How do you handle opposing alignments inside the same party?

Our party as it stands:

• Dwarven Fighter-Neutral Good, at the beginning of the game his alignment will have shifted from Lawful Good to Neutral Good to reflect his loss of faith in the Dwarven "System". (Society, laws, etc...)
• Kenku Rogue-Neutral Evil
• Poison Dusk (A lizard man variant) Barbarian- Chaotic Neutral, but with plans to become a Dragon Shaman, and potentially drift towards Chaotic Evil.
• Human Cleric-Chaotic Good
• One unknown race "nature boy"-probably a ranger or druid, with a likely alignment of Neutral.
• One completely unknown race/class but chaotic neutral character

So as you can see it's not too extreme in it's differences but the party has the potential for some serious conflicts. So what has been your experiences with inter-party conflicts? Any stories about more extreme conflicts? How do you see alignments and the way they are to be played by PC's?

This party will start after their village is destroyed, and they find themselves the sole survivors. So for the moment the ties that bind is that, surviving, but  eventually it will have to be something else-and of course that's mostly their choices.

I let the players handle their in game differences, and sit back to watch the fireworks. :devil:

It's very possible for people of disparate alignments to find reasons to stay together if the players behind the masks want to. Raistlin hung out with Caramon and the rest of the DL crew for a long time, despite being driven by hate and envy. On the flip side, if they're choosing opposed alignments because they want the disruption, maybe a different game style would suit it better. A setup designed to focus on interparty conflict, like a throne war, can be great if everyone wants it.

Is it really necessary* for the players to play evil characters? If it is then they will need to play the evil as smart, sinister and shadowy rather than outright rape and pillage at every opportunity. Otherwise there will be an inter-party massacre. Just looking at this party the choice of the Barbarian**class mixed with the CE alignment will be the root cause of any problems in the party, and he will probably be the first to the chopping block. I would ask the player to change either the class or alignment of the Barbarian PC, the NE Rogue if played as "Smart Evil" could go most of the campaign without getting himself into too much trouble with the party.

*Is it ever really necessary to play an evil character or just cool and edgy?

** I have seen as many poorly played Barbarians as I have Paladins.

It's no more necesary to play evil characters than it is to play good ones.

Alignment is their choice, I'd never force that on them.

More later! Lunch now!

These guys are all from the same village? Must have been a pretty cosmopolitan place.

They look kinda set up to kill each other, but hey, for some groups that's half the fun.

If you want to give them the freedom to pick whatever alignment they want (as opposed to saying: "no evil characters") then make them explain why the party is going to stick together and not simply slaughter each other.

Make each player write down (a sentence is fine) how they know each of the other characters in the party.  Encourage them to be old friends, relatives, or possibly even saved each other from something that happened in the past.

The Thief and the Cleric are brothers or cousins.
The Dwarf and the Lizard Man are blood brothers, and were in Dwarven prison together.
The Lizard Man and the Druid are old friends.
The Dwarf saved the Thief's life, and both the thief and cleric are very thankful for this.

That kind of thing.

Quote from: RockViperIs it really necessary* for the players to play evil characters? If it is then they will need to play the evil as smart, sinister and shadowy rather than outright rape and pillage at every opportunity. Otherwise there will be an inter-party massacre. Just looking at this party the choice of the Barbarian**class mixed with the CE alignment will be the root cause of any problems in the party, and he will probably be the first to the chopping block. I would ask the player to change either the class or alignment of the Barbarian PC, the NE Rogue if played as "Smart Evil" could go most of the campaign without getting himself into too much trouble with the party.

*Is it ever really necessary to play an evil character or just cool and edgy?

** I have seen as many poorly played Barbarians as I have Paladins.

I played in a very brief 2e game back in college where me and another guy were both NG (I was a fighter and he was a ranger, I think).  And a friend of ours was a mage who was either LE or NE.

He tried to play the smart and sinister way.  But the problem was, the only evil things he did were against us.  

We let it go when he stole all our stuff.  We let it go when he took control of the crew of the ship we were traveling on in order to make us into his personal servants.  We let it go when he got us imprisoned at the city for crimes he committed.

Up until this point, most of the stuff he did was minor enough or happened without our PCs directly witnessing it.  So it was annoying, but we let it pass.

Then came the breaking point.  We were trying to hide a macguffin from a wandering patrol when he blatantly tells them that we're hiding it from them and they should attack us.  We killed the guards, then we killed him.

The guy threw an honest to God tantrum.  He threw his dice across the room and literally ran out crying because we "ruined all his plans".  It was sad and pathetic.  None of the rest of us knew quite how to react.  The game died at that very second.

