PDA

View Full Version : The Alignment Of Stupidity



Bartmanhomer
2019-10-17, 05:59 PM
Ok. I know there are so many players who pull stupid stunts in the sake of the alignment. So how do you define: Stupid Good, Stupid Evil, Lawful Stupid, Chaotic Stupid and Neutral Stupid?

Afghanistan
2019-10-17, 06:44 PM
I really think this belongs in the roleplaying discussion more than here, but personal opinion asides.

An alignment is only "stupid" when it is the only defining property of a character. Take Mordenkainen (please) from Greyhawk. His commitment to "True Neutral" is so stupid that he will actually and without the slightest hint of remorse aid the forces of Evil against the forces of Good, if it means maintaining some arbitrary status quo with the universe. Granted, he will do the inverse all the same, it is still very stupid to side with evil with maintaining the status quo being your sole reasoning.

Essentially, a stupid alignment occurs only when you base your character wholly on that one basic aspect of your character. Most (but not all) stupid alignment characters are notoriously monodimensional. I define it as when you are asked why you did something your only answer is "my alignment is..." or some variance of that.

Luccan
2019-10-17, 06:52 PM
Lawful Stupid are the characters that repeatedly fight their own party because they broke the Lawful character's code (whether that just be the law or something personal)

Neutral Stupid characters refuse to be motivated. Helping friends? Never. Defend your homeland? Never. Cash reward? Only if they don't arbitrarily decide their character isn't interested today.

Chaotic Stupid are character who repeatedly fight their own party because they think being a jerk is fun or funny. They lie and steal to other characters/players, inconvenience the party at every opportunity (like trying to murder or assault someone the party needs to talk to), and aren't interested in the party moving forward. At least the Lawful Stupid guy will move forward if you so things his way. This character acts evil and insane, but the player will claim they totally aren't.

Stupid Good: will almost never kill, even in self defense. Always another chance for the villain and will turn against their own party members to save the guy who killed fifty orphans over a copper piece. They want to be good so badly, but lack nuance or understanding that some people will refuse redemption and you can't have them running around (and in D&D might not even be able to permanently lock them up).

Stupid Evil: kills fifty orphans over a copper piece. Chaotic Stupid is out to screw over the party by being wacky, but Stupid Evil sells them out at the first opportunity, even if that puts them in a position to be betrayed easily. They have no real concept of self preservation when they could be doing something pointlessly evil. Generally smart enough to go behind the characters backs, but the player of stupid Evil will gladly let the other players know what they're doing. Most likely to do things in-game that would get an R or worse rating, almost especially if other people are clearly uncomfortable.

daremetoidareyo
2019-10-17, 06:52 PM
I define it as when you are asked why you did something your only answer is "my alignment is..." or some variance of that.

This guy has a high wisdom modifier

Buufreak
2019-10-17, 06:57 PM
I define it as when you are asked why you did something your only answer is "my alignment is..." or some variance of that.

This. Oh sweet cheesecake, this. I have straight up booted players and/or walked from tables for this. I am not against out of character talk, and I'm not against some meta strategy talk, but this train of thought is simply disgusting.

HouseRules
2019-10-17, 07:08 PM
Lawful Stupid are the characters that repeatedly fight their own party because they broke the Lawful character's code (whether that just be the law or something personal)

Neutral Stupid characters refuse to be motivated. Helping friends? Never. Defend your homeland? Never. Cash reward? Only if they don't arbitrarily decide their character isn't interested today.

Chaotic Stupid are character who repeatedly fight their own party because they think being a jerk is fun or funny. They lie and steal to other characters/players, inconvenience the party at every opportunity (like trying to murder or assault someone the party needs to talk to), and aren't interested in the party moving forward. At least the Lawful Stupid guy will move forward if you so things his way. This character acts evil and insane, but the player will claim they totally aren't.

