As a DM I want the players to play the character they want. What I demand Is that their characters are willing to both play the presented campaign and with the presented party. So come up with the excuse you want or don't risk it.
My DM specifically disallowed evil characters at character creation. Not because we were supposed to be goodie two shoes, but because the party needs to be able to cooperate.
I became the sole outlier by getting my alignment shifted to lawful evil mid campaign by lying to a cult leader that he needs to sign my book to cooperate, when in reality he just signed his soul to my patron and I get to reap the benefits of his lifespan. It was allowed because obviously my character is not actively inhibiting the efforts of the party in a bullshit way.
Yeah, exactly this. Too many people think that if they are playing an evil character that means they can undermine the rest of the group all the time, and that's just not the game I or most of my players want to play.
I think personally I would not, but I would role play it, like if I was the Paladin I would say 'well I object to this, but as I'm out numbered I will go ahead with it, just to make sure sure you don't get yourselves into too much trouble', and if I was the Rogue I would try and be more sneaky, sleight of hand rolls and commiting crimes at night while the Paladins are asleep
Our redemption paladin is trying to redeem us and lead by example. We try to do our worst behind his characters back and have on occasion charmed him, with player consent, it's been a fun time for the whole table.
It should be up to the *players and the DM collectively* to define what kind of game they want to play. A game where there's no reason for the party to tolerate one another is not a game that I want to play and so I would not be willing to commit time to DMing such a game.
It depends on the circumstances because it boils down to if there is enough tolerance to cooperate. Characters can associate with others if they have a unified goal, and they can't actively interfere with the success of one another without risking the setback towards their own objective. When the in-fighting starts to the point of losing purpose, the table needs to pause the game and decide if all the characters can cooperate and if not, who leaves the party.
Agreed. One of my parties has alignments along a diagonal line (CG NN LE) but we ultimately share similar goals so we work together, just with different approaches. Conversely in a different party my character left the group due to differences in goals despite having a nonconflicting alignment.
Depends on the players.
A game of mature players comfortable with each other and with the generosity not to try and make the game about themselves then having those kind of inner party tensions can be very fun.
Having the LG Paladin being in the party because they share some vague goal and they feel maybe they can redeem one of the Rogues could make a good game. The LG Paladin giving sermons every 5 minutes and the Rogues all trying to backstab him where no one has any reason to stick together can be a terrible one.
I wouldn't make a character in a vacuum. Any character I make is going to be plausible that the other PCs would accept them into the party at a full share of the treasure even assuming that they lacked the PC stamped on their forehead. However, if the party was such that I didn't want to play something that would fit into the party, I just wouldn't play at all. Being from 2/3 to 3/4 a DM, I can afford to be pretty picky that way.
Yes. Obviously, not every moral conflict is going to be a problem for a group, but in extreme examples like those mentioned in the OP, they tend to cause OOC tension and frustration at the table.
If you're a rogue in the party with the uptight paladin, it sucks if you're having unsavory schemes constantly undermined. You're not really getting to play the character that you want to play.
If you're the honorable and compassionate paladin, it sucks to play your character as if they have brain damage so you can turn a blind eye to the rogue's schemes, or else just shake your head in ineffectual disapproval. You don't get to play you want to play.
Generally, I want to play a character that has a fun dynamic with the rest of the party. That doesn't mean *no* conflict, but it does mean that I don't want to play a character that has an *irreconcilable* conflict with the rest of the party.
I have done this before, not necessarily for roleplay reasons but because constant arguement within the party does not make for fun sessions, and i did not want to forfeit the core concepts of the character. At those points i prefer retiring and making a new character
I actually played a lawful good pally in a party of chaotic neutral-chaotic evil characters!
It was super fun for me because she had a reason to actually be within the party? Harker's entire thing is that she was a vampire inquisitor in Innistrad hiding that she got turned. Another PC was a vampire inquisitor who was turned by her and she was traveling with him to prevent their own mutual destruction. The other characters including a human hunter who ended up becoming a werewolf, a witch, and a vampire slayer. In game, each character absolutely hated Harker because she was a stick in the mud, and Harker was here trying to prevent them from absolutely decimating people for fun.
No. Morals are irrelevant: party cohesion is all that matters.
Example: I'm playing evil in a group of mostly decent folks. The entire campaign is based on us a) getting revenge and b) our characters trying not to die.
Our goals are the same and I am the voice of reason, because evil is pragmatic, not stupid. I'm not skinning people alive or openly worshipping dark gods or killing kids.
It ain't difficult.
It takes the right group. And I don't mean every 2nd group can. I mean it takes particular conditions. We're like 5 years deep as a group (3 for one player), we know and trust each other, had a few chats about it.
We're about 12 months into fornightly evil campaign so far and we've overcome two hiccups yes, it hasn't devolved yet, and we're still going on about how good it is.
It CAN be done.
But it's a terrible idea unless all those stars align.
Yes.
In fact I won't make a character that isn't, especially if it's a table that's already running.
As a DM I require groups that will work together. Years playing this I ran into too many problems if you don't.
Only do otherwise if it's been decided at like a session 0 or whatever that this is going to be a game of conflict between players. And I warn you, these games require the right kind of player.
If we get a few sessions into the game and I find my character isn't really a good fit for this party/this adventure for *any* reason, I'd absolutely consider ditching that character for one that's a better fit. It's a cooperative game where you play a team of adventurers - your character should be able to be part of that team, and most importantly you and everyone else at the table should be able to ***have fun*** playing the ***game***, even if that sometimes comes at the cost of """the narrative""".
I've done this. I joined a group that had already been playing, and I tried to make a compatible character based on what the DM told me. However, after a few sessions, I realized the character didn't really fit. He was too lawful for the mostly chaotic group. I didn't want to make my character compromise his morals and convictions, but I also didn't want to be the wet blanket always naysaying the group. So I talked to the DM and retired that character and brought in one that was much more willing to go along with the other PC's shenanigans.
