Ironman Group

[Fluffy the Mad]

Guys, hold it, please. I already elaborated what the alignment rules would be. If Sharv is still concerned, we can have a chat about this somewhere else. (Via PM or messenger) As far as we're currently concerned, I don't think it wise to put any limits on alignment. Just keep in mind that the blatantly evil CE Banite likely won't last a week. If you want any conflict, make it subtle- otherwise this lot won't have made it as far as Cormyr. Now, I'm going to finish up my background bit today or Monday. My PM box is still open for suggestions.

[MTGPackFoils]

Dec 22, 2013 2:44:53 GMT -5 Fluffy the Mad said:

Guys, hold it, please. I already elaborated what the alignment rules would be. If Sharv is still concerned, we can have a chat about this somewhere else. (Via PM or messenger) As far as we're currently concerned, I don't think it wise to put any limits on alignment. Just keep in mind that the blatantly evil CE Banite likely won't last a week. If you want any conflict, make it subtle- otherwise this lot won't have made it as far as Cormyr. Now, I'm going to finish up my background bit today or Monday. My PM box is still open for suggestions.

Of course it wouldn't last because Banites are LE. :-)

Point made. I'll probably make my guy today but not do or start any beginning quests.

[Deleted]

I think a lot of the uneasiness I'm feeling at the idea of having evil characters in the party is from having absolutely no idea what the group is going to be about yet, what our goals will be, the "object of the game," so to speak, or any of the other details. It could theoretically be really cool to play around evil PC's in the group. But it also could be a disaster. Personally, considering all the possible scenarios that could develop, I think a higher proportion of possible scenarios lend themselves to disaster rather than fun, and I think that the level of potential disaster if things go wrong vastly outweighs the potential entertainment value of the positive scenarios if things go right. Certainly if you consider, as the benefit of evil PC's in the party, the margin of entertainment value the game would have with them compared to what it would be like with no evil PC's in the party, for the other players. So, the "sight unseen" nature of our starting conditions has me looking at the potential presence of evil PC's and saying, "Eh ... I'm really, really, really not sure about this." If this is framed right, then it could really work. But I think mixing good and evil aligned PC's in the same party is kind of asking for a big fracture right down the middle where our own PC's themselves become the biggest risk for permadeath our characters face, with people trying *on purpose* to destroy that which other people have put so much work into developing. Add to this the fact that some people like to see good characters win, and some people like to see evil characters win, and no matter which way it goes, it's going to be tough for that to not add to the potential for hurt feelings. For those of us who don't plan to lose such a fight, that might not seem such a big deal, potentially. But for those who realize anyone could end up on the short side, or who don't want the other person's feelings hurt any more than their own, that might look a little different.

If the goal of the group is to work together for something, and people start stabbing each other in the back because of the presence of evil alignments, which is a serious cause one way or the other for that to happen, that's not going to feel so good, and it will defeat the stated purpose of the group, which was to work together. If the goal of the group is to compete over which side, good or evil, will win out in some way, that would be a lot more fun to play in. But that would also lend itself naturally to two competing parties, not one fractious cluster-F in the making. Also, if good and evil characters are both present, this is going to naturally create competition over which side dominates the way the group does things. What that means is that one side or the other is automatically going to be asked to let the other side dominate like that. Someone playing evil may have fun keeping under wraps, while others are going to want to go ahead and do the evil things they created their character to do, which is understandable. On the other hand, a good character who tolerates people doing evil things and doesn't eventually deal with the evil in a strong way or split with the group isn't doing a great job of being a good character. Having evil and good in the same party is inherently going to limit someone's role play, if not on one side, then on the other, if the group is going to stay together. I'm just not shy about coming out and saying so ahead of time.

[Deleted]

Dec 22, 2013 1:11:05 GMT -5 Fluffy the Mad said:

No alignments have been dictated. There is a little issue with premature character creation, but we can work with that, I suppose. This is not, at the moment, going to be a 'good' or 'evil' group, as far as I am aware or concerned. If I'm making the centerpiece, they'll be a neutral character and we can play both sides of the coin. With such a large group it will be split between tasks of various sorts, not to one alignment or the other. The 'leader' I am creating won't be dumb enough to assign a paladin to assassination or a rogue to guarding orphans holding bags of silver. If you want to make an evil character to get along with the good guys, do it the smart way. I doubt stupidity will be tolerated. That means not picking inter-group fights without a good bloody reason. We're all intelligent adults, I'm pretty sure we can sort this.

