| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would certainly hope that anybody who bans evil characters bans paladins as well. Second only to the Chaotic Neutral nutjob is the Lawful Stupid paladin, after all, in terms of "players using a concept to justify a!###*&ry".
I'm sure that banning a few mechanisms jerks use to justify being jerks will make the jerks not want to be jerks.
Or they'll all make Druids, double down on the a!++&%~ry and give us tree huggers a bad name :-)
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Sorry, bros, I think I gotta take the razor boar's side. Druid code of conduct, dontchaknow."
"I think I'm gonna have to attack the wizard before he gets high enough level to challenge me. Fighter-caster disparity, you know how it is."
"Oh, my barbarian's so absorbed in his rage, he thinks you're an enemy! Big temper, berserk rage, whatchyoogonnado?"
"You don't worship Shelyn? Roll initiative, heretic!"
"Ooh, daaaang, guys, Order of the Cockatrice."
Bro! Man! i got the coolest idea for a lawful good blight druid, its gonna set the world afire, yo!
Generally, I almost only play true neutral personally. I think its only once that I ventured outside of that, but that's because the character was a serial killer who stole faces. Anyways, the reasoning I have for going true neutral, is that I just think it makes the most sense in terms of character. At least the ones I tend to play often. Which are generally good people. They'll protect their friends and the innocent with their life, they'll deny payment if it looks like that was all the money they had, etc... but on the flip side, if you cross him, kill or hurt a loved one, he's not going to talk to you about it and try to get you to see the light. He's going to do a murder on you, after causing you ample amounts of agony. They don't necessarily "play fair" either. Poison, lying, intimidation, etc... all fair game if it ends with the good guys winning.
I suspect the bans are really aimed at players who use their characters' alignments as an excuse to be jerks. While it is certainly possible to create a chaotic-evil character who works well with a party, it takes a serious role-player to do so and most of the CE characters one is likely to encounter in games are solely there to screw over the rest of the party. It is also possible to create LG characters who cannot work with a group, but again, it takes a serious role-player to do so and most of the LG characters one is likely to encounter in games are not going to be a problem.
As has been mentioned CN is one of those alignments which is often used by players to create characters with no actual character who are often incapable of functioning in a party. It tends to be cyclical in my experience, players start abusing CN alignment to justify bad characters, DM bans CN (or evil or whatever, once I saw CG get so abused it was banned) out of hand, a player comes up with a reasonable CN character and talks DM into relaxing the ban for that character, players make some reasonable CN, players start abusing CN alignment to justify bad characters... .
Yeah, I've definitely had players who picked Chaotic Evil/Neutral so that they would have an excuse to go into the nearest village and immediately start raping, murdering, and plundering. Then get really creepy about discussing how they mutilate the bodies, or asking if they can roll charisma to see if their rape victims "get into it."
My solution is to not invite those players to my table again. Problem players are generally gonna be a problem no matter what alignment they have to put on the character sheet.
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.
Laodicean is a wonderful word.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"No, see, my character is allowed to eat that guy because he doesn't see other sentient beings as 'people'! He's not evil. He's True Neutral. I mean, you eat cows. Is that evil?"
Yes, I actually ran into this player. Funny enough, "Please leave this table" solves most problem a lot easier than "Please don't play an evil PC."
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?
it;s because no one knows how to play chaotic correctly, and instead they use it to get a raging hard on to impale the team with.
SOOOOOO many arguments on how chaotic should really be portrayed. I hate that chaotic evil is just a bigger kind of evil, and how chaotic people are always insane.
|
it;s because no one knows how to play chaotic correctly, and instead they use it to get a raging hard on to impale the team with.
SOOOOOO many arguments on how chaotic should really be portrayed. I hate that chaotic evil is just a bigger kind of evil, and how chaotic people are always insane.
as someone that plays pretty much chaotic neutral all the way... what...?
Is not that I don't understand you, I don't understand them.
Is chaotic neutral, not dysfunctional neutral.
Also... the idea that chaotic evil is more evil than lawful evil.... :/
"Sorry, bros, I think I gotta take the razor boar's side. Druid code of conduct, dontchaknow."
"I think I'm gonna have to attack the wizard before he gets high enough level to challenge me. Fighter-caster disparity, you know how it is."
