I am a Dhampyre Human Paladin of Selune. She tends to act in a way society would label "good". She tends to be brave, altruistic, and loyally.
That said because of her odd upbringing and Dhampyre nature she occasionally acts... more morally grey. She feeds on living creature, flys into bloodthirsty rages when bloodied, and has little sense of ownership. She believes that as long as it helps the mission, items can be taken, stolen, or destroyed.
Because of that I gave her the Unaligned alignment to represent her neautrality. I was told by a DM recently that is not what unaligned means. What do you think?
Issue two: is the behavior you describe truly Unaligned? Alignment issues are always subject to an awful lot of interpretation. But, I'd point to this paragraph (PHB, p. 20), in the description of "Evil":
"Evil characters don't necessarily go out of their way to hurt people, but they're perfectly willing to take advantage of the weakness of others to acquire what they want."
Might not be a *perfect* match to what you describe, but I think it's close.
in the description of "Evil":
"Evil characters don't necessarily go out of their way to hurt people, but they're perfectly willing to take advantage of the weakness of others to acquire what they want."
In which case almost 100% of my characters are evil
This is why I completely ignore alignment (except for my single cleric. Although even he has been compromised to a degree due to a well-spoken drow).
How should being "Good" effect my gameplay? Does her Vampiric, bloodied side completly nullify her good intentions?
Good dosn't effect it at all..there is no guideline for changing alignment, nothing about keeping alignment, nothing about what to do if someone isn't acting their alignment. In short...there is no effect on your character at all.
Besides..in the end...alignment is just the 'team you bat for', not really what you do. This is a big change from 3e..where it was actually supposed to reflect the characters general moral standing.
What you have described isn't neccesarily non-good. But your good aligned PC may feel bad after engagign in some of that behavior. Maybe they flog themselves in penance afterwards. You could have a lot of RP potential if you look into it.
Certainly the LFR campaign has stated that you cannot have an evil character and/or a character that worships an evil god. In part, this is so we won't have (at least frequently) PCs doing evil acts with obvious interparty tension/conflict at that point; the game is supposed to be about teamwork with a heroic bent. Players who have their PCs commit evil acts (intentionally and repeatedly) will fall under the category of problem players and the DM will have to discuss their inappropriate game play with them.
In the case of Pennywise3's PC, I would ask the following questions:
"feeds on living creature," - does your Dhampyre bloodline compel you to do this? Is this feeding on any random person, perhaps innocent, against their will? Do you limit your feeding to animals? Does your character try to resist this? How are the victims effected?
"flys into bloodthirsty rages when bloodied" - would you consider this similar to the rage of a barbarian? Can you control whom you attack? Can you stop yourself from killing an opponent if he drops his weapon and surrenders? Do you always kill or do you ever knock an opponent unconscious?
"has little sense of ownership" - would you take food from someone who had little food? Would you ever return what you took? Do you attempt to compensate the owner (I need the horse, here is 100 gp, even though the owner does not want to sell the horse.)? Do you believe the end justifies the means? Do you see your character as totally ruthless? Do you ever give up your possessons to an NPC and not ask for them back? Do you see your character as a Robin Hood, stealing from the rich to help the poor, or just a hood, stealing from the rich to help yourself? Do you insist on payment for a mission or perhaps nothing beyond expenses?
Your answers would reflect on whether your PC was nobly tragic, cursed, a menace, or evil IMHO. YMMV.
(Not saying you have to post answers to my questions to these boards.)
(A character that is all over the map, totally unpredictable, might be considered crazy by me; however, I think 4E has also dropped the whole insanity & heal thing, unless it falls under disease.)
Keith
Not having truly strong enough feelings one way or another on the average to qualify for an actual "good' or "evil" alignment.
They have strong feelings about close friends and family, of course. Everyone has those.
But anything outside their immediate lives isn't really something they pay attention to. They go to work, they come home, at some point they eat and sleep. Most days there's no "good" or "evil" about their lives at all.
-karma
Honestly..from everything I've read?
Good dosn't effect it at all..there is no guideline for changing alignment, nothing about keeping alignment, nothing about what to do if someone isn't acting their alignment. In short...there is no effect on your character at all.
Besides..in the end...alignment is just the 'team you bat for', not really what you do. This is a big change from 3e..where it was actually supposed to reflect the characters general moral standing.
I had a player kill someone who had surrendered. They didn't really care he had surrendered (or that they had accepted his surrender and then questioned him).
Some DMs would say that's an evil act. I say it cleans up a mess nice and neatly :P Which raises the point, what you consider evil may be considered unaligned by someone else (or vice versa). So if you're playing a fairly loose alignment or right on the edge of evil alignment, you might have to accept some DMs will curtail your actions to a degree.
