Clerics of different alignments and spell benefits to party

[themightyeroc]

So my current group contains a Lawful cleric, Chaotic Cleric and a Neutral Cleric. The rest of the adventuring party contains all three alignments. In the last game the Players were each casting Blessing and stacking the positive bonus to everyone when attacking and saving. I let it go and noted myself to check up on this later.

I reread the Cleric and Magic sections and see that the Gods should start to disapprove of these actions and punish the offending clerics accordingly. The one redeeming factor is the Player of the Lawful Cleric constantly asks other characters if they will join his parish or at the least acknowledge his Deities favors to them with proper donations. I am going to start describing the adverse effects of this "meta-gaming" tactic to the offending cleric Players in game as spells failing and direct encounters with their Gods giving them a good smack-down.

Has anyone else encountered these type of issues?

[beermotor]

Alignment is a huge issue that is often totally overlooked, in my experience, by most groups. But it's potentially a GREAT mine for interesting learning experiences. What does it mean to be a hero? What does it mean to be selfish? Is one better than the other? Why pursue power? Things like that are at the heart of the "are you lawful, neutral, or chaotic" question. Most people seem to just pick one and ignore everything that goes along with that... I think most people tend to play lawfully, unless and until there's some interesting bit of loot that they're particularly greedy for, and then they may turn chaotic for a time.

I think you should have your gods encourage the clerics to try to convert each other. If they refuse to try, force them to fight, or die trying. Or smack them with -10 disapproval. Heh.

[thogard]

For these kinds of role-playing issues, I think the DCC book hits a great spot between the specific and the undefined. Remember that while the module or campaign may have a plot (YMMV), the characters and how they act are a collaborative improvisation. Party alignments conflict? There's a mechanic for that. Let's play it out.

It's fun to take inspiration and just run with it. I had a character become a cleric, and at more-or-less random chose Malotoch the carrion crow god as her deity. Well, that led to some evident ideas about mortality and burial rites that weren't exactly aligned with those of the people of Hirot. Good, rich stuff.

[ragboy]

I've combined alignment with deity to add additional complexity...but so far it's been a good complexity. I built out my pantheon with an "aligned" "neutral" "opposed" continuum for each god in relation to the others. Also added a random deity roll for each character at 0-level creation -- this represents the faith they were raised in (with a "none" option). The god's aligned/neutral/opposed continuum usually trumps alignment in relation to the cleric's powers, but not always. I have a couple of gods that are very particular about who their faithful associate with.

I really like that this system incorporates that level of detail -- makes for very interesting situations.

[cthulhudarren]

DEFINITELY give them disapproval if they are blessing other opposed alignments/deities, especially without proper donations.

[themightyeroc]

I think most people tend to play lawfully, unless and until there's some interesting bit of loot that they're particularly greedy for, and then they may turn chaotic for a time.

That I find to be true as well, the group really is Lawful overall as far as the players are concerned. The Player of Tyrrian the Black smith's son who has survived since our first adventure is very careful about what his character will do or not do in accordance with his Lawfully chosen alignment. I am going to introduce the effects of to many non-aligned party members soaking up the blessings of the Gods next session.

[themightyeroc]

DEFINITELY give them disapproval if they are blessing other opposed alignments/deities, especially without proper donations.

This will be part of how the next session starts, as the PC's clerics sit down to pray and receive a wake up call from their Gods.

[cjoepar]

While it can be great fun for everyone to encourage a little friction, I would also say to be careful not to let it get too far out of hand. In my opinion, absolutely nothing ruins a game like two characters that decide to get into a fight. Most people hold grudges, and usually everyone else feels very uncomfortable, just like you do in real life when two frinds get in a fight.

That being said, I agree, you should stop the meta-gaming where they are stacking benefits. A simple solution would just be to tell the party that, while they grew up in a society where there are lots of religions and people are generally more tolerant of other faiths than we see in the real world, they have all come to realize that the gawds are jealous and they all realize that they need to stick with receiving benefits only from the cleric that is aligned with them.

[GnomeBoy]

While it can be great fun for everyone to encourage a little friction, I would also say to be careful not to let it get too far out of hand. In my opinion, absolutely nothing ruins a game like two characters that decide to get into a fight. Most people hold grudges, and usually everyone else feels very uncomfortable, just like you do in real life when two frinds get in a fight.

A fight like that can being down a game, but it depends on the people involved.

