I just rolled up a character that i will be playing in an upcoming game when I get home for a few weeks. I have always played a lawful character, You know the kind that has a very regimental routine and obeyed almost every law that they heard of unless it was considered by them to be unjust or not right.
Well I thought I would be different and play a Neutral Good Character this time. I know the book says what the alignments are and how they behave but I am still a little lost. I want to play them as a person who is dependable and honest and has good intentions and will try their best to keep their word.
I guess what I want to know is does that sound alright? And if not do you have any suggestions. Also what is your favorite alignment to play and why?
Thanks in advance
A.
I think the only difference between being lawful good and neutral good is that being lawful good your character feels really uncomfortable about breaking rules even when they are unjust. The neutral good character just wants to be good and to heck with the beauracracy and red tape.
I don't worry about alignment as much as having a character concept. Decide what your character is afraid of, what they hate and their favorate weapons or past-times. There is a good article by Tracy Hickman in Dragon 277.
I usually play a good character because playing an evil character always makes me feel uncomfortable. It's fun for the first session when you and all of your mates run around behaving terribly but then it wears off when you're confronted by truly diabolically evil options. Some of my friends don't feel the least bit uncomfortable about it however!
|
IMO lawful doesn't have to mean follows the law. It means they follow a routine and have a moral code that they follow. Lawful can also mean follows the letter of the law. I always took lawful as someone who is regimented or driven by routine and organized. Order over Chaos. Neutral would have more of a drive to do what is convenient for yourself regardless of laws, consequences, etc. Kinda lookin' after your own interests more than finding a balance between Law and Chaos. combine that with good intentions and actions and there you go.
IMO once again
FH
First, I think we should consider banning future alignment discussions -- I've seen endless debate on them (to which I'm about to contribute).
I think Law implies a loyalty to the rules or mores of a group, regardless of that group's ultimate aims. Chaos believes (for philosophical or selfish reasons) that individual liberties should not or will not be subordinated to any group's priorities (much like some US political values).
Good respects the welfare of other groups in addition to their own; in contrast, Evil usually seeks power and welfare without regard to others, and often at their own expense.
Neutrals will straddle the fence or be apathetic about distinctions. IMO both Lawful and Evil are more likely to (but will not necessarily) identify and be hostile to individuals outside their own group.
My two cents,
Jack
This is how I define alignments for myself and my players when I DM:
Law has nothing to do with literally following laws. A lawful person strongly believes in some universal truth, power, divinity or other. From this single all-important factor, a lawful character draws his/her personal code of conduct which they feel obligated to follow. Most often, this code of conduct is common to others of similiar nationality/culture but there are exceptions. When a large group of people have similar codes of conduct, it becomes law. Therefore, lawful characters more often than not follow the laws of their home culture/nation, but again there are exceptions.
Chaos is the belief that there is no univerality to anything, even the universe. Therefore chaotic personalities feel obligated to follow social norms, laws and such only so far as it is within their best interest. This doesn't mean that chaotic characters are all insane anarchists with ADD. In fact very few chaotic folks 'do whatever they want whenever they want however they want' because even they have the basic herd instinct that all people share. Furthermore, there are concrete and dangerous consequences to breaking laws and social norms; for the most part it is in a chaotic character's best interest to follow them.
Neutrality is of course in between. A neutral personality either has an active belief that SOME universality exists within the universe but doens't directly govern everything or a neutral character is a fence sitter. A fence sitter may be unable to fully emrace a fully lawful or chaotic belief system or they may simply not care. For example my favorite alignment to play is Neutral Good because it is the goodest of the Good. Most often, my characters do not care about the universality/'everything is chaos' dilemma; they are only interested in doing good things. My characters tend to just take things as they come without worrying about what actions they must take to fulfill their idea of universality or how to manipulate the universe's inherent chaos most effectively. Therefore, my characters tend to follow laws as laws are most often in everyone's best interest, but is not afraid to break laws and social norms if 'the rules' are not 'good' in this particular situation.
Good--caring for EVERYONE'S interests only marginally less than your own. In the case of saint-level goodness, everyone's interests become of equal or even more importance than your own.
Neutrality--having a gradient of caring. For example: first myself, then my family, then my church, then my country, then everyone else.
Evil--caring primarily for yourself. In the case of extreme evil, this turns to total disinterest in the welfare of others.
Thanks all for the help and input. I now have a much better idea as to how to run a neutral good character.
Thanks again:)
A.
