| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1akaddkJul 12, 2014 5:38:57 | I hate alignment with a passion. Moreover, I hate players that either play evil characters or worse, put down "Chaotic Neutral" in order to justify doing whatever the hell they want. The biggest difficulty, however, is often determining just what constitutes evil.
So, I'd love to create a list of things that most people agree are evil acts. That way I can, when buffeted from all sides by the selfishness and tyranny of evil players, strike down with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my campaign, with a list to prove all of their evil actions!
Begin. |
| #2jaelisJul 12, 2014 6:43:39 | I don't really understand the point here. You have players playing evil character, and you want a list of evil deeds so that you can punish the players when they do them? That doesn't make sense.
Anyway, I think your normal notion of "evil" should work fine. Corner cases (casting animate dead, killing baby kobolds) you can handle by DM fiat if you want. |
| (Reply to #2)Cerius |
|
| #4thespaceinvaderJul 12, 2014 7:48:14 |
|
| #5SylverFlameJul 12, 2014 8:52:21 | This is what alignment shifts are for. If the player isn't playing to type, you let them know and their alignment shifts over time.
What you can consider is dumping alignment all together. It'll require shifts in spells and abilities, but not too much. Back in 2e the splat books had personality types in them. I'd have players pick 3 and play to those. They effectively became their alignments and we let morality float off into the ether (if you did "evil" according to a church they acted appropriately, for instance). As an example, you could have a fighter who was Aggressive, Rude, and Unstable. If he started acting like a Victorian gentleman he was out of character. Fewer arguments at the table. |
| (Reply to #4)Cerius |
|
| (Reply to #6)SylverFlame |
|
| #8jaelisJul 12, 2014 9:49:28 | OK, I get it. Just go read Order of the Stick. Belkar is a great example of an evil party member who is reasonably functional, and later turns chaotic neutral. |
| (Reply to #8)MonsterEnvy |
|
| #10UnahimJul 12, 2014 12:50:29 | How dare players do whatever they want? The cheek! Have they not learned yet that they should quietly accept the GMs designs rather than selfishly try to insert their own desires into the game? Really now.
Sarcasm aside, I really don't see a problem with evil/neutral PCs. You want to murder my "quest NPCs" (or brutally torture them) rather than listne to what they have to say and help them? That's fine. That's great, actually! You're taking charge of your own destiny and jumping off the rails which I have laid down only as a safety precaution, in case you did not have any ideas on what to do yourself. Clearly you -do- have ideas, though, and I could not be more excited! Now I get to make the world react to your decisions. That's so much more enjoyable. Depending on how smart the PCs go about their evil ways (or actually, how stupidly), it might be a short, bumpy ride. But it'll be -their- short, bumpy ride, not one I simply set before them.
It might also be that the real problem you have is that a minority of evil players are upsetting their good-aligned PC brothers and sisters. This is NOT a problem about evil PCs, then. This is a problem with lack of party cohesion, lack of shared goals and history, lack of like-mindedness, etc... I suggest that, if this is the case, you spend more time on Session Zero. Make sure all the PCs are on the same line about what kind of campaign they want, where they'll land on the moral compass, how much they're allowed to interfere with eachother, etc... The player is not at fault for doing what his character would do. The game is at fault for not making sure what the various PCs want to do is similar enough for them to be a party and have fun. |
| #11akaddkJul 12, 2014 14:48:27 |
|
| #12KuiperDragonJul 12, 2014 16:06:30 |
|
| #13iserithJul 12, 2014 16:33:16 | You are not your alignment. Your alignment merely reflects the things you do. Do the things mentioned in the alignment section of the rules and that's your alignment. Actions first, alignment second.
You are not your character. You have full control over your character in every way regardless of your alignment. If your character's actions equate to an evil alignment, that is fine as long as the social contract allows for that type of game play. If you as a player are a jerk and making the game not fun for everyone else, that's not because of your evil alignment - it's because you're a jerk.
As for what constitutes evil acts, look to the definitions of lawful, neutral, and chaotic evil in the game (page 34) and assign those alignments accordingly. DMs are well-advised to get the agreement of their players before changing a character's alignment to avoid potential disputes during game play. |
| #14UnahimJul 12, 2014 17:00:30 | @Iserith: Beautifully and concisely put. I wish I managed to be a bit more concise myself, before I wrote everything past this point.
@akaddk: Way to take a sentence out of context and ignore all the rest. Whenever someone's quoting a single sentence and responding only to that out of an entire post, you can be sure something vital is being missed. It reeks of strawmanning as well. Had you read everything else, you'd have seen that the sentence was meant within the context of the DM not providing an adequate session zero. If a player doesn't make a character that fits with the rest of the party, you shouldn't even be passing session zero to begin with, so if this ends up in play then the DM is certainly doing something wrong, and calling the player bad for playing a character concept the DM allowed past session zero is suspicious.
Also, evil alignment =! ****ing over your party. Only cartoonishly evil people end up doing that reliably. Sounds like a problem with the specific people involved rather than with the "evil" alignment itself.
