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".
Depends on how it is being done. No character can ever be completely random. Who decides what the random choices are? Heads I give you a gold, tails I give you a silver, oh god the evil horror of it all!
Two-face was lawful evil because death was always one of the 2 options. He believed that everyone was deserving of death for what they had done, but that justice was fickle and people didn't always get what they deserved. All of this factors into his alignment.
You and I are obviously playing different styles of games. And no, they were usually CN.
That's what I said - they were usually CN, except for some types, who were usually CE. 3.0 had them as Always CN (but there were still exceptions that had enough CE specimen to make a note of it)
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.
Not in 3.5. Or in some of the stories - official, sanctioned novels, I might add.
Slaadi were too deviant from the true ideal of Chaos.
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.
They are far from predictable. They might be slaves to their ideals, but they still have leeway in how they carry out their agendas.
A succubus (which is a demon) will trick you, will seduce you. Before they get nasty, they will do things to you that will definitely not hurt.
Devils are an embodiment of duplicity - and still people fall for it.
Not predictable at all. And all the more dangerous for this.
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. 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.
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.
Farming isn't evil? I'll send you over some special players. Run a game for them, and after that, tell me if you still think so.
I'd bet good money that after a couple of hours of them saying stuff like "I need a better sword - let's go GIL farming" or "I want to level up - let's go XP farming" every other minute, you'll change your mind!
All jokes aside - there's several multiverses between planting crops, or even breeding cattle for slaughter and consumption, and torturing people to hear them scream nicely.
Pathfinder assumes that there is a subjective definition of good and evil. It doesn't matter what an individual thinks - if the universe considers it evil, it's evil.
Thus, you cannot play a Spanish Inquisition Paladin who is convinced that by torturing a confession out of an alleged Satan worshipper, he's doing them a favour because he saves them from eternal Hellfire, making what he does a good act. You can play a CE ex-paladin with that attitude, but once you start torturing people for their own good, the universal law of order and goodness will revoke your license to smite.
What do you mean a written code? I have never once played with a written code.....
Just have to get on the same page...
Thanks for the wink though....
On tablets of stone handed to the PC from a top a high mountain.
Or just sorted out over a few beers!Either way no surprises for GM or Player.
People often shout at me "Oi! Winker!" well that's what it sounds like...
so all animals are sociopaths?
Have you met those critters outside a restaurant or other place where they are dead and delicious?
I believe the reason for your action determines if it is good or evil, not that nature of the action itself.
Good to hear! Can you help me? From what I hear in the church, Heaven is a wonderful place, and we all go there when we die.
So I want to release this super virus I have created (I called it captain trips) that will kill everybody - thus sending them to Heaven early! More Blissfull times in the Afterlife for everybody! Please help me, I cannot bare seeing humans suffer on Earth any longer!
I AM A SAINT!
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.
Who says I am using them to be a combat encounter? Who says I am using them to be any encounter at all? I am saying that they can just as easily help you or harm you, or harm you thinking they are helping you, and they would be neutral, not evil, for it. They don't know what they want, because what they want changes from second to second. They aren't selfish, self serving, or malicious, the definitions of evil. The results of their actions may be negative, but that does not mean their motivations goals are.
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.
How are they any different? The Paladin could be committing mass murder without knowing it, but you wouldn't say he is evil. Why should the clown then be? I argue consequences of actions do not matter. The actions themselves, and the reason for them, matters for alignment.
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... 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.
You are assuming that the game has a strict plot or goal the players are attempting to follow, and the players are a cohesive group doing things together. This is not always the case. I have played in games where every person has different goals, and the entire 4 hour long game is strangers meeting in a bar for the night. They are great roleplaying experiences. In the right game, any character is possible, and you can have this completely random character right next to angels or demons, and be something entirely different.
I believe the reason for your action determines if it is good or evil, not that nature of the action itself.Good to hear! Can you help me? From what I hear in the church, Heaven is a wonderful place, and we all go there when we die.
So I want to release this super virus I have created (I called it captain trips) that will kill everybody - thus sending them to Heaven early! More Blissfull times in the Afterlife for everybody! Please help me, I cannot bare seeing humans suffer on Earth any longer!
I AM A SAINT!
And if you truely believed that, I would put your alignment as good.
On tablets of stone handed to the PC from a top a high mountain.
Or just sorted out over a few beers!
