PDA

View Full Version : Aligment and frustation as a DM



Coplantor
2008-09-01, 08:13 PM
So, Im currently DMing two sessions. When I decided to be the DM of the game, I was hoping to master a game of heroic adventure, with a party of characters with a common background. I end up with a LG dwarf fighter, a CG cleptomaniac human rogue, a LE gnome psithief and a LE human warlock. Only the evil characters have a common background wich is actually the gnome's backround and the warlock said that they both know each other but he have amnesia, before we started the first adventure, I asked the good guys if they knew from before, and they said no, they were probably too lazy to think of a common background. With some effort, we were able to put all this guys into one disfunctional party.

But the problem is the second group Im DMing, again I was hoping to be the DM of a heroic group of adventurers and the fact that one of them decided to be a palain actually fooled me. First session started, I had two extra players o they creted their characters quickly and we were ready to start, I asked the about their aligments, one of the first guys to create their characters said Im TN, I already knew that since I was with him during character creation, then the fighter, also TN, the barbarian says "Im LG", we told him that barbarians cant be LG, so he switches to CG, the bard TN, the other mage, TN, the paladin LG, of course, and the druid, wich was something intresting:

Me: "Wich aligment are you?"
Druid player: "Im CG"
First mage: "Druids must be neutral on at least one of the aligment axis"
D.P: "Oh, then Im NG... wait, isnt NG doing good for the sake of good?"
Me: "Um, yeah"
D.P: "Then I'm TN"
This guy loves CG, because he has never understood the aligment system, he thinks that caothic good means that the end justifies any means, and also gives him the right to act in an egoist way (he once tried to left some party members to die while saving himself with the intention of having less people at the moment of distributing the loot, OOC I told him that that was not a good act and he replied "yeah, but Im caothic good")

So, I was wondering, how many of you people still use the aligment system?
I myself love the aligment system because it works perfectly for what D&D is supposed to be, a medieval fantasy heroic RPG (of course, the aligment system explanation of the PHB sucks, the BoED and the BoVD both have a much better explanation of the aligments, and so doeas the 2nd ed PHB).

And for those who still use the Alg.Sys. Has something like this happened to you? And, what is TN exactly? Because most of this guys use it as the 4th ed "Unaligned" wich gives them the right to do almost everything without any moral connotations

Starbuck_II
2008-09-01, 08:45 PM
So, Im currently DMing two sessions. When I decided to be the DM of the game, I was hoping to master a game of heroic adventure, with a party of characters with a common background. I end up with a LG dwarf fighter, a CG cleptomaniac human rogue, a LE gnome psithief and a LE human warlock. Only the evil characters have a common background wich is actually the gnome's backround and the warlock said that they both know each other but he have amnesia, before we started the first adventure, I asked the good guys if they knew from before, and they said no, they were probably too lazy to think of a common background. With some effort, we were able to put all this guys into one disfunctional party.

But the problem is the second group Im DMing, again I was hoping to be the DM of a heroic group of adventurers and the fact that one of them decided to be a palain actually fooled me. First session started, I had two extra players o they creted their characters quickly and we were ready to start, I asked the about their aligments, one of the first guys to create their characters said Im TN, I already knew that since I was with him during character creation, then the fighter, also TN, the barbarian says "Im LG", we told him that barbarians cant be LG, so he switches to CG, the bard TN, the other mage, TN, the paladin LG, of course, and the druid, wich was something intresting:

Me: "Wich aligment are you?"
Druid player: "Im CG"
First mage: "Druids must be neutral on at least one of the aligment axis"
D.P: "Oh, then Im NG... wait, isnt NG doing good for the sake of good?"
Me: "Um, yeah"
D.P: "Then I'm TN"
This guy loves CG, because he has never understood the aligment system, he thinks that caothic good means that the end justifies any means, and also gives him the right to act in an egoist way (he once tried to left some party members to die while saving himself with the intention of having less people at the moment of distributing the loot, OOC I told him that that was not a good act and he replied "yeah, but Im caothic good")

So, I was wondering, how many of you people still use the aligment system?
I myself love the aligment system because it works perfectly for what D&D is supposed to be, a medieval fantasy heroic RPG (of course, the aligment system explanation of the PHB sucks, the BoED and the BoVD both have a much better explanation of the aligments, and so doeas the 2nd ed PHB).

And for those who still use the Alg.Sys. Has something like this happened to you? And, what is TN exactly? Because most of this guys use it as the 4th ed "Unaligned" wich gives them the right to do almost everything without any moral connotations

You should try to explain the alignments in your own terms. Then ask him how he sees them.

Even better ask him to write his thoughts down and you do the same (type on computer if bad handwriting).

CE: Destruction and being its cause are your wishes. The target is up to individual. But you care not who or what gets in your way. Slaughter innocent to get your way if heed be.

LE: You believe in follow the letter of your word and want others to do the same. You may steal or cheat others, but only if you can think up a reasonable rationale.
You may not do certain evils because you feel it would be wrong to do: like personally never kill woman and children (underlings can though).
They are most trusted evils because you can at least trust them at their word (hopefully you heard them right).

NE: just follow instincts; keep the self happy. Steal, kill, whatever, you'll do what you want. You aren't likely to break laws if don't need to of course. You also don't care much about freedom of others as long as they imprisonment doesn't concern you.

NN or TN: Everyday person. Aren't likely to break law unless have a really good reason. Don't care about helping others (Strangers) outside of freinds/family.

LN: Everyday person, but won't break laws unless last restort as you feel they are important to society.

NG: Similar to TN, but will go out of way to help others.

CG: Don't care about breaking law if neccessary (but doesn't mean have to be a law breaker all the time). Will go out of way to help others.

LG: NG and LN combined.

Now, you don't have to follow all laws to be Lawful, but often those who do will (at least PHB told me so when I read it last those years ago).

Coplantor
2008-09-01, 08:50 PM
Yeah, thats more or less the way I see aligments, you missed CN though.

Nohwl
2008-09-01, 08:52 PM
i guess im lucky a friend told me to have everyone vote on alignment before picking one for their character.

that druid sounds more like chaotic neutral to me. you look out for yourself and dont really care for other people.

TN is neutral neutral. you sorta let nature have its way. you dont value good over evil or law over chaos. and thats probably not very helpful.

Trizap
2008-09-01, 09:04 PM
Chaotic Neutral: he don't care about authority, he don't care if your a king or a captain, he just does whatever he wants, doesn't care who you are, if your good or evil, you mess with him, he will do nothing but fight back, and do nothing but do everything you don't want him to do; you tell him to surrender, he will fight, CN simply won't let anyone order them around.

KillianHawkeye
2008-09-01, 09:05 PM
The way I see it you have two problems:

1) It is difficult to have a group of mixed Good and Evil characters (and to a lesser extent, mixed Lawful and Chaotic characters) unless the players can all be mature about it. It's never a good idea to do when some or all of your players have problems understanding alignment. Actually, alignment in general can be problematic when it is misunderstood (which seems to be a not small portion of the time).

2) If you wanted to have "a heroic group of adventurers" then you needed to discuss this and reach an agreement with your players before character generation, or just outright ban characters of an Evil (or Chaotic Stupid) alignment.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-01, 09:07 PM
A brief history of neutrality:

2e: "True Neutral" is a PC alignment that tries to maintain a balance between Good and Evil, and Law and Chaos. If he sees too much Good in an area, he does Evil, and vice versa. This is practically unplayable in a system where the PCs are supposed to be thwarting Evil all the time, and so it is usually ignored.

"Neutral" is a NPC alignment reserved for animals - they care not for Good or Evil, Law and Chaos, but seek to satisfy their basic needs and nothing else. They usually return Good for Good and Evil for Evil.

3e: "Neutral" is introduced as a PC alignment. It is similar to 2e "Neutral" in that it seeks the path of least resistance in all situations - if he needs to do Evil do survive, he does, but if doing Evil will cause him trouble, he won't do it.

I usually treat this alignment as a "focused on other things" alignment. So V in OotS is Neutral because s/he is primarially focused on obtaining greater Arcane Mastery, rather than helping out others or injuring others. Such things are just largely irrelevant. Other than scholar-types, Mercenaries make good Neutral candidates - everything is just a job for them, and they want to do their job well.

4: "Unaligned" is essentially 3e neutral. Due to the reflavoring of the alignment system (going from 2 axises to 1 axis), it now looks like the cowardly middle ground between Good and Evil. These are people who aren't dedicated enough to choose to work for one side or the other, so they just do what they have to to get by.

A kind of "looking out for #1" without having the fortitude to stab their buddies int he back; or a "good guy" who is willing to let the suffering of innocents be Someone Else's Problem if it's too much trouble for them.

Re: Alignment
It's really a good idea to go back and read the descriptions of alignment in whatever edition you're using. Read them and think about what they mean. I prefer the 2e/3e alignment systems because they provide clear outlines of each alignment choice in the PHB - I find the 4e definitions far too muddy.

Refreshing your memory of what each alignment stands for can help clear out the cobwebs.

Coplantor
2008-09-01, 09:08 PM
EDIT: this is an answer to Nowhl's post.

That wasnt the druid, it was another character that the druid's player has. This party is missing a lot of character development.

So you say that TN is leting nature have its own way? That's like a third interpretation of the TN aligment. I see TN as two different extreme interpretations, the undecisive, the guy with a complete lack of personality in alg terms, he will do evil/good or lawful/caothic things if seoe with a song personality makes him, either by force or because the TN character admires the other one. The other extreme of TN is the "Equilibrium" guy, he fluctuates between good/evil/law/chaos so none of this forces is superio to the other, in 2nd ed, the PHB gave as an example a druid who helped a village during a Gnoll invasion and once the gnolls whre driven off by the combined forces of a small army and the druid, the army decided to eliminate the gnolls, so the druid changed sides to help the gnolls not to be eliminated and keep a balanced situation between the humans and the gnolls.

Kaihaku
2008-09-01, 09:09 PM
In my own campaigns, I either downplay/ignore the official alignment system or I introduce an variant alignment system that fits with the thematic of the campaign setting. At the moment, I'm putting together a "Karma/Sin" alignment variant for a new homebrew world. In the past, I've done things like added in a third alignment Light/Shadow (to get the cosmic focus off of a war between Good vs. Evil and get people to interact with Evil characters on their 'side'), used the Taint variant in place of alignment, and removed Lawful/Chaos axis.

Regardless, the official alignment system is frustrating and drastically flawed. Unfortunately, it's tied into a ton of abilities, class features, spells, etc throughout the system and can't be majorly altered without changing or axing a lot of things.

In this situation... Maybe you can downplay alignment or remove some of the alignment requirements? It's stupid, in my opinion, that a warrior who loses their temper (barbarian) has to be of Chaotic alignment or come from a tribal setting. Lawful warriors from more advanced civilizations can get really, really mad too. Ask your Evil aligned characters if they would be willing to play as selfish or self-centered rather than EVIL. Perhaps treat alignment as a spectrum rather than an axis?

True Neutral is often misplayed. It doesn't mean that the character is apathetic or that they are concerned with balance (A lawful character would be concerned with balance as an ideal; preserving cosmic order). A True Neutral character is motivated purely by interest...rather than ideal. So, a True Neutral character would make a great artist and wouldn't necessarily make for a poor friend.

Shazzbaa
2008-09-01, 09:16 PM
Well, I know there'll be a bunch of posts by the time I get my reply typed, so forgive me if I'm redundant...

I am one of the few people on this board who actually *likes* alignment. I like the idea of the two axes and they make a lot of sense to me for explaining a worldview in the most simple terms.

But I'll admit that it causes a lot of trouble if people in the same game disagree on what any of the alignments mean.

I always look at the axes separately, so that they're less like labels. Where are you on the Good/Evil axis? Where are you on the Lawful/Chaotic axis? Lawful means you prefer order, and you probably believe that rules are a good thing. Chaotic means you're very individual, prefer freedom and probably believe that rules tend to box you in (Chaotic people tend not to like the alignment system :smalltongue: ). Good typically means you'll take the initiative to help others, or that you'll make sacrifices to help others, Evil typically means you're willing to sacrifice others' needs for your own good. Neutral means you're in-between, undecided, or have enough conflicting ideas that it balances out. Really, TN can mean a bunch of things under this system -- anything from balance-obsessed to "unaligned" to apathetic.

But I think the most important thing is for the DM to make sure each of his players understands how he feels about what their alignment entails. If you want these sorts of frustrations not to come up, it's sort of critical that characters not be "rush jobs." If you see "Chaotic Good" a certain way, then let CG players know what you expect of them. As long as everyone comes to an agreement and knows what alignments mean, it doesn't really matter if you're interpretting them differently than they would be by RAW.