@KuiperDragon:
I'll start out by saying that anecdotal evidence is exactly that: anecdotal. One situation like this cannot bring forth any sort of weight. If I gave an example of an evil PC done well, would these examples cancel eachother out? Would we keep pilling on new ones, until one side depleted their examples, making the other person the victor? Just rpefacing with this so you understand why I'm personally not going to be sharing too many stories in kind.
Anyway, in the example you gave, you agreed to the player playing this morally dubious character in an otherwise 100% Good (capital G) party. You then told him failing tor esist temptation would result in him becoming more Evil. By doing so, you basically told him failure was allowed -- after all, why list the effects of failure and make them stomachable if failure is not allowed? You then proceeded to actually present this PC with moral dilemmas with real, tangible benefits for the evil choice for the entire game. What was your purpose here? Were you expecting, nay, relying on him saying 'no' and doing the good thing? If so, you should have called for a pause of the game and asked him "Hey buddy, what's up? I thought this character was going to slowly slide to Good?" after the first time, rather than humoring it and continuing to provide situations like that.
Even the other PCs responded with "We'll kill your character if ours find out." That's still in the game. In-game consequences for in-game actions are acceptable, and if someone tells me they'll kill my character if they find out, I would not see that as a "I would rather not have you play your character in the way you are currently doing so." manner.
I do think that you DM'd it well. I can imagine the player in question was pretty pleased with how the concept played out. I do see this as a Sesison Zero failure, though. In the party you described, failure to resist the temptation was going to end up in inner party conflict automatically. By allowing him to play that character in that party, you got into a situation where the moral dillema basically had only 1 "right answer" according to you and the rest of the group; however, having only one right answer makes the concept a bit meaningless. It just didn't fit into the group. Maybe you did actual tell the player to knock off his behaviour OOC (but then, why continue to tempt him?) If so, you had an Asshole Player problem. If you didn't, then I don't think he was an ass, but the concept should never have been in that party to begin with, and the player is not the final arbiter of that himself.
Once again, the problem exists on two levels:
1) Asshole players: This has nothing to do with the "Evil" tag. Alignment is just a word, and an asshole is going to be an asshole no matter what char he plays. 2) Session Zero failure: The character concept would lead to problems in the party in most cases (typically: all but the very ideal case).
The problem is -not- "evil characters" though as this thread seems to imply.
I knew I said I wasn't goign to use examples (damn it all) but in a certain Eberron campaign (3.5) I had an elusive Changeling Rogue/Beguiler character who was mainly focused on never being pinned down by anyone. Constantly changing shapes. She was mainly good, though differed a bit depending on the personality she was using. After the first story arc, she got the voice of an ancient drow necromancer in her head due to handling a certain item we destroyed. It didn't really change her at first, she didn't listen to the suggestions the drow gave, but she did get some necromantic spells on her spell list (1 spell per spell level, it was). At some point in the game, my super non-combatant(I traded almost all of my useful class abilities out for variant class social skills) Changeling ended up in the same room with the Big Bad, supported only by our equally non-combatant Petal druid (bogged down by level adjustment, that one). The rest of the party was stuck in a sort of magical trap. In their own minds, basically.
There was some talking, and then the evil guy summoned an Alip. I had no useful spells for the situation, except one the Drow had given me: control undead. One failed save later, the Alip was mine, though by then I had gotten frighteningly close to death. My character was frantic, you can imagine. She turned the Alip onto the summoner, and used touch of idocy on him herself. This dropped the guy's Wisdom to 0, rendering him catatonic. At this point, I could have stopped the attack, tried to find a way to disarm the magical trap (though I exchanged my trap abilities for social maneuvers). But the character was still besides herself with fear and adrenaline, and the drow was eggign her on, telling her that she needed to end it, draw blood. So she ripped the catatonic necromancer open with a sickle, from tip to bottom. His death disspelled the trap, and the rest of the party came in, finding me blood-spattered over the corpse, with the Petal huddled in a corner, crying her eyes out. I, personally, think it's pretty evil to kill a beaten foe in cold blood like that, especially in such a manner. The rest of the party was understanding about the circumstances, and hey, if they had been in the fight they'd have straight up tried to murder the evil guy anyhow.
I thought this scene was a powerful moment, so I used it as a starting point to let my character become a bit darker. I took the Mother Cyst feat, which started adding several very disturbing necromancy spells to my repertoire involving planting necrotic cysts in people which can then be detonated at will, used to mind control them, find their location, etc... very weak for combat uses, but that was never my place to shine anyway. She started planting these cysts into people (very oftenly bluffing them into believing she had placed some horrible curse or poison onto them with her illusion magic, which they could get rid of by telling her some things and accepting her 'cure' spell... which was actually a necrotic cyst they willfully failed their save to) and used the threat of death by sudden cyst explosion to basically slave people to herself, getting moles in the organisations opposing us and so on. I switched her alignment towards evil after this went on a while, and she basically didn't mind crual psychological terror games or torture to get them waht they wanted.