So I can either walk up a stupid mountain to retrieve heavy stone thingamajigs and likely break my neck on my descent, or I can get shit-faced and run around on the street, half-naked and hooting my lungs out.
I'll take deity #2, thank you. Swear me in, Cayden Cailean, my shout! ;-)
And if you truely believed that, I would put your alignment as good.I believe the reason for your action determines if it is good or evil, not that nature of the action itself.Good to hear! Can you help me? From what I hear in the church, Heaven is a wonderful place, and we all go there when we die.
So I want to release this super virus I have created (I called it captain trips) that will kill everybody - thus sending them to Heaven early! More Blissfull times in the Afterlife for everybody! Please help me, I cannot bare seeing humans suffer on Earth any longer!
I AM A SAINT!
Really? Are you serious? Then Hitler must've been a pretty good guy, in your book.
See, in D&D and Pathfinder, it's not about what you think you're doing is good or evil, it's all about what D&D/PRPG defines you as. The "saint" example above, he might think what he's doing is good, but the game clearly defines him as evil. Period.
I simply can't comprehend how you could blatantly label someone as 'good', when clearly they are not.
Played with player that had a Character like this. We don't play with that person anymore. It was just stupid.
And if you truely believed that, I would put your alignment as good.I believe the reason for your action determines if it is good or evil, not that nature of the action itself.Good to hear! Can you help me? From what I hear in the church, Heaven is a wonderful place, and we all go there when we die.
So I want to release this super virus I have created (I called it captain trips) that will kill everybody - thus sending them to Heaven early! More Blissfull times in the Afterlife for everybody! Please help me, I cannot bare seeing humans suffer on Earth any longer!
I AM A SAINT!
Really? Are you serious? Then Hitler must've been a pretty good guy, in your book.
See, in D&D and Pathfinder, it's not about what you think you're doing is good or evil, it's all about what D&D/PRPG defines you as. The "saint" example above, he might think what he's doing is good, but the game clearly defines him as evil. Period.
I simply can't comprehend how you could blatantly label someone as 'good', when clearly they are not.
Hitler did not believe that killing people was good. He believed that he was better off without them, and that he would be stronger by doing it. This is not good.
Someone who wants to bring the grace of god to everyone may be entirely misguided, but he wants to help people, and thus is good.
|
Who says I am using them to be a combat encounter? Who says I am using them to be any encounter at all? I am saying that they can just as easily help you or harm you, or harm you thinking they are helping you, and they would be neutral, not evil, for it. They don't know what they want, because what they want changes from second to second. They aren't selfish, self serving, or malicious, the definitions of evil. The results of their actions may be negative, but that does not mean their motivations goals are.
You mentioned the scalping not me. Why would you automatically state that any of their actions (as your first example) would include violence?
Chaotic by definition is somewhat self-serving, and going back to 1st ed PHB Limbo is the plane of Neutral (true) Chaos (Entropy), not exactly serving life. Pure chaos is pure self-serving, taking care of ones wants and desires, impulses first and foremost. being impulsive and acting on those impulses aka original punk rock (before politics).
How are they any different? The Paladin could be committing mass murder without knowing it, but you wouldn't say he is evil. Why should the clown then be? I argue consequences of actions do not matter. The actions themselves, and the reason for them, matters for alignment.
How so, by killing innocents? Pally has plenty of built in abilities to prevent this, also the pally needs to make sure (vs. say a knight or cavalier) that he does not become a tool for tyranny. That is one of those difficult deals with playing a paladin. Do you follow orders unquestioningly? No. They serve the will of God, not the will of men.
And since this was already godwinned (which is OK) I would go one step further and say that many of the men put in charge of committing atrocities couldn't handle it. There were men in the SS committing suicide, breakdowns, etc. So yeah, I'm sure they all knew and thought what they were doing was for a good cause - even though it still took a toll on their souls.
I think Kay and Slatz have got the pulse on this one and hit the point with less text.
The best villain is one that's evil, but can make himself sound good.
Edit: Incidentally, regarding the whole "if I think I'm good, I'm good" thing, there's a reason that, when tyrannical and genocidal regimes rise, cults rapidly form within. The SS in Germany had a large number of death cults associated with it. The USSR formed a near religious affixiation around Stalin. Etc, etc...
Hitler did not believe that killing people was good. He believed that he was better off without them, and that he would be stronger by doing it. This is not good.Someone who wants to bring the grace of god to everyone may be entirely misguided, but he wants to help people, and thus is good.
