A mercenary who always honors his word is a good example of lawful. Accepting ANY contract probably means he is also evil.
Barbarian's can be neutral, just need to be careful not to ALWAYS act lawfully. Actually the barbarian's alignment restriction always bothered me... Why can't they be lawful???
|
If someone only has one or two important rules that they always stick to they could easily stay neutral. Heck, your character might not even consider it a code, but just a natural thing. "Why wouldn't you keep your word? Do you also eat your children?"
That said, I just don't like the alignment restriction on barbarian. ESPECIALLY on the Urban Barbarian archetype. Just because they can rage for up to about 0.3% of their day doesn't mean they can't be calm and collected the rest. The fact that they are in complete control of their rage doesn't help the "primal chaos" description either. A Barbarian is more like someone who accepts that fury into them, but then forges it to become its master. Except Wild Ragers, those guys accept rage into their hearts and allow it to consume them. Totally chaotic.
If you were flaky enough about other things, I think you could have a chaotic alignment despite having a code.
I can think of some chaotic vegetarians I've known, for instance... ;-)
If you're flaky about some things and honorable about others you might just be neutral.
I read Lawful as a trend to do as authorities and even more traditions dictate (ie, outside references).
I do not see following your own personal code (NOT outside reference) as Lawful.
As always, check with your GM.
The references posted in the other thread place "Personal Code" clearly as a Lawful thing... at least by RAW.
|
|
To stay below the radar of RAW-addicts, just change your words.
Do not talk about having a "personal code of conduct".
Say that your Barbarian "acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him", that he "makes his own way" or that he "follows his own moral compass". All these expressions are hallmarks of the Chaotic Good alignment according to the CRB.
Or explain that he "follows his whims" and "values his own liberty" and that he will let no one tell him what he should do. (Classic of the Chaotic Neutral according to the CRB).
Or maybe he just "does what his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do" (Chaotic Evil in the CRB).
Just avoid the Code word ;-)
Except if you are an Antipaladin of course, since they DO have a code of conduct (and a rather constraining one at that) even though they are most definitely Chaotic Evil.
If you're flaky about some things and honorable about others you might just be neutral.
Usually I interpret neutral as "not particularly consistent and not particularly flaky" or "not particularly merciful and not particularly cruel".
I don't subscribe to the "every time I rape someone, I open up a hospital" theory of neutrality.
No. Painted in those words hogarth what I said was wrong...
It isn't what I intended to sound like.
Neutral is a fairly grey area, no pun intended.
Barbarians have to be non-lawful does that mean they cannot have a person code or a code of honor?
"Personal Codes" and "Codes of Honor" are things that lawful individuals and groups emphasize, especially those who are Lawful/Good or Lawful/Neutral.
Can a barbarian be loyal, say loyal to their country their family?
Yes.
Is a mercenary who always honors his word and completes every contract in full (to an almost compulsive level) but who will also accept nearly any contract as long as the price is right lawful or chaotic.
I would describe that behavior as Lawful/Evil.
You seem to be mixing up "barbarian" with "chaotic", but barbarians are only required to be non-lawful. The character you describe sounds to me like he's probably Neutral/Evil or Neutral/Neutral, depending on just how evil those contracts are. Would he accept and fulfill a contract like this?
Conduct an annual raid on the Bagongo tribe. Cut the tendons at the left ankle and right wrist of all males who have reached puberty. Gather the unmarked females who have reached puberty and divide them into two groups. The first group, mark their faces with branding irons; the second group bring to us as slaves.
If so, I'd say that he's evil.
What alignment is a Kantian anarchist?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always figured David Gemmell's Iron code of Druss the Legend covered an non lawful but good alignemt nicely it was
Never violate a woman, nor harm a child. Do not lie, cheat or steal. These things are for lesser men. Protect the weak against the evil strong. And never allow thoughts of gain to lead you into the pursuit of evil.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What alignment is a Kantian anarchist?
LG. Kant trumps anarchism.
|
Couple examples of Chaotic characters with codes of honor--
Mal Reynolds: Chaotic Good- Protect your crew, even if you don't like them. The feds are not to be counted on or trusted. Don't let anyone fall into the hands of Reavers. Don't finish a job that leaves a lot of people harmed (train job). Don't let people insult the people you care about. They can insult their profession, but not them.
