If it were a character who always obeyed the dictate of rolling a die (for instance), I'd say that's lawful.
If it were a character who just does whatever pops into his head whenever he feels like it, I'd say that's chaotic.
If it were a character who always obeyed the dictate of rolling a die (for instance), I'd say that's lawful.
If it were a character who just does whatever pops into his head whenever he feels like it, I'd say that's chaotic.
This. (incoming thread derail from replies) Two-Face is Lawful. He always obeys the coin flip. The fact that his actions are essentially random doesn't mean he's Chaotic; what matters is why.
Sounds like someone wants to play a Cipher (Planescape)
This. (incoming thread derail from replies) Two-Face is Lawful. He always obeys the coin flip. The fact that his actions are essentially random doesn't mean he's Chaotic; what matters is why.If it were a character who always obeyed the dictate of rolling a die (for instance), I'd say that's lawful.
If it were a character who just does whatever pops into his head whenever he feels like it, I'd say that's chaotic.
I have to agree with you on this one.
Sounds like someone wants to play a Cipher (Planescape)
I was thinking Xaositect, myself. They're the ones who even speak randomly.
|
Hah, too late you missed it!
Now to be truly honest, Lillith'sThrall, if you'd come up with a character like this in one of my campaigns, I'd kick you out. This is a truly bad way of playing a character.
Ofcourse I could be mistaken, so I'll give you a chance to make me eat my words. If you can find one example of a character in literature that acts like this that doesn't make me want to scream profanities, I'll take everything back.
Hah, too late you missed it!
Now to be truly honest, Lillith'sThrall, if you'd come up with a character like this in one of my campaigns, I'd kick you out. This is a truly bad way of playing a character.
Ofcourse I could be mistaken, so I'll give you a chance to make me eat my words. If you can find one example of a character in literature that acts like this that doesn't make me want to scream profanities, I'll take everything back.
In most d&d games, I would agree with you. But I have played many other games where the character would fit, and a couple where the character was played. Even in a couple with pregen characters that have this philosophy. They were mostly one shots though.
Two-Face is Lawful Evil then, hogarth?
Sure, like Zurai said. Also see: the book "The Dice Man" and the comic book "Flip Decision".
|
I've got to agree with the Dan, this would be an extremely non-group oriented character that I wouldn't allow in my group.
In my humble opinion, if this character made a conscious decision to behave according to random luck (comparable to Two Face as mentioned by others) then he would be lawful.
However, if he just did whatever came to mind and was just naturally unpredictable, he'd probably be chaotic.
Regardless, he's the type who's likely in my group to wake up with a sack of 50gp and a note from the other party members saying, "Sorry, we need somebody we can rely on."
I also agree with the folks who are suggesting this would be irritating. I hate playing D&D if I have to keep asking myself: "Why are we hanging out with this guy again? Oh right, he has a big sign around his neck saying 'PC'."
|
|
This is a thought experiment, not meant to be a viable PC.
But I do take issue with the idea that characters which cause others to "scream profanities" are bad. There are ways to make frustrating characters who are, nevertheless, loved by the other players.
I think most players and GMs alike have had bad experiences with exactly this kind of character and thus, they are discriminated against.
My particular bad experience wound up with wasting two hours of precious gaming time on dialogue between PCs trying to recruit a new member, trying to track said new member down, trying to figure out why the heck they would want to spend more than 5 minutes with him, and then the PC having a sudden change of heart while on watch at night and leaving.
We didn't invite that player back.
It's fine and dandy that there are people like that in reality. In movies, videogames, plays, and other avenues of entertainment it can be very enjoyable to watch.
In a game like Pathfinder, when you've got a half dozen people coordinating schedules to be able to sit down for a few hours a week and play a cooperative role-playing game, it's massively disrespectful to waste other people's time with a character who plays so badly with others.
If you can find a GM who's willing to do a 1 on 1 adventure, great! But I tire of antics like the one described in this thread very quickly.
