|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always hated to hear the words "your characters cannot be of X alignment".
I don't really get it that much.
I get "The party must be able to work together" or "Tour character must be able to behave himself up to some decent human standards"
It usually happens with Evil characters, which is sad by itself because sometimes you want to play someone evil, but lately I see it happening with Chaotic Neutral too.
Even Way of the Wicked that is supposed to be a campaign for Evil characters says "Ok, you can be evil, but not chaotic evil"
I get it that there are people that really take some alignment to become a character impossible to play in a group. But that is what a bad player does, not what a bad alignment does.
I feel many people started to evaluate alignments not for what they can potentially do, but for the wackiest stereotype they can think about it.
So whenever someone thinks Chaotic evil they think acting like a total psychopath without control instead of someone who is probably just selfish and rebellious with little respect for strict protocol.
While Chaotic neutral is not just a rebel and a free-thinker, but obviously someone who is raving mad and out of control.
Why do so many people let some bad actors define what alignment are allowed in their campaigns?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't care what alignment players put on their sheet, I just want the players to bring heroes.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I heavily restrict alignment, but it's because of my vision of what this game is supposed to be about. My choice of stories to tell in Pathfinder is epic good versus evil, so I require all PCs to be of good alignment. Also, my main players are my 5 year old and 9 year old, so this kind of restriction just makes sense. They can still be any class besides anti-paladin, because a druid can be NG. I know this won't work for all play styles, but I would say this restriction is an important part of our play style.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I stopped paying attention to alignment a long time ago.
If anything, it hampers roleplaying rather than enhances it.
My players still list them, but I just let them live with the consequences of their actions - whatever those might be.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always include restrictions in games I run. Sometimes it is because I want a certain theme of a story, and sometimes it is because I want a cohesive team oriented party. Often it is both.
Sometimes the players as a group have a lot of input into the allowable alignments. For example, is someone wants to play a Paladin I make sure everyone is good, and require alignments that can co-exist with that character. Equally, if we are playing a group of bad guys, you can't bring in a Paladin (or any LG really) as a new character.
Frankly I can't imagine a game where 'play whatever alignment you want' working unless everyone happens by chance to pick compatible alignments.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would advise anyone picking from the more....troublesome... corner of the alignment spectrum to have very serious reasons for their participation as well as restrictions on their actions.
Essentially- I want to know that they won't just suddenly decide to cut off an important NPC's head...at an inconvenient time (for evil campaigns, backstabbing is to be held until after they have out lived their usefulness)
Typically, the best way would be to have them tied to another partymember, perhaps by bounds of blood, or a complete devotion towards a VERY specific goal that they don't want to mess up. . Just have something to reign them in so they aren't constantly deciding to cut off every NPC's head for the extra xp.
Essentially...while other alignments can usually "wing it" as generic adventurers... "winging it" as a CE character often means disrupting the campaign. So they have to live up to higher standards or their character doesn't get to live (turned in to local authorities, righteous judgment, dagger in the back, etc.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I get it that there are people that really take some alignment to become a character impossible to play in a group. But that is what a bad player does, not what a bad alignment does.
This is rather why some (or many) people limit available alignments. Because the problem isn't by necessity the alignment but that a player who fits into the concept of that guy might decide to play it to the disruptive extreme.
It provides a boundary you put up front that there are certain behaviours you don't tolerate, or want. The other option, to simply exile that guy, can be an impossibility. Thus, your method of managing them becomes direct intervention/restraint.Being able to stop a player who decided they want to rape, pillage and plunder, with a creepy emphasis on the formermost, with the words "Your character wouldn't do that" is valuable.
Yes, it might shut down their fun but a table consists of the GM as well (who has a same right to have fun) and other players. Who also may object to the creep.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always hated to hear the words "your characters cannot be of X alignment".
I don't really get it that much.
I get "The party must be able to work together" or "Tour character must be able to behave himself up to some decent human standards"
...
I get it that there are people that really take some alignment to become a character impossible to play in a group. But that is what a bad player does, not what a bad alignment does.
...
Why do so many people let some bad actors define what alignment are allowed in their campaigns?
From the player perspective:
I would think most of it is because the player is NOT like that and actually has a hard time imagining what that would be like. Since he can't envision it, he falls back on some extreme stereotype as "that must be what it is."From the GM side:
Some of us have a history that tells us that when someone puts CE or CN on their character sheet there seems to be about a 90% correlation with that PC only causing problems in the game.
