| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Before I go further, I'd like to note that this is partially a system criticism and partially a guide to gaming the system and partially still a guide for GMs to get a better understanding of the system where these mechanics are concerned.
=====================================================
Warning: The things written here may shock, anger, be seen as badwrongfun, or disturb some readers. Viewer discretion is advised.
Alignment
Alignment has been in D&D pretty much forever, in one form or another. As of the release of the d20 system and 3E D&D, alignment was more firmly rooted as a game mechanic than ever before. Now there were alignment subtypes, spell descriptors, and lots of class abilities that emphasized alignment more heavily than ever before. Suddenly, alignment was as mechanical as your Strength score or your hit dice. Naturally there are pros and cons to this approach, but one thing is certain: it is firmly rooted in the "Game" portion of the RPG and as such is subject to all the other gamist considerations.
While I haven't been particularly fond of it, I've noticed that there is definitely a lot of mechanical considerations for alignment. As with any case where mechanics are involved, there is always a point where advantages are lost or gained. Alignment is no different. Certain alignments are just better than others in the standard game, and those who are interested in the success of their characters over the course of the game can find just as much value in alignment as they could in any feat, prestige class, or racial option.
Neutral Wins
Neutral is the powergaming alignment of choice. It is the most broad alignment that fits almost all characters as readily as any other alignment. Neutral is also the roleplayer's alignment, because few GMs have great misconceptions about Neutrality. People can act like people while enjoying the Neutral alignment, and can happily have lawful, chaotic, good, and evil tendencies periodically as desired while remaining Neutral. If you're not an absolute bastard, or a nun, you're probably welcome in the Neutral camp.
And what a camp it is. Neutral is by far the best alignment in terms of gaming the system. It has the most freedom and most resistances to attacks. There are only two classes in the game that you cannot enter as an at least partially neutral class: Paladin and Antipaladin. Every other class allows at least some form of Neutrality (even Monks may be Lawful neutral); while everything else from Barbarian to Wizard can be Neutral without issue or fail.
So why is Neutral the "best" alignment in terms of gaming? The reasons are manifold, as I describe here:
Resistances: The biggest reason is their blanket resistances to alignment based attacks. It is far better to have tiny vulnerabilities to multiple types of attacks than major vulnerabilities to a few. Neutral characters are outright immune to weapons with powers such as anarchic, axiomatic, holy, or unholy.
Neutral characters enjoy greatly reduced harm from alignment-based spells and effects. For example: It is far better to enjoy auto-1/2 damage vs alignment spells like unholy blight with a save to quarter the damage plus the outright immunity to the kicker effects like Blindness.
So if you're fighting an erinyes and she drops unholy blight, good creatures take 6d8 (27) damage and save vs sickened. You on the other hand take about 13.5 damage automatically, are immune to the sickened, and get a save to take only 6.75 damage. You get the same benefit no matter if your foe is casting holy smite, chaos hammer, or order's wrath.
You cannot be picked up with detect spells that target alignment, nor can you be affected by various smites such as smite good or smite evil which are common among creatures with planar templates like celestial and fiendish. The makes it easier to go unnoticed, and again gives you a great resistance against a variety of attack forms.
The only spells that really take advantage of Neutrality are spells like Blasphemy because they target any of "not this alignment", but allow saves and are often somewhat "meh" unless the caster level greatly exceeds your level (by 5+, which means you should probably be running the other way anyway). Incidentally, there are only 4 of these spells, and they make perfect candidates for stuff like spell immunity. Incidentally, since those spells target all except their alignment, you're already about 66% likely to be affected by these spells anyway, going 100% in exchange for near immunity to everything else is a sexy deal.
Invulnerability vs multiple terrible things vs slight vulnerability vs 4 spells that you are statistically likely to be vulnerable to anyway? Yes please.
Offense: Due to nerfs to spells like protection from evil, Neutral characters get to bypass wards they didn't get to before. A neutral spellcaster can charm, domination, compel, or otherwise mind screw people no matter what protection-from spells are active. Someone can have protection from chaos/law/good/evil active all at once and you still get to hit them with effects. Furthermore, you get to enjoy the fact none of those spells make it difficult to harm people (no +2 deflection or +2 resistance vs your attacks).
Likewise, magic circle against x spells cannot do anything vs neutral characters and summons. As it turns out, Neutral characters have the option to summon monsters of any alignment (so a neutral wizard or neutral cleric can summon everything from Astral Deva to Ice Devils). But it gets better. They also get to choose whether you summon celestial or fiendish creatures, and the celestial or fiendish creatures always match your alignment.
