Player Alignments

[Ismaels-Legacy]

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.

Actually....lying and treating people badly are evil traits, while cheating is Chaotic.


As far as choosing to play an evil character....why NOT!? Like you said, most average people are not Lawful Good in RL, but it takes a truly exceptional bastard to be Evil! I LOVE playing evil characters! One of my favorite moments in-game came when I went into a house with my barbarian to confront a vampire that was holding a girl hostage. The paladin was outside, preparing to go in, and he used detect evil to locate the vampire. Man, if it weren't for the girl inside I think he would have burned the house down around us! As it was, the dude tried to convert me from my evil ways, but refused to allow me to be associated with the group. I had to camp well away from them and when they needed help with an adventure someone else came and got me. The paladin sulked the whole time, but always got coned into joining for "the Greater Good".

[katten_hasp]

This is just an idea, but like you said they are evil traits, we all have those. Just because I have those traits doesn't mean I'm evil (?).

Maybe when I've played a bit longer i'll be a little more jaded like you guys then I might want to play an evil character.

[Ismaels-Legacy]

I guess it really depends on to what extent your character Lies, Cheats, and Steals!

[katten_hasp]

I guess it really depends on to what extent your character Lies, Cheats, and Steals!

She believes its ok to lie, cheat and steal from those people she considers evil, she'd never do it to the innocent or weak

[Ismaels-Legacy]

I'd say that's more of a neutral viewpoint. Not saying that it's a bad thing, but it certainly seems like she's got a Chaotic Neutral vibe going. What does everyone else think?

[Crimson-Kobold]

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!

Hrm.

I've kinda viewed good and evil as how far individuals are willing to go to fulfill their moral compass.

Good characters basically do what they can to help others. Evil doesn't care what impacts their actions have on others, if someone is hurt by it, so be it. A neutral character would be one who isn't necessary willing to go out of their way to help someone, but neither do they intend to cause harm through their actions (alternative, neutral could be someone seeking a balance between the two)

What does that mean for the Ranger? A good Ranger helps those in need in the forests, a neutral Ranger won't actively help unless required to do so, such as if it's country men in trouble (outsiders are on their own however), while an Evil Ranger would set traps for humanoids to fulfill their purposes.

As for Lawful and Chaotic, a Lawful character would be someone who values order above all else, perhaps even overthrowing an existing government if it is corrupt enough that it is hindering order. A chaotic character values their freedom above all else, and will do anything to perserve these freedoms. A neutral character also values freedom, but not to the point that they will actively work against order.

While alignments are largely subjective, I believe this way of viewing them allows for the greatest freedom in playing, so that a Paladin could, in theory, actually party with an evil character, it's just the evil character needs to make some concessions if they don't want to chase away, or worse, anger the Paladin to the point that they attack.

This is also assuming you factor alignments as a major part of your game. It's entirely possible to forego alignments, which is aok in my books since the actions of people are far too complex to constrain to 9 alignments.

[TigerStripedDog]

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!

I can understand this viewpoint Katten, and I am not a fan of playing evil characters that often either, but conisder that its possible for someone to want to do that. As well, the alignment system was meant to work for NPC's as well... which of course could be evil (bad guys).

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

Agreed, which is what I mentioned earlier as well. Alignment was never supposed to be hard ad fast... except for Paladins. Paladins are the only class in which one infraction of the rules results in penalties. For the rest of them its up to the DM's interpretation... or even the groups interpretation of the cahracter's intentions, and gestalt play.

Actually....lying and treating people badly are evil traits, while cheating is Chaotic.

I disagree. Treating people badly is evil. Lying and cheating are chaotic. If my wife were to ask me if I thought the waitress was hot... well see here i have a choice. I can start an argument by telling the truth, or I can simply lie. Is it really evil if even my wife tells me (after the last time this happened and I told the truth) that she would rather I lie?

Tough to say.

I'd say that's more of a neutral viewpoint. Not saying that it's a bad thing, but it certainly seems like she's got a Chaotic Neutral vibe going. What does everyone else think?

Haha, I totally agree. Sorry Katten, but you sound very CN, bordering CE. Lets get something straight. Sane evil people believe in their own "viewpoint". They THINK they are good people because they rationalize what are otherwise evil actions by saying that "well, from my point of view...". Sorry, still evil. Until about the past 50-100 years there were such things as moral absolutes... you have to consider that the idea of "moral relativity" which you are sort of hinting at is very new and not necissarily "truth". But whatever, thats a conversation for a totally different forum.

