So, seeing as alignment threads are everyone's favorite discussion topic, I figure I will start annother one. A lot of the debate I see is agravated by people having different views of how the alignment system should be applied.
Some people feel that the actions you take determine your alignment.
Some people feel that the reasons for your actions determine your alignment.
Some people feel that your characters philosphy on life determine your alignment
Some people feel that your character thinks and processes data determines your alignment.
Some people think how your character reacts to government determines the law vs chaos scale. Others put almost no importance on this, and look at how you organize your life. I take more of a Myers-Brigg approach with characters who are thinking, planning, and methodical being lawful and characters who are more emotional and spur of the moment being chaotic.
There are others out there, but I'm having trouble thinking of them right now. I'm wondering how you interpret alignment. What things do you put importance on? Do you hold different characters to the same standard, or does your standard vary based on the character? Personally, I look at each character seprately and try to figure out what is important to them.
I do not think everyone has to interpret alignment the same way, but it helps to understand why others interpret it differently. Otherwise, you can never have intelligent conversation. Not that alignment threads have much of that, but talking can never hurt.
For me, It is mostly Thought and Intent that Determine Alignment.
The Road to Hell, they say, is paved with Good Intentions. Action also is part of alignment. You can *believe* in freedom, happiness, etc as strongly as you like, but if every action you take pushes some other agenda, then do you really believe in those things?
In actual game play, however, the group I have been consistently playing with for 10 years views Alignment as a sort of 'Choose your Own Adventure' for which spells will really screw up your day. (Monks really, really hate 'Protection from Law')
|
My experience is that players pick what they think best suits their character based upon their own ideas, so the starting ideas around the table are pretty varied.
After that alignment doesn't come up beyond spell effects unless someone is clearly breaking with alignment, most of the type this boils down to: "Yeah, I guess he is a bit too chaotic for neutral good, better change that on the character sheet."
I have a gnome druid PC who is playing quite chaotic but we're all just conveniently overlooking it because the 'any neutral' requirement for a druid isn't interesting to us.
For us the good/neutral/evil axis is the one that matters and is actually interesting. Mostly lawful/chaotic ends up being a chance for people to (often inadvertently) bring their personal politics to the table.
I would be happy if they game only had three alignments (good/neutral/evil) as it would be one less peripheral, slightly silly stat to keep track of. However, I'm happy for it to remain for people who do use it.
Essentially, we have no systematic interpretation, we play it by ear.
Usually I have a personality and belief set in mind first, then I try to wedge that into an alignment. It has never been my favorite mechanic as even with the variations, real people and convincing characters aren't that cookie cutter. I feel like characters would be too cartoonish if alignment was a strict system, so everywhere except where there are concequences (paladin, monk, etc) its just a loose suggestion, and something there for the purpose of spells and effects that require it. Beyond that it is mostly ignored at my table, with all arguments counterpointed by various interpretations of batman to dissaude alignment discussion at the table.
|
Law/Chaos, to me is much less important than Good/Neutral/Evil.
I tend to look at good vs. neutral vs. evil as follows:
Your character comes across a kitten, do you:
A) Stomp kitten to death and laugh?
B) Ignore kitten?
C) Feed and pet kitten?
If A--evil
If B--neutral
If C--good
This is not perfect by any means, and probably doesn't explain it as well as I would like but meh...it's an alignment thread, it will be locked before the day's out.
Kevin, you outlined my thoughts on how I interpret alignment fairly well. In fact, I have played your Barbarian as a beguiler/warblade who ran for mayor. I played him as chaotic-good.
Kolokotroni, I have never really had an issue with giving someone an alignment. Characters, people I know, even Batman (I wont say what I give him to avoid turning this into a what alignment is Batman thread). I understand Batman can fit into many different ones, but a lot of that has to do with what style of alignment interpretation you are using. If you stick to 1 style, some styles break, while others will boil down to 1 or 2 depending on what interpreter feels influences him more.
As a general rule, I remove alignment restrictions from all classes except Paladin and Cleric, as I can justify any other class as any alignment using my system.
Your character comes across a kitten, do you:
A) Stomp kitten to death and laugh?
B) Ignore kitten?
C) Feed and pet kitten?
A: stupid evil
B: any alignmentC: any alignment, likes cats
As you note, there is a wide variety of opinion and there is really no "right way" to use alignment. Some people even run without alignments at all. I think however people do it, so long as they are internally consistent and the group agrees with how it is done, it's all good.
I actually like the alignment rules because they provide both some roleplaying clues for players (particularly inexperienced ones) and a reason for conflict, but I apply them loosely in most cases. In my fantasy worlds, things are more clearly drawn than in real life, and evil is a more palpable and easily identifiable thing. However, the vast majority of people are some shade of neutral and have no real alignment per se. Very few individuals would move the meter on a detect evil spell, for example. The exceptions are people like paladins, or clerics of deities that have strong alignments, or psychopaths and other BBEGs. People who play characters like that I expect to act their alignments pretty consistently. All others, I'm pretty loose with, and don't expect all actions to fall neatly within an alignment - everybody has off days and does things they later regret or wish they had done differently. It is the preponderance of their actions, and the honest (or dishonest) intent behind them that determine their alignment, not any single deed, unless it is extremely important. I very rarely unilaterally tell a PC their alignment has changed. Rather, I warn them when their alignments consistently differ radically from their alignment, and if the behavior continues, will sit down with them and discuss a voluntary alignment change. Paladins are a bit different, by the rules, but for them their individual code is just as, if not more important, than their alignment. Repeated violations of their code will cause them to lose their powers and require atonement, but plenty of warning should be given. Same could be true of clerics and others with strong faith-based powers, but I've never had cause to apply it.
I also, in most of my campaigns, do not allow evil characters, for two reasons, one practical and one personal. The practical reason is that experience has shown me that few people can convincingly play evil characters without being disruptive to the game and the group in general. PvP conflict and other disruptive behaviors frequently run hand in hand with evil alignments for PCs. The personal reason is that I prefer a version of high fantasy and the campaigns I run generally require some sort of altruistic, heroic motives on the part of the players to work well. In short I like my PCs to be really heroic and my villains to be really dastardly, and the contrast helps move the story along. Separate and apart from not allowing evil characters, I also usually encourage my groups not to include too much variation in alignment. A CN rogue and a LG monk or paladin frequently is not a good combination, unless endless PvP arguments are enjoyable for you.
|
Loose enough to compare it to throwing a hot dog into the Grand Canyon or spreading it on a croissant.