My favored alignment is probably neutral evil, as that's how I see myself in real life, and hence have an easier time playing that way. No I don't run arround killing and thieving and screwing over everyone I have the oportunity to, either in real life, or when playing NE in game. I see evil as selfish and distanced from others. So when playing NE my character looks out primarily for number one, and isn't very interested in the trials and tribulations of those arround him/her unless given a reason. Which often meens I take very good care of the party, once they and my character have been suitably ingrained. Even evil people need friends, and when it comes down to it, who is more likely to sacrifice themselves to save your life, the party members who you have spent the last few months pick pocketing and screwing out of treasure, or the party members you've lent the occassional pile of gold to or loyaly watched their back when the fhit started hitting the san.
Currently we have a pretty loose campaign going on where I'm playing a chaotic evil whisper gnome ninja/rogue. By loose I meen were definetly going more for a good time of screwing arround and cracking jokes rather than an indepth session with intensive roleplaying and staying STRICKTLY to character. So far I've had the most interaction with the parties chaotic good cleric, and we seem to get along better than I do with any other party member, including the chaos gnome warlock. This is because by chaotic evil I'm not running arround slaughtering every living thing in sight, robbing babies of their candy, and tripping old women while they cross the road. My character mostly just lies, compulsively...and sais whatever it takes to manipulate the party into doing what she thinks needs done.
Neutral good is the alignment that's all about doing the right thing, period. Just being a nice guy, and helping people. If the rules get in the way of that, ditch them. If you can get more done by playing within the rules, stick to them.
A couple days back, while walking with one of my non-D&D-playing girlfriends, she announced "Chaotic Neutral!" and ran off to investigate an abandoned backpack for mischevious purposes.
I agree with Fraust, being evil is quite different from being short-sighted idiot.
While going for wild massacre is one way of being evil, there is also a possibility of generally following social norms and acting pleasantly toward fellow human beings...simply because then they will like you and they are easier to use when the need comes. Fact is that friends are useful (emphasis on word "useful").
interesting variation might also be a character who is not selfish in typical meaning of the word, but who would readily be willing to make major sacrifices for others...as long as they belong to "our group", the rest can go to hell. Adventurer group, family, love interest, race is the one which matters and no act is too much if it benefits that specific group.
Pretty good way to go about it, as people have said. The Fake Healer has the right of it: Lawful is merely an indication of discipline and order; since many societies in D&D games have standard, decent moral codes, they are likely to follow them because they make sense. A lawful good chracter, as opposed to Neutral, is predisposed to follow the rules, if possible. A Neutral good character takes the best route, ideally doing the least harm. I think the line between chaotic are at means. I think a chaotic good character is still good, but is more likely to do less-than-moral things against evil creatures.
Neutral good has always been my favorite alignment to play. If you're not used to it, the flexibility to be able to bend the rules, which often leads to expanded decision making possibilities, can make it feel like an entirely different game.
Although a DM can introduce moral ambiguities that cause lawful characters to have to make hard choices, I've always felt that following a code allows for a nice safe moral fundamentalism. You know you're on the straight and narrow and there is little in the way of serious mischief.
Chaos is taxing. For me, anyway. It’s a lot of work having to run a character who needs to either go against the grain of conformity, rebel against everything, or act completely selfish. It seems a bit too like me in my late teens, so it isn’t roleplaying at all, it’s more the revisiting of Chowderhead, pop. 1
A couple days back, while walking with one of my non-D&D-playing girlfriends, she announced "Chaotic Neutral!" and ran off to investigate an abandoned backpack for mischevious purposes.
That's really funny.
|
This probably sounds paranoid to most, but you shouldn't
"run off to investigate an abandoned backpack". That's what bomb squads get paid to do.
With that out of the way, I find that playing Lawful characters comes easier for me, but I can have a blast playing chaotic characters too. My two favorite characters have been 1. a LG cleric of Kelemvor. and 2. a chaotic evil bard/lasher (master of the whip?).
The bard was forever trying to find a way to kill the party wizard in his sleep. However, the wizard didn't need much sleep and usually had a familiar watching or another party member nearby. Other than that, they had a pretty solid working relationship, because the bard's main goals were fame and fortune.
I must disagree. There have been a number of alignment threads on these boards, and the palladium system always comes up.
It is, like most of the Palladium stuff, a half-assed, pompous, and ultimate unsuccessful attempt at redefining the genre. Siembieda thinks he is obviously the smartest human on the planet, and that his ideas are the best, and the alignments show that clearly.
Not only are several of the alignments very unclear, but the entire Palladium game line pretty much makes alignment a non-factor. The hodgepodge of ideas and considerations is not well thought out or well-played. The alignment system is as flawed and problematic as any RPG, but lacks any form or consistent thought process, making it nearly impossible to explain.