I also agree with the folks who are suggesting this would be irritating. I hate playing D&D if I have to keep asking myself: "Why are we hanging out with this guy again? Oh right, he has a big sign around his neck saying 'PC'."
That's happened to the best of us.
|
|
To the OPs original question - random actions = CN with a shift towards CE. You can commit random acts of good and random acts or evil, the evil acts are the ones that stick.
If his random acts are at the dictate of some other factor (coin, hour on sundial, etc) then the alignment would be LE just for the strict adherence to the dictates of an external factor.
As far as a viable PC type I think it is doable - insane, worshipper of chance or chaos, etc. I would guess that his life expectancy to be pretty short though. Either he gets killed by npcs for sheer stupidity/unreliability or get offed by fellow PCs for being a useless dbag.
To the OPs original question - random actions = CN with a shift towards CE. You can commit random acts of good and random acts or evil, the evil acts are the ones that stick.
If his random acts are at the dictate of some other factor (coin, hour on sundial, etc) then the alignment would be LE just for the strict adherence to the dictates of an external factor.
As far as a viable PC type I think it is doable - insane, worshipper of chance or chaos, etc. I would guess that his life expectancy to be pretty short though. Either he gets killed by npcs for sheer stupidity/unreliability or get offed by fellow PCs for being a useless dbag.
Slaad are not evil, but they are more dangerous than fiends because they don't think that what they just did to you will hurt you. You can commit random acts of evil and not be evil. Intention matters on the scale, and if you have no intention to cause harm then your act isn't evil, even if it is an evil action.
I've been playing RPGs regularly since 1987. I'd be lying if I told you I haven't seen the kind of thing you are talking about. But I've also seen players who pulled this off very well and the characters became part of the table lore.
For it to work well requires a certain mindset from -everybody- sitting at the table, but it can be very fun for everyone.
I agree entirely. I have seen this character pulled off a couple times amasingly, and had a great game. I only know a couple people I trust to play these characters though, and if done poorly it can easily ruin the game.
Would the "dedicated to" make him lawful?
Dedication doesn't make you lawful.
Slaad are not evil,
Slaadi were only "usually CN" and some were actually "usually CE". As such, they sucked as embodiments of chaos - that and the toad thing.
but they are more dangerous than fiends because they don't think that what they just did to you will hurt you.
They're less dangerous because they're not committed to doing evil.
You can commit random acts of evil and not be evil. Intention matters on the scale, and if you have no intention to cause harm then your act isn't evil, even if it is an evil action.
Not entirely true: If you commit evil actions, your alignment slides towards evil. "I didn't know it's evil to torture people to death - I just thought screams of people are Heaven's music" doesn't cut it.
Slaad are not evil,Slaadi were only "usually CN" and some were actually "usually CE". As such, they sucked as embodiments of chaos - that and the toad thing.
They're less dangerous because they're not committed to doing evil.
but they are more dangerous than fiends because they don't think that what they just did to you will hurt you.
You and I are obviously playing different styles of games. And no, they were usually CN. They were the embodiments of the plane of chaos, and just like devils or demons they were almost always the same alignment as their plane. Devils and Demons are predicatble, you know they will try to hurt you. Slaad, on the other hand, are completely unpredictable, you have no idea if they will e benevolent, ambivolent, or detrimental.
Not entirely true: If you commit evil actions, your alignment slides towards evil. "I didn't know it's evil to torture people to death - I just thought screams of people are Heaven's music" doesn't cut it.
You can commit random acts of evil and not be evil. Intention matters on the scale, and if you have no intention to cause harm then your act isn't evil, even if it is an evil action.
Here you and I disagree. If they actually do not know any better, I say they are nuetral, or perhaps even good, if they believe they are doing it for the benefit of others. Farming isn't evil.
|
|
Slaad are not evil, but they are more dangerous than fiends because they don't think that what they just did to you will hurt you. You can commit random acts of evil and not be evil. Intention matters on the scale, and if you have no intention to cause harm then your act isn't evil, even if it is an evil action.
