Morality and loyalty in an 'evil' campaign

Let me set up the scenario first, then I will get to my question. We are playing in an 'evil' campaign. I say this in quotes because we are generally more ambiguous than evil. Meaning we tend to be selfish, and adventure for loot and glory instead of saving damsels in distress. As an example we were on an adventure, found a maiden who was from a caravan that had been attacked by bandits and her family kidnapped and we... continued our journey towards our goal, leaving her basically to die. We are generally not friendly or openly helpful if we are not being paid to do so. We support the local corrupt government because they pay us. However, we don't outwardly murder innocents or burn villages. It's more like lacking a certain moral code than evil. Anyway I am playing a lizardman cleric (true neutral, not evil). We've been together for a while now, I have been sent by my tribe ot help the party after they helped us. In that adventure my druid had been killed by a lightning bolt when I was envelope din darkness because our stupid drow was trying to save himself. We do not play with a map, so I had no idea where I really was. Anyway, fast forward to tonight. We are investigating an old temple that was once dedicated to an old water goddess. It has since been taken over by a slime goddess. I had found myself in a situation where I communed with the old goddess, and had a certain affinity with her now. Along our dungeon crawl we find a large water elemental that is corrupted by the slime goddess. I get first initiative and begin a parlay. I use "purify water" and clear half the infection..next round I will clear the other half., it isn't specifically allowed by the rules of the spell, but it's a cool idea so it is allowed. I say to the party not to attack it. 2 turns later our CE Fire mage comes up and fireballs the thing. Needless to say the elemental goes bonkers and attacks her. I again repeat, don't attack. She, and the rest of the party does as well. Except our ranger who went and hid and out ninja, who did the same for half the fight or more. Regardless our wizard dies, then the rest of the party swoops in and kills the thing. I, as the cleric who spent the remainder of the fight bathing in the pool, get the blame. NOW - I did try to find a peaceful resolution. I also was out of spells, except for my stored orisons. I did have a wand of CLW with roughly 40 charges. Not enough, imo, to save anyone. I do feel kind of bad because we had finally hit 7th level, and this poor character (if we reincarnate her) will be behind us. I don't know that I could have saved her but there's the question... In a campaign like this, in a scenario like this... what is the obligation? What would you do? It's not the first time we've let another party member die. personally I hate playing like this, but I like my character and I like the group. What is the protocol here?

A lot of how death is handled is dependent upon game system and GM. Which game system are you running? I am guessing 3.5,

Well, I don't know, but from what you say it seems you didn't like leaving that character to die, your party blamed you afterwards which probably means they didn't like it either. Which begs the question... Why did you do it? *scratches his head* (Don't bring me the old excuse: "That's something my character would have done." That's seriously getting old :D Unless everybody thought that was a cool idea out-of-character, in which case that's fun :) Or even if your GM expect you to always act like you're living your character's life, in which case, I cannot judge :P ). EDIT: And if you want an answer as to what I would have done, I probably would have helped the mage in game as to avoid the character's death. Then I would have had all the time I wanted to think about why would my character do that, out-of-character. Easier to find a justification after we've all had fun, than use the fact that I'm playing a character to justify leaving one of my fellow players in a bad posture. But that's just me.

First, let's look at the problem at its heart: When the party attacked while you were trying to cleanse the elemental, they were doing what is known in improvisation as "blocking." You established a course of action and then someone came along and negated or denied what you established. This is really where the problem began. Blocking is the scourge of many a D&D table. If you've ever been in a game where you talk a plan to death for 30 minutes (and we've all seen this in RPGs), that discussion was probably full of blocking. If you've ever been in a game where arguments or sore feelings came up as a result of something that occurred in-game, you can be sure blocking was the source of it. You've just witnessed it firsthand and I bet if you think about every other game you've played with that group or others, you can remember instances of blocking. It's that common. Blocking (also known as "denial") destroys or stops the addition of new information or worse negates what has already been established. Blocking is a way of minimizing the impact of new information. It is also a method for the GM or player to play it safe. The GM or player maintains control and avoids vulnerability by blocking. Blocking at its simplest levels involves saying “no,” or avoiding a subject. At a more advanced level, blocking is something that keeps the action from moving forward or the characters from changing. Everything that followed from the point of block (the wizard attacking the elemental precipitously) went wrong and not surprisingly. It became in some ways a conflict between the players using their characters as proxies. You even sat out the fight rather than jump in to save an ally because, in part, that person had blocked you. A better solution might have been to engage and save your ally, then find a reason to justify that. The best solution, however, would have been to know as a group what blocking is and to stop doing that. A way to avoid blocking is to say "Yes, and..." to ideas your hear. The "Yes" is an acknowledgement and validation of what has been offered, where as the "and" part is you adding new information that contributes to the scene in a way that doesn't block the offer you said "Yes" to. Talk to your group about it and see if they want to learn more and implement it. A game without blocking runs very smoothly indeed; a game with lots of blocking doesn't last long. A major reason I get great feedback on my games is because I tell players what blocking is and how to avoid it prior to playing. (Camille is spot on here with the "My character wouldn't do that..." shtick you pulled and how to resolve it. You really are worthy of that Mentor tag, Camille!)

I don't know, it sounds to me like she had it coming to her. You apparently had the situation under control, you were using a creative solution to resolve it, and she came along and mucked it all up. Generally, combat should be the last option to resolve an encounter if there's any chance something else will work instead. Combat consumes valuable resources and time. She could have easily waited to see if your Purify Water solution was going to work before attacking. Who knows, your party could have ended up with a Water Elemental ally instead of having to kill it. You state your group's characters are pretty much a self-serving lot. So, your character chose to not expend his limited resources (the CLW wand) to help another character who brought the trouble onto herself in the first place. There's nothing wrong with that and I wouldn't feel guilty about it. You said the party's Ranger and Ninja both spent the encounter hiding instead of helping, right? I would think that they deserve more of the blame than anything your character did. But the bottom line is, she's the one who stirred up the s**t pot so now she gets to lick the spoon. I think the bigger question here is, are you really happy in that game? At the very end of your post you state that you hate playing like that but you like the group. If that's the case, maybe you should try talking with them and re-evaluate how the group operates. I know a lot of people think it's "cool" the play the lone-wolf type character who is only in it for himself. But let's be honest, if you knew a person like that in real life you would probably think they were a d**k. So why do players think they can throw together a group of characters like that and the dynamic is going to work? It's almost inevitable that the group will eventually implode. I don't know what game system you're playing or how quickly characters level up, but I'm a bit surprised this group has made it as far as 7th level without self-destructing. If you're all good friends outside of the game then it's possible. But if that's the case, then all the more reason to talk with them and re-evaluate your game. "Hate" is a pretty strong word but if that's how you feel about the group's dynamic then it probably needs to be addressed.

