PDA

View Full Version : Roleplaying Allignments, thought and choices?



WitchNumber4
2017-10-15, 12:41 AM
"But if you actually cares about people as neutral good says you would be like hmmm how can this affect things?"

Hello, new member and newish D&D player here.

We had a session today where the party ended up at a shop of a twitchy little goblin alchemist selling potions that turned out were to be injected giving you magical abilities.
While there my character ended up purchasing one of them and the group was pulled into helping the little guy with setting up a legitimate storefront in the next session.
The potion let you summon a bunch of birds that would attack your target and wouldn't stop until they were pecked clean.

I'll say that we were at this shop in the first place to gear up for fighting a wyvern after we got forced into accepting a job by a magician. Said magician was also the one to send us here.

My dilemma comes from my dm saying later on after the session that I HAVE to start playing true to my allignment of neutral good. Admittedly I was miffed about it.

The reasoning for the DM calling me out on this was because I didn't ask enough questions about the potions. That I jumped on that train too fast despite the alchemist admitting that bad guys do get access to the potions too. As well as me not questioning him after finding out there wasn't any actual testing done on human subjects after I was already injected.

DM told me to change my allignment because a neutral good character wouldn't have done that. Wouldn't have not asked a bunch of questions about the process. That because badguys can get the potions as well I shouldn't support the whole thing. That I was too selfish to care about others and had to have this potion.

DM said that to be a neutral good and support that shop I would have to ask questions about background checks and help with a system to stop bad guys from having access.

We ended up going backforth on this alot and I agreed to change allignment pretty passive aggresively in the end but neither of us were happy much in the end.

My question from this whole thing is how much should allignment influent each decision you make? Is impulsiveness an acceptable reason to do something that might not conform perfectly to your allignment? Can people do things without thinking them through? I'm worried about bumping heads more in the future when it comes to any decisions I make that might go against my allignment which I don't believe do.

Some advice from veteran players would be really appreciated. I don't want this campaign to be full of second guessing or pissing off the DM.

Lord Raziere
2017-10-15, 12:54 AM
Alignment is not a straightjacket. Your DM is being a jerk by telling you how to play your character. "Asking questions about background checks and such" is not being good, just paranoid.

dps
2017-10-15, 01:12 AM
IMO, your DM is full of if on this. How many questions you might ask first in a situation like this depend at least as much on how trusting you are as anything else, and there's absolutely no reason a NG character can't be quite trusting. In fact, I would say that Evil and Chaotic characters in general are more likely be suspicious and have problems trusting people, especially strangers. Even that's not set in stone; look at Elan--he's definitely Chaotic, but is very trusting because of how naïve he is.

OTOH, if a LG character has a more suspicious nature, I can see that they might be concerned about who has access to the potions. Based just on alignment, I'd thing Neutral characters would be the least likely to be concerned about who else can get them. But again, there are a whole lot of other factors than alignment that determine how a character reacts to situations, and characters of any alignment could simply sometimes not think through the consequences of their actions.

In a certain sense, your DM is doing the right thing--DMs are supposed to warn players if they are doing things that can cause an alignment shift, but: A) in my experience DMs in practice rarely warn about or enforce alignment changes; B) it should be a pattern of actions, not a one-time thing; and C ) in this particular situation, based on what you've told us, your DM has some very strange ideas about what might cause an alignment shift.

If I was in a shop buying something, I'd never think to ask the shopkeeper who else he might sell to. In a game, or IRL. I think your DM is either nuts, or trying to screw you over.

WitchNumber4
2017-10-15, 02:06 AM
Thanks for the replies.

My character's been pretty trusting and does a lot of things on a whim. Kind of flighty in nature and doesn't focus very well.
Backstory is really light. Nothing dark, grim or even bad. A happy bard who went on an adventure to look for inspiration in music. Very much a bard that happens to adventure rather than vice versa.

I do actually specify that my character doesn't notice a lot of things intentionally playing them as kind of absentminded and goes with the flow alot.
Sometimes they do come off as uncaring mostly I think due to my poor roleplay skills. Something I'm trying to improve on.

Example such as in this campaign when myself and our bossnpc went on stage in a magic show and I was the only one reappearing after a disappearing act.
I figured that since I was apparently reappeared ontop of a high pole thing and the audience cheering I wouldn't notice the other guy not showing up initially. So I started bowing and being all excited and not rushed to find out where our employer went.

Specifically to the shop scenario.

"You can investigate if he has background checks guaranteed as to minimize damage. But you literally being like "nah man no questions asked, let's do it"
That's not neutral good
If you just felt that you could have asked better questions then that's fine."

And how DM says I'm supposed to think as neutral good.

"It's like
Hey I need your help with this
Oh okay it is only going to affect me?
No
Oh how can it affect other people?"

Should I from a roleplaying perspective be more proactively asking about these kinds of things? I'm kinda worried that if I spend to much time on that kind of thing it would cause a lull in the gameplay or seem too fake.

I don't think my DM's out to get me... I hope. I think we're just thinking about things very differently.

"Me: Who's to say I can't judge that the vigor can do more good than bad even if bad people can get it.

DM: See that's fine
But you didn't ask about the potential damage
You just jumped into it
You didn't even think about the damage you could have supported"

Me: I do understand that bad guys can get it too.
DM:Yeah so to just support it without question goes against the morality. So if you would want to continue this path that it would be wise to change alignment"

DM makes a good point that I should start to question things more and I should probably slow my character down a bit and think more about the consequences of my action. But I think that's a more gradual thing for an impulsive happy character to learn. Maybe flashback to this scenario and be more careful in the future.

Sebastian
2017-10-15, 05:20 AM
Changing alignment because your acts could help somebody evil would be excessive even for a paladin, imagine for a normal character.

I can imagine other decisions by the same logic

"you pass by a blacksmith forging a sword, as a neutral good you must stop him, because that sword could be used by someone evil, it doesn't matter if he is actually forging it for a paladin, someone evil could steal it from him one day, and it would be you fault"

"you must ask if this tavern use detect evil to be sure no evil person ever sleep in it, if not is your duty as a good character to burn it down, or change alignment"

"you pass on a bridge. You must demolish it, because it could help someone evil to cross this river someday, and it would be terrible."

By his logic you should change alignment because you want to kill that wyvern, too, because it could attack some evil character someday, and killing it you are protecting evil. Shame on you.:smallfrown::smalltongue:

Esprit15
2017-10-15, 05:29 AM
Yeah, Good people don't have to run background checks on every person they meet. Only crazy people do that. If there is nothing overtly suspect, there's no reason to harass the shopkeepers.

Pleh
2017-10-15, 05:32 AM
Good aligned characters can make honest mistakes without having to shift alignment. Your DM is saying, "you trusted the wrong person."

A better way to DM would be to start dropping clues to you in game, such as, "you're getting uncomfortable about this guy. Would you like to try a sense motive check?"

If you didn't consider him a threat and the DM didn't actually say he was, how are you supposed to read his mind?

I agree this is more like what to expect from Lawful Good, but even that is a bit extreme.

dps
2017-10-15, 08:55 AM
My character's been pretty trusting and does a lot of things on a whim. Kind of flighty in nature and doesn't focus very well.

If this was already an established character trait of your bard, that makes the position your DM has taken here far worse IMO.


And how DM says I'm supposed to think as neutral good.

He has no business telling you how your character is supposed to think.


Should I from a roleplaying perspective be more proactively asking about these kinds of things? I'm kinda worried that if I spend to much time on that kind of thing it would cause a lull in the gameplay or seem too fake.

Do you want your character to become less trusting and naïve? If so, yeah, sure. If you want him to keep the same personality, no.


DM makes a good point that I should start to question things more and I should probably slow my character down a bit and think more about the consequences of my action. But I think that's a more gradual thing for an impulsive happy character to learn. Maybe flashback to this scenario and be more careful in the future.

Again, this is for your character to decide, not your DM. And even if you do want your character to become more thoughtful, alignment has nothing to do with it.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-10-15, 09:21 AM
Play your character however you want to and write whatever meaningless thing he wants you to in your alignment box.

kivzirrum
2017-10-15, 10:40 AM
I think your DM has exhibited a serious inability to understand the Alignment system more than anything else. And also is enforcing it way too strongly. After all, a good person can do a bad thing or two, it happens--thus, a Good character should be able to have a moral lapse here or there without it causing an Alignment change. And this isn't even an example of a moral lapse, as others have pointed out--this is a lack of paranoia. Pretty sure paranoia does not have a specific place on the Good/Evil axis.

Satinavian
2017-10-15, 10:45 AM
Seems like you are completely in the right here,

but,

we still only know one side of the argument.

Keltest
2017-10-15, 10:49 AM
Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive. What you have written on your character sheet should be an honest assessment of how you believe your character to be behaving, not a statement that you intend your character to behave according to specific patterns no matter what.