Willingness to perpetrate evil is evil, not neutral. A person who saves a hundred school children from a fire every day for a hundred days in a row, and then murders one for profit, is an evil person. If the group takes evil missions, then it's an evil group, not neutral. Neutrality is selling weapons to anyone who has the money, not caring their alignment or purpose they put the weapons to, but not participating in evil acts themself. The moment one goes and puts their own hand to doing evil things, they are now evil, not neutral.

EDIT: Let me back that up from the PHB. Here are two alignment descriptions.

Neutral: A neutral character does what seems like a good idea. She doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutrality is a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil. After all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way. Mialee, a wizard who devotes herself to her art and is bored by the semantics of moral debate, is neutral.

Neutral evil: A neutral evil villain does what-ever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit*, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusions that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn't have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic villain has. The criminal who robs and murders to get what she wants* is neutral evil.


*Murdering for hire is "murdering to get what one wants", that being "profit."

[magiuss]

Im Sorry, but when I started this up I didn't put any rules on this Subject of evil vs Good. my stand point on this matter is If you wanna play Evil Do it.. just know if you playing a Cyrist and the group finds out in some way.. expect to get murdered by your own comrades and ''THIS'' is perma death..

everyone can choose their allingment as they see Fit. just as I didn't scripe avery strick rule on Perma death yet..

People wanted to Find out times first.. that's fine.. now we'll get in to the background STory fo the Group. and then we'll take up the Rules on how strict they shoud be.. most of the people I have talked with See itthe way i saw it from the start..

Anyways Play what allingment you want.. im Sorry Sharauvyn.. but we are not going to force people to not play an alignment the feel their char follows..

a lot o possibilitys comes from such role play. and i really hope that peple don't try and shoot down the idea because of things like this before we even had a chance to try this experiment out.. if you don't feel you can play with an evil allingmented person then im sorry to see you go because there most likely wil be.

[quelunia]

Well, I am with Sharauvyn on we need two groups. One large group and we are going to have problems. Grozer and I are of the same opinion. If RP from outside the group leads us down a evil path then it is up to the Paladins we have to straighten us out. Falling short of that, the ones that are going evil will be kicked out of the group or the paladins will be forced to leave which ever the case may be. I wasnt even planning on making my character evil, but if he was tempted through proper role play to become evil... It is a possiblity.

Look guys, by accepting Perma Death, to me, there should be a valid RP reason. By splitting the group into two factions, we would have a valid as we would have two factions one trying to run and hide the other trying to hunt the other.

Or we are all a Cult of good guys or a cult of bad guys or just mercenaries that are now being hunted because of a job we took. Through being hunted some decide to take a different route and adopt the ways of those hunting them to survive. We are in such a large group going to have issues, Paladins in the group basically exclude an evil character just by having a paladin. Not that an evil character cant get by on FRC with a paladin. For this let me give you a Dragonlance comparison " Sturm Brightblade was a Knight (aka Paladin) and Raistlin was a Red Robed mage to start with. Sturm hated the idea of working with Raistlin, but for the greater good of the group he put up with him. Sturm was antagonized alot by Raistlin, but they had a mutual respect. Not only did he put up with Raistlin he travelled with Tasselhof Burrfoot a Kender (aka a hin in FRC) he stole things alot even from Sturm. So, There is presidents for why evil could and can travel with good. Heck people do it all the time in DM events without a qualm at all.

I just dont do well with ultimatums nor do I do good with OOC drama. IC drama is fine, but when its OOC that is were I draw the line. Iwill take back my claim to leave the group if we can come to terms with a background story as to how we all met.

So lets start, a good bit of us said Waterdeep as our background home. Can we go from there? Waterdeep has a great many organizations some good others evil. Heck the Prominade is below Waterdeep. There is a thieves' Guild or two there and the Moonstars. So, everyone do some home work lets post some ideas as to our background. Or we all vote that the Games background that slaughtered a bunch of people was what drew us all together? We go from there?

And we need to decide before hand if we are one group then we deal with one another on an IC basis. Not use OC feelings about alignments as a excuse to stir the pot before we even start. Not everyone has fun in everyone elses fashion. Evil aligned characters are going to be the least of our problems in game I am pretty sure. Character personalities will be the biggest I am betting.

