PDA

View Full Version : Playing with alignments - comments?



Foxer
2007-02-23, 06:39 AM
Reading through these boards recently, I've been fascinated by some of the alignment-based arguements I've seen. The D&D alignment system has always been something I've disliked about the game, but I'm revising my position. I've roughed out two concepts for characters with offbeat alignments below, and I'd be interested in what other people here think.

Both men are members of a knightly order that serves a Lawful Good god. The knights are expected to adhere to a strict code of conduct laid down in ages past by the god himself. The code is obviously a Lawful document, but is intended to reinforce Good-aligned behaviour.

The Lawful Evil Hero

Sir Ranulph is widely regarded as one of the greatest knights of his order, the Knights of the Red Flame. Normally, knights of this order are Lawful Good, since they serve a Lawful Good deity, and many are classed as Paladins rather than Fighters.

Sir Ranulph himself is a 5th-level fighter. When he was just a lad, a party of knights passed through his village on their way to clear out a nest of hobgoblins who had been raiding in the area. Ranulph was impressed by the strength and granduer of the men and women he saw, and the way his family and friends defered to them. Even at that tender age, Ranulph - a weak and sickly child - decided that being a knight was the life for him. He worked out to improve his physique, and saved up whatever money he could to buy equipment and pay for some instruction in the arts of war. Then, when he was sixteen he joined an adventuring band in order to get some experience "in the field". Upon reaching second level, he applied to join the Knights and was accepted.

His Lawful alignment means that Ranulph follows the knightly code of his order to the letter. He is a stalwart defender of the realm, courteous to his juniors in the order, and follows orders issued by his superiors without question. Although he is touchy when it comes to his relations with the commoners under his protection, expecting and demanding the respect and
deference that are his due as a heroic knight, he wouldn't dream of dishonouring his vows by oppressing the commons or abusing his powers.

However, Ranulph is doing the right things for all the wrong reasons. He doesn't defend the weak out of a sense of compassion for their plight, but purely for the respect and power it brings him. In battle, he is a merciless opponent, and has been censured by his superiors for refusing the surrender of a group of human brigands. He also shows little concern for his
comrades. He will defend and support them in the line of battle, since it is demanded by the code and increases his own chances of survival, but otherwise shows little concern for their welfare. If a comrade loses his supplies when on the march, Sir Ranulph certainly wouldn't offer to share his own provisions, for instance, although, since the code requires him to aid another knight in distress, he wouldn't refuse to do so if asked.

Ranulph hopes for further advancement in the order, and is seeking an advantageous marriage. The object of his desire is the daughter and heir of an elderly nobleman who is not expected to live long, and Ranulph is pressing the old man to make the appropriate arrangements. Meanwhile, the girl herself is hoping to marry a younger knight in the order, for the two are very much in love, but cannot do so without her father's permission. As soon as her father dies, her paramour will formally propose and the two will marry. Ranulph selfishly intends to prevent this, and is striving to convince her father that he would be a better match.

Opinions of Ranulph amongst the Order's hierarchy are divided. He has enemies amongst the Paladins, who can detect the evil in him. On the other hand, many others admire his textbook adherence to the Code and have a sneaking admiration for his ability to 'get the job done'. The Knights of the Inner Circle have prayed to their god for guidence, of course, but an answer has not yet been given.

The Chaotic Good Paladin

Sir Ranulph's love-rival is a younger knight (Paladin 1/ Fighter 1)by the name of Sir David. Orphaned at an early age, David was raised by a Knight of the Inner Circle, and naturally became a knight himself when he came of age. David doesn't need the knightly code to do the right thing - he is naturally a compassionate man, kind and courteous to strangers and always willing to step in to protect the weak or oppressed. However, his chaotic nature (no doubt a reaction to having been brought up in the somewhat austere confines of the Inner Circle's headquarters) means he has endless trouble adhering to the letter of the code.

He shirks those duties he finds pointless or excessively tedious, drinks copiously, womanises shamelessly, gambles away his wages and has been censured repeatedly for bringing his fellow knights into disrepute.

However, unlike Ranulph, David genuinely believes in the aims and ideals of the Order of the Red Flame, and - underneath a surface layer of irreverence - he is a genuine and pious believer in the Order's (Lawful Good) divine patron. Indeed, despite the alignment difference between himself and his god, his real piety might have led him to seek a role in the god's priesthood. However, David is in love and wants to marry, and the priesthood are celibate.

David had decided, then, that the best course of action open to him would be to leave the order (before Sir Ranulph gets him thrown out!) and elope with his paramour, despite her father's objections - reasoning that it is often easier to ask forgiveness than to obtain permission. However, it was at this point that his god took a hand in matters. The god felt that David had a great future in the Knights, and did not want to lose his services. Furthermore, the god felt that David would not only shake things up amongst the Knights of the Red Flame, but would also serve as a timely reminder to the older and more hidebound knights that the Good spirit of their code is often more important than the Lawful letter. Waiving the normal alignment-restriction he bestowed on Sir David the powers of a Paladin as a sign of his favour.

No-one was more surprised by this than Sir David, who is now trying to clean up his act! Meanwhile, the Inner Circle have again prayed for guidance, but - as with Sir Ranulph - their god remains silent, expecting his followers to puzzle out his signs for themselves.

