Problem is the DM's somewhat narrow-minded about alignments and what people in that alignments should do. Several examples are where an avenger of pelor didn't go rushing up to help 2 girls who were radiating huge amts of necrotic and radiant energy and one of them had just single-handedly lifted up a giant spider with one hand and smashed him into the ground. This, the DM claimed was a cowardly action as the avenger was good and should have gone off to help the little girls despite the fact that there was something obviously very very wrong with them. That's just on the good side. Now he's also mentioned that if you're evil and if you choose not to do something evil when you have the choice (he used stealing as a specific example), you will also lose alignment points. Which I told him didn't make sense and was a flaw in the system. After all, that means evil people would have to all be kleptomaniacs.
So far I've been trying to persuade him out of it, mostly by using the example of Dr. Doom and saying that if Dr. Doom (who's evil by D&D standards) chooses not to steal candy from a baby (an obvious chance to do an evil act) does that mean Dr. Doom should lose alignment points??
Anyway, I'd just like to know what others think and if there's a nice way to tell him that his view is a bit too narrow-minded
You may point out to the DM that he is totally free to add to his list of things to keep track of, but if he really needs more numbers to track, there are perhaps better subsystems that can be tacked haphazardly onto the system.
If it was just him keeping track, I wouldn't care. It's him keeping track with potentially quite unfair results for the players that really gets to me
I forgot to mention that once we lose too many alignment points ie. gone too far from our original alignment, we'll have to hand our char sheets to him and make up new ones.
Tell him that this, right here, is complete Buletteschist.
He is basically attempting to tell you how to play your characters. This is not his job. He is DM. He runs the story, the NPCs, the world. You, on the other hand, are the sole arbiter of the thoughts, motivations, and actions of a single individual, ie your character, who is yours and yours alone.
The only function of these alignment points is to allow him to tell you that you are playing your character wrong. If he wishes to do so, he should be writing a novel, not DMing. His system serves no purpose other than punishment, and the punishment in question is completely unjustified.
If the system is removed, no one will have problems. If it is left in, it will create dischord and disruption, driving a rift between the DM and his players. Ergo, it is Bad For The Game, and should be purged, by fire if possible.
I've also pointed out to him that since he's allowing one of the party members to be evil, this party member is now obliged to steal whenever possible, INCLUDING from other party members. Otherwise he risks losing points. I've also pointed out that good party members would then be obliged to slaughter/maim/arrest said evil party member in response to keep from losing alignment points. I'll see how he responds to that. Hopefully, he'll at least widen the defn of good and evil which will allow me more leeway to convince him.
You did NOT sign onto the game accepting that THESE were the restrictions your character would be operating under. Your DM is changing the rules on you MID-STREAM. THAT is where he's first and foremost out of line. "Oh, by the way, you may have THOUGHT you could do this or that... and really up until this moment you COULD... but I have decided that you now have to do things quite differently." This is the sort of topic that you have to discuss with players before you even START a game, not REDEFINE halfway through it. YOU ARE NOT AT THE TABLE TO BE SHEEPISH GAME/RULE-DESIGN GUINEA PIGS AND PLAYTESTERS.
Stop discussing it with him. Tell him to take his new rules and SHELVE them. "You simply do not get me to start playing under one set of rules and then change those rules this substantively and expect me to just eat it. You [the DM in question] have two choices. We either abandon all characters and events in this campaign thus far and start over with an entirely new campaign, new characters, etc - and use these new rules. Or you can run the campaign I wanted to play in - which was under the old rules."
This assumes, of course, that you ARE willing to play under those new alignment rules. If not then your only other meaningful choice is to walk away.
If you get to decide what alignment you want to be in DnD no one should be able to tell you how to play it better then yourself. Just because there are five types in fourth edition does not mean there are only five types of people in the world. This isn't Fable! You can be a greedy kleptomaniac who never breaks a promise or would betray an ally. That seems like a hard character to put an allignment tag on.
If the DM is stuck on this idea try to meet him half way-
Put your alignment down and list the type of character you are, you are evil but never lie, never steal, and never betray an ally. You are still "evil" because you are more then ready to kill, torture, or **** people who have not earned your trust yet. This way you get to decide how you exactly play while the DM gets to do his crazy micromanaging.