Not just "bad players." Even people that are otherwise pleasant people to game with, often get lost down the rabbit hole as soon as they put those 2 letters on their sheet.
I personally try not to ban things from my games, but I can certainly understand the temptation. And I certainly have done it with some groups that just plain can't seem to handle it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll add that alignment is usually only the beginning of what I require all the characters to have. For example, my kingmaker campaign we decided as a group that we would build a NG kingdom, so every character had to be a step from that, and in addition, they had to have a motivation as a character to build and run a goodly kingdom. There are plenty of potential good characters that would fit in alignment, but wouldn't have any desire to be part of building up a kingdom. They wouldn't be welcome in that campaign, because building a kingdom is what the campaign is about.
Similarly, if you are playing Scull and Shackles, you better build a character that wants to be a pirate. There is nothing wrong with a character who wants fight against demons in the worldwound, or explore the tombs of long dead pharaohs, but they should be different campaigns, not is skull and shackles.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't care what alignment players put on their sheet, I just want the players to bring heroes.
I stopped paying attention to alignment a long time ago.
If anything, it hampers roleplaying rather than enhances it.
My players still list them, but I just let them live with the consequences of their actions - whatever those might be.
This and this.
For me, I tell players to write down an alignment if they want, if it helps them get into character, but I never ask them what they wrote down. If they interact with something that detects alignments or affects alignments (e.g. Protection from Good or Smite Evil) then I have it affect characters based on how they have been played, not what is written on their sheets.
I also tell them to build a character who, regardless of alignment, can work together with a team of adventurers (no lone-wolf characters, no "I'll pretend to cooperate then backstab and TPK the rest of the group when it suits me" types, etc.).
Also, like Dave before me, I also tell them what the campaign is going to be like (we all pick the campaign together, actually, but then I give them a very high level overview) and insist that whatever characters they make, their personality must fit into that campaign goal.
Within those campaign and cooperation restrictions, I let players play any alignment. CN guys who are just happy to be adventuring and getting rich and famous with a team (and therefore unwilling to sabotage that), evil guys who have an ulterior motive but are also willing to be part of a team while it fits their long-term agenda (as long as their long-term agenda is compatible with the campaign).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is one of the problems with playing with people you don't know. It's hard to tell the good apples from the bad ones. And the bad apples are often willing to say that they are team players and then fall back on the despised line "I was only doing what my character would do."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My experience is that players often push the line and choose to interpret things their own way.
CN is the ultimate "I can do whatever I want and there are no punishments for it" mentality.
Often players of such alignments will slay the innocent for no reason, or make evil decisions and claim it's under the guise of chaos.
Rather than playing the pure chaos side of things (which in DnD terms means not lawful, rather than pandemonium) they use their alignment as an excuse to play a chaotic evil character and justifying it by saying "I'm not evil, I'm just crazy" or some other line.
Typically I won't mind either, but my players know not to lie on their character sheets to gain some sort of mechanical advantage.
If these issues really bother you, check out the variant alignment systems in Unchained, the loyalty system in particular is stellar for dealing with complex policy in gaming, rather than the antiquated Tolkeinish good vs evil that the backbone of gaming was built on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know...I think if you are going to be evil, you need to have a discussion of 'how' you are evil.
Have a list of evil actions and attitudes your character would have, and try to make it a list that doesn't usually mess with the campaign.
For a form of 'harmless evil', racism might work. Sexisming and being a chauvanist too.
Also a general disregard for hostages adn civilians that are not immediately important for your work (not saying you go out of your way to kill them...but you would never drop your weapon to defend them either).
As a player, I don't really mind it when the GM posts alignment restrictions. If If do need to play a character that, say, fits into CN or NE, I'll send the GM a copy of my character's background and personality, and if he approves, I write down the next highest alignment (usually TN) on the sheet.
Most of the time, the GM doesn't even tell the difference. If he does figure it out, he then knows that the character is not disruptive, and should be okay with a CN change.
So yeah. If you really have to play a "soft" evil character or a character that really does fit Chaotic Neutral, just write True Neutral on your sheet. As long as you are consistent and not disruptive, most DMs won't really care all that much.
*
And really, if alignment effects didn't exist, I would be tempted to just write "Alignment Doesn't Matter" on every character sheet.