Never heard the term blocking, always called that behavior passive-aggressive, but I like the term blocking, will have to use that instead from now on. As for the excuse, "my character would/wouldn't do... ", I have heard it a LOT online. It is basically a way to cop out for being anti-social and try to save face once you have screwed the pooch. Don't try to hide behind your character, you won't fool anyone. RPGs are basically a social game, if you can't be a social person, then you probably won't enjoy RPGs that involve more than basic hack and slash. Online groups are tough, because people don't generally know each other. It gets really old when immature guys, it is almost always young guys in my experience, try to "take charge" and be the leader. One player in a group trying to bogart control is a pain, two or more fighting to take charge is really a mess. This is generally where the "blocking" comes in and people try to passive aggressively thwart each other. If you feel you HAVE to be in charge, then you have issues more important than gaming... IMO, the games that are most fun are where the group acts like friends and makes decisions together. Not acting to help your group IS acting against your group. I don't have a quick and easy solution. I think the GM, as soon as they spot anti-social behavior, needs to call the player aside and address it. The longer you let it fester, the worse it gets when it finally blows up.

Daniel B. said: As for the excuse, "my character would/wouldn't do... ", I have heard it a LOT online. It is basically a way to cop out for being anti-social and try to save face once you have screwed the pooch. Don't try to hide behind your character, you won't fool anyone. RPGs are basically a social game, if you can't be a social person, then you probably won't enjoy RPGs that involve more than basic hack and slash. Bingo. My line is "Oh, your character would/wouldn't do that, eh? Okay, so as a player you're telling me you're not in full control of that character. No problem. Let's build a character you can take full control of and retire this Frankenstein's monster you've created." Online groups are tough, because people don't generally know each other. It gets really old when immature guys, it is almost always young guys in my experience, try to "take charge" and be the leader. One player in a group trying to bogart control is a pain, two or more fighting to take charge is really a mess. This is generally where the "blocking" comes in and people try to passive aggressively thwart each other. If you feel you HAVE to be in charge, then you have issues more important than gaming... IMO, the games that are most fun are where the group acts like friends and makes decisions together. Yes, blocking can be unintentional, especially if a particular detail or whatever was forgotten or misinterpreted. But you're right, it happens most often when one person thinks their idea is best. With the "Yes, and..." method, everyone's ideas are best because they all get included. With blocking, someone's idea gets supremacy and that's at the cost of others' ideas. That's harmful to the group dynamic. In the case of the OP, if he stepped up to cleanse the elemental, everyone on the team should have backed his play or at least did something that didn't negate what he was doing. Everything that followed was a predictable outcome to the original problem of the block. Not acting to help your group IS acting against your group. I don't have a quick and easy solution. I think the GM, as soon as they spot anti-social behavior, needs to call the player aside and address it. The longer you let it fester, the worse it gets when it finally blows up. Awesome advice. RPGs are a team game unless they explicitly state otherwise.

Thanks for all the responses guys. Let me add a few details that may have helped: It is 3.5 This is not the first time we have left a character stranded/alone/incapped while we took care of something else. It's not my usual playstyle but it does fit the group and my character. This is an actual tabletop with friends game, not online. :) Prior to this adventure my character (the non-worldwise lizardman) had stepped into a white light in front of an ancient statue of the Water Goddess. I had been 'touched' and gained some small protection from her. Some of this was in a fight with an Aleph (i think that was what it was) where the wizard had been mind-controlled and blasted our fighter with shocking grasp and our ranger attacked our ninja. My heals and another wand had been used up cleaning up that mess. So, yes... my character would not have wanted to hurt a creature of said unknown water goddess. I talked to the DM today and he said he was impressed with how we had all played out characters. The Mage character is NOT upset. She only attacked because she figured she's a fire mage (and Chaotic evil), and it's water so blammo... lol I know many people would handle it differently, and I'm curious as to what others reactions and input might be. We could run that scenario and it could be played 1000+ different ways. That's half the fun of roleplaying too me. :)

Feefait said: The Mage character is NOT upset. She only attacked because she figured she's a fire mage (and Chaotic evil), and it's water so blammo... lol That's fine, I suppose, although (as I've seen written elsewhere) Chaotic Evil does not automatically mean Chaotic Stupid. A Mage ought to know better. Maybe she has a low Wisdom score? No matter, she made her choice and now must deal with the consequences. As for your character, I still do not believe you did anything wrong. You were out of spells and a CLW wand isn't going to out-heal the damage a water elemental can inflict each round. I keep coming back to the Ranger and Ninja characters, whom you have said did pretty much nothing but hide during this encounter. If anyone wants to be upset at anyone else, they are the ones I would point to. Had they helped from the start, perhaps the Mage wouldn't have died. Anyway, it sounds like maybe the inter-player dynamic within your group isn't as bad as I first took it to be. But, as HHJ points out, most RPGs are cooperative in nature. Survival within the game pretty much requires it. So if you have a group of self-serving, loner-type neutral/evil aligned characters who sometimes leave other party members "stranded/alone/incapped" then eventually someone will probably take offense and do something about it. Once someone in a group plays the revenge card, it usually goes downhill from there.

Imho letting a character die can be totally fine. Players should try avoiding death not because they "get a -1 on their level" but because they love the character that they play, if you GM is doing a good job than the new char might as well start at the same level as the old one or at the same level and xp as the lowest party member and character death will still be impactfull, The situation as you explained it lacked a lot of things: Why did the mage attack the elemental ? Did you try to stop him ? Did you try to calm the elemental ?... etc But I find it straight out stupid in some situation when you have an "evil" character and a "lawful" one and they fight side by side like nothing, when a paladin "leaves the room" to let the party commit and injustice... that's simply retarded, that character would fight to his death or leave the party and become an NPC that raises troops to kill/punish the party. As far as I know most cleric don't just "hand out" healing spells like it's their job.

Just because a character is selfish, doesn't mean that he isn't a team player. Even the most mercenary of individuals knows that it is in their best interest to preserve the team when they're in the field. You can't spend money from an unmarked dungeon grave.

Dickie said: Just because a character is selfish, doesn't mean that he isn't a team player. Even the most mercenary of individuals knows that it is in their best interest to preserve the team when they're in the field. You can't spend money from an unmarked dungeon grave. Exactly.... which is why I keep saying that the Ranger and Ninja characters deserve more blame than anything the OP's character did or didn't do. But so far, everyone seems to be giving those guys a free pass and focusing only on the cleric.

At our table, the wizard would have been called out for blocking the cleric. That would have stopped everything that followed, so the ranger and ninja would never have had the need to withdraw and hide. In a different situation, if a player felt he was compelled by his characterization to stay out of the fight - *sigh* "My character wouldn't do that..." - and his team needed him (or the player otherwise really wanted to engage), we would have collaborated by using Author and/or Director stance to give that character a good reason to jump into the fray.