...he wanted to implement a new alignment system where if we went against our alignment , we'd lose alignment points of a sort. Problem is the DM's somewhat narrow-minded about alignments and what people in that alignments should do.
In theory, a DM is entitled to control what sort of behavior goes on at his table. (For example, a DM whose group role-plays in a public place is within his rights to restrict cursing or 'interrogation' scenes in order to keep the reputation of our fine hobby from suffering.) However, forcing a player to retire his character is a bit over the top - the sort of anger-fueled decision that will leave the DM feeling guilty and the players disgruntled.
Your DM can find the sort of system he needs in HackMaster Basic (look it up), if you want to advise him of that. But I should point out that the system I name provides rewards for following alignment, not just punishments for straying from it. The system you're describing is all stick, no carrot: it's rarely a good idea for a DM to house-rule something with no up-side.
I should also point out that alignment in 4th Edition was deliberately made less important. People were spending entire sessions loudly arguing over what was 'lawful' or 'evil' instead of getting on with the story. Advise your DM that if he really wants you guys to leap through his hoops, he needs to ensure that most of the good deeds you do are rewarded, and most of the evil deeds you do have repercussions. It's a much subtler method than taking away somebody's character, and it's worked for me for years. Worked for Shakespeare, too.
1. You should all play unaligned characters. You can't act contrary to your alignment then.
2. You might point out that since there's an evil character in the party already, there's no justification for losing your character if he changes alignment. You could suggest that he keep the system, but lose the consequence of not playing exactly how he thinks you should.
I forgot to mention that once we lose too many alignment points ie. gone too far from our original alignment, we'll have to hand our char sheets to him and make up new ones.
If it was just him keeping track, I wouldn't care. It's him keeping track with potentially quite unfair results for the players that really gets to me
This is completely inapropriate for the DM to do. It would be permissable for the DM to decide on a character's allignment change to that allignment that they are acting, ie the lawful good character is acting far ouside that allignment, so a change to unaligned is appropriate. However the removal of a character because of an allignment swich in wrong.
The only admissable reason to remove a character for an allignment change is if the group is in a good champaign where Evil alligned characters is not allowed. A character who is acting evil in such a game is not only being an inappropriate allignment but is also being disruptive to the game.
While allignment is not meant to be a choke chain on how the character behaves, it is there to set some limits to their actions that stray too far outside of reasonable behavior, Burning villages down, eating babies, etc are not the actions of a lawful good character, and it would be appropriate for the DM to insist in an allignment change for such extremes of behavior and to censor Evil alligned characters in a game where that allignment is restricted from PCs.
Outside of barring evil alligned characters, the DM's only action should be to demand an appropriate allignment change if the character isn't behaving accordingly. ie an evil rogue who acts heroic constantly might be changing his way, and even might find redemption and become unaligned or gasp, lawful good.
Also, I second Novacat's unaligned proposal.
"You and I have different views on what makes a character a given alignment. My character, as I've envisioned him, has both good and evil traits (see: The Duality of Man), because he's a well-fleshed-out character. I don't know if you would consider him good, evil, or unaligned, so I'll just play my character how I have been, and let you decide what his alignment is."
This approach accomplishes three things:
1. It points out to the DM that you don't acknowledge Alignment when playing your character, because Alignment cannot, will not, and has never adequately defined the moral or ethical standing of any well-developed character.
2. If you do not declare an alignment from the get-go, you cannot possibly change alignment, and cannot have your character taken away. Let the DM decide what your alignment is, and my guess is he'll never solidly decide on one.
3. You underscore the fact that everyone has different ideas about how to define each alignment, and so you can't possibly play his idea of any alignment to the point of being able to keep your character indefinitely. If he baulks at the idea of undeclared alignment, this is the point you should bring up. Your primary goal is to be able to play your character the way you want to, and you're letting him decide what alignment that should be, based on observing you in play.
Failing that, I'm just going to ask him to list down all the rules for his alignments simply because his view on what's required to be good and evil is apparently VERY different from other peoples.
Personally I've always treated alighnment as the player saying "this is they way I plan to play my character". Now if they actually play the character that way is a completely different story.
The biggest consequence may come about in game depending on how their alignment plays into who the character is. For instance, if I had a player whose character was a palading from the League of Ultimate Do-gooders who said he was lawful-good and a guardian of the weak who ended up pillaging towns, murdering innocents and what not then there would be consequences to those actions.