Sorry, you're wrong on that first part. Hitler believed he was "purifying" his nation, making the human race better. He didn't believe he was stronger by killing people, he thought human-kind would be better by getting rid of the "impurities". He truly thought what he was doing was for the 'greater good'. He believed himself to be GOOD, when he, in fact, was EVIL.
In D&D/PRPG, I can guarantee you there are some adventures out there, some home campaigns, that feature an EVIL character that wants to commit some heinous act, all in the name of the "greater good". But at the end of the day, EVIL is EVIL, regardless of whether you can "justifiy" it to yourself that you're doing the right thing.
In D&D/PRPG, alignment is a game mechanic that is clearly defined.
The best villain is one that's evil, but can make himself sound good.
QFT
One of the problems here is that there are 2 different definitions of "know the consequences". One denotes complete ignorance, the other denotes not being sure.
First example, I am hunting, I shoot at a deer. I am being a good careful hunter and I make sure there is nothing downrange. I miss, my bullet skips off a rock and hits someone a mile downrange, and kills them. I had absolutely no way of knowing what the consequences of my action would result in someones death. I took every reasonable precaution I could. There is no way I could "know the consequences" of my actions. Regrettable? yes, evil? no.
Second example is more of willful ignorance. I am a paladin and a guy offers to "deal with a problem diplomat". I have plenty of reasons to believe the guy is up to no good, but I tell him to go ahead, a day later the diplomat is dead. I had suspicions, but I didn't "know the consequences". This would be evil, but not as evil as murdering the diplomat yourself or knowingly hiring an assassin.
|
The greatest evil comes from those ho are certain they are doing good.
This. Being convinced that you are doing good only goes so far.
The problem here is that some people don't understand that D&D is not like real life. In real life, morality is gray on a great many things, and opinion, culture, intent, et cetera all vary and give us a wildly different idea of 'good' and 'evil'.
In Pathfinder/D&D, morality is much more clear cut. Somebody decided to implement alignments, draw some lines in the sand, and say that, "On this side of the line, you're good, on that side, you're evil. Period."
Philosophically I agree that good and evil are subjective, again due to culture, circumstance, time period, and more; for purposes of a fantasy game like Pathfinder with a cut-and-dry alignment system, that's simply not the case.
What you suggest is that if I am a cleric who goes around killing helpless orphans because my god is the god of "People Without Parents Or Homes Are Evil" and I cast detect evil, the other cleric trying to save the orphans will come up as evil and I won't.
I think that your argument might make for an interesting alternative to the one we've got, but it doesn't fit the RAW.
Maybe you should consider developing an alignment system that assigns alignments relative to your own and your own beliefs. I think it'd be overly complicated (thus the reason we have the version we do) but do-able and you'd probably rouse a lot fewer angry interwebs arguments in the process.
I believe the reason for your action determines if it is good or evil, not that nature of the action itself.Good to hear! Can you help me? From what I hear in the church, Heaven is a wonderful place, and we all go there when we die.
So I want to release this super virus I have created (I called it captain trips) that will kill everybody - thus sending them to Heaven early! More Blissfull times in the Afterlife for everybody! Please help me, I cannot bare seeing humans suffer on Earth any longer!
I AM A SAINT!
Negatory good buddy!
If you only pretend to believe that, you are evil. If you really believe that, you are insane and commiting an act that everyone else (the sane people anyway) believe to be evil - the term for that is "criminally insane".
And while we may pity the criminally insane, or even forgive them "for they know not what they do", we still label them as criminally insane and lockthem up for our own good (even if we say it is for theirs).
I don't think we, nor the gods, nor the cosmos itself, look to the criminally insane or our definition of good and evil, nor do we redifine those terms on a case-by-case basis when we hang them on different people. Not even when we hang them on the criminally insane.
The greatest evil comes from those ho are certain they are doing good.This. Being convinced that you are doing good only goes so far.
The problem here is that some people don't understand that D&D is not like real life. In real life, morality is gray on a great many things, and opinion, culture, intent, et cetera all vary and give us a wildly different idea of 'good' and 'evil'.
In Pathfinder/D&D, morality is much more clear cut. Somebody decided to implement alignments, draw some lines in the sand, and say that, "On this side of the line, you're good, on that side, you're evil. Period."
Philosophically I agree that good and evil are subjective, again due to culture, circumstance, time period, and more; for purposes of a fantasy game like Pathfinder with a cut-and-dry alignment system, that's simply not the case.
