each other in the game. Mind I'm talking about the characters, not the players themselves. So please see this discussion from a roleplaying perspective first.
Would you forbid, disapprove, approve, or encourage this roleplaying behaviour. Also taking in account how this might reflect on the other characters in the group.
Hmm... realizing this is not fully Forgotten Realms related, let me expand a little (though I have to be carefull with some of my players being members on this forum). Would you allow characters who have a hidden agenda which might conflict - mid or long term - with the groups goals. For instance a follower of Shar or Mask within a generally good aligned group. Or even a hidden Zhentarim agent (or a member of another group of ill-repute like the Arcane Brotherhood) |
| 20 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Savarian |
Posted - 25 Apr 2003 : 13:02:15
Two points here that I am going to comment on. The first is whether to allow evil characters into a good-aligned party (or to allow characters that have diametrically opposed interests).
IMO what needs to be remembered first and foremost is not the characters but the players. I'd like to think everyone has plays to have fun - and some people are better than others at separating in-character and out-of-character issues. If having someone sneaking around within the group or opposing the group is going to cause friction and therefore lessen people's enjoyment, then I would not allow it. If the players themselves can play this type of thing well then I might allow it. It is very much a subjective decision based on each and every game.
As for the subjective view of alignment my opinion is that many people seem to forget that alignment isn't rigid: an NE Red Wizard necromancer might perform horrific experiments during the day but go home to lovingly care for his sick daughter at night. Others have made this point already so I won't belabour it - being evil doesn't mean you are evil all the time. But at the same time it does mean that you are still evil. D&D clearly takes the objective approach to good and evil - spells work, for instance, on this basis. When you cast Holy Smite on our Red Wizard necromancer he gets fried, even if he was caring for his sick daughter at the time the spell was cast.
While in the real world we may say that matters are almost never black and white we must remember that D&D deliberately does not take this approach. If you want to change this and introduce subjective alignment then for internal consistency you should also abolish or modify all class skills, spells, item abilities, etc, that are alignment focused or dependant. Otherwise you lack a degree of consistency and believability: it is hard to claim that our Red Wizard is not necessarily evil just because he cares for his daughter when the paladin can walk in and smite him while he is engaged in a loving act.
There is nothing wrong with the subjective approach - but changing that approach may well necessitate a lot of additional work in your game. |
| poilbrun |
Posted - 18 Apr 2003 : 16:30:13
First of all, as a fan of roleplaying in Dragonlance, I feel forced to point that Raistlin was statted as being Neutral Evil, not Chaotic.
As for the subject at hand, I really like it as a DM. In the campaign I DM, the focus of the part of the campaign was a fight against creatures from the Plane of Shadows : Malaugryms trying to subvert portals in the North, Shades trying to get a hold around the Anauroch (the campaign takes place in 1370 - now 1371 - so the Shades are in the process of getting ready to come back) and the players fought Shadows, Shadow Mastiffs and one Shadow Dragon as main enemies. They discovered that Shar was involved in all this. In short, very fitting when you know that there is a cleric of Lathander in the group. However, the Chaotic Neutral (leaning towards evil) rogue of the party, who belonged to the Xanathar's Guild and was sent with them to spy on their activities since they were ordered to deal with this by the city of Waterdeep, plans know to take the Prestige Class Shadowdancer. And what is the companion of a Shadowdance? You got it, Shadows! I think it will really be fun to have a member of the party have as companion creatures against which the whole group fought.
And of course, the rogue has goals opposed to the rest of the group. The wizard of the group is only running after power. The cleric of Lathander follows the teachings of his religion. The fighter finds it much more funny to go adventuring rather than patrolling the streets of Waterdeep as a guard. The rogue is in there to make money (I don't know how he manages to do it without the other seeing it, but he has twice the money any other character has!) and to set up his own thieves' guild.
Furthermore, it was funny to see the rogue hiding his belonging to Xanathar's guild when the party was doing an investigation against the guild. And even more funnier when Khelben Arunsun set up the death of the rogue's only known contact in the guild and the rogue got hunted because he was the one suspected of having killing (after all, he was the only one knowing this contact who was in a group that have dealings with one of the Lords of Waterdeep!). |
| branmakmuffin |
Posted - 06 Apr 2003 : 19:26:15
At the risk of sounding "me too", I also agree with Mumadar, Bookwyrm and Alexis Merlin.