Thats an extreme example but that character would end up facing the local law and probably members of the League of Ultimate Do-gooders.
The alignment in the OP seems like a really bad way to artificially punish players for no good reason.
I think he was trying to get us to RP more
Eventually, he should learn that roleplaying is done best without any system. The more numbers and mechanics you pile onto roleplaying, the more stifled it is. That's why there's no rulebook for writing plays and movies and such.
Quite right. This isn't evil-aligned, it's kender-aligned.
In theory, a DM is entitled to control what sort of behavior goes on at his table. (For example, a DM whose group role-plays in a public place is within his rights to restrict cursing or 'interrogation' scenes in order to keep the reputation of our fine hobby from suffering.) However, forcing a player to retire his character is a bit over the top - the sort of anger-fueled decision that will leave the DM feeling guilty and the players disgruntled.
Your DM can find the sort of system he needs in HackMaster Basic (look it up), if you want to advise him of that. But I should point out that the system I name provides rewards for following alignment, not just punishments for straying from it. The system you're describing is all stick, no carrot: it's rarely a good idea for a DM to house-rule something with no up-side.
I should also point out that alignment in 4th Edition was deliberately made less important. People were spending entire sessions loudly arguing over what was 'lawful' or 'evil' instead of getting on with the story. Advise your DM that if he really wants you guys to leap through his hoops, he needs to ensure that most of the good deeds you do are rewarded, and most of the evil deeds you do have repercussions. It's a much subtler method than taking away somebody's character, and it's worked for me for years. Worked for Shakespeare, too.
this is a great response. love it.
as a Dm i haven't ever put much stock into alignment in terms of required behavior. as a PC i alone look after my alignment and behave in ways that roughly match without getting crazy. so far, my alignment choices have been dependent on the background and personality of the character.
one such is a betrayed tiefling that spent some time in jail because her boyfriend abandoned her in a vault while on a burglary job. she's going to be mean as hell and totally vicious to him if she ever finds him again. she's reasonably unaligned to others, but when she finds tales of lovers being betrayed, she gets mad as hell and goes out looking for a fight to champion.
(quite possibly my only nugget of good sense) i guess in one small way, i can understand your DM's desire that the alignment create a predictable character choice. but honestly, that is in one small way.
using an alignment tracking system with points? just how many points does killing an evil monster count for? how about random murder, **** or molestation? what about saving puppies and kittens from the pound? costing the city extra tax money to care for a homeless shelter that you saved from destruction? helping an old lady cross the street? spending all night binge drinking with jello-shots and having a massive town orgy?
honestly, that is where the greatest breakdown begins--how does one value the actions taken as aligned with or unaligned with the alignment system?
then it further breaks down as you ave to guess, when have i strayed so far that i am irredeemable and cannot be accepted as a character?
you've been pretty descriptive of the progress with the DM about htis issue, so i won't try repeating what others have advised. but i will at least say that alignment really shouldn't be for the DM to know about. it should inform player choices about their own character.
I've bordered on banning unaligned in a public game I used to run, just because it was used as an excuse for the characters to act like complete ****s to each other and then get "righteously" mad when I pointed out their behavior. (Also, on another note, any character presented to me with the "loner / dark stereotype" is almost never allowed in a party. They're loners. Why the hell would they be in a party? It also just leads to interparty conflict)
Besides that, the idea in theory (keeping tabs on who is actually playing to their alignment) is OK, but his implementation seems lacking. Though the evil player having to steal constantly makes me laugh, because that seems like a way for a DM to get rid of the evil character in the party.
Well, unaligned is fine, as long as it isn't used to justify the "douchebag" alignment. :-p
I've bordered on banning unaligned in a public game I used to run, just because it was used as an excuse for the characters to act like complete ****s to each other and then get "righteously" mad when I pointed out their behavior. (Also, on another note, any character presented to me with the "loner / dark stereotype" is almost never allowed in a party. They're loners. Why the hell would they be in a party? It also just leads to interparty conflict)
Besides that, the idea in theory (keeping tabs on who is actually playing to their alignment) is OK, but his implementation seems lacking. Though the evil player having to steal constantly makes me laugh, because that seems like a way for a DM to get rid of the evil character in the party.