Stupid Good: will almost never kill, even in self defense. Always another chance for the villain and will turn against their own party members to save the guy who killed fifty orphans over a copper piece. They want to be good so badly, but lack nuance or understanding that some people will refuse redemption and you can't have them running around (and in D&D might not even be able to permanently lock them up).

Stupid Evil: kills fifty orphans over a copper piece. Chaotic Stupid is out to screw over the party by being wacky, but Stupid Evil sells them out at the first opportunity, even if that puts them in a position to be betrayed easily. They have no real concept of self preservation when they could be doing something pointlessly evil. Generally smart enough to go behind the characters backs, but the player of stupid Evil will gladly let the other players know what they're doing. Most likely to do things in-game that would get an R or worse rating, almost especially if other people are clearly uncomfortable.

You forgot Stupid Neutral: a character that would blindly switch between doing good and evil because they thing that arbitrary do random good and evil would make them neutral on the good-evil axis.


I define it as when you are asked why you did something your only answer is "my alignment is..." or some variance of that.
Roy's sister is the perfect example of because I'm neutral.

Kelb_Panthera
2019-10-18, 12:34 AM
I define all of them in one way.

If you take one of the defining characteristics of an alignment to an illogical extreme, you're either being X stupid or stupid X.

Turn on a party member for breaking a local law: lawful stupid.

If you jump off a bridge because "lol, I'm so random" with no other motivation: chaotic stupid

If you accept the BBEG's surrender when he's at death's door and plainly has no intention of changing his ways knowing he can't be contained by the authorities... for the third time...: stupid good.

If you murder an important NPC on the spot just because he looked at you funny: stupid evil.

Generally, I don't have much tolerance for characters that are non-functionally stupid as a GM or as a player. As a GM, "it's what my character would do" is met with a swift and firm "you're in charge of the character, not the other way around and people aren't perfectly consistent in their behavior anyway. Have him do something different." As a player, I'll go PVP and respond with a retorted "it's what -my- character would do," or just leave the table if the GM won't step up and do what he ought.

RatElemental
2019-10-18, 01:12 AM
Lawful Stupid: Adhere to all local laws, even if they promote slavery and execution as punishment for minor crimes. Usually attempts to force the party to as well.

Stupid Good: Accepts surrender and generally lets evil get away with anything, even blatantly obvious tricks.

Stupid Neutral: Switch sides in the middle of the fight because your team is winning. Switch back when the tides turn. Repeat.

Chaotic Stupid: Turquoise bicycle shoe fins actualize radishes greenly. Peanut butter fish fillet. Variable speed corn muffins. (Attempts to make no sense at all, also sometimes just stupid evil trying to justify it by being actually insane)

Stupid Evil: Stabs the party in the back at any and every opportunity. Stabs random peasants in the streets too, and kicks puppies, for no reason other than to be eeeeeeevil.

Lvl 2 Expert
2019-10-18, 02:20 AM
And then there's true stupid. True stupid is mostly seen on druids, and it's when a player pretty much refuses to have their character do anything because their only motivation is to stay right where they are and not change anything.

Overall, most of the stupid characters could habe been avoided by having players come up with a character concept first and attach an alignment to it for mechanical reasons later.

Buufreak
2019-10-18, 10:48 AM
If you accept the BBEG's surrender when he's at death's door and plainly has no intention of changing his ways knowing he can't be contained by the authorities... for the third time...: stupid good.


Not sure if you described Goku or Batman.

denthor
2019-10-18, 10:59 AM
An example of lawful stupid.

Mission return a stolen piece of property to rightful owners.

Location of property behind a locked door of a warehouse.

Simple mission pick lock go inside retrieve item.

Lawful player that is breaking and entering I report party to authorities and testifying against them.

This really was suggested by the lawful player. DM never thought we would not pick the lock to enter. Did not provide a 2nd way in since he tought we would ignore the player mission fail.