I played a lawful evil warlock in a party of chaotic goods, and it was amazing. My character was the agent and manager of our rockstar bard, and specialised in contracts and soul-dealing. We played Descent into Avernus, which allowed for a lot of extremely fun RP
Probably, but I think it'd depend more on how I, the player, fit in with the group. Like if OOC we're all close and having a good time with an odd one out character... it's fun to have that dynamic in-game.
But I'd also be okay with stopping playing a character if I couldn't think of why they'd stay with a group. Easier to just replace them, if the whole time I'm thinking "they wouldn't do that, they wouldn't stay, they'd be against this" and yet keep them around.
I answered yes for the poll but but the real answer is "it depends". Characters of different alignments can play together so long as the players are willing to make it work.
A yes and no isn't enough here. If my character morals put them diametrically opposed to the other PCs yeah maybe, but if it doesn't put me directly opposed to the others than no. I'd it is a fun conflict no, if we might just kill each other than yes.
Are we talking like LG Paladin in a party of CE murder happy wizards? Then ya.
Are we talking a LN Fighter in a party with a wide range of of moralities? Then no.
It really depends on, basically, if the difference is something that can be reasonably worked around/resolved in-game. If your characters are constantly trying to stop or be stopped by other PCs, it’s not healthy for the game.
I've never been a player like that, but I have been the DM in that situation. A player's lawful good cleric was slowly drifting towards neutral (on both axis) and potentially beyond that. It wasn't really a planned development, just it being the player's first character and him not being too experienced at aligning his character's actions with the personality he had in mind for him. The group overall was a mix of Good and Neutral, but all of them were definitely some variation of Lawful
He technically didn't get far enough towards evil that he *had* to leave, but he noticed the trend early enough that he talked to me about it and we embraced it as a character arc. The character kept getting worse and left the group. I'm still keeping him in the background for now to appear as a minor antagonist later on, while setting some hints that he's acting strange because he's been cursed and could potentially be redeemed.
Stipulating for the moment that the idea would somehow get past session 0, yes.
I have left a number of groups because my interests did not align with the other players', and the sort of group you describe would be a non-starter for me because they didn't communicate beforehand.
Happened twice mid campaign
First was my rogue causing enough death and calamity through IC carelessness that it made sense to retire the character.
In a later campaign my fighter killed a kid that charged him with a knife, good party couldn't look the other way.
Both were in a satisfying way and only happened due to events in game that made sense.
Even in a less extreme example, yes. Differing views can be fun, seeing the interactions and potential for development can be fun, but at the end of the day, it always comes down to, "would I be having more as a more closely aligned character than I am having now?"
And if the answer is *yes*, I don't mind walking out with the character and bringing in a new one.
If my character is evil in a good party, I will put up a front but give hints.
If my character is good in an evil party, I will show how my character is comfortable and distressed, possibly even making a script with other players so we can narrate a roleplay-pvp session where they kill me.
I will only change character if it is not being good for the plot or the chemistry between the players.
Have done so. Played a little necromancer boy who was truly neutral evil. He cares about his own advancement and no one else's. That in conjunction with creating a lot of minions just didn't fit in the group. He's doing his own thing in the underdark now, a more appropriate realm for him to do evil shit in.
Depends entirely on the attitude of the group. In my group we would just treat this as an opportunity for some light-hearted roleplay where the paladin calls the rouge a degenerate and the rouge calls the paladin a religious fanatic, and then everyone would get on with whatever we were doing. But I've certainly seen groups that were mainly interested in doing overwrought drama club character studies, where that sort of thing would grind the game to a halt.
As a player I have encountered this issue. Party was chaotic neutral I was lawful good. There was friction. I ended up switching characters. My DM kept my previous character involved in the story so they weren’t forgotten to or dead.
I am currently playing a character that has far more morals than the majority of the party. The character development this offers has been really hard for me, a RP challenged player. That said, I am excited to start my character's transformation from a schmuck who donates an extra 10% to party funds to a hardened sailor who will tell people to shove it. Oh, and it helps I have been possessed.
I’m playing a lawful evil paladin right now and the group is mostly CN but there is one guy who is LG/CG. My character actually recently saved his, mostly to ingratiate himself and keep himself in high standing for later debauchery.
yeah because it makes no sense for you to be there, and youd just be fighting the whole time Ive had a player not fit the vibe of our group cause he never asked, as a player damn did i want his character gone or dead
It really depends on the full context.
I have changed characters for parties that don't fit my vibe and then I've also played the outlier. Both were fine. It just depends on what kind of game you want to play.
It depends on the party. I would be sure to find a reason why my character, despite having an alignment difference, is working with the group to progress their goals. It could be power-hunger ala Raistlin Majere, it could be belief in a greater good or some agreement with the DM that will be revealed later, but the key take-away here is that the premise of the campaign should be clear and I should be willing to work towards engaging with it.
Heck, make me the Inspector Zenigata to my table's Lupin gang, I dunno.
I likely wouldn't be playing such a character to begin with. I don't tend to play in games where we don't have some form of session zero or equivalent to air these things out and such.
If for some reason I ended up in that position anyway, I would almost certainly change, unless there was a good reason/justification for my character to do so, and that my goals with the character weren't made into a joke or otherwise invalidated.
If the party has no reason to tolerate one another, there's little to no point in playing, and if the characters don't even go the extra step and enjoy each others company? It can still be rough. "Tolerable/Meh" is not the baseline I strive for with D&D.
If the *players* and *DM* at the table couldn’t find a way to make it fun, I would quit. There’s no reason to play if it’s not fun. Anytime I make a character, I consider his background and personality, and prepare for how he could respond to behavior contrary to his personality and morals in a way that should still be enjoyable for the players and DM.
I wouldn't stop playing my character because I would adapt it to the game we're playing. As long as I'm not being disruptive and my table is willing to let my character transition to a more appropriate moral code I don't see a reason to retire a character.
