Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Edward 06-03-04, 01:29 AM	I am fed up with chaotic stupid. Why is it that the moment somebody plays CE regardless of high int and wiz they think they have to stab the party in the back? The party is usually a valuable resource (backup in a fight, help fencing loot, an ali that has skills you don’t). You don’t have to like them to recognise this. The party is a possible threat. In most cases you are about on par with each individual member of the party. If you pis them off (example steal from them or kill one of them in his sleep) you probably acquired powerful enemies. Even if you kill them all you now have to deal with any enemies you have or will acquire without their backup. And there are so many ways to dispose of a party member without coping the blame. A little invisibility and a poisoned knife in the heat of a battle and you can blame it on the opponents. Poison in food or drink can be foisted of on somebody else (if delivered at the right time) go drinking with just your mark. Poor boos down his throat until he passes out slit is throat dispose of his perse. Start a bar fight (be shore you are well bruised) and tell the party you lost track of your companion during the confusion. (Only if you have descent bluff but that isn’t uncommon in a CE rog). These tactics need you to have some trust from the group witch is worth earning just so you can do this. The only time it is worth selling out the party is when you have a better offer including protection and wealth. Which you reasonably believe will be delivered. Why do I hear nothing about intelligent characters that care about only themselves and are intelligent about getting what they want? All be get in psychopathic nutters that think they have to kill a PC to get started in the morning (and nobody mention my insane bard that liked to lick the life blood of her lovers of the wire garot concealed in her charm bracelet. She had a very disturbed childhood and even she didn’t kill her lovers until they where no longer useful). Edward
Salla 06-03-04, 02:09 AM	This is why you DON'T LET PEOPLE PLAY EVIL CHARACTERS.
Eldren 06-03-04, 02:20 AM	People often mistake Chaotic Evil with lack of restraint, and it isn't true. Chaotic Evil people are capable of working with others just as those who are Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Good are. However, they are ultimately selfish, and the instant they can see that they'd gain more benefit from offing their companions, the instant they put into place a plan to murder said companions. Still, to avoid someone going rampant and releasing all the frustrations we all have to deal with from being underneath the laws of our local principalities, it's probably best to avoid letting someone play an evil character altogether.
Geethree 06-03-04, 02:50 AM	If your players cannot handle playing evil characters, don't let them play evil characters.
TheDarkLord 06-03-04, 02:57 AM	Most people absolutely suck at playing evil alignments for the same reason you posted "Stupid Evil". My group has played Evil alignments before, as a matter of fact not one of them knew the other alignments. I talked to each of them individually because the campaign I wanted to run was quite dark and Good characters, especially LG Exalted characters would not survive for too long. So out of Five people 3 were NE and two were LE. It was an awesome campaign to run, each player trying to hide their alignment from the other players and the cities around them. You would have had to been there to fully grasp the things that were happening, it was fun though. But as many people have stated, Evil can only be truly played in a Campaign if its Intelligent evil. Things work much more smoothly when that happens (if you have a NE halfing rogue in the party money should never be a problem...).
Winternova 06-03-04, 02:58 AM	If there's one thing I hate more than Chaotic Evil, it's Chaotic Neutral. I've seen that one done to death in some very ugly ways...:nonono:
bahamut_0 06-03-04, 08:09 AM	Originally posted by Winternova If there's one thing I hate more than Chaotic Evil, it's Chaotic Neutral. I've seen that one done to death in some very ugly ways...:nonono: Amen to that.....
