...Was that either necessary, helpful or in any way persuasive?...
I did so in the knowledge of possibly hurting the feelings of affected people by bringing this up, but nonetheless felt it necessary to state that evil is MUCH WORSE than neutral in the most drastic way possible because I simply can't stand the notion that "evil isn't that bad".
Just as much as I can't simply accept that CE murderers could be, in reality, nice people most of the time and get along splendidly with others - which many people here advocate.
The example of the Sheriff of Nottingham from Kevin Costner Robin Hood movie, how would you describe him? Note that I didn't make a generic example about a corrupt government, but a specific one about this character as being portrait in that movie.
...Point is: just because you're willing to engage in wholesale slaughter with 99% of the world's population, that doesn't mean you can't have a few folks you love to be around and would actively protect...
Well, this is were I object, and heavily so.
The char would slaughter just about everyone (innocents included) with not the slightest qualms and regard, but dearly love and get along with his groupmates?
|
...Point is: just because you're willing to engage in wholesale slaughter with 99% of the world's population, that doesn't mean you can't have a few folks you love to be around and would actively protect...Well, this is were I object, and heavily so.
The char would slaughter just about everyone (innocents included) with not the slightest qualms and regard, but dearly love and get along with his groupmates?
You're thinking of a dyed in the wool psychopath...not necessarily every CE individual. See my post above as to why you shouldn't pigeon-hole every alignment into being exactly the same.
...Point is: just because you're willing to engage in wholesale slaughter with 99% of the world's population, that doesn't mean you can't have a few folks you love to be around and would actively protect...Well, this is were I object, and heavily so.
The char would slaughter just about everyone (innocents included) with not the slightest qualms and regard, but dearly love and get along with his groupmates?
Sure. he's unpredictable, thus (as I've stated before) the very essence of Chaos.
Oddly enough, Metalocalypse is on here, and that made me wonder...what alignment would you classify Dethklok as?
I could easily see them (well, aside from Toki, but especially Murderface) being CE...just a very lazy, less-than-thoughtful CE. They don't go out of their way to cause mayhem, but when they do, they simply think it's "brutal", typically. And they get along well enough with each other, even though they do fight amongst themselves. And they definitely hate authority.
Chaotic Neutral. They don't intend to outright kill everyone that shows up, it just kind of happens.
chaotic evil is not chaotic psycho, being chaotic evil doesn't make you a mad killer who eats puppies.
A statement which is itself a hyperbolic attack on those saying CE is sociopathic killer. No one said they have to eat puppies or step on kittens. Maybe they like killing kittens, but that's wholly beside the point. You are mischaracterizing the argument in order to make it look wrong.
So this Chaotic Evil character I rolled up named Brom was designed to be a bit bent. He was a fighter, very effective at his work, who loved the simple pleasures in life - killing others being at the top of the list. So Brom signed on with an adventuring party so as to have a socially acceptable outlet for his homicidal tendencies. In short, when the party killed a band of orcs, it was a borderline orgasmic experience for him. And once the combat was over and Brom had his fill of bloodshed, he could relax a bit before the murderous impulses came up again. But hey, he's in an adventuring group: there's lots of opportunities to kill!
...so your "CE" character only managed to do what every other adventurer does in a normal "Good-to-Neutral" party. Your character was CE only in the fluff. Why wouldn't he kill townspeople? Same as orcs except generally weaker and with more loot.
Liking killing is a bit evil - kind of, but did he only kill "Evil" things or would he kill townspeople he didn't like? At best, you are running CN on the murder-pathic side. Creepy? Yes. Evil? Not from what you gave.
Isn't Richard from Looking For Group a CE team player?
See? They DO exist! :P
chaotic evil is not chaotic psycho, being chaotic evil doesn't make you a mad killer who eats puppies.A statement which is itself a hyperbolic attack on those saying CE is sociopathic killer. No one said they have to eat puppies or step on kittens. Maybe they like killing kittens, but that's wholly beside the point. You are mischaracterizing the argument in order to make it look wrong.