This is one of the problems with playing with people you don't know. It's hard to tell the good apples from the bad ones. And the bad apples are often willing to say that they are team players and then fall back on the despised line "I was only doing what my character would do."
Not only with people you don't know.
I know of several people that only become real jack-holes when the put CE or CN on their character sheet. It seems to be the only way they think those alignments can be played.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even Way of the Wicked that is supposed to be a campaign for Evil characters says "Ok, you can be evil, but not chaotic evil"
Point of note, the reason you can't be CE in Way of the Wicked is that you devote yourselves to Asmodeus. There are 4 allowed alignments for the campaign because you cannot be opposed to Asmodeus on either the Good/Evil spectrum or the Lawful/Chaotic spectrum.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The weirdest thing I've seen is someone who banned Neutral, because it was boring.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
CN just tends to turn into a caricature of an adventurer. I had a player pull off CN really well, where he played a mercenary that had a goal, and nothing was going to stop him. CN wasn't a "screw it, let's cut their fingers off!" thing for him, it was a code that essentially said that he was going to do what he had to in order to find his family again. THAT was a compelling version of CN, and the character would sometimes tow the line between CG and CE, all dependent on context.
An example of a boring version of CN is the guy that just wants to be CE-lite. That point where the party has captured a prisoner that surrendered to them and this player says "ehhh, yeah. I chop off his head before anyone can do anything about it. LOL!" It's the players that want to turn an adventure into Grand Theft Auto, often at the expense of the other players, that really get irksome. Why should I cater to the guy who wants to derail everything when I've got three or more other people who are stoked on being heroes and crushing evil? Why is their fun more important than everyone else's, simply because they want to FIGHT EVERY GUARD in Skyrim or whatever?
The problem really is that CN or CE or whatever might be fun for an adventure, but over the course of a campaign that might take years to complete it gets really tiring.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I allow all alignments in general, but I do restrict motivations and PvP.
I've got a Wrath of the Righteous campaign going where I told my players that it was going to be a campaign set in a crusade by a nation led by a paladin queen against the forces of the Abyss.
They could play any alignment they wanted, but their character had to want to "Fight Demons and Save the World."
I haven't really had any alignment problems since I started telling people what the big hook of the campaign is.
The weirdest thing I've seen is someone who banned Neutral, because it was boring.
Just true neutral, or did they ban the entire druid alignment spectrum?
I mean...I can underand. If you at least lean on one of the axises, you at least have something to work off of. Helpful, follower of rules, "I do what I want", sadist... you can easily find 'something'.
But yeah...it is likely because of a few too many lazy role players just saying "I'll just be neutral or whatever". You know the guys- the ones that just go on their iphones when NPCs are talking because they didn't point in diplomacy and dumped their CHA hard, and only come back when it is time to hit things with great sword or fireballs.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I ignore alignment as much as possible. I could go on at length about it, but it basically it boils down to real people don't work that way. In my current campaign I just had everyone roll for what alignment to put on their sheet and let them play the characters however they want. I'm looking at it sort of like a positive/negative charge that doesn't affect personality/morality, just what magic works on the character and how.
|
|
I think saying that alignments don't exist in real life is nonsense. However, I _would_ say that true neutral does not exist in real life. There are actual good and evil in the world, and either you put others before yourself and are good, or you put yourself before others and are evil (yes, most of us are shades of grey between the two, but usually favor one or the other).
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to think the reverse. Your average person in the real world is neutral in alignment. They believe good is better than bad and order is better than chaos, but they don't feel a strong desire to uphold either. Having a good alignment would imply that you usually put the needs of others before your own needs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not so much that I don't think they exist, but that nobody can agree on what exactly defines them. Look at the religious fanatics who murder others for being heretics; they think they are doing their god's will and therefore "good", but plenty of people would call that "evil".
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if 51% of your actions are putting the needs of others first (including basic self care to enable you to meet the needs of others), you are of good alignment. If 51% or more are selfish, you are of evil alignment. To truly be neutral, it would have to be 50% of each.
So, if you were to spend 6 days a week helping the homeless and 1 day a week beating them up, then under your philosophy, you would be good.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if 51% of your actions are putting the needs of others first (including basic self care to enable you to meet the needs of others), you are of good alignment. If 51% or more are selfish, you are of evil alignment. To truly be neutral, it would have to be 50% of each.
