PDA

View Full Version : Good/Bad Metagaming



Guilliaume
2010-04-09, 03:21 PM
I was playing my Pathfinder game over the last couple weeks we just hit level 3 and an issue has come up a couple times, and I wanted to get outside opinions. What is good meta-gaming and what is bad-meta gaming? As I understand it meta-gaming is knowing that you are playing a game, not playing a character.

In my game we found a wooden box that made all of our characters uneasy around it. We were also led to believe that the contents of this box are going to be used to resurrect some ancient demon that laid waste to the world centuries ago. So in typical fashion a Big Bad kidnaps a damsel we've gotten to know and demands the box for her safe return. We collectively and independently decide, no this demon is far too scary. So unfortunately she is killed in the scuffle and the Big Bad gets away. The GM says we didn't do anything wrong, but he didn't act 'heroically' and that we should have meta-gamed and known that the GM would have set up an encounter after having rescued the girl to go get the box back at this guy's lair. This is something we should have inferred.

Next session we decide to leave town to try and get more information in a big city about the box, the demon, and as a side project try and restore the damsel's soul as she apparently wasn't killed but was put in stasis and her soul is in Hell. The travel/ knowledge domain cleric in our group said we could leave her in this small town and come back later because he could cast some spells to bring us directly here, implying he could teleport, when he gains some more experience. Later on the GM confided that he felt this was a terrible instance of meta-gaming. That a cleric shouldn't know what spells he's going to be given by his deity.

What do you think? About my situation? About Meta-gaming in general?

Dr Bwaa
2010-04-09, 03:31 PM
No.

Let me clarify: your GM does not share my opinions on metagaming. At all.

Let me clarify: I don't think there's probably any "good" metagaming (in a serious campaign; obviously something like OotS relies on it). yes, the party could have thought "well, we need to hand over the box, but we'll go steal it back after." But they absolutely should not think "well, if we hand over the box, God will allow us to recover it." Because that doesn't make any damn sense (unless your character would actually believe that, of course).
On the other hand, knowing that powerful clerics have the ability to cast certain high-level spells is common-knowledge in-character in most games! it seems pretty reasonable to extrapolate from that fact, plus "I'm nearing that power level myself", to get "I will be able to cast those spells when I am that powerful!" This isn't even metagaming at all.

So basically, I think your GM is pretty emphatically wrong (IMO) on both counts, and you should talk with him about his/everyone else's expectations, because if you're allowed to metagame like that (it seems that he considers metagaming "anything having to do with the character sheet" rather than "anything having to do with knowing that you're in a story of a certain genre"), you need to know before people get upset.

marjan
2010-04-09, 03:37 PM
The GM says we didn't do anything wrong, but he didn't act 'heroically' and that we should have meta-gamed and known that the GM would have set up an encounter after having rescued the girl to go get the box back at this guy's lair.

DM shouldn't tell you what your character should or shouldn't do.

Name_Here
2010-04-09, 03:51 PM
Oh there definately is such a thing as good metagaming and bad metagaming. I don't think your GM is right about those incidences since my basic definition is good metagaming is metagaming that makes the GMs job easier and bad metagaming is metagaming that makes the GMs job unfairly harder.

Sure there are plenty of counter examples to these but those work for me.

Piedmon_Sama
2010-04-09, 04:00 PM
I kind of sympathize with your DM in the first case. Of course you want to keep your players on edge, but Christ, you're supposed to be heroes who tackle long odds, not the guys who blew the whistle to the local high-levels. Sometimes you should make reckless decisions--if your PC wanted a steady, safe life he could have taken 4 ranks in Profession and called it a day.

The second thing about the Cleric's spells, I don't know what the ****.

valadil
2010-04-09, 04:14 PM
I disagree with your GM on both counts. The second moreso.

QuantumSteve
2010-04-09, 04:19 PM
Meta-gaming that "our GM wouldn't possibly give us an unfair encounter" is a prime example of "Bad Meta-Gaming" and a GM who expects their players to think along these lines is in for a rude awakening when he actually puts in an overpowered encounter from which the PCs are intended to retreat, and his PCs run headlong into a TPK.

Whether you think meta-gaming in general is good or bad, it's what breaks fantasy from reality and turns an immersive role-playing experience into a tabletop dice-rolling game. My advise is to use it at your own risk.

Sallera
2010-04-09, 04:58 PM
Meta-gaming that "our GM wouldn't possibly give us an unfair encounter" is a prime example of "Bad Meta-Gaming" and a GM who expects their players to think along these lines is in for a rude awakening when he actually puts in an overpowered encounter from which the PCs are intended to retreat, and his PCs run headlong into a TPK.

This one in particular is something some people have to be trained out of. I think a lot of players get into the mindset that the GM will never toss something at them that they can't kill, especially if that has been the case in the past, and it can lead to a lot of unrealistic character behaviour. In my first campaign, for example, everyone was new to the system, so I mostly worked off the CR system and made sure nothing was too difficult. This now means that in my new campaign with the same group, none of the players will even consider running from something without heavy urging. Last session featured a TPK when none of the players would retreat from what was obviously a heavily buffed sorcerer, even to wait out the durations, and after two of three were dead, the third chose to attack blindly rather than run or surrender (to a good enemy, mind you).

So in short, try to impress upon your GM that the characters have no reason to assume every encounter will be possible to defeat, and it's not metagaming to avoid fighting someone they have good reason to believe is beyond their capabilities.

On the second point, I'd definitely agree with the others here that casting characters should have knowledge of the way magic works in general. Unless your cleric has no ranks in Spellcraft or Knowledge: Religion, it's perfectly reasonable for him to know that after he gains a bit more power, he'll be capable of casting certain spells. He won't know about it in terms of levels or experience points, but that doesn't make the knowledge any less accessible. (If he lacks ranks in either, however, the DM may have a reasonable argument.)

Moriato
2010-04-09, 05:06 PM
Most GMs I've played under would, in that situation, problably give someone an intelligence check, or some other roll to get a hint that they would be able to recover the box later. It would have been very simple to slip your characters some information like "The ritual to summon this demon will probably take a month or more to complete" or "The box is only the main component, he'll probably still need to find a gold dragon's nipple / frog's tooth / weightless gold etc before it's finished".

How should the characters, or even players know what's going to happen? That's ridiculous. If you're supposed to metagame to know what happens next in the story, all that means is that the story is cliche, and overly predicatable.

Tinydwarfman
2010-04-09, 05:07 PM
Wait, the cleric isn't supposed to know that higher level clerics can teleport? WTF?

What does your party consist of? Any paladin-like characters that should have insisted on saving the damsel?

