Choatic lawful evil good

[Immabozo]

So I have a friend who plays the whole spectrum of alignments. At least supposedly.

His Lawful Good characters are more chaotically evil than his chaotic evil characters.

I was thinking about this. His justifications were iffy at best, bust no matter the game, he has the gift for talking his way into/out of anything. We, or at least I, call him Captain Propaganda.

But can anyone think of a justification for shenanigans like this?

All I could come up with was a line from "Closing Time" be Semisonic. "Every new beginning comes from some other beginning's end."

[holywhippet]

Multiple personality disorder in either the player or the character? Low INT/WIS so they don't realize how badly they are acting?

[Immabozo]

Multiple personality disorder in either the player or the character? Low INT/WIS so they don't realize how badly they are acting?

just a particularly evil player, plays evil when he is forced to play good.

Like killing a whole town because there is a demon somewhere in there. Like the ends justify the means.

[Sith_Happens]

just a particularly evil player, plays evil when he is forced to play good.

Like killing a whole town because there is a demon somewhere in there. Like the ends justify the means.

That's called "dropping to Evil so fast you leave skid marks on the alignment chart."

[Epsilon Rose]

Normally I'm not a fan of the alignment chart. I like to build characters with personalities and motivations, not alignments. This often leads to non-standard alignments (I'm currently playing a 10-year old with a wis of 7, her alignment is "Innocent") or odd interpretations of alignments (like LE characters who fund orphanages and public education).

Normally, I'd want more concrete description of what he's doing and the justifications he gives. I've had LE characters who have done more good than any number of LG clerics and paladins. That good was incidental to their actual goals, but it still happens. This is a game of storytelling, so the context and reasoning of a character are immensely important.

That said, after reading this:

just a particularly evil player, plays evil when he is forced to play good.

Like killing a whole town because there is a demon somewhere in there. Like the ends justify the means.

I'm going to lean towards it being a bit of BS. There's definitely a place for practical good, but nuking a town for a single demon requires some fairly major mitigating circumstances.

One thing I'd like to mention though, you said "...when he is forced to play good." It might be that he doesn't actually want to play a good character and resents being made to. Personally, I'd be pretty annoyed if someone placed such a heavy restriction on the kinds of characters I could build. I don't think I'd go around setting fire to the setting, but I can't picture it ending too well (I might just refuse to play).

[nedz]

How do the rest of the party react ?
Peer pressure is very powerful, also the other members of a good party should be appalled by this sort of thing.

[Slipperychicken]

If someone writes "good" on the sheet and plays like an evil sonofabitch, just change the sheet. Simple as that.

[nedz]

If someone writes "good" on the sheet and plays like an evil sonofabitch, just change the sheet. Simple as that.

Or you could just have some friendly NPC cast Holy Word during a scrap, and make the 'evil' PC take the effect. Bonus points if the enemy are neutral. Should make for an interesting discussion.

[Dimcair]

can't say that i like alignments either. Just changed my character from a generic cleric of lathander to a chaotic neutral rogue. the problem? i was playing a good cleric of skull*****ing undeads (sun and fire domain) and the other player came up with the genius idea to play a necromancy wizard. after his raised skelleton rolled a 1 on an attack roll and hit one of our guys ...well.... his undead creatures never lived especially long. (R.I.P. Mr. Rogers and Teacup). A pain in the ass though to play according to your alignment if it ruins fun for other people. But you can't just stand there and watch how corpses being abused as a good cleric...

[Slipperychicken]

can't say that i like alignments either. Just changed my character from a generic cleric of lathander to a chaotic neutral rogue. the problem? i was playing a good cleric of skull*****ing undeads (sun and fire domain) and the other player came up with the genius idea to play a necromancy wizard. after his raised skelleton rolled a 1 on an attack roll and hit one of our guys ...well.... his undead creatures never lived especially long. (R.I.P. Mr. Rogers and Teacup). A pain in the ass though to play according to your alignment if it ruins fun for other people. But you can't just stand there and watch how corpses being abused as a good cleric...

