|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm playing a CN summoner in my Pathfinder game, and I'm wondering what specific points in alignment are needed to cross from N to E?
I'm playing him off the wall hilarious and insane, but who does do things that are good-he never does things that scream evil, just err-questionable?
He takes the faces of the BBEGs the party fights and is in the process of making a trenchcoat out of them. He took the hand of a Babau and attached it on the end of his spear (middle finger leading to the point of the spear "The Finger!"). He doesn't trust anything that doesn't wear pants (what are they hiding under there?) He gives dead rats to important people as gifts (it's a delicacy in the abyssal plane of Tako-Bel!)
But he's never actually killed or harmed (permanently) any innocents. He's seriously contemplated getting rid of the bard (we'll push her back into the pit trap and no one will have to be burdened by her again!) And the druid, who deserved to "Yiff in hell".
But aside from all his quirks, is there anything that would make him go from CN to CE?
Creative Director
|
The difference between neutral and evil is often in the eye of the player or GM... but here's how I would categorize your acts if I were your GM:
Making a trenchcoat out of skinned faces taken from BBEGs: Evil
Babau hand at the tip of a spear with the finger flipping the bird: Chaotic
Not trusting things that don't wear pants: Chaotic
Giving dead rats to people as gifts: Chaotic (unless you KNOW that doing so will cause violence or destructive conflict, in which case it's Evil)
Giving someone a gift because you know it's a delicacy in the Abyss: Evil
Maintaining that there's an Abyssal realm called Tako-Bel: Chaotic (and annoying)
Pushing a fellow PC into a pit because they annoy you: Evil
Honestly, the bit about making a trenchcoat out of faces is probably enough on its own for me to say you're playing an evil character, though.
I also question whether the alignment hasn't already slipped into Evil. "CN" emphasizes chaos, with a balance between or a disinterest in the morality of one's actions. It certainly doesn't require insanity, but maniacal people are often "pure chaos."
Perhaps the list of off-color actions you chose to give has been balance by a similar list of altruistic or sympathetic actions, but we don't get that flavor from your descriptions. Not harming innocent people is more of a "neutral" position...a non-evil stance. Helping them would be good and might balance out the commission of some other--um--hideous acts.
Just my thoughts...
To answer your question, though, I'd say, "Not much." :)
I would say the player is seriously breaking the suspension of disbelief. The middle-finger is clearly a modern, Earth-based symbol. To use it in D&D breaks the feel of the setting. Personally, I wouldn't allow someone who doesn't at least attempt to take the game seriously sit at my table.
Secondly, the character is definitely chaotic. No doubt there.
However, your snapshot description leaves out too many details. Normally, if I have to stop and ask myself the question: Is this character acting evil? Then he/she is probably evil. Neutral and good characters usually don't do things that make you have to ask yourself this.
Lastly, threatening characters in the party, whom he is supposed to trust with his life, doesn't make for a good adventuring party.
With all of that said, if the game is fun and everyone is having a good time, does any of what I just typed really matter?
Cheers!
|
Creative Director
|
Making a trenchcoat out of skinned faces taken from BBEGs: EvilEven if they're already dead? It's not like he kept em in a hole and made them lotion themselves up for awhile before he skinned em...
I don't see how robbing the face of a corpse so you can glory in wearing it as clothing is a good OR a neutral act. In most societies (including the one I live in and the one in which the writers of the game live in) defiling a corpse is considered evil.
Are you out for your own gain at the expense of others, or just out for your own gain? Will you actively hurt others to further yourself or your own pleasure? When debating neutral vs evil, these are the 2 questions I always ask.
Nothing you have said screems CE to me. Its just as easily CN, and I can even justify much of it as CG or LG, up until the debating killing party members. I would need more information from that, like how they behave that causes you to debate this. I don't know your character's motivation, but making people into a jacket could be defined as a way of honoring worthy opponents, a potentially good act, and easily lawful. You could believe the hand on the spear increases its power, and wasting it would dishonor it... Look at me justifying your actions as a weird witch doctor, certainly you could be CN.
|
Err
are you sure he isn't CE already???
I kind of agree ... he sounds like he has some pretty pyscopathic tendancies.
