Intelligent Ways to Play Alignments

[ondonaflash]

I thought I'd start a thread where people can propose ways to play the alignments in 3.5 D&D in an intelligent manner which furthers the plot of the game, doesn't provoke the other player's (not necessarily their characters) into wanting to kill them, and keeps the roleplaying intriguing. In that spirit I thought I'd propose methods of playing the two I feel are the most difficult, Chaotic Neutral, and Chaotic Evil.

Chaotic Neutral: You're selfish. Good and Evil are irrelevant, its only what you want that matters. This attitude can be brought about through some sort of disillusionment, or maybe an inbred cynicism, usually found in thieves or corporate executives.
The line drawn by a chaotic neutral person is that they don't want to attract the attention of anyone else stronger than them, so in general they'll stop short of murder, or committing crimes which will get them noticed. They're apathetic about tasks which don't benefit them directly in some way, and a lot of what they do can usually be summed up with a cost-benefit analysis.

They might tag along with a party because they want the gold they'd get, but don't want to risk going alone. They might not go out of there way to help someone else, but if its easy enough to help them without putting themselves at risk, why not?
Chaotic Neutral characters resent being told what to do, they'll often rebel against lawful characters, sometimes going so far as to do the opposite out of spite, but they won't do anything that would seriously endanger them or their party.

Chaotic Evil: These people are sick, they are cruel, malicious, and sadistic. They like to see other people squirm, and will go out of there way to make that happen. People who are chaotic evil, but have low intelligence, may just be random serial killers, brutally murdering people in ritualistic manners. They may keep parts of bodies out of sick fascination.
Of course even the worst serial killer knows better than to go out and butcher people in broad daylight with witnesses, usually they'll do their work at night, or in private, often there will be elements of sexual violence involved, and they may even take some sort of erotic pleasure from their acts.
Of course the more intelligent chaotic evil character may position himself where he can do what he likes legally, as a torturer, or a soldier, or even in an adventuring party. Just because someone is evil does not mean they specifically target good people.
Chaotic evil adventurers often prefer to go out and engage their foes in a repulsive and gory manner. They may stop mid-battle to butcher, or rape the corpse of the goblin they just killed. They may say things that disgust and revolt their companions, whom they might be inclined to kill. To offset this factor there should be someone in the party that they are afraid of, someone preventing them from turning on the party, perhaps someone more dangerous than they are. If so, this dynamic should be set up in advance.
In battle a chaotic evil character is just as likely to fight as he is to ignore the battle. He will likely ignore party tactics and do what he chooses, perhaps going after specific targets of his own. If he spots an opportunity to coup de grace the one holding them in check, they will, but not unless its a flawless opportunity.

Note: Feel free to pose multiple methods of playing the same alignments, because there is never just one way.

[Tengu_temp]

Intelligent way to play CE?

[Moriato]

Chaotic Evil: People who are chaotic evil, but have low intelligence, may just be random serial killers, brutally murdering people in ritualistic manners. They may keep parts of bodies out of sick fascination.

Of course the more intelligent chaotic evil character may position himself where he can do what he likes legally, as a torturer, or a soldier, or even in an adventuring party.

Actually most serial killers are of well above-average intelligence. Your second example (Doing evil, within the law) is pretty much a textbook case of Lawful Evil, not chaotic evil.

[ondonaflash]

Actually most serial killers are of well above-average intelligence. Your second example (Doing evil, within the law) is pretty much a textbook case of Lawful Evil, not chaotic evil.

Well my focus was on the brutal sadism they'd execute, but I encourage you to propose your own idea.

[Blackjackg]

While we're at it, there's a way for Lawful (very) Good and Lawful (very) Evil to work together.

Spoiler

Show

[Knaight]

The issue with this thread is that you don't play alignments. You play characters who happen to have them and more or less just ignore things and let the GM determine where you fall.

[L'intrigant]

Taking off from what Knaight said...a character alignment is like a political party. If you're a bad player or an uneducated simpleton, it defines everything you are. Some people live and breathe everything that comes out of their political party without ever stopping to consider that it may be wrong, or contrary to their own beliefs at the very least. The same goes for certain players and alignments.

The alignment system is not meant to be concrete in anything short of kick-in-the-door. Monsters are evil and adventurers are good in there, but everywhere else there are shades of gray. "Evil" means you're more selfish than the average and have few compunctions about hurting others to get what you want. Evil doesn't mean you're an unfeeling sociopath with no soul. Mr. Freeze was evil, but his actions were driven by love for his wife. Batman was good, but he frequently did things that would make a paladin balk.