Quote from: jgantsThe guy threw an honest to God tantrum.  He threw his dice across the room and literally ran out crying because we "ruined all his plans".  It was sad and pathetic.  None of the rest of us knew quite how to react.  The game died at that very second.

Wait... this was in college

This is a prime example of someone playing the Chaotic Stupid alignment

Quote from: jgantsI played in a very brief 2e game back in college where me and another guy were both NG (I was a fighter and he was a ranger, I think).  And a friend of ours was a mage who was either LE or NE.

He tried to play the smart and sinister way.  But the problem was, the only evil things he did were against us.  

We let it go when he stole all our stuff.  We let it go when he took control of the crew of the ship we were traveling on in order to make us into his personal servants.  We let it go when he got us imprisoned at the city for crimes he committed.

Up until this point, most of the stuff he did was minor enough or happened without our PCs directly witnessing it.  So it was annoying, but we let it pass.

Then came the breaking point.  We were trying to hide a macguffin from a wandering patrol when he blatantly tells them that we're hiding it from them and they should attack us.  We killed the guards, then we killed him.

The guy threw an honest to God tantrum.  He threw his dice across the room and literally ran out crying because we "ruined all his plans".  It was sad and pathetic.  None of the rest of us knew quite how to react.  The game died at that very second.

Quote from: StuartWait... this was in college

I saw almost the same exact thing at the same exact age.

Quote from: ghost ratThese guys are all from the same village? Must have been a pretty cosmopolitan place.

As I understand it most people are neutral-neither good nor evil. So to me Neutral Evil and Good isn't so far off the path. The Chaotic Good is certainly a noticeable difference from the norm, but the guy is a cleric, and before that an acolyte of a good aligned god, so that fits. The Chaotic Neutrals are actually the easiest for me to deal with, as I see that as the alignment as closest to my own  ideal system.

But they only represent six special people in a village of about 500 plus people, which to me isn't so bad in my opinion. (I've seen movies and comics with worse premises.)

Up until the village is slaughtered they're really all 0 level people, becoming 1st level "heroes" when the circumstances force them to.

Quote from: StuartIf you want to give them the freedom to pick whatever alignment they want (as opposed to saying: "no evil characters") then make them explain why the party is going to stick together and not simply slaughter each other.

I do want to see some of this, but rather than have them explain we're going to play it out.

QuoteMake each player write down (a sentence is fine) how they know each of the other characters in the party. Encourage them to be old friends, relatives, or possibly even saved each other from something that happened in the past.

We're doing much more than that actually. We've been discussing this in depth for a few weeks now. The village is sort of a commune in some respects, and needs cooperation from everyone to make things work. (And yeah some people stick out or rub things the wrong way. Some people in real life are selfish right? Some are less so, and some are selfless.)

All of them will know each other, in depth.

Quote from: RockViperThis is a prime example of someone playing the Chaotic Stupid alignment

Yeah. That's not an issue with alignments. Alignments were (probably) only a handy hook for him to hang his jackassery on.

Quote from: Serious PalAs I understand it most people are neutral-neither good nor evil. So to me Neutral Evil and Good isn't so far off the path. The Chaotic Good is certainly a noticeable difference from the norm, but the guy is a cleric, and before that an acolyte of a good aligned god, so that fits. The Chaotic Neutrals are actually the easiest for me to deal with, as I see that as the alignment as closest to my own ideal system.

I think he may have been talking more about the racial diversity.

Doh! (I should have known that.)

Yeah actually this place is on the frontier borderlands of several major cultures, and races. One of the few of it's type. The race issue will cause them problems depending on which direction they go.

Quote from: jgantsI played in a very brief 2e game back in college where me and another guy were both NG (I was a fighter and he was a ranger, I think).  And a friend of ours was a mage who was either LE or NE.

He tried to play the smart and sinister way.  But the problem was, the only evil things he did were against us.  

We let it go when he stole all our stuff.  We let it go when he took control of the crew of the ship we were traveling on in order to make us into his personal servants.  We let it go when he got us imprisoned at the city for crimes he committed.

Up until this point, most of the stuff he did was minor enough or happened without our PCs directly witnessing it.  So it was annoying, but we let it pass.

Then came the breaking point.  We were trying to hide a macguffin from a wandering patrol when he blatantly tells them that we're hiding it from them and they should attack us.  We killed the guards, then we killed him.

The guy threw an honest to God tantrum.  He threw his dice across the room and literally ran out crying because we "ruined all his plans".  It was sad and pathetic.  None of the rest of us knew quite how to react.  The game died at that very second.

Comedy gold!

Lord Hobie