[Deleted]

Dec 22, 2013 10:23:55 GMT -5 quelunia said:

Well, I am with Sharauvyn on we need two groups. One large group and we are going to have problems. Grozer and I are of the same opinion. If RP from outside the group leads us down a evil path then it is up to the Paladins we have to straighten us out. Falling short of that, the ones that are going evil will be kicked out of the group or the paladins will be forced to leave which ever the case may be. I wasnt even planning on making my character evil, but if he was tempted through proper role play to become evil... It is a possiblity.

This, I am totally fine with.

[MTGPackFoils]

With the Permadeath idea it, I believe, is to help establish more realism in the group. Characters of low level do not have the resources to raise a dead character.

Also when we die sometimes it feels like it has no impact except in gold and xp, which we grind to get back.

[Deleted]

Dec 22, 2013 10:06:35 GMT -5 magiuss said:

Im Sorry, but when I started this up I didn't put any rules on this Subject of evil vs Good. my stand point on this matter is If you wanna play Evil Do it.. just know if you playing a Cyrist and the group finds out in some way.. expect to get murdered by your own comrades and ''THIS'' is perma death..

everyone can choose their allingment as they see Fit. just as I didn't scripe avery strick rule on Perma death yet..

People wanted to Find out times first.. that's fine.. now we'll get in to the background STory fo the Group. and then we'll take up the Rules on how strict they shoud be.. most of the people I have talked with See itthe way i saw it from the start..

Anyways Play what allingment you want.. im Sorry Sharauvyn.. but we are not going to force people to not play an alignment the feel their char follows..

a lot o possibilitys comes from such role play. and i really hope that peple don't try and shoot down the idea because of things like this before we even had a chance to try this experiment out.. if you don't feel you can play with an evil allingmented person then im sorry to see you go because there most likely wil be.

Magiuss, the idea of splitting into two parties isn't to exclude people who want to play one alignment or another. It's actually to allow room for people to play the alignment they want without having people of the other alignment breathing down their neck constantly because of it.

I'll wait to see what comes out of the background of the group before I say more, but I just wanted to specify why I said the things I did about alignment, that it's not about excluding, but making room for the role play someone wants to do.

[magiuss]

Dec 22, 2013 10:23:55 GMT -5 quelunia said:

Well, I am with Sharauvyn on we need two groups. One large group and we are going to have problems. Grozer and I are of the same opinion. If RP from outside the group leads us down a evil path then it is up to the Paladins we have to straighten us out. Falling short of that, the ones that are going evil will be kicked out of the group or the paladins will be forced to leave which ever the case may be. I wasnt even planning on making my character evil, but if he was tempted through proper role play to become evil... It is a possiblity.

Look guys, by accepting Perma Death, to me, there should be a valid RP reason. By splitting the group into two factions, we would have a valid as we would have two factions one trying to run and hide the other trying to hunt the other.

Or we are all a Cult of good guys or a cult of bad guys or just mercenaries that are now being hunted because of a job we took. Through being hunted some decide to take a different route and adopt the ways of those hunting them to survive. We are in such a large group going to have issues, Paladins in the group basically exclude an evil character just by having a paladin. Not that an evil character cant get by on FRC with a paladin. For this let me give you a Dragonlance comparison " Sturm Brightblade was a Knight (aka Paladin) and Raistlin was a Red Robed mage to start with. Sturm hated the idea of working with Raistlin, but for the greater good of the group he put up with him. Sturm was antagonized alot by Raistlin, but they had a mutual respect. Not only did he put up with Raistlin he travelled with Tasselhof Burrfoot a Kender (aka a hin in FRC) he stole things alot even from Sturm. So, There is presidents for why evil could and can travel with good. Heck people do it all the time in DM events without a qualm at all.

I just dont do well with ultimatums nor do I do good with OOC drama. IC drama is fine, but when its OOC that is were I draw the line. Iwill take back my claim to leave the group if we can come to terms with a background story as to how we all met.

So lets start, a good bit of us said Waterdeep as our background home. Can we go from there? Waterdeep has a great many organizations some good others evil. Heck the Prominade is below Waterdeep. There is a thieves' Guild or two there and the Moonstars. So, everyone do some home work lets post some ideas as to our background. Or we all vote that the Games background that slaughtered a bunch of people was what drew us all together? We go from there?