Your DM is also out of line. One of the few things a DM cannot under any circumstances do is tell a player how to play their character. The DM has an entire world they get to play with, they don't need to be messing with your one person as well. At most, they can tell you that they don't think your behavior matches your stated alignment.

JNAProductions
2017-10-15, 11:00 AM
Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive. What you have written on your character sheet should be an honest assessment of how you believe your character to be behaving, not a statement that you intend your character to behave according to specific patterns no matter what.

Your DM is also out of line. One of the few things a DM cannot under any circumstances do is tell a player how to play their character. The DM has an entire world they get to play with, they don't need to be messing with your one person as well. At most, they can tell you that they don't think your behavior matches your stated alignment.

Keltest has the right of it.

I do disagree slightly with them, in that if you write Neutral Good on your sheet, you should attempt to play your character in a Good fashion. That being said, if you don't, that doesn't mean you're playing your character wrong. That just means that you wrote the wrong alignment on your sheet, or that your character has changed from Neutral Good to something else.

dps
2017-10-15, 11:50 AM
Keltest has the right of it.

I do disagree slightly with them, in that if you write Neutral Good on your sheet, you should attempt to play your character in a Good fashion. That being said, if you don't, that doesn't mean you're playing your character wrong. That just means that you wrote the wrong alignment on your sheet, or that your character has changed from Neutral Good to something else.

Here's the thing--I don't have a problem with DMs warning a player if they are in danger of changing alignment, and with actually enforcing alignment change if a PC repeatedly acts in manner contrary to their alignment; in fact, I think DMs probably need to do so more often, especially in the classic case of supposedly LG characters who are actually just a bunch of murder hobos.* The problem in this case is that the PC hasn't acted in a manner contrary to his alignment by any remotely reasonable standard.

*Of course, in most editions of DnD, if you're not playing a Paladin, alignment is just a notation on a character sheet that doesn't have any actual effect on the game 99.99% of the time.

Anymage
2017-10-15, 01:15 PM
Even in the case of paladins, putting players into situations where they had to pick the lesser of two evils and/or had to have mythic levels of insight were popular falltraps. There's a reason that later editions moved far away from the concept.

OP sounds new, I assume his DM is too, and both "alignment is prescriptive" and "Good is the straight and narrow and requires a very specific path to maintain your alignment" are classic newbie mistakes. (As is something I'm going to assume here, that everybody made their characters on their own and the DM throws these strangers together for their first adventure. More on that in a moment.) They're common mistakes. And hopefully we can get the DM here so we can explain how yes, we all made these mistakes before too - and here's how we came to realize that they were in fact mistakes.

There's little you can do about this now that the adventure has started, but as a rule I like to get all the players together to discuss setting, theme, and to let everybody discuss what character types they want to play before the first mark is made on a character sheet. So long as the character stays at least broadly near what the player initially pitched and is willing to be a team player, I feel that I should err on the side of letting them decide how their character should work out. Alignment change should only happen when both the DM and player agree that the character's outlook should change as part of their narrative arc. The exceptions that would inspire me as DM to automatically inflict alignment change also tend to be such grossly antisocial things that would get the player kicked out. Which makes a couple of letters on a character sheet rather irrelevant.

Quertus
2017-10-15, 02:16 PM
Play your character however you want to and write whatever meaningless thing he wants you to in your alignment box.


Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive. What you have written on your character sheet should be an honest assessment of how you believe your character to be behaving, not a statement that you intend your character to behave according to specific patterns no matter what.

Your DM is also out of line. One of the few things a DM cannot under any circumstances do is tell a player how to play their character. The DM has an entire world they get to play with, they don't need to be messing with your one person as well. At most, they can tell you that they don't think your behavior matches your stated alignment.

Yeah, this kind of thing is why I stopped writing anything in the "alignment" box on the character sheet. I told all DMs who asked that I was going to create and roleplay a personality, and that I would happily ignore whatever assignment they felt the need to describe that personality as. But if they had any useful critique about my role-playing, I'd actually be interested.

But, then, my experiences included multiple (yes, multiple!) DMs with tables of scenarios and alignments, and if, in that scenario, you didn't respond the way that their table said your assignment should respond, you weren't role-playing. And one DM who was more "advanced", as his complex matrix included race and gender.

JNAProductions
2017-10-15, 02:19 PM
Yeah, this kind of thing is why I stopped writing anything in the "alignment" box on the character sheet. I told all DMs who asked that I was going to create and roleplay a personality, and that I would happily ignore whatever assignment they felt the need to describe that personality as. But if they had any useful critique about my role-playing, I'd actually be interested.

But, then, my experiences included multiple (yes, multiple!) DMs with tables of scenarios and alignments, and if, in that scenario, you didn't respond the way that their table said your assignment should respond, you weren't role-playing. And one DM who was more "advanced", as his complex matrix included race and gender.

That's horse crap. Especially the race and gender bit.

Sure, your average Dwarf will respond to X in Y fashion, as compared to an Elf who would respond with Z. But you're an ADVENTURER! You're EXCEPTIONAL!

Anymage
2017-10-15, 02:35 PM
But, then, my experiences included multiple (yes, multiple!) DMs with tables of scenarios and alignments, and if, in that scenario, you didn't respond the way that their table said your assignment should respond, you weren't role-playing. And one DM who was more "advanced", as his complex matrix included race and gender.

*shudder*

I will grant a little slack to this, since there's an old Gygax article out there on what the different alignments would or wouldn't do. But while the man was sharp, let's not go fetishizing all his wacky early ideas.

Nifft
2017-10-15, 02:58 PM
But, then, my experiences included multiple (yes, multiple!) DMs with tables of scenarios and alignments, and if, in that scenario, you didn't respond the way that their table said your assignment should respond, you weren't role-playing. And one DM who was more "advanced", as his complex matrix included race and gender.

"Due to how you've been role-playing, I'm changing your alignment to Chaotic Orc Girl."

JNAProductions
2017-10-15, 02:59 PM
"Due to how you've been role-playing, I'm changing your alignment to Chaotic Orc Girl."

"But I'm an Dwarvish Man!"

Nifft
2017-10-15, 03:01 PM
"But I'm an Dwarvish Man!"

"You didn't cast Detect Ale when that was an option, you bathed with less than 2 minutes of complaining, and you forgot to haggle at least three times last session. Sorry, I'm taking away your beard... but at least you can keep your hair-braids."

Quertus
2017-10-15, 03:37 PM
In so glad my horror stories can make people laugh. Especially me. Thank y'all for the laugh - it felt good. :smallbiggrin:

EDIT- I think I need to add, "You roleplay like an Orc Girl" to my list of inside jokes.

kivzirrum
2017-10-15, 04:09 PM
But, then, my experiences included multiple (yes, multiple!) DMs with tables of scenarios and alignments, and if, in that scenario, you didn't respond the way that their table said your assignment should respond, you weren't role-playing. And one DM who was more "advanced", as his complex matrix included race and gender.

...Yeesh. :smalleek: Perhaps taking the Alignment system a bit too seriously, there.

I actually do like the whole Alignment thing. I like using it as a general (VERY general!) descriptor of my character, and early in character creation I find it's useful as a tool to help focus in on what kind of character I want to make. But Keltest absolutely was correct, in my opinion.

Xuc Xac
2017-10-15, 05:34 PM
Injecting yourself with a strange alchemical substance provided by a fun you just met had nothing to do with your alignment.

A character of any alignment would do that if their Wisdom score was low enough. If your Wisdom score is in the double digits, then yes, this was not "properly role-playing your character", but it's not an alignment violation.

D+1
2017-10-15, 06:44 PM
Failure of the DM on his part to advise you as a player on how HE interprets alignment does not obligate YOU as a player to pay the penalty for inability to read his mind. In particular, when you have done nothing more than exercise a good-faith effort to adhere to your characters alignment - INSOFAR AS YOU WERE PERMITTED BY THE DM TO UNDERSTAND IT TO THAT POINT - you have every reason to be righteously annoyed at the DM's attempts AFTER THE FACT to punish YOUR PC for THE DM'S failure. When the DM saw that your PC was behaving in a way contrary to how HE thought your character needed to behave (contrary to the point of actually changing the PC's alignment!) the DM has every obligation to clarify INSTANTLY, and PRIOR to handing down any alignment-related punishments or consequences, that you do actually understand what it is you're having your character do, what the consequences will be, and that you're not just suffering from being insufficiently informed BY HIM as to what would be permitted or not.

Honest Tiefling
2017-10-15, 07:38 PM
I've played DnD for several years. I only use alignment as a way to make sure that everyone is on board for the type of game so the party can actually function and not try to kill itself in the first session. I find it a convoluted mess for a multitude of reasons I don't think is entirely relevant. But honestly, alignment isn't necessary for RP, through some find it a helpful tool.

