I've been trying to come up with a set of advntures for low level (1-3) that will help new players pick an alignment.
.
I have an adventure that pits the character's lawfulness against their sense of good. by forcing them to choose (in the simplest terms) between keeping their word and helping someone in need. [If you are interested in this, more detail can be provided upon request]
.
the idea being that during the adventure, I observe how they react and set their alignment accordingly. Either being more good than lawful, or more lawful than good.
.
I was hoping to come up with a similar adventures to put the characters' good vs chaos; evil vs lawful; and evil vs chaos.
.
But I can't seem to think of a decent plot that would force players to choose only between either the chaotic solution or the good solution
(chaotic vs evil is even worse).
.
Does anyone have any ideas for any of these?
=-=-=-=-
For the sake of this argument:
Assume Chaos is:
acts of Betrayal, Disobedience, Cowardie, or Dishonesty
Assume Lawfulness is:
Loyalty, Honesty, Honor, and Bravery
Assume Evil is:
Selfishness or Vengefullness
Assume Good is:
Generosity or Benevolence
=-=-=-=-
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
=-=-=-=-
For the sake of this argument:Assume Chaos is:
acts of Betrayal, Disobedience, Cowardie, or DishonestyAssume Lawfulness is:
Loyalty, Honesty, Honor, and BraveryAssume Evil is:
Selfishness or VengefullnessAssume Good is:
Generosity or Benevolence
=-=-=-=-
Before I get into any suggestions, why are we assuming the above to be the case? You've given Chaos some very negative connotations and given Lawfulness some unnecessarily positive ones. Betrayal is more Evil than Chaos, and Cowardice has nothing to do with any of this (Cowardice is Neutrality if anything).
Ideally, you will want to make them choose between the opposing morality (good vs. evil, law vs. chaos). It is entirely possible to be both Chaotic AND Good (hence - Chaotic Good). Making them choose one or the other seems not only difficult, but unnecessary.
Yeah, I would reconsider some of the things you are associating with the alignments. Chaos can also mean favoring independence and freedom and free will and individuality over conformity. And Lawful can mean honorable, but it can also indicate a stubborn adherence to tradition or valuing the letter of the law over the spirit of the law. At the risk of falling prey to Godwin's Law, I will point out that Nazi Germany is a good example of Lawful Evil. They had rules aplenty, but loads of Evil, evil bad stuff, too. And many stormtroopers followed the rules and adhered to their duties while being Evil b@st@rds. Ghandi might arguably have been Chaotic while also being Good. Hitler was arguably Lawful but still Evil.
So, as noted above, I would be careful about ascribing virtuous or villainous attributes to either Law or Chaos. They have more to do with rules and freedom and so forth than they are about weal or woe. Too much of either could be a recipe for Evil--too much Law invites oppression and totalitarianism and too much Chaos means anarchy and strife. Of course, these are my biased opinions and may reveal something about my own alignment...
Does anyone have any ideas for any of these?
I cannot in good conscience assist you in your endeavor, because I don't think you have a firm enough grasp of the alignment system to be creating adventures that purport to help new players understand the system.
I urge you to abandon this project until you can demonstrate a better understanding of alignments.
|
You might want to take a look at the way that "alignment" and character class were chosen in Ultima IV. This page has a full list of the dilemmas presented at the start of that game; I suspect they might form the basis of some interesting tabletop play.
I cannot in good conscience assist you in your endeavor, because I don't think you have a firm enough grasp of the alignment system to be creating adventures that purport to help new players understand the system.
.
I urge you to abandon this project until you can demonstrate a better understanding of alignments.
Thank you for your feedback,
I understand the alignment system perfectly fine -I simply do not agree with how it defines alignments.
Which is why I use a my own system.
Before I get into any suggestions, why are we assuming the above to be the case? You've given Chaos some very negative connotations and given Lawfulness some unnecessarily positive ones. Betrayal is more Evil than Chaos, and Cowardice has nothing to do with any of this (Cowardice is Neutrality if anything).
So, as noted above, I would be careful about ascribing virtuous or villainous attributes to either Law or Chaos. They have more to do with rules and freedom and so forth than they are about weal or woe. Too much of either could be a recipe for Evil--too much Law invites oppression and totalitarianism and too much Chaos means anarchy and strife. Of course, these are my biased opinions and may reveal something about my own alignment...
Well I was trying to be breif without dredging up my
home system (which is probably needless complex)-In my home system:
Evil in the simplest of terms is selfishness - desire for money, power, hedonism, glory, etc.
Law in the simplest terms is reliability and conistancy.