So this Chaotic Evil character I rolled up named Brom was designed to be a bit bent. He was a fighter, very effective at his work, who loved the simple pleasures in life - killing others being at the top of the list. So Brom signed on with an adventuring party so as to have a socially acceptable outlet for his homicidal tendencies. In short, when the party killed a band of orcs, it was a borderline orgasmic experience for him. And once the combat was over and Brom had his fill of bloodshed, he could relax a bit before the murderous impulses came up again. But hey, he's in an adventuring group: there's lots of opportunities to kill!
...so your "CE" character only managed to do what every other adventurer does in a normal "Good-to-Neutral" party. Your character was CE only in the fluff. Why wouldn't he kill townspeople? Same as orcs except generally weaker and with more loot.
Liking killing is a bit evil - kind of, but did he only kill "Evil" things or would he kill townspeople he didn't like? At best, you are running CN on the murder-pathic side. Creepy? Yes. Evil? Not from what you gave.
As it ran in the game, we didn't have a whole lot of down time between adventures: the campaign ran at a pretty fast clip, so the character had plenty of opportunities to get his "fix" of murderous rampaging in a way that is deemed "acceptable" for adventurers. At the core, I conceived Brom to act as a subversion of the classic adventurer: the sheer joy he took in the killing was enough to register as evil (at least as far as detect spells went) but his actions were not terribly far removed from a standard adventurer. It was designed to promote reflection on just what it meant to be a hero, and it allowed the more traditionally aligned heroes in the party a chance to shine a bit more brightly in comparison (a deliberate byproduct of why I wanted to play Brom in the first place). Brom killed because he enjoyed it, the others killed in order to bring about something better in the world.
Beyond simple character motivation, I played down some of the more extreme elements of Chaotic Evil in order to simply facilitate a more enjoyable playing experience. Sure, I could have had the character sink his axe into a random milkmaid, but what would be the point? It would piss off the rest of the party and would serve to otherwise derail the story the GM was attempting to tell (a story she spent FAR more time working on than I did my own character). Players, in my opinion, should be willing to make these kinds of sacrifices in the name of party cohesion. You can have a concept like Brom the Chaotic Evil fighter, but you have to tailor it to fit in with the rest of the group. As soon as you take the stance of "Damn the rest, I'm going to do MY thing" you really have no business being in a cooperative game environment and would be better served doing something solo.
Now a good GM will attempt to throw you the proverbial character-bone every once and a while in order to let your concept shine. For example, in one of the rare extended periods of downtime we had in civilization the GM knew that Brom would be getting the itch to kill soon enough. So she set up an encounter where he was accosted by a group of thugs while he was off on his own. Brom got the satisfaction of getting his killing in, the party got to go through some interesting roleplaying encounters with the subsequent trial (in fact the Paladin actually served as Brom's "attorney" and was successfully able to argue his actions were entirely in self defense), and the GM was able to tie it all in to the over-arching narrative she was constructing. Everyone won.
Beyond simple character motivation, I played down some of the more extreme elements of Chaotic Evil in order to simply facilitate a more enjoyable playing experience. Sure, I could have had the character sink his axe into a random milkmaid, but what would be the point? It would piss off the rest of the party and would serve to otherwise derail the story the GM was attempting to tell (a story she spent FAR more time working on than I did my own character). Players, in my opinion, should be willing to make these kinds of sacrifices in the name of party cohesion. You can have a concept like Brom the Chaotic Evil fighter, but you have to tailor it to fit in with the rest of the group. As soon as you take the stance of "Damn the rest, I'm going to do MY thing" you really have no business being in a cooperative game environment and would be better served doing something solo.
If we want to get all philosophical, then any homebrew campaign should never go off the rails, because there should be no rails. Everyone wants software D&D to be like this, but not their own games? What?