The D&D system is not perfect, but it is damn good. The way that ethos and morality are conjoined explains characters pretty well, and is reasonably easy to explain to a newcomer. It has a form, and there is a definite function.
Most of the people who have serious problems with D&D alignment have problems understanding D&D alignment, and instead of trying to comprehend the system, they look to tack on a flawed system from perhaps the worst game system ever designed.
So, yeah, Palladium's alignments are pretty weak.
|
A good game mechanic system is the Palladium universe.
Aberrant is def my favorite. The character that will do evil or cruel things if the situation warrants it, but has a super strong personal code of conduct.
I agree with you there. Total 'Dr. Doom' alignment; makes more sense than 'Lawful evil' to me.
In palladium, I like unprincipled; I think when it comes down to it that's the majority of peoples' alignments in real life. You might try to help someone out of a pickle every once in a while, but ultimately you're going to take care of your own hide (and your family and friends) first.
I'm lawful good, my wife is chaotic good. We have some pretty good arguments.
My daughter just turned 13 so she will be chaotic neutral(evil tendencies) for the next 5-8 years, then the real person she is will come back.
The D&D system is not perfect, but it is damn good. The way that ethos and morality are conjoined explains characters pretty well, and is reasonably easy to explain to a newcomer. It has a form, and there is a definite function.
Most of the people who have serious problems with D&D alignment have problems understanding D&D alignment, and instead of trying to comprehend the system, they look to tack on a flawed system from perhaps the worst game system ever designed.
So, yeah, Palladium's alignments are pretty weak.
The thing I liked most about Palladium's alignment is the fact that they broke it down in a "here's what Unprincipled will do in this situation while here's what an Aberrant person will do." It's the breakdown of it that I like more than the actual system itself.
As for my personal alignment, I'd probably have to say Lawful Neutral.
Well I've never experienced the Palladium alignment system or any other non-D&D so I can't really say anything on that topic. (I once played a session of Vampire but I don't remember there being a belief system in that game) The biggest problem with D&D alignment that I see is that folks often have different takes on the definition of the 9 and how exactly each should act. I think this is mostly due to the chaos-law axis and it might end up being a relief to remove that particular aspect from the game but I can't bring myself to do it cuz I do like that!
As to my personal alignment which I neglected in my first post, I'd have to say that I share the alignment of 80% of humanity. That is, True Neutral baby! It's all about shades of gray and I love it that way! I have very specific beliefs about the nature of the (real) universe which are sometimes chaotically bent and sometimes lawfully bent. For example, I do not believe in any higher power (chaotic) but I do believe that 'teamwork' in general is the heart and soul of us humans (lawful). As to good v. evil, I am a nice enough guy and am willing to help those close to me (good) but I am selfish in other ways such as not giving to charities (sidenote: this is why I vote liberal; better to be taxed more so the government can give to the needy rather than indivuals who can't be trusted to do such).
To tie off the whole True Blue Neutral theme, my attitude in general is most easily described as existentialist-buddhist-new hippie.
I want to do something about it...but I can't bring myself to give a flying rat's ass!
|
|
It would be interesting to find a published set of examples of DnD alignment behavior. Is there one out there that I've missed? I'm referring to the examples mentioned for the Palladium set, where a situation is given and different behaviors are described as results/reactions.
I think it would help people to understand the alignments better. IMO, this system (DnD's alignments) works great and covers the entire range of possibilities, and even allows for game mechanics to affect characters with different behavior patterns.
Curses! The obligatory alignment argument rears its ugly head yet again! I’m not a huge D&D fan, but I play it 95% of my gaming time in lieu of other games I’d prefer to play as our gaming group favors D&D almost exclusively.
If I could make only one change to the game (and trust me, there are a lot of changes I would make), it would be the elimination of the venerable (and canon) alignment system.
So I was at Border’s bookstore and found my way inexplicitly at the Roleplaying section. I found a Wild-Wild West game; it was a brown paperback, and I wondered how different it would be in comparison to Boot Hill. I’ve always liked the genre, but felt it would be very difficult to craft an ongoing campaign. I flipped through a few pages, and guess what I found: an alignment system. Yep, Lawful Evil, Lawful Neutral, etc. ad nauseum. What is the roleplaying game world coming to. This is a clear testament of the power of D&D.
I’m not sure that’s a good thing…
I'm lawful good, my wife is chaotic good. We have some pretty good arguments.
My daughter just turned 13 so she will be chaotic neutral(evil tendencies) for the next 5-8 years, then the real person she is will come back.
Funny you say that. When I first saw this topic I thought of you as being one of our true nature Paladins; just, humbly sincere, and possessing a healing touch.
