Player Alignments

[Wizard_of_Wumbo]

have you ever had a player or played with someone who, no matter the character, no matter the class, they always have the SAME ALIGNMENT! now by that i dont mean that they write down the same alignment every time, but that they seem to always to play characters the same way.

i found out the true alignments of my players last saturday, even though they all wrote down that they were chaotic neutral they had a huge moral argument, debate and to a lesser extent, Fight.

the alignments break down as such

1. went from CN to LE (ranger)
2. went from CN to NG (barbarian)
3.went from CN to N (rogue)
4. the last one is pretty flexible but leans towards CN (ranger)

i just think that this is a wierd observation...also, because of the ways that the characters are played and the personalities of the players we have decided to switch to a pirate/naval based campaign. wish me luck!

[Wizard_of_Wumbo]

Im aware that i have 2 non-good rangers and a neutral barbarian in the party, we are playing by pathfinder rules...so...rangers can be evil

[Cole]

yeah, thats one of the original rules I always thought was stupid. I already home ruled that one in my new campaign world instantly.

I know plenty of hunters (nowaday rangers) that kill deer, take the horns and leave the meat to rot... not taking any for their family or to use at all. If that isn't evil, not sure what is might fit under CN ... but I say let rangers be evil for absolute sure!

and ... yes, I have a player that plays all his pc's the same.

[Stik]

Rangers are not game hunters, although they do possess that skill set.
The original role of the ranger was to defend civlilization from the dangers that can come out the wild, which is the reason for the alignment requirement.

That being said, I do have one player who typically plays lawful good characters, and plays them as if she were a paladin (not quite the same thing, but the closest I can get to your example). My other players tend towards the chaotic side of the chart, regardless of what it says on their character sheets, if only because they lack the patience to do otherwise.

[Wizard_of_Wumbo]

the lawful-evil ranger is actually a bounty hunter type person, he is basically a solo mercenary...but unlike all the other mercenary characters i run across he isn't played like an anime hero. (im looking at you david)

[Cole]

Rangers are not game hunters, although they do possess that skill set.
The original role of the ranger was to defend civlilization from the dangers that can come out the wild, which is the reason for the alignment requirement.

That being said, I do have one player who typically plays lawful good characters, and plays them as if she were a paladin (not quite the same thing, but the closest I can get to your example). My other players tend towards the chaotic side of the chart, regardless of what it says on their character sheets, if only because they lack the patience to do otherwise.

Rangers live off of the wilderness (they hate towns), so IE they are game hunters no matter how you try to get around it. They set traps (pitfalls, snars etc.) to live off the land and come into cities only to help in the for aforementioned defense of those areas.

An evil ranger in my mind, can be derived from a ranger who lives off the land, kills way more then he needs to survive, simply because he enjoys killing animals.

[Stik]

You and I apparently have different ideas of what a ranger is.
To me the reason a ranger does not spend time in town is not because he dislikes towns, but because he's too busy working. If he were in town, he couldn't be out on the fringes protecting the town.

And anyone who lives off the land and kills more than what he needs to survive is not evil. He's stupid.

[Cole]

ok, we'll agree to disagree ... fair enough

I've noticed lately that allot of folks on here have completely different views on "WHAT" a ranger is and is not. I find that interesting.... as I never even contemplated it before assuming we all thought the same.

I guess if I had to describe a ranger to someone in my realm, I would say a cross between Aragorn (for attire) and the Beastmaster (for how they live) with a spash of druid woodland ideals.

I see them allot like loners of the woodlands, making their way into towns only in rare circumstances when they are selling animal pelts, trying to hire themselves out as wilderness guides etc.

Best left alone bascially.



How do you seem em Stik?

[Wizard_of_Wumbo]

this actually leads me to admit my feelings towards the ranger class in general, i honestly think that it is unessecary. with the right proficiencies, skills, appearence and personality your average fighter could say he is a ranger.

Why bother having a completely seperate class for something that could easily be a fighter personaliy archetype. The back to lord of the rings, Aragorn was little more than a fighter who lived the woods, knew elvish, cold track very well, and had an extensive knowledge of living in the wild.

thats why the ranger class in 3.0 sucked, there wasnt much to do. although the rangers in pathfinder are very well done...they certainly capture more of the master of the woodlands spirit

[TigerStripedDog]

See, I have a problem with that. Rangers gain very specific bonuses, very powerful bonuses that fighters don't. Those benefits come at a cost of restricted alignment and play. When you disregard that alignment requirement you make Rangers just as free as fighters, but better in several ways.

And to me... that sucks. Its about power playing, and everyone knows how I feel about that.