I would have very different anecdotes to tell about inter-character animosity than I would have about inter-player animosity, even though inter-character animosity often either springs from or causes inter-player animosity. |
| Alexis Merlin |
Posted - 06 Apr 2003 : 12:55:52
I have to agree with Mumadar and Bookwyrm here - this is a different topic to problem players as it deals with the characters themselves and their interactions with one another - indeed I find that having different affiliations (secret or otherwise) within groups can be rather interesting as long as the DM doesn't mind the extra effort of occasional secret talks and brief group separation at times...and of course making sure that the party does have some common aims with which to unite... |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 06 Apr 2003 : 12:46:38
Well, maybe, but Mumadar was initially asking about characters, not players. |
| The Defence Minister |
Posted - 06 Apr 2003 : 11:51:04
I think this thread should get merged with the Problem Players thread as they are very similar topics.
TDM |
| branmakmuffin |
Posted - 05 Apr 2003 : 23:04:16
I say anything that's in character, as long as it truly only comes from in-character motivations, is given the green light.
I was playing Twilight 2000 once with a group of people I had never gamed with before. One of the other players struck me as having a good sense of humor, so my character started hassling his character. Eventually, his character beat the snot out my character. It didn't bother me. He said he'd never met anyone before who didn't personalize something like that on a player to player basis. Consequently, we became friends and he joined my regular gaming circle. He was (he has since moved far away) one of the better role-players and GMs I have played with. |
| zemd |
Posted - 05 Apr 2003 : 21:30:24
That's why i use a house rule (don't remember if it's a 2E rules actually). You've got an alignement plus tendencies (CB with neutral tendency for example) |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 05 Apr 2003 : 11:11:51
quote:
Originally posted by Echon
By the way, it is my opinion that the Alignment-system is the worst part of AD&D ever created. Sadly it is rather difficult to ignore.
Actually, I think that it's the spells that let you know another's alignment that are stupid. The system itself doesn't need to be rigid. In real life not everyone fits into those nine catagories! In fact, I personally fall somewhere between "Lawful Neutral" and "Chaotic Good." In game context I only say I'm the latter because that's what I am most of the time.
So count my vote in for the subjective view. These things need to take more leeway into acount. After all, you could have a cleric of Bane who needs to rescue his beloved sister -- a selfless act from an evil person. A spell would have to take into acount what is motivating a PC or NPC at the time of the spell. The above cleric might be Lawful Evil most of the time, but could come up as Chaotic Neutral while he's trying to save his sister. |
| Yasraena |
Posted - 05 Apr 2003 : 09:00:56
Having conflict between characters makes for some good role-playing IMO. But as it was previously said, it really depends on the GM and the players themselves. It takes a pretty mature group to be able to pull this type of scenario off correctly and without ruining the game. I've been in several games ranging from fantasy to horror to sci-fi, and there was almost always someone who would play an 'evil' character in our predominantly 'good' party. Most times, they were acting in the groups best interest at first, but they got turned to the dark side and eventually turned out to be traitors who sold the rest of the party out for their own personal gain. BUT... they did it intelligently and realistically, so usually the rest of us didn't realize it until it was too late and the damage had been done. We usually hunted their asses down and got revenge on them in the end, but they made the game more fun and memorable because if how they played it out. The key is to have a group and GM that can handle it.
WOOHOO! My 100th post!!  |
| Salius Kai |
Posted - 21 Dec 2002 : 03:30:17
This topic completely depends on the DM and what kind of game your playing. I would tend to encourage it, however. I think it would be an intersting experience. Me and my friends are currently setting up a Campaign were my character is sorta the odd one in the group. Their mostly of the good alignment and my character is a chaotic neutral Illusionist who can't tell a story the same way twice (he lies alot). I belive it will be intresting to see how my party responds when i leave in the middle of an important battle or something |
| Ditalidas |
Posted - 12 Dec 2002 : 14:16:54
I think it makes a tremendous difference in this case if you play table-top or Pbem. If there’s a conflict in Table-top you play it out and an hour later the party is on it’s way again. In Pbem such a discussion could take weeks or months. This amount of time carries the danger of creating grudges not only in character but also in players. In Pbem arguing with each other is no problem if you eventually will get on the same line…. But believe me, if two are fighting amongst each other for only one day in game time… it can take half a year in real time (or longer)… I fear the fun will disappear long before the half year is over.
