PDA

View Full Version : Banning evil alignments



Pages : [1] 2

DisgruntledDM
2011-01-09, 01:01 PM
Is there such a thing as a game of D&D/Pathfinder where players make good-aligned characters? If so, I've never seen one. Ever.

Yesterday, in my Pathfinder game, the players were hired to slaughter a camp full of orcs. Not just the warriors, every last remnant of the clan. Well, they found where the women and children were hiding, and one genius chaotic evil half orc decides, on the spot, to make his character a pedo.

I expressed my disgust with this idea, as even in a free-roam sandbox game where the players are all adults, there should be lines that you do not cross in the interest of good taste. In retrospect, I shouldn't have had this scenario in the game to begin with, but I thought everyone was mature enough to handle it. I had to put the game on hold to spend fifteen fighting the "It's what my character would do" cliche.

If this guy hadn't been a good friend, I would've booted him out of the group after said argument. But I decided to give him one more shot, and ruled that any character he creates in one of my games, from Star Wars to L5R, cannot be evil. Or chaotic neutral. I had to deal with "that ruins my roleplaying" bitching and moaning before finally being able to get the *&*&ing game back on track.

Now, I truly have earned the moniker "The Disgruntled Dungeon Master".

So yeah...has anyone ever banned evil alignments in your games?

Foryn Gilnith
2011-01-09, 01:09 PM
"No evil alignments" is up there with "no psionics" and "no Tome of Battle" as a common ban, in my experience. Not quite as common as "no Dragon Magazine", but still pretty common. The stereotypical roleplayer would just roll up Amoral Neutral instead, but your experience with a pedophilic character seems like a real outlier to me. In a drow game I played a bordering-on-LN pederast, but I can't imagine the sort of person who would just lolrandumb into a pedophile character.

dsmiles
2011-01-09, 01:10 PM
Very rarely, and only in campaigns that are supposed to be HEROIC. If the campaign isn't meant to be heroic enough to get all the text effects, it's free game. Sandbox games, or anti-hero campaigns are also free game.

DisgruntledDM
2011-01-09, 01:11 PM
The DMPC I created to help balance out the party is pretty much that, along with another player. There's one other CE character, who didn't act like a nutcase.

Fiery Diamond
2011-01-09, 01:15 PM
Always. I always ban evil alignments. My games are about heroes, damn it, and that means the players are playing good guys! If prospective players don't like it, they can suck it up and go find another gaming group. It's possible to play a heroic Evil character, or an Evil character who is not a bane of good. It's possible to play an Evil character who isn't Chaotic Stupid or Stupid Evil. But players who actually want to play Evil characters who are also capable of doing it right are rare while players playing Chaotic Stupid EVILZ, like your half-orc player, are common. It's easier just to ban Evil.

As for Chaotic Neutral: I tell my players up front that I have a rather strict interpretation of what can be considered Evil and what I say, goes. I don't care if they think a particular thing is Neutral rather than Evil, if I think it is Evil I will tell them and either disallow it or have in-game consequences should they choose to follow through. As for Chaotic Stupid, that is outright banned and any player choosing that gets either 1) a talking to or 2) permitted retribution by the other PCs.

So...yes, I ban Evil PCs. Good or Neutral, you're the heroes.

Edit:


"No evil alignments" is up there with "no psionics" and "no Tome of Battle" as a common ban, in my experience. Not quite as common as "no Dragon Magazine", but still pretty common. The stereotypical roleplayer would just roll up Amoral Neutral instead, but your experience with a pedophilic character seems like a real outlier to me. In a drow game I played a bordering-on-LN pederast, but I can't imagine the sort of person who would just lolrandumb into a pedophile character.

See my "what I say is Evil is Evil and therefore disallowed." And in my opinion, amoral is Evil, not Neutral. (See Belkar.) So "Amoral Neutral" isn't allowed either in my campaigns.

DisgruntledDM
2011-01-09, 01:19 PM
What's even more disappointing is that up to this point, he'd managed to avoid chaotic stupid.

Because I'm running a sandbox game, I don't mind evil characters...for people that can handle it. This guy seems to be focused on pushing the limits of what he can get away with.

Callista
2011-01-09, 01:21 PM
I require people to request evil alignments specifically, kind of like non-Core feats/classes/items/etc. If they have a good character concept that'll work in the party, I'll allow it. Exalted characters, some clerics, and almost all paladins are incompatible with evil party members. If you want to play a Vow of Peace, Vow of Poverty cleric, then you'd better be good at role-playing. Paladins aren't allowed in parties with evil characters, and vice versa. I've never DMed for a primarily evil party.

In the games I've played, the typical party configuration has either no evil characters or just one, and any evil character who isn't played intelligently, who is outright sociopathic, or who doesn't attempt to hide his alignment tends to either die or get ejected from the party.

Personally, I prefer Good alignments. They have a built-in motivation to adventure: Their altruism makes them want to make the world a better place. And Good-aligned people make the best protagonists.

Tengu_temp
2011-01-09, 01:21 PM
I ban evil PCs. And Chaotic Stupid. And Neutral Stupid. And Neutral Jerkass. And... you get the point. I don't demand a bunch of flawless goody-two-shoes, characters who have vices are much more interesting, but they should ultimately be decent people, or at least not horrible. They're the heroes of the story.

WarKitty
2011-01-09, 01:23 PM
Personally, I like playing evil characters. That said, I have seen it done quite badly. My rules are:

(1) While you may play an evil character, your character must be such that he could reasonably be taken into a city and not get killed or arrested every time.

(2) Observe some decency in what you do. Sex crimes are off limits. Torture is off limits. Murder, arson, etc., may not be described in detail.

Then again, in my own characters I favor the well-intentioned extremist. The religious zealot who believes in spreading his faith at all costs. The ranger who had his sister killed by orcs and now believes that all orcs and related groups must be completely exterminated (not entirely my character there). The necromancer who wishes to achieve world peace at the cost of human freedom.

Kiero
2011-01-09, 01:26 PM
In both of our 4E games there were no evil characters. The first had a Lawful Good, a Good and two Unaligned. In the second I think everyone was Unaligned.

Ferrin
2011-01-09, 01:30 PM
Personally, I like playing evil characters. That said, I have seen it done quite badly. My rules are:

(1) While you may play an evil character, your character must be such that he could reasonably be taken into a city and not get killed or arrested every time.

(2) Observe some decency in what you do. Sex crimes are off limits. Torture is off limits. Murder, arson, etc., may not be described in detail.

Then again, in my own characters I favor the well-intentioned extremist. The religious zealot who believes in spreading his faith at all costs. The ranger who had his sister killed by orcs and now believes that all orcs and related groups must be completely exterminated (not entirely my character there). The necromancer who wishes to achieve world peace at the cost of human freedom.

While I understand that those are your opinions, I'd still like to know why you're ok with genocide, but not with murder(which happens... ALL the time in D&D). Not going to touch the rest. :smalltongue:

Toliudar
2011-01-09, 01:33 PM
I've often banned or soft-banned (ie expressed a preference for the opposite of) evil and Chaotic Stupid. Games are hard enough to hold together when people are predisposed to work together.

dsmiles
2011-01-09, 01:33 PM
Personally, I like playing evil characters. That said, I have seen it done quite badly.

Ditto. There are a LOT of people that overdo it when it comes to playing evil characters. I usually go for the more subtle-evil-mind-controller archetype or the tyrant-in-training archetype when I play evil characters.

Although, when I DM for evil characters, nothing is off-limits. Of course, we're all in our 30s, and tend to limit ourselves out of courtesy to the rest of the group. If there is something we want our characters to do that falls outside the limits of said courtesy, it goes on a note to the DM.

WarKitty
2011-01-09, 01:36 PM
While I understand that those are your opinions, I'd still like to know why you're ok with genocide, but not with murder(which happens... ALL the time in D&D). Not going to touch the rest. :smalltongue:

Actually, I said murder is allowed. You're just not allowed to go into detail about how you're doing it. No describing exactly how you're ripping this guy's guts out.

Part of my rules are also influenced by having actually gamed with people with real life experiences of sexual abuse. So that's sort of the most hard and fast rule when I DM.

Ferrin
2011-01-09, 01:39 PM
Actually, I said murder is allowed. You're just not allowed to go into detail about how you're doing it. No describing exactly how you're ripping this guy's guts out.

Ah, that wasn't really clear for me. I like it when DM's describe critical hits though. But I understand that's not everyone's cup of tea.

Torture can be quite useful though. :smallamused:

Callista
2011-01-09, 01:39 PM
While I understand that those are your opinions, I'd still like to know why you're ok with genocide, but not with murder(which happens... ALL the time in D&D). Not going to touch the rest. :smalltongue:I think "murder" includes "genocide", actually.

A well-run D&D game doesn't include genocide committed by non-evil characters--you're not wiping out goblins because they're goblins and you're an adventurer; you're tracking down the goblin bandits who killed the old blacksmith and his family and kidnapped their three-year-old daughter.

Piedmon_Sama
2011-01-09, 01:40 PM
If I hadn't more-or-less just stripped alignment out of my game this might have been a huge problem. We have one guy who wrote "Lawful Good" on his character sheet and enjoyed pedantically arguing he was both of these while attacking and robbing random strangers and looting at every opportunity. I have another player who likes playing the archetypical ruthless "does anything to get ahead" badass and a third who always plays do-gooders no matter how "dark" his character concept is.

I don't care about it anymore. The guy who wipes out a band of orcs to save a village is a hero to the villagers, a fiend to the families of those orc raiders. His god supports his holy crusade against the greenskins, Gruumsh demands satisfaction for his murdered sons. I don't need to know where objective "good" fits into the picture and the removal of alignment rarely even matters in the campaign.

Ferrin
2011-01-09, 01:42 PM
I think "murder" includes "genocide", actually.

A well-run D&D game doesn't include genocide committed by non-evil characters--you're not wiping out goblins because they're goblins and you're an adventurer; you're tracking down the goblin bandits who killed the old blacksmith and his family and kidnapped their three-year-old daughter.

You missed the line about; "The ranger who had his sister killed by orcs and now believes that all orcs and related groups must be completely exterminated..." that's the genocide part.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-09, 01:46 PM
Is there such a thing as a game of D&D/Pathfinder where players make good-aligned characters?

Yes, and that's quite common in my circle of players. Also, RPGA games have traditionally banned evil alignments.

Melayl
2011-01-09, 01:46 PM
It has been awhile since I've been able to game with a group (or DM), but Evil characters are always out. Neutral, yes. Chaotic Stupid, no. No to any Stupid, actually.

We're the Heroes. We may not be great heroes, but we're still heroes.

Callista
2011-01-09, 01:48 PM
I like having alignment in the game. It connects a character--especially a divine magic-user--to a larger picture and puts the party into the "cosmic struggle" going on between opposite alignments. I don't penalize people for playing non-Good characters, and I refuse to try to screw over alignment-dependent classes. I've never had the issue of having someone play an alignment-dependent class who very obviously wasn't playing that alignment; but I think if I did, I would probably ask the player to re-build the character into something that made more sense for his personality. In some cases, of course, I'd just remove the alignment restriction. If you're playing a lawful bard or a good assassin, I'm not too fussed about it; but Pelor's probably going to have something to say about it if his cleric is torturing the orcish prisoners, and in that case I'd be suggesting a quick conversion to Hextor or Erythnnul or something.

Achernar
2011-01-09, 01:50 PM
I often ban evil alignments, since my plot arcs are generally designed for the Heroic Adventurer. I have to specifically rewrite my plot arc in which one of my friends is going to RP a complete lunatic (not that his last character WASN'T...)

So yes. Evil is most often out, due to my wanting to run a particular story smoothly and without mass murder of characters, player and otherwise. Anyone who declared their character to be "Vile Darkness" material, though, as the OP's friend did, would have an encounter with a draconian number of Inevitables and Cross-Planar Justiciars until said character was tot. :smallsigh:

Edit: and their souls bound to a lodestone in the Abyss. :smallamused:

Callista
2011-01-09, 01:53 PM
You missed the line about; "The ranger who had his sister killed by orcs and now believes that all orcs and related groups must be completely exterminated..." that's the genocide part.Oh. Yeah, yeah... that's genocide. And a double standard. And apparently I need more coffee today... *goes to get some*

Ferrin
2011-01-09, 01:55 PM
I like having alignment in the game. It connects a character--especially a divine magic-user--to a larger picture and puts the party into the "cosmic struggle" going on between opposite alignments. I don't penalize people for playing non-Good characters, and I refuse to try to screw over alignment-dependent classes. I've never had the issue of having someone play an alignment-dependent class who very obviously wasn't playing that alignment; but I think if I did, I would probably ask the player to re-build the character into something that made more sense for his personality. In some cases, of course, I'd just remove the alignment restriction. If you're playing a lawful bard or a good assassin, I'm not too fussed about it; but Pelor's probably going to have something to say about it if his cleric is torturing the orcish prisoners, and in that case I'd be suggesting a quick conversion to Hextor or Erythnnul or something.

Putting it like that means you like to put team good and team evil against each other, while there might be many more team good and evil's which fight among each other as well. In the end it's about personal motivations, not hard-cut rules for morality. Good and evil can co-operate just fine, they just don't always agree with several methods, or have different motivations for doing it. I don't like alignments myself, and just say I'm True Neutral in whatever game I play, with the exception of a few characters.

Also; Pelor, The Burning Hate. (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19558798/Pelor,_the_Burning_Hate)

Callista
2011-01-09, 02:30 PM
Highlighting the cosmic L-vs.-C and G-vs.-E struggle doesn't automatically mean that all people with the same alignment always cooperate and all people with different alignments always fight. That's not the case at all.

Good and Evil can cooperate, but it takes extraordinary circumstances and very compatible personalities to make them do so. What an Evil person is willing to do is exactly the thing that a Good person is fighting to try to prevent.

Dr.Epic
2011-01-09, 02:30 PM
Yeah, I've banned evil alignments.


Yesterday, in my Pathfinder game, the players were hired to slaughter a camp full of orcs. Not just the warriors, every last remnant of the clan. Well, they found where the women and children were hiding, and one genius chaotic evil half orc decides, on the spot, to make his character a pedo.

You slaughtered all the younglings?!?!?

Callista
2011-01-09, 02:33 PM
Well, he's a CE character. Slaughtering younglings is kinda what they do. (Often, anyway. Not like you can't be CE and like kids, but CE and slaughtering kids are entirely compatible...)

You can definitely make a rule that everybody has to keep it PG-13, though. The whole pedo thing is probably crossing the line, and would have stopped being fun for quite a few people. Your evil characters can be truly evil, sure, but don't let that ruin other people's enjoyment of the game.

Tengu_temp
2011-01-09, 02:34 PM
I think that was a Star Wars reference.

Dr.Epic
2011-01-09, 02:35 PM
I think that was a Star Wars reference.

Strong with the Force you are.

Callista
2011-01-09, 02:35 PM
Mmhm, yep.

*goes to get yet more coffee*

Sillycomic
2011-01-09, 02:35 PM
Can I play devil's advocate for a moment? (in a banning evil thread... how funny)

the Op's situation, I'm sorry I simply feel like there's something wrong with that whole picture.

You have your group of mercenaries who are being paid money to slaughter everyone in a village, including all of the children, and you get upset when someone says, "I wanna touch them."

While this is a disgusting thought, I don't think it's any more so than being paid to kill all of them.

I just find it hilarious that your counterargument to whether or not the half orc can touch the children is, "Nope... now hurry up and kill them all so you can get paid."

And this is why you wanna ban evil characters?

I think you just want to ban stupid characters. And also you don't want anything in your game that would make you or anyone else playing uncomfortable, which pedophilia most assuredly would.

I just don't feel comfortable as a player or a GM arbitrarily banning an entire alignment spectrum because some people use it to justify their character's actions. I would say a good rule for a group beforehand is to find a way to work with your party and for the common goal that is the adventure... and you don't need to ban evil to do that. Even good aligned characters might not get along, or have different views of what is right and what isn't.

Or feel like a macguffin is best served in the hands of someone powerful instead of destroying it (LOTR anyone?)

In the original situation, what if someone stopped right when you were getting to the "slaughter the children part," and said they didn't feel comfortable with it. They were hired to kill the entire village, but children is going too far.

They could all be good aligned characters, but the lawful good and chaotic good would be opposed as to what to do in this situation, and some people might not even be comfortable randomly killing children for money. Then you're in the same situation you are in now... even with no evil characters in the campaign.

Ferrin
2011-01-09, 02:36 PM
Highlighting the cosmic L-vs.-C and G-vs.-E struggle doesn't automatically mean that all people with the same alignment always cooperate and all people with different alignments always fight. That's not the case at all.

Good and Evil can cooperate, but it takes extraordinary circumstances and very compatible personalities to make them do so. What an Evil person is willing to do is exactly the thing that a Good person is fighting to try to prevent.

Ah sorry, was making assumptions there. Completely agree with you on that then. :smallbiggrin:

However, most people are neutral sheeple, they just follow the big bad or good guy arround.

Ravens_cry
2011-01-09, 02:41 PM
You slaughtered all the younglings?!?!?
Not slaughter, no. :smalleek:
***
I ban all evil alignments except potentially Lawful Evil. It's the most fun evil any way, in my opinion. Chaotic Evil generally does not play well with others and Neutral Evil will look out for themselves more then anything. If the other side makes a better offer and they feel it will be fulfilled, they are odds on likely to take it. Lawful Evil will at least often have a certain loyalty to the party.

Vemynal
2011-01-09, 02:53 PM
I never ban evil but I *do* punish stupid

...to be honest I'm a little torn on what your player did. I honestly would never have even considered one of my players doing that but if you look back in history...that's exactly what happened. Women and children would get raped.

I think if it was an early game where players were still establishing who they were then I'd allow it (if still creeped out by it) but if it was a game that had already been established a long time ago. We know the characters, etc, then I wouldn't have allowed it

Dr.Epic
2011-01-09, 03:00 PM
I'm not sure if this has been pointed out yet on this thread, but regardless of alignment, the player characters do need to get along and having opposite ends of the alignment spectrum isn't best for this, so yeah, maybe you should ban alignments (it doesn't have to be evil though).

Sillycomic
2011-01-09, 03:10 PM
I agree with Vernynal.

I mean, that's how half orcs are made most of the time. Raiding parties or mercs take advantage of captives, humans and orcs both, and the combination produces the half orc offspring.

Then you have a child growing up with only the mother (rape victim... and probably outcast at this point) or sent to an orphanage to live. Then there's probably a history of abuse, sexual or otherwise from the broken home he came out of... and that stuff is cyclical, if you come from an abusive home you are more than likely turn to abusing people yourself.

So, apart from the "He just came up with it on the spot," reference, this could be a legitimate character concept.

Not that it's an excuse. I could come up with a legitimate character concept for just about anything, but if it makes other people at the table uncomfortable I won't play it.

I had a problem like that last month at my gaming table. We had finished a brutal mission and were all out partying and celebrating life. So, I decided to rent out a tavern for the night, get everyone drunk and play wingman to the rest of my party.

The GM is a husband to a wife in the group, and the other people playing are also a married couple, however we're all playing single people in the game.

So, I get a guy for the GM's wife, no problem. The other married man, I found a cute Paris Hilton like character for him, but I couldnt' find anyone for the other player's wife. I tried looking all around, even in other bars, before the GM told me... I just don't feel comfortable roleplaying a hookup for my friend's wife.

I said ok and dropped the whole thing. It was perfectly within my character to want to play wingman, but I won't argue if someone doesn't feel comfortable about something... we're all here to play a game and have fun.

Curmudgeon
2011-01-09, 03:12 PM
Hmm. I guess I might be in the minority when I insist that if there's at least one Good-aligned character then there must be at least one Evil-aligned character to balance out the party.

I don't deviate too much from the RAW, and that includes the alignment descriptors for character races. If someone wants to play a Kobold, then they've got to start within one alignment step of the usual lawful evil alignment for the race. If they're playing a race that has an always in its alignment descriptor, then that's their only starting alignment choice. (Often allows all options, of course.)

It often surprises me how often people are unaware of the alignment restrictions in the rules. From page 104 of the Player's Handbook:
TYPICAL ALIGNMENTS
Creatures and members of classes shown in italic type on Table 6–1 are always of the indicated alignment. If you want to play a lammasu or a troglodyte, the rules don't give you any choice about your starting alignment. There can't be any troglodyte PCs in a "no Evil" game. :smallannoyed:

Ferrin
2011-01-09, 03:16 PM
Hmm. I guess I might be in the minority when I insist that if there's at least one Good-aligned character then there must be at least one Evil-aligned character to balance out the party.

I don't deviate too much from the RAW, and that includes the alignment descriptors for character races. If someone wants to play a Kobold, then they've got to start within one alignment step of the usual lawful evil alignment for the race. If they're playing a race that has an always in its alignment descriptor, then that's their only starting alignment choice. (Often allows all options, of course.)

It often surprises me how often people are unaware of the alignment restrictions in the rules. From page 104 of the Player's Handbook: If you want to play a lammasu or a troglodyte, the rules don't give you any choice about your starting alignment. There can't be any troglodyte PCs in a "no Evil" game. :smallannoyed:

Any creature with inteligence above 3 can make moral decisions. This is one of those rules that most people ignore. :smallannoyed:

truemane
2011-01-09, 03:26 PM
The key element here is that role-playing is, by definition, a communal narrative and a communal activity and no one player (or DM) is more important than the story the group is telling.

I hate it when people excuse destructive behaviour with 'it's what my character would do.' Good role-playing serves the story and the character. If you can't do both, then you're not a god role-player. And sometimes that means you made the wrong character for that game. And sometimes it means the DM made the wrong game for those characters. It all depends.

But when there's an established groove that everyone's digging on, and you're the one guy always messing with it singing the 'role-playing integrity' song the whole time, then you're the jerk. That's just the way it is.

There are no hard and fast rules. Just a consensus. And trouble happens when someone just can't get with the consensus. And sometimes all you can do is remove them.

ffone
2011-01-09, 03:40 PM
In theory I am fine with evil alignments - and even wish some players (those who always choose Good but then act in pure self-interest) might do so.

In practice, it's often done very badly, as an excuse to be annoying to other players, and then say 'it's just how I roleplay' - which is basically metagaming and *not* roleplaying, b/c what people mean when they say that it is "you should metagame and *not* have your PC attack mine, which they would if any NPC were doing this." But I would actually really like to DM a group of PCs who were 'sane-evil' and just out for selfish loot and glory (in other words, what most players do anyway, and then slap on a superficial nod to heroic intentions) and worked together thanks to realistically aligned self-interest.

I'm gonna paraphrase and butcher some old quote/joke:

In British-colonized India, a local guy says to the British officer: "You should understand, sir, that we just have an old and sacred cultural tradition of burning women when their husbands die, and we ask that you respect our culture."

The officer replies, "I understand and respect that perfectly, sir. Likewise you should understand that that we have an old and sacred tradition of hanging people who burn innocent women."