Piedmon_Sama
2010-04-09, 05:19 PM
[QUOTE=Sallera;8260599]This one in particular is something some people have to be trained out of. I think a lot of players get into the mindset that the GM will never toss something at them that they can't kill, especially if that has been the case in the past, and it can lead to a lot of unrealistic character behaviour. In my first campaign, for example, everyone was new to the system, so I mostly worked off the CR system and made sure nothing was too difficult. This now means that in my new campaign with the same group, none of the players will even consider running from something without heavy urging. Last session featured a TPK when none of the players would retreat from what was obviously a heavily buffed sorcerer, even to wait out the durations, and after two of three were dead, the third chose to attack blindly rather than run or surrender (to a good enemy, mind you).[QUOTE]

I've had this happen before too. If my players read this they may argue, but I am p. certain I forewarned thim this would be a horror/suspense-driven campaign where not every challenge could simply be fought through. So their team has discovered a lost elven city (in an extremely unmagical world where people don't even know such things exist), and is exploring the empty streets when they find some kind of spectre (a high-tech hologram, unbeknownst to them) of the Elven Queen. The (prerecorded) message tells them to seek survivors beneath the city; they find a stairwell in the street (like a subway entrance), and find themselves descending into what was once an underground canal, where the elves used small barges for street-to-street transport. The canal is long-dried, and they find themselves walking through the channel when they're attacked from behind by a horde of undead elven warriors. Now, these were basically 3rd-level skeleton warriors; a handful would be a tough fight for a 4th-level party; but they were coming in waves. The PCs kept fighting through three waves of the things, losing one fighter, their NPC leader (Expert 5), and his two robotic bodyguards (doomguards MMII), the Rogue getting grappled and almost torn to shreds (was at 1 hp) before I broke down and said "guys they're 70 lb. skeletons, just knock them over and run." The key to the fight was just using overrun checks to break through the skeletons and run down the channel!

In the end only three PCs escaped and the campaign pretty much ended there. And I no longer use Gimmick Fights as setpieces. :V

Lysander
2010-04-09, 05:22 PM
The first isn't so much meta-gaming as genre-playing. He expected you to stick within heroic tropes, which is not necessarily bad but something he should have specified. You made the more pragmatic choice.

The second isn't metagaming. Presumably higher ups in the clerics church have all kinds of neat spells the lower ranking members know about. Although I could understand if the DM required a knowledge religion check.

Tavar
2010-04-09, 05:30 PM
the Rogue getting grappled and almost torn to shreds (was at 1 hp) before I broke down and said "guys they're 70 lb. skeletons, just knock them over and run." The key to the fight was just using overrun checks to break through the skeletons and run down the channel!

In the end only three PCs escaped and the campaign pretty much ended there. And I no longer use Gimmick Fights as setpieces. :V

Honestly, I wouldn't have thought of that, either. Largely because, by RAW, it doesn't work that way.

Yukitsu
2010-04-09, 05:53 PM
In my experience, unless the DM flat out tells you you can't win, I explicitly have said I'll never run away from an encounter.

DM: *Some rambly description of some badass fighty type blah blah blah.*
Me: Well, no matter how hard you try to make it sound scary, there's no way he looks as scary as that ancient black dragon I soloed last week. I charge.

9/10 I manage to win those anyway, so my DM has stopped bothering thankfully. Cutscene encounters are lame to sit through anyway.

Piedmon_Sama
2010-04-09, 06:02 PM
Honestly, I wouldn't have thought of that, either. Largely because, by RAW, it doesn't work that way.

Overrun? The thing where your opponent gets the hell out of your way or its your STR check vs his? This was a party with one slippery rogue (he had a solid tumble check) and three burly meleers. The creatures had a STR of 13. They would have had to be very unlucky to mess it up.

EDIT:
They would have taken less attacks if they'd tried to break through the skeletons than just standing there and trading sword-swings. The point of the anecdote is that they failed to do the obvious thing in that situation (outnumbered? Get the **** out of there!) because they were thinking it was like some kind of video game and they had to "beat" the encounter before they could "move on." But hey, it's not like you weren't there, Jesus.
VVVV

Tavar
2010-04-09, 06:06 PM
The also get an AOO. If there really was a horde, then taking that many AOO's could be difficult.

Plus, I think I've seen the Overrun mechanic mentioned only once or twice before this, and those times it was how bad it was for mounted char

Milskidasith
2010-04-09, 06:10 PM
The also get an AOO. If there really was a horde, then taking that many AOO's could be difficult.

Plus, I think I've seen the Overrun mechanic mentioned only once or twice before this, and those times it was how bad it was for mounted char

Yeah, overrunning is a *terrible* option. Metagame wise, you're taking, running through a horde without reach weapons, three AoOs per few feet and I'm pretty sure you can't overrun multiple things at a time (meaning you've got to do it one at a time), and character wise, running through a demonic horde that's almost killing you is... well, it's pretty dumb.

The rogue could have tumbled through, though.

pffh
2010-04-09, 06:16 PM
In my experience, unless the DM flat out tells you you can't win, I explicitly have said I'll never run away from an encounter.

DM: *Some rambly description of some badass fighty type blah blah blah.*
Me: Well, no matter how hard you try to make it sound scary, there's no way he looks as scary as that ancient black dragon I soloed last week. I charge.

9/10 I manage to win those anyway, so my DM has stopped bothering thankfully. Cutscene encounters are lame to sit through anyway.

There is a diffrence between a cutscene encounter and not all encounters are CR appropriate. Say if your setting has some parts that are more dangerous then others or if you meet the archmage of some order you would expect these to be powerful encounters.

Godskook
2010-04-09, 06:18 PM
The GM says we didn't do anything wrong, but he didn't act 'heroically' and that we should have meta-gamed and known that the GM would have set up an encounter after having rescued the girl to go get the box back at this guy's lair. This is something we should have inferred.

1.This is railroading, and bad railroading at that.

2.You shouldn't have inferred it. The DM through a moral-dilemma at you. You did the right thing instead of the feels-good thing, and telling you afterwards that you should've done the feels-good thing because of a reason your characters could not have known about is bull.

3.You have no reason to believe that the DM is telling the truth, even after the fact.

Tell him to stop throwing moral dilemmas at the party that directly contradict the player's and character's morals, *AND* to stop railroading.


Next session we decide to leave town to try and get more information in a big city about the box, the demon, and as a side project try and restore the damsel's soul as she apparently wasn't killed but was put in stasis and her soul is in Hell. The travel/ knowledge domain cleric in our group said we could leave her in this small town and come back later because he could cast some spells to bring us directly here, implying he could teleport, when he gains some more experience. Later on the GM confided that he felt this was a terrible instance of meta-gaming. That a cleric shouldn't know what spells he's going to be given by his deity.

Eh............this one is kinda weird and depends on a lot. A cleric will know of spells that are beyond his personal power, both through interaction with other clerics and personal attempts at bettering himself. A spellcraft check would be sufficient to prove to your DM that said cleric would be aware of such a spell. DC is 20+ spell level. If your cleric is walking around with a +24 or better, then your DM has nothing at all to stand on. Otherwise, there's a case to be made, but its rather odd that he'd make it. Well, a Know(Religion) check might do it too.

If my DM said something to me about it, I probably wouldn't argue the point unless I knew it was going to have long-term game impact, and even then, I'm not sure I could win.

Yukitsu
2010-04-09, 06:26 PM
There is a diffrence between a cutscene encounter and not all encounters are CR appropriate. Say if your setting has some parts that are more dangerous then others or if you meet the archmage of some order you would expect these to be powerful encounters.

On the register for the day:

A dragon
A horde of warriors who would make any sensible person run in terror
A many eyed, magic spewing, mage nerfing eyeball
A horrible lich.

And I'm supposed to be worried about some old crotchety bugger just because he's part of some reputable country club? I think not.

The line between what is appropriate to fight and what not to fight isn't a clear one by any stretch of the imagination. Appearance and reputation or lack thereof often has nothing to do with the deadliness of the encounter.