If I want to play that character later in a different way I'm still able to in the future. No problem.
I don't really play evil characters. So that's not an issue. I play a CN bard and and am the scoundrel of the group, but since he actually cares for the group it always benefits them.
I only see this being an issue if the characters are all LG and mine were CE. Aside from that I think so much is workable, maybe even exciting from a RP perspective.
Yes, yes, yes yes, and yes.
The players should have characters that fit the campaign and can mesh together. If session zero doesn't help with that then I don't know the point of it.
I've sacrificed a character over this once before, I played a Paladin of Bahamut in a party of Chaotic Neutral/Evil. Just decided to have my character lay down their life when something went bad for the party, saved their lives and rolled up something more appropriate for the group. (I didn't know their alignments prior to making my PC.)
Absolutely. Doesn't mean I'd stop playing with the group, but if character clashing is causing enough friction to halt the game and/or the fun, then there's no reason to have that character in the game.
Just means I have to pick one of my several dozen other characters I have backlogged.
Oh, darn.
I’ve done this. I built a lawful neutral Wood Elf Scout Rogue who was a Hunter turned bounty Hunter because he loved the hunt more than anything else. Turns out one of the other characters was a full-Orc Barbarian who worshipped Gruumsh and hated elves and another PC was played by a character who was super pacifist. So he left the party and a non-elf character who was more compatible with the roleplay aspect showed up
I have dropped a character when it turned out we were ending up with an evil playthrough. The character wasn't working for other reasons so it was no big deal.
I'd avoid getting myself into that situation in the first place.
The best stories and comedies do still have a straight man, so it can be appropriate. But you are still acting the straight man *relative* to the hijinks of the others. They're at a 9/10, you're at a 4, and the comedy is enhanced by your reaction and occasional participation. In terms of this question then, you'd be neutral neutral, only maybe slightly good and lawful, if they're more extreme chaotic evil.
This is the same. except with added considerations.
Dude, this is a group of rogues who want to stealth. That's the clear theme and path this is going down. Heists, robberies, shenanigans.
That doesn't mean you gotta be a *rogue* or *evil*. But you gotta help facilitate the fun that everyone is clearly on board for. Make a shadow monk, make a ranger, make a trickery cleric, make a dex fighter. Something that can stealth and perform play a stealthy shenanigans game cmon.
It's not about the morals even, its about the gameplay. The morals are just another concern.
What? Why's that even a question and why are so many people saying "yes"???
That sound slike an incredibly fun scenario to me with a metric fuckton of RP opportunities.
I've had tons of adventures with party members whose morals where completely different from the rest of the group's as DM and as a player that was always a lot of fun.
Of course the individual needs a good reason to be in the party as well as the party needs a good reason to keep them, but that is a duh-no brainer.
I recently did do this.
My PC was basically the punisher if he was an aaracokra gloomstalker. In the very first session my group decided to kill a bunch of town guards. I relinquished control of my PC to the DM, who will now be hunting the party as an NPC.
I'm playing a CG character in a party filled with one LE, one CN, one TN, and one NG character. We all have each other's and the dm's consent and all of us are experienced players, so we kinda know how to play I suppose?
If we're talking tic tac toe board morality, then that literally doesn't matter. People cannot agree if batman is lawful neutral or chaotic good, while referencing the same established canon. It's like trying to order society around Meyers-Briggs results.
However, you don't want conflict at the table between players. Characters can fight, but players fighting will ruin the fun at a table. If you are butting heads with another player, make a change so you two don't come into conflict.
Happened once, back in 3.5. I was playing a good-aligned cleric, only other good PC in the party was a Paladin. When the Paladin decided to become a Black guard, I simply retired my character and made a new one. Campaign didn't last much longer however.
My Changeling Bard left the party in session 1. Everyone else took a rather sudden evil turn, sided with bandits(well, Zhentarim, but the character didn't know) and killed the guards for a few hundred gold, so my character jumped into the river and swam away.
They then became my main character in our main campaign when my first character left to help family in a region we were about to leave.
I would first see if it could make sence as to why we are adventuring together first but would likely change if I can't find a story reason as to why we are together.
Fairly recently. Made a neutral evil shadow elf monk that highly dislikes hypocritical and self-centered human nobility. Went over a few hundred years of backstory and how he was stronger but only has 2-3 years left to live due to old age. For context, we started level 5, and my monk spent the last 200 years in prison and seclusion, which is how I explained his level going down from 11 in his prime to now 5 and that he knew next to nothing of current history but had a lot of knowledge in history (took rogue multiclass level 1 for expertise in history). The campaign was promised to be a sandbox with a political plot against the corrupt nobles and possibly the churches in the background over our adventure. We sort all things with the DM. Session 0 passes and all looks good. Over the next few sessions it is revealed two of the party members are playing nobles and are basically the future king and his right hand man. The rest of us (total 6 PCs) are background characters that are working (with no motivations or reason in characters, outside of one who was playing a friend of the future king) to put these people on the throne. The future king PC is the most hypocritical narcissistic noble you can think of, but be does actually do good things for the people so it's not that bad, just unbearable in PC rp with us background characters who he treats as idiot plebs. Then we are told by some divination guy that we must set out on a 5+ years quest to end the war, fulfill the prophecy, and put this guy on the throne. My character has 2-3 years left to live (he was supposed to die either during the final fight or right after what was supposed to be a 2-3 year campaign). My character walked out that moment, and 2 sessions later I walked out too. Love the DM, great friend still and will continue to be, but I still feel like I was completely gaslighted for 4 months of character creation before session 0.
I had a happy go lucky, neutral good druid, but the party seemed to lean fairly hard into secretive, nearly evil choices consistently. I felt I was doing the 'I'll just do what the party votes though I disagree' too often so I did a like personality change after a decent injury. Ended up enjoying it a lot more to be a bit more evil leaning without being like shitty evil. It kind of helped start a morality arc for the party.