DisgruntledDM
2011-01-09, 03:40 PM
...to be honest I'm a little torn on what your player did. I honestly would never have even considered one of my players doing that but if you look back in history...that's exactly what happened. Women and children would get raped.


I don't give a rat's ass about history in this case. It's a GAME. I was trying to get him to use common sense about taste. To which he responded "My character doesn't have any!"



In practice, it's often done very badly, as an excuse to be annoying to other players, and then say 'it's just how I roleplay' - which is basically metagaming and *not* roleplaying, b/c what people mean when they say that it is "you should metagame and not have your PC attack mine, like they would if any NPC were doing this."

Like I said before, up till now he's avoided the chaotic-stupid-kill the other PCs-for no apparent reason "Because that's how I roleplay" BS. But he argued back with "That's what my character would do!" and "That ruins my roleplaying!"

Find that just a little bit disturbing? And, for any further questions, I haven't banned evil alignments entirely, just banned one player from ever again taking them, because he obviously cannot handle it. If he keeps it up, friend or no, I'm not gaming with him again.

Salbazier
2011-01-09, 03:45 PM
Wasn't it written somewhere that 'Always xxx' does not mean '100% xxx, no exception'

ffone
2011-01-09, 03:46 PM
I don't give a rat's ass about history in this case. It's a GAME.



Like I said before, up till now he's avoided the chaotic-stupid-kill the other PCs-for no apparent reason "Because that's how I roleplay" BS. But he argued back with "That's what my character would do!" and "That ruins my roleplaying!"

Find that just a little bit disturbing? And, for any further questions, I haven't banned evil alignments entirely, just banned one player from ever again taking them, because he obviously cannot handle it.


Despite the title of your thread, I think your issue is far more specific.

Sudden pedophilia is way, way, way different than many other Evil PC cases. This is a very specific issue that has little to do with alignment (certainly Evil, but I mean it would be just as much an issue in a system with no alignment).

Is it realistic it could happen in a barbaric situation? I guess. Adult-woman war rape is a story trope, for sure. (Every Hollywood portrayal of Vietnam seems to have a almost-rape-a-village-girl scene: Platoon, Apocalypse Now, even X-Men Wolverine that had like 30 seconds of Vietnam War stuff). But some things should be avoided unless every player at the table is OK with it (and even then I consider it rude to ask, as people may just say 'ok' to be polite). It sounds like the player is just going for juvenile shock value, or hoping to pick a fight (verbal I mean) with other players.

In other words, you might want to ban this guy. But don't hold it against evil alignments generally.

Callista
2011-01-09, 03:47 PM
Always alignments are very nearly Always, but not completely; it's usually "exceptions are so rare that they're likely to be legendary and have something to do with powerful magic, epic characters, or deities." So, you might have a Good-aligned red dragon, but he's probably the only Good-aligned red dragon in that campaign setting, and is likely to have been raised from an egg by an epic-level Saint.

Ravens_cry
2011-01-09, 03:49 PM
I don't give a rat's ass about history in this case. It's a GAME.
Indeed. Just because woman and children have been sexually assaulted throughout history, does not mean I want to see that in a fantasy game. Or any game for that matter. I have had a character who cut off dead male enemies genitalia as trophies but there is some lines you do not cross.:smallfurious:

Gnoman
2011-01-09, 03:49 PM
Interestingly, my players almost never play evil, even in games where a few would fit in.

ffone
2011-01-09, 03:50 PM
Indeed. Just because woman and children have been sexually assaulted throughout history, does not mean I want to see that in a fantasy game. Or any game for that matter. I have had a character who cut off dead male enemies genitalia as trophies but there is some lines you do not cross.:smallfurious:

Well said.

The bottom like is: roleplaying anything you want is NOT some sacred entitlement. It's a collaborative social activity and involves the other people. For something like this he should go off and write creepy solo fanfiction or something. And hopefully never show anyone.

And if this is a PBP or internet game there's a whole other angle - I think that even written portrayals of this stuff might run afoul of government stoops? I really don't know - but I'd stay the hell away from it if I were you. Even if it's offline, waht if he goes and tells some friend/parent the he and you and your group were playing a 'roleplaying game with pedophilia' and then that friend goes and tells some butchering of that to a cop? Seriously, just stay away from it.

DisgruntledDM
2011-01-09, 03:51 PM
It sounds like the player is just going for juvenile shock value...
In other words, you might want to ban this guy. But don't hold it against evil alignments generally.

That's exactly what he was going for. I guess he got it.

And I AM booting him out if he starts whining about it again.

Tvtyrant
2011-01-09, 03:51 PM
I tend to ban things based on chaotic as opposed to Evil. Chaotic characters cause way, way more headaches then Lawful or Neutral ones because even the good ones do explicit evil things "because they are chaotic."

Callista
2011-01-09, 03:51 PM
Yeah, it's supposed to be fun. And talking about child rape is NOT fun for the majority of people.

DisgruntledDM
2011-01-09, 03:54 PM
And I don't want to go anywhere near the minority in that case.

WarKitty
2011-01-09, 03:54 PM
Oh. Yeah, yeah... that's genocide. And a double standard. And apparently I need more coffee today... *goes to get some*

Actually it was warkitty not being clear.

Of course, my CG character ended up pretending to be a pedo last game...that was kind of awkward.

ScionoftheVoid
2011-01-09, 04:10 PM
I like Evil alignments. I've only played one game where every character was Neutral or Good, and then it was forced and collapsed quickly.

I've had to think quite carefully about the goals of the BBEGs of my most recent campaign because the PCs are all (with one exception, IIRC) Evil. They still have the choice to join them, but I don't expect the players to take it. As an example of my players' behaviour as Evil characters (in my most recent campaign): one character knocked out an innocent (if drunk) priest and a pre-teen-equivalent elf girl for the lulz and the pitiful amount of money they had on them, before the others knocked him unconcious so they could listen to a quest. They then drugged the NPC giving the quest when he said they couldn't handle it yet, stole a keg of Dwarven spirits and fled the city with the NPC, keg and fellow PC. They did this during the campaign introduction.

Callista
2011-01-09, 04:24 PM
Huh. Vagabond sociopaths. Sounds like they were having fun, but that's really not my kind of game...

some guy
2011-01-09, 04:28 PM
I don't ban evil, I encourage the players to not act like jerks. Usually alignment is not of importance in my games.



It often surprises me how often people are unaware of the alignment restrictions in the rules. From page 104 of the Player's Handbook: If you want to play a lammasu or a troglodyte, the rules don't give you any choice about your starting alignment. There can't be any troglodyte PCs in a "no Evil" game. :smallannoyed:

Actually:

Always: The creature is born with the indicated alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that determines it. It is possible for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions.
It goes on to state that with an alignment of usually the majority (more than 50%) has the stated alignment, while with often it's a plurality of 40-50%.

true_shinken
2011-01-09, 04:31 PM
I'm not sure if this has been pointed out yet on this thread, but regardless of alignment, the player characters do need to get along and having opposite ends of the alignment spectrum isn't best for this, so yeah, maybe you should ban alignments (it doesn't have to be evil though).

Nah, they just need to work together (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Nakama). In-party conflict is all shades of awesome.



Actually:

You out nitpicked Curmudgeon. Have a cookie.
http://ibxk.com.br/materias/cookie1.jpg

Callista
2011-01-09, 04:31 PM
Yeah, and PCs are supposed to be special, so I can see allowing a non-Evil "Always" race as a PC. But you would have to have a heck of a backstory to justify it.

true_shinken
2011-01-09, 04:34 PM
Yeah, and PCs are supposed to be special, so I can see allowing a non-Evil "Always" race as a PC. But you would have to have a heck of a backstory to justify it.
Even "always evil" is something like 90% ir 99% evil. Not 100%.

Lord Loss
2011-01-09, 04:35 PM
Depends on the player and the situation. My intentions for the campaign (dark vs heroic), the alignments of the other PCs, and what player wants to play said character have an impact on my final descision. I have some players that will be met with a flat "no" in all but my darkest of charcters. Some players will be given the okay at times, I've only found one player that I'd let play an evil character at almost any time.

Kaiser Omnik
2011-01-09, 04:40 PM
Sometimes, not always but definitely in some cases, playing evil characters is a way for someone to live their darkest instincts without fear of consequence. Did the act of raping children in your game really added something to the story you were playing? "Being in character" isn't a way to justify anything. Anyway, the question shouldn't even be asked. If I ever had a player like that, even a good friend, I would have walked away and seriously questioned his morality and even his mental state.

Siosilvar
2011-01-09, 04:50 PM
Even "always evil" is something like 90% ir 99% evil. Not 100%.

As has been quoted before, the MM says "The creature is born with the indicated alignment... It is possible for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions."
[hr]
More relevantly, evil is an alright alignment to play, as long as it's done maturely. Same thing with chaotic.

Both have been done the wrong way so many times (Chaotic Neutral as Chaotic Evil Lite, Chaotic anything as an excuse to do something really random, Evil as an excuse to squick out the other players) that it's not even funny (and really, it's only funny to that one person in the first place). If you can't play the game like it's a bunch of friends getting together and having fun (including working together; Evil does not mean "actively fights the party"), you shouldn't be playing.


And going back to less relevant things... if you can't play the game like it's a game, you shouldn't be playing either. But that's a topic for another hundred threads, and is a dead horse by now.

Telasi
2011-01-09, 05:11 PM
I don't ban any alignments. I'm personally quite fond of playing LE or NE characters on occasion, so I let people in my games play them, too. It's been my experience that many people will choose to be good or neutral by default, and I've had far more issues with chaotic characters than evil ones.

The OP's case is beyond anything I'd have put up with, even for a friend. Of course, I'd also start questioning why I'm friends with somebody who'd do such a thing, even fictitiously.

Grelna the Blue
2011-01-09, 05:23 PM
Well said.

The bottom like is: roleplaying anything you want is NOT some sacred entitlement. It's a collaborative social activity and involves the other people. For something like this he should go off and write creepy solo fanfiction or something. And hopefully never show anyone.

And if this is a PBP or internet game there's a whole other angle - I think that even written portrayals of this stuff might run afoul of government stoops? I really don't know - but I'd stay the hell away from it if I were you. Even if it's offline, waht if he goes and tells some friend/parent the he and you and your group were playing a 'roleplaying game with pedophilia' and then that friend goes and tells some butchering of that to a cop? Seriously, just stay away from it.

+1. With a bullet.

I don't allow evil characters in my game. Or at least, I haven't so far. I aim for and try to enable heroism and even epic heroism on the part of my players. I've been fortunate enough to get it, by and large. My game world is quite dark enough and the story I'm interested in collaboratively telling is how the PCs stem the tide of evil or at least attempt to do so, not how they become a part of it.

I do enjoy occasionally playing dark characters in other people's games where epic heroism is not a consideration (sometimes the stakes in a game are relatively low). When I do so, I do also enjoy creeping out other players by portraying sociopaths, necromancers altogether too comfortable with decay and dismemberment, glib and shameless liars, clerics of truly awful faiths. But both because of my own comfort zone and because I want the other players to enjoy themselves, I try not to push past disturbing into revolting and my characters always have rock-solid in-game reasons for wanting to collaborate with the other PCs. Only once can I remember having inadvertently gone too far: I once played a super lawful soldier who told his superior he had "not been instructed to think, SIR!" when asked what he thought of his instructions. His salute with heel click and mailed fist pounding his breastplate had been intended to be vaguely Prussian, but combined with his slavish and unquestioning devotion to orders it unfortunately crossed over into Nazi-like territory and unbeknown to me one of the other gamers had lost close family in Europe to the Nazis. I still feel very bad about that experience, as that gamer no longer felt comfortable in the game or around me and left. He ended up dropping out. I had intended that (nonevil) character to be unsympathetic, but hadn't intended to destroy anyone's game experience. That was not the first time, however, that gamers had made incorrect assumptions about my RL personality based on what I was doing in-game. A couple times I have been told by people of their surprise in discovering I was nothing like whatever amoral monster I was playing at the time.

However, some things predictably will do more than just disturb. Rape, torture, pedophilia, necrophilia, are all things with which even a GM has to be extremely careful--even when using them as the hallmarks of villains intended to be brought low by PCs. They have no business as the hallmarks of the PCs themselves, as I have never seen a group of gamers who didn't have at least a few people who would be bothered enough by them to have their fun disrupted. I'd most often be among them. Gamers do have some responsibilities to other players. When we read Knights of the Dinner Table and we see Bob, Dave, and Brian torturing their enemies and sometimes henchmen with the "torch to the groin" technique as their friend Sarah protests, we laugh at their dysfunctionality and their delusion that their characters are great heroes worthy of respect. We don't want to BE them.

Players who are bothered by these sorts of behaviors are only bothered because they believe that IRL this behavior is disgustingly beyond the pale and is not something to emulate, seriously or jokingly, even in a game. They're not wrong to think so.

Kiero
2011-01-09, 05:37 PM
"It's what my character would do" is invariably the clarion call of the asshat acting out their own twisted little jollies. That they have to use that justification is a sign of how far they've veered from what everyone expects of them.

Achernar
2011-01-09, 05:44 PM
I agree with Grelna and Kiero here-- I'd probably just say that is not appropriate and tell them to keep such things to themself. It's a good course of action.

I have played and DM'd for truly Evil characters who were smart and thoroughly enjoyed it, so my "no-Evil" policy is more of a "no Stupid" policy... I suppose that is worth clarifying.

some guy
2011-01-09, 05:49 PM
I have played and DM'd for truly Evil characters who were smart and thoroughly enjoyed it, so my "no-Evil" policy is more of a "no Stupid" policy... I suppose that is worth clarifying.

At times, even a stupid character can be enjoyed, if played well. I guess for me it's more a "no-disruptive-style" policy.



Have a cookie.


Thank you!

Hallavast
2011-01-09, 06:05 PM
"It's what my character would do" is invariably the clarion call of the asshat acting out their own twisted little jollies. That they have to use that justification is a sign of how far they've veered from what everyone expects of them.

Yeah, I don't know. In many ways a player is the author of their character. If an author of a book describes a grizly scene in detail or a rape or something similarly disturbing, does that make the person behind the story sick? I wouldn't say so. I've actually played a disgusting character before in a WoW d20 game. He was a troll. Trolls eat people. My troll ate a gnome. He boiled him alive and ate him. In front of the rest of the party. He offered to share with the other characters. Does that mean I have cannibalistic tendancies? Probably not. It's kind of insulting, actually. The real reason I said my character was doing it was to generate a roleplaying experience. I wanted one or more of the other characters to speak up about what I was doing. This would have potentially created a dramatic/hilarious dialogue imo. THAT was the purpose behind it. Not some twisted desire to pretend I was eating somebody.

I used the "It's what my character would do" line. I think there are times it is justified.

Leecros
2011-01-09, 06:46 PM
I don't ban any alignment in my campaigns and it has very rarely been a problem. I've played with mostly evil character parties before also. As long as they're played responsibly then I really don't have a problem with it. I have my players write out their backstories beforehand so i can look over them so i know how they are 'supposed' to roleplay. And that would usually include any kinds of quarks or preferences that the character has. If i saw something that crossed the line(such as the OP's issue) then i would definitely say no to it. On top of that i make sure to tell them to not deviate from their background story and personality and while your personality, quarks, and preferences can change it will take time. These things don't develop overnight.

and so far it's worked for me. I think the biggest problem i had was a chaotic evil pyrokineticist. There was this farmer whom was going to be a major friend to the party throughout the campaign and he asked the pyro if he could help him with a spider problem in his barn for a few extra gold. The pyro said 'sure' being a character which jumps at any chance of making money he can. He goes into the barn and there are hundreds upon hundreds of spiders. Normal ones, not giant ones. So the pyro decides to burn down the barn to get rid of the spiders. Once that fire started, being in a barn full of hay and other very flammable things it didn't take long to burn down. He then killed the farmer so there was no witness's and raided the house, taking anything valuable. I was pretty aghast at that at the time that it happened, but looking back. It was completely in character. He burned down the barn because that was the easiest way to get rid of the spiders, he killed the farmer because he didn't want any witness's to his crime, then he raided the house because he's greedy for any gold he can get. Also he did get rid of the spiders.......

That's chaotic evil and that's the kind of character he was playing and he didn't stray from roleplaying his character and that is why i have them really think of what character they're going to play before we start so they know and i have an idea of what exactly they're going to do and so i can prevent them from crossing the line.

Curmudgeon
2011-01-09, 07:54 PM
Actually:

It goes on to state that with an alignment of usually the majority (more than 50%) has the stated alignment, while with often it's a plurality of 40-50%.
Those are the general rules for creatures. The Player's Handbook has additional restrictions on player characters, including that troglodytes (as characters "Usually chaotic evil") are always chaotic evil as PCs.

true_shinken
2011-01-09, 07:59 PM
Those are the general rules for creatures. The Player's Handbook has additional restrictions on player characters, including that troglodytes (as characters "Usually chaotic evil") are always chaotic evil as PCs.

No, that's just your selective reading. There is no reason to assume 'always' means one thing the PHB and other in the MM.

Benly
2011-01-09, 08:00 PM
We don't ban evil in my play group, but we have all pretty much outgrown it. When someone wants to play evil, it's because (a) they have some interesting thoughts on psychology and morality they want to poke around in or (b) we're doing a comedy game and someone wants to do the Baby-Throwing Explosion Emperor. We don't get the (c) someone wants to live out his sociopathic fantasies subset so much anymore.

dsmiles
2011-01-09, 08:06 PM
Rambling $0.02 to follow:
Honestly, I don't believe in banning alignments. I don't think that's the answer to anything. After all, it's ROLE-playing. An evil character is a role. Evil people do evil things.

Then again, I honestly don't think any act done in-game would really shock me. I'm almost 35, and have been watching news broadcasts and looking at the internet for a majority of it. If somebody thinks of an act in-game, it's probably been done a million times in real life (unless it's magic, of course).

It's a GAME. People really need to separate the game from reality. Just because somebody does something in-game, doesn't mean that they would do it in real life.When you're old, evil holds no surprises. That being said: The real world ain't all sunshine and rainbows, boys and girls.

Curmudgeon
2011-01-09, 08:14 PM
No, that's just your selective reading. There is no reason to assume 'always' means one thing the PHB and other in the MM.
There is such a reason: an official D&D rule which requires "selective reading" (or rather, prioritizing the rules from various books).
Errata Rule: Primary Sources

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities. So, regardless of what the Monster Manual says about what "always" means with creature alignments, when making a player character you've got to follow the Player's Handbook rules. The PH doesn't provide such wiggle room.

true_shinken
2011-01-09, 08:20 PM
There is such a reason: an official D&D rule which requires "selective reading" (or rather, prioritizing the rules from various books). So, regardless of what the Monster Manual says about what "always" means with creature alignments, when making a player character you've got to follow the Player's Handbook rules. The PH doesn't provide such wiggle room.

Except the primary source for monsters is the Monster Manual. And you are using a monster race.
Oh, whatever, I don't know why I still bother. You won't change your mind anyway.

Curmudgeon
2011-01-09, 08:34 PM
Except the primary source for monsters is the Monster Manual. And you are using a monster race.
Oh, whatever, I don't know why I still bother. You won't change your mind anyway.
If you're making up a monster without class levels, you follow the Monster Manual rules; MM is the primary source for that. If you've got anything with base class levels you've got to give the Player's Handbook rules top priority instead, because there's a different primary source for that purpose.

Coidzor
2011-01-09, 08:42 PM
...Introducing Pedophilia into a game or mentioning it is one of those giant red buzzing signs about a player, and an issue mostly separate from allowing Evil characters.

There's just no way for that to not be tacky or worse in terms of taste.

It just takes away more from a game than it adds, much like rape in general getting addressed.

So, yeah, I'd remind Mr. Pedo that this is a game that's being played for enjoyment and if he wants to keep pushing your enjoyment and being creepy then he can find a new game.

Siosilvar
2011-01-09, 08:48 PM
There is such a reason: an official D&D rule which requires "selective reading" (or rather, prioritizing the rules from various books). So, regardless of what the Monster Manual says about what "always" means with creature alignments, when making a player character you've got to follow the Player's Handbook rules. The PH doesn't provide such wiggle room.

The PHB says "always". Then we look to the MM to define "always" for alignments of creatures. There's no prioritizing going on. In fact, you can't play those creatures as PCs without using the MM, so follow all the rules in both as best you can. PHB says "always". MM says "always has some exceptions". These are not contradictory standpoints.

How about those creatures with alignments listed as "Always X" that aren't on the table in the PHB, hmm? What do we do then, and why make an exception for lammasus, archons, guardinals, pseudodragons, eladrins, unicorns, formians, azers, devils, allips, devourers, demons, and nightshades?

EDIT:
If you're making up a monster without class levels, you follow the Monster Manual rules; MM is the primary source for that. If you've got anything with base class levels you've got to give the Player's Handbook rules top priority instead, because there's a different primary source for that purpose.
...Huh? MM rules allow you to give class levels to monsters. An "always" NG pseudodragon (with the potential to choose another alignment) suddenly becomes forced to be NG when it takes a base class level? How about an azer* that decides to be a paladin? Is it not possible because it becomes LN as soon as it takes a class level?

*This azer has decided that it would much rather be LG than strictly LN.

Curmudgeon
2011-01-09, 10:45 PM
The PHB says "always". Then we look to the MM to define "always" for alignments of creatures. There's no prioritizing going on. In fact, you can't play those creatures as PCs without using the MM, so follow all the rules in both as best you can. PHB says "always". MM says "always has some exceptions". These are not contradictory standpoints. "Always" doesn't start with exceptions:

Always: The creature is born with the indicated alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions. The creature may change alignment, but its starting alignment is given, without choice. A beginning character (level 1, with 0 XP) has had no chance to change alignment.

WarKitty
2011-01-09, 10:48 PM
The creature may change alignment, but its starting alignment is given, without choice. A beginning character (level 1, with 0 XP) has had no chance to change alignment.

Huh? This would only work if you were born with class levels. Even my level one human has presumably lived for at least 15 years before the story starts. Plenty of time to change alignment in there.

Coidzor
2011-01-09, 10:49 PM
"Always" doesn't start with exceptions:
The creature may change alignment, but its starting alignment is given, without choice. A beginning character (level 1, with 0 XP) has had no chance to change alignment.

It's also largely rule 0 territory if that part of the rules is remembered at all. :smallconfused:

Siosilvar
2011-01-09, 10:56 PM
"Always" doesn't start with exceptions:
The creature may change alignment, but its starting alignment is given, without choice. A beginning character (level 1, with 0 XP) has had no chance to change alignment.

That is not what you said. You specifically said:
If you're making up a monster without class levels, you follow the Monster Manual rules; MM is the primary source for that. If you've got anything with base class levels you've got to give the Player's Handbook rules top priority instead, because there's a different primary source for that purpose.and earlier that that means that PCs ("anything with base class levels") always, with no exceptions, have the given alignment.


