Coming back from a quest with party

Perhaps not... but then again, I'd like to see how a character might justify the decision and why it's considered good.

OOC it's definitely immoral, but IC, the slow corruption of a Paladin would definitely make for an interesting character arc.

Alignment works best whenever it's challenged.

>make a character that doesn't work well with the rest of the party
>get mad when the party wants to cooperate but you just want to lone wolf murderhobo
>complain about it on Veeky Forums instead of talking about it with your group like a big boy

>Character literally slit the throat of an innkeeper to rob him
>A day later feels compelled to help orphans

We literally started this campaign as a joke and at first, two of us were chaotic neutral, but the other guy ended up dying and so he created a new character that lawful good instead.

if you insist on playing alignments that differ from the rest of the group then play them in fun ways that actually help the group
Why stick around with these people if all they do is annoy you is the first question
one, you like them you consider them friends and while at most times you dont agree with their outlook and the way they restrain them selves to these codes of conduct you still respect them
So then what you do is you accept their code of conduct but remember you still have your's
Neutral evil means you dont really care that much about law or chaos and evil means you could care less if what you do is good or not you have to get it done
Play characters like this not as "oh hurr im evil i do bad thing look at me"
but play it as "listen my friends have morals but i dont they may not clean up this problem because the law says they cant but i dont follow those laws"
Evil characters and non lawful characters add to a party a way for characters to have little morals in dealing with the PARTIES problems

>character slit the throat of an innkeeper to rob them
>character refuses to slit the throats of some cultists to rob them

I wish my fellow players took their characters more seriously and the GM is a weakling. I'm the Lawful Evil girl and I have to constantly remind the Paladin player that he's not supposed to do evil things. He's something of a Dirty Harry.

Have you tried not making Ow the Edgehog characters or at least a character that isn't shit?

>Character literally slit the throat of an innkeeper to rob him

Well, good news is your character isn't Chaotic Neutral. That's straight up Evil to kill someone else over something so fucking trivial.

>A day later feels compelled to help orphans

I wasn't suggesting he help out of the goodness of his heart. I was suggesting that he do it for another reason, like greed. After all, if he'll kill a random innkeeper, why not kill some random cultists with help from these two bleeding hearts with you?

>Character literally slit the throat of an innkeeper to rob him
>A day later feels compelled to help orphans

Yes! The disparity between the two actions and how one character justifies between the two would definitely make for an interesting character! I would love to see how the cold-blooded Murdererer who helps orphans develops.

why?

Why is it always the good guys the ones who have to dictate the tone push the game into their direction?

>group wants to do thing
>chaotic neutral/evil guy complains that he doesn't feel like it and wants to go kill unarmed NPCs all day for money

It should be obvious

Because you're in a game with more good guys than bad guys.

>but muh charashur

I play a game with 2 DM's so any time this happens we can just split the party easily, it might cause some minor problems, but it really solves alot

My group disagrees with it.

>not justifying literally anything with "we'll get exp for it"

The group dictates the tone.
Your character is not harmonious with the group, and you are disrupting the campaign.

perhaps just wait until they're done then? It's what your character would do

or you could play the game, that's an option too.

Because evil guys rarely actually provide motivation or a reason to take a quest.

Evil characters can have motivation. They can have a goal in life. They can provide the GM a reason why the party goes on a quest.

But "dickass evil guys who just want to be evil" are way more common and way less interesting. Good characters, regardless of how interesting they are, at least provide the DM with more hooks they can use to keep the game moving.

I'm not him. I'm just askin why it must be the good ones the ones who believe they are the protagonist of the story?

You don't make a character of a pole opposite alignment of the group to begin with

You'd have the same situation in reverse if the group was 4 evil/chaotic dickbags and one lawful good cleric politely asking them to stop.

Someone who makes a character that would refuse to ever associate with the rest of the characters and help them should have them say goodbye and then make a new character

The group decides as a collective.
One whinger sticking his thumb up his ass at the group is a That Guy, not a protagonist

What if the group is made up of 3 neutrals, 1 evil and 1 good?

Because in this case nº of good guys > nº bad guys.
If there were 3 evil dudes and 1 good one, the good one would be the disrupting player if he goes against the desire of the group everytime.

>Alignment works best whenever it's challenged.
agreed but that's a plot hook of its own a paladin shouldn't take a 180 on morality so quick.

Then the group has not yet worked together as a collective to decide.

Don't go, after all you'll only lose gold, influence and xps.

see
Your hypothetical becomes a battle of "which person does the GM have an easier time writing quests for and motivating to do quests", at which point good often wins.

I can see that, and yet, it is always the good ones who believe they are the leaders of the party.

