I was planning on playing a NG Oath of Redemption Paladin in our upcoming campaign, but my party members are CE (Warlock) NE (Necromancer) and LN (Monk) but the Monk is only devoted to his monastery’s codex. Should I still go for it, or will it grate on everyones nerves (me included) if I do this? Should I make a different character for this particular party?
This is a question only you can answer based on your experiences with the specific players in the group and your own experiences. Based on the fact you are questioning your own enjoyment enough to ask strangers on the internet, my guess is you probably do not think that it would be fun.
That said, there is no reason why it could not work. Paladin of Redemption can have a pretty dark backstory and it would be understandable that you might have some rather evil friends. The “I left the evil life, but something brought me back in and I need to finish this one last job, or I can never put my old life behind me” story is a pretty common trope in things like spy/mob/assassin/etc. stories, so you could go for something like that. In such a case, I would work with one of your other players and/or the DM to give you a reason not only to be in this party, but to want to travel with them even when they do awful things. Perhaps one of the characters is a family member or your best friend from your pre-redemption life - someone you would be willing to die for, and whose flaws you would be willing to see past.
You want to give your character a reason to stick with the party - and, more importantly, give them a reason and backstory that allows them to turn a blind eye to some of the more evil actions. No one wants a redemption paladin that is sappy and proselytises about “you all need to be redeemed also.” Perhaps have your paladin still be struggling with redemption, and really commit to “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” - you focus on your character’s redemption and do what you can to mitigate your own evil acts, but feel it is not your place to lecture or interfere with others until your own soul is clean.
I agree. I have played in an evil campaign where all of the players were friends and it worked out great. I’ve also played in 3 games with people who played evil characters like jerks and used excuses like “that’s what my character would do” and “my character doesn’t know that your character is in the building that he just set on fire” while laughing about it.
I refuse to let people play evil characters in my campaigns because of that. It weeds out the people who enjoy disrupting games and making other players unhappy. The phrase, “I run a heroic campaign. Every PC must be a hero and no PC is allowed to be evil or chaotic neutral.” chases rude and obnoxious players away from even wanting to join and makes the games much more fun for everyone.
Make an evil character or sit this one out, but hold on to your paladin for when this game implodes. Because it almost certainly will. Evil parties just don't work beyond a couple sessions without a whole lot of player buy-in and cooperation.
There isn't enough information in just the alignments to say. Why are these people with such disparate worldviews working together? Without a shared goal to start with, it's unlikely to work out well. (And may not even with one.) Once you have a shared history, it's possible, particularly for an Oath of Redemption paladin, but even then, it requires the evil characters to not be just blatantly evil all the time in front of you. If they're being played as reasonable, if nasty, people, "I can fix them!" and "No, there is good in them, I can feel it!" are motivations that can carry you a long way. (Although likely in a deeply dysfunctional relationship.)
One necessary question is how you and the rest of the group are with inter-character conflict. Because, unless they actually change, or your character is mind-bogglingly naive, you're quite likely to hit the point where a character either leaves the game or the party comes to blows. And that can be fun, for some people. For others, it completely ruins the fun.
Ultimately, you're going to need to talk it out with your fellow players and DM.
Have you had a session 0 with the DM about what their expectations of player behavior and the tone of the game will be?
Seems like that might answer your question.
Are all of the evil players evil because they look out for themselves first (in which case you are probably fine) or are they evil to be murder hobos (in which case you probably aren't)
Just went through this. I was the good guy amid a similar group.
I used my influence to convince them to not kill innocents. It was not worth the legal problems and to only get paid for their killing. I then steered them to taking contracts against even worse guys. Guys my kingdom wanted taken care of.
They even killed big bad roving monsters right in the middle of a town. It was to save their own lives but to the town it looked like they saved the town. I even went as far as hiring bards to write ballads about their great and good deeds.
As an older player I knew it would be hard for relatively new players to really play evil characters. After a year an a half the other players asked why my character was still with their clearly evil group. I looked at them all and asked when was the last time any of you killed an innocent? You have all killed enemies of my nation. Killed or captured for reward wanted evil beings. And in fact saved a town or three and was rewarded for that action like heroes. Bards sing about your good deeds and your sought out by good people to do contracts for them. The two innocents they did kill in the beginning they did in secret and my character never found out about.
Even the Dm was stunned thinking about this. He didn't even know he found it easier to create good campaigns instead of evil ones and naturally went down that road.
I very soon after that retired my character and started a new one.
Yeah, that can happen, but only if the players are willing to play evil characters as something other than edgelords.
Well when you have a CE character in the party, it will never end well.
I have had campaigns with CE characters that worked fine. Another party member who can direct the chaotic tendencies in a productive direction. Someone who likes chaos, but has enough self preservation to not act on it all the time. Someone who wants to watch the world burn, but not burn all the way down so they are willing to help the party save their playpen.
