|
Actually, it is.
-- If your character sheet says "LG" but your play style is thoroughly CN, then guess what?
<DM takes character-sheet; makes a quick alteration using a pen>
Oooo....you were a paladin?
Ouch.
No. That's not how it works. If your character sheet is LG, but your playstyle is more CN, your GM informs you of this. Then, maybe after that session, the two of you talk about what you see Alignment as meaning, and come to a basic agreement on what LG means for that character.
Then, if you can't reach an agreement, or the player doesn't keep to it, the GM changes your Alignment to CG, then (if you keep doing non-good things as well as Chaotic ones) he shifts it to CN. All over the course of several sessions at the very least.
Or at least that's the way it works in games I run. Or play in. Because the GM being a dick? Even to players who deserve it? Not so much with the being fun.
.
.
.
And to clarify, I'm not saying your Alignment isn't important. Far from it. Just that it shouldn't be the be-all end-all of your roleplaying, and that nobody except maybe Paladins is perfectly their alignment at all times.
|
|
The next time I politely request that the DM "talk to me later" after informing me that my paladin has fallen as a consequence of the play decisions I made, I'm sure he'll easily be able to contain his laughter.
And, if it's one of those sneaky modules, I'm sure he won't point to the specific box of "consequences" text which spells out exactly what happens if monks or paladins make a deal with the demon, or the bard voluntarily goes along with a devil's scheme.
The Atonement rules exist for a reason.
Because the GM being a dick? Even to players who deserve it? Not so much with the being fun.
I know; I understand the rationales -- I hear 'em all the time.
The truth of the matter is that a good 80% of teenage boys (especially) want to play a chaotic-evil squirt without honestly labeling him as such.
"He's a monk!" "He's a paladin!"
Uh, sure he is.
Those classes are rewards for restraining your impulses.
Can they do that?
We'll see.
Additionally: there's an educational aspect to this game (3.5 > Pathfinder) which I promote whenever possible: actions have consequences, and both valor and duplicity receive (eventually, if not immediately) the rewards which they are due. The setting (medieval fantasy) may permit you to "get away" with more blatantly evil nonsense than you would in real life, but the consequences should catch up with it -- and (here's the important part) if the DM doesn't do that, then he's not doing a full job.
Almost every town has a city guard -- well, what do they do in your campaign? Exist solely as an excuse to call for Stealth checks? Oh, dear; you are really underusing these guys. For instance, if your PCs rob and/or murder some poor bastard, is not the crime reported? Do not gears of justice begin to grind? Does gossip not spread, sometime faster than the PCs travel from town to town? If the ravage & ruin PCs easily best the defenses of several small towns, is not the liege of the realm informed, and does he not send a large detachment of battle-hardened troops to deal with the outbreak of banditry?
Imagine the fun you could have.
|
|
The next time I politely request that the DM "talk to me later" after informing me that my paladin has fallen as a consequence of the play decisions I made, I'm sure he'll easily be able to contain his laughter.
And, if it's one of those sneaky modules, I'm sure he won't point to the specific box of "consequences" text which spells out exactly what happens if monks or paladins make a deal with the demon, or the bard voluntarily goes along with a devil's scheme.
Because the GM being a dick? Even to players who deserve it? Not so much with the being fun.I know; I understand the rationales -- I hear 'em all the time.
No, see, the GM makes that request. And way before behavior's gotten to the point where you actually need an Alignment shift. Which is sorta my point, really. Preventative medicine and all that.
The truth of the matter is that a good 80% of teenage boys (especially) want to play a chaotic-evil squirt without honestly labeling him as such.
"He's a monk!" "He's a paladin!"
Uh, sure he is.
Those classes are rewards for restraining your impulses.
Can they do that?
We'll see.
Well, let's see, this has never been true in a game I've run, and I started out running games in High School for other High School guys, so I'm not just whistling Dixie here. Are they occasionally a dick? Sure. Do they often stop if told. "You do know that's evil, right?" Why yes, yes they do. When they don't stop, do bad things happen to them? Why yes, they do.
Additionally: there's an educational aspect to this game (3.5 > Pathfinder) which I promote whenever possible: actions have consequences, and both valor and duplicity receive (eventually, if not immediately) the rewards which they are due. The setting (medieval fantasy) may permit you to "get away" with more blatantly evil nonsense than you would in real life, but the consequences should catch up with it -- and (here's the important part) if the DM doesn't do that, then he's not doing a full job..
The player who complains about my huge "karma stick" doesn't seem to feel I'm not doing this*.
