Quote from: Serious PaulAs 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.)

I was thinking about the race/class mixes rather than alignments, but yeah, I know how it is. Players want to play the type of PCs they want, the DM wants them to have an impetus to adventure together. Six special villagers seems like a decent compromise.

Heh. They're certainly not making it easy on themselves, I'll tell you that. The Kenku and the Poison Dusk will be a lot of future baggage for them to deal with, and not every community they come across will be as open minded. In fact few will think twice about considering them monsters, and not the equals of races like halflings, gnomes and dwarves. (The three major races in my home brew.)

Quote from: AoSI saw almost the exact same thing at the exact same age.

What was the result when you saw it?  We all just had a deer in the headlights reaction because it was so bizarre and pathetic.  

Incidentally, I'm scared that there is more than one guy out there like that.  Hopefully it was the same one.  Did your guy name all of his characters "Liff" by chance?  

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

Oh, definately.  This is the same guy that tried to "outsmart" another guy (who wasn't the sharpest pencil in the drawer) by not quite explaining all the rules in a Necromunda game they were playing (in particular, the victory condition of the scenario they were playing).  

The guy once again threw the dice across the room and got upset (though no crying that time) after that guy beat him soundly in the battle (after some of us realized what he was trying to pull and clued the other guy in).

There are a myriad of good stories about that guy.  He later went on to play the not-evil-but-still-incompetent wizard in an Earthdawn campaign.  Many moments of hilarity ensued as he frequently did something stupid (or because he min-maxed so bad that he couldn't do anything physical at all).

Quote from: jgantsWhat was the result when you saw it?  We all just had a deer in the headlights reaction because it was so bizarre and pathetic.  

It was, as in your case but a single stone in the wall of ugliness. I believe he threatened to kick my ass, at the time. I'm small, so this was a pretty safe bet for him. It never came to pass, because another friend of ours- well of mine, anyway, who wasn't so small made it clear that it if he did so things wouldn't go well for him. He was roomies with a couple of guys in the group, and that fell apart over some other game related ugliness that took place later on. I was a wretched loser at that age, no doubt, but this guy made me look like the King of the Wrold in comparison.

Quote from: jgantsIncidentally, I'm scared that there is more than one guy out there like that.  Hopefully it was the same one.  Did your guy name all of his characters "Liff" by chance?  

no, they were all "Cal" .
And really, I could write a book about this guy he is easily one of the top ten most fucked up people I've ever met, and I've had a pretty fucked up life, so that's saying something.

Another way to handle alignment with a group needs some extra guidance might be to tell them that for your game Evil = Selfish, and Good = Altruistic. So a lawful evil character will follow the law, but use it for their own advantage whenever possible, and not help others unless they're required by law, or there's something in it for them.  A Chaotic Evil character doesn't follow the law, and is  out for themself -- but they're not random, crazy, and sadistic.  Both of these evil alignments will happily work as part of an adventuring party if that's in their best interests.  They don't do things just to be "evil" so if you have a player attempt jackassery, call them on it and ask how their character's interests are served by that behaviour.

I tend to think of alignment as a background factor for PCs.  I've found that in party politics it rarely becomes an issue unless there are diometric opposites in the same group, in which case they usually do not team up, but instead part company.   Such as the Lawful Good guy does not usually join up with the Lawful Evil party.  In the event that the party is composed of non-opposites it most often, in my experience, simply plays out as interesting but inconsequential "philosophy" conversations between party members as to what's right and wrong, but doen't much effect the group.   Unless... something happens that causes the non-opposite rift to become something important.  Such as the aquisition of an Alignment specific item.   Woah... then you can get some sparks flying.   But even then, usually it pans out that the players themselves resolve the issue, usually by shouting for a bit, and then getting down to business.   Sometimes, if the shouting gets prolonged a Monster or two may appear to focus their attention on the job at hand.   This usually defuses the Alignment debate.

On the other hand, it entirely depends on your world and how important alignment is in your world.   It also depends, I think, on how far along the alignment path the characters have gone.  You can have a Chaotic Evil guy, who is only a little Chaotic Evil, and so it doesn't make much difference.   But woah to him who steps on the toes of he who is Strongly Chaotic Evil.  