I think there is a common misconception (disproportionately present on these forums) that some of the alignments are inherently wrong to play. Some of the alignments might tend toward being problematic, but each and every one can be the part of any functional party if piloted by the right player and with the right amount of manipulation on the part of the DM and other party members. It is the same misconception that drives a half dozen people to respond to “I am planning an evil campaign, can I get some advice” the decidedly unhelpful comment of “do not play in an evil campaign.”
I think there is a common misconception (disproportionately present on these forums) that some of the alignments are inherently wrong to play. Some of the alignments might tend toward being problematic, but each and every one can be the part of any functional party if piloted by the right player and with the right amount of manipulation on the part of the DM and other party members. It is the same misconception that drives a half dozen people to respond to “I am planning an evil campaign, can I get some advice” the decidedly unhelpful comment of “do not play in an evil campaign.”
I don't even think it should need manipulation. Evil people aren't stupid, and can both moderate their behaviors if needed and also can want things beyond senseless killing. Different moral codes can create strife, sure, but that can happen even with characters of the same alignment. No matter what one thinks of the usefulness of the alignment system, every alignment is a big fuzzy cloud of behaviors. There is no single right way to play any of them.
There's an unwritten rule that really ought to be written: This is primarily a cooperative game, so your character should have a reason to be working with the others. If your character can't, then you need a different character.
If the other people are your friends then go for it. If you don't know them well then be prepared. There are a variety of things that can happen from an easy campaign with no internal problems to spending half the time in party conflict. Just be aware of what your are stepping into.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
I have had campaigns with CE characters that worked fine. Another party member who can direct the chaotic tendencies in a productive direction. Someone who likes chaos, but has enough self preservation to not act on it all the time.
Good luck to the character trying to direct the CE character whose alignment says that their behaviour would be something like "act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust".
I have had campaigns with CE characters that worked fine. Another party member who can direct the chaotic tendencies in a productive direction. Someone who likes chaos, but has enough self preservation to not act on it all the time.
Good luck to the character trying to direct the CE character whose alignment says that their behaviour would be something like "act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust".
I do not need wishes of “good luck” - there is a reason my post was in the past tense and it worked out perfectly fine, thank you very much. Just because they are prone to violence doesn’t mean they are stupid or going to do something against their own whims. Once you figure out what motivates them, be it greed, hatred, bloodlust, or something else, you just need to be able to convince them they’ll get the most out their goal by sticking with the party and it’s objectives.
As I said, every alignment can be played in any group, provided the players are willing to play alongside the party and the party can play around the party member. The problem is not any given alignment - it’s the players themselves and their competency at stepping into any given alignment.
Again, for the OP’s benefit - do not let the alignment be determinative of your decision, think about the players and how they specifically would handle the alignments of their characters and others.
I was planning on playing a NG Oath of Redemption Paladin in our upcoming campaign, but my party members are CE (Warlock) NE (Necromancer) and LN (Monk) but the Monk is only devoted to his monastery’s codex. Should I still go for it, or will it grate on everyones nerves (me included) if I do this? Should I make a different character for this particular party?
This is a question only you can answer based on your experiences with the specific players in the group and your own experiences. Based on the fact you are questioning your own enjoyment enough to ask strangers on the internet, my guess is you probably do not think that it would be fun.
That said, there is no reason why it could not work. Paladin of Redemption can have a pretty dark backstory and it would be understandable that you might have some rather evil friends. The “I left the evil life, but something brought me back in and I need to finish this one last job, or I can never put my old life behind me” story is a pretty common trope in things like spy/mob/assassin/etc. stories, so you could go for something like that. In such a case, I would work with one of your other players and/or the DM to give you a reason not only to be in this party, but to want to travel with them even when they do awful things. Perhaps one of the characters is a family member or your best friend from your pre-redemption life - someone you would be willing to die for, and whose flaws you would be willing to see past.
You want to give your character a reason to stick with the party - and, more importantly, give them a reason and backstory that allows them to turn a blind eye to some of the more evil actions. No one wants a redemption paladin that is sappy and proselytises about “you all need to be redeemed also.” Perhaps have your paladin still be struggling with redemption, and really commit to “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” - you focus on your character’s redemption and do what you can to mitigate your own evil acts, but feel it is not your place to lecture or interfere with others until your own soul is clean.
I agree. I have played in an evil campaign where all of the players were friends and it worked out great. I’ve also played in 3 games with people who played evil characters like jerks and used excuses like “that’s what my character would do” and “my character doesn’t know that your character is in the building that he just set on fire” while laughing about it.
I refuse to let people play evil characters in my campaigns because of that. It weeds out the people who enjoy disrupting games and making other players unhappy. The phrase, “I run a heroic campaign. Every PC must be a hero and no PC is allowed to be evil or chaotic neutral.” chases rude and obnoxious players away from even wanting to join and makes the games much more fun for everyone.
