|
I think the description for each alignment needs to be better defined. If an alignment is suitable for a hero, like Chaotic Neutral and Lawful Evil, I think the description of how those alignments work as a "good guy" should be in the description.
The definition of Lawful needs to be further expanded to put more emphasis on code of conduit, personal morals, and honor, and less on blind devotion to the letter of the law.
Agreed, Law gets a very bad name in the current rules.
In past games I have changed the terminology from Law to Order.
I tell the players that it indicates an adherence to Orderly behavior which can include adherence to local laws and such but is more likely to indicate how they approach situations; orderly, step-by-step, lots of planning and lists, etc etc as opposed to the Chaotic character who jumps into things and flies by the seat of his/her pants.
I also like to compare Good/Evil to SelfLESSness and SelfISHness. Good people will suffer, sacrifice and otherwise act in a manner to ensure that others will benefit, while Evil characters will cause suffering, steal/take and act in a manner to ensure that they will benefit.
[I also liked the idea of alignment scores as proposed in Green Ronin's Advanced Player's Guide (or maybe the Adv DM Guide) so that players can indicate how strongly they adhere to their ideals (Order/Chaos, Good/Evil)]
|
Good people will suffer, sacrifice and otherwise act in a manner to ensure that others will benefit,
...and by doing that, those good people benefit too (e.g. good feeling, pride, etc) as they know they are attempting to help others.
I'm fine with whatever fiction PF comes up with to describe good and evil.
Personally, I've always defined Law as focusing on the group over the individual, while Chaos is a belief of the individual over the group. Free will is tantamount for Chaotic characters, while social contracts are loved by Lawful characters.
I guess it usually is, but not neccessarily. Lawful evil and lawful neutral people can care only for themselves, though they probably take the social environment much more into account than chaotic characters do.
I think there's nothing wrong with alignment as it is. But it should really be described in a way that avoids confusion and makes all those arguments unneccasary that pleage this toppic since decades.
True, when those guys created it back in the 70's, it probably was as dumb as many people like to portray it now, but it can be used very well without making any changes to the underlying system.
Selfless - Good
Selfish - Evil
Reason-focused - Law
Gut-thinking - Chaos
I have it, that alignment just describes a creatures or persons character, but is not an inherent trait of it. Except for outsiders, which are made of solified good and evil. ^^
Most people seem to have hangups about Detect Evil. I usually reduce it somewhat in effenciency, so it only works on outsiders, items and spells, as well as clerics, which are infused by devine power and have an alignmental aura. When cast on other creatures, it shows results only for very exceptional characters in which the alignment trait is extremely strong. A hateful wizard who is obsessed with caling a demon to destroy the world would be detected as truly evil, though a lich, that puts dead magic wards on his lair because he hates to be disturbed, would not. He's completely selfish and doesn't care if people die, but he doesn't activly pursue to cause strife and suffering to others. So the spells wouldn't work on corrupt officials or extorting guardsmen either. An evil cleric would now of his evil aura and it wouldn't be too great a stretch to assume they disguise their alignment when they want to infiltrate other groups in the guise of a honest and harmles man.
You still have it where it adds greatly to the game, but not where it would be rather anti-climactic.
|
|
I'd be happy clarifying the current alignment system, but downplaying it further. I don't think that a low-level spell should actually detect someone's alignment at all, unless they're a cleric (or other divine servant) or an outsider. Changing the functions of detect evil, et al, like they did for 3.5 was a good step, but it needs to go further.
Jeremy Puckett
I wouldn't really want to open any floodgates by altering alignment too much, although I do think that explaining "Order" in the Lawful alignments might not be a bad idea, so that people understand that a Lawful alignment isn't automatically linked to "local" laws, but a universal principal of Order and structure.
|
I fully support the law --> order shift.
There are rules of thermodynamics which quantify entropy. This is essentially law working with chaos. Therefore, we don't have a dichotomy. Therefore, Law/Chaos don't represent polarity, meaning they're not good to be opposites for alignments.
Order on the other hand is, pretty much by definition, the opposite of Chaos. Note also - now monks aren't bound to the state in which they pratice, just the rigidity of the practice itself. I believe this was the intetion all along, but the terminology would now intersect with this philosophy. Other examples of the improvement abound.