At any rate, my point still stands. You are a standard adventurer with blood lust. You are CE because that's the fluff you wanted, but that's not really what you were.
For example, in one of the rare extended periods of downtime we had in civilization the GM knew that Brom would be getting the itch to kill soon enough. So she set up an encounter where he was accosted by a group of thugs while he was off on his own. Brom got the satisfaction of getting his killing in, the party got to go through some interesting roleplaying encounters with the subsequent trial
I still don't see how this is different than any other game beside the fact he got arrested for killing thugs. Your "Chaotic Evil killer" took no initiative to slaughter a bunch of drunkards, he was defending himself - as far as I can tell from what you provided. Getting attacked by creepy humans walking down the street in a normal town is part of an average adventure hook. You rarely sit down and have tea with the attackers in an attempt to parley. You kill them. To death.
4 pages ... can't think I'd *possibly* add much here, but I will say that looking at "chaotic" of the chaotic evil alignment and reading it as "chaotic" as found in the dictionary is THE #1 way to lead to a Chaotic Stupid character (and no one wants one of those anywhere).
It's more like what TriOmega listed, in fact, not "like" at all - it IS the definition alignment-wise to use. It revolves more or less around that "can" piece that he hi-lighted upthread.
From what I'm seeing, the CE = sociopath/psychotic lunatics crowd has read that and decided that C w/the E tag ==> changing "can" to "must" in that phrasing. Thus, those people are GUARANTEED to have sociopathic/psychotic individuals that play as Chaotic Stupid all over their game world - not just the few rare individuals that wander the world and really *are* Chaotic Stupid. If you're limiting the alignment and polarizing it that much, then IMO, there are WAY too many Chaotic Stupid things wandering that game world for my tastes.
Yeah ... I'll just point out that IF you're prescribing that CE = *must* rather than *can* in your games, THEN you're overly simplifying the alignment and limiting the role-play potential.
Just my 2 bits.
Beyond simple character motivation, I played down some of the more extreme elements of Chaotic Evil in order to simply facilitate a more enjoyable playing experience. Sure, I could have had the character sink his axe into a random milkmaid, but what would be the point? It would piss off the rest of the party and would serve to otherwise derail the story the GM was attempting to tell (a story she spent FAR more time working on than I did my own character). Players, in my opinion, should be willing to make these kinds of sacrifices in the name of party cohesion. You can have a concept like Brom the Chaotic Evil fighter, but you have to tailor it to fit in with the rest of the group. As soon as you take the stance of "Damn the rest, I'm going to do MY thing" you really have no business being in a cooperative game environment and would be better served doing something solo.If we want to get all philosophical, then any homebrew campaign should never go off the rails, because there should be no rails. Everyone wants software D&D to be like this, but not their own games? What?
At any rate, my point still stands. You are a standard adventurer with blood lust. You are CE because that's the fluff you wanted, but that's not really what you were.
For example, in one of the rare extended periods of downtime we had in civilization the GM knew that Brom would be getting the itch to kill soon enough. So she set up an encounter where he was accosted by a group of thugs while he was off on his own. Brom got the satisfaction of getting his killing in, the party got to go through some interesting roleplaying encounters with the subsequent trialI still don't see how this is different than any other game beside the fact he got arrested for killing thugs. Your "Chaotic Evil killer" took no initiative to slaughter a bunch of drunkards, he was defending himself - as far as I can tell from what you provided. Getting attacked by creepy humans walking down the street in a normal town is part of an...
I'd be willing to concede in your terminology of "fluff" in regards to the alignment decision of my character. But in truth, couldn't all alignments be considered "fluff" anyway? There are no strict rules on how each alignment is to be played. In order for them to not be "fluff" they would have to be "crunch": a detailed list of bullet points that MUST be adhered to in order to be that alignment. In all the discussions of alignment I've been privy to over the years there has been one (mostly) unifying conceit: it is a largely subjective system, and is probably the most open to interpretation out of all of D&D. Some choose to define alignment as the byproduct of actions. I accept that, but I also choose to define alignment as a byproduct of motivations. Is it to everyone's taste? Obviously not. But it's as solid as any other interpretation provided the group you're gaming with is on the same page.