- Mark

Hi!
  I either impose char creation rules (no evil or no good, etc)
  Or impose meta-rules, like no pvp, etc
  When setting up these rules, I am clear to include other problem areas. Like with thieves, I request all thieves or no thieves. Thieves tend to hog spotlight time during their heists. And they have no motivation to share that spotlight/treasure with the rest of the group.

  I guess there are other options, but I think clearly communicating to the players what this campaign/game is about is best.

Quote from: Serious PaulThis 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.

You should read the 3.5 SRD alignment descriptions carefully.  They are pretty sound and define alignment more by how characters behave than by what they think.  Thus Evil characters do Evil things and Good characters do Good things.  It adds some teeth to alignments.

The two main pieces of advice I'd give have already been given:

1) Make the PCs come up with at least hooks, if not fully developed reasons, that they would associate with one another, rather than just letting that problem be dumped in your lap.

2) Encourage the PCs to use common sense and to not just rely on their alignments for characterisation. Chaotic evil people still have friends, even if they don't treat them very well. and if they're not cretins, they're less likely to screw over someone helping them than someone trying to hurt them. Don't let people play Lawful Stupid or Dipshit Evil. Insist on characterisation - "Why would your character do that?"

One last piece of advice I'd give is not to struggle to keep the party together. If the evil dudes want to sneak off and do evil shit, let them. If the PCs part ways, then the PCs have parted ways. They can always re-encounter one another. If it's looking long-term, then split it into two games, with the players from the other group making up new characters who fit better, and then alternate between storylines. Or come up with reasons to bring the PCs back together - whichever you prefer.

Quote from: StuartAnother way to handle alignment with a group needs some extra guidance might be to tell them that for your game Evil = Selfish, and Good = Altruistic.

With respect to the 3.5 alignment descriptions, Good = Altruistic, Neutral = Selfish, and Evil = Malevolent.  If Selfish is Evil, then where does Neutral fit between Good and Evil?  Please bear in mind that the 3.5 alignment descriptions simply require Neutral characters to have "compunctions against killing the innocent", but doesn't prohibit them from doing so.  Neutral characters are pragmatic and do neither Good nor Evil unless it serves them but they can also do Good or Evil if they need to.  Neutral, after all, occupies the space between Good and Evil and is as Evil as Good, not simply a lesser form of Good.

Quote from: StuartSo a lawful evil character will follow the law, but use it for their own advantage whenever possible, and not help others unless they're required by law, or there's something in it for them.  A Chaotic Evil character doesn't follow the law, and is  out for themself -- but they're not random, crazy, and sadistic.  Both of these evil alignments will happily work as part of an adventuring party if that's in their best interests.

According to the 3.5 alignment descriptions, "'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."  Being Evil isn't being selfish.  It's being malevolent and malicious.  They are psychopaths and sadists, not simply greedy people who keep to themselves.

Quote from: StuartThey don't do things just to be "evil" so if you have a player attempt jackassery, call them on it and ask how their character's interests are served by that behaviour.

Actually, that's exactly what Evil characters and creatures do.  If they aren't doing Evil things, then why are you calling them Evil?

Asking how an Evil player's character's interested are served by being Evil is like asking how a Good character's interests are served by being Good (or, for that matter, how a Lawful character's interests are served by being Lawful or a Chaotic character's interest are served by being Chaotic).

Being Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic means that the character has an ideology that they put above pragmatic self-interest.  The Good character will make sacrifices to help others and the Evil character will take risks to hurt others.  The Lawful character may disadvantage themselves to uphold their honor or follow the rules while a Chaotic character may disadvantage themselves to preserve or uphold individual liberty.  Why did the BTK killer horribly murder people?  Because he was an evil man, and couldn't help himself.  Did it serve his best interests?  Of course not.

That's why I think that so long as players run pragmatic characters that aren't willing to takes risks and do things that don't conflict with their self-interest that they are essentially playing True Neutral characters.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineChaotic evil people still have friends, even if they don't treat them very well. and if they're not cretins, they're less likely to screw over someone helping them than someone trying to hurt them.