Chaotic means you have a strong dislike for things like law and order ... you are very free willed.
Neutral means you are not actively good or evil, though you still tend to prefer a generaly good, or at least non evil way of life.
Evil means you actively do evil things ... rape, murder etc. You have little regard for morality or the sanctity of life.
It could be argued that the Robin Hood of literature might be chaotic neutral ... Hannibal Lechter was most likely closer to chaotic evil.
Your guy certainly sounds more like Hannibal Lechter than Robin Hood to me!
|
|
I don't see how robbing the face of a corpse so you can glory in wearing it as clothing is a good OR a neutral act. In most societies (including the one I live in and the one in which the writers of the game live in) defiling a corpse is considered evil.Making a trenchcoat out of skinned faces taken from BBEGs: EvilEven if they're already dead? It's not like he kept em in a hole and made them lotion themselves up for awhile before he skinned em...
Not trying to be snarky, but is wearing dragonhide armor evil then? Dragons are sentient, intelligent beings, and assuming you skin them yourself, that would seem to be just as evil.
EDIT: and my original post was just supposed to be a funny reference to silence of the lambs
|
Creative Director
|
I would say the player is seriously breaking the suspension of disbelief. The middle-finger is clearly a modern, Earth-based symbol. To use it in D&D breaks the feel of the setting. Personally, I wouldn't allow someone who doesn't at least attempt to take the game seriously sit at my table.
I agree (although I suspect that the middle finger is a LOT older than most of us think; the Tako-Bel bit is more along the lines of disruptive in this regard).
A player that constantly tries to break the suspension of disbelief isn't being evil, though... just annoying. And in games I run, I would likely ask that player to cease the annoying behavior or, at the very least, keep it to a minimum. I certainly wouldn't adopt silly things like that into my campaign's canon.
None of that makes the character evil though. But it WOULD lessen my GM's guilt when bad things happen to that character.
I don't see how robbing the face of a corpse so you can glory in wearing it as clothing is a good OR a neutral act. In most societies (including the one I live in and the one in which the writers of the game live in) defiling a corpse is considered evil.Making a trenchcoat out of skinned faces taken from BBEGs: EvilEven if they're already dead? It's not like he kept em in a hole and made them lotion themselves up for awhile before he skinned em...
Yes, but is shrinking heads so that the spiritual elders can honor the dead an evil act? Some societies would say that it is defiling the corpse; others would say its an important way to honor the dead, potentially reserving the right for elders and people of import. I say it depends on the culture he is from and why he is doing it.
|
Creative Director
|
Not trying to be snarky, but is wearing dragonhide armor evil then? Dragons are sentient, intelligent beings, and assuming you skin them yourself, that would seem to be just as evil.
If you were making your armor specifically so that the dragon's faces were visible and were glorying in the fact that you're wearing an intelligent creature's recognizable body parts... yes. I would qualify that as evil.
If the visible/recognizable dragon body parts were from evil dragons, that'd be less of a case for evil.
If you often bragged about how you were wearing faces, or otherwise gloried or obsessed over the morbid parts of your attire, that'd be MORE of a case for evil.
It's obviously not a black and white scenario. And the OP's situation might not be as nasty or evil as he paints it, but the fact that he DOES give it an air of psychotic evil does kind of help me make my own opinion up that he's playing an evil character.
|
Creative Director
|
Yes, but is shrinking heads so that the spiritual elders can honor the dead an evil act? Some societies would say that it is defiling the corpse; others would say its an important way to honor the dead, potentially reserving the right for elders and people of import. I say it depends on the culture he is from and why he is doing it.
You are correct that it depends on the culture. I highly doubt anyone who plays a PFS game is from a culture where shrunken heads are accepted and thought of as honorable... but I could just be being narrow-minded.
Someone who DOES have that kind of belief and doesn't moderate those beliefs in a public place like a PFS game or these boards would be chaotic.
Someone who does have those beliefs and enjoys watching others who don't share those beliefs squirm and grow uncomfortable would be evil.