Bartmanhomer
2019-10-18, 11:12 AM
I wonder if there are any stupid characters who turn out to be very successful in D&D 3.5. :confused:

Psyren
2019-10-18, 11:38 AM
Any behavior that puts "this is what my character would do" ahead of the group's fun counts as "stupid."

Buufreak
2019-10-18, 02:12 PM
I wonder if there are any stupid characters who turn out to be very successful in D&D 3.5. :confused:

How do you define successful? Getting the party killed? Pissing the party off? Because plenty have been successful at those things.

NNescio
2019-10-18, 02:23 PM
I wonder if there are any stupid characters who turn out to be very successful in D&D 3.5. :confused:

Mordenkainen, unambiguously. He's Gygax's DMPC, after all.

(He has 3.5e stats, in ELH. Okay, technically 3.0e, but it's grandfathered in anyway.)


How do you define successful? Getting the party killed? Pissing the party off? Because plenty have been successful at those things.

Mordy too, by those two standards. Just ask the Citadel and Circles of Eight.

hamishspence
2019-10-18, 02:35 PM
I thought Rary was the real problem for the party?

Afghanistan
2019-10-18, 03:18 PM
I thought Rary was the real problem for the party?

Kinda? Rary's sudden but inevitable betrayal was strictly a result of Mordenkainen's lack of ability to understand that not everyone wants to maintain his status quo.

Kelb_Panthera
2019-10-18, 03:48 PM
Not sure if you described Goku or Batman.

More the former than the latter. Not quite in either case though.

Goku's just being selfish. He -knows- that frieza is gonna keep bein' frieza but he's found himself suddenly just about out of suitable foes; being one of the strongest warriors in creation.

Batman is much closer to lawful stupid than stupid good but he too knows that someone like the joker isn't going to reform or be contained. He chooses not to cross that line because once it's crossed there's no going back. He'd just be one more monster on the streets, bloodletting to get what he wants. He knows he's fallibe and that you can't take it back if you get the wrong guy (lazarus pit not withstanding.)


Of the stupid alignments, stupid good is probably the most tolerable. It can easily come off as naive but nobly intended. I don't like stupid characters of any stripe but I"m a lot less likely to gank a stupid good PC than a lawful or chaotic stupidi one. Being stupid evil is a one-way ticket to smite-town so if the DM won't, I will.

Bartmanhomer
2019-10-18, 04:49 PM
How do you define successful? Getting the party killed? Pissing the party off? Because plenty has been successful at those things.

Successful in a positive way. I'm sure a stupid character have some moment to be a good character.

vasilidor
2019-10-18, 05:59 PM
Not sure if you described Goku or Batman.

sounds like yes.

also batman does not kill because it is easier to reuse characters than think up new ones, that and the villains bring a lot of revenue. realisticly any sane person would have killed the joker a couple decades ago, if for no reason other than self preservation.

there is a story idea, a guy hunts down and kills the joker, not out of revenge or a sense of justice, but to keep more people from being killed by joker. would only like it if the guy succeeded though. "this is not justice, nor is it revenge, it is putting down a mad dog."

False God
2019-10-18, 07:26 PM
Ok. I know there are so many players who pull stupid stunts in the sake of the alignment. So how do you define: Stupid Good, Stupid Evil, Lawful Stupid, Chaotic Stupid and Neutral Stupid?

Stupid Good always has to do the "right thing". This guy is standing on a soapbox while riding a white horse.
Stupid Evil always has to rules-lawyer everything. It doesn't matter if that thing is right or wrong, it's technically flawed due to the improper use of an oxford comma.
Lawful Stupid always follows the law. It doesn't matter if today is "Kill the homeless Tuesday" or if it's "Freefall off Suicide Cliff Friday." It's the law, so he's gotta do it.
Chaotic Stupid always has to be contrary. Up is down. Left is right. If there's a rule he's gonna break it. If there's a purse he's gonna steal it. If the party wants to beat the bad guy he thinks we should all go get high. If we all want to get high, he thinks we need to be more quest oriented!
Neutral Stupid holds no opinions on anything. He's not okay with anything and he's not against anything. The law, morality, this quest, choosing to attack or not; he has no opinions on anything other than how much he thinks he shouldn't have opinions on anything, that he feels very strongly about!