Edward 06-03-04, 08:33 AM	Originally posted by Eldren the instant they can see that they'd gain more benefit from offing their companions, the instant they put into place a plan to murder said companions. This is still not the case. Although you may find your companions of no use to you that still leaves them as relatively powerful individuals that may have friends you don’t know and even if not, law enforcement may catch up with you. If you kill anybody that is not useful to you, you will leave a bloodbath of innocent farmers and there raped children until you get what you deserve. This is not going to be a very fun campaign. The correct time for a CE (or NE and some LE) character to turn on his companions is when he gets a benefit commiserate with the risk. Edward
Thorak 06-03-04, 11:29 AM	Originally posted by Edward This is still not the case. Although you may find your companions of no use to you that still leaves them as relatively powerful individuals that may have friends you don’t know and even if not, law enforcement may catch up with you. If you kill anybody that is not useful to you, you will leave a bloodbath of innocent farmers and there raped children until you get what you deserve. This is not going to be a very fun campaign. The correct time for a CE (or NE and some LE) character to turn on his companions is when he gets a benefit commiserate with the risk. Edward This is exactly true. The important thing to remember is that the CE character can have friends and allies. And even help them out, generously. In doing so, he's deliberately building up a debt to himself on their part, so they will return the favor later on. And, of course, having devoted so much time and effort to this relationship, the benefit for betraying them would have to be pretty big for him to consider it. And he should always consider double-crossing, if the benefit looks like it can be had anyway. If the BBEG offers him ultimate power to betray his companions, betray them, take ultimate power, and then nuke the BBEG before he can hurt your companions. Problem solved. Though, to be fair, this isn't really a 'chaotic stupid' problem. That's a term best applied to misuse of Chaotic Neutral, where they think that means they should randomly do things like stopping in the middle of combat and chirping like a squirrel, just cause they're chaotic. What we're really talking about is what I like to call "Psychotic Evil". Alignment isn't a mental disorder; CE characters are just as sane and intelligent as any others (at least, potentially). Playing them as ravening psychopaths is what gives the alignment a bad name.
TheDarkLord 06-03-04, 11:48 AM	Originally posted by Thorak What we're really talking about is what I like to call "Psychotic Evil". Alignment isn't a mental disorder; CE characters are just as sane and intelligent as any others (at least, potentially). Playing them as ravening psychopaths is what gives the alignment a bad name. I don't think a "True" psychopath could necessarily be concidered Evil, more like Neutral (i'm picturing the Psychopathic Terrasque). He does things he thinks are right, but they have absolutely no rhyme or reason. They might kill some old lady one minute, the psychopath believing she's a demon, and help an vile little rugrat out the next moment thinking its an angel sent from heaven. I would say True psychopaths are Chaotic Neutral. I hate the DnD alignment system, thats why i've implemented the Evil is Subjective Varient found in the Book of Vile Deeds, instead of detect evil/good/law/chaos i have Detect Opposition, it works, havent had any problems yet.
Bacon and Eggs 06-03-04, 01:25 PM	This is why I like binding the characters together. Make some artificial bond between the characters that states up front. That if the other player characters die the evil character dies. Kind of like a curse. An evil vow, meta forced on the individuals that are evil for the sake of party cohesion. It makes them think about the lives and safety of the others. Well, that's what I do. The only thing that backfires in this case is when the "evil" characters don't care if they die. Then they whizz all over everyones fun. But then again, I dont play with those folks any more. Because that is purposefully going out of your way to trash the precious time that the other players spent trying to play a game.
striderII 06-03-04, 01:31 PM	This is why you DON'T LET PEOPLE PLAY EVIL CHARACTERS. No, not quite - this is why you don't let *stupid people* play evil characters. In fact, if such a person asks you if he can play an evil character, do the following. Grab his head, rub his nose in his character sheet (like rubbing a puppy's nose in the mess it just left on the living room carpet), hit him sharply, and say "no". "No" is a DM's best friend. :) Thorak, You are right on - CE characters can have allies and such. I mean, being the "evil, broody guy with no friends" gets rather old after a while. And yes, I see more people abusing CN than the evil alignments as well. Maybe something needs to change, but I'm not quite sure what that is yet. strider
Edward 06-04-04, 12:23 PM	I firmly believe that the only reason more people abuse CN than evil is that many GMs wont let them write an E on the character sheet so they play CN as a close cousin to evil. Edward
Radagast 06-04-04, 12:38 PM	Chaotic Neutral, from what I've seen, is usually used as a tool for morons to screw over the party by acting like insane, nasty, and otherwise evil people. Of all the party member I've gamed with, I've had to arrange the deaths of only two of them. Both were Chaotic Neutral Halfling Rogues played by morons who had no problems with screwing over the party. I've made it very clear to any new players that show up acting sneaky and generally trying to be cagey about what their character's alignment will be, what class they'll play, or who otherwise have a "watch how sneaky I can be! Watch me screw the party!" attitude that characters who screw the party WILL be killed. That seems to have kept the morons at bay, at least for the moment. Now, in evil campaigns, it's all different, but the goofballs mentioned wouldn't last five minutes in evil campaign - they couldn't even survive being surrounded by Good-aligned people, so think how fast Evil-aligned people would dispose of them!
