Post/Author/DateTime	Post
RoninFrosty 03-21-07, 09:31 PM	I understand alignment down to the last letter, so don't panic! My problem, however, is that I dunno how to explain it adequately to the other players in the group (I'm also a DM, so, this is an issue of significant importance to me). EXAMPLE Our party consists of the following: NG: Dwarven Cleric, Dwarven Barbarian, Elven Ranger CN: Human Rogue (Me, I wasn't trying to not fit in, I just didn't know they were all good, LOL) Well, we get to a point in the adventure where we decide we need horses. I suggest robbing the local noble, as he's corrupt, and has more stallions than he knows what to do with. The Ranger suggests allowing him to converse with his Elven leaders on the issue, implying that he's in well enough to get the horses easily, but we might have to wait. I, again, stress that I can have horses in about 20 minutes, and that no one would be "hurt". Well, the Barbarian suggests robbing the common people of the village for their horses. My jaw hit the floor. Me: Dude, you're NG! These are innocent people, you can't just take their horses! They represent a SIGNIFICANT investment on the part of the common man! Barbarian: I don't care! The orcs we're chasing ransacked my character's village! He's mad, and wants to get there NOW! Me: I'm not arguing your motives here, bro, I'm arguing your alignment. I could understand POSSIBLY if the only four horses in town belonged to commoners, but it's hardly the case! Barbarian: Shut up dude, don't tell me how to play my character. Now, don't get me wrong, we may seem snippy or whatever, but we're really good friends. I don't really understand how to make them understand the concept of good and evil. Another guy in a SWD20 game was light side Jedi type and was hacking people's heads off with a lightsaber. HOW HOW HOW do I make them get this?
Rillek_Denar 03-21-07, 09:45 PM	1. Make sure they've read the section in the PH damn well. 2. I've always explained it thusly: GNE - This describes your intentions, how you feel about those around you. LNC - This describes how you execute the above. To describe NG, I would say something like: "You are a good person, and you are kind to and considerate of those around you. While you might occasionally break a rule to help someone, you wouldn't hurt an innocent person to aid someone else (even or especially yourself)."
Tequila_Sunrise 03-21-07, 10:36 PM	The other players won't get it until the DM gives two sheists about the issue, which he obviously doesn't. So, either find another game or join the fun!
AffableDoomwalker 03-22-07, 12:52 AM	This might help: A guide to alignment (http://www.superdeluxe.com/sd/contentDetail.do?id=D81F2344BF5AC7BB8014 BA42E5BF87155EC8351DFE293A63).
n3ro 03-22-07, 01:39 AM	You know what my DM used to do back in the day if we acted against our alignment is make us change it (which might cause us to have to change class, or other things that are reliant on alignment). I think you should ask your DM to address this privately and maybe include this as an option.
LCD2YOU 03-22-07, 08:45 PM	Just have the CN player realize that CN is not CE that does register as evil. Too many CN that I've seen use it as a CE with a thin veneer of doing something good every 10th or 11th killing of someone because they: 1: Felt like it 2: Just because 3: They made me mad etc. If any of the killing they've done fit the description of "Evil" in the SRB:"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.And then this:People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.CN is actually one of the alignments I ban save for people who really know what they're doing.
SilvercatMoonpaw 03-22-07, 08:54 PM	I would say that the barbarian player may have a better grasp on the nature of RL morality than on the D&D black & white, but I don't see where that is a problem. If the orcs ransacked his village and did horrible things even a good person is gonna get mad and vengeful. I think D&D acknowledges that even good people can mess up without changing their alignment so long as they were acting under intense emotions and regret it later.
pres_man 03-22-07, 09:09 PM	Well, the Barbarian suggests robbing the common people of the village for their horses. My jaw hit the floor. Me: Dude, you're NG! These are innocent people, you can't just take their horses! They represent a SIGNIFICANT investment on the part of the common man! Barbarian: I don't care! The orcs we're chasing ransacked my character's village! He's mad, and wants to get there NOW! Me: I'm not arguing your motives here, bro, I'm arguing your alignment. I could understand POSSIBLY if the only four horses in town belonged to commoners, but it's hardly the case! Barbarian: Shut up dude, don't tell me how to play my character. And he was right. Stealing is a chaotic act, not an evil one. His character, NG, would have no problem doing a chaotic act, especially if it meant doing some good from it. Such as stopping a band of orcs from doing more harm. Each moment of delay might be more innocents being hurt. I would suggest you worry about playing your own character and keep your bum out of the people playing theirs. Another guy in a SWD20 game was light side Jedi type and was hacking people's heads off with a lightsaber. HOW HOW HOW do I make them get this? Because arms are fine, but heads are bad. I remember Luke dropping a heck of lot of guys with his lightsaber on Jabba's sailbarge. Who cares if he cuts them through the midsection or offs their heads?