I'm just an NG bard, and everywhere I go... people know the part I'm playin'... Hey, someone has to wear the jingly boots.
..., but the entire Palladium game line pretty much makes alignment a non-factor. The hodgepodge of ideas and considerations is not well thought out or well-played.
AMEN
I have many friends who are fans of palladium game and have been scared to say it.., Palladium is weak!!
I have only heard of Palladium but only just a little. I that fact alone tells me that it isn't very good. As if it was I think I would have played at least once.
As for alignment I think I would have to say that I am Lawful Good to a fault.
Yeah, I have regime upon regime that I have to follow. If I don't I feel bad and that I haven't done all I could have accomplished that day. I also go out of my way most of the times to help people, yes, that includes helping the little old ladies across the street type of stuff. The other day I helped someone get their grocery cart up onto the curb as I was passing by. And yes, I had no idea who it was. Also when it comes to lies I feel so guilty for doing it that I have to tell the truth to that person and say I was sorry for lying to them. Unless of course it was a joke or something.
anyways thanks for all the help with this whole alignment thing. It will definitely make my game play a lot better.
Thanks
A.
Yes I love alignment threads!
For me alignment is a guidepost on how a character may behave in a given situation. With that said, I see things as Fake Healer does; a lawful person is organized and regemented in behavior. Lawful people like routine. Lawfuls tend to follow the law and social norms because doing so maintains order and the routine. It is in thier nature.
Chaotics are unpredictable. To them order and regmentation and routine are boring. Besides chaotics just can't "get their act together" to organize. A true chaotic does not know what they are going to do from moment to moment. That is why Chaotics tend to be at odds with the laws and social norms of society.
To me most people are neutral. A neutral is organized enough but not tied down by regementation, order and routine. Nor is the neutral at odds with order and routine. They are some where in between. This is as true to the ethically considerations of Law and Chaos as it is to the moral poles of Good and Evil.
To me a Good is compasionate above all other consideration. A Good think of the welfare and comfort of others above themselves, plain and simple. That does not mean they are stupid and live in poverty, giving all thier wealth away. But a wealthy Good would be generous and charitable in the most effective way, they believe.
To be Evil truly Evil you must ask yourself if you are willing too cause pain and suffering upon others and self to further you own goals whether it be for wealth, power or pleasure. That does not mean an Evil cannot be self sacrificing, on the contrary if the act of self sacrifice furthers the Evils goals then the pain and suffering is worth it.
So to me to play neutral good is to be caring and compassionate. Although organized neutral good remains flexible and able to break from routine behavior.
But as always you and only you know what is going on in the mind of your character (if Chaotic maybe you don't). alignment is guide post. So if you dont' know what your character might do in a given situation check your alignment and use it to help you decide.
Alignment is a roleplaying tool, use it as such.
Wow, I didn't say anything about the Palladium system, just it's alignments. Hit a nerve there.
Part of the problem with characters and alignment is the words LAWFUL and CH@0tI(. It conjures up to many preconcieved notions. People hear chaotic and immediately think RANDOM. they here lawful and think BOY SCOUT. Maybe we should ust rename the alignments to better fit how peple play them, then there wouldn't be so much confusion.
My humble attempt at reclassifying alignments
GOOD:
(LG) Stupid Good- follows all laws regardless of the consequences or the good/ evil ramifications for themselves. Gives selflessly to every cause that helps someone else.
(NG)Normal- tries to get by without bringing the authorities down on their heads. Will help out his fellow man as long as he doesn' have to stick his own neck out to far.
(CG) Random Good w/ Evil tendencies- Goes out of his way to break every rule just to say, "Hey, I'm Chaotic!" Doesn't care about the consequences/ ramifications of his actions as long as he feels he may have done the right thing.
NEUTRAL:
(LN)Lawful Stupid- follows the minutia of every rule just so he can say, "Hey, I'm Lawful"
(NN) Truly Paralized- worrys that any action he may take could gbe construed as having overtones of Good/ Evil or Law/ Chaos, and in the end is unable to act.
(CN) Chaotic Stupid Evil- (my personal fav)does completely random acts such as attaking party members after combat because they feel that to do otherwise would make them less chaotic.
EVIL:
(LE) Lawyer- self explanatory
(NE) Polotician- self explanatory
(CE) Stupid Evil- baby eating naughty just to be able to say, "Hey, I'm baby eating naughty!" Incapable of becoming a force to be reckoned with because he feels the deep seated need to attack every good creature that crosses it's path. This invariably leads to a run in with adventurers made up of the Stupid Good, Normal, and Random Good w/ Evil tendencies (a kindred spirit), who feel it is there duty to put such a rabid...