Good- tries to help others for no personal gain, tries to not harm the innocent
Neutral-does what they want to, usually nothing
Evil-tries to harm others, even if it requires a lot of set up and preparation
Lawful-obeys and tries to enforce the law, if they are in a position of authority, tries to keep their word
Chaotic-openly disregards the law, will disregard their word when it suits them, which is all the time.
Take note that none of them are absolute, a character who is lawful good can use chaotic or even evil means if it brings about a greater good or upholding of a more important law, like stealing medical supplies to save someone's life, though they will usually go back and replace the supplies or pay for them if they can, it's just not always an option.
|
|
I tend to see Law/Chaos as a means and Good/Evil as the goal.
A chaotic character wants the freedom to choose his actions with little to no interference. A lawful character wants a codified set of directives to detail what is and what is not appropriate. A Neutral character falls somewhere between - certain codes and laws are necessary if just to govern expectations but no more than is absolutely required.
An evil character is self-concerned before other interests. I purposely did not say selfish, self-absorbed, etc. An evil character can have friends (he should, particularly when they contribute to his pursuits). He pursues goals for their rewards. A good character concerns himself with the benefit of as many people as possible. He is capable of sacrifice to protect even more people (check out Churchill and Coventry for an example) but would do everything possible to avoid it. A Neutral character falls somewhere in the middle...
There's enough leeway that I don't think my definition is the only one. Alignment is one of the areas every GM customizes his game. The GM should decide how he's interpreting alignments and make sure he lets his players know.
Brian, I'm kind of the opposite in my campaign style. I like my campaign to have lots of grey. For instance, in a Star Wars game I played in, the Sith had an honest and noble goal. It was only through understanding their philosophy and examining beyond it that I finaly decided that my character was not a Sith, and while my ideals never changed, my alliegences went back and forth multiple times depending entirely on my views of law-chaos. In that game, Sith were Chaotic and Jedi were Lawful, and if you didn't understand why each side did what it did, the Jedi were definetely villians. I like having the opportunity to side with the bad guys because they may be right. I want my villians to be reallistic people, even if they are just misguided. Good characters can make just as despicable villians in my book, especially if you use the law-chaos scale. An angel who wants to enslave the world so people can't perform evil acts, but in the process gets rid of free will could be a great lawful-good villian, and I love the moral dilema that it places a paladin character in.
I use EVIL and evil in my campaign. Lots of of people are evil. Only a handful are EVIL. Your clasic Merchant of Venice style merchant is likely evil. Greedy, slightly vindictive, and only looking out for the people important to him. EVIL characters on the other hand are rare, but they delight in cruelty, oppression, power, or whatever floats their boat. The 6 fingered man in Princess Bride could be EVIL. I usually prefer to not have these as human characters, as I find them less believable, but demons/devils or magical beings are annother matter.
Generally, I treat allignment distributions as 1/2 neutral, 1/4 on either side.
Rocco jr, I like your definitions for both good/evil and law/chaos.
i view the alignment system as being the average of what the character does, i don't think the alignment system should be used as a heavy rule system that must be followed by 100% but rather the average actions your character makes. you can act out of alignment on a case by case basis but as long as you act according to alignment most of the time its all gravy.
I have a system of infraction points that I use. It is an attempt to codify and streamline the system for alignment drift used in Hackmaster (whose complexities I am sure where tongue-in-cheek).
Infraction points are 1-3 if you do something minor against one axis of your alignment (say you are playing a Lawful character and litter when its clearly against the law to do so). 4-7 points are garnered for minor infractions, but 8-10 or more for major ones. If you do something significant to support your alignment you either get no points or you can erase any infraction points you get.
Once someone has gained 10 or more infraction points, the points go away and the alignment is shifted one place. So a Lawful Good character who consistently acts in a chaotic manner will become Neutral Good. If they continue acting in a chaotic manner and get 10 more Chaos points they become Chaotic Good. Conversely, if they start behaving more Lawfully and get 10 Lawful points I can switch them back to Lawful Good.
Atonement spells will wipe out all infraction points, but they must pay and perhaps make some form of penance. This is basically so Lawful Good characters can do all kinds of underhanded things and then be really sorry about it and maintain their alignment as long as they can pay off the clerics (my game has a lot of espionage and this is kind of a Catholic inspired way of allowing the lawful good guys to do what they need to do and maintain their alignment - but this will not work for paladins and I will only allow it to be taken so far).
As it happens, I have noticed that it is very easy for characters to gain Evil infraction points as they give in to feelings of revenge and also military necessity. I have also noticed that those trying to maintain discipline in a military unity tend to gain Lawful points in spite of themselves.
|
|
i view the alignment system as being the average of what the character does, i don't think the alignment system should be used as a heavy rule system that must be followed by 100% but rather the average actions your character makes. you can act out of alignment on a case by case basis but as long as you act according to alignment most of the time its all gravy.
+1,000,000
|
|
+1,000,000i view the alignment system as being the average of what the character does, i don't think the alignment system should be used as a heavy rule system that must be followed by 100% but rather the average actions your character makes. you can act out of alignment on a case by case basis but as long as you act according to alignment most of the time its all gravy.
See, there's a rather fundamental problem with this approach - it means that serial killers / rapists aren't evil.
A guy lives by himself (or maybe has a wife and kids), goes to work every day, pays his taxes, buys presents for his kids, goes to church, donates to charity, maintains his lawn, and so on, but once every 3-6 months goes out and snatches someone off the street and kills them. That crazy fellow is EVIL; it doesn't matter that 99% of the time he's a decent friendly guy.
Alignment should be more than just the average of what you do. It shouldn't be just a "point-based" or "karmic-dept" system.
Being a game, however, a point-based method is handy, at least as a concept. If using points or steps or actions or some other method of tracking, evil acts should weigh significantly more than good acts. Being evil is easy, being a good person should require sacrifices (not that kind).