But what they wanted was to stop the Big Bad Guy from destroying the world. At no point did that really get less important to her. She needed the world to not be kaput if she were to be reunited with her Chaotic Good Nymph lover (Nymph's Kiss, such a nice feat) after all. Though I imagine that meeting might not have gone as she expected anymore. So she was the sole Evil character in a mostly good party. She was even the party leader. The party as a whole pursued objectives that were decidedly Good, and at no point was there wanton kitten slaughter for no good reason. My character's methods might have made the party uncomfortable at times ("Right, I'll... be in the next room while you, uh... do the thing.") but they approved of the benefits it brought.
Evil character, good party, no problem. The particular flavour of evil fit right in, and it ende dup being one of my favourite characters to date. And this was an unexpected shift to evil -during- play, which is a bit harder to manage for a group than the kind of from-the-start characters we are talking about here.
TL;DR: Evil characters are only a problem in the case of disrespectful players (who would have been a problem anyway) or when placed in the wrong party, in which case the DM should have been more attentive. Player conflict can rise up without alignment differences too, and it is silly to lay the fault for such things at the feet of two words on a character sheet, rather than placing it with the individual in question or with larger incompatibilities.
If unexpected problems do arise, have an OOC talk rather than levying in-character punishments and hoping someone "gets the hint". |
| #15akaddkJul 12, 2014 17:40:43 |
|
| #16iserithJul 12, 2014 17:50:37 |
|
| #17KuiperDragonJul 12, 2014 18:38:36 |
|
| #18obsidJul 12, 2014 18:42:42 | If a person joins a game and then starts purposefully acting like a jerk and claims as a response "but thats what my character would do!" My response would be, "why didnt you tell us the players, not the characters, this earlier?" If you want to play a character who is purposefully a jerk (or in that kind of game), there should be some kind of announcment when you start before the game starts. Maybe its the DM going "look in this game, you can be as evil as you want even to each other." I would consider that carte blanchefor doing whatever you want to do and be as much of a jerk as you want to be. Or maybe the player when they sit down says, "look my chracter is a jerk, he will probably stab you guys in the back at some point, do you still want to play with him?" And if the other players agree to that, then fine do whatever you want. But dont just sit down to play an abusive character without informing the other players, thats just wrong.
PS. If you see one of the characters has an alignment of neutral/chaotic this should be a red flag for a DM to sit down with that player one on one for a while and make sure you understand how they will play that alignment, some people can play it well and not totally screw over the group, other people cant. |
| #19pauldanielj2Jul 12, 2014 18:55:04 | When I start a new campaign, I put together a "campaign document" that lists all of the particular house rules and so forth so the players have a permanent reference. One of the first points in it is this: "Note that in this campaign, playing as an evil alignment is not permitted. If, in the course of the campaign, the DM determines that your character's actions warrant a shift to an evil alignment, your character will immediately become an NPC under the DM's control". It nips most of these problems in the bud. |
| #20akaddkJul 12, 2014 19:17:56 |
|
| (Reply to #20)pauldanielj2 |
|
| #22iserithJul 12, 2014 21:00:30 |
|
| #23UnahimJul 13, 2014 5:21:08 |
|
| #24akaddkJul 13, 2014 5:26:29 |
|
| (Reply to #7)smacintush |
|
| #26AH_schulertaJul 13, 2014 8:33:07 | I too hate alignments and also have a player that writes CN on his sheet first thing when creating a character. This go around I am telling the players they can write down whatever alignment they want but I really don't care what it is and will not ask them for their alignments ever. |
| #27UnahimJul 13, 2014 10:05:30 |
|
| #28FallingIcicleJul 13, 2014 18:19:17 |
|
| #29QmarkJul 14, 2014 17:21:14 | Evil is whatever it is you'd rather someone else not do.
It's that simple. |
| #302ChlorobutanalJul 14, 2014 17:42:44 | I have experienced both "evil" PCs and "chaotic neutral" PCs that try to ruin other players' experiences. I have also experienced players who wrote their alignment as "NG" or even "LG" and acted like insufferable jerks to their friends while playing.
I think there are two issues at hand here: alignment and player decorum.
Generally, the easiest way to stop silliness about alignment is to veto the evil alignments for PCs. In 3rd edition, this was the default. If you want an extra incentive for players to keep it clean, you could caution that an evil PC becomes an NPC under the purview of the DM.
This can cause some players to revert to CN and N as "loophole" alignments as others have mentioned, claiming that their "chaoticness" or "neutralness" is carte blanche to do whatever they want, whenever they want, without tying it into a personality or personal code of ethics. I would try to explain to them the difference between railing against authority and complete psychosis. Then I would try to remedy the player behavior rather than fix an alignment problem.
However, if you have a mature and friendly group of players, I see no problem with an evil character working within the confines of a party. There are plenty of examples of evil societies in D&D, and especially LE and generally NE characters don't go around being murderers and thieves all the time. A LE person probably wouldn't even commit serious crimes (choosing instead to use the letter of existing laws to oppress or manipulate others), and a NE person wouldn't do it openly. A CE person may require restraint from his or her fellows to adapt to normative society. As long as the majority of the party is not evil, I think they can still manage heroics and play a fun campaign.