Good = Selfless, therefore Evil = Selflish
Law and order are bit more complex, but:
Law = Order, discipline, routine
Chaos = Entropy, recklessness, improvisation
(Also, thermodynamics don't apply in D&D. For one thing, Thermodynamics require conservation of energy, which only Dark Sun seems to have.)
|
|
Ross, I didn't mean to say the laws of physics applied in D/D. If they did, I may find my electromagnetism class a little more interesting.
Instead, my post was mostly analogy.
Good/Evil are stricly polarized definitions. Law/Chaos are not in some senses of the work of law. I'm being purely semantic here.
Truthfully, Order/Entropy has a clearer meaning, but Chaos relates more to an individual. This reasoning is why I'm guessing Law was tossed in - people relate to it better. This leads to easier relation of concepts to characterization.
The problems I have are when "law" doesn't necessarily mean self-discipline but instead acquires inferences of local ordinance. If I'm a ritualist, I may not care whatsoever about a local edict saying I cannot cut my hair. However, some DMs would have my "lawfulness" cut with my hair - that's the problem.
I prefer to allow individual groups define their alignment system. There is no need for everyone to be forced into one monolithic idea.
As you can see I am chaotic :)
I admit I don't worry much about alignment unless a cleric of a good deity starts slaughtering innocent kittens (or something).
FWIW, I consider:
Lawful => consistent in behaviour
Chaotic => arbitrary in behaviour
Also, somewhat of a tangent, but if there's going to be examples of how to play evil characters and not tear a party apart, I'd like to suggest Jane from Firefly as a good icon for CE. Selfish, impulsive, ruled by his urges, merciless, bloodthirsty.....and yet they manage to keep him around. :P
Or, you know, Belkar . . .
Ross, I didn't mean to say the laws of physics applied in D/D. If they did, I may find my electromagnetism class a little more interesting.
Instead, my post was mostly analogy.
Good/Evil are stricly polarized definitions. Law/Chaos are not in some senses of the work of law. I'm being purely semantic here.
Truthfully, Order/Entropy has a clearer meaning, but Chaos relates more to an individual. This reasoning is why I'm guessing Law was tossed in - people relate to it better. This leads to easier relation of concepts to characterization.
The problems I have are when "law" doesn't necessarily mean self-discipline but instead acquires inferences of local ordinance. If I'm a ritualist, I may not care whatsoever about a local edict saying I cannot cut my hair. However, some DMs would have my "lawfulness" cut with my hair - that's the problem.
Ah. I see now. I agree that renaming Law to Order would probably make everything to understand. Except that maybe 'Orderful Evil' doesn't have the same ring to it.
Of course, even though it's a 'search and replace' fix, that's too big of a semantic change for backward compatibility.
one of the things I always remember from palladium was their alignent system (scrupulous, aberrant, honourable, selfish)& the way they always described it in terms of archetypes - (normally star wars characters i seem to recall)
i don't have the books handy but i'd encourage anyone to read them as an example of how to make an alignment system clear without being restrictive
Ah. I see now. I agree that renaming Law to Order would probably make everything to understand. Except that maybe 'Orderful Evil' doesn't have the same ring to it.
Of course, even though it's a 'search and replace' fix, that's too big of a semantic change for backward compatibility.
Yeah, I definitely wouldn't want to replace "Lawful" with "Order" or "Orderful," but I think making sure its really, really clear that, for purposes of alignment, Lawful = Order, instead of blindly following laws, would be a good idea.
|
I think what I like about the alignment system is that it is more open than it seems - I think some folks have misconceptions about certain types that cause them to dislike the system.
I have always felt Law/Chaos gets the short end of the stick. Humans invariably prefer the notion of good to evil. But in terms of law/chaos, people differ widely - it is a more personal choice. I get steam shooting out of my ears when I see someone driving erratically or having a cluttered desk. Some people prefer to live that way. Others fall somewhere in the middle.
Perhaps PRPG could provide more examples of what it means to follow an alignment axis?
EDIT: I also want to mention my current campaign world, where Law/Chaos means Imperialism/Free States. Good and evil exist, but a lawful good character will just as likely adventure with a lawful evil character as with a chaotic good one.
EDIT: I also want to mention my current campaign world, where Law/Chaos means Imperialism/Free States.