What you suggest is that if I am a cleric who goes around killing helpless orphans because my god is the god of "People Without Parents Or Homes Are Evil" and I cast detect evil, the other cleric trying to save the orphans will come up as evil and I won't.
I think that your argument might make for an interesting alternative to the one we've got, but it doesn't fit the RAW.
Maybe you should consider developing an alignment system that assigns alignments relative to your own and your own beliefs. I think it'd be overly complicated (thus the reason we have the version we do) but do-able and you'd probably rouse a lot fewer angry interwebs arguments in the process.
While I think the current alignment system is retarded, I agree that it is (at least on the surface) simple.
Ignoring the fact that it is retarded, I think the biggest problem with the alignment system is GMs. Specifically, GMs who think that everybody is naturally going to have the same views on what good and evil are.
If a GM is willing to always make clear what he thinks good and evil are, then I think the current system is workable despite it's...
I use the game's version of good and evil because everyone has a different idea on where the gray area crosses over into the evil area. It keeps things simple whether I agree with it or not. I do make exceptions, but those are in the campaign guide.
PS: I agree with you about DM's not realizing everyone has different views on good and evil
While I do not think the OP's character question is viable for a D&D game, it can be for other systems and settings, in other words the Malkavian from White Wolf's Vampire.
The D&D alingment system assumes that whatever they believe a character is for the most part sane.
yes there are insane NPC's but they work buecase a DM is controlling them
a completely random person by deinfiition is insane and thus I'd argue has no alignment becuase they don't grasp the concept of right and wrong , order and chaos.
besdies there is no way for a sane human to play such a charcter your actions will never be random beucase humans by default always tend towards patterns and order.
if I asked you to start saying random numbers between 1 and 10, you like most people would give what you think is a radnom number seqeunce yet you'd probably never say the same number twice in a row although statiscally double and triples should be present in a truely random number sequence.
and how does tht translate in gaming terms well you'll be random when it suits your purposes which is not random at all.
unless you've got the mindset to run your level 1 charcter off the cliff your walking along to be random then your not being random at all ;)
A better way to be "random" is to be smart enough to justify odd actions within your alignment
The greatest evil comes from those ho are certain they are doing good.This. Being convinced that you are doing good only goes so far.
The problem here is that some people don't understand that D&D is not like real life. In real life, morality is gray on a great many things, and opinion, culture, intent, et cetera all vary and give us a wildly different idea of 'good' and 'evil'.
In Pathfinder/D&D, morality is much more clear cut. Somebody decided to implement alignments, draw some lines in the sand, and say that, "On this side of the line, you're good, on that side, you're evil. Period."
Philosophically I agree that good and evil are subjective, again due to culture, circumstance, time period, and more; for purposes of a fantasy game like Pathfinder with a cut-and-dry alignment system, that's simply not the case.
What you suggest is that if I am a cleric who goes around killing helpless orphans because my god is the god of "People Without Parents Or Homes Are Evil" and I cast detect evil, the other cleric trying to save the orphans will come up as evil and I won't.
I think that your argument might make for an interesting alternative to the one we've got, but it doesn't fit the RAW.
Maybe you should consider developing an alignment system that assigns alignments relative to your own and your own beliefs. I think it'd be overly complicated (thus the reason we have the version we do) but do-able and you'd probably rouse a lot fewer angry interwebs arguments in the process.
I disagree with you here. The D&D alignment system very easily has huge swaths of grey area that is morally ambiguous. Its very easy to play with a non-absolute alignment system. In the end, people who believe they are helping others are good. People who serve themselves first are evil. People who put their needs above others but do not actively promote themselves over others are neutral. This allows for good people to commit huge evils, and evil people to bring great good.
You can be neutral on this scale and chaotic. You can be good on this scale and chaotic. You can be completely random and not favor hurting people over helping them. The times you hurt them do not outweight the times you help them. What matters for your alignment is your intent.
You can commit evil acts believing you are doing good, and remain good. How you justify this with yourself is up to you. If you realize the act is evil, and believe it is for a greater good, it wont change your alignment. Its not until you start to retroactively justify your actions that your alignment starts to slip without you realizing it. Its a very fine line.