In that case the Slaad are being played incorrectly.
They are not stupid and they can comprehend the damage they do, the difference here is that they may not be able to control it. That doesn't mean that Slaad are incapable by nature of committing evil actions. Action is evil = evil act. At one point if that's all they are doing then they are just reskinned demons. If by the creatures very nature and existence things die around it then you may have a point, but once a decision is involved that requires a judgment then it's going to be deliberate, doesn't matter what the source is.The only way you could continue to commit random acts of evil and not be evil is if you were oblivious to the consequences of the actions. Slaad are neither ignorant nor stupid creatures. Having all their acts of mayhem and murder be considered "acts of chaos" just to keep the CN moniker is gamest and stupid. The oblivious thing only goes so far - with Slaad, or bad PC concepts. Either Slaad are random (hand over loot to PCs, check to see if they attack every round) or they are evil creatures with some lame justification to get a CN tag. All that being said at least they are creatures spawned from chaos, they have an excuse even if it's just a bad one.
Some clown running around a city or countryside setting fires and then putting them out is different though - unless he is actually insane and thus not at fault (but still should be put down like a rabid dog). If he is doing it for any other reasons it would be CN(E) with an eventual solid E on the second part. It doesn't matter if he worships chaos, likes to do random things or decides that even though he isn't compelled to do so he should still set fire to that orphanage. If he is insane at an unplayable level then he should become an NPC, if less so then he becomes a quirky and annoying PC concept with the CN(E) alignment tag.
So you could have this character type, which is a piss-poor excuse to play a dbag character (er...my guy CAN do that!) but the character is not a creature of Chaos, he is either a nutcase or just a write up to play an a-hole with an excuse.
I think the lack of a moral or ethical compass is pretty much the definition of a sociopath. For someone with a complete lack, such as acting entirely by "die-roll", alignment is either "evil" or "insane - no alignment".
I think the lack of a moral or ethical compass is pretty much the definition of a sociopath. For someone with a complete lack, such as acting entirely by "die-roll", alignment is either "evil" or "insane - no alignment".
Animals have no moral compass, and act purely to their own benefit (and that of their brood) so all animals are sociopaths?
Slaad are not evil, but they are more dangerous than fiends because they don't think that what they just did to you will hurt you. You can commit random acts of evil and not be evil. Intention matters on the scale, and if you have no intention to cause harm then your act isn't evil, even if it is an evil action.In that case the Slaad are being played incorrectly.
They are not stupid and they can comprehend the damage they do, the difference here is that they may not be able to control it. That doesn't mean that Slaad are incapable by nature of committing evil actions. Action is evil = evil act. At one point if that's all they are doing then they are just reskinned demons. If by the creatures very nature and existence things die around it then you may have a point, but once a decision is involved that requires a judgment then it's going to be deliberate, doesn't matter what the source is.The only way you could continue to commit random acts of evil and not be evil is if you were oblivious to the consequences of the actions. Slaad are neither ignorant nor stupid creatures. Having all their acts of mayhem and murder be considered "acts of chaos" just to keep the CN moniker is gamest and stupid. The oblivious thing only goes so far - with Slaad, or bad PC concepts. Either Slaad are random (hand over loot to PCs, check to see if they attack every round) or they are evil creatures with some lame justification to get a CN tag. All that being said at least they are creatures spawned from chaos, they have an excuse even if it's just a bad one.
Some clown running around a city or countryside setting fires and then putting them out is different though - unless he is actually insane and thus not at fault (but still should be put down like a rabid dog). If he is doing it for any other reasons it would be CN(E) with an eventual solid E on the second part. It doesn't matter if he worships chaos, likes to do random things or decides that even though he isn't compelled to do so he should...