I would say that's willfull mischaracterization of the argument, but it's more of lack of understanding.
Sociopathic killer != Chaotic Stupid.
The hugs and kisses CE presented around here is no CE.
I'd be willing to concede in your terminology of "fluff" in regards to the alignment decision of my character. But in truth, couldn't all alignments be considered "fluff" anyway? There are no strict rules on how each alignment is to be played. In order for them to not be "fluff" they would have to be "crunch": a detailed list of bullet points that MUST be adhered to in order to be that alignment. In all the discussions of alignment I've been privy to over the years there has been one (mostly) unifying conceit: it is a largely subjective system, and is probably the most open to interpretation out of all of D&D. Some choose to define alignment as the byproduct of actions. I accept that, but I also choose to define alignment as a byproduct of motivations. Is it to everyone's taste? Obviously not. But it's as solid as any other interpretation provided the group you're gaming with is on the same page.
Do you dispute there are Chaotic acts and Lawful acts? Good and Evil acts? If not, how are you saying character alignment is only fluff? The point of alignment is to effectively describe how the character acts - which then may or may not have effects on classing. And yes, I suppose you can define alignment by motivations, but if your motivation of "killing Orcs, goblins, dragons, and other menacing creatures because I like to kill scary creatures" makes you CE, then there is an assload of CE adventurers in "Good-Neutral" games.
PS, man I hate this idiotic quote system on this board
Ok I am one of those who believe CE=Sociopath, I do not think Sociopathic killer must mean Chaotic Stupid. CE is about you and you alone, You simply put nothing above what you want, no family, friends, kingdom, nothing.You may want a girl because you lust after her, or she will bring you a station you want or closer to some goal. But you care for her only as long as she is useful. If she needs to die fore your goal even if you do like the girl..eh pity.
Your flexible, and thoroughly without morals or real connections to other people. You can hide it, make "friends" but they are not friends more tools and useful folks to have around. And you may "protect" them as it is useful to do so, but you may kill or betray them just as easy as soon as it is useful to do so.
I am still seeing mostly NE pc's as examples of CE. I just am not seeing CE.I am seeing the evil but nothing that matches what the game has said is CE at all.
CE are real monsters, they are evil without restraint, No limit on what they will do. They don't connect to other people and to them people are tools, items to use and destroy as they see fit. They don't have to act stupid but in the end they have no loyalty to anyone but themselves and no morals or code to hold them back.
so i was thinking, do you think it is possible to play Chaotic Evil without being a blood thirsty psycho?
You can opt for a selfish sociopath.
cant a chaotic evil character have close friends without being tempted to kill them and without them also being evil?
Friends? No. Other people are enemies, rivals or b+##~es. You can like someone from the latter category and even abstain from abusing that person for lulz, but only as long as you dominate the relationship completely.
And that, as I said before, is why evil parties generally don't work (well, unless PCs just like clothes with skulls and spikes, but really are neutral). To make them work you need someone to be a top dog, and this dynamic is hard to recreate when players are supposed to be equal and any of them can just walk out at any time.
Isn't Richard from Looking For Group a CE team player?
See? They DO exist! :P
Only because (just like OotS and Belkar) the whole group basically rides GM's Fiat which doors are welded shut.
Do you dispute there are Chaotic acts and Lawful acts? Good and Evil acts? If not, how are you saying character alignment is only fluff? The point of alignment is to effectively describe how the character acts - which then may or may not have effects on classing. And yes, I suppose you can define alignment by motivations, but if your motivation of "killing Orcs, goblins, dragons, and other menacing creatures because I like to kill scary creatures" makes you CE, then there is an assload of CE adventurers in "Good-Neutral" games.