I think you need to sit down your DM. No one is going to have fun if you aren't on the same page. Don't bring it up mid-session! But try to be calm and make it clear you aren't attacking him, you just think that good characters can have flaws, such as being overly trusting. If you know him well, bring up examples of clearly good characters that also share this flaw.

If that doesn't work, point out all of the instance of people never questioning things. That goblin? Can't be good aligned, for he didn't ask enough questions of the random strangers helping him. That town guard? Didn't ask you about your family tree for the fifth generation! Clearly everyone in the game must be neutral or evil by this logic. Also point out that people don't do that in real life, so it would make every good character a paranoid nutjob with the diplomatic skills of a foot fungus.

ElevenSided Die
2017-10-15, 09:31 PM
In my experience there are very few cases where it's reasonable to say "a character of [specific alignment] would not do that" for any specific action, and pretty much all of those are restricted to Paladins (or other strictly Lawful Good characters). For any character who does not have an established "code of conduct", any individual action is 'permissible'...though it may take some clever roleplay for edge cases. IMO, the DM in question is being way too heavy-handed.

That said, it is within the DM's purview to define alignment however he wants in his game...but if he's going to do something 'out of the norm' it should be spelled out for the players in advance. And if a player takes an action that the DM feels is 'against their alignment', he should bring it up at the time, so that the player has the option of either changing the action to match their alignment, or changing their alignment (or at lest their leaning) to match the action. There should never be any retroactive 'alignment adjustment'.

2D8HP
2017-10-15, 11:40 PM
*sigh*

This again.

I mostly just leave alignment blank, or put in "Neutral


In the novel Three Hearts and Three Lions (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Hearts_and_Three_Lions) by Poul Anderson,
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/39/ThreeHeartsAndThreeLions.jpg/220px-ThreeHeartsAndThreeLions.jpg
which was published before and inspired Moorcock's "Law vs. Chaos" conflict, it was only sometimes "Law", and usually it was indeed "Order" vs. "Chaos", and Anderson expressly conflated Holger's struggle against Morgan le Fay and the "Host of Faerie" with the battle against the Nazis in our world.

To learn what is ment by "chaotic/good", "lawful/evil" etc. ask the DM of that particular table, it means what the DM says it means

If you want you can also read the article which first had the term.

I first read a copy of it in the 1980 "Best of The Dragon" which is next to me. It reprinted the original article in the;
Strategic Review: February 1976 (http://annarchive.com/files/Strv201.pdf)


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/TSvlWfi0wuI/AAAAAAAAC5E/kwE-DYf3GtU/s1600/alignmentchart.jpg

illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KYLvpKSI/AAAAAAAAGrk/gxPmMlYaDIQ/s1600-h/illus1%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KaWTQKmI/AAAAAAAAGrs/EY_aYEhHcvs/s1600-h/n1%5B5%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh4.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KcgaWCfI/AAAAAAAAGr0/cZZSquIxTn4/s1600-h/n2a%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KfERen3I/AAAAAAAAGr8/Sb0VAeS3nKM/s1600-h/N2b%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh4.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KifB_yhI/AAAAAAAAGsI/O4eV2OSXAng/N3_thumb.jpg?imgmax=800)


illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KhU85a1I/AAAAAAAAGsE/nnA-2gMCFyI/s1600-h/N3%5B2%5D.jpg)


illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9Kj5-_N2I/AAAAAAAAGsM/f6v1q8cQDGY/s1600-h/illus2%5B2%5D.jpg)


illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KmQCwDXI/AAAAAAAAGsU/_suYkwtUadA/s1600-h/Illus3%5B2%5D.jpg)






Many questions continue to arise regarding what constitutes a “lawful” act, what sort of behavior is “chaotic”, what constituted an “evil” deed, and how certain behavior is “good”. There is considerable confusion in that most dungeonmasters construe the terms “chaotic” and “evil” to mean the same thing, just as they define “lawful” and “good” to mean the same. This is scarcely surprising considering the wording of the three original volumes of DUNGEONS & DRAGONS. When that was written they meant just about the same thing in my mind — notice I do not say they were synonymous in my thinking at, that time. The wording in the GREYHAWK supplement added a bit more confusion, for by the time that booklet was written some substantial differences had been determined. In fact, had I the opportunity to do D&D over I would have made the whole business very much clearer by differentiating the four categories, and many chaotic creatures would be good, while many lawful creatures would be evil. Before going into the definitions of these four terms, a graphic representation of their relative positions will help the reader to follow the further discourse. (Illustration I)

Notice first that the area of neutrality lies squarely athwart the intersection of the lines which divide the four behavioral distinctions, and it is a very small area when compared with the rest of the graph. This refers to true neutrality, not to neutrality regarding certain interactions at specific times, i.e., a war which will tend to weaken a stronger player or game element regardless of the “neutral” party’s actions can hardly be used as a measure of neutrality if it will benefit the party’s interest to have the weakening come about.

Also note that movement upon this graph is quite possible with regard to campaign participants, and the dungeonmaster should, in fact, make this a standard consideration in play. This will be discussed hereafter.

Now consider the term “Law” as opposed to “Chaos”. While they are nothing if not opposites, they are neither good nor evil in their definitions. A highly regimented society is typically governed by strict law, i.e., a dictatorship, while societies which allow more individual freedom tend to be more chaotic. The following lists of words describing the two terms point this out. I have listed the words describing the concepts in increasing order of magnitude (more or less) as far as the comparison with the meanings of the two terms in D&D is concerned:

Basically, then, “Law” is strict order and “Chaos” is complete anarchy, but of course they grade towards each other along the scale from left to right on the graph. Now consider the terms “Good” and “Evil” expressed in the same manner:

The terms “Law” and “Evil” are by no means mutually exclusive. There is no reason that there cannot be prescribed and strictly enforced rules which are unpleasant, injurious or even corrupt. Likewise “Chaos” and “Good” do not form a dichotomy. Chaos can be harmless, friendly, honest, sincere, beneficial, or pure, for that matter. This all indicates that there are actually five, rather than three, alignments, namely

The lawful/good classification is typified by the paladin, the chaotic/good alignment is typified by elves, lawful/evil is typified by the vampire, and the demon is the epitome of chaotic/evil. Elementals are neutral. The general reclassification various creatures is shown on Illustration II.

Placement of characters upon a graph similar to that in Illustration I is necessary if the dungeonmaster is to maintain a record of player-character alignment. Initially, each character should be placed squarely on the center point of his alignment, i.e., lawful/good, lawful/evil, etc. The actions of each game week will then be taken into account when determining the current position of each character. Adjustment is perforce often subjective, but as a guide the referee can consider the actions of a given player in light of those characteristics which typify his alignment, and opposed actions can further be weighed with regard to intensity. For example, reliability does not reflect as intense a lawfulness as does principled, as does righteous. Unruly does not indicate as chaotic a state as does disordered, as does lawless. Similarly, harmless, friendly, and beneficial all reflect increasing degrees of good; while unpleasant, injurious, and wicked convey progressively greater evil. Alignment does not preclude actions which typify a different alignment, but such actions will necessarily affect the position of the character performing them, and the class or the alignment of the character in question can change due to such actions, unless counter-deeds are performed to balance things. The player-character who continually follows any alignment (save neutrality) to the absolute letter of its definition must eventually move off the chart (Illustration I) and into another plane of existence as indicated. Note that selfseeking is neither lawful nor chaotic, good nor evil, except in relation to other sapient creatures. Also, law and chaos are not subject to interpretation in their ultimate meanings of order and disorder respectively, but good and evil are not absolutes but must be judged from a frame of reference, some ethos. The placement of creatures on the chart of Illustration II. reflects the ethos of this writer to some extent.

Considering mythical and mythos gods in light of this system, most of the benign ones will tend towards the chaotic/good, and chaotic/evil will typify those gods which were inimical towards humanity. Some few would be completely chaotic, having no predisposition towards either good or evil — REH’s Crom perhaps falls into this category. What then about interaction between different alignments? This question is tricky and must be given careful consideration. Diametric opposition exists between lawful/good and chaotic/evil and between chaotic/good and lawful/evil in this ethos. Both good and evil can serve lawful ends, and conversely they may both serve chaotic ends. If we presuppose that the universal contest is between law and chaos we must assume that in any final struggle the minions of each division would be represented by both good and evil beings. This may seem strange at first, but if the major premise is accepted it is quite rational. Barring such a showdown, however, it is far more plausible that those creatures predisposed to good actions will tend to ally themselves against any threat of evil, while creatures of evil will likewise make (uneasy) alliance in order to gain some mutually beneficial end — whether at the actual expense of the enemy or simply to prevent extinction by the enemy. Evil creatures can be bound to service by masters predisposed towards good actions, but a lawful/good character would fain make use of some chaotic/evil creature without severely affecting his lawful (not necessarily good) standing.