To me, Law/Chaos on a country level means the difference between ruling by "Law/Tradition" vs. ruling by "You Better Hope I Woke Up On The Right Side Of The Bed This Morning". :-)
How about "Ordered Evil?"
Honestly, i have no preference one way or the other what it's called, i'd just as soon switch over to Palladium's alignment system.Oh wait! i already have! :)
I have decided using the Palladium alignment system for my next 3.5 campaign. I really like it. I always have.
A while Back I found the following loosly base on the palladium AL system I like it as a guild line and have been using it in my games for a while now
THOUGHTS ON ALIGNMENTS
By
Steven Wright
<amadeus@uniserve.com>
Hi everybody,
So far a lot of discussion has been going on focusing on alignments, so
I decided to post something my players and I put together. We drew on t
from parts of alignments from Palladium books and things we could come u
p with ourselves. Essentially what it is the code that the various alignments play in everyday life. As always not everyone is always good
or always evil so some variation is allowed.
LAWFUL GOOD characters will
1. Always keep their word
2. Avoid lies (unless absolutely necessary)
3. Never kill or attack an unarmed foe
4. Never harm an innocent
5. Never torture for any reason
6. Never kill for" pleasure; will always attempt to bring the villain
to Justice
7. Always help others
8. Work well in a group
9. Respect authority, law, self-discipline, and honor
10. Never betrays a friend
11. Never break the law unless conditions are desperate. This means no breaking and entering, theft, torture, unprovoked assaults, etc.
LAWFUL EVIL characters will
1. Always keep his word of honor (he is honorable)
2. Lie to and cheat to those not worthy of his respect
3. May or may not kill an unarmed foe
4. Not kill (may harm, kidnap) an innocent, particularly children
5. Never kills for pleasure
6. Not resort to inhumane treatment of prisoners, but torture, although Distasteful, is a necessary means of extracting information
7. Never torture for pleasure
8. May or may not help someone in need
9. Work with others to attain his goals
10. Respects honor and self-discipline
11. Never betray a friend
LAWFUL NEUTRAL characters will
1. Always keep his word
2. Avoid lies
3. Not kill an unarmed foe (unless under orders to do so)
4. Not kill or harm an innocent (unless under orders to do so)
5. Only help those in need if the law or contract provides he must do so
6. Never kill for pleasure
7. Never use torture (unless under orders to do so)
8. Works well in a group
9. Respects authority, law, self-discipline and honor (whether benevolent or Tyrannical)
10. Never betrays a friend (unless in a situation-on where the law would come first)
11. NEVER breaks the law even when conditions are desperate (unless under orders to do so by a superior)
NEUTRAL GOOD characters will:
1. Keep his word to any other good person
2. Lie only to people of evil alignments
3. Never attack or kill an unarmed foe
4. -Never harm an innocent
5. Never use torture
6. - Never kill for pleasure
7. Always help others
8. Work well in a group
9. Bend and, occasionally, break the law when deemed necessary
10. Has no deference to law
11. Never betray a friend
NEUTRAL EVIL characters will:
1. Not necessarily keep his word to anyone
2. Lie and cheat anyone; good or evil
3. Most definitely attack an unarmed foe (those are the best kind)
4. Use or harm an innocent
5. Use torture for extracting information and pleasure
6. May kill for sheer pleasure
7. Feels no compulsion to help without some sort of tangible reward
8. Work with others if it will help him attain his personal goal
9. Kill an unarmed foe as readily as he would a potential threat or competitor
10. Has no deference to laws or authority, but will work within the law if he
must
11. Will betray a friend if it serves his needs
TRUE NEUTRAL characters will:
1. May keep his word (depending on how it will affect the balance)
2. May or may not lie to anyone (depending on how it will affect the balance)
3. May or may not kill. Or attack an unarmed foe
4. Never kill or attack an innocent
5. May or may not torture. (Never for pleasure)
6. Often help others, especially if helping the underdog to maintain
balance
7. Never kill for pleasure
8. Sometimes work in a group (depending on who needs the characters help)
9. Have no deference to law, authority and the strictures laid out by
them
10. Will break the law when necessary
11. Never intentionally betray a friend, unless balance will be maintained by doing so
CHAOTIC GOOD characters will:
1. Keep his word to any other good persons
2. Lie only to people of neutral and evil alignments
3. Never attack or kill an unarmed foe
4. Never harm an innocent
5. Never torture for pleasure, but may use muscle to extract information from criminals or evil characters
6. Never kill for pleasure
7. Always help others
8. Attempt to work within the law whenever possible
9. Bend and, occasionally, break the law when deemed necessary. This
means they may use strong-arm tactics, harass, break and enter, theft, and so on
10. Distrust authority
11. Work with groups, but dislike confining laws and bureaucracy
12. Never betrays a friend
CHAOTIC EVIL characters will:
1. Rarely keep his word (and has no honor)
2. Lie to and cheat anyone
3. Most certainly attack and kill an unarmed foe
4. Uses, hurts and kills an innocent without a second thought or for pleasure
5. Use torture for pleasure and information
6. Kill for sheer pleasure
7. Likely to help someone only to kill or rob them
8. Not work well within a group (consistently disregarding orders to
do as he pleases)
9. Despise honor, authority, and self-discipline
10. Associate mostly with other evil alignment
11.Betray friends (after all, you can always find friends)
CHAOTIC NEUTRAL characters will:
Chaotic neutral characters are so unpredictable that they can essentially bring on aspects of any alignment. For playing it is easiest to choose a particular alignment for the game session or points from various ones and noting it on a piece of paper.