Almost every town has a city guard -- well, what do they do in your campaign? Exist solely as an excuse to call for Stealth checks? Oh, dear; you are really underusing these guys. For instance, if your PCs rob and/or murder some poor bastard, is not the crime reported? Do not gears of justice begin to grind? Does gossip not spread, sometime faster than the PCs travel from town to town? If the ravage & ruin PCs easily best the defenses of several small towns, is not the liege of the realm informed, and does he not send a...
Okay, see, I think we have a failure to communicate here: I have no problem with in-world effects of player behavior coming due immediately. That's how the game needs to work for suspension-of-disbelief gets maintained after all. I've had PCs arrested, murdered, even tortured on occasion (I had a mob boss cut out a guy's eye once...he murdered a priest. The Mob's Catholic, man.) for things they did in game. This happens.
What doesn't happen is me arbitrarily changing their character's stats (at least, not in ways external forces can't...the lost eye totally had some minor stat effects) without at least talking with them. GMs control the world, players control their character, the GM shouldn't cross that boundary casually, as nothing will spoil a player's enjoyment faster. Players will accept their character being beaten, maimed, and tortured (or even brainwashed) by in-world forces long before they'll accept you as the GM changing their sheet for no in-world reason (from their perspective).
Oh, they'll take it, you are the GM, but it's the best way to just ruin their fun and cause resentment I've ever seen.
*Coincidentally, the guy who played the character who lost an eye...though that was years ago, and the complaining only a few weeks.
I don't see any problem with shifting alignments for one act. It's not so much a punishment as a correction. Say a lawful good wizard kills a baby. No reason. This is an extreme case, of course. Do you say, "Alright, three more acts like that and I'm changing your alignment"? Or do you say, "Alright, only an evil guy would do that, I'm changing your alignment"?
In my opinion, at least an immediate change from LG to N or CN would be justified.
|
|
I don't see any problem with shifting alignments for one act. It's not so much a punishment as a correction. Say a lawful good wizard kills a baby. No reason. This is an extreme case, of course. Do you say, "Alright, three more acts like that and I'm changing your alignment"? Or do you say, "Alright, only an evil guy would do that, I'm changing your alignment"?
In my opinion, at least an immediate change from LG to N or CN would be justified.
Well, that's a bit of an extreme example there. If this is their first session with the character (or, more likely, in the game in general), then yeah, you probably do just inform them that their character is clearly of the wrong Alignment if he's gonna be doing that, and maybe they should change it.
If this is just the latest in a series of incidents, well, see my previous comments.
If the character's been entirely LG up to this point, this is probably an OOC problem rather than an IC one and you should clearly talk to the player about it. Y'know, because the behavior isn't typical.
.
.
.
Am I the only one here who's actually friends with my players and can just stop game for a second to say "Dude, what the f**k? Why the hell is your Paladin killing a baby?" Because I'd rather thought that was fairly standard practice...
So, to be clear, sure, a character in the world can fall directly from LG to, say, CN from just one baby murdering. But random baby murdering with nothing leading up to it (and any Evil game has the lead-up of "this is an Evil game", so there's some warning) is not the sort of thing that should be coming up in a game for IC reasons, and since it's a OOC problem, it should be handled OOC.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
The next time I politely request that the DM "talk to me later" after informing me that my paladin has fallen as a consequence of the play decisions I made, I'm sure he'll easily be able to contain his laughter.
And, if it's one of those sneaky modules, I'm sure he won't point to the specific box of "consequences" text which spells out exactly what happens if monks or paladins make a deal with the demon, or the bard voluntarily goes along with a devil's scheme.
Why can't Bards cooperate with Devils? PF (quite rightly) ditched the alignment requirements for that class.
Because the GM being a dick ... Even to players who deserve it? Not so much with the being fun.
That's actually one of the definitions of fun for our entire group. Everyone joins in when someone deserves it.
We don't really have much patience with dipshits.
Am I the only one here who's actually friends with my players and can just stop game for a second to say "Dude, what the f**k? Why the hell is your Paladin killing a baby?" Because I'd rather thought that was fairly standard practice...
The GM isn't supposed to be the player's friend. He's the enemy.
The guy's just playing his alignment!
I never interfere.
BABY KILLING IS NOT AN EVIL ACT!
Seriously, though. As I said, it was an extreme example and not to be overthought. But barring player problems, can we agree that sometimes an automatic alignment change is appropriate?
|
|
Seriously, though. As I said, it was an extreme example and not to be overthought. But barring player problems, can we agree that sometimes an automatic alignment change is appropriate?