Coplantor
2008-09-01, 09:17 PM
Well, I was building a campaign setting in the forum, the link to it is in my sig, the part that says "can you hp me ith this?", because there are many things going n in that world, people would ussually asociate with others because they are of the same race/culture/religion rather than if they share the same aligment, but since I didnt recieved a lot of help from the forum and my players dont want to try a setting and they preffer to play generic D&D and have the world develope at the same times their character doeas, I havent post there in a while, I like my poject so I will complete it sometime.

tribble
2008-09-01, 09:38 PM
It seems to me that the players aren't clear on alignments, Particularly this Chaotic "Good" druid. I believe it was a person on these boards who said, "Chaos is not Evil lite." Your Druid obviiuosly thinks it is. A good way to enforce Alignment Faithfulness is to throw penalties of some sort to abilities and such when the character pulls something completely out of alignment, because its niggling them in the back of their minds, or even because they've pissed off the flying spaghetti monster that grants them their abilities. (for example, a Paladin does something that is not good. obviously not an Evil act, as that would be a "the gods revoke your powers, better score a redemption spell!" offense, say a neutral act. the gods are disappointed, so they are less likely to grant the aid that paladins use, like putting in that extra Oomph into Smite Evil, because they're put out with the paladin in question.)
I dont play D&D,so please dont lambast me too much on screwups with the rules and such.:smallfrown:

Fostire
2008-09-01, 09:39 PM
I'm playing in both those games and I have to say that in the second one, half of them where newbies who have never roleplayed before so you can't blame them if they can't come up with a good backstory. Also the whole character creation was rushed and chaotic since everyone wanted to start to play right away and there was only one PHB. My character (the wizard) is actually well done and I chose TN because I believe it to be the alignment that most fits that character according to your definition of TN not because he looks for a balance but because he doesn't care. If his friends are in danger he'll help them but he won't go out of his way to help a complete stranger, he obeys the law but will break them if he needs to.
The druid has always been a problem player, he needs to understand that this is a team game. He is slowly understanding but it will take a while and I believe he is doing quite better in the other campaign (for example he roleplays his character more than the rest of us).
Speaking of the other campaign, I think that it didn't start very well but as I told you last time I think I can pull the whole thing together (I'm the LE warlock on this one). I admit the amnesia background was me being to lazy to come with a real one, but I'm filling in the blanks when necessary. I too want both this campaigns to be more serious, I'm even slowly turning my character good so as to avoid party conflict.
Anyway I hope all that helps.

Dr Bwaa
2008-09-01, 09:51 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v213/lordhenry4000/DnD/Alignment.jpg



...More seriously though, my views on alignment:


GOOD: looks out for others
EVIL: looks out for self
LAWFUL: values tradition, process & organization
CHAOTIC: values improvisation, spontaneity & creativity
NEUTRAL: neutral on any access indicates an accentuation of the opposite axis. A NG person does whatever he thinks is good for the people. This will likely encompass C and L behavior, but neither are his intent, as he's just looking out for society in whatever way seems best, with little regard for themselves. These are the guys who get themselves killed saving children from being run down by horses. A LN character does not seek to help or hinder anyone or himself. He seeks to uphold the law. These are the cops who write themselves citations for bearing weapons inside the city.

Coplantor
2008-09-01, 09:52 PM
It helps, and im not blaming the newbies, actually two of them had created their characters weeks ago, they just had to roll their stats again, and i think that you being TN was the only TN that I didnt have problems with because you undestood TN and had a good explanation for it.

Fostire
2008-09-01, 10:01 PM
Well, I was building a campaign setting in the forum, the link to it is in my sig, the part that says "can you hp me ith this?", because there are many things going n in that world, people would usually associate with others because they are of the same race/culture/religion rather than if they share the same alignment, but since I didn't received a lot of help from the forum and my players don't want to try a setting and they prefer to play generic D&D and have the world develop at the same times their character does, I haven't posted there in a while, I like my project so I will complete it sometime.

I never said I didn't want to try a setting, just that the problem with a setting is that everything is already done and it limits the players options. For example, say I want to play a japanese style elf, but in the setting the only japanese styled are the gnomes. So I can't play the character concept I want unless I'm a gnome. I could be the rare elf who was raised by gnomes, but that would then intrude in my characters background.
Unless you want to publish the setting, the world should be made as the game advances, that way players can play the characters they want. If you don't want to make the whole world again every time you start a new game, then reuse old settings. I think it's fun if the players enter a big temple and find that it's the small church that their other character founded in a previous campaign. That sort of thing gives the players the feeling that they helped build the world, which I think is a good thing.

EvilElitest
2008-09-01, 10:05 PM
i love alignment


Anyways, the important thing to remember about alignment is the fact that people can be evil and still be quite moral.


For example, most people in history are in fact quite evil. However, good and evil and right and wrong are quite different in D&D
from
EE

Coplantor
2008-09-01, 10:08 PM
I was thinking about publishing if it ended up being a good setting, and again, I wasnt talking about you, the other players where more negative about settings. The example of the church can also happen in a setting, and I have the problem that I always end up screwing the "building the world as you play it" way of world creation.

EDIT: EE! Havent seen you in a while! curiously, I was hoping to get your opinion in particular about this topic, I remeber some threads about aligment were you participated and made some good comments.

MisterSaturnine
2008-09-01, 10:11 PM
I personally view alignment this way:

Good: Will go out of their way to help some they don't know (and of course, someone they do) even if they risk harm to themselves. This doesn't mean they go around making restitutions to every random guy who gets pick-pocketed, and it doesn't mean helping without knowing the full context, but their actions are usually born out of a genuine desire to help people.
Evil: I think this varies a little bit more, depending on how close to neutral they are (and I suppose that applies to good, too). Evil can be merely a willingness to hinder others to advance themselves. It can also be an eagerness to hinder others to advance themselves. In certain cases (such as, say, serial killers or other people who have a need to kill), evil means going out of their way to hurt someone they don't know even if they risk harm to themselves. Of course, evil has feelings too, and they aren't exempt from being willing to help a friend or family member despite the risk they place themselves in.
Neutral: Isn't really willing to go out of their way to help or hinder a stranger, but if they have close connections to someone, they're perfectly willing to. Neutrality is all about context for me--they can go either way, depending on what the situation demands.

Lawful: Lawful behavior is about safety and security, and about belief in the law in general. It doesn't have to be government-appointed law, but whether or not the law in question is government-mandated, the laws of bushido, or a simple promise, Law is about following it (to the letter at times, depending on the individual). I also believe that when combined with a Good or Evil alignment, the Law/Chaos axis represents how they go about exerting their good or evil influence. In the case of Law, it's...through the law. For good, it's using a mandated system to protect, for evil, it's using that mandated system to keep yourself on top and crush the bottom-dwellers who seek your position.
Chaotic: Where law is about being secure, chaos is about being free. Chaotic individual tend to naturally lash out against things they're forced to do (although they still might go through with it, depending on how chaotic they are, but they tend to at least dislike it)--even if they would have chosen the same course of action they're being forced to do given the circumstances, chaos is all about having that choice.
Neutral: Doesn't really care one way or the other--on this axis, it's sort of about staying out of trouble. They'll follow the law because they don't want to get in trouble for rebelling, and they won't follow it if doing so presents a great risk to them.

OneFamiliarFace
2008-09-01, 10:19 PM
i love alignment

Anyways, the important thing to remember about alignment is the fact that people can be evil and still be quite moral.

For example, most people in history are in fact quite evil. However, good and evil and right and wrong are quite different in D&D
from
EE

This is interesting to think about, actually.

I also love alignment. But I think it helps drastically to have players sit down and write out their own personal 'code.' We all have them, even if we don't think about it. Very few people, even in fiction, will do whatever it takes to win/take over the world/save people. For example, even a politician who makes policies that actively hurt the poor would not, himself, steal from a poor child. Likewise, a person who always donates their money to good causes might refuse to go out of their way to help a homeless guy in person.

A True Neutral character still has things he/she cares about, and NO single alignment gives a license to do whatever you want, whenever you want. That just isn't good for everyone's overall fun in the game. And it is about everyone having fun, not just one player being able to tortue innocents because he thinks it's funny.

nargbop
2008-09-01, 10:22 PM
I think of the alignment system as childish. I tell stories when I play RPGs; characters have their own morals and drives. Using the word "good" is a lot like using the word "love" - too many different subdivisions to lump all together as a single thought.

That being said, it sounds like the OP has a ligitimate beef with this player. If someone betrays his friends for personal gain, he should get Divine Vengeance upon him from some appropriate turn of events.

Coplantor
2008-09-01, 10:24 PM
...and NO single alignment gives a license to do whatever you want, whenever you want. That just isn't good for everyone's overall fun in the game. And it is about everyone having fun, not just one player being able to tortue innocents because he thinks it's funny.

Intresting, what about CN? Isnt it actually about doing whatever you want whenever you want?

Im actually surprised about the aligment lovers, ast time i've read an aligment thread, 90% of the posters said things like "Aligment is stupid".

Collin152
2008-09-01, 10:26 PM
I feel most people work Alignment backwards-
They use their Alignment to decide their actions, when actions should decide their Alignment. So for most characters, it shouldn't even matter, except as a way to determine whehter that Smite hurts you more or not and such.

Nohwl
2008-09-01, 10:29 PM
Intresting, what about CN? Isnt it actually about doing whatever you want whenever you want?

only if it benefits you.

Coplantor
2008-09-01, 10:33 PM
Well, when I create a character I first think about his/hers/its personality and then decide the aligment, and I even decide how does the character behaves and how does it looks based upon the stats. Most people dont see stats, aligment looks and backround as a union, an there's where the characters fail.

EvilElitest
2008-09-01, 10:51 PM
I was thinking about publishing if it ended up being a good setting, and again, I wasnt talking about you, the other players where more negative about settings. The example of the church can also happen in a setting, and I have the problem that I always end up screwing the "building the world as you play it" way of world creation.

EDIT: EE! Havent seen you in a while! curiously, I was hoping to get your opinion in particular about this topic, I remeber some threads about aligment were you participated and made some good comments.

actually, i'm planning to write a blog next month, first article will be alignments in D&D ironically enough, i'll send you a link


i'm tired today so i will tell you tomorrow, but for now let me just briefly touch some things


Personally, i hate the 4E alignement system. In theory, unaligned could apply however to animals and creatures unable to think (like oozes)

But anyways, the thing about alignment is this. In D&D, good and evil aren't relative, they are divine forces. They are cosmic forces, beyond the reach of even gods. that being said (oh i agree with you on BoED and BoVD as well as 2E books, nice taste)

The most important thing to remember is that while good and evil aren't relative, right and wrong are. A person can be evil and believe what he is doing is right (like Redcloak, or Napoleon for example) What a character things is right and wrong is totally up to them. A misconception in D&d is htat Evil people are all total sociopaths, and so if your evil your character is ruined, when in reality there would be more evil people than good people. Being good is actually really really tough, because you have to limit your self so much


Good and evil people can work together, but good people can't tolerate evil acitons. However an evil person, to stay evil, simply has to have committed some evil actions in his past and not repent for them or feel bad about them. He wil stay evil or at best neutral until he repents. As of such, you can have perfecly nice useful loyal people be evil


Now good and evil define your actual nature, weather your good or evil. Chaotic and lawful simply decides the manner in which you do stuff. napleon would be LE, because he was a super organized, a super perfectionist and detail oriented (photographic memory helps)

mar anothy from Rome would be CE, because he just generally acts in a chaotic selfish manner (later he becomes NE). He isn't stupid, far from it, just chaotic and inconsistent.


Onefamilarface

basically, what is considered good and evil and what the players personally believe is good and evil don't have to be the same. Every person in the Roman empire would be Neutral or Evil basically, because their culture was extremely evil. However they would consider themselves perfectly moral people and extremely honorable

of all the alignements, the most dangerous in my option is CN. The thing is, even N and LN are still obligated to maintain their alignment. N people have to keep a balance, while LN have to follow their own code. However CN simply does what they feel like doing. the only real limit on CN is "Don't do more evil actions than good ones" Once that happpens, they slip into NE or CE. They are always walking a fine line, because self interest can only get you so far before your faced with the dark side


The biggest deal is that evil is easy. It is so so easy, because nobody restricts your behavior. Evil can do anything its wants other than repent and stay evil. Good has to keep to a standard, and that is very very hard
from
EE

OneFamiliarFace
2008-09-01, 11:06 PM
Intresting, what about CN? Isnt it actually about doing whatever you want whenever you want?

Ah, the most dangerous of alignments! Time for fun! :smalltongue:

I think it is not, because it still specifically limits your character's choices. He is not, for example, LG. In fact, the CN character needs that personal code that I was talking about more than any other character. Because he needs to know how he would act in a given situation (ie. his own motivations and desires).