While I really like the alignement system, some clarification would be nice.
Though it might go beyond the frame, I though of granting a small skill shift for choosing an alignement:
Lawful - Discipline +2, Deception -2
Chaotic - Deception +2, Discipline -2
Good - Diplomacy +2, Intimidate -2
Evil - Intimidate +2, Diplomacy -2
(Just a side note)
|
|
Many times it seems the problem most people have with LG characters stems from the archetype which assumes a LG Paladin must essentially play a LG a$$hole. Prestige classes such as the Gray Guard, and examples of paladin NPC such the one presented early on in Monte Cook's Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, show fine examples of heroes who realize that heroism isn't all valiant charges and shiny armor. True, paladins mustn't knowling associate with adventuring partners who are evil. However, if Jimmy the Snitch is a crook, yet a crook willing to part with crucial info if slipped some GP, I don't really see it as dishonorable considering that a LG character's utmost devotion is the noble cause at hand. Then again, maybe i'm just a big hairy CG in disguise.
Tying myself to that argument, I would add that Lawfulness/Order/Destiny also means "consistency" - namely that a character will approach the same situation the same way unless there is great reason to act otherwise.
To use your example, assume the Paladin code does NOT forbid bribing snitches. Assume the Paladin has done this many times before. The Paladin is acting in a predictable manner. Now, pretend said Paladin once vowed to themself never to condone thievery by bribing people - conducting a bribe is a violation of their own personal code of behaviour and as such the Paladin is in danger of no longer being Lawdful.
Now, same example with a Chaotic character. First time, bribes the snitch. Second time, beats the snitch until they give him the information. Third time, rats the snitch out to superiors. Fourth time, ignores the snitch and finds another way. The point is, in the same situation, you cannot predict how the chaotic character will react. You can't say "well, he bribed a snitch in the past, so that is how he deals with them."
A Lawful character acts based on a system outside the character's self.
Not true. A self-taught monk relies on Order and Discipline, but it is all still internal.
THOUGHTS ON ALIGNMENTS
By
Steven Wright
<amadeus@uniserve.com>
Hi everybody,
So far a lot of discussion has been going on focusing on alignments, so
I decided to post something my players and I put together. We drew on t
from parts of alignments from Palladium books and things we could come u
p with ourselves. Essentially what it is the code that the various alignments play in everyday life. As always not everyone is always good
or always evil so some variation is allowed.
LAWFUL GOOD characters will
1. Always keep their word
[...]
Why did you show us a perfect example of how not to do it?
I don't think changes, per say, are necessary. Added examples, a few extra words of explanation are the only additions I would suggest.
|
|
I'd be happy clarifying the current alignment system, but downplaying it further. I don't think that a low-level spell should actually detect someone's alignment at all, unless they're a cleric (or other divine servant) or an outsider. Changing the functions of detect evil, et al, like they did for 3.5 was a good step, but it needs to go further.