What does that mean? Well you can be fighting an evil wizard, summon a Neutral-aligned celestial bison who can smite evil and run right through that magic circle against evil like it was its job. Or if you wanted an enemy that can easily tank an evil creature, you can summon a Neutral-aligned fiendish creature that gets to enjoy DR that can't be pierced by fiends.
Likewise, you may wield any alignment specific weapon you desire without worry. You can wield Anarchic, Axiomatic, Holy, and Unholy weapons without issue. In fact, you could theoretically wield one that is all of those at once (a weapon only neutral aligned characters can wield without negative levels).
As a neutral character, you have access to a wider variety of spells and deities. Clerics can be within one step of their deity's alignment, which means that Neutral clerics have the most deity options, neutral clerics can cast the most spells (literally every cleric spell as they do not have issues with spells based on alignment descriptor), and may choose to channel energy as they desire. If you want to be a cleric who spontaneously channels positive energy and also has tons of undead meat shields, then Neutral works. If you want to spontaneously cast negative energy and also drop holy smites around on demons, then Neutral works.
Neutral is the alignment of the powergamer. It is the alignment with the least drawbacks and greatest benefits. It is the alignment that supports the most character concepts in comparison to any other. It is more or less the "best alignment".
=====================================================
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well you have to understand that Evil will always win, because good is dumb.
---Dark Helmet, Spaceballs
"The bad are always surprised to discover that the good can also be clever."
No point, the Neutrals just sit on the sidelines, eat popcorn, and occasionally fire off a few shots at the side that seems to be winning.
i'm sure most "Unaligned" characters know what neighbors they would rather have, what people they would rather engage in conversation and a series of people they trust more. they might not have as much devotion to a pair of ideals as a fanatical paladin, but i'm fairly sure they wouldn't try to kill the companions that have helped them for so long.
targeting the winning side in the name of keeping the balance sounds like something a series of obscessive compulsive lawful neutral outsiders dedicated to maintaining the universal balance would perform. maybe an inevitable or modron.
So as I was saying...
=========================================================================lol ive joked ever since 3.0 that evil must be stopped by neutral now that good is more easily hurt by it.....
Another point in the favor of Neutral characters. Again you have far more control over whether or not you are going to get DR/Good or DR/Evil with spells such as Righteous Might; which is a big deal if you plan to fight evil. Obviously if you plan to fight evil creatures regularly -- especially fiends -- you are going to want the negative energy version because DR/Good is much harder to bypass by evil.
Neutral clerics also have access to the Versatile Channeler feat, which allows you to use your channels both offensively and defensively.
Class Friendliness: Neutral is the friendliest alignment in terms of class friendliness. Very few classes disallow Neutral characters. The only three classes that do are Paladin, AntiPaladin, and Monk which must be Lawful Neutral at least. That leaves every other class in the game (barring some prestige classes which have certain requirements, but Paizo has been killing off prestige classes as hard as they can in favor of archtypes).
Incidentally, Neutral characters can exist in a party with most anything as well. Neutral characters can associate with both Paladins and Anti-Paladins freely, which means making a Neutral character should never by default ruin someone else's fun or create a conflict like rolling a Paladin will (Antipaladins don't really give a crap, since they are Chaotic Evil and their code is a gross mockery of law, as it literally gives them permission to ignore their code when they want to. Which actually makes complete sense for a CE class, but there you have it).
========================================================================
Martial artist monks do not need to be lawful.
A new initiate to dnd is playing a neutral barbarian at the moment. Armed with a great falchion, from a people with skin the colour of tea and hair the colour of dark green plants, this barb is actually restrained and cautious, rage is not always used. More defensively utilised.
Neutral is pretty cool but at times players can have real problems playing it. Especially if they get very emotional and convinced of their side. I've seen a neutral good cleric aid evil chuuls' thinking that was the best thing to do (he raised their young, fed them, mother theresa of the chuuls). I've seen a neutral druid start to lean to chaotic evil, he was a gnome and wanted to genocide all lizardmen, even when those lizardmen were druids or followers of the old faith.
I mostly play neutrals. Love a bit of chaotic good, due for a lawful character soon. Often yes, neutral can get along with others, as long as they don't drastically slip to a non-neutral alignment.
