Nobody is ever perfectly good or evil. You can be evil and do good things, or good and do evil actions.
I disagree. A good character will never perform an evil act.
Well yea.. you know, I would say a player that has LG on his character sheet will not commit to an obviously evil act without a very good reason.
If the player in question is playing a LG cleric and they encounter an old man with a stash of wealth from his adventurer days I, as a DM, want to be sure he will not rob the man. Infact if the player says he is going to knock the old man out and rob him of his wealth, I am pretty much going to ignore that player till he starts talking sense again.
As I was handing out EXP at the end of the game I informed the Player of the Ranger that his Alignment shifted to Chaotic Neutral because of the way he handled the use of the Glabrezu. He used it many times, some of which were not need. He took the contract the first chance he had after we found it and he keep saying things like “we can use him for good to the other players”
There was some what long argument after I did this where the player said that he could not see how he did not act with in his Alignment. NOW am I being a jerk and overly harsh?
As a GM, my personal rule on the matter is that alignment feedback must be given at the time the player declares an action.
After such full disclosure, the player gets to decide if they still want to take the action. The consequences happen according to the choice.In my view, alignments are very subjective, and it's my (GM) subjective viewpoint that will be applied in the game.
My players aren't psionicists with a telepathy discipline, so it's my responsibility to give them the lay of the land.
I find that players like to control every aspect of their characters, and so I am loathe to remove that control (including alignment) unless it is absolutely necessary to do so.
By taking the responsibility to call out alignment effects in advance, I put that control into the player's hands, for good or for evil.
It works for me. Your mileage may vary.
Nobody is ever perfectly good or evil. You can be evil and do good things, or good and do evil actions.
I disagree. A good character will never perform an evil act.
Well yea.. you know, I would say a player that has LG on his character sheet will not commit to an obviously evil act without a very good reason.
If the player in question is playing a LG cleric and they encounter an old man with a stash of wealth from his adventurer days I, as a DM, want to be sure he will not rob the man. Infact if the player says he is going to knock the old man out and rob him of his wealth, I am pretty much going to ignore that player till he starts talking sense again.
Contrary to popular belief neither good is better than the others. They just approach the problems differently. Being chaotic good gives you no more of an excuse to do evil than being lawful good would. Robbing the old man is not even acceptable by a CG character.
Nobody is ever perfectly good or evil. You can be evil and do good things, or good and do evil actions.
I disagree. A good character will never perform an evil act.
That's an issue that admittedly depends upon the definition applied to alignment. In my game, because of my careful definition of good and evil, you can be perfectly good or evil. If you aren't, then you are neutral.
I believe that you must not be capable of choosing to kill a person you know to be innocent for fun to be Good. Indeed, you must be willing at any time to protect the lives of beings you know to be innocent if you have the resources. If at any time, and for the duration of that time, you were psychologically capable of choosing to kill an innocent person for fun, you would be evil. That's really what I focus on when I think about what it means to be Evil, and I don't care about "little evils," since I think they are lame in the greater context of a war between good and evil.
An Evil person can do good, but an Evil person will always be capable of choosing to kill an innocent person for fun (or, in accordance with RAW, profit). Good and evil are not perfectly symmetric because of colloquial use of the term "good act." A good person would never do an evil act, where, again, I'm focusing on real Evil, not "little evils." That is, a Good person would never kill an innocent person for fun. However, an Evil person could protect an innocent person from death.
For this reason, I disagree that you can be Good and do evil actions.
As I was handing out EXP at the end of the game I informed the Player of the Ranger that his Alignment shifted to Chaotic Neutral because of the way he handled the use of the Glabrezu. He used it many times, some of which were not need. He took the contract the first chance he had after we found it and he keep saying things like “we can use him for good to the other players”
There was some what long argument after I did this where the player said that he could not see how he did not act with in his Alignment. NOW am I being a jerk and overly harsh?
As a GM, my personal rule on the matter is that alignment feedback must be given at the time the player declares an action.
After such full disclosure, the player gets to decide if they still want to take the action. The consequences happen according to the choice.In my view, alignments are very subjective, and it's my (GM) subjective viewpoint that will be applied in the game.
My players aren't psionicists with a telepathy discipline, so it's my responsibility to give them the lay of the land.I find that players like to control every aspect of their characters, and so I am loathe to remove that control (including alignment) unless it is absolutely necessary to do so.
By taking the responsibility to call out alignment effects in advance, I put that control into the player's hands, for good or for evil.It works for me. Your mileage may vary.