Palladium is over rated. Although I have spent hours playing Rifts.
But if I were you I would stick with the alignment system, seems to fit your few of things better. From my point of view alignent should not pedgeon hole someone into to acting "stupid". Neutral to me is the catch all alignemnt for thos who don't like alignemnt. New players and those who don't like alignemnt are usually Neutral in games I run. Neutrals are not paralyzed by the dilemna of his actions are good/ evil or lawful/ chaotic, on the contrary they just don't consider such things.I like the D&D alignment because it is symetrical and I tend to see and organize my self in shapes and geometry i.e I can understand spread sheets pie charts and the like.
Despite my like of faith in the Palladium system, I think it does provide a fair (fair and mediocre describes what I see of Palladium) alternative to the D&D alignment system, for those who do not like the whole law/ chaos and good/ evil view of ethics and morals.
Wow, I didn't say anything about the Palladium system, just it's alignments. Hit a nerve there.
Part of the problem with characters and alignment is the words LAWFUL and CH@0tI(. It conjures up to many preconcieved notions. People hear chaotic and immediately think RANDOM. they here lawful and think BOY SCOUT. Maybe we should ust rename the alignments to better fit how peple play them, then there wouldn't be so much confusion.
Sorry, I juts despise Palladium, adn the alignments are indicative of the stupidity of the system.
I definitely agree on your observation about the words Lawful and Chaotic and their conotations. It is problematic.
Really, you just need ot be pragmatic about it. I often ask my players to describe their characters alignment. You're neutral Good? Why? how are you neither Lawful or Chaotic, and what makes you good? As long as their description fits within the general idea of the alignment, we're good.
Funny you say that. When I first saw this topic I thought of you as being one of our true nature Paladins; just, humbly sincere, and possessing a healing touch.I'm just an NG bard, and everywhere I go... people know the part I'm playin'... Hey, someone has to wear the jingly boots.
LOL....I'm nowhere near a paladin...I've done some things that would make the alignment meter swing a little, but the pendulum always rights itself....plus the whole piety thing is lost on me. Thanks anyway, though!
Hell, since 3.5 allows clerics to champion a cause, I think of myself more of a cleric of restraint (holding back, not "in custody"...although I have that covered as well I suppose).
Hey Jade....I'm listening to Zebra right now while typing this.....
I usually play a good character because playing an evil character always makes me feel uncomfortable. It's fun for the first session when you and all of your mates run around behaving terribly but then it wears off when you're confronted by truly diabolically evil options. Some of my friends don't feel the least bit uncomfortable about it however!
I must confess Alydon we are much the same. I too feel very uncomfortable playing an evil character the only difference is when I am the DM then it must be diverse in all areas of alignments. Usually I play Paladins to try in refining my own personal charchter, its too easy to be evil, the challenge is being good and facing with many forms of moral dilemas. Steve Greer puts us through our fare share of those and really do appreciate them. Its good to actually have to think things out. Most people act rather than think. One thing I love about roll playing it helps work out the things that life may ignore in areas that not too often you are faced with. We all have our demons, but this helps to face those demons head on. The world is filled with monsters as well and it is good to prepare yourself mentally when the day comes you have to face one of those monsters. People make a conscience decision to be evil and some are simply given over to it. Just thought I share that with you. The world needs a few more Paladins. God bless you in your endeavors.
Hey Jade....I'm listening to Zebra right now while typing this.....
DUDE! My contracting partner in Long Island had to have his house appraised and guess which appraiser showed? Felix Hanneman, the Zebra bass player. We shared a long distance wave and smile. He still had long hair and continues to look quite Felix Hannemanish. At a couple hundred an hour, even despite the spotty work schedule, I'll bet he's earning more than he did as a signed rocker.
Randy Jackson was doing very well in business a couple of years ago out there on the island. Some kind of telephony company, I think...
That same contracting partner rehearsed tonight with, and drummed for Gabriel Mendoza, Eddie Fingers Ojeda, and Jay Jay French for a reunion show. They're fronted by the singer of Vixen but Dee's going to show for their two biggest songs. I said, "You realize you're kinda Twisted Sister's drummer right now?"
Stay Hungry came out when he was sixteen and the album was huge for him. I guess good things actually do come to those who wait. What a nostalgic buzz that must be.
They're fronted by the singer of Vixen...
Oops, wrong. Apparently some of the band is going to gig out with the guitar player of Vixen. The show that's coming up is all Dee and oddly enough, Billy Joel, all in the same place at the same time.