Unless the evil character is a Kender o.O they steal from party members, things just fall into their pouches, they can't help it
Been taking part in a game with this particular DM for a few months now and he usually comes up with some funny ideas as it's his first time DMing. Anyway, we've been on hiatus for about a month and he just said that he wanted to implement a new alignment system where if we went against our alignment , we'd lose alignment points of a sort.
Problem is the DM's somewhat narrow-minded about alignments and what people in that alignments should do. Several examples are where an avenger of pelor didn't go rushing up to help 2 girls who were radiating huge amts of necrotic and radiant energy and one of them had just single-handedly lifted up a giant spider with one hand and smashed him into the ground. This, the DM claimed was a cowardly action as the avenger was good and should have gone off to help the little girls despite the fact that there was something obviously very very wrong with them. That's just on the good side. Now he's also mentioned that if you're evil and if you choose not to do something evil when you have the choice (he used stealing as a specific example), you will also lose alignment points. Which I told him didn't make sense and was a flaw in the system. After all, that means evil people would have to all be kleptomaniacs.
So far I've been trying to persuade him out of it, mostly by using the example of Dr. Doom and saying that if Dr. Doom (who's evil by D&D standards) chooses not to steal candy from a baby (an obvious chance to do an evil act) does that mean Dr. Doom should lose alignment points??
Anyway, I'd just like to know what others think and if there's a nice way to tell him that his view is a bit too narrow-minded
The chaps idea is so many levels of wrong it's just staggering.
The first time he mentioned 'hand over your PC record you now need a new one' to me, I'd ask him bluntly, 'so what game are we playing next' and make it plain you had just discontinued playing his.
There ARE bad ideas that WILL kill the game. I've come up with the occasional dud myself.
This guy should just be told straight out the idea is not welcome, at all, in no variation whatsoever, and that his being the DM is not going to save his unwelcome idea.
Never be afraid to make it plain the idea goes or you go.
Your DM is trying to make your evil character actually have a downside for being evil, in my opinion. It's one thing for a DM to have characters / players that are predictable, but forcing them to be predictable is a little too far.
Have your DM have a party of good guys come looking for your evil player. That should shake things up enough.
Well, usually the downside of being evil is that eventually bounty hunters/good people/guards come looking for you to try and off you. At least that's how I DM things in my own game.
Well, if you play your evil character the way that DM wants you to, then yes, you'll attract a lot of attention, and that attention will come complete with sharp, pointy things.
If you play smart evil, the attention will come gift-wrapped with big red ribbons and parades in your honor.
Done well ie done clever ie done in a way no one sees it coming though requires a lot of genuine good deeds to cover up the really definitely evil actions.
This is where the guys point system is clearly the idea of a total amateur.
You get more with honoey than vinegar. Most truly evil people tend to do a splendid job of looking like pillars of society.
100 points of genuine decent behaviour over a long time is a good way to cover up one single action worth 100 points in a single day. I doubt the guys system could reflect that at all.
Smart evil is just another way of saying lawful evil.
I've gotta disagree. Any kind of evil can be smart evil, and lawful evil isn't automatically smart evil.
Smart evil is just another way of saying lawful evil.
I've gotta disagree. Any kind of evil can be smart evil, and lawful evil isn't automatically smart evil.
The Joker would seem to disagree with you as well.
The Joker would seem to disagree with you as well.
The example I would use is Lelouch from Code Geass, but the Joker is a more widely known example.
Lelouch is an extraordinarily brilliant evil mastermind, but is willing to do anything, to sacrifice anything, to get his way, all while making himself out to be the hero. Everyone around him is expendable, their value measured by their usefulness to him. In fact, in many ways, he is the hero of the story, but he couldn't be described as good-aligned. That's a smart Chaotic Evil character.
From a DM's perspective - I have had a very limited number of occasions where I've seen a character playing outside of his alignment. In the few situations where its come up, I generally just talk to the player, and voice my opinion. You cite examples of how you think hes failed the alignment, and what you think hes playing. You then listen to their side, and hear thier justification. You'd be amazed, sometimes evil people will rush into the thick of battle screaming righteousness. You'll ask them why, and their answer will be like "dude, that princess's hand-maiden was watching, I had to impress her to work my way closer to the princess"
You don't convence them. Do you what they say or you leave the game. If you do not like the way the game is played then you walk away but you don't make an issue of things not going your way.