That's the way I used to do it, and would still do if I had to. However, now I am so obsessive about alignment that I make sure it is simple and clear what it takes to be Lawful/Chaotic Good/Evil at the outset. I see it as a failure if I ever have to pause during the game to have an alignment discussion, which I consider to be a waste of time, despite the fact that it is my favorite topic of discussion online. It probably has more to do with the fact that I've been gaming with the same people for years than the precision of my alignment descriptions that I no longer have to let a player know that their character is acting in a manner contrary to alignment. I know that it is better than what is in the core rules, though.
Contrary to popular belief neither good is better than the others. They just approach the problems differently. Being chaotic good gives you no more of an excuse to do evil than being lawful good would. Robbing the old man is not even acceptable by a CG character.Nobody is ever perfectly good or evil. You can be evil and do good things, or good and do evil actions.
I disagree. A good character will never perform an evil act.
Well yea.. you know, I would say a player that has LG on his character sheet will not commit to an obviously evil act without a very good reason.
If the player in question is playing a LG cleric and they encounter an old man with a stash of wealth from his adventurer days I, as a DM, want to be sure he will not rob the man. Infact if the player says he is going to knock the old man out and rob him of his wealth, I am pretty much going to ignore that player till he starts talking sense again.
I agree, though people will often shout something like : 'that is chaotic not evil !' or some sort of nonsense.. I find the very excistence of law and chaos often interferes with people's perception of evil and good, but my point was to say it is contrary to the players alignment in that case, so LG would give less discussion about that part.
I see alignment as a rough guideline for how their character's actions are motivated, it is a roleplaying restriction.. and I believe the restrictions make it worth roleplaying. It is perfectly acceptable to have a character think a bit outside the box on matters of alignment, being motivated by knightly ideals besides a LE alignment for example (though likely a very strict interpretation of their code of virtue and honor) or neutral evil/good with a fondness/hatred for children or a specific race.
Nobody is ever perfectly good or evil. You can be evil and do good things, or good and do evil actions.
I disagree. A good character will never perform an evil act.
+1 with the stipulation that you have to be genuinely trying to adhere to your alignment.
OOTS put it far more eloquently than I could have.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html
I think stopping in the middle of an encounter to talk about Alignment brakes up the game a lot. I like to be a little more subtle with alignment and talk about when we have more time.
I also think that alignment is pretty important, I am a big fan of planescape and alignment and character belief is paramount in planescape feel.
I also do not make a habit out of shifting alignment but for the story I am trying to tell and the situation I felt it was not only appropriate but is going to move my story along in a new direction as I just finish the story arc I have running for a few months now.
So I will leave with a question and I may make a new post.
Neutrality what dose it mean in your game? How is NG NE N CN LN different from one another?
|
Neutrality what dose it mean in your game? How is NG NE N CN LN different from one another?
N - You don't feel strongly towards any of the alignments. You don't actively seek to harm others, but you don't particularly go out of your way either. You think people should be accountable for their actions, but sometimes you've got to break a few eggs to get the results.
NG - Do no harm. If the law is harmful, change it. If someone is hurting people to save others, they are wrong.
NE - It only matters what I can get away with. It's all about me. Everything is permitted.
CN - It only matters that the end result is what I want. If people have to die to get there, it is the price to pay.
LN - We must follow the guidelines laid before us. Order will not come from acting against each other.
The only one I think of as different is N I see that as more concerned with balance. 2nd N would switch side in a fight to balance thing, very extreme but I remember reading or at least misinterpreting I was only like 10 or something.
I agree with pretty much every thing but I think that there are other was to interpret them as well.
Like LN could be a more organized thought process or a disciplined life, Like moderons who would never fight with other non rouge moderons but fight with just about every thing else or Monks who are more concerned with there own perfection then the rest of the world or there place in it.
CN is concerned about there own freedom of course, but they could also be just chaotic and random, I know is 2nd edition CN was just crazy.
It is hard to see NE as anything but Just EVIL, but if any one remembers the yogoloths they had an interesting take on NE. Almost LE at time but to much chaos and there entire goal as far as there Race was concerned was to purge Law and Chaos from there being.
|
|
Balance is not doing one Good act for one Evil act. Balance is never going to an extreme like Good or Evil. Because the moment you do one of those extreme acts, you've lost balance. Which is why I don't use 'neutral = balance', because that makes Neutral characters schizophrenic.
