Post/Author/DateTime	Post
rikimaru75 02-05-07, 02:52 PM	I typically seem to have a problem with a majority of my PCs always wanting to play neutral aligned characters rather than good aligned character. When I speak with them about it, they typically reply that it is because there really is no 'reason' to play good characters in my world. Any there any ideas how to fix this? What sorts of reasons would be good to encourage more people to play 'good' characters?
Sereno 02-05-07, 03:01 PM	It sounds like you should first ask your players what they think would make a good reason for playing good in your world. Without knowing much about your campaign, it's kind of hard to know if they're right of if they just don't like playing "good guys."
Millennium 02-05-07, 03:02 PM	Honestly, you're going to need to talk to the players on this. What do they believe are the reasons to play Neutral characters, particularly as compared to Good characters? Without that information, there's not much we can do to help.
Vaalingrade Ashland 02-05-07, 03:06 PM	IF the players aren't seeing the point to being Good in world and they play neutral anyway, maybe you should just de-emphasize alignment and stop worrying about it.
Solik 02-05-07, 03:25 PM	Have they tried it? Did you punish them for it with gotchas, extra weight, rewardless responsibility, and/or stereotypical roleplay scenarios?
Sunic_Flames 02-05-07, 04:11 PM	I fail to see the problem. So they don't want to play good, instead choosing neutral. As long as it's not chaotic neutral you have little to fear, let em play it. If you force em to be good they'll probably just rp it is neutral and shift anyways. And consider, they could be evil. Neutral is very tame unless twisted... and the same argument could be made for good, really. If you've ever seen the preemptive smite paladin you're already familar with the xxx stupid alignment. :P
Findail 02-05-07, 04:29 PM	I think it's far more preferable that they act neutral and call themselves neutral, than that they act neutral and call themselves good. I've had quite a few characters who could be described as "Pragmatic Good": they oppose Evil and fight on the side of the "good guys", but believe that the ends justify the means: also, they don't want to get bogged down in righting wrongs wherever they go. That's neutral. If I called them "good", I'd get accused of "bad roleplaying", when I'm actually playing their roles just as I envisaged them. However, being neutral does have some drawbacks. Check out the spell "Holy Word", and see just how useful it would be to be good in a party where the cleric lets one of those off.
rikimaru75 02-05-07, 04:32 PM	The group has played good characters before, and they really do it quite well, honestly. My guess is that they just grew tired of always being the 'self-righteous' people. And well, reflecting on it a bit, they always think that when the party gets into a tight situation, the 'good' character becomes the 'sacrificial lamb'. Outside factors seem to influence it as well. I know my campaigns have been a method of letting them 'get out of their regular day-to-day' stress.
Solik 02-05-07, 04:32 PM	I've had quite a few characters who could be described as "Pragmatic Good": they oppose Evil and fight on the side of the "good guys", but believe that the ends justify the means At the risk of starting an alignment argument -- that's still good. It's not paladin, but it's good. Paladins can even get away with it if they take the new PrC in Complete Scoundrel.
Millennium 02-05-07, 04:41 PM	At the risk of starting an alignment argument -- that's still good. It's not paladin, but it's good. No, it's not. It's anti-Evil, but it isn't Good: the difference is subtle but important. Many paladins have Fallen when they lost sight of it. Paladins can even get away with it if they take the new PrC in Complete Scoundrel. If you're talking about the Gray Guard, they don't get off completely. You still Fall if you violate the paladins' code; it's just a lot easier to get an atonement since the cleric casting it on you doesn't have to pay XP.
Thought 02-05-07, 04:52 PM	"What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?" ~ Zap Brannigan Yeah, couldn't resist. But in short, I find good roleplaying to be when a player has a difficult choice. In this case, Good alignment might come with benefits while Neutrality might come with freedom. Oh sure, if you are a good character you might get a free follower, but then its nothing but work work work all the time. Save a princess from this, protect a village from that. So, in your environment, what is at risk between being Neutral and Good?