In the past, I often played with large groups of people, some of whom did try to ruin the play experience of others, possibly for attention or just out of some deep-seated spite. In my experience, the best way (as DM) to handle a silly situation like "I want to cast disintegrate on the Barbarian when his back is turned, because he is stupid and I don't like him." is to just say no. "No, that makes no sense for a neutral wizard in this situation, and it would be very detrimental to the campaign we're running here." If the player insists and can't be reasoned-with, and the other players don't agree with him or her, maybe they should just sit out.
My list of general evil things, tempered by law/chaos:
Lawful Evil: slavery, extortion, oppressing groups of people, biased summary judgement/execution Neutral Evil: theft, fraud, premeditated murder, kidnapping Chaotic Evil: arson, spree killing, poisoning water supplies, releasing dangerous magic/monsters/beasts in a populated area |
| #31akaddkJul 14, 2014 19:19:38 |
|
| #322ChlorobutanalJul 14, 2014 19:26:17 | If it wasn't blatantly biased (targetted at specific groups/kinds of people) for personal gain, it may not qualify as "evil", but I definitely don't think it's very Paladin-esque/"LG."
I don't think any PCs, especially Paladins, should be considering execution as their first recourse. Just because a person shows "evil" doesn't mean they're irrevocably and wholly evil and beyond redemption. I see it as the difference between a devil/orc ("always LE/CE") and a human who killed somebody. Perhaps it's within the bounds of "goodness" to kill an Orc or Devil on sight, but a human murderer may have just committed a mitigated crime of passion or perhaps he's a psychotic serial killer. It begs a bit more investigation in my opinion, if the observer wants to assume the mantle of "good" or especially "lawful good." |
| #33emwasickJul 14, 2014 20:20:51 | Alignment really is bad. Ask players to focus on their characters' motivations and principles instead. They don't have to write you a novel; they just have to give you enough (verbally or in writing) to show that they've signed on to play in the group for that particular campaign. |
| (Reply to #33)2Chlorobutanal |
|
| #35Beldak_SerpenthelmJul 15, 2014 5:59:32 |
|
| #36boojumbunnJul 15, 2014 7:42:19 | I think it is a mistake to focus on the details as to what sort of characters players should be allowed to play because then they will argue and wiggle about on the border. I find it better to focus on the genre of the game you want to run and have them create characters that fit the genre. For example, that you want to run a heroic game of good fighting evil and not a gritty, real street campaign with lots of muddy morals.
If thats not the sort of game they want to play, then I think your stuck either way. They aren't really going to be happy with your adventure. Just as players need to ooc discuss their characters, the gm needs to be clear on what sort of game they want to run so the players can create characters for that sort of game.
Another thing that might help, we have a house rule that you don't have to pick an alignment until 5th level unless your class requires it. This allows your character to develop their personality through gameplay and roleplaying rather than fiat at creation. At fifth level the gm and player (and sometimes the other players) discuss and determine the characters alignment. Remember, if (as a player) you find yourself justifying your characters alignment by what went on inside your characters head then you have failed to bring those things to the game table. What the gm doesn't see or know about doesn't exist.
Boojum |
| #37OulakJul 15, 2014 13:08:20 | I look at Evil as the pursuit of one's own desires (wealth, power, fame, etc) ahead of everything else at the expense of others' safetey, wellbeing, property, etc. It's basically having no qualms about the harm caused by one's actions. Some people delight in causing harm (I usually see demons, devils, and other such intrinsically evil creatures in this camp), while others simply don't care about the effects of their own actions (this is the camp that I see most evil human-like creatures in).
I'm really disappointed at how long alignment has been around and is still so misunderstood. I've read on forums (not just here), heard on podcasts, conversed with game store peers, etc, about how they have such narrow and cartoonish definitions of alignment and punish their players accordingly. They use unrealistic situations to "challenge" the player into making a character decision, and then revoke paladin abilities, clerical spells, etc to teach them a lesson about how alignment "works in my campaign," or to create an "interesting roleplaying situation." Bollocks!
I see a properly played Evil character as one that uses the party as a Vehicle for personal gain. What person would get out of their car in the middle of the desert and slash their own tires, ruining their Vehicle to portray Evil? A chaotic-stupid one, not a chaotic-evil one. The same kind that hacks of PC heads in the middle of an extended rest. Lawful and Chaotic ethics may be a factor in how disciplined or impulsive the character is in hiding their goals and tactics and controlling their tempers. However, neither one indicates whether or not an Evil character will suddenly destroy the party or campaign. An Evil character will appreciate their Vehicle and do whatever it takes to keep that Vehicle running. An Evil character really should be able to sit at any table of respectable, mature people and participate in a gratifying, long term campaign. |
| #38akaddkJul 15, 2014 13:24:15 |
|
| #39boojumbunnJul 15, 2014 13:58:48 |
|
| #40FallingIcicleJul 15, 2014 14:33:30 | Just because someone is evil, even chaotic evil, doesn't mean that they can't have affection or loyalty for their friends or loved ones. They just don't care about anyone else. In the end, the same rules of gaming etiquette apply to evil characters that apply to everyone else - don't be a jerk to your fellow players. |
| #41boojumbunnJul 15, 2014 15:30:48 |
|
| #42FallingIcicleJul 15, 2014 15:49:22 |
|
| #43boojumbunnJul 15, 2014 16:05:08 |
|
| #44emwasickJul 15, 2014 18:53:56 |
|
| #452ChlorobutanalJul 15, 2014 18:59:13 | D&D has absolute (or objective) morality in the sense that there are spells and magic items that affect "evil" or "good." A modern sociological point of view may argue that what one society views as evil is perfectly amoral or acceptable in another society. However, this is not the case by default in D&D, where there are spells such as "Holy Aura" which explicitly have additional affects against "evil" people.