Vaettyr 06-04-04, 03:58 PM	I don't think CN or CE are the problem so much as much as the people who like to use them as an excuse for their character behavior. These are the kind of guys (who've been described in detail), who'll stab the party in the back, and when the DM starts to come down on them they'll just excuse it with "It fits with my alignment". Better handled, when a situation comes up, instead of going with a knee-jerk response and pawning it off on alignment, good players will think through their courses of action and pick which one their character is most likely to take, in accordance with their alignment. This has a lot to do with player maturity and experience too though. I've seen a player desert the party in the middle of very dangerous country and then start whining when his character was slaughtered by wandering monsters. He said his character wouldn't have waited for the party to catch up because it 'didn't fit with his character', but his character had half a brain, and I don't think dying fit with him too well either.
danielinthewolvesden 06-04-04, 05:38 PM	Originally posted by Thorak This is exactly true. The important thing to remember is that the CE character can have friends and allies. And even help them out, generously. In doing so, he's deliberately building up a debt to himself on their part, so they will return the favor later on. And, of course, having devoted so much time and effort to this relationship, the benefit for betraying them would have to be pretty big for him to consider it. And he should always consider double-crossing, if the benefit looks like it can be had anyway. What we're really talking about is what I like to call "Psychotic Evil". Alignment isn't a mental disorder; CE characters are just as sane and intelligent as any others (at least, potentially). Playing them as ravening psychopaths is what gives the alignment a bad name. Right- only Sociopaths steal from or attack their freinds. CN or CE does not mean Sociopath.
trapspringer 06-05-04, 02:07 PM	It is my opinion that a chaotic character of anyalignment should always work with the group, but they probobly would be constantly viying for paty leadership. They don't like taking orders, but being in the group is defenantly in their best intrest.
Edward 06-05-04, 02:59 PM	Not all would want party leadership. That is a responsibility many would rather avoid. They may resent any party leader that was there (especially if he was strict) but that doesn’t mean they want the job. Edward
Steelwill 06-05-04, 04:14 PM	Problems with Chaotic Stupid, Lawful Stupid, (Insert Alignment here) Stupid, all stems from the idea that aligmment is somehow a compulsion for how a character must behave. People don't realize that aligment is pretty much just a label to indicate; 1. How aligment based spells and effects will affect your character 2. Your characters general predominant attitudes and moral inclinations. Aligment changes based on your actions, it doesn't dictate them. To do the chicken/egg argument, your character's aligment doesn't define his actions, his actions define his aligment. If it were the other way around Paladins could never fall from grace because their Lawful good alignment would prevent them from ever doing anything evil, and similarly evil characters could never undergo redemption. I could give several examples of how Paladins can behave intelligently and discreetly without offending their alignment, but that's been done to death. The long and short of it is that players do not have to make rash or unintelligent decisions based on alignment. The intelligence or wisdom scores direct such actions. In fact, if they are behaving in a way that could be considered more unintelligent and unwise than their characters stats indicate then they are not playing their character. They could in some instances be considered metagaming, because they are using their own personal lack if intelligence or wisdom, instead of their character's. My 2 cents.
green_yawgmoth 06-05-04, 09:14 PM	Originally posted by Edward I firmly believe that the only reason more people abuse CN than evil is that many GMs wont let them write an E on the character sheet so they play CN as a close cousin to evil. Edward If I ever DM, I won't let my PCs write an E anywhere on their sheet. They will just have to make due with the other 25 letters. :D
Athenna 06-05-04, 10:10 PM	CE and CN are good alignments to play and to play with when they're played properly. Well, CE maybe not to play with, but still. To have every character played properly can really enhance the game. The ones that use CE to kill party members at every opportunity, or CN to do the stupidest things whenever they want (even in the middle of the BBEG battle that ultimately screws the party) are the bad players. This is partially also the DM's fault, for originally letting then run it like that. I know everyone i currently play with personally, but if someone who i didn't trust a lot asked to play CN or CE I would do one of two things. 1) Say No flat out, and assign them an alignment (LG :D) 2) Allow them to play the alignment, but make it very clear that if they play it stupidly or exploit it then their character will die a very unfortunate death. Then, if they stay, assign them the alignment.
