|
So I know this isn't precisely new, BUT there is a certain alignment - and I'm sure you've all guessed what it is even though I haven't put it in the title. At my table (and many others I'm told) it's known, colloquially, as chaotic bull@#%% - or, chaotic stupid if you're squeamish.
Players who choose this forbidden alignment are almost always to a T confrontational. They seem to choose it just for the opportunity to make action happen by acting impulsively and without thought. If they're not taking the most ridiculous course of action possible, they're arguing with the level heads in the party about why they need to dispense with the diplomacy and stab the king in his stupid, kingly face.
And worse than that, they use the "chaotic" portion of their alignment to justify that most disgusting atrocities - deception, torture, thuggery and worse are all justifiable as long as you're only doing it to the enemies. It doesn't make them evil, after all, because they only do it to evil NPCs.
Man, I hate Chaotic Good characters.
For all of the complaints about Chaotic Neutral, my problem players have almost always steered clear of the dreaded 'no-no' alignment. It's a personal favorite and one I've seen attached to the more well thought out characters in games I've ran. But Chaotic Good? C/G on a character sheet makes me nervous.
Anyone else have a Scrappy alignment at their table that's not Chaotic Neutral?
|
|
Apparently Lawful Neutral can be given a sideways glance for Lawyers of Asmodeus. It isn't my fault that I saves someone's life with a legal binding contract that wouldn't let my party kill the goblin. I know have this great helper in my mansion that loves to keep the fires going so the house is nice and warm.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never seen CG played that way. Usually it's the CNs that are.
YMMV I guess.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I think it is usually just players that want to disrupt things and work out frustrations in their RL. They find putting a particular alignment on their sheet to be a method to justify those actions. If you played without alignments they would still disrupt things.
But I did say usually. There are a few players who genuinely think that is the way they are supposed to behave.
I remember one who only saw the alignments in extremes.
Lawful was a straight jacket that kept him from doing almost anything.
Neutral was a balancing act. So he was always trying to keep good/bad, legal/illegal, etc... actions in roughly equal proportions.
Chaotic was random. He would actually usually roll dice to determine what he would do or say.
We couldn't seem to get him to understand any other way to look at the alignments. And he wasn't having fun with it.
He was very heart felt thankful when we decided to play without alignments.
|
|
Outside of the alignment issues, sometimes it's just that player.
Case in point, the other night my bard had an enemy bandit "charmed" so we could get some info from her. Her bandity companions had dtolen our mounts and my war mule Seamus.
So the conversation was taking a bit long for friend, playing a CN fighter. A few stacking of the dice making towers later, he decides that this source of info is no longer useful and takes her down with an axe.
I almost think that alignment is a mechanic that could possibly be removed or modified from Pathfinder. Make it more variable, at the GM's discretion. Just because it says CG on the sheet doesn't mean that that is what is actually is today. If they are butchering orphans, then they are obviously a bit CE today, with appropriate changes to take effect as needed.
I thought you were talking about CN right up until you said otherwise. Has anyone seen CG actually played as Robin Hood?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone else have a Scrappy alignment at their table that's not Chaotic Neutral?
There's nothing wrong with either chaotic good or chaotic neutral, just the way people portray them.
In D&D video games, you'll note that many of the most beloved and enjoyable characters are chaotic alignments. In Baldur's Gate 2, Minsc (and hamster), Korgan, Jan, all chaotic. And all playable.
Most players don't really understand alignment anyway, it's not meant to be a straight jacket or a way to typecast a character's each and every moment of their life, it's just a short hand for their GENERAL attitudes.
I play both chaotic neutral or chaotic good quite often at PFS tables. Apparently not many people know how to do it well. Chaotic doesn't mean crazy. Sigh.
I like the term "Lawlful Good"
I came up with the term when one of our players created a Paladin evangelist who crafted fake money with quotes from the god of charity. He would litter the streets with it and give it to beggars.
Ultimate trolling ensued when he piled all his fake money together and used it to pay off some bandits who were harassing our party.
He died a noble death, taking one for the team and opening the only trapped chest in the dungeon before my rogue could do anything.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One can justify almost any action for almost any alignment if they have enough time, a wily enough mind, and a GM who will listen.