***
But really, the problem with alignment is that people want there to be a single universal truth, and there's not - there is no single right answer.
Alignment is not subjective - even if your character thinks the baby is possessed by a demon, killing, skinning, and roasting it is still wrong.
Alignment is also not objective - there is no single universal force that strictly and perfectly defines the nature of every possible act.
Alignment - morality - is fundamentally defined by the story you are trying to tell. If the story requires absolute morality, then it is so. If the story requires subjective morality, then so be it.
Alignment, ultimately, works however the GM and players agree that it works.
|
|
+1,000,000i view the alignment system as being the average of what the character does, i don't think the alignment system should be used as a heavy rule system that must be followed by 100% but rather the average actions your character makes. you can act out of alignment on a case by case basis but as long as you act according to alignment most of the time its all gravy.
See, there's a rather fundamental problem with this approach - it means that serial killers / rapists aren't evil.
A guy lives by himself (or maybe has a wife and kids), goes to work every day, pays his taxes, buys presents for his kids, goes to church, donates to charity, maintains his lawn, and so on, but once every 3-6 months goes out and snatches someone off the street and kills them. That crazy fellow is EVIL; it doesn't matter that 99% of the time he's a decent friendly guy.
This goes back to intent. Is he good the other 361-363 days of year to counterbalance his evil acts or is he genuinely good during those times and snaps every now and again. Furthermore, I would argue that serial killers and rapists cannot be defined by an alignment as they suffer from mental illness...they cannot be held fully responsible for their actions any more than a mentally handicapped individual could be.
Brian, I'm kind of the opposite in my campaign style. I like my campaign to have lots of grey. For instance, in a Star Wars game I played in, the Sith had an honest and noble goal. It was only through understanding their philosophy and examining beyond it that I finaly decided that my character was not a Sith, and while my ideals never changed, my alliegences went back and forth multiple times depending entirely on my views of law-chaos. In that game, Sith were Chaotic and Jedi were Lawful, and if you didn't understand why each side did what it did, the Jedi were definetely villians. I like having the opportunity to side with the bad guys because they may be right. I want my villians to be reallistic people, even if they are just misguided. Good characters can make just as despicable villians in my book, especially if you use the law-chaos scale. An angel who wants to enslave the world so people can't perform evil acts, but in the process gets rid of free will could be a great lawful-good villian, and I love the moral dilema that it places a paladin character in.
Different strokes. For me, I'm dealing with shades of gray and morally and ethically ambiguous situations all day long in my career, and don't really want to deal with that in my gaming, which is definitely an escape for me. I want clearly defined good guys and bad guys. In the immortal words of one of my characters when the DM was trying to involve us in a deep, twisted and ambiguous plot that would force unpalatable ethical choices on us: "This is making my brain hurt. Just point me at the bad guy so I can kill him." (This was not a highly intellectual character.) I like being the good guy, and relish the chance to open up a can of whup ass on somebody really despicable, probably because that is something I just don't get a chance to do in real life.
Hmmm...I seem to take a completely different twist on this topic.
Rather than a PC's actions/intents/motives dictating his alignment, I tend to reverse it and say a PC's alignment dictates his actions. Follow this for a moment:
When making a character sheet, you choose or randomly roll a huge list of things, from race/class to height/weight/age. Among these things is alignment. I don't see a lot of conversation like this: "Well, I really like the forests a lot, maybe I should change my race to elf." Or, "You know, I'm feeling kinda fat these days; perhaps I should increase my listed weight by 50 pounds."
At some level, all players must conform how they play to the data shown on their sheet. They can't insist that they can lift an elephant when they have a 10 STR; they can't continue walking around when they have 0 HP; and they can't wield a weapon they don't possess. So, being "straitjacketed" by something on the character sheet is a common situation.
In that light, I view alignment not as the aggregate of one's actions, but simply the mandate on the sheet, whether the player chose it, rolled it, or had it determined by another. I see the act of role-playing like an impromptu play, where the characters are defined, but the script hasn't been written yet. If you auditioned to play the part of Han Solo, but all your actions were altruistic, you'd be rightly accused of "breaking his alignment." As the DM, I'd say, "You're not playing your character correctly..."
Now, does this limit the player's choice of actions? Yes, in the same way that a 9 DEX limits his armor class (and thus his choice of actions in combat), just like a lack of skill ranks in Knowledge limits the amount of trivia he can contribute. If the character sheet says "female" you can't role-play a man; if it says halfling, you can't role-play as if you had a speed of 30; if it says Age=85 (and you're a human), you can't role-play a youth. Likewise, if it says "lawful neutral," you can't role-play chaos.
To me, the challenge of all good role-playing is working within the parameters given and making something believable, memorable, and enjoyable for all at the table. It is supremely fulfilling when that is accomplished.
I think if the conversation were turned around--rather than saying "what is my alignment," saying "am I following my alignment"--it would bring a different perspective on this tired subject.
Malachi, that is an interesting take. I don't agree with it, but it is still interesting.
The player picks his personality. the player decides how his character should act. Two people can take the same scripted character and play them completely differently. In many LARPs, players have pregenerated characters with backstories, but no 2 players will ever get the same thing out of a sheet. How they act within the constraints of their character is the one thing that is left up to the players, and I don't like to see that restricted based off of someone else's interpretation of their character. The first thing you do with your character is make him your own. And I like my characters to grow, so changing alignments in game should, I feel, be possible and natural.
Personality should determine actions. Personality should determine alignment. But alignment and actions I feel are 2 seprate things, and the alignment should not restrict actions. Actions may help to define your personality more, which in turn can change your alignment.
I agree with you, Caineach. Personality determines actions and all that. Perhaps it's a chicken/egg question: which comes first? Does one's alignment determine his actions, or does one's actions determine his alignment. I say the former; that is, alignment comes first.
From one's base alignment comes all sorts of decisions, feelings, motivations, and actions. Certainly, the alignment one begins with can change over time...take the classic example of Anakin Skywalker becoming Darth Vader. So, in one sense I would never tell a player that he cannot steer his character away from the listed alignment, but I would hope he has a reason for that. (I played a character once that made a life-altering decision that brought about an alignment change. It was a real epiphany for him, and made him perhaps one of my best-loved characters of all time.)