I was going to add a line about how I would have expected the Ninja and Ranger to have done something to separate the combatants, just figured I'd leave it at a soundbite though. That being said, I do blame the cleric as much as the others just because he was packing a wand and therefore had the perfect chance to change it all. I may not know any of the players involved, but I can pretty much guarantee that if healing had begun at all, even if the wand wasn't enough on it's own, it would have prompted the rest into acting. If a character isn't acting, it is usually because either they're waiting for something or someone to take charge, or else hoping for a favorable change in the battlefield environment.

Not acting can also be a form of passive aggression directed at the person who made a decision with which the non-actor doesn't agree. "You blocked me, so go ahead and die for all I care. I'm not healing you." Your obligation as a player in a team game, of course, is to not do that and regardless of whatever you think your "character would do," you are empowered by way of the Author stance to justify that healing in-game, even if you or your character are miffed. I was recently threatened with just this sort of response when my character got into trouble pursuing leads while other characters *sigh* went shopping . Not only did I uncover the necessary clues that implicated the NPC in dastardly deeds, but I was able to hold my own against superior numbers until my "friends" showed up. "Friends" by the way who both threatened to withhold healing and shove a sword up my warforged's tin can for "getting into trouble." Adventurers get into trouble; non-adventurers get into shopping scenes. "I'm the guy that does his job. You must be the other guys."

Unless you're running down leads on a collector or trying to negotiate/search for a MacGuffin, I don't know why anyone would do anything but gloss over shopping anyway. But that's a whole other topic!

I'm still not sure how helpful a wand of CLW would be against the amount of damage a water elemental can dish out each round. I fear the charges would have just been wasted in the end. As HHJ pointed out, it was the Mage's actions which precipitated the subsequent disaster. Until then it seemed like the Cleric had found a very creative solution which was working. But then, it was also the Mage who paid the heaviest price in the end so I guess we can just chalk it up to karma.

Dickie said: Unless you're running down leads on a collector or trying to negotiate/search for a MacGuffin, I don't know why anyone would do anything but gloss over shopping anyway. But that's a whole other topic! I personally like to provide the players with a shop inventory and how much everything costs, but otherwise I leave it to them to write down what they buy and mark off the money from their character sheet to pay for it. The actual transaction isn't typical role-played out unless they want to try haggling for a lower price, working out a trade or something like that.

The wand wasn't really what would have made the difference. Acting in defense of a teammate, however, usually gets players off of the bench and onto the field, especially as it ups the stakes now that two party members are involved in the combat. Indeed the cleric had come up with a great idea, but the mage derailed things, so the mage should have taken the blame for doing something irresponsible and not really CE so much as psychotic (which isn't a state a character can be played in anyway). CE =/= insane. Unfortunately, the situation evolved beyond where the blame should have been placed.

From the perspective of improv, the player was "irresponsible" for blocking. The character's action is entirely justifiable by any reasonable explanation in the fiction, just like any other action a character might take that doesn't contradict established characterization. If there's blame to be placed, it's with the player for poor play, not the character. By contrast, a player can exhibit good play habits by not blocking and have their character do something blameworthy in the fiction, as long as it's interesting to all.

Dickie said: The wand wasn't really what would have made the difference. Acting in defense of a teammate, however, usually gets players off of the bench and onto the field, especially as it ups the stakes now that two party members are involved in the combat. Indeed the cleric had come up with a great idea, but the mage derailed things, so the mage should have taken the blame for doing something irresponsible and not really CE so much as psychotic (which isn't a state a character can be played in anyway). CE =/= insane. Unfortunately, the situation evolved beyond where the blame should have been placed. Dickie is perhaps exactly right. Had I made an attempt to move in it would potentially have spurred the ninja and ranger into action. The ninja went into gaseous form immediately at the beginning and sat out the first 2-3 rounds, until it became obvious we would win the fight. The ranger is a relatively inexperienced player who was A. Unfamiliar with elementals and didn't think her bow would hurt the creature We let this go to not corrupt player v character knowledge. B. Still a little upset that we had tied her upset after she was mind controlled and attacked the ninja. C. Out of the main combat room, I think assuming we were all going to run. Had I stepped in (or anyone) then the rest would have come in too, I think at least feeling that we were all going to die if it came to it. I am, sadly, the tank of the party. everyone else is pretty squishy. My decision was (as mentioned) partly a decision based on the adventure so far, and partly a culmination of the campaign in general. My character is a rather neutral lizardman who really cares little of one soft skin over another. So, yes I will take any blame that may be earned by making the decision. :) I have never had an 'evil' campaign that worke din any capacity. Most die in the first adventure or two as everyone just plays Chaotic Stupid and kills each other. Not having much experience in the area I think it's fun to see how other perceive it, or what they think is the appropriate reaction. As someone mentioned about the paladin leaving the room, the idea of etiquette in a bad-guy game is quite disparate.

The key to playing in a successful "evil" campaign is in realizing this one thing: You Are Not Your Character . Everyone as a group must recognize that, yes, these characters are bastards, but we players have to put the game first and keep it moving forward and that might mean not stealing from and killing each other. A truly good roleplayer accepts that he is in a game and that, in part, means getting along with one's fellow players in a cooperative manner so that the game can proceed in a way that's fun for everyone. If you're the type that avoids metagaming like the plague, you will have a hard time playing or running an "evil" campaign. The metagame is a useful tool, especially for these sorts of scenarios. Use your player knowledge that you're in a game, understand the importance of the other players' participation in said game, and then come up with justifications that your character won't set about unilaterally forcing another player out of the primary mode of participation (through his character). That includes sitting on the sidelines watching your teammates die.

Headhunter Jones said: Everyone as a group must recognize that, yes, these characters are bastards, but we players have to put the game first and keep it moving forward and that might mean not stealing from and killing each other. Truth. The game flow and basic manners take absolute priority, and treason is reviled and punished harshly across all forms of morality, good and evil. If you betray your best friend, you lose a best friend. Betray the mafia, you're wearing stone shoes by tomorrow morning. Do things behind the back of the most foul, evil, vile, treacherous, backstabbing bastard on the planet, you'll wish you were dead. I've played LE Vampires who the party trusted more than the Paladin, who was eventually ousted from the group because we got tired of his attitude problems, leaving me as the (unwilling) leader. Why was he ousted? Because his idea of teamwork would have been unwelcome in a Paranoia game, which is about being a backstabbing bastard. There are no problem characters, only problem players. Honestly, players who "play their alignment" are as welcome at my table as a bad smell.

Resident Kyantol said: Honestly, players who "play their alignment" are as welcome at my table as a bad smell. Yeah, those guys generally don't know how alignment works anyway and that's how we get the ubiquitous Paladin Police jerks. You don't play your alignment - your alignment is (or changes to) to whatever you play. They frequently get it backwards likely because you're asked to choose an alignment from the get-go. A better game design would be to throw alignment out, or at least have it be chosen after the first session based on the character's actions during play. That way the players would understand better that you are not your alignment - your alignment is determined by your actions, not the other way around.