So I know this isn't precisely new, BUT there is a certain alignment - and I'm sure you've all guessed what it is even though I haven't put it in the title. At my table (and many others I'm told) it's known, colloquially, as chaotic bull@#%% - or, chaotic stupid if you're squeamish.
Players who choose this forbidden alignment are almost always to a T confrontational. They seem to choose it just for the opportunity to make action happen by acting impulsively and without thought. If they're not taking the most ridiculous course of action possible, they're arguing with the level heads in the party about why they need to dispense with the diplomacy and stab the king in his stupid, kingly face.
And worse than that, they use the "chaotic" portion of their alignment to justify that most disgusting atrocities - deception, torture, thuggery and worse are all justifiable as long as you're only doing it to the enemies. It doesn't make them evil, after all, because they only do it to evil NPCs.
Man, I hate Chaotic Good characters.
For all of the complaints about Chaotic Neutral, my problem players have almost always steered clear of the dreaded 'no-no' alignment. It's a personal favorite and one I've seen attached to the more well thought out characters in games I've ran. But Chaotic Good? C/G on a character sheet makes me nervous.
Anyone else have a Scrappy alignment at their table that's not Chaotic Neutral?
But... genocide against the forces of evil is okay. It is how you hold back the tide of darkness. You kill the evil dragons, you kill the evil ogres and you had better kill those evil demons. The forces of evil are not politely going away.
"Atrocities" is a bit rich, when you are not exactly dealing with the players attacking the poor, starved homosexuals and Jews in the Nazi death camps. If they are killing evil with enthusiasm, and they want to be the heroes that kill evil and drive it before them, sometimes being quite nasty to evil forces to punish them, you are probably going to have to adapt as a DM. Or, you can force them to play how you want them to play, and respond how you want them to respond but I reallllllly don't recommend that. I also adamantly hope this isn't too hard for you, and that it doesn't cause further problems for your games.
Also, captured Drow matrons make great slaves, and it is ironic, just saying.
Also, we tortured the prisoner for information...
Also we conjured a sort of... space to hold them. Very organised, very efficient.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find the description of CG given by the OP hilarious. I hadn't seen NE players convince their GM that they're characters were CG before. Any time you use your character alignment as an excuse to justify evil actions you are proving beyond all doubt that your actual character alignment is evil and that your personal alinement is somewhat dubious. Your alignment does not justify your actions; it helps explains what your motives for those actions are. Good alignments cannot justify evil actions just because a character has a chaotic alignment. Something extreme needs to drive good people to commit obviously evil actions. If a CG person commits and evil act for any reason they should be wracked with guilt over it' otherwise their alignment is shifting.
Character alignment is the sum of all your actions, not the cause of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are looking for a more realistic take on alignments, check here.
Okay, maybe I lied. Still, I found it amusing.
Outlandish Evil? Now there's a concept you could really run with.
Also see Lawful Kleptomaniac and Chaotic Cuddly.
I find the description of CG given by the OP hilarious. I hadn't seen NE players convince their GM that they're characters were CG before. Any time you use your character alignment as an excuse to justify evil actions you are proving beyond all doubt that your actual character alignment is evil and that your personal alinement is somewhat dubious. Your alignment does not justify your actions; it helps explains what your motives for those actions are. Good alignments cannot justify evil actions just because a character has a chaotic alignment. Something extreme needs to drive good people to commit obviously evil actions. If a CG person commits and evil act for any reason they should be wracked with guilt over it' otherwise their alignment is shifting.
Character alignment is the sum of all your actions, not the cause of it.
Well said!
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is one of my favorite descriptions of alignment.
Imagine how groups of different alignments might seek to divide a treasure trove. Suppose the adventuring party contains one character of each alignment (a virtually impossible situation, but useful for illustration.) Each of them is then allowed to present his argument:The lawful good character says "Before we went on this adventure, we agreed to split the treasure equally, and that's what we're going to do. First, we'll deduct the costs of the adventure and pay for the resurrection of those who have fallen, since we're sharing all this equally. If someone can't be raised, then his share goes to his family."