Umael
2010-04-09, 06:32 PM
I kind of sympathize with your DM in the first case. Of course you want to keep your players on edge, but Christ, you're supposed to be heroes who tackle long odds, not the guys who blew the whistle to the local high-levels. Sometimes you should make reckless decisions--if your PC wanted a steady, safe life he could have taken 4 ranks in Profession and called it a day.

...

We have very different gaming philosophies.

First of all, supposed to be heroes? Since when? Usually, usually the PCs are heroes, but that doesn't mean they use high-drama, high-risk to get the rewards.

What kind of game do the players want? What kind of game does the GM want? What game system are they playing? NOW you can talk about whether they should be heroes or not.

Second, your example with the skeletons - overrun or not, I do not think it is good GMing to tell the players "this is the solution!" Yes, retreat IS a valid options and they could have taken it, but to tell them how to defeat the monsters like that is effectively railroading.


As to the difference between good and bad metagaming, the answer is - it is good metagaming if it helps everyone have fun and bad metagaming if it ruins the fun.

erikun
2010-04-09, 06:44 PM
Good metagaming is making out of character decisions which improve the game. For example, working with the party, or going with a plot hook, or trying to talk to an NPC even when the character isn't inclined to do so.

Bad metagamins is making an out of character decision which doesn't improve the game, or is detrimental to the game. Common examples include attempting to kill John's character because John ate the last slice of pizza, or assuming the four equal-CR encounters a day, or just being Chaotic Stupid because the DM will try to keep your character alive anyways.

For the first situation, how were you supposed to know that? Did your DM outright said, "Let the BBEG get away with the box, you'll get it back"? If not, I don't see how that could have been predicted by the players - I would assume the BBEG would resurret the demon once he had the box. It's not metagaming, good or bad, if you can't see it coming.

As for the second, wouldn't a simple Knowledge: Religion tell you what kinds of spells you will learn at higher levels? Or a quick divination to an agent of your deity? I can't think of a time where a spellcaster would not know their own common spells. I mean, I assume your wizard knew he would get fireball and teleportation, and your cleric knew he would get raise dead and rejuvenation. In this case, you'll want to ask your DM just what is common knowledge, what requires a Knowledge check, and what you just should not know. Most classes are assumed to have knowledge of their own class abilities, after all.

Dr Bwaa
2010-04-09, 07:24 PM
Good metagaming is making out of character decisions which improve the game. For example, working with the party, or going with a plot hook, or trying to talk to an NPC even when the character isn't inclined to do so.

I stand corrected. These are indeed great examples of "good" metagaming. Not that you always have to go with every plot hook, but it can be nice for the GM not to have to beat you with the quest stick too hard.

Totally Guy
2010-04-09, 07:31 PM
Can't fault Erikun.

I'd also like to add another instance of good metagaming:

"I want to perform this task and engage this system mechanic to fulfil this intent."

Task: I talk to locals.
Engage system: I roll Gather Information.
Intent: I find out about Plot Hook.

Engaging the system is a good thing. It makes stuff happen. There's nothing wrong with finding where you can potentially get your +2s from, whether you choose a buff or an Aid Another or whatever.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-04-09, 07:37 PM
*snip on good metagaming/bad metagaming*.

Yeah, basically this. It kind of seems like your DM has it backwards on the two cases you supplied us. While it is possible he may have hinted at the fact that you would have recovered the box, he may have just done so poorly. As for the fact that the cleric shouldn't know what spells he will gain, I call BS. The player is the one prepping the spells in this case, so either he's giving his character those spells as the god in question or the cleric goes "Oh, M'Lord, may I please have these spells today?" with the god in question going "whatever" and doing just that.

Also, even if the DM hand-picked said cleric's spells, I'm sure the cleric could have asked for them when they would have been crucial. So, yeah, I agree with the actions of your party.


In a somewhat related note, a good GM should be able to set up a small contingency on the off chance that the players don't metagame where he thinks they should. I personally had a game of Deadlands where we had no reason to stay in a certain town, but, because we had taken a stage coach into the town, it was a simple matter of the owner of said business giving us the runaround so we had to stay there instead of us as players metagaming to stay because the plot was obviously there.

EDIT: Another note on the cleric bit I forgot: If the DM mentioned at all that the cleric shouldn't even know of said spells, there's a skill for that. I didn't see anything about that, but I figured I'd mention it before I forget (again).

Dr Bwaa
2010-04-09, 07:39 PM
Can't fault Erikun.

Apparently not.

I think (at least in my group--this is usually better for a less-serious game or one-shots) another similar example is: "I want to perform this action using this Obscure System Mechanic that Never Gets Used Because It's Suboptimal."

For instance, I had a bounty hunter hopped up on a drink called "The Twin Sisters" (named after Selune and Shar: one white drink and one black one, which you drink both at once. Then, according to the DM, they mix in your stomach and create Talos in there). He was in a barfight (because the girl he was trying to pick up was celebrating a hit, and always celebrated with barfights), and doing pretty all-right, so I made sure to look up and use as many suboptimal, obscure mechanics I could (Overrun, Charge-Jump-Bull Rush, etc), as well as use every action possible in a grapple. No real game effect; just kept the mood a little lighter and kept us all entertained as I searched for new actions to take between rounds.

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-09, 08:04 PM
theres always going to be metagaming to a degree. however, i dont believe that the GM should have told you anything about what you should or shouldnt have done.

also, this depends on the groups alignment as well... if you were in a CG sitch... saving the damsel wouldnt be a high priority. keeping that box safe would. now a LG group would save the damsel, beat up mr. baddy... and take him in for questioning and detainment. i generally play CN so i would want to keep the box for further negotiation with something that can give me an edge on other people (I.E. beings of considerable power)... go kill mr. baddy and take all of his stuff. and ransom the damsel off for cash money. :smallamused:

tell your GM that metagaming can come from the GM as well... and your characters choices are yours, not his. his panties are probably twisted because he spent the last week working up the dungeon, encounter script, and loot tables for what he thought was a no-brainer party decision. if he spent all that time working out the details... he should have made it impossible for you to decide it wasnt worth it.

edit: the cleric will know what spells hes going to get. he has to learn how to be a cleric from someone... and that person is likely to be a higher level. in a world of magic, its common knowledge what spells are available to all clerics.

"Hey, Johnny! they just took Jill! What are we to do?"

"Meh, who cares... shes fat anyway."

jiriku
2010-04-09, 08:22 PM
Erikun already succinctly described the difference between good and bad metagaming, but I'll add that any sort of gameplan that involves "...and then the players will do X, and I'll be annoyed and frustrated if they attempt to do anything else" is bad DMing. It is the DM's job to set up situations wherein players must make decisions. It is not his job to decide what your characters will do.

Recognizing this fact is a key step in achieving mastery as a DM. If you want to make decisions about who does what, you have NPCs. Keep your grubby paws off the decision-making of the PCs: they're not yours to play with.

So shame on your DM for railroading, and good for you for sticking to your guns. It sounds in general as though your DM is just new, and is still growing into an understanding of what does and does not work at the gaming table. Give him time (and a little tough love).

mucat
2010-04-09, 09:01 PM
i generally play CN so i would want to keep the box for further negotiation with something that can give me an edge on other people (I.E. beings of considerable power)... go kill mr. baddy and take all of his stuff. and ransom the damsel off for cash money. :smallamused:


"Hey, Johnny! they just took Jill! What are we to do?"