If there is no deliniation for alignment, then play becomes much slower and murkier when judging if such spells should affect people. ("P1: We don't use alignment, but this guy was trying to murder somebody, so Holy Aura should protect his victim. P2: No, it's not murder, the 'victim' is actually a serial killer and there is a death warrant for him in accordance with the LG kingdom's laws.") |
| #46emwasickJul 15, 2014 19:19:30 |
|
| #47emwasickJul 15, 2014 19:48:20 |
|
| #48emwasickJul 15, 2014 19:54:02 |
|
| (Reply to #48)2Chlorobutanal |
|
| #50emwasickJul 15, 2014 22:06:06 |
|
| #512ChlorobutanalJul 15, 2014 22:39:11 | The point was that alignment doesn't dictate what you do, but what you do may dictate your alignment. There is nothing that says evil people can't practice philanthropy. However, a good person who practices necromancy is probably not going to be regarded as 'good' for very long.
A character can have personality traits and a class/race. Why can they also not have personality traits and an alignment?
What alignment does better than personality traits is describe two things:
1) with what a character's overarching philosphy and/or track record of behavior is consistent (A person who routinely does selfless things could be called "good", even if they are occasionally violent or lie.)
2) how the world at large percieves the character (or the character's behavior abstractly) (If you describe a character or monster as "evil", it is easy for others to assume certain broad things about their behavior- e.g.: untrustworthy or dangerous).
These do not hold true all the time, but neither does possessing traits such as being honest or capricious. Saying "my character is a liar, so he always lies." is no more compelling than saying "my character is evil, so he always lies."
Also, while 5th Edition starter rules may not have any direct mechanical consequences of alignment yet, every edition of D&D I've ever played has had some. To me, it's right up there with classes and Vancian spellcasting in terms of what makes D&D what it is. You can certainly choose to disregard parts of D&D, but that makes an exception to the rule, not a new rule.
The rules do have a sidebar, describing the schools of magic, which states that animating the dead "is not a good act" and that routinely animating the dead is considered evil. |
| #52emwasickJul 15, 2014 23:38:18 |
|
| #532ChlorobutanalJul 16, 2014 0:16:14 | The Basic Rules, however, still instruct characters to select an alignment during character creation. They also state that most intelligent creatures in D&D have an alignment.
Universal good and evil also still exist as written in the Basic Rules.
Fiends and celestials are stated to be evil and good incarnate, respectively. It goes so far as to say that a fiend which ceases to be evil ceases to be a fiend. How would you figure this out without some sort of way to label and track evil?
On the flip side, mortal races are generally described as possessing the free will to act as they wish, but most mortals adopt an outlook in line with one of the 9 very broad alignment categories.
Alignment is a roleplaying tool, the same as any other element of a character's backstory. It's fairly broad, and can be refined, the same as any background, flaw, or bond can be.
I think a lot of the cognitive dissonance about alignment stems from people who envision very un"realistic" or at least inconsistent character personalities.
Did you create an assassin who donates to his church? Still evil, he just has some redeeming qualities. The fact that his primary defining characteristic is "killer for hire" seats him pretty firmly in the "neutral evil" category. Does this impact how you want to roleplay him? No, but he's "evil" in the eyes of fiends, gods, and other creatures that care about such things. Do they force him to kill puppies? No. He still has free will, like most humanoid races.
|
| #54ChimerasameJul 16, 2014 6:25:24 |
|
| #55akaddkJul 16, 2014 13:56:12 | I think I'm going to institute electric shocks. Whenever a player does something I deem to be evil, I'll deliver an electric shock to them, the severity of which will be on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being "I killed an orc baby" to 10 being "I killed a village of elf babies". |
| (Reply to #55)JC999 |
|
| #57OulakJul 16, 2014 20:39:36 |
|
| #58OrethalionJul 16, 2014 21:46:54 |
|
| (Reply to #58)2Chlorobutanal |
|
| #60NautilusJul 16, 2014 22:39:57 | If you hate alignment, don't use it. Let PCs define themselves with Ideal, Flaw and Bond. You're actually far more likely to catch potential disruptiveness that way than by viewing an alignment, as PCs of any alignment can be disruptive. |
| #61emwasickJul 16, 2014 23:23:24 |
|
| #622ChlorobutanalJul 16, 2014 23:48:38 | The "alignment penalities" in previous editions generally went above and beyond simple alignment to a specific code of behavior, which is more in line with your philosophy of personal traits. However, alignments still coexisted with these codes of conduct, and the ultimate referee on the code of conduct is the DM.