And we need to decide before hand if we are one group then we deal with one another on an IC basis. Not use OC feelings about alignments as a excuse to stir the pot before we even start. Not everyone has fun in everyone elses fashion. Evil aligned characters are going to be the least of our problems in game I am pretty sure. Character personalities will be the biggest I am betting.

if you wanna leave and make your own group i can't stop that.. i will just point out, People ''will'' die.. and people won't be able to show up every time.. that is why i wanted atleast 8 in this group.. any less and this will be over in a few weeks.. if not sooner

[magiuss]

im going to post this again..

So anyone who can live with such criteria's as stated.

1: perma is on the table [can you live with losing a toon.. no matter what level he/she is


2: ''Do you get easily offended OOC by actions In game [then you probably shouldn't do this]''

[Fluffy the Mad]

Dec 22, 2013 9:45:16 GMT -5 @sharauvyn said:

Dec 22, 2013 1:11:05 GMT -5 Fluffy the Mad said:

No alignments have been dictated. There is a little issue with premature character creation, but we can work with that, I suppose. This is not, at the moment, going to be a 'good' or 'evil' group, as far as I am aware or concerned. If I'm making the centerpiece, they'll be a neutral character and we can play both sides of the coin. With such a large group it will be split between tasks of various sorts, not to one alignment or the other. The 'leader' I am creating won't be dumb enough to assign a paladin to assassination or a rogue to guarding orphans holding bags of silver. If you want to make an evil character to get along with the good guys, do it the smart way. I doubt stupidity will be tolerated. That means not picking inter-group fights without a good bloody reason. We're all intelligent adults, I'm pretty sure we can sort this.

Willingness to perpetrate evil is evil, not neutral. A person who saves a hundred school children from a fire every day for a hundred days in a row, and then murders one for profit, is an evil person. If the group takes evil missions, then it's an evil group, not neutral. Neutrality is selling weapons to anyone who has the money, not caring their alignment or purpose they put the weapons to, but not participating in evil acts themself. The moment one goes and puts their own hand to doing evil things, they are now evil, not neutral.

EDIT: Let me back that up from the PHB. Here are two alignment descriptions.

Neutral: A neutral character does what seems like a good idea. She doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutrality is a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil. After all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way. Mialee, a wizard who devotes herself to her art and is bored by the semantics of moral debate, is neutral.

Neutral evil: A neutral evil villain does what-ever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit*, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusions that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn't have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic villain has. The criminal who robs and murders to get what she wants* is neutral evil.


*Murdering for hire is "murdering to get what one wants", that being "profit."

I'm pretty sure I understand alignments by this point, thanks. I'm glad to know my point went missing somewhere. Now I need to go find it and see if it starved to death.



I guess I'll clarify in a bit.

[quelunia]

Here is a bit of Waterdeep information that could help the background.

forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Blazidon_One-Eye

forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Filiare

forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Waterdeep

[quelunia]

Here is a bit of Waterdeep information that could help the background.

forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Blazidon_One-Eye

forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Filiare

forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Waterdeep

[magiuss]

im going to throw out an Idea of a Rouge background story. for anyone to use if they wish.. you could have been part of a Group who ventured in to Undermountain your companions was slain in traps and by monsters down there.. yet your skills as a cunning rouge allowed you to make it out alive despite all odds.. now looking for Work and wealth a different place as all you had on you, you lost in the tunnel of the undermountain

just a suggestion

[MTGPackFoils]

Dec 22, 2013 10:41:13 GMT -5 @sharauvyn said:

Dec 22, 2013 10:06:35 GMT -5 magiuss said:

Im Sorry, but when I started this up I didn't put any rules on this Subject of evil vs Good. my stand point on this matter is If you wanna play Evil Do it.. just know if you playing a Cyrist and the group finds out in some way.. expect to get murdered by your own comrades and ''THIS'' is perma death..

everyone can choose their allingment as they see Fit. just as I didn't scripe avery strick rule on Perma death yet..

People wanted to Find out times first.. that's fine.. now we'll get in to the background STory fo the Group. and then we'll take up the Rules on how strict they shoud be.. most of the people I have talked with See itthe way i saw it from the start..

Anyways Play what allingment you want.. im Sorry Sharauvyn.. but we are not going to force people to not play an alignment the feel their char follows..

a lot o possibilitys comes from such role play. and i really hope that peple don't try and shoot down the idea because of things like this before we even had a chance to try this experiment out.. if you don't feel you can play with an evil allingmented person then im sorry to see you go because there most likely wil be.