He doesn't, as someone else said, always act in his own interest. That is NE. He most likely is not a fan of imprisonment, tyranny, or slavery. He probably doesn't respect inheritance (or even property), obligations to a state, etc. These latter things are despite the fact that they may benefit him.

And every CN character is not the same. He could be an active agent for chaos and anarchy (in which case he is restricted from being lawful). Or he could be a guy that will go berserk if you ever try to put him in chains or a cage (in which case, he doesn't mind society's laws until they apply to him). Or he could be a thief that will steal from anyone who it won't hurt too much (but to steal from a poor orphan would probably be something he wouldn't do).

Alignments of Thieves to Illustrate: Pay attention to where the CN character's actions are limited along with the others. The key is in deciding the people from whom each would steal. I outlined some, but left others for the thinking.

Lawful Good: A lawful good thief would be a trained agent of the state. He would steal important documents or resources of enemies of said state, so long as the state was good and the enemies were evil or anarchic. (Silk in David Edding's Belgariad.)

Chaotic Good: A chaotic good thief would have a reason for his thievery, and might be found as the head of a rebel group. He steals from the oppresive and opulent rich of a place and distributes that money amongst the poor, or uses it for his resistance effort. (Robin Hood)

Chaotic Neutral: A chaotic neutral thief probably steals to survive. As such, the survival of others is not paramount to him, and his fingers would probably wrap around everything from the pie out of a housewive's window to the purses of a rich caravan driving by his favorite haunt. He probably does not steal for personal gain, just to survive. But he doesn't fool himself like a neutral character. The neutral guy tells himself he had enough money or kicked his gambling habit he will take a straighter path. The chaotic neutral guy accepts this as his lot in life and may even do it because he enjoys the style. (Jean ValJean in the early parts of Les Miserables.)

Neutral Evil: The neutral evil thief steals because property is power. He might view himself as entitled to others' things, or might say that the weak and stupid don't deserve to have what they do. He deserves or desires power and will get it in the best way he knows how: stealing it. He rarely thinks twice about whose ribs his blade might end up between, so long as they have a heavy purse. (Thenardiers from Les Miserables, and pretty much every bad guy thief in any movie, cartoon, or book.)

Chaotic Evil: The chaotic evil thief steals because he loves to sow confusion and dischord. It is fun to him, and he doesn't hesitate to kill in the act. He might not even spend the money he steals, because he can always get more by doing the same. This isn't a matter of personal gain, it is a matter of others' personal loss. (The Joker)

Jerthanis
2008-09-01, 11:07 PM
I haven't used alignment in a while. I usually write "Good" or, "Neutral Good" at the top of my character sheet if I can be bothered to, but if I examine my characters in any depth they don't end up being all that good in the end.

One "LG" character I had was a boy commoner who fell helplessly in love with a noblewoman only to see her spirited away in the night by kidnappers and rode off after them... to find her and rescue her. I was nice, followed the laws, was good, was willing to risk his life for innocents and oppose the evil organization who he discovered was behind the kidnapping... but for that girl, Sarn would let the whole world burn. You can't really call that good.

People don't tend to align themselves with universal concepts handed down by the cosmos to make their decisions, they figure out what is important to them and pursue that. A personality who knows he is good because he's got the energy of plus signs going through him, and knows he has justification to kill his enemy because he has minus signs coming out of him doesn't seem like a very useful or interesting moral situation to me.

Coplantor
2008-09-01, 11:17 PM
Again, an excellent exposition by EE. I agree with you in the aspect that good and evil are absoult while right and wrong are relative, I dont agree although in the CN part, you dont seem to remember that part of te 2nd ed PHB wich said that CN is a common aligment among madmen, and there are lots of kinds of mad men, my latest character (coplantor) is a CN character, ha acts completely random and most of his actions dont have any sense, he has done some terrible things, as well as quasi heroic things, he believes in two things: friendship and fun, he would do anything for his friend ferethros, although he really doeasnt care much about anyone else, and of course, his main objective in life is to have fun, sometimes he might hurt other people, but is not for having fun but more like accidents that derive from his "fun" activities. (once he was shooting at an abandoned tample with a catapult and he missed and hitted a house) he had no real moral problems after that, although he would never hurt someone else just for fun.

quillbreaker
2008-09-01, 11:18 PM
I hate alignment systems. As long as the player runs his character in a consistent way, and is willing to play a character that would be interested in pursuing the ends of the campaign, I'm happy.

Thrud
2008-09-01, 11:22 PM
I hate alignment systems. As long as the player runs his character in a consistent way, and is willing to play a character that would be interested in pursuing the ends of the campaign, I'm happy.

Yeah, I have to agree. I ditched alignments all the way back at the beginning of 2nd ed, and can't recall ever using them again since then. I've never cared for 'em much.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-01, 11:35 PM
One "LG" character I had was a boy commoner who fell helplessly in love with a noblewoman only to see her spirited away in the night by kidnappers and rode off after them... to find her and rescue her. I was nice, followed the laws, was good, was willing to risk his life for innocents and oppose the evil organization who he discovered was behind the kidnapping... but for that girl, Sarn would let the whole world burn. You can't really call that good.

Very true! The classic downfall of the LG type is through attachment to something in life that is more important to them than their ideals. If they are willing to ignore any and all scriptures of others to follow that thing, then they become NG; it is only once they are willing to harm others for that thing they desire that they drop down to N.

Chaos and Evil come later, when pursuit of that one thing becomes so important that the thoughts and lives of others no longer matter in any case.

Anyhoo, as I've said before, Law & Chaos and Good & Evil in D&D are mainly relevant to how the character perceives the world around him. Lawful types always turn to Authority first when dealing with issues, while Chaotic types always listen to themselves (or personal allies) alone. Good types consider the welfare of others first, while Evil types always consider their personal welfare above all others.

It's not really all about the Paladin's View here. Alignment isn't just a way to paint targets on people, it's a guide to help you figure out how your character reacts to a new situation. Say we have a character spot a starving urchin pickpocket a fat, wealthy merchant in a busy square:

LG - Would apprehend the boy himself and make him give back what he stole. Then he would buy the boy a meal and try to enroll him in a more structured program (like an orphanage).
NG - Would get the boy and get the money back for the merchant. He would then get the boy a meal and try to figure out how he got to this state. If the NG could find a way for the State to help the boy, he would do so, but if not he'd give the boy some pocket money and tell him to not rob people in the future.
CG - Would grin at seeing the boy take some unneeded wealth from the merchant, but might catch up with him to find out what drove him to steal. CG may give charity or advice, but he wouldn't make the kid give back the money.
LN - Would call loudly for the guards and help apprehend the child if possible. Once the boy is in the hands of the State, LN would move on.
N - Would probably do nothing; why make trouble, and the boy could clearly use some money.
CN - Wouldn't stop the boy but might give him some pointers on how to rip off merchants in the future, if CN felt like it.
LE - Would call for the guards and might help capture the boy, if there was a reward or acclaim for catching pickpockets.
NE - Probably not worthwhile for the NE, but if the boy showed some promise picking pockets, he might recruit him to act has NE's minion. Someone with deft fingers like that might be useful for many things... of course if there's a reward, NE would just as soon collect it first.
CE - If there's a reward, CE will act decisively to capture the boy... even if the only profit is taking the merchant's purse for himself.

As you can see, alignment serves as a guideline, not a straight-jacket, for RP. I really think that people who reject alignment as being too constraining are missing out on a valuable RP tool, but it is certainly not required for good RP.

EDIT: On CN & 2e
2e made some terrible mistakes with the Alignment system. True Neutral was one, but CN was the other. No "alignment" should be objectively insane or it's not an alignment at all - it's a mental condition. Chaotic Neutral works very well as a strongly individualistic person who cares little for the weal or woe of others. A CN will harm others if necessary for their well being, but not wantonly or through sheer malice. Likewise, a CN will help other people when it's no big sacrifice on their part, though rarely out of the "kindness in their heart."

EvilElitest
2008-09-01, 11:50 PM
Again, an excellent exposition by EE. I agree with you in the aspect that good and evil are absoult while right and wrong are relative, I dont agree although in the CN part, you dont seem to remember that part of te 2nd ed PHB wich said that CN is a common aligment among madmen, and there are lots of kinds of mad men, my latest character (coplantor) is a CN character, ha acts completely random and most of his actions dont have any sense, he has done some terrible things, as well as quasi heroic things, he believes in two things: friendship and fun, he would do anything for his friend ferethros, although he really doeasnt care much about anyone else, and of course, his main objective in life is to have fun, sometimes he might hurt other people, but is not for having fun but more like accidents that derive from his "fun" activities. (once he was shooting at an abandoned tample with a catapult and he missed and hitted a house) he had no real moral problems after that, although he would never hurt someone else just for fun.
Thank you, but i have to talk about CN


Unaligned has one use, and one use only in the alignement system. Creatures like animals and the like who literally can't be part of the alignment system. Only time to use it

Now in 2E, mad men were considered CN, but that is because in 2E that was the only way to classify a mad man

Your madman, interesting as he may be, would be Cn but i he isn't mad in the same sense. When i say mad, i mean in the legal sense, IE literally unable to tell right from wrong, or so crazy they are animalistic (Wis or Int below 3). These guys, if you don't use unaligned, would be CN because they are crazy, but can't help them selves.

Your guy is CN certainly, like many similar fey creatures. however, he is sane, at least in the legal sense. now if he committed a series of evil acts on purpose, he would very easily slip into evil


Oracle Hunter, all of those reasons are logical explanations for taht alignment, but not the only course required. Except for CG, because dispite being chaotic, he is still good and stealing is wrong. Now i remind you, being fat and rich is not a crime, and the merchant is going to suffer if he gets robbed. A CG person might for example, take the money, return it, but tell the merchant that he dropped it. Or let the boy take the cash and pay him back in his own money. But i digress

My main point was that those actions are all possible and logical actions for each alignment, but they aren't the defining trait. Not every LG person would follow that advise, nor would every CE person. the Alignent describes the personality, not visa vera

hope i helped
from
EE

OneFamiliarFace
2008-09-01, 11:53 PM
As you can see, alignment serves as a guideline, not a straight-jacket, for RP. I really think that people who reject alignment as being too constraining are missing out on a valuable RP tool, but it is certainly not required for good RP.

I definitely agree here. Especially when many players don't even really want to write down a few sentences to describe their character, having an alignment gives a reasonable approximation of what a character will do in a given unexpected situation. It helps both the players and DMs make choices in the case of novel events. This way, a player needs only write down what he does in situations specifically important to the character. Alignment guides the rest.

So I see alignment as kind of a pledge. Being neutral good says, "I pledge to act for the benefit of other (non-evil) people most of the time." Everyone can break a pledge, but if they do so frequently enough, or break the pledge severely enough, then everyone questions the validity of said pledge (alignment change).

This also allows for quick and dirty character quirks. If I have made the above pledge, then under what circumstances will I not keep it? For example, perhaps I will only reluctantly help good NPCs of "monster" races, or perhaps I will act to the detriment of other people when I have a chance at getting revenge on Bad Guy X, who killed my father. That differentiates me from another NG guy who would attempt to save the maiden captured by Bad Guy X first, even if it means letting him get away.

EvilElitest
2008-09-02, 12:06 AM
pretty much, except for evil. Evil is pretty much a lack of a pledge, because they have no limits
from
EE

Reinboom
2008-09-02, 12:13 AM
I like and hate alignments. My opinion has taken awhile to develop from loving alignments and never thinking otherwise while playing 2e, til seeing the huge fight in person over alignments at a gaming session when playing 3.5 and outright declaring "well, screw it, they were a bad idea".

How I handle alignments now:
There is little mechanical basis to alignments. No matter the action of a character, it is only their outside defined influence that will ever give an alignment or not. Which rarely happens. Thus, a devil is lawful evil. A demon is chaotic evil. The Human BBEG, who just blew up a daycare is neutral/unaligned. If that character was possessed, they might show otherwise.
This makes it harder for certain intrigue situations to just be broken outright without portable sheets of lead. Also, since there is less mechanical influence, this also means it becomes less like a means to the players - more transparent. Also, obvious things like the paladin, monk, and similar just have to adhere to loose ideas or worship - not make the alignment system a code.

Now, on the other hand, for RP reasons it does make decent guidelines, and I still write down alignments and personality traits quickly on NPC informations, to get a quick guide. My players still put down an alignment (which helps to understand where the character stands), without a need to rapidly adhere to it. It can't be actively used for an excuse, but it can be used as a direction.

OneFamiliarFace
2008-09-02, 12:17 AM
pretty much, except for evil. Evil is pretty much a lack of a pledge, because they have no limits
from
EE

:smallamused:

Ah, but I think they do! They can't, for example, be good on a regular basis! A neutral evil person's pledge is, "I will do whatever I can to gain power for myself." A lawful evil person says, "I will uphold the oppresive hierarchy in place while doing my best to rise in its ranks." A chaotic evil person vows, "I will steal, maim, and murder as it pleases me with reckless abandon."