Technically a weapon to be alligned has to be created by character of that alignment. So evil-holy shouldnt happen. But a neutral char could weild a holy lawful devil bane weapon in 1 hand and a unholy chaos angel slayer in the other hand. Actually it would be a fun char to play...
Technically a weapon to be alligned has to be created by character of that alignment. So evil-holy shouldnt happen. But a neutral char could weild a holy lawful devil bane weapon in 1 hand and a unholy chaos angel slayer in the other hand. Actually it would be a fun char to play...
But you can. You can ignore a requirement by increasing the DC by +5. DC 32 Spellcraft can create an Anarchic Axiomatic Holy Unholy weapon (you can take 10 and do that by the time it's affordable). There was actually a weapon called "The Equalizer" in Baldur's Gate that was more or less this very sort of thing. The weapon could only be wielded by Neutral characters and was increasingly devastating the further away from True Neutral you were (+2d6 damage vs Good, Evil, Law, or Chaos, and +4d6 vs Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, Lawful Evil, or Chaotic Evil).
Greater Stability
PS- The "rock n roll" neighbors sound like my kinda people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now I want to go make a fighter that wields an equalizer...
This isn't a surprise to anyone. (Or at least I hope it isn't, its been this way for quite a while now.) That people actually care enough to try and gain a mechanical advantage through alignment, and that at least one person cares enough about gaining a mechanical advantage through alignment enough to write a guide on it, that surprises me, I think we have now ascended to a new level of munchkanism.
Methinks a certain party pooper didn't read the warning label at the top of the thread. :P
EDIT: To be a bit clearer, the thread is partially intended to point out an issue with the alignment system having such an influential effect on the mechanics of the game. It is pretty much just strait up superior to be Neutral. Good probably comes in at a close second, purely because of the cheese that is Bestow Grace. Law and Chaos are jokes, but Evil has AntiPaladin which is actually a really good class.
Not everyone has played 3.x/PF as long as some of us, ShadowcatX. Plenty of people (including new GMs and players) may not initially realize some of this stuff. For GMs I would advise that they consider toning down some of the alignment stuff, or do their best to even everything out. As it is, alignment is kind of an iron ball around the heel of players. It serves little to no real purpose beyond being a roleplaying aid, and being a mechanical aspect has gone from being a roleplaying aid to another thing that greatly influences your overall career as an adventurer.
The fact that so much mechanical clout is given to a system that few people can actually agree on is worrisome. Ironically, the "Best" alignment Neutral is also the least likely to attract some GMing ire. For some reason -- and this is entirely a metagame observation separate from the game itself -- GMs are often very slow to commentate on a Neutral character's alignment development, but are very quick to try to enforce a character's more extreme alignments. I'm not saying it's a trait of a good GM (the opposite in fact), but it's hard to have a believable character with a lot of GMs (such as a good guy who has a bad day and punches somebody, or a wicked sorceress who helps an old lady across the street on a whim) without GMs trying to force-feed a new alignment to you.
To some people, they might find a sort of safety knowing that not only can most of their concepts firmly fit within Neutral while allowing them to develop rich and diverse characters who feel more like people instead of strange cookie-cutter characters, but they also enjoy some nice benefits from it as well.
Additionally, it's information that is actually important to anyone who plans to play an arcane caster, a summoner, or a cleric; because it has a profound impact on your overall capabilities.
Do I like that? Well, not particularly, to be honest. It's how it is though. I think showing people and getting it out in the open is a better way to address it than simply ignoring it and calling people names like "munchkins". Seriously, what are we? Five? Aren't we past such silly notions as name calling yet?
This thread brings up some interesting points.
And reminds me of why I like the Eberron Campaign Setting so much.
Alignment is more relaxed there. Clerics can cast any spell regardless of alignment, and in fact alignment restrictions on classes (and even which god you worship) are practically non-existant.
The notable exceptions being monks, druids and paladins.
I don't disagree with this thread, Neutral is the best of all worlds when it comes time to powergame - which is what this thread is about; Powergaming.
When I can, I play personable and overall likeable evil characters.
Evil can be your best friend.
Only to lull you into a false sense of security.
What makes a man turn neutral ...
The lack of conviction to be either good or evil, very few neutral people choose the 'balance' though their gods do. Many would regard themselves as good, but consider the plight of others not close to them as 'not their problem' or else don't want to expose themselves to danger. Others have no real ethics or morals and are inherently selfish, but fear punishment too much to do anything that would make them actively evil.