Development Ideas

The god the Knights of the Red Flame serve has a plan for both men. It is his hope than David's example will inspire Sir Ranulph to change his ways, slowly shifting his alignment to Lawful Neutral, and then to Lawful Good. Ranulph is intelligent and self-disciplined, and the god foresees a reformed Sir Ranulph one day becoming the most successful Master the Order has
ever known. The charismatic David, he hopes will learn the vital self-discipline of a true knight (shifting to Neutral- and then Lawful Good), and go on to revitalise the order, inspiring a new generation through his heroic deeds.

Of course, both men have free will. Ranulph, if thwarted in his efforts to advance in the order, might fall deeper into evil, twisting the Code for his own advantage. David, despite the unusual degree of divine favour he has been shown, might yet fail to overcome his chaotic nature, and leave the order anyway.

What do people think?

InaVegt
2007-02-23, 06:46 AM
This is very interesting, and Ranulph is a character I'd rather have in my game than, let's say, miko. Yes, Ranulph might be evil, but he's doing the right thing anyway. While he's doing them for the wrong reasons there's no reason he couldn't become listed in the books of history as a hero, not a villain.

Tormsskull
2007-02-23, 07:14 AM
I'm not sure exactly what you are asking for. Both are viable concepts, both have a lot of role-play potential.

Nitpick:



The god felt that David had a great future in the Knights, and did not want to lose his services. Furthermore, the god felt that David would not only shake things up amongst the Knights of the Red Flame, but would also serve as a timely reminder to the older and more hidebound knights that the Good spirit of their code is often more important than the Lawful letter. Waiving the normal alignment-restriction he bestowed on Sir Ranulph the powers of a Paladin as a sign of his favour.


emphasis mine.

I'm sure that was supposed to read: Sir David.

I think both fit their alignments fairly well, and I think the outcome between the two of them would be interesting to see.

Foxer
2007-02-23, 07:21 AM
I'm not sure exactly what you are asking for. Both are viable concepts, both have a lot of role-play potential.

I'm sure that was supposed to read: Sir David.

I think both fit their alignments fairly well, and I think the outcome between the two of them would be interesting to see.

Thanks for the nitpick - could of sworn I caught that one when I read it through. Fixed now.

But, yeah, you answered my questions: do they fit their given alignments? Would they be playable? Are these interesting ways of handling offbeat alignments? I mean, I've seen and played Sir Ranulph-type characters before - has it been done to death?

Does anyone have any other ideas for characters with similarly skewed alignments?

Dark
2007-02-23, 07:30 AM
I'm wondering whether Sir David still has to follow the paladin's code. Or was that waived along with the alignment restriction?

Renegade Paladin
2007-02-23, 07:42 AM
Well if he strictly adheres to the Code, his alignment will drift to lawful soon enough anyway.

Yuki Akuma
2007-02-23, 08:25 AM
You might want to use the Paladin of Freedom variant for Sir David, if you want him to stay Chaotic. You can find it here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm).

Foxer
2007-02-23, 08:46 AM
I'm wondering whether Sir David still has to follow the paladin's code. Or was that waived along with the alignment restriction?

Sir David should be largely following the paladin's code since he is already good, if not lawful. Obviously, some of the more lawful-oriented strictures - such as obeying authority, not lying and not cheating - won't come naturally to him, but, so long as he is genuinely trying to improve his record in these matters, I imagine his divine patron will cut him a little slack.

As RenegadePaladin pointed out, obeying the code will cause his alignment to slide over towards Lawful Good in pretty short order, anyway, which is what his god intends.

EvilElitest
2007-02-23, 10:55 PM
{The following paragraph will be done in a high class English accent}
That is a great way to use the D&D aligment system, well done i appauld you. I myself have often made charcter like Raphel, who do good but for evil reason. Well done old chap.
From,
EE

Counterpower
2007-02-23, 11:11 PM
First: REALLY cool. I like these characters a lot.

That said: In my D&D game, Ranulph would probably be LN, not LE. Doing the right things for the wrong reasons is still doing the right things, after all. My take on alignments:

Good- The right things for the right reasons. Mercy, charity, helping others, forgiveness, all with the intent to do so, is Good in my game.

Neutral- Two choices here. First, the wrong things for the right reasons. Misguided is not Good. For example, killing hundreds of innocents to save thousands is not Good. But it is still good enough to warrant a Neutral alignment. Second, Ranulph. The right things for the wrong reasons. This is most assuredly not Good; saving innocents solely so that they will sing your praises is not Good. Then again, at least you saved them.

Evil- The wrong actions for the wrong reasons. Murdering hundreds, forcing a group of bards to sing your praises.......... that warrants LE.

Edit: Small nitpick I just noticed: Paladins wouldn't be able to detect Ranulph's evil, even if he is LE. Detect evil detects auras, which a fighter does not have.

EvilElitest
2007-02-23, 11:27 PM
First: REALLY cool. I like these characters a lot.

That said: In my D&D game, Ranulph would probably be LN, not LE. Doing the right things for the wrong reasons is still doing the right things, after all. My take on alignments:

Good- The right things for the right reasons. Mercy, charity, helping others, forgiveness, all with the intent to do so, is Good in my game.