I've seen character actions that were driven by player's emotions about each other, and I've seen characters fight where it made sense in-character (and the players were good friends) -- with the former being a bad deal for everyone at the table, but the latter being a fun moment for the 'reality' of it.

The better you know your group and they know each other, the more you can get away with in this vein.

[Raven_Crowking]

If a choice has no consequences, it is meaningless. By making the gods and their politics affect the PCs, the judge makes these choices, and alignment, meaningful.

If the result of those consequences is that the party splits, I am willing to deal with that as a judge.....far more than I am willing to deal with the opposite.

[beermotor]

If a choice has no consequences, it is meaningless. By making the gods and their politics affect the PCs, the judge makes these choices, and alignment, meaningful.

If the result of those consequences is that the party splits, I am willing to deal with that as a judge.....far more than I am willing to deal with the opposite.

+10000.

Ultimately, your players will enjoy the game more, I think, even if the conflict is sometimes uncomfortable.

[cjoepar]

You guys may be right, and maybe with the right group of players it is something everyone can deal with. But I have been playing rpg's since about '77 with many different groups of people and I have never seen a case where it was fun to have characters fighting each other. <shrug> To each his own, but I would give people the option to avoid player-vs-player conflict if at all possible.

These are supposed to be people who are entering into the world's most dangerous places together where they are going to be risking their lives at every moment. In reality, very few people would do that if they couldn't trust each other to some degree.

And yes, there should absolutely be consequences for players who abuse the system and try to take benefits from multiple deities who might have different agendas, or clerics who aid people with different alignments unless some significant donations are made to their church, maybe. I just think that the enjoyment of the people around the table should trump all, and I think the sooner the party refocuses on killing monsters instead of each other, the better.

I guess it depends on your mythos as well. Are all the gods openly at war with each other? Or do most of them live in a civil group like the Olympians mostly did? If this type of conflict is supposed to be happening between players then the logical extension to that is that these types of conflicts would be common in the rest of society, so most towns and cities would only have temples and followers of a few similarly aligned religions or else there would be chaos in the streets. That type of society can be done, but you should be consistant is all I'm saying.

[beermotor]

The problem with avoiding conflict is you get what I call "EverQuest Syndrome," or you could call it "WoW" or whatever you want. Basically, every fantasy MMORPG has both "paladins" and "dark knights" or "assassins," or "elves" and "dark elves" ... and you'd end up seeing these guys all grouped together adventuring and whatnot and not really having any serious discussion about what that really means, culturally, spiritually, whatever.

For me, it really started to be clear long before DCC came out, because I was playing some OD&D with just Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic alignment, and I started to think that these are really not monolithic concepts, they're a continuum of the individual's relationship with others, essentially a scale of selfishness. A "lawful" person can be counted on to help others in need; a "chaotic" person might not, and probably won't, especially if there's any risk involved to them. A "lawful" person would believe in a fair split, contracts, those sorts of things. A "chaotic" person would take what they could, steal if they could get away with it, say whatever was necessary to get them ahead, etc.

In thinking about the alignments this way, it led me to see that #1 there really wasn't a whole lot of true roleplaying going on either online or in table top games of "evil" or selfish alignments, at least in the groups I've been in, and #2 this was a great way to get people thinking about their choices. After all, the point of playing games isn't just to get some xp and level up. The point is to engage in creative thought experiments and think about what you might do, what you should do, if you were in those situations for real. My wife openly yells at the TV now such truisms as "don't split the party!" and "loot the bodies!" I mean this is basic D&D. But these are also valuable life lessons, right? Tactics, strategy, small group dynamics, team building, these are the things that go along with playing these games that we play.

People in a group have to learn to get along with Raistlin, the selfish a-hole Magic-user. But Raistlin also has to learn that being a selfish a-hole isn't endearing, and nobody's going to help you if/when you might need it (except for your dumb brother who feels guilty, but that's another story). With that in mind, I think the goal to player Conflict is not (necessarily) a PvP fight where one guy dies and the other lives... the goal is for the anti-social person to be pulled, or pushed, toward integrating in a more healthy way with the group.

Just rambling....

[beermotor]

Final thought: there's a reason why they say evil always turns on itself. And there's a reason why the top crime boss always has one eye open on his underlings.

[cjoepar]

I think those are some excellent points, Beermotor.