This brings us to the subject of those character roles which are not subject to as much latitude of action as the others. The neutral alignment is self-explanatory, and the area of true neutrality is shown on Illustration I. Note that paladins, Patriarchs, and Evil High Priests, however, have positive boundaries. The area in which a paladin may move without loss of his status is shown in Illustration III. Should he cause his character to move from this area he must immediately seek a divine quest upon which to set forth in order to gain his status once again, or be granted divine intervention; in those cases where this is not complied with the status is forever lost. Clerics of either good or evil predisposition must likewise remain completely good or totally evil, although lateral movement might be allowed by the dungeonmaster, with or without divine retribution. Those top-level clerics who fail to maintain their goodness or evilness must make some form of immediate atonement. If they fail to do so they simply drop back to seventh level. The atonement, as well as how immediate it must be, is subject to interpretation by the referee. Druids serve only themselves and nature, they occasionally make human sacrifice, but on the other hand they aid the folk in agriculture and animal husbandry. Druids are, therefore, neutral — although slightly predisposed towards evil actions.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-orkrl_JCxGo/VKMvSEOdLCI/AAAAAAAAC30/BVIa-CwK4Gg/s1600/531001_400433280025300_1590190270_n.jpg

"As a final note, most of humanity falls into the lawful category, and most of lawful humanity lies near the line between good and evil. With proper leadership the majority will be prone towards lawful/good. Few humans are chaotic, and very few are chaotic and evil"

- Gary Gygax

http://hilobrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/gygax-futurama.jpg


From:
Feet of Clay by Terry Pratchett

'They think they want good government and justice for all, Vimes, yet what is it they really crave, deep in their hearts? Only that things go on as normal and tomorrow is pretty much like today.'

- Lord Vetinari

http://www.ealasaid.com/fan/vetinari/images/vetport.jpg

Some graphs:
[B]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LDbDeU_0i1g/TfJNFmcn4mI/AAAAAAAAAaQ/txjRi0uJHqE/s1600/Alignment.jpg


https://retrorpg.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/screen-shot-2011-03-10-at-4-43-37-pm.png


Made simple-
https://1d4chan.org/images/thumb/4/45/Alignment_Demotivational.jpg/350px-Alignment_Demotivational.jpg

From Pratchett's Discworld-
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/71/47/1c/71471c4a84496bb6ae3cb129d35b036c.jpg

And from
THE MEANING OF LAW AND CHAOS IN DUNGEONS & DRAGONS
AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO GOOD AND EVIL
by Gary Gygax

http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9Kj5-_N2I/AAAAAAAAGsM/f6v1q8cQDGY/s1600/illus2%5B2%5D.jpg

But the "rules" on alignment and [b] everything else are up to each individual table:

Dungeons and Dragons, The Underground and Wilderness Adventures, p. 36: "... everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it that way."

AD&D 1e, DMG, p. 9: "The game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play."





AD&D 2E, DMG, p. 3: "At conventions, in letters, and over the phone, I'm often asked for the instant answer to a fine point of the game rules. More often than not, I come back with a question -- what do you feel is right? And the people asking the question discover that not only can they create an answer, but that their answer is as good as anyone else's. The rules are only guidelines."

D&D 3.5 DMG, p. 6: "Good players will always realize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook."

D&D 5e DMG, p. 263:: "As the Dungeon Master, You aren't limited by the rules in the Player's Handbook, the guidelines in this book, or the selection of monsters in the Monster Manual

Tanarii
2017-10-15, 11:46 PM
What edition are you playing?

Because if the edition is 5e and he's not running some kind of special Alignment house-rules, tell him both your Alignment, and your choice of how to use it as a roleplaying tool, are yours and yours alone.

Anonymouswizard
2017-10-16, 04:38 AM
Yeah, this is why I prefer Lamentations of the Flame Princess alignments to classic D&D ones. They actually have nothing to do with personality, a Chaotic magic user can be more regimented than a Lawful cleric, but with which divine beings are manipulating and favouring you.

Jerrykhor
2017-10-16, 05:26 AM
I think every DM or potential DM needs to watch Matt Colville's video on Alignment to get a better understanding of it. To put it simply, your D&D experience is better off without it.

Think of them as 'stereotypes'. Its okay to stereotype a character, to simplify its behaviour into something that is easily understood. But it doesn't define you. To give you an example, most people would say that Darth Vader is Lawful Evil, but Lawful Evil is not Darth Vader. It doesn't work in reverse, so you can't just fill in the 'Alignment' column with one of the 9 types and call it a character. Because it is not. Think about it: How stupid is it that the entire world only have 9 types of characters?

You are playing a character, not an alignment.

Anonymouswizard
2017-10-16, 05:56 AM
I think every DM or potential DM needs to watch Matt Colville's video on Alignment to get a better understanding of it. To put it simply, your D&D experience is better off without it.

Think of them as 'stereotypes'. Its okay to stereotype a character, to simplify its behaviour into something that is easily understood. But it doesn't define you. To give you an example, most people would say that Darth Vader is Lawful Evil, but Lawful Evil is not Darth Vader. It doesn't work in reverse, so you can't just fill in the 'Alignment' column with one of the 9 types and call it a character. Because it is not. Think about it: How stupid is it that the entire world only have 9 types of characters?

You are playing a character, not an alignment.

What's your view on 'alignment is who you're allied with, not how you act' systems?

So protection from good affects lawful characters because angels watch over them and give them strength, but even a goody two shoes chaotic character can get through because they're buddy buddy with demons.

But yeah, I agree with not using D&D-style alignments. If used correctly they give little benefit, if used wrong they are the straightest of jackets.

veti
2017-10-16, 09:37 AM
Sounds to me like your DM has his own plans for this alchemist dude.

The DM put him into the game as a plot hook, he's supposed to be an adversary of some sort, and instead you're supporting him. That's not how he imagined it going. And so the DM is... basically, punishing you for going off the plot rails.

Nifft
2017-10-16, 11:37 AM
What's your view on 'alignment is who you're allied with, not how you act' systems?

So protection from good affects lawful characters because angels watch over them and give them strength, but even a goody two shoes chaotic character can get through because they're buddy buddy with demons.

I did that with a D&D game.

Alignment was only non-neutral if you had a supernatural affiliation, or you had sufficient magical conduct in one particular direction (ie if you summoned a lot of [Chaotic] monsters).

Some supernatural patrons cared about your mundane conduct -- like the ones which oversee a Paladin's vows -- but the universe at large did not. Mundane conduct could cost you Cleric casting, but nom-magical conduct wouldn't ever make a mundane Rogue detect as anything but neutral, no matter how many orphans she saved and/or murdered.

Most people were neutral (having no affiliation).

Good wizards could detect as [Evil] due to using [Evil] spells like Summon Monster; this was not uncommon in fact.


It worked great for us.

Tanarii
2017-10-16, 11:39 AM
To put it simply, your D&D experience is better off without it.Unless you use 5e Alignment. It's designed to be one component (the moral & social attitudes component) of a multi-faceted personality, providing just 1 of 5 motivations, that the player then can use as a tool when making decisions for your character (aka Roleplaying).

This rather dramatically improves any D&D experience that involves roleplaying a character that isn't you, the player. Far more than the typical backstory does, given players tendency to write character history instead of clear character motivations. (Although that's not a given.)


You are playing a character, not an alignment.Yah. That's why 5e Alignment is actually useful. Used as intended, it helps you play a character personality that isn't your personality, not an alignment.

Edit: This is, of course, contingent on both the player and the DM understanding 5e Alignments purpose. And that it is in the hands of the player to decide how to 'play' their Alignment. A DM telling someone how to play their Alignment doesn't make sense, other than as a general suggestion, or a house rule (meaning rule of the house). For example, I have a house rule of "No Evil Characters", and I've defined it as meaning "No characters that consistently behave over a period of time in line with an evil alignment behavior description."

Anonymouswizard
2017-10-16, 12:10 PM
I did that with a D&D game.

Alignment was only non-neutral if you had a supernatural affiliation, or you had sufficient magical conduct in one particular direction (ie if you summoned a lot of [Chaotic] monsters).

Some supernatural patrons cared about your mundane conduct -- like the ones which oversee a Paladin's vows -- but the universe at large did not. Mundane conduct could cost you Cleric casting, but nom-magical conduct wouldn't ever make a mundane Rogue detect as anything but neutral, no matter how many orphans she saved and/or murdered.

Most people were neutral (having no affiliation).

Good wizards could detect as [Evil] due to using [Evil] spells like Summon Monster; this was not uncommon in fact.


It worked great for us.

Yeah, Alignment seems to work the best when it's talking about the world, not the character. When I manage to get a physical copy of LotFP I plan to run a game which takes it's alignment system to extremes: Clerics are lawful, Magic Users and Elves are chaotic, and everybody else is neutral. (Ah, who am I kidding, I'm hopping to run it from pdf next week, if they don't go for Fantasy AGE.)