Law/Chaos (in my campaign) is broken down into 7 categories or aspects.
Reproachful vs. Tolerant
This Virtue is the character’s willingness to accept and work with ideals and characters that are different from his or her own.
Lawful tends to be more Totalitarian and unforgiving
Chaos tends accepts others viewpoints, even if you disagree on a fundamental level
Loyalty vs. Treachery:
This Virtue is the character’s devotion and faithfulness to others.
Obedience vs. Rebelliousness
This Virtue is the character’s deference and respect to the laws and commanding figures.
Honor vs. Disrepute
This Virtue is the character’s sense of fairness in combat and other situations as well as the value of their word.
Honesty vs. Deceitfulness
This Virtue is the character’s sincerity and candor in all situations.
Valor vs. Self-Preservation
This Virtue is the character’s willingness to risk their life.
Meticulous vs. Impulsive
This Virtue is the character’s desire to plan ahead or act spontaneously.
A chaotic character could be Impulsive, Rebellious, and Tolerant
none of which (in my opinion are villainous)
Likewise I don't view Self-preservation as an 'evil' act.
A person who is extremely good can still be the type who would save their own skin rather than sacrifice themselves to save another.
I will admit, some of these choices are more slanted towards good or evil.
A character with Extreme honor (in my campaign) would not use flanking or attack a flat footed foe. And they would keep their word even if the other party broke it. This could be argued as 'good'
While on the opposite end, those with extreme disrepute would be willing to attack under a flag of truce. which could be argued as 'evil' and their word would be worht nothing, nor would a signed contract. This could be argued as evil.
Ideally, you will want to make them choose between the opposing morality (good vs. evil, law vs. chaos). It is entirely possible to be both Chaotic AND Good (hence - Chaotic Good). Making them choose one or the other seems not only difficult, but unnecessary.
Yes, but that is very easy to do.
I am more concerned about is the character more lawful than good,are they more chaotic than evil. Plus the interaction of the four choices should make a fairly clear outcome.
For example If presented with
Chaos vs. Evil = choose Chaos
Chaos vs. Good = chose Good
Lawful vs. Evil = chose Law
Lawful vs. Good = chose Good
They would most likely be Neutral Good,
If the last choice had been Law instead I would say Lawful Good.
You might want to take a look at the way that "alignment" and character class were chosen in Ultima IV. This page has a full list of the dilemmas presented at the start of that game; I suspect they might form the basis of some interesting tabletop play.
Thank you - I will do so.
Any other suggestions are appreciated.
Law/Chaos (in my campaign) is broken down into 7 categories or aspects.
Good lord! We don't even USE alignment at all on a day-to-day basis, and get along perfectly fine. Seven categories for 1 axis might be a bit much... no offense, but you might make extra-sure that your players as "into" this system as much as you are, so that it's not just a pet project you're more or less forcing down the throats of a captive audience.
Good lord! We don't even USE alignment at all on a day-to-day basis, and get along perfectly fine. Seven categories for 1 axis might be a bit much... no offense, but you might make extra-sure that your players as "into" this system as much as you are, so that it's not just a pet project you're more or less forcing down the throats of a captive audience.
This is for my own use to evaluate the players -
I don't ask them to adhere to any aligment, but after every few sessions if they are drifting in one way or another I let them know that they are 'becoming more Lawful' or 'have displayed a tendancy towards evil acts' if they continue, I simply tell them their alignment has changed.In the past I have found that most of them don't even care and eventually fall into a niche; but for some classes they must stay within alignment and have to adjust their playstyle.
I also have 7 categories on the Good - Evil aspect
(Modesty/Pride; Charity/Greed; Chaste/Lust; Energetic/Lethargic; Moderate/Gluttonous; Merciful/Wrathful; Benevolent/Egotistical)
Which were loosely based on the seven deadly sins.
We don't even USE alignment at all on a day-to-day basis, and get along perfectly fine.
Well, let me ask you this then.
Maybe I am going about this the wrong way... If you had a cleric of a good deity, how would you respond if he started comitting evil acts, and how would you even define 'evil' acts for the player?What about a Monk who must remain lawful, what actions would you define as chaotic or 'un-lawful' acts?
Well, let me ask you this then. Maybe I am going about this the wrong way... If you had a cleric of a good deity, how would you respond if he started comitting evil acts, and how would you even define 'evil' acts for the player?
What about a Monk who must remain lawful, what actions would you define as chaotic or 'un-lawful' acts?