I'm not really opposed to the characters elbowing each other as they try to advance the agendas of their individual belief systems, I just wanted to make a statement about letting things escalate to open (or covert) physical conflict between party members. I think you are absolutely right about letting those social interactions happen, and I think you are right about them enhancing everyone's gaming experience and really being a fundamental part of rpg's.

My resistance to the conflict comes in when the players start having their characters do things that really aren't realistic, IMO, all in the name of adhering to their alignment. Like drawing swords against each other in the dungeon over some treasure or moral dilemma, or even more inane: a lawful cleric witholding healing for a chaotic warrior as dozens of giant flesh eating zombie toads are bearing down on the party. When I start to see aligment used in those ways, I think it's reached a point where it has crossed a line and is no longer contributing positively to anyone's enjoyment, except maybe a person who has real life social challenges. At some level, people of different alignments should be putting their differences aside in order to assure their mutual survival and success, or they would just part ways and adventure with someone else that they can trust with their lives. If I have clerics of different alignments in the party, I try not to create situations where they are going to feel like they are backed into a corner and they cannot play their alignment without getting into a fight about something, and I will let people slide if it's clear that they are doing it for the benefit of the other players' enjoyment. In the end, we're a bunch of friends trying to have a good time together and ultimately that's the most important factor for us.

As an aside, the dilemma I hate above all others is when the party gets into a fight with some creatures that would kill anyone in the party without hesitation, but they somehow manage to capture one of them and then a 45 minute debate starts about what to do with the captured creature because someone who is lawful thinks it's against his alignment to do anything but nurture the creature and try to teach it the error of it's ways so it can join human society like a reformed criminal. Meanwhile everyone else just wants to kill it and get on with the adventure because that's why we are playing this game in the first place.

[beermotor]

My resistance to the conflict comes in when the players start having their characters do things that really aren't realistic, IMO, all in the name of adhering to their alignment. Like drawing swords against each other in the dungeon over some treasure or moral dilemma, or even more inane: a lawful cleric witholding healing for a chaotic warrior as dozens of giant flesh eating zombie toads are bearing down on the party. When I start to see aligment used in those ways, I think it's reached a point where it has crossed a line and is no longer contributing positively to anyone's enjoyment, except maybe a person who has real life social challenges. At some level, people of different alignments should be putting their differences aside in order to assure their mutual survival and success, or they would just part ways and adventure with someone else that they can trust with their lives. If I have clerics of different alignments in the party, I try not to create situations where they are going to feel like they are backed into a corner and they cannot play their alignment without getting into a fight about something, and I will let people slide if it's clear that they are doing it for the benefit of the other players' enjoyment. In the end, we're a bunch of friends trying to have a good time together and ultimately that's the most important factor for us.

Agreed, but I think that's actually a great opportunity... to punish the Lawful cleric. And make him feel the wrath of his deity / understand what it means to be Lawful. You're refusing to do what your deity mandates, simply because the sinner who needs healing is a sinner? Bang. Or, the converse, Lawful healer tagging along with evil madman who's gotten himself into all sorts of trouble... if he's just healing him without any argument, or trying to persuade the guy to stop being an evil madman, more disapproval.

As an aside, the dilemma I hate above all others is when the party gets into a fight with some creatures that would kill anyone in the party without hesitation, but they somehow manage to capture one of them and then a 45 minute debate starts about what to do with the captured creature because someone who is lawful thinks it's against his alignment to do anything but nurture the creature and try to teach it the error of it's ways so it can join human society like a reformed criminal. Meanwhile everyone else just wants to kill it and get on with the adventure because that's why we are playing this game in the first place.

The greatest example of this is Gollum, bar none. Is he reformable? No, not really. Does he play a very important part at the end? Absolutely. Be guided by this!

[themightyeroc]

Wow! Thanks everybody this thread really kind of took off. I just want to say that the Players with Clerics are going to get an elbow in the ribs from their respective Deity saying "Hey, you need to start converting others to our faith, or at least get some kind of donation sacrifice made in my name."

I'm not gonna be a hard-ass about this but I'm definitely putting a stop to the "bonus stacking".

P.S. In my world the Gods (Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic) all dwell on the moon, like a lunar Mount Olympus and deal with each other much like the Greek Pantheon. Then I have a group of Lesser-Deities that still dwell on the planet with the PC's as well. The only ones who dwell elsewhere are the Demon types that lair on other planes/dimensions. This hasn't really come up in the game itself yet but it is where my vision would like to go.

