Plenty of bad people are quite likeableIn fact psychopaths are among the most charismatic people.
This has kept me awake at night in the past.
Ya this is falling into the "Only Evil people do Evil acts" way of thinking which is not correct.
And why is that?
You can genocide an entire (admittedly mostly Evil, but with non-Evil collateral damage) species after killing your daughter's mother, which will lead to a lot of people under the control of that Evil species being killed by other people and be completely 100% Chaotic Good. One Good act does not a Good alignment make anymore than one Evil act does not an Evil alignment make.
Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. I think you're seeing Good and Evil as different sides to the same coin. I see them as closer to Light and Dark—not opposites, exactly, but one is the absence of the other. I believe that Good represents the presence of moral standards—and a "good" person who commits some evil acts cannot be good because he does not keep to those moral standards.
We quite plainly have antithetical philosophies, and I doubt we're going to resolve them here.
Cue the AntipaladinPlenty of bad people are quite likeableIn fact psychopaths are among the most charismatic people.
Obeying cues is lawful behaviour. You FALL.
On topic ... I think BOTH intent AND actions are key in things. Actions can very well turn good intentions evil, and may even turn evil intentions good. Law vs Chaos is a little harder to judge -- at what point does following one's personal code vs 'the law' start pushing you into that wonderful territory where a CN barbarian is acting more honourably than an LN monk?
Now I wonder which causes more arguments, law vs chaos or good vs evil.
Can we all agree that Magneto is all over the alignment spectrum depending on both series and writer?Many good thingsI won't continue the conversation because I'm sure everything has been rehashed before like you point out. I disagree about Magneto being evil and I'll leave it at that.
Yeah, though the same holds true for most comic book characters (or really any character who's been written by dozens of different authors).
Ya this is falling into the "Only Evil people do Evil acts" way of thinking which is not correct.
And why is that?
You can genocide an entire (admittedly mostly Evil, but with non-Evil collateral damage) species after killing your daughter's mother, which will lead to a lot of people under the control of that Evil species being killed by other people and be completely 100% Chaotic Good. One Good act does not a Good alignment make anymore than one Evil act does not an Evil alignment make.Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. I think you're seeing Good and Evil as different sides to the same coin. I see them as closer to Light and Dark—not opposites, exactly, but one is the absence of the other. I believe that Good represents the presence of moral standards—and a "good" person who commits some evil acts cannot be good because he does not keep to those moral standards.
We quite plainly have antithetical philosophies, and I doubt we're going to resolve them here.
In Pathfinder Good and Evil are opposites, two different sides to the same coin, if said coin also had two other opposed sides called Chaos and Law. And then a 5th side that isn't opposed and doesn't oppose any of the others called Neutral. Remember in Pathfinder there is no reward for being Good nor punishment for being Evil. Those are real world religious concepts that don't actually exist in the Pathfinder cosmology.
Remember, being Good even with a capital G is not the same as being "Exalted" to put it in 3.5 terms. Good simply means you lean further towards Good then any other alignment. It does not bar you from Neutral or even Evil actions. That being said if Neutral or Evil actions become defining aspects of your character, then an alignment change is probably in order. But filing some civilians under "acceptable losses" a few times to ensure the death of a great evil assuming the character is otherwise Good? No real danger of alignment change there. In the same way, an Evil person who decides to protect a town on a whim or two is in no danger of becoming Good, assuming they continue to perform other Evil acts.
Those are your own personal definitions, and that's fine for your games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I, too, go by a basic "rule of three" (no particular number, but a single act isn't going to make someone evil except in extreme cases). I think there's a misunderstanding here.
I honestly think, Kobold, that you are a little too quick to paint evil as, "not really evil" and expand the ease of the fall to support that viewpoint.
See, I actually think the exact same thing of those arguing with me, only the intent is inversed: I think they're cheapening a character's wicked deeds to avoid assigning a "label".