LN as organized and disciplined carried to the extreme means Lawful cannot work with Lawful. Each has their order and discipline, and the other's order and discipline is different. Which means they will never agree, never compromise, and never change. And thus they die.
CN as 'random and crazy' means the forces of Chaos are an army of mental patients. I must point out that the PRD definition of Chaotic says 'can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility'. Not 'must include'.
Neutral equals lazy.
Chaotic Neutral equals lazy player. :-p
I agree that sustained actions should lead to alignment changes in all but the most plot-sensitive engagements. That said, you changed the wrong axis of the alignment. You should move him a step towards law.
Neutrality what dose it mean in your game? How is NG NE N CN LN different from one another?
N - You don't feel strongly towards any of the alignments. You don't actively seek to harm others, but you don't particularly go out of your way either. You think people should be accountable for their actions, but sometimes you've got to break a few eggs to get the results.
NG - Do no harm. If the law is harmful, change it. If someone is hurting people to save others, they are wrong.
NE - It only matters what I can get away with. It's all about me. Everything is permitted.
CN - It only matters that the end result is what I want. If people have to die to get there, it is the price to pay.
LN - We must follow the guidelines laid before us. Order will not come from acting against each other.
I would say:
CN - Don't tie me down with rules, I do what I want. I'm not going out of my way to hurt you, but if you do that to me you get what's coming.
Your definition of CN up there is tending a bit too far to CE for my taste.
|
|
CN doesn't care if people die along the way. CE wants people to die along the way. There is a difference. The CN person won't automatically sacrifice someone for his goals. Only if he can justify it as being worth it to achieve the result.
Admittedly, 'death' is an extreme means. I should clarify that CN would drive past an accident thinking 'I can't be late to work, and that accident doesn't look that bad'. But if he sees a bad accident happen, he would pull over and help if he can.
CN doesn't care if people die along the way. CE wants people to die along the way. There is a difference. The CN person won't automatically sacrifice someone for his goals. Only if he can justify it as being worth it to achieve the result.
Nope, to be prepared to kill others to get whatever you want is evil.
To quote from the Core Rulebook page 166:
"Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient."
Which is what you are describing as far as I can see.
Neutrality on the Good-Evil axis is summed up as follows:
"People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others."
In other words, CN does not kill just for convenience, he does care if people die along the way, but he's not prepared to sacrifice himself to stop it.
Admittedly, 'death' is an extreme means. I should clarify that CN would drive past an accident thinking 'I can't be late to work, and that accident doesn't look that bad'. But if he sees a bad accident happen, he would pull over and help if he can.
Which is more like it. Your above description implied that his attitude would be more: "I'm going to be late for work if I don't run down these people, oh well, sucks to be them!" which perhaps you didn't intend.
It's happened to me too - on occasion I have re-read a post and realised that it said something I didn't intend it too, or worse re-read a post I've responded to and realised I got totally the wrong end of the stick.
I'm glad we cleared this up, CN is a much maligned alignment mainly because of the insistence of some people to make it a smoke-screen for chaotic evil (or more usually chaotic stupid). The reality is very much different.
CN played right is pretty fun to play, and to run game with with a player that knows what they are doing is enjoy able as well. But I think that you are right most of the time people play CN to hide CE or just because is sounds like the lest amount of work to play CN you don't have to be good and you can do what ever you want.
I take s pretty good troupe of player to pull of,
So other then Captain Jack Sparrow what other Characters from Movies or Books are CN?
So other then Captain Jack Sparrow what other Characters from Movies or Books are CN?
Bender from Futurama is pretty much the DEFINITION of CN. He breaks the law repeatedly because "it's cool" or just for the fun of it. He even breaks out the other characters from jail in one of the movies so that "[his] rap sheet will be longer than [theirs]". He cares about his friends, such as Fry and Leela, and would PREFER that harm doesn't come to them, and will even help them on occasion, but will almost never risk himself for them, unless he's coerced into it or feeling EXTREMELY guilty.
Yes, Bender does take it for CN.
Jayne From Fire fly, I think that we was on his way to being good but it could have just been extreme guilt like bender (which is a great example green tea)
"So you start off using the glabrazu against evil, only sending it to attack evil minions. Then, you send it to attack neutral bandits because there's a lot of them. Then eventually you're sending it to the store to pick up milk. Oh sure, occasionally it get's confused and rips a cows udder off and brings it back instead of buying the milk at the store. Or it brings back the torso of a new mother instead, but it was your fault for not wording it right, and you'll be more careful next time. right? right? I mean, it's not that big a deal? And if you have to sic him on the husband and brother of that new mother that died because they tried to burn your house down, then, that's self defense, right? right? Good glabrazu, you protect me. You're the only one I can trust, glabrazu."