All in all, the alignment system is there for two things - guidelines for those without a clear character concept, and alignment-based spells (which I rarely use in my games). Alignment is fun to debate, but all in all it's a rather useless facet of the game. No character is 100% any alignment, no race is 100% wicked or benevolent. When thinking up ways to play the alignments "right", remember that.

[ondonaflash]

The issue with this thread is that you don't play alignments. You play characters who happen to have them and more or less just ignore things and let the GM determine where you fall.

Well in that case, give an example of well played characters, and then afterwords describe which alignment you feel they best identify with.

[Piedmon_Sama]

Chaotic Evil: Nature is run on one law. Maybe you were educated or you weren't, but everyone learns this sooner or later: survival of the fittest. The strong dominate the weak, and nothing will ever change that. So-called "society" and "civilization" are just ways by which the weak can try to dupe and take advantage of others, either themselves weak or too foolish to understand what's going on. But you? You're different. You're strong. And unlike fools who bind themselves to arbitrary codes and the values of a weakling's education, you understand what that means.

You're free to be your own man, and you take what you want when you want and how you want it. Sniveling little bureaucrats and pompous weaklings with a meaningless title think they can order you around? Too bad you're not playing the same game they are. You owe the world nothing, you're free to take from it everything.

You're not concerned about the freedom or the comfort of others. When you see strength in others, you respect it, but you don't respect fools who put their strength at the disposal of the weak, and you certainly don't respect the helpless weaklings that make up the bulk of society. If they get in your way, you'll deal with them in the most expedient way possible, but for the most part commoners are beneath your notice.

You don't go looking for trouble. You just do what you feel like and take what you want, and if someone challenges you---well, you're ready to leave your fate up to Fortune, since that's what it means to be free.

[Callista]

Yeah. You make your character and then you give them an alignment tag.

BTW, the first paragraph isn't a description of intelligently played CN; it's intelligently played CE. Someone who "usually" doesn't commit murder is CE because it's on his list of possible strategies. (I am assuming that murder is not just "killing", as you might do in war or self-defense or as a bounty hunter, but "murder" as in killing someone who didn't deserve it.)

CE doesn't have to be a serial killer. If it was, there'd be too few options for people who wanted to make a character who fit that alignment. I have met people who are chaotic evil and have never committed murder at all. It isn't because they have the morals not to commit murder; it's because they know that there are better ways to get what they want, and are afraid of the law. Some CEs are quite "law-abiding", in their way; they will only break the law when they know they won't be caught, and will only take advantage of other people in such a way that they know they won't be inviting general hatred from everyone around. A typical drunk who beats his wife is CE.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Don't pick an alignment, pick a personality and then assign it an alignment. Forget trying to play your alignment, and just play your character. The mechanics of alignment only serve to stifle RP and arbitrarily penalize players. They aren't even necessary, the whole alignment system is just a holdover from previous editions that should have been retired long ago.

[Blackjackg]

Don't pick an alignment, pick a personality and then assign it an alignment. Forget trying to play your alignment, and just play your character. The mechanics of alignment only serve to stifle RP and arbitrarily penalize players. They aren't even necessary, the whole alignment system is just a holdover from previous editions that should have been retired long ago.

I disagree on this last point. In fact, I think alignment has become increasingly necessary with each new edition (up to 3.5. I don't know what role it takes in 4e). At least as far as its mechanical application.

[Logalmier]

I disagree on this last point. In fact, I think alignment has become increasingly necessary with each new edition (up to 3.5. I don't know what role it takes in 4e). At least as far as its mechanical application.

This. There are classes that depend on the alignments, such as the paladin. They don't "Smite the person who's personality makes it such that the are likely to commit evil acts." They smite evil. I'm not disagreeing with you, I think you're right. But WotC apparently didn't want to create a new system that would require them to redo many of the classes that rely on alignments.

Just my two copper pieces.

[Callista]

I think alignments are important because they make moral/ethical concepts have testable effects in the game world. It does create the problem of people trying to play an alignment instead of a character, but those same people would be trying to play a class or a bunch of numbers if alignment weren't around. You'll get bad RP whatever system you use, and having alignment doesn't make RP any worse. I mean... if your character's alignment doesn't fit his personality, change it! If you're a paladin, there are non-LG options to convert your levels to. If you're a cleric, you can find a new god. Bards, monks, and barbarians don't have requirements so strict as to make it impossible to stay within them and stay true to the character concept. And most DMs will let you change a character's alignment without much fuss. I would. If your true neutral guy is suddenly taking an interest in the welfare of the peasants, you're well within your rights to switch him to Good; if he starts taking an interest in the entrails of the peasants, you're probably switching him to Evil. Alignment's like a label on the character's system of morality, a nice shorthand way of saying "this is what my character believes in". And based on what he believes in, things are different.