Yes, the Slaad may fully understand what he does, and he may just think you would look better without hair, so he tries to remove your scalp. As far as he is concerned, he is doing you a favor, a good act. I believe the reason for your action determines if it is good or evil, not that nature of the action itself. Paladins can fully work towards evil ends without knowing it, and so can anyone else. The point is here is that he is not committing random acts of evil. He is doing things with an incomplete understanding of consequences and not thinking through to resolutions. Setting a fire because you want to watch a flame is not an evil act, so why is it if there happens to be an orphanage in the way? The intention was to see the fire, not kill the orphans.
As far as not letting players play random characters, I will repeat again that I have seen it done quite successfully. Delerium, from Sandman, for instance, would be a very interesting character to have in the right game. D&D may not be the forum for it, but there are definetely games and players I like to see do this type of character.
I believe the reason for your action determines if it is good or evil, not that nature of the action itself.
The very existence of the phylactery of faithfulness means that this is incorrect in a default game. D&D alignment is objective, not subjective.
This is the kind of bad wrap that kender and paladins always get!!!
Both can be played well and enjoyed by the group....
However I doubt the PC with no control of his actions is in fact a PC at all.
I run to save my friends
(DM rolls)
Nope you run away in fear instead
I return to save my friends
(DM rolls)
Nope you smear excrement on a tree
After that I return to save my friends
(DM rolls)
Nope..............But I really wanted to
(DM rolls)
No you didn't
I have to partially agree with you there.
I've seen some great paladins.
I've never seen a Kender played in a way that didn't PO the rest of the players and the GM. (I forbid them, and any kender-like characters, in ALL my campaigns.)
As for the alignment of the OP's character. At the risk of sounding rude, after hearing the description of what he wants to do, my players have a name for that kind of character: Chaotic @$$#0le. We had two in the PF Demo we did during the initial campaign and we unanimously kicked both out. They aren't even allowed to watch the game anymore.
I'm not trying to pull the "in my day" thing here, but like a lot of you, I've been playing RPGs since the late 70's and I've seen this kind of character show up from time to time. But almost always, this is either an attempt to skirt the alignment restrictions (I can act like a jerk because its my character trait) or an attempt to actually annoy the other players.
Either way, I'd toss it out.
Now, I am a group oriented GM and player. In the games I GM, I tell people right off the bat that they HAVE to design a character who can work with a group and that frivolous attempts to undermine the actions of other players will not be tolerated. (With today's legal issues, I can no longer threaten to have the Yu-Gi-Oh players beat them senseless...ah the good old days....)
A game in which everyone acts chaotically can be fun for a one -off or even a short campaign. But this sort of character inevitably causes wasted time and arguements that don;t need to be there.
That being said, if your GM and fellow players think its a good idea..have fun.
I believe the reason for your action determines if it is good or evil, not that nature of the action itself.The very existence of the phylactery of faithfulness means that this is incorrect in a default game. D&D alignment is objective, not subjective.
Actually it doesn't. I read that to tell the person that an action is reprehensible to them or their diety's moral compass. Also, there is nothing that says it gives the person wearing it knowledge they don't already know, except perhaps a minor divination showing them results of their actions. As far as I can tell, that item does nothing. Its basically "you get knowledge of whether or not your action is good if you stop to think about it." If you have to stop to think about it, its probably not good. A paladin helping a demon unknowling wont trigger an alignment change or anger his god. Knowingly aiding said demon after you have found out about his plot, however, will like do that. Setting a fire where an orphanage happens to be is not an evil act. Knowingly setting fire to an orphanage, is. Fine line, but its there.
As far as I can tell, that item does nothing.
Yes, because that's clearly the correct way to read it.
Here's a hint: If you're reading the rules in such a way that they are irrelevant, you're probably reading them wrong. There's no value to anything that only ever tells you something you already know. It's absolutely certain that no one would spend 1,000 gold on an item that only tells you information that you already know.
As far as I can tell, that item does nothing.Yes, because that's clearly the correct way to read it.