Ashiel or anyone else :
IF you want to even things out enough so that neutral is not the alignment choice by default, what do you think would be good houserules to implement considering the points you brought up ?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel or anyone else :
IF you want to even things out enough so that neutral is not the alignment choice by default, what do you think would be good houserules to implement considering the points you brought up ?
It depends on how far you want to go with it. One method would be to remove the alignment system from the mechanics and return it to being primarily a roleplaying aid. However, that might include throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so we don't want to be hasty. There is merit in the idea of holy swords and such.
One method I had a lot of success with was used in an online campaign. I had to deal with a lot of players (it was a persistent world campaign, so there were many players and many more characters) and noticed that some of the people were metagaming alignment. Not like this, and perhaps not intentionally. Some of them were admittedly new to RPGs, and the ability to read alignments often made them act in bizarre ways; and one player was always trying to guess alignments or tell others what their alignment really was. Eventually, I nearly removed alignment from the equation using the following methods:
- All characters (that includes PCs/NPCs/Monsters) are treated as Neutral alignment mechanically unless they have an alignment subtype (such as Law and Good). In essence, it was assumed that no matter your personality, if you didn't have a connection to those raw powers, you were assumed to have an equal share of all inside you -- even if you don't display those shares equally.
- Neutral characters are half-vulnerable to everything alignment based. So an unholy sword deals +1d6 damage vs neutral and +2d6 damage vs good. This meant that while there were admittedly far less true good or true evil creatures in the world, alignment based abilities (such as smite evil, holy weapons, or protection from evil) were less powerful but easier to use (protection from evil would provide small benefits vs virtually all enemies, and Paladins could smite Neutral enemies at a reduced amount).
- Characters were not restricted by spellcasting. This worked wonders in Eberron and allowed for more plot options. In regular D&D/Pathfinder, if an evil cleric is hiding amongst a bunch of good clerics, it's incredibly easy to ferret him or her out by asking them to cast protection from evil. If they can't do it, then you have your man. Part of this is campaign specific however (the gods in my world don't have an active role in the on-goings of things, and divine magic is as much or more about your own spiritual awakening as it is "mother-may-I" to a deity).
- Characters such as Paladins and classes that received the Aura class feature (such as clerics of the good domain) received an alignment subtype appropriate for the aura. So a Paladin actually has alignment subtypes that specify him as a physical being of goodness. While this does provide some of the weaknesses for not being Neutral, he also gets to enjoy the fact his attacks are automatically good-aligned (which means a Paladin could pimp-slap most fiends in the face and deal damage out of their raw purity). The same is true for evil characters. It would probably also be worth providing such characters small bonuses when casting spells of their alignment (such as giving them +1 caster level/save DCs, +1 to attack rolls with holy weapons, and so forth) but I didn't actually do that (looking back I think perhaps I should since they still weren't on par with Neutral quite yet).
- Paladins were modified to allow Paladins of different alignments, and you were allowed to choose. Paladins could now be any combination of Chaotic, Lawful, Evil, or Good. The only alignment Paladins couldn't be was True Neutral (but I considered creating a variation that was more closely tied to religion instead of alignment aspects; which would have been a true-neutral sort of Paladin).
- All other classes had their alignment restrictions removed. Monks could be of any alignment and were cleaned up a bit (replaced them with psionic monks as well, which has made monks perfect in our games).
The overall effects were entirely positive. Players began thinking less about their characters' alignment and far more about their character. It seemed that everyone involved began acting more like people. The question of the day became "what would my character do" instead of "what would XY do?". It also led to better parties in my opinion, and people could play their magnificent bastards in the same party as a Paladin without the world suddenly imploding.
There are probably other methods that could be used just fine, but the above was a patch-fix that I did to get our games moving again. It worked great for us, and if I was to re-design the game for someone else, I would probably use the above as a starting point for making alignment not such a pain in the ass.
Personally, after about twelve years of using alignment, I've come to the realization that alignment for the most part is a waste of time. It amounts to less than 10% of the entire game, and really only matters as far as certain subtypes are concerned. It is too vague to be used as real rules, and begins more arguments than it ends. I think we've grown out of alignment and it seems like a sacred cow that really needs to become a sacred cheeseburger. I find that it takes away more from the game -- particularly in the roleplaying department -- than it adds to it; and as a game mechanic it sucks.