But to get back to the topic:
In a table-top game: yes I would have no problems with that kind of opposites in the party. Though the player of deviate alignment should be very aware of what he’s doing and the DM should feel sure he can handle the situation and the conflict that might sprout forth of it.
In a Pbem: I would not recommend it. The impact in the mood of the story will be so much more evident than in a table-top where players can laugh off the tension with each other after the debate or fight.
Just my 2 cp.
|
| Arion Elenim |
Posted - 08 Dec 2002 : 16:55:42
This is all very true, but the problem that has been overlooked regards the position of the DM and how detrimental opposing characters can be to a story arc...or even to the whole of a story...
While having alignment-opposed characters may SEEM to make things more realistic, imagine the real world implications here - how many people would you personally ally yourself with (or even associate yourself with) who were in exact oppostion to your beliefs, code of behavior, etc? Yes, opposites attract, but the fact of the matter is that like walks with like, particular in dangerous situations - it is a fact of life.
Now, the DM has the responsibility not only to keep things realistic and interesting, but to keep things going. I personally have had PCs whose very natures slowed or altogether brought the plot to a standstill because they were in direct opposition. For a hypothetical instance, in a story arc geared toward tragedy, it is simply not a good idea to introduce Figgle-penis the gnome who runs around in a purple jumpsuit and wipes his nose on the paladin just as Sir Nicoloae is about to claim his true love for the party's sorceress.
Now, it may be very realistic for the gnome to be there (as Faerun has thousands of miles to traverse and hundreds of species in said miles and it is totally possible for said gnome to exist), but he is simply NOT conducive to good gaming - the kind that moves along at a good pace. This must be reckoned with, otherwise, the PCs WILL take to bickering, and the story goes nowhere...
As a DM, I always see to it that distracting characters who are not on the same page as everyone else GET THERE. This does not mean one has to remove PCs who aren't all Lawful Neutral like the rest of the party. It simply means that the DM must wield his or her scepter with authority and make certain that NO character, regardless of alignment or how realistic it may be that they are at the table, disrupts the session. This can be as simple as introducing ideas which can change the perspective of the distracting character (i.e.-the above-mentioned gnome is suddenly informed of a tragedy in his homeland which demands that he become more aware of the realities of the world). This also presents a WONDERFUL opportunity for great roleplay, throwing characters who believe themselves above the game (we ALL have seen those PCs) curveballs that make them actually have to participate and focus on the session, rather than sticking to comic relief.
Sigh.....
Steps off soap box.* |
| Frey |
Posted - 08 Dec 2002 : 13:24:15
I do agree with the things said in this thread. Most of all with Echon. IMHO there hardly will be anyone considering him/herself as 'evil'. Just a subjective view on *what* is evil and *what* is good (and who is of course).
Having different PC's, who anagonize in any way probably will make the game/play much more interesting. Isn't rule one for writing a book or a film to have tension between characters?
This anagonizing can be in goals, allignment or indeed *anything* else (for instance: characters that don't match, competing for the heart of the same (wo)man or differing idea's on the best way to archieve a goal)
I'm not a DM, but I'd encourage such opportunities (as long as the players can realy act the differences in character and not as players).
Good luck and ... I'm curious |
| Echon |
Posted - 06 Dec 2002 : 15:56:28
quote:
Originally posted by Mumadar Ibn Huzal
I'm debating whether or not to use this subjective point of view...
I definately go for the subjective point of view. Things are not just black & white; there is an awful lot of greyness inbetween. At least, that is not how things are in my campaign.
The classical campaign is the one about the good heroes and the evil monsters that need slaying - which I find silly. Monster and other evil races do not exist solely for PCs to gain XP and magical items. Goblins did not choose they way they were created and neither did any other race including humans. They happen to be created they way they are and respond to this and as such they do not differ from us.