And I disagree with this. I believe that good actions are actively helping people and evil actions are actively harming them. Any action that is not either of those is a neutral action.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if 51% of your actions are putting the needs of others first (including basic self care to enable you to meet the needs of others), you are of good alignment. If 51% or more are selfish, you are of evil alignment. To truly be neutral, it would have to be 50% of each.
Neutral is as much a gradient as Good and Evil are. It's not this fine balance that can be tipped by the smallest actions.
Usually, Good and Evil are defined by a strong commitment. If you occasionally donate to charity/the homeless to make yourself happier, that doesn't automatically make you good. Similarly, a bit of selfishness doesn't make you evil.
This extends to Pathfinder characters, as well, or you'll get ridiculous stuff like this:
Druid: After getting out of that prison, I take a moment to appreciate my freedom and lie down under the gentle embrace of nature.
GM: You expressed a love for freedom, which is chaotic. Shift your alignment from NG to CG. You fall as a druid.
Druid: What?
Not everyone identifies good and evil the same way.
For example, I know of a few people who identify it like this (I'm sure I don't have their philosophy completely correct, but it is at least fairly close to this):
Good - You have to be so distinctly dedicated to helping others that you are actively hurting your won interests. Like donating to charity to the point where you don't have enough food to eat.
Evil - You would be clearly committed to hurting other people without regard to whether or not it helps yourself. Starting trouble at work just to get someone else fired even though you know you will also lose your job.
Neutral - Everything in between. The vast majority of people and their actions.
Other people obviously believe that anything you pastor/priest/elder tells you to do is good. Everything else is evil.
There are a multitude of other definitions.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing to consider when thinking of your morality is how you treat friends as opposed to how you treat strangers. A Neutral or even Evil person still likes their friends, because they are friends. Even an Evil person would be perfectly justified in going out of their way for someone they like. The difference of good and evil is in how you treat people you don't have any immediate reasons to care for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if 51% of your actions are putting the needs of others first (including basic self care to enable you to meet the needs of others), you are of good alignment. If 51% or more are selfish, you are of evil alignment. To truly be neutral, it would have to be 50% of each.Neutral is as much a gradient as Good and Evil are. It's not this fine balance that can be tipped by the smallest actions.
Usually, Good and Evil are defined by a strong commitment. If you occasionally donate to charity/the homeless to make yourself happier, that doesn't automatically make you good. Similarly, a bit of selfishness doesn't make you evil.
This extends to Pathfinder characters, as well, or you'll get ridiculous stuff like this:
Druid: After getting out of that prison, I take a moment to appreciate my freedom and lie down under the gentle embrace of nature.
GM: You expressed a love for freedom, which is chaotic. Shift your alignment from NG to CG. You fall as a druid.
Druid: What?
I truly want to see that play out sometime in an actual game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if 51% of your actions are putting the needs of others first (including basic self care to enable you to meet the needs of others), you are of good alignment. If 51% or more are selfish, you are of evil alignment. To truly be neutral, it would have to be 50% of each.
No wonder you think Neutral doesn't exist; you have marginalized it into nonexistence.
I see it sort of the way you do, but I don't draw the line (either line) at 51%. Closer to 67%. So if 67% of your actions are good, then you're good. If 67% of your actions are evil, then you're evil. Otherwise you're in between those extremes and therefore neutral.
But really, there is no hard-line and no way to define "67%" in any meaningful way. You could do 99% little good things and one giant evil thing and everyone would say you're evil, so how can we quantify this?
We can't. It's just theory.
But I do believe there is room in the theory between good and evil, and it's not just a marginal <2% as in your model.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to think that alignments are extremes and neutral is by far the most common, because otherwise society would just fall apart. Consider a world where 1/3 are chaotic and 1/3 are evil. Everyone would be dead.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sigh... (for clarity, I'm frustrated with myself, not you guys)
I guess the confusion serves me right for trying to explain this without bringing religion into it.
I believe that there is a literal heaven and hell after death. Good and evil are best defined by which of these a person would end up in, if nothing changed before their death. There is no limbo, purgatory, annihilation, or any other possible fate. It's this world view that makes the neutral alignment seem silly to me. I guess you could try to make a case that it's where you put those people who are close enough to the border between the two that they constantly switch back and forth, but I'm not even sure there are many people like that.