"What makes a good man go neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?"
If I could edit the original post, I'd put this quote there. It seems to be the quote of the thread. :P
The disadvantage of Neutral is you are affeced by holy and unholy words. So at least with the Word spells to quote the bible..... "If you are neither hot not cold but lukewarm I will spew you out of my mouth"
AFB so may not have quote exactly right :)
Ashiel mentioned that. Even a Lawful Good character is going to be affected by the Chaotic and Evil versions however. So for the benefit of being immune to 2 of the 4, you get to be affected by all the other aligned spells. Not a good trade.
There's also the fact that those aligned spells that target all of non-X alignment are also rather mild spells unless the foe is already so high above you as to be flee-worthy. Barring certain caster-level shenanigans (I'm sure given enough effort we could get someone casting Blasphemy at HD+5 or better), penalty for failing the save is going to be at worst 2d6 strength damage. To be paralyzed, you are going to need to be 5 HD lower than the enemy's caster level.
Notice that these are 7th level spells, and on successful saving throws the effects are very mild. At this level, failing a saving throw vs a 6th or 7th level spell easily means you're a lawn ornament. Possibly lawn ornament fragments (a b&$%& move is flesh to stone followed by quickened shatter).
No matter what your alignment is, one or more of these spells will get you. They are inescapable. The funny part is that a Neutral cleric can drop all 4 alignment spells like it was their job. As well as as use Holy Smite, Unholy Blight, Chaos Hammer, and Order's Wrath. So...yeah, Neutral. :P
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually like the "Everyone's counted as neutral, unless you have an alignment type or an aura" idea you mentioned above.
OF course, with that system I think there should be a spell (and a mass version) that makes you count as [alignment] for the purpose of effects. So the evil cleric (who has an aura) can cast mass make my flunkies evil and unholy blight safely.
I actually like the "Everyone's counted as neutral, unless you have an alignment type or an aura" idea you mentioned above.
OF course, with that system I think there should be a spell (and a mass version) that makes you count as [alignment] for the purpose of effects. So the evil cleric (who has an aura) can cast mass make my flunkies evil and unholy blight safely.
I agree that would be nice, and that would be a really cool spell effect.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: To be a bit clearer, the thread is partially intended to point out an issue with the alignment system having such an influential effect on the mechanics of the game.See, if you'd lead with this in the first post, I wouldn't have said anything.
Well, I thought that mentioning it was partially a system criticism would be enough. I'm not going to tell other people how to play their games, but will happily point out things about the core game that can help them. Powergaming is not some sort of evil. It's just a preference or playstyle. I generally try very hard to avoid calling people or dissing them because something they do doesn't jive with my ideal RPing experiences. It can be really hard sometimes though (but that's generally because I'm very open except to things like cheating; and I think players and GMs who cheat/fudge dice and such need to be beaten with a robber hose! j/k).
Not everyone has played 3.x/PF as long as some of us, ShadowcatX.This is true. Way to make me feel old. lol
Tell me about it. XD
Plenty of people (including new GMs and players) may not initially realize some of this stuff. For GMs I would advise that they consider toning down some of the alignment stuff, or do their best to even everything out.This would be the route I would've taken with the guide. Explain to new GMs how to allow good (and evil) alignments to gain after explaining why neutral alignments are the best.
For example, encouraging GMs to have clerics use detect alignment type spells to determine how much to trust the pcs and providing those that pass with maybe a bit of break on pricing or maybe minor magic items (if the pcs are high enough level).
That might be one way. It seems a little forced to me, however. I'm pretty firmly placed in the school of thought that mechanics should be good and shouldn't require GMs to play favorites to try and fix imbalances. For example, if you're Non-good because of a non-mechanical choice then you're encouraging them to be a particular alignment because you're waving an apple on a stick in front of them.
Plus, alignments can be faked. There are some spells in Pathfinder that make your aura read as something it isn't (one off the top of my head is a healing spell that makes your aura return false positives for evil). I'm tolerant of the detection idea, however, since that doesn't seem super metagamist. If you're a church dedicated to goodness, it seems that good people might be rewarded. I just dislike the reason behind it (trying to force roleplaying to balance mechanics).
Thinking about it from different sorts of directions, one part of me would rather remove alignment at least 90% from the game (as I mentioned previously) and the other half of me wants to boost Good/Evil (honestly I care little about Law/Chaos, and half the time it seems no one else does either) and the other part of me wants to boost the remaining good/evil so that there is a noticeable effect to being a Good guy or an Evil guy. The problem with the second idea is that one of my issues with alignment as is concerns the "rewards" for being a certain alignment.