Neutral- Two choices here. First, the wrong things for the right reasons. Misguided is not Good. For example, killing hundreds of innocents to save thousands is not Good. But it is still good enough to warrant a Neutral alignment. Second, Ranulph. The right things for the wrong reasons. This is most assuredly not Good; saving innocents solely so that they will sing your praises is not Good. Then again, at least you saved them.

Evil- The wrong actions for the wrong reasons. Murdering hundreds, forcing a group of bards to sing your praises.......... that warrants LE.

Edit: Small nitpick I just noticed: Paladins wouldn't be able to detect Ranulph's evil, even if he is LE. Detect evil detects auras, which a fighter does not have.

I'm pretty sure that killing hundreds of innocent people is evil. The person in quesiton would not think themself as evil, but it is evil. Ranulph would be evil, because he is willing of doing evil to acheive his ends, which just happen to be good. But the intent is still evil. On the other end of the spectrom, action make you evil as well. So if you good do with evil intent, your evil, and if you do evil with good intentions, your evil? Why, because it is easier to be evil than good. You have to do good with good intentions, or just do your own things. If you avoided dealing with a probelm that killed hunreds of innocent people, but the problem was not your duty anyways then you are Neutral. If you are complely self serving but will not commite vile acts, then you are CN.
From,
EE

Fhaolan
2007-02-23, 11:38 PM
Well done. You've used the alignments as a description of their typical behaviour and motivations, rather than a requirement they are forced to follow. These are viable characters. There's a bit of rules-handwaving around the Chaotic Good Paladin but as described I would say that's fully justified. You may not be following the letter of the rules, but the spirit is there in full. [Hmmm... kind of a Chaotic feel about that statement in and of itself, isn't it? :smallsmile: ]

Now, if you could get players to actually play these characters as described, that would be fascinating. I would love to sit in on that game.

Zeta Kai
2007-02-23, 11:45 PM
Why wouldn't detect evil not work on a fighter? Miko would done so on Belkar, if not for his timely use of a sheet of steel. Detect evil does not require seething, palpable evil; it is a spell that taps into a divine insight concerning the nature of another being's soul. This doesn't require that the subject be a dark cultist with a demonic pact; simple being a jerk would show up on the radar, as it were. Sir Ranulph would be just as suseptable as an assassin, or a blackguard, or a lich. Evil is not restricted or even further defined by the spell's RAW.

Counterpower
2007-02-24, 12:00 AM
I'm pretty sure that killing hundreds of innocent people is evil. The person in quesiton would not think themself as evil, but it is evil. Ranulph would be evil, because he is willing of doing evil to acheive his ends, which just happen to be good. But the intent is still evil. On the other end of the spectrom, action make you evil as well. So if you good do with evil intent, your evil, and if you do evil with good intentions, your evil? Why, because it is easier to be evil than good. You have to do good with good intentions, or just do your own things. If you avoided dealing with a probelm that killed hunreds of innocent people, but the problem was not your duty anyways then you are Neutral. If you are complely self serving but will not commite vile acts, then you are CN.
From,
EE

You may be right.............. I tried to come up with several different ways to counter your argument, and each one failed somehow. I still don't really believe that "misguided" deserves an Evil alignment........... I guess I have to give this more thought.

As for detect evil, from the SRD:

Detect Evil
Divination
Level: Clr 1
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: 60 ft.
Area: Cone-shaped emanation
Duration: Concentration, up to 10 min./ level (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

You can sense the presence of evil. The amount of information revealed depends on how long you study a particular area or subject.

1st Round
Presence or absence of evil.

2nd Round
Number of evil auras (creatures, objects, or spells) in the area and the power of the most potent evil aura present.

If you are of good alignment, and the strongest evil aura’s power is overwhelming (see below), and the HD or level of the aura’s source is at least twice your character level, you are stunned for 1 round and the spell ends.

3rd Round
The power and location of each aura. If an aura is outside your line of sight, then you discern its direction but not its exact location.

Aura Power
An evil aura’s power depends on the type of evil creature or object that you’re detecting and its HD, caster level, or (in the case of a cleric) class level; see the accompanying table. If an aura falls into more than one strength category, the spell indicates the stronger of the two.


Emphasis mine.
Referring to auras multiple times. Being a jerk actually wouldn't show up, the table for aura power (which I couldn't reproduce) only includes creatures, undead, outsiders, clerics of evil gods, and magic or spells. Basically, to me, a fighter doesn't have anything that would produce an evil aura, so detect evil wouldn't get anything, at least in my game.

Inyssius Tor
2007-02-24, 12:03 AM
I'm not sure how much credibility is given to Wizards' column-writers, but the column Save My Game says that
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.

And I like your system, Counterpower. It very nicely incorporates deeds and motives; if I understand it, you need both motive and action to be either evil or good, and any other combination of the two is neutral. However, that's not how the alignment system is generally thought to work.