stabs 03-22-07, 09:12 PM	Me: Dude, you're NG! These are innocent people, you can't just take their horses! They represent a SIGNIFICANT investment on the part of the common man! Yes, he can do that. His alignment might change, though probably not for just one act. But he certainly can do that. Alignment doesn't dictate actions, actions dictate alignment. Play a character, not an alignment, and figure out the second one afterwards.
celtredleg 03-22-07, 10:31 PM	Absolutely. Alignment is a label, not a tunnel. You can do what ever you want. You may get a change out of it, but it doesnt stop you from acting.
DarkNick 03-22-07, 10:48 PM	I think you should stay out of it. It is none of your business. How alignment works is up to the DM and player involved. It's not your job to put hurdles in front of someone elses character. Just because you restrict yourself by your tighter definition of alignment does not give you the right to impose it on the other players. Also alignment might seem black and white to you but others see it in shades of gray. Many of us disregard alignment entirely which is an equally valid position to be in. He is having fun, the dm and other players don't seem to care (I assume this), tough.
pres_man 03-22-07, 11:32 PM	HOW do I make them get this? What you should probably have done was this: Well, the Barbarian suggests robbing the common people of the village for their horses. My jaw hit the floor. Me: These are innocent people, you can't just take their horses! Stealing from rich corrupt nobles is one thing. Stealing from dirt farmers that is something else. Barbarian: I don't care! The orcs we're chasing ransacked my village! I'm mad, and want to get there NOW! Me: I agree with you, but stealing from some dirt farmers. No way, you can count me out. I guesssss if you want to buy some horses off of them, I guesssss we could do that. But why not just help me steal the horses from the noble. I mean, I could see doing it if those were the only horses around, but hey we got other choices and who doesn't like to stick it to a rich corrupt noble, huh? See you made the classic mistake of trying to deal with it out of game, when you should have dealt with it in game. Calling someone on their alignment is just bad form all around.
Sunic_Flames 03-23-07, 04:36 PM	Just have the CN player realize that CN is not CE that does register as evil. *snip* While I understand and sympathize with your anti CN sentiments, it sounds like it was in fact the NG barbarian who was the problem in this scenario. And with the CN character being the solution, or at least attempting to be.
Tonio 03-23-07, 05:24 PM	Seems to me like the CN rogue acted like a NG rogue, while the NG barbarian acted like a CN barbarian. A NG character isn't above stealing from commoners if it brings about greater good, but given better (more good) options, he'd be inclined to take 'em. A CN character, on the other hand, wouldn't choose between them considering which one is more good. He'd either go on a whim, or choose whichever one's easiest or least problematic. In the situation described above, the character's background also might influence the barbarian's actions. Maybe the barbarian comes from a culture where ownership is defined solely by physical possession: a horse in a stable isn't anybody's, and taking it isn't stealing.
Toran_A_Sunder 03-23-07, 05:36 PM	Just have the CN player realize that CN is not CE that does register as evil. Too many CN that I've seen use it as a CE with a thin veneer of doing something good every 10th or 11th killing of someone because they: 1: Felt like it 2: Just because 3: They made me mad etc. If any of the killing they've done fit the description of "Evil" in the SRB:And then this:CN is actually one of the alignments I ban save for people who really know what they're doing. You know, I've had the same problem over and over again. I've even had the same problem with people playing CG. They don't grasp the concept that chaos doesn't mean you can do evil things and get away with not actually being evil. I just may house rule the "No CN" thing into my games. Never actually thought of banning an alignment, but you're post has opened my eyes. Thank you mysterious board poster! Thank you!