I find it hard to get behind mechanics that require the character to act within a certain set of parameters. It didn't work with the Book of Exalted Deeds or Vile Darkness. Such things that are for "X alignment" always end up being cheesy, frequently poorly presented, and prone to causing problems out of game as well. Heck, just look at how options for "roleplaying" work in the mechanical. Vow of Poverty springs to mind. It requires characters to act in a very specific manner -- sometimes putting their allies in danger -- for some sort of mechanical effect.
My brother played a Fighter who acted more like a classical Paladin. He was Lawful Good in action, and when he felled the ogre and routed the goblins, he took up his treasures and went to town. He gave gold old widows, and rode children around on his steed, and he donated to churches, and fed the, clothed the cold, and paid for medicines and healing for the sick. He did this just because it was what his character did. Not because he was mechanically obligated or even encouraged. He did it because he wanted to. At first I watched with a bit of wonder at the heart of a child, and then adjusted his WBL in other ways (organizations inspired or benefiting from his actions tended to donate equipment and such to him to keep him safe and ready; and of course he found some gear during games as well).
He didn't actually need an alignment to do any of that. His class didn't require him to act in a certain manner. He had no feats, skills, spells, or otherwise to encourage him to act in such a manner. Which again showed me that alignment means diddly. It's entirely possible to have heroes -- real heroes -- who are every bit as good and wonderful as they can be, without ever writing a G on your character sheet. I realized that Alignment is more or less a waste of space. Paladins don't even need alignments. You could strip a Paladin down into a crusader-priest (exactly what they are, being poster-child for templar sorts) and give them a smite similar to Cavaliers and call it a day.
I remember my 1st 3.0 character was a LN Ranger that used to be a bounty-hunter. I didn't think much about his alignment, as I believed that was just a way to tell other players what they could usually expect from his behavior, I didn't know there were that many mechanical implications then.
To this day I still believe alignment should have as much effect on gameplay as eye and hair color. It's there to help others visualize your character, nothing else.
My second character was a sorcerer, so I wanted to pick useful spells. When I realized there were alignment-based restrictions to which spells I could cast and be affected by, I made him TN instead of NG, but acted as NG most of the time.
To this day, most casters I play are TN. I'd rather not gimp myself because of something as silly and unnecessary as alignment.
I'll put skill ranks in perform(string) and craft(cook), I'll take some less than great feats for flavor and choose/prepare less than powerful spells for fun.
But limiting myself just for the privilege of having a G or E in my character sheet is not something I'm willing to do.
Ashiel or anyone else :
IF you want to even things out enough so that neutral is not the alignment choice by default, what do you think would be good houserules to implement considering the points you brought up ?
I would use the carrot, not the stick: Alignments give you positive modifiers when interacting with others in certain ways. Generally most people get more of a positive reaction from dealing with good than evil, especially if they are good. Evil gets a better intimidate, though, because when they say they will eat your face they are more likely to mean it.
My biggest problems with alignment have been poor DMs forcing alignment on me for doing something that they deemed bad(a good parallel would be j-walking in an empty street). Following their scolding (which when about the same way as a twelve year old scolding a 6 year old for trying to eat his own candy he got for tricker-treating), they told me that I would be docked experience for not acting according to my alignment.
My old DM also believe that neutral characters had to level out all of their actions that he associated with a particular alignment with another action of the opposite one. This was just like saying after my character helped put out the fire on an orphanage he then had to go slaughter every orphan inside with his bare-hands.
In my games, I typically ignore most alignment based spells (if at all possible) and allow my player to try to use it as a way of adding depth or role-playing their characters; however, in the cases of monsters who have spell like or at will abilities that are alignment based, my players do get to feel the mechanical repercussions of choosing an inferior alignment.
I always have to look at threads like this with a sort of mystified wonder. Am I the only one whose groups have never had problems with alignments, jerk GMs who arbitrate or bludgeon people with them, or taken issue with classes that are alignment-restricted? I sincerely doubt it but from the massive volumes of threads on the subject it really does feel like it.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Arcane Toolbox,
Part of that issue is communication. As long as what is 'good' or 'evil' (using quotes here) and 'lawful' and 'chaotic' is defined up front, such things shouldn't happen.
