Alignment? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 lorior Sep 16, 2014 12:48:53	Hey, So a friend of mine want to be neutral/evil with his character. BUT, he also wants to steal, kill innocent and even kill team members ("because i want to"). Isn't it more like chaotic/evil? Or he can stay neutral/evil even doing stuff like stated above? If so then what would someone have to do to drop to chaotic/evil then? Kill everyone on sight?
#2 iserith Sep 16, 2014 12:58:16	Read the alignment entries on page 34 of the Player Basic Rules and decide which of those alignments best fits his consistent behavior (not what he says he wants to do). Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms. Many drow, some cloud giants, and yugoloths are neutral evil. Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust. Demons, red dragons, and orcs are chaotic evil.
#3 Huntsman57 Sep 16, 2014 13:22:57	lorior wrote:
#4 Kentus Sep 16, 2014 13:20:54	'Because I want to' is more on the chaotic side, in that regard you're right. But alignments are more the general guideline a characters follows in morals instead of a really firm rule. Instead by going by all alignment-description, it's often easier to understand the extremes (chaotic, lawful, good and evil) and afterwards using them to determine the general direction the character is heading. Here is a post on my blog, which explains the extremes in my humble understanding.
#5 Llenlleawg Sep 16, 2014 13:24:08	Actually, neither Neutral Evil nor Chaotic Evil require someone to be a murderous sociopath. Most monsters with these alignments are, of course! To be CE, the character would need to be impulsive, to chafe under any kind of rule or authority (even if, out of fear or boredom, he puts up with a leader for now), and would act out in ways that precisely don't care about the consequences to others. NE characters, on the other hand, act just as much wihtout concern for others and their wellbeing, but might be willing to put up with order, discipline, etc. if it helps them to get what they want in the way that they want it. Of course, this is also why having evil PCs is generally discouraged! If you were the DM, I would be clear that the player could have an evil PC, but that he'd have to come up with the reason for cooperating with his fellow PCs and, more than that, would not be permitted to ruin other players' fun (including killing their characters!) just because it would be "in alignment for his character".
#6 ppaladin123 Sep 16, 2014 14:45:50	You are asking the wrong question. The question is, "is this player a jerk who will ruin the other players' fun?" Do you and the DM and the other players find it fun to have your characters murdered by team members? Would your character adventure with a character that wanted to murder him? No? Then this player's behavior is a problem. You could call it "chaotic evil" or "neutral evil" or "fish" or "happy happy fish dance," and it would still be problematic behavior on the part of the player. Why does it matter what you call it?
#7 StuleBrown Sep 16, 2014 15:44:15	It sounds like the player is just going to cause problems for your group. If he insist on being Evil, it might be time to give him the boot.
#8 BillyCorman Sep 16, 2014 15:53:21	StuleBrown wrote:
#9 Asperdn Sep 16, 2014 15:54:59	There are three kinds of evil players at the D&D table. Number one is what I call greedy evil he likes to play chaotic evil or neutral evil so he can murder rob and loot anyone and everyone to become more powerful including other players. He will try and clam some sort of moral or philosophical basis for being evil in roll play. This player needs to learn to work and play well with others. He’s probably more trouble than he’s worth but a good DM can handle him. Number two is what I call stupid evil or sometimes just chaotic stupid. This person does not really want to play evil or to play D&D there just evil to mess up the game. Most of the time if you check in with this guy he is playing because his girlfriend, friend or brother is making him. This guy need to be politely asked to leave the game. Number three really wants to play a morally ambiguous character like a hired assassin who truly believes his killing for the right reasons or a thief who robes from the rich and gives to the poor. This guy is super rare and needs to be encouraged to roll play. I will sometimes allow a player to be lawful evil in order to represent this moral ambiguity there must be an excellent story behind it that comes through in the way the character is played.So I will DM, CE or NE players in solo games where they can’t disrupt other peoples fun and in games with large parties I will allow LE if there is an amazing back story that you roll play every week and not just some personal agenda.
#10 Yunru Sep 16, 2014 15:59:09	Asperdn wrote:
#11 Kalani Sep 16, 2014 16:08:26	This doesn't sound like a problem with the characters alignment. As stated above, this sounds like a problem with the player. The player wishes to be a disruptive influence, and is seeking to use alignment as an excuse to be a jerk. The player even went as far as to say they wanted to kill other PCs..... No. Just no. Alignment does not give you the excuse to be a jerk. Being an evil character does not give you licence to be a disruptive influence. It means you have to think in character and justify your reasons why you are adventuring with the party. Back in the 3.5 days, I came up with an example of how a CE character could work in a good aligned party as a theory craft. I will paraphrase it here to highlight that alignment does not mean being a jerk. The character was a victim of torture at the hands of slavelords. Said torture drove the character insane. The character has a single minded thirst for vengeance. When faced with slavers, or those who use torture - he snaps. While a LG character may be held at bay should the BBEG take an innocent hostage, my character would act regardless of any threat to the innocent. At times, this may mean killing the innocent themselves in order to remove obstacles preventing his allies from acting, or it may mean attacking