"Meh, who cares... shes fat anyway."
Um, no. You don't generally play CN. You generally play annoying evil, and call it CN.

Kylarra
2010-04-09, 09:08 PM
Um, no. You don't generally play CN. You generally play annoying evil, and call it CN.Oh stereotypical CN[E], when won't you find your way into games. :smallamused:


It's actually funny to watch metagaming happen sometimes. There was one session in Scion where I was declaring everything extraneous to be a red herring or a plot hook.

Akal Saris
2010-04-09, 11:39 PM
We had a close call last time I played my swift hunter, where after we were wounded from several encounters, the DM sent in the big bad evil epic sorcerer riding an ancient red dragon (so a pair of CR 24s?). To his shock, the entire level 13 party rushed to the attack, eager to take on the boss whose minions we'd been fighting for the past 12 levels. In a single round we had the sorcerer grappled and the wizard and cleric ready to disintegrate and blast the dragon.

The DM was so taken aback, it was hilarious. He didn't even have stats written down for the sorcerer - he just assumed we'd run away in a mixture of metagaming and in-character terror. Since it was the end of the session and people needed to leave soon, he ended up panicking and having the sorcerer and red dragon teleport away from us.

Later I looked up the stats for an ancient red dragon, and was just like - whoa!!! They have HOW many hit points?! :smallbiggrin:

Solarn
2010-04-10, 06:29 AM
also, this depends on the groups alignment as well... if you were in a CG sitch... saving the damsel wouldnt be a high priority. keeping that box safe would. now a LG group would save the damsel, beat up mr. baddy... and take him in for questioning and detainment.
I always figured it was the other way around. CG would save both the damsel and the box somehow and LG would consider the greater good of keeping the box safe more important than risking it to save one person. The entire point of being Chaotic is that you don't prioritize. The life of a damsel in distress is the same as all life in the universe.

marjan
2010-04-10, 06:36 AM
I always figured it was the other way around. CG would save both the damsel and the box somehow and LG would consider the greater good of keeping the box safe more important than risking it to save one person. The entire point of being Chaotic is that you don't prioritize. The life of a damsel in distress is the same as all life in the universe.

For the greater good is LE, or LN at best.

Amphetryon
2010-04-10, 06:53 AM
For the greater good is LE, or LN at best.

For the greater good is either Good or Neutral, unless you're boiling puppies.

CG would save the damsel, because people are more important than things.

LG would - usually - try to save both, prioritized by which would do the most good for society as a whole, rather than for personal reasons.

Solarn
2010-04-10, 07:00 AM
For the greater good is either Good or Neutral, unless you're boiling puppies.
With permission, that totally goes in my sig.

Amphetryon
2010-04-10, 07:04 AM
Go right ahead, but it's a riff off of a great sig from WotC.

"I'm a Paladin." 'But, you have horns, and a tail!' "I'm a special Paladin." 'But you just boiled a puppy! I saw you!' "Trust me; it was for the greater good."

Solarn
2010-04-10, 07:05 AM
Go right ahead, but it's a riff off of a great sig from WotC.

"I'm a Paladin." 'But, you have horns, and a tail!' "I'm a special Paladin.' "But you just boiled a puppy! I saw you!" 'Trust me; it was for the greater good.'
Heh. That's awesome.

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-10, 09:06 AM
I always figured it was the other way around. CG would save both the damsel and the box somehow and LG would consider the greater good of keeping the box safe more important than risking it to save one person. The entire point of being Chaotic is that you don't prioritize. The life of a damsel in distress is the same as all life in the universe.

my idea of CG is it doesnt matter what it takes. how many lives are lost. who is killed or what laws i break... that box cannot get into the hands of someone who will put it to use. even if i have to kill my own mother to get that box out of the hands of mr. baddy. sorry mom you are dead.

while my idea of LG is do whatever it takes to get the damsel safe, the box safe, and the bad guy safe. unless the bad guy is completely incapable of being rehabilitated (suddenly i think of monster trucks with giant dong like objects projecting from them) then we subduel him and put him in lock up for the rest of his life. nobody, not even the most evil of evil deserve death.

Sliver
2010-04-10, 10:00 AM
A spellcraft check would be sufficient to prove to your DM that said cleric would be aware of such a spell. DC is 20+ spell level. If your cleric is walking around with a +24 or better, then your DM has nothing at all to stand on. Otherwise, there's a case to be made, but its rather odd that he'd make it. Well, a Know(Religion) check might do it too.

To be fair, it's harder to recognize a spell (especially one you didn't prepare before, more relevant for clerics who know spells on a need-to-know basis, unlike wizards who just study everything and cherry pick from that... Sometimes) that is being cast in a hostile environment such as lethal combat then to just know about some effect of some more powerful spell that your deity might grant you. Especially when you are a travel focused cleric that wonders if he could teleport... It really is basic knowledge for a character of that sort...

Kylarra
2010-04-10, 10:17 AM
my idea of CG is it doesnt matter what it takes. how many lives are lost. who is killed or what laws i break... that box cannot get into the hands of someone who will put it to use. even if i have to kill my own mother to get that box out of the hands of mr. baddy. sorry mom you are dead.

while my idea of LG is do whatever it takes to get the damsel safe, the box safe, and the bad guy safe. unless the bad guy is completely incapable of being rehabilitated (suddenly i think of monster trucks with giant dong like objects projecting from them) then we subduel him and put him in lock up for the rest of his life. nobody, not even the most evil of evil deserve death.I begin to see why your CN seems a lot like CE. Your CG is a lot like CN[E] or even LN[E] to an extent. You've decided on a course of action and now you don't care who gets in your way or what you have to do in order to accomplish it. Definitely neutral leading towards evil tendencies there.

Your LG is an interpretation of LG, but not the only possible one.

Tinydwarfman
2010-04-10, 10:42 AM
my idea of CG is it doesnt matter what it takes. how many lives are lost. who is killed or what laws i break... that box cannot get into the hands of someone who will put it to use. even if i have to kill my own mother to get that box out of the hands of mr. baddy. sorry mom you are dead.

while my idea of LG is do whatever it takes to get the damsel safe, the box safe, and the bad guy safe. unless the bad guy is completely incapable of being rehabilitated (suddenly i think of monster trucks with giant dong like objects projecting from them) then we subduel him and put him in lock up for the rest of his life. nobody, not even the most evil of evil deserve death.

Ehh, that sounds more like CN to me. Chaotic good might his king to save his country, but he's not going to condemn an innocent just because it would be the safer way to go.

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-10, 10:43 AM
I begin to see why your CN seems a lot like CE. Your CG is a lot like CN[E] or even LN[E] to an extent. You've decided on a course of action and now you don't care who gets in your way or what you have to do in order to accomplish it. Definitely neutral leading towards evil tendencies there.

Your LG is an interpretation of LG, but not the only possible one.

no neutral character would care at all about the box or the damsel. unless the damsel was a family member... but even then... meh.

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-10, 10:46 AM
Ehh, that sounds more like CN to me. Chaotic good might his king to save his country, but he's not going to condemn an innocent just because it would be the safer way to go.

in my eyes CG is the absolute craziest alignment to play. there is no crazier than a man whos willing to do anything for what is "right"... id say a CG character will kill any innocent as long as he thought it would help in the ultimate good. where as a LG character would be limited on what he could do to obtain the ultimate goal.