Solik 02-05-07, 04:57 PM	No, it's not. It's anti-Evil, but it isn't Good: the difference is subtle but important. Many paladins have Fallen when they lost sight of it. Yep, I said it wasn't paladin, because it leads to violating the paladin code. It does not lead to alignment shifts except when taken to extreme levels (in which case the means are chosen at whim or even preference rather than out of pragmatic necessity). Just for the record, it's not Exalted either. If you're talking about the Gray Guard, they don't get off completely. You still Fall if you violate the paladins' code; it's just a lot easier to get an atonement since the cleric casting it on you doesn't have to pay XP. 10th level Gray Guards don't. They are fully allowed to use "end justifies the means" while maintaining Lawful Good and being paladin. That PrC basically seals the envelope on alignment interpretations in 3.5, at least where this topic is concerned.
Hack and Smasher 02-05-07, 05:11 PM	Alignment is dumb. People get worked up about and argue endlessly about it. If they want to be nuetral its proably cause the either they want to focus on goals or more likly they don't want focus on good and more getting stuff.
Sunic_Flames 02-05-07, 05:12 PM	The group has played good characters before, and they really do it quite well, honestly. My guess is that they just grew tired of always being the 'self-righteous' people. And well, reflecting on it a bit, they always think that when the party gets into a tight situation, the 'good' character becomes the 'sacrificial lamb'. Outside factors seem to influence it as well. I know my campaigns have been a method of letting them 'get out of their regular day-to-day' stress. Sounds to me like they simply wish to do something different. Let em have it. Just again, fear the chaotic neutral (evil/stupid...). I for one, have had nothing but bad experiences with them.
Solik 02-05-07, 05:37 PM	A well-played chaotic neutral can be a delight. Think Jack Sparrow. Fear badly-played characters of any alignments, and players that play everything badly.
nightwing 02-05-07, 05:40 PM	I agree that alignment is dumb. Just drop it altogether. But if you can't do that, the just have the characters fight the "good guys" in this campaign. Neutral characters seek the balance between good and evil, and in this world, good has gotten a huge upper hand, so the characters are going to team up with the bad guys to beat back hordes of paladins who are imposing their righteous law across the land.
rikimaru75 02-05-07, 05:49 PM	"What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?" ~ Zap Brannigan Yeah, couldn't resist. But in short, I find good roleplaying to be when a player has a difficult choice. In this case, Good alignment might come with benefits while Neutrality might come with freedom. Oh sure, if you are a good character you might get a free follower, but then its nothing but work work work all the time. Save a princess from this, protect a village from that. So, in your environment, what is at risk between being Neutral and Good? The risk of being neutral as opposed to good...there really isn't any 'motivation' so to speak to being either one, I suppose except for a few free things; however, most of the free things can just be negotiated with diplomacy or smooth talking on the part of the PCs. I would like to think that being 'good' would give them some sort of reputation and some leeway into some big places (aka access to private events, better terms with local archmagi, etc.) via 'the easy way' rather than sneaking in like the party loves to do/inadvertantly ends up doing most of the time. Do you think it's just 'the thrill of doing stuff the hard way' that gets their juices flowing?
Geogoose 02-05-07, 05:58 PM	Have they tried it? Did you punish them for it with gotchas, extra weight, rewardless responsibility, and/or stereotypical roleplay scenarios? Yeah. Some players know certain DM's will put them in contrived situations where they will be punished unfairly for thier alignment choice. They then learn to choose neutral characters to avoid the potential grief. Best solution is simply to ask them why they think good characters in your campaign are at a disadvantage.
Ramses III 02-05-07, 09:05 PM	The risk of being neutral as opposed to good...there really isn't any 'motivation' so to speak to being either one, I suppose except for a few free things; however, most of the free things can just be negotiated with diplomacy or smooth talking on the part of the PCs. I would like to think that being 'good' would give them some sort of reputation and some leeway into some big places (aka access to private events, better terms with local archmagi, etc.) via 'the easy way' rather than sneaking in like the party loves to do/inadvertantly ends up doing most of the time. Do you think it's just 'the thrill of doing stuff the hard way' that gets their juices flowing? I find it's better to give them that kind of reputation through their roleplaying choices and people finding out about their actions than to do so automatically when they choose a certain alignment. You could be the most good-hearted person in the world, but if you're a level 1 commoner who's never done anything more memorable than save a villager's child who fell down a well then the duke and the local archmagi won't know or care who you are. However you might have a really good reputation even if you're an evil mercenary because everyone knows about the time when (for a reward of several thousand gp) you saved the duke's daughter from the marauding bandits who had kidnapped her. RP rewards like reputation need to be based on actions and in-game events rather than traits the characters have from the time they're created.