I also agree that two people playing the same scripted character will turn out a very different result (just ask anyone involved in casting for a play...or look at your local LARP). However, I believe the director of the play or the DM of the game has the right to say, "You're beginning to fall outside of the bounds of your script." A director might have a tighter rein on the actor in order to avoid rewriting the script, but a DM is free to allow that significant a change if he wants.
Anyway, that's just my take...I see role-playing more along the lines of "Here's what the dice/DM has given me, now what am I going to do with it?" It's not everybody's style; just mine.
And mine is better... ;-)
With rare exceptions I don't let players determine their starting alignement. I tell them to play the character how they want and I will determine their alignement based on how the character is played. I take into account both actions and intention when I'm doing it.
One of my characters considers herself to be Chaotic Good, but the truth is that she is more Neutral Neutral or even a bit Lawful Neutral.
With rare exceptions I don't let players determine their starting alignement. I tell them to play the character how they want and I will determine their alignement based on how the character is played. I take into account both actions and intention when I'm doing it.
One of my characters considers herself to be Chaotic Good, but the truth is that she is more Neutral Neutral or even a bit Lawful Neutral.
The problem I have with that is the person may be playing their character as they see chaotic good. I played a chaotic-good character who my entire party thought was lawful. He ran for mayor and won. The reason was that he had 1 motivating personality trait that played very obviously and was on the lawful side (family above all else), and that trait helped drive many of his public and obvious decisions. The things he did behind the scenes though, and what was going on in his mind, were all very chaotic. People thought he planned ahead, including the GM, when in reality he had almost no long term plans and took things as they came. If he planned ahead, maybe he wouldn't have been assassinated by the Paladin in game wrap (he struck first, we both died. Perfect end to the game).
I've always felt that what's good and evil is entirely subjective, generally people do what they feel is right. Take two sides in a war, both believe that they are the good guys and the other side is the bad guys. While they both might be stupid and self-righteous, it doesn't make either of them necessarily good or evil. Good and evil are opinions, most of which fall in a general consensus but opinions nonetheless. What's good and evil has more to do with intentions than with actual actions and must be judged (if judged) introspectively.
If a character breaks another character's arm to save someone it's good, if they did it just because they like breaking arms than it's an evil action that just happened to good result. The problem with this in games is that with this interpretation, even slave owning countries could have good intentions, yet it's still played out as evil.
Law and Chaos are easier to follow (though I just replace law with order in my subconscious). When I play a 'Lawful' character I play an orderly character. To me, order generally means that a character leans more towards calm and orderly conduct and will attempt to enact the law where applicable while a chaotic character is more inclined to ignore someone else's rules and do what they want or what they feel is empowered for them to do. While neutral is in the middle.
If there is a character working for the law who likes to toss people in cages and hurt people. They can end up cleaning the streets of thugs and bringing law to a town while remaining true to their chaotic evil self.
That's why as a Paladin, I can detect evil on the streets, but that's not enough reason for me to go slay them; there's no law against being evil.
So, seeing as alignment threads are everyone's favorite discussion topic, I figure I will start annother one. A lot of the debate I see is agravated by people having different views of how the alignment system should be applied.
Some people feel that the actions you take determine your alignment.
Some people feel that the reasons for your actions determine your alignment.
Some people feel that your characters philosphy on life determine your alignment
Some people feel that your character thinks and processes data determines your alignment.
Some people think how your character reacts to government determines the law vs chaos scale. Others put almost no importance on this, and look at how you organize your life. I take more of a Myers-Brigg approach with characters who are thinking, planning, and methodical being lawful and characters who are more emotional and spur of the moment being chaotic.
There are others out there, but I'm having trouble thinking of them right now. I'm wondering how you interpret alignment. What things do you put importance on? Do you hold different characters to the same standard, or does your standard vary based on the character? Personally, I look at each character seprately and try to figure out what is important to them.
I do not think everyone has to interpret alignment the same way, but it helps to understand why others interpret it differently. Otherwise, you can never have intelligent conversation. Not that alignment threads have much of that, but talking can never hurt.
actually i think alignment in reality is a combination of ALL those reasons above. The main problem is and will always will be is that everyone has there own idea of what this or that alignment is. another problem is people focus on only ONE aspect or reason. in ex- opinion 1"no thats not how that alignment is because of the intent it doesn't matter the reason". Opinion 2 "no that act is not that alignment because of the reason in this case, it doesn't matter his intent". when in actuality there both right! Usually the biggest problems over alignment happens though because the GM and the player have different opinions on what a specific means alignment. And being a GM i can say that if a problem like that arises it's 100% the GM's fault. as an earlier poster mentioned the GM NEEDS to explain to the players his views on what each alignment means in HIS campaign. Lastly people try to rationalize the 9 alignments into real life-good luck with that!. i use and envision alignment only as being viable in THE GAME.
now more to the topic at hand. I'm not going to answer the thread as asked precisely as it really doesn't matter how I INTERPRETE alignment so much as how i use it in my campaign.
I use alignment how I THINK it was designed to be used. As a guideline to help build a general idea of how the character MIGHT normally act, to help build a roleplaying basis, to help determine a characters interaction with other character. my method is similar in reasoning to roccojr but slightly more complex and detailed.
1) i use the core book's descriptions of alignments as a basis combined with my own theory. i Use good/evil as there moral compass and law/chaos more associated with personality. Morality being the primary alignment trait with apposing acts the only one i truly hold a characters choices accountable for.
2) i always clearly describe my opinion on all the alignments and how they will be handled in my campaign before characters are made.