Those are very rough, and as stated, the outlines of a character's particular vow are decided by the character's individual nature. But most characters of each alignment would carry some form of the above pledges.

In my opinion, every alignment poses limits, as does any personality. A lot of people I know who don't like the alignment system will pick CN, thinking it is freedom from alignment, but I don't agree that it is (nor is any choice). Instead, I think they should play in a system without alignment. But I like the existence of good and evil, because I like playing heroic fantasy. When I play d20 modern or Call of Cthulu, then we do away with alignment, as it doesn't have much of a place in a non-fantastic world.

@OP: I also wanted to add that I am posting this stuff here because my biggest frustration as a DM involving alignment is people who play CN and/or evil characters "incorrectly." :smalltongue:

EvilElitest
2008-09-02, 08:19 AM
:smallamused:

Ah, but I think they do! They can't, for example, be good on a regular basis! A neutral evil person's pledge is, "I will do whatever I can to gain power for myself." A lawful evil person says, "I will uphold the oppresive hierarchy in place while doing my best to rise in its ranks." A chaotic evil person vows, "I will steal, maim, and murder as it pleases me with reckless abandon."

Those are all examples of evil people, but they aren't defining traits. A LE person might simply be deathly loyal to his master, (15th century Samerai), a NE person might be selfish but his limits on evil aren't defined (Mark Anthony in Shakesphere's Julias Caesar, Blackadder) and a CE person might just be an anarchist (V)


Those are very rough, and as stated, the outlines of a character's particular vow are decided by the character's individual nature. But most characters of each alignment would carry some form of the above pledges.

Basically, any of those people can do what ever they want to do in terms of actions. They can do what ever they want without any punishiment. However, it is the manner they do it in. For example, a LE person can't act in a chaotic manner, or use chaotic methods to solve his problems, but can commit what ever actions he wants.



A lot of people I know who don't like the alignment system will pick CN, thinking it is freedom from alignment, but I don't agree that it is (nor is any choice). Instead, I think they should play in a system without alignment. But I like the existence of good and evil, because I like playing heroic fantasy. When I play d20 modern or Call of Cthulu, then we do away with alignment, as it doesn't have much of a place in a non-fantastic world.

I agree with you on the modern stuff, because unless the world has some primal moral law, it doesn't make sense

But the thing about aligniment is, even through each has their own reistrictions, you can just be who you are and still have an aliginment
from
EE

@OP: I also wanted to add that I am posting this stuff here because my biggest frustration as a DM involving alignment is people who play CN and/or evil characters "incorrectly." :smalltongue:[/QUOTE]

hamishspence
2008-09-02, 08:31 AM
And in 3.5, they chucked away the Madman bit entirely: suggesting that common traits of CN were whimsicality, tendency to move and not settle down, etc.

If a person is too brave, heroic, and altruistic to be Evil, yet too ruthless, "ends justify means"-ish to be Good, and is an active enemy of authority or regulation, he could be CN.

2nd ed said CN philosophers believe that mortals make their own destiny, and acts do not have universe-wide repercussions, the way Exalted Deeds suggests. Ironically, this is the exact opposite of some elements of modern chaos theory: the butterfly effect.

3rd ed very sensibly chucked away the Neutral as "Obsessed with balance to the extent of fighting on both sides in fights"

Concern with self-interest isn't automatically evil: look at D&D fiction, or Complete Scoundrel alignment definitions of notable characters A better definition would involve: Will hurt others without provocation as part of own self-interest.

hamishspence
2008-09-02, 08:35 AM
Neutral can be balance, or a distaste for both sides, or relative indifference, or someone who simply hasn't shown strong traits of either.

But I like the phrase "He's too good to be Bad and too bad to be Good"

valadil
2008-09-02, 09:27 AM
Have your players figure out their character and then discuss with them which alignment that will be. Starting with alignment and then doing character often leads to problems like this.

Also keep in mind that the alignment system only allows for 9 options. Not all characters fit into one of those areas. In fact, I consider my characters to be interesting and dynamic only if they don't fit into one of the predefined alignments.

DeathQuaker
2008-09-02, 09:36 AM
I've not had a problem with alignment, and like to use alignment as an RP guide, but I'm lucky in that I and my fellow players/GMs have a pretty well-shared understanding of the alignment system.

It's also essential to remember the advice in the SRD: "Alignment is not a straitjacket...."

In a situation where alignment is actually discouraging roleplaying or causing nothing but argument because players don't see eye to eye on what the alignments mean, I'd try to do what makes the game go more smoothly: discard them as much as possible, and try to use stuff like spells that affect alignments minimally. If I still wanted to use something like a one-word-system that helps act as an RP guideline, maybe implement something akin to White Wolf's Character Archetype system, where everyone picks a single word from a list of words that they feel best describes their character (i.e., Caregiver, Guardian, Monster, Manipulator, Hedonist...).

Starbuck_II
2008-09-02, 10:05 AM
pretty much, except for evil. Evil is pretty much a lack of a pledge, because they have no limits
from
EE

I disagree and here is why:
Ne: Pledges that he will alwsays for his own good even to detriment of others if neccessary.

If a NE guy helps others and yet gets nothing in return: he isn't acting NE. Now if he did it to help a friend that would be a exception as every alignment helps a friend (even TN).

LE: He must follow his Code. He is a rules lawyer. He uses the code to keep himself blameless/guiltless.

CE: okay, he is Chaotic so I can see him not making much of a Pledge. But he might make a small one.

I can't fathom to define CN because it is too broad and vast.

EvilElitest
2008-09-02, 10:24 AM
I disagree and here is why:
Ne: Pledges that he will alwsays for his own good even to detriment of others if neccessary.

If a NE guy helps others and yet gets nothing in return: he isn't acting NE. Now if he did it to help a friend that would be a exception as every alignment helps a friend (even TN).

LE: He must follow his Code. He is a rules lawyer. He uses the code to keep himself blameless/guiltless.

CE: okay, he is Chaotic so I can see him not making much of a Pledge. But he might make a small one.

I just countered that argument.

Evil people have no limits in What they do. they can do waht ever they want, other than repent. The only difference is the manner in which they act. now they can be good people other than a few evil actions. Julius Caesar would be evil, but he was a pretty nice guy to have around, and relatively honorable, but selfish.

Evil people can commit as many good acts as they want without turning good as long as they don't repent. The only difference is the way they do it

And LE don't have to be rule laywers, they just have to act in a lawful manner. Napleon would be a LE person, because he was extremly orderly and lawful by nature
from
EE


I can't fathom to define CN because it is too broad and vast.[/QUOTE]

hamishspence
2008-09-02, 10:36 AM
Fiendish Codex 2 does not actually say that. What is says is, if you do not repent, AND make restitution, etc, and you have committed a certain amount of evil acts, you go to The Nine Hells (if you are Lawful) regardless of alignment.

So, a person who has committed a certain quantity of evil acts, and has a "Heel Face Turn" and spends the rest of his life doing good, if he is Lawful, still goes to Nine hells, even if by any objective definition his overall alignment at time of death was Good.

Almost the same would apply if he died in the process of carrying out repentance and restitution, without completing it. But in this case he (or she) would be a good candidate for the Hellbred transformation.

A being who dies Lawful evil, but has real regrets at the time of death, becomes a spectre on the layer Dis.

An evil person who does much good, does not necessarily become good, but if a real change of attitude happens, they can. Yet, still doesn't always change afterlife destination.

Exceptions to "evil guys who do some good" are the Unearthed Arcana evil variant paladins: if they perform any Good act, they lose their paladin powers. However, for some, UA is Dis Continuity.

EvilElitest
2008-09-02, 11:30 AM
Fiendish Codex 2 does not actually say that. What is says is, if you do not repent, AND make restitution, etc, and you have committed a certain amount of evil acts, you go to The Nine Hells (if you are Lawful) regardless of alignment.

So, a person who has committed a certain quantity of evil acts, and has a "Heel Face Turn" and spends the rest of his life doing good, if he is Lawful, still goes to Nine hells, even if by any objective definition his overall alignment at time of death was Good.

Almost the same would apply if he died in the process of carrying out repentance and restitution, without completing it. But in this case he (or she) would be a good candidate for the Hellbred transformation.

A being who dies Lawful evil, but has real regrets at the time of death, becomes a spectre on the layer Dis.

An evil person who does much good, does not necessarily become good, but if a real change of attitude happens, they can. Yet, still doesn't always change afterlife destination.

Exceptions to "evil guys who do some good" are the Unearthed Arcana evil variant paladins: if they perform any Good act, they lose their paladin powers. However, for some, UA is Dis Continuity.

That is if they stay evil after repenting. For example, Redcloak isn't as nasty to the hobgoblins anymore, but he is still lawful evil.

A person who repents and becomes good or netural goes somewhere else

however a person who signed one of those pacts is simply put, screwed
from
EE

hamishspence
2008-09-02, 11:36 AM
It doesn't actually say that, it says you have to make up for the specific acts you committed to remove your corruption points. The phrase was: Any Lawful character with a corruption rating of 9 or higher goes to Baator, no mater how much good he did in life. It doesn't say they have to be evil, just that they have to have not cleared their corruption rating. DMG gives examples of characters undergoing a Heel Face Turn and becoming Neutral (CN in this case) without actually doing anything, simply changing their views.

And as for signing pacts, there are more than one circumstance when you are not screwed: you signed the act, and devil did not provide benefits, or you were coerced into signing said pact.

Note that if, apart from the pact, you were LE enough to go to Baator anyway, you can win your case, then get condemned to hell on unrelated issues. Cue much diabolical laughter.

hamishspence
2008-09-02, 11:43 AM
and for LE villains who change and become CE, CN, or even CG, you can point out that they must have committed numerous "obesiant" acts in their career as a LE villain, and they have to atone for those, if they choose not to remove the Corrupt acts. A LE defector to demons must atone for his Lawfulness if he wishes to escape Hell.

Coplantor
2008-09-02, 11:47 AM
:smallamused:

Ah, but I think they do! They can't, for example, be good on a regular basis! A neutral evil person's pledge is, "I will do whatever I can to gain power for myself." A lawful evil person says, "I will uphold the oppresive hierarchy in place while doing my best to rise in its ranks." A chaotic evil person vows, "I will steal, maim, and murder as it pleases me with reckless abandon."...

I dont think that evil persons cant do good on a regular basis, imagine an evil necromancer doing his experiments on a village. People there are aware of the strange things that happen, people dying, corpses dissapearing and zombies rising. The necromancer, trying not to call the attention on himself, he pretends to be a good guy, he helps everyone on town, he is always smiling, and is there for everyone needing a friendful ear or shoulder to cry on, he is everyone's best friend! How can they suspect of good old Jeremias?

Good people cant perform evil acts, never, or they'll lose their good status, evil people can do as much good as they want if it helps somehow their evil deeds. I think that it is matter of intention here what defines actually what is good and what is evil, good people do good for good results, evil people can do good things for evil results.

hamishspence
2008-09-02, 12:31 PM
and sometimes a good persons good deed can have evil results- "save the future Dark Lord". As a general rule foreseeability applies: you cannot foresee that the kid will eventually change alignment and become an Evil Villain, so saving him is never evil.

hamishspence
2008-09-02, 12:32 PM
And good people can perform evil acts: they lose benefit of exalted status if they had it, but they do not always drop straight to neutral.

EDIT:
I take view that alignment systems is not there to restrict your acts, its there to determine how the universe, and NPCs, react to them.

You can do anything you like, good or evil, you just have to live with the results. Remember in 2nd, 3rd, and 3.5, it says alignment shifts should be slow and need multiple acts: one-act-shifts should be rare, very much the exception not the rule.

nagora
2008-09-02, 01:08 PM
Alignments are just a rough guide to character.

Lawfuls think that sacrificing personal goals to form a group ultimately allows the individual to achieve more than they could alone, some will even place the group's needs so far above their own that they will die to further them. Lawful characters might be criminals devoted to the Godfather, or uncorruptable magistrates.

Chaotics believe that the very act of compromising to form a group makes achieving your goals impossible, or at least prevents them being fully achieved. A chaotic may either care nothing about what others think and act accordingly, or they may place such high value on personal honour that they will do anything to avoid breaking their word once given.

Good beings help others, sometimes even to the point of self sacrifice. They do not place themselves over others but do not have to be pacifists who are afraid to act against evil.

Evil beings take from others in order to keep them down and prevent them from threatening the evil character's ability to do what they want. In extremes, the evil chracter will take pleasure from acts of total domination, including rape, torture and murder. But they can fall in love and have close friends.