Another way to put it is that I think the 'bigger reality' behind the reality we see is a battle between Good and Evil. We each take a side in this battle, whether we realize that is what we are doing or not. And this is what good and evil alignments are. I'm not going to completely derail this thread by getting into my idea as to exactly what we do to pick our sides, because that's going to get into proselytizing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess the confusion serves me right for trying to explain this without bringing religion into it.
Ah, well then. I'm out. Can't debate religion...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say that most religions do cover neutrality though. The Christian Bible uses Lukewarm for the concept, though it's sprinkled all throughout in the subtext.
There's more than just Black vs White in pathfinder, though, Redelia. There's a whole spectrum of alignments, and when you boil them down into just Black or White, you're just going to cause yourself issues.
It's not a tightrope, that's why there's more than one alignment and more than one afterlife.
Anyway, the problem I've seen with some alignments with players is that they just write the alignment down and then try to do do various things that would follow their alignment instead of their character. "That's just what my character would do" seems to mean "that's what my alignment /could/ do at its most extreme"
Alignment is usually fine when your character has a goal, motives and all the other basic blocks before you even write your alignment down, and then use your alignment to reach that goal.
Let's say you want to find a lost treasure. Any alignment could want that treasure, and every alignment could go about trying to get that treasure in its own way.
Being a chaotic evil person who goes around kicking puppies and uses a die to determine what choices they make doesn't make sense because it doesn't get you anywhere, it's just aimless destruction. You wouldn't be an adventurer, you'd just get killed before reaching Level 2 because your stupidity would catch up with you.
If it goes against self preservation, does nothing for anyone, and it actively hurts those around you who are helping you reach your goal, is it REALLY what your character would do?
|
|
I will not play in a mixed good and evil campaign or run one because I know I won't enjoy it. It's as simple as that. I've tried it before, and it wasn't fun for me (or anyone that wasn't the token evil character for that matter). Heck, I've had enough bad experiences with CN characters that I'm really wary of them (and one of my favorite characters to play is CN).
If it works for you, cool. It doesn't for me, and I will continue disallowing evil characters in good campaigns.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Evil characters are perfectly playable in a good campaign, barring nosy paladins. Just play a nice person who happens to be willing to do evil things if need be. I've had a lot of fun with it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly I can't imagine a game where 'play whatever alignment you want' working unless everyone happens by chance to pick compatible alignments.
I had many games like that actually. with highly incompatible alignments. Creates a little bit of tension between the characters here and there but nothing more than spicing up a little the characters interaction.
My experience is that players often push the line and choose to interpret things their own way.
CN is the ultimate "I can do whatever I want and there are no punishments for it" mentality.
Often players of such alignments will slay the innocent for no reason, or make evil decisions and claim it's under the guise of chaos.
Rather than playing the pure chaos side of things (which in DnD terms means not lawful, rather than pandemonium) they use their alignment as an excuse to play a chaotic evil character and justifying it by saying "I'm not evil, I'm just crazy" or some other line.
Yeah, but that is what I identify as bad actor.
I mean .. I know everything about bad players that just cause mayhem for the sake of it and try to find a lousy alignment justification. But I feel are the same that play LG paladins and cut the head of the local barmaid because "detect Evil pinged and evil must be purged"Or the whacky notion of the true neutral that must switch sides whenever the enemy is losing to "maintain the balance"
The problem is not the alignment, is the attitude of the player playing that alignment.
It's not SOME bad actors. It's practically everyone I've seen with Chaotic Neutral penned in on their character sheet. From those who think "I'll balance the evil I do today with the good I do tomorrow" to the folks who think chaotic neutral means I roll dice to decide what I'm doing now, to others who see Chaotic Neutral as an opening to see just how much of evil line can I push while still keeping to the Neutral flag.
I really think you play with the wrong people
They could play any alignment they wanted, but their character had to want to "Fight Demons and Save the World."
I haven't really had any alignment problems since I started telling people what the big hook of the campaign is.
Absolutely.. I mean .. even any of my potential CE character would have quite an interest in stopping the Worldwound as they generally enjoy being alive.
You really need to be a fanatical follower of either Deskari or Baphomet to want anything but the end of the worldwound.Even a fanatical follower of a different demon lord wouldn't want the wourldwound to succeed on their terms. Their terms likely mean the elimination of all the rivals.