Tavar
2010-04-10, 10:48 AM
no neutral character would care at all about the box or the damsel. unless the damsel was a family member... but even then... meh.

Why not? Neutral doesn't mean psycotic, just that you don't hold with either good nor evil.


in my eyes CG is the absolute craziest alignment to play. there is no crazier than a man whos willing to do anything for what is "right"... id say a CG character will kill any innocent as long as he thought it would help in the ultimate good. where as a LG character would be limited on what he could do to obtain the ultimate goal.

So...Chaotic Good isn't Good? Why label it as good then?

Kylarra
2010-04-10, 10:52 AM
no neutral character would care at all about the box or the damsel. unless the damsel was a family member... but even then... meh.Er... what? No, neutral doesn't mean what you think it means. You don't have to be Good to care about the "greater good". In fact, everything you ascribe to CG is pretty much textbook LN vigilante style enforcer. Neutral just means your actions tend neither towards Good nor Evil the majority of the time.


in my eyes CG is the absolute craziest alignment to play. there is no crazier than a man whos willing to do anything for what is "right"... id say a CG character will kill any innocent as long as he thought it would help in the ultimate good. where as a LG character would be limited on what he could do to obtain the ultimate goal.

Dust
2010-04-10, 10:55 AM
Stubborning dragging this post back to the original question!

I actually once had the opposite problem as the OP, and had a stubbornly heroic character do things because, well, it was the RIGHT thing to do, dammit. This would have been fine, except it was a World of Darkness game where we made our characters but had no idea what was special about us (Were we mummies? Werewolves? Hunters? Mages? Regular Joes? We had no idea).

This is the same GM from this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=147121&highlight=tantrum) story.

In the second session, I used my own body to shield that of a little girl in the middle of a gunfight that we were supposed to flee from. The GM accused me of metagaming because I 'somehow KNEW' that bullets wouldn't kill me. This, of course, just made the character even less afraid and more determined to do good, since she was managing to save lives at the cost of temporary pain.

Finally, I stopped trying to convince the GM that I was being heroic simply for the same of heroism, and instead just shot back with a dazzling smile and informed him that I was totally metagaming.

Starbuck_II
2010-04-10, 11:06 AM
Er... what? No, neutral doesn't mean what you think it means. You don't have to be Good to care about the "greater good". In fact, everything you ascribe to CG is pretty much textbook LN vigilante style enforcer. Neutral just means your actions tend neither towards Good nor Evil the majority of the time.

No, Neutral means you care about family/friends only. Now you can care about the alignment thing, but really you should only care about family.

Sliver
2010-04-10, 11:07 AM
stuff

It looks like you are just mislabeling things... CG is not bound by the rules and does what is needed, but he won't kill everything that stands in his way just because it's the simplest thing to do. That's not good, that is neutral. And CN will do what is needed to be done. If giving the box will risk releasing a demon to damn the world, he won't do it. Because it will make his life worse, and he doesn't want it. Neutral is ready to do what's needed, but won't go out and do it.

LG isn't better then CG, and CE isn't worse then LE. They are good or evil in different ways.

That's the issue with the 4e morality scale, it supports that LG is better then G, and CE is eviler then E.

Kylarra
2010-04-10, 11:09 AM
No, Neutral means you care about family/friends only. Now you can care about the alignment thing, but really you should only care about family.No, neutral just means you're not committed to being good or evil. You can and probably do care about other things. :smallconfused:

Zellic Solis
2010-04-10, 11:17 AM
As far as the metagaming goes... I rather depend on it. My games tend to rely on a larger amount of handwavium than others. My players usually accept that down the line it will all be worth it. So frequently they will be all in when I want them to retreat because they know if a character dies early then the story gets derailed. Occasionally my players take advantage of it, but most of them are pretty mature and don't let it make things difficult. Once or twice I have done TPK's and had them restart simply to drive this fact home.

As far as alignment goes, if a CG character wanted to do something and argues that it was the right thing to do and doesn't need to justify it then I'd say its kosher. I'd let the CG character go either way depending on how they've been playing them. If they're a man of the people, then I'd be surprised if he didn't stress about saving the girl. If they're more of a pragmatist then they hold on to the box because they know the uber demon.

Personally, were I in your DM's shoes I would have had the demon taunt them into coming to the dungeon to stop him AND save the girl.

mucat
2010-04-10, 11:25 AM
no neutral character would care at all about the box or the damsel. unless the damsel was a family member... but even then... meh.


Neutral means you care about family/friends only. Now you can care about the alignment thing, but really you should only care about family.

What? Since when does "neutral" mean "sociopath"?

Granted, each alignment covers a wide range of personality archetypes; it never makes sense to ask "What would a chaotic good person do in this situation?" It does make sense to ask "What would Dave do? What would Ellen do differently?" And then, as a much less important afterthought: "So what alignment do they fall into?"

Even so, most neutral-aligned people (on the good-evil axis) are decent enough folks, and probably believe they should do the good thing...they're just not prone to enough personal risks or sacrifice to qualify as good-aligned. Anyone who flat out does not care what happens to others is well into evil territory.

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-10, 11:26 AM
It looks like you are just mislabeling things... CG is not bound by the rules and does what is needed, but he won't kill everything that stands in his way just because it's the simplest thing to do. That's not good, that is neutral.

of course not. if given other options a CG will take them... other than killing anything because its the simplest. simplicity doesnt make it right. CG characters tend to have a few screws loose IMO. i always think of Marv from Sin City as a greatest example of CG. a LG character doesnt have that luxury due to murder being illegal (in most games)

we also have to look at personal interpretations on alignment in 3.5... this debate could go on forever... :smallamused:

i tend to play CN characters because i feel they are the most well rounded individuals in the game. true realists in my eyes.

Dust
2010-04-10, 11:26 AM
No, Neutral means you care about family/friends only. Now you can care about the alignment thing, but really you should only care about family.
The ultimate D&D party would be one first-level Expert and his five overprotective Wizard and Cleric brothers and sisters.

"Alright, that takes care of that dungeon. Looks like we ended up with fifty thousand gold pieces, a bunch of ancient lost documents showing the owner has claim over the land the kingdom is built on, and a Ring of Three Wishes. How should we divvy this up?"
"Meh."
"Whatever."
"I'm happy if you're happy."

mucat
2010-04-10, 11:28 AM
I tend to play CN characters because i feel they are the most well rounded individuals in the game. true realists in my eyes.
Wait, first you say they don't give a rat's ass about anyone but their own friends and family, then you call them well-rounded realists? I'm starting to get scared of you in real life.

Godskook
2010-04-10, 11:31 AM
in my eyes CG is the absolute craziest alignment to play. there is no crazier than a man whos willing to do anything for what is "right"... id say a CG character will kill any innocent as long as he thought it would help in the ultimate good. where as a LG character would be limited on what he could do to obtain the ultimate goal.

Ever see I Robot? Will Smith demonstrates a CG character in that movie. Bucking established thinking and standards, he's the only man who sees the movie's climax coming. Actually, that's a really great movie for discussing alignment as it portrays a CG hero and a LG villain both really well. Constantine is another good example of a CG hero and a LG villain. In Watchmen, Ozymandias, the only LG guy in the group, is the BBEG as well, being opposed primarily by CN/CG/NG members of the group. And then there's Dr. Manhattan, the LN of the group.