Neutrals are in between. On the good/evil axis, neutrals may help others when times are good, or steal from them when things are bad; they're just trying to get by. On the law/chaos axis the neutral probably doesn't have a fixed opinion on the best way to achieve their goals, "whatever works" is their motto.

hamishspence
2008-09-02, 01:33 PM
chaotic groups: elven armies or militias. Orc hordes. Being chaotic does not forbid working together. It merely means method of bringing them together may be different, since swearing fealty is apparently a Lawful act.

mangosta71
2008-09-02, 01:36 PM
I didn't see anyone commenting on this earlier in the thread, but had I been DMing a session in which a "CG" character said "I'm going to let my comrades die so that I can have more loot" I would have told him that he is now CE. Whatever god he revered while CG refuses to grant him any more power until he atones.

@^: Chaotic characters can be united by a common goal, but groups tend to fragment once that goal is reached. The orcs have been defeated, so the elven militia disperses and everyone goes back to their own homes. The dwarven stronghold has been taken, so the orcish horde breaks up to infighting between smaller factions.

hamishspence
2008-09-02, 01:41 PM
Dig around in D&D sourcebooks and you way find more than a few Well Intentioned Extremists that are, nonetheless, evil. Tome of Magic: the witch hunter. Or Waterdeep: Sir Gareth, Some evil characters do not admit it even to themselves. Evil is tied more to wahat a person does than how they think: a person can genuinely belive what they are doing is good, saving lives/souls, etc, and still be evil.

monty
2008-09-02, 01:45 PM
Evil is tied more to wahat a person does than how they think: a person can genuinely belive what they are doing is good, saving lives/souls, etc, and still be evil.

I think this is mostly true in real life, as well. There are probably very few evil people who are actively trying to be more evil - it's simply not human nature. WARNING: GODWIN AHEAD. I'm sure Hitler thought what he was doing was good, but few people doubt that he was evil (and those who do doubt are weird anyway).

hamishspence
2008-09-02, 01:51 PM
some people may take great pleasure in commiting acts we call Evil, mostly, but not many. Serial killers, perhaps? I do not know how common it is in RL, but its very common in movies, books, etc, even those based on RL events.

Getting off RL, the terms might be Well Intentioned Extremist, vs Sadistic Villain. And neither might call themselves evil:

"there is only power, and those too weak to seek it" Quirrell quoting Voldemort.

so, this is just one distinction. Another might be Punch Clock Villain: person who does horrible things and doesn't think about it because its their job.

EvilElitest
2008-09-02, 03:02 PM
a few points

1) However in the BoVD and BoED its says that an evil person who repented for his sins and ceased to be evil will not go to heaven or hell, unless he sold his soul (then he is screwed, with a few exceptions
2) a good person who has been corrupted or signed a contract, even if he is still technically good (for committing one evil act, not a fall into evil normally) will go to hell if he is corrupted
3) a person who is normally LE will go to hell even if he isn't committed to hell, its the default palce to go
4) an exception is if the LE person's god find him acceptable and takes him to his own realm. So priests of Hector don't go to hell
5) A good person can commit a few evil actions before ceasing to be good, but by commiting even one evil action, he treads a fine line.
6) And exalted person can never commit an evil act ever. He might be able to regain his exalted status, but not easily
7) a person who is evil isn't always aware he is evil of course
8) most importantly personal views on good and evil are not the same as right and wrong, which are totally personal in perspective
from
EE

EvilElitest
2008-09-02, 03:06 PM
some people may take great pleasure in commiting acts we call Evil, mostly, but not many. Serial killers, perhaps? I do not know how common it is in RL, but its very common in movies, books, etc, even those based on RL events.

In D&D
Even people who like to commit acts might thing themselves as good. Samerai, knights, professional torturers, Romans ect. They are doing waht is social acceptable.

There are some people who are very evil, but do it for their god or culture (drow, Goblins, cultist)

Demons and what not are in fact made of evil and have to commit such actions



And a few actually do evil for its own sake (the ravagers)


In RL, very few people consider themselves evil and enjoy it, even the most brutal killers. Some nutty cultists maybe, but very few in all.

Serial killers don't always know what they are doing. If anyone has seen M, it is not always a rational thing, or even a joy they find in killing, its a need, ad command, an inablity to control themselves


Getting off RL, the terms might be Well Intentioned Extremist, vs Sadistic Villain. And neither might call themselves evil:

"there is only power, and those too weak to seek it" Quirrell quoting Voldemort.
true, most evil people just do what they think is best
from
EE

hamishspence
2008-09-02, 03:08 PM
And both were written pre-Fiendish codex 2. And say villain must repent. and FC2 says to clear corruption rating, this repentance must involve fixing what went wrong, apologizing, giving back any ill-gotten gains, and using atonement spell as well.

Hextor has a private domain in hell, so they go there, they just don't get tormented and turned into lemeres. what they get turned into depends on deity: typically Fiendish humans, sahaugin, kobolds, etc.

And a person cannot be committed to hell according to FC2, without having commited at least some kind of evil deed. Nasty thoughts are not enough.

EvilElitest
2008-09-02, 03:21 PM
And both were written pre-Fiendish codex 2. And say villain must repent. and FC2 says to clear corruption rating, this repentance must involve fixing what went wrong, apologizing, giving back any ill-gotten gains, and using atonement spell as well.

Hextor has a private domain in hell, so they go there, they just don't get tormented and turned into lemeres. what they get turned into depends on deity: typically Fiendish humans, sahaugin, kobolds, etc.

And a person cannot be committed to hell according to FC2, without having commited at least some kind of evil deed. Nasty thoughts are not enough.

1) however the rules for penitence do allow Evil people to avoid hell
2) Ok, fine Bane then (i think he is LE) or what ever LE deity you want, if your god wants you, you avoid hell. the reason why Asomodeus wants more people is because he only gets the cast off LE people
3) Well they can go to hell if they signed a contract but other wise
4) Wait, thinking bad things isn't evil, its actions. When is this
from
EE
3)

Kalirren
2008-09-02, 03:24 PM
My two cents to the OP:

Alignment was originally intended as a way of introducing new roleplayers to the concept of roleplaying, to express the emotions and thoughts of someone who was not themselves. If you are having problems with alignment screwing up the flow of roleplaying, then it has already outlived its usefulness and should probably be discarded.

Any player who is detailed enough to say, for example, "My character is (insert alignment here) because it's an android so obsessive-compulsive about organizing things that it is willing to steal artifacts frrom museums to collect objects that objectively belong together" has completely outgrown the alignment system. (This particular example happened to be a rogue modron. Both Lawful and Chaotic, neither Good nor Evil. To spraypaint this as NN would be a disgrace.)

The best characters, I find, tend to be those who habitually (predictably) act one way or another but are still capable of the typical range of human action and reaction. These also happen to be those which the traditional D&D alignment system describes least well.

hamishspence
2008-09-02, 03:32 PM
Some people seem to think that just being self-centred and unpleasant is enough to be evil. FC2 disagrees.

Because the rules for alignment changing are not the same as the rules for penitence (see DMG) result means that, theoretically, Good, formerly evil, people who haven't started penitence yet and die before they do, go to Nine Hells. Though that is more what the Hellbred transformation is designed for: a "second" chance, to get around:

"According to the terms laid down in the Pact Primeval, The good that mortals do in life is outweighed by the taint of sin"

Starbuck_II
2008-09-02, 04:06 PM
"there is only power, and those too weak to seek it" Quirrell quoting Voldemort.


The First on Buffy the Vampire Slayer also said that line.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-09-02, 04:25 PM
I dont think that evil persons cant do good on a regular basis...
This is absolutely true.


Good people cant perform evil acts, never, or they'll lose their good status...
This is absolutely wrong. If Good people could never do evil acts, there wouldn't be any clerics or paladins of good deities, heck there wouldn't be any Good people period, because everyone makes mistakes. Except possibly outsiders. The alignments aren't neat little boxes that any one character can be assigned to; it's more like a wide spectrum that gradually changes from the purest white to the darkest black.

Anyway, to your original questions: yes, I use alignment and I love it even in 4th edition where I had to house rule it into significance again. Though to be fair, I only really care about the Good/Evil axis and don't bother with Law/Chaos.

When you recruited for these two games you're running, did you state that you wanted to run heroic games? Because it sounds like you either didn't mention that you wanted Good PCs, or if you did you didn't have any consequences planned for players who didn't role play Good PCs. That's very important if you want to run a heroic game.

More importantly, if you want alignment to be of any significance in your game you obviously need to sit your players down and explain to them exactly how you see the nine alignments. Because some of them obviously don't get it, and it'll only cause more problems the longer that they don't. And don't assume that they understand anything about alignment the way that you do, because literally everyone has a slightly different idea of how alignment works. Not to sound condescending, but you may want to take a look at my Book of Heroic Might (linked below); it has some great advice for DMs and players on using alignment effectively.

Oh and my idea of TN is simple: it's what 70-90% of humanity is. They help their family and friends because it provides security and community; they generally follow laws and traditions because they don't want to get caught or be ostracized; but they don't go out of their way to help strangers and generally only pay lip service to laws and traditions. TN is between the four alignment extremes, not separate or above them somehow. And neither is 'unaligned'; that's just a new word that seems not to scare alignment-fearfuls as much as TN.

TS

PS: Have you considered dropping class alignment restrictions? I know they've been a core part of the game for three editions, but they actually make role playing harder. And more importantly, alignment restrictions are one of the biggest reasons that so many gamers have learned to fear alignment.

nagora
2008-09-02, 05:19 PM
@^: Chaotic characters can be united by a common goal, but groups tend to fragment once that goal is reached. The orcs have been defeated, so the elven militia disperses and everyone goes back to their own homes. The dwarven stronghold has been taken, so the orcish horde breaks up to infighting between smaller factions.
Yeah, chaotics can form groups (or hordes as the case may be) so long as that group has very focused goals that match the individuals' very closely.

Jimp
2008-09-02, 06:10 PM
GURPS. No alignment. No probelms :smallcool:
:smalltongue:

EvilElitest
2008-09-02, 07:47 PM
When they say how sin outweights good, they mean a perfectly good person who torurted a villain once or twice. That is still sin and takes them to hell. However, a person who repented effectivlly doesn't have any sin



This is absolutely wrong. If Good people could never do evil acts, there wouldn't be any clerics or paladins of good deities, heck there wouldn't be any Good people period, because everyone makes mistakes. Except possibly outsiders. The alignments aren't neat little boxes that any one character can be assigned to; it's more like a wide spectrum that gradually changes from the purest white to the darkest black.

Actually because alignments are objective in D&D taht isn't true.
1) Good outsiders who fail cease to be angles or what not and fall. This rarely happens however
2) good people can get away with a few evil actions, but they have to be few and fair between. You see, the system isn't fair, a person can commit a million good actions and if they don't repent, it won't save themselves. Good people can commit evil acts evne for a good cause, because that is basically fueling evil


Anyway, to your original questions: yes, I use alignment and I love it even in 4th edition where I had to house rule it into significance again. Though to be fair, I only really care about the Good/Evil axis and don't bother with Law/Chaos.

Law and chaos aren't about the actions, but the motives and methods more. so while a dude might be evil, the way he does it is decieded by their motives

and 4E alignement sadly is an abomintion


More importantly, if you want alignment to be of any significance in your game you obviously need to sit your players down and explain to them exactly how you see the nine alignments. Because some of them obviously don't get it, and it'll only cause more problems the longer that they don't. And don't assume that they understand anything about alignment the way that you do, because literally everyone has a slightly different idea of how alignment works. Not to sound condescending, but you may want to take a look at my Book of Heroic Might (linked below); it has some great advice for DMs and players on using alignment effectively.

pretty much yeah, through where is the link?


Oh and my idea of TN is simple: it's what 70-90% of humanity is. They help their family and friends because it provides security and community; they generally follow laws and traditions because they don't want to get caught or be ostracized; but they don't go out of their way to help strangers and generally only pay lip service to laws and traditions. TN is between the four alignment extremes, not separate or above them somehow. And neither is 'unaligned'; that's just a new word that seems not to scare alignment-fearfuls as much as TN.

I agree with the first part, in real life around 60-70% of people are most likely neutral.




TS

PS: Have you considered dropping class alignment restrictions? I know they've been a core part of the game for three editions, but they actually make role playing harder. And more importantly, alignment restrictions are one of the biggest reasons that so many gamers have learned to fear alignment.