I think saying that alignments don't exist in real life is nonsense. However, I _would_ say that true neutral does not exist in real life. There are actual good and evil in the world, and either you put others before yourself and are good, or you put yourself before others and are evil (yes, most of us are shades of grey between the two, but usually favor one or the other).
By real life standards I would almost argue for the opposite.
I would say that there is no good and evil and only different perspective on things, things that are good under one perspective may be considered evil under another and viceversa with actions that are universally and objectively good and evil are extremely rare if existing at all.Anyway, the problem I've seen with some alignments with players is that they just write the alignment down and then try to do do various things that would follow their alignment instead of their character. "That's just what my character would do" seems to mean "that's what my alignment /could/ do at its most extreme"
yes, I feel that happens a lot.
I almost never choose the alignment before choosing the character. I never say "this time, I want to be chaotic evil" but rather "I want to play a character that thinks like this" and finally sum it up and define what alignment that would make it.
Which is the problem I have with alignments restrictions, because is not like I choose an alignment and then play some whaky stereotype of it, but I rather go...
Ok does my character abide to the rules, has respect for tradition, is he kinda closeminded? or is more like a rebel, an outcast and a free thinker... well I guess that makes him chaotic.
And now, is my character selfless, merciful, forgiving or is self-serving, vengeful and cruel?
Well... I guess that makes him evil.
I never ask myself if I would cast a meteor swarm on an orphanage or if I would kill a random bystander for the sake of it, because no matter the alignment, no character of mine would do a thing so stupid and random.
I usually select my alignment after a few sessions with a character once they've developed a personality. Obviously pegging every type of character into a 9 box system leaves lots of room for variation within each alignment, but I figure I'd give a few examples.
One of my favorite characters is a CG Skald. Very much a fortune and glory type, takes pride in helping others, defending the defenseless, and most of all having a great story to tell about it later. His general helpfulness and strong urges to defend the defenseless are why I decided to make him Good. He seeks out conflict and always wants to come out with a great story, thus I decided that he is more Chaotic.
Another character I have is a CN Gunslinger. He is a very focused character, all eyes on the mission and his takeaway. He prefers to align himself with good goals, but rarely cares about the means. He is pretty squarely focused on finding the path of least resistance, and cares little about local laws or traditions. He is most definitely not a wanton lawbreaker as that usually is more trouble than its worth, but he has no respect for law and order just for law and order's sake. I feel that puts him squarely in the Chaotic alignment even though he generally doesn't run afoul of the law. His focus on the mission and selfishness certainly take him down a notch from Good, but Evil is a term I think anyone would use to describe him.
My last example is a N Slayer. He is a survivalist, most of his time spent in the wild. His people skills are severely lacking, and his goals in life are more animalistic than anything. He tends to follow immediate examples of how to act, and his actions will generally reflect those of his current traveling companions. Since joining the Pathfinder Society, he has generally found himself amongst good people, and with any luck he won't stray from that path.
All of these characters have gotten alone without any issues in parties that hold predominantly Lawful or Good alignments, since their 'Chaotic' side is more about their lack of respect for law, not their inherent need to violate it. At the same time, I've played with Chaotic characters who are compulsive thieves or troublemakers. These can certainly be fun characters in some parties, and cause major problems in others. I used to play a Lawful Evil cleric back in 3.5, a fairly selfish lawyer type. While he worked well in his party, and could even work together well with good characters, there are many parties I would think twice about bringing a similar character to. A better way for me to think about whether or not a character of alignment xyz should be allowed in the party is to ask 'why does this person feel that it will be good to join this party.' If the answer is obviously shoehorned, they probably won't be a good fit. This is a question that I've been more apt to ask myself, particularly with respect to Pathfinder Society characters, but a question that I could see posing to prospective players bringing questionable character concepts to the table.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like a lot of people seem to be hinting at in this thread, I view alignment as an indicator, not as the primary driving mechanic.
You should build a character. That character should have personality, needs, wants, emotions, habits, and all of that.
Alignment is simply a representation of where that character stands along the two axes for game effects.
Pathfinder is a game where this sort of thing is often important. Sometimes it's not, and in those cases, I don't tend to worry about alignment much. I do look for constructive parties, though, not destructive, so I am one of those people who ban evil alignments unless you come talk to me about what you want to do. I want to have fun GMing, and I don't usually enjoy GMing for evil characters.