After reading this, I literally exploded with laughter, getting my lunch all over the place, and now I have the hiccups, mixed with occasional bursts of giggle. Thanks, MDT.
Which is more like it. Your above description implied that his attitude would be more: "I'm going to be late for work if I don't run down these people, oh well, sucks to be them!" which perhaps you didn't intend.
Now I can't read this thread at all. I can't stop laughing.
the people getting eaten did not make me change his Alignment, it was the way he handled every thing else that game. It was not so much that i changed his Alignment he was not playing CG. the whole night would be hard to describe and even if I did half of you would think I was wrong and half would think i had good ground to shift his alignment one step away from CG. But any way i got some great input on the topic.
Just to let every one know the other player in this (who has been voyeuring this but not posting or even creating an account, creepy) agreed with me and was king of surprised by how the ranger acted during the game
The ranger who he heard from earlier still think I am a jerk but well play next time anyway.
Thank for the input, I am going to start a thread about Examples of Alignment. I think i will call it Examples of Alignment, so check it out, and keep the feed back on Shifting Alignment and how I am a jerk or how I am a great guy or hell keep posting random stuff so far this thread has had more mileage then the game that sparked it.
yay. another alignment thread.
Nobody is ever perfectly good or evil. You can be evil and do good things, or good and do evil actions.
I disagree. A good character will never perform an evil act.
Neither are good and evil symmetrical. Good is a much narrower path. You can't be anything but evil if you rob and murder for fun, even if you also do some good deeds as the fancy seizes you. Even CN should be considered evil if that kind of conduct is more than occasional.
Nobody is ever perfectly good or evil. You can be evil and do good things, or good and do evil actions.
I disagree. A good character will never perform an evil act.
Neither are good and evil symmetrical. Good is a much narrower path. You can't be anything but evil if you rob and murder for fun, even if you also do some good deeds as the fancy seizes you. Even CN should be considered evil if that kind of conduct is more than occasional.
QFT. It is much harder to be good than to be evil.
Did not want to make a new thread for this, but, I have to wonder:
My husband is running a pre-Kingmaker campaign for my (I strongly suspect formerly) bard priestess of Calistria/7. Last night in play, she was tricked by a pixie into entering the First World where an "ally" of a certain shady fey figure (C. Evil half-fiend Satyr) informed her that she would have the naughty pleasure of becoming his leash to bind the new king, but not before a few alterations involving some charms and really bad things perpetrated by dominated creatures. Important to note that she was charmed herself into thinking that C. Evil Satyr was her best friend, and meant her no harm. One of these dominated creatures was a pretty influential figure she had agreed to work for in the past whose timely arrival during the sacking of the town she was in saved her from a bad thing, obviously fallen on a bit harder times. It was established that he was acting strangely, and if he disobeyed C. Evil Satyr he would be punished, which is why she rather gave up trying to disobey herself, to "protect" him. As bad things started happening, she succeeded in casting detect charm and recognized that he was dominated and charmed out of his mind by C. Evil Satyr. She managed to charm him herself, and asked dominated figure to stop hurting her. C. Evil Satyr then began beating dominated figure, and mocked her for healing him, implying that there was no saving him. At that moment, a light appeared in the forest, and the previously forgotten pixie appeared with a single avenue of escape. In her mind, the pixie was begging her to run away, but she went to the dominated figure and tried to get him to run with her, but of course he wanted to stay with his new master. C. Evil Satyr had no trouble murdering the pixie while this exchange went on, then came back to the pair, dominated her and forced her to kill the man she tried to save.
My GM then faded to black, giving a brief description as to how C. Evil Satyr and his cadre of dominated "pets" entertained her weeks, and then informed me that my character had been "re-made," now counting as both fey and human and my alignment had been changed from Chaotic Good to Chaotic Neutral. My character previously was the very picture of an idiot who should have been following Cayden with a singular passion for protecting the underdog at her own expense, but now she no longer feels compelled to save anyone. I think the alignment change is a bit harsh. It was a WIS 8 move to try to get the dominated prince to run with her when the pixie was begging her to run, but she didn't do it with the intent of getting either party killed, which in all likelihood would have happened even had she escaped, just, not with her knowledge.