Always check party composition before play. If I have conflicts like that, I talk to the other players/DM about ways to make it work. If we're completely stumped and can't think of anything, I play a different character.

[hamishspence]

Or you could just have some friendly NPC cast Holy Word during a scrap, and make the 'evil' PC take the effect. Bonus points if the enemy are neutral. Should make for an interesting discussion.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20060505a

If you act evil, speak evil, and do evil, then when someone casts detect evil on you it's going to come up showing that you are evil, regardless of what you have written on your character sheet. Your holy weapon will start giving you a negative level, your good NPC allies will abandon or turn on you, and all the crying that "I'm good, I'm good, see it's right here!" doesn't mean a darn thing.

[Tylorious]

any action can be explained in any way, so what i am seeing is two completely different mindsets in your friend. Sounds like it is a little too easy for them to switch sides. I would be cautious :smalltongue:

[NichG]

I find that some players don't mind playing evil, but they don't like people calling them on it, even if it has no real mechanical effect on play. Saying 'what you just did was evil' will start massive arguments and attempts to justify the actions, even if the person isn't playing a class that cares about alignment, isn't being hit by alignment-influenced spell effects, etc.

So my suggestion is to defeat the problem by pointedly ignoring it. Do not ask him nor let him assign an alignment to his characters, and don't try to make a big deal about his alignment during game when its not called out by mechanics of some form. Even then, try not to talk through the ramifications of his alignment when it interacts with mechanics that he can't actually perceive.

For example, if a paladin pings him with detect evil, he might be able to spellcraft that detect evil was used on him, but he can't actually get what the spell told the paladin. So don't say 'the paladin hits you with detect evil and you ping', but instead say 'the paladin concentrates on you briefly'.

Then evaluate his alignment strictly based on his up-front actions, ignoring any rationalizations or justifications on his part.

This basically works as long as he's not playing a Paladin himself.

[Immabozo]

It usually doesn't matter in gameplay, just a thought, wanted to see what people had to say about it. Thought it was odd, yet funny

[nedz]

It usually doesn't matter in gameplay, just a thought, wanted to see what people had to say about it. Thought it was odd, yet funny

But at some point it will matter, at which point you get to have the row. :smallsigh:

I normally ask my Players what they think their alignment is, and then ask questions based upon their actions. Ideally the other players will comment on the discussion.

[Coidzor]

It usually doesn't matter in gameplay, just a thought, wanted to see what people had to say about it. Thought it was odd, yet funny

Hey, you guys play the game the way that you all want to play it. As long as he's not making the game a drag for the rest of the group and you're all actually OK with it rather than being buffaloed, whatever.

That said, you really didn't put him or the game forward in a way that'd give a good first impression.

[littlebum2002]

I'd give him a helm of Opposite Alignment, just to see what happens.

[nedz]

I'd give him a helm of Opposite Alignment, just to see what happens.

Careful, his head might explode — the player's that is :smallbiggrin:

I suspect that it would make no difference.

[Immabozo]

Hey, you guys play the game the way that you all want to play it. As long as he's not making the game a drag for the rest of the group and you're all actually OK with it rather than being buffaloed, whatever.

That said, you really didn't put him or the game forward in a way that'd give a good first impression.

Well, like I said, his nickname is Captain Propaganda and he can and does routinely talk his way into and out of things - no matter the game.

But it has never been a horrible campaign thing, it's usually highly amusing (I have personally only played with him as a player once, he DMed after that, these are mostly stories I've heard)

[Shining Wrath]

It's just post-hoc reasoning.

"I want to act thusly; but my alignment is X; therefore, I act as I desire and find reasons why my desired course of action is in accordance with my professed alignment."

Don't want to bring down the wrath of moderators but if you try you can find numerous historical examples of people who were doing horrible things but said they were really Good.

More rarely, you can find people who did good things but felt shame for doing them.

You can also find examples where freedom produced order and attempts to impose order produced chaos.


just a particularly evil player, plays evil when he is forced to play good.