As for the argument Auxmaulos mentioned that Limbo is a self serving place... Do you know any of the d&d cosmology? By definition it is not evil, nor is it by definition self serving, since that is the definition of evil. If it was, you could not be chaotic good, since then they would be in dirrect opposition. Chaos, by definition, is unpredictable and changing. Chaotic characters adapt to new situations using their gut, and go with the flow instead of planning. These are not evil or self serving characteristics. They can be just easily associated with good. Limbo is no more hazardous to life than Mechanus. What you describe is the Abyss, chaotic evil, which is entirely self serving.
A character could flip a coin. He would roll a dice or flip a coin for important decisions, go right or left. Try to open a locked chest or smash it. Not for fighting in self defense or whether or not to eat that day. Mr. Fishy would say that the alignment would be based on the reason. A worshiper of a luck god could be very pietious and lawful or very chaotic and/or crazy as hell. Set a limit to the randomness of the character, if it works great, if not ask the player to rein it in.
I can't believe this long standing ban on Kender. I think I could offer some suggestions that would make kender better PCs.....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.)
Only one thing needs to be kept in mind to play a good Kender. They steal things because they are pretty or interesting, NOT because they are of monetary value. He may steal a loaf of bread, or snip a length of leather from that man's shoelace because it's just the thing to hang this pretty piece of stone from. He's as likely to pocket a wooden spoon from the inn as he is to go out of his way to filch an enchanted dagger. Now, a wand that he observed someone casting pretty spells from might be a big temptation, but so is that nice multi-colored feather hanging from the barbarian's braids...
A well played Kender can be a memorable PC, but you need to understand somethings you just don't steal... at least not twice. ;^)
I disagree with you here. The D&D alignment system very easily has huge swaths of grey area that is morally ambiguous. Its very easy to play with a non-absolute alignment system. In the end, people who believe they are helping others are good. People who serve themselves first are evil. People who put their needs above others but do not actively promote themselves over others are neutral. This allows for good people to commit huge evils, and evil people to bring great good.
You can be neutral on this scale and chaotic. You can be good on this scale and chaotic. You can be completely random and not favor hurting people over helping them. The times you hurt them do not outweight the times you help them. What matters for your alignment is your intent.
You can commit evil acts believing you are doing good, and remain good. How you justify this with yourself is up to you. If you realize the act is evil, and believe it is for a greater good, it wont change your alignment. Its not until you start to retroactively justify your actions that your alignment starts to slip without you realizing it. Its a very fine line.
Well, sure there's a lot of gray area in the alignment system that's undefined. It would be neither productive nor even possible to classify all acts a PC could engage in with an alignment. There has to be some judgment calls made at any table.
That said, there's definitely an objective yardstick of good and evil built into D&D that has nothing to do with the character's intentions. Perform enough evil and do so consistently, even if you have the best of intentions, and the paladin can still smite you seven ways to Sunday.It's important to remember that the alignment is supposed to reflect the character's general pattern of behavior. Sometimes, committing an evil act that actually is for a much greater good is something you've got to do. Doing it under rare circumstances, compared to a general pattern of doing good, will not turn a good character evil. Committing evil acts regularly under the idea that you're performing good is really a delusion. Some evil can be reasonably rationalized, but when it crosses over into "just" rationalizing, the line from good to evil has been crossed.
That's basically the rules in D&D, where it's possible to have an objective standard. The fact that there is no ultimate objective standard to appeal to in real life has no bearing on whether there is or is not an objective standard in D&D.
|
|
As for the argument Auxmaulos mentioned that Limbo is a self serving place... Do you know any of the d&d cosmology? By definition it is not evil, nor is it by definition self serving, since that is the definition of evil. If it was, you could not be chaotic good, since then they would be in dirrect opposition. Chaos, by definition, is unpredictable and changing. Chaotic characters adapt to new situations using their gut, and go with the flow instead of planning. These are not evil or self serving characteristics. They can be just easily associated with good. Limbo is no more hazardous to life than Mechanus. What you describe is the Abyss, chaotic evil, which is entirely self serving.
Yes I know the d&d cosmology
This quoted part in bold is lifted directly from the 1st ed Players Handbook. What I described was the original definition (since I know D&D cosmology) of the plane at the inception of the game.
going back to 1st ed PHB - Limbo is the plane of Neutral (true) Chaos (Entropy), not exactly serving life.
You can have a chaotic & good creature, chaos is not always the "i am going to go around and smash windows", chaos is a reaction and opposite of law - living outside society, freedom vs structure - it doesn't necessarily mean being an anti-social sociopath. That is CG thought, you are being way too generous with the CN moniker.