despite the risk. My character may interpret the hostage situation as a form of enslavement, and therefore seek vengeance on the BBEG. My character couldn't care less whether the hostage survived the encounter, or were harmed in the process. Vengence was all that motivated them. If the party resorted to torture, he would turn on the party - claiming they are no better than the evils they fight. In many ways, this was similar to the disgust a LG paladin would have for the same actions, save that my character would then try to kill the offending party member. The party would be well aware that my character would not distinguish between party members and enemies in this one instance, and should therefore try to distract my PC, or engage in their torture while my PC is absent. His attitude would serve as a point of dramatic tension, forcing the players into a moral dilemma no different than the one that a LG paladin would cause. The character believed themselves an anti-hero, much like batman - but was utterly ruthless. In fact, he lived by a code of "eye for an eye", and carried around a flensing knife with which to flay the skin from those he felt deserving of its tender caress... Some of the characters abilities were straight out of the BoVD. As such, there was no compromising with this character. Creating drama and tension is a much different scenario than being a disruptive influence at the table. My sample character creates drama. The player at your table just wants to be a jerk.
#12 Direach Sep 16, 2014 16:06:57	lorior wrote:
#13 Kalani Sep 16, 2014 16:13:22	Yes, the hidden alignments of DND. Lawful Stupid Chaotic Stupid Lawful A-hole Chaotic A-hole All of which, are very annoying to deal with, yet show up at the table all too often.... Had a Chaotic Stupid Wizard at my table recently, who was convinced a 6mo baby we had rescued in the Search the Keep quest (HotDQ) was secretly a cultist - despite the fact it was travelling with its shieldmaiden mother, father, and siblings and the family was being attacked by kobolds at the time we first encountered them.
#14 Yunru Sep 16, 2014 16:28:05	I don't know, off-the-wall people like that can make for very interesting DMs. Imagine if that 6 year old (yes I gave him an age bump, sue me) was the main bad guy!
#15 Nachturnus Sep 16, 2014 20:48:48	You need to talk to your player. If he thinks it's okay to attack paty members for any reason in a cooperative roleplaying game, he needs to get his facts checked. I personally have a tendency to play LE characters (Think Paladins, but from Netheril,) and I have found it easy to get along with my parties without trying to murder anyone. I've never once attacked another player as LE or NE, and usually my character provides a good foil to whoever the 'Lancelot' is in my group without being a prick. Playing evil is no harder than playing good. The issue is that many terrible back-biting players play as 'evil' characters, which ruin it for the rest of us.
#16 MykeSchultz Sep 16, 2014 21:30:19	Let him be any alignment he wants. Agree with everything he says. Even have Asmodeus come bring him a vorpal blade. Then, shortly thereafter, kill his character.
#17 philipnicholls Sep 17, 2014 1:33:39	We have a simple house rule in our group, if you steal from or attack another PC your character dies immediately with no possibility of returning, and if you do it again you get shown the door and are told never that you are no longer welcome in our gaming group. in thirty years we've only had to kick out one player.
#18 Timborama Sep 17, 2014 7:42:13	Potentially let your players know he's not just playing the annoying thief character (we've ALL had one of those at our tables), but he's combining that with the archetype who is totes fine with killing anyone because reasons (slightly less common, but we've all probably seen that kind, too). If everyone is on board, go for it! They can have fun catching him in lies. If they tire of him, they can just toss him over to the authorities, leave him behind, or just kill him ("Sorry Dave, we're just playing IN CHARACTER!") As regards to alignment? Well, that all depends. That can describe any of the 3 kinds of evil (and potentially neutral, depending on the severity and/or the targets). Is he doing these killings for selfish reasons, or is he just nuts? Does he want to steal to make a better life for himself, or is he just doing it to get back at the shopkeep who "look at him funny"? I've had evil party members in non-evil groups before. It can go very well, but always boils down to group dynamics. A Lawful Evil PC can have a quest. A Neutral Evil PC is doing this to save his own hide. A Chaotic Evil person has so much pent up rage, that if you just let him loose in the direction of some goblinoids, he promises to not kill any innocent folk. In a similar vein, people of good alignments can clash, party-wise, and make you questions whether or not you actually want to be traveling with this group at all. I personally really like the alignment system because of the fact it serves as a guideline but offers 0 benefit or detriment, mechanically. Plus, if he's going a little too off the deep end, feel free to say at the end of a session, "Yo, Dave, you just killed a puppy AND a small child. Just letting you know if your character isn't chaotic evil already, he probably will be considered that at the end of the next session..." It doesn't impose any benefit or detriment, but serves as a reminder. As if to really say, "Hey, you had this character concept. Did you really want to play this way all along? Is your character evolving as you play him? Or are you just going off track and you'll get back on it now that I've brought this up?" tl;dr-As others have said, tread carefully. But don't worry about alingment TOO much. It has no purpose, mechanically, and should only be used as a guideline to how a character plays out.
#19 BW0222 Sep 17, 2014 11:22:32	lorior wrote:
#20 Angel7 Sep 17, 2014 12:18:13	BW0222 wrote:
#21 Moot_Dundle Sep 17, 2014 14:34:50	Huntsman57 wrote:
#22 Piloti Sep 17, 2014 21:10:27	lorior wrote:
#23 Arbitrary_Aardvark Sep 18, 2014 14:04:09	lorior wrote:

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

lorior

Sep 16, 2014 12:48:53

Hey,

So a friend of mine want to be neutral/evil with his character. BUT, he also wants to steal, kill innocent and even kill team members ("because i want to").

Isn't it more like chaotic/evil? Or he can stay neutral/evil even doing stuff like stated above?

If so then what would someone have to do to drop to chaotic/evil then? Kill everyone on sight?

iserith

Sep 16, 2014 12:58:16

Read the alignment entries on page 34 of the Player Basic Rules and decide which of those alignments best fits his consistent behavior (not what he says he wants to do).

Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms. Many drow, some cloud giants, and yugoloths are neutral evil.

Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust. Demons, red dragons, and orcs are chaotic evil.

Huntsman57

Sep 16, 2014 13:22:57

lorior wrote:

Kentus

Sep 16, 2014 13:20:54

'Because I want to' is more on the chaotic side, in that regard you're right. But alignments are more the general guideline a characters follows in morals instead of a really firm rule. Instead by going by all alignment-description, it's often easier to understand the extremes (chaotic, lawful, good and evil) and afterwards using them to determine the general direction the character is heading. Here is a post on my blog, which explains the extremes in my humble understanding.

Llenlleawg

Sep 16, 2014 13:24:08

Actually, neither Neutral Evil nor Chaotic Evil require someone to be a murderous sociopath. Most monsters with these alignments are, of course! To be CE, the character would need to be impulsive, to chafe under any kind of rule or authority (even if, out of fear or boredom, he puts up with a leader for now), and would act out in ways that precisely don't care about the consequences to others. NE characters, on the other hand, act just as much wihtout concern for others and their wellbeing, but might be willing to put up with order, discipline, etc. if it helps them to get what they want in the way that they want it.

