What did i do? I turned around, cut off a section of my young black dragon scale armor(acid immune), walk over to the acid lake right behind me and scoop up some of the acidic water and pour it all over the altar. The acid made short work of the Altar, and the hole and the shadow vanished. Afterwards the DM informed me that if i had not stopped the hole from growing that i would have released Tiamat unto the world and all would be doomed O_o. Naturally the rest of the party was at the local tavern enjoying their night. I never went on a side quest by myself again!
What would you have done in this situation?
Well ever since i got captured by orcs(thanks to the paladins blunders) and killed their elite king by myself with no gear on i got a little over confident ^_^. It got even worse when i knocked out our silver dragon companion and drank her blood giving me a few over-powered magical attacks and some resistances...i was unalligned...what i can i say...
That second one isn't really Unaligned... that's... that's just Evil dude. You intentionally caused harm to another living being soley for your own benefit. The fact that you vampirizied a Silver Dragon is even more so, going by older editions' idea of Metallic Dragon = Paragon of *Insert here* Good. Also, since she's a companion character, why hasn't she just splattered you like a roach for doing that to her?
I was a rogue, so i simply backstabbed her. She never saw it coming, never realized what happened untill she put two and two together when i started using her powers and tried to sell her into slavery. The Paladin/Monk broke up the fight that ensued and i later saved her life and became the god-father of the dragon and the paladins children...lotta little baby half dragons...was creepy.
That is why i HATE the 4e alignments. They are way to limited.
Let me make it easier for you then; ignore alignment, and actually play your character instead of a subjective two-word phrase.
And it doesn't matter what 'alignment' you wrote down, you were being evil.
>
> And it doesn't matter what 'alignment' you wrote down, you were being evil.
... in any edition's version of alignment.
That is why i HATE the 4e alignments. They are way to limited. We played with the assumption that unaligned was the equiv of Chaotic Neutral which was my most played alignment in 3.5. (We have since replaced the 4e alignments with the ones from 3.5)
Every alignment that is in 3e is in 4e as well. Every single one. No exceptions. The only difference is that 4e's alignments are fewer and broader, so some of 3e's alignments are now simply grouped together under the same heading. 3.5's Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, and Lawful Neutral all fit snugly under 4e's much broader definition of Neutral.
Either way, alignments are descriptors. They don't dictate how your character acts. That's the player's job. Alignments simply label your character's overall moral/ethical standing based on the actions that you, the player, choose. And that's how alignments work in every edition.
That said, your rogue's actions would be evil in either versions of the game, plain and simple.
Scenario- DM with four adult and experienced PCs running the Ashen Crown campaign...Scout, Skald Bard, Assault Swordmage, and Summoning Wizard.
Note 1: PCs slaughtered trash encounters. Some posed a challenge and, in one, a party member died but was revived. The encounter with the lich that had the pummeling statue was easy mode b/c our wizard used the trap to our advantage.
Note 2: Demise encounter. We were all level 7 and our Scout and Swordmage died within the first 5 rounds...others very shortly followed. Set up was pretty bad on PCs part. DM offered an option to revive characters. After 2 decided to re-roll, the others followed suite.
Note 3: PCs re-rolled...Fighter/Ardent/Wizard/Assassin and beat Demise after a lenghty and extremely boring encounter. The Assassin was the only one hitting but that turned out to be enough. Our tank literally did not hit once during the entire encounter (+13 attack vs. Soldiers with 28 AC).
Note 4: Next fight was vs a Vampire Lord with the help of a sun rod. Again, nobody hit except the assasin. Very long and very boring fight.
Problem: all of the PCs except the Assassin now want to re-roll characters. DM wants to call the entire campaign b/c "if everyone wants to re-roll, we should just start over".
Any suggestions on what I can do to get the party to want to continue??? Any help is much appreciated
>> That is why i HATE the 4e alignments. They are way to limited. > > And it doesn't matter what 'alignment' you wrote down, you were being evil. ... in any edition's version of alignment.
I strongly disagree, as do the rest of our group as well as our dm. Its about how we interpret whether or not it was evil, and i dont see why its necessary to be even discussing this. As far as we are concerned, the alignments in 4e are completely differant than 3e because they are generalized into less categories. The individual alignment's all represent a differant frame of attitude, and we take alignments seriously. That is just how we play. Chaotic Neutral allows for that random evil act. Yes the act itself was evil, but by taking both my alignment and my characters persona into consideration is exactly what he should have done.
To Awamnl: The encounters seem a little too difficult. The DM may want to consider weaker encounters or giving the party a chance to level up a little more and aquire some better gear first.
P.s. This thread was for kicks and giggles to see if anyone would have handled the situation i was in differantly, and for me to tell a tale about an encounter i thought was interesting. Not to start a huge debate about the definition of unalligned.