"Oh, my barbarian's so absorbed in his rage, he thinks you're an enemy! Big temper, berserk rage, whatchyoogonnado?"
"You don't worship Shelyn? Roll initiative, heretic!"
"Ooh, daaaang, guys, Order of the Cockatrice."
Scary thing is that I have actually encountered some of these during play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's the alignments that are poorly roleplayed that cause trouble.
This statement sums up a lot of why alignment stinks. You don't roleplay an alignment; you roleplay a character, and alignment follows from how you play your dude. Alignment is not static, it's dynamic. You should never, EVER EVER, think 'I'm alignment X, therefore I must Y'. The opposite is true, you think 'I have been doing X consistently, therefore I am alignment Y'.
If your honorable fighter guy starts using some dirty tactics, then his alignment will shift, and there's nothing wrong with that. At least the rules no longer say dumb stuff like 'you did something outside your alignment? Lose a level, and maybe get hit by a bolt from the blue'.
it;s because no one knows how to play chaotic correctly, and instead they use it to get a raging hard on to impale the team with.
SOOOOOO many arguments on how chaotic should really be portrayed. I hate that chaotic evil is just a bigger kind of evil, and how chaotic people are always insane.
as someone that plays pretty much chaotic neutral all the way... what...?
Is not that I don't understand you, I don't understand them.
Is chaotic neutral, not dysfunctional neutral.Also... the idea that chaotic evil is more evil than lawful evil.... :/
people just seem so quick to forget the positive sides of chaos, i also play chaos a lot, but it's gotten to points where people have said they don't act very chaotic, why am i chaotic neutral? we just freed slaves! so?
ARGH!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"No, see, my character is allowed to eat that guy because he doesn't see other sentient beings as 'people'! He's not evil. He's True Neutral. I mean, you eat cows. Is that evil?"
Yes, I actually ran into this player. Funny enough, "Please leave this table" solves most problem a lot easier than "Please don't play an evil PC."
You gamed with Kyubey?
It's the alignments that are poorly roleplayed that cause trouble.This statement sums up a lot of why alignment stinks. You don't roleplay an alignment; you roleplay a character, and alignment follows from how you play your dude. Alignment is not static, it's dynamic. You should never, EVER EVER, think 'I'm alignment X, therefore I must Y'. The opposite is true, you think 'I have been doing X consistently, therefore I am alignment Y'.
If your honorable fighter guy starts using some dirty tactics, then his alignment will shift, and there's nothing wrong with that. At least the rules no longer say dumb stuff like 'you did something outside your alignment? Lose a level, and maybe get hit by a bolt from the blue'.
The other part of the issue is that alignment is so loosely defined that it's easy to get debates on where the line lies. For example, let's take your example of the honorable fighter guy using dirty tactics, which leads to an alignment change.
Some GMs would say that taking the BBEG's minions hostage to force him to surrender/release his own hostages is dubious enough earn an alignment shift, while other would say it's excusable because "The Greater Good."
There are stories about Paladins whose GMs made them fall because they allowed used stealth, flanked with someone in combat, or used a ranged weapon, since those aren't "honorable."
What happens if a Fighter uses the Dirty Trick combat maneuver? Does dirt in the eyes or a kick in the crotch = alignment shift?
And so on...
Well, yeah, but aren't all character/alignment issues player issues?Funny thing, but in a game that was "Good alignments only" I managed to bribe the GM into allowing me to play CN, yet an LG character was a much bigger issue. And he wasn't even a Paladin. Just a huge jerkass for no reason.That's a player issue, not a character issue. Which kinda comes back to the point that players determine if the character is a problem or not.
Some alignments just bring it out more. It's like giving a kid that's already hyper some Adventure Time, a Mountain Dew, and some gummy bears. They also tend to serve as an excuse to be obnoxious, or a way to tell the DM to shove off when they need to put the kibosh on some weird power-trip crap that the person is getting into that's threatening to derail the session or, over time, the whole campaign.
Nobody cares that your character is "insane", and loves always burning everything, because the second it keeps me from getting my reward for the adventure because you pissed off the sheriff, you're out, you dingus.
|
Personally, I prefer a shades of grey game. Alignments blur, in fact you might be completely neutral but driven to rage so profound you commit evil acts to seek revenge for an atrocity. Those things make cooler stories for me and my groups.