There's also more questions for you at the end of the post you quoted.

EDIT: Probably time for this to move to another thread... we're derailing quite a bit.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-01-09, 11:11 PM
I personally think it should go without saying that playing an evil character isn't something that should happen all the time. In various PHBs it says right in the alignment descriptions that playing evil characters is generally a bad idea unless the campaign's centered on that.

Most of the characters I play tend to be Lawful or Neutral Good. I've never really figured out a way to play Chaotic Good that didn't sound like a total hippie, and I always like to play good guys. I tried playing an Evil character once, an elf duskblade who had terrible burn scars after nearly dying in a bandit raid and a twisted mind after he ran from the carnage and only survived by hiding in a snowbank, which he nearly froze to death in. He was basically obsessed with cold and used ice spells to torture people, mostly his enemies in combat but his part of the campaign opened with him hiring a lady of the evening, lowering the temperature of his room in the inn to be like a walk-in refridgerator, and then he locked her in with him and basically sat there watching her shiver all night, finally letting her go in the morning.

Needless to say, I didn't play him very long.

Sadly though, it seems like you've got to be explicit when barring Evil characters these days. Our latest party has me, a Lawful Good cavalier who is incredibly naive but capable enough that his delusions of grandeur don't really get him into trouble, my brother, playing a Lawful Neutral dwarf ranger whose really only defining feature is a homicidal hatred of trolls, to the point where he will go off the rails if the DM mentions a troll, and a Lawful Evil rogue (Evil only because he wants to take the Assassin PrC).

In the last session, the rogue was sent to retrieve some boxes from the mayor's office. He did so, but not before murdering the mayor in his way out. Granted this was kind of what our party's benefactors wanted, but I just had to cringe at the fact that he basically killed the mayor because he didn't like him (granted he did almost strangle the dwarf at our last meeting). That turned out okay, since my Cavalier wasn't there to witness it. But later, when we were talking to our would-be-king, the rogue got annoyed with my chivalry talk, and decided to shut me up by pouring some of the contents of a green, glowing vial we'd obtained. Said contents were a plot-powered poison that basically brought me down to 0 HP immediately before allowing me to make saves to avoid death. The king-to-be gave me an antidote and chided the rogue (the king-to-be's a mysterious and arrogant guy that I feel in my gut is Evil, but we don't have any real proof), but now even a Don Quixote like my character won't trust that rogue.

And I scolded the rogue's player because testing a poison on me because my character annoyed his character was not a very Lawful act. :smallsigh:

WitchSlayer
2011-01-09, 11:20 PM
I'm playing an evil character in a 4th edition game with some friends, one Lawful Good, one Good, the rest unaligned and I don't play it obnoxiously. Like if we're trying to save a village I won't kill everyone, or sell my soul to orcus or whatnot. There are just a few people he REALLY REALLY doesn't like, and whether they're evil, like Kas, or extremely good, like the leader of the Harpers, he wants to kill them. He's cool with his party though.

Yahzi
2011-01-10, 12:14 AM
I don't ban evil alignments. I run sandbox games, so when people want to play evil, I just chuckle (evilly) and say, "Go ahead!"

The good guys in my world have teeth. So do the bad guys, of course, but the difference is that the good guys won't stab you in the back the minute you get week.

yldenfrei
2011-01-10, 01:33 AM
Like people mentioned, banning Evil alignments does not shield you from haphazardly constructed PCs. And as mentioned before, rape is common to one with a half-orc heritage. So, while "It's what my character would do" line may indeed be cliche, maybe it's the truth.

You expressed your disgust with the idea. Did you ask the CE player why his character would do it? And to what end? After saying "it's what my character would do", did he give a deeper explanation? What about OoC reasons? Perhaps the CE player is expecting a quarrel to erupt within the group, to flesh out the PCs' individual characteristics, to cement their dispositions with each other.

Were he able to run it? Did he merely say "InsertNameHere proceeded to rape the children"? Or did he put extraordinary effort in describing the process?

Had there been other players with histories of rape/pedo, this would indeed be in poor taste. All other cases, however, people really need to separate fantasy from reality(or in this case, fiction from non-fiction).

Also, what did the other players say about the matter, OoC? If the CE player was able to run it, what were the reactions of the other PCs? Frankly I'd be more disgusted if the other non-Evil PCs were perfectly fine with it IC.

For me, shooting down an idea just because it disgusts you personally is outright censorship, and as an artist I frown upon it. The lure of the sandbox game is that it is never railroaded, the player keeps on guessing what he may come across. This also applies to other players he will meet, who want to try running something, and the sandbox game letting them do so.

A half-orc going on an uncontrollable pillaging, with his party members trying to stop (or even kill) him is a very flavorful RP material. It is very possible to have the CE PC run with it, while toning down the details and descriptions to a comfortable level. As adults, you could easily do that.

I can even dare to go far as to say Evil alignments shouldn't be banned on Heroic Good Campaigns. You just have to give them the disclaimer that you can't guarantee their safety, from the DM or the other Good players. Let them go ahead and play their Evil characters, don't stop the good from ganging up on him, don't go out of your way to keep him alive. If he dies, then he'll realize that this campaign is really Heroic Good and he can't fool around. If he survives, congratulations, the DM needs to fix the campaign. :smalltongue:

Now, dealing with a poorly written character or a questionably aligned player, that is an entirely different matter. :smallamused:

TL:DR; banning evil alignments is barking at the wrong tree. :smallsmile:

Fiery Diamond
2011-01-10, 01:57 AM
Had there been other players with histories of rape/pedo, this would indeed be in poor taste. All other cases, however, people really need to separate fantasy from reality(or in this case, fiction from non-fiction).

For me, shooting down an idea just because it disgusts you personally is outright censorship, and as an artist I frown upon it.

Now, dealing with a poorly written character or a questionably aligned player, that is an entirely different matter. :smallamused:

TL:DR; banning evil alignments is barking at the wrong tree. :smallsmile:

Responding to different parts:

Bold:

I've never understood this argument. At all. This whole idea of "I don't give a (bleep) whether it makes you uncomfortable, or whether you find it repulsive, or any of that. So long as you don't have real life experiences that give you an excuse, you should just suck it up and live with it. Learn to separate fiction/game/fantasy from real life!" It makes completely no sense. It's like you're trying to say, "Evil and perversions and all horrible things are GREAT for us to fantasize about and we get to shove it in your face! You can't do anything about it, since you have to let us have fun! You're a maladjusted loser who can't tell fiction from fact if it bothers you, loser!" I mean, really. That's the way that argument comes across.

Let it be said that I disagree with that argument. Vehemently. Very vehemently.

Underlined:

Poorly written? Questionably aligned? You mean like Chaotic Stupid, Stupid Evil, Lawful Stupid, and Stupid Good? Yes, I agree that those are very big problems, and quite different problems than others which might be caused by Evil characters. However, a merely poorly defined character can easily be developed and is not nearly as much of a problem.

Bold and Underline:

Sometimes, but not necessarily. There are certain kinds of problematic playing habits that are more common in Evil PCs and "CN" PCs than in the others, and furthermore some people may not want to roleplay a fantasy in which they have to cooperate with someone that they would find despicable and kill-worthy.

WarKitty
2011-01-10, 02:07 AM
Honestly, my main issue with the real-life issue stuff is that it requires players to disclose their own history. I don't want to be the jerk that brings a rapist PC to the table with a woman who's been raped. I don't want to be the person who's going through a fun game and all of a sudden someone decides to bring abuse into it. Better not to bring it up.

Cadian 9th
2011-01-10, 02:07 AM
I will just say that I've found some people take to the alignment system rather immaturely, wanting to play chaotic evil orc barbarians - I've found that the truly well-RP'd Evil characters are much more subtle.

Currently, I nearly exclusively play Lawful Evil. My characters, which are, let's face it, a facet of the player's personality, tend to commit good acts and work together, keeping a low profile, but have Evil aims and will consider all means to achieve an end. For example, wanting to achieve power at any cost within the rules.

On the pedophilia issue, I'd like to point out that people who interact with that are not actually Evil - several Politicians have been interacting with that and are certainly not Evil. Rape, however, is an Evil act, and Frankly, players who detail their character doing such a thing have no place in any game I'm playing. Yes, I am ok with the idea of a player saying " I rape " and then leaving it at that, if that's what the character would do.

Certainly, Banning Evil alignments is not the answer. All I can say to the OP that you're right to be mad, and that player should seriously get some help before the idea germinates in reality.

EndlessWrath
2011-01-10, 02:48 AM
I used to ban evil alignments early on when I DMed. I soon realized players would just run evil characters under CN alignment, or neutral characters with no sense of morality at all.. so they'd still do whatever. While none of my players have gone so far as rape another character in the game (npc/pc) they still do murderous atrocities from time to time. So.. I realized I'd have to take matters into my own hands. I put alignment on a grid, I ask a series of questions about each character.. specifically "what would you do if _____" or give me a number 1-10 on how strongly you agree/disagree with ____ and I figure in all that information.. and find a point on the grid. Y-axis good/evil. X axis Lawful/chaotic. Every time they take action i take mental notes of it.. and I also take notes of their reasoning. I apply that to the grid and inform them of alignment shifts due to actions.. actions speak louder than words in my book. Rationalizing an evil act is usually.. merely a way to cope with it and get out of the consequences of said actions.

Thats part one. The other part is applying realistic consequences to actions. This only turned out badly once. Village was just burned by a pc, who then murdered several other innocent townsfolk because he was dared to. Surviving townsfolk attack PC. PC then complains because I killed his character and will not continue game. Game is ruined. PCs complain I ruined the game. I state clearly, "No. This game was about a world of fantasy and a tale of heroes. You committed an evil act for fun and got caught." PC rebuts with "I was only roleplayi-"
Me: "Heroes don't murder innocent no matter how you spin it. You made a decision with your character to perform evil and run this game as an evil game. Don't get mad at me you took some 200 attacks from a commoner mob at level 3. That was your choice, not mine."
he got mad and moved on, remade a character from that village, a warrior who would seek out justice on evil-doers. He played that paladin pretty well :smallamused: and actually supported my decision when another (newer player) tried to murder an annoying royal npc. Guards found him and stopped him before the king died...

In another game.. we had a warlock who secretly worked with a demon lord. He tricked the party into helping him seize a powerful artifact which was to be used to start the Armageddon. Never got to that point but it was a lot of fun. The warlock was going to switch sides after the deal was done.. power for a task and with that power stop the apocalypse and atone. That was his general plan at least.

anyways... in conclusion. D&D is a social game. Everyone should have an idea what kind of game your going to run and some boundaries before you start. Make realistic consequences and keep note, but I don't stop my players from being evil. If they can get away with it thats great..If they can maturely play it thats better, and if they're under the understanding of not backstabbing their team every 5 seconds thats fan-freaking-tastic. Evil doesn't always mean slaughterfest.

umbrapolaris
2011-01-10, 02:48 AM
Goodness is flat, without flavor and extremely boring... i can't play a good character...

yldenfrei
2011-01-10, 03:01 AM
I've never understood this argument. At all. This whole idea of "I don't give a (bleep) whether it makes you uncomfortable, or whether you find it repulsive, or any of that. So long as you don't have real life experiences that give you an excuse, you should just suck it up and live with it. Learn to separate fiction/game/fantasy from real life!" It makes completely no sense. It's like you're trying to say, "Evil and perversions and all horrible things are GREAT for us to fantasize about and we get to shove it in your face! You can't do anything about it, since you have to let us have fun! You're a maladjusted loser who can't tell fiction from fact if it bothers you, loser!" I mean, really. That's the way that argument comes across.

Let it be said that I disagree with that argument. Vehemently. Very vehemently.

Commonly misconceived. "Separating reality from fantasy" does not mean "suck it up, loser". It just means that, for all its drawing or convincing power, a story is a story. Role-playing in its entirety is a thought exercise. Contemplating on the facets of evil and perversions, or any other subject matter, is an avenue to understand it, without actually committing the act. True, some people are averse to thinking such thoughts, and when the majority of the players say no, then no it is. However, one can also approach it in-game. Nobody is forcing you to agree to such displays of perversions, but rather than stop it prematurely OoC, why not have your character stop it IC? And if your character cannot step in ,why? Such issues can play heavily in your character's growth, and maybe even change him. The beauty of RPGs like these is that even you have no absolute control over your own character, and to see him evolve in game is a tale to tell.

The issue I'm addressing is that, while some actions do seem in poor taste, banning it prematurely restricts you from other aspects of the story that a player may want to tell. True, such dark perversions may have no place in a light-hearted action comedy, but in places where appropriate, delving into these disturbing thoughts give you great opportunities to solidify your character traits, to have him show clearly where he stands in the face of such evil.

And, as I've said before, you don't even need to tarry with the subject any more than you need to. Mention the act in a succint manner, and then be over with it. Will you really remember an otherwise great campaign for its 5 seconds of depravity?



Poorly written? Questionably aligned? You mean like Chaotic Stupid, Stupid Evil, Lawful Stupid, and Stupid Good? Yes, I agree that those are very big problems, and quite different problems than others which might be caused by Evil characters. However, a merely poorly defined character can easily be developed and is not nearly as much of a problem.

Clarification. "Poorly written character" refers to the PC, "questionably aligned player" refers OoC the person behind the character. Two different subjects. ^_^


Sometimes, but not necessarily. There are certain kinds of problematic playing habits that are more common in Evil PCs and "CN" PCs than in the others, and furthermore some people may not want to roleplay a fantasy in which they have to cooperate with someone that they would find despicable and kill-worthy.
And such are the reasons why I approve of PC vs PC kills. Really, if an issue is that big, it should be resolved IC and not grumbled upon OoC. Whoever dies dies. Player makes a new character, this time with sufficient knowledge of the party dynamics and adjust his new character accordingly.

Keep in mind, though, that all the points I'm giving are applicable only to judicious players and carefully written characters. N/A to Chaotic Stupids and stuff. When people are not emotionally attached to their PCs and do not hold grudges against anyone who wronged them IC, introducing dark and morbid subjects can give a rich and rewarding experience to all players involved.


*snip* *snip* in its entirety

Perfect. That's what I've been driving at. The DM is not to police Evil acts, but to answer them with appropriate consequences.

Coidzor
2011-01-10, 03:05 AM
The issue I'm addressing is that, while some actions do seem in poor taste, banning it prematurely restricts you from other aspects of the story that a player may want to tell.

So? If they're the only one who wants the story to go in that direction, they don't have the consent of the others to do so and so have no right to try to force the issue.

If a group wants to play that way, then that's entirely in keeping with the group agreement model, and so there's no point in arguing against it.

The reason these things are considered banned without permission by most is because they are not the kind of subject matter to just be thoughtlessly jumped into or sprung upon others.

JonestheSpy
2011-01-10, 03:15 AM
Gotta say, I've never had any situation even vaguely like the original post. I rather think the OP should find some different friends.

Zeful
2011-01-10, 03:34 AM
Commonly misconceived. "Separating reality from fantasy" does not mean "suck it up, loser". It just means that, for all its drawing or convincing power, a story is a story. Role-playing in its entirety is a thought exercise. Contemplating on the facets of evil and perversions, or any other subject matter, is an avenue to understand it, without actually committing the act. True, some people are averse to thinking such thoughts, and when the majority of the players say no, then no it is. However, one can also approach it in-game. Nobody is forcing you to agree to such displays of perversions, but rather than stop it prematurely OoC, why not have your character stop it IC? And if your character cannot step in ,why? Such issues can play heavily in your character's growth, and maybe even change him. The beauty of RPGs like these is that even you have no absolute control over your own character, and to see him evolve in game is a tale to tell.And not all stories can be told or are worth telling in this medium. These are not books, this is essentially a social contract with a narrative, and such the agreement of the entire group is required, not beneficial or optional, Required. The player has no more right (or in fact, any right) to determine the tone of the story. That's the DM's job. And frankly you are placing far too much trust in the hands of this player. Most people who play evil alignments do so for the same juvenile reasons as most people who play FPSs. It's a power trip with no depth, most players aren't going to "go somewhere with it" they are just not that smart, not that well read, and not that inclined.

And before anyone corrects me, this forum is a minority the views expressed here are well outside of average, otherwise Rich wouldn't have needed to write a set of gaming articles about building a good villain.


The issue I'm addressing is that, while some actions do seem in poor taste, banning it prematurely restricts you from other aspects of the story that a player may want to tell. True, such dark perversions may have no place in a light-hearted action comedy, but in places where appropriate, delving into these disturbing thoughts give you great opportunities to solidify your character traits, to have him show clearly where he stands in the face of such evil.And you know what, odds are good that if the player was intentionally going to try and explore these situations, he would tell the DM before play began to get a yeah or nay on it, there is no indication of such here.


And such are the reasons why I approve of PC vs PC kills. Really, if an issue is that big, it should be resolved IC and not grumbled upon OoC. Whoever dies dies. Player makes a new character, this time with sufficient knowledge of the party dynamics and adjust his new character accordingly.And this is why I can't approve of PVP in D&D. Or your attitude about it for that matter. Let's say I'm an avid roleplayer who just joined your group and I have a story to tell. Another player killing that character first brings no depth to the game, narrative, or table dynamics, second for all intents and purposes tells me that this table punishes character depth and third, no one at the table understands the arbitrary and binary nature of PVP in D&D and I must rectify this, by destroying the entire game killing the rest of the players' characters with nothing but a battle axe and second level spells (no seriously I just need Silence to put out Coup De Graces with a DC over 40, no proficency needed, and no chance of reprisal) the game then becomes a check of "Can your next character survive a DC 40+ Fort Save on anything but a twenty? Did you roll a twenty?".


Perfect. That's what I've been driving at. The DM is not to police Evil acts, but to answer them with appropriate consequences.
Then you might as well kick the child-rapist character or his player out of the group because in anything short of an extremely misogynist society he won't be allowed in. Various religious and mercenary groups start showing up, throwing down better and better tactics.

This party should have in short order the entire setting on their head for evil and boneheaded acts that piss off somebody.

yldenfrei
2011-01-10, 04:50 AM
:sigh: Misunderstood once more because of poor wording.

@Coidzor and Zeful: to reiterate...

True, some people are averse to thinking such thoughts, and when the majority of the players say no, then no it is.
And more importantly...

Keep in mind, though, that all the points I'm giving are applicable only to judicious players and carefully written characters. N/A to Chaotic Stupids and stuff. When people are not emotionally attached to their PCs and do not hold grudges against anyone who wronged them IC, introducing dark and morbid subjects can give a rich and rewarding experience to all players involved.
Bolded for emphasis.

I am of the position that Evil alignments, and by extension evil and depraved acts, by themselves should not be banned from PCs in a setting where Evil exists. When an evil act is within reason and accordance to the context of the situation, it ought to be permitted, unless, for some reason, all other players disagree to run it.

In the context of DisgruntledDM's situation, I am wary of the implemented censorship due to the following reasons:

DM's personal disgust with regards to the vile act - his personal preference played strongly in the decision. It would be better if he can elaborate on the said evil act's overall impact or derailment to the whole story. Because if it is ultimately inconsequential, then why not give it a single mention and move on? The player gets his characterization, and the others need not hear of unnecessary details. Unless they want to react to it IC, that is.
Unknown input from the other players - If everyone else disagreed to running the evil act, then I rest my case, as it is a democratic decision.
DisgruntledDM said that up until then, the character managed not to be Chaotic Stupid - this gave me the impression that the player is relatively clear as to which kind of Chaotic Evil he is playing, if he previously kept his character in check, and the pedo thing was a deliberate attempt to state his PC's monstrosity. Maybe there wasn't much opportunity for his character to be Chaotic Stupid, maybe the act was actually the first time, I don't know. DisgruntledDM is of the impression that said character is try to push the limits of what he can get away with. That calls for some serious consequences, not banning in general.


As for the PVP, I do not by any means refer to the senseless "I killed him because I'm Chaotic Evil!" justifications. That's stupid. By PVP, I am referring to the eventual dissolution of party dynamics by virtue of incompatible alignments, acts of hostility accruing at a rate that inevitably ends up in a PC vs PC confrontation. It's perfectly IC, and to force them into cooperation amidst OoC disagreements would only do the campaign a disservice. Do a showdown, and let the vanquished make a new one.

Lastly...

Then you might as well kick the child-rapist character or his player out of the group because in anything short of an extremely misogynist society he won't be allowed in. Various religious and mercenary groups start showing up, throwing down better and better tactics.

This party should have in short order the entire setting on their head for evil and boneheaded acts that piss off somebody.
Sarcasm aside, I wouldn't have wanted it any other way (for the character, not the player. Why did you have to kick out the player, too? :smallconfused:). A clean and appropriate end for a child-raping monstrosity. :smallamused:

So to summarize, no to Evil banning. Yes to Chaotic Stupid neutralization. Educate the players, do not just limit them. FOR FREEDOM!
*chuckles*

Coidzor
2011-01-10, 05:11 AM
@Coidzor and Zeful: I am of the position that Evil alignments, and by extension evil and depraved acts, by themselves should not be banned from PCs in a setting where Evil exists. When an evil act is within reason and accordance to the context of the situation, it ought to be permitted, unless, for some reason, all other players disagree to run it.

Ok, so we disagree and think you're wrong and that child rape and regular old rape shouldn't be assumed to be open topics and activities just because there's murder and theft on the table.

I understand you perfectly, I just think that you're completely and utterly wrong.

Edit: If consent is unanimous, it's pointless to be discussed here, because that's out of the purview of how it was brought up in the first place and there's no conflict either. So it doesn't matter to anyone except for maybe someone who would happen to overhear such a game being played.

If consent isn't unanimous, then there is a conflict, and it's going to harm someone's enjoyment of the game, and so I judge that it is more fair and less deleterious to rule that such things are not going to happen at the table. As such freedom is meaningless if it just destroys the game or inhibits mutual enjoyment, especially when such things would only be very niche in a game world not focused on it.

It's better for Mr. A to not enjoy the game as much because his character can't rape children than it is for Mr. A's fellows to have their ability to enjoy the game and Mr. A's company harmed because of child rape being a recurring part of the campaign.

Ravens_cry
2011-01-10, 05:19 AM
Goodness is flat, without flavor and extremely boring... i can't play a good character...
Well, your play style is your prerogative but I find that to be worse then a generalisation. A generalisation is at least commonly true, that's just balls out wrong, the part of good being without flavour anyway, what you find boring is your business.
Sam Vimes is definitely a Good character, conceivably Lawful Good, and is a deadpan snarker par excellence. My favourite character ever was an Arabian styled paladin who wooed and married a harpy, whose best friend was a thief, who got in wrestling style shouting matches with villains before battles and would call out fire and brimstone before every attack. Flavourful and fun? For me, you bet.
What you like is what you like and I respect that. But with all due respect simply saying flat out that evil is the only fun way to play is rather silly.

Sillycomic
2011-01-10, 05:56 AM
It could be that some people don't think of rape or child molestation are as bad as anything else the so called "heroes" are doing in the game already.