Like killing a whole town because there is a demon somewhere in there. Like the ends justify the means.

"Kill them all, God will know His own" is a real quote from a real life situation.

The guy who said that thought he was good.

For an OotS example, I give you Miko! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0406.html)

[TuggyNE]

Or you could just have some friendly NPC cast Holy Word during a scrap, and make the 'evil' PC take the effect. Bonus points if the enemy are neutral. Should make for an interesting discussion.

Better yet, unholy word or unholy blight, and the PC in question is pointedly immune. That way, if they want to argue that they're still actually good, they're directly arguing for damage and/or a status condition.

[Steward]

So, for some reason he has to pretend that the reason he killed everyone in a town was because there was a demon there and the rest of you have to pretend that you found this clever or convincing...?

Do you (as players) get anything out of that exercise? If so, then it's great but honestly I would find it irritating to have to pretend to be fooled by something so transparent, and if I was the player I would be annoyed at being made to write down stuff on my character sheet that I wasn't going to use. Kind of like making someone write down "wizard" as their class even though they will be playing a half-elf ranger...

[Dr. Cliché]

Like killing a whole town because there is a demon somewhere in there. Like the ends justify the means.

So... when you say he talked his way out of that, what exactly did he say?

I mean, was that *it*? If so, I think the problem is you allowing him to use crap excuses. :smalltongue:

For example, how about some follow up questions:

1) How exactly did he kill the town, and why? Did he nuke it with a fireball, did he slaughter every occupant one by one, did he poison the water supply?

And, why did he do it? Was the demon disguised as a townsperson or something? If so, I think there are some spells that could help out here...

2) Was killing the entire town the only option available? If so, why? How was this the only way that the demon could be killed?

NOTE: If the answer to #2 is 'no' (i.e. there were other options available), then the character is unequivocally evil. That 'ends justify the means' stuff doesn't work unless it's the only option available. If it was just the easiest option, then you're just being lazy and evil.

3) Was the threat of leaving the demon alive greater than the destruction caused by killing him?

4) Are you 100% certain that he killed the demon? I mean, they tend to be more canny than your average townsperson (and many can teleport at will) - so it could be that he killed everyone in town *except* the demon.

[Randomocity132]

So... when you say he talked his way out of that, what exactly did he say?

I mean, was that *it*? If so, I think the problem is you allowing him to use crap excuses. :smalltongue:

For example, how about some follow up questions:

1) How exactly did he kill the town, and why? Did he nuke it with a fireball, did he slaughter every occupant one by one, did he poison the water supply?

And, why did he do it? Was the demon disguised as a townsperson or something? If so, I think there are some spells that could help out here...

2) Was killing the entire town the only option available? If so, why? How was this the only way that the demon could be killed?

NOTE: If the answer to #2 is 'no' (i.e. there were other options available), then the character is unequivocally evil. That 'ends justify the means' stuff doesn't work unless it's the only option available. If it was just the easiest option, then you're just being lazy and evil.

3) Was the threat of leaving the demon alive greater than the destruction caused by killing him?

4) Are you 100% certain that he killed the demon? I mean, they tend to be more canny than your average townsperson (and many can teleport at will) - so it could be that he killed everyone in town *except* the demon.

If I had to guess, I'd say the OP pulled that as a hypothetical example of something he might do, rather than something he actually did.

[NichG]

I don't think anyone is really being 'fooled' by this player's excuses or 'forced' to accept them here. Its pretty clear the OP full well realizes that the excuses are crap and that the character is basically just evil.

It sounds more like its just kind of sad/embarassing to watch the player try to pull this stuff. I mean, if the player's behavior isn't actually making the game less fun, I can see it sort of like a 'cmon man, just put evil on your sheet and move on, we don't care' when the guy is vehemently arguing 'nonono, see, I'm lawful good because...'

[Coidzor]

I don't think anyone is really being 'fooled' by this player's excuses or 'forced' to accept them here. Its pretty clear the OP full well realizes that the excuses are crap and that the character is basically just evil.