I actually normally house rule something like this. If you read the rules under the detect spells it specifies that it detects certain types of creatures with various strengths of aura based on their HDs, it detects clerics and paladins based on their HD, spells with the evil descriptor, and then it has a generic 'evil creature' category. What I normally do is state that evil creatures mean that it has the evil subtype(or good or whatever). If you try and detect just a normal person, you don't come up with anything from those spells.
-Tarlane
|
|
I just wanted to chip in that I kinda' like the option of being Unaligned. Neutral implies a preference for balance, while Unaligned suggests indifference. Animals and a lot of people would be Unaligned.I kinda like the Unaligned idea, too. Might kind of replace Chaotic Neutral, though...
Do you mean it will replace the generally incorrect notion of what Chaotic Neutral means (as in, do whatever you want whenever you want?)
Beacuse Chaotic Neutral characters care, they just don't care about good or evil. They care about KAOS. Sorry...CHAOS.
I like alignments. But they are very easy to impliment poorly, and when that happens, they're nothing but a hassle and the system is better off without them.
Frankly, I am of a mind that alignments should be an optional subsystem intended for more advanced players, but they are too firmly rooted in the system now to really remove.
So, include them, but please be as clear and consistant in definitions as possible (I don't care if the Pathfinder definition of "law" or "chaos" is different from how I've always ruled them, as long as they are consistant).
More importantly, it needs to be very, very clear that your character's personality determines his alignment, not the other way around. This is often stated but rarely sinks in.
Some people seem to be under the impression that playing an honest thief or a sadistic hero is "against the alignment rules" somehow. They may not say as much, but often the dm will try to punish such behavior by cuffing the player into one alignment or the other based on the DM's feelings on the matter. And then the player says "Oh, I'm evil now so I guess I should drop the heroics"; or "well I guess if my guy is lawful I should cut back on the thievery". Alignment judgements should always be passive; they shouldn't change how you play your character at all, unless it is a complex matter of him discovering and brooding on his own alignment.
If you're still thinking about the examples I gave, a sadistic hero can be Good, or neutral, or evil, just as the honest thief could be either lawful or neutral or chaotic. I didn't give you enough information there, and if you made a judgement based on that alone there is a good chance you aren't using alignments as intended. It isn't that hard for a character to be a thief and a liar and still be lawful.
Human beings are made up of a multitude of conflicting tendancies and desires, and alignment is just a tag revealing what those factors average out to.
|
|
A while Back I found the following loosly base on the palladium AL system I like it as a guild line and have been using it in my games for a while now
The Lawful Evil description is exactly what I think of lawful evil. Yeah he can be the bad guy, but he can also be the good guy... just brutal. That's why I love that the 12th iconic is LE. :)
I just wanted to chip in that I kinda' like the option of being Unaligned. Neutral implies a preference for balance, while Unaligned suggests indifference. Animals and a lot of people would be Unaligned.
A person of any alignment can be unaligned.
A lot of evil people and some good people are unaligned. Their alignment doesn't mean they care about morals or religion, or are actively taking sides in some cosmic battle. They are they way they are simply because of inborn tendencies that they can't (or don't care enough to) change.
The "Problem" with Law/Chaos compared with Good/Evil is that Law/Chaos can mean two different aspects.
1) The inner Law/Chaos (honorable, personal Codex, ... / impulsive, free-thought, ...)
2) The outer Law/Chaos (Laws, Rules, Traditions, etc.)
That's why two Lawful Good people can still have different morals.
Maybe it should be like this: Good/Evil always weights heavier than Law/Chaos.
... I am loosing my point, so I stop here...
|
|
While I really like the alignement system, some clarification would be nice.
Though it might go beyond the frame, I though of granting a small skill shift for choosing an alignement:
Lawful - Discipline +2, Deception -2
Chaotic - Deception +2, Discipline -2
Good - Diplomacy +2, Intimidate -2
Evil - Intimidate +2, Diplomacy -2(Just a side note)
I like this mechanic. I think it makes Alignments a more active choice, which I think is positive.
Thanks!
|
I admit I don't worry much about alignment unless a cleric of a good deity starts slaughtering innocent kittens (or something).
I have had to enforce alignment only rarely in my game. Usually the players are pretty good about policing themselves. On ocassion I do have to step in and say no that's not acceptable, like when our party's CG barbarian wanted to interrogate the goblins at the start of Burnt Offerings by showing up munching on the body of one of their companions.