Magiuss, the idea of splitting into two parties isn't to exclude people who want to play one alignment or another. It's actually to allow room for people to play the alignment they want without having people of the other alignment breathing down their neck constantly because of it.

I'll wait to see what comes out of the background of the group before I say more, but I just wanted to specify why I said the things I did about alignment, that it's not about excluding, but making room for the role play someone wants to do.

The only way this would happen is if the good guys find out their party member did something "evil". If the person playing evil does it right they can get away with a lot in time.

Also it would be interesting to be character witnesses to someone on trial for a crime.

Remember this Ironman groups is to play without taking into consideration what appears on their character sheet.

[Razgriz]

Im not taking part in this (to many alts already! ) but I think that you guys should keep the alignmet of each character secret, and allow the RP to dictate things. People should guess what you character is about; including his/her alignment and deity in the bio is giving away to much OOC info.

Another idea that I have is that everybody should start as TN if you are playing a merc group. Why? Because in that way what happens during your adventures and interactions could affect the alignment of the PCs more. Some will go good/evil, chaotic/lawful and others will simply remain the same. That is just an idea though, and of course this won't work if there are paladins in the group.

[magiuss]

Dec 22, 2013 12:54:23 GMT -5 Razgriz said:

Im not taking part of this (to many alts already! ) but I think that you guys should keep the alignmet of each character secret, and allow the RP to dictate things. People should guess what you character is about. Including his/her alignment and deity on the bio is giving to much OOC info.

Another idea that I have is that everybody should start as TN if you are playing a merc group. Why? Because in that way what happens during your adventures and interactions could affect the alignment of the PCs more. Some will go good/evil, chaotic/lawful and others will simply remain the same. That is just an idea though, and of course this won't work if there are paladins in the group.

i like that..i havn't given deity or alignment away in my Ironman Biografy

[magiuss]

Dec 22, 2013 9:40:07 GMT -5 @sharauvyn said:

I think a lot of the uneasiness I'm feeling at the idea of having evil characters in the party is from having absolutely no idea what the group is going to be about yet, what our goals will be, the "object of the game," so to speak, or any of the other details. It could theoretically be really cool to play around evil PC's in the group. But it also could be a disaster. Personally, considering all the possible scenarios that could develop, I think a higher proportion of possible scenarios lend themselves to disaster rather than fun, and I think that the level of potential disaster if things go wrong vastly outweighs the potential entertainment value of the positive scenarios if things go right. Certainly if you consider, as the benefit of evil PC's in the party, the margin of entertainment value the game would have with them compared to what it would be like with no evil PC's in the party, for the other players. So, the "sight unseen" nature of our starting conditions has me looking at the potential presence of evil PC's and saying, "Eh ... I'm really, really, really not sure about this." If this is framed right, then it could really work. But I think mixing good and evil aligned PC's in the same party is kind of asking for a big fracture right down the middle where our own PC's themselves become the biggest risk for permadeath our characters face, with people trying *on purpose* to destroy that which other people have put so much work into developing. Add to this the fact that some people like to see good characters win, and some people like to see evil characters win, and no matter which way it goes, it's going to be tough for that to not add to the potential for hurt feelings. For those of us who don't plan to lose such a fight, that might not seem such a big deal, potentially. But for those who realize anyone could end up on the short side, or who don't want the other person's feelings hurt any more than their own, that might look a little different.

If the goal of the group is to work together for something, and people start stabbing each other in the back because of the presence of evil alignments, which is a serious cause one way or the other for that to happen, that's not going to feel so good, and it will defeat the stated purpose of the group, which was to work together. If the goal of the group is to compete over which side, good or evil, will win out in some way, that would be a lot more fun to play in. But that would also lend itself naturally to two competing parties, not one fractious cluster-F in the making. Also, if good and evil characters are both present, this is going to naturally create competition over which side dominates the way the group does things. What that means is that one side or the other is automatically going to be asked to let the other side dominate like that. Someone playing evil may have fun keeping under wraps, while others are going to want to go ahead and do the evil things they created their character to do, which is understandable. On the other hand, a good character who tolerates people doing evil things and doesn't eventually deal with the evil in a strong way or split with the group isn't doing a great job of being a good character. Having evil and good in the same party is inherently going to limit someone's role play, if not on one side, then on the other, if the group is going to stay together. I'm just not shy about coming out and saying so ahead of time.