You seriously think that it's better to say, "**** you, I'm going home" than to try to come to a middle ground where everyone is happy? That is quite the failure of communication.
Things go a lot better when people aren't constantly rage quitting. I think most DMs would agree that it's better to make some concessions for the group's preferred playing style than it is to not have a game to DM.
Well, I don't think you have to be rude. Simply politly bow out of a pointless confrontation and move on with your life.
What's the harm in asking? When I was learning the game, my first DM (who is also my best friend) told me to never be afraid to ask, and I think that's an awesome mentality.
Well, I don't think you have to be rude. Simply politly bow out of a pointless confrontation and move on with your life.
Who says it has to be a confrontation? If neither you nor the DM act like jerks, then it will be a conversation, not a confrontation.
If you don't like something, make it known. If the DM is adamant on running the game in a certain way, then yeah, maybe it's just not the game for you. But like Novacat says, it doesn't hurt to ask. Great things can happen when people actually talk to each other.
What's the harm in asking?
That has not been my experience.
What's the harm in asking?
That has not been my experience.
So... what is the answer to his question? In your experience, what harm has there been in asking? Did the DM throw his dice at you? Did he get up and slap you? Did he commit himself to sleeping with your wife/girlfriend, taking your job, and otherwise ruining your life?
If you ask and the DM says no, then you leave. You were going to do that anyway. If the DM takes offense and tells you to leave, same thing. I can't imagine many people being socially maladjusted to such an extreme that a simple dialogue like that would harm a friendship.
For some people, it's the DM coming up with a story, a setting, his own houserules, working all of that into something he wants to run, and then (and only at that point) he looks for players to play that specific game. The players either play that specific game or find something else to do.
For others, the group comes together. Everyone decides what they would like to see done in the game. The worldbuilding, overarching plot, and houserules are decided on by the group. Then someone takes on the role of DM and everyone else plays. Equally likely is that the role of DM is passed around every so often so that everyone has a chance to play and to run this communal narration. Which is exactly what an RPG is, anyway.
So for some people, the idea of a player asking a DM to change something is anathema to how the game should run, and for others, it's exactly the way the game is supposed to be run.
Smart evil is just another way of saying lawful evil.
Incorrect, all three evils can be played as "smart evil," not just Lawful Evil.
Smart evil is just another way of saying lawful evil.
Incorrect, all three evils can be played as "smart evil," not just Lawful Evil.
I kind of have to agree: That's like saying that Lawful Good has to be "lawful stupid" or else you violate your Paladin vows and become Fighter With No Bonus Feats.
The problem here is that the OP's GM has a list of specific "Lawful Stupid" and "Chaotic Stupid" and "Evil Stupid" requirements that you must meet or you don't get to play any more. And they're stupid.
...and then (and only at that point) he looks for players to play that specific game.
That is my experience, or at least a lot of my experience. And many - maybe not most - DMs don't want change any more than the director of a production of Hamlet wants the performers to start bickering over a cherry orchard. And there are levels of confrontation which are rarely physical, but grudges are noted, filed in triplicate and stored for later use, even if they only ever emerge in the game later.
...and then (and only at that point) he looks for players to play that specific game.
That is my experience, or at least a lot of my experience. And many - maybe not most - DMs don't want change any more than the director of a production of Hamlet wants the performers to start bickering over a cherry orchard. And there are levels of confrontation which are rarely physical, but grudges are noted, filed in triplicate and stored for later use, even if they only ever emerge in the game later.
Perhaps you play with pretty petty people.
Your analogy is flawed. The play is controlled by the producer, managed by the director, and intended to entertain a paying audience. The actors are expected to obey the director, because that's the pecking order. The entire purpose behind a D&D game is different. The game is controlled by everyone at the table, managed by everyone at the table, and intended to entertain everyone at the table.
Young and inexperienced DMs may consider it "their game", and the players to be privileged to play in it. More mature and experienced DMs, and more mature people in general, realize that it is everyone's game, and that concessions must be made if the players are unsatisfied with the way he has things.
Lelouch is an extraordinarily brilliant evil mastermind, but is willing to do anything, to sacrifice anything, to get his way, all while making himself out to be the hero.
I think you missed a few episodes. Like, a good third.
Lelouch is an extraordinarily brilliant evil mastermind, but is willing to do anything, to sacrifice anything, to get his way, all while making himself out to be the hero.