I am going to counter a number of the se assertions. Tied to alignment a problem? Alignment should be additional flavor for a character, and a guide to how they are played. Only Paladins have alignment chosen for them. Choose a non-aligned campaign or character if you don't want that to be a focus. When you create a character you should be taking alignment and actions into consideration. If a player choose CE because they just want to be an @$$ of a character, that's a problem. If everyone is some shade of evil, but common survival keeps them together then that can work. We've all see those people who only ever play one alignment and with one style. One guy we used to play with always played CN. We'd be 3-4 adventures into a campaign arc and he would decide that since he was CN his character would get bored and wander off - leaving the party to follow and abandon the arc or not. He wanted to play CN because he wanted an excuse to be a jerk, not because he had a specific character goal. To him party chaos was fun. Eventually we didn't play with him anymore. Group continuity is huge, but so is character continuity. If a majority of the players in a group play Style A I can't expect to come in and have Style Z work exactly as I want. Paladins are a great example and a great source of debate. I am a full believe that the paladin be held to a higher standard. They are my favorite class, but not always my favorite to play. There is also a reason i tend not to play monks. I have preconceived player notions of what these classes 'mean'. I think there may be world history or flavor that changes that, depending on the setting. I think that it is easy to say "martial artist" instead of monk too, or cavalier instead of paladin or something like that. I will give 2 examples of how I have played the truly LG paladin. The first was one of my favorite characters, and maybe highest leveled 3.5 character - Fero Stonewind, Dwarven Paladin. I joined a pre-existing group, and went with my staple pally. It quickly became apparent that it was a dungeon crawl, loot driven, "me" centered game. Despite wanting to be truly LG I found that I bit my tongue and looked the other way. Eventually we encountered a big bad boos type guy, and the group (using player knowledge) knew he was evil but we couldn't beat him. So they left him to ransack a village. At that point I realized I was not playing a paladin. I 'retired' him to training with his order and made a fighter or something. I don't even remember - it was just another forgettable character. My second was another dwarven paladin. However, in this campaign even though I went around singing "Pelor, Pelor he is so great! Pelor Pelor there can be no mistake!" the party understood I was a paladin. We did good deeds as much as possible. when we encountered a village being overrun by bandits instead of walking way (as the other group did) they joined me in the assault, and then we stayed up all night burying bodies and caring for the wounded.

Feefait said: I am going to counter a number of the se assertions. Tied to alignment a problem? Alignment should be additional flavor for a character, and a guide to how they are played. Only Paladins have alignment chosen for them. Don't monks have to be lawful in some games? Don't clerics of particular gods have to be certain alignments? Alignment isn't about flavor by design. It's a mechanic , meant to simulate universal forces of good, evil, law, and chaos. It determines how different spells affect you or how items interact with your character. Or whether or not you keep your class features. Or what sorts of challenges you might have on the planes which are more closely influenced by alignment than the Prime Material (in older versions of the D&D cosmology that is). It's a very specific simulation of a fantasy trope based on the novels of Michael Moorcock and Poul Anderson. "Good" isn't just a descriptor - it's a universal force and how your character acts is how aligned you are to said force and thus how game mechanics based on alignment interact with your character. Where people get it wrong (and frequently) is they say, "Oh, I'll pick Neutral Good, so I have to act this way." No. That's wrong. You act how you want to act and depending on how you act, you have an appropriate alignment. Mechanics that come up during play interact with you accordingly. That you happen to pick one during character generation in some games doesn't mean it's a straitjacket. Then the DM gets it totally wrong by sticking moral conundrums in front of the PCs such as orc babies or the like: FAIL. That's not a trope high fantasy action/adventure covers and why it's a source of problems in the game. Moral conundrums don't belong in a game like D&D where you can lose your class features in some cases just for acting in a way that changes your alignment. A DM playing to these tropes is purposefully setting certain people up to fail. If you like moral conundrums in your games, choose to play a game that better supports it. That's not what alignment is supposed to be about. Bottom line: It has to be looked at like a mechanic, not as a particular moral or ethical viewpoint because that's when you start having people editorialize and complicate matters. Choose a non-aligned campaign or character if you don't want that to be a focus. When you create a character you should be taking alignment and actions into consideration. If a player choose CE because they just want to be an @$$ of a character, that's a problem. If everyone is some shade of evil, but common survival keeps them together then that can work. We've all see those people who only ever play one alignment and with one style. Did you ever ask them why they do that or just assume? Sometimes the classic CE or CN character is someone who wants to be proactive and go out and get into trouble rather than follow a plotline or sit around in taverns posturing toward the other characters or spend all of his time trying to mitigate failure as some groups do. Often if they're playing a do-gooder, they feel they can't be as proactive . While it's no excuse to be disruptive in a game that prefers plotlines and tavern-sitting, often that's the issue at hand. There really are a lot less jerks out there than we'd like to imagine. Sometimes it's some other reason. One guy we used to play with always played CN. We'd be 3-4 adventures into a campaign arc and he would decide that since he was CN his character would get bored and wander off - leaving the party to follow and abandon the arc or not. He wanted to play CN because he wanted an excuse to be a jerk, not because he had a specific character goal. To him party chaos was fun. Maybe the rest of the game was just boring. At least to him if not others. Still no excuse to act out, but at least understanding where this comes from allows us to prepare for it. In most games I've been in on Roll20, I've wanted to get stabby myself because they're so dull. More shopping? Oh boy! *stab* If a majority of the players in a group play Style A I can't expect to come in and have Style Z work exactly as I want. Yes, buy-in is key as is Session Zero to obtain it. Paladins are a great example and a great source of debate. I am a full believe that the paladin be held to a higher standard. They are my favorite class, but not always my favorite to play. There is also a reason i tend not to play monks. I have preconceived player notions of what these classes 'mean'. I think there may be world history or flavor that changes that, depending on the setting. I think that it is easy to say "martial artist" instead of monk too, or cavalier instead of paladin or something like that. They are and can be whatever you can imagine them to be. And that includes reasons why they can be okay with or ignorant of the behavior of their comrades, should said behavior be iffy to their moral or ethical code. I will give 2 examples of how I have played the truly LG paladin. The first was one of my favorite characters, and maybe highest leveled 3.5 character - Fero Stonewind, Dwarven Paladin. I joined a pre-existing group, and went with my staple pally. It quickly became apparent that it was a dungeon crawl, loot driven, "me" centered game. Despite wanting to be truly LG I found that I bit my tongue and looked the other way. Eventually we encountered a big bad boos type guy, and the group (using player knowledge) knew he was evil but we couldn't beat him. So they left him to ransack a village. At that point I realized I was not playing a paladin. I 'retired' him to training with his order and made a fighter or something. I don't even remember - it was just another forgettable character. My second was another dwarven paladin. However, in this campaign even though I went around singing "Pelor, Pelor he is so great! Pelor Pelor there can be no mistake!" the party understood I was a paladin. We did good deeds as much as possible. when we encountered a village being overrun by bandits instead of walking way (as the other group did) they joined me in the assault, and then we stayed up all night burying bodies and caring for the wounded. It's better to retire a character if you can't see them getting along with the party paradigm than to be Paladin Police, that's for sure. Though I submit I can come up with any reason for a paladin to stick around in any situation - it just takes imagination and to get rid of one's pre-conceived notions. (This assumes the group is sticking to their pre-game agreements as to content and tone.) Some might even suggest that the whole point of playing a paladin is the fall from grace and redemption trope.