FaerieGodfather
2019-10-18, 08:44 PM
The "I have to fight on the losing side of every conflict" guy was actually once BtB mandatory for Neutral PCs.

Pex
2019-10-18, 09:34 PM
Lawful Stupid - follow the rules to the letter despite the consequences, especially when you know them. Needs permission to do things.
Chaotic Stupid - Cause trouble for the sake of causing trouble because you're bored. Make all decisions randomly.
Stupid Good - Sacrifice everything and anything to make others happy. Everyone else matters more before you and your friends. You will never fight.
Stupid Evil - Kill for the sake of killing. Steal for the sake of stealing. Attack someone because you're bored. Lie about everything.
Neutral Stupid - If there is no motivation for you do to something, to make you care it needs to be done, you won't do it and do whatever it is that interests you regardless of whatever else is going on. When you have to do something complain about it and find the quickest way to get it done whether it's done right or not.

Jay R
2019-10-18, 10:28 PM
The simple brute fact is that the game can be played anywhere along the continuum from intelligently to stupidly.

There are players who believe that by avoiding metagaming, they can ensure that PCs with high INT and WIS can be played intelligently and wisely, while PCs with low INT and WIS will be played foolishly. They are mistaken.

A wise, intelligent, and knowledgeable player can play a low INT, low WIS character more effectively than a poor player can play a high INT, high WIS character — while staying in character.

Playing a PC is a long series of decisions. People who make good decisions will always do better than people who make poor decisions.

Balmas
2019-10-18, 11:34 PM
Ok. I know there are so many players who pull stupid stunts in the sake of the alignment. So how do you define: Stupid Good, Stupid Evil, Lawful Stupid, Chaotic Stupid and Neutral Stupid?

As a general rule, I'm just going to say that Stupid X consists of when a player plays an alignment instead of a character, and uses that alignment as an excuse for their actions. EG, "I'm lawful good, so I'm going to stab a party member in the back because they started to loot the monsters we just killed and looting bodies is both illegal and immoral. Somehow, my acting as judge, jury and executioner is not only not murder but entirely lawful. Boom, not a jerk move."

Kurald Galain
2019-10-19, 01:39 AM
The "I have to fight on the losing side of every conflict" guy was actually once BtB mandatory for Neutral PCs.

Oh yes, the old 2E PHB.

True Neutral: "To a great extent, they are compelled to side with the underdog in any given situation, sometimes even changing sides as the previous loser becomes the winner. "

And it also defines CN as lunatics and madmen, "Chaotic neutral characters believe that there is no order to anything, including their own actions. With this as a guiding principle, they tend to follow whatever whim strikes them at the moment", and it describes suitable CN combat tactics as "charge, screaming bloodthirsty cries, straight for the gorgon. Who knows? He might have broken its nerve and thrown it off guard. He discovered that his plan was a bad one when the gorgon’s breath killed him."

vasilidor
2019-10-19, 03:29 AM
to be honest, i think all the alignments as described in 2e dnd qualify for stupid x. if you were evil you had to backstab the party, neutral had be the loser, and good had to ignore any threat once someone called for help.
if you played as described your character would likely die horribly or you would get an arbitrary punishment, unless your dm had more sense than the writers.

Yora
2019-10-19, 03:32 AM
Alignment as a whole is stupid, particularly when it's used prescriptively.
When you base your character's actions on the alignment on your character sheet, things always get nonsensical.

redwizard007
2019-10-19, 11:50 AM
Any time the character would do something because of alignment they are playing Alignment Stupid. Did your LG rogue just refuse to pick a lock? Did the CE barbarian just slaughter a village for lols? That's Alignment Stupid.

ezekielraiden
2019-10-19, 10:22 PM
I disagree that "stupid alignment" is tied to being "only" that and nothing else. That is, I think it's related, but there's much more to it than that. The "stupid alignment," as I see it, is about applying the concept or behavior of an alignment blithely and foolishly, whether that means being inconsistent, fanatical, or egregiously self-/ally-harming.