Of course, this is also why having evil PCs is generally discouraged! If you were the DM, I would be clear that the player could have an evil PC, but that he'd have to come up with the reason for cooperating with his fellow PCs and, more than that, would not be permitted to ruin other players' fun (including killing their characters!) just because it would be "in alignment for his character".

ppaladin123

Sep 16, 2014 14:45:50

You are asking the wrong question. The question is, "is this player a jerk who will ruin the other players' fun?" Do you and the DM and the other players find it fun to have your characters murdered by team members? Would your character adventure with a character that wanted to murder him? No? Then this player's behavior is a problem. You could call it "chaotic evil" or "neutral evil" or "fish" or "happy happy fish dance," and it would still be problematic behavior on the part of the player. Why does it matter what you call it?

StuleBrown

Sep 16, 2014 15:44:15

It sounds like the player is just going to cause problems for your group. If he insist on being Evil, it might be time to give him the boot.

BillyCorman

Sep 16, 2014 15:53:21

StuleBrown wrote:

Asperdn

Sep 16, 2014 15:54:59

There are three kinds of evil players at the D&D table.

Number one is what I call greedy evil he likes to play chaotic evil or neutral evil so he can murder rob and loot anyone and everyone to become more powerful including other players. He will try and clam some sort of moral or philosophical basis for being evil in roll play. This player needs to learn to work and play well with others. He’s probably more trouble than he’s worth but a good DM can handle him. Number two is what I call stupid evil or sometimes just chaotic stupid. This person does not really want to play evil or to play D&D there just evil to mess up the game. Most of the time if you check in with this guy he is playing because his girlfriend, friend or brother is making him. This guy need to be politely asked to leave the game.

Number three really wants to play a morally ambiguous character like a hired assassin who truly believes his killing for the right reasons or a thief who robes from the rich and gives to the poor. This guy is super rare and needs to be encouraged to roll play. I will sometimes allow a player to be lawful evil in order to represent this moral ambiguity there must be an excellent story behind it that comes through in the way the character is played.So I will DM, CE or NE players in solo games where they can’t disrupt other peoples fun and in games with large parties I will allow LE if there is an amazing back story that you roll play every week and not just some personal agenda.

#10

Yunru

Sep 16, 2014 15:59:09

Asperdn wrote:

#11

Kalani

Sep 16, 2014 16:08:26

This doesn't sound like a problem with the characters alignment. As stated above, this sounds like a problem with the player. The player wishes to be a disruptive influence, and is seeking to use alignment as an excuse to be a jerk. The player even went as far as to say they wanted to kill other PCs.....

No. Just no. Alignment does not give you the excuse to be a jerk. Being an evil character does not give you licence to be a disruptive influence. It means you have to think in character and justify your reasons why you are adventuring with the party.

Back in the 3.5 days, I came up with an example of how a CE character could work in a good aligned party as a theory craft. I will paraphrase it here to highlight that alignment does not mean being a jerk.

The character was a victim of torture at the hands of slavelords. Said torture drove the character insane.
The character has a single minded thirst for vengeance. When faced with slavers, or those who use torture - he snaps.
While a LG character may be held at bay should the BBEG take an innocent hostage, my character would act regardless of any threat to the innocent. At times, this may mean killing the innocent themselves in order to remove obstacles preventing his allies from acting, or it may mean attacking despite the risk.
My character may interpret the hostage situation as a form of enslavement, and therefore seek vengeance on the BBEG.
My character couldn't care less whether the hostage survived the encounter, or were harmed in the process. Vengence was all that motivated them.
If the party resorted to torture, he would turn on the party - claiming they are no better than the evils they fight. In many ways, this was similar to the disgust a LG paladin would have for the same actions, save that my character would then try to kill the offending party member. The party would be well aware that my character would not distinguish between party members and enemies in this one instance, and should therefore try to distract my PC, or engage in their torture while my PC is absent. His attitude would serve as a point of dramatic tension, forcing the players into a moral dilemma no different than the one that a LG paladin would cause.
The character believed themselves an anti-hero, much like batman - but was utterly ruthless. In fact, he lived by a code of "eye for an eye", and carried around a flensing knife with which to flay the skin from those he felt deserving of its tender caress... Some of the characters abilities were straight out of the BoVD. As such, there was no compromising with this character.

Creating drama and tension is a much different scenario than being a disruptive influence at the table. My sample character creates drama. The player at your table just wants to be a jerk.

#12

Direach

Sep 16, 2014 16:06:57

lorior wrote:

#13

Kalani

Sep 16, 2014 16:13:22

Yes, the hidden alignments of DND.