EvilElitest
2007-02-24, 12:21 AM
[QUOTE=Counterpower;2083775]You may be right.............. I tried to come up with several different ways to counter your argument, and each one failed somehow. I still don't really believe that "misguided" deserves an Evil alignment........... I guess I have to give this more thought.
QUOTE]

Thank you for being a good sport.
As for misguided, if a paladin with a low int saw a group of villgers bodies and saw a group of [insert ethnic group here] who he did not like all armed and covered with blood and killed them. The villegers were infact freshly raised zombies who the [ethinic group] had killed, and the paladin jumped to conculsion. It was a bad act, but not an evil act, as he simple acted on what he knew. That would not be evil, but would not be good. he would get in trouble, but if he really felt sorry he would not lose his paladin abillties. Its like miko when we first meet her. If she had killed Roy in that first fight, she would be wrong in doing so, but she would not be evil. However killing shojo and attacking hinjo is evil.
From,
EE

Arceliar
2007-02-24, 12:32 AM
Very good use of alignments to fit atypical character designs. I myself rather enjoy the lawful evil character doing good deeds, for whatever reason.

I seem to recall a novel in which a certain Artemis Entreri gave a peasant whom was in debt a large sum of gold. This was not out of generosity, but out of spite: he had been ordered to kill a peasant who owed something in the neighborhood of 36 gold. He saw such vile work to be far beneath an assassin of his talents.

Evil characters can be very fun and still work well with predominately good party members (except paladins and some clerics) if properly played and if their actions are given sufficient justification.

EvilElitest
2007-02-24, 12:36 AM
Very good use of alignments to fit atypical character designs. I myself rather enjoy the lawful evil character doing good deeds, for whatever reason.

I seem to recall a novel in which a certain Artemis Entreri gave a peasant whom was in debt a large sum of gold. This was not out of generosity, but out of spite: he had been ordered to kill a peasant who owed something in the neighborhood of 36 gold. He saw such vile work to be far beneath an assassin of his talents.

Evil characters can be very fun and still work well with predominately good party members (except paladins and some clerics) if properly played and if their actions are given sufficient justification.

Wonderful example, i love that scene.
from,
EE

Solaris
2007-02-24, 12:47 AM
I'm not sure how much credibility is given to Wizards' column-writers, but the column Save My Game says that

And I like your system, Counterpower. It very nicely incorporates deeds and motives; if I understand it, you need both motive and action to be either evil or good, and any other combination of the two is neutral. However, that's not how the alignment system is generally thought to work.

(Emphasis mine.)

Mayhaps that's a mistake. I've always run it that the intent mattered as much as the deed itself. More, in most cases. If you put a village to the sword, for instance, in an effort to kill one rather powerful fiend in human guise when there was no other way to do it, you're not Evil. Heck, I wouldn't even argue that you're Neutral. Solid Good. Draconian (though not necessarily Lawful and quite possibly Chaotic), but Good. You help my argument that you're Good if there's remorse involved.
You cut straight to the 'killit' scenario, though, you're going to have a harder time. At least consider something else first and be able to tell me (the DM) why you didn't do it. If it's reasonable not to try something first, then don't. Good never meant Stupid.
Then again, I don't think in terms of relative morality. I find it modernistic garbage used to excuse amoral behavior and an unwillingness to stand up for anything in the face of criticism. You could say that I have more practice than most operating with an alignment system the likes of which D&D uses.

That said, there are very, very few things which will excuse genocide. Very few. None of them happen in the real world.

Renegade Paladin
2007-02-24, 01:22 AM
Referring to auras multiple times. Being a jerk actually wouldn't show up, the table for aura power (which I couldn't reproduce) only includes creatures, undead, outsiders, clerics of evil gods, and magic or spells. Basically, to me, a fighter doesn't have anything that would produce an evil aura, so detect evil wouldn't get anything, at least in my game.
A human fighter without anything else going for him is a creature, and thus uses the creature column.

EvilElitest
2007-02-24, 11:34 AM
(Emphasis mine.)

Mayhaps that's a mistake. I've always run it that the intent mattered as much as the deed itself. More, in most cases. If you put a village to the sword, for instance, in an effort to kill one rather powerful fiend in human guise when there was no other way to do it, you're not Evil. Heck, I wouldn't even argue that you're Neutral. Solid Good. Draconian (though not necessarily Lawful and quite possibly Chaotic), but Good. You help my argument that you're Good if there's remorse involved.
You cut straight to the 'killit' scenario, though, you're going to have a harder time. At least consider something else first and be able to tell me (the DM) why you didn't do it. If it's reasonable not to try something first, then don't. Good never meant Stupid.
Then again, I don't think in terms of relative morality. I find it modernistic garbage used to excuse amoral behavior and an unwillingness to stand up for anything in the face of criticism. You could say that I have more practice than most operating with an alignment system the likes of which D&D uses.

That said, there are very, very few things which will excuse genocide. Very few. None of them happen in the real world.

No, you can't kill innocent people and be good, peroid. That is an evil act. Ends justify the means is evil, or at least neutral. Intent does not make up for action, (see Miko).
You said that nothing excuses genocide, but where do you draw the line from massacuring one village and wipping out a whole race of "mostly evil" creatures.
Paladins can't comperise, and should never allow the murder of innocents, even for the "greate good"
In modern terms, bombing innocents to fight the Nazis is not evil. But murder is. However in modern terms their is no good and evil which can't work in a roleplaying world so easily.