Well that is part of their class, barbarion, paladin, and druid at least. bard, naw
from
EE

Coplantor
2008-09-02, 08:35 PM
To tequlia sunrise:

Well, I told them "no evil characters and please, lets try to have more good characters than neutral ones". And about good guys and evil deeds, good people cant do "evil things" but they can do "wrong things". For example, stealing is wrong, but its not evil itself, I think that BoED said that there's a difference between killing and murdering, those subtle differences affect in huge ways the aligment system, a friend of mine asked me to explain him the paladin's code, when I told him that a paladin cannot perform any evil act he said "That's stupid, so I cant kill a lion that is attacking me just because it needs to eat and Im it's natural prey?", so I explained him the difference between kill and murder.

To Jimp:

Im learning how to run a GURPS campaign, I will probably be GMing my first adventure this weekend so wish me luck, I really like the system so I'll probably switch from D&D to GURPS, but I think my players will kill me if I ever do that.

EvilElitest
2008-09-02, 10:16 PM
good luck on GURPS.

Two things

1) The difference between killing and murder is a little tricky. Killing is evil, but if used for a good reason, its is simply neutral. Killing for self defense, or defense of others is fine, or destroy always evil creatures. Murder is killing without justification, killing innocents for any reason, killing somebody for pleasure or personal gain, killing prisoners or surrendering folks.
2) evil people in a party can work fine, but requires a bit of player maturity
from
EE

OneFamiliarFace
2008-09-02, 10:41 PM
I just countered that argument.

Evil people have no limits in What they do. they can do waht ever they want, other than repent. The only difference is the manner in which they act. now they can be good people other than a few evil actions. Julius Caesar would be evil, but he was a pretty nice guy to have around, and relatively honorable, but selfish.

Evil people can commit as many good acts as they want without turning good as long as they don't repent. The only difference is the way they do it

And LE don't have to be rule laywers, they just have to act in a lawful manner. Napleon would be a LE person, because he was extremly orderly and lawful by nature
from
EE

It is hard to apply alignment to real life people. And I agree with you that evil people can commit any act, just like good people can. But they won't always. I think here we might be confusing non-action with good.

Murdering someone in cold blood is, I hope we can agree, evil. NOT murdering someone is, however, NOT not-evil. To not murder someone when one has the chance would not be a violation of, say, CE. But a CE would almost never save a large group of innocent villagers from a horde of barbarians out of the goodness of his heart (if at all).

So a Good act is here defined as someone willingly risking his/her own safety/property/position to help other people. An Evil act is one in which someone willingly risks someone else's safety/property/position to help him/herself.

Given the choice of the two acts, the good person is far more likely to pick the former, and the evil person is far more likely to choose the latter. The neutral person prefers to neither risk himself nor others, and will go out of his way to help some people while at other times ignoring others to help himself, but there is a pattern as determined by his personality.

So a choice of "evil" alignment is just as restricting as a choice of "good."

Though, I think what you actual beef may be is that Good people can fall accidentally, but Evil people must choose to repent. I would simply argue that Good people fall by choice, they just pretend it is an accident to make themselves feel better :-p.

Xenogears
2008-09-02, 11:57 PM
I'm upset by all the people who are dismissing the importance of Chaos/Law. Personally I care about those more than I care about Good/Evil in DnD. The difference between a LG character and a CG character can be more profound than the difference between a LG and an LE.

An example LG character could be a Judge that believes that the Law should be followed to the letter and those who spout nonsense about the "spirit of the law" are just fools who will bring anarchy down on our heads. Now that is getting a little close to LN but since the Judge is doing this because he believes it is for the greater good he is closer to LG. So this judge is imprisoning people who don't pay their taxes. Most of these people just can't pay them because the King imposes too harsh taxes.

A CG character could be like Robin Hood. Fights against the Lawful government so that he can better the lives of others. Sure he has killed plenty of men (some who were quite nice people too) in battle but he is trying to protect the innocent from unfair laws.

Then throw the King into the mix and make him LE. He imposes a harsh tax in order to swell his coffers. He is obviously opposed to the CG character because he is A) breaking his laws and B) Trying to free the people from him. Now the Judge might feel that the King's laws are harsh but he will agree that the people deserve to be imprisoned and that the Robin Hood figure should be executed.

Here is a fairly simple situation where a LE and a LG are working together almost perfectly. They have the same goals and methods. The ONLY difference is their motivations. The LG and the CG have the same motivations. Protecting the good people. But they have exact opposite methods. The CG believes to protect the innocent then the government that is oppressing them must be torn down. The LG believes that in order to protect them the government must be maintained lest the country fall to chaos and brigands. So Law/Chaos can be more important thatn Good/Evil and shouldn't be ignored.

OneFamiliarFace
2008-09-03, 12:49 AM
I'm upset by all the people who are dismissing the importance of Chaos/Law. Personally I care about those more than I care about Good/Evil in DnD. The difference between a LG character and a CG character can be more profound than the difference between a LG and an LE.

These are some very good points. I think where this gets choppy is it references intent versus action (or actual results). The LE king is going to be setting up rules that the LG character cannot stand for: slavery, torture, caste systems which unfairly represent certain individuals. Not to mention possible inquisitions, the stifling of any disagreeable viewpoints, etc.. Eventually, there will be things for which the LG judge cannot stand, and he will have to rule against the LE king. If the LE king then imprisons him for that, and he stages a prisoner revolt, does he become chaotic? Or has he just realized that, in this case, the rule of law has gone to far.

Your situation is certainly plausible, and, indeed, my favorite homebrew city has a LE monarch with the remainders of the previous LG oligarchy in-tact. But all of the officials, enforcers, and what-nots are evil or neutral and beholden to the monarch first.

But it can get choppy in a system where Law is absolute, but we all know the laws of man change based on culture, custom, and geography. So law is usually better viewed as a desire for structure, family, order, and government. Chaos is the desire for individual will and freedom. Again this becomes complicated.

The idea of most democracies is that the Rule of Law is above any man, and upholds an individual's rights and decisions, so long as they also follow that Rule of Law. For example, we have a Law that says people have the 'chaotic' right to freedom of expression. The main idea here is that People give their leaders power by investing that power in them. Without the backing of the People, the leaders have no power. This system doesn't quite fit into a world with an absolute Law and Chaos axis. We also have laws which emulate (or originate from) morals.

Barg, I'm starting to ramble and don't have time to finish, so I'll just leave it sit for now!

Xenogears
2008-09-03, 01:56 AM
These are some very good points. I think where this gets choppy is it references intent versus action (or actual results). The LE king is going to be setting up rules that the LG character cannot stand for: slavery, torture, caste systems which unfairly represent certain individuals. Not to mention possible inquisitions, the stifling of any disagreeable viewpoints, etc.. Eventually, there will be things for which the LG judge cannot stand, and he will have to rule against the LE king. If the LE king then imprisons him for that, and he stages a prisoner revolt, does he become chaotic? Or has he just realized that, in this case, the rule of law has gone to far.

That depends on how Evil the king is and how Lawful the Judge is. If the King is only evil enough to set up increased taxes and excessive force but not enough for slavery and torture (or maybe he just get sold into slavery and tortured and dislikes the practice on a personal level) then the Judge will probably never oppose him. Or maybe the LG Judge is just on the line between LG and LN and believes that Law and Order are ALWAYS better for the people than a lack of Law. So even if he believed that the King was getting to be too evil he would still feel that the greater good is served by allowing him (and helping him in fact) stay in power. Just because someone is LG doesn't mean they favor Law or Good. But they could favor either one. Same for any alignment. Part of an earlier post where I said players shouldn't pigeonhole themselves in an archetype of the alignment. Either way though there are a number of ways where the King and Judge work together perfectly. One believing he is serving the greater good and the other just wanting to keep his powers.

And no obviously he wouldn't turn Chaotic for deciding that this specific government was bad. If on the other hand his bad experiences with the government caused him to decide that all government was bad he would become chaotic and probably join the CG Robin Hood. (that just sounds like its a Computer Generated Robin Hood. Like in the Disney movie.)

OneFamiliarFace
2008-09-03, 02:16 AM
One believing he is serving the greater good and the other just wanting to keep his powers.

Yeah, this is this actual core of what I was trying to get at.

I definitely agree with you that LG and LE characters can work together against a CG character. Actually, one of my favorite PCs was a CE character who was only played for a few sidetrack sessions of a main campaign. He worked with a LG and a NG character because, at the time, they were in Hell, and the Devil's probably disliked my little gnome warlock more than they did either of the good characters. So common enemies bound us together.

So back to the quoted material here: A key question that must be answered by the DM (or by the players and DM together) is, "Is alignment comprised of actions or is it intents and beliefs?" The LG judge, for example, may believe he is doing good, but the actual results of his actions are the starvation and poverty of hundreds, if not thousands. So, if you choose the action side, which I do, then you have to define which actions are which. I do so thusly:

Good: An act which helps others at the expense of the self.
Evil: An act which helps the self at the expense of others.
Law: An act which promotes order over the individual.
Chaos: An act which promotes the individual over order.
Neutral: Anything that does not fall within the above four statements.

This isn't to say a LN character can't do good, evil, or chaotic acts. This is to say that, in a novel situation, he will mostly likely act to promote order over the individual with no preference to the self or others. But in any other situation described by his backstory or personality, he very well might act differently.

This, anyway, is how I use my beloved alignment and quell the frustration it can often cause for both players and the DM.

hamishspence
2008-09-03, 09:00 AM
While "helping others" as a general rule of Goodness, there are excepts. An evil act is an evil act in D&D, even if done with the intent of helping others: murder, or torture, or various others.

So, you cannot say "altruism is always good" because there are so many exceptions.

Concerning Law, Fiendish Codex 2 had a list of Lawful acts, and many seemed to focus on following commands, even when commander is someone you do not respect, or aiding your superior to your own detriment, or taking disputes to the courts rather than resolving them yourself, and accepting results that go against you.

Starbuck_II
2008-09-03, 09:04 AM
It is hard to apply alignment to real life people. And I agree with you that evil people can commit any act, just like good people can. But they won't always. I think here we might be confusing non-action with good.

Murdering someone in cold blood is, I hope we can agree, evil. NOT murdering someone is, however, NOT not-evil. To not murder someone when one has the chance would not be a violation of, say, CE. But a CE would almost never save a large group of innocent villagers from a horde of barbarians out of the goodness of his heart (if at all).


So is murdering someone while angry (hot blood) evil?

nagora
2008-09-03, 09:11 AM
While "helping others" as a general rule of Goodness, there are excepts. An evil act is an evil act in D&D, even if done with the intent of helping others: murder, or torture, or various others.

So, you cannot say "altruism is always good" because there are so many exceptions.
Actually it's quite easy: an evil act trumps a good reason/act. In the 1e DMG it specifically gives "ends justify the means" as an Evil POV.

This means that being Good is harder than being Evil, but I think that's fair enough, old cynic that I am.

Epinephrine
2008-09-03, 09:12 AM
I like OneFamiliarFace's rather concise statement about alignments.

As for the OP - I get wanting to DM a certain style of campaign (heroic, for example), but honestly, the players may not want to play that either. I can play good alignments, and in life am probably some variety of at least good-ish person. I have trouble with eveil for evil's sake (demon, devil?) but can play selfish and self-centred evil, though it's certainly not my most comfortable role. To me though, much of what I enjoy is more the personality of the player, what motivates them to act the way they do. The character might be mostly good-ish, but not tolerate disrespect? He may view his word once given as more valuable than anything else, and be ashamed or horrified by having to follow through with an evil act - but he gave his word. That's part of the fun - not the alignment so much as the personality.

I'd worry less about alignment, and simply see how they play - then decide alignments if you must for the purposes of spells etc. Many characters are dappled greys, not black or white, and it can be hard to give them an overall alignment when people are often by their nature paradoxical.

hamishspence
2008-09-03, 09:24 AM
A lot of people would say sacrificing yourself to save a persons life is a good act, but when its an evil character saving another evil character's life, this makes less sense. Evn if motivation is, for example, extreme loyalty: by FC2 that kind of Loyalty is more Lawful than Good.

nagora
2008-09-03, 09:31 AM
A lot of people would say sacrificing yourself to save a persons life is a good act, but when its an evil character saving another evil character's life, this makes less sense. Evn if motivation is, for example, extreme loyalty: by FC2 that kind of Loyalty is more Lawful than Good.
It depends: evil person sacrifices self to save loved one (who is likewise evil) - good act. Evil person sacrifices self to save other evil character so that the latter can continue murdering campaign - evil act.

Evil is about domination and an act which is contrary to that general principle is contrary to Evil. Reasons count, but only if they're bad, they don't excuse an actual evil act.

hamishspence
2008-09-03, 09:35 AM
Doesn't Exalted Deeds state that altruistic acts toward evil, aside from mercy, are dubious? I haven't seen anything in rulebboks that states an act done out of "love" is always better than an act done out of loyalty.

mangosta71
2008-09-03, 09:46 AM
So is murdering someone while angry (hot blood) evil?