The OP's original story has a group of heroes going into a village and slaughtering women and children in order to get paid. The GM is basically rewarding them for killing more or less innocent people.

No one has brought up the moral implications of killing an entire village, or getting rewards for killing children, or that there would in all probability be some torture of innocent people to make sure no one else was hiding or even mutilation of the bodies afterward.

So, let's reiterate: Murder, torture and mutilation of children are ok, but the moment a character wants to touch one of those children everyone flips out and says the game isn't fun anymore and the person that suggests it needs serious psychiatric help?

There's one thing to say the GM or people in the group feel uncomfortable about certain subjects... but we also have to identify that there are some pretty horrible things happening in DnD already that seem to be glossed over.

Why? Cause it's just a game. The orcs in this village are no more real than Tom Sawyer or James Bond. They're cookie cut outs of NPC's, made up by one person and explained in flavor text to a bunch of other people.

Why would anyone flip out when one person says he wants to touch someone else's flavor text? Especially when his main goal for that mission was to kill said flavor text.

I just think anyone who said it was outrageous that the character wanted to try and molest a child has to explain why it isn't outrageous for a GM to create a mission that has the group going to slaughter an entire village of women and children in order to get lewts and XP.

How is one horrible while the other is fun?

Kiero
2011-01-10, 06:10 AM
Yeah, I don't know. In many ways a player is the author of their character. If an author of a book describes a grizly scene in detail or a rape or something similarly disturbing, does that make the person behind the story sick? I wouldn't say so. I've actually played a disgusting character before in a WoW d20 game. He was a troll. Trolls eat people. My troll ate a gnome. He boiled him alive and ate him. In front of the rest of the party. He offered to share with the other characters. Does that mean I have cannibalistic tendancies? Probably not. It's kind of insulting, actually. The real reason I said my character was doing it was to generate a roleplaying experience. I wanted one or more of the other characters to speak up about what I was doing. This would have potentially created a dramatic/hilarious dialogue imo. THAT was the purpose behind it. Not some twisted desire to pretend I was eating somebody.

You've missed my point. The "jollies" are the impact the player's behaviour has on the rest of the table. What value did explicit description of cannibalism really add to the game? How was that a useful expenditure of screen time?

You just admitted yourself that you did it to get a rise/reaction out of the rest of your group.


I used the "It's what my character would do" line. I think there are times it is justified.

It's the last-ditch and weakest justification around.


Goodness is flat, without flavor and extremely boring... i can't play a good character...

I could say the same about most portrayals of "evil".

Coidzor
2011-01-10, 06:13 AM
It could be that some people don't think of rape or child molestation are as bad as anything else the so called "heroes" are doing in the game already.

So? If the rest of the group doesn't want it, you have no right to tell them they should suck it up and accept it. Everyone has different tolerances, but...rape is a special kind of evil. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RapeIsASpecialKindOfEvil)


So, let's reiterate: Murder, torture and mutilation of children are ok, but the moment a character wants to touch one of those children everyone flips out and says the game isn't fun anymore and the person that suggests it needs serious psychiatric help?

Yeah, it's called a taboo, and going into detail about child mutilation is generally going to get a similar reaction. You have them too, just yours apparently differ here.

Ravens_cry
2011-01-10, 06:20 AM
It's the last-ditch and weakest justification around.


In my view the worst is " I am just playing my alignment."
If sincere, and showing a past history of such behaviour, or a reasonable reason for a change, it can be perfectly valid in my opinion. Still, as a gentlebeing's agreement, there are some lines that are not crossed, some things that are not done at any table I want to be at. Rape and mutilation are on that list.

FelixG
2011-01-10, 06:27 AM
Honestly if a GM says to me "well you cant be alignment..." I will ditch that game, because the GM, to me, is generally going to be short sighted.

When I run i encourage all kinds so long as they get together, I will ban a CE barbarian who will randomly attack people on the street just as fast as i will ban a LG paladin who thinks he can force other people to do what he wants no exceptions.

I joined a game a few years ago with a GM in a space opera type who discouraged playing evil cause he had never seen it done well, i told em to give me a shot. I proceeded to play a an unmoral bio scientist, he generally keeps viruses, WMDs, biological horrors around as common practice..But he is military and yeilds to the good aligned captain most of the time, but he is always there, whispering the potential alternatives to him, making the captain choose the high road or the easy road. The GM seems to love it and I am sure I have given him much to think about when it comes to properly played Evil characters...

This is what sort of thing those "you cant be X" people miss out on in their banning of options.

Not to mention banning an X alignment does really nothing if the player is smart...They can just start as neutral then preform underhanded or questionable acts, even if you dont slap them with an evil alignment they are evil without the smite worries.

rakkoon
2011-01-10, 06:37 AM
In one of my groups there was the rule "You cannot play chaotic".
Because then the DM loses too much power. If you are lawful there is always some trick the DM can pull that will make you work with the others.
If you are CE you can literally do any horrible thing you want and call it in character.

Tengu_temp
2011-01-10, 06:38 AM
Honestly if a GM says to me "well you cant be alignment..." I will ditch that game, because the GM, to me, is generally going to be short sighted.

So saying "I don't want characters with this certain alignment/class/race/etc because they don't fit the campaign idea I have" is short-sighted now?

FelixG
2011-01-10, 06:39 AM
So saying "I don't want characters with this certain alignment/class/race/etc because they don't fit the campaign idea I have" is short-sighted now?

To me, yes. Because a player who is working with the GM can make a good number of things fit properly together while a blanket "no" is less than visionary.

J.Gellert
2011-01-10, 06:40 AM
We aren't using alignments, but have this conversation every time before starting a campaign.

"Hey, DM, what's this about? Saving the world or..?"

Answer 1: "Make good guys."
...Everyone proceeds to make at least decent characters (D&D good/neutral).

Answer 2: "Anything works."
...Everyone proceeds to make evil characters.

And we have had some pretty dark campaigns in the past, but nothing too disturbing.

On the other hand, ever since I finalized a concrete version of my Acherusis setting, it hasn't really mattered. Most everyone tends towards real-life attitudes in these campaigns. And I mean self-absorbed, egoistical, whatever-is-convenient characters, who won't actively try to hurt others. Not quite neutral, not quite evil, somewhat hard to describe with D&D alignments. /Spoilered because I hate alignment debates.

Ravens_cry
2011-01-10, 06:51 AM
To me, yes. Because a player who is working with the GM can make a good number of things fit properly together while a blanket "no" is less than visionary.
Or you just don't want to argue about it. Dickering about what can and can not be played is sure fire way to eat into valuable game time. Sometimes decisiveness is required.

Tengu_temp
2011-01-10, 06:52 AM
To me, yes. Because a player who is working with the GM can make a good number of things fit properly together while a blanket "no" is less than visionary.

If I say, for example, that I want to run a campaign in a world with no magic and where humans are the only known sentient race, then when one of the players says "I want to play an elven wizard!", I don't start working with him to make the concept work. I ban it outright, because it doesn't fit my campaign. At all.

From my experience, "everything goes" campaigns often become disasters, filled with ridiculous characters that don't mesh well with each other or the campaign world and who have completely different power levels.

FelixG
2011-01-10, 06:58 AM
If I say, for example, that I want to run a campaign in a world with no magic and where humans are the only known sentient race, then when one of the players says "I want to play an elven wizard!", I don't start working with him to make the concept work. I ban it outright, because it doesn't fit my campaign. At all.

From my experience, "everything goes" campaigns often become disasters, filled with ridiculous characters that don't mesh well with each other or the campaign world and who have completely different power levels.

Elves are pretty much humans with pointy ears anyway :smallbiggrin: and...i am wondering how well you read my comment...I said "ALIGNMENT"... I will requote it for you


Honestly if a GM says to me "well you cant be alignment..." I will ditch that game, because the GM, to me, is generally going to be short sighted.


If you say no elves or wizards, ok, but that is a lot different than the way the person acts.

Stephen_E
2011-01-10, 07:11 AM
Good and Evil can cooperate, but it takes extraordinary circumstances and very compatible personalities to make them do so. What an Evil person is willing to do is exactly the thing that a Good person is fighting to try to prevent.



In Real Life Good/Evil cooperate all the time.
The same is no problem in Roleplay.

The statement remonds me of the last evil character I player (maybe 1 in 5 I play is evil). The party had worked out a evil conspiracy going on in a village and was smashing it. Another player was complaining was NE Druid wasn't evil because he was helping stop these evil NPCs and there conspiracy.

My response was why would my character care about the alignment of the enemy. He gained nothing from leeting these guys get away with it, and did gain from stopping it.
He didn't care about making the world a better or worse place for people in general. He was out to make the woprld a better place for Him, his blood Brother Anumal Companion (had grown up with Dire Wolves) and keeping his companions in decent health to cover his back as need be.
He was a hero and did heroic things because that was where the money was in it in his experiance. Didn't help that the ongoing bad giy villian had ripped him off early in the campaign.
The other heroes were perfectly happy to go with him when they went out slaying monsters. They didn't like hanging around him in personal time, but so what.
His tendancy to see all non-wolves/Halflings as potential food upset them some.

And, relevant to the OP, he got his jollies by seducing traumatised females. Didn't do the traumatisong himself, but those were the women he preyed on.
I didn't go into blow by blow detail but would simply make clear that if there was some women that seemed likely to be traumatised I would tell the GM that my character would attempt to seduce her. - He was a rather unpleasant character in many ways, and definitely of evil alignment, but a hero for all that.

And I would also note that he was one of the best characters I've done. He had moral and ethical depth. He was decidedly 3 diemensional.

My other top PCs off hand would be a Neutral slightly PsychoticWizard - Warhamer Fantasy, 3 Good Characters - DnD 3.5 Orc, 3.5 modded Dwarf Slayer and Rolemaster Halfling and a Humanity 3-4 drug addicted severly psychotic vampire from Requiem.

So I would maintain that all sorts of alignments get played, and it has no particular relationship to how well played the character is.

Stephen E

Earthwalker
2011-01-10, 07:36 AM
In the Pathfinder campaign I am planning I have already stated to my players, light end of the aliegnment pool only.

The campaign itself is not about adventurers and will require at least some limit on the characters.

It does all make sense in terms of the campgin.

As a player I generally hate the lets have all the different allignments in the same group kind of play, as it never works out. I would like it if it works as FelixG describes but it generally doesn't for me.

I think thats more a limit me and my friends have.

Ytaker
2011-01-10, 08:08 AM
It seems completely reasonable to me. Not many people have lived through being murdered. Lots of people have lived through being rape. As such, murder is unlikely to hurt your players while rape is.

You shouldn't let your PCs beat up and terrorize a family also. If one of the people experienced severe violence to their mother when she was mugged, repeating it is unlikely to go well.

Ferrin
2011-01-10, 08:13 AM
It seems completely reasonable to me. Not many people have lived through being murdered. Lots of people have lived through being rape. As such, murder is unlikely to hurt your players while rape is.

You shouldn't let your PCs beat up and terrorize a family also. If one of the people experienced severe violence to their mother when she was mugged, repeating it is unlikely to go well.

Or a bank robbery with the bank being owned by the maffia, seeing people killed in front of her. IE; "They're the bad guys, let's steal their loot!" :smallsigh:

Ytaker
2011-01-10, 08:18 AM
Bank robberies are rare. And less painful than murder or rape. If one of your players is a banker, it might be worth checking out if they've had any bad experiences.

Really, it depends on your player's definitions of chaotic evil. See how they define it. If it's too bad, ban it. If a new player comes along with a better definition, let them try out a character.

Ferrin
2011-01-10, 08:23 AM
Bank robberies are rare. And less painful than murder or rape. If one of your players is a banker, it might be worth checking out if they've had any bad experiences.

Really, it depends on your player's definitions of chaotic evil. See how they define it. If it's too bad, ban it. If a new player comes along with a better definition, let them try out a character.

It's about the traumatizing experience part, you don't survive getting killed, obviously. A lot of people get killed after being raped as well.

Seriously though, I don't play alignments, I play characters.

On a side-note, you did realize that I just stated the generic adventurer quest of "Kill those orcs and take the gold back they stole!", right?

bokodasu
2011-01-10, 08:35 AM
I ban evil characters, generally, and I usually won't play in campaigns with evil characters. In my experience, most evil characters are not fun to play with, and my time is limited; I'd rather not waste it finding out that yep, that guy's ANOTHER chaotic evil asshat, on the off chance that MAYBE this guy isn't.

There are some people I've gamed with for over 15 years; I'd let them play evil characters, because I trust them and know they'd do it well. Oddly, none of them are ever interested in playing evil characters. (Or I guess not oddly; I probably wouldn't play for 15 years with people who didn't have a relatively similar gaming philosophy to my own.) Besides them, I know one guy I'd let (nay, encourage!) to play a LE character in one of my games, but only if I knew all the other players weren't hankering to roll up baby-eating, party-ganking, arsonist puppykickers.

Overall, my goal as a DM is to not give myself migraines. Saying "no evil" is way less headache-inducing than saying "evil is fine, but not that. Or that. No, you can't do that. That's not the game we're playing. Look, there are other people at the table and we're all trying to have fun here, and stomping their fun in the name of yours isn't cool. Yes, he can play THIS evil character but you can't play THAT one. Or that. Look, just roll up a paladin, ok?"

WarKitty
2011-01-10, 08:51 AM
Eh, personally part of why I ban sexual violence more is because a lot more people really think it's funny in a way that they don't for other crimes. Not like black humor funny, but like they actually seem to think it's ok or not really that bad. Which means even if you don't actually think that way, I have a lot harder time telling you from the jerk who does, whereas I can assume most people don't actually believe in murdering people.

For most of the other stuff, I've found my "your character must be able to function in society" rule works pretty well.

Tyndmyr
2011-01-10, 09:04 AM
I don't ban alignments, but I do try to limit "for the evulz" acts. I've played in campaigns where nobody could be within one step of chaotic evil at campaign start. It can help.

The thing is, you can wordsmith a lot of actions into the alignment of choice(true neutral, lawful evil, chaotic good, etc) even with this restriction. Players who WANT to be evil still more or less act like it. Sure, they'll outwardly try to maintain the appearance of evil, but they're quite comfortable with the barest of excuses for slaughter and loot.

So, I pretty much just focus on discouraging stupid evil now. I accept the clever, scheming evil that manages to avoid openly offending society while doing nefarious deeds, but at least I can ensure a pretty short lifespan for those who get carried away.

true_shinken
2011-01-10, 09:15 AM
Goodness is flat, without flavor and extremely boring... i can't play a good character...
I'm sorry, but this is simply wrong. Being good or evil has no impact on a given character's deepness.
By sayind 'goodness is flat', you're implying that Don Quixote, Spiderman, Luke Skywalker, Jack (from Lost), Mickey Mouse, Takeru no Mikoto, King Arthur, Charlemagne, Sir Lancelot, Samson, {Scrubbed}, Kamen Rider Kabuto and Son Goku are flat characters. You see how a broad statement like that absolutely can't be right?

FelixG
2011-01-10, 09:19 AM
I'm sorry, but this is simply wrong. Being good or evil has no impact on a given character's deepness.
By sayind 'goodness is flat', you're implying that Don Quixote, Spiderman, Luke Skywalker, Jack (from Lost), Mickey Mouse, Takeru no Mikoto, King Arthur, Charlemagne, Sir Lancelot, Samson, {Scrubbed}, Kamen Rider Kabuto and Son Goku are flat characters. You see how a broad statement like that absolutely can't be right?

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't part gwen cheat on king Arthur with lancelot? Not exactly the best person to use in a defence

dsmiles
2011-01-10, 09:24 AM
So, I pretty much just focus on discouraging stupid evil now. I accept the clever, scheming evil that manages to avoid openly offending society while doing nefarious deeds, but at least I can ensure a pretty short lifespan for those who get carried away.

I'd like to say the same, but the group I game with never plays "stupid" anything. No Lawful Stupid, no Stupid Evil, no Chaotic Stupid, no Stupid Good. I guess I just have good luck with gaming groups. We're all past that level of immaturity. (Even the DM's 10-year-old-son.) Because that's exactly what it boils down to. Immaturity and the juvenile desire to elicit a negative response from other people. That's where the "stupid" alignments come from. Mature individuals can play characters without going into the realm of "stupid". (I say characters, because you don't play alignments. You play characters.)

Frozen_Feet
2011-01-10, 09:28 AM
I have a pretty tough hide, I can't really think of any imaginary offense that'd make me want to stop a game. This doesn't mean such offenses don't get to me, just that I have the mental tools to deal with such issues completely within the imaginary setting. As a DM, if someone commits a horrific evil deed, I'll make sure it is reacted to as evil, and make the player feel bad for himself. It's much more satisfying to graft a lesson into the story being played than arguing it in OOC.

Speaking of crimes and criminals in their real names has proven pretty effective remedy for over-the-top behaviour; the so-called hero might start to think more of what he's actually doing if he's constantly labeled as graverobber, murderer, arsoner, rapist and so on.

Of course, unlike many other DMs here it seems, I only aim for heroic games if my players show tendency towards heroic roleplaying (hint: they rarely do). If they insist on playing paranoid sociopaths, they better be ready to find their enjoyment in fleeing from law and punishment. Good or Evil, stupidity is always penalized (and shamelessly mocked) in my table.

true_shinken
2011-01-10, 09:34 AM
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't part gwen cheat on king Arthur with lancelot? Not exactly the best person to use in a defence
Except cheating has got nothing to do with being Good, in a D&D sense. :smalltongue:

FelixG
2011-01-10, 09:36 AM
Except cheating has got nothing to do with being Good, in a D&D sense. :smalltongue:

Er, you are correct good sir, I suppose he would be Chaotic :smallbiggrin:

Tyndmyr
2011-01-10, 10:01 AM
It's not that I mind evil as such. I just dislike games being overt wish fulfillment or played like a video game, wherein monsters exist to provide you with xp and treasure. Both of these themes seem to come up quite a lot in "evil", and I like to discourage them.

umbrapolaris
2011-01-10, 11:01 AM
By sayind 'goodness is flat', you're implying that Don Quixote, Spiderman, Luke Skywalker, Jack (from Lost), Mickey Mouse, Takeru no Mikoto, King Arthur, Charlemagne, Sir Lancelot, Samson, {Scrubbed} Kamen Rider Kabuto and Son Goku are flat characters.

those are exactly the kind of "good" characters i hate. the saviors of the widow and the orphan... they are so predictable.

in most movie or novels, evil characters are more complex than the good ones, their existence increase the personality of the good hero. what is Superman without Luthor. just a flying invincible guy who just beat gangsters, Luthor make superman weak and deeper.

also Luke is flat (the good guy who save the princess...) compared to Darth Vader or Darth Sidious.



my favorite characters are generally villains and anti-heroes: Darth Vader & Darth Sidious, Elric of Melniboné, Raho , Kenshiro or Rei (fist of the north star), Vegeta, dirty Harry, etc...

oh and if Jesus Christ was not crucified by the romans maybe the catholic church will just be a small sect ^^

i think this Thread will never ends or finish in a troll Thread ^^.

Evil rules ^^

Tyndmyr
2011-01-10, 11:13 AM
Im not gonna touch Jesus with a 10 foot pole.

But yeah, Superman, Skywalker, etc...not the best of characters.

My personal favorite lawful good character is Rorschach. Note that the use of the term lawful good is entirely due to the literal application of the D&D labels as such. These likely do not match up to traditional interpretations of good.

The more interesting good characters were in fact flawed. See, Sampson and all the knights of the round table mentioned. Without their flaws, they would be far less interesting. These flaws may not make them evil, but they do provide depth.

I suspect the alignment in D&D makes characters less interesting overall, as people attempt to follow what they "should" do.

Sucrose
2011-01-10, 11:31 AM
Im not gonna touch Jesus with a 10 foot pole.

But yeah, Superman, Skywalker, etc...not the best of characters.

My personal favorite lawful good character is Rorschach. Note that the use of the term lawful good is entirely due to the literal application of the D&D labels as such. These likely do not match up to traditional interpretations of good.

The more interesting good characters were in fact flawed. See, Sampson and all the knights of the round table mentioned. Without their flaws, they would be far less interesting. These flaws may not make them evil, but they do provide depth.

I suspect the alignment in D&D makes characters less interesting overall, as people attempt to follow what they "should" do.

By the same token, however, evil characters are only interesting because of their better qualities: loyalty, honor, a soft spot for some subset of people.

Extremes of anything get dull because, as stated, they're predictable. Pure good will always help the helpless, will never give up, etc. Pure evil will always betray those who care about him, will stoop as low as he has to, will break treaties, and so forth.

However, flawed good characters have the advantage of not making people uncomfortable, and are therefore categorically superior as characters to evil people with redeeming traits.

Tyndmyr
2011-01-10, 11:41 AM
However, flawed good characters have the advantage of not making people uncomfortable, and are therefore categorically superior as characters to evil people with redeeming traits.

I agree that extremes are boring, yes.

However, I do not agree that not making people uncomfortable inherently makes something superior. Sometimes a great character can be one that you are uncomfortable with. To continue with a previous example, Rorschach is someone I would likely be uncomfortable with as an actual person, or even as a character played in a campaign. Doesn't change the fact that he's an interesting, complex character.

Calmar
2011-01-10, 12:14 PM
You missed the line about; "The ranger who had his sister killed by orcs and now believes that all orcs and related groups must be completely exterminated..." that's the genocide part.

This kind of "character" concept is the embodyment of stupid evil for me.
Besides the fact that genocide is a pretty modern concept, even the few people who actually tried to do such a thing were smart enough not to run around like total morons trying to stab each and every one of the people they hated to death by their own hands. :smallconfused:

Burner28
2011-01-10, 12:17 PM
.

But yeah, Superman, Skywalker, etc...not the best of characters.

My personal favorite lawful good character is Rorschach. Note that the use of the term lawful good is entirely due to the literal application of the D&D labels as such. These likely do not match up to traditional interpretations of good.



I am not too sure he is Good(though Lawful ,Neutral or Chaotic might make sense). I mean didn't he torture people? And not to mention his attitude...

Tengu_temp
2011-01-10, 12:37 PM
those are exactly the kind of "good" characters i hate. the saviors of the widow and the orphan... they are so predictable.

Good characters are boring and predictable only when in the hands of bad writers. Even Superman can be an interesting character when written well.

I could give a huge list of badass good characters, but I'll just go with the two most obvious ones: Batman and Indiana Jones. Are they boring too?


Kenshiro

Dude, Kenshiro might be violent against evildoers but he's one of the most compassionate fighters ever. He's a straight-up hero.


Evil rules ^^

Actually, evil sucks. There is nothing inherently cool about being evil, and evil people are absolutely not fun in real life.


My personal favorite lawful good character is Rorschach. Note that the use of the term lawful good is entirely due to the literal application of the D&D labels as such. These likely do not match up to traditional interpretations of good.


Even under the strict DND labels he's not LG. At best he thinks he is LG.