Al2902 06-06-04, 06:22 AM	Originally posted by green_yawgmoth If I ever DM, I won't let my PCs write an E anywhere on their sheet. They will just have to make due with the other 25 letters. :D Not a fan of ElvEs then :D ?
Thorak 06-06-04, 11:42 AM	Originally posted by Al2902 Not a fan of ElvEs then :D ? OR perhaps he just spells it "Ailvs"?
lantzer 06-06-04, 01:21 PM	Interestingly enough, I'm playing a CN horse nomad in our game and I'm effectively party leader of a NG-CG group. It started by being party spokesman because I had the highest Charisma once the bard & 1st cleric died. By now my PC is the only surviving charter member of the adventuring company. Folks defer to him, even though the new cleric has a higher charisma, 'cause he's a survivor and a mighty warrior. How does he handle being Boss? He pretty much lets people do what they want, as long as it works toward the his (Er, I mean the group's, obviously) goals. He listens to people when they come up with ideas. He lets the group hammer out plans and stuff. He goes with the result if he likes it. Usually he likes it. He lets individuals do their own crazy plans too. If he thinks that sounds like fun he'll probably help. He's a bit more ruthless than a lot of the group, and doesn't care if people know it. The thing is, his ruthlessness is well-founded in the game world, and completely defensible. It's balanced by his own, very personal sense of honor and pride, combined with his devotion to Tempus. He's more than willing to play the hero because he can get great Rep that way. (He's a bit of a glory hog.) (Okay, more than a bit.) He tries to keep his party alive. Especially the cleric and the halfling barbarian/rogue. He's not stupid - these three have saved each other's lives frequently. He's always willing to work with genuinely good people. They are great to have at your back. He misses the deceased paladin. Chaotics make really laid-back leaders.
green_yawgmoth 06-06-04, 08:30 PM	Originally posted by Al2902 Not a fan of ElvEs then :D ? Elves are banned. Anyone playing an elf meets an horrifically untimely end at the end of the session. And I'd make them write out a 5 page backstory first. XD
JeanValJean 06-06-04, 10:52 PM	It's not "chaotic stupid" it's just stupid. Gentlemen and ladies: These are the players who will play a Paladin who will randomly kill townsfolk because "they harbor evil in their hearts." The only difference with CN and CE is that they use the alignment as a justification for their actions. Chaotic Stupid is ANY alignment played like a jacka$$. Don't railroad Chaotic Stupid chars because in my experience they become Munchkins. As long as you give them something stupid to do in the periphery and deny them their chance to kill things (like the badguy in many comics or cartoons who is randomly smacked to prevent him from doing his villany, and whom the good guys may actuall think is good because he is unable to properly perform villany) that are in the party. That's mostly DM stuff, as for players: Kill them early, kill them often, and do so on any justification. Paladins work well for CN and CE characters. As for the rest: Just play a TN Druid who considers all demihumans a plague on the earth, but is postponing it as long as the virus is not extremely virulent. Mad props to all the sane chars out there.
Ice Wizard 06-07-04, 12:45 AM	Originally posted by JeanValJean Don't railroad Chaotic Stupid chars because in my experience they become Munchkins. DING! DING! DING! JeanValJean said the magick word for this discussion: "Munchkins". My experience with a certain group of munchkins, whose munchkin selves will remain nameless, basically used the Evil alignments and Chaotic Neutral as excuses to do whatever the hell they wanted. Part of this, of course came from DMs who supposedly used the alignment system as though it were a straghtjacket (as the liliputian munckins would put )..... sigh... I didn't have a problem with it since I was probably one of the only ones in the group that actually enjoyed playing a good-aligned character... Is that so strange? :(
Bones 06-07-04, 01:11 AM	I have seen both ways of playing CN in the same campaign. I was a CN wizard, another player had a CN fighter. I was a quiet, studious type, who had very little use for societies' rules. The fighter on the other hand was the beat up on my friends if they don't give me first pick and lion's share of treasure. I put up with it untill I got polymorph other, and drugged him. while he slept, I stripped him of all valuables, and turned him into a mule. As he was very strong as a man, he fetched a good price the next day, at market. He and his equipment funded my research labratory.