Unless you use 5e Alignment. It's designed to be one component (the moral & social attitudes component) of a multi-faceted personality, providing just 1 of 5 motivations, that the player then can use as a tool when making decisions for your character (aka Roleplaying).

This rather dramatically improves any D&D experience that involves roleplaying a character that isn't you, the player. Far more than the typical backstory does, given players tendency to write character history instead of clear character motivations. (Although that's not a given.)

Yah. That's why 5e Alignment is actually useful. Used as intended, it helps you play a character personality that isn't your personality, not an alignment.

Edit: This is, of course, contingent on both the player and the DM understanding 5e Alignments purpose. And that it is in the hands of the player to decide how to 'play' their Alignment. A DM telling someone how to play their Alignment doesn't make sense, other than as a general suggestion, or a house rule (meaning rule of the house). For example, I have a house rule of "No Evil Characters", and I've defined it as meaning "No characters that consistently behave over a period of time in line with an evil alignment behavior description."

Let me check, can you give me one benefit to using Alignment over just another personality trait? I'll check back later.

Tanarii
2017-10-16, 12:24 PM
Let me check, can you give me one benefit to using Alignment over just another personality trait? I'll check back later.In 5e, Alignment is defined as "social and moral attitudes".

D&D is traditionally a game about heroes and villains. Or more accurately, murderheroes* vs villains. What's important is what side you're on, if any.

Therefore it is an advantage in a traditional game of D&D to have a category of motivations that defines social and moral attitudes. I mean, originally it was THE important category, since it determined which 'side' you were on, ie Aligned with. Even now, in a traditional game, it's still important.

That doesn't mean it's an advantage in every game. But even in non-traditional games, having a category for general moral and social attitudes is probably a good idea. It's an important theme / concept as part of personality for many character in fiction, as well as for many individuals in real life. So if "Alignment" as in "which side are you on" isn't needed, there's still a benefit to having a personality category / trait related to "moral outlook" and "social outlook". Or (to use the 5e trait that overlaps with Alignment) "Ideal".


(Edit: When you're dealing with murderheroes, it's very important to know / define that they're on a different side from the villains. It's not always immediately obvious. :smallbiggrin: )

2D8HP
2017-10-16, 06:32 PM
Unless you use 5e Alignment. It's designed to be one component (the moral & social attitudes component) of a multi-faceted personality, providing just 1 of 5 motivations, that the player then can use as a tool when making decisions for your character (aka Roleplaying)....


Alignment used with the "Traits", "Ideals", "Bonds" and "Flaws" of 5e seems like a better "primer for role-playing" than just "Alignment" was in the past. I'm reminded a bit of Pendragon's "Traits" and "Passions", but without diminishing player "agency".


Yeah, Alignment seems to work the best when it's talking about the world, not the character. When I manage to get a physical copy of LotFP I plan to run a game which takes it's alignment system to extremes: Clerics are lawful, Magic Users and Elves are chaotic, and everybody else is neutral.


Sounds awesome AW, I wish you were across the Bay instead of across two Oceans so I could just hand you my copy!

ImNotTrevor
2017-10-17, 12:05 AM
In 5e, Alignment is defined as "social and moral attitudes".

D&D is traditionally a game about heroes and villains. Or more accurately, murderheroes* vs villains. What's important is what side you're on, if any.

Therefore it is an advantage in a traditional game of D&D to have a category of motivations that defines social and moral attitudes. I mean, originally it was THE important category, since it determined which 'side' you were on, ie Aligned with. Even now, in a traditional game, it's still important.

That doesn't mean it's an advantage in every game. But even in non-traditional games, having a category for general moral and social attitudes is probably a good idea. It's an important theme / concept as part of personality for many character in fiction, as well as for many individuals in real life. So if "Alignment" as in "which side are you on" isn't needed, there's still a benefit to having a personality category / trait related to "moral outlook" and "social outlook". Or (to use the 5e trait that overlaps with Alignment) "Ideal".


(Edit: When you're dealing with murderheroes, it's very important to know / define that they're on a different side from the villains. It's not always immediately obvious. :smallbiggrin: )

The irony of this is that the designers of 5e have said they would strip out alignment without hesitation if they though it wouldn't cause massive backlash. Unfortunately, they can't, so they are continuing a trend of making it increasingly meaningless to the overall experience.

Alignment is an afterthought, and the designers of D&D all but actively encourage people to ignore it. I'll link to the roundtable discussion on it if I get requests to do so. It's fairly long and reveals things such as one of rhe designers for D&D flat-out admitting that Fireball in 5e is too strong for its spell level but they kept it that way on purpose because casting fireball should be cool.

But yeah, you have the blessing of the designers of you wanna skip alignment for 5e. Or if you just can't imagine D&D without it, keep it. But it's 100% optional content.

Tanarii
2017-10-17, 01:07 AM
It shows. They made Ideal a personality category potentially (but not necessarily) tied to moral and social attitudes (which in 5e is Alignment).

And they put pretty heavy emphasis on Factions in the DMG, which AL also uses. That's an effective replacement for 'which team are you'.

I totally agree that Alignment, as a term and using the the specific D&D names, isn't a required thing. They just made it useful and able to be used with the rest of the Personality System if you're keeping it, giving it non-specific broad moral and social attitudes that tend to create a general overall behavior.

If you don't, you can easily pull it out and replace it with some other version of a specific moral attitudes personality trait. Or stick with just 5e's Ideal. Or even have players write their own motives. Although IMX even experienced TRPG players aren't particular good at creating ones that span multiple facets of personality, without at least some direction as a basis.

Millstone85
2017-10-17, 07:52 AM
We had a session today where the party ended up at a shop of a twitchy little goblin alchemist selling potions that turned out were to be injected giving you magical abilities.
While there my character ended up purchasing one of them and the group was pulled into helping the little guy with setting up a legitimate storefront in the next session.
The potion let you summon a bunch of birds that would attack your target and wouldn't stop until they were pecked clean.
Me: Who's to say I can't judge that the vigor can do more good than bad even if bad people can get it.
Sounds to me like your DM has his own plans for this alchemist dude.I suspect the DM might have been counting on the players to recognize the BioShock rip-off and not side with the company that develops the vigors.

Of course, that's metagaming.


The irony of this is that the designers of 5e have said they would strip out alignment without hesitation if they though it wouldn't cause massive backlash. Unfortunately, they can't, so they are continuing a trend of making it increasingly meaningless to the overall experience.If this is what brought back the Great Wheel, then I am kinda glad it went that way. I like a cosmology having heavens and hells. I also like the idea of a plane that is the literal clockwork of the universe, sitting opposite a plane of unfettered creativity.

But in such a context, figuring out the alignment of a character should have some gravitas. The DM is portraying a divine agent weighing someone's soul. It is not something that can be done every session without things getting ridiculous or the DM getting some seriously bloated ego.

ImNotTrevor
2017-10-17, 09:26 AM
If this is what brought back the Great Wheel, then I am kinda glad it went that way. I like a cosmology having heavens and hells. I also like the idea of a plane that is the literal clockwork of the universe, sitting opposite a plane of unfettered creativity.

But in such a context, figuring out the alignment of a character should have some gravitas. The DM is portraying a divine agent weighing someone's soul. It is not something that can be done every session without things getting ridiculous or the DM getting some seriously bloated ego.

The Great Wheel was only gone for 4e, when they tried stripping things out of D&D and got backlash.

And if you're not using alignment, why would you keep using the Great Wheel or not just have a quick chat with the player about what the most likely outcome would be between sessions?

Anonymouswizard
2017-10-17, 09:48 AM
In 5e, Alignment is defined as "social and moral attitudes".

D&D is traditionally a game about heroes and villains. Or more accurately, murderheroes* vs villains. What's important is what side you're on, if any.

Therefore it is an advantage in a traditional game of D&D to have a category of motivations that defines social and moral attitudes. I mean, originally it was THE important category, since it determined which 'side' you were on, ie Aligned with. Even now, in a traditional game, it's still important.

That doesn't mean it's an advantage in every game. But even in non-traditional games, having a category for general moral and social attitudes is probably a good idea. It's an important theme / concept as part of personality for many character in fiction, as well as for many individuals in real life. So if "Alignment" as in "which side are you on" isn't needed, there's still a benefit to having a personality category / trait related to "moral outlook" and "social outlook". Or (to use the 5e trait that overlaps with Alignment) "Ideal".


(Edit: When you're dealing with murderheroes, it's very important to know / define that they're on a different side from the villains. It's not always immediately obvious. :smallbiggrin: )

The problem is, with 5e personality traits, what's the point of allignment. If you don't want to combine it with ideal you get a much more flexible system asking players to fill in a personality trait called 'ethics', with no relationship to old alignment. IIRC the mechanical effects have been removed to the point that we don't even need the old 'everybody counts as neutral' houserule.