"Murder in cold blood" always seemed a bit redundant to me. Murder is defined as the premeditated killing of another being, so I would think that it's always done in cold blood. Killing while angry (heat of the moment) or unintentionally is manslaughter. Both are homicide. The difference is that the murderer sits down and thinks about what he wants to do, then plans the killing and carries it out. Manslaughter can sometimes be justified, as in cases of self-defense.

hamishspence
2008-09-03, 09:50 AM
No, actually murder and premeditated murder are given different sentences under the law. Terms like 1st degree murder and second degree murder are used.

Manslaughter tends to involve things like accidental killing: you beat someone up, they die, you didn't intend them to do so: that might be manslaughter rather than murder.

You are arguing with someone in a pub. You draw a gun and shoot them. No reasonable provocation, no element of it being unintentional: its murder, not manslaughter.

FC2 gives Murder, Cold-blooded Murder, and Murder for Pleasure, different Corruption ratings.

Epinephrine
2008-09-03, 09:54 AM
Doesn't Exalted Deeds state that altruistic acts toward evil, aside from mercy, are dubious? I haven't seen anything in rulebboks that states an act done out of "love" is always better than an act done out of loyalty.

It gets tricky - I tend to think intent is crucial, and hence the love/loyalty difference is meaningful. Killing a foe because you hate him (probably evil) is different from killing a foe because he attacked you (pretty neutral, really), or killing a foe because you are bound by duty to do so (lawful act, not necessarily good or evil), or killing a foe because you know it'll prevent other deaths (possibly good?).

Is love "better" than loyalty? I don't think so - I think loyalty tends to be more lawful (duty, your word, trust), while love tends to be more chaotic (freedom, breaking rules, irrational).

SleepingOrange
2008-09-03, 09:57 AM
The biggest fallacy of thought of alignment-haters (and many alignment lovers, apparently) is that alignment rigidly defines a character. Rather, it should be a quick summation of the character's worldview. Consider the below:

Bob is a Lawful Good commoner. He pays his taxes, does charity work, respects his elders. He is lawful because he loves tradition and order, respects his government's laws, and works well with others; he is good because he is willing to help others, is generally nice, and thinks that killing or hurting others is wrong. Unfortunately, Bob has a temper problem; sometimes he just gets so mad he loses it. Sometimes he even gets violent. He performs chaotic and evil acts: chaotic because he breaks the law and isolates himself from others; evil because he bring harm to others. Even if this is a regular thing, Bob is still Lawful Good, because Lawful Good defines how he sees and thinks.

No alignment is prohibited from performing any action, given reasonable provocation; it just changes what reasonable is. Consider the act of kicking a baby to death: Any of the good alignments are EXTREMELY unlikely to do something SO evil unless their perspective is somehow altered, such as through drugs or magic. A Lawful Neutral almost certainly wouldn't as it's wrong and there's no point. A True Neutral would be very very hesitant to; there's just no reason for it. A Chaotic Neutral might; it all depends on how bad the baby's pissing him off and whether the risk of getting caught outweighs the benefits of killing the baby. A Lawful Evil probably won't; there are better ways to deal with it, and killing babies should be frowned upon; a Neutral Evil would be less hesitant, but would still need some serious encouragement. A Chaotic Evil might just, and might even enjoy it.

Now, consider a much less evil act, like beating someone up, or throwing rocks at a cat: doing so would still probably be chaotic and evil, because it causes harm and is socially irresponsible, but a good or neutral person would need much less provocation to do it; and doing so wouldn't jeopardize their alignment.

Additionally, treating alignment as a worldview rather than a "pledge" removes ambiguity about whether certain actions are 'performable'; you don't have to decide if beating up someone who deserves it is lawful or chaotic and good or evil: it doesn't matter, as long as the person sees it as registering with their alignment, or has sufficient provocation to act out of alignment.

hamishspence
2008-09-03, 09:58 AM
which is why I disputed the notion that a villains consort "taking the bullet" is any more good than a villains deputy or bodyguard taking the hit.

hamishspence
2008-09-03, 10:06 AM
I agree with the notion that aligned acts are partly guidelines rather than actual rules of behaviour that cannot be broken: "Tordek may be lawful good, but he's also a little greedy, he might steal if he can justify it to himself" PHB.

Your Good Baby killer idea does not necessarily require a perpective shift: a lot of people have said that: to save lives of millions, Good people shouldn't balk at murder. Which is a common criticism of BoED: that it says: yes, an Exalted Good character Wouldn't Do It.

Exemplars of Evil, a fairly recent sourcebook, gave a big list of personality traits, opposite personality traits, and what alignments they tended to be associated with, for villains (these villains did not have to be Evil). Again, some of their "always" references might best be described as "most of the time, with very rare exceptions" Same as "Always Evil (any)" in MM is assumed to allow very rare exceptions.

nagora
2008-09-03, 10:06 AM
Doesn't Exalted Deeds state that altruistic acts toward evil, aside from mercy, are dubious?
I don't know, I'm working from first principles here (1e DMG, when the two-axis system was introduced and very well defined, IMO).


I haven't seen anything in rulebboks that states an act done out of "love" is always better than an act done out of loyalty.
The reference to "love" was simply to rule out that the act had an inherently evil motive, not to say that love is why it is a good act.

Self-sacrifice is inherently a good act - one of the the exemplars of good acts just as murder is for evil acts - and if there is no evil motive behind it then the alignment of the beneficiary is irrelevant, it remains a good and possibly even a redeeming final act.

hamishspence
2008-09-03, 10:15 AM
Inherently? Always? No matter how evil the guy you are sacrificing yourself for?

"Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others" is not quite the same as "a personal sacrifice to help others is always good"

Self sacrifice is a subform of altruism, and can have selfish reasons: sacrificing yourself to save a close relative, for example. Similar it says in Exalted Deeds that you aren't expected to extend altruism to the evil and that an altustic act such as healing someone isn't necessarily good, so, logically, self-sacrifice can't be automatically good either.

SleepingOrange
2008-09-03, 10:43 AM
HamishSpence, your problem, I fear (aside from the double-posting), lies in your adherence to the rulebooks; you constantly quote texts and make reference to supplements that some of us may not have the disposable income to buy. The system I described uses the core books as guidelines for 'what does good/evil/law/chaos mean?' and went from there.

Additionally, self-sacrifice is a tricky one: if done out of loyalty, I maintain it's a lawful act; caring, a lawful and good one; altruism, a good one; for the good of your cause, lawful, and potentially good or evil (if it's for your church or evil orginization, say). I would say that the alignment of the person you sacrifice yourself for is a non-issue; rather, it's your motive. If you do it for a Chaotic Evil person, but do it out of loyalty, it's lawful, regardless of their attitude.

EDIT: Argh, missed a comma.

nagora
2008-09-03, 10:52 AM
Inherently? Always? No matter how evil the guy you are sacrificing yourself for?
Inherently, as in if there's no reason to think otherwise then the default assumption is that it's a good act, and no, I don't think the alignment of the other person matters unless your motive is that you want to preserve evil. Even then, it's still your motive that's the key question, isn't it?


Self sacrifice is a subform of altruism, and can have selfish reasons:
If it has selfish reasons then it's not altruism, by definition. Having said that, I think it would have to be a very selfish reason indeed to cancel out the inherent goodness of the act.


sacrificing yourself to save a close relative, for example. Similar it says in Exalted Deeds that you aren't expected to extend altruism to the evil and that an altustic act such as healing someone isn't necessarily good, so, logically, self-sacrifice can't be automatically good either.
I agree. But the deciding question is why you did it, not who you did it for. Unless the reason why is clearly evil, the act is good.

hamishspence
2008-09-03, 10:52 AM
if one makes statements like self-sacrifice is always a good act, regardless of the reason, one should back it up.

Concerning sourcebooks, while Exalted and Vile book are considered standard issue for Good/Evil definitions, it is true that FC2 and Exemplars of Evil are more obscure. It is intended to show that definitions of Lawful and Chaotic are somewhat blurry in PHB, and later books have added to them, a little. PHB tends to give general alignment rules, rather than solid ones.

I will try not to post multiple posts in quick succession, but as far as I remember I have not accidentally double-posted in this thread. Is mostly me coming up with thoughts to add: maybe should make short thoughts edits, rather than additional posts.

SleepingOrange
2008-09-03, 11:00 AM
Well, thank you for that (just another silly peeve of mine).

Posts aside, you fail to address what was the 'meat' of my comment. How do you respond? What's your rationale for using those books? Who says Exalted and Vile are standard for definitions of good and evil? What do you think about my take on the self-sacrifice issue? You don't have to agree with me, as long as you tell me why; from my perspective, that's pretty much the whole point of all this.

EDIT: Darnit, another missed comma. I must be commatose today.

Oh, the humor. The ever-so-clever comma joke.

And, for clarification, I was using a different forum's definition of double-post; posting, followed by another post of yours, rather than using the edit feature. Not posting the same thing twice.

hamishspence
2008-09-03, 11:04 AM
Exalted Deeds states, under Personal Sacrifice: "Even the most generous altruism, when it comes at no sacrifice or even serves one's own interests, is neutral at best"

And altruism is under Helping Others.

So, in effect, it splits it into Good altruism (doesn't serve one's own self interest, comes with sacrifice) and Neutral altruism (also serves interests, or costs you nothing)

This may not be the dictionary definition of altruism, but it is they way that book used the word.

Given that increasing the amount of Good in the world and making it a better place is nearly always going to serve your self intersts, even if you aren't aware of it, it means it is ridiculously hard to do completely Good altruism. Which is what certain philosophers' objections to the whole concept was.

EDIT: I'll try and do that, with edits. And as for Who says?, Living Greyhawk setting is most obvious example: go to site, check FAQ, and it says that for whats evil, Vile Darkness is the authority.

so, while you dont have to have the book, of course, if you asked "what does D&D define as, say, Evil" you are effectively told, for detailed definition, look at BoVD.

Xenogears
2008-09-03, 11:13 AM
But the BoVD and the BoED are only concerned with the extremes of both cases. The Hitlers and the Gahndi's. They don't matter to anything in between. They also give absolutely zero insights into Law/Chaos. Also clearly the creators of that book were idiots. I mean first of all they created Ravages. Secondly they are saying that if I were to literally sacrifice my life to save someone I love then it is only a nuetral act because it serves my interests? Anyone who actually believes that needs to get some sense beaten into them.

SleepingOrange
2008-09-03, 11:14 AM
It seems reasonable to interpret "serves one's own interests" as "knowingly serves one's own interests" or "overtly serves one's own interests".

Additionally, the definitions you trot out seem to be the rules for outsiders, not real people who aren't MADE of goodness. It seems difficult to rack up your 'good points' if you use these rules. Apparently, doing good work in the community, helping others, and being neighborly isn't good enough to be Good: community work makes where you live nicer (self-interest), helping others makes them owe you (self-interest), and being neighborly just ensures neighborliness in return (self-interest). I find these ideas a bit silly.

On a lighter, but related, note, I would point you guys to this comic. (http://www.qwantz.com/archive/000065.html)

EDIT: Basically, what he said. But nicer. :smallwink:

hamishspence
2008-09-03, 11:15 AM
But people keep saying an altruistic act that also serves your interests is by definition not altruistic, or only partially altruistic. Which lead to other people questioning the Whole Altruism Is Good theme.

EDIT: I find it equally silly: would recommend applying it only to those whose motive (regardless of result) was pretty much entirely self-interest, only.

However, it does also say Exalted and Vile do not just cover the extremes: a person who never commits a single evil act is Neutral, in the absence of any Good acts.

Some use is for answers: Is torture evil under all circumstances? Yes. Why? Because BoED says so. And so on.

SleepingOrange
2008-09-03, 11:17 AM
Who keeps saying that, other than you? I don't; Xenogears and Nagora seem not too.

nagora
2008-09-03, 11:17 AM
if one makes statements like self-sacrifice is always a good act, regardless of the reason, one should back it up.
Is this in response to any particular post or just a general statement of your opinion?

hamishspence
2008-09-03, 11:23 AM
Its in general: whenver someone states "In D&D, self sacrifice is always good", or some other similar absolute statement, I like to see reasons: book examples.

It comes of too many debates elsewhere with people who make statements unsupported by evidence, or say "the presumption is" when it is not self-evident.