"Since we agreed to split equally, that's fine," replies the lawful evil character thoughtfully. "But there was nothing in this deal about paying for anyone else's expenses. It's not my fault if you spent a lot on equipment! Furthermore, this deal only applies to the surviving partners; I don't remember anything about dead partners. I'm not setting aside any money to raise that klutz. He's someone else's problem."
Flourishing a sheet of paper, the lawful neutral character breaks in. "It's a good thing for you two that I've got things together, nice and organized. I had the foresight to write down the exact terms of our agreement, and we're all going to follow them."
The neutral good character balances the issues and decides, "I'm in favor of equal shares--that keeps everybody happy. I feel that expenses are each adventurer's own business: If someone spent too much, then he should be more careful next time. But raising fallen comrades seems like a good idea, so I say we set aside money to do that."
After listening to the above arguments, the true neutral character decides not to say anything yet. He's not particularly concerned with any choice. If the issue can be solved without his becoming involved, great. But if it looks like one person is going to get everything, that's when he'll step in and cast his vote for a more balanced distribution.
The neutral evil character died during the adventure, so he doesn't have anything to say. However, if he could make his opinion known, he would gladly argue that the group ought to pay for raising him and set aside a share for him. The neutral evil character would also hope that the group doesn't discover the big gem he secretly pocketed during one of the encounters.
The chaotic good character objects to the whole business. "Look, it's obvious that the original agreement is messed up. I say we scrap it and reward people for what they did. I saw some of you hiding in the background while the rest of us were doing the fighting. I don't see why anyone should be rewarded for being a coward! As far as raising dead partners, I say that's a matter of personal choice. I don't mind chipping in for some of them, but I don't think I want everyone back in the group."
Outraged at the totally true but tactless accusation of cowardice, the chaotic evil character snaps back, "Look, I was doing an important job, guarding the rear! Can I help it if nothing tried to sneak up behind us? Now, it seems to me that all of you are pretty beat up--and I'm not. So, I don't think there's going to be too much objection if I take all the jewelry and that wand. And I'll take anything interesting those two dead guys have. Now, you can either work with me and do what I say or get lost--permanently!"
The chaotic neutral character is also dead (after he tried to charge a gorgon), so he doesn't contribute to the argument. However, if he were alive, he would join forces with whichever side appealed to him the most at the moment. If he couldn't decide he'd flip a coin.
Cheers, Snorb! Well spotted!
I once ran a 'traitor' campaign where a villain started as a PC (all planned between GM and player). He was played with an obvious NE alignment, including kicking a kitten when he thought nooone saw him (the player knew, but not the character).
When confronted with lies and cruelty, the player literally pointed to the character sheet and said "but, look, i'm chaotic good, it says so right here". And they accepted that...
After the betrayal, the same player played an uber-zealous paladin with the motto "Just because they say they aren't evil...". Hard to say which character the rest of the party ended up hating more.
My least liked alignments played by others are Stupid Good, Lawful Stupid, Plain Stupid, Chaotic Stupid, and Stupid Evil. Let's break 'em down.
Stupid Good: This individual writes Lawful Good on their character sheet but regardless of their character's intelligence plays them like a chump (and really, unless you've got a 5 Int and Wis you're just not that dumb).
Lawful Stupid: This person thinks that being Lawful Neutral means playing a mindless automaton who's programming is to obey the law. Also, the alignment of rules lawyers who don't actually know what they're talking about.
Plain Stupid: This one is simultaneously the most infuriating and the most understandable to fall into. The issue with True Neutral was that anyone who has experience with alignment systems in video games (and currently that's just about everyone) knows that it is nigh impossible to maintain a neutral alignment without acting like a complete spaz. The problem comes when they take that "knowledge" and apply it to a P&P system like Pathfinder or D&D. They think that to stay "Neutral" they have to perfectly balance their actions as if they were spinning a dozen plates so that they don't become too good or too lawful or too evil. when that is just not the case.
Chaotic Stupid: This one has been gone into enough that I don't feel the need to elaborate.