His words about it: "Feeding a dragon with your corpse so the child might live is also a good act."
@The smitter:
Totaly justified, he enslaved another being, which also was a demon, his fav. enemy.
Sure you can say "but i used it for good", but the story of good is not "using the easiest way".
Did they couldn't make it out for the "good" without the demon? then probably I would say... ok, but if they only want to make things easier for themself (even with the goal of "greater good"), this was an EVIL act, enslaving another being and allowing/introducing a evil outsider to remain in the material plane => EVIL
P.S.: Would like to see what happend if one of the players were a paladin. :)
There was some what long argument after I did this where the player said that he could not see how he did not act with in his Alignment. NOW am I being a jerk and overly harsh?
Two ways to approach... shift alignment (not my favored solution) or penalize for poor role playing (bingo).
Assuming his alignment is something else quite unrelated (say, LG for example), and he consistently performs acts which suggest another alignment, take the player aside and ask if he understands the role which he has chosen to play.
If he insists on consistently failing to role play his chosen alignment, I'd penalize him XP...
YMMV.
Did not want to make a new thread for this, but, I have to wonder:
My husband is running a pre-Kingmaker campaign for my (I strongly suspect formerly) bard priestess of Calistria/7. Last night in play, she was tricked by a pixie into entering the First World where an "ally" of a certain shady fey figure (C. Evil half-fiend Satyr) informed her that she would have the naughty pleasure of becoming his leash to bind the new king, but not before a few alterations involving some charms and really bad things perpetrated by dominated creatures. Important to note that she was charmed herself into thinking that C. Evil Satyr was her best friend, and meant her no harm. One of these dominated creatures was a pretty influential figure she had agreed to work for in the past whose timely arrival during the sacking of the town she was in saved her from a bad thing, obviously fallen on a bit harder times. It was established that he was acting strangely, and if he disobeyed C. Evil Satyr he would be punished, which is why she rather gave up trying to disobey herself, to "protect" him. As bad things started happening, she succeeded in casting detect charm and recognized that he was dominated and charmed out of his mind by C. Evil Satyr. She managed to charm him herself, and asked dominated figure to stop hurting her. C. Evil Satyr then began beating dominated figure, and mocked her for healing him, implying that there was no saving him. At that moment, a light appeared in the forest, and the previously forgotten pixie appeared with a single avenue of escape. In her mind, the pixie was begging her to run away, but she went to the dominated figure and tried to get him to run with her, but of course he wanted to stay with his new master. C. Evil Satyr had no trouble murdering the pixie while this exchange went on, then came back to the pair, dominated her and forced her to kill the man she tried to save.
My GM then faded to black, giving a brief description as to how C. Evil Satyr and his cadre of dominated "pets" entertained...
Do you think Zon-Kuthon chose to become evil, or did the great beyond change him in such a way that he had no choice?
I think the point of the alignment change here is that the Satyr actually changed you, not that your actions caused the change in alignment. Your physical nature is now different. Its supposed to be harsh. You are practically a new person. Your action in this part was good, if dumb, and the session sounds like a lot of fun.
If I were you, I would play the character as slightly broken, no longer understanding herself or the world arround her. Helping people only brings suffering to you or them, or both. You have to re-learn what it is to be nice to people, as this Satyr has taught you lessons that override it.
Overall, I do no have a problem with the GM doing what he did, but this comes down to one of the differences in play styles. Some players want the GM to provide a backdrop for the story and for them to interact with it, controlling everything about their characters. Other players want more active GMs that have more dirrect influence over the character. I don't think there is anything wrong with what your GM did, but it sounds like it is not the type of thing you want in your game. If your having fun though, I say go with it, think about how what happened changed your character's outlook on life, and perhaps shape the story into recovering the innocense and humanity you lost.
Yeah... hubby said it was the most retarded move he'd seen in his long history as GM.
That said, yeah, the little we played of it was extremely difficult. Her main antagonist appeared to her wearing some manner of let's say mink robe looking all flush and healthy and virile, and she still hated him, but not because he's an evil man who does "bad things," but just because he has little real merit outside his pretty peacock flesh, annoys her and may get in her way later.
He gave me the moment back, and we played out an alternate ending in which the homecoming is a great deal worse for my character as she was which is in some ways even more challenging, and now I'm not sure which avenue I really want to explore...
jeebus, paizo, PG is it now... *sigh*