Player Alignments

[Ismaels-Legacy]

In some of the older editions, there wasn't even a race/class distinction. If you were an elf, you were automatically a fighter/mage. Seriously; Elf and Dwarf were character options on par with Fighter, Paladin, etc.

As far as alignment goes, I certainly understand that there is a need for a code of ethics for certain classes such as Paladins and to some degree, Rangers, but other than that, it's just a loose framework for a character concept. If there were an actual scale and actual effects for each, then perhaps there would be more meaning to the system, but for the most part alignment is simply a character descriptor.

[TigerStripedDog]

In the end, Alignment was meant to be an RPing aid. Because people generally act in consistent ways. After the age of around 16, I am going tofollow a bseic set of rules, a basic set of behavior. I have a personality, I have a way of thinking, and a way of doing. I could likely ascribe some alignment to that set of behavior.

However, in a game where you are jumping into a character that already has a personality, that is likely at least 16 years old, you lack a frame of reference with which to make decisions, with which to be consistent.

Alignment was supposed to HELP with this. If you came to a point where you weren't sure what your character would do... you now, unless you are "playing" yourself (*ha, see what I did there?)... you canuse your alignment as a guide. And if you get carried away you may have to reference your alignment to make sure that you don't go beyond your characters personality when maybe he/she wouldn't.

It is ment to help shape you as you are role playing. Help you become immersive in what is otherwise an alien personality in an alien situation. It can be especially helpful with other races who likely have a completely different life perspective, a different way of thinking... Elves, Halflings, Orcs... you get the idea. Alignment was meant to be a constant within this shifting framework of a game.

Or heck... how about a wizard!? Can you imagine what it would be like if you could bend cosmic power to your whim? How do you even pretend to understand that? Or what if you coudl speak directly with your GOD?! Thats crazy?! To even try to truly RP that is really really hard, if not impossible. Let alone if you have Wis or Int of 18 (something most of us can't even comprehend).

Alignment helps guide you through that, and help play a character.

Consider as well that alignment was never supposed to be a hard line. Alignments are all flexible. Not EVERY action must fall within your alignment, jsut the bulk. A Chaotic character CAN follow the law, and a Good character CAN have a selfish action... its just that the bulk of the actions shouldn't fall outside the bounds of alignment.

People often get the misguided idea that what is required of Paladins is required of everyone. But that simply isn't the case. Paladins have an ETHOS, a CODE which they must follow as dictated by their God(ess). This code happens to fall within the lawful good alignment category, but it is a distinctly different thing. No other character type (at least not classically) has those kind of restrictions.


Tiger

[greenknight]

In the end, Alignment was meant to be an RPing aid.

Yes, alignment evolved as a RPing aid, but in the beginning it was meant to be a straitjacket. Here's a quote from Dave Arneson:

"We now had alignment. Spells to detect alignment, and rules forbidding
actions not allowed by ones alignment. Actually not as much fun as not
knowing. Chuck and John had a great time being the 'official' evil players.
They would draw up adventures to trap the others (under my supervision) and
otherwise make trouble."

So in 1st Ed AD&D especially, you had some severe penalties for changing alignment, and several classes were tied to particular alignments. The tie between alignment and game mechanics was loosened with each succeeding edition until in 4e alignment really is primarily a RP aid.

However, in a game where you are jumping into a character that already has a personality, that is likely at least 16 years old, you lack a frame of reference with which to make decisions, with which to be consistent.

Exactly. I tend to take alignment very seriously, and it's one of the foundations on which I build the character's personality. That said, D&D started without an alignment system, and there are plenty of games out there which function perfectly well without one. In fact, I'm coming to the conclusion that replacing alignments with a series of roleplaying suggestions for each race and class might be a better way to achieve much the same result.

you now, unless you are "playing" yourself (*ha, see what I did there?)... you canuse your alignment as a guide.

Well yes, but didn't you say in this very post:

"After the age of around 16, I am going tofollow a bseic set of rules, a basic set of behavior. I have a personality, I have a way of thinking, and a way of doing. I could likely ascribe some alignment to that set of behavior."

So even when you are playing yourself, you can use your alignment as a guide. In fact, if you are playing yourself, you should use your alignment as a guide.

It can be especially helpful with other races who likely have a completely different life perspective, a different way of thinking... Elves, Halflings, Orcs... you get the idea. Alignment was meant to be a constant within this shifting framework of a game.

I don't agree. A NG character would have much the same moral and ethical PoV regardless of race or class. That's one reason why I think a set of roleplaying suggestions specific to Race and Class would be better overall than a general alignment system. The (2nd Ed AD&D) Complete Fighter's Handbook has a section called "Warrior Personalities" which are (not surprisingly) tied to the Fighter archetype. That's more the kind of thing I'd be looking for.