Stupid Evil: Here we have someone who wanted to play a villainous character but knows jack and #$%@ about how to actually do so effectively. They choose one of the Evil alignments, typically Chaotic Evil and go about committing random acts of stupidity all with the justification of "but I'm EVIL." I've played with a few of these and they never seem to grok that evil doesn't mean stupid or oblivious/immune to repercussions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you've never seen a CN played disruptively, you're a statistical anomality.
Disruptive!
How dare you! What was I supposed to do, let the Orcs I might or might not have made up burn those fields or let that corrupt mayor continue to rule (even if I had to falsify and plant all those documents proving his guilt)
The important thing is I looted the treasury before I burned the whole place down and blamed it on "Orcs"
All's in a days work for a Murderhobo Professionnel
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What 137ben said. We have no restrictions on alignment at our table as no one wants to be disruptive. If a player wants to disrupt and derail then they will and their alignment will be nothing but a smokescreen and restrictions make no difference.
One of the issues I have with the alignment system is that people
tend to give narrow interpretations as to what they mean and do not realise that you could potentially have two characters of the same alignment that are morally different.
I've played two 'chaotic' characters for each of whom 'chaotic' meant a different thing. For my CN character 'chaotic' was an absolute rejection of laws and authority e.g. if their are multiple solutions to a problem he'd choose the one that undermines authority without recourse to 'good' or 'evil'.
For my current CG character 'chaotic' refers to his love of personal freedom and freedoms of others, he'll follow laws and obey authority so long as they're not too oppressive but will ignore them if he considers them too much of a barrier (e.g. if a slaver is using bribes, blackmail etc. to protect themselves from the legal system he'll just kill them in their sleep) or even just inconvenient e.g. whereas lawful character might march the captured bandits to the local authority for trial he would just rather give them the chance to reform or kill them there and then.
In both cases I take care not to derail or disrupt the adventure. If a course of action that runs against my characters alignment is either more or less required by the adventure or is something majority party want then I'll find non-disruptive was to express annoyance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is one of my favorite descriptions of alignment.
No no no. That very old description of alignment is part of the problem. It's the reason why so many people hate alignment and other hate players when they play certain alignments. I'd rather not play with alignment if that's how Pathfinder defined them. Luckily the game has improved since then.
I won`t say that I`ve never seen Chaotic Neutral be a problem alignment but the thing is the one case where I`ve seen it lead to aberrant behaviour most of the party was CN or close. I`m not sure if there`s ever been a case where a more or less harmonious party could be so disruptive for a GM. She has taken it stride so far though.
No no no. That very old description of alignment is part of the problem. It's the reason why so many people hate alignment and other hate players when they play certain alignments. I'd rather not play with alignment if that's how Pathfinder defined them. Luckily the game has improved since then.This is one of my favorite descriptions of alignment.
First time I've read that passage. I've dislike alignment for a much longer period.
I hate it because it's attempting to make concrete something that is difficult to even communicate from one person to another, concepts of morality and ethics, objectivity and subjectivity in a giant morass of words that will never, ever possibly even come close to providing an inkling of an estimation of what could be described as an approximate representation of someone else's thoughts on the matter.
I think we could come up with a way of defining and conveying those definitions for this complex concept, but the time and effort necessary for it to be largely free of errors would be too great.
That's why I hate alignment.
There's nothing wrong with those alignment examples; the problem is entirely with the person who is too literal and narrow-minded about it.
Also, problem players would be a problem regardless of which alignment they chose. They just use it as an excuse, as others up-thread have pointed out.
EDIT: Having phone 'net problems. I'll try this again later.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I know this isn't precisely new, BUT there is a certain alignment - and I'm sure you've all guessed what it is even though I haven't put it in the title....
Oh, you mean ALL alignments? ;)
I really don't bother with alignments in my D&D games anymore - I've seen far too many cases where alignment breaks down into silliness.
I don't think my groups missed alignment when I cut it from my games, but I know a lot of people feel strongly about house-ruling alignment out of the game, so your mileage will definitely vary on how well your group will work without it.