Alignment really adds to the game because it makes Good/Evil/Law/Chaos a (meta?)physical fact of life, like fire or magical energy or physical force. It creates natural dividing lines. It allows for races to be bound to an alignment and entire planes to be devoted to one. It allows creatures to be pretty much made of the essence of an alignment. And, at least for me, the moral dilemmas it allows make the game a lot more interesting. Playing a hero (or antihero) shouldn't be without at least minor moral dilemmas. Maybe I've got Elan's sense of drama or something of that sort, but it's just viscerally satisfying to see the Good Guys win.

[ondonaflash]

I think alignments are important because they make moral/ethical concepts have testable effects in the game world. It does create the problem of people etc.

Wrong thread, this is just a place where people can describe how they think the different alignments should be characterized. Anything meta-physical, or philosophical should be moved elsewhere. I'm not interested in debating the relevance of an alignment system, I'm just interested in developing interesting characterizations built around alignments. (Which I will acknowledge is the subversion of the norm, but should be equally valid in its own way.)

[Yukitsu]

Chaotic: Tends to favour unregulated approaches to things.
Neutral: Will use either as convenient, but tends towards law in a dillema.
Lawful: Follows general patterns and modus operendi.

Good: Intends good, or does good, and generally must mostly strive for both. View of what good is may vary, but generally must fall in the realm of helping at least one person other than self.
Neutral: Actions don't have any particular moral meaning.
Evil: Either vastly evil intentions or actions (which override a good opposite) or an act that is both evil in intent and action.

[Ellye]

Intelligent Ways to Play Alignments

Don't play them.
Don't play alignments, play characters.

Alignments are consequence, not cause.
Your character is X alignment because he does Y thing.
He doesn't do Y thing because he is X alignment.

[ondonaflash]

Good: Intends good, or does good, and generally must mostly strive for both. View of what good is may vary, but generally must fall in the realm of helping at least one person other than self.

I find this line interesting, because one of the things I always have my good characters believe is that the long term effects of helping people are largely irrelevant in the face of helping those who are in need of help (CG, naturally). They don't pause to think "What if killing this person served the greater good" because as far as they are concerned any "Greater Good" built on the suffering of anybody is a misnomer. "There is right, and there is wrong, and any act that would harm those who can not defend themselves Is Wrong!"

Simplistic? Yes. Provincial? Yes. Good? Without a doubt.

Alignments are consequence, not cause.
Your character is X alignment because he does Y thing.
He doesn't do Y thing because he is X alignment.

I disagree, and I'm bored of people coming to argue the semantics of my post, rather than adhering to the request previously presented, get lost.

I feel that it is a perfectly acceptable methodology to create a character off of a specific moral system. The creative challenge comes from insuring that the character adheres to the moral code while remaining interesting and realistic and without impeding on the fun of the other players. Coupled with improbable class selection and you have an exciting opportunity to create a detailed and intriguing back story.

Why would a Lawful Good individual become a Rogue?

What happened to cause your Lawful Evil Paladin-turned-fighter's fall from grace?

It helps if you consider it less of a "Easiest method to roleplay" and more as a creative challenge. What are some methods to play characters in the confines of a specific alignment.

[Indon]

Regardless of the alignment, your character can still have friends. So long as you aren't playing with an alignment-oriented class, you can get along with whomever you want - you can still be evil and yet, say, turn back towards a burning building to save your friend - you'll just do so with a resigned sigh.

[Hadrian_Emrys]

I've found that the best way to attempt to convert the abstract alignment terms used by the simple-minded/lazy folks at WotC into something that actually works is to mentally rename the traits as follows:

L/C Axis:
Lawful = Proactive
Neutral = Adaptive
Chaotic = Reactive

G/E Axis:
Good = Idealist
Neutral = Realist
Evil = Pragmatist

Classes, special abilities, and spells based on alignment all are, for the most part, painfully stupid given how the base terms they play off of are so subjective and open to interpretation.

[HamHam]

If I'm going to play alignment, I think it is most interesting to use the Planescape idea of alignments as physical forces of nature that you in some small way embody. Obviously mortals will have a far more imperfect connection to their alignment than planars, but still.