Why do you assume this is true?  Here is a quote from a psychopath:

"[M]y mother, the most beautiful person in the world. She was strong, she worked hard to take care of four kids. A beautiful person. I started stealing her jewellery when I was in the fifth grade. You know, I never really knew the bitch -- we went our separate ways." (Source: http://www.hare.org/links/saturday.html)

Don't assume that sentient creatures must have a conscience, must appreciate friendship, or must reciprocate kindness.  It's not true of all human beings in the real world and it doesn't have to be true of Evil characters in a role-playing game.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineDon't let people play Lawful Stupid or Dipshit Evil. Insist on characterisation - "Why would your character do that?"

Aren't there stupidly Lawful, Chaotic, Good, and Evil people in the real world?  Why can't such characters exist in a role-playing game?  Isn't it easier just to ask players not to play Evil characters and so on?

Quote from: John MorrowWhy do you assume this is true?  Here is a quote from a psychopath:

"[M]y mother, the most beautiful person in the world. She was strong, she worked hard to take care of four kids. A beautiful person. I started stealing her jewellery when I was in the fifth grade. You know, I never really knew the bitch -- we went our separate ways." (Source: http://www.hare.org/links/saturday.html)

Don't assume that sentient creatures must have a conscience, must appreciate friendship, or must reciprocate kindness.  It's not true of all human beings in the real world and it doesn't have to be true of Evil characters in a role-playing game.

A psychopath is the paladin of the chaotic evil set. Having a diminished conscience and limited moral reasoning skills doesn't make a chaotic evil character automatically a psychopath. The evil alignments can be as subtle or extreme as the good ones. The Eberron example of a Lawful Evil innkeeper who commits the terrible crimes of watering down his ale and overcharging customers comes to mind as a useful counter-balance.

QuoteAren't there stupidly Lawful, Chaotic, Good, and Evil people in the real world?  Why can't such characters exist in a role-playing game?  Isn't it easier just to ask players not to play Evil characters and so on?

I don't think there are actually people who are Lawful, Chaotic, etc. in real-life, at least if we use the D&D terms. There certainly are stupid people, both in real life, and as characters in games and fiction.

However, there's a difference between what we might call a "naturalistic" stupidity for characters and the stupidity of many evil characters. The example given above, of a character fucking over the entire party for no reason at all (by spontaneously telling the guards they were stealing the macguffin), is a good example of something that's unrealistically stupid. It is a nonsensical thing to do, not just a stupid thing to do.

This very often seems to be the case with evil characters. They are played as the most extreme evil possible - psychopaths, tyrants, etc. - except when they're playing as being nonsensical dickheads. If that's all your players are capable of, then I don't blame you for wanting to ban it - many groups hate paladins for similar reasons (paladins are often played as the most extreme, fanatical kind of lawful good). But evil characters don't have to be played that way - they can have all the characterisation and depth that playing a good character can bring, just in different ways. Playing with a well-played evil PC in the group can be a rewarding and entertaining experience if characterisation is favoured over mere alignment.

Quote from: John MorrowAren't there stupidly Lawful, Chaotic, Good, and Evil people in the real world?  Why can't such characters exist in a role-playing game?  Isn't it easier just to ask players not to play Evil characters and so on?

In answer to the first point, I'd say the character should be Lawful Stupid if their Character has a low intelligence.   And Lawful Smart if they have a high intelligence.  