Fiery Diamond
2011-01-10, 12:42 PM
I am of the position that Evil alignments, and by extension evil and depraved acts, by themselves should not be banned from PCs in a setting where Evil exists. When an evil act is within reason and accordance to the context of the situation, it ought to be permitted, unless, for some reason, all other players disagree to run it.

In the context of DisgruntledDM's situation, I am wary of the implemented censorship due to the following reasons:

DM's personal disgust with regards to the vile act - his personal preference played strongly in the decision. It would be better if he can elaborate on the said evil act's overall impact or derailment to the whole story. Because if it is ultimately inconsequential, then why not give it a single mention and move on? The player gets his characterization, and the others need not hear of unnecessary details. Unless they want to react to it IC, that is.
Unknown input from the other players - If everyone else disagreed to running the evil act, then I rest my case, as it is a democratic decision.
DisgruntledDM said that up until then, the character managed not to be Chaotic Stupid - this gave me the impression that the player is relatively clear as to which kind of Chaotic Evil he is playing, if he previously kept his character in check, and the pedo thing was a deliberate attempt to state his PC's monstrosity. Maybe there wasn't much opportunity for his character to be Chaotic Stupid, maybe the act was actually the first time, I don't know. DisgruntledDM is of the impression that said character is try to push the limits of what he can get away with. That calls for some serious consequences, not banning in general.


Okay... First bolding: NO. YOU. ARE. WRONG. It's not "unless everyone else says no", it's "if even one other person says no." There is no "rule of the majority" in social fun times. If ANYONE is being made uncomfortable, things need to be changed. Either by getting the person who is uncomfortable to leave the game, by getting the person doing the activity making the other uncomfortable to leave the game, or by not permitting the uncomfortable-making activity.

Second Bolding: The DM constitutes one person, and the one person running the game, for that matter. As I said, ONE PERSON being uncomfortable is all that is needed to forbid a subject. I would never, ever want to play with someone who held a different view.

Third Bolding: Because the DM was uncomfortable, THIS IS IRRELEVANT.


Ok, so we disagree and think you're wrong and that child rape and regular old rape shouldn't be assumed to be open topics and activities just because there's murder and theft on the table.

I understand you perfectly, I just think that you're completely and utterly wrong.

Edit: If consent is unanimous, it's pointless to be discussed here, because that's out of the purview of how it was brought up in the first place and there's no conflict either. So it doesn't matter to anyone except for maybe someone who would happen to overhear such a game being played.

If consent isn't unanimous, then there is a conflict, and it's going to harm someone's enjoyment of the game, and so I judge that it is more fair and less deleterious to rule that such things are not going to happen at the table. As such freedom is meaningless if it just destroys the game or inhibits mutual enjoyment, especially when such things would only be very niche in a game world not focused on it.

It's better for Mr. A to not enjoy the game as much because his character can't rape children than it is for Mr. A's fellows to have their ability to enjoy the game and Mr. A's company harmed because of child rape being a recurring part of the campaign.


This exactly.

Jayabalard
2011-01-10, 12:43 PM
murder(which happens... ALL the time in D&D). that's really kind of game/campaign specific. I've played in games where it's been totally absent (and and quite a few where it's VERY rare)

Callista
2011-01-10, 12:44 PM
Er, you are correct good sir, I suppose he would be Chaotic :smallbiggrin:Cheating on someone else is chaotic, but if you know you would be hurting them and/or damaging their relationship if you did so, it is also Evil.

Situation 1: You're in love with someone who is in an arranged marriage with someone they don't love and who doesn't care about them. The two of you find yourselves a little love nest and hopefully a little happiness.
Verdict: Chaotic, but not Evil. Possibly even mildly Good.

Situation 2: You're in love with someone who is also in love with someone else. Maybe they're having a tough time for some reason; maybe their partner is away for an extended time. As before, the two of you find yourselves a little love nest. You know that your lover's partner will be hurt when he finds out they are cheating; you know you could tear apart their relationship and ruin their life; but you do it anyway because you want this person for yourself.
Verdict: Chaotic and mildly Evil.

Situation 3: You saw someone you thought was hot, but found out they were in a committed relationship with someone else. Annoyed, you seduced them away from their partner so that you could have what you wanted. You don't care whether you're ruining the lives of your lover or their partner, and you probably don't care to know--you just want what you want, and you'll do what you have to in order to get it.
Verdict: Chaotic Evil.

I think you just can't make a sweeping statement like "Cheating on your spouse is always Chaotic but never Evil" because specific situations differ and it just depends on exactly what you're doing and why.

Tengu_temp
2011-01-10, 12:56 PM
that's really kind of game/campaign specific. I've played in games where it's been totally absent (and and quite a few where it's VERY rare)

I think the biggest problem is that some people equate murder with killing, while it's not necessary the same thing. Defending yourself from some bandits who want to kill you and take your stuff is killing, but it's not murder, and it's not an evil act.

Tyndmyr
2011-01-10, 12:57 PM
Even under the strict DND labels he's not LG. At best he thinks he is LG.


"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others...

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

The man has dedicated his life to his cause, and for helping others by stamping out evil. As a result of this, he lives the life of a homeless man. That's a personal sacrifice. Note that he is utterly unwilling to kill innocents for the greater good.


Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

He has honor, is extremely consistent and reliable. He is also judgmental, and some might consider him close-minded or lacking in adaptability. The conflict with authority is similar to what is seen in with a paladin opposing an evil government. They follow their own code with precision in opposing evil. Note that in his setting, the portrayal of government is questionable at best, sanctioning a number of evil acts. To follow the law by ceasing to fight evil would not be consistent with a lawful good worldview.

He alone chose to die rather than to accept a course of action that was wildly outside the law and would sacrifice innocents. This despite the fact that his opposition had absolutely no chance of success. This is the epitome of lawful good.


Lawful Good, "Crusader"

A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Lawful good does not have to be nice.


Edit: Batman is also, depending on potrayal, not always good. Generally, sure...but the best alignment chart I've seen has batman in all nine squares.

Choco
2011-01-10, 01:05 PM
I have been lucky to be the sickest/thickest skinned person in all of the gaming groups I have played in. I generally keep my games squick-free (possible exception when I am trying to give a villain a "rape the dog" moment), but when I see someone trying to be "edgy" by making for instance a pedophile character to try to gross me and/or the rest of the group out, I pull out all stops and elevate it to such a point that they don't even want to think about it anymore. Not the most "professional" way of handling the situation, but not only has it worked all these years but it is damn amusing (http://agc.deskslave.org/comic_viewer.html?goNumber=485) :smallamused:.

Luckily there is always some new player that wants to test where the boundaries are... Most recently a player decided to show to the group he is hot stuff by making me uncomfortable via arm-twisting me into RP'ing a sex scene. Little did he know I have no embarrassment/discomfort regarding such things, and not more than 2 minutes later he was asking ME to stop :smallamused:.

But anyway, when it comes to alignments, I don't usually ban any alignments but I do require that the character fit in with the group. I encourage the players to police themselves, reminding them that they are NOT forced to put up with ANY character just because said character is a PC. They put up with Chaotic Stupid and/or otherwise disruptive characters for a little while, giving the player plenty of warnings and hints, before the ganking commences. Took them a while to get used to it, but since they realized I was serious about letting them police themselves I have not had to take care of a single Chaotic Stupid character, they been doing that for me :smallbiggrin:.


For most of the other stuff, I've found my "your character must be able to function in society" rule works pretty well.

I actually do that too. The ONLY non-campaign-specific character creation rule I have is "If your character would not have been able to live to adventuring age acting like you play them, you cannot play them that way."

Tengu_temp
2011-01-10, 01:11 PM
The man has dedicated his life to his cause, and for helping others by stamping out evil. As a result of this, he lives the life of a homeless man. That's a personal sacrifice. Note that he is utterly unwilling to kill innocents for the greater good.

It's very easy not to be innocent in his eyes, though. And then he won't hesitate to harm you. A real paladin won't hurt or kill someone who pings on his evildar undeservingly just because that person is evil. Rorschach will.


Edit: Batman is also, depending on potrayal, not always good. Generally, sure...but the best alignment chart I've seen has batman in all nine squares.

Do note that the evil squares were either taken out of context, or came from terrible, terrible comics such as All-Star Batman and Robin. In the right hands Batman is grumpy and dark, but at the same time a total good guy.

FelixG
2011-01-10, 01:25 PM
It's very easy not to be innocent in his eyes, though. And then he won't hesitate to harm you. A real paladin won't hurt or kill someone who pings on his evildar undeservingly just because that person is evil. Rorschach will.

She said that its paladin like. She never said he was a paladin :smallsigh:

and you can be LG and violent just fine not being a paladin.

Tengu_temp
2011-01-10, 01:31 PM
She said that its paladin like. She never said he was a paladin :smallsigh:


Neither did I. I gave a paladin as an example because they have a natural Detect Evil ability.

Rorschach is too brutal, too eager to severely punish misdeeds that don't deserve such punishment (and sometimes don't deserve any punishment at all), to be LG. He's too complex of a character to fit neatly into one of the DND alignments, but if I had to I'd say he's the LN zealot who thinks he's LG.

Sucrose
2011-01-10, 01:31 PM
I agree that extremes are boring, yes.

However, I do not agree that not making people uncomfortable inherently makes something superior. Sometimes a great character can be one that you are uncomfortable with. To continue with a previous example, Rorschach is someone I would likely be uncomfortable with as an actual person, or even as a character played in a campaign. Doesn't change the fact that he's an interesting, complex character.

When all other matters are equal, the lack of a negative trait can certainly make one thing superior over another.

Tyndmyr
2011-01-10, 01:31 PM
It's very easy not to be innocent in his eyes, though. And then he won't hesitate to harm you. A real paladin won't hurt or kill someone who pings on his evildar undeservingly just because that person is evil. Rorschach will.

He ain't a pally. And in D&D, killing people you know are evil is actually quite common and generally considered OK. The only possible exception to Rorschach's conduct is the elevator shaft incident, and that is described without context by a third party who probably was not there. As depicted, his adversaries are quite evil, and while he may not be pleasant, he doesn't harm the innocent, but rather, avenges them.


Do note that the evil squares were either taken out of context, or came from terrible, terrible comics such as All-Star Batman and Robin. In the right hands Batman is grumpy and dark, but at the same time a total good guy.

Agreed. I will agree that he tends to fall somewhere on the good alignment, most frequently to the lawful end as well. Parallels can even be drawn to Rorschach, as both are somewhat dark at times.

Hazzardevil
2011-01-10, 01:36 PM
I personally have no problem with evil peope as long as they don't get into randomly slaughtering or pedoing. If the slaughter is well roleplayed such as the charecter acting like a psychopath or suddenly feeling guilt.
Pedoing I just don't think should be done in a roleplaying game.

I don't belive that the players should have perfect charecters, that would be too boring. The best part is when the charectors have regrets about decisions or when they are confronted with the old enemy pretending to be someone close to them and they act realistically for their person.

I don't like random pshcopaths walking into a room and killing someone for no reason either.

Tengu_temp
2011-01-10, 01:39 PM
I don't want to get into an argument about the alignment of a character I don't really know that well, so I'll just say this:

And in D&D, killing people you know are evil is actually quite common and generally considered OK.
No, it's generally not. If you see some random guy walking down the street, cast Detect Evil and it points at him, and then murder him, it's not okay. You just commited a crime and an evil act.

Callista
2011-01-10, 01:45 PM
When I think of LN, I think of Javert from Les Miserables... if one can compare a character closely to Javert, then I'll label him LN. I'd say Rorschach is one of those. He does have Good tendencies, but I don't think you can say he's fully Good.

Personally, I don't really understand why people like out-of-control evil characters except as short-term fun. I've seen them really make a splash on a campaign, but they generally don't last more than a couple of sessions because nobody else will tolerate them and eventually they'll be caught doing something reprehensible enough for the party to hit them simultaneously with several weapons, an eldritch blast, and a barrage of magic missiles. Even most Neutral people won't want this kind of person around--they're too unpredictable and too likely to take a weapon to them.

Good and Neutral can generally work together quite well. Good-aligned people will want to protect the Neutrals just like they'll protect anyone; and the Neutral people have enough morals to agree with the Good-aligned person's goals most of the time because Good-aligned people want good things for others, and the Neutral guy knows he counts as "others", so he knows the Good guy is probably on his team and therefore worth working with and protecting in return.

But when you get to Neutral and Evil, things don't work as well. The Evil guy doesn't care what happens to the Neutral guy, in general, unless there's a personal relationship; and even then the relationship will probably take a backseat compared to the Evil guy's own goals. And the Neutral guy knows that the Evil guy isn't really watching out for him; so he's naturally looking after his own interests, protecting himself. Sure, the Evil guy can try to intimidate or manipulate the Neutral guy into working with him; but that can only last so long before the Neutral fellow tries to break free. Unless they have a strong personal relationship or a very important common goal, Neutral and Evil don't really work that well together. It's not as bad a mismatch as Good and Evil, but it's still a lot more shaky and likely to end badly than a Good/Neutral combination.

Tyndmyr
2011-01-10, 01:45 PM
Rorschach is too brutal, too eager to severely punish misdeeds that don't deserve such punishment (and sometimes don't deserve any punishment at all), to be LG.

This is where we get back to the SRD description as "A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished."

So, eagerness is not a detraction from being LG. He doesn't punish for his own pleasure, but because he desires them to be punished for their evil.

He does use fear, as does batman. However, use of fear is not considered intrinsically evil in D&D.

Who does he punish that doesn't deserve it? In particular, note that while he is normally quite willing to use lethal punishment, in defense against the policeman, he avoids killing them.


I don't want to get into an argument about the alignment of a character I don't really know that well, so I'll just say this:

No, it's generally not. If you see some random guy walking down the street, cast Detect Evil and it points at him, and then murder him, it's not okay. You just commited a crime and an evil act.

He doesn't use a magical detect evil spell. He acts as a detective. He kills them for their actions. Killing a murderer in D&D is not generally an evil act. Nor is killing in self-defense.

Lets review the body count of Rorschach:
Child Molester, at scene of crime.
Prisoner, self defense.
Henchman, Big Figure. Self defense. They already killed one of their own to get to him.

Not only is it one of the lowest figures in the movie, they are all pretty clearly bad people, happily doing bad things.

Choco
2011-01-10, 01:46 PM
No, it's generally not. If you see some random guy walking down the street, cast Detect Evil and it points at him, and then murder him, it's not okay. You just commited a crime and an evil act.

That's no better or worse than walking into a "monster" community (that has not threatened you or anyone else in any way except to defend themselves) and proceeding to slaughter them all and take their stuff.

The point he was making is that considering the way the cliche group plays D&D, it is normal and perfectly acceptable. There are always people like us out there that obviously play in different games where that would not fly, but from personal experience I would say we are in the minority.

Tengu_temp
2011-01-10, 01:52 PM
The point he was making is that considering the way the cliche group plays D&D, it is normal and perfectly acceptable. There are always people like us out there that obviously play in different games where that would not fly, but from personal experience I would say we are in the minority.

From my experience, I'd say this attitude stems mostly from oldschool DND, which was mostly about killing creatures and taking their stuff, and it's much less common among groups with more modern mindset. And it's even less common among people who play other RPGs.

Callista
2011-01-10, 01:55 PM
Yup. Detect-Smite hasn't been kosher in ages. If it were a war game, I could see it; but nowadays people want more than just the tactical challenge.

Sucrose
2011-01-10, 01:58 PM
This is where we get back to the SRD description as "A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished."

So, eagerness is not a detraction from being LG. He doesn't punish for his own pleasure, but because he desires them to be punished for their evil.

He does use fear, as does batman. However, use of fear is not considered intrinsically evil in D&D.

Who does he punish that doesn't deserve it? In particular, note that while he is normally quite willing to use lethal punishment, in defense against the policeman, he avoids killing them.

Well, for one thing, he casually breaks a man's finger for being rude to him. That's rather undeserved. He apparently does this routinely to acquire information, and torture is not an accepted method of information-gathering for Good individuals.

Hazzardevil
2011-01-10, 02:06 PM
The way I see it it is still murder from my point of view.
However in an extremist good town they would probably reward you for killing him.
It is still killing someone however so just because the laws of the city reward certain behaviour doesn't make it right.
In a dnd game at the same time if you kill someone in game then your charector will suffer the consequences. Killing one person then resisting arrest is another bad (Not really evil if it's justified.) act.

gourdcaptain
2011-01-10, 02:26 PM
I played CE once for a couple of sessions. That character managed to completely disturb the heck out of me (note to self, do not model characters after ones from Tarentino movies). Yeah, haven't played CE since. I did give the DM a hook for keeping me in line though - my one big control was that I was fiercely protective and loyal to the rest of the party. (My reasoning being, sure, I'm a very nasty piece of work, but I do like some people).

Ravens_cry
2011-01-10, 02:34 PM
That's no better or worse than walking into a "monster" community (that has not threatened you or anyone else in any way except to defend themselves) and proceeding to slaughter them all and take their stuff.

The point he was making is that considering the way the cliche group plays D&D, it is normal and perfectly acceptable. There are always people like us out there that obviously play in different games where that would not fly, but from personal experience I would say we are in the minority.
I have actually rarely done the whole dungeon crawl adventure/ murder spree. Yes, I have had characters who have engaged in large scale slaughter, but in most cases it was them invading US, and it was warriors against warriors, not us ransacking their village.
Seriously, killing randomly went out of style with the ten foot by ten foot room with an orc guarding a chest. It may be a cliché, but it is also just that, a cliché. Oh, and it is still wrong. Typical does not equal right.

Callista
2011-01-10, 02:38 PM
Yes... nowadays, the room is set on fire, the chest is destroyed, and the orc joins the party. :P

Ravens_cry
2011-01-10, 02:39 PM
Yes... nowadays, the room is set on fire, the chest is destroyed, and the orc joins the party. :P
Man, someone must have made a wish.:smallbiggrin:

Choco
2011-01-10, 02:53 PM
It may be a cliché, but it is also just that, a cliché. Oh, and it is still wrong. Typical does not equal right.

That's what is called an opinion. And is the very reason why alignment arguments always have been and always will be pointless, because what one person considers evil, another may very well consider good.

Callista
2011-01-10, 02:55 PM
They define alignments in the PHB. We're using those definitions, not some out-of-game philosophy textbook.

Choco
2011-01-10, 02:57 PM
They define alignments in the PHB. We're using those definitions, not some out-of-game philosophy textbook.

And? I have read hundreds of pages on this forum of people having different (and opposite) interpretations of said PHB definitions....

Do we really need to add another 20?

Ferrin
2011-01-10, 03:02 PM
They define alignments in the PHB. We're using those definitions, not some out-of-game philosophy textbook.

And even that is full of holes and flawed in every way possible, but still better then not having a standard to go by at all.

Would you test a potentialy lethal cure on a prisoner who is infected with a virus even though he says he doesn't want it? You can save many more people with it if it works, or he dies. But he might very well be innocent as you're working for an evil kingdom and many people you might save are also evil. Or rather, they might all be evil because the little medicine that can be made will only go to those higher in the chain of command.

...so, what will you do? :smallbiggrin:

Callista
2011-01-10, 03:03 PM
Test it on myself. Duh.

Ferrin
2011-01-10, 03:05 PM
Test it on myself. Duh.

If you die no one will be able to continue the research and all the people would be left to die. :smallamused:

Grelna the Blue
2011-01-10, 03:07 PM
There's absolutely nothing wrong with playing an evil character if it fits into the game. In some campaigns they don't work well. My own campaign uses a homebrew A World Half Full (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AWorldHalfFull) campaign setting and I tell the players at the outset that the scales are tipped against them. Moreover, the PCs' actions are, quite simply, the razor edge the setting hangs upon, although I have not told them that. If the PCs go to the bad, humanity, at least upon their continent, is almost certainly doomed to slavery (at best) or undeath (most likely). I will allow this to happen, although if the PCs simply die rather than become corrupted their next characters would probably still have a (somewhat smaller) chance to drag the situation back from the brink.

Most of my players are veterans of much more casual, lower stakes campaigns. I'm not at all sure they will be able to succeed and I know that they aren't used to having their actions really matter. RPing the destruction of all hope for millions would certainly be interesting and memorable, but it's definitely not the campaign ending I'd prefer. So I've guaranteed the PCs start off with one advantage. They aren't evil.

It's not that an evil character could not potentially be quite useful in my game, but he or she would have to have extremely focused motivation to not gum things up. As I would prefer the PCs to triumph, I don't really want to take a chance on seeing that specific motivation roleplayed.

The problem player the OP was talking about, however, wouldn't fit well into lots of games, not just mine. There are not a lot of games (I'm pretty sure) in which everyone is playing characters who are strongly evil-aligned, and moreover have no problem with rape/pedophilia, and themselves are comfortable sitting next to someone RPing it. Just one Neutral or Good character in the party who is actually roleplayed as such and suddenly you're probably looking at losing party members at the very least and quite possibly PvP combat. And that's just inside the game, not even taking out of game problems into account. It is an act of self-indulgent destructiveness for a player to insist that because his character would do it, it's not his fault or problem if other players are offended. Players determine what their characters would or would not do. Some gamebreaking actions should be off the table from the start, unless all the players and the GM have talked about it from the get-go and have put these actions back in the "allowed" drawer.

Callista
2011-01-10, 03:09 PM
If you die no one will be able to continue the research and all the people would be left to die. :smallamused:This is why you have apprentices and keep notes.

Proper scientific procedure. Documentation. Write down your protocols so others can follow them.

(This is one of the ways in which Law serves Good...)

Sucrose
2011-01-10, 03:11 PM
If you die no one will be able to continue the research and all the people would be left to die. :smallamused:

That's what lab notebooks are for.:smalltongue:

It takes some pretty serious confidence to feel that you're the only person who could possibly understand your own research. (Edit: As was said directly above)

As for the situation itself, I'd have few issues with forcing someone to take the untested medicine, since they'll die anyway without a legitimate medical treatment. Maybe pick a prisoner who is half-dead anyway.

Ferrin
2011-01-10, 03:14 PM
This is why you have apprentices and keep notes.

Proper scientific procedure. Documentation. Write down your protocols so others can follow them.

(This is one of the ways in which Law serves Good...)

Bah, I knew I forgot something.

Ytaker
2011-01-10, 03:25 PM
It's about the traumatizing experience part, you don't survive getting killed, obviously. A lot of people get killed after being raped as well.

Seriously though, I don't play alignments, I play characters.

On a side-note, you did realize that I just stated the generic adventurer quest of "Kill those orcs and take the gold back they stole!", right?

A small number of people get revived after death. That's such a crazy story though that you'd probably find out.

Yes, and that generic quest isn't something the majority or even a minority of individuals have experienced in their life. Nor is it anywhere near as traumatizing for most individuals.

Choco
2011-01-10, 03:25 PM
It's not that an evil character could not potentially be quite useful in my game, but he or she would have to have extremely focused motivation to not gum things up. As I would prefer the PCs to triumph, I don't really want to take a chance on seeing that specific motivation roleplayed.