People often get the misguided idea that what is required of Paladins is required of everyone. But that simply isn't the case. Paladins have an ETHOS, a CODE which they must follow as dictated by their God(ess). This code happens to fall within the lawful good alignment category, but it is a distinctly different thing. No other character type (at least not classically) has those kind of restrictions.

AD&D and 3e Paladins will fall if they commit a single Evil act. That pretty much railroads them to the Good path.

[Crimson-Kobold]

I guarantee that good RP will enhance every group. Whatever level you are used to, whatever amount of RP you have done before. I laid out a formula in another thread... if you break down your time in game, think 33.3% Fights and Dice, and 66.6% RP. Thats going to be your sweet spot. All of my best session, all of my best quests fall right about there.

Different groups are different. Crazy idea, I know, but that is how it is. Your two thirds roleplay one third fights may work for your group, but not necessarily mine, or Wumbo's. That just comes with the fact that individuals have different tastes.

Roleplaying yourself

So if you created a character based on yourself, and play a role with it. I fail to see how that is not roleplaying.

Just like GK said, from the 2nd Ed PHB:

""It means that whenever the character is called on to do something or make a decision, the player pretends that he is in that situation and chooses an appropriate course of action." "

Apparently the writers of your preferred edition disagree with you

Expectations

Funny. You know what the creators of the game expects of players?

To have fun. Nothing more nothing less. If you think otherwise, it sounds like you're reading too far into their words.

Do they suggest you roleplay as much as possible? Well, yeah, of course. But their expectations were merely for people to enjoy themselves.

Aribitrary rules

Ok. What is it that prevents other races from having religous zealots that are basically combat clerics?

The way I see it, Paladins were merely a mix between Warriors and Cleric, and since other races can be each of those, then I for one think there is no real reason to bar it unless there is a special reason within the setting. And even then, I would say it would be kinda weak then.

[Cole]

So in 1st Ed AD&D especially, you had some severe penalties for changing alignment, and several classes were tied to particular alignments.

Ahh yes, thus why I still like 1E best. Screw up yer alignment actions in my world to many times and I'll force an alignment change on you and take a level away for having it come to that

Sure they are guidelines, but what good are guidelines for role-playing if you never follow em. Thus the penalties and my pry bar for making crappy gamers into great ones

~Long live AD&D!

[Wizard_of_Wumbo]

i personally think that all of you adhere to the rules way more than is actually nessecary, to truly get into the spirit of the game me a nd my group mess with the game as a whole and improvise our own mechanics. In all honesty im sick off people criticizing other people on the way they role-play, if you havent sat in on a session or even seen their character played, how would you know what the character is like and how they affect their srroundings.

P.s. if you are that serious about role-playing join a ren faire they make you stay in character all the time anyway.

[Ismaels-Legacy]

Roleplaying yourself

So if you created a character based on yourself, and play a role with it. I fail to see how that is not roleplaying.

While it can be roleplaying, I do NOT allow this at my gaming session. I had a guy with an overbearing personality in RL and he transferred that to his characters who were always "RPed" as if they were just like him. He railroaded many, many games, single-handedly caused multiple Total Party Kills, and at one point was even the catalyst for a campaign since the DM knew how he was likely to react in any given situation.

The way I see it, Paladins were merely a mix between Warriors and Cleric, and since other races can be each of those, then I for one think there is no real reason to bar it unless there is a special reason within the setting. And even then, I would say it would be kinda weak then.

The best description of the difference between Cleric and Paladin is this: Consider clerics to be Crusaders, while Paladins are more like the "Knights Templar".

[greenknight]

While it can be roleplaying, I do NOT allow this at my gaming session. I had a guy with an overbearing personality in RL and he transferred that to his characters who were always "RPed" as if they were just like him. He railroaded many, many games, single-handedly caused multiple Total Party Kills, and at one point was even the catalyst for a campaign since the DM knew how he was likely to react in any given situation.

Well, in fairness, unless he also regularly manages to get himself and several of his friends killed IRL, I don't think he's really roleplaying things properly.

But I agree, roleplaying yourself is usually not such a great idea. I remember reading one campaign journal where a group of high level PCs stepped through a magical gateway and wound up right near the player's houses. The D&D PCs then joined up with the Player PCs and set about creating chaos. That might make for an interesting one-off adventure, but I don't think it would be a good idea to do that all the time.

(Edit: Got that wrong)

The best description of the difference between Cleric and Paladin is this: Consider clerics to be Crusaders, while Paladins are more like the "Knights Templar".

But then how would you describe the Crusader class from Spells & Magic?