In answer to the second point, I'd say no, that's not really the point of the exercise.  Not for me anyway.   The point is to find ways so that Alignment makes sense in the game.  Not to eliminate it for the sake of making parties cohesive.   Alignment is a story element that is designed to imbue the game with various levels of coherency at the story level.   For example, the Characters meet a Lawful Good Deity, and they've spent a year rampaging and pillaging.  There is a logic to the outcome of the encounter.   That sort of thing.   That said, I don't think it plays well to over emphasize alignment.  I usually just take note of the actions of the Characters during the game and don't make a big fuss about it... until the day that they encounter ... THE DEITY OF ... whatever.   Or the Sacred Sword of ... whatever.  I try not to overplay Alignment.  If not played well Alignment can too easily become formulaic and lose a considerable amount of its potential charm and usefulness as a story element.   When is the last time you read a Medieval Romance wherein the Red Knight said, "Ok you Chaotic Evil bastards!  I'm Lawful Good, see?   And now you're gonna get right in the teeth, see?"  It doens't play well when used as a method for determining action.  Rather I have Alignment trail behind action, but with eventual consequences, potentially.  So if the Characters DO pillage and burn for a year, they become Chaotic Evil.   Not the other way around.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineA psychopath is the paladin of the chaotic evil set. Having a diminished conscience and limited moral reasoning skills doesn't make a chaotic evil character automatically a psychopath. The evil alignments can be as subtle or extreme as the good ones.

Yes, Evil can be subtle, but it doesn't have to be.  And I think that to be Evil, one should actually have to be, well, Evil.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThe Eberron example of a Lawful Evil innkeeper who commits the terrible crimes of watering down his ale and overcharging customers comes to mind as a useful counter-balance.

Yes, I've had the Eberron example tossed at me before but I fail to see how it fits the description of Evil offered in the 3.5 SRD.  

Let's go to the SRD:

"Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit."

Is the bartender really debasing or destroying innocent live by watering his ale?

"'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."

Is the bartender hurting, oppressing, and killing others by watering his ale, a luxury item?  Is he killing without qualms when it's convenient?  Is he actively pursuing Evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master?

"People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships."

That sounds a lot more like the bartender to me.  He seems to have compunctions against killing the innocent and lacks the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.  

For the Eberron interpretation of alignment to be correct, then Thieves could not be neutral, since cheating for personal gain, even if you don't actually hurt anyone, is apparently Evil in that setting.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI don't think there are actually people who are Lawful, Chaotic, etc. in real-life, at least if we use the D&D terms.

Oh, sure there are!  There are people willing to die for honor and people willing to die for liberty, just as there are people willing to die to help others and people willing to risk death to hurt others.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThere certainly are stupid people, both in real life, and as characters in games and fiction.

Not acting out of self-interest or pragmatically does not necessarily make one stupid, though a True Neutral character would probably think so.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineHowever, there's a difference between what we might call a "naturalistic" stupidity for characters and the stupidity of many evil characters. The example given above, of a character fucking over the entire party for no reason at all (by spontaneously telling the guards they were stealing the macguffin), is a good example of something that's unrealistically stupid. It is a nonsensical thing to do, not just a stupid thing to do.

Yet there are people who really do stuff like that.  From a perspective that values self-preservation, friendship, and so on, yes it was stupid.  From a perspective that values screwing people over even more, it wasn't.  Were the 300 Spartans stupid or smart?  That all depends on your perspective and what you value most.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThis very often seems to be the case with evil characters. They are played as the most extreme evil possible - psychopaths, tyrants, etc. - except when they're playing as being nonsensical dickheads.

I think it's an equally bad injustice to alignments to neuter Evil and reduce it to simply selfish or crooked behavior.  D&D has 3 alignments on the Good to Evil axis and not 2 for a reason.  

Quote from: PseudoephedrineIf that's all your players are capable of, then I don't blame you for wanting to ban it - many groups hate paladins for similar reasons (paladins are often played as the most extreme, fanatical kind of lawful good).

It's not simply stupid Evil that's a problem.  Smart Evil can also be a very big problem, so long as the character doesn't forget to actually be Evil, which is what a lot of these suggestions look like to me.

Years ago, one of the people I role-play with was GMing a game and made a slip of the tongue.  He meant to say "Evil and malign!" in a sinister voice and wound up saying "Evil and benign!" by mistake.  Everyone laughed at him and it became one of those group joke quotes.  "Evil and benign" is an oxymoron.  If the character is benign, then they just aren't Evil.  It's like not getting points for disadvantages that don't actually disadvantage a character in Champions.  Something that doesn't hinder a character isn't a disadvantage.  If a character is benign, then they aren't Evil.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineBut evil characters don't have to be played that way - they can have all the characterisation and depth that playing a good character can bring, just in different ways. Playing with a well-played evil PC in the group can be a rewarding and entertaining experience if characterisation is favoured over mere alignment.