That is precisely why the 3 Criteria was. if one takes ''IN game'' action personal they properly shouldn't sign up for such an experiment as this.. cause there will happen things that properly wouldn't happen, if it was not within such an experiment such as this that evolves permanent death.

And as the first Criteria stated.. If one can't handle to lose a Toon low level or high level they properly shouldn't sign up for this as well.. cause IT WILL happen. we might even wipe the entire party.

and that is all this was created to try out for now, an Experiment.. honestly i had a talk with some of the dm's they said and i quote.. ''I will be impressed if you guys make it out of the Greatgaunt dungeons without anyone dieing''

and no the purpose of the group was not that everyone had to work together.. it was to Enhance the realism of Forgotten realms.. by making an adventurer band... in forgotten realms a lot can happen. take the party of 2 friends.. Kelemvor/cyric. band together to get the ring of winter.. later they are joined with Adon and midnight and overcome alot together.. facing gods and stuff they never thought they would.. now.. Adon is mortal murdered by Cyric. Midnight is a god who spent the first 10 years of her godhood o fight cyric one of the few persons whom she trusted as a friend even that knows her real name. Kelemvor became Cyrics worst nightmare after Cyric became a god and kelemvor fought him in the city of the dead after 15 years of imprisonment..

what im trying to say is.. when they started out we didn't know what and who these people were.. how ever Their adventure became legend.. even though some were good some evil some neutral because of a curse. and some insanely shallow because of the god he followed..

[Fluffy the Mad]

I needed to go shovel snow and all that garbage, so I've been a little late on replying. It sounds to me like Sharv is suggesting something akin to the Refugees with a permadeath rule, not a more difficult, multi-alignment group. Personally I would prefer the challenge- if you'll all give me a bit of time, I'll finish writing and set up a small story that might be able to deal with multiple alignments. My previous post was merely meant to say that it doesn't have to be obviously one way or the other; the assumption was made that any conflict would be obvious and split us, which is entirely premature.

[MTGPackFoils]

Also LG and CG conflict with each other.

Same goes for LN and CG.

Conflicts within party are not reserved for just good vs evil.

[Fenix]

Dec 22, 2013 14:03:10 GMT -5 Fluffy the Mad said:

I needed to go shovel snow and all that garbage, so I've been a little late on replying. It sounds to me like Sharv is suggesting something akin to the Refugees with a permadeath rule, not a more difficult, multi-alignment group. Personally I would prefer the challenge- if you'll all give me a bit of time, I'll finish writing and set up a small story that might be able to deal with multiple alignments. My previous post was merely meant to say that it doesn't have to be obviously one way or the other; the assumption was made that any conflict would be obvious and split us, which is entirely premature.

While not part of the group, if I may make a suggestion? Allowing Death and Reaper to write up the story gives you all a good baseline, but consider for those of alignments outside the general populace: ex: its a good aligned group and you have evil people there or the reverse

What if those outside those alignments met with the group to offer aide or had some agendae of their own? THat way you could easily integrate your characters storyline into it.


for example...

You have a group of NE Mercs, they go around working for the right price, easily bought out by the higher bidder. You then have this CG Cleric who works his way in. THey let him in just for the sake of using him for his talents, but the Cleric is there hellbent on trying to turn some of these men around.

You have a group of CG chars that go around doing things for the sake of helping people. A few Evils wish to persuade them to have a further ill intent, maybe trying to corrupt group members or have a paladin fall.

Neutral people trying to keep the peace or similar intents, you have goods and evils trying to tip their scale one way or another.


These are just small idealic suggestions for you to put in perspective. It would be great for you all to have the same background, but I could see you working out well with characters that maybe the group met along their travels that just started going around with them as well.

[Fluffy the Mad]

Dec 22, 2013 14:17:30 GMT -5 Fenix said:

Dec 22, 2013 14:03:10 GMT -5 Fluffy the Mad said:

I needed to go shovel snow and all that garbage, so I've been a little late on replying. It sounds to me like Sharv is suggesting something akin to the Refugees with a permadeath rule, not a more difficult, multi-alignment group. Personally I would prefer the challenge- if you'll all give me a bit of time, I'll finish writing and set up a small story that might be able to deal with multiple alignments. My previous post was merely meant to say that it doesn't have to be obviously one way or the other; the assumption was made that any conflict would be obvious and split us, which is entirely premature.