I like to ask moral questions; some good creatures actively seek out evil creatures to slay and visa versa. Are they in any way different? Is it not just a matter of opinions and prejudice?
By the way, it is my opinion that the Alignment-system is the worst part of AD&D ever created. Sadly it is rather difficult to ignore.
-Echon |
| Mumadar Ibn Huzal |
Posted - 06 Dec 2002 : 14:59:27
I have recently gotten a copy of the infamous Book of Vile Darkness... in there the authors have two approaches to alignment.
- The simple way, pretty much black & white straightforward. Some monsters are evil and getting rid of evil is good
- Or the subjective way. This is much more complicated and in short makes several spells more or less useless, most notably the know alignment spell.
To further illustrate the last point. What if the churches of two rival deities who both have paladins find themselves at war. The one church considers the other 'evil' and vice versa. A detect evil or similar spell can't really work in such a scenario. (For more detail check the referenced book above.)
I'm debating whether or not to use this subjective point of view... |
| Echon |
Posted - 06 Dec 2002 : 14:37:50
I would definately encourage such characters. I think it would provide a great deal of opportunities for unusual roleplaying. I have not had any evil characters yet - in my last campaign one of the players wanted a good aligned necromancer which resulted in a lot of anti-climaxes (there were a lot of things he could not do if he wanted to keep his reputation and alignment). The only problem as I see it is that it would be difficult to hide the character's alignment as both priests and wizards can cast detect evil. If the character does not hide his alignment it would be interesting to watch the group coorperate despite their differences.
-Echon |
| Arion Elenim |
Posted - 05 Dec 2002 : 22:53:39
I have to concur with my fellow scribes here, for the most part....
It may be unrealistic to say that a paladin would EVER do business with a necromancer...willingly. As far as I am concerned, these situtions are the essence of what it means to be a DM...
Indebting characters to one another is a good way to encourage a sort of slow tolerance amongst opposing characters. Opposing Lawful and chaotic characters are best handled in this fashion, as the lawful character will for the most part honor pacts and decrees from kings, gods, etc. that can bind two opposing characters together as long as the DM requires. In the above situation for example, perhaps the PCs discover that the paladin and necromancer are related in some vague way which prevents the paladin from acting against his long lost "brother". Or perhaps the leader of the paladin's order decrees that he protect the necromancer out of a debt to the necromancer's wealthy, noble family....etc. |
| Lord Rad |
Posted - 05 Dec 2002 : 16:49:45
Hmmmmm, good question for an interesting situation.
I hadnt actually realised that about Raistlin either zemd (not being a DL fan anyway tho, maybe i should read one of the books to see how it hangs together)..... anyway......
I suppose there is a place for a moderate form of conflict and hidden agenda's within an adventuring party. For example, with a cleric of a "not-so-good" aligned deity, their goal may not necessarily affect other characters in the party, and their goal may be understood by the other characters being as it is part of their devotion to their religion. Even in todays real world, many people dont agree with certain religions and cultures but they tolerate them and sort of turn a blind eye. Obviously the character in question is heading for the same ultimate short term goal as the other characters, else they wouldnt be in the campaign in the first place.
Would you accept a cleric of Malar in the party? So long as he doesnt slaughter every animal in his path but instead goes off at a certain time of day to hunt and slaughter a stag or whatever then id say thats ok.
Would you allow a necromancer in the party?.... whos personal quest is collecting spell components for his latest undead creation....... even though he comes across as quite a nice guy and helps your party a great deal.
Hope that makes sense anyway and is answering your question  |
| zemd |
Posted - 05 Dec 2002 : 15:49:48
As far as i'm concerned i'd allowed such characters since they have a VERY good reason to join the group.
Do you read DragonLance? Raistlin is a Chaotic Evil character and he is in a good alignement group.
But you should be very careful, some situations could be very difficult to handle with. Twice i had evil characters on my campaign (a CE rogue and a LE Blackguard fallen Paladin of Torm) but each time they joined for a very specific goal. And it's very fun to see the player who is playing the bad guy trying to play his character right without being discovered by the group (maybe this sentence wasn't very clear...  sorry)
I you think your player can play the character has it's supposed to be, then you should try |
|
|