In the game world? Yes, absolutely.
In the actual course of playing the game? Theoretically, but it's a real high bar (and one I've never seen a PC cross). I mean, unless the act is completely out of character, there are some serious signs first.
I mean PCs don't suddenly become CE when they make the deal with the demon...that comes later, as they're forced to do horrible things to hold up their end, or see their 'ally' do such and neglect to stop them. Stuff like that. Falling into real evil isn't (and shouldn't be) instant, it's a slow, awful, sort of thing. Ditto redemption (well, redemption isn't usually awful).
|
It seems to me that many threads like this have that one person who views RPG's as a competitive sport between the players and the GM.
Back on topic:
I agree alignment should not be a straightjacket, but should be a guidance. The same can be said about the other stats that are purely mental (charisma, wisdom, and intelligence.) All of these put together should give you a good idea on how the character will react in general, but not in the particulars.
Moving alignment should only be something that the GM does after communicating this with the player. As threads here have shown, many people view the whole Good-Evil, Law-Chaos spectrum differently then others. As the GM, it is your responsibility to inform players when you think that they are breaking alignment and discus how they view it. Doing so will, in the long run, mean that everybody has more fun in the game.
|
|
No, see, the GM makes that request. And way before behavior's gotten to the point where you actually need an Alignment shift. Which is sorta my point, really. Preventative medicine and all that.
Play Society organized sometime.
Box-text is pitiless.
I think we have a failure to communicate here: I have no problem with in-world effects of player behavior coming due immediately.But that's exactly what an alignment shift is.
What doesn't happen is me arbitrarily changing their character's stats
An alignment shift doesn't alter stats. It may prevent a player from deploying a "noble" character's noble attributes until they have atoned for ignoble activity.
So, they should atone.
Why is it that whenever someone mentions changing a character's alignment because of one act, it's ALWAYS a Lawful Good character suddenly turning Chaotic Neutral? Let's say the LG Fighter kills an innocent civilian and the DM suddenly says, "That was an evil act. Your alignment is now CN." Does his alignment suddenly change back the next time he donates some money to a beggar on the street? Do you force every evil character to change their alignment to good every time they commit a good act?
Neither side of the coin (good --> evil, evil --> good) is a good idea to change willy-nilly. Someone committing an act totally against their nature will definitely give them something to think about, but not many people say, "Well, I stole something, so I guess I'm going to be evil the rest of my life." Committing one act should NEVER change someone's alignment, ever, unless you're causing every NPC's alignment to shift mid-battle all the time. That sure would suck for the Paladin to arrive at the evil Warlord's lair and attempt to smite, only to find out that he's no longer evil because he saved an injured deer during the storm the night before.
I don't see any problem with shifting alignments for one act. It's not so much a punishment as a correction. Say a lawful good wizard kills a baby. No reason. This is an extreme case, of course. Do you say, "Alright, three more acts like that and I'm changing your alignment"? Or do you say, "Alright, only an evil guy would do that, I'm changing your alignment"?
In my opinion, at least an immediate change from LG to N or CN would be justified.
Depends... Later in the game when the character throws himself in front a different child and takes an arrow meant for the innocent... Do you immediately change it back?
It seems like 'immediate alignment shifts' are being used as a punishment, and not actual 'character growth'
Alignment should be considered the 'baseline' of your characters personality... but every character (or PERSON) has bad days, and everyone makes decisions that they aren't proud of later.
Even the purest Paladin can have a selfish thought and be a jerk occassionally... it doesn't mean they aren't 'good' anymore, or suddenly isn't a paladin.
Alignments should be changed as the personality of the character changes. and it should reflect the personality of the character. it should NOT reflect 'whatever his last decision was'.
Darth Vader is a good example. Vader was never redeemed! He was never GOOD... He tried to save his kid, and killed a dictator.... Does anyone HONESTLY believe that if the Death star had NOT exploded.... that he instantly would have given up fear and oppression. would have traded in the black for some bright colors...
I don't. he made a 'GOOD' decision, but that alone didn't make up for all the baby killing he did as a youth and 'choke if you disagree' policys he had in place.
|
|
Play Society organized sometime.
Box-text is pitiless
Well, Organized Play is an entirely different matter. Obviously, the solutions involved in a game that has to run in a set time with people you've never met before or since.
Different enough that you probably should've mentioned it, since I don't really disagree with that as a strategy in that very specific situation.
But that's exactly what an alignment shift is.