CN is neither good nor is it evil. And it either or on a whim or moments notice.
The best way to look at alignments as a whole is the LG, NG and CG use the first part to reflect the good nature of the creature as it operates on its moral guidelines - using laws for good, or freedom for good, or just being good based on actions while not being confined by laws nor being 100% lone wolf.
The same can be said for evil second tags LE, NE and CE each applying evil using the what would be the best perceived guidelines for actions - using laws to oppress and control people, or using chaos to act on any desire or feeling, even if it hurts others or just being evil for evils sake, chaos being too random with no values while lawful being way too structured.
When you get in the LN, True N and CN you have now removed the moral guide and the primary alignment is the means to an end. Law because you need laws for structure and order to live, Chaos just to express any impulse or without restriction, planning or forethought, and Neutrality just to maintain a true balance between all alignment factors -Law, Chaos, good, evil, and being the trues path to walk since it is not swayed by anything (one with the cosmos, nature, universe, a philosophy,etc).
So I don't see the "hey I am CN, I can do good things or evil things as I want and its ok". No, a CN person or being is 100% self-absorbed and anti-social being. No order, no hierarchy. A CN guy isn't going to do something good because he feels like it one day, he doesn't and shouldn't ever really give a s%^t about anyone but himself. This isn't a mood thing either, he is self absorbed. He may commit acts of evil or good by accident or incident but it's during the course of serving his will, desire, impulses, ego, self, etc. He doesn't want to do either good or evil, just serve himself or some greater ideal which is similar to his singular and ambiguous nature. War for the sake of war, chaos and destruction for their own virtues (purity, life and death cycles). Hardly a guy who is going to play the Robin Hood or Han Solo role in a flip. This character is borderline bad guy if he can't function in the confines of his environment.
Personally I think you want CN to be so open ended so it can be an alignment of convenience.
|
I don't know if it'll help anyone, but usually when I have questions regarding actions and how they affect or fit in with alignment, I use this site. Maybe it's not everyone's cup of mead, but it's helped me on more than one occasion, and actually very recently (see my Kingmaker Campaign thread, session 1 for the example).
My friend likes to call Chaotic Good "America's forefathers with swords."
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'."
Quoted for truthiness.
Also, the website that Runnetib linked to pretty much nails alignment on the head. I will be using those examples in the future for my players.
As for random guy, it all depends on what he randomized and how. If he rolls to see which side to fight with in a conflict then that's obviously stupid. If he uses the dice to choose between left or right then he's simply non-commital. Either way it's a selfish decision and thus chaotic. Possibly even evil if he let's the dice determine whether he allows someone to needlessly die because of it.
Two Face is CE for this reason.
No, a CN person or being is 100% self-absorbed and anti-social being.
I don't know where you make this up from, but its not really supported anywhere. Neutral on the good/evil axis means that you put you and your interests above society, but your interests are not inherently selfish. If you were selfish, you would be evil, as that is the definition of evil. People can be lawful and completely self absorbed and anti-social. In fact, I would say its more likely by my experience.
Chaotic Nuetral means that you do not plan ahead and you do not go out of your way to help or hurt those who have no relation to you. You prize the freedom to make choices. Chaotic Neutral people can forge just as lasting bonds of friendship as anyone else, and care for other people as much as most people. Seeing how this alignment makes up at least 1/9 of the population (more, since neutral is more common than good or evil), if it was "self-absorbed and anti-social" you would have a very disturbing society.
Chaotic does not mean that you live outside society. There are chaotic societies in d&d for god sake. Chaotic means you live your life without a definite structure and you work better without a plan. A chaotic government is loose and gives much of the power to the people.
Right, I'm going to do my best not to respond to Caineach's posts with the depth I would normally use, as I value both my limited lifespan and my sanity, and the cost to both from responding in full would be too great, I think. I will say this:
Relative to "standard" D&D and Pathfinder alignment (what the game designers had/have in mind): You are not using it. You are running a houseruled version of alignment, as different from the core concept as if I were to eliminate good and evil and simply use the old 1rst Edition Law/Chaos axis. I reccomend this site if you are at all interested in expanding your understanding of standard D&D alignment. If not, that's your choice, and you are welcome to it.