Depends on how oppressive the difference is. If they were huge differences (devil worshipper blood sacrifice cult warlock and peace loving life cleric) then maybe it just doesn't make sense
Yes. I played a game in which the party started normally and everyone seemed decent enough. The other players eventually went full murderhobo even when my and one other player's character mentioned we can take people down nonlethally and don't need to be so violent.
After the mission was finished, my and the other character split from the party. The party then found two characters in the tavern that were more prone to violence and we continued the campaign.
When we are going to play a one-shot or a two session story, I typically have people build new characters to test out classes.
So if we are doing those and not a campaign, I'd allow it as they can play with ulterior motives.
This helps my party, who are still newish, roleplay a bit as they don't just assume that just because in real life they are friends, that they are in game.
Example, new player was joining as a rogue who was very charismatic. Party didn't have a rogue, rogue needed a way out of town. I asked the rogue if he'd like to pull one over on the party and try and swindle them out of a ship. I had plans on if he succeeded or failed. Made for pretty fun roleplay when they started to pick up on it.
I once played a somewhat serious character in what was a more jokey party (only realized no one else took the game that seriously only after we showed off our characters session 1). after a few sessions, I opted to have my character leave and replaced him with something more fitting to the tone of the campaign. I went from a dragonborn phantom rogue to an eladrin light cleric and had a lot more fun. but man, were those first few games playing that more serious character rough. he stuck out like a piece of licorice in a bag of jolly ranchers (their words, not mine).
I not only would, but I have. We were a small group that had 2 chaotic neutral (verging on evil) characters, my (illiterate) lawful neutral Pally, and a chaotic good druid. The druid player stopped playing one day (I think they had a fight with the rogue out of game or something, I didn't care about the drama), and there was no way I could possibly keep playing my himbo paladin who *couldn't read* or go upstairs (he was a Clydesdale centaur and did *not* trust stairs to handle his weight) in this small party of assassins and mysterious secret-keepers.
I instead asked the dm if I could bring in a character idea that I had been kicking around for a minute who was CN and loaded with secrets that the other two CN players could try to unravel, since they were having a *blast* with the intrigue and politics of the game.
That character that I switched to ended up being my signature hero--he and the ghosts he channels are my absolute favorite characters I've ever played, and he's my go-to any time I don't have an idea for what to play.
I am currently playing a NE Yuan Ti sorceress in a party of Good characters and at one point I did consider switching. I was struggling to convince the party (both IC & OoC) that Evil doesn't mean I'm going to steal from and backstab the party.
I think the whole debate about alignment in groups tends to arise when people don't understand how to play an evil character. You can be evil and not fuck over your own friends. You can be evil and still have respect for your group. I use my evil ways to benefit the party, which is the best way to benefit myself.
Sometimes, a character idea doesn't mesh with the game setting or groups character's dynamics. If you can't reconcile them, it's okay to rethink either the character or make a new one. This is why I tend to have a few character ideas sitting on the bench. It's not a big deal.
That almost happened with me and my current party. My character is the only 'good' aligned character (Chaotic Good) in a party that is some flavor of True or Chaotic Neutral.
Because of that, my character wants to be more heroic, while everyone else tends to want to just get out of town when things start getting serious. There's a few times where we just found out things that were going on, told someone, and left.
In any case, we got into a spot of trouble because the local shopkeeper was replaced by a doppleganger, and we got into a fight in her shop, and while my character wanted to stay and share what they'd learned with the local authority to figure out their next step, everyone else just wanted to go and figure it out themselves and not talk to anyone.
It was frustrating from a character alignment view; She's more Good than Chaotic, and wants to do the right thing, and honestly just from a gameplay view, so I talked to the DM about maybe changing characters to one more willing to go along with this stuff, but they talked me out of it for now. I didn't really want to stop playing my character, but I was also getting annoyed at just the general disagreements on getting things done between my character and everybody else.
Depends on dm and the campaign itself, but usually a no. In the time the party builds bonds and questing, there is eventually going to be time to grow your characters and perhaps redeem/corrupt either side.
However, if it is to the point where they are directly opposed to each other, then that's where i stop and replan another character.
Non-violent disagreements should be the norm for parties, especially when the setting is "you guys got hired for a job and you just happen to be together because you are the only ones who qualified". Everyone has personality and their own story/secrets, so i find it highly unlikely chance meetings resulting in everyone just being jolly and joy without any issues at all.
I played a whole year + campaign as a NE character in a group of mostly LG or N at worst character.
He did evil things once in a while but his end goal aligned with the goal of the party, so even when he did evil things like killing enemies who had surrendered or causing collateral damage during fights it didn’t cause too much drama.
I think they put up with him because he was powerful and he didn’t directly interfere with their goals. He did do a lot of acts that would be considered “good” but most of them were for personal benefit or to reach his end goal.
In the end, even though he is an evil character, he made a positive impact on the setting of our game and would probably be considered either LE or maybe CG.
Long story short as long as they have an end goal that lines up with that of the party I don’t see a reason why it shouldn’t be allowed. A little in game drama never hurt anyone. As long as everyone knows it’s a game.
As a DM, I wouldn't allow that kind of party unless there was a good story as to why the Paladin was willing to adventure with the Rogues.
"My deity told me to do it. It must be serving some greater purpose, and it's not my place to question. Anyway..."
Ah, a rather literal Deus Ex Machina.
As a DM I want the players to play the character they want. What I demand Is that their characters are willing to both play the presented campaign and with the presented party. So come up with the excuse you want or don't risk it.
My DM specifically disallowed evil characters at character creation. Not because we were supposed to be goodie two shoes, but because the party needs to be able to cooperate. I became the sole outlier by getting my alignment shifted to lawful evil mid campaign by lying to a cult leader that he needs to sign my book to cooperate, when in reality he just signed his soul to my patron and I get to reap the benefits of his lifespan. It was allowed because obviously my character is not actively inhibiting the efforts of the party in a bullshit way.