rikimaru75 02-05-07, 09:43 PM	I find it's better to give them that kind of reputation through their roleplaying choices and people finding out about their actions than to do so automatically when they choose a certain alignment. You could be the most good-hearted person in the world, but if you're a level 1 commoner who's never done anything more memorable than save a villager's child who fell down a well then the duke and the local archmagi won't know or care who you are. However you might have a really good reputation even if you're an evil mercenary because everyone knows about the time when (for a reward of several thousand gp) you saved the duke's daughter from the marauding bandits who had kidnapped her. RP rewards like reputation need to be based on actions and in-game events rather than traits the characters have from the time they're created. There is an element of this in my campaign already; however, that also leads me to bring up another point. A lot of my players, when they die, usually never want to continue playing that character and build new characters. Thus, this creates the problem, with so many 'new' characters coming into the world, I cannot conceive of a particular way to give them a decent reputation unless I railroad the campaign.
ShadowDragon8685 02-05-07, 10:24 PM	I would have to find a new group were I in your position, Rikimaru. I will not brook Neutral PCs in my games. It's Good or nothing. Why? Because there's really only three types of Neutral PC: 1: The Mercenary. He works for one thing and one thing only: Money. Depending on his alignment he may or may not betray you if their money is better than yours, but almost always once he has officially concluded his bisuness with you, he'll take the contract out on you. The Mercenary will save the Princess and personally escort her back to her bedroom, and take the 10K GP. Then the next night he sneaks into the castle, beats up your guards, and kidnaps the princess for another 12K GP. In his mind this is entirely valid: His bisuness with you was concluded, and the other guy's coin was unshaved. 2: The Apathetic. I don't understand this one. He's apathetic to everything - he'd as soon stab the princess as save her, but he really dosen't care, so he just drifts along. Puts up mild resistance to any kind of plan, but usually follows the flow. 3: The Alignment Extreme. While this one is a problem with all alignments, I suppose, he's worse with the Neutrals. Lawful Neutral characters will obey the law slavishly. He will not risk a charge of Breaking & Entering in order to save orphans from a burning building: After all, inaction is no crime, but the action of breaking and entering is. He's a horrible Borg. True Neutral is quite probably the worst. I have seen this in action and It Is Bad. True Neutral Extreme Druids will help the party clear out a dungeon of evil, and then decide that there is now an imbalance between good and evil. So he walks up to the Paladin, asks said Paladin if he will accept his spells (Hold on), and when the Paladin says yes, because he's expecting, gets nailed with the worst Save-or-Die or Poison spell the Druid has. The whole thing about "Will you accept my spells" is a set-up, it's used to try and make the DM agree that the Paladin has preagreed to the Druid's spell without any foreknowledge of what it actually will be, and thus to "Voluntarily" (because by now it is anything but voluntary) forgoe his saving throw. The worst, of course, is Chaotic Neutral. While these are probably not just as likely to jump off a bridge as cross it, they're close. They're unpredictable in the extreme, and generally do things nonconductive to a party game.
Ramses III 02-05-07, 10:47 PM	I would have to find a new group were I in your position, Rikimaru. I will not brook Neutral PCs in my games. It's Good or nothing. Why? Because there's really only three types of Neutral PC: 1: The Mercenary. He works for one thing and one thing only: Money. Depending on his alignment he may or may not betray you if their money is better than yours, but almost always once he has officially concluded his bisuness with you, he'll take the contract out on you. The Mercenary will save the Princess and personally escort her back to her bedroom, and take the 10K GP. Then the next night he sneaks into the castle, beats up your guards, and kidnaps the princess for another 12K GP. In his mind this is entirely valid: His bisuness with you was concluded, and the other guy's coin was unshaved. 2: The Apathetic. I don't understand this one. He's apathetic to everything - he'd as soon stab the princess as save her, but he really dosen't care, so he just drifts along. Puts up mild resistance to any kind of plan, but usually follows the flow. 3: The Alignment Extreme. While this one is a problem with all alignments, I suppose, he's worse with the Neutrals. Lawful Neutral characters will obey the law slavishly. He will not risk a charge of Breaking & Entering in order to save orphans from a burning building: After all, inaction is no crime, but the action of breaking and entering is. He's a horrible Borg. True Neutral is quite probably the worst. I have seen this in action and It Is Bad. True Neutral Extreme Druids will help the party clear out a dungeon of evil, and then decide that there is