A lot depends on the manner in which the act is committed. A morally gray act is much less likely to result in an instant evil switch than, "The villain is visiting his bastard son? I burn down the orphanage they're in. It's the only way to be sure."
Evil, for me, is all about what you're willing to stoop to. Like I explained in-depth a page or two back, a single act will only prompt a switch if it's something truly horrendous and you show no interest in undoing what you've done. Guilt alone isn't enough—you have to clearly believe what you did was the wrong thing, and wish you had made a different choice.
In essence, you cannot consistently be the person who would burn down an orphanage to get the man he wants dead. If you are for one scene and immediately after feel terrible and try to undo what you've done...well, I might still recommend a bump down to Neutral for a while, since the character's clearly working through some things, but you wouldn't just turn evil.
Nor would I say you turn evil for killing a neutral mercenary who's badly hurt your friends and won't stop attacking you. That's a pretty neutral call at worst, anyways, so I don't think it really applies to this conversation. This is about whether Good characters can consistently commit evil acts. I don't believe they can—but I do believe a character on the side of Good characters can.
"Isn't that why you losers keep me around? Hurting people is all I'm good at."
I personally have a loose attitude towards alignment. I think of alignments as being general guidelines as to the general motivations of a particular character (if you see LN or whatever you can usually make a good guess as to what the character cares about), and two characters of the same alignment can be very different, and leanings towards a step away from the alignment can exist. (for example I believe I most closely match neutral good but with leanings towards CG) I also believe alignment is fluid and can change over time, but I don't use rules or mechanics to determine if an alignment has changed and it is a totally qualitative, subjective consideration.
I am personally not fond of rules/game mechanics that use alignment because of how subjective the concept is and am still not sure whether I want to houserule them out of my game or find a different way to think about them.
I don't place restrictions on alignment, and I am interested in seeing how a well-played evil/CN character will interact with an otherwise lawful and/or good party, but if I feel that a character is just going to cause others a hard time, I may veto it on a personal, case by case basis, in which I ask the player about their character first, and i make considerations based on how well I know this player already.
--
I think an important part of playing chaotic neutral or chaotic evil is to understand that unless the character is completely and utterly irrational and unhinged (which is very rare and not something I'm likely to allow in my campaign anyway except by trusted players), most chaotic neutral characters have motivations, things they care about, a thought process and an internal consistency to their actions.
For example, here's a bad example of a chaotic evil character who was a nightmare to play with in the few sessions he was in, before we had to kick the player out. Over the course of one session, his cleric of Hastur the King in Yellow (yes, from the Cthulhu mythos) engaged in coitus with a wall in a tavern, urinated on a church (the same church that my paladin belonged to, so he was lucky that my paladin wasn't witness to this sacrilege), attempted to convert the mayor to the faith of Hastur (I believe he harassed or assaulted the mayor and had to be dragged out by bodyguards) and held up the game with all sorts of other nonsense. I am so glad that player didn't last long. That plot arc might have ended faster if it weren't for his shenanigans. I wish my paladin was witness to his shenanigans so that I had an in-character reason to pummel him. (and also that I was good at playing paladins, but I digress)
Now, from the same, here's an example of a chaotic neutral, leaning on evil character who was much loved by all players and fun to play with. This was by a player (with an absolutely gorgeous beard that must not be forgotten) who had a great sense of humor and knew what he was doing. This character, an elf sorcerer, may best be described as an overgrown kindergartener with powers from the abyss, but at the same time he was more than that. On our first session, we were supposed to diplomacy or bluff our way past a small camp of bandits on the way to their base. Our sorcerer decided to roll to teach these bandits mathematics, scored a nat 20, and then the bandits had the time of their lives, learning everything the sorcerer knew about math, then drinking and partying until finally passing out. Then the sorcerer decided to slice their throats in their sleep and loot their corpses, dealing with the original problem in an unusual way. Later he had the bandits taxidermied and kept them in the wagon, calling them "his disciples" and having tea parties with them occasionally.