If the alignment system bothers you, might I recommend talking to the DM and other players and reverting? We also used 3.X gods as well so that they'd match our alignment system. It's not too much of a game-changing effect and gives everyone a more solid alignment that they know what to do with.
Or the even-better solution, throwing out alignment entirely because it has no mechanical effect. Just, y'know, roleplay your character.
>> That is why i HATE the 4e alignments. They are way to limited. > > And it doesn't matter what 'alignment' you wrote down, you were being evil. ... in any edition's version of alignment.
I strongly disagree, as do the rest of our group as well as our dm. Its about how we interpret whether or not it was evil, and i dont see why its necessary to be even discussing this.
In that case, I hope I don't live near you and your group
is open to interpretation.
And that's the problem.
Let's all play CN character and it will bring peace among the players ( But not the characters... )
>> That is why i HATE the 4e alignments. They are way to limited. > > And it doesn't matter what 'alignment' you wrote down, you were being evil. ... in any edition's version of alignment.
I strongly disagree, as do the rest of our group as well as our dm. Its about how we interpret whether or not it was evil, and i dont see why its necessary to be even discussing this.
In that case, I hope I don't live near you and your group
I pray not, folks that are closed up and actually complain about alignment mechanics will not make good RPers.
is open to interpretation.
And that's the problem.
Why? I dont see any problem.
> I pray not, folks that are closed up and actually complain about alignment
> mechanics will not make good RPers.
And...
> That is why i HATE the 4e alignments. They are way to limited.
Yeah, I think I've seen everything I need to.
Hmm. > I pray not, folks that are closed up and actually complain about alignment > mechanics will not make good RPers. And... > That is why i HATE the 4e alignments. They are way to limited. Yeah, I think I've seen everything I need to.
I dont really consider that complaining but w/e bro.
To try and get this tread back to the original topic I would have turned to the rest of my party and asked for advice, oh wait you couldn't as you were playing a game designed to be played as a cooperative team on your own.
I am surprised so few people have played campaigns with solo side quests. But to explain the reason behind my being alone was that we were on deployment in the Us Navy. Because folks had to be on watch at differant hours each day we improvised and instead of just only playing when everyone was available created side quests targeted at individual players. We also were running two differant campaigns at the same time, to cover the DM's watch standing. But the one i am speaking of was the only one that got into depth and eventually was completed a couple weeks before we got home.
So i, having the ability to one shot adult black dragons set out on a quest to destroy the vengeful child of the dragon we slew the day before. (i was the only one available for play besides the DM) I killed him, and discovered a plot to bring Tiamat into the mortal realm.
I am surprised so few people have played campaigns with solo side quests. But to explain the reason behind my being alone was that we were on deployment in the Us Navy. Because folks had to be on watch at differant hours each day we improvised and instead of just only playing when everyone was available
In a case like that, yes, going solo is essentially a requirement. Most gaming groups have regular meeting times, and solo quests result in the rest of the players sitting around with nothing to do for possibly extended periods of time.
That's a man with dedication to his Animal Companion...
My brain just went somewhere VERY inappropriate.
That's a man with dedication to his Animal Companion...
My brain just went somewhere VERY inappropriate.
Or somewhere completely appropriate. Mmm...
>> That is why i HATE the 4e alignments. They are way to limited. > > And it doesn't matter what 'alignment' you wrote down, you were being evil. ... in any edition's version of alignment.
I strongly disagree, as do the rest of our group as well as our dm. Its about how we interpret whether or not it was evil, and i dont see why its necessary to be even discussing this. As far as we are concerned, the alignments in 4e are completely differant than 3e because they are generalized into less categories. The individual alignment's all represent a differant frame of attitude, and we take alignments seriously. That is just how we play. Chaotic Neutral allows for that random evil act. Yes the act itself was evil, but by taking both my alignment and my characters persona into consideration is exactly what he should have done.
Yes, the act was evil - I think we can all agree on that.
My opinion of why they took out Chaotic Neutral was that it's WAY too easy to "do whatever you want". It's like a non-alignment, and it makes it nearly impossible to get along with any other PCs, leading to things like fighting within the party, and basically just never being able to trust the Chaotic Neutral character - in which case, why would he ever be part of the party? *I* certainly wouldn't be letting a sociopath guard my back in dangerous situations! If I ever found out that a fellow party member was Chaotic Neutral (detect alignment, anyone?), I would probably go out of my way to abandon him/her, or at least let them know, straight up, that they weren't welcome to come along, as I didn't trust them, and if I saw them again, I would run them through on principle (assuming I was unaligned/neutral or good).
Mind you - it IS a game - make it what you want. However, if you want to talk "alignment within the rules and as generally interpreted", then that's a different story.
If not, my appologies for the accusation.
Honestly, if I were in that game, I'd probably follow the Druid player.