I'm beginning to see how MY alignment system works.
Lawful: Orderly, long term plans, Social
Chaotic: Impulsive, living in the now, individual
Good: Selfless
Evil: Selfish
To use the 'save the town' cliche. (All IMC of course)
Good: agree to save the town, worry about rewards later.
Neural: Work out details in advance, (You pay me X, I saw your town)
Evil: Take what you can for your greatest benefit.
Lawful: Honor the agreement.
Chaotic: Discard the agreement.
- Lawful Good will agree to save the town, and worry about rewards later. Any limitations he agrees to, he'll honour the spirit of.
- Lawful Neutral will negotiate payment, then honor the word of the agreement.
- Lawful Evil will try to make the agreement as beneficial to him as possible, then honor the letter.
- Neutral Good will save the town, putting their safety above the agreement. (If he has to cause an avalanche to stop the attackers, he will. If he has to impress a quick posse, he will)
- Neutral will balance the risk with the reward. If one becomes greater than the other, he'll compensate. (From, "You don't need to pay me that much" to "I can't stop them, flee you fools!")
- Neutral Evil will game the situation to his benefit. He might take the money, then strike a better deal with the attackers. He might 'save' the town by taking over the attacking band and going somewhere else.
- Chaotic Good will save the people over the town, their freedom and lives being more important.
- Chaotic Neutral will paint the town blue. No seriously a Chaotic Neutral character would likely act to promote the greatest individual freedom. If the attackers just want to raid and burn the villiage to the ground, he might stand back and watch, feeling it's like a wildfire. If they want to imprison or make slaves of the townsfolk, he'll defend them as long as he feels it's viable.
- Chaotic Evil - Take the money, and then open the gates for the attackers. Likely take a cut of their profits and then loot the ruins.
Now with the exception of Paladins, doing one act from the other end of the spectrum won't have an immediate effect, but consistantly doing it (for example, a chaotic character who always keeps his word even when it doesn't benefit him, or a lawful character who frequently takes the short cut of "screw the trial, he's innocent and I'm breaking him out NOW") is going to result in me sitting down with the player and asking why the motivation change and if it should impact his alignment.
Amusingly, this method does address the 'good character summoning demons to rescue orphans' and 'evil character saving the town'. If the evil character saves the town and eschews the financial reward to increase his reputation for his own benefit, that's 'Lawful Evil'. (My PC Shadrach did this a lot. He allowed himself to sacrifice short term gain to build a reputation as a hero and leader) If the wizard summons a bone devil to rescue the kids from the burning building, because nothing else on his summon list is fireproof, that's not an evil act. (Letting the bone devil act on it's nature while doing it OTOH, is, so if his instructions are to 'get the kids out of the building' and the devil throws them out, that might get a tick towards the evil scale, since he didn't think it through.)
Also it allows for good characters to 'fall' as I've outlined previously. If the hero saves the town by causing an avalanche and isolating the town from civilization in winter, that's a chaotic act (short term benefit). If he justifies it rather than compensates for it. ("Well, it will make for a hard winter, but most of the town survives." vs. "Ok, now we dig the pass out.") it goes from a good act to a neutral act.
It's motives more than actions.
Orthos,
Most of my DMs never annoyed us with allignment. But there are mechanical implications.
Detect Evil/Good can ruin a rogue's day.
Limitations to spell selection are pointless and annoying.
And Smite Evil/Good is powerful enough that I'd rather be immune to them.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always have to look at threads like this with a sort of mystified wonder. Am I the only one whose groups have never had problems with alignments, jerk GMs who arbitrate or bludgeon people with them, or taken issue with classes that are alignment-restricted? I sincerely doubt it but from the massive volumes of threads on the subject it really does feel like it.
Nope, never had a problem with it. In my opinion, a character's alignment should just be more a a gauge of past behavior than a guide to future behavior. And there should never be any mechanical effects to changing alignments per se. (A paladin loses his powers for having performed a specific prohibited deed -- not because his Good-o-meter got too low.)
In our current group, we've had several people who started with an alignment of True Neutral, and told the GM -- "Hey, I'm just gonna do my thing. Let me know if that changes, and I'll mark it down on my sheet."
…rich and diverse characters who feel more like people instead of strange cookie-cutter characters…
In a Class based system? Srsly?
…rich and diverse characters who feel more like people instead of strange cookie-cutter characters…In a Class based system? Srsly?
Srsly.