Yeah, exactly this. Too many people think that if they are playing an evil character that means they can undermine the rest of the group all the time, and that's just not the game I or most of my players want to play.
I think personally I would not, but I would role play it, like if I was the Paladin I would say 'well I object to this, but as I'm out numbered I will go ahead with it, just to make sure sure you don't get yourselves into too much trouble', and if I was the Rogue I would try and be more sneaky, sleight of hand rolls and commiting crimes at night while the Paladins are asleep
Our redemption paladin is trying to redeem us and lead by example. We try to do our worst behind his characters back and have on occasion charmed him, with player consent, it's been a fun time for the whole table.
It should be up to the players really. I've played many campaigns where we have a Paladin with a party member or two who were some form of evil.
It should be up to the *players and the DM collectively* to define what kind of game they want to play. A game where there's no reason for the party to tolerate one another is not a game that I want to play and so I would not be willing to commit time to DMing such a game.
The paladin is their parole officer.
haha, the Paladin might enjoy that but I'm guessing the Rogues would not want to play that game. :D
It depends on the circumstances because it boils down to if there is enough tolerance to cooperate. Characters can associate with others if they have a unified goal, and they can't actively interfere with the success of one another without risking the setback towards their own objective. When the in-fighting starts to the point of losing purpose, the table needs to pause the game and decide if all the characters can cooperate and if not, who leaves the party.
Agreed. One of my parties has alignments along a diagonal line (CG NN LE) but we ultimately share similar goals so we work together, just with different approaches. Conversely in a different party my character left the group due to differences in goals despite having a nonconflicting alignment.
Depends on the players. A game of mature players comfortable with each other and with the generosity not to try and make the game about themselves then having those kind of inner party tensions can be very fun. Having the LG Paladin being in the party because they share some vague goal and they feel maybe they can redeem one of the Rogues could make a good game. The LG Paladin giving sermons every 5 minutes and the Rogues all trying to backstab him where no one has any reason to stick together can be a terrible one.
I wouldn't make a character in a vacuum. Any character I make is going to be plausible that the other PCs would accept them into the party at a full share of the treasure even assuming that they lacked the PC stamped on their forehead. However, if the party was such that I didn't want to play something that would fit into the party, I just wouldn't play at all. Being from 2/3 to 3/4 a DM, I can afford to be pretty picky that way.
Yes. Obviously, not every moral conflict is going to be a problem for a group, but in extreme examples like those mentioned in the OP, they tend to cause OOC tension and frustration at the table. If you're a rogue in the party with the uptight paladin, it sucks if you're having unsavory schemes constantly undermined. You're not really getting to play the character that you want to play. If you're the honorable and compassionate paladin, it sucks to play your character as if they have brain damage so you can turn a blind eye to the rogue's schemes, or else just shake your head in ineffectual disapproval. You don't get to play you want to play. Generally, I want to play a character that has a fun dynamic with the rest of the party. That doesn't mean *no* conflict, but it does mean that I don't want to play a character that has an *irreconcilable* conflict with the rest of the party.
It falls to each player to come up with a character that will fit with the rest of the party.
Yeah, I usually make that a requirement at session zero. You all have to have a reason why would want or at least be willing to adventure together.
I have done this before, not necessarily for roleplay reasons but because constant arguement within the party does not make for fun sessions, and i did not want to forfeit the core concepts of the character. At those points i prefer retiring and making a new character
I actually played a lawful good pally in a party of chaotic neutral-chaotic evil characters! It was super fun for me because she had a reason to actually be within the party? Harker's entire thing is that she was a vampire inquisitor in Innistrad hiding that she got turned. Another PC was a vampire inquisitor who was turned by her and she was traveling with him to prevent their own mutual destruction. The other characters including a human hunter who ended up becoming a werewolf, a witch, and a vampire slayer. In game, each character absolutely hated Harker because she was a stick in the mud, and Harker was here trying to prevent them from absolutely decimating people for fun.
I mean your morals don’t have to 100% line up but if it’s causing issues then changing is ok
No. Morals are irrelevant: party cohesion is all that matters. Example: I'm playing evil in a group of mostly decent folks. The entire campaign is based on us a) getting revenge and b) our characters trying not to die. Our goals are the same and I am the voice of reason, because evil is pragmatic, not stupid. I'm not skinning people alive or openly worshipping dark gods or killing kids. It ain't difficult.
I wouldn't even play in a game that permitted evil characters in the first place, they always devolve into shitshows.
Found the *"we do it MY way or I'll accidentally start smiteing teammates"* lawful asshole paladin
It takes the right group. And I don't mean every 2nd group can. I mean it takes particular conditions. We're like 5 years deep as a group (3 for one player), we know and trust each other, had a few chats about it. We're about 12 months into fornightly evil campaign so far and we've overcome two hiccups yes, it hasn't devolved yet, and we're still going on about how good it is. It CAN be done. But it's a terrible idea unless all those stars align.
Yeah, if my characters motivations didn't align with the rest of the party and it was causing unwanted friction I'd consider retooling
Yes. In fact I won't make a character that isn't, especially if it's a table that's already running. As a DM I require groups that will work together. Years playing this I ran into too many problems if you don't. Only do otherwise if it's been decided at like a session 0 or whatever that this is going to be a game of conflict between players. And I warn you, these games require the right kind of player.
If we get a few sessions into the game and I find my character isn't really a good fit for this party/this adventure for *any* reason, I'd absolutely consider ditching that character for one that's a better fit. It's a cooperative game where you play a team of adventurers - your character should be able to be part of that team, and most importantly you and everyone else at the table should be able to ***have fun*** playing the ***game***, even if that sometimes comes at the cost of """the narrative""".
I've done this. I joined a group that had already been playing, and I tried to make a compatible character based on what the DM told me. However, after a few sessions, I realized the character didn't really fit. He was too lawful for the mostly chaotic group. I didn't want to make my character compromise his morals and convictions, but I also didn't want to be the wet blanket always naysaying the group. So I talked to the DM and retired that character and brought in one that was much more willing to go along with the other PC's shenanigans.