The issue in the ruleset is that Certain magics and other aspects of the game have alignment hard wired in.
If you do away with alignment completely then you need to be ready for the effect that has on things like protection from x alignment.
I've met folks who've used alignment as a tool to get around those restrictions in fact. They went neutral so their mind control powers couldn't be negated by protection spells. Yet they were happy to fight for good when needed, or do really evil things too, and expected no repercussions.
As a GM I never ban alignments, and as a player, the best character I ever played as was neutral evil. Now he's the villain of someone else's campaign. There are too many opportunities for good storytelling to just ban alignments.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of the characters I made that were any good, I had a chaotic evil character who was impulsive and sadistic, but at most a nuisance. She typically played the devil's advocate character, suggesting the cruelest solutions to problems, and often tried to be intimidating even when conflict wasn't necessary. Luckily, she was a a weak as hell witch, so the other characters tended to quite literally hold her back so she wouldn't be a problem. But she was fun and silly and people loved her.
I have a chaotic neutral barbarian now and i really do the chaotic as "free of bounds" proper opposite of lawful. He's a drifter who goes from town to town seeking out fighting pits and street fighting rings to compete in. He's not averse to talking to people or working in a team, but he tends not to stick around and make friends. He has something of a distrust of authority figures due to some bad experiences in the past, but he makes exceptions for those that prove worthy, especially Paladins, whom he believes are trustworthy.
You gamed with Kyubey?"No, see, my character is allowed to eat that guy because he doesn't see other sentient beings as 'people'! He's not evil. He's True Neutral. I mean, you eat cows. Is that evil?"
Yes, I actually ran into this player. Funny enough, "Please leave this table" solves most problem a lot easier than "Please don't play an evil PC."
Oh, god, I think they must be multiplying.
On topic:
In a 3.0 Forgotten Realms game, I played a character who was the party leader and "team mom" to a standard heroic party. We did things like freeing slaves, fighting terrible monsters, overcoming dangerous cults devoted to destruction, all that good stuff.
The character was a NE red wizard washout. Her motivation was to achieve fame, wealth, and security for herself, and she realized that being a "hero" was a good way to do it.
I agree with a previous post in that if you have a character/character concept that fits an "unconventional" alignment that you think will work you should talk to your GM about it first and get it cleared (it's a good idea to do this with any character, really). It's far better than outright banning alignments for arbitrary reasons (although if there is a real reason, such as fitting the campaign, then I think it's okay to restrict alignments) and it just improves communication all around.
Of the characters I made that were any good, I had a chaotic evil character who was impulsive and sadistic, but at most a nuisance. She typically played the devil's advocate character, suggesting the cruelest solutions to problems, and often tried to be intimidating even when conflict wasn't necessary. Luckily, she was a a weak as hell witch, so the other characters tended to quite literally hold her back so she wouldn't be a problem. But she was fun and silly and people loved her.
'Lemme at 'em! LEMME AT 'EM!'
I have a chaotic neutral barbarian now and i really do the chaotic as "free of bounds" proper opposite of lawful. He's a drifter who goes from town to town seeking out fighting pits and street fighting rings to compete in. He's not averse to talking to people or working in a team, but he tends not to stick around and make friends. He has something of a distrust of authority figures due to some bad experiences in the past, but he makes exceptions for those that prove worthy, especially Paladins, whom he believes are trustworthy.
I've got a CN barbarian too. In her case, it was a mix of bad history and outside influence ('enslave me as your daughter's arms teacher? I'll show you..'). There was some grumbling about an incident early on (with an impulsive PLAYER who provoked her), and an intense debate on the merits of looting with our LG cleric of Irori (while our players were fully aware of the other guys looting the place!). In her case, she's still young and seeking her place in the world (and it sure as hell isn't her old hometown!), and dislikes power structures in general. One of the players thinks she's drifting slightly to CG, but it's not like I'm going the computer RPG route and find some good guys to hack up to 'correct' the drift if it's there.
Come to think of it, the party was mostly the LG cleric being granted parole-style custody of a pair of CNs and an NG. Not sure what the fifth guy is alignment-wise, hasn't come up itself.