The difference between neutral and evil is often in the eye of the player or GM... but here's how I would categorize your acts if I were your GM:
Making a trenchcoat out of skinned faces taken from BBEGs: Evil
Lots of cultures wore some piece of defeated foes. Some still do. I dont think that is an inherantly evil act. It is certainly morbid, and kind of gross, but its no more evil then turning a beaten dragon in to dragonscale armor, or keeping a necklace of the teeth of beaten enemies.
Giving someone a gift because you know it's a delicacy in the Abyss: Evil
Is a chelaxian who gives a gift according to their tradition inherantly evil? I think this depends on culture and on the intent. But regardless, giving a dead rat to someone is more highschool prank then anything else. Immature yes, evil? I dont think so.
Pushing a fellow PC into a pit because they annoy you: Evil
Actually doing it yes, but thinking about it or wanting to? I disagree. In fact I think if I were in a party with this summoner the OP is playing I may wish death upon him fairly often, even when playing a paladin.
That said, I think the OP is the whole reason chaotic stupid is an expression. You should try to tone down your antics. Even CN characters are not chaotic for the sake of chaos. Anarchists dont make good party members. My 2 coppers is this character is not evil, just a jackass.
I wouldn't be able to play with that character, not because he's evil (he is), but because he sounds annoying as hell.
Is he also a kender? He sounds like the type who would make a kender. Does he ever comment about how hilarious it is to be SO RANDUMB XD?
Seriously, I'd advocate physical violence.
He's gross, but I wouldn't qualify him as evil at this point. Taking battlefield trophies, usually heads, and hanging them with your personal effects used to be a norm in some cultures. Making clothing out of them is a bit on the nastier side, but having one fairly nasty, distasteful habit does not chaotic evil make.
Making obscene hand gestures out of dead talons, sending rats, seriously contemplating offing fellow adventurers but not actually doing it, none of them really rise to the evil occasion.
If I were to chart out a graph of the 9 alignments, giving each a bit of space so that PCs can drift within a classification, I'd probably put him in the lower half of the CN box rather than the top half of it, but I wouldn't be crossing him over the N-E frontier.
|
|
Not trying to be snarky, but is wearing dragonhide armor evil then? Dragons are sentient, intelligent beings, and assuming you skin them yourself, that would seem to be just as evil.If you were making your armor specifically so that the dragon's faces were visible and were glorying in the fact that you're wearing an intelligent creature's recognizable body parts... yes. I would qualify that as evil.
If the visible/recognizable dragon body parts were from evil dragons, that'd be less of a case for evil.
If you often bragged about how you were wearing faces, or otherwise gloried or obsessed over the morbid parts of your attire, that'd be MORE of a case for evil.
It's obviously not a black and white scenario. And the OP's situation might not be as nasty or evil as he paints it, but the fact that he DOES give it an air of psychotic evil does kind of help me make my own opinion up that he's playing an evil character.
I would not see displaying an identifiable part of the dragon as evil, it is a sign of conquest that the bearer would proudly display...much as a stuffed deers head on the wall.
Yes, but is shrinking heads so that the spiritual elders can honor the dead an evil act? Some societies would say that it is defiling the corpse; others would say its an important way to honor the dead, potentially reserving the right for elders and people of import. I say it depends on the culture he is from and why he is doing it.You are correct that it depends on the culture. I highly doubt anyone who plays a PFS game is from a culture where shrunken heads are accepted and thought of as honorable... but I could just be being narrow-minded.
Someone who DOES have that kind of belief and doesn't moderate those beliefs in a public place like a PFS game or these boards would be chaotic.
Someone who does have those beliefs and enjoys watching others who don't share those beliefs squirm and grow uncomfortable would be evil.
I'm not refering to the player's culture, but the character's. While I don't think many of the players believe this, I think its easy to fit a non-evil voodoo culture into d&d. If a player wanted to play a character with a similar belief system, then they shouldn't be relegated to evil just because its different than modern cultural norms. The culture of the game world should be the driver.
Now, based on the fact that the OP has nothing like that in his description, I would say he is more likely doing it out of spite and to show off. That I would put squarely as evil.
I wouldn't be able to play with that character, not because he's evil (he is), but because he sounds annoying as hell.
Is he also a kender? He sounds like the type who would make a kender. Does he ever comment about how hilarious it is to be SO RANDUMB XD?