Here's a hint: If you're reading the rules in such a way that they are irrelevant, you're probably reading them wrong. There's no value to anything that only ever tells you something you already know. It's absolutely certain that no one would spend 1,000 gold on an item that only tells you information that you already know.
Unless you have a GM who is out to stamp on your Paladin because they have only played Lawful Stupid and therefore every Paladin must be played that way...
As far as I can tell, that item does nothing.Yes, because that's clearly the correct way to read it.
Here's a hint: If you're reading the rules in such a way that they are irrelevant, you're probably reading them wrong. There's no value to anything that only ever tells you something you already know. It's absolutely certain that no one would spend 1,000 gold on an item that only tells you information that you already know.
Actually, I revise that. It will tell you if your God views the action as against his beliefs. Most people cannot tell that just by thinking about it.
Let your DM read the limitations of the paladins code thread for a different take on it.
Thankfully if/when I play the GM has a good idea of what the Paladin's Code should be. If I GM a Paladin so do I.
And here is the Secret how it happens....
Player and GM write the Code together.
Some people might not be that lucky but thank you for the concern Mr Kender! ;)
|
|
Yes, the Slaad may fully understand what he does, and he may just think you would look better without hair, so he tries to remove your scalp. As far as he is concerned, he is doing you a favor, a good act. I believe the reason for your action determines if it is good or evil, not that nature of the action itself.
The scalp removal thing as an excuse to initiate combat with a CN demon is lame, sorry. If every time the Slaad attack it's just to study your innards then that gets old real quick. They are either 100% random - in which case the CN tag might stick, or they are 100% ignorant, and if they are ignorant of what removing a scalp may do to a human then they should be just as ignorant of the effects of sword that is being put right up to its throat, you can't have it both ways. If you are trying to use them as another combat encounter then you are just exploiting the CN tag while committing evil acts.
Paladins can fully work towards evil ends without knowing it, and so can anyone else. The point is here is that he is not committing random acts of evil. He is doing things with an incomplete understanding of consequences and not thinking through to resolutions. Setting a fire because you want to watch a flame is not an evil act, so why is it if there happens to be an orphanage in the way? The intention was to see the fire, not kill the orphans.
Agree with the first part about the pally, not the second. If the pally sees the consequence of his actions, then he may stop and actually reverse his damage. How many times is the second clown going to torch a building and not hear the screams? Or not hear about the effects afterwards? Sorry, doesn't fly and unless he is from the Slaad plane of random actions he just committed mass murder via arson.
As far as not letting players play random characters, I will repeat again that I have seen it done quite successfully. Delerium, from Sandman, for instance, would be a very interesting character to have in the right game. D&D may not be the forum for it, but there are definetely games and players I like to see do this type of character.
Yeah, maybe in a game without alignment.
Personally I prefer post-apocalyptic games; we had one player hired by another to assassinate yet another player (just to get revenge). Then the player didn't want to pay the assassin player for the job, so they started worrying about each other. These guys were all best friends IRL and were fighting over fusion rifles, APCs, powered armor, if one was a mutant or human (racism), etc. Was a real blast and NON-disruptive if people didn't take the grudge with new characters.And yeah, random guy (even if he was an android or some cute AI), would be hanging from a tree and kicking in the wind or would just be ventilated if he put anyone in the party at risk. They wouldn't just make camp and bail on the annoying guy overnight - they would strip him of his gear and if he was lucky – they would leave him tied up for the animals, if not then two in the head. Maybe in a few months someone would find the remains of annoying guy. Sometimes the guy wasn’t even that annoying, he just pissed off one guy and that guy decided to kill him. Didn’t happen often, but it did happen.
And as a GM there was no karmic law, there was no God to punish players, it just was.
Actually, I revise that. It will tell you if your God views the action as against his beliefs. Most people cannot tell that just by thinking about it.
They can if they're actually at all concerned by it (Paladins and Clerics). Again: if you're interpretation of a magical item is that it has no actual effect, you probably need to re-examine it.