If you ever played Warcraft III, then here is an example
Arthas the Paladin finds an village full of innocent villagers who are sick with an undead plauge. When they die of it, they will turn into zombies. Instead of looking for a cure, Athas kills them all, most of whom are begging for mercy. By a LN standards it might be ok, but not by a LG standards, because the murder of innocents is wrong.
from,
EE

brian c
2007-02-24, 11:51 AM
1st Round
Presence or absence of evil.

If you scan an evil fighter, Detect Evil will tell you whether or not he is evil, regardless of auras.

Matthew
2007-02-24, 01:24 PM
Seems good to me. I think Lawful Neutral and Neutral Good Alignments would work for these two as well, but you should know what alignment suits these characters best.

Desaril
2007-02-24, 06:36 PM
I love the interplay between background, alignment, current behavior and future behavior. The characters are well-fleshed out and their alignments are appropriate for their backgrounds and fit their likely future actions as well.
Alignment and action should influence and reinforce each other, so its important to choose an alignment that you can stick with.

But alignment is not personality. You can be a good jerk or evil, but generous. That's why it hard to balance the motive/action conflict other's are talking about. You have to determine the perspective of the being judging alignment. For example the LG god the two characters worship and a CE god would have different perspectives. I'm not saying alignment is relative, but the LG god will have a different idea of what makes something good than the CE god, becuase they are influenced by their alignments. The LG god may think that a good motive is good enough (because he looks at the heart) and the CE god looks at the results (because he just wants more dead people).

What's worse is if the judge is not omniscient enough to know both motive and action. If the god of the paladin who mistakenly kills the innocent villagers is not omniscient he may not know the villagers are innocent. He may not know his paladin thought he was doing the right thing.

Usually, however the judge is the DM. The DM is omniscient (at least in the game) and does not have an alignment bias. But the DM does have a personality and moral compass of her own. She may be a Puritanical teetotaler or a godless heathen and that will influence how she judges alignment in the game. It really doesn't matter how the books try to suggest alignements, the DMs moral compass is usually pretty set. As Solaris said

"That said, there are very, very few things which will excuse genocide. Very few. None of them happen in the real world."

In her game, that's an absolute.

Detecting evil- I think the subject has to have an aura and only those classes with auras are detected. I believe there's a typo in the spell description where it refers to the presence or absence evil and it should say auras (see Detect Magic). Also, the chart refers to creatures with certain HD and PCs don't have HD they have levels.

Foxer
2007-02-24, 07:40 PM
I'm glad people like the ideas, and thanks everyone for the kind words, nitpicks and suggestions.


I love the interplay between background, alignment, current behavior and future behavior.

Actually, the issue of future behavior raises another point. Back when I was still living in the wilds of East Anglia, my regular gaming buddy and I would spend hours knocking game ideas and mechanics back and forth. One of his better ideas - which I've adopted - was to rough out some sort of ideal ending for any new character during creation.

He even went so far as to assign each of his new characters a Fate and a Destiny (subject to GM approval, of course). A character's Destiny was where they should end up if their life (i.e. the campaign) went well for them, whilst their Fate was where they would end up if events went badly for them. Some of these were pretty abstract - I remember one character (an ambitious politician) had the Fate "retires to tend a rose garden" of all things...

In the examples above, Sir Ranulph is Destined to become the greatest leader the Knights have ever had. On the other hand, it could be that he is Fated to betray their ideals in a fruitless quest for personal power and end up reviled as their greatest traitor.

What do other people think about this idea?

Sergeantbrother
2007-02-24, 08:16 PM
(Emphasis mine.)

Mayhaps that's a mistake. I've always run it that the intent mattered as much as the deed itself. More, in most cases. If you put a village to the sword, for instance, in an effort to kill one rather powerful fiend in human guise when there was no other way to do it, you're not Evil. Heck, I wouldn't even argue that you're Neutral. Solid Good. Draconian (though not necessarily Lawful and quite possibly Chaotic), but Good. You help my argument that you're Good if there's remorse involved.
You cut straight to the 'killit' scenario, though, you're going to have a harder time. At least consider something else first and be able to tell me (the DM) why you didn't do it. If it's reasonable not to try something first, then don't. Good never meant Stupid.
Then again, I don't think in terms of relative morality. I find it modernistic garbage used to excuse amoral behavior and an unwillingness to stand up for anything in the face of criticism. You could say that I have more practice than most operating with an alignment system the likes of which D&D uses.

That said, there are very, very few things which will excuse genocide. Very few. None of them happen in the real world.

I'm inclined to agree with you. I think that intent should be moe important to determining an action's alignment than any inherent quality of said action. Because, well, I think alignment revolves entirely around intentions. A person can only do what he or she believes to be right, and its the belief that those actions are moral or immoral that determines the morality of them. At least as far as I am concerned.

This does create weird examples where people can commit terrible actions for some perceived greater good and remain good. I see this as a benefit instead of a drawback. It makes alignment more interesting - more a matter of shades of grays instead of black and white - and I like it that way.

EvilElitest
2007-02-24, 10:25 PM
I'm inclined to agree with you. I think that intent should be moe important to determining an action's alignment than any inherent quality of said action. Because, well, I think alignment revolves entirely around intentions. A person can only do what he or she believes to be right, and its the belief that those actions are moral or immoral that determines the morality of them. At least as far as I am concerned.