Seriously, I'd advocate physical violence.
Based off the yiffing comment, I think its a Kobold. Worse than Kender IMO.
|
Creative Director
|
I'm not refering to the player's culture, but the character's. While I don't think many of the players believe this, I think its easy to fit a non-evil voodoo culture into d&d. If a player wanted to play a character with a similar belief system, then they shouldn't be relegated to evil just because its different than modern cultural norms. The culture of the game world should be the driver.
Now, based on the fact that the OP has nothing like that in his description, I would say he is more likely doing it out of spite and to show off. That I would put squarely as evil.
Exactly. If he described his character as being a character who has some unusual beliefs like that and got into the roleplaying element, then I would say he's not evil at all. I might even say he's not even chaotic.
But it seems clear to me from the OP's post that he's not into the deep-immersion roleplaying and is more interested in being goofy, silly, and kind of disruptive.
It's all about the circumstances. In these circumstances, the OP was asking SPECIFICALLY about his character, so that's how I framed my response.
Whether or not those acts are ALWAYS evil in EVERY circumstance is not the original subject of this thread.
|
|
I would say the player is seriously breaking the suspension of disbelief. The middle-finger is clearly a modern, Earth-based symbol. To use it in D&D breaks the feel of the setting. Personally, I wouldn't allow someone who doesn't at least attempt to take the game seriously sit at my table.
Secondly, the character is definitely chaotic. No doubt there.
However, your snapshot description leaves out too many details. Normally, if I have to stop and ask myself the question: Is this character acting evil? Then he/she is probably evil. Neutral and good characters usually don't do things that make you have to ask yourself this.Lastly, threatening characters in the party, whom he is supposed to trust with his life, doesn't make for a good adventuring party.
With all of that said, if the game is fun and everyone is having a good time, does any of what I just typed really matter?
Cheers!
Well, he usually does incredibly good things for his own crazy reasons.
He's never actually DONE anything to his other party members, only verbalized it in crazy mutterings. The middle finger thing was "a traditional Qadiran symbol of greeting!" The whole dead rat thing is playing off the goofiness of the character summoning a creature named Chimichanga.
Think Deadpool, but the newer version. He tries to be good, and usually does it by accident (or does he?), and his inherent craziness is a part of his character. The Babau will never hurt anyone again, especially since the summoner stole his spear (and now dual-wields it with his OTHER spear, taking all the penalties) and cut off his hand.
Now the defiling of corpses is an extremely good point of evil-ness, but is it enough to make a GM go "OK, that's enough to shift your alignment"?
We're talking about a character that duped an evil wizard into setting his own summoned demon (the Babau) against him by telling him his planar circle was all wrong and then smudging the circle, and then using his own knowledge to redraw the circle and trap the demon back in the circle AFTER it had killed said evil wizard (the wizard was close enough to the circle that the demon never stepped out to stab him).
And then released the demon because he wanted his spear and the party wanted it killed too. Win-win. Rolled 3 20s in a row, cut off it's spear-wielding hand, took the spear and sent it screaming back to Tako-Bel. (If you've seen the art work for a babau, it's covered in red acid, which according to the summoner, was Unholy Tako Sauce).
I think you should start with what defines neutral first, and the best example are animals that have no sense of morality or judgement. It basically comes down to self preservation and what offers the best advantage to survive. Therefore from intelligent beings standpoint you will often stay out of the conflict, or play the side that is most advantageous with the former in mind. Then you have what is considered good or evil to society. Obviously being chaotic, those hold no preference, and from a chaotic standpoint you want to be free from any constraints. Knowing what evil or good is, you would refer back to your neutral standpoint and do what is best for self preservation and not tie yourself down with any constraints of society (good or evil).
You may come accross as paranoid and totally self absorbed, or a brutal force to be wreckoned with, depending on what supports your ultimate survival.
|
Yes, but is shrinking heads so that the spiritual elders can honor the dead an evil act? Some societies would say that it is defiling the corpse; others would say its an important way to honor the dead, potentially reserving the right for elders and people of import. I say it depends on the culture he is from and why he is doing it.You are correct that it depends on the culture. I highly doubt anyone who plays a PFS game is from a culture where shrunken heads are accepted and thought of as honorable... but I could just be being narrow-minded.