Good characters basically do what they can to help others. Evil doesn't care what impacts their actions have on others, if someone is hurt by it, so be it. A neutral character would be one who isn't necessary willing to go out of their way to help someone, but neither do they intend to cause harm through their actions (alternative, neutral could be someone seeking a balance between the two)

What does that mean for the Ranger? A good Ranger helps those in need in the forests, a neutral Ranger won't actively help unless required to do so, such as if it's country men in trouble (outsiders are on their own however), while an Evil Ranger would set traps for humanoids to fulfill their purposes.

As for Lawful and Chaotic, a Lawful character would be someone who values order above all else, perhaps even overthrowing an existing government if it is corrupt enough that it is hindering order. A chaotic character values their freedom above all else, and will do anything to perserve these freedoms. A neutral character also values freedom, but not to the point that they will actively work against order.

I disagree with most of this. Good aligned characters are those for whom the majority of motivations are towards a common good, and the majority of actions are towards good.

An Evil Character is one for whom the majority of interests and actions are for self interest, or the interest of evil parties (even if not necissarily for self gain although this is rare).

A chaotic character is one for whom the majority of decisions are unpredictable in terms of law, order, or consistency.

A Lawful character is one for whom the majority of decisions tend towards order, loyalty, stability, or consistency.

Neutral are those character for whom no more than 24% of their decisions are either lawful, chaotic, evil or good. Balance may or may not be a priority.

This is also assuming you factor alignments as a major part of your game. It's entirely possible to forego alignments, which is aok in my books since the actions of people are far too complex to constrain to 9 alignments.

I do agree that it is possible, but I think when you do this you depart fundamentally from D&D. There are plenty of games that forgo alignment, D&D isn't one of them. It is a core part of the game, and a GREAT aid for RPing. I have never seen ditching alignment benefit a group... usually it just gives everyone an excuse to play their own personal alignment and role play less.


Tiger

[Ismaels-Legacy]

Good characters basically do what they can to help others. Evil doesn't care what impacts their actions have on others, if someone is hurt by it, so be it.

I disagree with most of this. Good aligned characters are those for whom the majority of motivations are towards a common good, and the majority of actions are towards good.

An Evil Character is one for whom the majority of interests and actions are for self interest, or the interest of evil parties (even if not necissarily for self gain although this is rare).

You do realize that for the most part you simply restated CKs viewpoint on Good and Evil. The main difference is your views of evil where his definition centers on selfishness and callousness toward others, yours focuses on self-interest (Selfishess) and gain or profit in general rather than self-gain. Of course in the evil mindset, if your conspirators gain power as a group, YOU stand to gain from it as well. (Either that or a quick knife to the back )

This is also assuming you factor alignments as a major part of your game. It's entirely possible to forego alignments, which is aok in my books since the actions of people are far too complex to constrain to 9 alignments.

I do agree that it is possible, but I think when you do this you depart fundamentally from D&D. There are plenty of games that forgo alignment, D&D isn't one of them. It is a core part of the game, and a GREAT aid for RPing. I have never seen ditching alignment benefit a group... usually it just gives everyone an excuse to play their own personal alignment and role play less.

I totally disagree. Alignment is a roleplaying aid, but is too constrictive, especially when dealing with DMs who dock experience for taking actions that are outside the character's alignment. Even if the character would likely behave in a certain way in a specific situation that doesn't mean that they are acting within their alignment. Often times I find that alignment restricts character development rather than enhance it.

[TigerStripedDog]

You do realize that for the most part you simply restated CKs viewpoint on Good and Evil. The main difference is your views of evil where his definition centers on selfishness and callousness toward others, yours focuses on self-interest (Selfishess) and gain or profit in general rather than self-gain. Of course in the evil mindset, if your conspirators gain power as a group, YOU stand to gain from it as well. (Either that or a quick knife to the back )

I will give you that the differences were subtle, but that doesn't mean they aren't important.