Seriously, of the ethical alignment, it is Chaos that is the seat of emotion, not Law. A chaotically aligned person is more likely to make the emotionally charged choice than the lawful person because of this, where as the the lawful person is more likely to be logical about it.

Kylarra
2010-04-10, 11:46 AM
i tend to play CN characters because i feel they are the most well rounded individuals in the game. true realists in my eyes.Well, from the view of an unrelated party, coupled with a response made by someone who apparently games with you, I'd say you like to play CN because it allows you to be "evil" without writing CE on your sheet.

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-10, 11:47 AM
Wait, first you say they don't give a rat's ass about anyone but their own friends and family, then you call them well-rounded realists? I'm starting to get scared of you in real life.

as you should be. :smallcool:

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-10, 11:51 AM
Ever see I Robot? Will Smith demonstrates a CG character in that movie. Bucking established thinking and standards, he's the only man who sees the movie's climax coming. Actually, that's a really great movie for discussing alignment as it portrays a CG hero and a LG villain both really well. Constantine is another good example of a CG hero and a LG villain. In Watchmen, Ozymandias, the only LG guy in the group, is the BBEG as well, being opposed primarily by CN/CG/NG members of the group. And then there's Dr. Manhattan, the LN of the group.

Seriously, of the ethical alignment, it is Chaos that is the seat of emotion, not Law. A chaotically aligned person is more likely to make the emotionally charged choice than the lawful person because of this, where as the the lawful person is more likely to be logical about it.

thats a very good interpretation as well. i had thought that (my silly dork mind) while watching iRobot. and yes... logic vs emotion. vulcan vs human.

@kylarra - none of my fellow table players will ever be on the forums, i assure you. and no i play CN because id rather never put CG on my sheet. thats a campaign ender there... just like CE is. :smallwink:

Kylarra
2010-04-10, 11:59 AM
I guess I'll just be thankful that you'll never be at the same table as me. I don't think I'd want to play with someone that plays characters the way you do.

Starbuck_II
2010-04-10, 12:13 PM
Sometims it can be fun to be out of your comfort zone. :smallbiggrin:

Kylarra
2010-04-10, 12:18 PM
Sometims it can be fun to be out of your comfort zone. :smallbiggrin:It has nothing to do with comfort zone and everything to do with seeing that chaotic tag as an excuse to be a sociopath.

hamishspence
2010-04-10, 12:36 PM
Savage Species makes it clear that it is entirely possible for Evil beings to care strongly about friends and family.

PHB supports the notion that Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships- but its possible to care about others without being committed to them.

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-10, 12:41 PM
It has nothing to do with comfort zone and everything to do with seeing that chaotic tag as an excuse to be a sociopath.

if i wanted to be a sociopath i would play NE. CN by definition is completely unpredictable. and lets all be honest here... predictable games are completely boring. :smallsigh:

i tend to play high charisma based characters. (bards, sorcs, rogues etc.) so i suppose if i wanted to be sociopolitical i would never play CN... because by definition a sociopath is CE to the tee... and in no way, shape or form any way that i explained CN.

http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

edit : thank you ham. that was well put.

hamishspence
2010-04-10, 12:44 PM
Lack of concern about others (commonly taken to be a sociopathic trait) is Evil more than Neutral in D&D- but you could have Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic characters with this trait.

The character might be unusually organized and obediant to authority, if Lawful, for example.

Devils in D&D are both very sociopathic and very Lawful.

Fiery Diamond
2010-04-10, 10:21 PM
edit : thank you ham. that was well put.

And also in complete opposition to your point.

Math_Mage
2010-04-11, 05:49 AM
my idea of CG is it doesnt matter what it takes. how many lives are lost. who is killed or what laws i break... that box cannot get into the hands of someone who will put it to use. even if i have to kill my own mother to get that box out of the hands of mr. baddy. sorry mom you are dead.

What about this is chaotic or good, to you? Nothing about this superficial description pins down an alignment for me. About the only thing I can say is that this character is non-Good. Beyond that, I could probably make a character of any of the other six alignments to represent this description.

CG is when Will Smith takes a quick break from saving the world to go save that one annoying baseball bat-wielding kid, even though the delay may cost him the chance to save the world. It was a purely emotional decision for him: there was evil threatening his friends, right there, right then, and he had to do something about it, the overarching threat of VIKI notwithstanding.

CG is when Elan steals (twice) in a good cause. He made the personal decision that rescuing Haley and co. was more important than wasting time looking for a legitimate way to go about his business.

CG is NOT "I will kill my own mother to get that box back." You are NOT going to convince me that a character who makes decisions from good morality and personal ethics would do that. Yes, I know the Stupid Scenario Exception applies to everything, so let's skip the part where an arbitrarily narrow Moral Choice dilemma is imposed on the character, mkay?


while my idea of LG is do whatever it takes to get the damsel safe, the box safe, and the bad guy safe. unless the bad guy is completely incapable of being rehabilitated (suddenly i think of monster trucks with giant dong like objects projecting from them) then we subduel him and put him in lock up for the rest of his life. nobody, not even the most evil of evil deserve death.

Again, while you have made the effort to distinguish the character as Good, I could create a character concept for any of the Good alignments (and possibly LN as well) that matches this. The CG pacifist doesn't care that the authorities want the BBEG dead, and tries to capture him while saving him from execution. The LG/LN policeman wants him tried for his crimes. The NG ranger wants to reform him. The information presented only narrows it down to "As good as Good can be." One-dimensional analysis.


no neutral character would care at all about the box or the damsel. unless the damsel was a family member... but even then... meh.

A TN character concerned with preserving the regional status quo. A LN character that views kidnapping as degrading to society and the box as dangerous, but doesn't care too much about the damsel personally. A CN rogue that thinks it would be the grandest thing to steal the BBEG's prizes from under his nose. I'm not even trying here.

hamishspence
2010-04-11, 05:56 AM
CG is NOT "I will kill my own mother to get that box back." You are NOT going to convince me that a character who makes decisions from good morality and personal ethics would do that. Yes, I know the Stupid Scenario Exception applies to everything, so let's skip the part where an arbitrarily narrow Moral Choice dilemma is imposed on the character, mkay?



BoED takes the same approach- even if it's a complete stranger who you are sacrificing "for the greater good" you really shouldn't.

PHB2 also makes that distinction in the paladin section- with the paladin philosopher "Outside of moral absolutes - an ethical code is based on the greatest good of the greatest number"

So a good character will think of the greatest good of the greatest number- but they won't claim that this justifies the sacrifice of innocent people.

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-11, 09:20 AM
And also in complete opposition to your point.

i made zero points. just opinions sir!

and math. seems you are up in arms my friend! im not meaning to pursuade you to feel one way or the other. im just giving on mans opinion on the way i would personally feel some CN characters would act. both sides of the fence if you will. this doesnt mean that this is the way all CG characters should be all the time. relax my guy!

CG to me is fanatically good and can justify any action as a means to reach an end. similarly in a way that a CE character can justify overly good acts to reach an ultimately evil goal.

now i have played CG toons that have been more stable... and dont act like a fanatic running through the campaign. but, i much more enjoy the true aspect of choas on keeping my DM on his toes. :smallcool:

Amphetryon
2010-04-11, 09:54 AM
i made zero points. just opinions sir!

and math. seems you are up in arms my friend! im not meaning to pursuade you to feel one way or the other. im just giving on mans opinion on the way i would personally feel some CN characters would act. both sides of the fence if you will. this doesnt mean that this is the way all CG characters should be all the time. relax my guy!