Not really, no. Because (barring box-text of the sort you mention above, which does not appear in non-PFS stuff, at least not that I've ever seen) it's extremely subjective, and it interferes with, as stated, the player's image of their own character, which makes things much less fun for them.
An alignment shift doesn't alter stats. It may prevent a player from deploying a "noble" character's noble attributes until they have atoned for ignoble activity.
So, they should atone.
But Alignment is a stat, in and of itself. At least as I define the term.
|
|
Why is it that whenever someone mentions changing a character's alignment because of one act, it's ALWAYS a Lawful Good character suddenly turning Chaotic Neutral?
Because, 99% of the time, the slip in question is a paladin -- who must remain LG. A monk's lawfulness, otoh, is rather arbitrarily defined, and he is unaffected by becoming "too good". Most barbarians start chaotic, and are unaffected by a shift toward neutrality. Most druids start true neutral, and are unaffected by a single orthagonal shift on the chart.
Paladins are the hardest class to play -- and they should be, because they are the representation of virtue. A cad can play any other class, but not a paladin.
-- I have seen clerics rebuked by their gods for behaving improperly; and once I saw a pact-bound warlock lose his pact abilities for some reason or another I didn't pay close attention to. I've seen druids and rangers abandoned by their animal companions for using them like meat-shields (I always make sure my character's "special" animal has barding equivalent to my armor, and that I have taken the Mounted Combat feat and enough ranks in Ride to ensure the first attack against them usually whiffs).
Well, Organized Play is an entirely different matter.
Exactly, which is why I love it to death -- everybody is "on the same page".
|
The GM isn't supposed to be the player's friend. He's the enemy.
No, wrong, the GM is the teller of the story and the arbitrator of the rules and the player of everything else but the characters. He is not the enemy. his goal is not to have a tpk after tpk after tpk. His goal is to make an immersive story that will have everything his players like to see, and for him and his players to have fun. It seems to be that you have been playing with some bad GMs or that you are a bad GM if you think this honeslty. I would never play with such a GM
The guy's just playing his alignment!
Really?
I never interfere.
Agan, bad GMing. If you are the GM you should intefere in things that make no sense. At least, you shoul ask the player afther the session about the thing, or halt the game and ask him here and then.
BABY KILLING IS NOT AN EVIL ACT!
I presume you are joking...
|
|
Like all kobolds, he screams like a girl and runs from the good fight, all while yapping like a chihuahua, to keep us from taking all this imaginary stuff too seriously.
I object to that, but only because I have a soft spot for the Kobolds. Part of why I'm playing a LG Kobold in a campaign at the moment.
Still, might want to watch out when following that Kobold. Odds are good you'll end up at the bottom of a pit trap with death staring you in the face, or wander into an ambush. :D
On the original topic:
One act shouldn't be enough for an auto-shift of the Alignment unless it is a truly heinous breach of Alignment. Everybody (IC and OOC) has bad days and makes bad calls. Just because your Paladin allows the other party members to threaten a prisoner with torture doesn't mean he's Evil. Actively torturing or permitting torture to be inflicted would be Evil, and would merit loss of powers. That doesn't mean it merits a shift to CN. Shifting LG to CN is a shift of three Alignments. If any shift was merited, it would be toward LN, perhaps TN. Killing a baby for no apparent reason could merit a CN shift, though.
One thought that came to mind while reading through this was to set up a kind of counter system to track things. Run Alignment like a driver's license. Too many points on the record = No longer permitted to run that Alignment. Offenses vary in strength and which part of alignment they breach, and there are limits to how many you can commit in a certain time period. To throw a number out, say 4-5 minor breaches per IC week/month. Gives the characters a bit more free-will than railroaded Alignment-based personalities, but sets up an easy system for seeing how much risk there is in ignoring alignment and knowing when to alignment shift them and how to shift them.
Example: If your CG Barbarian is frequently sticking too heavily to Lawful behavior, mark off points. He's making sure people tell the truth, he's donating funds to the orphanage, he even joins the local constabulary. When he builds up too many violations, shift him to NG or LG. This merits loss of rage (Barbarians require non-Lawful).
Example: Your NE Cleric of Zon-Kuthon keeps on let himself go wild and destroying things. He starts bar fights, he takes revenge on that tailor who overcharged him for a new cloak a few days ago, etc. After a while, he's going to shift himself to CE, meaning he loses his Cleric powers. He might even shift to CN, if his acts are a bit too Good. He can either Atone and go back to a NE worshipper of Zon-Kuthon, or he can find a way to shift allegiance to Rovagug or Calistria, maybe even Cayden Cailean (probably a variation on Atonement).