I don't dispute that there are good/evil/law/chaos actions in the game. In fact I believe in most D&D games these forces are not merely abstractions but actual forces that govern reality. And they are pervasive enough that characters will register in those respective fields not only through their actual actions but their thoughts and motivations as well. Again this returns to the motivations/actions aspect of alignment issue we discussed previously. In my interpretation lets say we have an individual who lives a perfectly mundane life without actively doing harm to anyone. Yet in private wishes nothing but the worst for everyone, delights when anyone suffers, and fantasizes about the terrible things he would do to people: in a world were evil is a tangible force and not merely a concept I would consider this person to have an evil alignment.
Now let's look at Brom (Christ, for a character I haven't played in 2 years he's certainly getting a lot of thought from me today): the satisfaction that I conceived he received from killing things went beyond simple bloodlust, bordering on the pseudo-sexual kick serial killers often describe. Now it wasn't something he engaged in all the time (such as being in town): letting the urge simmer and fester to the boiling point made the final release all the sweeter to Brom. But he didn't have complete control over it. Letting it go too long without indulging himself caused Brom a great deal of duress (like a junkie). But by adventuring he was able to satisfy his desires. This to me is Chaotic Evil, albeit not taken to absolute extreme of the class that many people think is the standard.
|
|
I'll ask this again...is a freedom fighter (living in a LE kingdom) who actively tries to bring down the legitimate government (chaotic) and who will kill governmental figures/members (evil) in order to further his cause a Chaotic Evil individual. The meet the prequisites for both axis (or whatever the plural of axis is) of the CE alignment, but their chaos and evil are focused on the government in question. I say that yes, the person described here is CE...which goes to show you that there are different, nuanced examples of even the most extreme alignments.
I add this because it brings nothing to the discussion, but every alignment debate needs it!
Depends on who's writing (playing) him. When Miller writes Batman he's a g&&!@+n f#&%ing psycho.
Only because (just like OotS and Belkar) the whole group basically rides GM's Fiat which doors are welded shut.Isn't Richard from Looking For Group a CE team player?
See? They DO exist! :P
And I knew someone would say exactly that, so I prepared an awesome rebuttal that not only refutes it, but also solves this entire thread in one fell sweep.
...now...
*looks around, checks pockets*
...where did I put it?
Now let's look at Brom (Christ, for a character I haven't played in 2 years he's certainly getting a lot of thought from me today): the satisfaction that I conceived he received from killing things went beyond simple bloodlust, bordering on the pseudo-sexual kick serial killers often describe. Now it wasn't something he engaged in all the time (such as being in town):
Then how is he Chaotic Evil? He got off on killing orcs. Ok, that's creepy but is it necessarily Evil? Not unless he slaughters the Unconventionally-Lawful Good enclave of Orcs outside Nowhere City. You have to frame this in D&D. People go around killing stuff all the time. All. The. Time. LG, CE, CG, LE, it doesn't matter because you will be killing something. You are more than likely to be killing your fellow adventurers or the priests of Pelor/whatever than Orcs if you are Evil.
I'll ask this again...is a freedom fighter (living in a LE kingdom) who actively tries to bring down the legitimate government (chaotic) and who will kill governmental figures/members (evil) in order to further his cause a Chaotic Evil individual. The meet the prequisites for both axis (or whatever the plural of axis is) of the CE alignment, but their chaos and evil are focused on the government in question. I say that yes, the person described here is CE...which goes to show you that there are different, nuanced examples of even the most extreme alignments.
It's quite possible. The Chaos is certainly there, for sure. As far as the evil goes that's a little trickier. If the people he's killing are evil themselves than that might hedge him a bit away from the Evil. However what are his motivations for wanting to bring down the government? If it's for some kind of anarchic destructive bent than that might strengthen the case for evil. If it's for simply personal, selfish reasons (i.e. he wishes he didn't have to live in a place with such strict laws or taxes) that could be also argued for evil or perhaps neutrality. If he's doing it for altruistic reason (i.e. freeing oppressed citizens from the bootheel of the government) that might hedge him more towards good. Like I've been saying: I view alignment as the sum of motivations and actions.