If you have a good faith effort to play your character and don't disrupt the group, why should you care if the DM says your alignment should change? You're playing the character you want to play, so two letters at the top of your sheet shouldn't impact you.
Players and DMs don't agree (at least initially) on many things with far more ramification toward a PC's "health" than alignment- Can I jump that pit? Can I use the table leg as a club? Can I hold my breath to avoid the poison gas? The DM is the referee. If you find yourself at odds with the way he or she reasons, maybe another game is the best option. Removing one facet of the game such as alignment won't stop players and DMs, or two players, or two DMs from disagreeing on a host of issues.
It's perfectly fine to remove an aspect of a modular and relatively free-form game like D&D from the ruleset and play without it. I don't see it as ultimately solving any problems, though, and it does remove a way for players to express themselves.
Never once in my years of D&D have I thought that I was being restricted from the character I wanted to play by my alignment, nor have I been punished for my roleplay. I have always used alignment. |
| #63emwasickJul 17, 2014 1:08:25 |
|
| #64ivstinJul 17, 2014 2:54:47 | Book of Exalted Deeds.
If it isn't in there, it isn't good enough to be in my party...
... Never mind my Nimbus of Light and Platinum Armor. Shhhhhh.
Ivstin poses, his Holy Radiance illuminating the room around you. "Believe, and I shall give unto you all Light and Eternity."
Sidenote: It annoys me when players/DMs think that you must use Book of Vile Darkness to counter any character wishing to play Book of Exalted Deeds. I'm not exalted because I want to fight your vile monsters. I'm Exalted because I want to be Exalted. |
| #65akaddkJul 17, 2014 6:01:46 |
|
| #66OrethalionJul 17, 2014 6:18:38 |
|
| #67BeoricJul 17, 2014 10:36:51 | I agree with Orethalion. Evil != Chaotic Stupid or Stupid Evil. If evil is a willingness to risk or do harm to others for inadequate justification, then society has a significant portion of perfectly functional evil people who, when there is little risk to themselves, regularly commit minor, non-criminal acts that might be described as evil. I have sat at the gaming table with people whom I suspect to be actually evil (or neutral with evil tendencies), and they were not even remotely disruptive.
The problem is that players who declare that their characters are going to be evil don't tend to limit themselves to, say, misrepresenting the fine print of contracts, or starting rumours about co-workers. Instead they tend to play a cartoon version of evil that slaughters villages, or performs human sacrifices. Usually they do so openly, with little attempt to cover up what they have done. And usually when they are way too low-level to realisticly evade the kind of resources I am sure the authorities would throw at them. It causes problems for a DM when any realistic response will have the characters dead or in prison within a session or two.
|
| #68JC999Jul 17, 2014 11:00:07 | I know everyone hates anime comparisons, but the show Hunter x Hunter features an evil group that not only works as a team, but genuinely care about each other to the point of crying over a fallen comrade. They don't always agree on things, but have a policy to settle disagreements with a coin flip rather than infighting. |
| #69emwasickJul 17, 2014 11:34:45 |
|
| (Reply to #65)Chaosmancer |
|
| #71emwasickJul 17, 2014 15:54:13 |
|
| #72akaddkJul 17, 2014 17:03:38 |
|
| #73NoctaemJul 17, 2014 17:08:18 | Well lucky for those who don't like all that nonsense, we get 4th edition (alignment means nothing other than fluff) and 5th edition (Alignment means almost nothing other than fluff). |
| #742ChlorobutanalJul 17, 2014 17:48:48 | I think it's been mentioned several times already by a few people, myself included, that people who use their alignment to justify being inconsistent players or jerks are causing the problem, not alignment itself.
Although I believe in the "absolute" alignments of D&D, I also don't believe they dictate player behavior. Devils are evil, etc., but being evil does not force a PC to break vows or oaths and betray their party or friends. They're probably more inclined to do so, but it's not a mandate.
It's more of a setting background, there is absolute evil and absolute good, as opposed to a roleplaying constraint. In this regard, however, a player should have an alignment to know where they fit in with the setting. |
| #75iserithJul 17, 2014 18:01:21 |
|
| #76akaddkJul 17, 2014 22:59:47 |
|
| #772ChlorobutanalJul 17, 2014 23:26:19 | I think there are plenty of examples in fiction of evil characters who were still fiercely loyal to their friends and families. Even some characters such as serial killers had a soft spot for somebody and never turned on them. I don't see how a D&D character couldn't also be evil, steal and lie when it suited him, but still manage to stay with his party. |
| #78emwasickJul 18, 2014 1:26:58 |
|
| #79iserithJul 18, 2014 5:23:46 |
|
| #80WalstafaJul 18, 2014 5:40:32 |
|
| #81OrethalionJul 18, 2014 9:46:51 |
|
| #82OrethalionJul 18, 2014 9:51:36 |
|
| #83OrethalionJul 18, 2014 9:53:00 |
|
| #84TichrimoJul 19, 2014 4:32:47 | This has been a long and fruitful discussion, but I wanted to jump in with the shorthand I developed a while ago. This shorthand helped me wrap my head around the issue by creating an easy-to-digest "alignment motto", and goes like this:
On the law-chaos axis: Lawful = "I do what I should..." Neutral = "I do my things..." Chaotic = "I do what I want..."