While not part of the group, if I may make a suggestion? Allowing Death and Reaper to write up the story gives you all a good baseline, but consider for those of alignments outside the general populace: ex: its a good aligned group and you have evil people there or the reverse

What if those outside those alignments met with the group to offer aide or had some agendae of their own? THat way you could easily integrate your characters storyline into it.


for example...

You have a group of NE Mercs, they go around working for the right price, easily bought out by the higher bidder. You then have this CG Cleric who works his way in. THey let him in just for the sake of using him for his talents, but the Cleric is there hellbent on trying to turn some of these men around.

You have a group of CG chars that go around doing things for the sake of helping people. A few Evils wish to persuade them to have a further ill intent, maybe trying to corrupt group members or have a paladin fall.

Neutral people trying to keep the peace or similar intents, you have goods and evils trying to tip their scale one way or another.


These are just small idealic suggestions for you to put in perspective. It would be great for you all to have the same background, but I could see you working out well with characters that maybe the group met along their travels that just started going around with them as well.

That is what I've been endeavoring to do. We've just had some jump the gun, and I'll have to try to add them in as I can. I have a few ideas for that as well, it's just forcing me to go a certain way. Should have something posted by tonight at the latest.

[MTGPackFoils]

My apologies if you were trying to have us all come from one area. My thought was that the group had traveled and grown together overtime, picking up people from different areas.

[Deleted]

RE: All the alignment stuff.

I think I just need a lot more information about what our group is about, what we are trying to accomplish, how long our characters might theoretically be around (are we all going home, even if still alive, after accomplishing a concrete objective vs. sticking around until the character dies), what level of inherent competition there is between us (splitting a reward among surviving members vs. just accomplishing a goal), etc. Without any of the other stuff, the idea of playing a character of any alignment in a group with evils in it, by itself with no other considerations, just feels like being dunked in a tank full of sharks after being doused in ram's blood. I don't mean to rush DNR and/or who ever else is writing up our backstory, I'm just saying I think the rest of the picture will be helpful when it does come.

[Rane]

Dec 22, 2013 17:16:00 GMT -5 @sharauvyn said:

RE: All the alignment stuff.

I think I just need a lot more information about what our group is about, what we are trying to accomplish, how long our characters might theoretically be around (are we all going home, even if still alive, after accomplishing a concrete objective vs. sticking around until the character dies), what level of inherent competition there is between us (splitting a reward among surviving members vs. just accomplishing a goal), etc. Without any of the other stuff, the idea of playing a character of any alignment in a group with evils in it, by itself with no other considerations, just feels like being dunked in a tank full of sharks after being doused in ram's blood. I don't mean to rush DNR and/or who ever else is writing up our backstory, I'm just saying I think the rest of the picture will be helpful when it does come.

That's the beauty of rp. You never know.

[Deleted]

Dec 22, 2013 18:46:17 GMT -5 Rane said:

Dec 22, 2013 17:16:00 GMT -5 @sharauvyn said:

RE: All the alignment stuff.

I think I just need a lot more information about what our group is about, what we are trying to accomplish, how long our characters might theoretically be around (are we all going home, even if still alive, after accomplishing a concrete objective vs. sticking around until the character dies), what level of inherent competition there is between us (splitting a reward among surviving members vs. just accomplishing a goal), etc. Without any of the other stuff, the idea of playing a character of any alignment in a group with evils in it, by itself with no other considerations, just feels like being dunked in a tank full of sharks after being doused in ram's blood. I don't mean to rush DNR and/or who ever else is writing up our backstory, I'm just saying I think the rest of the picture will be helpful when it does come.

That's the beauty of rp. You never know.

You're so helpful, Rane.

[Fluffy the Mad]

We're not required to come from one area, but we are required to meet at least at some point before coming to Cormyr. Having alternate stories is fine, it just means that I need to consider those already written before I write a central one, rather than having them branch.

As to Sharauvyn, I was hoping to add in something that would actually 'be' binding at some level, as well as giving at least rudimentary goals. I don't want to set it all in stone myself, because that would be rude, but I do intend to work on a rough outline at the very least.

[magiuss]

im bumping this thread along with the other.. we are still missing Biografis from some pople an what tey want to play.. hopfully people have finished their storys before December is done.