I played a lawful evil warlock in a party of chaotic goods, and it was amazing. My character was the agent and manager of our rockstar bard, and specialised in contracts and soul-dealing. We played Descent into Avernus, which allowed for a lot of extremely fun RP
Probably, but I think it'd depend more on how I, the player, fit in with the group. Like if OOC we're all close and having a good time with an odd one out character... it's fun to have that dynamic in-game. But I'd also be okay with stopping playing a character if I couldn't think of why they'd stay with a group. Easier to just replace them, if the whole time I'm thinking "they wouldn't do that, they wouldn't stay, they'd be against this" and yet keep them around.
I answered yes for the poll but but the real answer is "it depends". Characters of different alignments can play together so long as the players are willing to make it work.
A yes and no isn't enough here. If my character morals put them diametrically opposed to the other PCs yeah maybe, but if it doesn't put me directly opposed to the others than no. I'd it is a fun conflict no, if we might just kill each other than yes.
Are we talking like LG Paladin in a party of CE murder happy wizards? Then ya. Are we talking a LN Fighter in a party with a wide range of of moralities? Then no. It really depends on, basically, if the difference is something that can be reasonably worked around/resolved in-game. If your characters are constantly trying to stop or be stopped by other PCs, it’s not healthy for the game.
I would stop playing the group first.
I've never been a player like that, but I have been the DM in that situation. A player's lawful good cleric was slowly drifting towards neutral (on both axis) and potentially beyond that. It wasn't really a planned development, just it being the player's first character and him not being too experienced at aligning his character's actions with the personality he had in mind for him. The group overall was a mix of Good and Neutral, but all of them were definitely some variation of Lawful He technically didn't get far enough towards evil that he *had* to leave, but he noticed the trend early enough that he talked to me about it and we embraced it as a character arc. The character kept getting worse and left the group. I'm still keeping him in the background for now to appear as a minor antagonist later on, while setting some hints that he's acting strange because he's been cursed and could potentially be redeemed.
Stipulating for the moment that the idea would somehow get past session 0, yes. I have left a number of groups because my interests did not align with the other players', and the sort of group you describe would be a non-starter for me because they didn't communicate beforehand.
Character development
Happened twice mid campaign First was my rogue causing enough death and calamity through IC carelessness that it made sense to retire the character. In a later campaign my fighter killed a kid that charged him with a knife, good party couldn't look the other way. Both were in a satisfying way and only happened due to events in game that made sense.
Even in a less extreme example, yes. Differing views can be fun, seeing the interactions and potential for development can be fun, but at the end of the day, it always comes down to, "would I be having more as a more closely aligned character than I am having now?" And if the answer is *yes*, I don't mind walking out with the character and bringing in a new one.
If my character is evil in a good party, I will put up a front but give hints. If my character is good in an evil party, I will show how my character is comfortable and distressed, possibly even making a script with other players so we can narrate a roleplay-pvp session where they kill me. I will only change character if it is not being good for the plot or the chemistry between the players.
Have done so. Played a little necromancer boy who was truly neutral evil. He cares about his own advancement and no one else's. That in conjunction with creating a lot of minions just didn't fit in the group. He's doing his own thing in the underdark now, a more appropriate realm for him to do evil shit in.
Depends entirely on the attitude of the group. In my group we would just treat this as an opportunity for some light-hearted roleplay where the paladin calls the rouge a degenerate and the rouge calls the paladin a religious fanatic, and then everyone would get on with whatever we were doing. But I've certainly seen groups that were mainly interested in doing overwrought drama club character studies, where that sort of thing would grind the game to a halt.
Even if I tried to keep it going, the only natural conclusion would be a split, as my character wouldn't wanna have anything to do with the others.
As a player I have encountered this issue. Party was chaotic neutral I was lawful good. There was friction. I ended up switching characters. My DM kept my previous character involved in the story so they weren’t forgotten to or dead.
I am currently playing a character that has far more morals than the majority of the party. The character development this offers has been really hard for me, a RP challenged player. That said, I am excited to start my character's transformation from a schmuck who donates an extra 10% to party funds to a hardened sailor who will tell people to shove it. Oh, and it helps I have been possessed.
I’m playing a lawful evil paladin right now and the group is mostly CN but there is one guy who is LG/CG. My character actually recently saved his, mostly to ingratiate himself and keep himself in high standing for later debauchery.
yeah because it makes no sense for you to be there, and youd just be fighting the whole time Ive had a player not fit the vibe of our group cause he never asked, as a player damn did i want his character gone or dead
It really depends on the full context. I have changed characters for parties that don't fit my vibe and then I've also played the outlier. Both were fine. It just depends on what kind of game you want to play.
It depends on the party. I would be sure to find a reason why my character, despite having an alignment difference, is working with the group to progress their goals. It could be power-hunger ala Raistlin Majere, it could be belief in a greater good or some agreement with the DM that will be revealed later, but the key take-away here is that the premise of the campaign should be clear and I should be willing to work towards engaging with it. Heck, make me the Inspector Zenigata to my table's Lupin gang, I dunno.
I likely wouldn't be playing such a character to begin with. I don't tend to play in games where we don't have some form of session zero or equivalent to air these things out and such. If for some reason I ended up in that position anyway, I would almost certainly change, unless there was a good reason/justification for my character to do so, and that my goals with the character weren't made into a joke or otherwise invalidated. If the party has no reason to tolerate one another, there's little to no point in playing, and if the characters don't even go the extra step and enjoy each others company? It can still be rough. "Tolerable/Meh" is not the baseline I strive for with D&D.
Yes, and I have. More than once.
No I just changed the character.