In part, this is so we won't have (at least frequently) PCs doing evil acts with obvious interparty tension/conflict at that point;
I've only ever seen 1 character who has a problem with people doing evil acts. But he also has a problem with people stepping on ants ;) Besides him, I've never seen someone have a problem with party-members doing an evil act. Worst case scenario the character would deliberately and quite purposefully place themselves out of line of sight and hearing. It definitely has never developed into inter-party conflicts.
Maybe Australians are just more bloodthirsty? (Funnily enough, the one person whose character does have a problem with evil acts is American ;)).
Hthere is no guideline for changing alignment, nothing about keeping alignment, nothing about what to do if someone isn't acting their alignment. In short...there is no effect on your character at all.
The best thing I've seen is an insane sorcerer who rolls his dice at the beginning of each day to determine if he's unaligned or good :D
Maybe Australians are just more bloodthirsty? (Funnily enough, the one person whose character does have a problem with evil acts is American)
Bloodthirsty does not equal evil, at least not in the D&D universe. Mind you, many people I have gamed with in Xen'drik Expeditions seem to think that Evil meant bloodthirsty psychopath with the destructive habits that would make a demon proud. Evil is a lot more than that, and while I have had some great RP moments in Xendrik Expeditions with my evil character, there are very few people that I would want to play with in a campaign were evil PCs are allowed. It is just used too often as an excuse for jerk behavior, or as a tool to draw a lot of attention and ignoring the adventure (and this is not just the case with power gamers, I have seen it happen with method actors as well). I sincerely doubt that the average Australian players would put up with more of the common evil jerk crap as Americans or Europeans.
I've stolen a healing potion from a shopkeeper who was in league with the bad guys and used it in the next fight (DM just ruled that we had basically found the "potion bundle" just like you can find the other bundles throughout mods usually).
I use those examples because they are both theft which by law is wrong, but I don't consider either one to be truly evil, I consider them to be morally gray. I stole from Pirates, and a shopkeeper who was working with thieves, I will on that character steal again when the target is itself evil or the bad guy.
Well, just remember to be truly unaligned you just have to balance your good with evil. Like a Reese's Cup. So for every good deed you do, you just have make sure you punch a baby in the face, kick a puppy or throw an old lady down the stairs. Then you can do something good without fear of changing your alignment. :P
you know, I know you're being sarcastic, but do we really need to encourage the players who dismember and eat the bad guys after killing them, just because they're a gnoll (usually, at least) and "that's what gnolls do?"
you know, I know you're being sarcastic, but do we really need to encourage the players who dismember and eat the bad guys after killing them, just because they're a gnoll (usually, at least) and "that's what gnolls do?"
Yes, yes we do. :D
Maybe they're Maori. ;)
you know, I know you're being sarcastic, but do we really need to encourage the players who dismember and eat the bad guys after killing them, just because they're a gnoll (usually, at least) and "that's what gnolls do?"
I've only had that happen at one table I played at--and it was zombies the gnoll decided to eat so my character didn't care. But, "that's what gnolls do" actually made a big difference in this case. It would have been much more horrifying and disturbing if the character were one of the standard races. But he was a gnoll and you have to expect some of that.
I had a player kill someone who had surrendered. They didn't really care he had surrendered (or that they had accepted his surrender and then questioned him).
Some DMs would say that's an evil act.
It's an immoral act. which makes it, imo, definitely non-good (borderline evil). The only PCs I have that have no (moral) problem with it are unaligned PCs, and even they will stop it from happening depending circumstances (i.e. if someone surrendered, my Tempus paladin invoked the prisoner of war rules, and will protect the health of the prisoner. A prisoner that doesn't surrender is out of luck.).
So imo, it would fit an unaligned character, but not a good character unless there are emotions involved.
Motivations are a big part of what makes one good or not. I have seen too many 'good' PCs kill prisoners because it is 'convenient'. If that is the motivation, then the act is an immoral act that no good-algned person should contemplate.
I can't dictate how players play their PCs. But I can form an opinion about it.
YMMV.
Gomez
YMMV.
That was mainly my point (and saying its an immoral act is yet a 3rd possible opinion for a DM to have ;))
"flys into bloodthirsty rages when bloodied" - The one who bloodied her is the target, and she goes at him with all her might. She will not stop until his falls to the ground and she can deliever the killing blow. Her comrades can forestall this by healing her, past bloodied, thus clearing her mind.
"has little sense of ownership" - It is usually in the form of collateral damage, and she doesn't even think about repaying the owner. If a spell or her sword destroys, say, a wagon or catches a house on fire, well it was all in trying to free them of evil despite the further damage to property.
-karma
As 4th edition has removed the need to continually "please" your deity to maintain your powers, it is completely feasable to be a powerful yet moderate follower of a particularly intolerant deity (e.g. Kelemovor) or a "foaming-at-the-mouth" extremist of a traditionally tolerant power (e.g. Sune)... your alignment will be the same in both cases, the way you express your faith will be entirely different.