The Joker: Chaotic Evil- Have fun! Spread anarchy in ways that are loud rather then quiet! Always act to destroy peoples faith in those who protect them. It is better to convert others if you can rather kill them.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
you can't kick helpless unarmed prisoners into rotors and still remain good,
Bull. Someone being restrained at the moment does not automatically put them off-limits for killing by a good character. We're talking about a situation where Mal started by offering peace, and Cro tried to kill him instead. Mal managed to defend himself successfully, and chose to spare Cro's life and again offer a peaceful way out, to which Cro responded with a death threat.
If you think Mal couldn't kill him in that situation and still be good-aligned, you don't understand the alignment system.
not to mention he has the solider's disregard of the moral quandary of killing.
We're talking about the alignment system of a game in which every single GOOD deity has a favored WEAPON, with which they gift ALL of their clerics with proficiency. Good deities expect their clerics to be ready to kill if need be, and expect them to be good-aligned while doing it.
I tend not to bother too much with alignment. When need be (say a Paladin in the party) I'll pay lip service, but my feeling is that alignment is only useful, so long as it facilitates role playing. The moment you say "your character concept is no longer valid, because this line says monks must be lawful" alignment has outlived its usefulness.
However, alignment is a lot about buzz words. You could describe the same character to emphasize different alignments; if that weren't true, then the characters would be both flat and static. Even the most clear-cut of alignment case aren't as clear cut as you might think. My advice: just play your character how you want. In my experience, most DMs don't bring the hammer down (unless you're a paladin, because of their strict code of content), because most DMs either understand that good role playing trumps alignment, or else they're so engrossed in the story that's unfolding, that they don't even think too much about it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you think Mal couldn't kill him in that situation and still be good-aligned, you don't understand the alignment system.
I think this pretty much sums up the problem. I'd estimate that no more than 20% of gamers understand the alignment system (not having issues with the system due to apathy towards the system or not actually worrying about alignment doesn't count), and the funny thing is, I can't blame the other 80+%. Hell, I may even be within the 80+% and not even know it! As could you! Or Anyone else!
Mostly because it's a hodgepodge of nonsense and conflicting ideas. The more someone tries to define alignment into black and white the more convoluted and contrived it becomes, which is terrible from a mechanical perspective. Mechanics need to be consistent. Alignment rarely is. Now it might be consistent on small scales, but overall it's not. The classic example is mindless evil creatures, which by its nature the alignment rules expressly forbid (showing that alignment is not consistent and makes for a very poor game mechanic).
The most effective use I've been able to personally find for alignment is as a narrative device or roleplaying aid and only with a grain of salt. Even within the rules, there is no way to correctly roleplay an alignment, and there are no hard and fast rules as to whether someone is X or Y, only a matter of consistency. There is also little coverage as to the strength of a choice and how it affects your alignment, again because of consistency vs individual action. If a good character presses a button and blows up a planet full of sentient creatures, some would consider that individual wholly and irredeemably evil, but in game terms the character isn't. Likewise, the heroic sacrifice doesn't really jive either (because one good act out of a thousand evil just leaves you as evil with tendencies). Or does it?
Which is kind of the point. Does it? The alignment rules say this:
A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.
Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.
All creatures have an alignment. Alignment determines the effectiveness of some spells and magic items.
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.
------
Alignment is a tool, a convenient shorthand you can use to summarize the general attitude of an NPC, region, religion, organization, monster, or even magic item.
Certain character classes in Classes list repercussions for those who don't adhere to a specific alignment, and some spells and magic items have different effects on targets depending on alignment, but beyond that it's generally not necessary to worry too much about whether someone is behaving differently from his stated alignment. In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment, based on the descriptions given previously and his own opinion and interpretation—the only thing the GM needs to strive for is to be consistent as to what constitutes the difference between alignments like chaotic neutral and chaotic evil. There's no hard and fast mechanic by which you can measure alignment—unlike hit points or skill ranks or Armor Class, alignment is solely a label the GM controls.
It's best to let players play their characters as they want. If a player is roleplaying in a way that you, as the GM, think doesn't fit his alignment, let him know that he's acting out of alignment and tell him why—but do so in a friendly manner. If a character wants to change his alignment, let him—in most cases, this should amount to little more than a change of personality, or in some cases, no change at all if the alignment change was more of an adjustment to more accurately summarize how a player, in your opinion, is portraying his character. In some cases, changing alignments can impact a character's abilities—see the class write-ups in Classes for details. An atonement spell may be necessary to repair damage done by alignment changes arising from involuntary sources or momentary lapses in personality.