3)once character alignments are chosen i ask each player to write down WHY he is, or chooses to follow his selected alignment. Then i ask them to write down traits there characters have so i know what there characters are truely like and how close they actually are to there alignment as written in the core book. Since i use law/chaos more as a personality trait players may actually select qualities from law or chaos-with the majority of traits determining his axis. If there is no majority or only slightly leans law or chaos i determine neutrality. If the players determined alignment in this manor differs than what the players has actually chosen and wrote down i advise the player to take the determined alignment and explain to him why.
example- jeff has made up Zorn the halfling rogue. he know he wants him to be good and chooses chaotic good. he then writes down some traits to describe his character. he wants him to be care free and aloof ,and somewhat reckless (not by choice but because he wants to RP his low wisdom that seems to get him into trouble), he wants him to have a short attention span and often just goes along with whatever the party chooses. thats +3 towards choas.
one the law side he wants Zorn to be exremely loyal to the party who are his friends. Zorn also usually tries to obey the law and stay out of trouble even though he's a rogue. his character has no problems making money or even "acquiring it" so much as it done legaly so as to not get his friends into trouble. He wants Zorn to be trustworthy as well. thats +3 for law
Morally Zorn tries to help people, especially those in need. his character often donates to the poor wealth acquired from evil men and monsters so it goes to a good cause. He hates evil monsters and fights against evil but Zorn also knows when to run and will not sacrifice himself.
after totaling up his traits i advise jeff that Zorn might be better played as neutral good and he agrees and chooses that instead of CG.
This way has worked really well with my players and set at ease issues a character might have when he does or believes in things that are important to both law and chaos but thats how the player wants to play his character. with this system im more lenient as well to penalize players for doing things that are law or choas. for example if a character has a LG Paladin and disobeys the king to go do a really good deed he's not going to suddenly loose his LG alignment and suffer penalties for this one act.
4)though a believe that alignment is a combination of the the views Caineach provided i focus more on actions as it's harder to know exactly what a player characters reasoning, philosophy, or intent is in the game unless he flat out tells you or you ask every single decision he makes-WHY? which would completely bog the game down.
4)As mentioned earlier i only rationalize alignment within the aspect of the game. what is right or wrong, good or evil, law or chaos in the REAL world really has no barring in the game world.
5)I try to avoid cases that TEST a characters alignment or put them at odds with it. alignment is fickle as it is without a GM challenging a players alignment and making it feel like a burden. though i may occasionally have an adventures where the party finds there on the wrong side i try to test alignment as a whole and not single out only one character.
After 20 years of gaming, I have at least 3 views on alignment (and a long post - sorry:
1 roleplaying: as a player, my chosen alignment is a MESSAGE TO THE GM about what kind of moral choices i want to make and what kind of moral conflicts i want to be challenged with.
(lawful good=i want to be a loyal and virtuous hero, but will be conflicted when my rightful liege commands me punish innocents. chaotic good=i want to fight evil and corruption whenever and however i choose, but i will be conflicted if i need to cooperate with evildoers to reach a larger goal etc.)
2 npc motivations: as gm, alignments are good as guidelines to behaviour. My LE villains behave very differently from NE or CE ones.
3 gamemechanics: the *only* mechanical effect of alignment is detection/protection/smite spells. Put bluntly, munchkins may choose alignments just to min/max abjuration and healing.
one possible solution is this:
I really like, and continue to use, Monte Cooke's alignment system in IIRC the Book of Divine Might. There is not neutral and there's a scale for each component from 1 to 10. The result is that alignments become subscriped. L1G1 doesn't even show up on Detect Good or Law, whereas L2E9 takes double damage from Holy sources.
My own solution has been to make alignment 'objective' by linking it very strongly to religion and the celestial war. Basically ANY alignment means you have 'sold your soul' to the respective divine faction, think of the gods playing a wargame: alignment is the colour of your piece.
-If you don't act properly there may be retribution (from smiting to lack of interest in helping).-You can defect (ie formally change alignment), but that requires a bit of work.
-non-aligned players are allowed, but only aligned players get an afterlife to be brought back from.
This logically(?) explains *why* detect/smite/protect works like it does, and why your actions nay not match the written alignment.
Also it allows for characters like, the basically nice guy who was given to evil as a baby, and is forced by his deities (by threats or compulsion) to commit evil against his will. (refusing would not just get him killed, but automatically send him to an evil afterlife where the deities are personally pissed at him)
oh, and obviously it allows for the selfish, obnoxious paladin who loves violence but is punished by his god every time he goes too far. The poor gods have to play the game with the pieces they got, but can easily be a lot annoyed with their own flock than with their enemies.
finally, testing alignments is no trouble, whether it is "you must be lawful to pass" or "i'm putting you in a dillemma to see what you do - and your god is watching".
Emulating alignment (use magic device skill) is similarly all about tricking your enemies and serving the greater <good/evil/neutral/law/chaos>
...but in the end it is your game. You paid for it, you can play however you want.
I've always felt that what's good and evil is entirely subjective, generally people do what they feel is right.
This is where all the argument starts. I agree btw, but as a game mechanic alignment has to be objective.
No-one thinks they're the bad guy. And 'naturalisation' comes second nature to people. Everyone does it. Whether it's justifying your actions based on circumstances, or by thinking that it's a 'victimless' crime and insurance will pay for it, or telling ourselves why it's ok to have that junk food, we all justify our day to day decisions.
If my assassin character infiltrates a good organisation to get close to his mark, and does enough Good acts (in order to be accepted and trusted) he will become Neutral and eventually Good.
He may then a) committ the assassination and turn back to Evil (and be able to continue levelling as an Assassin); or
b) continue his path to redemption.
In short it doesn't matter the justification, do enough evil acts and you'll become Evil.
Or, the path to Hell is paved with good intentions.
In short it doesn't matter the justification, do enough evil acts and you'll become Evil.
Well, there's a difference between justification and intent.
If your character is doing things so he can get into an organization so he can kill the leader it falls into why he wants to kill the leader, if it's simply for money or because he enjoys evil then it doesn't matter what he does to get there, his base intent is evil. If along the way he decides that doing good things actually feels good or begins to regret harming people, that's when his alignment would shift, because his intent for doing things is shifting.
Like I've said before, people may claim to be good what they do ends up benefiting society, but they may just be using it as an excuse to carry out their malicious intentions in a non-disruptive way.