Both of these are reasonable questions. We've had similar situations come up at the gaming table (in our case it was a paladin starting to act suspiciously chaotic--as in, disobeying his superior officer to abet a known outlaw), and we dealt with it by a system of mutual consensus:
Me (DM): "That's more than a bit outside what your Order sort of expects, isn't it?"
Player: "Yeah, but I can probably get away with it if I get good results, right?"
Me: "You'll probably need to atone as well. And they'll chuck you out if it doesn't turn out as well as you hope."
Player: "Cool, that's fair enough. I kind of like the image of my character 'skirting the edge'."
Later, he decided to commit one blatantly evil act, and voluntarily switched over to Blackguard. I didn't need to rule on it, and we didn't really worry about exact shifting points; it just all worked out by mutual consensus.
Midrealm DM has definite bias against chaotic alignment...of the aspects he mentioned, I would put Valor vs Self-preservation in good/evil axis, not law/chaos.
And many others are presented in questionable manner...of course if you make people choose between loyalty and treachery they will go for loyalty, but if the same people were to decide between, say, stubborness and ability to re-evaluate situations, they might pick the other side, while the basic question is the same.
Or ask between rigidity and creativity, and see how people will flock on side of chaos...
I watched recently on DVD older episodes of ER and in my opinion character of George Clooney is fine example of chaotic good behaviour...he obviously cares about his patients and to get good care for them, he is willing to lie and break rules, even if it means trouble for him later (and trouble often comes, in form of his lawful collagues and superiors). So lawful vs chaos is Kerry Weaver vs Doug Ross for those of you who get the reference :)
Midrealm DM has definite bias against chaotic alignment...of the aspects he mentioned
Well - perhaps so, but in a recent _Dragon_ magazine (Im afraid I don't recall the issue number) there were a collection of Domains that were associated with the seven disciplines of Law.
These Domains were (If I remember correctly):Insularity (or narrow mindedness), Loyalty, Obedience, Honesty, Bravery, Honor, & Contemplation
I could not help but notice at the time the article was printed that these were striking similar to those I used:
Reproachfulness, Loyalty, Obedience, Honesty, Valor, Honor, and Meticulousness
I certainly appreciate constructive criticism, and welcome feedback, but I just wanted to point out, in my defense, that the first set of the above aspects were approved as official aspects of Law by Wizards of the Coast, _Dragon_ magazine, and Paizo editors.
Note that it includes Bravery
=-=-=
Also, and more to the point, while the discussion is interesting, it has deviated from my original intention.
Doug Sundseth provide a link to some useful ideas, (Thanks!) but I was wondering if anyone else had some adventure ideas that would give the PCs a choice between two alignment based options:
good vs chaos; evil vs lawful; and evil vs chaos.
.
Does anyone have any ideas for any of these?
.
And seriously, thanks for the feedback on the aligment, I will certainly consider your advice. :)
.
It's just deviating from what I was originally looking for.
If the purpose is to give the characters a chance to demonstrate their committment to a particular alignment (or whatever the purpose, really), I think it would be much easier to give them separate choices that have them decide between law/chaos and good/evil separately, rather than deciding between good/chaos or evil/law. The reason being that someone might choose Chaos over Evil every time without having any real proclivities towards Chaos--he might just really oppose Evil. Take a Neutral Good character, for example. He will never knowingly choose the Evil option, but that doesn't mean he thinks Chaos is so great. So I think the best route would be to let them demonstrate their positions on each axis separately.
If the purpose is to give the characters a chance to demonstrate their committment to a particular alignment (or whatever the purpose, really), I think it would be much easier to give them separate choices that have them decide between law/chaos and good/evil separately, rather than deciding between good/chaos or evil/law. The reason being that someone might choose Chaos over Evil every time without having any real proclivities towards Chaos--he might just really oppose Evil. Take a Neutral Good character, for example. He will never knowingly choose the Evil option, but that doesn't mean he thinks Chaos is so great. So I think the best route would be to let them demonstrate their positions on each axis separately.
Easier yes, but not necessarily better.
I am looking to find out if a character is more Lawful than Good, or more Good than Chaotic, etc.In your example the same NG character confronted with the Law v Evil choice should pick the Lawful choice. The Lawful and Chaotic choices would cancel out.
If the character however expresses a desire to be NG but chooses Choas over Evil adn Choas over Good, I would suggest they consider Choatic good instead.
However since that has been suggested several times, I can easily do six adventures instead of 4:
Law v Good ; Good v Evil ; Good v Chaos
Chaos v Evil; Chaos v Law; Law v Evil
So suggestions for adventures (other than Law v Good) would be appreciated.