Personally I feel that, from what you described, everything happened perfectly and was kind of cool. Your character tried to find a solution, the mage got bored or was rather unhappy by your solution and decided to just "end" the problem. If he's CE, that's totally within his PC behavioral pattern. Heck, that's EXACTLY what chaotic means overall. Sure it's up to the player to handle it so that it doesn't become a problem that just prevents the game to move forward but you can't play an evil party (even less with chaotic evil in there) and assume that's it's all gonna be smooth sailing like a normal party is. And honestly, after that, I don't really see why your PCs would ever want to resurrect the mage at all unless you have some way to control him. The main question I have though is: Were the players blaming you or were their PCs blaming your PC? That makes a world of difference! If the PCs were blaming your PC, it's GREAT! I mean, someone died so it's normal to pass the blame around somewhat. Nobody said PCs had to be logical, fair and whatnot. It add good interaction between the PCs and I find that great personally. If the players blame you, then it's a problem. There is no reason in this situation to blame the player, even less so if everyone agrees to play an evil party. The player with the mage took upon himself to create a conflict were there was none, he should assume responsibility and the others should too. I also don't agree that this was blocking. The mage did no argue, did no say no, did not stop the game: He acted, period. Blocking to me is where the actual game is prevented to go forward in some way, which is not what happened here. The DM allowed every possible solution apparently and the PCs all seem to have varied choices. One PC took upon himself to try something, another one decided to use another solution. In any case, the game kept moving, there was no blocking anywhere. For blocking to be there, you'd need the mage actually saying stuff like "don't parley with that or I'll blow everything" followed by 30 minutes of pointless arguments where players (not PCs) get heated up and everyone end up frustrated. None of that happened however, both PCs just acted and I think that's great. Personally, if I had been playing the mage who died or the cleric, I'd find the whole scene awesome :)

The wizard player's decision was blocking on the grounds it negated the actions being attempted by the cleric at the time the action took place. The cleric was trying to cleanse the elemental; the wizard attacked it, preventing the cleric from continuing his action. That's blocking, straight up. That nobody cared or thinks the end result worked out fine doesn't mean blocking wasn't going on. It's just blocking that everyone was bought into.

Headhunter Jones said: The wizard player's decision was blocking on the grounds it negated the actions being attempted by the cleric at the time the action took place. The cleric was trying to cleanse the elemental; the wizard attacked it, preventing the cleric from continuing his action. That's blocking, straight up. That nobody cared or thinks the end result worked out fine doesn't mean blocking wasn't going on. It's just blocking that everyone was bought into. Yea, if you put it that way, but to me that's quite fine and no at all a problem in game, on the contrary. I mean, why would the party have to just sit tight while the cleric was doing his thing just because he "won initiative" somehow. It didn't really prevented the game moving going forward in any way from what I read. These guys are all evil and self described as greedy and selfish. The mage is stated as behaving in a CE manner. That totally fits no? I mean, sure, you yourself described it as "Blocking (also known as "denial") destroys or stops the addition of new information or worse negates what has already been established. Blocking is a way of minimizing the impact of new information. It is also a method for the GM or player to play it safe." In this case, yea, it's blocking because I suppose they didn't get to talk with the water elemental but who says they should have talked to it. Do you think that PCs should always be sub-servants to "potential new information"? Would a barbarian in full rage mode be blocking if he didn't "gently knocked unconscious" an enemy to be interrogated like another PC asked? As I said, personally, blocking is just players using their PCs in a non productive fashion ( edit: for the overall story, including their own ) and therefore stopping the game to a crawl. This happens most during discussions where people just keep using the same arguments over and over on both sides with no one willing to compromise. That's not what I feel happened here. Or maybe you use "blocking" as a broad term and don't consider it "bad" every time it happens? Maybe that's where the confusion I have comes from because to me blocking is always bad :)

G. said: Yea, if you put it that way, but to me that's quite fine and no at all a problem in game, on the contrary. I mean, why would the party have to just sit tight while the cleric was doing his thing just because he "won initiative" somehow. It didn't really prevented the game moving going forward in any way from what I read. These guys are all evil and self described as greedy and selfish. The mage is stated as behaving in a CE manner. That totally fits no? A group that doesn't block acts however they want just so long as they don't contradict existing fiction or negate each other's actions. This is so even if the PCs are "evil" because it is an agreement between players, regardless of what characters they are playing, just like how it's an agreement between improv actors regardless of the characters they are playing. They could have done any number of things in that scene that didn't negate the cleric's stated intent. Frankly, I'd hate to sit there while a single PC stole the scene but I could find something way more productive to the group dynamic than preventing someone from doing something they said they wanted to do (and were actively doing and expending resources on). As it was written in the OP, this seems like one of those scenes where the rogue is off on his own and the rest of the group is twiddling their thumbs. It's better to have a more dynamic scene where everyone can participate in my view. I mean, sure, you yourself described it as "Blocking (also known as "denial") destroys or stops the addition of new information or worse negates what has already been established. Blocking is a way of minimizing the impact of new information. It is also a method for the GM or player to play it safe." In this case, yea, it's blocking because I suppose they didn't get to talk with the water elemental but who says they should have talked to it. Do you think that PCs should always be sub-servants to "potential new information"? Would a barbarian in full rage mode be blocking if he didn't "gently knocked unconscious" an enemy to be interrogated like another PC asked? No, "potential" information doesn't exist yet in the fiction, thus you can't block it. You can only block established fiction which includes stated intent and actions. Yes, the barbarian in your example would be blocking. Being in "full rage mode" and knocking someone out instead of killing them doesn't negate that "rage" fiction. You're still "raging" and it's perfectly reasonable that the barbarian knocks someone out incidentally because the player didn't want to block, even if he was "trying" to kill the target in the fiction. The player of the barbarian acknowledges the request and makes it happen in the fiction by whatever reasonable justification he can offer. As I said, personally, blocking is just players using their PCs in a non productive fashion ( edit: for the overall story, including their own ) and therefore stopping the game to a crawl. This happens most during discussions where people just keep using the same arguments over and over on both sides with no one willing to compromise. That's not what I feel happened here. That's also blocking. Blocking covers a lot of ground. A lot of it depends on scene framing, too. If the DM had said that attacking it was a viable part of trying to cleanse it (say, it's easier to cleanse when it's worn out or something), then the wizard's action would have not been blocking since it wouldn't negate the cleric's intent and effort. As it was stated in the OP, we cannot assume that was the case, though that would have been a good call by the DM to frame it that way. " Yes , and attacking it still permits the cleric to cleanse it as long as he finishes his cleaning ritual before it is dead." Or maybe you use "blocking" as a broad term and don't consider it "bad" every time it happens? Maybe that's where the confusion I have comes from because to me blocking is always bad :) Most blocking you see at an RPG table is counterproductive. It's also very common. Improv actors can block (often for comedic purpose), but players of RPGs should leave it to people trained in how to do that.