I think you missed a few episodes. Like, a good third.
No, I've seen the whole thing. Lelouch has a good goal, but he's willing to make any sacrifice, and break every principal he has to achieve that goal. He will kill, manipulate, and sacrifice anyone who gets in his way. He's an example of an evil character with good goals, and an example of how pitifully ineffective the alignment system is in defining the moral aspects of a well-fleshed-out character.
It's neither by itself.
> and partially because he wants his sister to be able to live peacefully (good).
This is unaligned. He's doing it for personal reasons (this was pretty much the yardstick for neutral morals in 3E too), not for the sake of some greater philosophy.
I track a sort of alignment system, but it isn't anything horribly serious.
If my PC's are fleeing town, and the Paladin stops what he is doing to check a burning building or two for children, just because, even if I said nothing about who may be trapped inside, I add a little 1 ding to my notes for him.
After a certain amount of dings in one way or the other, they get a small, but handy buff, or one time use skill for staying so close to their character concept, in that case, his deity (Pelor), gave a him a +2 Resistance to fire for the rest of the session.
I strongly believe that there should be a certain amount of obligation to stick to alignment, but I would never recommend anyone scrap their PC's characters over not playing out their alignment to the fullest.
As the Dr. Doom example goes, it is spot on. You are no less evil if you don't take every opportunity to trip an old lady or kick a puppy. Sure, in the right situation an Evil PC who does this should be rewarded, but you should never be penalized for not doing something minor, with no relevance to the plot.
Well, obviously not any sacrifice. He showed in season 1 that he was basically unwilling to sacrifice nunnally. The problem is that lelouch pretty much breaks the alignment system in D&D. There is no good way to classify him. He's trying to take down an evil empire (which is a good act) partially out of revenge (evil or neutral) and partially because he wants his sister to be able to live peacefully (good). He is willing to sacrifice some others (evil/neutral) to achieve his greater goal, yet he also refuses to do the whole 'lets hurt innocents' thing that the japanese resistance was using before that (good) and only targets army personnel directly.
so, he's neutral good?
i'm sure there's more complexity at work here that I'm unaware of, but the above paragraph gives me the aforementioned impression.
Well, obviously not any sacrifice. He showed in season 1 that he was basically unwilling to sacrifice nunnally. The problem is that lelouch pretty much breaks the alignment system in D&D. There is no good way to classify him. He's trying to take down an evil empire (which is a good act) partially out of revenge (evil or neutral) and partially because he wants his sister to be able to live peacefully (good). He is willing to sacrifice some others (evil/neutral) to achieve his greater goal, yet he also refuses to do the whole 'lets hurt innocents' thing that the japanese resistance was using before that (good) and only targets army personnel directly.
Everything he did in the series that appeared to be good was, in my opinion, done only to gain the favor of others. Stop the resistance from harming innocents? Political move to gain sympathy, just like when he actively opposed the other terrorist groups. When it suited him, he was totally willing to take innocents hostage, and use others as shields for himself.
Plus, his initial motive is a selfish one (albeit, typically benign): to protect himself and his sister. In the end, he even betrays his sister, effectively violating her very will, to achieve his goal. The only reason he's the protagonist of the series, is because he opposes the greater evil (even thinking himself righteous, I'm sure).
I forgot to mention that once we lose too many alignment points ie. gone too far from our original alignment, we'll have to hand our char sheets to him and make up new ones.
I think I'd probably be willing to meet him halfway on that.
That is, I'd hand him the character sheet.
I forgot to mention that once we lose too many alignment points ie. gone too far from our original alignment, we'll have to hand our char sheets to him and make up new ones.
What this indicates to me is that the OP's DM is opposed to character growth.
Well, obviously not any sacrifice. He showed in season 1 that he was basically unwilling to sacrifice nunnally. The problem is that lelouch pretty much breaks the alignment system in D&D. There is no good way to classify him. He's trying to take down an evil empire (which is a good act) partially out of revenge (evil or neutral) and partially because he wants his sister to be able to live peacefully (good). He is willing to sacrifice some others (evil/neutral) to achieve his greater goal, yet he also refuses to do the whole 'lets hurt innocents' thing that the japanese resistance was using before that (good) and only targets army personnel directly.