So alignment at its core is GM fiat, and there's no wonder that it causes a lot of strife in the community. You're literally putting one person forth as a complete dictator as to the morality of your entire game. Just as Jiggy and Wind Chime cannot agree on what is good or not good, with both using their books to arrive at their conclusions. It's a good way to piss people off, and has caused more strife and contention in groups than any other single issue in D&D.
So Who Is Right?
I always ran alignment very softly. People have a lot of leeway, and intent is important. You literally cannot have a system that encompasses morality unless you do. If you take it softly, you can sort of divine the alignment of any action or situation with relative ease. In the case of good vs evil - the main contenders (because nobody really cares about law vs chaos) - it generally comes down to altruism/empathy vs selfishness/destructivism with lots of middle ground of "not-aligned" in between.
The thing is, the less you try to use alignment, the more it works. To the extent that I eventually questioned if we really need it. I've tested the system and found that, mechanically, no we don't need it. At least not for the nuts and bolts of things. Not even for mechanics like protection from evil which are most certainly the most "hardcoded" of alignment as a mechanic. So divorcing alignment from the mechanics for the most part (alignment-emphasized mechanics are a 3.x construction), I looked to see what we are left with.
Now, some would say we are left with a guideline as to how we're supposed to play our characters. Except, we aren't. That's using alignment incorrectly, as noted in the alignment rules themselves. Alignment by its nature doesn't dictate a character's behavior but is derived from that behavior. Likewise, alignment doesn't actually determine how we play our characters. The alignment rules have already stated that they are descriptions of generalities and that the GM is the arbiter of what something actually is or isn't, which brings us to one of the problems with alignment: The Paladin vs GM issue.
Using Jiggy vs Wind Chime as examples again.
you can't kick helpless unarmed prisoners into rotors and still remain good,Bull. Someone being restrained at the moment does not automatically put them off-limits for killing by a good character. We're talking about a situation where Mal started by offering peace, and Cro tried to kill him instead. Mal managed to defend himself successfully, and chose to spare Cro's life and again offer a peaceful way out, to which Cro responded with a death threat.
If you think Mal couldn't kill him in that situation and still be good-aligned, you don't understand the alignment system.
The fact of the matter is. Both Jiggy AND Wind Chime are right, even though they are directly contested here. If Jiggy was a GM, your character punishes an evil guy and exerts his freedom of alignment. If Wind Chime was the GM, you just became a "non-good" character, and since it's entirely up to the GM as to how that works and how far it goes, when, where, why, and how. Now for most characters this isn't an issue. However, for a Paladin it's a blank check to have all your features revoked, often for things that you or your peers may see as non-evil or even good-aligned. A clear cut reason why alignment - a purely conceptual thing bordering on the utterly whimsical - does a very bad job of being a mechanical nature.
The Paladin's code of conduct, if cleaned up, would be an example of a good mechanic that would insist that a character acted in a certain way. Forbidding or promoting certain specifics is fine. In fact, one could erect a code of conduct that without ever using the word Good would mean that the character acted in keeping with a good alignment merely by following the code. Which seems more reasonable than leaving it to vagueness and poor mechanics like losing their powers if they "ever willingly commit an evil act (which we already determined is entirely subjective)" as opposed to "ever willingly break their code" (their code is not solely on the whims of one individual).
So What Did I Learn?
When I examined it, I was taken back to my younger brother when he began playing D&D at the age of four. He played a Fighter who was for all purposes the most perfect paladin you could imagine. I realized he didn't play his fighter in this way because of alignment, but because he wanted to. He didn't even have any mechanical benefits for his alignment, and I'm not sure we even bothered to put alignment on his sheet. Yet there he was, playing a perfectly Lawful Good character in his own way. He was selfless, giving, merciful, heroic, and brave. I realized that this child who was only four at the time had unintentionally taught me something that has confounded mature gamers for generations now.
Alignment doesn't make a character. If anything, it only adds to people playing unbelievable and poorly made characters. It leads to arguments. It leads to contention. It leads to confusion. It is effectively worthless as anything other that a springboard for ideas as to how you want your character to behave and little else.
Alignment gives us nothing that we don't already have, and only causes problems. Alignment is outmoded. It's obsolete in its current form. I say this as someone who likes the alignment descriptions and find them surprisingly good takes on good/evil in a very objective way.