[Skyscraper]

The problem with avoiding conflict is you get what I call "EverQuest Syndrome," or you could call it "WoW" or whatever you want. Basically, every fantasy MMORPG has both "paladins" and "dark knights" or "assassins," or "elves" and "dark elves" ... and you'd end up seeing these guys all grouped together adventuring and whatnot and not really having any serious discussion about what that really means, culturally, spiritually, whatever.

For me, it really started to be clear long before DCC came out, because I was playing some OD&D with just Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic alignment, and I started to think that these are really not monolithic concepts, they're a continuum of the individual's relationship with others, essentially a scale of selfishness. A "lawful" person can be counted on to help others in need; a "chaotic" person might not, and probably won't, especially if there's any risk involved to them. A "lawful" person would believe in a fair split, contracts, those sorts of things. A "chaotic" person would take what they could, steal if they could get away with it, say whatever was necessary to get them ahead, etc.

In thinking about the alignments this way, it led me to see that #1 there really wasn't a whole lot of true roleplaying going on either online or in table top games of "evil" or selfish alignments, at least in the groups I've been in, and #2 this was a great way to get people thinking about their choices. After all, the point of playing games isn't just to get some xp and level up. The point is to engage in creative thought experiments and think about what you might do, what you should do, if you were in those situations for real. My wife openly yells at the TV now such truisms as "don't split the party!" and "loot the bodies!" I mean this is basic D&D. But these are also valuable life lessons, right? Tactics, strategy, small group dynamics, team building, these are the things that go along with playing these games that we play.

People in a group have to learn to get along with Raistlin, the selfish a-hole Magic-user. But Raistlin also has to learn that being a selfish a-hole isn't endearing, and nobody's going to help you if/when you might need it (except for your dumb brother who feels guilty, but that's another story). With that in mind, I think the goal to player Conflict is not (necessarily) a PvP fight where one guy dies and the other lives... the goal is for the anti-social person to be pulled, or pushed, toward integrating in a more healthy way with the group.

Just rambling....

Insteresting stuff!

While I generally agree with your approach to gaming, and have a similar one myself, I don't think that there is a right or wrong way to play. Gaming might not be about thought experiment for everyone. Some people have a very laid-back approach to gaming and prefer leaving philosophical questions out of it altogether and playing a very down-to-earth gaming style without moral dilemnas.

[beermotor]

Of course, you're right... but even the people who say they're just there to kill the monster and get the treasure are playing a part in the simulation (and that's what it is, really, much more than an abstract "game" like Chess or Monopoly, else why have AC and HPs and rounds and whatnot). And, potentially, a very important part. It all depends on how they interact with each other.

Incidentally, I find people tend to get into character a bit more when doing off-line dialogue and exposition via an e-mail list, than right there at the table. This may be a consequence of the relative lack of table top experience of my players, not sure, but they definitely seem more at ease when typing out things their characters are saying/doing, etc.

[cthulhudarren]

There are a lot of good points here. I personally I do not like in-fighting amongst characters.

I'd point out that I would not let blessings from multiple casters "stack", and really push the tithe or convert angle as others have been saying.

[Raven_Crowking]

The players do have the opportunity to avoid in-fighting among their characters - choose compatible alignments/outlooks.

Failing that, they are asking for in-fighting to occur.

As a judge, you have the choice of allowing them to scatter their outlooks without consequence, presumably for whatever mechanical benefit they can gain from so doing, or you can make their choices have consequences, for good or ill. I prefer the latter course. In this case, it is the players' responsibility to ensure that their characters can work together; the judge has nothing to do with it. And clerics of opposing gods will find themselves in difficulties.

If you use the disapproval rules, sooner or later your clerics will need to recruit. IME, PC clerics first attempt to recruit from among the party. Why? Because (1) it is the path of least resistance, (2) the party is the primary beneficiary of the cleric's powers, and (3) it makes sense within the context of the unfolding narrative. This tends to either unify a party, or to cause it to split into factions along religious/alignment lines. The problem is easy enough for the players to avoid - make characters that can work together.

Why should it fall upon the judge to make the PCs work, as well as the world? IMHO, it does not. Just as in real life, if you want to work well with others you cannot be a douchebag, in the game, if you want to work well with your party, you should have at least some form of doing so. Your job as a player to figure this out, not mine as the judge.