[Crimson-Kobold]

Wrong person

IL said that

But I agree, roleplaying yourself is usually not such a great idea. I remember reading one campaign journal where a group of high level PCs stepped through a magical gateway and wound up right near the player's houses. The D&D PCs then joined up with the Player PCs and set about creating chaos. That might make for an interesting one-off adventure, but I don't think it would be a good idea to do that all the time.

*shrugs* I really don't think there would be a huge issue, as really, you're thinking "what would I do in this situation?" instead of "what would this character do in this situation?" Those questions in the end, are merely different sides of the same coin no?

[greenknight]

(Sorry about that CK. I've fixed the post)

It's about the separation of player vs character. Unless you are playing yourself, your character is a different person and IMO should be treated as such. It's one reason why I go on about player knowledge vs character knowledge and all that other stuff. Basically, the character you imagine has probably lived a very different life to the one you have, and is likely to react to things differently to how "you" would.

Take snakes for example. In real life, I'm very, very wary of them, and I'd much rather avoid them or (carefully) move them on than try to kill them. But most D&D characters I've had would be willing to try to kill any snakes they encounter. For that matter, I'm not all that keen to go into a dark cave if I think there's something really dangerous lurking inside, but my characters do things like that on a regular basis.

Then there's the issue of alignment. Not all my characters have the same alignment, although most are Good aligned. And just on that basis, many of my characters will react differently to similar situations. And I haven't even mentioned differences caused by race and class. My Elves will react to some situations differently to how my Dwarves would react, for example, and my warrior type characters are usually more nervous about unknown magical effects than my Wizards.

I try to give each and every one of my PCs their own character and style. I mainly play online these days, and there have been times when I have two different characters in two different games and other players (who also have characters in both games) have no idea it's the same player behind both characters, simply because of how differently I play them.

[katten_hasp]

Hello.

I'm playing a Ranger, my first ever character, I chose a Ranger because I like the outdoors, and it seemed to fit with me. When the Dungeon Master said I had to be good I thought it was a little funny! Why play a Hero that isn't good? What's the fun in that? Aren't these characters supposed to be, well heroic?

I really don't know how someone who is evil would be a hero? I do understand the idea of the anti-hero, but I wouldn't want to play one.

I'm very new, so my views are based on two weeks of gaming, so I'm ready when you tell me they are a little naive!

[Wizard_of_Wumbo]

When i first started playing i wanted to play a ranger as well, so we have a sort of commonality there. The reason that you would play a character who is not Good aligned is because quite frankly, most people arent good aligned! Being aligned to goodness means that you push for the causes of kindness, humilty and such, where as most normal people dont care either way.

Also, you dont have to play as a hero...if you are doing a grand quet where your goal is to save the world (or a large part of it anyway) you most likely are going to be good aligned, but if your character is just a normal guy, or girl, who is trying to make it by in life you arent really a hero. Ive seen some people do some reallly unheroic things around my gaming table, as a matter of fact this thread was started for that exact reason.

[katten_hasp]

Hello

I did read that about why it was started, so do get the background.

I just thought it was really weird that someone would be evil, somewhere in the middle I understand but Evil?

Aren't these people we play more than the common man? The common man would be slightly jaded he has a king or whatever giving him a hard time, and you could get killed in a second flat by creatures that might rip out your throat, but these characters are better than that.

Katten is Chaotic Good, she lies and cheats and she treats some people badly, but she is still a good person at the end of the day, in her world view she is doing the work that she was put here for, saving the forest and avenging her parents.

I truly believe it is possible to be a good person, I think I am, never been in trouble with the police, I am nice to most of my friends and I give money to charity.

I think your idea of what is good is a real good-goody two shoes! lol

[Jenara]

Hello

I did read that about why it was started, so do get the background.

I just thought it was really weird that someone would be evil, somewhere in the middle I understand but Evil?

Aren't these people we play more than the common man? The common man would be slightly jaded he has a king or whatever giving him a hard time, and you could get killed in a second flat by creatures that might rip out your throat, but these characters are better than that.

Katten is Chaotic Good, she lies and cheats and she treats some people badly, but she is still a good person at the end of the day, in her world view she is doing the work that she was put here for, saving the forest and avenging her parents.

I truly believe it is possible to be a good person, I think I am, never been in trouble with the police, I am nice to most of my friends and I give money to charity.

I think your idea of what is good is a real good-goody two shoes! lol

Oh and she wades in, guns blazing I see!

You mean you haven't been caught, right? We all do bad things, its just a matter of scale. But you know I agree with you on this.

You can be "GOOD" and good.... like I said, a matter of scale.

[Stik]

The way I see it, Paladins were merely a mix between Warriors and Cleric...

Had clerics been played the way they were originally intended, there would be no paladins.
After the cleric as written was found to be better in a support role, as a healing machine and backup fighter rather than as a holy warrior, the designers had to go back to the drawing board and create the paladin.