now an imbalance between good and evil. So he walks up to the Paladin, asks said Paladin if he will accept his spells (Hold on), and when the Paladin says yes, because he's expecting, gets nailed with the worst Save-or-Die or Poison spell the Druid has. The whole thing about "Will you accept my spells" is a set-up, it's used to try and make the DM agree that the Paladin has preagreed to the Druid's spell without any foreknowledge of what it actually will be, and thus to "Voluntarily" (because by now it is anything but voluntary) forgoe his saving throw. The worst, of course, is Chaotic Neutral. While these are probably not just as likely to jump off a bridge as cross it, they're close. They're unpredictable in the extreme, and generally do things nonconductive to a party game. Other than the mercenary, these archetypes are all unrealistic characters that result from people trying to make their character concept conform to an alignment, as opposed to finding the alignment that best describes their character. Nobody in real life (or even in real fantasy) acts like this. That's why the core books state in multiple places that alignment is not a straitjacket. You are not supposed to play your character as a caricature of an alignment. That's like if you played a person from a specific country in D20 Modern and insisted in portraying all of the stereotypes about people from that country. A typical true neutral person is not the apathetic stereotype you describe, and only a chaotic evil or neutral evil character would kill the paladin after clearing the dungeon. The average true neutral character acts out of personal rather than moral or ethical motivations. If they have a choice to sacrifice themselves to save a stranger, they will choose to survive, but they will still help their friends because they are friends. A neutral adventurer adventures because of personal reasons and convictions, not to save the world, to help people, or even to become powerful. A good example is the true neutral druid in my current campaign who has joined an adventuring party so that she can get their help in finding out what destroyed her homeland. When you play D&D you play a character, you don't "play an alignment." The character's actions and intentions dictate her alignment, not the other way around. If you're a DM, you have to remember this at all times, or all of your NPCs become laughable stereotypes like the ones you have described here.
Solik 02-05-07, 10:54 PM	Ramses is right. Neutral people are basically your average type of person. They won't stick out their necks to save people just because, although they're happy to do so if there's sufficient reward involved. They're not going to just start doing evil things, though; they won't switch sides just because they pay more (some might, but that itself can often lead to evil). These types may respect those who are Good, or they may see them as foolish, but they tend to view Evil as antagonistic and dangerous, since it can and does threaten them and their loved ones.
rikimaru75 02-06-07, 09:55 AM	Regardless of their alignment, they're all a pretty good group. Most of them know their place with regards to alignment and rules of the my campaign world. Some of them act more good than their alignment entails, but I think the idea of neutrality seems to give them the idea of more options. What these options that 'good' is not allowed, I do not have an idea. Any ideas? After talking to one of my group members, he says that most of the 'good' characters usually get the worst beatings by the monsters and things I send at them, but after thinking about it a lot, he did play the Paladin that was always in the front lines or the spellcaster near the breach of the group's defensive line. I really can't stress enough about tactical combat maneuvering in my campaign.
Griff 02-06-07, 10:05 AM	You know its probably more a desire to have a bit of fun, and being able to be just a bit selfish and just a bit nonchalant when they feel like it, trying to avoid all those time when you find yourself saying, damn i cant do that because im good.
Sunic_Flames 02-06-07, 10:42 AM	A well-played chaotic neutral can be a delight. Think Jack Sparrow. Fear badly-played characters of any alignments, and players that play everything badly. Not familar with the example, and haven't seen any good ones, thus my warning. If it is possible for your players to play it in a non disruptive manner ignore that. I would have to find a new group were I in your position, Rikimaru. *snip* What you have there is examples of alignments played poorly, an invalid case to say the least. As an exercise for you, go outside and look around for a decent sized group of people, say around 10 or so. Chances are at least half will be true neutral because that is what the average person is. Sometimes motivated by selflessness (good), and sometimes by selfishness (evil). Sometimes lawful, and sometimes chaotic. Because they do not lean too far to any extreme they are true neutral. Now imagine the average person doing the things you described. If your mental response to this is along the lines of "Yeah right, they wouldn't." I rest my case. I don't think it's necessary to site the preemptive smite paladin or the chaos = evil character as bad examples of good alignments.