Alignment used with the "Traits", "Ideals", "Bonds" and "Flaws" of 5e seems like a better "primer for role-playing" than just "Alignment" was in the past. I'm reminded a bit of Pendragon's "Traits" and "Passions", but without diminishing player "agency".

Although I still think they're not as good as Unknown Armies and it's Triggers. That at least gave an active bonus for roleplaying, that flip flop or reroll 1/session/Trigger was useful and encouraged more complex characters (okay, my Fear and Anger Triggers are relatively generic for my character type, so let's take an out there Noble Trigger).


Sounds awesome AW, I wish you were across the Bay instead of across two Oceans so I could just hand you my copy!

Yep, it's at a point of 'when is the shop going to get in a new copy' right now, missed my last chance to buy one and I can't be asked to pay the extra money for Amazon to ship it.

On the other hand, I've got lots of physical games anyway. Because I now need to be prepared in case somebody doesn't come with a one-shot I'm readying Masters of Umdaar for Fate Accelerated as well, going for lots of Beastmen and Chimera to represent more 'inventive' fantasy.

EDIT: I think the lack of need for alignment is shown by how many systems don't have it. While they generally assume that either the PCs are more heroic than D&D's standard assumption (which is still mercenaries looking for work) not all of them do, and nobody screams that they're broken due to the lack of alignment. Those that have it either make it a key part of the game (try to balance using your powers and not being evil) or don't suffer any benefit, and Sanity systems seem to generally be considered superior.

Tanarii
2017-10-17, 10:39 AM
I have to say, the way torchbearer handled traits mechanically really jumped out at me. You can, and in fact want to, take negative mechanical effects at times due to your traits. As well as positive ones at other times. I personally liked that as a direct reason to encourage motivations having a clear effect on making decisions for your character (aka roleplaying).

I mean, it's not required by any means to have Mechanical effects for roleplaying motivations at all. Turns up the focus on motivations quite a lot, but it opens the door to making in-character decisions based on motivations feel more game-y and less holistic. Which some people won't like.

I find it has both advantages and disadvantages. Rewarding things encourages those things. But how you reward them changes what it encourages. People have a strong tendency to go into "push button A to get reward X" mode.

Millstone85
2017-10-17, 10:48 AM
And if you're not using alignment, why would you keep using the Great Wheel or not just have a quick chat with the player about what the most likely outcome would be between sessions?Because it is one thing for a campaign to feature demons as enemies, or to end with the BBEG being dragged off to Hell, and it is another to tell a player that the character they made should go to Hell. The former is enough to want a cosmology with cosmic Good and Evil, while the latter is certainly no "quick chat" matter and shouldn't be a default concern when the campaign doesn't require the PCs to go through any holy challenge.

On the other axis, Mechanus is great to explain the intervention of agents of fate, like some version of the grim reaper or the time police. But figuring out if your character is lawful, for a particular edition or DM's definition of it, is just a bore.

ImNotTrevor
2017-10-17, 03:31 PM
Because it is one thing for a campaign to feature demons as enemies, or to end with the BBEG being dragged off to Hell, and it is another to tell a player that the character they made should go to Hell. The former is enough to want a cosmology with cosmic Good and Evil, while the latter is certainly no "quick chat" matter and shouldn't be a default concern when the campaign doesn't require the PCs to go through any holy challenge.

"Hey Steve, so this last session your character died, which is a bummer. But lucky you, we're going to do am adventure to go find you in your afterlife. Now, we've not been using alignment in any official capacity, but which afterlife from the Great Wheel seems like the best fit for Artemian?"

This chat should take, at max, 5 minutes. it's their character, and their vote should matter heavily. And note that nobody is saying "this is where you go." Just "which do you think is appropriate?"

And if you want to have a character end up in hell despite best intentions, there are ways for that to happen that don't involve denying a character's goodness. (Planar entity shenanigans come to mind)



On the other axis, Mechanus is great to explain the intervention of agents of fate, like some version of the grim reaper or the time police. But figuring out if your character is lawful, for a particular edition or DM's definition of it, is just a bore.

Hence why I want alignment gone. You can have entities who are dedicated to absolute order in the universe without needing an alignment chart to go with it.

For reference, see the countless examples in media of that character archetype that don't have Good, Evil, Law, and/or Chaos as physical forces.

It doesn't do anything to enhance my gaming experience. So why would I bother keeping it around?

denthor
2017-10-17, 03:40 PM
Neutral we need some law but not a lot

Good we need to help when we can.

Together I can go with the flow so long as nobody really gets hurt. Then I should help to the best of my ability the hurt party.

Lawful good paladin ask all the questions get the wrong answer I will not do business with you. Lawful good in general are you a licensed and established business with a good standing with the lord of the land and constable. I would not want to contribute to an unlawful business.

Chaotic good are these parts made with pure ingredients?

Lawful Evil do you support the rightly installed lord of the land?

Neutral Evil. I want this his my gold

Chaotic evil I need this you do not really want to charge me full price do you? Store burn down a week later.

Anonymouswizard
2017-10-17, 04:01 PM
If you are going to have alignments don't think about what someone with that alignment would do, ask yourself what they won't do.

A Lawful Neutral character will not disobey a legitimate authority. A Lawful Good character wouldn't break the law just to harm someone. A Chaotic Evil character, okay chaotics are a bit harder.

Lord Raziere
2017-10-17, 04:11 PM
A Chaotic Evil character, okay chaotics are a bit harder.

Easy: They won't let things they don't want hold them back or get in their way. A chaotic character won't let having to lie to get in the way of getting to their goal. They won't let the law get in the way, and they won't let any notions of honor get in the way of winning a fight. To a Chaotic character, they are only stopped by the things they WANT to be stopped by. a Lawful character allows things to stop them because they believe in something beyond themselves that means they SHOULD even though they don't like it. a Chaotic allows things to stop them because of their own personal reasons, and even then if they change their mind they can find a way to work around it, not letting something get in the way of them succeeding.

Anonymouswizard
2017-10-17, 04:18 PM
Easy: They won't let things they don't want hold them back or get in their way. A chaotic character won't let having to lie to get in the way of getting to their goal. They won't let the law get in the way, and they won't let any notions of honor get in the way of winning a fight. To a Chaotic character, they are only stopped by the things they WANT to be stopped by. a Lawful character allows things to stop them because they believe in something beyond themselves that means they SHOULD even though they don't like it. a Chaotic allows things to stop them because of their own personal reasons, and even then if they change their mind they can find a way to work around it, not letting something get in the way of them succeeding.

Yeah, I lean lawful IRL so thinking like a chaotic is hard for me.

Although this makes my point perfectly, in several cases a Lawful Good character will perform the same actions as a Chaotic Evil one. They'll just have different reasons (one has to produce an heir, the other just wants a shag, to take a random example).

Quertus
2017-10-17, 09:10 PM
Easy: They won't let things they don't want hold them back or get in their way. A chaotic character won't let having to lie to get in the way of getting to their goal. They won't let the law get in the way, and they won't let any notions of honor get in the way of winning a fight. To a Chaotic character, they are only stopped by the things they WANT to be stopped by. a Lawful character allows things to stop them because they believe in something beyond themselves that means they SHOULD even though they don't like it. a Chaotic allows things to stop them because of their own personal reasons, and even then if they change their mind they can find a way to work around it, not letting something get in the way of them succeeding.

Actually, this brings up the problem of what a neutral character won't do - and, it seems, by this logic, the answer is "nothing".

So what, if anything, defines neutrality?


Yeah, I lean lawful IRL so thinking like a chaotic is hard for me.

Although this makes my point perfectly, in several cases a Lawful Good character will perform the same actions as a Chaotic Evil one. They'll just have different reasons (one has to produce an heir, the other just wants a shag, to take a random example).

C'mon now, you're not going to suggest... I don't think I even want to go there, actually. :smalleek:

Lord Raziere
2017-10-17, 09:16 PM
Actually, this brings up the problem of what a neutral character won't do - and, it seems, by this logic, the answer is "nothing".

So what, if anything, defines neutrality?


What? No. Neutrals are easy.

A neutral character won't commit. That is not to say they don't have their own beliefs or their own goals, but they will probably dislike doing some hard, fast and dedicated to getting it done. like, they may go towards their goal, but they don't commit to some hard philosophy to achieve it nor take the risk of just doing whatever they want, because people who do Whatever They Want can be seen as dangerous more easily than people who don't, and thus more likely to be stopped by other people. Chaotic people are closer to "Nothing" than Neutrals, not quite there but....well Chaotics are risk takers who will hardline stand up for whatever they want no matter how many people hate them for it, or lie no matter how great the risks are if they are found out. A Neutral one the other hand will find such things too risky and full of commitment- but will also see committing to Lawful practices as too stifling.