Actually its pretty simple. Right now he easily floats between 4 of the old alignments (2 of the new alignments). Neutral Evil, Lawful Evil, lawful Neutral, and True Neutral. For the new alignments its unaligned and Evil. Of course you gave me a summery of some of his actions..and last time someone did that, they gave me an incomplete summery and never revealed some major plot motivations..or the origional summery downplayed some major char quirks.
Evil can oppose evil for its own personal gain. Evil can help good, if it helps Evil achieve its own ends. Evil can appear beniegn, evil can be kind, evil can have friends, evil can have loved ones. Evil can be a greatly favored and loved ruler of a country. Evil at its base is simply the willingness to do anything and everything for the sake of making sure that you achieve your goals.
This person dosn't in any way possible at all break alignment. This is because of how the alignment system is set up. Anyone can be placed on the alignment system....the only issue is that some people may be so close to the boarder between alignments that they can easily be called either.
This person dosn't in any way possible at all break alignment. This is because of how the alignment system is set up. Anyone can be placed on the alignment system....the only issue is that some people may be so close to the boarder between alignments that they can easily be called either.
There are a lot of subtleties in the show that can't be conveyed here. Sufficed to say, Lelouch has some of the most dynamic character growth you'll ever see in two seasons of a TV show. He's actually all over the board on alignment. The reason why we say that alignment can't capture him, is the same reason why alignment can't capture real people: because he's a three-dimensional character, and the alignment grid is a two-dimensional system.
And who cares if they are three dimentional. Anything on the Z axis dosn't matter when it comes to applying alignment. Just apply the X/Y axis and ignore Z. Yes the person still has a Z qualities..but that dosn't affect alignment.
Just Because a person is at position 2X, 3Y, 4Z dosn't negate the fact that you can still state they are at 2X, 3Y. And them being at 4Z, and being treated at 4z, and acting like they are at 4z and shoving in their face that they are at 4z..does not in any way possible change the fact they are still at 2X and 3Y.
And this is why people need to stop saying alignment dosn't work. Want to play a real world person who swings around the alignments, picking what seems best for the situation and so on? Then you place yourself at True Neutral. That is where most real world people fit in.
Alignment is NOT a 'slice of the moment' type setting on a person. Alignment is not 'for one whole month I did nothing but kick puppies...so I register as evil now'. Alignment is about your characters outlook at life, what your char is likely to do or not to do. It is about their personality.
And it isn't about an entire persons personality, just merely those parts pertaining to good/evil/lawful/chaotic. A person has kids, a wife, two dogs..and a cat. Thats fine...that won't alter in a single way at all if the person is good/evil/lawful/chaotic. A person has friends..a person loves someone, a person is beloved, a person eats food. A person lives and breathes. A person has ambitions. A person has wants and needs in life. These don't neccessarily affect their alignment.
Seriously...your characters are not 'special snowflakes', your fav shows don't have special snowflakes. People can be categorized when the category is made to be as wide and encompassing as D&D tried to do with alignment.
well if you are playing a good aligned character and someone in your group is evil next time you play both of you should start attacking eachother after all that is the "good" thing to do. as a good aligned player cant travel with an evil person. :P
Lol not at all. There is a neutral evil character in my party who everybody in the party thinks is chaotic good
I forgot to mention that once we lose too many alignment points ie. gone too far from our original alignment, we'll have to hand our char sheets to him and make up new ones.
If it was just him keeping track, I wouldn't care. It's him keeping track with potentially quite unfair results for the players that really gets to me
Just remember you created that character. You do not have to turn your character over to the DM it's your property. The DM can remove your character from the campaign, but it's still your property.
Explain to the DM it sound too restricting and not fun. Tell the DM you'd rather not play that way. It sucks to drop out of a game like this, but games are supposed to be fun
An evil character who commits enough good actions becomes neutral, then good.
A good character who commits enough evil actions becomes neutral, then evil.
A good character who commits infinite neutral actions remains good.
An evil character who commits infinite neutral actions remains evil.
Something like not placing yourself in harm's way to save someone isn't really good, but it's not evil- I mean, you're not a bad person if you don't go saving people. You're just not great. So not doing something good is not the same as doing something bad. you're doing something, well, Neutral.
If an evil act gives you -1 "alignment points" (which I think are a ridiculous notion) and a good one gives you +1, then no matter how many neutral acts (+0) you commit you should never change alignments.
just my 2 cps.