I like this mechanic. I think it makes Alignments a more active choice, which I think is positive.Thanks!
I don't like it, because it very easily leads to min-maxers picking an alignment they can't/won't play in order to get a bonus they want.
All I want is a bit of text explaining that Law really means Order, which while it frequently overlap with 'law' in the legal sense, they are not the same thing. I'd also want a few examples of famous characters with each alignment, but that would just lead to arguments of if Robin Hood is CG or CN, or if Lancelot really was Lawful (I mean, he did sleep with the king's wife. Several times.)
|
|
This is a bad idea, assuming your allocations are directly related with roleplaying trends at all. Why? Not all Good people are diplomatic. Proof: NG Barbarian, low CHA, with max ranks in Intimidate. End of Proof. Seems like he would be more Evil by this template - goes to show how poor of an idea it is.
Next, whoever mentioned the conservative/liberal dichotomy - that's also a bad idea. Proof: Law/Chaos strictly denotes a difference on the libertarian/authoritarian scale. Conservative does not imply libertarian, nor does it imply authoritarian. Hence the definitions do not imply on another. Therefore, your trend may well be weak, not strong, making a structured system based on it a bad idea. End of proof. If you need an example, here: the Native Americans revered homoesexuals as manifestations of the spirits, making many of them shaman. This practice is decidedly liberal (remember - liberal/conservative is always relative) today, though this was a tradition of their from ancient times. Hence, by your post, tradition being Law, and the idea being Liberal, this is a direct contradiction of your proposition.
Lastly, Good & Evil /> Law & Chaos. Proof: It doesn't say it anywhere in the book, which is your set of axioms. End Proof. If you're thinking of saying this as a modification, this is a bad idea. Proof: Suppose Good & Evil > Law & Chaos. Define ">" as some positive difference... but how? Case 1: Mechanical sense - fails due to lack of proposed changes where the current rules value neither over the other. Case 2: Roleplay sense - fails due to existance of characters valuing Law/Chaos > Good/Evil, seen in the example of a TL Monk and TC Bard. Case 3: "Real life" - fails due to the existance of people valuing Law/Chaos > or = Good/Evil, seen in the existance of myself. As there is no other disctinct area which intersects the proposed change's effects, since all of your cases fail for reason, so does your idea - it is bad. End of Proof.
I don't mean to be cruel, but I do mean to cull these suggestions which are not thought through - please don't suggest things without thinking.
|
While I really like the alignement system, some clarification would be nice.
Though it might go beyond the frame, I though of granting a small skill shift for choosing an alignement:
Lawful - Discipline +2, Deception -2
Chaotic - Deception +2, Discipline -2
Good - Diplomacy +2, Intimidate -2
Evil - Intimidate +2, Diplomacy -2(Just a side note)
I like this mechanic. I think it makes Alignments a more active choice, which I think is positive.
Thanks!
Not a bad idea at all. But since it comes from alignments I would make them +/-1 instead.
Law=Order debate... When referring to physics I can see the name shift, however since we are not talking about physics it makes more sense to use Law. When I get a ticket for driving too fast I don't get a ticket for breaking the Order, nor do I appear in a Court of Order to appeal the ticket. The idea between Law and Chaos is a simple one, and I believe was relatively well defined while leaving it open to individual gamers to fine tune.
If you define them too well then you restrict the opportunities for roleplaying. I would prefer a broad, vague description over a narrowly defined one.
Wouldn't you hate to be the Paladin player and decide to chase the pick pocket through the market place to retrieve the Trinket of AdooMa that was just stolen from you. But the GM over rules you by reminding you that you are Lawful and that it is unlawful to disturb the peace in the marketplace and that a big chase would disturb the peace... or that since you are Orderly, that a big chase through the market place would disturb the normal order of things, likely overturning stalls and inconviencing others.
Or you are Chaotic Evil and since it is only legal to cross the street at corners in this town, you MUST cross all streets in the middle. Or that it is only legal to drink alcohol if you are over 21, and since you are over 21 you don't want to support the law so you can't drink. In fact you are never even allowed to pay for a meal. In fact you are required to slay every living thing you ever see... and then hump them!
Ummm yeah... if you don't like broad definitions define your interpretation with your group. House Rules... PfRPG won't do away with house rules otherwise you all have to play with my rules.