CG to me is fanatically good and can justify any action as a means to reach an end. similarly in a way that a CE character can justify overly good acts to reach an ultimately evil goal.

now i have played CG toons that have been more stable... and dont act like a fanatic running through the campaign. but, i much more enjoy the true aspect of choas on keeping my DM on his toes. :smallcool:

These definitions no doubt work well for you at your DM's table, but they differ fairly substantially from the Core books definitions of the alignments - as Math Mage so eloquently explained - as well as the extrapolations put forth in the BoED and BOVD.

Solarn
2010-04-11, 10:16 AM
CG to me is fanatically good and can justify any action as a means to reach an end. similarly in a way that a CE character can justify overly good acts to reach an ultimately evil goal.
Why? Where do you draw that conclusion from?

JGoldenberg
2010-04-11, 10:43 AM
Here is one of the perfect sites that list Alignments and Define them, they were so detailed that Paizo used them in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook and I think they have the best definition of each alignment.

http://easydamus.com/alignment.html



Chaotic Good, "Rebel"
A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.

Chaotic good is the best alignment you can be because it combines a good heart with a free spirit.

Chaotic good can be a dangerous alignment because it disrupts the order of society and punishes those who do well for themselves.


You'll notice there is a lack of a "I'll Kill my own mother to protect this item of good if I have to!" Which is a pretty desperate thinking, and possibly more in line with Chaotic Neutral with evil tendencies. Y'know, unless your mother happens to be a Demon or Archfiend of Big bad of course.

Sliver
2010-04-11, 10:54 AM
CG to me is fanatically good and can justify any action as a means to reach an end. similarly in a way that a CE character can justify overly good acts to reach an ultimately evil goal.

I'm sorry, but that is one of the basic villain archetypes. One who thinks that he does what is right and necessarily, even if it's not agreed by authority. And they are systematically evil. CE won't do anything to reach an ultimately evil goal. CE doesn't care for evil, he cares for what he wants right now. "Do I want to help this lady cross the street because I know it will help me gain divine power? HECK NO". LE will do anything that is needed, even an elaborate plan that involved hugging trees and building orphans... Building Orphans... Nevermind... You just mix up all the alignments, but your view of them is far away from how it's normally played out.

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-11, 10:58 AM
Here is one of the perfect sites that list Alignments and Define them, they were so detailed that Paizo used them in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook and I think they have the best definition of each alignment.

http://easydamus.com/alignment.html




You'll notice there is a lack of a "I'll Kill my own mother to protect this item of good if I have to!" Which is a pretty desperate thinking, and possibly more in line with Chaotic Neutral with evil tendencies. Y'know, unless your mother happens to be a Demon or Archfiend of Big bad of course.

thats a very good example of alignment for this purpose. most tables that i have set in @ gen con as well as locally have used something similar to this...

as far as math_mage goes. im not trying to step on your toes here. im just offering another example of perception. and not a too far fetched one. even your forum name suggests that you have little to no room for interpretation. which is fine and dandy when it comes to gaming.. but, ultimately this is a role playing game... and we need to have opinions and emotional conflict within game. pushing each alignment to the full spectrum of emotion. i dont like cut and dry gaming and i will not fight you over something that is, in truth, based entirely on personal interpretation.

JGoldenberg
2010-04-11, 11:14 AM
thats a very good example of alignment for this purpose. most tables that i have set in @ gen con as well as locally have used something similar to this...

as far as math_mage goes. im not trying to step on your toes here. im just offering another example of perception. and not a too far fetched one. even your forum name suggests that you have little to no room for interpretation. which is fine and dandy when it comes to gaming.. but, ultimately this is a role playing game... and we need to have opinions and emotional conflict within game. pushing each alignment to the full spectrum of emotion. i dont like cut and dry gaming and i will not fight you over something that is, in truth, based entirely on personal interpretation.


My only problem with your assessment of alignment extremes, is that a CG extreme is completely different. Infact it's more likely that a CG Extreme would try to destroy any order in a misguided attempt to 'free' everyone. Your description strikes me more as an LG extreme.

Guilliaume
2010-04-11, 02:37 PM
OP here, my party consists of me LG Fighter, LG Paladin, TN Cleric of Odin, ?? Gnome Fey Blooded Sorcerer, ?? Elven Wizard, and CG Ranger. We all independently thought, "save the world, sorry damsel." We tried to rescue her but the GM said this was not a gameplay mechanic thing. The guy has her and has a dagger to her throat, there's nothing you can do. The only one who wanted to save the girl instead of not bowing to terrorism was the ranger. I don't really think this is an alignment issue. Most of the party members said the world, the CG member said the girl. It could have gone the other way. LG paladin can either say: "save the person in front of me OR I'm sorry young woman, but the world comes first." Both are heroic instances of a Paladin protecting something and helping one in need. My GM thought we did not act heroically, but I said there were 2 responses. The Superman response, Save the girl; Or the Batman response, Save the world. We chose the Batman response, still heroes. He relented.

My GM is not new to GMing, he's been doing it for years. Alignment used to be the hot button topic to argue about. Now he doesn't care if we play evil characters, as long as we act "heroically". Evil people can do good. They are just motivated differently. Which is now getting frustrating because it feels like he wants us to ACT like super heroes.

Dust
2010-04-11, 02:44 PM
I think this thread calls for the obligatory....
http://www.filehurricane.com/photos/716200815505PM_alignment.jpg

Frosty
2010-04-11, 02:51 PM
Killing a loved one for the sake of the greater good is not evil if it the only way of saving the world.

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-11, 04:43 PM
I think this thread calls for the obligatory....
http://www.filehurricane.com/photos/716200815505PM_alignment.jpg

rofl thank you for this. :smallcool:

Apollo1776
2010-04-11, 05:04 PM
OP here, my party consists of me LG Fighter, LG Paladin, TN Cleric of Odin, ?? Gnome Fey Blooded Sorcerer, ?? Elven Wizard, and CG Ranger. We all independently thought, "save the world, sorry damsel." We tried to rescue her but the GM said this was not a gameplay mechanic thing. The guy has her and has a dagger to her throat, there's nothing you can do. The only one who wanted to save the girl instead of not bowing to terrorism was the ranger. I don't really think this is an alignment issue. Most of the party members said the world, the CG member said the girl. It could have gone the other way. LG paladin can either say: "save the person in front of me OR I'm sorry young woman, but the world comes first." Both are heroic instances of a Paladin protecting something and helping one in need. My GM thought we did not act heroically, but I said there were 2 responses. The Superman response, Save the girl; Or the Batman response, Save the world. We chose the Batman response, still heroes. He relented.

My GM is not new to GMing, he's been doing it for years. Alignment used to be the hot button topic to argue about. Now he doesn't care if we play evil characters, as long as we act "heroically". Evil people can do good. They are just motivated differently. Which is now getting frustrating because it feels like he wants us to ACT like super heroes.

I'm a bit confused why the paladin didn't want to help the girl. Did his code of conduct say anything as to upholding the law and what is right altruistically? Furthermore the guy was breaking the law and doing evil. Not all paladins are altruistic I know, but still, I'm pretty sure paladins will do everything they can to stop evil and unlawful acts if it happens in first person. Even if he decides against it, the paladin would still be in conflict for a while.