This does create weird examples where people can commit terrible actions for some perceived greater good and remain good. I see this as a benefit instead of a drawback. It makes alignment more interesting - more a matter of shades of grays instead of black and white - and I like it that way.

Good needs intent and action. You can commit good actions for selfish reason and be evil, or you can commit evil action for good reason and be evil. Why is it unfair? Because good has higher standards than evil.
It is easy to be evil. i can save millions of people, kill some of the greatest evils, save a starving nation, always give to charity, cure the plague, found a good organization, slay the dragon and still be evil for killing one innocent person for the "greater good". If i feel very bad about it later i can repent, but it was still an evil act.
Intention and necessary but don't cut it. you need actions to make you a good person.
From,
EE

Foxer
2007-02-25, 05:52 AM
Good needs intent and action. You can commit good actions for selfish reason and be evil, or you can commit evil action for good reason and be evil. Why is it unfair? Because good has higher standards than evil.

I'll second that. The way I see it, "good" is doing the right things for the right reasons. Intent and the motivation towards that intent are equally important. Saving the village from the rampaging orc horde is only a "good" thing to do if your motives are also good. If you're doing it for the money, then that's probably neutral at best. If you're doing it because you hate orcs, and couldn't give a stuff about the villagers, then I'd say your motivation was evil.

pyroguy_93
2007-02-25, 09:31 AM
Perhaps there should be more than one alignment for a PC.
i.e. you should have your alignment as others see it, because you cannot always express your intentions to others, and your alignment as you actually feel. Just an idea but it might be worth concidering.

Attilargh
2007-02-25, 09:42 AM
Perhaps there should be more than one alignment for a PC.
i.e. you should have your alignment as others see it, because you cannot always express your intentions to others, and your alignment as you actually feel. Just an idea but it might be worth concidering.
To what point and purpose? Alignment already is what you're inside, and others are fully free to form their own opinions. Your character sheet is about your character. What possible use could it be to record others' opinions on your character?

PirateMonk
2007-02-25, 10:03 AM
First: REALLY cool. I like these characters a lot.

That said: In my D&D game, Ranulph would probably be LN, not LE. Doing the right things for the wrong reasons is still doing the right things, after all. My take on alignments:

Good- The right things for the right reasons. Mercy, charity, helping others, forgiveness, all with the intent to do so, is Good in my game.

Neutral- Two choices here. First, the wrong things for the right reasons. Misguided is not Good. For example, killing hundreds of innocents to save thousands is not Good. But it is still good enough to warrant a Neutral alignment. Second, Ranulph. The right things for the wrong reasons. This is most assuredly not Good; saving innocents solely so that they will sing your praises is not Good. Then again, at least you saved them.

Evil- The wrong actions for the wrong reasons. Murdering hundreds, forcing a group of bards to sing your praises.......... that warrants LE.

No it doesn't. Mass murder is more CE.


I'll second that. The way I see it, "good" is doing the right things for the right reasons. Intent and the motivation towards that intent are equally important. Saving the village from the rampaging orc horde is only a "good" thing to do if your motives are also good. If you're doing it for the money, then that's probably neutral at best. If you're doing it because you hate orcs, and couldn't give a stuff about the villagers, then I'd say your motivation was evil.

I'd say you were still neutral after that. In a game where orcs are defined as evil, murderously hating them is just neutral, and so is indifference to the well being of innocents, under some circumstances. If you help drive off the orcs because the only place for them to run is towards the lands of a rival, that's evil.

brian c
2007-02-25, 01:56 PM
No it doesn't. Mass murder is more CE.

Serial killers are CE, Evil dictators are LE (not necessarily, but they definitely can be). It depends how the murders are carried out really; if you randomly go around and shoot people that's chaotic, but if you prosecute people you don't like (or groups you don't like) under trumped up charges and have them executed, that's lawful.



I'd say you were still neutral after that. In a game where orcs are defined as evil, murderously hating them is just neutral, and so is indifference to the well being of innocents, under some circumstances. If you help drive off the orcs because the only place for them to run is towards the lands of a rival, that's evil.

Killing evil creatures won't change your alignment from good unless you act sadistically or ignore surrender.

PirateMonk
2007-02-25, 02:38 PM
Killing evil creatures won't change your alignment from good unless you act sadistically or ignore surrender.

Or if you use them to cause serious damage to a rival, like I said.

Leush
2007-02-25, 02:41 PM
Actually if you're using trumphed up charges, then you're milking the system and following the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law- in which case you're being a rules lawyer and hence lawful stupid Neutral Evil rather than Lawful Evil, who follows the spirit of the law whilst disregarding the unpleasant side effects it may have on people (an oxymoron but there you have it) ie they love the law and not their fellow living beings.

Having said that, LE dictators are fine. In the same spirit, I would like to continue on to ask: Does Sir Ranulph truly believe in the code, or is he just using it to his advantage? If he truly believes it, as you've suggested, then he is indeed Lawful.

Foxer
2007-02-25, 06:01 PM
Actually if you're using trumphed up charges, then you're milking the system and following the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law- in which case you're being a rules lawyer and hence lawful stupid Neutral Evil rather than Lawful Evil, who follows the spirit of the law whilst disregarding the unpleasant side effects it may have on people (an oxymoron but there you have it) ie they love the law and not their fellow living beings.