FolcoTook 06-07-04, 12:30 PM	One of the biggest problems I find is that people just don't understand the meaning of the word "chaotic" as it is used in terms of alignment. When they hear that term, they think of the standard meaning of chaotic - completely unordered and unpredictable and confusing (dictionary.reference.com) - and act in a completely random manner. Instead, they need to be taught (forcibly if necessary :) ) that "chaotic" is only being used as an opposite from "lawful". Or as the SRD puts it “Chaos” implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. We have one of the chaotic=random people in our group right now, but fortunately he's been more amusing than disruptive so far, so it isn't a problem. I hope it stays that way. -FT
psuedopod 06-07-04, 01:02 PM	Here's my 2¢: what does everyone think is so "random" about chaotic evil? It seems to me that CE characters could easily work with a party. For example, if you want to use a TV show as an example, look at Spike on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. He did betray the group once, but as a rule he works wih everyone just fine. The way I see chaotic evil is just a strongly individualist evil character. For example, there could even be a good-motivated CE character - like a violent anarchist revolutionary.
Zelphi 06-08-04, 06:21 AM	The first six alignments, lawful good through chaotic neutral, are the standard alignments for player characters. The three evil alignments are for monsters and villains. I haven't had an evil PC ever, for this reason, tell them to read the PHB.
dogo 06-08-04, 06:50 AM	Well, it seems to me you don't even have to look for a totally self-serving reason for Evil characters to have friends. Just like you and I they might actually like their friends, and like their friends so much they'd do anything for them. However, if they also happen to enjoy, I don't know, eating babies, they're still evil. So yes, you can have an evil character who has friends, and wouldn't sell the out for the world, and isn't like that just because they're a valuable resource or because he wants to have trusting support. Anyway, my take on alignment is to let it describe the character, not dictate the character.
Telas 06-08-04, 05:41 PM	Personally, I like the Chaos=Individualist, Law=Society axis. Good and Evil are defined by how you treat others; the more you equate people with things, the more evil you are. So a Chaotic Evil individual may get along with others, but only because it's in his best interest. Not because it's "what you do", or because it's "his friends". To him, friends are manipulatable and society's dictates are to be ignored, if not flaunted. In other words, your Chaotic Evil buddy may be a ticking time bomb. He probably won't kill you in your sleep just to sell your gear, but he may set you up to take the fall for his crimes, if he's close to getting caught. A Chaotic Neutral character OTOH, would be more resistant to "selling out" his friends. He may do so to a stranger, or maybe let another crook take the fall, but it all depends on his personal code of ethics (not society's). In my experience, evil party members always lead to character-on-character death. As our characters are near and dear to our hearts, this usually breaks up a group. So I only allowed evil characters once (LE, in a mission-specific campaign setting). It worked, but took a lot of finagling. This is all my opinion. D&D Alignment, like politics and religion (RL, not game), are subjective and sensitive topics. You probably don't see it that way, but that's okay. We'll work it out when we meet at the table. Telas
green_yawgmoth 06-08-04, 08:09 PM	Originally posted by Zelphi I haven't had an evil PC ever, for this reason, tell them to read the PHB. Unless of course you're playing in an evil campaign, which of course no one ever does, right? :rolleyes:
Edward 06-08-04, 08:18 PM	spike was on a path of redemption. most of those that i have seen play CE as random would consider a path of redemption to be an exeption. Edward
dogo 06-08-04, 11:07 PM	Originally posted by Telas This is all my opinion. D&D Alignment, like politics and religion (RL, not game), are subjective and sensitive topics. You probably don't see it that way, but that's okay. We'll work it out when we meet at the table. Well, I think you can literally interpret the alignments in such a way that it becomes objective. I once played around doing this. The problem is the way it's written it's obvious that it wasn't meant to be taken entirely literally (I ended up with contradictions, and non-excluded middles), or that the author wasn't worried about being too precise. So yes, ultimately it must be left up to individual judgement.