That said? I still remember the CN writeup in 2d edition. Some folks might still believe that claptrap. (They had some issues with LG too, I think.) The best way to mitigate things is a good GM. Especially one who's willing to show leniency in genuine issues, but drop the hammer (or boulder if need be) if someone's just being a total jerk.
Alignment restrictions make sense for any GM wanting to run a game for a team of players rather than a pack of uncooperative (at best) to PvP (at worst) lone wolves. Why? because alignments each have their own ways of doing things. Having a wide array of alignments in the group means you WILL HAVE alignments conflicts at some point. And most players don't back down during such arguments. So you turn the group into the good faction vs the evil faction/the lawful faction vs the chaotic faction... or end the session with a PvP battle.
Now if the players are mature enough to ignore their characters alignments and reach a consensus on how to play then great, but at that point you probably aren't using alignments any more anyway.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No alignment, including chaotic evil, prevents a character from being a valued member of an adventuring party other than the players outside of game.
Of the characters I made that were any good, I had a chaotic evil character who was impulsive and sadistic, but at most a nuisance. She typically played the devil's advocate character, suggesting the cruelest solutions to problems, and often tried to be intimidating even when conflict wasn't necessary. Luckily, she was a a weak as hell witch, so the other characters tended to quite literally hold her back so she wouldn't be a problem. But she was fun and silly and people loved her.'Lemme at 'em! LEMME AT 'EM!'
This is a character designed to back down from alignment conflicts. As a GM I might make an exception in such a case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No alignment, including chaotic evil, prevents a character from being a valued member of an adventuring party other than the players outside of game.
Wrong.
Is your CE character going to commit evil acts? Yes? Is this going to anger the Good party he is traveling with? Yes. So unless your planning to always be restrained into NOT being evil then you ARE going to cause friction. And that is NOT a valued member of the team.
No alignment, including chaotic evil, prevents a character from being a valued member of an adventuring party other than the players outside of game.Wrong.
Is your CE character going to commit evil acts? Yes? Is this going to anger the Good party he is traveling with? Yes. So unless your planning to always be restrained into NOT being evil then you ARE going to cause friction. And that is NOT a valued member of the team.
Causing friction!=not a valued member. These two are very different things.
For games I run, it all depends on the type of game the players and I want to run. I am not the only one with a say here, I have to have player input.
If the players want to run a heroic, epic campaign G vs. E, then that restriction is self-imposed. I am currently running a group on Mummy's Mask and that is the way they want to play it (they are on the third book now.)
I am starting another group today on Mummy's Mask and the players want to be evil with a hidden agenda. The only restriction I "suggested" was no antipaladins, as the class thrives on over-the-top sowing of discord and destruction of the status quo and is not subtle about it... at lower levels it would attract to much attention by the powers-that-be.
If the players want to keep P vs. P open, that needs to be agreed upon from the get-go so there is no surprises.
If the players want to "break" a setting or world, we can do that too. I suggested one time playing a 1-3rd level town-based module with 5th level evil PC's going off-track, messing with the setting or seeing if they could take over the town with the module & NPC's as it is written.
WHATEVER, it needs to be agreed upon - I am not the only one playing this game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Causing friction!=not a valued member. These two are very different things.No alignment, including chaotic evil, prevents a character from being a valued member of an adventuring party other than the players outside of game.Wrong.
Is your CE character going to commit evil acts? Yes? Is this going to anger the Good party he is traveling with? Yes. So unless your planning to always be restrained into NOT being evil then you ARE going to cause friction. And that is NOT a valued member of the team.
I certainly don't "value" friction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Causing friction!=not a valued member. These two are very different things.No alignment, including chaotic evil, prevents a character from being a valued member of an adventuring party other than the players outside of game.Wrong.
Is your CE character going to commit evil acts? Yes? Is this going to anger the Good party he is traveling with? Yes. So unless your planning to always be restrained into NOT being evil then you ARE going to cause friction. And that is NOT a valued member of the team.
I certainly don't "value" friction.
But I imagine your PC, as a team orientated party member who understands not everyone is perfect and that her way isn't always the best way for the team as a whole, could manage to overlook the flaws of others and see the value they bring to the team.