Having said that, LE dictators are fine. In the same spirit, I would like to continue on to ask: Does Sir Ranulph truly believe in the code, or is he just using it to his advantage? If he truly believes it, as you've suggested, then he is indeed Lawful.

Totally agree without about people twisting the law/milking the system being Neutral Evil rather than Lawful Evil.

As for Sir Ranulph: Ranulph's greatest desire in life is to be a Knight of the Red Flame. His motivation for doing so is to garner personal power and the respect of the commoners. He obeys the code to the letter, because he wants to be the best knight he can be, so to that extent, yes, he believes in it. What he doesn't really get is the spirit in which the code is written. If the code said that a good knight would lay down his life for his brothers-in-arms, then Ranulph would do so. But doesn't really understand why the code says one knight should lay down his life for another.

His relationship with Sir David should be an example. He would never literally stab Sir David in the back (it would violate the code), nor would he arrange a "happy accident" which led directly to Sir David's death ("it was awful... we were outnumbered one hundred to one... there was nothing I could do"). But he will happily take another course of action to screw David's plans of marrying the girl Sir Ranulph has his eyes on, provided it doesn't violate the code. Perhaps he could arrange for David to be posted to a frontier fort, far, far away.

Tarvok
2007-02-25, 07:25 PM
This is an excellent pair of characters, but, like others in this thread, I would consider Randolph Lawful Neutral (at least at first).

Randolph joined for admiration and respect, and the desire for such is hardly an evil impulse. The desire for things like wealth, admiration, status, and such are not evil desires... however, some will use evil means to achieve these desires. At the same time, such desires can spur one toward goodness.

For example, an aspiring merchent who seeks to accumulate as much gold as possible could be classified as Neutral. That same merchent, if he will steal when he can get away with it, mislead people as to the actual quality of his goods, murder a rival, etc. would be Evil. However, he could instead consider his business to be acts of service, and as such actively seeks to maximize not only his own profit, but his customer's, as well... and then retire to a life of extravagant philanthropy, just because it brings a warmth to his heart.

Randolph joined the order because he wanted the respect and admiration of his neighbors... something he did not have as a a sickly young boy. His desire to meet the standards of the order brought health from sickness. Could it also bring good from the neutral mortal material all human beings are based upon? His god certainly thinks so. However, a few incidents (particularly when he refused the surrender of those bandits) show that he is at least equally capable of going the other way. Indeed, given David is his rival, it is likely that he will do so... but at the start of his career, I would say that he was, as yet, undeclared on the Good-Evil spectrum.

Overall, I like the characters, and the story they are a part of.

I once wrote a similar piece about an adventuring party that was composed of one member from each of the extreme alignments: Lawful Good, Lawful Evil, Chaotic Evil, and Chaotic Good (in that birth order). The idea is that they were brothers in a land in which familial attachments are considered the most important of attachments (the kind of place where lots of folks will spit on you as soon as look at you, if you are neither family nor otherwise a person of status). I'd have to re-write it completely, since I originally posted it on the Wizards boards, which has NO search button. It's there somewhere, but lost.

EvilElitest
2007-02-25, 09:03 PM
This is an excellent pair of characters, but, like others in this thread, I would consider Randolph Lawful Neutral (at least at first).

Randolph joined for admiration and respect, and the desire for such is hardly an evil impulse. The desire for things like wealth, admiration, status, and such are not evil desires... however, some will use evil means to achieve these desires. At the same time, such desires can spur one toward goodness.

For example, an aspiring merchent who seeks to accumulate as much gold as possible could be classified as Neutral. That same merchent, if he will steal when he can get away with it, mislead people as to the actual quality of his goods, murder a rival, etc. would be Evil. However, he could instead consider his business to be acts of service, and as such actively seeks to maximize not only his own profit, but his customer's, as well... and then retire to a life of extravagant philanthropy, just because it brings a warmth to his heart.

Randolph joined the order because he wanted the respect and admiration of his neighbors... something he did not have as a a sickly young boy. His desire to meet the standards of the order brought health from sickness. Could it also bring good from the neutral mortal material all human beings are based upon? His god certainly thinks so. However, a few incidents (particularly when he refused the surrender of those bandits) show that he is at least equally capable of going the other way. Indeed, given David is his rival, it is likely that he will do so... but at the start of his career, I would say that he was, as yet, undeclared on the Good-Evil spectrum.

Overall, I like the characters, and the story they are a part of.

I once wrote a similar piece about an adventuring party that was composed of one member from each of the extreme alignments: Lawful Good, Lawful Evil, Chaotic Evil, and Chaotic Good (in that birth order). The idea is that they were brothers in a land in which familial attachments are considered the most important of attachments (the kind of place where lots of folks will spit on you as soon as look at you, if you are neither family nor otherwise a person of status). I'd have to re-write it completely, since I originally posted it on the Wizards boards, which has NO search button. It's there somewhere, but lost.