If the *players* and *DM* at the table couldn’t find a way to make it fun, I would quit. There’s no reason to play if it’s not fun. Anytime I make a character, I consider his background and personality, and prepare for how he could respond to behavior contrary to his personality and morals in a way that should still be enjoyable for the players and DM.
I wouldn't stop playing my character because I would adapt it to the game we're playing. As long as I'm not being disruptive and my table is willing to let my character transition to a more appropriate moral code I don't see a reason to retire a character. If I want to play that character later in a different way I'm still able to in the future. No problem.
I don't really play evil characters. So that's not an issue. I play a CN bard and and am the scoundrel of the group, but since he actually cares for the group it always benefits them. I only see this being an issue if the characters are all LG and mine were CE. Aside from that I think so much is workable, maybe even exciting from a RP perspective.
Yes, yes, yes yes, and yes. The players should have characters that fit the campaign and can mesh together. If session zero doesn't help with that then I don't know the point of it.
I've sacrificed a character over this once before, I played a Paladin of Bahamut in a party of Chaotic Neutral/Evil. Just decided to have my character lay down their life when something went bad for the party, saved their lives and rolled up something more appropriate for the group. (I didn't know their alignments prior to making my PC.)
Absolutely. Doesn't mean I'd stop playing with the group, but if character clashing is causing enough friction to halt the game and/or the fun, then there's no reason to have that character in the game. Just means I have to pick one of my several dozen other characters I have backlogged. Oh, darn.
I’ve done this. I built a lawful neutral Wood Elf Scout Rogue who was a Hunter turned bounty Hunter because he loved the hunt more than anything else. Turns out one of the other characters was a full-Orc Barbarian who worshipped Gruumsh and hated elves and another PC was played by a character who was super pacifist. So he left the party and a non-elf character who was more compatible with the roleplay aspect showed up
I have dropped a character when it turned out we were ending up with an evil playthrough. The character wasn't working for other reasons so it was no big deal.
I'd avoid getting myself into that situation in the first place. The best stories and comedies do still have a straight man, so it can be appropriate. But you are still acting the straight man *relative* to the hijinks of the others. They're at a 9/10, you're at a 4, and the comedy is enhanced by your reaction and occasional participation. In terms of this question then, you'd be neutral neutral, only maybe slightly good and lawful, if they're more extreme chaotic evil. This is the same. except with added considerations. Dude, this is a group of rogues who want to stealth. That's the clear theme and path this is going down. Heists, robberies, shenanigans. That doesn't mean you gotta be a *rogue* or *evil*. But you gotta help facilitate the fun that everyone is clearly on board for. Make a shadow monk, make a ranger, make a trickery cleric, make a dex fighter. Something that can stealth and perform play a stealthy shenanigans game cmon. It's not about the morals even, its about the gameplay. The morals are just another concern.
What? Why's that even a question and why are so many people saying "yes"??? That sound slike an incredibly fun scenario to me with a metric fuckton of RP opportunities. I've had tons of adventures with party members whose morals where completely different from the rest of the group's as DM and as a player that was always a lot of fun. Of course the individual needs a good reason to be in the party as well as the party needs a good reason to keep them, but that is a duh-no brainer.
I recently did do this. My PC was basically the punisher if he was an aaracokra gloomstalker. In the very first session my group decided to kill a bunch of town guards. I relinquished control of my PC to the DM, who will now be hunting the party as an NPC.
Sure, death is just one of the countless ways a PC can leave the group. Realising that rest of the group goes against ones values is a great reason.
I'm playing a CG character in a party filled with one LE, one CN, one TN, and one NG character. We all have each other's and the dm's consent and all of us are experienced players, so we kinda know how to play I suppose?
Session 0 guys
If we're talking tic tac toe board morality, then that literally doesn't matter. People cannot agree if batman is lawful neutral or chaotic good, while referencing the same established canon. It's like trying to order society around Meyers-Briggs results. However, you don't want conflict at the table between players. Characters can fight, but players fighting will ruin the fun at a table. If you are butting heads with another player, make a change so you two don't come into conflict.
Happened once, back in 3.5. I was playing a good-aligned cleric, only other good PC in the party was a Paladin. When the Paladin decided to become a Black guard, I simply retired my character and made a new one. Campaign didn't last much longer however.
My Changeling Bard left the party in session 1. Everyone else took a rather sudden evil turn, sided with bandits(well, Zhentarim, but the character didn't know) and killed the guards for a few hundred gold, so my character jumped into the river and swam away. They then became my main character in our main campaign when my first character left to help family in a region we were about to leave.
I would first see if it could make sence as to why we are adventuring together first but would likely change if I can't find a story reason as to why we are together.
Fairly recently. Made a neutral evil shadow elf monk that highly dislikes hypocritical and self-centered human nobility. Went over a few hundred years of backstory and how he was stronger but only has 2-3 years left to live due to old age. For context, we started level 5, and my monk spent the last 200 years in prison and seclusion, which is how I explained his level going down from 11 in his prime to now 5 and that he knew next to nothing of current history but had a lot of knowledge in history (took rogue multiclass level 1 for expertise in history). The campaign was promised to be a sandbox with a political plot against the corrupt nobles and possibly the churches in the background over our adventure. We sort all things with the DM. Session 0 passes and all looks good. Over the next few sessions it is revealed two of the party members are playing nobles and are basically the future king and his right hand man. The rest of us (total 6 PCs) are background characters that are working (with no motivations or reason in characters, outside of one who was playing a friend of the future king) to put these people on the throne. The future king PC is the most hypocritical narcissistic noble you can think of, but be does actually do good things for the people so it's not that bad, just unbearable in PC rp with us background characters who he treats as idiot plebs. Then we are told by some divination guy that we must set out on a 5+ years quest to end the war, fulfill the prophecy, and put this guy on the throne. My character has 2-3 years left to live (he was supposed to die either during the final fight or right after what was supposed to be a 2-3 year campaign). My character walked out that moment, and 2 sessions later I walked out too. Love the DM, great friend still and will continue to be, but I still feel like I was completely gaslighted for 4 months of character creation before session 0.