For what it's worth (and of course, this is just a generalization): it seems to me that the groups with the most experience with other RPGs, and the groups with the least experience with D&D, seem to be the ones who handle both the use of alignment, and the lack of alignment the best. Long-term D&D players seem to have the most difficult time in imagining role-playing without alignment, and seem to have the worst trouble with translating alignment into character decisions that make sense in any context beyond "chaotic/lawful/neutral stupid" (and so on).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never liked that description of alignment either. I suppose in the early days of the game it worked to introduce the concept, but these days it's a tired cliche. A Chaotic Evil character might be just as likely to insist on raising the dead in that situation, since he might consider the CN and NE characters to be his allies, and also to attempt to allay suspicion about his motives by the others. He's also unlikely to attempt to throw his weight around by demanding a larger share just because, unless he knows he has the upper hand, which against six other characters, even if they're wounded, he probably doesn't. Evil doesn't necessarily mean stupid.
Alignments really are meant and only meant for deities and cutting them out leaves something great missing from the system.
Human(oids) are human(oids). While people do have different values, we have a bad tendency to know what we want, but not know you can't have it all. Shrewd interviewer can get mutually exclusive answers out of people by just changing the question. Do you want things to be in neat order? Sure. Do you want want more freedom to decide where things are? Sure. Everyone loves positives and hates negatives.
Which is why mortals should always be somewhat neutral with no strict alignments. But gods, gods should be the reason to keep alignment system. Gods and their attitudes are extreme, their habits incomprehensible to mortals. Of course this works really well for Law and Chaos, but less for Good and Evil. "Good is boring and Evil is stupid" as the common saying goes.
But Good is not boring if altruism to the extreme is the total removal of conflict. Cliche plot lines incoming, higher good decides to do something drastic for the good of mortals to force them to behave nicely. Maybe force everyone to share pain so nobody wants to hurt each other. Maybe destroy wealth to destroy greed. Maybe do global mind control to remove certain select emotions that lead to "evil acts".
Gods and planar forces should feel alien to the players.
Evil doesn't necessarily mean stupid.
Exactly. To further that point, the CE character might view everyone else as his friends, and although some of them are misguided, at no point would he want to kill them. It's possible that he's just a guy who wants to do things his way in the most ruthless/efficient way possible. The CE character could even add a great deal to the party dynamic and make things interesting (without it devolving into character killing).
Yes, good and evil can work together, it happens in my company everyday. :)
Evil doesn't necessarily mean stupid.Exactly. To further that point, the CE character might view everyone else as his friends, and although some of them are misguided, at no point would he want to kill them. It's possible that he's just a guy who wants to do things his way in the most ruthless/efficient way possible. The CE character could even add a great deal to the party dynamic and make things interesting (without it devolving into character killing).
Yes, good and evil can work together, it happens in my company everyday. :)
That was exactly one of my characters. He was a CE Brutal Pugilist and solved most of his problems by savagely beating everything to death. Of course, when the 5 other people said "Don't do that", he was put out but he would often listen because he respected and liked them.
|
|
Sounds like your players are picking an chaotic alignment, then playing the character however they want. My guess is that you banned CE alignments and you frown heavily on CN. That leaves CG as an outlet for your players' less savory sides.
-Skeld
Oddly enough, this isn't the case at all. My table knows CN is my favorite alignment - I play it often, and not to brag, but I think I play it well. And I allow Evil alignments any time the story can justify it. If there's good money to be had or an apocalyptic, "Hey I live here too, better save this place" kind of thing going where I could see an otherwise evil character joining the group, I won't do much vetting at all. Ironically enough, I trust my table much more with evil anything than CG.
That was exactly one of my characters. He was a CE Brutal Pugilist and solved most of his problems by savagely beating everything to death. Of course, when the 5 other people said "Don't do that", he was put out but he would often listen because he respected and liked them.Evil doesn't necessarily mean stupid.Exactly. To further that point, the CE character might view everyone else as his friends, and although some of them are misguided, at no point would he want to kill them. It's possible that he's just a guy who wants to do things his way in the most ruthless/efficient way possible. The CE character could even add a great deal to the party dynamic and make things interesting (without it devolving into character killing).
Yes, good and evil can work together, it happens in my company everyday. :)
I played a CE character who absolutely loved his party. Of course, if it came down to them or him, he loved himself more than anybody. But he would absolutely be the guy trying to raise the dead in that party --- because he loved his companions like treasured toys, and nobody breaks his toys before he's finished playing with them.