Someone who DOES have that kind of belief and doesn't moderate those beliefs in a public place like a PFS game or these boards would be chaotic.
Someone who does have those beliefs and enjoys watching others who don't share those beliefs squirm and grow uncomfortable would be evil.
Well, interestingly enough, I have a player that is playing an equivalent of a Voodoo witch doctor from the mushfens in my Rise of the Runelords campaign. He has shrunken the heads of a few goblins that raided Sandpoint, but has not tried shrinking the heads of any of the human antagonists... sometimes he has a dark side (too long living in de swamp, is his usual excuse) that keeps him from being Good, though for the most part I would say he's Chaotic Neutral.
That is similar to the OP's character, except that I don't see any cultural reason that he would do that... I think it is more of causing a reaction in those he interacts with...
|
|
Exactly. If he described his character as being a character who has some unusual beliefs like that and got into the roleplaying element, then I would say he's not evil at all. I might even say he's not even chaotic.
But it seems clear to me from the OP's post that he's not into the deep-immersion roleplaying and is more interested in being goofy, silly, and kind of disruptive.
It's all about the circumstances. In these circumstances, the OP was asking SPECIFICALLY about his character, so that's how I framed my response.
Whether or not those acts are ALWAYS evil in EVERY circumstance is not the original subject of this thread.
Don't get me wrong, James. I play serious characters, but this game is way more casual than our normal games. It's not an adventure path or anything, just a homebrew game. I wanted to play something different, and while it may seem disruptive or annoying, everyone gets a laugh out of it. We have someone (a "servant") play the straightman to us crazy adventurers, who makes dry comments and has a running commentary basically insulting everyone and wondering why he isn't the leader.
It's all in good fun. Just wondering where the line should be drawn.
Is he also a kender? He sounds like the type who would make a kender. Does he ever comment about how hilarious it is to be SO RANDUMB XD?That is uncalled for Kender can be RPed well.
Threadjack:
Never seen a Kender RPed well.
Unjack.
And I'm not sure pushing a fellow PC into a pit because he annoyed you is evil. That depends a lot on the PC.
For example, if one of your fellow players pushed YOUR character into a pit, I could see them justifying it...
But yeah, you're getting pretty evil for the coat thing.
More importantly, it sounds like the character is an annoying character who doesnt take anything seriously and is just there to annoy others...which is pretty chaotic.
Maybe you're CN(E). I know a lot of characters who are LN(G)...
I would say the player is seriously breaking the suspension of disbelief. The middle-finger is clearly a modern, Earth-based symbol.Minor quibble here... giving the middle finger began with british Longbowmen... the French would cut off their middle fingers so a common taunt for the Brits was showing they still had them.
So... it does not necessarily have to be immersion breaking. Further, in whatever world your game is in one must assume that the people have SOME collection of rude hand gestures. Why can't his middle finger be a proxy for that?
I'm sure that the player was definitely referring to the medieval French taunt against the British Longbowmen. Yeah, what was I thinking?
Never seen a Kender RPed well.
Why does everyone say that?
I think you just answered your own question.
Maybe you play a Kender who is not an annoying, kleptomaniac, practical joking, wanderlust-filled, "faux-innocent" pest. But every Kender I've ever seen (both in game and in print...albeit, I've only read the first 10 or so DL novels...I know there are a lot more) has been a PITA.
Which is why I ban them in every game I GM.
It's a more severe version of the Drzzt factor...
But the fact that EVERYONE says that might be a clue as to why people feel that way...
And when players say they want to play a Kender, and I ask them what they mean, this is the sort of character they describe.
But, back to our regular thread...
I think that CN can be played well, but a lot of players use it as an excuse to play without any codes or restrictions on what they can get away with. "Hey, yeah, I burnt down the orphanage, but I also saved a puppy. Evil and Good...Chaotic Neutral!"
OK, that's a bit extreme (but happened ina game I ran..) but I think that Freedom is more important than Chaos to most CN characters. (Monsters may be different...)
It's a tough call, but then again, I only allow CG, NG, LN, and LG (and maybe N(G)) in my campaigns. I want a heroic party that gets along.