Relative to my personal concepts of morality, both subjective and objective (and as such, this statement is more personal opinion than anything else): You are wrong. Simple as that. If you had not prefaced many of your statements with the fact that you are talking about D&D alignment specifically, rather than your own personal worldview, I would have reccommended you seek immediate psychological counseling. If, by chance, how you run alignment in D&D is how you view the real world, morality-wise, then I will say it: Please go see a counselor; your perspective will soon lead you into a situation where you will cause great harm to yourself or someone else, and I do not want that to happen.
Now then, getting back to the character concept of the OP:
I could see this concept actually working, with a few details fleshed out. Why does a character let an object outside his own mind make decisions for it? Two-Face shows us the psychological damage aspect, but lets try another. How about a lack of self-confidence, which causes the person to look to outside impetus for decision making? How many times have we, as relatively regular people, flipped a coin when we felt we couldn't make a decision? In D&D, a good benchmark for lack of self-confidence is a low charisma score.
So our coin-flipper is a low CHA character. Okay. He/she could be attractive, pleasant to be around, a generally likeable person, but they just have no self-confidence and without external prompting default to flipping a coin/rolling a die when faced with a choice.
Such a character could work fine in a group. The character would for the most part follow the lead of other players, until they were either on their own or presented with a choice that, to them, was difficult to make, such as being told to do something they personally found offensive, at which point they would use the coin/dice to guide themselves through that choice.
Finally, regarding slaad, I have never had a problem making my characters extremely wary of a slaad. Chaos is not being a thirteen year old putting on his troll face and posting on 4chan. Chaos is merely placing yourself as the highest authority in your own life. In my games, I have had encounters with slaad go several different ways. A party attempting to rescue a freind found the slaad willing to help for no charge, as they were promoting freedom. A group questioning a slaad got false information until they actually let it go, where upon it told them the truth while leaving. A slaad challenged the party to a series of wrestling matches, from the weakest looking to the strongest.
"Chaotic" means whatever the GM says it means.
It can mean standing against tradition, social institutions, law, education (which is likely to be seen as indoctrination), herd mind, etc. It can mean an appreciation for freedom and liberty.
"Lawful", also, means whatever the GM says it means.
It can mean being hide bound, cultish, fundamentalist, averse to change, averse to freedom, narrow-minded, etc. It can mean an appreciation for order and social institutions.
Of all of the alignment components, the Lawful/Chaotic axis is the one in which it is most important for the DM to outline his interpretation for the players. The terms are a lot more nebulous and, personally, I think that's fine. We're not talking about major moral orientations here as much as talking about how the character makes his moral and behavioral choices.
One of the most interesting observations I've made is that a lawful and chaotic characters can behave in the same way to any given situation, but they will take a different approach in deciding to engage in that behavior.
Right, I'm going to do my best not to respond to Caineach's posts with the depth I would normally use, as I value both my limited lifespan and my sanity, and the cost to both from responding in full would be too great, I think. I will say this:
Relative to "standard" D&D and Pathfinder alignment (what the game designers had/have in mind): You are not using it. You are running a houseruled version of alignment, as different from the core concept as if I were to eliminate good and evil and simply use the old 1rst Edition Law/Chaos axis. I reccomend this site if you are at all interested in expanding your understanding of standard D&D alignment. If not, that's your choice, and you are welcome to it.
Relative to my personal concepts of morality, both subjective and objective (and as such, this statement is more personal opinion than anything else): You are wrong. Simple as that. If you had not prefaced many of your statements with the fact that you are talking about D&D alignment specifically, rather than your own personal worldview, I would have reccommended you seek immediate psychological counseling. If, by chance, how you run alignment in D&D is how you view the real world, morality-wise, then I will say it: Please go see a counselor; your perspective will soon lead you into a situation where you will cause great harm to yourself or someone else, and I do not want that to happen.
I would really like to know what you think is wrong about my interpretation of the D&D alignment system. Both the law-chaos and good-evil are well defined. And nothing I have said is in any way dangerous or psychologically unstable. Good is helping others over yourself. Evil is promoting yourself over others. You can be good and be doing entirely evil actions not realizing it, and you can be evil while performing only good actions that further your own ends. There is a divorce in between your personality and your actions.
As for the Law vs Chaos spectrum, lawful is having a strict, codified world view and process for solving problems and chaos is believing actions should be varried based off of the situation, and freedom of choice is highly important. Both lawful and chaotic characters can find a place in almost any party or society, though there are some where their personality will clash, since like minds gather together.
Cannon D&D supports my claims.