Then how is he Chaotic Evil? He got off on killing orcs. Ok, that's creepy but is it necessarily Evil? Not unless he slaughters the Unconventionally-Lawful Good enclave of Orcs outside Nowhere City. You have to frame this in D&D. People go around killing stuff all the time. All. The. Time. LG, CE, CG, LE, it doesn't matter because you will be killing something. You are more than likely to be killing your fellow adventurers or the priests of Pelor/whatever than Orcs if you are Evil.
I feel I am still framing this in terms of D&D. I believe, as stated before, the alignment system is subjective enough that it can accommodate this interpretation. Granted it sets a different tone for my games than some people are comfortable playing in, but if I was gaming with those people I would never play someone like Brom.
Look at the Drow race for an interesting take on Chaotic Evil. There is loyalty there, not much, usually just enough to get ahead in society.
A Chaotic Evil character CAN pretend to be other than Chaotic Evil, They don't have to be a murderous villain in plain view, unless perhaps they have a 6 wisdom. Serial Killers don't typically just go out and slaughter hundreds of people in plain sight.
I'll ask this again...is a freedom fighter (living in a LE kingdom) who actively tries to bring down the legitimate government (chaotic) and who will kill governmental figures/members (evil) in order to further his cause a Chaotic Evil individual. The meet the prequisites for both axis (or whatever the plural of axis is) of the CE alignment, but their chaos and evil are focused on the government in question. I say that yes, the person described here is CE...which goes to show you that there are different, nuanced examples of even the most extreme alignments.
Yes, he would care only for his goal, and would not let things like "civilian casualty " stop him. He would murder half the city if he needed to on the off chance of killing the head man or even a high ranking one, he would use any means to achieve his goal, betrayal mass murder, deals with demon lords, anything.
The people who fight with him are "soldiers" for the cause and eh if they die, they die. People he kills are "collaborators" who need killing as well.
That is CE,if they are more picky about who they kill they are not CE.
Look at the Drow race for an interesting take on Chaotic Evil. There is loyalty there, not much, usually just enough to get ahead in society.
A Chaotic Evil character CAN pretend to be other than Chaotic Evil, They don't have to be a murderous villain in plain view, unless perhaps they have a 6 wisdom. Serial Killers don't typically just go out and slaughter hundreds of people in plain sight.
Agreed, although the "Loyalty" lasts only as long as the person has the upper hand. In Drow society family ties limit you. So yes you can't just switch "teams". You can{and do} however murder family members to get higher in rank.
I add this because it brings nothing to the discussion, but every alignment debate needs it!
Beat you too it like 3 pages ago, but i didnt include the link. Points for that.
By the way why is this still being discussed? Does anyone actually expect to convince someone or learn something new about how you are going to play a specific alignment? Seriously people. It is more productive to argue the font sizes in the core rulebook, then alignments. Just let it go.
By the way why is this still being discussed?
We are bored and it is interesting. It is one of those topics where you get to see just how differently you can read something and come to a whole other conclusion then other folks. And that is always interesting to see.
For the most part this has been a very civil thread.
I add this because it brings nothing to the discussion, but every alignment debate needs it!
Beat you too it like 3 pages ago, but i didnt include the link. Points for that.
By the way why is this still being discussed? Does anyone actually expect to convince someone or learn something new about how you are going to play a specific alignment? Seriously people. It is more productive to argue the font sizes in the core rulebook, then alignments. Just let it go.
I personally enjoy the debate. It lets me reflect upon my feelings and opinions as a roleplayer and have them challenged. No one who has taken my opinions to task has done so in a rude or completely confrontational manner, so I feel enriched by the experience. What more can you ask?