I am playing an evil character in a good party right now, and he has (on the surface) the most noble intentions of the group. His extremely focused motivation is to save the world, and the other PC's are the most capable group of people around that are also (somewhat) doing the same thing, so it makes sense to join them. He is the only one in the group that was actively trying to save the world from the beginning, as opposed to just stumbling upon that path while pursuing other personal goals like the rest of the party.

The group knows I am evil too, and we have had similar conversations to this before:

Party: "Why, Mr. Evildude McJackass, why are you of all people trying to save the world, we were under the impression you only care about yourself?"
Me: "Last I checked I live in the world, and if it were destroyed and/or all of its peoples enslaved, that would be very inconvenient for me."
Party: "Why did you not just join our enemy then? Surely they could offer you much more than us, a position of great power in the new order?"
Me: "You don't know how evil world-ending organizations work do you? Everyone but the one at the very top is an expendable slave who has no real power. And I am a slave to no one."

And yeah, we get along great. My character doesn't usually do anything that would be frowned upon by the rest of the party (other than having an unusually violent and messy fighting style), and is cooperative with their good plans.

Ferrin
2011-01-10, 03:33 PM
A small number of people get revived after death. That's such a crazy story though that you'd probably find out.

Yes, and that generic quest isn't something the majority or even a minority of individuals have experienced in their life. Nor is it anywhere near as traumatizing for most individuals.

Meh, a bank robbery in which people get killed might be more scary then a random murder happening in front of you. The level loss describes the trauma of the revival, I think.

Sure, it won't happen often, and nor is it as traumatizing for most individuals, but for some people it is.

Either way, bad things happen more often in medieval settings with defined racial hatred then irl. It's just that not everyone appreciates realism to that extent. Which is perfectly understandable, and I forgot if we were arguing about something. :smallconfused:

hamishspence
2011-01-10, 03:34 PM
And yeah, we get along great. My character doesn't usually do anything that would be frowned upon by the rest of the party (other than having an unusually violent and messy fighting style), and is cooperative with their good plans.

Sounds like a good way of playing it.

While this works for more Selfish evil characters- there are other ways of handling an Evil alignment- maybe making it more about what the character is willing to do, than their perspective on the world.

The

"like a good guy to most people- kind, generous, brave, altruistic, etc- but unutterably cruel and vicious to those he deems "deserving" of it"

variant, might be a good one if you consider evil deeds to be capable of changing a kind and altruistic person's alignment to Evil without removing those traits.

there's probably others.

Tyndmyr
2011-01-10, 03:46 PM
Well, for one thing, he casually breaks a man's finger for being rude to him. That's rather undeserved. He apparently does this routinely to acquire information, and torture is not an accepted method of information-gathering for Good individuals.

The finger snap is a non-good act, granted. I'd put it as solidly neutral, given that it's an unsavory act conducted for good ends(trying to stop a serial killer). You also have to recall that he was trying to gather information, so you've got someone actively insulting him, which can certainly be seen as obstruction of justice. The same attitude towards the police would likely have also had bad repercussions for the individual. Given that it's the sort of bar he went to for info on criminals, the individual may have also been a bad sort.

That said, it's still unwarranted with the information we're given, but you have to determine alignment by general behavior. One act that's a bit over the line isn't going to change alignment.

Choco
2011-01-10, 03:49 PM
The

"like a good guy to most people- kind, generous, brave, altruistic, etc- but unutterably cruel and vicious to those he deems "deserving" of it"

variant, might be a good one if you consider evil deeds to be capable of changing a kind and altruistic person's alignment to Evil without removing those traits.

there's probably others.

That is also a good one and I have done a char like that before too, but that would not work with this particular good party without him either constantly keeping his cruelty in check (which would basically mean I would be playing him like any other good character) or doing it in secret (characters constantly doing things in secret in a non-evil/political campaign is frowned upon in this group). But I have ALSO played in some less stringent good/neutral parties where the Paladin would leave the room for a breather during an interrogation, which was the mutually-understood "do what you need to do to get what we need, just don't tell me" signal. The latter sounds like what the OP's group would be closest to, so if played right it would work.

As you said there are a lot of ways to fit evil characters into good parties without everything falling apart, it all depends on the players and the PC's.

hamishspence
2011-01-10, 03:50 PM
One act that's a bit over the line isn't going to change alignment.

Is it one act though- or a representation of his normal method of getting information?

Same may apply to other scenes- some in flashback (killing horribly someone who murdered their child) some referred to in passing (throwing someone down an elevator shaft).

Plus, he's not a police officer- he has no actual authority- but has arrogated it to himself.

Sucrose
2011-01-10, 04:06 PM
The finger snap is a non-good act, granted. I'd put it as solidly neutral, given that it's an unsavory act conducted for good ends(trying to stop a serial killer). You also have to recall that he was trying to gather information, so you've got someone actively insulting him, which can certainly be seen as obstruction of justice. The same attitude towards the police would likely have also had bad repercussions for the individual. Given that it's the sort of bar he went to for info on criminals, the individual may have also been a bad sort.

That said, it's still unwarranted with the information we're given, but you have to determine alignment by general behavior. One act that's a bit over the line isn't going to change alignment.
Actively insulting someone is certainly not obstruction of justice, because talking trash about someone does not prevent them from acquiring information. His end goal is not particularly important- in his pursuit of his goal, he is showing a callous disregard for the dignity of another sentient being. Thus, Evil.

Plus, as hamishspence said, the book makes it reasonably clear that this is Rorschach's default means of information-gathering, so it is much more than one act. Thus, he commits evil acts on a regular basis. No one can do that and remain of Good alignment.

The bit about the police is both irrelevant and misleading. Yes, the police would probably look for an excuse to haul a punk in if he did that, but that's because of human vindictive tendencies, not because it is at all a just thing to do; further, they would not casually mutilate him unless they were very, very dirty cops.

Ytaker
2011-01-10, 04:11 PM
Meh, a bank robbery in which people get killed might be more scary then a random murder happening in front of you. The level loss describes the trauma of the revival, I think.

In terms of trauma, I'm generally of the mind that you should avoid forcing on anyone any experience that involved someone physically or mentally hurting them. Neither of those experiences, rare as they are, would count.


Sure, it won't happen often, and nor is it as traumatizing for most individuals, but for some people it is.

Lots of things are traumatizing. You can't avoid them all. You should just avoid the obvious ones. I have a friend who finds clowns traumatizing. I have lots of friends who find spiders traumatizing.


Either way, bad things happen more often in medieval settings with defined racial hatred then irl. It's just that not everyone appreciates realism to that extent. Which is perfectly understandable, and I forgot if we were arguing about something. :smallconfused:

Realism isn't the issue, avoiding mental breakdowns and player attrition on your table is.

Tyndmyr
2011-01-10, 04:17 PM
Is it one act though- or a representation of his normal method of getting information?

Same may apply to other scenes- some in flashback (killing horribly someone who murdered their child) some referred to in passing (throwing someone down an elevator shaft).

Plus, he's not a police officer- he has no actual authority- but has arrogated it to himself.

Well, we can extrapolate from other scenes, as well as the comic itself.

We know he used to be "soft" in his words. No-kill rule and all that, prior to the flashback event. Pre-this point, there's really no worry about his alignment whatsoever. However, this is a minority of that period of his life portrayed.

The flashback event was someone who kidnapped, abused, then murdered a child and fed her to dogs. His evilness was incredibly well established.

There's no info given about his encounter with the individual he dropped down an elevator shaft. It further establishes his tendency to deal with things in dramatic fashion, but we don't know any details about the incident. Further, if memory serves, the scene did not exist in the comic.

He used to have actual authority. The team was legit, until dissolved by what he(and more than a few others) sees as a illegit leader. Note that he mentions authority positively on multiple occasions. Note that he is absent from scenes in which the team did blatantly evil acts(firing on civilians, etc). What does a lawful good character do when the law orders evil?

Edit: This really just illustrates the limitations of the alignment system more than anything else. You can have characters that people believe to be in multiple extreme viewpoints, with legitimate arguments. I won't discount the arguments against him being good...but there's a great deal of subjectivity inherent in just about every summary of D&D alignment I've seen.

hamishspence
2011-01-10, 04:39 PM
The flashback event was someone who kidnapped, abused, then murdered a child and fed her to dogs. His evilness was incredibly well established.

It's more torturing evildoers, especially torturing them to death, than killing evildoers, that's the issue- in some sources, torture is an Always Evil act (BoED, FC2) and thus doing so consistantly is a potential sign of an evil or nongood alignment.



He used to have actual authority. The team was legit, until dissolved by what he(and more than a few others) sees as a illegit leader.

Normally, superheroes in fiction have the authority to arrest, not to punish.

TheWhisper
2011-01-10, 04:41 PM
I tend to err on the side of caution, here.

I find banning evil alignments to be very heavy handed, because one of the primary sins against fun that you can commit in an RPG is removing a player's sense of control over his avatar.

If you can't do X or Y without becoming evil, and you're not allowed to be evil, then you're telling players what they can or can't do. It's okay to have powerful NPCs, or angry mobs, try to prevent the PCs from doing this or that, but the having the universe discriminate in that way is off-limits.

After all, if they are fighting villains who murder, torture and rape, such things must be possible in the universe. The PCs do not have glowing runes that say "PC" on their foreheads. This means not only that they have no plot armor, but also that they have no plot shackles. They don't have to be virtuous if they don't want to.

So what's to prevent a PC from raping or torturing for fun?

Well:

1. The other PCs.
2. NPCs, be they law enforcement, angry mobs, rulers and nobles, other heroes, etc.
3. The fact that it's not much fun. Most of the benefits of sadism are visceral. Acting it out verbally in the abstract wouldn't be much of a kick even for someone depraved enough to enjoy it.

This last is important. Players who act out depraved fantasies are usually not acting out the fantasy of being depraved, but of not being restricted. The pleasure is in shocking the GM and possibly the other players.

A player who feels too restricted, especially by people making moral arguments, in his own life, and begins acting vicious through his PC, is expressing a legitimate psychological need.

A skilled GM (and any skilled GM is at least one part psychotherapist) can find ways to give someone like this an outlet that isn't too disruptive to the game. Find situations where he can be ruthless for a sensible reason.

Let him torture a captured villain to find out who the assassins masquerading as priests are. Let wipe out an entire village to prevent the plague from spreading. Let him play a vigilante or a noble conspiring to seize the throne.

And then let the other PCs be shocked, or disapproving, and remonstrate with him. Moral arguments in character between PCs are often good roleplaying, and good fun.

DisgruntledDM
2011-01-10, 05:13 PM
For the record, I'm banning ONE player from making evil characters, because he obviously can't handle it. He seemed to think that child molestation was somehow "funny" in this situation.

Grelna the Blue
2011-01-10, 05:16 PM
I am playing an evil character in a good party right now, and he has (on the surface) the most noble intentions of the group. His extremely focused motivation is to save the world, and the other PC's are the most capable group of people around that are also (somewhat) doing the same thing, so it makes sense to join them. He is the only one in the group that was actively trying to save the world from the beginning, as opposed to just stumbling upon that path while pursuing other personal goals like the rest of the party.

The group knows I am evil too, and we have had similar conversations to this before:

Party: "Why, Mr. Evildude McJackass, why are you of all people trying to save the world, we were under the impression you only care about yourself?"
Me: "Last I checked I live in the world, and if it were destroyed and/or all of its peoples enslaved, that would be very inconvenient for me."
Party: "Why did you not just join our enemy then? Surely they could offer you much more than us, a position of great power in the new order?"
Me: "You don't know how evil world-ending organizations work do you? Everyone but the one at the very top is an expendable slave who has no real power. And I am a slave to no one."

And yeah, we get along great. My character doesn't usually do anything that would be frowned upon by the rest of the party (other than having an unusually violent and messy fighting style), and is cooperative with their good plans.

Sounds like a really fun character. And I'd absolutely allow a player to play someone like that. Hell, the other PCs could really use someone like him. Currently they are still relatively low level (7-8) and fairly oblivious. To my frustration, they appear to be assuming that as low level characters they are unimportant bit players (despite the fact that to date they've met only one good-aligned adventuring NPC who was more than a level higher than they are now and her level was undefined but certainly not epic). They also appear to assume that friendly and personable NPCs are always friends, that NPCs never drop anything worth remembering in casual conversation unless it's all in BOLD CAPS, UNDERLINED, and that I won't allow really bad PC decisions to have a negative effect. Why they think this, I'm not sure, as two of them have played in my games before and I'd really thought they knew better. The players have, at least, eventually gotten the picture on their own that the PCs' actions can truly make a long term difference to my game world (very true--character decisions in past campaigns have quite literally rewritten the map). Unfortunately, the ones who have internalized that message are now focusing upon changing the game world in a very nonproductive way (starting a good-aligned martial order dedicated to a moderately evil dark God of War who is a big part of the problem). I'll give them an honest chance of success at that, but at the least it's not particularly helpful and won't make any difference in the end anyway if everyone gets enslaved, zombified, or eaten by orcs and ghouls.

I dunno, writing it out like this, I guess it's probably hopeless unless I just lay some of this out explicitly. I know for a fact everyone is having fun interacting with a setting in the middle of its apocalypse, but I'd hoped they'd come to certain realizations on their own without having to have their hands held. Regardless, I can't help but feel my headaches would be even worse if I had a player with one of the usual variety of evil characters.

Zeful
2011-01-10, 05:40 PM
For the record, I'm banning ONE player from making evil characters, because he obviously can't handle it. He seemed to think that child molestation was somehow "funny" in this situation.

And despite the calls of "censorship" and "strangling creativity" you are doing the right thing. If he cannot improve his character then the only sensible thing for the comfort of yourself (and thus the entire table) is not allow him to play those kinds of characters.

TinselCat
2011-01-10, 05:51 PM
I find that if depends on the player. I would allow evil characters when there is thought and logic behind the player. There are people who I play with now that I wouldn't allow to get their hands on an evil character, but there are those who will take it and play it well. If I was ever to run an evil campaign there would be just as much - if not more - story and thought behind the plot. Yet while I am hesitant to just ban evil characters outright, I would if the player would use it in a way that would be detrimental to the game.

hamishspence
2011-01-10, 05:52 PM
Yup- there are ways of playing evil characters without upsetting the rest of the players-

and players who want to be invited back should at least be aware that some things are not appropriate from the point of view of the rest of the group- and moderate their actions accordingly.

Templarkommando
2011-01-10, 09:47 PM
The only evil character that I would ever consider allowing in one of my campaigns is kind of a Darth Vader Lawful Evil character. Maybe someone out of Machiavelli's "The Prince."

Among other things, I don't want my campaign world to risk offending various sensibilities. It's entirely possible that your dnd table has someone who has been a victim of a lot of the evil things that an Orc who decides to go pedo would do in game. You don't want to hurt your other friends at the table in the name of "I'm only role-playing my character." That's not a character that's worth roleplaying, and it's not a fight you want to get into.

Slipperychicken
2011-01-10, 10:27 PM
Goodness is flat, without flavor and extremely boring... i can't play a good character...

I don't have much experience with playing Good characters in D&D (I mostly play Lawful), but good, or at least trying to do the right thing, can be very flavorful. Think about the times you've beaten yourself up for doing something you knew was wrong out of anger, greed, or convenience.

The disconnect between vague concepts like "good" and human reality can be really very profound: think of the Crusaders. Their total devotion to an institution which preached peace and love above all lead them to kill many thousands of innocents and slaughter the occupants of their holiest city. Occupants who worship the same deity, no less. Think of all the times a bully has pushed you over the edge and made you do something you would later regret. Now go back and put a sword in your hand. Congratulations, you're an interesting good character.

@OP: Banning alignments seems a tad extreme. You already know this guy; was he doing this for serious RP reasons, or was he going for hilarity/shock value? If the former, just politely tell your players that child-rape makes you uncomfortable and to please try to exclude it from further sessions. If the child-touching continues, the player, not the alignment, is at fault here.

PS: these guys were already murdering a village for money. I don't care about the "for profit = neutral" clause; It can be as Neutral as it wants, it's still just as f*cked up as doing it for ****s and giggles.

felinoel
2011-01-10, 11:27 PM
I thought everyone was mature enough to handle it.See there is your big mistake there, never think such things... never


But I decided to give him one more shot, and ruled that any character he creates in one of my games, from Star Wars to L5R, cannot be evil. Or chaotic neutral.Now this statement is just bothersome, you appear to be implying that chaos is evil, I hope you reword your statement to not imply such a thing as it is a bothersome idea that tons of people seem to have. Robin Hood, the Blues Brothers, Batman, and many other perfectly good aligned* characters were chaotic, yet not evil. I perfectly understand your reasoning for banning the alignment as Chaotic Neutral acts may be deemed evil, but you state both here and the title that you are banning evil alignments and then you say that includes Chaotic Neutral.

*Jake Blues was Chaotic Neutral while his brother, Elwood Blues, was Chaotic Good

WarKitty
2011-01-10, 11:31 PM
See there is your big mistake there, never think such things... never

Now this statement is just bothersome, you appear to be implying that chaos is evil, I hope you reword your statement to not imply such a thing as it is a bothersome idea that tons of people seem to have. Robin Hood, the Blues Brothers, Batman, and many other perfectly good aligned* characters were chaotic, yet not evil. I perfectly understand your reasoning for banning the alignment as Chaotic Neutral acts may be deemed evil, but you state both here and the title that you are banning evil alignments and then you say that includes Chaotic Neutral.

*Jake was Chaotic Neutral while his brother, Elwood, was Chaotic Good

I think it's more that the type of person who wants to play stupid evil tends also to put CN on their sheet and play it like stupid evil.

Benly
2011-01-10, 11:32 PM
Now this statement is just bothersome, you appear to be implying that chaos is evil, I hope you reword your statement to not imply such a thing as it is a bothersome idea that tons of people seem to have. Robin Hood, the Blues Brothers, Batman, and many other perfectly good aligned* characters were chaotic, yet not evil. I perfectly understand your reasoning for banning the alignment as Chaotic Neutral acts may be deemed evil, but you state both here and the title that you are banning evil alignments and then you say that includes Chaotic Neutral.

As much as I love CN, I suspect that a player who abruptly decides his PC is a murderous child molester would inevitably degenerate to Chaotic Stupid.

felinoel
2011-01-10, 11:38 PM
...

...

Yes, and I agree with you both, but it is stated both where I quoted and the title that the alignments being banned are evil and that it includes Chaotic Neutral, that implies that chaos is evil and I just wish that the OP would clarify otherwise to not spread this idea that chaos is intrinsically evil.

druid91
2011-01-10, 11:38 PM
I've been playing what amounts to a chaotic evil character in a PbP game recently. Technically he is neutral evil, but so far that just means he follows rules, They just happen to be rules of The Realms, as such they are inimical to your sanity.

He is an unashamed mass-murderer. To the point that in the free-form sandbox area where we entertain our DM in between adventures, he usually shows up wearing someone's clothes. With that someones blood all over them. It even came up as a point that he should probably be more careful in a party with three vampires. Walking around smelling like fresh blood is not a good idea when one of those vamps could casually push her way through a stone wall.

He usually kills messily and believes it all to be one big game. The multiverse is a big toy his master has provided for his enjoyment.

And so far, I have offended no-one. the more brutal killing is kept mostly off-screen and referred to via noodle incident, or he just shows up covered in blood... And I am fully expecting that the DM is rolling dice to see if I run into someone strong enough to fight back.

He has killed children and is basically the most depraved individual in the party. He is the true monster, and the party includes a devil.

But so far, most of his antics have been played for laughs, he would downright refuse to kill a party member. He actually tends to be a somewhat decent person when sufficiently content. He would kill you and watch your blood pool for amusement but he would do that to anyone. He nearly punched a hole in reality to avenge a friends death, and only stopped when the rest of the party calmed him down. And he still did enough that a massive eldritch horror has become curious.

He hopes to be standing there laughing when the multiverse collapses and dissolves into The Realms, and when it does he'll still be there. The same won't be said of nearly anything else. HE will be the winner of the great game that is planescape. Not even the lady herself will escape when the wheel breaks.

Now before I get planescape people attacking me, I realize the lady is made of unobtanium. This merely represents his belief, not any reality.

felinoel
2011-01-10, 11:47 PM
Wait a minute... I apologize deeply for this but can pedophilia actually be considered always an evil act? In the DnD world with a seemingly endless amount of differing races, many age differently, a 20 year old of one race could be considered a pedophile for being interested in a 20 year old of another race without purposefully doing so... for that matter a 20 year old of one race being interested in a 100 year old of another race could be considered a pedophile, and what of the races that do not treat their young as unknowledged beings who still need to learn about the world? Different races means different cultures and customs, even the same race could mean different cultures and customs. One cannot explicitly demand that such an act as pedophilia is an evil act.

I seriously hovered my mouse over the submit button for about five minutes unsure of whether or not to post this...

WarKitty
2011-01-10, 11:49 PM
Wait a minute... I apologize deeply for this but can pedophilia actually be considered always an evil act? In the DnD world with a seemingly endless amount of differing races, many age differently, a 20 year old of one race could be considered a pedophile for being interested in a 20 year old of another race without purposefully doing so... for that matter a 20 year old of one race being interested in a 100 year old of another race could be considered a pedophile, and what of the races that do not treat their young as unknowledged beings who still need to learn about the world? Different races means different cultures and customs, even the same race could mean different cultures and customs. One cannot explicitly demand that such an act as pedophilia is an evil act.

I seriously hovered my mouse over the submit button for about five minutes unsure of whether or not to post this...

Pedophilia is always an evil act; however what constitutes pedophila will vary. The point of pedophilia being a crime is that the child is not able to provide informed consent to sexual activity.

Benly
2011-01-10, 11:50 PM
Wait a minute... I apologize deeply for this but can pedophilia actually be considered always an evil act? In the DnD world with a seemingly endless amount of differing races, many age differently, a 20 year old of one race could be considered a pedophile for being interested in a 20 year old of another race without purposefully doing so... for that matter a 20 year old of one race being interested in a 100 year old of another race could be considered a pedophile, and what of the races that do not treat their young as unknowledged beings who still need to learn about the world? Different races means different cultures and customs, even the same race could mean different cultures and customs. One cannot explicitly demand that such an act as pedophilia is an evil act.


All this means is that pedophilia is defined as "sex with individuals who are insufficiently mature to give informed sexual consent", regardless of their race's rate of maturation. That act would still be considered evil.

felinoel
2011-01-10, 11:56 PM
Pedophilia is always an evil actWhy? It may be a traditional custom with some cultures, in fact it was pretty popular in Asia a couple hundred years ago according to this show that was on my television when I was doing something else... think it was on the History channel at the time?

I think I am going to go and delete my posts on this subject...

The Glyphstone
2011-01-11, 12:00 AM
I think I am going to go and delete my posts on this subject...

