|
Someone secretly spiking punch that...[it's evil]
Oh, okay. I see the problem here. The people who see spiking punch as an Evil act are going to see this wizard as Evil, and the people who see it as a Neutral one are going to see him as some form of Neutral. Guess that's where we reach an impasse, but at least we understand each other.
(I snipped your post because the quote did and I couldn't remember exactly what you said)
You can add: some people see indiscriminate blackmailing or selling informations on people to a third party that will use them for blackmail or to damage someone as a evil act and will see the OP character as evil. Some people see blackmailing directly or indirectly as a neutral act and see the OP character as neutral.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chaotic characters have NO code. That is a Lawful trait. And everything you just quoted about lawful applies heavily to the mafia and I can assure you they are NOT law abiding citizens, they live by a different code. Even a paladin who is a paragon of lawful isn't law abiding while living in an evil nation.
EVERYONE has a code of some kind. Even the joker will never actually kill Batman or will never look under the mask.
There are very few TRULY chaotic beings in the world that have no rules whatsoever. Frankly they would make pretty lousy characters.
So just saying "I won't eat kittens' isn't enough to say 'I'm not chaotic!!! I have a Code!'
A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her.
A chaotic neutral character follows his whims.
Phantom what you state there is opinion. If someone is just following their stream of consciousness they don't have much of a personal code.
Chaotic characters hate codes. Having a code means you will always react the same way as your code dictates. A chaotic character acts as the moment directs him. He may free a bad guy in one encounter while punishing him in another. Sure he was feeling charitable that one time, no code was going to tell him what to do. The guiding principles of chaotic are "if he feels like it" and those can change as quickly as the wind. Look at the iconic chaotic Mal from Firefly. He sure talks a good game but what he does is unpredictable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chaotic characters hate codes. Having a code means you will always react the same way as your code dictates. A chaotic character acts as the moment directs him. He may free a bad guy in one encounter while punishing him in another. Sure he was feeling charitable that one time, no code was going to tell him what to do. The guiding principles of chaotic are "if he feels like it" and those can change as quickly as the wind. Look at the iconic chaotic Mal from Firefly. He sure talks a good game but what he does is unpredictable.
And yet Mal had a code, always kept his word, and would do anything to fulfill a contract once agreed upon.
Chaotic characters hate codes. Having a code means you will always react the same way as your code dictates. A chaotic character acts as the moment directs him. He may free a bad guy in one encounter while punishing him in another. Sure he was feeling charitable that one time, no code was going to tell him what to do. The guiding principles of chaotic are "if he feels like it" and those can change as quickly as the wind. Look at the iconic chaotic Mal from Firefly. He sure talks a good game but what he does is unpredictable.And yet Mal had a code, always kept his word, and would do anything to fulfill a contract once agreed upon.
And yet Mal broke contracts and didn't keep his word. Like I said he talked up a good story but didn't always follow through.
And yet Mal had a code, always kept his word, and would do anything to fulfill a contract once agreed upon.
Not really, in The Train Job he doesn't.
Not saying Mal doesn't have a code at all, and I'd peg him as true neutral with a chaotic slant, but it seemed to be a very very limited code and quite negotiable. Only thing I don't think he ever broke was "I don't abandon my crew". Harassing them on the other hand...
He abandoned River and Simon in Serenity. He then later goes to save them again after River is triggered. But he DID abandon them.
He abandoned River and Simon in Serenity. He then later goes to save them again after River is triggered. But he DID abandon them.
To me, Serenity is like Moffat's Who - badly written fanfics on a bigger budget. My mind simply refuses to accept them as part of the official canon.
He abandoned River and Simon in Serenity. He then later goes to save them again after River is triggered. But he DID abandon them.
He abandoned them because he had promised to Simon that he would. He was following his code when he did it. A crewman had turned on him - so was no longer on his crew.
There were a few exceptions (like with any D&D character) but Mal was largely very attached to his code, his word, and his crew.
While his tactics were unpredictable; he was anything but random or unpredictable in his behavior at large.
I will never abandon you... becomes I will kick you to the curb if you aren't part of my family. And who was part of his "family" whoever he felt like including at the time. It only took one argument to remove River and Simon from "family", that is chaotic.
|
|
You should always worry about the DM and other players at the table. This isn't a solo game. Everyone needs to be having fun.
While I try to have everyone at the table happy. Sometimes it's just not possible for a variety of reasons. I sometimes have to go with a table that has a majority that is happy. I sure as hell am not going to torpedo a cool character concept as a DM without a good and valid reason.