The reason why this was a good chaotic neutral character was because his behaviors made sense. All the strange actions performed by Ellanis had a thematic consistency, a childish whimsy fueled by the character's immense creativity and ability to come up with complex plans but utterly lacking in basic common sense. His actions were also not disruptive to the game, and they were entertaining for everyone, not just the player, although the GM had to think creatively to work with him. The player had also discussed the nature of the character with the GM before hand so he would have an idea of what to expect, and the player also had the good decency to not just ransack his game. Ellanis also wasn't just all shenanigans either; he actually came up with an elaborate and surprisingly logical plan for dealing with the problem of the plot arc, helped put the plan into action, and it worked. Thus, Ellanis was a fun and memorable character for everyone, and not just annoying.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A problem player is a problem player, regardless of what is on his/her character sheet. There is no "Tool" alignment, but for some players that is what you get no matter the character.
Even for the best players, who really try to inhabit their characters, whatever they bring to the table from their personal lives creeps into the game. For my current campaign I placed no hard alignment restrictions. It is Kingmaker, so I told them: "You make the rules, even get to decide if there are laws beyond the Big 6, you can change the laws at your whim (Courts are for Kings), and no one sits in judgement of you." They did pick Chaotic Good as the kingdom alignment, so I said: "In that case, play someone who would choose to live and can function in a country where most people are CG. You don't have to be chaotic or good, but most of your subjects will be."
On reviewing the campaign logs, I found the sum of their actions probably depended more on their moods on any given week and factors such as stress at work or a kid getting a failing grade in math, than on what alignment was written on the sheet. They showed mercy to foes who didn't really deserve it one week, then annihilated an opponent over a perceived minor sleight the next. Like most adventuring parties "kill 'em all and take their stuff" is the actions of heroes, except in this case they even took the timbers holding up the dungeon because they are build points. A lot more chaos than good overall, but it isn't a problem. The game is supposed to enjoyable, a bit cathartic, and maybe for some it helps them cope with the real world. I figure if they like it enough to come back every week we are better off than if I were to try to force them to play their professed character alignments.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If there are no hard and fast rules to Alignment, it shouldn't be part of the game's mechanics.
I like strict rules, for some reason.
I like strict rules, for some reason.
I was about to make a joke about your alignment being Lawful but then I noticed your nickname
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like strict rules, for some reason.I was about to make a joke about your alignment being Lawful but then I noticed your nickname
I aim to please.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've had to learn the hard way over the years that evil characters use that as an excuse to fight with their own party instead of going on the actual adventures that comprise the game. I disallow evil alignments because of this. I think it has become even worse in the advent of the modern MMO/online player that has a limited concept of roleplaying to begin with as their default is to put their back to the wall and start attacking everyone around them. I can't allow it in my games at present.
If I knew the players would play "evil" with some sense and legitimate motivation, I would allow it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It really is kind of a shame that so many people are stuck with such crappy players. I guess that's why we have a "Forum problems that don't occur at your table" thread, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In essence, you cannot consistently be the person who would burn down an orphanage to get the man he wants dead. If you are for one scene and immediately after feel terrible and try to undo what you've done...well, I might still recommend a bump down to Neutral for a while, since the character's clearly working through some things, but you wouldn't just turn evil.
Personally, I think even a bump down to neutral might be overkill. Mostly because I don't like the idea of alignment being a transitional thing. The character did not stop being good motivations and trying to do the right thing, they just screwed up (or were stuck in a bad situation). Sometimes good people make the wrong call.
Personally, I think how the character reacts to the events is as important as the initial decision to prioritize stopping the bad guy over saving the kids. Good alignment would feel guilty about it, do everything they could to fix the damage, and would actively take steps to ensure that nothing like that ever happened again.
Neutral, on the other hand, would regretfully accept that the orphanage burned down for the Greater Good, and harden their resolve to stop the bad guys no matter what it takes.