By the way why is this still being discussed?
We are bored and it is interesting. It is one of those topics where you get to see just how differently you can read something and come to a whole other conclusion then other folks. And that is always interesting to see.
For the most part this has been a very civil thread.
I know, and it was interesting the first, like 15 times i've had this discussion. But maybe thats just me. Feel free to carry on, i just hurt inside every time i see people debate alignment. To me its like debating which shirt is more blue.
|
I know, and it was interesting the first, like 15 times i've had this discussion. But maybe thats just me. Feel free to carry on, i just hurt inside every time i see people debate alignment. To me its like debating which shirt is more blue.
What are you talking about, how is that a debate, my shirt is clearly more blue.
What are you talking about, how is that a debate, my shirt is clearly more blue.
My shirt has a naked lady on it, CLEARLY making it more blue than yours!
Off topic here, but did you know there is a gene women have that allows them to see color shifts and susceptible variations of color better then men on average? So ya know when you GF/Wife, female friend says it's some odd blue color and to you it just looks blue, she most likely can indeed see the difference.
Off topic here, but did you know there is a gene women have that allows them to see color shifts and susceptible variations of color better then men on average? So ya know when you GF/Wife, female friend says it's some odd blue color and to you it just looks blue, she most likely can indeed see the difference.
I heard about that. Often used it as an excuse with my old girlfriend for not really caring about what shade of beige she wanted to paint the wall...
yes to me there are three shads of blue, dark blue, just blue and light blue. all shads of blue are in hose three category. Other colors work the same way...Oh that's green...that green is darker...and that green is lighter...that green is lighter then the other green
Drives the wife nuts at times.
A good character always does what they think is morally right.
A neutral character does what they think is morally right, but sometimes does what is good for themselves.
An evil character always does what is immoral and wrong.
A lawful character subscribes to a code of ethics or morals.
A chaotic character doesn't subscribe to a code of ethics or morals and is unpredictable and spontaneous.
So, a chaotic evil character spontaneously goes off doing what is immoral or wrong. It's part of the fiber of their being. Not all characters are evil or even chaotic evil.
Someone who only kills when necessary and only if its the last choice and also only if the person is irredeemably evil or the situation makes it impossible to attempt to capture that person alive? Good. They always prefer good to evil.
Someone who kills sometimes but loves their family? Neutral. They prefer good to evil when given a choice, but sometimes choose evil choices.
Someone who kills as often as they can? Evil. They always prefer evil over good.
A lot of people in the discussion don't see that the alignment chart is not:
Good
Neutral
Evil
But instead is closer to
Good
Neutral
.
.
.
Evil
I know, and it was interesting the first, like 15 times i've had this discussion. But maybe thats just me. Feel free to carry on, i just hurt inside every time i see people debate alignment. To me its like debating which shirt is more blue.
By the way why is this still being discussed?
We are bored and it is interesting. It is one of those topics where you get to see just how differently you can read something and come to a whole other conclusion then other folks. And that is always interesting to see.
For the most part this has been a very civil thread.
Royal Blue shirts are the bluest of all shirts.
|
|
Royal Blue shirts are the bluest of all shirts.I know, and it was interesting the first, like 15 times i've had this discussion. But maybe thats just me. Feel free to carry on, i just hurt inside every time i see people debate alignment. To me its like debating which shirt is more blue.
By the way why is this still being discussed?
We are bored and it is interesting. It is one of those topics where you get to see just how differently you can read something and come to a whole other conclusion then other folks. And that is always interesting to see.
For the most part this has been a very civil thread.
but they aren't as blue as my shirt you idiot!
Alignment is stupid.
What exactly does it add to the game? Mechanically they make it very important due to spells and things but aside from that I've never seen it affect a game in any way besides causing arguments which is not exactly a benefit. Sometimes people end up roleplaying alignments rather than PEOPLE which is just another drawback.