Unless your PC isn't like that...but that would sound like one of the types of PCs that would cause friction. Because unwillingness to compromise on minor issues is a problem in a team environment. And yes, not everything CE act is a big deal. For example, so long as it doesn't put the rest of the party in danger your PC should be able to tolerate someone who is frequently insolent to minor figures of authority. Even if your PC doesn't personally like it. Because that's what people working as a functional group do. Tolerate each other when it helps the group to function.
"No, see, my character is allowed to eat that guy because he doesn't see other sentient beings as 'people'! He's not evil. He's True Neutral. I mean, you eat cows. Is that evil?"
Yes, I actually ran into this player. Funny enough, "Please leave this table" solves most problem a lot easier than "Please don't play an evil PC."
I wouldn't really call cannibalism innately evil so much as just gross (and yeah, that's a cultural response). Really the "evil" part tends to come in because there is an implication that you are murdering people simply to eat them, but adventurers kill things all day every day for a variety of reasons so that's not really an issue. Your character can totally be a cannibal and not be evil (of course ignoring the moral absolutes the game forces down your throat), but said character should still be smart enough to know that since most people see cannibalism as evil they should be a bit cautious about practicing it on screen. If the player was trying to be all like, "Nah man, since I'm neutral you should all be fine with me grilling this orc leg on the campfire," then that player was an idiot.
Nope. I disagree. If you have 1 LG, 1 NG, 1 NG... And then a CE... There will be more than friction. I outright ban CE in all of my games. I've never seen it not end in problems and inevitably the CE will back stab his own party.
Causing friction!=not a valued member. These two are very different things.
this honestly annoys me, CE should be less evil then NE, but players who want to be as evil as possible play CE, and it just stained the alignment.
Chaotic evil still can be good teammates. Chaotic specifically means they should be opposing traditional constructs and be open to unusual allies or strategies(meaning they shouldn't be overly opposed to using new strategies that they didn't think of). I think most pirates would be CN or CE, since for the most part they attacked ships of specific nations because they wanted to hurt those nations and get rich off of it, not just plunder for gold. The Crew worked together for a common goal and accomplished it more times than not.
Huh?
I didn't say the CE person couldn't function as a party member even in a good group, just that he wouldn't be "valued". The friction he causes would at best irritate and at worst cause serious alignment conflicts among his good peers.
TOZ raises an interesting character; Jayne Cobb. First the crew of the Serenity is NOT a Good party. They are probably decidedly neutral on the good evil axis as a party. Jayne starts out evil (sells out his ship mates for a pay out) but gets less so as the show evolves his character into Jayne the Hero of the mud farmers. AND YET he still irritates his crew with his antics. Mal was even prepared to space him at one point. Is he "valued" no he isn't, but he does have a place among these misfits and criminals. They would all probably be much happier with a less evil gunslinger in their crew, but criminals can't be picky.
Good PC groups on the other hand CAN be picky. And alignment restrictions smooth this out considerably.
Huh?
I didn't say the CE person couldn't function as a party member even in a good group, just that he wouldn't be "valued". The friction he causes would at best irritate and at worst cause serious alignment conflicts among his good peers.
TOZ raises an interesting character; Jayne Cobb. First the crew of the Serenity is NOT a Good party. They are probably decidedly neutral on the good evil axis as a party. Jayne starts out evil (sells out his ship mates for a pay out) but gets less so as the show evolves his character into Jayne the Hero of the mud farmers. AND YET he still irritates his crew with his antics. Mal was even prepared to space him at one point. Is he "valued" no he isn't, but he does have a place among these misfits and criminals. They would all probably be much happier with a less evil gunslinger in their crew, but criminals can't be picky.
Good PC groups on the other hand CAN be picky. And alignment restrictions smooth this out considerably.
as 137ben pointed out, this only comes up if you actually mention what everyone's alignment is, if you keep it secret conflicts are much less likely to happen, and definitely not on alignment issues.
The only reason anybody wants to play chaotic neutral or evil characters in a non-evil group is to disrupt the game, that's why those alignments are often banned. Now, if you're playing in an evil campaign with a group of evil PCs, that's perfectly fine. But if that's not the makeup of the campaign or group, then it becomes a huge problem. My advice to the OP: recommend your group try out an evil campaign.