(damn these forums are horrible to edit....) I understand your point of view though to me that's like negating any possible contradictory idea between players. It basically assumes that all PC actions MUST be carried to term and that at best, other PCs can only add to the original action, never contradict it or prevent it. That's really something I find detrimental to a good PC characterization and I couldn't play with that over my head as a player. Why should the original action considered the "proper" action by the other PCs? Why should the cleric action be the one allowed to come to term and not the wizard one? Why would someone saying "I want to interrogate this guy don't kill him" be any more valid than the barbarian who just kills regardless. Sure, things tend to go better when PCs work together but as long as it's not a deliberate action by the player to just prevent play or piss another player off, I don't see the problem personally and don't consider that blocking in any way. Of course all this is very abstract because as you said, it depends on the actual scene itself, the DM and the players. That said, I am totally with you (I think) that all players and the DM should work together toward a good scene, a good story but on that point I don't quite agree. You need the proper players for that (and DM) as you said but since I can't really play (and usually don't) with players who can't, I guess that's why I have a different view on it, more personal and less broad.

G. said: (damn these forums are horrible to edit....) I understand your point of view though to me that's like negating any possible contradictory idea between players. It basically assumes that all PC actions MUST be carried to term and that at best, other PCs can only add to the original action, never contradict it or prevent it. That's really something I find detrimental to a good PC characterization and I couldn't play with that over my head as a player. You probably could. You can have fantastic characterization without ever negating, preventing, or contradicting another player's character. Conflict between characters can still occur without blocking as long as the players are moving the scene forward. Eschewing blocking is a cheap and fast way to build trust between players, too. A table without blocking is also one where ideas are coming fast and furious, character interactions are great, and the pace just moves right along. When you don't have to fight to get your ideas into play, people tend to offer more ideas. Why should the original action considered the "proper" action by the other PCs? It's important not to get player and character mixed up here. My character may think that was the worst idea in the world. Me as a player knows that I can't contradict the action being stated. I can only add to it or do something else that doesn't negate it. I have to use the Author or Director stance to imagine a way that my character is going to be okay with this and support it in some way or at least not detract from it. Why should the cleric action be the one allowed to come to term and not the wizard one? You say that as if the wizard's only possible option is to attack. He could have chosen to do something else, right? Why would someone saying "I want to interrogate this guy don't kill him" be any more valid than the barbarian who just kills regardless. It depends on who says what first. Nothing exists in play until it's stated. If the barbarian is the first to say "I'm taking no prisoners - all orcs will die," then that's that. I have to figure out a way for my character to be okay with that result ultimately, even if our characters argue about it. Perhaps I set about finding a speak with dead scroll or the like. Sure, things tend to go better when PCs work together but as long as it's not a deliberate action by the player to just prevent play or piss another player off, I don't see the problem personally and don't consider that blocking in any way. Blocking is blocking. Whether you're okay with it is a different issue. Plenty of people are, even if it creates problems. Most people don't even know they're doing it until you point it out to them. My experience is that once you've had it pointed out to you, you see it all over and you start to see why it's bad because of the outcomes it frequently produces. It should be noted that some blocking is unintentional, e.g. you didn't understand the intent or missed a critical part of the stated action or forgot an important detail. But a lot of it is purely intentional , especially at D&D tables. And we haven't even talked about blocking in the form of "DM May I?" or "20 Questions" that a lot of people do. Of course all this is very abstract because as you said, it depends on the actual scene itself, the DM and the players. That said, I am totally with you (I think) that all players and the DM should work together toward a good scene, a good story but on that point I don't quite agree. You need the proper players for that (and DM) as you said but since I can't really play (and usually don't) with players who can't, I guess that's why I have a different view on it, more personal and less broad. Since many games don't specifically point out blocking as bad or codify their rules such that blocking is breaking said rules, it exists on the level of a social contract. The whole concept comes from improvisational acting. Arguably, that's all RPGs are - improvisational acting in a framework of rules and mechanics to determine resolution-outcomes.

The whole concept comes from improvisational acting. Arguably, that's all RPGs are - improvisational acting in a framework of rules and mechanics to determine resolution-outcomes. Yea I get that's your view but I feel that improvisational acting doesn't have any consequences so anyone can do whatever the hell they want and other actors just have to work with it. There's no real DM there, everyone is just another actor and there are rules on top (which you don't really need when you deal with very good improv players I think). To me, In RPGs, it matters because actions have consequences, determined by the DM (and, to some extend, the rules). The DM isn't an actor in all this, he's the everything. He's the thing that lets the PCs breath air, he's the wall you're trying to punch through. There is no "yes and..", there is just the wall, played by the DM as he wants to play a wall with the "reality" that it includes, in the context the DM allows to exist. What seems to sum up everything is your example with "If the barbarian is the first to says ... then that's that.". That I think is where we diverge totally and therefore explains why I didn't quite understand your view earlier. Now I do, we just play very different styles :) Anyway, good talk as usual. Always enjoy discussing core RPG concepts when you're about in a thread.

G. said: Yea I get that's your view but I feel that improvisational acting doesn't have any consequences so anyone can do whatever the hell they want and other actors just have to work with it. There's no real DM there, everyone is just another actor and there are rules on top (which you don't really need when you deal with very good improv players I think). Except that it does have consequences - everything you say changes the scene in some way since everything you say must contain new information. You can't do "whatever the hell you want" because at a bare minimum you have to respect existing fiction. If the DM says there's no door, you can't say there is one or else you're blocking. Same goes for rules you agreed to as a player (and here I refer to anyone playing the game which includes the DM). Break them and you're blocking. A side effect of this approach tends to be that the DM learns to frame scenes better. That ties into what I said above about the DM framing it in such a way that cleansing the elemental could include attacking it in some way. To me, In RPGs, it matters because actions have consequences, determined by the DM (and, to some extend, the rules). The DM isn't an actor in all this, he's the everything. He's the thing that lets the PCs breath air, he's the wall you're trying to punch through. There is no "yes and..", there is just the wall, played by the DM as he wants to play a wall with the "reality" that it includes, in the context the DM allows to exist. I asked a friend of mine what he would do if he was the wizard. He said, "I'd probably declare that some swamp minions with a vested interest have sprung up, & fight those." And he could in our games, most definitely. He wants swamp minions? He's got 'em! That's because the players are empowered to make such declarations through the Author and Director stance, just like the DM is. Actions do have consequences... the trick is that anyone can determine what those consequences are, not just the DM (though in practice a fair amount of deference is still given). The fear of some is that the players will then use that power to short-circuit challenges and sometimes they do. But really what it's about is buy-in. The consequences they give themselves come with it in a way a DM unilaterally handing them out could never hope to achieve as consistently. In practice, I see players use these stances to make it harder on themselves, not easier, interestingly enough. What seems to sum up everything is your example with "If the barbarian is the first to says ... then that's that.". That I think is where we diverge totally and therefore explains why I didn't quite understand your view earlier. Now I do, we just play very different styles :) Right, my guess is you prefer the simulationist style using primarily the Actor stance. I don't play that way anymore. Anyway, good talk as usual. Always enjoy discussing core RPG concepts when you're about in a thread. Right back at you!