Thorak 06-08-04, 11:16 PM	Telas, don't take this as an attack. Just providing alternative interpretations for the way you've described things. You're not wrong, I just think you're too narrow. Originally posted by Telas Personally, I like the Chaos=Individualist, Law=Society axis. Good and Evil are defined by how you treat others; the more you equate people with things, the more evil you are. So a Chaotic Evil individual may get along with others, but only because it's in his best interest. Not because it's "what you do", or because it's "his friends". To him, friends are manipulatable and society's dictates are to be ignored, if not flaunted.[b][quote] CE only gets along with others, because it's in his best interest. But, if he's devoted a lot of time and effort into the support system he calls his 'friends', he's not going to sell them out for anything less than a massive reward. Think of it like a balance sheet; how much power is tearing up and throwing away 5 years or so of that character's friendships down the tubes worth? Include all the things he could conceivably ask his friends to help him with in the future. IMHO, the perfect CE thing to do when offered massive power to betray his friends is to betray them, get the power, and then nuke the guy who gave it to him into the hereafter, thereby saving his friends. [b][quote]In other words, your Chaotic Evil buddy may be a ticking time bomb. He probably won't kill you in your sleep just to sell your gear, but he may set you up to take the fall for his crimes, if he's close to getting caught. A Chaotic Neutral character OTOH, would be more resistant to "selling out" his friends. He may do so to a stranger, or maybe let another crook take the fall, but it all depends on his personal code of ethics (not society's). A smart CE character doesn't set up his friends. He sets up strangers and enemies. Fingering a friend would only likely be done as a last-ditch panic attempt to shift the blame when time's run out. And even then, only if the CE character thinks doing the time is a greater loss than the friendship. It may be that the year in jail would be more profitable, as the friend you didn't finger even though he was just as involved now owes you one, big. Of course, he may not think your friendship is worth sharing the proceeds, and have skipped town to Kara-tur by the time you get out. In which case, shake your head at your poor judgement of character, and hunt the little traitor down. And make him pay for the year of your life he cost you. In my experience, evil party members always lead to character-on-character death. As our characters are near and dear to our hearts, this usually breaks up a group. So I only allowed evil characters once (LE, in a mission-specific campaign setting). It worked, but took a lot of finagling. This is all my opinion. D&D Alignment, like politics and religion (RL, not game), are subjective and sensitive topics. You probably don't see it that way, but that's okay. We'll work it out when we meet at the table. Telas Evil characters are tough. If I were DMing, I would only allow a PC to be evil if the player assured me they were a party-friendly evil. Take Raistlin, from the Dragonlance books/world. He's a massive force for LE. He's a horrible, horrible man. But screw with his friends, and you die a horrible, horrible death. An evil PC can work in a similar way; they're out to better themselves. They also recognize that a party is safer than being alone, and part of being in a party is sharing the proceeds. His share is greater in the party than it would be alone, so he's perfectly happy sharing equally. especially since their interests are probably different, not only is his share greater, he gets more of the stuff he likes to boot. And he gets someone to watch his back, take shifts keeping watch, and provide skills he doesn't have himself. It's win/win, even on the coldest and most heartless balance books. Does this mean he can't betray the party? No. But it would be stupid to do so unless he thought it was worth that kind of price. And it's equally easy to get a Good character to do so; pull a "you must sacrifice them for the Greater Good" BS, and some good guys will fall for it and abandon their friends. Just like some bad guys will fall for the "I can give you such power" one. These should be story elements, not things a character 'has' to do because of their alignment. I happen to think that in both cases, the character is choosing poorly to betray the party, except in the case of the Evil guy who does so fully expecting to then betray those he betrayed the party to, after he's gotten the reward they promised.