No randolph is LE. Why? Becuase he he is willing to do what ever it takes to reach the rank he wants. he has as yet not commited any evil acts, but he is willing to. He will not voilate the code, but he will commite act to advance his postion without care for others. He is complely selfish and power hungry, as well an uncaring master. His intent is evil. LN would firmly belive in the code for the code itself, while Randolph belives in the code to advance his postion.
from,
EE

Rabiesbunny
2007-02-25, 10:55 PM
No randolph is LE. Why? Becuase he he is willing to do what ever it takes to reach the rank he wants. he has as yet not commited any evil acts, but he is willing to. He will not voilate the code, but he will commite act to advance his postion without care for others. He is complely selfish and power hungry, as well an uncaring master. His intent is evil. LN would firmly belive in the code for the code itself, while Randolph belives in the code to advance his postion.


LE isn't always willing to do -whatever- it takes, but his code can be so radically different from others. That's what makes LE people fun -- they don't follow the laws, they follow a code. Whether or not that's the code of the area doesn't matter; as long as they stick to their personal ideals and have standards and rules, they'll remain lawful. x)

I'll go back to watching now!

Foxer
2007-02-26, 07:06 AM
Randolph joined for admiration and respect, and the desire for such is hardly an evil impulse. The desire for things like wealth, admiration, status, and such are not evil desires... however, some will use evil means to achieve these desires. At the same time, such desires can spur one toward goodness.

*snip*

I once wrote a similar piece about an adventuring party that was composed of one member from each of the extreme alignments: Lawful Good, Lawful Evil, Chaotic Evil, and Chaotic Good (in that birth order). The idea is that they were brothers in a land in which familial attachments are considered the most important of attachments (the kind of place where lots of folks will spit on you as soon as look at you, if you are neither family nor otherwise a person of status). I'd have to re-write it completely, since I originally posted it on the Wizards boards, which has NO search button. It's there somewhere, but lost.

You have a good point about the desire for wealth and power not being evil in themselves. We tend to see such acquisitiveness as an undesirable trait in this day and age, but it ain't necessarily so.

As I wrote him, the point about Sir Ranulph was that his undesirable (in modern eyes) traits are constrained by the chivalric code he follows. Thus he's Lawful (with a capital "L") whilst being Evil with a small "e". He's evil, in my book, because of his lack of compassion and fellow feeling, and his willingness to hurt other people if it serves his purpose. He doesn't care about Sir David's feelings, and is actively making the girl unhappy and miserable to further his own selfish motives.

In some ways, the petty day-to-day evils can be worse that the big "capital E" sins because their effects are cumulative.

Your point about the desire for wealth and reputation not being evil in themselves reminded me of one of the big differences between the ancient Greeks ' system of morality and our own post-Christian one. We see pride as a sin (and a Deadly one at that), whilst the Greeks often regarded it as a virtue for precisely the reasons you gave: it spurs one to greater efforts and keeps one from committing base acts, which would be beneath them. I might write up a Lawful Good monk with that sort of mindset to see how it plays out.

I like the mixed-alignment family you mention, and would be interested in how they operate as a group - even if I keep hearing the eldest sibling singing "he ain't Chaotic Evil; he's my brother." :smallbiggrin:

EvilElitest
2007-02-26, 06:41 PM
You have a good point about the desire for wealth and power not being evil in themselves. We tend to see such acquisitiveness as an undesirable trait in this day and age, but it ain't necessarily so.

As I wrote him, the point about Sir Ranulph was that his undesirable (in modern eyes) traits are constrained by the chivalric code he follows. Thus he's Lawful (with a capital "L") whilst being Evil with a small "e". He's evil, in my book, because of his lack of compassion and fellow feeling, and his willingness to hurt other people if it serves his purpose. He doesn't care about Sir David's feelings, and is actively making the girl unhappy and miserable to further his own selfish motives.

In some ways, the petty day-to-day evils can be worse that the big "capital E" sins because their effects are cumulative.

Your point about the desire for wealth and reputation not being evil in themselves reminded me of one of the big differences between the ancient Greeks ' system of morality and our own post-Christian one. We see pride as a sin (and a Deadly one at that), whilst the Greeks often regarded it as a virtue for precisely the reasons you gave: it spurs one to greater efforts and keeps one from committing base acts, which would be beneath them. I might write up a Lawful Good monk with that sort of mindset to see how it plays out.

I like the mixed-alignment family you mention, and would be interested in how they operate as a group - even if I keep hearing the eldest sibling singing "he ain't Chaotic Evil; he's my brother." :smallbiggrin:

Wonderfully put right their.
from,
EE

Yami
2007-02-26, 07:44 PM
I myself see good as meaning that your character doesn't like seeing others suffer, making someone neutral if they can remain unaffected by the suffering of others. and Evil person then would be someone who enjoys the suffering of others. This does not have to be a fully fledged crazy torturer of course, but say, someone who wants a place of power, just so that others bow to him as he walks by. Desiring that his existance means they must pause in thier constant turmoil to eek out a living, and debase themselves to prove his worth, is something I would consider evil.

I thuroughly approve of these characters concepts, though I think you could even play Sir David as a bit more moderate and still have him be chaotic, as long as he thinks the laws of his order somehow keep him from doing as much good as he could.

I myself always love playing charaters that are LE or CN in such a fashion as to show the extent the alignment can let them act and be a hero of the people.