An example is a Cleric of [say] Bahamut, who demands you give obeyance to the Platinum Dragon (regardless of any previously held faith) before they grant any healing (or buff). In the mind of this Cleric, they are bringing souls to their god and granting enlightenment (definately a "good" and "lawful" thing... in their opinion), while other characters might see them as an intolerant evangelist.
Equally, a Paladin of Kelemvor might justify their "laying on hands" in the case of a Dhampyr or Revenant as revitalising an ally to combat a greater undead threat (I suppose an unaligned act), or a "kindness" from Kelemvor, in one of his more forgiving moments (a necessarily good act)... or indeed they could withold healing altogether (as is the will of Kelemvor)...
All these examples are rolplaying effects and do not change the actual mechanics of the game. Other players might get a bit ratty at you for not healing/buffing them... but if that's the way you want to roll... go with it!
Just make sure you accept Bahamut as your personal saviour! ;)
Such PCs rarely seem to have any qualms about such things as killing prisoners, although this is one area where I have seen inter-party conflict arise, as some PCs object to the act. In the end, it is often argued that if they don't kill the prisoner, he'll escape and come back with reinforcements, so it's for the good of the party, and thus the mission, which was for a noble purpose, and hence the greater good...
Let's face it, you can argue anything with alignment if you are skilled enough:
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=740
In one particularly memorable moment, there had been a 10 minute standoff between the lawful good Dwarf fighter, and the Tiefling warlock who embraced his demonic heritage rather more than the 'unaligned' character sheet suggested he should, about whether to kill a prisoner. In the end, the tiefling resorted to a 'look over there', rolled a 20 on his bluff check, and scragged the prisoner while the Dwarf wasn't looking. We all then had to hold the Dwarf back from a righteous revenge attack...
"feeds on living creature," - She feeds on only the unwilling, though they are always her adversaries. She normally drains them dry and discards them like trash (ie I target minions). She feels a rightious uncaring at the time, but later, late at night, she wonders if she is really any better than the monster.
"flys into bloodthirsty rages when bloodied" - The one who bloodied her is the target, and she goes at him with all her might. She will not stop until his falls to the ground and she can deliever the killing blow. Her comrades can forestall this by healing her, past bloodied, thus clearing her mind.
"has little sense of ownership" - It is usually in the form of collateral damage, and she doesn't even think about repaying the owner. If a spell or her sword destroys, say, a wagon or catches a house on fire, well it was all in trying to free them of evil despite the further damage to property.
Not evil...
Well maybe evil acts but for a good purpose, so in 4th edition i believe its the Intent of the alignment rather than the application.
in previous editions we had both an intent (or overall view) and a Application (self view) in this example would qualify Chaotic good, Yes you do some drastic stuff but it is all in the name of your Diety who is good, and all that you do this stuff to are enemys of your faith (non good) Since in 4th edition they kept the Overal (intent) alignment I believe you still would be considered good.
at least from my interpretation of the 4e alignment.
reminds me of an old saying from my pal Minsc (of baldurs gate)
"Kicking butt for goodness!!" -- Minsc
Well maybe evil acts but for a good purpose,
Evil done in the name of Good is still Evil.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
(not my original words)
Keith
Evil done in the name of Good is still Evil.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Does that mean the road to Heaven is paved with bad intentions?
And that Good done in the name of Evil is still Good?
In the end, the tiefling resorted to a 'look over there', rolled a 20 on his bluff check, and scragged the prisoner while the Dwarf wasn't looking. We all then had to hold the Dwarf back from a righteous revenge attack...
Funny enough, we had the exact opposite : the dwarf fighter who wanted to kill the prisoner, and the unaligned rather-too-much-devil-for-her own-good tiefling who jumped in front of the blade and got hit instead...
Funny enough the dwarf was the most angry about that (though possibly the tiefling was too surprised about her own act to be upset).
And that Good done in the name of Evil is still Good?
It sort of is for the above tiefling :D
Gomez
Funny enough, we had the exact opposite : the dwarf fighter who wanted to kill the prisoner, and the unaligned rather-too-much-devil-for-her own-good tiefling who jumped in front of the blade and got hit instead...
Funny enough the dwarf was the most angry about that (though possibly the tiefling was too surprised about her own act to be upset).
Anything's possible. I'm playing a dwarf who has a deepseated hatred for drow. I turn up a table with a drow player. I justified traveling with the drow by saying I had actually placed him under arrest and the drow simply didn't realise it. On the way home/jail we defeated evil, the drow took his share of the booty and then donated the rest of the loot to NPCs! We then had to go fight more evil and by the end of the fight I actually offered the drow a potion of healing.
Anything's possible in a D&D game!
And that Good done in the name of Evil is still Good?
Of course. Or, at least, that's what C.S. Lewis told our impressionable young minds, and surely he wouldn't lie.