Other potentially at-risk classes: Druid, Monk, Cavalier, Inquisitor
Writing out Alignment Tenets and Codes of Behavior ahead of time might also help with judging whether or not people are keeping alignment. The Paladin class does this ahead of time.
To throw my 2cp on the pile
|
|
If your CG Barbarian is frequently sticking too heavily to Lawful behavior, mark off points. He's making sure people tell the truth, he's donating funds to the orphanage, he even joins the local constabulary. When he builds up too many violations, shift him to NG or LG. This merits loss of rage (Barbarians require non-Lawful).
See, this is where the problem crops up: Everyone's defintions of how these things work differs somewhat.
For example: IMO, none of those (except maybe the joining the constabulary) are remotely non-Chaotic.
Heck, the church of Cayden Cailean (CG) funds more orphanages than any other, and telling the truth is usually more of a Good than Lawful act (though there are exceptions).
Even joining the constabulary is only non-Chaotic if you start slavishly obeying and/or enforcing the letter of the law. The whole "Judge Roy Bean" thing where you are the law can be Chaotic as all get out.
|
Like all kobolds, he screams like a girl and runs from the good fight, all while yapping like a chihuahua, to keep us from taking all this imaginary stuff too seriously.I object to that, but only because I have a soft spot for the Kobolds.
That's okay, KC has been objecting to it for years now. Doesn't make it any less true. Also, and just for good measure, dwarves are better miners.
|
|
That's okay, KC has been objecting to it for years now. Doesn't make it any less true. Also, and just for good measure, dwarves are better miners.
Which totally explains why Kobolds are many times richer than the Dwarves. Dwarves are too obsessed with that whole alcohol thing to be as efficient as they could be in the mines.
Regarding the other part. It's the idea, not necessarily the details. A Barbarian who acts Lawfully risks losing her/his rage powers. I was just attempting to throw an example from a class that requires non-Lawful behavior. I'm sure you could come up with a better example for that same Barbarian to do the same thing. :)
|
|
That's okay, KC has been objecting to it for years now. Doesn't make it any less true. Also, and just for good measure, dwarves are better miners.Which totally explains why Kobolds are many times richer than the Dwarves. Dwarves are too obsessed with that whole alcohol thing to be as efficient as they could be in the mines.
Pshaw! Kobolds are LE, so of course they lie about their wealth. And dwarven consumption of alchohol is offset by their high constitution score. Plus, dwarves aren't kobolds, so that automatically makes them awesome!
Let's face it, what are kobolds, really? Wannabe dwarves with delusions of dragonhood and a tendency towards racial cowardice.
Darth Vader is a good example. Vader was never redeemed! He was never GOOD... He tried to save his kid, and killed a dictator.... Does anyone HONESTLY believe that if the Death star had NOT exploded.... that he instantly would have given up fear and oppression. would have traded in the black for some bright colors...
I don't. he made a 'GOOD' decision, but that alone didn't make up for all the baby killing he did as a youth and 'choke if you disagree' policys he had in place.
Alright, dangit, you made me pull the SW card. Vader WAS redeemed. What were his dying words to Luke?
Luke: I can save you.
Vader: You already have. Tell your sister you were right about me *(referring to the good in him)*. Tell your sister, you were right.
Had the death star not blown up, yeah, I could see Vader in at least a different suit. Probably not wearing Jedi robes since the suit was mostly a mobile life-support system, and more than likely answering for countless war crimes, but nevertheless, he was redeemed.
He gave his life to destroy the most powerful, evil ruler in the galaxy. In death he even became one with the Force, something countless other Jedi could not even do. If that's not redemption, then I don't know what is.
IMHO NEVER should a single act cause an alignment shift.
I can see room for the most drastic actions. Vader helps Luke at the last moment, and such scenarios.
|
|
That is probably nothing happening like
Player: I have to save my kid. I grab the emperor and throw him down the shaft.
GM: OK, let's see, your LE character would not do that, I'm afraid you have to change your alignment to good.
If a redeeming would take place in one of my games, it would need some communication between me and the player. If he tells me: "What my character has seeen and done in the past left his scars, but he cannot live that way anymore, I think playing a character looking for redemtion would be cool!", I would try to find a fitting cataclysmic moment and then the player can change his alignemnt. Staying good would depend on his further actions. He didn't change to good because of the one cataclysmic action, but because of a change of heart - since the player should know his character I trust him if he tells me, his character had such a change of heart.
