They aren't jerks that just attack whoever contradicts them, they role play it out, or seek out npcs to role play a back-stabing behind the scenes betrayal plot.
Being betrayed by my companions, whether physically or emotionally, would get old after the first time regardless of how 'maturely' it was done.
As someone else pointed out, I am drawn to role playing for its cooperative nature. When I want to compete, I will play video games or a board game.
Ever Read Death Masks in the Dresden Files? The Knights of the Cross let the host to a demon go, because he turned his coin over and said he was going to repent.
Yeah, the Dresden files rock. Talk about your conflicted character!
All y'all should read those books. Butcher's other books, the Furies of Calderon, are pretty good too.
Anyway, as I recall,
The guy in question didn't actually turn from the dark side. Even though the Knights promised to be nice to him, Dresden still went after him with a hammer or pliers or something to torture some information out of him. And then the guy eventually went after Dresden, because he was sure he'd be carrying the Lasciel coin. The evil guy was just struck dumb by the fact that Dresden had buried it. He was so sure that no one could resist the temptation that he was ready to perform some impromptu surgery, cause he figured Harry must have swallowed it...
I've even added a new alignment to our list because of it: Ridged Lawful Good. WHat that means is a character that is willing to do anything, no matter how evil and twisted to make sure that Their ideal of good prevails.
Ooo, LG with ridges! Like Ruffles potato chips. I'm kidding, I assume you mean "Rigid".
I don't think you need to add another alignment. Being rigid is just part of a character's personality that's separate from alignment. I suppose you could argue that Lawful types are more likely to be rigid than Chaotics, but whatever.
There will alawys be folks who fall into the "ends justify the means" trap. D&D characters often have access to lots of destructive power. Sometimes it's hard to resist the urge to "unleash the fury". But there should always be the voice of reason to point out that no matter how lofty the goal or pure the intentions, some things are just not cool. Maybe the other players help keep them in line, maybe you have to resort to an NPC.
If you're the DM, and you think the LG character is out of control, you've got to jerk the leash. Maybe an elder in the priesthood contacts the character because he's concerned about reports of the PCs actions. Miko from OoTS is the extreme example. She was LG, but at some point, she went a teeny bit insane. Her mortal authorities tried to get her to toe the line, but she was too overconfident in her righteousness. In the end, the gods had to smack her down.
Now, I'm sure that many players who do the LG (jerk) thing would freak out if the DM yanked their leash. I can't help you there. If you have a player that's convinced that writing LG on their sheet means they're never wrong, well, sucks to be you ;^)
Slightly off track: I really, really, really hate the D&D alignment system. Why? People have enough differences without having to get into arguements about their own personal take on Lawful Good or Chaotic Neutral.
Alignment = 9 ways to divide your party. Lots of game systems get along fine without it (Arcana Evolved, Runequest, etc).
There will alawys be folks who fall into the "ends justify the means" trap.
Right. Under D&D morality, evil actions are evil actions, period. A great paraphrase from Sethra Lavode, by Steven Brust, works in this situation: "If a person wishes to perform evil actions to accomplish a good goal, then either the person's judgement is suspect or the goal itself is evil or flawed in some way."
I know modern situations doesn't exactly compare very well to D&D alignment, but what about Jack Bauer from 24? He killed a man (albeit, an evil one) in order to infiltrate an evil organization. He has tortured people (including his love interest). I have always pictured him as LN, but he has definetely committed - in D&D terms - evil acts.
|
I'd really rather not, unless everybody was in to it. I think it can be done, but it seems like a counterproductive game usually.
Evil chr's are ultimately going to go after eachother, and it's best if everybody's on board for that from the get go.
And don't nobody jump me and tell me "I don't know anything about evil, man!!!" I know plenty enough, thankyou.
Right. Under D&D morality, evil actions are evil actions, period. A great paraphrase from Sethra Lavode, by Steven Brust, works in this situation: "If a person wishes to perform evil actions to accomplish a good goal, then either the person's judgement is suspect or the goal itself is evil or flawed in some way."
I agree. I think most of the time, it's the "suspect judgement". One misguided person's idea to reach a goal may end up being abhorrent to other people who sharet the same ultimate goal.
Another way to look at it is the mighty human talent of rationalization. In reality, someone may just be an anrgy murderous bastard who wants to kill people, but they choose to cloak their actions with some noble cause.
I know modern situations doesn't exactly compare very well to D&D alignment, but what about Jack Bauer from 24? He killed a man (albeit, an evil one) in order to infiltrate an evil organization. He has tortured people (including his love interest). I have always pictured him as LN, but he has definetely committed - in D&D terms - evil acts.
Do we suppose he's an NPC or a PC. In D&D, you could just find out by using divination magic. That's the beauty of it. Or you could sneak a peak at the character sheet or the DM's notes. But different people probably wouldn't agree with what they saw there. So that's the problem most people have.
But in a non-D&D universe, it's an interesting case. I haven't had a chance to watch a lot of the show, but my in-laws are big fans. From what I have seen, Jack Bauer is completely willing to completely disregard any authority that gets in his way. So is he Chaotic? Maybe he's Neutral Good.
Or maybe he's just plain Neutral. His moral code is completely flexible. He's willing to do whatever it takes day to day to do what he considers his duty. So he disobeys his bosses, beats on his subordinates (but he seemed to feel bad about that one), and all the other stuff you mention. But his long term goal is to protect as many people as he can from the "bad guys".
He's somewhat of an "anti-hero", which is a concept that can be problematic in D&D. Sort of a pain if the "good guy" of the story detecs as evil and can't get healed up in the temple (unless he pays for atonement first).
If the DM has a clear idea of how the taint of a few evil acts work on characters over time, and the players agree with how the system works and the rulings, then it can work.