Professional computer geek
Make an evil character or sit this one out, but hold on to your paladin for when this game implodes. Because it almost certainly will. Evil parties just don't work beyond a couple sessions without a whole lot of player buy-in and cooperation.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
There isn't enough information in just the alignments to say. Why are these people with such disparate worldviews working together? Without a shared goal to start with, it's unlikely to work out well. (And may not even with one.) Once you have a shared history, it's possible, particularly for an Oath of Redemption paladin, but even then, it requires the evil characters to not be just blatantly evil all the time in front of you. If they're being played as reasonable, if nasty, people, "I can fix them!" and "No, there is good in them, I can feel it!" are motivations that can carry you a long way. (Although likely in a deeply dysfunctional relationship.)
One necessary question is how you and the rest of the group are with inter-character conflict. Because, unless they actually change, or your character is mind-bogglingly naive, you're quite likely to hit the point where a character either leaves the game or the party comes to blows. And that can be fun, for some people. For others, it completely ruins the fun.
Ultimately, you're going to need to talk it out with your fellow players and DM.
Have you had a session 0 with the DM about what their expectations of player behavior and the tone of the game will be?
Seems like that might answer your question.
Are all of the evil players evil because they look out for themselves first (in which case you are probably fine) or are they evil to be murder hobos (in which case you probably aren't)
Site Info: Wizard's ToS | Fan Content Policy | Forum Rules | Physical Books | Content Not Working | Contact Support
How To: Homebrew Rules | Create Homebrew | Snippet Codes | Tool Tips (Custom) | Rollables (Generator)
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Feats | Spells | Magic Items
Other: Beyond20 | Page References | Other Guides | Entitlements | Dice Randomization | Images Fix | FAQ
Just went through this. I was the good guy amid a similar group.
I used my influence to convince them to not kill innocents. It was not worth the legal problems and to only get paid for their killing. I then steered them to taking contracts against even worse guys. Guys my kingdom wanted taken care of.
They even killed big bad roving monsters right in the middle of a town. It was to save their own lives but to the town it looked like they saved the town. I even went as far as hiring bards to write ballads about their great and good deeds.
As an older player I knew it would be hard for relatively new players to really play evil characters. After a year an a half the other players asked why my character was still with their clearly evil group. I looked at them all and asked when was the last time any of you killed an innocent? You have all killed enemies of my nation. Killed or captured for reward wanted evil beings. And in fact saved a town or three and was rewarded for that action like heroes. Bards sing about your good deeds and your sought out by good people to do contracts for them. The two innocents they did kill in the beginning they did in secret and my character never found out about.
Even the Dm was stunned thinking about this. He didn't even know he found it easier to create good campaigns instead of evil ones and naturally went down that road.
I very soon after that retired my character and started a new one.
To game history the group was good and not evil.
Yeah, that can happen, but only if the players are willing to play evil characters as something other than edgelords.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Well when you have a CE character in the party, it will never end well.
I have had campaigns with CE characters that worked fine. Another party member who can direct the chaotic tendencies in a productive direction. Someone who likes chaos, but has enough self preservation to not act on it all the time. Someone who wants to watch the world burn, but not burn all the way down so they are willing to help the party save their playpen.
I think there is a common misconception (disproportionately present on these forums) that some of the alignments are inherently wrong to play. Some of the alignments might tend toward being problematic, but each and every one can be the part of any functional party if piloted by the right player and with the right amount of manipulation on the part of the DM and other party members. It is the same misconception that drives a half dozen people to respond to “I am planning an evil campaign, can I get some advice” the decidedly unhelpful comment of “do not play in an evil campaign.”
Like I said, you need to have players who aren't edgelords.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
That's not a party - it's a grenade waiting to go off.
A party needs to be united by a common goal, something to overcome differences and bring them together. What common goal could unify those characters?
If there is a common goal then use that as the starting point for your character.
If the players and GM can't give you a common goal then politely refuse (and then run :-).
And no, "loot" is not a common goal. It's an individual goal, one that is more likely to split a party than not.
If the other people are your friends then go for it. If you don't know them well then be prepared. There are a variety of things that can happen from an easy campaign with no internal problems to spending half the time in party conflict. Just be aware of what your are stepping into.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Good luck to the character trying to direct the CE character whose alignment says that their behaviour would be something like "act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust".
I do not need wishes of “good luck” - there is a reason my post was in the past tense and it worked out perfectly fine, thank you very much. Just because they are prone to violence doesn’t mean they are stupid or going to do something against their own whims. Once you figure out what motivates them, be it greed, hatred, bloodlust, or something else, you just need to be able to convince them they’ll get the most out their goal by sticking with the party and it’s objectives.
As I said, every alignment can be played in any group, provided the players are willing to play alongside the party and the party can play around the party member. The problem is not any given alignment - it’s the players themselves and their competency at stepping into any given alignment.
Again, for the OP’s benefit - do not let the alignment be determinative of your decision, think about the players and how they specifically would handle the alignments of their characters and others.