This type of attitude is tiresome. Nobody said he couldnt do what he did. It was a very cool idea, it just didnt fit within the alignment the player was trying to maintain for his character. At least thats the general consensus I believe.
I respesctfully disagree. A few counter responses to the op felt very much like a character has to be played one way and only one way. Otherwise he is not a good guy. I'm not saying he is good by any means yet I very much got a onetruewayism vibe from more than one poster responding in the thread.
You can call what chaotics hold to a code all you want but is it really?! When they can disobey it at a whim.
|
When did Mal ever tell Simon, "I will never abandon you"?I will never abandon you... becomes I will kick you to the curb if you aren't part of my family. And who was part of his "family" whoever he felt like including at the time. It only took one argument to remove River and Simon from "family", that is chaotic.
What is this, soap opera? I'm unaware of this show, can someone tel me about it? even if inbox? Thanks!
I'm in the side that chaotics abide to sort of code and sort of laws, since they keep it simple and flexible!
It's chatter about the TV show "Firefly".
Was spiraling into pedantary. So I deleted my post. Looks like I didn't do it fast enough.
Everyone has a different way of looking at chaos/law and good/evil. I've even seen alignment charts with Mal in every box. So...there's that.
Someone secretly spiking punch that...[it's evil]
Oh, okay. I see the problem here. The people who see spiking punch as an Evil act are going to see this wizard as Evil, and the people who see it as a Neutral one are going to see him as some form of Neutral. Guess that's where we reach an impasse, but at least we understand each other.
(I snipped your post because the quote did and I couldn't remember exactly what you said)
You can add: some people see indiscriminate blackmailing or selling informations on people to a third party that will use them for blackmail or to damage someone as a evil act and will see the OP character as evil. Some people see blackmailing directly or indirectly as a neutral act and see the OP character as neutral.
I could, but I won't, since we don't know the information selling (and possible blackmailing) is indiscriminate. People have assumed that, but the OP has not confirmed. And he never will, because he's gone and we're all arguing semantics. On an aligment thread? Perish the thought!
He abandoned River and Simon in Serenity. He then later goes to save them again after River is triggered. But he DID abandon them.
Yeah, but Mal had been pushed to his breaking point in that movie. Paladins do fall.
Was spiraling into pedantary. So I deleted my post. Looks like I didn't do it fast enough.
Look on the bright side--this discussion is waaaay more productive. :)
It wasn't in those words Democratus... That was just my take on it. Feel free to disregard that first bit if you wish.
I think it's a fair indicator of chaos when the person is so hard to pin down that people place him all over the map don't you?
And yes Darklord Morius it is the best kind of soap opera; science fiction. It was a show "Firefly" from 05 I think then later a movie "Serenity".
"In fact, having an evil alignment alone does not make one a super-villain or even require one to be thwarted or killed. The extent of a character's evil alignment might be a lesser evil, like selfishness, greed, or extreme vanity."
These lesser evils are statements of competence and ambition. They still have the morality of a cartoon supervillain.
"Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped)."
I really don't see what this has to do with anything I posted. Having a 'particular taboo' isn't the same thing as having moral compunctions. A LE character quite explicitly does not have these moral compunctions. He has 'particular taboos'.
By those rules a person could be evil without ever spilling blood, there are a lot of ways to harm or oppress people with inflicting physical pain, though it seems easier for one be a non-violent LE than NE or CE.
No, they couldn't be evil without ever spilling blood. What you say would be true if you completely forego reading the absolute statements on the nature of evil. Hurt and Oppress and Kill. If you are merely vain, or selfish and no one is ever hurt and oppressed and killed because of it then you almost certainly aren't evil. Most good aligned characters, especially player characters will be actively selfish and vain but these are traits that are kept in check by their other moral inclinations from causing those negative externalities associated with evil doers.
My original closing statement still stands:
If the OP's character has compunctions against killing the innocent and is not hurting and oppressing and killing others out of lack of compassion or a dedication to evil then he's not evil per the alignment write up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dole out my own type of "evil points" in my campain. As a rule, doing one thing in an evil way wotn shift your alignment, but many might, and some irredeemably evil acts do it right away.
Slow change:
-Stealing without needing it.
-Killing low-conviction/priority foes. (Slaying ALL the guards wasnt really nessesary to kill the Noble was it?)
-Not fixing an issue you caused to a neutral party. (You blew up the brewery accidently, everybody knows, and you still wont pay for the damages?)
Steady change:
-Dominating people to do your will and not use them to do something good.
