PDA

View Full Version : Player Help Being the only good aligned character in a more cynical neutral party



MonkeySage
2019-03-16, 03:30 PM
This one group I game with, I end up constantly feeling kinda like I've drawn the short stick by choosing to play a good aligned character (chaotic good, specifically). A very fun to play character, but I've given his alignment as somewhat idealistic, eager to help those in need, not overly concerned with profit for profit sake, very free spirited, hates slavers and tyrants, and a firm believer in "work smarter, not harder". He's brave, but not reckless. And he prefers diplomacy over violence whenever possible- he managed to transform a gang of bandits into a reformed band of mercenaries in his own employ.

He is a merchant, and a politician, and his trade routes make enough money as is, which he usually spends on improvements to his city. It's a settlement he built for his people, who are so often without a land to call their own.

The party is mostly made up of lawful neutrals, one very cynical chaotic or true neutral (i'm uncertain), and one other.

Thus conflict arises all the time- they are for, example, willing to work with fiends. My character never would, regardless of the circumstances.

zinycor
2019-03-16, 03:52 PM
I see 5 mature ways to solve this:

1- You and the others accept this as a source of conflict and play it out.
2- change your character's alignment or view of the world to better fit your party.
3- make another character that fits better
4- ask your group to change their characters
5- go to another group

MonkeySage
2019-03-16, 04:03 PM
As annoying as it is, I think we've pretty much taken option 1. I just worry when in character disagreements lead to out of character disagreements.

zinycor
2019-03-16, 04:06 PM
As annoying as it is, I think we've pretty much taken option 1. I just worry when in character disagreements lead to out of character disagreements.

Why would there be out of character disagreements? If there are you haven't really accepted your differences, therefore not taken option 1. I would recommend leaving this character and creating a new one (option 3).

Particle_Man
2019-03-16, 06:19 PM
Since you don't share a common ethos, you need to work on why this group of characters stays together at all, and stenghten those bonds.

King of Nowhere
2019-03-18, 09:27 AM
You can make it work, but both sides have to compromise. Ask the others to not cross some hard lines, but be willing to compromise otherwise.
For example, you may accept to deal with demons, but only when it can reasonably be framed as "for a greater good". For example, you really need something to continue the quest, you can get it from a demon, if you don't offer anything too valuable. Or accept that you're going to try and cheat the demons eventually.

Another thing is to keep your character in the dark of the worst things they do. The NE wizard of my party has tried to petrify a former party member (retired character) "to prevent him from being captured by our enemies and interrogated", but really because he was pissed off. How would my LN/LG monk react? He does not react because he does not know. The wizard teleported somewhere and was away for a small bit of time, he often goes on business trips like that. As long as we can reasonably frame the narrative with my monk remaining ignorant, it works. you can try to arrange similarly for your group.

It requires, I repeat, cooperation and compromise (let's play C&C) from anyone involved.

Cliff Sedge
2019-03-23, 10:31 PM
I play in a very similar group. I am the idealistic wannabe hero (chaotic good bard) the other characters in the group are either just crazy and bloodthirsty (CN ranger), want nothing but to find treasure (rogue) or are so neutral as to not care about anything except satisfying curiosity (wizard).

My solution was to play my character as wanting so badly to go on adventures (like she read about as a child) that she was willing to overlook a lot of questionable behavior, and also that I would overly-dramatically play up the goody "let's help everyone!" naive hero role.

I was basically annoying my fellow players out of spite, because their way of playing annoyed me. But the annoyance and the spiteful behavior was well-contained by role-playing such things in character and all having fun and making light of ourselves out of character.

Just find a way to make it work. It's fiction: just make something up.

MoiMagnus
2019-03-27, 06:53 AM
This one group I game with, I end up constantly feeling kinda like I've drawn the short stick by choosing to play a good aligned character (chaotic good, specifically). A very fun to play character, but I've given his alignment as somewhat idealistic, eager to help those in need, not overly concerned with profit for profit sake, very free spirited, hates slavers and tyrants, and a firm believer in "work smarter, not harder". He's brave, but not reckless. And he prefers diplomacy over violence whenever possible- he managed to transform a gang of bandits into a reformed band of mercenaries in his own employ.

He is a merchant, and a politician, and his trade routes make enough money as is, which he usually spends on improvements to his city. It's a settlement he built for his people, who are so often without a land to call their own.

The party is mostly made up of lawful neutrals, one very cynical chaotic or true neutral (i'm uncertain), and one other.

Thus conflict arises all the time- they are for, example, willing to work with fiends. My character never would, regardless of the circumstances.

You're character need a reason for "the party" to be more important than its personal ideas.
Take "willing to work with fiends. My character never would, regardless of the circumstances", this is choice you made by building the character, which is quite restrictive.

It seems that you are currently trying to fix the consequences of "this character would never work with those guys" rather than fixing the problem itself: you need a reason for your character to enjoy being with them and overlook those differences. Otherwise, you are pretty much "forcing" your character to remain in the group and it feels unrealistic.

Assuming you don't want to make your character leave the party, you have a new "axiom" in you character personality: "the group started working with fiends, my character didn't leave the group and agreed to overlook it". You can't just ignore it and say "well, he didn't really chose to do so, so I can ignore it". No. You, as player, chose that he will remain with the group. Which mean that the character CHOSE to remain in the group, considering it was the correct choice to do with regard to its moral values.

What does it means for the personality of your character? Does that means he is slowly changing of alignment? Does that means he is lying to himself? Does that mean he is considering it as a sacrifice for a greater good? Did he have a divine revelation (see with your DM if it is real or just madness) saying he should stick with the group whatever it costs?

You now have a new trait of character which is mostly "stick with the group even when they do evil stuff". New traits of characters have the priority over old traits (because characters evolve trough time and new experiences), so find a way to give a new coherence to your character's personality.

Psyren
2019-03-30, 04:26 PM
As annoying as it is, I think we've pretty much taken option 1. I just worry when in character disagreements lead to out of character disagreements.

That should never be allowed to happen, simple as that. And honestly, you have it easy as a CG character - you can focus on end results of the party's actions rather than means.

Mark Hall
2019-03-30, 04:46 PM
Since you're in the minority with the group, consider how you can subvert their actions to serve your goals. Not nullify their actions, but use what y'all accomplish to further your ends.

So, the example you use is "willing to work with fiends". You won't do that, but what are your alternatives? Do you have the means to call a deva to serve that end, instead? If the fiends are just nearby and getting involved, maybe use the profits of your adventure to shore up your settlement's anti-demon defenses (since you now know they're around).

Psyren
2019-04-01, 04:00 PM
I'd also point out that Malconvokers are CG and "working with fiends" is pretty much their whole MO. Simply working with fiends shouldn't be a dealbreaker for CG as long as the right safeguards (such as brute strength and proper vigilance) are in place. If you have reason to believe they aren't, that would be a good time to speak up.