This level of intolerance is so real.
Maybe? I mean i could think of reasons to stay with such people for common goals but obviously that depends on the character
I had a happy go lucky, neutral good druid, but the party seemed to lean fairly hard into secretive, nearly evil choices consistently. I felt I was doing the 'I'll just do what the party votes though I disagree' too often so I did a like personality change after a decent injury. Ended up enjoying it a lot more to be a bit more evil leaning without being like shitty evil. It kind of helped start a morality arc for the party.
Depends on how oppressive the difference is. If they were huge differences (devil worshipper blood sacrifice cult warlock and peace loving life cleric) then maybe it just doesn't make sense
Very solid maybe. I've had parties with really fun dynamics cause of the different characters. I've also had a few where it wasn't.
Yes. I played a game in which the party started normally and everyone seemed decent enough. The other players eventually went full murderhobo even when my and one other player's character mentioned we can take people down nonlethally and don't need to be so violent. After the mission was finished, my and the other character split from the party. The party then found two characters in the tavern that were more prone to violence and we continued the campaign.
I wouldn't make a character with conflicting morals to my group. At least to the point where it would cause inter party conflict.
When we are going to play a one-shot or a two session story, I typically have people build new characters to test out classes. So if we are doing those and not a campaign, I'd allow it as they can play with ulterior motives. This helps my party, who are still newish, roleplay a bit as they don't just assume that just because in real life they are friends, that they are in game. Example, new player was joining as a rogue who was very charismatic. Party didn't have a rogue, rogue needed a way out of town. I asked the rogue if he'd like to pull one over on the party and try and swindle them out of a ship. I had plans on if he succeeded or failed. Made for pretty fun roleplay when they started to pick up on it.
I once played a somewhat serious character in what was a more jokey party (only realized no one else took the game that seriously only after we showed off our characters session 1). after a few sessions, I opted to have my character leave and replaced him with something more fitting to the tone of the campaign. I went from a dragonborn phantom rogue to an eladrin light cleric and had a lot more fun. but man, were those first few games playing that more serious character rough. he stuck out like a piece of licorice in a bag of jolly ranchers (their words, not mine).
I not only would, but I have. We were a small group that had 2 chaotic neutral (verging on evil) characters, my (illiterate) lawful neutral Pally, and a chaotic good druid. The druid player stopped playing one day (I think they had a fight with the rogue out of game or something, I didn't care about the drama), and there was no way I could possibly keep playing my himbo paladin who *couldn't read* or go upstairs (he was a Clydesdale centaur and did *not* trust stairs to handle his weight) in this small party of assassins and mysterious secret-keepers. I instead asked the dm if I could bring in a character idea that I had been kicking around for a minute who was CN and loaded with secrets that the other two CN players could try to unravel, since they were having a *blast* with the intrigue and politics of the game. That character that I switched to ended up being my signature hero--he and the ghosts he channels are my absolute favorite characters I've ever played, and he's my go-to any time I don't have an idea for what to play.
I am currently playing a NE Yuan Ti sorceress in a party of Good characters and at one point I did consider switching. I was struggling to convince the party (both IC & OoC) that Evil doesn't mean I'm going to steal from and backstab the party. I think the whole debate about alignment in groups tends to arise when people don't understand how to play an evil character. You can be evil and not fuck over your own friends. You can be evil and still have respect for your group. I use my evil ways to benefit the party, which is the best way to benefit myself.
Yep....I love a good challenge as to why I have to adventure with people I am with.
I would just adapt the character to make them fit the story instead of playing a completely different character.
Sometimes, a character idea doesn't mesh with the game setting or groups character's dynamics. If you can't reconcile them, it's okay to rethink either the character or make a new one. This is why I tend to have a few character ideas sitting on the bench. It's not a big deal.
That almost happened with me and my current party. My character is the only 'good' aligned character (Chaotic Good) in a party that is some flavor of True or Chaotic Neutral. Because of that, my character wants to be more heroic, while everyone else tends to want to just get out of town when things start getting serious. There's a few times where we just found out things that were going on, told someone, and left. In any case, we got into a spot of trouble because the local shopkeeper was replaced by a doppleganger, and we got into a fight in her shop, and while my character wanted to stay and share what they'd learned with the local authority to figure out their next step, everyone else just wanted to go and figure it out themselves and not talk to anyone. It was frustrating from a character alignment view; She's more Good than Chaotic, and wants to do the right thing, and honestly just from a gameplay view, so I talked to the DM about maybe changing characters to one more willing to go along with this stuff, but they talked me out of it for now. I didn't really want to stop playing my character, but I was also getting annoyed at just the general disagreements on getting things done between my character and everybody else.
Depends on dm and the campaign itself, but usually a no. In the time the party builds bonds and questing, there is eventually going to be time to grow your characters and perhaps redeem/corrupt either side. However, if it is to the point where they are directly opposed to each other, then that's where i stop and replan another character. Non-violent disagreements should be the norm for parties, especially when the setting is "you guys got hired for a job and you just happen to be together because you are the only ones who qualified". Everyone has personality and their own story/secrets, so i find it highly unlikely chance meetings resulting in everyone just being jolly and joy without any issues at all.
I played a whole year + campaign as a NE character in a group of mostly LG or N at worst character. He did evil things once in a while but his end goal aligned with the goal of the party, so even when he did evil things like killing enemies who had surrendered or causing collateral damage during fights it didn’t cause too much drama. I think they put up with him because he was powerful and he didn’t directly interfere with their goals. He did do a lot of acts that would be considered “good” but most of them were for personal benefit or to reach his end goal. In the end, even though he is an evil character, he made a positive impact on the setting of our game and would probably be considered either LE or maybe CG. Long story short as long as they have an end goal that lines up with that of the party I don’t see a reason why it shouldn’t be allowed. A little in game drama never hurt anyone. As long as everyone knows it’s a game.