mightymouse1107 03-23-07, 06:03 PM	The LG/NG/CG thing is something a lot of people don't seem to get. Many seem to say LG= nice good, NG=regular generally trying to do good person and CG= not-quite-right in the head good. Here's a more well defined version, delineating some general philosphies and pitfalls (no one is perfect) of each. LG= Morality is external, coming from a strict code of ethics/morals/honor that the character probably things is or ought to be universal. Fortunately, the code involves things like fairness, honesty and justice. Major Flaw: LG's can be somewhat intolerant of other viewpoints, to the point of arrogance. This may make them irritating, short sighted, or unintentionally hurtful. NG= Morality is all about the outcomes. The old utilitarian "best outcome for the greatest number" should be their standard. If that involves following the law or showing mercy, or if it involves an act of open rebellion or extreme violence, that's all ok by the NG as long as it serves the best outcome. The mission is what matters. Major Flaw: NG's can easily fall into the Macchiavellian "The ends justify the means" way of thinking, and this can begin to drive an alignment shift. CG= Morality is internal. This character doesn't follow some code or set of maxims, but instead her emotions and conscience. This means that conflicts with NG can be created when the CG wants to save their friends rather than head off after the evil army, or with LG when emotions or empathy conflict with justice or fairness. Major Flaw: CG's can often make foolish decisions based on emotions, or shortsighted decisions based upon the immediate dicta of their conscience.
Tonio 03-23-07, 06:28 PM	The LG/NG/CG thing is something a lot of people don't seem to get. Many seem to say LG= nice good, NG=regular generally trying to do good person and CG= not-quite-right in the head good. Here's a more well defined version, delineating some general philosphies and pitfalls (no one is perfect) of each. LG= Morality is external, coming from a strict code of ethics/morals/honor that the character probably things is or ought to be universal. Fortunately, the code involves things like fairness, honesty and justice. Major Flaw: LG's can be somewhat intolerant of other viewpoints, to the point of arrogance. This may make them irritating, short sighted, or unintentionally hurtful. NG= Morality is all about the outcomes. The old utilitarian "best outcome for the greatest number" should be their standard. If that involves following the law or showing mercy, or if it involves an act of open rebellion or extreme violence, that's all ok by the NG as long as it serves the best outcome. The mission is what matters. Major Flaw: NG's can easily fall into the Macchiavellian "The ends justify the means" way of thinking, and this can begin to drive an alignment shift. CG= Morality is internal. This character doesn't follow some code or set of maxims, but instead her emotions and conscience. This means that conflicts with NG can be created when the CG wants to save their friends rather than head off after the evil army, or with LG when emotions or empathy conflict with justice or fairness. Major Flaw: CG's can often make foolish decisions based on emotions, or shortsighted decisions based upon the immediate dicta of their conscience. Great post. I'd like to add that some (if not all) alignments can be interpreted differently. For example, a true neutral character can be one that seeks balance in all things, between law and chaos, good and evil, strength and weakness, etc. Or it can be one that is simply not concerned with the goodness or evilness, nor the lawfulness or chaosness (chaocity?) of his, or anybody else's, actions. A lawful evil character might be one with a strict code of behavior, one which has as a goal the advancement of one's self, regardless of the effect it might have on others. Or he might be one that believes it is smarter to abuse laws and social norms to hurt others, regardless of what it gains him. In short, a lawful character isn't one that's less chaotic than a neutral one; a lawful character is one that believes in order and law and unfailing, often universal, absolutes. A chaotic character isn't an unlawful one, it's a person who believes in his own code of morality, his own decisions and values, while condemning arbitrarily imposed rules, codes, or values.