In the end, it's up to the DM to decide what's good and what's evil. But I like my interpretation of it, it allows for the BBEG to actually be a good character and the one who's maintaining peace to be an evil guy. Then again I've always been a fan of studying the grey areas.
|
|
I just spent an entire 5 month campaign dutifully watching a chaotic evil kender rogue/cleric do nothing worse than stealing from people. Never once did he get called out on it, except by me. Every time that character tried to do something I was, literally, hovering over it. I even made it give back everything it stole.
|
|
I just spent an entire 5 month campaign dutifully watching a chaotic evil kender rogue/cleric do nothing worse than stealing from people. Never once did he get called out on it, except by me. Every time that character tried to do something I was, literally, hovering over it. I even made it give back everything it stole.
Your choice of avatar is quite appropriate.
|
|
Your choice of avatar is quite appropriate.
Trust me, I know. I'm even my group's one sane person. I use a two-handed weapon (admittedly a bow) and I'm one of the best in combat. Archer paladins are....way more optimal builds than I thought it would be when I started it, I'm a little ashamed of it to be honest.
No-one thinks they're the bad guy. And 'naturalisation' comes second nature to people. Everyone does it. Whether it's justifying your actions based on circumstances, or by thinking that it's a 'victimless' crime and insurance will pay for it, or telling ourselves why it's ok to have that junk food, we all justify our day to day decisions.
This doesn't take into account the true sociopath or psychopath. The sociopath's brain is just wired differently. They have no conscience, and thus see no need to "justify" anything they do. They are merely doing what comes naturally to them or what they see is in their best interest, and the consequences for others are meaningless to them. The psychopath's brain is even more radically different, and their twisted views of reality lead to truly bizarre decision-making that for practical intents and purposes does amount to choosing to do evil.
I've always felt that what's good and evil is entirely subjective, generally people do what they feel is right.
I also agree that this is where all the arguments start, because there are a whole lot of people who believe that good and evil are entirely objective in real life, not just in the the gaming system. Indeed, people do what they "feel" is right, but somewhere along the scale of escalating horridness, we each recognize that his actions were, in fact, NOT right, regardless of his feelings. The argument comes from each of us drawing that line of objectivity at vastly different points.
Certainly, the game fairly requires objectivity towards good/evil and law/chaos; there are ways to detect these things after all, and so it follows that it must be detectable. PCs and monsters walking around with palatable auras of a certain alignment demonstrate the objective nature of alignment within the game. Any DM may disregard this (and some do), opting for a more free-flowing, nebulous idea of alignments, but that requires reworking or disregarding the methods of detection.
Those who believe that good/evil and law/chaos are objective in real life will be able to use the game system as designed without much internal wrangling. Those who take a more subjective approach to life may rankle at the in-game notion that good and evil can be defined, and they will be more apt to alter things.
I played in a game where the DM had each player write down his definitions of good, evil, law, and chaos; how their character fits into their definitions; and a general overview of their character. He then had detection spells key off of each individual person's value set. It required very little rework of the system to have a completely subjective mechanic.
The Paladin who defined evil as not following his god was very powerful, and he was an NPC.
Well, there's a difference between justification and intent.
If your character is doing things so he can get into an organization so he can kill the leader it falls into why he wants to kill the leader, if it's simply for money or because he enjoys evil then it doesn't matter what he does to get there, his base intent is evil. If along the way he decides that doing good things actually feels good or begins to regret harming people, that's when his alignment would shift, because his intent for doing things is shifting.
Would you rule that a Paladin tricked into doing an Evil act does not fall from grace as they had good intention?
In the end, it's up to the DM to decide what's good and what's evil. But I like my interpretation of it, it allows for the BBEG to actually be a good character and the one who's maintaining peace to be an evil guy. Then again I've always been a fan of studying the grey areas.
This is possible (and realistic) anyway.
BBEG = CG
Peaceholder = LE (Hellknight is a prime example)
I certainly feel it is a player's right to play a character who believes that the ends justify the means, but if , for example, a Paladin in my campaign tortures someone for ANY REASON, no matter how many lives it saves, they will be losing their Paladin abilities.
I don't interpret it for my players. I have them explain their reasoning behind the alignment if it is called into question. In my setting, alignment is partly a matter of opinion as well, so if a cleric believes you're evil, he can affect you in that way. A paladin, likewise, which is why they're given a thorough understanding of ethics during their training.
This makes detection spells reflect the general opinion of you: If you're a nobody, even if you murder people daily for fun and profit, you won't come up as evil.
That and my players are good about asking if someone is evil after the paladin detects, but then not simply blending them into a fine paste if they are.
Eventually, if they act in a particular way, the NPCs can see them as something other than what they believe they are. This will let a paladin retain his powers even if he should have fallen long ago.
Funny that serial killers should come into the discussion, considering that all adventurers are murderers and thieves (Well, the stereotypical ones), what effect should that have on their alignment if any? What effects does this have on the plausability of the game?
I certainly feel it is a player's right to play a character who believes that the ends justify the means, but if , for example, a Paladin in my campaign tortures someone for ANY REASON, no matter how many lives it saves, they will be losing their Paladin abilities.
What if they're under the effects of a domination spell?
Would you rule that a Paladin tricked into doing an Evil act does not fall from grace as they had good intention?Well, there's a difference between justification and intent.
If your character is doing things so he can get into an organization so he can kill the leader it falls into why he wants to kill the leader, if it's simply for money or because he enjoys evil then it doesn't matter what he does to get there, his base intent is evil. If along the way he decides that doing good things actually feels good or begins to regret harming people, that's when his alignment would shift, because his intent for doing things is shifting.
You see, this is a misconception I find very common. The Paladin does not fall because his alignment changes. The Paladin falls because he violates his personal code of conduct. He is sworn to an oath which gives him righteous power. When he violates that oath, he loses that power. Theoretically, a Paladin can promote evil all day long while doing only good acts without violating his code. He has to believe what he is doing is good though, otherwise he would not be a good person and could not draw from the righteousness of the power. Once he realized that what he was doing was in fact evil, he would fall likely fall, since it would likely bring about a crisis of faith. If instead he then struggles to right this great wrong, immediately, I probably wouldn't have him fall.
I certainly feel it is a player's right to play a character who believes that the ends justify the means, but if , for example, a Paladin in my campaign tortures someone for ANY REASON, no matter how many lives it saves, they will be losing their Paladin abilities.What if they're under the effects of a domination spell?