CE: The weak are food for the strong. Take what you want, and burn what you can't take. Pain, suffering, and torment make you happy, and the more you cause the better.

CN: You do what you want. You don't want to hurt people, but if they get in your way, or try to impose their rules one you, they better watch out.

CG: Rules stifle people's inherent goodness. Freedom, justice, and the American way!

NE: You like evil. Plain and simple. You are inherently sadistic and deprived, but you can work within a system if you have to, or not. Depends how the wind is blowing.

N: The default for people who just don't care. Conversely, if you are a fanatic of true neutrality, you are dedicating to keeping the balance between the various forces. There can be no light without shadow and all that.

NG: You are just a nice guy. You care about others. You'll follow the rules, but you aren't invested in them.

LE: You seek to dominate others. The tools of evil are tools of domination. You fear those above you, and make sure you are feared by those below you

LN: The rules exist for a reason. Nothing is more important. Everything has a place, and it should stay there.

LG: Civilization and society are the only safeguard for goodness against chaos and evil. To attack them is to attack goodness itself.

[Steward]

G/E Axis:
Good = Idealist
Neutral = Realist
Evil = Pragmatist

I think you could play a Good character as a pragmatic. Like an example of a Lawful Good pragmatist could be the head of a community organization or a police force. They try to make the community a better place by intelligently using their resources (cohorts, magic, whatever) and recognizing their limitations. They're not fighting for Truth or Justice but for real people in their community. This type of character might be hard to fit into a dungeon-crawl campaign but it would be great if the campaign is set in a single location like a city under siege. A Lawful Good watch commander, mayor, fire department chief, or someone of that nature could be a vehicle to portray a pragmatic good character.

[thegurullamen]

LG: Upstanding citizen. Only breaks laws when it benefits the society/collective body to do so. Will not harm others except under certain circumstances, will never harm innocents, barring a severe philosophical dilemma.

NG: As above, but has no qualm with or investment in higher social powers. Wil break laws but only with good reason to do so.

CG: Freeform individualist with preservation of life and well-being of others taking precedence above all else. Usually self-motivated, won't take action that harms others if it can be avoided (or if the victim isn't a jerk.)

LN: Devoted to an ideal. Individual well being and happiness is secondary to the health of that ideal; lives are expendable in pursuit of the ideal's goal.

N: Emperor Kuzco.

CN: Kuzco without the crown.

LE: Plays the system in order to impose brutality or some other social ill onto a person or populace. Actively seeks to profit at others' expense.

NE: Jerkass What Crosses The Moral Event Horizon Twice

CE: A truly unspeakable monster. Pure, refined sadism. Rarely does things that don't bring, pain, misery and bleakness to the lives of others.

[Blackjackg]

I find this line interesting, because one of the things I always have my good characters believe is that the long term effects of helping people are largely irrelevant in the face of helping those who are in need of help (CG, naturally). They don't pause to think "What if killing this person served the greater good" because as far as they are concerned any "Greater Good" built on the suffering of anybody is a misnomer. "There is right, and there is wrong, and any act that would harm those who can not defend themselves Is Wrong!"

Simplistic? Yes. Provincial? Yes. Good? Without a doubt.

Interesting. The character in the scenario you describe strikes me as much more lawful good than chaotic, because he is sticking to a predetermined "code" rather than evaluating each situation for the greatest good. The way I've always played CG is basically "you do what you gotta do." "I would never harm an innocent for any reason" is much more Lawful.

[BloodyAngel]

L/C Axis:
Lawful = Proactive
Neutral = Adaptive
Chaotic = Reactive

G/E Axis:
Good = Idealist
Neutral = Realist
Evil = Pragmatist

While characters might TEND towards those traits based on alignment... that's not really spot on. I mean, proactive and reactive are highly situational. The police often REACT to crime... that hardly makes most cops chaotic. And plenty of pragmatic people have still been good or at least neutral. Bruce Lee, perhaps... and his entire fighting style based on "whatever works". So... Bruce was Neutral Evil?

I personally use alignment lightly, if at all. It's all highly cultural anyhow. Things are evil or good based on people's perspectives, not based on universal truths. But down that road lies madness.

[L'intrigant]

Seconded. I've had some very proactive chaotic characters.

I'd say something here, but Callista has covered just about everything I could say.

[Hadrian_Emrys]

Po Po: The job description for police officers has everything to do with law with little to no concern for 'good' save as a side effect of maintaining the former. Yes, the job demands that they respond to the actions of other, but they are supposed to do so according to rather strict guidelines. Thus, the concept of this particular 'civil servant' is firmly LN.