Telas 06-09-04, 12:49 AM	Originally posted by Thorak Telas, don't take this as an attack. Just providing alternative interpretations for the way you've described things. You're not wrong, I just think you're too narrow. A smart CE character doesn't set up his friends. He sets up strangers and enemies. Fingering a friend would only likely be done as a last-ditch panic attempt to shift the blame when time's run out. And even then, only if the CE character thinks doing the time is a greater loss than the friendship. Actually, I think we're on the same wavelength, just from a slightly different perspective. Characters with CE partners/friends should recognize that there's a decent chance that somewhere along the line, he'll betray you one way or the other. But not over petty stuff (unless he's really dumb). In daily life, it's no big deal; we don't normally see situations intense enough to justify worrying about it. In a life-and-death situation (like an adventurer faces regularly), it's a definite consideration. Trusting someone to not kill you and sell your stuff is pretty basic compared with trusting someone to risk their life to save yours. As a former grunt, I can tell you that my standards of trust can get pretty dang high, depending on the situation. I don't believe that a good character will sacrifice his friends for a "greater good" situation, or at least the situation will arise so rarely as to be a statistical anomaly. Compare that with the behavior of a group of criminals who are arrested separately. Many times, all it takes is to keep them separated, and they'll start to turn on each other (the 'Spanish Prisoner' situation). Lawful Evil is another kettle of fish. As long as an LE character owes you or is on your side, it's cool. But once the tide turns, watch out. I use the Mafia as an example of LE. In Goodfellas, when Joe Pesci's character killed a "made man", he was doomed, regardless of his connections. Telas
Shayde 06-10-04, 03:20 PM	I actually agree with player maturity on this. I am currently running an evil campaign, the now deceased human druid(AL neutral evil, hey crit happens) played his part perfectly and roleplayed well, he even accepted the consequences of his actions (such as being jailed for mouthing off to the king). The biggest problem I have had is players that don't want to deal with the consequences of what they do, followed closely by players who want the +5 vorpal greatswords at first level. During this camapign the Gnome rogue has been the most disruptive( I'm not even sure what his alignment is but I'm making him change it to CE tonight) the player is an 11 year old (the son of another player) and is still learning the ropes of D&D, but has been very aggrivating (I honestly thought one of the other players would kill him long before anyone else died) in our last session, he pinned the druid for no reason, and also swam in raw sewage for no apparent reason. The third player is another roleplaying veteran and has played his Giithzeri monk quite well, he worked with the other players because it served his goals, and simply left when they were no longer useful to him. He saved the Gnome rogue from dying and then took his healing potions as payment for services rendered. While screwing around and playing really stupid characters can be a lot of laughs every once in a while, it gets aggravating very quickly. Stupid characters in my experience have nothing at all to do with character alignment, and are soely based off of the maturity of the player. I have had a lot of stupid players in the past, and my biggest gripe about stupid characters is players that expect no consequences for their actions. My prime example of this is a paladin who raped a bunch of people and literally cried when I said his alignment changed to neutral evil(and this paladin's player wasn't some kid new to the game which made this incident more aggravating).
Tumbleunder 06-11-04, 02:58 PM	In my own humble opinion (and I think I read it some where:P) Lawful, Nutral, and Chaotic refers to the charecters veiw on laws and the accepted norm in sociaty. sociaty as a whole. Good, Nutral, Evil refers to the charecters veiw on people as individuals. as an acctual game example, a party after a long hunt finds a young man who stole the small farming towns prized gem from a memorial to the towns long dead wizard. It set off a curse on the town. The young man was scared half to death when to party finnaly traped him and confessed to the crime. Saying he was only trying to get enough money to run off with his sweetheart ,who's abusive father forbade them to see each other, so they could get married and start a life in the big city. so the Lawful Good charecter holds order in high regard, he understands the need for laws and the need to obey them to have a smoothly running sociaty. Despite maybe feeling badly for the young man he prepares to turn him over to the proper athorities. Also being good he takes note of the name of the girl and makes plans to help her out of a bad situation. The Chaotic Good charecter cares little for the laws of the town or the accepted veiw of sociaty. Being Good he really cares for people as individuals and the young mans story touched him. He finds some time alone with the young man and, after intimidating out of his wits (ranger/barbarian), he convinses the young man that if he hears he has turned to crime again he will personally hunt his down and make him wish he was dead. He presses a pouch of gold into his hand and sends him off a a run telling him to go get his girl and leave the town forever. He then tells the party that the young man esscaped but since they still have the gem its ok. Nutral Good would probably fall some where in between because ,in my opinion at least nutrality, is really just an individual who does not swing strongly to either side. But he is Good so he cares about the young