-Killing no-priority/surrendered foes. (ok so the goblin chieftain, his lieutenants ok, the bossy druid? sure. But the surrendered militia!?)
-Stealing or subverting cash from important or charitable public non-evil organisations.
-Non-deadly Betrayals.
Fast change:
-Killing innocents.
-Mass killing surrendered foes.
-Entrapment and deadly betrayals.
-Self sacrifice for the cause of mayhem and murder.
-Any grand act for the cause of evil (Killing a king to throw the city into anarchy).
Theres als oa list of good acts.
Slow change:
-Showing mercy.
-Saving non-teammate allies from distant danger (like evacuating a town).
-Charity.
-Benevolence.
Steady change:
-Forgiveness/acceptance. (Both cases it must be openly shown by roleplaying).
-Resquing non-teammates from mortal and immediate danger.
-Grand and earnest charity. (Like building and giving away an orphanage)
Fast changes:
-Self sacrifice for a good cause or to rescue a non-teammate (The "Go, ill hold them off!" kind of sacrifice.
-Accomplishing a grand act for the cause of good (killing a tyrant and enstating a benevolent king).
In my scale you:
Are charitable. (Slow good)
Are subverting peoples will to do your bidding. (Steady evil)
Ok, so every now and then, mabe once a month or so, idd be doling you an evil point, and youdd be in the risk sone for extra evil points depending on the information you get and how you use it. Using it for good purposes however would put you back in the neutral zone.
End opinion, neutral with a large stain of evil on it. No reason to change your alignment, yet. After about three months of doing this without remedying it with good acts would set you to evil in my campains.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, you don't have to be a killer to be evil. If that was so, that'd have been the argument I led with here.
Then again, the meanest guy in Diamond Lake, Balabar Smenk, is only Chaotic Neutral. And that guy's pals with necromancers and street thugs.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By those rules a person could be evil without ever spilling blood, there are a lot of ways to harm or oppress people with inflicting physical pain, though it seems easier for one be a non-violent LE than NE or CE.No, they couldn't be evil without ever spilling blood. What you say would be true if you completely forego reading the absolute statements on the nature of evil. Hurt and Oppress and Kill. If you are merely vain, or selfish and no one is ever hurt and oppressed and killed because of it then you almost certainly aren't evil. Most good aligned characters, especially player characters will be actively selfish and vain but these are traits that are kept in check by their other moral inclinations from causing those negative externalities associated with evil doers.
My original closing statement still stands:
If the OP's character has compunctions against killing the innocent and is not hurting and oppressing and killing others out of lack of compassion or a dedication to evil then he's not evil per the alignment write up.
Can't be hurting and oppressing without spilling blood?
You work for me and live in my company town.I pay you 1.000 $ week. Good pay, right?
But housing cost 600$, food 50 $ every day, you will have to pay for anything you need, you can't leave your working post for any reason, including biological needs.
No holydays, no pay on sick leave and you will still have to pay for food and lodging.
You have signed the contract without looking the fine print. It is for 10 years of work (and the sick leaves are added to the length of it). if you leave earlier you will have to pay compensations.
Oh, BTW, no medical support and you are working with asbestos fibers without adequate protection.
You aren't hurt and oppressed? I haven't spilled a single drop of your blood and, in theory, you are a free man. In practice you are a slave. and a badly treated one.
Can't be hurting and oppressing without spilling blood?
You work for me and live in my company town.
I pay you 1.000 $ week. Good pay, right?
But housing cost 600$, food 50 $ every day, you will have to pay for anything you need, you can't leave your working post for any reason, including biological needs.
No holydays, no pay on sick leave and you will still have to pay for food and lodging.
You have signed the contract without looking the fine print. It is for 10 years of work (and the sick leaves are added to the length of it). if you leave earlier you will have to pay compensations.
Oh, BTW, no medical support and you are working with asbestos fibers without adequate protection.You aren't hurt and oppressed? I haven't spilled a single drop of your blood and, in theory, you are a free man. In practice you are a slave. and a badly treated one.
I agree with this in principle, but I'd probably replace the evil company owner with a baron, and instead of the contract (which it can be argued you still signed), you simply can't leave his lands because you don't have papers to cross the border (which of course you need to obtain from.... of course, the baron, who refuses to issue them), just to get a 100% unarguable example. He also owns every single plot of land and business within his borders. You're still free as you still have the right to not get a job in one of his factories, and just starve to death.
I killing your foes was a evil act then pretty much everyone would be rolling around with the evil alignment 24/7.