Then they didn't torture anyone. Their dominator did. A dominated character is a tool or a weapon. Neutral in regards to all of your actions.
Though if I were playing a paladin who was dominated into torturing and killing someone close to me him, even if the GM didn't do it, I would ask for them to declare it an evil act as any Paladin I would play would likely feel he had let his friends, his deity, and himself down.
|
Whenever this question comes up, I usually find myself arguing with people who hate alignments either in and of themselves (Largely because of players getting confused and taking the wrong position on the Stupid axis (see http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupid for instance), or who hate the idea of mechanics tied to alignments (No non-lawful monks? You're telling me noone can do martial arts unless they're lawful? Also the requirement for paladins does tend to result in some folks playing Lawful Stupid).
Primarily, I think Alignments relate to characters in two ways:
1. It is a definition of their actions assigned after-the-fact, not (barring situations like a Paladin's code) a requirement. Someone who runs around stabbing people for lulz is behaving in a chaotic evil manner. But they are not doing it _because_ they are chaotic evil -- they are chaotic evil _because_ they do such things.
2. For idealistic characters of all stripes, it can be a goal to live up to. In this respect, it _does_ shape a character's behavior.
Note that in both respects, each alignment can represent more than one narrow viewpoint. For example:
The member of the Fraternity of Order who believes that all laws are important for their own sake and they should avoid breaking them, and the honorable warrior who believes that following his own set of laws (but _not_ necessarily anyone else's) is the best path in life, and the obstructive bureaucrat who believes a rigid focus on law and order is the only thing keeping society from collapsing -- All three of them are Lawful Neutral in different ways.
Alignments in a nutshell:
Good people put others before themselves.
Evil people are willing to actively hurt others to help themselves.
Neutral people may put themselves before others, but won't proactively harm others solely for their own benefit (self-defense excepted).
Lawful people believe rules are very important, and act consistently according to their chosen rules.
Chaotic people don't like rules, and free-spiritedly change their mind from time to time.
(Example: A chaotic good hero might be just as likely to talk to an enemy or fight him, as suits his mood at the time -- A lawful good hero will have a rules like 'violence is the last resort' or 'I do not negotiate with terrorists' which determine his choice every time).
Neutral people don't really care either way... They will take or leave rules as benefits them -- On this axis they're like a weaker chaotic, the distinction being that they do not mind rules and structure in and of themselves, only disliking them if they have some reason to dislike the specific rules in question.
Alignments in a nutshell:
Good people put others before themselves.
Evil people are willing to actively hurt others to help themselves.
Neutral people may put themselves before others, but won't proactively harm others solely for their own benefit (self-defense excepted).Lawful people believe rules are very important, and act consistently according to their chosen rules.
Chaotic people don't like rules, and free-spiritedly change their mind from time to time.
(Example: A chaotic good hero might be just as likely to talk to an enemy or fight him, as suits his mood at the time -- A lawful good hero will have a rules like 'violence is the last resort' or 'I do not negotiate with terrorists' which determine his choice every time).
Neutral people don't really care either way... They will take or leave rules as benefits them -- On this axis they're like a weaker chaotic, the distinction being that they do not mind rules and structure in and of themselves, only disliking them if they have some reason to dislike the specific rules in question.
+1
Some people feel that the actions you take determine your alignment.Some people feel that the reasons for your actions determine your alignment.
Would fall into The action people take, and why they thought that way when the action was taken.
|
|
Okay, now I read over the thread.
Re: Malachi and alignment determining action:
I don't like this idea, though I think there's a bit of merit to it.
Yes, the guy with 10 STR can't do really heavy lifting. But he can work out and get stronger (Admittedly, the game mechanics represent this poorly -- a +1 increase every few levels... This is because, generally, if someone wants to be strong, either they did it in their background already, or they use magic to do it now. Who wants to play the weak fat guy who's sick of being out of shape? That said, if someone wanted this kind of development, I'd reccomend they start with sub-par ability scores, then be allowed to improve them faster, or all at once after a character-redefining decision and some downtime).
Basically, people can change. That's called character development. However... Changing is not easy. If someone does something dramatically 'against their alignment', I would ask them to rethink if they're _sure_ their character would do that, and explain their reasoning. (It may be that the player is having an off day or something). However, if they can explain it, they should be allowed to do it. Whether one action changes their alignment depends on how significant it was, and how they react to it. If a good character takes candy from the Evil jar and then is horrified at their own actions and set forth to atone for it, always regretting their mistake... They're probably not changing alignment. If however, they decide that man doing things this way is so much easier, and there's no way they could go back now... They are likely on the path to evil.
On inadvertent acts:
Paladin's Code aside, if a character is tricked into doing something against their usual predispositions, or accidentally takes a counter-alignment action for in-alignment reasons, their reaction determines how it affects their alignment. Someone gave the example of an evil character who goes around hurting others who accidentally kills someone even worse and saves a lot of people. There are a few possibilities here:
1. The feeling of having actually helped people is nice, and he wants to try more of this. He's probably on his way to becoming a Noble Demon-type or maybe even outright redeeming himself into a good guy.
2. The praise and rewards given to him are pretty sweet, he should try to get this more often. His motivation isn't different, he's just found a new way to express it. Staying evil (Although on a course of behavior that may allow possibility 1 to eventually occur in the future)
3. He goes on his merry way, never finding out that he inadvertantly saved a town or whatever. Or, neither the warm fuzziness of a good act nor the praise and rewards make an impression. Either way, staying evil.
Now the other way around! A paladin determines that cowardly assassinating a tyrant is the only way to do a great good for the oppressed people -- Trying to change the system, or face him in honorable combat, just won't work. (Or perhaps he's a newbie paladin not as devoted to his code as he should be and tries to take the easy way out)
0. He broke his code, he is losing his paladin powers whichever way he goes.
1. He constantly questions whether that was really the right thing to do. Could he have found another way if he'd tried harder? Will this be teaching people the wrong example? He's let his god and his order down, but he still holds the same ideals. He will stay LG and seek atonement.