I personally hate CE as dumb brute who just pushes others around. That's dull, stupid, and feels more NE than anything. CE is something grander; something that's not only unpleasant, but so insidious and beyond the bounds of decency that the revelation of their wrongdoing should stick with you for a long, long time. Someone who upsets the working order just by existing. But I'm getting off-topic.
This is not a failure of alignment, it's a failure of the player to play the game in a way that helps the table instead of hurts it.
I've seen all alignments played well and all alignments played crappy over the years. If the player is causing a problem, then the issue needs to be addressed to the player.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sadly, good role-players never needed alignment to figure out how characterization works, while mediocre and troubled role-players have - at best - never really been helped by it, and at worst been led pretty far off target by it.
I'd say the areas where D&D alignment shines are:
1. As a way of designating factions or teams in the D&D Miniatures Game, in the same spirit that the color factions are used in the Magic: The Gathering card game.
2. As someone mentioned above, Alignment can be a useful tool for characterizing the alien "Outsiders" from weird magical planes of extreme Law, Chaos, Evil, and Good: gods, angels, devils, demons, and the rest of that unearthly, inhuman cast operate based on alignment, because they lack the free will that humans and human stand-ins (Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Vulcans, Wookiees, etc.) are characterized by. Similarly, Air, Fire, Water, and Earth are neat tools for determining how Elementals from alien Elemental planes work, but don't work so well for characterizing humans.
Alignment is of questionable value for:
* Use by lazy/overworked/rushed GMs for characterizing stock NPCs, without having to give much thought to individual motivation or characterization. "These Indians spot some cowboys. What do they do? They go on the warpath, of course, because Indians are Always Chaotic Evil!" One doesn't have to worry too much about why the Orcs are raiding villages - there's a CE on their stat blocks, so Orcs do unlawful and mean things because they are CE, and they are CE because they do unlawful and mean things, and that's all you need to know about them.
Alignment is really not a good tool for:
* Creating characters with any depth. In fact, Alignment does just the opposite of creating characters with depth: Alignment is a collection of nine stereotypes to choose from, and then follow to a greater or lesser degree depending on how closely you want to force yourself to follow them, or get forced to follow them by someone else (e.g., the GM).
Just drop Alignment from the game, and refer to it only on the occasions when you are dealing with extra-planar alien entities like angels, devils, demons, and gods. The handful of rules that relate to Alignment (detect alignment, smite, etc.) should be easy enough to sort out in any cases that don't involve such beings.
Instead, encourage your players to come up with better reasons, characterizations, and motivations than Alignment for the nice, mean, obedient, rebellious, and indifferent things their characters do.
And, if you aren't already doing so as a GM, do your players a favor and find better reasons, motives, and characterizations for your humanoid NPCs to do the things that they do, too.
There's zillions of RPGs that work just fine without Alignment and almost never hear of the "Stupid" alignment complaints, and it's not like alignment is up there with one of the truly defining elements of D&D, as if I'm suggesting running a game of D&D with no dungeons or dragons in it.
Your good role-players will never miss Alignment, and your mediocre players have a good chance of finally getting the whole role-playing thing once they can start seeing the Characterization Forest past the Alignment Tree. (Your bad role-players, on the other hand, will probably flip the table, but something tells me they'll flip the table eventually, anyway, or else drive someone else to, so you might as well get the table-flipping over with sooner than later....)
So much easier to just eliminate the good/evil band and leave it as a single lawful/chaotic band.
Lawful follows the rules
Neutral follows 'his own' rules
Chaotic says 'what rules?'
Then anytime a spell effects and such reference good or evil, change it to lawful/chaotic and call it a day.
|
|
My Iron Gods brawler I played as Chaotic Neutral. She was good friends with the party (the barbarian moreso than the rest, but she DID avenge the android cleric's death...) but I just played her as "with no compunction towards killing anyone" and "adopting children to teach them how to be brawler/barbarian multiclass characters is a good thing."
...Or you could not be so damn nitpicky about alignment when you're GMing, let people who enjoy alignment have it, and those who don't can write "true neutral" on their sheet and not have any mechanical effects whatsoever.