EDIT: so I have gotten into habit of saying "show me where it says that" etc.

nagora
2008-09-03, 11:27 AM
Anyone who actually believes that needs to get some sense beaten into them.
Would that be a Good act? Increasing someone's sense would appear to be a helpful thing to do :smallsmile:

Xenogears
2008-09-03, 11:34 AM
Would that be a Good act? Increasing someone's sense would appear to be a helpful thing to do :smallsmile:

Yes yes it would. Also although I haven't read the BoED the BoVD clearly states like five times that it is only for the truly evil and depraved. That if you are running a normal DnD campaign where the villain is trying to take over the world then you should basically ignore it. It is for villains who like to take over a town and brutally rape every man, women, and child in the entire village before putting them onto a giant fire to burn alive. So yeah. BoVD shouldn't be used as a guide to normal levels of villainry and if someone thinks they should then either they think all villains are that evil or they didn't read the book clearly enough. Not sure about BoED but you could assume that everything in it is from the viewpoint of an exalted person. Say an exalted person would believe all those things but a normal person might not.

hamishspence
2008-09-03, 11:36 AM
not the definitions of whats evil, only the extra content.- feats, prestige classes, spells, items Most normal D&D campaigns would be expected to go with Murder, Torture, etc as evil.

EDIT: Point to be made is that for "This is an evil act" This is Not an evil act. Is that an evil act?" questions, these are places to look.

Artanis
2008-09-03, 12:06 PM
One thing I always wanted to do was make up a list of well-known fictional characters that fit the various alignment molds. It wouldn't be What Would Darth Vader Do, just a sort of an illustration of somebody who was that alignment. Kinda like how you could use an Indy car as an illustration of a race car: not all race cars are even remotely similar to an Indy car, but it gives you an idea of what a race car tends to do (go in circles really fast, trying to do so faster than the other guys).

I never really managed to come up with much though:

LN: Judge Dredd
LE: Darth Vader
CG: Captain Kirk
CE: The Joker

That's about it :smallfrown:


Only the evil characters have a common background wich is actually the gnome's backround and the warlock said that they both know each other but he have amnesia, before we started the first adventure, I asked the good guys if they knew from before, and they said no, they were probably too lazy to think of a common background. With some effort, we were able to put all this guys into one disfunctional party.
One trick a GM of mine used was that you start the campaign already on a quest. Not a long one, just a couple sessions of "warm-up" with two purposes. The first was to see if we actually liked the characters, letting us completely retcon the concept, class, stats, and pretty much anything else if we decided we didn't like what we'd picked. The second was to get us used to working as a team, and (if necessary) get the hang of the system. It was just assumed that we had met and been hired and sent on this relatively small job, handwaving exactly how it had happened so that we could figure it out later without having to overcome potentially irreconcilable backgrounds or starting with an awkward tavern scene.

It worked really well to get things moving from the start, rather than spending several sessions figuring out who the hell everybody was before we so much as rolled a single die.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-09-03, 03:59 PM
To tequlia sunrise:

Well, I told them "no evil characters and please, lets try to have more good characters than neutral ones".
Then you clearly need to set up consequences for players that refuse to role play Good or at least Neutral PCs. The best consequence to my knowledge is 'you're not welcome in my game if you can't play a heroic PC.' More importantly, you need to enforce this consequence.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-09-03, 04:17 PM
Hi EE! The following statements reflect my views on alignment and not necessarily any particular interpretation of any published words concerning alignment. I say this because I know you like to dissect what the game writers have written, but to be frank I don't really care what they wrote. Because in practice, how alignment works is subject to individual DM discretion, not necessarily any strict interpretation of the books. (Yeah that's true of all rules, but more so than usual with alignment.)


Actually because alignments are objective in D&D taht isn't true.
1) Good outsiders who fail cease to be angles or what not and fall. This rarely happens however
2) good people can get away with a few evil actions, but they have to be few and fair between. You see, the system isn't fair, a person can commit a million good actions and if they don't repent, it won't save themselves. Good people can commit evil acts evne for a good cause, because that is basically fueling evil
Agreed, except for the repentance stipulation. Repentance is mostly a religious/culturally based ritual, so I don't see it as a necessity for a Good character after committing an Evil act. That's not to say repentance is pointless or that it doesn't often help a Good person become Gooder, but in practice sometimes the most anyone can do after committing an Evil act is to promise themselves that they'll never do it again. So I don't agree with the blanket statement that 'Good characters can do Evil, but must always repent afterwards.'


Law and chaos aren't about the actions, but the motives and methods more. so while a dude might be evil, the way he does it is decieded by their motives
Agreed, which is what makes Law and Chaos generally more hard to wrap our heads around than Good and Evil.


and 4E alignement sadly is an abomintion
I wouldn't say it's an abomination, but it is asymmetrically simplified and pointless because 4e has no alignment based mechanics.


pretty much yeah, through where is the link?
It's the first link in my sig; I'd love to hear what you think of my work.


Well that is part of their class, barbarion, paladin, and druid at least. bard, naw
from
EE
Alignment restrictions are only a part of certain classes because of traditional tropes that often get in the way of players role playing their PCs organically. One of my favorite things about 4e is that they threw alignment restrictions out the window; as a 3e DM I never enforced them.

TS

hamishspence
2008-09-03, 04:21 PM
I personally liked the notion that a person who wishs to clear evil from his soul must fix what he's done wrong: atonement spell is not enough.

I also prefer D&D's heavy focus on the actions rather than the motives, as in "no, torturing the villain you captured to get info about the rest of his evil group does not become a non-evil act merely because you had other people's best interests at heart"

Starbuck_II
2008-09-03, 04:23 PM
It is for villains who like to take over a town and brutally rape every man, women, and child in the entire village before putting them onto a giant fire to burn alive.
So yeah. BoVD shouldn't be used as a guide to normal levels of villainry and if someone thinks they should then either they think all villains are that evil or they didn't read the book clearly enough. Not sure about BoED but you could assume that everything in it is from the viewpoint of an exalted person. Say an exalted person would believe all those things but a normal person might not.

To be fair, he didn't want anyone he killed to die a virgin. But he didn't feel like asking because he was too shy.

hamishspence
2008-09-03, 04:27 PM
I saw book as a two-parter: what's evil, and, what's available to those of Extreme evil.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-09-03, 06:23 PM
I personally liked the notion that a person who wishs to clear evil from his soul must fix what he's done wrong: atonement spell is not enough.

Yeah the idea that a spell can absolve sins is ridiculous. The spell was created just to give fallen clerics and paladins a way to regain their class abilities. Which is absurd because alignment is based on actions and intent, not the judgment of mortal spell casters. And in the case of paladins, there wouldn't need to be a way to 'break' the fallen paladin rule if they didn't have that unnecessary and restrictive Code and alignment restriction.

TS

Curmudgeon
2008-09-03, 07:14 PM
I think the alignments get defined by the PCs' choices. As a DM I'm perfectly fine with telling a player to update the alignment on their character sheet. And I use behavior to dictate what Detect Evil, Detect Law, and so on reveal for those cases where it isn't clearly based on deity or undead status.

Coplantor
2008-09-03, 07:56 PM
...EDIT: They were [are?] called indulgences...



Yeah, they were called indulgences. Question here, 4th ed has no aligment related mechanics? So there are no aligment detection powers/items in 4th ed?

Kalirren
2008-09-03, 08:19 PM
So there are no aligment detection powers/items in 4th ed?

As far as I'm aware,that's correct. I believe the only mechanic's-wise mention of alignment in the 4e PHB is that a cleric's alignment must match the deity's. For any other class it's a superfluous stat.

I haven't looked in the DMG or MM, though.

Roland St. Jude
2008-09-03, 09:57 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: As difficult as it may be, please don't bring real world religion into this discussion. Real World religion is an Inappropriate Topic on these boards under any circumstances.

Fostire
2008-09-03, 10:44 PM
Im learning how to run a GURPS campaign, I will probably be GMing my first adventure this weekend so wish me luck, I really like the system so I'll probably switch from D&D to GURPS, but I think my players will kill me if I ever do that.

Yes, we will.

OneFamiliarFace
2008-09-03, 11:54 PM
Inherently? Always? No matter how evil the guy you are sacrificing yourself for?

Yes, especially if I look back at my definitions, then if an evil henchy willingly sacrifices himself for an evil Bad Dude, then he has just commited a good act.

UNLESS, he does it because he believes in the Bad Dudes cause, and his divine right to rule or some such, because then it is Lawful. He has put Order above his own Individual freedom to live.

The key is that NE or CE character would never sacrifice themselves for another without a reason. And if they have that reason, then it is almost probably one of good (love, faith, etc). Now, we could argue about whether or not Love and Faith are Good things, but that would be looking to our real world, and not the fantasy world in which this is taking place. There are exceptions to this, but I can find holes in any alignment or non-alignment system you send my way. So, in this case, I don't think an exception disproves the rule.

Agrippa
2008-09-04, 12:12 AM
Alignments are just a rough guide to character.

Lawfuls think that sacrificing personal goals to form a group ultimately allows the individual to achieve more than they could alone, some will even place the group's needs so far above their own that they will die to further them. Lawful characters might be criminals devoted to the Godfather, or uncorruptable magistrates.

Chaotics believe that the very act of compromising to form a group makes achieving your goals impossible, or at least prevents them being fully achieved. A chaotic may either care nothing about what others think and act accordingly, or they may place such high value on personal honour that they will do anything to avoid breaking their word once given.

Good beings help others, sometimes even to the point of self sacrifice. They do not place themselves over others but do not have to be pacifists who are afraid to act against evil.

Evil beings take from others in order to keep them down and prevent them from threatening the evil character's ability to do what they want. In extremes, the evil chracter will take pleasure from acts of total domination, including rape, torture and murder. But they can fall in love and have close friends.

Neutrals are in between. On the good/evil axis, neutrals may help others when times are good, or steal from them when things are bad; they're just trying to get by. On the law/chaos axis the neutral probably doesn't have a fixed opinion on the best way to achieve their goals, "whatever works" is their motto.

Do you mind if I poach this for my own uses? I'll give you full credit.

nagora
2008-09-04, 04:52 AM
Do you mind if I poach this for my own uses? I'll give you full credit.
Sure, it's just based on the 1e DMG anyway, so I'm just precising (if that's the right word).

For my take on druids and "true neutral" you could have a look at my piece in this month's Footnotes (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/php4/archive.php?sectioninit=FT&fileid=247) ("Alien Versus...Druid?").

Tequila Sunrise
2008-09-04, 06:06 AM
As far as I'm aware,that's correct. I believe the only mechanic's-wise mention of alignment in the 4e PHB is that a cleric's alignment must match the deity's. For any other class it's a superfluous stat.

I haven't looked in the DMG or MM, though.
There are no alignment mechanics in the DMG or MM. And yes, clerics must be of the same alignment as their deity. Except neutral deities who can have clerics of any alignment and neutral clerics who can follow any deity. Which is a silly stipulation, given the fact that there are no mechanical consequences when a cleric flouts his/her deity's alignment or tenets mentioned anywhere. Paladins similarly must be the same alignment as their deity, with no exceptions for neutral deities or paladins. Again, no mechanical consequences of flouting one's deity or alignment. For both clerics and paladins the PHB says that a one-time ritual, usually by an ordaining cleric or paladin, grants the PC their divine power. Not a continuous bond with their deity, so the lack of consequences is justified though still absurd. :smallconfused: So in essence, these alignment restrictions are not alignment mechanics.

There is one single alignment mechanic in 4e though; one of the 20th level paladin powers, if used to kill an Evil target, allows the paladin a 55% chance to use the power again for free. This power sticks out like a sore thumb on so many levels, it's not even funny. It adds an extra die roll, when 4e is supposed to be all about simplicity and speed of play. It's the lone alignment mechanic in the entire game, so it's likely to be ignored or house ruled by both alignment lovers and alignment fearers. And you don't have to be Good to use it so it's not even consistent.

TS

hamishspence
2008-09-04, 07:00 AM
yes, it is an oddity. Chaotic evil paladins of Lolth can take Champion of Order path: very, very odd.

EDIT: Concerning love: pic in exalted Deeds had caption "a paladin must choose between destroying even and honouring love" with two fiends arm in arm. So, in that sense, love can exist even in creatures of "absolute evil" so, is it good? or Neutral?

Tequila Sunrise
2008-09-04, 10:40 AM
Love is neither Good nor Evil, Chaotic nor Lawful. It is insanity and it is part of human nature. At least that's what most people thought of love until the last century or two in the real world, and I'm prone to agree with that assessment. Having experienced both the good and the bad that results from love, I know that love just is.

TS

Coplantor
2008-09-04, 12:49 PM
yes, it is an oddity. Chaotic evil paladins of Lolth can take Champion of Order path: very, very odd.

EDIT: Concerning love: pic in exalted Deeds had caption "a paladin must choose between destroying even and honouring love" with two fiends arm in arm. So, in that sense, love can exist even in creatures of "absolute evil" so, is it good? or Neutral?

Well, if you consider the example of "sacrifices self for a loved person" then it's probably good on D&D standards. But then again, if someone falls for an evil person, then will probably do evil things to please that person if already evil or try to redeem that person. So there's no aligment attached to love I guess.