It sounds more like its just kind of sad/embarassing to watch the player try to pull this stuff. I mean, if the player's behavior isn't actually making the game less fun, I can see it sort of like a 'cmon man, just put evil on your sheet and move on, we don't care' when the guy is vehemently arguing 'nonono, see, I'm lawful good because...'

It sorta reminds me of when someone thinks that Space Marines from Warhammer 40K are paragons of virtue or that Jaime Lannister is a Paladin instead of, well, Space Marines and Jaime Lannister, respectively.

[137beth]

It's just post-hoc reasoning.

"I want to act thusly; but my alignment is X; therefore, I act as I desire and find reasons why my desired course of action is in accordance with my professed alignment."

Don't want to bring down the wrath of moderators but if you try you can find numerous historical examples of people who were doing horrible things but said they were really Good.

More rarely, you can find people who did good things but felt shame for doing them.

You can also find examples where freedom produced order and attempts to impose order produced chaos.



"Kill them all, God will know His own" is a real quote from a real life situation.

The guy who said that thought he was good.

For an OotS example, I give you Miko! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0406.html)

I was waiting to see how long this thread could go without SOMEONE mentioning the forum's favorite fallen paladin (who, coincidentally, is also the forum's least favorite fallen paladin:smalltongue:)


3) Was the threat of leaving the demon alive greater than the destruction caused by killing him?
This is important. Unfortunately, there aren't many situations where it works out in the player's favor--if it was a demon that could easily cause more destruction than burning down a village, it was almost certainly either immune to fire, could teleport, or both. A dretch isn't worth burning down a village for. A Balor won't be phased by your petty village burning. Either way, the PC in question wasn't making a particularly 'Good' decision.


'nonono, see, I'm lawful good because...'
Well, if this thread turns into a long argument, that would be a great case in favor of him being Lawful, considering that most huge forum arguments on D&D forums seem to be about paladins and monks! In fact, I'd say that if any 25+ page forum argument primarily concerns a single character, there is an extremely high chance that said character is a paladin or monk, and at least a 45% chance they are a paladin. So really, if he wants to prove he is Lawful Good, all he needs to do is get on the forums and keep this thread going.

[TuggyNE]

So really, if he wants to prove he is Lawful GoodEvil, all he needs to do is get on the forums and keep this thread going.

Fixed that for you. :smalltongue:

[Immabozo]

If I had to guess, I'd say the OP pulled that as a hypothetical example of something he might do, rather than something he actually did.

This particular one was given to me as an example of some of the ridiculous shenanigans this player gets into.

Reminds me of my first character's motto, "if you are not cheating, you are not trying" but that's neither here nor there.

As far as the "propaganda wheel" this player spins, I always see through it and it astounds me that other players fall prey to it so often. But alas, they do.

[Tevesh]

Sounds like he's got a high Charisma score.

You should put some serious ranks in Sense Motive.

Make a list for yourself of acts that are definitely evil. When he crosses this over, don't make a big deal over it. Just shift his alignment and have him deal with the consequences later. Holy Word is a great example.

[Squirrel_Dude]

If he's justifying his actions by his alignment, then he's doing it wrong. AKA, "it's okay if I kill that random guy because I'm chaotic," is wrong. Alignment doesn't define your character, it's defined by your character's personality and actions.

I've never found it that hard of a tool to implement.

[Immabozo]

Sounds like he's got a high Charisma score.

You should put some serious ranks in Sense Motive.

Make a list for yourself of acts that are definitely evil. When he crosses this over, don't make a big deal over it. Just shift his alignment and have him deal with the consequences later. Holy Word is a great example.

I think a gold dragon would have only a slightly higher charisma score!

Trust me, I did, haha. Everyone else is a little for behind

[Dr. Cliché]

I think a gold dragon would have only a slightly higher charisma score!

(about dragons) 'And they are said to be silver tongued,' said Wonse. The Patrician leaned back in his chair.
'Only silver?' he said.
~Guards Guards