Take a look again at what CK said, and how I responded to it. CK used words like "above all else" in concerns to lawful and chaotic characters. And I don't think thats true at all. I don't think a Lawful character even has to value order... it may simply be that he or she is loyal, or used orderly methods in their good, evil, or neutral actions. I also don't think that to say that a neutral, lawful, or chaotic character views freedom differently is accurate. One may value freedom above all and still be lawful, if that character views freedom as an unalienable right of all people... you get the idea.

CK was too archetypal in his statements, and beyond that I think he blatantly mistated what priorities should be considered archetypal anyway.

I totally disagree. Alignment is a roleplaying aid, but is too constrictive, especially when dealing with DMs who dock experience for taking actions that are outside the character's alignment. Even if the character would likely behave in a certain way in a specific situation that doesn't mean that they are acting within their alignment. Often times I find that alignment restricts character development rather than enhance it.

The game is meant to be role played. Alignment is a way for players to guide role playing in a consistent pattern. Its also a standard by which the DM's can measure or judge RP... something necessary for XP awards, or deductions.


Can this be done other ways? Yes. But I have never seen alignment hurt, only help. If you find that alignment isn't working, the problem is likely with you and not the system. Perhaps you aren't playing consistently... or perhaps you chose the wrong alignment in the beginning?


Tiger

[greenknight]

I'd say that's more of a neutral viewpoint. Not saying that it's a bad thing, but it certainly seems like she's got a Chaotic Neutral vibe going. What does everyone else think?

Since I put lying, cheating and stealing on the Ethical side of the scale (Law/Chaos), I think this would make for a very Chaotic character, but have no real impact on the moral axis (Good/Evil).

Take stealing for example. Robin Hood is given as an example of a historical Ranger in the 2nd Ed PHB - and in 2nd Ed, Rangers must be Good aligned. A big part of the reputation of Robin Hood is that he stole frequently, and still he's usually seen as being Chaotic Good.

Cheating and lying can be viewed in much the same way. Bret Maverick (from the TV show) is my example for this. He certainly cheated and lied, but he chose his targets very carefully and was honest with people who were also honest. I'd have no trouble classifying him as as CG.

[Ismaels-Legacy]

I will give you that the differences were subtle, but that doesn't mean they aren't important.

Take a look again at what CK said, and how I responded to it. CK used words like "above all else" in concerns to lawful and chaotic characters.

I said nothing about your two arguments about law/chaos, only good and evil. I merely said that evil is, at it's root, about a character being selfish.

Can this be done other ways? Yes. But I have never seen alignment hurt, only help. If you find that alignment isn't working, the problem is likely with you and not the system.

Ok, I have two problems with this statement:

1)You start by saying that there CAN be other ways that alignment can be handled and that you "have never seen alignment hurt" roleplay.

then

2) You say that if the D&D alignment system isn't working for me or my group, the problem is clearly with me and my players. Despite the fact that you're basing your opinion on your own observations.


You may have a wide array of experience in gaming both from a DMs and Players standpoint, but to say that someone is wrong just because you've never seen a problem with the system is frankly insulting.

[Jenara]

Sorry Katten, but you sound very CN, bordering CE.

To say she is possibly evil is well... I just can't see you can say that about someone you don't know, based on a few words.

Firstly she's a friend of mine, so I'm bias, I haven't played in a game with her but she's told me the things she's done. I'd actually consider her to be just like GK's example: Robin Hood!

I would consider her to be CG with Neutral Tendencies.

Edited to fix a reference, Jen

[Ismaels-Legacy]

I'd actually consider her to be just like IL's example: Robin Hood!

Psst. That was Greenknight, but TSD may be more apt to reply to my example.

[Wizard_of_Wumbo]

i personnally tink you are being too hard on katten, so her character lies to the evil and cheats to triumph. While these things may not be very honorable they are not all that evil, Katten honestly seems to have that whole "butthole with a heart of gold" archetype going on there.

ONe more thing i was mulling over, i think some classes that have alignment restrictions should instead have a code of conduct, a set of rules written in stone that say "no! you cant do this, if you do...then bad stuff happens". I think it would work like the druidic code, where they cant wear metal armor and stuff. A paladin could have something as simple as a knights code...an oath that they swear to in which they promise that they will be truthful, kind and brave in the face of danger. Alignments just seem to flimsy and easy to argue.

or somethin like that.

[Ismaels-Legacy]

Exactly!