Great Modthulhu: That might be a good idea, and any further discussion on this topic should be avoided due to the incredibly high odds that it will devolve into places that shouldn't be devolved into, and topics that shouldn't be topic-ed.

druid91
2011-01-11, 12:01 AM
Why? It may be a traditional custom with some cultures, in fact it was pretty popular in Asia a couple hundred years ago according to this show that was on my television when I was doing something else... think it was on the History channel at the time?

I think I am going to go and delete my posts on this subject...

And even then, mods will still be able to see what you posted. It will never go away. You will be haunted for all eternity.:smallbiggrin::smalltongue:

felinoel
2011-01-11, 12:01 AM
Great Modthulhu: That might be a good idea, and any further discussion on this topic should be avoided due to the incredibly high odds that it will devolve into places that shouldn't be devolved into, and topics that shouldn't be topic-ed.

Yes indeed, I blame my lack of sleep, though this current topic seems to be what is the instigator of the thread itself


And even then, mods will still be able to see what you posted. It will never go away. You will be haunted for all eternity.:smallbiggrin::smalltongue:It was not the mods I was worried about, it was the fact that I was defending pedophilia as not an intrinsically evil act

druid91
2011-01-11, 12:11 AM
Yes indeed, I blame my lack of sleep, though this current topic seems to be what is the instigator of the thread itself

It was not the mods I was worried about, it was the fact that I was defending pedophilia as not an intrinsically evil act

I was merely commenting on how someone somewhere would know the things you said.:smallbiggrin: The internet knows all...

felinoel
2011-01-11, 12:16 AM
I was merely commenting on how someone somewhere would know the things you said.:smallbiggrin: The internet knows all...Yes... so to ummm... change the subject back to where I had it before I posted that...

Jake Blues is not evil! He may have been in a car driven through a mall full of people to evade the police, destroying the mall and likely injuring many in the process, but he did it because he was, "On a mission from God" and was only trying to save many orphans from losing what they considered to be their home.

Benly
2011-01-11, 12:24 AM
Yes... so to ummm... change the subject back to where I had it before I posted that...

Jake Blues is not evil! He may have been in a car driven through a mall full of people to evade the police, destroying the mall and likely injuring many in the process, but he did it because he was, "On a mission from God" and was only trying to save many orphans from losing what they considered to be their home.

It's also more allowable because he's operating on cartoon physics. When you know you're running on cartoon physics, the bounds of allowable violence are stretched and clobbering someone in the back of the head with a frying pan becomes an acceptable rebuke rather than attempted murder.

felinoel
2011-01-11, 12:31 AM
It's also more allowable because he's operating on cartoon physics. When you know you're running on cartoon physics, the bounds of allowable violence are stretched and clobbering someone in the back of the head with a frying pan becomes an acceptable rebuke rather than attempted murder.Cartoon physics? But it was a live action show? Or is that because it was a comedy?

Benly
2011-01-11, 12:34 AM
Cartoon physics? But it was a live action show? Or is that because it was a comedy?

It was live-action but the worldsetting physics were a cartoon. Car crashes are an inconvenience and comedy rather than a crippling tragedy, driving up the bridge as it lifts launches you over rather than dumping you in the river to drown, and so on.

Templarkommando
2011-01-11, 12:38 AM
See there is your big mistake there, never think such things... never

Now this statement is just bothersome, you appear to be implying that chaos is evil, I hope you reword your statement to not imply such a thing as it is a bothersome idea that tons of people seem to have. Robin Hood, the Blues Brothers, Batman, and many other perfectly good aligned* characters were chaotic, yet not evil. I perfectly understand your reasoning for banning the alignment as Chaotic Neutral acts may be deemed evil, but you state both here and the title that you are banning evil alignments and then you say that includes Chaotic Neutral.

*Jake Blues was Chaotic Neutral while his brother, Elwood Blues, was Chaotic Good

I think it really depends on the playstyle of the group. If chaotic neutral is really just a wink and a nudge away from chaotic evil for the players, it might be totally logical to explain that there is only a certain kind of character that will be tolerated within the scope of the game.

They might even be free to play a chaotic neutral character, but when the excuse for molesting children is "I'm just role playing my character," then the DM needs to put his foot down. It doesn't matter what alignment the player thinks his character is, that particular act falls decisively in the evil category(and I would argue it's enough to merit a full fledged alignment change to CE or NE), and in my campaigns the only person who plays evil characters is the DM.

Let me say this, I've seen about a dozen people try to play chaotic neutral. I've seen it done well once, and even then it was basically chaotic stupid.

felinoel
2011-01-11, 12:51 AM
It was live-action but the worldsetting physics were a cartoon. Car crashes are an inconvenience and comedy rather than a crippling tragedy, driving up the bridge as it lifts launches you over rather than dumping you in the river to drown, and so on.Car crashes were still a tragedy, the camera only focused much on the two brothers who could not be bothered by such trivial mortal matters as they were on a mission from God. I think the driving up the bridge to be launched was just to overemphasize the amount of power the new Bluesmobile had because it had cop car parts which, from what I hear, used to be an actual thing.


I think it really depends on the playstyle of the group. If chaotic neutral is really just a wink and a nudge away from chaotic evil for the players, it might be totally logical to explain that there is only a certain kind of character that will be tolerated within the scope of the game.

They might even be free to play a chaotic neutral character, but when the excuse for molesting children is "I'm just role playing my character," then the DM needs to put his foot down. It doesn't matter what alignment the player thinks his character is, that particular act falls decisively in the evil category(and I would argue it's enough to merit a full fledged alignment change to CE or NE), and in my campaigns the only person who plays evil characters is the DM.

Let me say this, I've seen about a dozen people try to play chaotic neutral. I've seen it done well once, and even then it was basically chaotic stupid.My characters generally are either CG or CN, and I weep for your experience with such players, it is because of players like that, that the alignment was wiped from existence in 4e

No offense or trolling intended with this statement in any way possible, I made a statement similar to this once before and got yelled at by a mod for trolling somehow, I just want to emphasize my point in that this is not intended in any way whatsoever to be offensive, only informative about the merits of the chaotic alignments differing from the evil one

Templarkommando
2011-01-11, 01:20 AM
My characters generally are either CG or CN, and I weep for your experience with such players, it is because of players like that, that the alignment was wiped from existence in 4e

No offense or trolling intended with this statement in any way possible, I made a statement similar to this once before and got yelled at by a mod for trolling somehow, I just want to emphasize my point in that this is not intended in any way whatsoever to be offensive, only informative about the merits of the chaotic alignments differing from the evil one


I'm sure that there are good chaotic players out there. (I've actually played with a quite few good chaotic good players) I've just had really bad luck with chaotic neutral. One good CN might be a bit pessimistic, there were three or four that made a good go of it, but it wasn't believable in my personal opinion.

felinoel
2011-01-11, 01:25 AM
I'm sure that there are good chaotic players out there. (I've actually played with a quite few good chaotic good players) I've just had really bad luck with chaotic neutral. One good CN might be a bit pessimistic, there were three or four that made a good go of it, but it wasn't believable in my personal opinion.I would imagine a CN Druid would be the best way to try to get the best out of a CN alignment, since a CN druid is supposed to be indifferent about the morality alignments...

Frozen_Feet
2011-01-11, 02:43 AM
Just something to note: I'm getting sick and tired of people arguing Rorsach is anything close to Good or Lawful.

He's a callous nihilist and a murdering vigilante who doesn't give a **** for authority, justice or rights of others outside his own deluded vision. He's conflicted and self-contradictory. He only venerates "Good" and "Humanity" as abstracts, and his attitude doesn't actually manifest as good or lawful deeds anywhere in the comic book.

If you look at him in the harsh light of D&D alignment, he's either Neutral or Chaotic Evil. Whether you find his actions sympathetic or acceptable does not even enter to it. Nothing he does displays Lawful or Good traits.

Something about aligment of horrid crimes:

Alignment works on moral absolutes. It takes cultural relativism into account only very little. Some deeds are Evil in D&D regardless of whether they're socially acceptable or not. Just because no-one mortal will bat an eyelid at an action does not mean the supernatural won't.

Thus, there should be little question whether rape, pedophila etc. are Evil. Now, how evil depends on possible mitigating factors and how much you subscribe to these (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Laconic/FateWorseThanDeath)two (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Laconic/RapeIsASpecialKindOfEvil) tropes. Suffice to say that there are people who don't give such ideas much weight - as long as you're alive, things can turn for the better. However, this does not make such deeds non-evil.

TaintedLight
2011-01-11, 03:00 AM
I haven't banned evil alignments in the past, but I'm learning to regret that decision. I don't think I'm going to in the interest of being fair to letting the players have their fun, but some people just aren't ready to handle that kind of privilege. Yes, being evil is a privilege.

I usually ask my players not to bother with an alignment. They tend to go straight to the PHB description of what each alignment is and autofill their characters' personalities every time they fill that line on the character sheet in and it produces boring, predictable roleplaying. What's even worse is not that they use their alignment as an excuse to misbehave and derail things; rather, they tend to miss the whole idea and just behave like jerks. The last evil character I DM'd for was a hexblade whose evil ways extended to... making rude and snide comments, namecalling, defying authority for the sake of being contrary, and pissing off everyone else at the table, in character and out. Thankfully, I offed him (it was a legit critical!) in a battle with some seaweed monsters, and he wised up.

Going back to what I said above about privilege, there's already a precedent in the game for players having to get DM approval for something. PrC's require the DM's blessing so why shouldn't alignments? If a player has consistently demonstrated an ability to play an alignment without wrecking everyone's fun, they can have it. If they have a history of abusing it, then they have to stick to more traditional ones until they demonstrate that they can handle it.

Stephen_E
2011-01-11, 05:17 AM
Something about aligment of horrid crimes:

Alignment works on moral absolutes. It takes cultural relativism into account only very little. Some deeds are Evil in D&D regardless of whether they're socially acceptable or not. Just because no-one mortal will bat an eyelid at an action does not mean the supernatural won't.

Thus, there should be little question whether rape, pedophila etc. are Evil. Now, how evil depends on possible mitigating factors and how much you subscribe to these (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Laconic/FateWorseThanDeath)two (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Laconic/RapeIsASpecialKindOfEvil) tropes. Suffice to say that there are people who don't give such ideas much weight - as long as you're alive, things can turn for the better. However, this does not make such deeds non-evil.

It's easy to say that alignment works on moral absolutes, except for the small matter that the claim is unsupported by the rules. The Alignment rules are throughly sprinkled with terns such as "tends to" and similiar features.
Even the term "Always" for alignments is defined as 99%.

And to take your "pedophillia = Evil" it is relatively easy to show how this falls down. Pedophillia is having sex with children. Since "children" as a definition for sexual purposes ranges from 1 day under 18 to as low as 12 it is clearly not a clearly defined act, let alone clearly evil. As a moral activity it is defined as evil because forcing someone to have sex against there will is defined as wrong/evil. We recognise that younger people can be coerced into "consenting" against their will much easier than older people. To avoid the impractical messiness of having to determine in each case whether a person was or was not capable of giving real consent societies assign a flat or semi flat age restriction.

Because of this pedophillia as an act doesn't automatically = evil.
Even leaving out the problems of precise legal definitions and going for the broad "older adult - young child" the act is only evil if it involves coercion, which while common, indeed I'd go so far as to say "the norm" doesn't preclude consensual, and therefore non-evil situations.

The same argument can be applied to pretty much any other act you'd like to define as "evil".

Stephen E

Stephen_E
2011-01-11, 05:29 AM
I haven't banned evil alignments in the past, but I'm learning to regret that decision. I don't think I'm going to in the interest of being fair to letting the players have their fun, but some people just aren't ready to handle that kind of privilege. Yes, being evil is a privilege.


I would say that "been evil is a privledge" is inaccurate.
Getting to choose what alignment you are based on what you put on your character sheet is a privledge if we are going there.

For every Evil-stupid PC I've seen I've seen 2 "I'm LG and I decide what the moral tone and allowable acts for the party are" PC. And I don't mean Paladins, although they area commonclass for this type of PC.

And lets not forget the "I'm chaotic so I'll roll a dice to see which side I fight for in this combat" and lesser variations of that. Or the "Stick up there arse" Lawdful who do a variant of the LG "I define the parties morality/actions by my alignment".

I would say that playing in a RPG is a privledge and that useing your supposed alignment as a tool to dominate and control the game is abusing that privledge.


Stephen E

Burner28
2011-01-11, 05:36 AM
Just something to note: I'm getting sick and tired of people arguing Rorsach is anything close to Good or Lawful.

He's a callous nihilist and a murdering vigilante who doesn't give a **** for authority, justice or rights of others outside his own deluded vision. He's conflicted and self-contradictory. He only venerates "Good" and "Humanity" as abstracts, and his attitude doesn't actually manifest as good or lawful deeds anywhere in the comic book.

If you look at him in the harsh light of D&D alignment, he's either Neutral or Chaotic Evil. Whether you find his actions sympathetic or acceptable does not even enter to it. Nothing he does displays Lawful or Good traits.



Yep, I do not feel that he could be seen as Good. Maybe Neutral

TaintedLight
2011-01-11, 05:39 AM
I would say that "been evil is a privledge" is inaccurate.
Getting to choose what alignment you are based on what you put on your character sheet is a privledge if we are going there.

For every Evil-stupid PC I've seen I've seen 2 "I'm LG and I decide what the moral tone and allowable acts for the party are" PC. And I don't mean Paladins, although they area commonclass for this type of PC.

And lets not forget the "I'm chaotic so I'll roll a dice to see which side I fight for in this combat" and lesser variations of that. Or the "Stick up there arse" Lawdful who do a variant of the LG "I define the parties morality/actions by my alignment".

I would say that playing in a RPG is a privledge and that useing your supposed alignment as a tool to dominate and control the game is abusing that privledge.


Stephen E

Fair point. It's not universally the case that being evil is a privilege. That's a rule that I enforce in games that I DM because it makes the games better IMO. I allow players to do things that they want to do that I am comfortable thinking won't ruin the fun of the game. Evil characters do just that in my playgroup and are therefore something that I only permit to players who can and will avoid playing in a way that ruins the game.

Frozen_Feet
2011-01-11, 06:17 AM
It's easy to say that alignment works on moral absolutes, except for the small matter that the claim is unsupported by the rules. The Alignment rules are throughly sprinkled with terns such as "tends to" and similiar features.
Even the term "Always" for alignments is defined as 99%.

D&D, especially the books specially devoted for alignment, are stock full of "never do this" or "this is always that". This is only logical, since within the system, morality is supposed to be objective - inject too much relativism into it, and it falls apart.

However, objective and absolute nature of morality does not mean there isn't variance - and those "tends to" and "always is 99%" come from description of inviduals or species. It's just an acknowledgment that people don't always act in a set way, and not every member of a sapient race holds the same worldview. It has no bearing on morality of their actions.


And to take your "pedophillia = Evil" it is relatively easy to show how this falls down. Pedophillia is having sex with children. Since "children" as a definition for sexual purposes ranges from 1 day under 18 to as low as 12 it is clearly not a clearly defined act, let alone clearly evil. As a moral activity it is defined as evil because forcing someone to have sex against there will is defined as wrong/evil. We recognise that younger people can be coerced into "consenting" against their will much easier than older people. To avoid the impractical messiness of having to determine in each case whether a person was or was not capable of giving real consent societies assign a flat or semi flat age restriction.

Because of this pedophillia as an act doesn't automatically = evil.
Even leaving out the problems of precise legal definitions and going for the broad "older adult - young child" the act is only evil if it involves coercion, which while common, indeed I'd go so far as to say "the norm" doesn't preclude consensual, and therefore non-evil situations.

The same argument can be applied to pretty much any other act you'd like to define as "evil".

Stephen E

You're working under faulty definition of pedophilia. Pedophilia is not merely "having sex with minors"; it's correctly defined as "sexual attraction towards prebuscent persons".

It is very clearly defined. It's also clear that prebuscent beings are not equipped to handle sexual encounter, either mentally or physically, leading to both mental and physical trauma. Thus, committing pedophilc acts fullfills D&D definition of "debasing innocent life for fun and profit" to a T, and are evil. No question about it.

Having sexual attraction towards 12 to 18 years olds would be more correctly referred to as ephebophilia - attraction to adolescents. Unlike pedophilia, ephebophilia is not a paraphilia (abnormal, that is), and does not count as psychological deviancy; it's normal for older humans to find adolescents attracting. It's possible for a sexual encounter with a person of that age to be non-evil, since it's possible for an adolescent to be both mentally and physically prepared for sex.

The only thing mudling the line between them is varying growth rates between inviduals; but that does not matter within the game. See below.

Legal age of consent etc. only enter into it when you're trying to decide a punishment within the law - and that's because, as you said, judge and the jury don't have complete informartion of any given case. This is different within a game. The GM is, in effect, an omniscient narrator. He knows whether consent was given, and where a given character stands on the sliding scale of physical and mental development.

Thus, the GM can always tell exactly what the act was, and also which alignment it falls in.

Earthwalker
2011-01-11, 06:18 AM
I am interestedd how people handle different alignments in the same party. If we go with a simple example of a lawful good character (not a paladin) and a chaotic evil character in the same group.

How does it make sense for them to keep adventuring together.

This is the problem I have as it always comes to a situation where one of them can't play thier character.

Say the party capture some bandits and need to find out where the bandit hide out is.

Mr LG says its ok we can track them back to thier lair. The CE guy goes no worries I will get the information and poceeds to torture the prisoners to get the information. Now the LG player is upset as he doesn't want to torture people and the CE guy is happy as he is progressing the plot.
Or you have the LG guy stopping the torture or not allowing it, the CE guy is unhappy and hates how the LGguy gets to decide the alignment of the party.

What would happen after this (if it doesn;t come to blows) is the LG and CE guys would part ways, after all, there isn't just one adventuring group in the world.

Shatteredtower
2011-01-11, 06:42 AM
If a group of players are told up front that their party was hired to slaughter a village, that's one thing. They can choose to opt out from the start, if it's an uncomfortable subject. It is the time for discussing boundaries for those who will participate.

Sadly, if you don't discuss the boundaries, there is always one person that tries to find acceptable limits and exceed them.

Give me heroes first, folks. They can be evil, but make them the sort I can cheer on as they demolish the challenges I've arranged for them. If they don't know the rest of the table, trying to get a rise out of everyone by crossing lines is not appropriate either.

We know D&D is generally a violent game because of the combat focus. We know it's not a graphic game because the consequences of violence are measured in hit points as the default, rather than gore, mutilation, and trauma.

Callista
2011-01-11, 07:03 AM
I'm pretty sure Rorschach is Lawful, actually. Personal discipline and code of honor can account for Law even when the person doesn't care about the government. The Monk is that flavor of Lawful, usually.

Earthwalker, your LG and CE guys are doing what they might realistically do, but that's not the only way it can play out. You are assuming, I think, that the players aren't working together to try to make it work. In the case of LG and CE, personality other than alignment has a lot to do with it. The LG guy might be naive or easily manipulated, and if the CE guy has a good charisma, then they'll work together just fine. Or maybe the CE guy is a family member or long-time friend of the LG person, and the LG guy is trying to reform him. Or he's a prisoner on parole that the LG party member has been given charge of. There are ways to make it work.

Ironically, outside of game, the Evil character in a Good party (and, similarly, the Good guy in an evil party) is best played by someone who cares a great deal about everyone else having just as much fun as he does.

umbrapolaris
2011-01-11, 07:05 AM
My DM don't allow us to choose our alignment, he just give us it, after some levels played depending of how we RP. so we are not bounded by the stereotype.

luckily for us we are all evil except one who is CN.

Callista
2011-01-11, 07:11 AM
I think players ought to declare and change their own alignments. That's a part of personality and it's under the player's control. But, just like your DM can stop you if you're building a really cheesy character, s/he can take you aside and tell you, "Uh, your character isn't actually Chaotic Good."

hamishspence
2011-01-11, 07:30 AM
At the start of the game, sure- but the DMG does suggest that the DM ask for evidence of behaviour that suggests an alignment change, before deciding whether or not to allow it.

That's for when the player wants to change alignment (especially if they want to do so for reasons like "reduce damage of Unholy attacks" or "be able to use that intelligent weapon without penalty").

If the DM thinks the PCs actions are suggestive of an alignment change, but the player doesn't, that's when tensions start.

Earthwalker
2011-01-11, 07:32 AM
Earthwalker, your LG and CE guys are doing what they might realistically do, but that's not the only way it can play out. You are assuming, I think, that the players aren't working together to try to make it work.

I think you are right here, it is a flaw in how I play and how I GM that I can't seem to get past. If I was playing a game and everyone was good aligned I should choose good, same if everyone was evil, I would choose evil. Choosing an opposing alignment just isn't fun for me.



In the case of LG and CE, personality other than alignment has a lot to do with it. The LG guy might be naive or easily manipulated, and if the CE guy has a good charisma, then they'll work together just fine.

Which comes across to me as the LG player not playing his character as he will just let the CE be evil and torture people even if he is opposed to it. Basically



Or maybe the CE guy is a family member or long-time friend of the LG person, and the LG guy is trying to reform him. Or he's a prisoner on parole that the LG party member has been given charge of. There are ways to make it work.

Again this works, but can turn into the CE player never doing anything evil and following like a lawful person. This again seems like not playing what he started to want to play.



Ironically, outside of game, the Evil character in a Good party (and, similarly, the Good guy in an evil party) is best played by someone who cares a great deal about everyone else having just as much fun as he does.

For me it always just starts arguements in and out of game. Or you have the CE guy going off and doing evil things the party doesn't know about. So he can play his character but gives him more screen time then others just to allow him to play who he wanted.

hamishspence
2011-01-11, 07:39 AM
You could have a CE character who constantly seeks to spread his philosophy, rather than actively doing bad things to people personally.

When dealing with Good places- he tries to instil a rebellious attitude to authority, when dealing with Lawful places he tries to instil a "pragmatic" attitude to morality-

he's always working to make the world a more Chaotic or more Evil place- yet he never does anything that the party members might feel obliged to attack him for, or kick him out for.

felinoel
2011-01-11, 11:56 AM
Just something to note: I'm getting sick and tired of people arguing Rorsach is anything close to Good or Lawful.

He's a callous nihilist and a murdering vigilante who doesn't give a **** for authority, justice or rights of others outside his own deluded vision. He's conflicted and self-contradictory. He only venerates "Good" and "Humanity" as abstracts, and his attitude doesn't actually manifest as good or lawful deeds anywhere in the comic book.

If you look at him in the harsh light of D&D alignment, he's either Neutral or Chaotic Evil. Whether you find his actions sympathetic or acceptable does not even enter to it. Nothing he does displays Lawful or Good traits.

Something about aligment of horrid crimes:

Alignment works on moral absolutes. It takes cultural relativism into account only very little. Some deeds are Evil in D&D regardless of whether they're socially acceptable or not. Just because no-one mortal will bat an eyelid at an action does not mean the supernatural won't.