Refer to the Kensai for a minute here. He can be given a conflict in his code of honor. The example given that a monarch orders him to go commit evil, but his code also tells him to do good. Either choice he takes will result in him breaking his code.

In this instance it may of been possible that there was no right decision. Either way you lose.

Fiery Diamond
2010-04-11, 06:44 PM
Not all paladins are altruistic I know

*blink blink*
*gape*

Paladin = Lawful Good alignment.
Good alignment = altruistic.
Therefore, Paladin = altruistic.

Miko notwithstanding, of course. (really, Miko never should have been considered Good anyway, she was simply anti-Evil, which is NOT THE SAME THING. She is an example of how NOT TO PLAY a paladin.)

Anyway, Math Mage has it right about the alignments.

And frankly, if you were at my table, Whyte_Widow, if you played the "CG" or the "CN" you described, I'd peg you as CE.

Good = takes risks to do good
Neutral = doesn't like to take risks, but doesn't like to do evil on a regular basis even if it doesn't have any risk attached
Evil = Everything else, including "will do deliberate evil deeds 'for the greater good'"

Math_Mage
2010-04-11, 09:49 PM
thats a very good example of alignment for this purpose. most tables that i have set in @ gen con as well as locally have used something similar to this...

as far as math_mage goes. im not trying to step on your toes here. im just offering another example of perception. and not a too far fetched one. even your forum name suggests that you have little to no room for interpretation. which is fine and dandy when it comes to gaming.. but, ultimately this is a role playing game... and we need to have opinions and emotional conflict within game. pushing each alignment to the full spectrum of emotion. i dont like cut and dry gaming and i will not fight you over something that is, in truth, based entirely on personal interpretation.

Yeah, I've been...tense, lately. Sorry. Alignment is not an issue to riot over--it's more important to play a character concept than to give a label to it. And there's ways and ways to create radically different characters with the same alignment--or create similar characters with radically different alignments, as I noted above. Some say the alignment system is broken and vague for this reason--I find it to be a great virtue, once things are considered in terms of integrated character concepts.

That noted, the traits that you describe are not the ones ordinarily used to define CG or CN, and indeed are not ordinarily used to describe CG or CN characters. The first character I recall when thinking of "pursuit of good goal with disregard for collateral damage" is the Operative from Serenity--Lawful Evil. Another is the aforementioned VIKI--Lawful Neutral form my viewpoint, though the villain of the story. A Chaotic Good character may readily put his goals above the law, but the good is an entirely different matter. Fanaticism may of course be applied to any alignment, but this still seems like an unusual way for a CG character to go fanatic, and besides, the fanatic sect is not generally representative. Indeed, the most fanatic are often the closest to changing alignment.

This is another problem with how people consider the alignment system--they treat it as a box with nine compartments, try to toss every trait or action into a compartment, and never try to layer anything on top of the alignment. The result is shallow characters, for which the players blame the alignment system, never considering that it may be their perception that is broken. [/rant]


Killing a loved one for the sake of the greater good is not evil if it the only way of saving the world.

I would think that such an act generally has no impact on any character's alignment in and of itself, because it has been made too narrow for the alignment system to come into play. Every alignment may lead to either decision (insofar as every alignment would be forced to make a decision; the evil PCs may be the ones holding the knife).

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-12, 08:20 AM
Yeah, I've been...tense, lately. Sorry. Alignment is not an issue to riot over--it's more important to play a character concept than to give a label to it. And there's ways and ways to create radically different characters with the same alignment--or create similar characters with radically different alignments, as I noted above. Some say the alignment system is broken and vague for this reason--I find it to be a great virtue, once things are considered in terms of integrated character concepts.

That noted, the traits that you describe are not the ones ordinarily used to define CG or CN, and indeed are not ordinarily used to describe CG or CN characters. The first character I recall when thinking of "pursuit of good goal with disregard for collateral damage" is the Operative from Serenity--Lawful Evil. Another is the aforementioned VIKI--Lawful Neutral form my viewpoint, though the villain of the story. A Chaotic Good character may readily put his goals above the law, but the good is an entirely different matter. Fanaticism may of course be applied to any alignment, but this still seems like an unusual way for a CG character to go fanatic, and besides, the fanatic sect is not generally representative. Indeed, the most fanatic are often the closest to changing alignment.

This is another problem with how people consider the alignment system--they treat it as a box with nine compartments, try to toss every trait or action into a compartment, and never try to layer anything on top of the alignment. The result is shallow characters, for which the players blame the alignment system, never considering that it may be their perception that is broken. [/rant]



I would think that such an act generally has no impact on any character's alignment in and of itself, because it has been made too narrow for the alignment system to come into play. Every alignment may lead to either decision (insofar as every alignment would be forced to make a decision; the evil PCs may be the ones holding the knife).


aye i tend to be the guy thats pushing for extremities @ the table. you can thank Hollywood for shoving dramatic down my throat. :smallwink:

Kylarra
2010-04-12, 09:01 AM
:smallconfused: If you think you need to be at one of the extremes to be dramatic, you need to read more novels. When extreme is your status quo, it's no longer extreme, no longer "dramatic".

JGoldenberg
2010-04-12, 05:48 PM
:smallconfused: If you think you need to be at one of the extremes to be dramatic, you need to read more novels. When extreme is your status quo, it's no longer extreme, no longer "dramatic".

+1

I tell my players to play their alignments moderately in general for best effect.
Instead I tell them to think of some things I took from Rich's play theory on villains

1. What is the one emotion that drives them?
For example, one of my player's is playing a CG Inquisitor (Adv. Playtest Class for Pathfinder) and decided Vengeance will be what he centers around. He then developed a backstory involving his daughter being killed and him joining the Goddess of Vengeance's Church.

2.What Emotion is intended to be inspired in those they encounter?
Example: I once played a Wizard with a Cursed Flaw. His body would slowly deteroriate as he aged. The emotion he inspired was revulsion.

3. What is the character's goal?
Example: On the Wizard again, his goal was to become powerful enough before the curse took his life to remove it and punish the gods for giving it to him in the first place.

4. How does your character treat their allies? Their Family? Their enemies?
The Wizard treated his Allies as pawns so to speak, they were visibly mistrustful of him but they needed him, so he intended to utilize their usefulness by steering them into his goals subtly. His family were dead save for a sister who refused to acknowledge him, so Family relationship wasn't too good. His enemies he tended to use spells that would kill in violently painful ways before others. He wasn't a really nice guy.

I think through Questions like these, it helps to make how your character's alignment will influence their choices.

WarKitty
2010-04-12, 05:55 PM
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupidChaoticStupid

Sorry I had to.


I actually play my NE druid as that sort of idealistic extremist...he is really quite concerned with preserving nature...to the point of being willing to blow up an inhabited city if he could so the land could be reclaimed...

JGoldenberg
2010-04-12, 06:08 PM
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupidChaoticStupid

Sorry I had to.


I actually play my NE druid as that sort of idealistic extremist...he is really quite concerned with preserving nature...to the point of being willing to blow up an inhabited city if he could so the land could be reclaimed...

The only time I've seen a character like that is when PETA or Greenpeace has been annoying me with their antics so I make a Strawman Villain. Arguing with those numbskulls is so much less satisfying than letting your players beat the living daylights out of caricatures of them.