I would say if someone plays the same alignment with every character regardless of what they write down they are poor RPers, and need to re-evaluate why they play this game, and maybe look for some games that would fit them better (WW, 4th edition...). This game was meant to be about RPing, about becoming the character, not playing yourself in someone else's skin with KEWL POWoRZ!!1!!!.

I would strip them of their ranger classes, and leave them as fighters. I would also change their alignment to whatever they are playing, and serve them up with a hefty XP penalty. I would also counsel the player on what they are doing and why that is unacceptable in my group.

That said, I would consider as well what I was doing that was making this happen. The DM is always at partial fault for anythig that goes on in a game with the exception of players cheating or abusing one another... and even then I might stretch some blame to the DM (for letting things get that far out of hand).

All the while, understand that it natural for us to inject a bit of ourselves into the game, into the characters. It is unavoidable, we can't get around it. But the idea is to minimize that if we can. If we can't, fine, embrace it. But make your characters the alignment they SHOULD be, not whatever they need to be for a given class. If you want to be a ranger but your alignment is LE, tough luck. Better learn to RP.


Tiger

[Jenara]

Ok, so there are a few things here aren't there...?

Firstly I had a player who always played the same alignment, yeah he was differing characters yet they always ended up the same person and the same alignment, it got rather boring.

(Ok, i've done it too... I've had the same troubled elf in every different RPG I've ever played, she had the same outlook in life, that was just me putting ME into the character, the main Character from my first Novel is just... so me, we all do it.)

But, she was supposed to be the same character, if you are playing say a NG Dwarf fighter, then in another game play a CN Kobold Cleric.... and they act the same.... that's not really Role Playing (maybe like TSD said they should try 4th). Yeah the DM may have some influence, maybe they are used to the character playing that role and they slip into it too easily.

Either way the DM should talk to that player, explain the situation, find out if there is anything they could do, maybe even find some articles or literature that would help the player play the role they have suggested.

Secondly, Rangers, I agree with TSD, and Cole (on some points), they are good protectors of the wild, they were obviously based on Strider (Aragorn) and the other Rangers of the West) its obvious that Tolkien was Gygax's inspiration for so many things.

A Ranger gets those particular skills because of the good alignment, yeah there are hunters out there killing game and leaving parts for no reason, but thats not the point of the Ranger:

Quote the Complete Book of Rangers:
"He's a hunter, a tracker, and a survivalist. By temperament and by choice, he's a loner, often preferring the company of animals to people. Without question, he's one with nature, sworn to protect the inhabitants of the wilderness and preserve the integrity of the land."

I really can't see how that can be evil... Just like TSD Said, "Rangers have specific bonuses, these come at the cost of restricted alignment..."

Rant over.

[Wizard_of_Wumbo]

...whats up with all the 4th bagging

anyway, i still think that rangers are unessecary and that the ranger feel can be accomplished with role-playing and some DM flexibility. That said some other classes like the swashbuckler and the fencer are completely pointless to have as well...so why do we have them? because people like them! the first time i ever played D&D i wanted to be a ranger because...well...honestly i wanted to be strider only with a different name and face.

(also, according to the st ed phb aragorn is a 2nd level fighter at the beginning of LOTR and he was killing wraiths and shit, no wonder the class got so many damn hitpoint at first level)

any way, this is really off topic so i will steer it back...speaking of steering my group and i ahve decided that htese characters are more suited for a different setting so i cooked up a little area and adventure line with a nice piratey flavor...only we have no guns

[phindar]

Let's keep the edition wars to a minimum, and try to be civil.

[BryantTheSwordsman]

I decided I will make a different character. I played the Ranger as a Hunter. I should have just been a Fighter then. I should be ashamed of playing the ranger so horrible, I also remember telling Wizard he couldn't be anything, but good a long time ago and now I am here being Lawful Evil Ranger. Sorry Wizard, I will be a LG Fighter/Wizard. A challenge and something comfortable and give me XP penalties if I act out of character.

[Cole]

Quote the Complete Book of Rangers:
"He's a hunter, a tracker, and a survivalist. By temperament and by choice, he's a loner, often preferring the company of animals to people. Without question, he's one with nature, sworn to protect the inhabitants of the wilderness and preserve the integrity of the land."

I really can't see how that can be evil... Just like TSD Said, "Rangers have specific bonuses, these come at the cost of restricted alignment..."
Rant over.

- Ranger kills anyone who threatens his personal home (without talking to em to see why they there) < EVIL

- Ranger sets up traps to kill off intruders in his area (with no concern for who he might hurt) < EVIL

- Ranger sets up ambushes to rob from all who pass through his protected area. < EVIL

I can think up tons of examples of a Ranger being evil, without breaking the description above. You just need to think EVIL

IMO if people wanna play an evil ranger go for it as I can personally justify it. Unlike Female Paladins or Pally Assassins, or Half-Orc Pallys ... I just don't stand for that crap