>my character just wants to move to the countryside and live out the rest of his life writing and sitting by the fire
>why won't the group of powerful adventurers come along and help him with the gardening?

Well, are the evil people in question providing a compelling reason for they or the party to do anything other than rob innkeepers?

you didn't answer my question.
i asked why a chaotic neutral character is trash.

Not the same guy you were talking to, but probably because they're often guilty of wasting the party's time by looting low-level innkeepers.

Not all evil characters are low-life thugs.

>Good characters, regardless of how interesting they are, at least provide the DM with more hooks they can use to keep the game moving.
this is more dependent on how imaginative your DM is.

just turns out that the op's character is

>"Listen, we're going to save those kids no matter what. So you can sulk here and rub one out, or come along and get a share of the loot and fame. Your choice."

Easy.

>I-It's just a joke campaign guys!
kys and take your shitty bait with you

Typically, being a leader requires a certain degree of selflessness and wanting to work for the greater good of those present.

An Evil character is mostly in it for themselves, and nobody wants to follow someone who is just going to cut and run or sell them out.

A good character wants to help the group. An evil character wants to help themselves.

While you could make an Evil character that would make a good leader, it would require you to make someone with more ambition and control, rather than a random thief and murderer

This is true.

Most act like low-life thugs, however. See OP's character.

This is also true. Thus "often". When in doubt, its probably easier to build characters with the expectation of a lazy DM than a non-lazy DM, because even the best DM is lazy occasionally.

i've never had this problem.
but I mostly play evil campaigns and looting inn keepers is below my PCs.

See, you have better-tier characters. That also happens. A good group can do a lot with even hard concepts.

Alright. Say I have my Chaotic Evil thief, similar to the one OP described. He's already killed an innkeeper to rob him as well.

What's the plothook?

I said it was trash because chaotic neutral/evil are often used as an excuse to be a dick.

Keeping up appearances is as good a reason to help as any, later on you might need to hide in that orphanage, and the cultists are bound to have treasure.

everyone in my group can DMs and we just rotate campaigns to avoid such situations.

We are all mercenaries, schemers, and power-mongers. We have outwitted and provided our GM with more plot than the one he could ever come up with on his own.

"He has pissed off the local mob. The inkeeper was under their protection."

DM your own game, if you're so great.

why ask a question when you don't want an answer?
I suppose this could be true. I have not ran into this problem and I personally have never ran a character above true neutral. session zero isn't just a meme and can save people from stupid shit like in the op.

I prefer organic grow.

i.e. "eww but that's work"

Stick to freeform RP on some forum somewhere, you're not cut out for organized group activities.

He leaves town. Plot resolved.

That's the basic issue of trying to make plothook for such characters. It's all tpo easy for them to just say they don't care and walk away

On the contrary. Out GM welcomes our scheming because it allows him to concentrate in other areas.

good characters can easily do the same thing.
look we get it you like a game on railroad tracks.

>The DM lets a cloaked figure step out of the shadows. In the blink of an eye he sinks a dagger into your PCs back, once, twice, thrice. As your piece of shit character drops dead and everyone stares in shock, the figure says that he's hunting down the members of an evil group that has caused him great harm... and reveals that he's your *actual* character.

>*DM points to a character sheet in his hand, then to the door*

>"Choose, faggot."

The whole party now has a bounty on their heads. Nobody cares if it was just the thug.

wait I don't understand whats going on.
does the DM kill you character than give you an new one and then kick you out?

>good characters can easily do the same thing

Wrong.

You cans top bragging about your super well written evil character whenever.

Leave, because thats really Fucking creepy and I dont like prebuilts.

Stop being a shitty person and ruining the fun

play this one or leave, your choice.

>Wrong.
how?
I'm guessing your "that guy"?

I leave with him crippling the party. I don't tolerate bossy GM regardless of their reasons.

Have you seen this done?
If so im going to start mentioning this at my session zeros. I play roll playing games to roll play the character that I made and have no interest in playing one that i have no investment in.
In short I would choose to leave, wouldn't be autistic about it but I would probably just tell him "no thank you" then leave.

>How?

A good aligned character typically haa things they care about, and isnt a selfish sick whp will drop everything and skip town to save their own skins.

If an Evil character pusses off a mob boss, they can leave. If a Good character does, then they're going to be drawn to confront the guy more directly so that he doesnt try and harm random innocents while trying to look for them.

>I'm guessing your "that guy"?