Thus, there should be little question whether rape, pedophila etc. are Evil. Now, how evil depends on possible mitigating factors and how much you subscribe to these (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Laconic/FateWorseThanDeath)two (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Laconic/RapeIsASpecialKindOfEvil) tropes. Suffice to say that there are people who don't give such ideas much weight - as long as you're alive, things can turn for the better. However, this does not make such deeds non-evil.I am going to agree with you on that he is not good, in fact I think he would agree with you on that, but I'm not too sure about lawful... Aren't the good and evil alignments the morality poles while lawful and chaotic are the ethical poles? I think he might be considered ethically right by some standards of ethics, an eye for an eye?

Choco
2011-01-11, 12:23 PM
If the DM thinks the PCs actions are suggestive of an alignment change, but the player doesn't, that's when tensions start.

This is precisely the reason why it is a rule in my current group that we go by whatever the DM's interpretation of alignment is. Every single person at the table has a different opinion as to how much of the gray can be lumped in with either black or white, and in an effort to avoid causing neverending alignment arguments we all agree before the start of the game that the DM's opinions on this matter are fact in his game world.

If you are not sure where on the alignment spectrum a particular action would fall you ask the DM. If you do the action before asking and said action is against your character's alignment, the DM tells you this and gives you a chance to take it back. If you go against your alignment too often, it changes to match how you have been acting, no discussion, end of story.

Tyndmyr
2011-01-11, 01:14 PM
It's more torturing evildoers, especially torturing them to death, than killing evildoers, that's the issue- in some sources, torture is an Always Evil act (BoED, FC2) and thus doing so consistantly is a potential sign of an evil or nongood alignment.

I used core alignment rules only. You can't really mix and match alignment rules from all D&D sources and expect them to make sense.


Normally, superheroes in fiction have the authority to arrest, not to punish.

This is assuredly not the case in Watchmen, where members of the team are shown killing unarmed civilians. The same guy, in multiple incidents, with witnesses, including other team members. In fact, every single person on the team is shown using lethal force.


Just something to note: I'm getting sick and tired of people arguing Rorsach is anything close to Good or Lawful.

He's a callous nihilist and a murdering vigilante who doesn't give a **** for authority, justice or rights of others outside his own deluded vision. He's conflicted and self-contradictory. He only venerates "Good" and "Humanity" as abstracts, and his attitude doesn't actually manifest as good or lawful deeds anywhere in the comic book.

Anyone who dies for his beliefs is not a nihilist. Nihilism is a belief that life, humanity, and morals are unimportant. Rorschach certainly had morals and beliefs. They may not have been pleasant, and probably would not be considered good in the real world, but he had them, and felt quite strongly about them.

He does take a deontological approach, in that morals and ethics manifest as duties. This is an extremely lawful approach, in that it emphasizes the importance of laws and rules over things like individuality. You are right that he is not shown as particularly caring about individual humans, but an emphasis on the rules necessary for society at large over the importance of the individual is lawful. Certainly not chaotic.


If you look at him in the harsh light of D&D alignment, he's either Neutral or Chaotic Evil. Whether you find his actions sympathetic or acceptable does not even enter to it. Nothing he does displays Lawful or Good traits.

Punishing the wicked is a trait of good. Personal sacrifice is a trait of good. Rorschach demonstrates these both in abundance.

Let us look at the merely neutral definition from the srd: "People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships."

We have a clear guide that killing the innocent is evil, but sacrificing to help them is good. Doing neither is neutral. Doing both is not well covered in the SRD. Fortunately, Rorschach does not kill anyone on screen in movie or comic who is even remotely describable as innocent. The description he fits best from good, neutral and evil is good.

TheWhisper
2011-01-11, 02:17 PM
Wait a minute... I apologize deeply for this but can pedophilia actually be considered always an evil act?

In your spare time, do you go to the zoo and sprint through the big cat enclosure wearing pants made out of bacon?

Frozen_Feet
2011-01-11, 02:18 PM
I could buy Rorsach prior to Blair Roche was Lawful, and maybe even good - as back then, he worked with the police and let them arrest the criminals he caught.

However, then he snapped. Let's review what Rorsach said in prison to his shrink - about the event, and how all life is just blotches of ink, with no meaning other than that we make. In the story, the implication is quite clear - the thing he "never compromises" with is his own vision. All other visions are meaningless.

Let's review his actions - throughout the story, he shows extreme disregard toward law and society, answering the Keene act by delivering a serial rapist he murdered on the police's doorstep. His work is based on a ridiculous double-standard - he's out to make life miserable for violent criminals, but refuses to acknowledge he's one himself. This is best witnessed when he attacks the police send to arrest him, showing he's willing to go to any extent to keep doing his own thing. As noted, torture and extreme violence are implied to be common methods for him - and these are clearly condemned by D&D morality. His conflicted nature is again displayed when he objects to Adrian's actions - because Adrian's method are terror and violence, the same as Rorsach's own, just applied to a larger scale.

Rorsach's view of justice is completely abstract - it doesn't actually take real, living people into notion. He consider everyone who comes to his way an enemy. He's willing to disregard all social conventions and contracts to keep doing his own thing. I can't fathom how you can view this as anything resembling Lawful or Good.

hamishspence
2011-01-11, 04:52 PM
This is assuredly not the case in Watchmen, where members of the team are shown killing unarmed civilians. The same guy, in multiple incidents, with witnesses, including other team members. In fact, every single person on the team is shown using lethal force.

Soldiers have the authority to kill- in self defense and defense of thoses- but not the authority to mete out punishment.

At best, the characters in Watchmen might have that kind of authority- but no state gives its citizens total authority to be judge, jury and executioner.

Plus, just because members of the team might do so, doesn't mean that they have any right to do so.

That might have been one of the reasons they were disbanded in the first place- some of them were behaving in an out-of-control fashion.


We have a clear guide that killing the innocent is evil, but sacrificing to help them is good. Doing neither is neutral. Doing both is not well covered in the SRD. Fortunately, Rorschach does not kill anyone on screen in movie or comic who is even remotely describable as innocent. The description he fits best from good, neutral and evil is good.

The SRD may not cover it- but other sources (Champions of Ruin, Heroes of Horror) do.

In Heroes of Horror, a character who does both good and evil acts- and their evil acts are always toward a good end, can be a "flexible neutral" (however this may be dependant on the evil acts not being exceptionally evil.

In Champions of Ruin, characters who routinely commit evil acts, are suggested as likely to be evil aligned, even if their ends are good.

Murder can be an evil act even if the victim is "not an innocent", as can torture.

And as to "he's never harmed innocents"- it may be a passing incident only referred to- but it's still relevant- the unlucky masochist who tended to dress up like a supervillain and accost serial killers in order to get beaten up (which the other heroes simply tended to ignore)- and was dropped down an elevator shaft by Rorschach.

That character might qualify. And we never hear what the people Rorschach tortures in the bar have done- sure, some might not be "innocent"- but does that really matter?

felinoel
2011-01-11, 06:14 PM
In your spare time, do you go to the zoo and sprint through the big cat enclosure wearing pants made out of bacon?

Gotcha, according to you, ancient Asian culture was an evil culture, and please don't bring this back up anyone, this might be considered political or something and that is against the rules to speak about

Tvtyrant
2011-01-11, 06:34 PM
In game alignments are based on the premise that actions are objective, but they never tell you who decided which gods were going to be good and which ones evil and which acts are what. Basically you go with "if modern society frowns on it, its probably (but not always) bad" so killing "monsters" is okay because the objective force is humancentric, but killing "people" is bad for the same reason. Overall the game breaks down when you play "evil" players because they are treated as being fundamentally disturbed or sociopathic as opposed to being on the other side of the objecto-meter.

For instance Goblins don't slaughter other Goblins, they slaughter humans who are doing the same thing to them. They are exactly identical except for the moral-meter saying otherwise. Likewise with Dragons, Elves, etc. If your pro-human your good, pro-yourself your bad. Some things truly are evil of course (Demons and Devils and some Aberrations) but there are creatures that are basically magical animals that are tossed in the "evil" pile for eating humans. I have eaten a Dragon that my group killed and that wasn't considered evil.

The Glyphstone
2011-01-11, 06:38 PM
Great Modthulhu: Since the previous gentle nudge apparently wasn't enough, I'll be more blatant: Pedophilia or any variant there is, at the very least, a criminal activity, and thus an Inappropriate Topic. Any further mention or discussion of its morality, immorality, amorality, etc. in modern, historical, or fantastic context will result in further direct action.

Burble.

Stephen_E
2011-01-12, 01:28 AM
D&D, especially the books specially devoted for alignment, are stock full of "never do this" or "this is always that". This is only logical, since within the system, morality is supposed to be objective - inject too much relativism into it, and it falls apart.

The definitive Alignment is the PHB which doesn't use the terms you are talking about.
The books you are referring to are 3.0 splat books that don't precislly matchup with the PHB 3.0, and really can't claim much significance on 3.5.

You might as well base your alignment discussion on the Paladin prestige class from complete Scoundral that allows Paladins to commit torture.


However, objective and absolute nature of morality does not mean there isn't variance - and those "tends to" and "always is 99%" come from description of inviduals or species. It's just an acknowledgment that people don't always act in a set way, and not every member of a sapient race holds the same worldview. It has no bearing on morality of their actions.

Given that the definition of the alignments is full of "tends to" when describing and defining the alignments your argument fails. The absolute values you refer to are from the splat books that are not generally accepted for alignment discussion precisely because they don't match up.

Edited to remove stuff touching on moderators note.

Stephen E

Stephen_E
2011-01-12, 01:38 AM
Punishing the wicked is a trait of good. Personal sacrifice is a trait of good. Rorschach demonstrates these both in abundance.

Let us look at the merely neutral definition from the srd: "People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships."

We have a clear guide that killing the innocent is evil, but sacrificing to help them is good. Doing neither is neutral. Doing both is not well covered in the SRD. Fortunately, Rorschach does not kill anyone on screen in movie or comic who is even remotely describable as innocent. The description he fits best from good, neutral and evil is good.

Punishing the wicked is seen amongst Lawful as well as good, and even amongst Evil and Chaos. It isn't a trait of a specific alignment.
And Personal sacrifice is a trait of Matyrs, and Heroes. Since both of these can come from any alignment, again they fail as a basis for clear moral determinations.

The PHB definition doesn;t say "Good people make personal sacrifices, it says neutral people don't make personal sacrifices purely for the purpose of supporting good. That far from the weight of meaning you are trying to put on it.

Stephen E

Stephen_E
2011-01-12, 01:48 AM
Bring things back to the OP.

My complaint with the DM is that he is clearly running a evil campaign.

Not just that but rather than the "you are evil alignment. How does that affect they way your interact with the story" type, he is running the type where the plot in this case is actively encvouraging them to do evil atrocities and then complaining when one player takes it a step further when he intended.

The DM hired the PCs to do atrocities. Historical and current history tells you that when you encourage people to do atrocities most of them will naturally escalate those atrocities. There have been a number of psychological studies on exactly this point. So not only was the playerplaying his PC reasonably appropraitely to the character, he was playing it appropriately to the campaign as described toi us.

The bulk of the responsibility has to reside with the DM from what we have been told.

Stephen E

Paseo H
2011-01-12, 10:28 AM
That player crossed the pale, but please, it's not "bitching and moaning" to disagree stridently with your decisions. A player should be allowed to disagree with you for any reason they want, until the day of judgement, without even the least complaint from the GM.

hamishspence
2011-01-12, 11:26 AM
The definitive Alignment is the PHB which doesn't use the terms you are talking about.
The books you are referring to are 3.0 splat books that don't precislly matchup with the PHB 3.0, and really can't claim much significance on 3.5.

BoED, Heroes of Horror, Champions of Ruin, and FC2 are all 3.5, not 3.0.

BoVD is the only 3.0 book usually cited in alignment discussions- and 3.5 PHB and DMG alignment text is pretty much the same as 3.0.

And PHB is one source that says "X is an evil act" rather than "X tends to be an evil act".

Specifically, channelling negative energy in the form of rebuking undead:


"Even if the cleric is neutral, channelling positive energy is a good act, and channelling negative energy is evil"

So it's not like the splatbooks are the only sources to state flatly that certain acts are Evil (regardless of reasons).

Tiki Snakes
2011-01-12, 11:50 AM
I'd say Rorshach is a great example of the kind of 'lawful good is not awful nice' trope. Which is to say, he's either an awesome example of a different way to play LG, or a sign of everything that's wrong with the Alignment system as written, depending on your point of view.

I find it hard to argue he's anything other than Lawful though, as he's practically the only character not to sell out their values.

Paseo H
2011-01-12, 12:00 PM
Without getting into the argument of whether or not he's Lawful Good, I'd say that the Good Is Not Nice trope is very dangerous.

Why should I acknowledge the human decency of anyone who belittles me, regardless of the pretext? Heck, having a good pretext (i.e. 'tough love') is worse than a bad pretext (i.e. just for the sake of bullying) because nobody will defend the latter, while others will defend the former.

But if morality won't sway you, look at it pragmatically:

If you are thinking of being a jerkass mentor to an impressionable, loose cannon apprentice, consider that a manipulative bastard bad guy might be watching and decide to be nicer to him than you are. Who do you think will get said apprentice to be eating out of his hands? If that apprentice has any self respect, it won't be yours.

hamishspence
2011-01-12, 12:00 PM
I'd say Rorshach is a great example of the kind of 'lawful good is not awful nice' trope. Which is to say, he's either an awesome example of a different way to play LG, or a sign of everything that's wrong with the Alignment system as written, depending on your point of view.

Or possibly an example of "Lawful Evil characters can be very moral- it's just that their morality can be different from the morality of Good characters-

In this case, allowing torture and murder "for justice" yet frowning on, say, lying, even lying "to save the world".

Tiki Snakes
2011-01-12, 12:13 PM
Or possibly an example of "Lawful Evil characters can be very moral- it's just that their morality can be different from the morality of Good characters-

In this case, allowing torture and murder "for justice" yet frowning on, say, lying, even lying "to save the world".

I can agree with that. And the fact that there is such an easy blur between 'LG and LE depending on how you interpret the rules and how they interact with real morality, is a good chunk of the problem for my money.

He's a pretty awesome character, though, reguardless, to my mind.

Tyndmyr
2011-01-12, 01:06 PM
I could buy Rorsach prior to Blair Roche was Lawful, and maybe even good - as back then, he worked with the police and let them arrest the criminals he caught.

However, then he snapped. Let's review what Rorsach said in prison to his shrink - about the event, and how all life is just blotches of ink, with no meaning other than that we make. In the story, the implication is quite clear - the thing he "never compromises" with is his own vision. All other visions are meaningless.

Of course he thinks his view of the world is correct. Most people do. And yes, that was a moment of change for him, but I don't see where you get non-lawful or evil from either of those.


Let's review his actions - throughout the story, he shows extreme disregard toward law and society, answering the Keene act by delivering a serial rapist he murdered on the police's doorstep.

Again, another bad guy. I refer you back to the standard line about what a paladin might do in an evil civilization with laws he saw as allowing evil to exist.


His work is based on a ridiculous double-standard - he's out to make life miserable for violent criminals, but refuses to acknowledge he's one himself. This is best witnessed when he attacks the police send to arrest him, showing he's willing to go to any extent to keep doing his own thing.

On the contrary, despite extreme violence being used by him elsewhere, with evil people routinely turning up dead, he doesn't kill or maim the police, and is eventually taken into custody by them. He does not treat those who uphold the law equivalently with those who do not, even when he disagrees with them.


As noted, torture and extreme violence are implied to be common methods for him - and these are clearly condemned by D&D morality. His conflicted nature is again displayed when he objects to Adrian's actions - because Adrian's method are terror and violence, the same as Rorsach's own, just applied to a larger scale.

Torture is not condemned in the SRD's alignment section. I can easily see it being used as an instrument of evil, but to get the "always evil" connotation of it(ie, evil 99% of the time), you have to mash in other books. The multiple alignment standards in D&D are not consistent with each other.

Violence, even if fairly extreme, is not condemned as evil by D&D. It's routinely used as a means of solving problems by all alignments.

He objects not because Adrian's methods are terror or violence, but because it is a grand lie. This is completely consistent with a LG alignment.


Rorsach's view of justice is completely abstract - it doesn't actually take real, living people into notion. He consider everyone who comes to his way an enemy. He's willing to disregard all social conventions and contracts to keep doing his own thing. I can't fathom how you can view this as anything resembling Lawful or Good.

As already mentioned, deontological world views are extremely lawful. Someone interested in saving individuals is also good, but is likely in the neutral-chaotic end of the spectrum. A lawful person tends to see society and it's laws as more important than individual freedoms. Therefore, he will focus on fairly big-picture things, and abstract views of things are quite reasonable. Laws are abstracts.

He explicitly does not refer to everyone as an enemy, instead calling some friends. He spends a good portion of his time warning others of impending danger. That does not mesh with anything you've said.

Disregards social conventions? So? LG does not mean nice.



The PHB definition doesn;t say "Good people make personal sacrifices, it says neutral people don't make personal sacrifices purely for the purpose of supporting good. That far from the weight of meaning you are trying to put on it.

His personal sacrifices are entirely for the purpose of fighting what he sees as evil. It's certainly not beneficial to him in any way to live this lifestyle.

I agree that it's quite possible to see him as Lawful (something else) as well...the alignment systems sufficiently squishy that it's not uncommon to have multiple possibilities for any given complex character. But refusing to betray his beliefs at the cost of his own life is an extremely non-chaotic act.

And if you accept that the act of mass murder to attempt to coerce peace via a lie is evil, then opposing that is also good.

Grelna the Blue
2011-01-12, 02:19 PM
Rorshach is a fascinating character, but I don't think he's as complicated as all that. My take on Rorshach is that he was a Lawful Neutral character who believed he was Lawful Good, but only in the period before he lost his moral compass, or to be more accurate, stopped believing an outside standard of morality existed. He had believed in an black and white, objective standard of right and wrong, Good and Evil. But after the kidnaped and murdered child, as he told Dr. Long, he
Stood in firelight, sweltering. Bloodstain on chest like map of violent new continent. Felt cleansed. Felt dark planet turn under my feet and knew what cats know that makes them scream like babies in night. Looked at sky through smoke heavy with human fat and God was not there. The cold, suffocating dark goes on forever and we are alone. Live our lives, lacking anything better to do. Devise reason later. Born from oblivion; bear children, hell-bound as ourselves, go into oblivion. There is nothing else. Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose. This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. Streets stank of fire. The void breathed hard on my heart, turning it's illusions to ice, shattering them. Was reborn then, free to scrawl own design on this morally blank world. Was Rorschach. That was the point at which he suffered a violent alignment change, to a Chaotic Neutral character (who believed he was Chaotic Good). At that point he still had moral beliefs, but they were purely a personal code for which he no longer believed there was any ouside justification. If he became more violent (as he did), there was no longer any standard by which he believed he could be judged.

true_shinken
2011-01-12, 03:43 PM
my favorite characters are generally villains and anti-heroes: Darth Vader & Darth Sidious, Elric of Melniboné, Raho , Kenshiro or Rei (fist of the north star), Vegeta, dirty Harry, etc...
Congratulations, you just proved me right.
Kenshiro and Rei are definitely Good. Did you read the manga at all? All Kenshiro does is walk around saving people. He is called the saviour more than once.

hamishspence
2011-01-12, 03:53 PM
Torture is not condemned in the SRD's alignment section. I can easily see it being used as an instrument of evil, but to get the "always evil" connotation of it(ie, evil 99% of the time), you have to mash in other books. The multiple alignment standards in D&D are not consistent with each other.

Going by Fiendish Codex 2, it's evil 100% of the time- it's listed as a corrupt act, which can be anything from 1 point (no physical damage) to 7 points ("indescribable"). And BoED also lists it that way.

Most of the alignment standards are consistant- multiple books list torture as Evil (BoED, FC2) and multiple books list slavery as evil (BoED, Cityscape).

Where does "Always means 99% of the time" come from? MM says that when a being's alignment is listed as "Always X" exceptions are either unique or rare- but that's not necessarily applicable to other cases.

TheWhisper
2011-01-12, 06:04 PM
Going by Fiendish Codex 2, it's evil 100% of the time- it's listed as a corrupt act, which can be anything from 1 point (no physical damage) to 7 points ("indescribable"). And BoED also lists it that way.

Most of the alignment standards are consistant- multiple books list torture as Evil (BoED, FC2) and multiple books list slavery as evil (BoED, Cityscape).

Where does "Always means 99% of the time" come from? MM says that when a being's alignment is listed as "Always X" exceptions are either unique or rare- but that's not necessarily applicable to other cases.

Okay, so let me get this straight.

Condemning souls to be tortured in the Nine Hells for eternity for their crimes: good.
Torturing people on earth for their crimes, for a limited period of time: evil.

That about sum it up?

true_shinken
2011-01-12, 06:33 PM
Condemning souls to be tortured in the Nine Hells for eternity for their crimes: good.
Torturing people on earth for their crimes, for a limited period of time: evil.

That about sum it up?

No. A good character does not condemn anyone to be tortured in the Nine Hells for their crimes. Evil characters condemn themselves to be tortured in the Nine Hells by being, ya know, evil and stuff.

TheWhisper
2011-01-12, 06:42 PM
No. A good character does not condemn anyone to be tortured in the Nine Hells for their crimes.

A good god, however, does. This is in the sourcebooks, from that big story about Asmodeus and the Pact, etc.


Evil characters condemn themselves to be tortured in the Nine Hells by being, ya know, evil and stuff.

By this reasoning, criminals condemn themselves to be tortured during their lives by, you know, committing crimes and stuff.

true_shinken
2011-01-12, 06:44 PM
A good god, however, does. This is in the sourcebooks, from that big story about Asmodeus and the Pact, etc.
Gods and alignments =/= mortals and alignments. Don't mix and match.


By this reasoning, criminals condemn themselves to be tortured during their lives by, you know, committing crimes and stuff.
See above. Gods and mortals work on different levels.

TheWhisper
2011-01-12, 06:47 PM
Gods and alignments =/= mortals and alignments. Don't mix and match.


See above. Gods and mortals work on different levels.

So torture is good if the gods do it, but evil if mortals do it.

Okay, at which divine rank does torture become acceptable? Can demigods do it, or just full deities?

true_shinken
2011-01-12, 06:50 PM
So torture is good if the gods do it, but evil if mortals do it.
If cop A arrests someone then cop B tortures him, is cop A evil? Because you're basically saying he is.

Jayabalard
2011-01-12, 06:55 PM
Okay, so let me get this straight.

Condemning souls to be tortured in the Nine Hells for eternity for their crimes: good.
Torturing people on earth for their crimes, for a limited period of time: evil.

That about sum it up?No
Torturing people on earth for their crimes, for a limited period of time: evil.
Condemning souls to be tortured in the Nine Hells for eternity for their crimes: is.

It's not good, not evil, not even neutral. It just is.