Ok, so you purposely put a greeting gesture on the tip of your spear? That sounds like you are trying to insult the people you attack, a mildly evil act.
The tricking the evil wizard I can see as any alignment. Removing competition (evil), removing an enemy who will harm you (neutral), removing an evil threat to the common-folk (good). Taking the spear and then dismissing it seems like greedy & opportunistic behavior, once again mildly evil.
The more you talk, the more I would put your character right on the verge between evil and neutral. I think he can fall on either side. I would understand a GM adjusting your alignment, but personally wouldn't yet.
"What separates CN from CE? The evil part. Also Kender are fine with a smokey honey glaze."
|
Creative Director
|
Never seen a Kender RPed well.
Why does everyone say that?
I have done it.
I have seen kender RPed well.
But they ARE kind of like Paladins in that their flavor text hardwires in "excuses" to be disruptive and annoying, and that appeals to a certain subset of player, who enjoys being disruptive in games and thus gravitates toward classes and races where he/she can use "rules" to justify his/her disruptive behavior.
Not trying to be snarky, but is wearing dragonhide armor evil then? Dragons are sentient, intelligent beings, and assuming you skin them yourself, that would seem to be just as evil.If you were making your armor specifically so that the dragon's faces were visible and were glorying in the fact that you're wearing an intelligent creature's recognizable body parts... yes. I would qualify that as evil.
It was the point where my group's tiefling wanted to hunt and kill a dragon turtle for the sole purpose of eating it in a delicious soup that I decided he'd crossed the line from CN to CE. I asked him if he really wanted to kill an intelligent creature just for the taste. He said yes and has enjoyed being evil ever since.
Ok, so you purposely put a greeting gesture on the tip of your spear? That sounds like you are trying to insult the people you attack, a mildly evil act.
The tricking the evil wizard I can see as any alignment. Removing competition (evil), removing an enemy who will harm you (neutral), removing an evil threat to the common-folk (good). Taking the spear and then dismissing it seems like greedy & opportunistic behavior, once again mildly evil.
The more you talk, the more I would put your character right on the verge between evil and neutral. I think he can fall on either side. I would understand a GM adjusting your alignment, but personally wouldn't yet.
Is elimiating competition evil?
I run a company in real life and there are some competitors that we have driven almost completely out of business. (OK, they were snake oil people, but still)
I mislead my competitors all the time.
That's just good business.
I wouldn't mislead my customers, but I let my competiton hang in the wind.
As one of my staff said:
"Crush your competion...see them penniless before you...and hear the lamentations of their Managers. That is best!"
|
|
I would say the player is seriously breaking the suspension of disbelief. The middle-finger is clearly a modern, Earth-based symbol.Minor quibble here... giving the middle finger began with british Longbowmen... the French would cut off their middle fingers so a common taunt for the Brits was showing they still had them.
So... it does not necessarily have to be immersion breaking. Further, in whatever world your game is in one must assume that the people have SOME collection of rude hand gestures. Why can't his middle finger be a proxy for that?
I think actually the gesture the British made was to show their first TWO fingers, not just the middle finger, although the reason for doing it was as you outlined.
|
|
Never seen a Kender RPed well.
Why does everyone say that?
I think you just answered your own question.
Maybe you play a Kender who is not an annoying, kleptomaniac, practical joking, wanderlust-filled, "faux-innocent" pest. But every Kender I've ever seen (both in game and in print...albeit, I've only read the first 10 or so DL novels...I know there are a lot more) has been a PITA.
The kelpto part is a GM issue. A kender player should NEVER be in charge of what "shows up" in the pockets. The GM should be slidding the kender player notes of what he finds in his pockets at any given time. And what goes missing from player characters. That takes quite a bit of the annoying away from kender characters...and tends to make almost 99% of people who want to play kenders play something else.
Never seen a Kender RPed well.
Why does everyone say that?
I have done it.
I have seen kender RPed well.
But they ARE kind of like Paladins in that their flavor text hardwires in "excuses" to be disruptive and annoying, and that appeals to a certain subset of player, who enjoys being disruptive in games and thus gravitates toward classes and races where he/she can use "rules" to justify his/her disruptive behavior.