Jeet Kun Do: This fighting style, much like Krav Maga and the trope'd-to-death Nin-Po/Jutsu, would no doubt be considered 'evil' if inanimate, nonsentient concepts can be given such a title. They are all about getting the job done by whatever means. Bruce Lee the man however (I visited his and his son's graves not but two weeks ago or so), I have no idea about.

Using the terms I've listed, I'd call myself a Reactive Idealist that aspires towards Adaptive Realism without becoming a Proactive Pragmatist in the process.

[Brauron]

I'm going to toot my own horn for a moment here, as I feel that I did a pretty good job playing a lawful evil character the only time I've done so.

The character was Khorsal Rho, LE Fighter 6/Thayan Knight 2. His backstory was that he'd worked his way up from the ranks of the Thayan Army to a commanding position, just in time for Thay to change tactics from military to economic expansion. So he was reassigned to serve as bodyguard for one of the Red Wizards (another player's character in this particular one-shot). He was somewhat unhappy about this, but considered it a matter of serving his country.

Personality and personal philosophy-wise, he was based heavily on Sgt. Charles Zim and Lt. Col. Jean V. Dubois in the novel Starship Troopers. Specifically, two quotes from Zim formed the main basis of the character:

"There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men."

and

"If you wanted to teach a baby a lesson, would you cut its head off? Of course not. You'd paddle it. There can be circumstances when it's just as foolish to hit an enemy city with an H-bomb as it would be to spank a baby with an axe. War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him...but to make him do what you want to do. Not killing...but controlled and purposeful violence. But it's not your business or mine to decide the purpose of the control. It's never a soldier's business to decide when or where or how—or why—he fights; that belongs to the statesmen and the generals. The statesmen decide why and how much; the generals take it from there and tell us where and when and how. We supply the violence; other people—'older and wiser heads,' as they say—supply the control. Which is as it should be."

With these two quotes from Dubois backing them:

"Morals— all correct moral laws— derive from the instinct to survive. Moral behavior is survival behavior above the individual level."

"Correct morality can only be derived from what man is—not from what do-gooders and well-meaning aunt Nellies would like him to be."

For Rho, "correct moral behavior" was to uphold the laws of Thay and the will of the Red Wizards. There was little room in him for things like altruism or mercy; mercy for him or any other Thayan soldier was as much a hindrance to fulfilling their duty as blindness or legs severed at the knees would be. In a sense I took the characters of Zim and Dubois and took them as far into the extreme as I could.

For Rho (and probably any other lawful evil character I might play in the future) fulfilling his duty comes first and foremost. I guess this would fall under the concept of "banality of evil" but in a sense it really is a job for him. If he allowed himself a personal life, he could be a devoted family man, an avid golfer, etc., but he's perfectly content to live his life as a loyal and selfless aspect of something larger (the Grand Army of Thay).


And in the one-shot I used Khorsal Rho for, I almost talked two Paladins into falling (I had them almost convinced that the only difference between them and myself was perspective) and convinced a young adult Black Dragon that there were endless opportunities for it to enrich itself AND devour innocents awaiting it in the Grand Army of Thay. I enlisted the Black Dragon.

[Riffington]

Classes, special abilities, and spells based on alignment all are, for the most part, painfully stupid given how the base terms they play off of are so subjective and open to interpretation.

Aren't your replacement words even more subjective and open to interpretation?

[Xenogears]

Interesting. The character in the scenario you describe strikes me as much more lawful good than chaotic, because he is sticking to a predetermined "code" rather than evaluating each situation for the greatest good. The way I've always played CG is basically "you do what you gotta do." "I would never harm an innocent for any reason" is much more Lawful.

It could just as easily be argued as CG because of the line of thought "As long as I do Good NOW everything will work itself out. No need to plan for the future." Basically it sounds like his CG character is a follower of Kantism. According to him one should ALWAYS do the good thing regardless of what you think might happen because of it. The example I was given in Philosophy was:

Suppose someone comes in with a knife and asks if Person A is in the room. Now it is immoral to lie so you must tell them that Person A is (assuming they are). Now this is the good thing to do because if you lie(which is immoral) they might turn around and find that Person A had snuck out and is now behind them. Thus now your immoral act caused someone a negative result. Or maybe the guy with the knife was trying to help them. You can't know so you have to tell the truth because it is the moral thing to do.

Atleast according to Kant...