mans situtation. He would be a more unknowen he could easily go with the lawful charecter but try to get the young man off with a slap on the wrist telling the judge to sob story, or he may side with the chaotic charecter if he finds out about the plan. Lawful Nutral I like to think of them as the klingons of the D&D world they hold firmly to honor. Swayed little by their caring for other people Honor above all. they rarly face the same moral dilimas that a Lawful Good charecter constantly has to wrestle with. There is no doubt in his mind, the young man was in the wrong given his way he would be slapped in manicles long before The CG ranger could speak to him. Nutral Nutral (unfortunantly a very contriversial alignment) I can only say how I see them mostly played. they have little convictions and tend to be the follower rather than the leader. They have a consiouse but they sometimes feel the need to override it. They are seldom the one that stands out and they like it that way. From the back they make sure that in genral thing go there way. They have considered all sides of this issue seeing clearly the veiw of the LG and the CG charecter. But weather they deside to stand up for one or the other is undesided. Chaotic Nutral screw the law, why is it such a big deal, let the kid go we can still collect our money we found the gem. Lawful Evil the law is important to him, his word bindes him but he knows just how to manipulate it. finding the loops holes has kept him out of trouble before. If he could just find a way to talk to the boy in private he may offer his servises, at a price, he is pretty sure he can help the kid keep his hand. Nutral Evil does not tend strongly toward law or chaos, but being evil he cares little for the kid it is all about him what can he get out of it. Again being nutral here will tend to make him the follower. He will side with wichever party member he will gain the most by going with this time. Chaotic Evil After the CG ranger lets the kid go, go to the ranger unseen by the rest of the party. Make sure the ranger knows that he has seen and that he owes the CE charecter a huge debt. just my veiw I doubt that this helped in any way. This was an actual game situation all the alignments were not represented but I think the ones that were the playes did a good job playing the charecters. I tryed to addlib the rest of the parts to help explain my alignment veiws.
SSJDillius 06-11-04, 09:57 PM	I hate people knocking on the idea of Evil characters. Our compaign has them often... and it's just as easy to be bound by evil as it is by good. The problem is, as many people have stated: player's just don't know how to be evil. Too many times Chaotic Evil is just taken as a psychopathic nutcase. Neutral Evil and Chaotic Neutral are often too closely related. I feel that any of these alignments are very possible to play. I am most often a Neutrally Evil character, because I play with a self centered self concerned and slightly greedy personality. I am concerned with myself above all others, but no this doesn't mean I am not concerned with my allies... It simply means i may cut and run if I must to save myself.
dogo 06-11-04, 11:33 PM	Originally posted by Tumbleunder In my own humble opinion (and I think I read it some where:P) Lawful, Nutral, and Chaotic refers to the charecters veiw on laws and the accepted norm in sociaty. sociaty as a whole. Good, Nutral, Evil refers to the charecters veiw on people as individuals. That's the 2E view of alignment. It's changed in 3E. In 3E ithe Law-Chaos axis more describes how much the character follows his whim, or emotion in a situation, vs. following some code of conduct. (Actually, in that sense, you have a better idea if a chaotic person is truly good or not). That's as best as I can generalize. Good-evil axis is just about how they treat people, so it hasn't changed that much.
Athenna 06-12-04, 02:02 AM	I know i posted in this thread, but i can't remember what i posted... To me, the square can be summed up in the four corners, with the midpoint being between the two. Lawful Good - Someone who obeys the law to the letter, and keeps everyone in check for it. Does everything fairly, making sure that no one is felt left out or overtreated. Lawful Evil - Someone who obeys the law, but often tries to find loopholes in them to further himself. Very manipulative as long as it's within the law. Won't just rip someone off, will setup a deal with a loophole to exploit. Furthers himself through 'legal' means Chaotic Good - Doesn't really care for laws and follows their own guidance. They put themselves first above all others (if that is their guidance) but are good to them and doesn't use their friends for things. I love playing Chaotic Good Rogues :) Chaotic Evil - Doesn't care for laws, and follows only their own guidance. Will use any means to further themselves and get what they want in the end. This could take time and cooperating with groups for large stretches, they'll do it. If the need arises, then they kill. They DON'T go around killing everything in sight because they're evil.
Twisted Puppy 06-12-04, 10:08 AM	I don't allow evil alignments IMC. However, I'm not saying it can't work, I just prefer to avoid some of the headaches that have been posted here. I think a (Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic) Evil character could be played well in a group - to my mind, though, he would have above average intelligence and charisma. They would be able to manipulate even good party members to do their bidding - and be so smooth that the other members didn't realize they are simply pawns for him. He would look after other party members out of self interest, until they became a danger to him or lost their usefulness to him. Even then, he would be sure to discredit that party member, humiliate them, to make it seem as though they were the problem, not him.