Gdek 03-23-07, 07:03 PM	I've always disliked alignments, as it tends to lead to more fights amongst roleplayers than any others, at least in my experience. I look at the Law, Neutral, Chaos line as a determinants of morality. Lawful is absolute, Chaos is relativistic, and Neutral is a little of both. Therefore, a Lawful person believes that all laws are to be obeyed always. Murder, theft, assault (if against the law) are always wrong. For a Chaotic person, everything is relative. Murder, theft, and assault can be perfectly justified actions. A Neutral person takes a balanced approach, where murder, theft and assault can sometimes be justified, but sometimes not. It depends. A CG person could feel that killing a burglar is perfectly justified, whereas a LG person would try to subdue them for arrest or run them off. A NG person could conceivably take any of the three as actions. If it were a case of getting ambushed by bandits, the LG person would want them arrested, and should some escape, would try to track them down, or have someone else do same; they would be killed as a last resort. A NG person might be content to run them off, and/or track them down if they had the available time and resources. Killing would be a last resort. A CG person would be happy with any result where they didn't have to deal with them anymore. Arrest or run off, is of no concern. They wouldn't necessarily be interested in tracking them down though. Killing, while unfortunate, might be part of the solution, though would not be the first resort. Gdek
Tonio 03-23-07, 07:18 PM	I've always disliked alignments, as it tends to lead to more fights amongst roleplayers than any others, at least in my experience. Well, there are two ways to see your character's alignment. It can be a restriction or guide as to how he should act, or it can be a description of his outlook on life. By this I mean... choosing, say, neutral evil for your character can either mean you've decided to be limited, or guided, by the description of that alignment, when you're dictating your character's actions. Or it can mean your description of your character involves him believing certain things, taking certain decisions, thinking a certain way, which is described by the neutral evil alignment. I favor the latter. If viewing it that way, there should be no "damn, I can't do that, it clashes with my alignment". If anything, it'd be "hm, no wait... I wouldn't want to do that". A chaotic good fighter wouldn't be "unable" to multiclass into paladin... he'd be unwilling to. He might change his aligment to lawful good and then be able to, but that would represent him evolving as a person, changing his views and way of thinking, not working towards a goal. Most problems usually arise when people pick alignments without really giving though to what they imply. A rogue may pick neutral evil thinking to be a sneaky, self-interested villain, but end up breaking the law to help his friends and those he feels are oppressed (chaotic good behavior). The player should've considered what he would do in those situations, what he'd enjoy having his character do. I believe alignments shouldn't be guides for behavior, much less restrictions on it. I believe, rather, that they should be descriptions.
mightymouse1107 03-23-07, 08:55 PM	I think Tonio has this one exactly right. Alignments are descriptions, and I would like to add that they are very general one's at that. Two paladins will share the same alignment, but may have very different behavior patterns and attitudes depending on what KIND of LG they are. I would add on, as a logical extension of Tonio's post, that a player should probably decide what she wants her character to be like first, and pick the alignment that most accurately describes that, rather than choosing the alignment like its just another piece of game mechanics and trying to live up to it.
RoninFrosty 03-30-07, 08:29 AM	Sorry guys, couldn't remember which board I posted this under, but thanks for all the feedback! To various: My character wasn't concerned with the barbarian's actions, I was. I knew from previous experience that my group didn't know alignment too well, then a NG Barbarian offering to rob commoners on the highway kind of broadsided me. To stabs: I realize that, now, after re-reading my post, how that came out, but I didn't so much tell him "OMG U CANT DO TAHT!" as much as I said "A NG character wouldn't be robbing commoners when there are other options available." To Pres_man: Firstly, I do understand what you're saying about dealing with it in game, but to be honest, he caught me off guard, and I couldn't think quickly enough IN game, so I brought it OUT of game. Secondly, the Jedi guy wasn't hacking heads off in combat. He was hacking heads off while roleplaying. Interrogating a Sith, didn't like the answer, decapitated the Sith. And other various crimes of that nature. To Tonio: I think I may have been unclear; the Barbarian was considering robbing commoners on the highway, as they came back into the city. My suggestion would've fit perfectly with that logic...if he even prepared enough backstory to go with something like that. To someone whose name I can't remember: The DM's kind of incompetent, but through no fault of his own. The guys who plays the ranger, the guy who plays the Barbarian (yeah, I know) and myself normally DM, but we wanted to play together as charcters, so we recruited random guy A to DM for us. I'll be resuming DM duties shortly.
Kardanok 03-30-07, 08:41 AM	My DM would usually have me change my characters alignment if I were to do something like that, But, generally, he would highly disourage acting that far off from his alignment unless the character had really extreme motives.
Karish 03-30-07, 09:31 AM	I would just say "Okay, he's CN now". Honestly, he's acting out of his own personal goals, not having any real desire to hurt or aid the common people (neutral! :o), but seeing it as the ends justifying the means, which is essentially the meaning of a chaotic alignment. And I get tired of people hating CN. That's why when I DM, I dictate alignment. You start off with none, and after each session, I inform you of any changes made.