Mr Beer
2017-10-17, 09:23 PM
OP,

Your DM is wrong wong wrongetty wrong, that's not how alignment works and DMs who try to make it operate as a character straightjacket are probably largely responsible for the plethora of gamers who hate the D&D alignment system.

Koo Rhetoorb suggested the easiest solution IMO i.e. you play your character how you want and let the DM tell you what alignment that is. If he thinks 'generally good natured, absent minded, wants adventure' has to be Chaotic Neutral or whatever, who cares? As long as you get to play your way and it makes him happy.

However this is a red flag, if he's going to continually tell you how to think, my suggestion is to move games.

EDIT

BTW you'll notice this has now triggered a debate on what alignment actually means, which is one of the reasons it can be such a bone of contention in games...there isn't any real consensus in the gaming community once you get down to specific scenarios. One of the few things that the community will largely agree on though is that quirks like 'careless', 'absent minded', 'likes doughnuts', 'enjoys sculpture' do not define a character's alignment.

Honest Tiefling
2017-10-17, 09:26 PM
Although this makes my point perfectly, in several cases a Lawful Good character will perform the same actions as a Chaotic Evil one. They'll just have different reasons (one has to produce an heir, the other just wants a shag, to take a random example).

...I'm heavily assuming that the lawful good character is doing things like setting out rose petals, getting some nice wine, lighting some candles, commissioning magical items, or playing some music, not...That.


A Lawful Neutral character will not disobey a legitimate authority. A Lawful Good character wouldn't break the law just to harm someone. A Chaotic Evil character, okay chaotics are a bit harder.

If the otherwise legitimate authority makes a decision completely out of line with the LN character's ideals, I could see them disobeying, particularly if that ideal is 'This LN character doesn't agree with being executed'. A lawful good character only has to consider (not obey) laws from a authority that is interested in the well-being of their people. If they need to punch a necromancer raising zombies to eat innocent people in the face, they should probably consider that course of action even if it is illegal.

One easy thing I find to do with chaotics is just do what you feel is best to achieve your goals at that particular moment. Don't sweat trying to categorize things, life is complicated.

Then again, I've recently turned to putting down nonsense in the alignment field of my character sheets to see if the DM even notices.

Keltest
2017-10-17, 09:32 PM
If the otherwise legitimate authority makes a decision completely out of line with the LN character's ideals, I could see them disobeying, particularly if that ideal is 'This LN character doesn't agree with being executed'. A lawful good character only has to consider (not obey) laws from a authority that is interested in the well-being of their people. If they need to punch a necromancer raising zombies to eat innocent people in the face, they should probably consider that course of action even if it is illegal.

One easy thing I find to do with chaotics is just do what you feel is best to achieve your goals at that particular moment. Don't sweat trying to categorize things, life is complicated.

Then again, I've recently turned to putting down nonsense in the alignment field of my character sheets to see if the DM even notices.

A Lawful Neutral character's ideals are usually some variation of "Order uber alles". They believe that undermining the inherent structure in the group or groups they belong to is the worst thing they could do, bar none. They'll do something they find distasteful, because they find the idea of violating the inherent order to be more distasteful. Likewise, a tyrant who ultimately threatens instability and disorder through their unnecessarily tight grasp is to be avoided and replaced if at all possible.

Honest Tiefling
2017-10-17, 09:36 PM
Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive. What you have written on your character sheet should be an honest assessment of how you believe your character to be behaving, not a statement that you intend your character to behave according to specific patterns no matter what.

Furthermore, just because the lawful neutral character is in a particular society, does not mean they are the only power group laying down the laws. They could easily be a political rival of whoever passed said law, or obey a body of law not recognized by the place they are in, such as a travelling monk spreading a far superior philosophy of order.

Keltest
2017-10-17, 09:59 PM
Furthermore, just because the lawful neutral character is in a particular society, does not mean they are the only power group laying down the laws. They could easily be a political rival of whoever passed said law, or obey a body of law not recognized by the place they are in, such as a travelling monk spreading a far superior philosophy of order.

I'm sorry, are you disagreeing with me? Its hard to tell, because while you are quoting me, it isn't the post you seem to be responding to, which makes me think youre either attempting to rebut me with my own words or agreeing with me and then... I'm not even sure. Your entire post seems to be talking about something slightly different.

If I understand you correctly though, what the law says doesn't necessarily have any impact on what a Lawful person will do. Theyre perfectly capable of creating their own system of order and adhering to that.

Honest Tiefling
2017-10-17, 10:09 PM
If I understand you correctly though, what the law says doesn't necessarily have any impact on what a Lawful person will do. Theyre perfectly capable of creating their own system of order and adhering to that.

I'm agreeing with the former, disagreeing with the later. A lawful character must adhere to their own values and body of laws. What that happens to be is why we have a plethora of different lawful archetypes. So no, a lawful character doesn't even need to obey every single law that would apply to the group of people they are a part of, because by necessity, a character could very easily belong to a multitude of groups. Or in some cases, have membership be thrust upon them, such as being a serf or peasant.

They should probably just uphold something or the other.

Nifft
2017-10-17, 10:20 PM
They should probably just uphold something or the other.

What I do is have Lawful people respect organizations & institutions over individuals, while Chaotic people don't even see the organizations -- the Chaotic person has a contract with another person, period.


The Lawful Good person says: if we improve the laws, regulations, and civic process, that will benefit the people.

Lawful people think in processes, organizations, institutions.


The Chaotic Good person says: the rules don't matter, what matters is the people in charge. Replace them with better people and any "process" will be fine.

Chaotic people think in terms of individuals.


Both of these positions are valid, to a degree. Nobody has to hold an idiot-ball. Both are sympathetic.

Neutral can respect both positions, while not really favoring either.

Keltest
2017-10-17, 10:23 PM
I'm agreeing with the former, disagreeing with the later. A lawful character must adhere to their own values and body of laws. What that happens to be is why we have a plethora of different lawful archetypes. So no, a lawful character doesn't even need to obey every single law that would apply to the group of people they are a part of, because by necessity, a character could very easily belong to a multitude of groups. Or in some cases, have membership be thrust upon them, such as being a serf or peasant.

They should probably just uphold something or the other.

Ok, but at the same time, the groups they consider themselves belonging to are going to affect and be affected by their personal values.

Your earlier example of somebody who would speak out against execution even though their group code says "execute these people" either has some other reason to be a part of the group which would affect their "is this worth speaking out against" judgment, or they wouldn't be part of the group at all, in which case they aren't going against it.

Honest Tiefling
2017-10-17, 10:27 PM
Ok, but at the same time, the groups they consider themselves belonging to are going to affect and be affected by their personal values.

Probably. But it's difficult to say that a lawful character will NEVER disobey a legitimate authority, or you tend to get Lawful Stupid. If they refuse to get executed, they might retain loyalty to the values of the organization but lack the willingness to die.

Keltest
2017-10-17, 10:33 PM
Probably. But it's difficult to say that a lawful character will NEVER disobey a legitimate authority, or you tend to get Lawful Stupid. If they refuse to get executed, they might retain loyalty to the values of the organization but lack the willingness to die.

Well, in that case, either their loyalty to those values is lesser than their loyalty to themselves, or they believe that the values of their organization are not being supported by their death. Probably the latter, since lawfuls are generally disinclined to pursue entirely personal interests against the benefit of the whole.

Anonymouswizard
2017-10-18, 05:10 AM
C'mon now, you're not going to suggest... I don't think I even want to go there, actually. :smalleek:


...I'm heavily assuming that the lawful good character is doing things like setting out rose petals, getting some nice wine, lighting some candles, commissioning magical items, or playing some music, not...That.

I was presuming consent! Honestly, is it so hard to believe that a Chaotic Evil person might get consent from someone? Chaotic Evil doesn't mean 'puppy kicking, woman raping cartoon villain'. Nothing there implied that there wasn't supposed to be consent except possibly that one was Chaotic Evil.

Is it a surprise that Evil has such a bad cosmic rap? You guys always take the worst examples when discussing it.

2D8HP
2017-10-18, 08:05 AM
I think my earlier post has a graph that shows how to play an "alignment":


https://1d4chan.org/images/thumb/4/45/Alignment_Demotivational.jpg/350px-Alignment_Demotivational.jpg

I will note that this doesn't fit my own lived experience in that how I fall on the graph changes with how much coffee or tea I've recently injested, and whether I lately heard harsh or soft words!

Maybe other people are more consistent and I'm an outlier in having a fluid "alignment"?

Or just maybe consistent "alignments" are a game contrivance and don't actually apply to realistic characters?

Anyway for fun lets look at the history of D&D "Alignment":

Dave Arneson wrote that he added "alignment" to the game he made up because of one PC backstabbing another (http://www.jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/Archive_OLD/rpg2.html)

"We began without the multitude of character classes and three alignments that exists today. I felt that as a team working towards common goals there would be it was all pretty straight forward. Wrong!

"Give me my sword back!" "Nah your old character is dead, it's mine now!"