No, it is NOT CE to act crazy. I can't stand that. If that were the case the Drow would have killed themselves off before becoming a threat to anyone. However the Drow have a very organized society in most campaign worlds. How does that fit? Because Chaotic =/= random. A CE evil society can be filled with laws, and likely will be. It is how those laws and rules are applied that defines Lawful through Chaotic. If the society always applies those rules consistently, they're Lawful, but if they pick and choose who those rules apply to and how to enforce them, it is Chaotic. The same with an individual. A character who is Chaotic Evil isn't going to run around willy-nilly acting crazy and murderous unless they're also crazy and/or stupid. They're going to deal fairly with their momentary allies and cheat their former allies all in the same breath. They're going to let another party member expend their resources, not go out of there way to see them fail. And yes, failing to act is going out of your way to produce failure. What the mage did was NOT CE behavior. It was psychotic.

While I think alignment as implemented in D&D is stupid, it's important not to let your own personal interpretations of alignment (or your moral or ethical beliefs) get in the way of the rules as written. It's a game mechanic, not a suggestion you can interpret however you like. You have to take it at that level without bias or editorializing. Alignment is a universal force in the D&D setting just like gravity is in the real world. It is a constant, unchanging thing. Here is the d20srd entry for alignment. In this particular edition of the game, alignment is this thing and nothing else. If you say it is something other than this thing, you are objectively wrong. And that's really the issue with alignment - people want to say it's something it's not and then use that to justify their behavior. The authors of the D&D universe decide what alignment is and means. You have to choke that down or you're not playing rules as written. It's perfectly okay to not play rules as written, but you will invite problems to your table if you do not. Alignment is particularly prone to this because people often have some strong views about morality and ethics. The interesting thing about that is their opinion doesn't matter one bit . Only the rules as written matter. That the rules as written sound subjective doesn't mean they are. The wording for Chaotic Evil is thus: "A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him." Was the wizard doing whatever his lust for destruction drove him to do? Was he arbitrarily violent? Were his plans haphazard? If so, the wizard was acting in accordance with a Chaotic Evil alignment. What does that mean? It means that if this is a consistent behavior, then the character is Chaotic Evil and game mechanics that interact with chaos, evil, or chaotic evil affect him. That's it. That's all it means. One notable line from the entry on alignment: "The first six alignments, lawful good through chaotic neutral, are the standard alignments for player characters . The three evil alignments are for monsters and villains ." One wonders why "evil" campaigns can go so easily awry. It's because, in part, you're eschewing the rules as written for D&D. While "evil campaigns" can work if everyone's bought in, other games support evil protagonists better.

Dickie said: No, it is NOT CE to act crazy. I can't stand that. If that were the case the Drow would have killed themselves off before becoming a threat to anyone. However the Drow have a very organized society in most campaign worlds. How does that fit? Because Chaotic =/= random. A CE evil society can be filled with laws, and likely will be. It is how those laws and rules are applied that defines Lawful through Chaotic. If the society always applies those rules consistently, they're Lawful, but if they pick and choose who those rules apply to and how to enforce them, it is Chaotic. The same with an individual. A character who is Chaotic Evil isn't going to run around willy-nilly acting crazy and murderous unless they're also crazy and/or stupid. They're going to deal fairly with their momentary allies and cheat their former allies all in the same breath. They're going to let another party member expend their resources, not go out of there way to see them fail. And yes, failing to act is going out of your way to produce failure. What the mage did was NOT CE behavior. It was psychotic. The way I see it, Drows are not chaotic evil though, they are, as you say, a very organized society, bound by rules, traditions and a very strong hierarchy. That's, in D&D terms, pure Lawful Evil. But that's only their "society" and that never describes individuals. You can potentially have Lawful Good drow individuals in there, or Neutral Evil ones or whatever. Individuals are NOT their alignment, they are what they do. Sure one can use an alignment tendency to "sum up" how his PC will behave overall, but that really doesn't matter much, only what he does and how he does it actually matters in game. Of course, as Headhunter mentioned, Alignments in D&D are not mere concepts, they are actually a tangible reality and if you stick to the rules, you often find a D&D session to be very black and white on a lot of things, because well, that's how things are. Of course, DMs don't have to follow this exactly but again, as mentioned, it makes a lot of D&D settings less...practical. I have no idea how the group of the OP is doing things and how they treat alignments but he clearly stated that they play an "evil" party so I'm guessing they apply fairly straight D&D concepts. Personally, I tend to only use Law vs Chaos (Civilization vs Entropy, etc) in my settings and only apply these to societies, gods and species in general. On top of that, I don't really give any alignments to individuals (PCs and NPCs), only goals and behavioral patterns. In the 2 weekly sessions I'm playing right now (one as player and one as DM), I don't even know what alignments are the other players, it doesn't even matter to me really. They do things, and I react to what they do. That said, I have to tweak the entire world and the gods to go with that, otherwise many things don't fit proper. I have no idea how most people do it, but it's not a big problem, as long as everyone around the table is ok with it. Now back to the OP, deciding to do something on a whim with no care for the consequences is, I feel, something that can be considered Chaotic Evil in a pure D&D sense. The mage wasn't crazy, maybe he was just bored, or wanted to see what would happen if a fireball hit a water elemental, or maybe he wanted to put that posh little drow back in his place. Whatever the case, he did whatever the heck he wanted, when he wanted. That's not crazy. To me (without using the pure D&D concepts) the mage is exactly like some kids (and adults actually) you see sometimes, looking at ants walking around, doing their things, being fascinated by them....and suddenly the kid's gonna just kill one ant, or even flood the entire hive, killing thousands on a whim...just because... Does that make him crazy? not really. Psychotic? nope. Chaotic Evil? Not even that...He just...did it. That's all.