On the good-evil axis: Good = "...for the benefit of others." Neutral = "...regardless of who benefits." Evil = "...for my own benefit."
Now combine!
LG = "I do what I should, for the benefit of others." CN = "I do what I want, regardless of who benefits." NE = "I do my things for my own benefit."
Create your own!
A second point about application of alignment in the game: I tend to use it not to limit a player's actions, but to describe how the character feels about it afterwards. |
| #85OrethalionJul 19, 2014 8:09:59 |
|
| (Reply to #84)Valheru_Blade |
|
| #87OrethalionJul 19, 2014 9:42:03 |
|
| #881eejitJul 19, 2014 10:17:25 | Indeed. I always try to keep in mind that a Lawful Neutral from one (sub)culture could easily appear implacably evil or good to a stranger depending on the rules of that culture. |
| #89iserithJul 19, 2014 10:24:56 | All that really matters is exactly what the entry for a given alignment says - no more, no less. If you behave in a manner consistent with that entry, you are that alignment. An argument can be made, however, that these entries are too vague and prone to causing arguments especially when a DM wants characters to behave in a particular way or when the loss of class features is on the line. In any case, any cogent argument for or against alignment must use the RAW and not personal interpretations. |
| #90OrethalionJul 19, 2014 10:34:07 |
|
| #91Mephi1234Jul 19, 2014 11:44:58 | Due to Planescape shinaningans, I have long come to the conclusion:
The difference between Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil? One embodies a character to do whatever they want within a code of honor... and the other tends to build empires.
The difference between Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil? One goes on killing sprees for the sake of crowd's judgement, one goes on killing sprees for the sake of one's own sense of judgement.
I feel like the two corner cases, which should be complete opposites, are really just one step away from the each other. That's why, when paladins fall, they tend to become CE killers and blood knights instead of CE rulers of empires. Its why anarchy inevitably becomes dictatorships, and one has a difficult time deciding if a criminal organization is Chaotic for fighting the law, or just evil for their greed.
The entire thing is just a giant mobius strip, with everything no more than a single step or two away. There are no true opposing forces here.
|
| (Reply to #87)Tichrimo |
|
| (Reply to #87)Tichrimo |
|
| #94ErrantJul 20, 2014 15:42:47 |
|
| #95ErrantJul 20, 2014 16:31:22 |
|
| #96Sling617Jul 21, 2014 11:34:55 | I always liked this paragraph from the AD&D DMG titled "The Limits of NPC Alignment" which I feel can apply to player characters as well.
"Remember, however that alignment is not personality. If every lawful good merchant is played as an upright, honest and friendly fellow, NPC's will become boring in a hurry. Just because a merchant is lawful good doesn't mean he won't haggle for the best price, or even take advantage of some gullable adventurer who is just passing through. Merchants live by making money, and this is nothing evil about charging as much as a character is willing to pay. A chaotic good innkeeper might, quite reasonably, be suspicious or hostile to a bunch of ragged, heavily armoroed strangers who stomp into his inn late at night. A chaotic evil wizard might be bored and happy for a little companionship as he sits by the inn's fire."
For me playing an evil character is always a challenge to see what I can get away with without my companions finding out. Evil characters can "pick their spots" by being covert with their evil doings. I ran an evil mage and during one adventure we fought our way through a series of caves that was the lair of a creature called The Dread. We fought and then promptly ran from The Dread after it kicked our butts. Shortly thereafter we ran into a pack of kobolds and roleplayed our way out of an encounter and actually got them to show us the way out. Before leaving I remained behind and grabbed the Kobold leader and handed him a plain steel ring and told him it made you invisible to The Dread, knowing full well that he would try to impress his kobold companions by walking up to The Dread thinking he was invisible. That was an evil act but none of my party members had any idea I did this. Evil can exist in any game if played correctly. Being an a-hole is a whole different story. |
| (Reply to #84)smacintush |
|
| (Reply to #97)2Chlorobutanal |
|
| (Reply to #97)Tichrimo |
|
| (Reply to #99)smacintush |
|
| (Reply to #100)Tichrimo |
|
| #102ErrantJul 22, 2014 2:25:37 |
|
| #103ErrantJul 22, 2014 2:45:19 |
|
| (Reply to #100)RustedKitsune |
|
| #105ChimerasameJul 22, 2014 15:17:30 | I would agree that, in a vacuum, looking out for oneself to any extent shy of infringing on others, would be solidly neutral and not evil. However, if you accept benefit from public works, whilst refusing to 'pay into' any public works, you just might be over that line.