Caineach, would it be accurate to say that all of your support for your views on alignment involve citing cases from Planescape where members of a certain aligned plane acted against the plane's associated alignment? That seems to match every example you've brought up so far.
Showing that, in some stories, some members of the outer planes act in ways inconsistent with the plane's alignment doesn't support your notions of what those alignments are. It supports the fact that the Planescape writers knew how to write a good story -- contrast and conflict being two key attributes of such.
Your argument seems to be about as sound as using Drizz't's actions to prove that unselfish, moral behavior is characteristic of Evil alignment.
Hey, we could always use the simplified alignment system from 4th Ed:
A character’s alignment (or lack thereof) describes his
or her moral stance:Good: Freedom and kindness.
Lawful Good: Civilization and order.
Evil: Tyranny and hatred.
Chaotic Evil: Entropy and destruction.
Unaligned: Having no alignment; not taking a stand.
And this other interesting bit:
Isn’t alignment just another part of your personality? Yes
and no.Certain personality traits have moral weight, particularly
those that influence how you interact with others.
Cruelty and generosity can be considered personality
traits, but they’re also manifestations of your beliefs about
the importance and worth of other people. A character
who aspires to good might have a cruel streak, but if that
streak manifests too frequently or in extreme ways, it’s
hard to say he’s really upholding his moral ideals.Other personality traits have no moral weight at all. A
fastidious and well-organized person can just as easily be
evil as good. An impulsive prankster can also be good or
evil. These quirks of personality are mostly unrelated to
alignment, but your alignment might affect the way your
personality translates into action. An evil prankster might
favor cruel practical jokes that cause personal harm and
damage property, while a good one would steer away from
such injurious acts.
Caineach, would it be accurate to say that all of your support for your views on alignment involve citing cases from Planescape where members of a certain aligned plane acted against the plane's associated alignment? That seems to match every example you've brought up so far.
Showing that, in some stories, some members of the outer planes act in ways inconsistent with the plane's alignment doesn't support your notions of what those alignments are. It supports the fact that the Planescape writers knew how to write a good story -- contrast and conflict being two key attributes of such.
Your argument seems to be about as sound as using Drizz't's actions to prove that unselfish, moral behavior is characteristic of Evil alignment.
D&D does not inately associate actions wth alignment. It associates personality with alignment. Actions and personality do not always intersect. Most of the time they will, but they do not have to. Not everything is black and white.
Drizz't is not Evil. He is good, and he behaves that way. He believes himself to be different from the society he comes from, and he is. The example of the drug cartel head who brings about the prosperity of his people is upthread is a good example of evil doing good. The Angel I refer to is still good, and the game designers still consider him good, even though he has fallen off of a good path by believing he can bring about a greater good. His objective is to help people, so he is good. His methods involve mass murder, which is evil, but this does not change his alignment.
I don't agree with your Watchmen example, either.
But now we're getting into ethics and philosophy much more deep-seated than even the D&D alignment system.
|
|
Hmm, I think I found a way to make the coin-flipping concept viable. It'll set you back about 13300 GP though. It's really simple, just make a magic item (In the shape of a coin) that works like the augury spell. It should work slightly different from the spell though. It should be wrong 275 of the time (CL3), And it only gives a Weal or a Woe. (It can't be both, and it can't be nothing because your flipping a coin)
I don't agree with your Watchmen example, either.
But now we're getting into ethics and philosophy much more deep-seated than even the D&D alignment system.
Curious, what alignment would you put him then, and why?
|
Curious, what alignment would you put him then, and why?I don't agree with your Watchmen example, either.
But now we're getting into ethics and philosophy much more deep-seated than even the D&D alignment system.
Chaotic Neutral, personally. What with the 'trick the whole world to save it' and 'evil means to a good end' beliefs.
Curious, what alignment would you put him then, and why?I don't agree with your Watchmen example, either.
But now we're getting into ethics and philosophy much more deep-seated than even the D&D alignment system.
Evil, without a doubt. Probably neutral evil.
Because just about every mastermind that sets up to destroy lots of people and property thinks he's doing it "for the greater good" (if he doesn't you're not playing with real people; you're playing it with Bond villians) and the real question is WHAT he's doing, and WHAT he's willing to do.With no compunction against harming or killing others, no loyalty to his own people or really ANYTHING other than his own prosperity and his grand "solution", he may have fooled himself into believing that the final result justifies his actions, but he's still evil.