Lawful Stupid
Chaotic Stupid
Lawful A-hole
Chaotic A-hole

All of which, are very annoying to deal with, yet show up at the table all too often....

Had a Chaotic Stupid Wizard at my table recently, who was convinced a 6mo baby we had rescued in the Search the Keep quest (HotDQ) was secretly a cultist - despite the fact it was travelling with its shieldmaiden mother, father, and siblings and the family was being attacked by kobolds at the time we first encountered them.

#14

Yunru

Sep 16, 2014 16:28:05

I don't know, off-the-wall people like that can make for very interesting DMs. Imagine if that 6 year old (yes I gave him an age bump, sue me) was the main bad guy!

#15

Nachturnus

Sep 16, 2014 20:48:48

You need to talk to your player. If he thinks it's okay to attack paty members for any reason in a cooperative roleplaying game, he needs to get his facts checked.

I personally have a tendency to play LE characters (Think Paladins, but from Netheril,) and I have found it easy to get along with my parties without trying to murder anyone. I've never once attacked another player as LE or NE, and usually my character provides a good foil to whoever the 'Lancelot' is in my group without being a prick.

Playing evil is no harder than playing good. The issue is that many terrible back-biting players play as 'evil' characters, which ruin it for the rest of us.

#16

MykeSchultz

Sep 16, 2014 21:30:19

Let him be any alignment he wants. Agree with everything he says. Even have Asmodeus come bring him a vorpal blade. Then, shortly thereafter, kill his character.

#17

philipnicholls

Sep 17, 2014 1:33:39

We have a simple house rule in our group, if you steal from or attack another PC your character dies immediately with no possibility of returning, and if you do it again you get shown the door and are told never that you are no longer welcome in our gaming group.

in thirty years we've only had to kick out one player.

#18

Timborama

Sep 17, 2014 7:42:13

Potentially let your players know he's not just playing the annoying thief character (we've ALL had one of those at our tables), but he's combining that with the archetype who is totes fine with killing anyone because reasons (slightly less common, but we've all probably seen that kind, too). If everyone is on board, go for it! They can have fun catching him in lies. If they tire of him, they can just toss him over to the authorities, leave him behind, or just kill him ("Sorry Dave, we're just playing IN CHARACTER!")

As regards to alignment? Well, that all depends. That can describe any of the 3 kinds of evil (and potentially neutral, depending on the severity and/or the targets). Is he doing these killings for selfish reasons, or is he just nuts? Does he want to steal to make a better life for himself, or is he just doing it to get back at the shopkeep who "look at him funny"? I've had evil party members in non-evil groups before. It can go very well, but always boils down to group dynamics. A Lawful Evil PC can have a quest. A Neutral Evil PC is doing this to save his own hide. A Chaotic Evil person has so much pent up rage, that if you just let him loose in the direction of some goblinoids, he promises to not kill any innocent folk. In a similar vein, people of good alignments can clash, party-wise, and make you questions whether or not you actually want to be traveling with this group at all.

I personally really like the alignment system because of the fact it serves as a guideline but offers 0 benefit or detriment, mechanically. Plus, if he's going a little too off the deep end, feel free to say at the end of a session, "Yo, Dave, you just killed a puppy AND a small child. Just letting you know if your character isn't chaotic evil already, he probably will be considered that at the end of the next session..." It doesn't impose any benefit or detriment, but serves as a reminder. As if to really say, "Hey, you had this character concept. Did you really want to play this way all along? Is your character evolving as you play him? Or are you just going off track and you'll get back on it now that I've brought this up?"

tl;dr-As others have said, tread carefully. But don't worry about alingment TOO much. It has no purpose, mechanically, and should only be used as a guideline to how a character plays out.

#19

BW0222

Sep 17, 2014 11:22:32

lorior wrote:

#20

Angel7

Sep 17, 2014 12:18:13

BW0222 wrote:

#21

Moot_Dundle

Sep 17, 2014 14:34:50

Huntsman57 wrote:

#22

Piloti

Sep 17, 2014 21:10:27

lorior wrote:

#23

Arbitrary_Aardvark

Sep 18, 2014 14:04:09

lorior wrote: