Alignment differences in a party

[tfunke]

I was hoping for advice or tips people can offer up, in regards to different aligned party members fighting alongside one another in a party.
Currently I'm partied up with a Paladin, while my character is actually LE. We both are aware of each others alignments OOC, but not IC.
Any tips on playing this sort of thing, for either party involved be it Good or Evil?

[Considerate_]

That depends very much on your character's mindset.

Is your LE character intent on causing evil for evil's sake, or does he consider himself a good guy and just happens to be wrong?
- A blackguard for instance, may very well commit evil deeds for no better reason than they're evil and thus please his black deity.
- A mercenary who intents to win and live, no matter the consequences to others can be evil without knowing it. Sure, he may have used an innocent as a living shield in a fight, but it was necessary for him to survive.


If your character does evil for evil's sake, he might be the type who tries to gain the paladins confidence and then make sure that all the good things the paladin does is undone the moment he turns his back on the scene.


If your character doesn't think of himself as evil, there's not much need for subterfuge but you'll be more prone to land yourself in trouble when your character does something he considers 'necessary' to progress.



In the case you specified though, I don't see how your character can't be aware that the Paladin is Lawful Good... unless your character thinks the self-proclaimed paladin is lying. So you have to decide why your character groups up with someone who's so fundamentally different from your own.



If you want any more specific advice, I'm afraid I'll have to ask for more specific details - but under any circumstances, I hope that helped you get started on the thinking process

[Atlas]

-

[Hitman Hard]

A good way to mask your alignment is to be a hero every so often and it should confuse most folk.

[Considerate_]

Just be aware if you start pretending to be good, that your character will/should get points in good for every good deed he/she makes. Even if it's only to keep up his charade or there's ulterior motives behind it.

Ends and means
When do good ends justify evil means to achieve them? is it morally acceptable, for example, to torture an evil captive in order to extract vital information that can prevent the deaths of thousands of innocents? Any good character shudders at the thought of committing torture, but the goal of preventing thousands of deaths is undeniably a virtuous one, and a neutral character might easily consider the use of torture in such a circumstance. With evil acts on a smaller scale, even the most virtuous characters can find themselves tempted to agree that a very good end justifies a mildly evil means. Is it acceptable to tell a small lie in order to prevent a minor catastrophe? A large catastrophe? A world-shattering catastrophe?

In the D&D universe, the fundamental answer is no, an evil act is an evil act no matter what good result it may achieve

Source: Book of Exalted Dees, page 9

Same holds true for the other way around, a good act is a good act no matter what evil results it may achieve.


I think this part is rarely RP'd, but personally I think it would be fantastic RP if more of the 'evil' in hiding out there had a salvation potential. Seeing, not to mention participating, in so many good deeds will stir the heart of even the most hardened Banite... corruption goes both way

[Hitman Hard]

What I think an evil anti-hero is:

[Hoihe]

Just be aware if you start pretending to be good, that your character will/should get points in good for every good deed he/she makes. Even if it's only to keep up his charade or there's ulterior motives behind it.

Ends and means
When do good ends justify evil means to achieve them? is it morally acceptable, for example, to torture an evil captive in order to extract vital information that can prevent the deaths of thousands of innocents? Any good character shudders at the thought of committing torture, but the goal of preventing thousands of deaths is undeniably a virtuous one, and a neutral character might easily consider the use of torture in such a circumstance. With evil acts on a smaller scale, even the most virtuous characters can find themselves tempted to agree that a very good end justifies a mildly evil means. Is it acceptable to tell a small lie in order to prevent a minor catastrophe? A large catastrophe? A world-shattering catastrophe?

In the D&D universe, the fundamental answer is no, an evil act is an evil act no matter what good result it may achieve

Source: Book of Exalted Dees, page 9

Same holds true for the other way around, a good act is a good act no matter what evil results it may achieve.


I think this part is rarely RP'd, but personally I think it would be fantastic RP if more of the 'evil' in hiding out there had a salvation potential. Seeing, not to mention participating, in so many good deeds will stir the heart of even the most hardened Banite... corruption goes both way

However.. the eventual good/evil points that come from the result can end up balancing out the issue of no lesser evil for greater good.

Say.. evil act nets 10 evil points, but the final good acts gives 15 perhaps.

[LISA100595]

Just be aware if you start pretending to be good, that your character will/should get points in good for every good deed he/she makes. Even if it's only to keep up his charade or there's ulterior motives behind it.

Ends and means
When do good ends justify evil means to achieve them? is it morally acceptable, for example, to torture an evil captive in order to extract vital information that can prevent the deaths of thousands of innocents? Any good character shudders at the thought of committing torture, but the goal of preventing thousands of deaths is undeniably a virtuous one, and a neutral character might easily consider the use of torture in such a circumstance. With evil acts on a smaller scale, even the most virtuous characters can find themselves tempted to agree that a very good end justifies a mildly evil means. Is it acceptable to tell a small lie in order to prevent a minor catastrophe? A large catastrophe? A world-shattering catastrophe?

In the D&D universe, the fundamental answer is no, an evil act is an evil act no matter what good result it may achieve

Source: Book of Exalted Dees, page 9

Same holds true for the other way around, a good act is a good act no matter what evil results it may achieve.


I think this part is rarely RP'd, but personally I think it would be fantastic RP if more of the 'evil' in hiding out there had a salvation potential. Seeing, not to mention participating, in so many good deeds will stir the heart of even the most hardened Banite... corruption goes both way

Agreed 100%.

[Hawke]

What I think an evil anti-hero is:

No no no

Did you not see, he shot the man in self defense. The other guy drew first He is an anti-hero, but not nefarious. Much like Han Solo of the old west.

[Nomster]

You can not get goodie points and get a good alignment as long as you keep doing evil deeds.

Even if the character somehow ends up doing more good deeds (and thus gaining more goodie points than evil points) that murder he is planning next week will prevent him from reaching any good alignment.



Alignments in a party should not be an issue really, especially if your evil character has invested some in int or wis. They know the other guy is a paladin and if they are smart, they should avoid doing anything that sets of any suspicion. Save the evil for the dark of the night when the pally is sleeping.

As for advice to the paladin, it depends a bit on whether he is the type who sees evil everywhere or someone who is more likely to see the good in everything. Knowing the deity is important here as well. If he is the type who sees good, he should not have any reason to suspect anything is wrong unless your character gives him an obvious reason to.

[Hitman Hard]

What I think an evil anti-hero is:

No no no

Did you not see, he shot the man in self defense. The other guy drew first He is an anti-hero, but not nefarious. Much like Han Solo of the old west.

he killed 70 men.

[Hitman Hard]

[quote="Considerate_"]Just be aware if you start pretending to be good, that your character will/should get points in good for every good deed he/she makes. Even if it's only to keep up his charade or there's ulterior motives behind it.

And you don't have to necessarily pretend to be good, you just might want to do good, sometimes.

[Storm Munin]

Greed, lust for power, lust for killing and so on are not inherently evil deeds (mortal sins or not).
After all the deeds that follow of the lust is something that pretty much all adventurers do.

So can LE ride along a paladin?
Sure, as long as the LE finds outlet for his wants I see no issue in paladins and bad lawful toons working together.
Crossing the lines would indeed cause problems with the group dynamic however.

Wyatt Earp, paladin? vs Doc Holiday, LE?

A paladin and a chaotic evil person could most likely ride together for brief periods of time, it is all in the context of what they are doing.

Alignment is motivation for deeds.