You can't act that way because your character sheet says X. Change what it says to Y.... and keep playing exactly the way you've been playing except it may affect your spells and magic items. WTF? Really? What would really be better? A magic item that knows your "lawful evil" so you get a negative level? Or a magic item that decides your too cruel to wield it and bestows a negative level on you despite what you may think of yourself?
If it wasn't so tied to the mechanics I'd just cut it out completely. As is they're best used as guidelines.
Alignment can be used to describe characters in *any* game system. If you choose an alignment that you can apply effectively, then every character in the real world can also have an alignment. So what it adds to the game is the ability to categorize people into classes. You may or may not want to do that, but even if you don't I can apply my alignment system to any game you play and figure out what alignments all of the characters have. Anyway, the reasons:
1) Communication with other players/GM. Once the alignments are known, you can tell a great deal about how the game is going to go. If everyone is CE, the GM is clued into the fact that offering up a scenario that relies upon the good natures of the characters to take the bait will fall flat. So alignment is useful to the GM in figuring out what hooks to use without having to even understand the backstory of the characters. Players can also figure out with a simple "this is going to be an evil campaign" or "I want everyone to be lawful" that certain character concepts are out the window.
2) Good vs. Evil stories. Having magic spells that rely upon alignment enable you to tell certain stories. It is nice to have those spells in the game because the house rule "there are no alignment-related spells" is exceptionally easy to implement. However, making up a bunch of spells on the fly that are alignment-related is easy at least in part because there were a bunch already done in 3.5, and slightly modified for Pathfinder; it's easier to remove alignment-related spells than add them. In fact, I have a house rule that Wizards do not cast alignment-related spells and it has never caused any difficulty. So the statement that removing alignment is difficult with a house rule, or that it is too integrated into the game to extricate, is laughable at best. Cutting alignment out is a breeze.
For the most part this has been a very civil thread.Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelled of elderberries!
quite you, son of a shaved goat and a drunken llama !
I'll ask this again...is a freedom fighter (living in a LE kingdom) who actively tries to bring down the legitimate government (chaotic) and who will kill governmental figures/members (evil) in order to further his cause a Chaotic Evil individual. The meet the prequisites for both axis (or whatever the plural of axis is) of the CE alignment, but their chaos and evil are focused on the government in question. I say that yes, the person described here is CE...which goes to show you that there are different, nuanced examples of even the most extreme alignments.
You have to say what his motivation is. If his motivation is protecting the greatest number of innocent beings by destroying an evil kingdom, then he is LG, NG, or CG, even if there are casualties. If his motivation is destroying the evil kingdom to kill a bunch of people for fun or profit, then he is LE, NE, or CE. You could add other aspects to the freedom fighter's motivations in order to distinguish between C and L. A freedom fighter who wants to replace the LE government with a LG one is LG, for example.
Killing is not evil. Killing innocent beings for profit or fun is evil. A LG creature might not tear down a LE government if it does not appear that the revolution would result in a shift in the right direction (LN), but a LG creature might also defend the LE government if he feared the revolution (if Galt is any indication, a state of revolution has a CN aspect) or was not confident that the revolution would really result in an improvement. I could easily imagine people of all alignments on both sides of a revolution to bring down a LE government, though the revolutionaries would probably have more of the CG, CN (because revolution is cool) crowd, and the defenders would probably have more of the LN (because revolution is uncool), LE crowd.
It more depends on his purpose and methods.
It is really going to be rather difficult to pull a Good pro-freedom terrorist.
the thing is i look at the chaotic part of chaotic evil and what i think about is being chaotic means you will be unpredictable and even go against the evil from time to time. i see this as a way for a chaotic evil person to love some one or care about friends, hay the character could at any moment kill just about anyone around him but he can still have real feelings toward his friends.
the big thing i am trying to get across is that the chaotic element is unpredictable, how can you say a chaotic evil character will always be super selfish and only ever do what helps him, the very nature of chaotic means you cant put an "always" on a chaotic character.