2. That was pretty liberating. Sure he no longer has holy powers, but with his new freedom, maybe he doesn't need them. Now he can get things done. If the only lawful thing about him was following the Paladin's Code, he is likely shifting over to Neutral or Chaotic. He may hold other lawful beliefs and behavior outside the code that keep him lawful, however.
3. Now that he's done this 'bad' deed, how can he ever go back? Atoning would be too hard, and he's not sure he wants to anyway. He may as well look for other ways to do things more easily. Depending on how much of his ideals he loses and discards, he could end up anywhere on the alignment chart.
On intent vs action:
Again, _reaction_ is also important, because it can affect the character's motivation in the future. However, intent wins: Someone who always tries to do the right thing and, through sheer bad luck, keeps causing bad consequences, is still Good (If they weren't, they'd stop caring enough to try. Note that this character is so colossally unlucky that their attempt to become a hermit so as to avoid accidentally hurting people _still_ manages to backfire). Bad luck is not the same as negligence and carelessness. If you don't care about others enough to motivate you to be more careful in your 'good' acts, are you really Good?
This also includes _all_ the intent: "I will sacrifice this child to seal away the demon so he will stop terrorizing the village" does include the intent to seal a demon and save a village, but it _also includes_ the intent to _sacrifice a child_, which is Not Good. If the situation was really so bad that that was the character's only choice, their reactions should be pretty interesting: Will they completely stop caring, or seek to atone for their horrible action?
How all this affects a detect alignment spell is up to the GM. I would have it depend on the character's current beliefs and motivations, however, this is not conducive to some plots like 'Character did great evil in the past, and must now do an equal amount of good before he dies to switch which afterlife he goes to and what he detects as'
Law vs Chaos is Complicated
It is. Good vs Evil seems more clear-cut.
How you try to affect other people determines your goodness.
Law vs Chaos on the other hand...
You can be lawful in following the rules of others
You can be lawful in having your own principles
You can be lawful in being ordered about what you do -- planning ahead, being organized, etc
You can be lawful in believing that order itself is important for some reason.
This muddies the waters somewhat.
In the examples I gave above,
The Guvner believes order itself is important, and in following the rules of others. They're probably also very methodical about their own actions, but I can imagine an 'absent-minded professor' type who tries but fails at that. They may or may not have their own principles on top of that -- perhaps following the rules given to them is enough.
The warrior-with-a-code has his own principles, and may believe that having principles in and of itself is important, but doesn't necessarily care for the rules of others and may not plan ahead.
The bureaucrat likes having rules to follow, and may believe that having rules is what holds society up, and will probably be extremely well-organized, but they may not have their own principles beyond following the laws of others -- As long as they can get by following the rules, they could be just as happy in some _other_ lawful society with different rules.
A lot of 'chaotic good' heroes have principles, but don't follow others' rules, and don't plan ahead much or bother with being organized, and couldn't care less about 'order'.
That particular lawful component seems to be okay for chaotic characters to have, but I can't say why except that there is this idea of the chaotic guy who has _some_ principle to follow, and also because being Chaotic _and_ good or evil means adopting higher principles or deciding not to care about others.
Heck, a person has to have at least a _little_ order and consistency to be a personality and not just be an insane blob. Even someone devoted to 'chaos' as an ideal may be _consistently trying to impose chaos on others_, or at least _trying to behave randomly on purpose_!
I'm not really sure where I'm going with this or what the answer is, except to show how complicated it is. Basically, it's possible to be lawful and chaotic in different ways, so either we need more axes or a scoring system.
That said, as a general guideline:
'Chaotic' people don't like having rules imposed on them or having to work within someone else's rules, even if the rules aren't opposed to their good/evil beliefs, and may believe that imposing rules on folks in general is undesirable in some way. (Chaotic Good folks might, for instance, believe that even well-intentioned order will eventually have bad results (ie, failing to help poor folks caught in bureaucratic rules, being unable to stop an evildoer because of the laws). On the other hand, they might also believe that order is fine for other folks but just not for _them_ -- the latter variety are more likely to put up with some laws temporarily for the sake of accomplishing a greater goal)
'Lawful' people, on the other hand, like rules (not necessarily _all_ rules) and believe law is important in some way. They may follow their own rules, or someone else's rules. They may take rule-following as a personal thing, or believe it is something others should do as well. (A lawful good person may believe that only through a set of laws can a good society be maintained -- After all, a good dictator may do a great job, but what happens when he gets sick or dies? Or when his nation becomes too big for him to manage? There may be some problems with the laws, but they will be carefully examined and changed if needed -- a few people's inconvenience is the price of a stable good-doing society -- On the other hand, they may view it as a personal thing -- others may be happy without a code to follow, but their own rules are comforting and provide them guidance in uncertain times)
On the troublesome corner-case of the character who has a very few rules but is otherwise 'chaotic' in behavior... It's harder to say. The more easily they're willing to break the rule in extenuating circumstances, the more certainly they are 'chaotic'. Beyond that, it's hard to say. If anyone else has insight on this, please share!
after seeing the post before mine, I'll try to keep it short:
Law = character has a clear guideline that will tell him how to act in at least some situations. It is most clearly lawful, if those guidelines are defined by someone else and upheld by choice.
Chaotic = the character has no clear guideline, he acts as he sees fit, tough he might have principles or goals, they are quite abstract, and far from absolute.
Good = he helps the majority, if he steals( from the rich), he should spent plenty (not bargain) and thus regive to society. Hampering evil is good, but a bit optional, you don't have to risk your life for it. He doesn't hurt more than needed to achieve his goals.
Evil = You take what you can, when you don't see the people getting hurt, or they can't hinder you. Hurting people is okay, if it doesn't bring you in trouble with people who are stronger than you.
I know that this opinion might not be the same as described in the rulebook, or as some of you might have.
But you asked me how I interpret alignement, and this is how. I tend to be very broad in the interpretation, so a LG rogue can steal.
Law/Chaos, to me is much less important than Good/Neutral/Evil.
I tend to look at good vs. neutral vs. evil as follows:
Your character comes across a kitten, do you:
A) Stomp kitten to death and laugh?
B) Ignore kitten?
C) Feed and pet kitten?If A--evil
If B--neutral
If C--good
D) Devour kitten burp up a hair ball look for a second kitten.
If D--Hungry