pres_man 02-06-07, 11:06 AM	When you play D&D you play a character, you don't "play an alignment." The character's actions and intentions dictate her alignment, not the other way around. If you're a DM, you have to remember this at all times, or all of your NPCs become laughable stereotypes like the ones you have described here. I'm going to have to disagree with the strength of your statement here. I don't see anything wrong with someone playing their character and thinking, "Well let see, the character is LN, so what would a LN person think of doing in this situation? Which option would they choose most likely?" See I think there is a difference between the player deciding things, and how the character would thinking about it. A character would not be thinking, "I am LN, so I will do ..." Characters for the most part probably have no idea about alignments. Next to asking a PC their class(es), asking them their alignments is about the worst metagamey thing you can do. But there is nothing wrong with a player deciding their character is going to act in a certain way based on the declared alignment of the character. Of course it should be roleplayed well, but nothing wrong with it. In fact if a player is playing a character that is highly different from a moral/ethical standpoint from themselves, then considering alignment when making decisions would be an extremely good idea. It also helps to maintain some consistency within the character, so that the character doesn't switch from being a mercenary to Robin frakken Hood from one session to the next. Now I will agree with you that when developing the character, alignment should be choosen last. And it should be choosen as the one that best fits the character concept. Also agree that different characters with the same alignment are going to act differently from time to time. A LN king isn't going to do the same things as a LN butcher. They have different motivations and desires. Just as a NG farmer is going to act differently than a NG adventuring bard.
Vaalingrade Ashland 02-06-07, 12:37 PM	I'm going to have to disagree with the strength of your statement here. I don't see anything wrong with someone playing their character and thinking, "Well let see, the character is LN, so what would a LN person think of doing in this situation? Which option would they choose most likely?" I see everything in the world wrong with it and here's why: There is no answer to 'what would a LN person do?'. Or more accurately, the answer is 'anything in the range of human possibility.' Alignment is a reflection of your past actions, not a guide for future actions. Even a character that does something so radical that they get an alignment change is still that alignment as they perform that action.
Solik 02-06-07, 01:52 PM	I can see the use in that for a novice roleplayer, but experienced roleplayers should be able to get a better handle on their character, even if it's vastly different from the player, using alignment as Vaal has indicated.
Aberlonian 02-06-07, 02:03 PM	Neutral means "Opportunistic Greedy". It's not very fun, but makes a lot of sense. Every character in my group is neutral and all of them chose that alignment to avoid the perceived restrictions of being either good or evil. Disclaimer: This is my opinion, and only applies to average roleplayers. There are always exceptional roleplayers who can make really interesting neutral characters.
pres_man 02-06-07, 02:35 PM	There is no answer to 'what would a LN person do?'. Or more accurately, the answer is 'anything in the range of human possibility.' But I did not ask that did I? I said it is reasonable for the player to ask themselves, "so what would a LN person think of doing in this situation? Which option would they choose most likely?" Of course under any situation at any time, anyone may do anything. But we are talking about trends. The reason why a character is LN is because the trend of their behaviour goes towards LN. That doesn't mean they only act that way, but when push comes to shove, you are going to bet they are. So my comment is more about it being ok for a player when considering what that character is going to do, to take into consideration what types of behaviours the character is likely to do. Alignment is a reflection of your past actions, not a guide for future actions. This is a common misconception. Actually, it only says a DM may evaluate your alignment based on your actions, not that your alignment is only influenced by your actions. This is basically to tell players that they have to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. Even a character that does something so radical that they get an alignment change is still that alignment as they perform that action. Well, I would say one of the biggest issues is when a player writes down one alignment but plays another. If he puts LN on his sheet but acts as CE, it is not that he is changed to CE, it is that he had written the wrong letters on his sheet to begin with. The character was never LN, and had always been CE. Now sure some characters do change, but those changes should be gradual, not sudden (without some kind of magical influence). As for the original situation, the DM might consider having some evil guys try to hire the party, perhaps through a neutral third party. Start with seemingly innocent jobs (break into this old tomb, get this item from this abandoned shrine, etc), and build up to more evil jobs. Then have some good guys come after the party. "We didn't know we were doing anything wrong." "What did you think stealing sacred relics from the tombs of holy beings was for?"