It is far easyer to say: He slaughtered a dozen innocent to get to his foe, he didn't even think about alternate routes, I don't think he is good anymore (IMO that is not something a good character would do)then to say: He saved that boys life, I think he isn't evil anymore (an eveil charcter might do such a thing, perhaps he has selfish motives, or even if he hasn't, just because he likes torturing and slowly killing innocent peasants doesn't mean he wanted that boy to die - the assassins guild isn't necessarily cheering for Team Red Dragon either).
IMHO NEVER should a single act cause an alignment shift.I can see room for the most drastic actions. Vader helps Luke at the last moment, and such scenarios.
In the SW Saga Edition core rulebook, the writers use that scene as an example of a single-action that can shift someone either completely Light or Dark-sided. The rules in the game making going one way or the other a very gradual process, but there are possibilities for immediate alignment shift. Gives the GM more breathing room for writing.
I sort of agree, I put more emphasis in the actual act of Vader killing the Emperor, when I should've gave the nod to him having thoughts beforehand of doing it. But, Vader's thought of uniting with his children(when he searched Luke's feelings and found Leia, if Luke wouldn't turn to the dark side) were still for evil purposes. "To rule the galaxy as father and son", he says so himself. He was still fighting for evil all the way up to the last battle.
When he saw the Emperor blasting Luke with Force Lightning, that's when the sudden shift sort of "clicked", you can even see it in his body language. Maybe it wasn't even so much of turning back to the good/light side, as much as it was a primal, paternal instinct of protecting his offspring.
I've found that characters who shift in alignment so sharply, usually have at least the seed in their minds of turning beforehand, but everything is still hazy and confusing. Something in them wants to change, but they are still looking at things through the same perspective until the act comes about, just going with what's familiar. The actual act that makes the alignment shift is that moment of clarity, when it all comes together and a purpose is revealed. Vader had thoughts of killing the Emperor early on, but for the wrong reasons(hence why he didn't do it sooner) in his mind. It was when Luke was attacked that it all made sense.
And yes, I read far too much into little things. I'm a detail-freak.
It's genre-affirming. A single good deed can make up for countless evils, and a single evil deed can make up for countless goods, if it's dramatic enough. And then that person who became evil in a single deed can slingshot right back up.
Remember, this is a genre, not a Real Interpretation Of Reality As Seen With Dragons (And Morality Magic).
Falling from grace and sudden redemption are both bastions of literary and genre-appropriate drama.
Anyways the lesson of the story is death to alignment.
Alignment can be such a touchy issue...
As a GM I do not enforce restrcitions on behvior. I adjust alignment to reflect behavior. It's a kind of "Evil is as Evil does" effort. I try to keep my hands out of PC actions; it's not my job to be the police. If a Player is running his N/G Cleric of Sarenrae as a pyromaniac, pathological liar with a vicious streak a mile wide, it may be time to ask "Why are you claiming to be a priest of Saranrae when clearly you don't care about her faith or tenets?" (pssst-the answer is, "Access to both Healing and Fire domains")
Most often single acts to not adjust alignment; a pattern of misconduct (as seen through the lense of alignment) does.
As a player and a GM my two least favorite alignments are N (ambivalent and lazy) and Chaotic Neutral (as pointed out in Dorkness Rising, "I'm not evil! I'm Chaotic neutral!")
Actions are alignment, not the other way around. Evil is as Evil does.
GNOME
Ugh...Current alignment of my PCs= N, LN, CN, NE. If we get our fifth, he said, "Oh, and I'll be playing LE. That won't be a problem, will it?"
Ugh...Current alignment of my PCs= N, LN, CN, NE. If we get our fifth, he said, "Oh, and I'll be playing LE. That won't be a problem, will it?"
Bah, that's annoying at least you don't have a smiting paladin along with that lot to die quickly. Next time just state "I want a heroic game" and see if you can resolve it. Or just don't play alignments.
We had a good part in last weeks game; we captured a few deep dwarves, all the party are good. The dwarf thief takes him off to a room, 'to find out what he knows' after a few minutes he comes back after punching the bound victim but finding out nothing. Now my neutral monk has 'touch of pain', so i go off with him. The others are all alright with this, so i tell them that i will be torturing him but i don't kill or maim 'people'.
It was hilarious to hear one of the players get really annoyed just because i told them flat out that i would torture the dwarf, rather than let them pretend to be ignorant when it was obvious what was going on.