Agreed but i dont see why the statement is relevant for the argument at hand?
|
I killing your foes was a evil act then pretty much everyone would be rolling around with the evil alignment 24/7.Agreed but i dont see why the statement is relevant for the argument at hand?
A poster slightly earlier in the thread had mentioned the killing of certain enemies (specifically: enemies that weren't exactly all that dangerous to the party) as being an evil act in their games. The quote function isn't working for some reason.
Anyway, I would contend that it's kind of dangerous to differentiate from a player perspective, as you don't know when it will bite you in behind. Fact is if they are the "enemy" then odds are good they started it with the PCs. Most PCs are powerful enough that many of their enemies won't get the chance to surrender unless they do it before the second round of combat. That same poster also mentioned killing surrendered foes as evil, but I'm not certain I agree on that point either. Sometimes it's simply more tactically appropriate to terminate your enemies, and other times there might be circumstances that prevent you from accepting surrender. Technically, refusing to accept surrender isn't an evil act anyway. Some philosophies, many of which to this day we don't really see as evil, called for the deaths of your enemies rather than spending resources to keep them fed, sheltered, clothed, etc.
|
|
Slow change:
-Stealing without needing it.
-Killing low-conviction/priority foes. (Slaying ALL the guards wasnt really nessesary to kill the Noble was it?)
-Not fixing an issue you caused to a neutral party. (You blew up the brewery accidently, everybody knows, and you still wont pay for the damages?)
You mean this?
Seem reasonable. If you go around killing all the minions of your enemy, even those that hide behind barred doors while you are moving past instead of opposing you, the cook in the pantry and whoever you see, when there is no need for that will slowly move your alignment toward evil, if you do nothing that will compensate for that.
Key words are "slowly" and "you do nothing that will compensate".
Example: our party of 2nd level adventurer has defeated 3 brigands in the middle of a tundra. The nearest settlement is half a day away and we are short of time, we need to save one the cousin of one of our party members.
We gave them a chance to surrender, before engaging, after the first blood, after the first of them fell, again after the second was staggered (and he attacked instead, falling to the ground and and starting to die after the attack). Only the third guy surrendered but he stopped attacking before that and cried "they forced me".
We ended with 3 prisoners, two were badly wounded, the third mobile. We have no way to bring them with us without slowing down, leaving them there after stabilizing them will kill them and in a cruel way, the law of the land is for brigands to be put to the sword.
We had a brief discussion, then we killed the two heavily wounded prisoners in the most merciful way we had. The third that surrendered and is willing to talk was talk was brought with us.
Good? No.
Evil? No.
A small step toward neutral for the good characters? Yes.
If the same situation repeat itself again and again, and we always have some excuse for mercy killing that change.
Good? No
Evil? Yes. Repeatedly finding a reason for mercy killing and never for mercy show a evil bent. Not big evil. It can even be "reasonably evil", but evil nonetheless.
|
Good? No.
Evil? No.
A small step toward neutral for the good characters? Yes.If the same situation repeat itself again and again, and we always have some excuse for mercy killing that change.
Good? No
Evil? Yes. Repeatedly finding a reason for mercy killing and never for mercy show a evil bent. Not big evil. It can even be "reasonably evil", but evil nonetheless.
You also have to look at PCs as heroic figures who have the right to bear arms. Attacking cooks and underlings should be underneath them, and when they show up at a BBEG's place, realistically those cooks and underlings should get the heck out of the way and say "master this way" (if they don't, a gauntleted fist to the face for subdual damage, and overrun, or a bull rush maneuver should be enough)
Fighting guards that are well armed and trained to kill is not evil if your cause is good. I like to think of the Jedi code sometimes: once you draw the lightsaber, it is for killing. Otherwise don't draw.
Fighting guards that are well armed and trained to kill is not evil if your cause is good. I like to think of the Jedi code sometimes: once you draw the lightsaber, it is for killing. Otherwise don't draw.
O.o
I could see that for a lot of weapons... but lightsaber? I prefer the 'more elegant weapon for a more civilized age' mentality... Seems it was pretty good at 'disarming' nonlethally and deflecting like a shield. Lots more often just hack and slash....
I think it depends on the pastry. Most pies are Good or Neutral aligned, but where are we drawing the line? Pies aren't the only type of pastry, you know--they're just the only type that hasn't been exiled.
I think it depends on the pastry. Most pies are Good or Neutral aligned, but where are we drawing the line? Pies aren't the only type of pastry, you know--they're just the only type that hasn't been exiled.
Truth. Devil's food cake will definitely shift your alignment towards Lawful Evil.