In the inconsistent form, Stupid X (or X Stupid) means having double standards or changing the scrutiny of the standard arbitrarily and capriciously. E.g. a Lawful Stupid character could punish jaywalking with death, while allowing murder. The reason doesn't really matter (e.g. punishing jaywalking gets control, while overlooking murder may also grant control or ignore something inconvenient). What matters here is that there can be WILD swings of behavior over small differences. Of note here is that there is a gap between a person who sincerely expresses some alignment but has biases, and those who fluctuate on anal-retentiveness seemingly on a whim. The former is trying for consistency, but prejudice warps their behavior away from it, while the latter doesn't even care about consistency, though they may care about LOOKING consistent. The former, when played well, is a great character flaw, while the latter is just bad writing.

In the fanatical form, Stupid alignment becomes more or less what Afghanistan said. This is where the character has essentially no personality other than "being" their alignment. Instead of being a person, who adapts and learns, the Stupid-alignment fanatic is inflexible and absolute, to the point of repeating failed efforts because they cannot choose to behave otherwise. In some sense, you could say the Stupid-aligned fanatic has been "programmed" by their alignment. DCAU Superman presents us with the closest "actually good writing" parallel: the Paragon (and the Joker is likewise, the Pure Evil Villain). This character IS largely defined by his or her alignment, but in a (mostly) rational, three-dimensional way, where that alignment shapes everything they do, but not to the point of preventing incidental behavior nor becoming petulant, querulous, or worst of all didactic (in the negative sense). DCAU Superman has his moments of rashness or pride, but is consistently a good, noble, positive figure, willing to learn and change rather than just hammering the same lines ad infinitum.

The final type needs....finesse to express clearly, as it must not be confused with the perfectly legitimate uses of tropes like "honor before reason." That is, sometimes, being Good or Chaotic (or whatever) person means doing something that rationally is unwise or even obviously "wrong" in a cold, sterile logic sense. For example, the proverb about how "character is who you are in the dark." Logically, if you are CERTAIN that there will never be any negative consequences for what you do in a certain moment where no one will ever know? Then you absolutely should do whatever is best for you, because it will never hurt you. But Good etc. often will put "keeping my principles" ahead of that thinking, thus making unblemished rationality less attractive in some cases.

I'm not talking about that. Stupid-as-egregious-excess is when someone seems to actively seek out situations where their alignment MIGHT pull an "honor before reason" and then do it. A comedic example is the Kantian anti-paladin: "I am compelled to do evil regardless of its utility." A Stupid Evil person consistently gets in the way of her own success because she HAS to take evil opportunities even if patience or restraint would enable greater evil. TVTropes calls this "D i c k Dastardly Stops to Cheat." If he didn't stop to cheat so much, and in fact *mostly* stuck to the rules, he would win far more often. Likewise, a Stupid Good person uncritically leaps at every chance to be the BEST good EVAR, making them manipulable, dangerous, and perhaps self-defeating--doing things like treating the symptoms rather than the disease. Lawful Stupid is usually expressed as a Literal Genie (incapable of understanding nuance, metaphor, or real language), Blind Obedience (unthinking execution of orders, like a computer program), or "penny wise, pound foolish" (obsessively fulfilling brief, short-term law stuff but by so doing failing to uphold higher and more important ones). In fact I'd say that last is a good general category of Alignment Stupidity, the "zero foresight, zero memory" type that is only capable of seeing literally the present, and not past events or future outcomes...and doing that does NOT require a character to be "defined solely" by their alignment.

Bartmanhomer
2019-10-20, 12:20 AM
All this discussion about Alignment Stupid reminds me of an episode of The Simpsons and Family Guy.