Well I couldn't really make him give it to the new character. But then came the treasure question. The Thieves question. Finally there were the two new guys. One decided that there was no reason to share the goodies. Since there was no one else around and a +3 for rear attacks . . .. well . . Of course everyone actually KNEW what had happened, especially the target.

After a great deal of discussion . . . yes let us call it "discussion" the culprit promised to make amends. He, and his associate did. The next time the orcs attacked the two opened the door and let the Orcs in. They shared the loot and fled North to the lands of the EGG OF COOT. (Sigh)

We now had alignment. Spells to detect alignment, and rules forbidding actions not allowed by ones alignment. Actually not as much fun as not knowing. Chuck and John had a great time being the 'official' evil players.
They would draw up adventures to trap the others (under my supervision) and otherwise make trouble"


From the 1975 Greyhawk supplement:
"Chaotic Alignment by a player generally betokens chaotic action on the player's part without any rule to stress this aspect, i.e. a chaotic player is usually more prone to stab even his lawless buddy in the back for some desired gain. However, chaos is just that - chaotic. Evil monsters are as likely to turn on their supposed confederate in order to have all the loot as they are to attack a lawful party in the first place".

"All thieves are either neutral or chaotic - although lawful characters may hire them on a one-time basis for missions which are basically lawful"

In the original 1974 rules "Patriarchs" (high level Clerics) "stance" is "Law", and "Evil High Priests" "stance" is "Chaos". So we can infer that Law = Good, and Chaos = Evil in early D&D, which fits how the terms were used in novels Gygax cited as "inspiration", first in Anderson's "Three Hearts and Three Lions", and than later in Moorcock's "Stormbringer" (though Moorcock eventually in his novels show that too much "Law" is anti-human as well, which is probably why Gygax added the separate Good-Evil axis so you could have "Lawful Evil" and "Chaotic Good" alignmemts later).

http://78.media.tumblr.com/09cc36f8a218a01020a9091f8b045316/tumblr_o6zlilHRRS1v4fvg9o2_r1_540.jpg

In the 1961novel (based on a '53 short story) Three Hearts and Three Lions (http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/12/pulp-fantasy-gallery-three-hearts-and.html), we have this:

"....Holger got the idea that a perpetual struggle went on between primeval forces of Law and Chaos. No, not forces exactly. Modes of existence? A terrestrial reflection of the spiritual conflict between heaven and hell? In any case, humans were the chief agents on earth of Law, though most of them were so only unconsciously and some, witches and warlocks and evildoers, had sold out to Chaos. A few nonhuman beings also stood for Law. Ranged against them were almost the whole Middle World, which seemed to include realms like Faerie, Trollheim, and the Giants--an actual creation of Chaos. Wars among men, such as the long-drawn struggle between the Saracens and the Holy Empire, aided Chaos; under Law all men would live in peace and order and that liberty which only Law could give meaning. But this was so alien to the Middle Worlders that they were forever working to prevent it and extend their own shadowy dominion....."

.which suggests that Law vs. Chaos is about "teams" in a cosmic struggle rather than personal ethics/morality, which is how the terms are used in the old Stormbringer RPG, and would be my preference.

1976's Eldrich Wizardry supplement added the Mind Flayers which were the first monters that were explicitly both "lawful" and "evil" and Gygax in The Strategic Review: February 1976 (http://annarchive.com/files/Strv201.pdf) article added the "good and evil axis", but he made clear in this graph:
http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9Kj5-_N2I/AAAAAAAAGsM/f6v1q8cQDGY/s1600/illus2%5B2%5D.jpg

.that creatures don't just exist on one of nine points of ethics/morality, there's a range:

Also in the article (http://themagictreerpg.blogspot.com/2008/09/history-of-alignment-in-d-part-i.html?m=1) Gygax states:

"Placement of characters upon a graph similar to that in Illustration I is necessary if the dungeonmaster is to maintain a record of player-character alignment. Initially, each character should be placed squarely on the center point of his alignment, i.e., lawful/good, lawful/evil, etc. The actions of each game week will then be taken into account when determining the current position of each character. Adjustment is perforce often subjective, but as a guide the referee can consider the actions of a given player in light of those characteristics which typify his alignment, and opposed actions can further be weighed with regard to intensity....

....Alignment does not preclude actions which typify a different alignment, but such actions will necessarily affect the position of the character performing them, and the class or the alignment of the character in question can change due to such actions, unless counter-deeds are performed to balance things."


What I infer from that "Alignment" doesn't control the PC's actions, PC actions are a guide to what "Alignment" the DM rules a character is for game effects.

So leave the entry blank, and let the DM deal with the alignment claptrap (frankly as a player I'd rather keep a character possessions inventory sheet and foist the "stats" on the DM anyway)!

Tanarii
2017-10-18, 12:01 PM
I will note that this doesn't fit my own lived experience in that how I fall on the graph changes with how much coffee or tea I've recently injested, and whether I lately heard harsh or soft words!Lol yup. My posts are far more combative, argumentative, censorious, and I'm-right-ish starting about 30 minutes after my first coffee, for about the next 2-3 hours.

JNAProductions
2017-10-18, 12:05 PM
I also enjoy nonsensical alignments.

My most recent homebrew NPC had the alignment "Bombastic Good", as befits the person.

Tanarii
2017-10-18, 12:19 PM
Most of my characters are Aligned as Murderheroes. They have a home base, they work with other adventurers, without questioning their origin or motives, they won't straight up kill children, and they might consider letting enemies surrender if they give up all their loot and pinky-swear they'll reform their ways. But they happily go straight to violence at the drop of a pin, then loot the bodies & surroundings. When they torture, it's usually psychological.

Of course, I've played plenty of characters Aligned as Murderhobos too. Same as above, but they don't have a home base. And they happily cut down enemies begging to be spared, because DMs inevitably have enemies go get reinforcements or new allies, and come back to haunt you. Letting them live is clearly stupid. They torture but only when they really want some information.

And of course when I DM most of my (NPC) characters are Aligned as Villains. They will straight up kill children (if necessary or if they felt like it), torture (if necessary or because they felt like it), plan to dominate/destroy the world, and generally exist as cartoonish caricatures give the Murderheroes/Murderhobos something to fight and kill.

Most of these are (at best) Evil alignments under a strict DM like the OPs. And they're the reason moral Alignment was created in the first place. So you can Align them as Good, Neutral, and Evil, and focus on killing the villains and rolling their bodies for loot. I mean, you can just cut to the chase, and call them Murderhero, Murderhobo, and Villain.

Really, it's the same thing comic books and movies like Star Wars do. The "Good" guys aren't particularly good, but you can tell they are because they fight the clearly Bad / Evil guys. So we call them the Good guys anyway.

2D8HP
2017-10-18, 01:34 PM
Really, it's the same thing comic books and movies like Star Wars do. The "Good" guys aren't particularly good, but you can tell they are because they fight the clearly Bad / Evil guys. So we call them the Good guys anyway.


Before D&D, Gygax had Law vs. Chaos in the Fantasy appendix to the Chainmail wargame:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wb-QFUiuEqk/T_x0sXHILMI/AAAAAAAAFME/rEhioR7Tw3I/s280/ch☆nmailalign.jpg

..and there it's 'bout sides in a battle.


Arneson and Gygax got Law vs. Chaos from stories by Poul Anderson and Michael Moorcock, and it could be a coincidence but Michael Moorcock in A Quest for Tanelorn wrote:

"Chaos is not wholly evil, surely?" said the child. "And neither is Law wholly good. They are primitive divisions, at best-- they represent only temperamental differences in individual men and women. There are other elements..."
"
..which was published in 1975 in the UK, and 1976 in the USA, and '76 was when Gygax added "good" and "evil" to D&D Alignment.



Lol yup. My posts are far more combative, argumentative, censorious, and I'm-right-ish starting about 30 minutes after my first coffee, for about the next 2-3 hours.


Yep.

a portrait of me
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSpnhA6GfrR-_AfSeGN2Sp644hMIIsj1L3TVQ1Nz-_QUL-33bwa

https://www.thehairpin.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/0NeaWLE3SWGxsYvlW.jpg

http://68.media.tumblr.com/273b8013ecbd0898b2dc844a79b685f2/tumblr_mtnbujvGFo1rv3w77o5_r1_250.gif

https://kithmeme.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/evil.jpg?w=584

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2080/2418979372_08cd8af49d_o.jpg

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/_talQIilzbfQ/SnmYcLF0Q3I/AAAAAAAAAUQ/Q9RWFIUpBz8/s320/2509ccca24c0760.jpg

Segev
2017-10-18, 01:43 PM
Unless he's levying mechanical penalties on you, I'd just shrug and say "okay" to whatever he says your alignment is. Play your character. Let him describe it however he likes.

Don't play an alignment-restricted class or feat or what-have-you in his games, though.