I also agree with RustedKitsune in that it's perfectly normal for a person to be both selfless and selfish, in different contexts, in different situations. Sometimes even with the same action. (If I risk myself to steal food from a baker for my family, it's sort of selfless, because it's for my family, but it's also selfish, because it's for my family, not that poor baker's.)
I suppose alignment is generally a reflection of which direction you *tend* towards, on average. Practicing more selflessness as a matter of course in your life, indicates you are more 'good.' Practicing more selfishness (above a certain acceptable threshold of non-interference-in-others) indicates you're more 'evil.' Some range in between is neutral.
They're not discrete; they're pretty fuzzy. I've periodically qualified characters by saying things like, "Yeah, he's Lawful Neutral, but he's kind of on the good side of Neutral," or something like that. (Used to do that with druids a lot back when they were restricted more; especially back in 2e) |
| #106Beldak_SerpenthelmJul 23, 2014 9:03:37 |
|
| #107emwasickJul 24, 2014 0:56:00 | And it's important that we 'keep score' because...?
And it's better to track alignment than solely focus on consequences because...? |
| #108smacintushJul 24, 2014 16:37:05 | Let me be direct.
On "selflessness": Part of the problem with this is that the word as most people use it is nonsense. How exactly can it be "selfless" to take care of one's children, spouse, partents etc.? Saying that this is "selfless" implies that you have no skin in the game. The implication being that "I take care of you and have you in my life for YOU, I don't really care about you, I do this for YOUR sake." This is utterly ridiculous. You take care of people not for their sake, but because they are a value to YOU. Yes, sometimes people DO do things for complete strangers, but even then it is usually a cause that is personal such as raising money for breast cancer because they've had a loved one with breast cancer.
As for the morality of selflessness, this too is nonsense. The idea that doing things without regard for ones own interest is a moral GOOD is a completely baseless notion that has never been justified outside of some supernatural or mystical source. In other words, in the real world it is completely arbitrary.
On "selfishness": This too is a word that I would argue is not used correctly. Specifically, it is the idea (alluded to by a poster above) that "selfishness" implies serving yourself at the expense of others. This is a complete corruption of the word that again has no basis. There is nothing to be gained by harming others, and in fact harming others is damaging to the individual doing the harming and thus is a net loss. One cannot be said to be "selfish" for harming themselves.
On the supposed immorality of selfishness, again...nonsense. So far the consensus in this thread seems to be that it is either bad to be selfish, or at least neutral. The implication being that serving yourself can never be moral? Again, without any justification whatsoever. YOU are the most important thing in YOUR LIFE.
There is far more to be said, much more than I care to attempt. These are broad and deep issues. Any attempt to construct a vague, universal outline of good and evil in an RPG is bound to be fraught with difiiculty when the real world analogs are poorly understood, arbitrary, ignored, etc. It is why we end up with idiotic arguments about whether the LG Paladin can have a beer, be with a woman, or swear and whether an evil person can be nice to someone, take care of their family etc.. |
| (Reply to #108)2Chlorobutanal |
|
| #110DLfanJul 25, 2014 3:44:57 |
|
| #111DrDragonlanceJul 25, 2014 10:34:20 |
|
| #112ErrantJul 25, 2014 15:26:58 |
|
| #113emwasickJul 25, 2014 15:37:20 | All of this is still symptomatic of the problem with alignment: so much effort goes into pointless classification. |
| #114ErrantJul 25, 2014 15:58:04 |
|
| #115emwasickJul 25, 2014 16:23:38 |
|
| #116DrDragonlanceJul 26, 2014 4:58:57 | Hey Errant, I have to say I like your idea better. Its a lot less heavy handed and flows better in the story. |
| #117ErrantJul 26, 2014 12:27:13 |
|
| (Reply to #109)smacintush |
|
| #119joe.bonarJul 27, 2014 7:32:45 | Anyone come across any alignment restrictions in basic yet? No? Then this isnt really rules discussion right? So we are free to hyperbolize and rant as we see fit? Cool. Evil does not require betrayal, one could play a rapist who never betrays the party. This person is obviously evil, but has no reason to betray the party, they get a little handsy with the bar maids and spend a lot of time in bar fights, but they are extremely unlikely to ever have any reason to betray the party. There are a number of evil compulsive behaviors that make for perfectly cohesive parties of mixed alignments, so I find the premise flawed and fundamentally opposed to expressive roleplay. If i want to play an evil merchant type character there us no requirement that i betray the party either, i get my kicks selling enchanted coppers, illusioned mundane arms and armor, and substandard gear to the villages we pass through, just before we leave. Where in that obviously evil character description does it say stab your party mates in the back while they sleep? Just because youve had issues with some players being problematic with certain alignments doesnt mean its a requirement of that alignment. Ive had more problems with paladins than evil characters. Evil characters have no issue lying to stay with the group of heroes who just happen to come across more magic items than most artificers will see in their lifetime, many of them being artifact items of unimaginable power. Paladins (used to) have to follow an ethical code; an actual code that was written doew with specific behavioral requirements, which have led to more party fights than any neutral evil assassin or lawful evil necromancer i have ever played with. But thats just my experience with alignment and your mileage may vary. |