In my opinion good/evil axis shows the goal which is pursued and law/chaos axis are the methods how that goal is achieved. Why vs How.
So trying to compare eg. good and chaos does not really work, or it always comes down to law vs chaos or good vs evil issue. For example, let's consider a person who is strict about rules and laws, suggesting a lawful alignment. Why does he consider rules important? Are the laws there to help societies function better (LG) or are the laws suitable for control, maybe even exploit (LE). Or somewhere in between (LN)?
Similarly, a chaotic person can think that free creative processes let people live fuller lives (LG) or that I can do whatever I want, who cares about the others (CE). I don't think anyone really chooses law or chaos over good and evil...
Oh, and Bravery as lawful-specific domain? I really have doubts if the writer of that article has any clue what he is doing...and just because Loyalty is a domain of law, doesn't mean that Treachery is domain of chaos (unless you are a spin doctor of Church of St. Cuthbert). Domains of chaos could include Spontaneity, Creativity, Bravery, Freedom, Tolerance...
Give them situations w/ 3 choices.
For Example:
A roving priest attacks what he thinks is a band of bandits waiting to waylay a caravan, while in actuality its a band of adventuers in disguise hoping to infiltrate the bandits. He kills one of their number (a young noble from the region) before the adventuers can explain their plan. The penalty for killing a noble is imprisonment. The local government does not wish to put the priest on trial for fear of angering the church. The players are hired by the priest's church, as unbiased investigators, to determine what action to take. They can investigate to their hearts content and then make one of three choices:
1) The priest has killed a noble, knowing or not, and must be inprisoned (Lawful Neutral response).
2) The priest has killed a noble, but did so thinking he was doing good, he should be punished but not imprisoned (True Neutral response).
3) The priest has killed a noble, but it was all just a big misunderstanding, the charges should be dropped (Chaotic Neutral response)
As always, doing the "Right Thing" (Good/Lawful) should be harder than doing the "Easy Thing" (Evil/Chaotic).
Also, don't forget the Neutral characters. I find a number of people think that neutral is when you dont pick between two other choises ( Law and Chaos for example).
To an extent that's true, but I find Neutral charcters often embody the consept of their non-neutral alingment.
NG - You do the good thing without worrying about the legal part. You start a rebelion to free people from an evil ruler and in doing so you become their ruler. Unlawful yes, but you just want to establish a better life for the people. You do whats right. Example: Braveheart.
LN - Your not that horible of a person, but your not really a nice guy. You do whatever the law is. You deside to stake anyone caught breaking the law in your land, without worrying about morals. The law is the law. In this case you would'nt be evil. Example: Vlad Dracula (the real one, NOT the vampire)
Just two examples.
In my opinion good/evil axis shows the goal which is pursued and law/chaos axis are the methods how that goal is achieved. Why vs How.
For the most part I think we could all agree on that.
just because Loyalty is a domain of law, doesn't mean that Treachery is domain of chaos... Domains of chaos could include Spontaneity, Creativity, Bravery, Freedom, Tolerance...
But the D&D alignment system is binary
If action 'A' is Lawful then the opposite of action A must be the opposite of Lawful.If he betrays his allies to do an act of good
He is breaking an unspoken bond of trust, an unspoken word, a 'rule' if you will.
This is the HOW - the WHY was for a good act, but the method he used to achieve it was not lawful.
Simlarly Honesty - If you are willing to lie, bluff, and con to achieve your goals, so be it. Are those goals for selfish reasons or to cause harm to others? Or are you trying to help people?
Bravery vs. Self-Preservation
If a warrior stands firm in the face of certain death for a good cause, the HOW is the self sacrifice and the WHY is the good cause.
I think everyone agrees that Robin Hood is an Iconic Chaotic good figure. The Iconic Robin Hood ...
Disaproved of the ruling forces
Stole from the rightful government
(often using trickery, and deception)
Was an impulsive and spontaneous thinker
Sought freedom from opression
Persued a Just and Fair society
=-=-
And there is a difference between what Justice and Lawful.
A Lawful society could let criminals go free through technicalities or loopholes in the laws. This is not Justice, but it is Lawful.
Yes he was Brave and Loyal - but no one says to be 'Chaotic' you have to meet every qualification.
A good priest who works to save orphans and children, who donates all of his spare money and time to worthy causes can indulge in lechery and gluttony.
Likewise a Choatic character may have some lawful traits
(A chaotic evil individual who will never break his word of honor, or one who will not attack an unarmed foe)
Every player character (with the possible exception of paladins) will be a mixture of good and evil acts, chaotic and lawful deeds, the question is, which are they _more_ prone to do.