Oh, sure, but it can still end badly, especially if the player is very smart and good about it.  After all, the BTK killer managed to maintain a family and even become a deacon at his church while kidnapping, torturing, and killing people on the side.

Also, don't think that psychopaths can't be clever or have to be loony insane.  In fact, psychopathy indicators include being superficially charming ("a real cool cat") and a fairly high IQ (good grades in school or disparity in achievement).

Quote from: VBWyrdeIn answer to the first point, I'd say the character should be Lawful Stupid if their Character has a low intelligence.   And Lawful Smart if they have a high intelligence.

The problem, though, is what does it mean to be smart?  If you claim that one must be pragmatic if one is smart, then I think that's missing the point.  Pragmatism fights all of the ideologies of the outer alignments at one point or another, which is why it belongs in the middle with True Neutral.  In fact, I think "Pragmatic" is a pretty good euphemism for Neutral in many cases.  This is also why I think the 4 corner alignments are unstable.  They force a character to serve two masters.  The Paladin, for example, will inevitably run in to situations where they must choose against being Lawful or being Good, where they can't have both.  If they are pragmatic about being Good, then they aren't being Lawful.  If they are pragmatic about being Lawful, then they aren't being Good.  

Quote from: VBWyrdeIn answer to the second point, I'd say no, that's not really the point of the exercise.  Not for me anyway.   The point is to find ways so that Alignment makes sense in the game.  Not to eliminate it for the sake of making parties cohesive.

Well, the alignments do make sense in the game.  What doesn't make sense to me is for characters to essentially ignore their own alignments or the alignments of others for the sake of party cohesion.  Why call a character Evil if they aren't going to act Evil?  Why call a character Good if they aren't going to act Good?  And so on.

Quote from: VBWyrdeAlignment is a story element that is designed to imbue the game with various levels of coherency at the story level.   For example, the Characters meet a Lawful Good Deity, and they've spent a year rampaging and pillaging.  There is a logic to the outcome of the encounter.   That sort of thing.

Sure.  And that logic crumbles if the Deity ignores their rampaging and pillaging to be nice to the PCs.

Quote from: VBWyrdeThat said, I don't think it plays well to over emphasize alignment.

I'm not claiming that the players should over emphasize alignment so much as I'm claiming (A) that they shouldn't underemphasize alignment, either (e.g., reducing Evil to selfishness or watering ale) and (B) that the over emphasized form is a legitimate way to play the alignment, though not the only way.

Quote from: VBWyrdeI usually just take note of the actions of the Characters during the game and don't make a big fuss about it... until the day that they encounter ... THE DEITY OF ... whatever.   Or the Sacred Sword of ... whatever.  I try not to overplay Alignment.  If not played well Alignment can too easily become formulaic and lose a considerable amount of its potential charm and usefulness as a story element.

What purpose do you think alignment serves, other than serving as a sort of "team jersey"?

Quote from: VBWyrdeWhen is the last time you read a Medieval Romance wherein the Red Knight said, "Ok you Chaotic Evil bastards!  I'm Lawful Good, see?   And now you're gonna get right in the teeth, see?"  It doens't play well when used as a method for determining action.

When was the last time you read an adult story where the Evil characters were harmless, benign, and just one of the guys?  In fact, how many stories have evil characters as protagonists that don't, at some point, betray their comrades or hurt innocent people?

Quote from: VBWyrdeRather I have Alignment trail behind action, but with eventual consequences, potentially.  So if the Characters DO pillage and burn for a year, they become Chaotic Evil.   Not the other way around.

Oh, I have no problem with that.  But I'd be pretty annoyed or at least disappointed if you told me that my character was Evil for watering ale or Good just because I didn't kill any innocent people.  That Neutral alignment is a band between Good and Evil (which logically includes both slightly Good and slightly Evil) and not a thin line at exactly the 50/50 point.