Ramses III 02-06-07, 06:07 PM	Presman, while you disagree with the language I used, you seem to understand the idea I support concerning alignment: that the character's personality and actions decide his alignment, not vice-versa. I agree with you that it's ok when in doubt to look to your character's alignment as a guide in what to do. The problem that I was arguing against is the tendency of some gamers to try to make alignment the primary, and sometimes only, determining factor of a character's action. When I ask a player what his character is like, "Lawful Good" is not a valid answer.
pres_man 02-06-07, 06:31 PM	When I ask a player what his character is like, "Lawful Good" is not a valid answer. But if he said, "My character protects innocent life. He is altruismic, has respect for life, and is concerned about the dignity of sentient beings. He also tries to always tell the truth, keep his word, respect authority, honor tradition, though he may tend to judge those who fall short of their duties. He is honorable, trustworthy, obedient to authority, and reliable." Would that be any better?
Ramses III 02-06-07, 06:39 PM	It tells me what the character's morals are. It doesn't tell me what the character's personality is like, and is hence still an incomplete answer. It doesn't tell me how the character relates to people (particularly those he disagrees with), what the character's goals, hopes, and dreams are, or whether the character is generally happy with the world or himself. Is he a pessimist, an optimist, or somewhere in between? These are matters of personality that aren't defined by alignment. If it's ok in your campaign to play a character with a stick-figure personality based on an alignment description ripped straight from the book, cool. Go with it. It's unacceptable in mine.
rikimaru75 02-06-07, 07:01 PM	I know that I typically strive to know the purpose of my characters for adventuring, but lots of the time, the PCs really don't know themselves. Any particular questions I should ask to get their juices flowing in this department?
Ramses III 02-06-07, 07:44 PM	Yes. "What led your character to be an adventurer?" is a good question to start with. Interrogate your players about their characters' backgrounds and personalities. Demand answers. A lot of game systems provide a "20 questions" type of survey for starting characters, suggesting that the player come up with a number of details about their background before starting. I'll throw some D&D relevant ones out for you off the top of my head. 1) Where is your character from? 2) How did your character get his/her name? 3) What is your character's reputation in his/her hometown? 4) How did your character get his/her class training? 5) What does your character hope to accomplish as an adventurer? 6) How did your character come by his/her alignment? Was he/she taught to think that way, or did it just come naturally? 7) What does your character look like? 8) How does your character relate to people in general? 9) How does your character respond to people with radically different outlooks or ideas? 10) How did your character come to follow his/her religion? OK, that's just 10 questions, but you get the idea. When a player knows the answers to these questions, it becomes a lot easier to play in character and to feel like the PC is doing things for a reason. When the DM knows the answers to these questions, it becomes a lot easier to craft the kind of plot hooks that are going to be meaningful to the player, and hence easier to get the PC involved in an adventure you've written without resorting to railroading.
rikimaru75 02-06-07, 08:59 PM	Yes. "What led your character to be an adventurer?" is a good question to start with. Interrogate your players about their characters' backgrounds and personalities. Demand answers. A lot of game systems provide a "20 questions" type of survey for starting characters, suggesting that the player come up with a number of details about their background before starting. I'll throw some D&D relevant ones out for you off the top of my head. 1) Where is your character from? 2) How did your character get his/her name? 3) What is your character's reputation in his/her hometown? 4) How did your character get his/her class training? 5) What does your character hope to accomplish as an adventurer? 6) How did your character come by his/her alignment? Was he/she taught to think that way, or did it just come naturally? 7) What does your character look like? 8) How does your character relate to people in general? 9) How does your character respond to people with radically different outlooks or ideas? 10) How did your character come to follow his/her religion? OK, that's just 10 questions, but you get the idea. When a player knows the answers to these questions, it becomes a lot easier to play in character and to feel like the PC is doing things for a reason. When the DM knows the answers to these questions, it becomes a lot easier to craft the kind of plot hooks that are going to be meaningful to the player, and hence easier to get the PC involved in an adventure you've written without resorting to railroading. Now that's the kind of answer I was looking for. Thanks. I'll be sure to implement a 10-15 question survey out to my PCs within the next few sessions.
pres_man 02-06-07, 11:27 PM	Well if you really want to get on your players to write out details things, here is a link you can go to that might help with ideas. http://www.geocities.com/poetess47/100questions.html EDIT: it should be noted almost all of the questions are suppose to be from the viewpoint of the PC.
pres_man 02-06-07, 11:33 PM	Personally, I've always disliked surveys of those types. I always hated it when a teacher would make us write on a notecard 5 things we like and dislike. My number one dislike, having to write about what I like and dislike. Most of the time, I have a general idea for a character, and most of that stuff would never be used for it. What is more important to me is how the character developes in relation to the other characters in the game, not who was the first person they kissed.