This is the same problem I have with CN. It seems hardwired to appeal to the disruptive player.
I'm sure both Kender and CN CAN be played well. Just never seen it done. They both seem to attract the players who want to play anooying and disruptive.
Of course, this is PF and Golarion...so I don't have to worry as much about DL races. (Joy!)
Evil is as evil does. Being a prick is not evil if it was then Mr. Fishy would be the Devil. Wearing the skin of the fallen is evil or not. No wishy-washy cop outs. Wearing your enemies is evil or not.
The act is "less" evil if the victim is on the "list of evil"???
WTF?
Want to piss off a Fishy call on the "list of evil" to justify an action. Evil is evil for everyone and hiding behind "they were evil" is the Pot murdering the Kettle.
To the OP your character is a jackass but not Evil. Evil would kill the bard and add the face to his Coat of Many Colors. Has the GM called you out on your alignment.
WTF? Want to piss off a Fishy call on the "list of evil" to justify an action. Evil is evil for everyone and hiding behind "they were evil" is the Pot murdering the Kettle.
+1.
You know, for a guy (fish) who makes no sense, sometimes you make a lot of sense, Fishy.
|
|
Never seen a Kender RPed well.
Why does everyone say that?
I have done it.
I have seen kender RPed well.
But they ARE kind of like Paladins in that their flavor text hardwires in "excuses" to be disruptive and annoying, and that appeals to a certain subset of player, who enjoys being disruptive in games and thus gravitates toward classes and races where he/she can use "rules" to justify his/her disruptive behavior.
But see, I find that the fault of the players, not the fault of the class/race... Some players (of which, I have one in my campaign) are just there to get a reaction out of people, players and NPCs alike. While I, as a GM, do not try to condone such actions (especially those directed at other players) I do try to emphasize the consequences of the character's (player's) actions. They will often end up outstaying their welcome very quickly.
It is the GM's responsibility to ensure that everyone is having fun, but it is also the responsibility of the players to not disrupt everyone else.
Now, if the OP's character is only annoying the GM, then that is something that they need to work out. If he is annoying all of the players, that is something that they all should work out. It's a game, and you are supposed to have fun. If you chase off all the people that you are playing with, it is hard to play a game by yourself. You might as well play video games.
Just my opinion... now whether the character is evil or not, that (as has been said by Mr. James) is up to the GM and the player to work out.
|
|
Evil is as evil does. Being a prick is not evil if it was then Mr. Fishy would be the Devil. Wearing the skin of the fallen is evil or not. No wishy-washy cop outs. Wearing your enemies is evil or not.
The act is "less" evil if the victim is on the "list of evil"???
WTF?
Want to piss off a Fishy call on the "list of evil" to justify an action. Evil is evil for everyone and hiding behind "they were evil" is the Pot murdering the Kettle.To the OP your character is a jackass but not Evil. Evil would kill the bard and add the face to his Coat of Many Colors. Has the GM called you out on your alignment.
No, the GM hasn't called me out on my alignment. I was just checking for myself.
My character is now, like, totally a hero for saving the town from the evil wizard and his demon friend. The children love my coat of smiling faces "The Frock of Joy" as I call it. They've learned to avoid Chimichanga's affections after the first few unfortunate incidents involving his caustic slobber, however. I had NOTHING to do with that one, GM's fault for forgetting that his drool burns through organic material.
I told the parents that half melted faces "puts some character on their chest, or something." The cleric healed them later with restoration.
That fricking awesome Mr. Fishy actually laughed a little.
To:Kirth Gersen ummm...Thank you?
As a GM, I would characterize it thusly:
Chaotic Neutral: "Do what you want, it doesn't matter to me."
Chaotic evil: "Do what I want, or suffer the consequences."
Evil is not simple selfishness, although that is a strong indicator. Imposing your will on others, especially if you are arbitrary or sadistic, is evil.
Victimless crimes are not an issue for CN, nor is hostility or violence when directed at people perceived as enemies or nuisances.
Crimes with victims are not an issue for CE, in fact, they are preferred. Hostility and violence is directed toward everything, sometimes including themselves, and they do not rationalize their actions by opposition or nuisance. They are sociopaths needing no justification.