I avoid playing Evil characters specifically for this reason, so that my characters have an actual reason to participate.

not the guy you responded to but i think he means the whole "good people would have to stop the mob because they feel inclined to be good" but the mob is attempting to stop a random murderer who kills people for petty money

What if the sheriff hates adventurers, mercs, bounty hunters and the like? What if he doesn't see a difference between the thug and the paladin?

literally all these problems can be solved by a good session zero.

Having played in a few groups that had evil characters in otherwise "regular" parties... No, it doesn't work out, it doesn't enrich roleplay, and it replaces fun with the tedium of justifying why the others don't just boot the asshole. Neutral is the alignment for selfish characters. Evil goes the extra mile for edge.

And best is if no one mentions or cares about alignment at all.

If you'd insist on playing an evil character on a whim, you wouldn't be welcome at my table.

im and i completely agree
but they are past that point so the most he can do is just fucking stop being a asshole and play his character as still evil or whatever and still fucking be apart of the game

>not seeing the difference between a common criminal and a divinely appointed arbiter of justice and good

I mean sure. Kind of weird that the town elected a retarded sheriff though

my last evil charareter that was with a "good party" was using the party as muscle. becuase he was a fragile old wizard and wanted to accumulate necromatic power to restore his youth and was obsessed with seeing into the future. worked really well and my party was actually happy with my character, because you could tell that he wasn't good by his cold nature. but he wasn't doing things just to be evil.

He can be a corrupt sheriff, a lawful stupid one, or he just hates Paladins and their Omniscient Morality License.

Can you run a party without a single good or evil character? How would you do it?

this pretty much sums up the whole thread people so stuck in their ways to ever look at a situation differently.
this is a game about imagination yet so few people here have one.
he could just leave the group because obviously he isn't having fun or doesn't like the direction of the group and needs to find another group.

the entire party is gelatinous cubes

Gray morality mercs that work together because efficiency/bonds of friendship/loyalty, perhaps in a large scale conflict.

No alignments.

>so stuck in their ways to ever look at a situation differently.

More like people making general statements about how things usually work, and then people getting upset and trying to nitpick them to death with every possible exception and trick to make the basic statement seem wrong because they didn't discuss every possible aspect of the topic.

but the thing is that his group is not the problem
i think everybody in this thread agree's he is the odd one out
if the party was 2 chaotic evil's or neutral evils
and 1 lawfully good paladin then they should talk to the paladin
it all relies on the dm though and the dm is catering to the majority as he should
all he has to do is play a evil character in a fun and interesting way that isint "i kill people for money" table tops are meant to be fun

"You'll get part of the loot. Fuck the Paladin, we are getting paid for this one way or the other."
"If you do this, then we will help you with your other thing."
[insert reverse psychology]
"Don't you have religious types? This is your chance!"
"Don't you enjoy murdering people? That's why we are good friends."

If you do it, I'll sleep with you.

>but the thing is that his group is not the problem
i never said it was.
>all he has to do is play a evil character in a fun and interesting way that isint "i kill people for money" table tops are meant to be fun
this wont ever be a problem if you have a real session zero.

I think evil characters can work. People associate themselves with bad apples all the time. It is in our psychology, as social animals, to defend our group over everyone else against all odds. Our morality is centred around you and your group. Even family bonds can be broken in this way. However, it requires restrain something that most players simply lack due lack or practise or maturity.

It's easy: Use it to do some character growth. Hell, have your guy bitch and moan as you set off to slay the cultists but become sullen and quiet when someone asks him why he's coming along if there's nothing for him.

I mean shit, even legit sociopaths play the part of friends sometimes, and you get to loot the corpses while you're there.

It's also a valuable moment for character growth and showing how close your character's become with the party. For fucks sake, Japan figured out the tsundere so long ago that the trope's staler than /pol/ack philosophies but you can't figure out when to play one?

I literally played a blackguard in a group of paladins and it was awesome and everyone had fun. Dickass rogues have no excuse.

Better question is, why do you travel with these fucking people if you're just a cunt all the time? Why do your group specifically cooperate? Why would two 2 people who are lawfulgoodfags drag your shitty character around, and not just kick you out of the group, effectively forcing you to make another character that gels better?
Maybe because you guys are friends, and even though you're coldsteel the hedgehog you might still want to help out your mates if they're doing something dangerous. Maybe you are an effective group and you consider doing them this favour to cash in on doing something sketchy later on. Maybe you're just a pissy little shit who likes to go waah waaah why can't i kill all the orphans and sell their skin to the local tanner?

You're either extremely immature for your age or just a bit slow, OP.

>"Fine, I'll do it but I won't like it!"
Its that easy you fucking autist.

There is roleplaying and getting into a character

And then there is this:
>In character I say ...
>As an explanation for action XYZ
Which should always raise all of your red flags fellow GMs.