G. said: Now back to the OP, deciding to do something on a whim with no care for the consequences is, I feel, something that can be considered Chaotic Evil in a pure D&D sense. The mage wasn't crazy, maybe he was just bored, or wanted to see what would happen if a fireball hit a water elemental, or maybe he wanted to put that posh little drow back in his place. Whatever the case, he did whatever the heck he wanted, when he wanted. That's not crazy. To me (without using the pure D&D concepts) the mage is exactly like some kids (and adults actually) you see sometimes, looking at ants walking around, doing their things, being fascinated by them....and suddenly the kid's gonna just kill one ant, or even flood the entire hive, killing thousands on a whim...just because... Does that make him crazy? not really. Psychotic? nope. Chaotic Evil? Not even that...He just...did it. That's all. "A chaotic neutral character follows his whims." ( d20 SRD ) "A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do." ( d20 SRD ) That is very clearly not whim. There is a driving factor here. In other words, if he is chaotic evil (need more context to know for sure), it can't be for the reasons you state. Again, we can't editorialize on this stuff if we hope to get it right and avoid arguments at the table. It's a mechanic, same as rolling to attack someone. It has to be taken on that basis.

Headhunter Jones said: "A chaotic neutral character follows his whims." ( d20 SRD ) "A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do." ( d20 SRD ) That is very clearly not whim. There is a driving factor here. In other words, if he is chaotic evil (need more context to know for sure), it can't be for the reasons you state. Again, we can't editorialize on this stuff if we hope to get it right and avoid arguments at the table. It's a mechanic, same as rolling to attack someone. It has to be taken on that basis. Maybe a "whim of destruction?" :) But you're correct, no CE per se. Lol, I'm not used to use these so literally, never played that way! No idea either how the OP group and DM handle this whole alignments thing so can't really comment on it much. No idea how you can handle an evil party with such a literal interpretation either..I mean...that'd go really creepy, really fast I think...I mean, I know how I would play a CE PC using literal interpretation but I don't really feel comfy about everything it implies when you actually do it, at a "table", with other people.

G. said: Alignments in D&D are not mere concepts, they are actually a tangible reality and if you stick to the rules, you often find a D&D session to be very black and white on a lot of things, because well, that's how things are. Of course, DMs don't have to follow this exactly but again, as mentioned, it makes a lot of D&D settings less...practical. Lest I look like I just pick out things I disagree with (ha!), I wanted to point out this little gem. This quote above nails it. D&D is meant to be just that black and white. Universal good and evil, law and chaos, is just one fantasy trope out of many fantasy tropes the game attempts to simulate. If you start going all morally/ethically gray with your game, the rules of the game as written will fight you and may need to be altered or thrown out.

G. said: No idea how you can handle an evil party with such a literal interpretation either..I mean...that'd go really creepy, really fast I think...I mean, I know how I would play a CE PC using literal interpretation but I don't really feel comfy about everything it implies when you actually do it, at a "table", with other people. It's totally easy. You just do what the rules say, starting with: "It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character." Your alignment reflects what you think and do. It doesn't dictate what you think and do. So go be and do. Alignment will shift around as you and your DM says it does, if you're following the rules as written. I think the problem is that people are asked to choose an alignment at character creation and then think they have to stick to it. This is reinforced by people who, after hearing you do or say something tries to block with "Wait, what's your alignment again?" That's totally, utterly wrong according to the rules. Only certain classes have alignment restrictions. (But if you've chosen those classes and not wizard, druid, or cleric, you already failed at 3.X D&D anyway.)

Yea but that's not what I meant. I meant with the various actions potentially involved in "playing evil". I played sociopaths PCs, psychopaths, pyromaniacs and whatnot, these went "ok" usually. Even had my characters commit suicide a couple of times (Call of Cthulhu tends to do that to my PCs) and that raised a couple eyebrows but it was with players I knew very well. Deciding to play some "kinds" of evil with your PC can bring topics on the table that a lot of people can't handle and that's why I tend to avoid it usually. Having a party decide to actively play "evil"...you need a special breed of players and DM for that I think.

I see. Yes, it's important to get on the same page and make sure lines and veils have been established prior to play. I personally think it's important to choose the right game system for this kind of play. I don't think D&D is it. Anything works with buy-in, but particular game systems do better with these topics such as some World of Darkness games. When I see people playing evil D&D games, it's often simply a rejection of the classic quest-based hero games which carry with them certain constraints, especially if they come from DMs who use a lot of plot-based design. Let's face it - it's way easier to be proactive when you're a "roguish hero" or villain than when you're a fantasy hero. Fantasy heroes (or superheroes for that matter) kind of have to wait around for quests to complete or crimes to stop. Roguish heroes and villains just get out there and do their thing. There are other ways to make proactive fantasy heroes, but "evil campaign" is often what people reach for first when they yearn for freedom in my experience.

Just a s quick follow up we played again Tuesday night. It was interesting. I initially got some blame but then I pointed out the situation... The ninja claimed he hadn't heard me declare (in 2 separate turns) that I was healing and appeasing the water elemental and to not attack it. He also admitted him not joining the fight may have been contrary to party health. :) The ranger just claimed her character doesn't like water, so... lol Anyway We ended up finding a submerged tunnel in the Elementals pool. I ended up going in alone as they figured it was justice if I died. lol I did okay until i failed like 3 swim checks, a reflex save and an attack roll to grab a handle of rock (rolling under 8 combined on the first 3, and under 5 on the other 2) and fell out of the mountain. I then was attacked by mushroom-things that poisoned and diseased me (another failed save), got lost in the mountains (failed survival check 2x rolling under combined 10 with a +6...) and failed to find food. I did manage to use the morning sun to guide my way back in the direction we had been headed and found the party, but it was rough. Totally worth it. They had NOT come looking for me, or tried to help because, well that's how we do it. It certainly does not make for strong party unity, but it's kind of fun in it's own way. After some minor encounters we ended up pooling our resources to get the wizard raised, and are going to take on some jobs with her guild to help out. And in the end there were no hard feelings either way, which is always the best part. :)

Glad to see everything turned out okay for you guys, and that you're having fun!

Yeah, as long as you're all having fun and can laugh about events afterwards, that's all that's really important.

Headhunter Jones said: "Wait, what's your alignment again?" That's totally, utterly wrong according to the rules. Not only that, but the pre-3e editions of D&D noted that using Detect Alignment spells on someone or asking their alignment is often considered to be extremely insulting, and grounds for you getting your ass kicked. It's like walking up to a Mexican in America and demanding proof of citizenship or a visa. Also, alignment is as much of a driving force of the universe as my HP is. Until it's below 1 I decide what it means if I've taken 5, 50, or 500 damage.

"It's like walking up to a Mexican in America and demanding proof of citizenship or a visa." Happens on the San Diego Trolley a few times a day, by the Agents of US Border Patrol. They always catch at least three guys who give themselves away by wearing clothes that are out of style, made south of the border, wearing "clearly not American" hair styles. I never saw any agent "Getting their ass kicked" during years of riding the trolley to work at 32nd Street Naval Station.