johnhansen 02-06-07, 11:44 PM	rikimaru75 do you have any gods in your world.
pres_man 02-06-07, 11:50 PM	that the character's personality and actions decide his alignment, not vice-versa. So personality is tied to alignment? It tells me what the character's morals are. It doesn't tell me what the character's personality is like, and is hence still an incomplete answer. But I thought there was a relationship between personality and alignment. Either there is, and know the alignment can tell you something about the character's personality (but obviously not everything), or they are not related. It doesn't tell me how the character relates to people (particularly those he disagrees with), Well obviously nothing at all, not 30 pages of back story or anything can every tell you exactly how someone will always react. But it does give you some guides as to how they may interact. For example, they probably won't lie to others, that is something you would have a good idea about. Probably will keep his word and try to be dependable, again something you know about how he interacts with others. Will try to protect innocents, again something you know. You know alot actually about how the character should GENERALLY interact with others, just not specifics, but that is because every interaction is unique and thus nothing will foretell how it will occcur. what the character's goals, hopes, and dreams are, or whether the character is generally happy with the world or himself. Is he a pessimist, an optimist, or somewhere in between? These are matters of personality that aren't defined by alignment. And alot of these can't be defined by anything at all. Is a character a pessimist or an optimist? Maybe he follows what James Earl Jones' grandmother said when he asked her the question of the glass being half full or half empty and she said, "Depends, was it full to start with? Then it is half empty. Was it empty to start with? Then it is half full." People change, and are rarely always one or another. Most people I have gamed with if asked about their character's goals, they would say, "Adventure. ... Defeat some bad guys? ... Get some loot? ... Save the day? ..." They play to have fun, not write a novel about a character. If it's ok in your campaign to play a character with a stick-figure personality based on an alignment description ripped straight from the book, cool. Go with it. It's unacceptable in mine. Not all LG characters are going to act identical, but they will most often come to an agreement as to what is the best way to do something. This is because they tend to think in similiar patterns (compare this to Jungian personality types). Of course they are not always the same, but saying "My character tries never to lie, no matter the cost." Isn't fundamentally all that different then just saying the character tends to be Lawful. What kind of ice cream he likes, isn't going to tell you much about what happens when he is faced with a BBEG holding a child hostage. Alignment doesn't make it crystal clear either but it has a better chance than the favorite ice cream flavor does.
Ramses III 02-07-07, 12:35 AM	Oh yeah, I forgot "first kiss" and "favorite ice cream flavor" in my list. My bad.
pres_man 02-07-07, 01:00 AM	Oh yeah, I forgot "first kiss" and "favorite ice cream flavor" in my list. My bad. Just a bit of hyperbolizing, you know like, "to play a character with a stick-figure personality". Though, the first kiss thing is actually on the link I posted for 100 things to know about your PC. So some folks do think that type of question is meaningful to "understanding" your PC. Not everybody does though.
Ramses III 02-07-07, 01:40 AM	LOL, I think first kiss is a bit overboard. Unless you're playing Cheerleader: the Final Showdown or something.
ArcTan 02-07-07, 02:15 AM	I typically seem to have a problem with a majority of my PCs always wanting to play neutral aligned characters rather than good aligned character. When I speak with them about it, they typically reply that it is because there really is no 'reason' to play good characters in my world. Which, interestingly enough, is the exact same response a lot of real people have to the real world.
Daydreamer 02-07-07, 02:38 AM	Do they get recognition as heros if they are good? do they see the world suffer if they are neutral, give them the moral choice, see if the choose neutral at the expense of the innoncent via non involvement.
rikimaru75 02-07-07, 08:21 AM	I think some of the 100 questions are a bit overboard. I believe that to just get a general idea of the character down would suffice. To answer johnhanson's question: Yes, the PHB gods exist in my campaign setting, but there are also other gods in there too. Most of the people in my campaign world worship 'elements', think a semi-japanese/chinese set of elements so Earth, Fire, Wind, Water, Life, Death, Metal, Wood, Light and Darkness. I guess having elements being primarily 'neutral' could be the initial problem. With either element being used for good, evil, or neutrality, it truly ends up being what the person makes of their deity (should they choose one of these elemental gods). Maybe they're just not motivated to make their own ideal system based on the primary element?