Navdi, following on from your point, the D&D alignment system is made moot by the fact that there is no consensus within the rules as to what constitutes a good/evil/lawful/chaotic act except for some very broad guidelines. Since D&D has no mechanical representation of alignment (such as those featured in many World of Darkness games) all matters of alignment are up to DM fiat. This becomes even more problematic within organized play campaigns, since players will go through many tables with many different DMs, who might all have different ideas on what constitutes good and evil.
This is why I'd like to see some sort of guidelines for DMs in the society for adjudicating alignment. Maybe just have a sidebar in the scenario which lists "21 ways for your Paladin to breach his code during this scenario" and be sure to remind the players of the repercusions of their actions. With that said, these guidelines should provide enough of a grey area where certain actions aren't explicitly good or evil. Going off a note by Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw, the choice shouldn't be between Mother Theresa and baby-eater. All I'm saying is that even Mother Theresa must get a little peckish now and then...
Some would go so far as to that Mother Theresa was evil.
Death bed conversion of people who don't truely understand what was being done to them is a pretty morally gray act.
|
Some would go so far as to that Mother Theresa was evil.
Death bed conversion of people who don't truely understand what was being done to them is a pretty morally gray act.
My intention wasn't to spark a conversation on what Mother Theresa's alignment would be in D&D. I simply mentioned her because she was the example used by "Yahtzee" and also because she is a pretty iconic "do-gooder" in our world.
Carry on.
I understand that. The point i was aiming at was that opinions on the behaviour of some one who many considered should have been made a saint are devided.
If some one so seemingly clear cut is open to discussion, how do we even begin to enforce a no evil character rule. I could likely play a lawful evil character in the pathfinder sociaty and provided no one looked at the alignment line, get through to retiring it, without any one thinking it was anything but LN.
Why? Because the actions of a LN character and LE character can be identicial under many conditions. The difference between the actions of the two are normal measure by the motivation alone.
|
The main point of my post was that since there isn't any kind of viable mechanic attached to the alignment system there should be in-game repercussions of unlawful behavior in a civilized setting such as a big city with laws and lawmen. Civilizations are built on law and order, and this should be represented in the game setting as well.
I keep my groups away from evil acts with one simple tool, Reputation. Having an NPC disturbed by the party's bloodthirsty actions, in a way, holds a mirror up to the players. The fact of the matter is no matter if the actions are performed by a fiendish mastermind or a noble protector evil acts often have one thing in common. They are easy. It is easy to kill the giant after capturing and questioning him but it is hard to figure out what to do with a giant that will be left alive.
Will the enemy left breathing end up a detriment to the party and their friends later on? This involves some work and planning to avoid returning repercussions.
That is why players often do evil things. Also in the case of irritating nymphs the game or PCs are often not equipped to deal with such situation. When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.
Well said Russell. My comments still stand, but I agree with your advice.
"Having an NPC disturbed by the party's bloodthirsty actions, in a way, holds a mirror up to the players." I tried that once, and it worked quite well. Now that you've pointed it out, I'll make more use of it in the future.
"It is easy to kill the giant after capturing and questioning him but it is hard to figure out what to do with a giant that will be left alive. " Haha. I know. It seems most people want "easy decisions" in their fantasy games so they can "relax"; I personally prefer a more challenging policy-based type of game (rather than tactical), but that can tend to slow down the action.
The session basically turned into a UN Security Council session. Still, the players appreciated the challenge and said it was a good capstone to one of the more surreal 7-session campaigns they'd been thrust into.
My apologies for the thread necromancy. I just could not resist commenting.
Cognitive dissonance, the state in which two contradictory beliefs are held at once, may provide some insight as to how an upstanding paladin could work for a faction like Cheliax.
How many atrocities have been performed throughout history by people who sincerely believed that they were doing the right thing (serving crown and country, doing the will of the gods, spreading democracy, civilizing the 'savages', etc.)?
A large majority of Hitler's supporters also thought this way.
Perhaps our paladin hero drank the Kool-Aid long ago and is now marching to the tune of 'Onward Asmodean Soldier'...