There are a few threads going around these days about GM's trepidation about dealing with characters of certain alignments. In these threads it shows that some people are really uncomfortable with LG characters and some have absolutely no problem with it but worry about other things.
So I will pose to the gallery-
If you're sitting down at a game, to GM or play, what alignment piloted by a different player gives you the most trepidation?
There are only 9 options so it's easy enough to rank them (here is my list):
9) CE (I've never seen this done well, it's "I'm EVIL!" and "I'm impulsive" wrapped up in one ball of game ruining awfulness, it's a guaranteed recipe for intra-party strife)
8) NE ("I'm devoted to the cause of evil" ... who actually thinks of themselves as evil? Most villainous types should feel they're in the right, and you're probably going to cause problems)
7) CN ("I don't ever think things through or mind consequences" it's the "I'm going to get the entire party into trouble" alignment).
6) TN (mostly because this one is hard to play between the extremes of "super-judgemental" and "DGAF", good RPers can manage though.)
5) LE (It's evil, but it's the "works well with others" evil. This can work very well in the hands of good RPer, and at least any betrayals should be planned and make sense.)
4) LG (the standard shining hero alignment, but some people take it too far.)
3) CG (people's tendency to play chaotic characters as troublemakers is moderated by the requirement that you do good.)
2) LN (this is basically the "ordinary person from a city" alignment.)
1) NG ("Good over everything" is the easiest thing to manage for a heroic character, a lot of people are going to just default to this.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Literally the only alignment summaries you gave that I agree with are lawful evil and and neutral good everything else you said either sounds deliberately negative or super reductionist, what's the point of this thread? To rank our fave to least fave alignment or to give some super biased argument against the alignments we don't like? Or both?
[W]hat's the point of this thread? To rank our fave to least fave alignment or to give some super biased argument against the alignments we don't like? Or both?
Imagine you're playing with someone you don't already know personally or by reputation, and the first thing you find out is the alignment of your character. Based on "how an alignment can be disruptive to a game" which alignments inspire the most confidence or the least confidence? Based both on "probability" and "worst case scenario" say.
There are people I trust with CN characters, but it's one that gives me an "uh oh" feeling with random strangers. Barring people already known to be disruptive due to their personalities, it's unlikely I would bat an eye if they roll NG, YMMV.
Symmetrically, if you show up to an established group of players you don't know, which alignments do you think would be most/least welcomed based on people's preconceived notions of them?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I turn up to a new group and they start giving me the stink eye based solely on the alignment I've chosen for my character I'm probably backing away and being thankful I got early warning...
Put me in the "There are no disruptive alignments, just disruptive players" camp I guess.
If the first thing I found out about a persons character was their alignment I'd think they were weird and probably a bit to invested in the alignment system.
If I was joining a new group I'd try to make a useful and informed decision on what character I should play based on their party comp and campaign flavor. Unless it was explicitly an evil campaign alignment wouldn't feature in these decisions.
I've seen people wright CN on their sheet and play LG and I've seen CG played CE so I generally just wait till the game starts. The only time I ever really asked for alignments is when I have a player who has no idea what his character's backstory is and then I ask them, are they good, are they evil, somewhere in between?
EDIT: I blame the wine
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the campaign I started last month I have dropped the idea of alignment completely. Paladins can be of any god who will sponsor a paladin order and it is all about the code. Good and evil are always conditional. Protection from evil as a divine spell protects you from things the divine power granting the power sees as evil. Even my 'evil' invaders see themselves as doing good.
It is taking a bit of adjustment and a recently handed out oil of bless weapon is being looked at by the groups paladin as something with no purpose - his god (Mosrael - the god of correct accountancy of things (law, order, records) who has recently taken over death (the QED of the proof) has specific views of what is evil (undead, liars, cheaters, law-breakers)
We are having a fun time exploring an alignment free game.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My list is easy:
2. N
1. CE/NE/LE/LN/CN/CG/NG/LG
Neutral is harder to play for a lot of folks because it's kind of an alien mindset. However, all alignments are totally playable. There are no problem alignments, only problem players. A player who is disruptive playing CN will be disruptive playing LG or CE or NG, because the problem isn't alignment. I've said this a few different places lately, but I'll say it again here: alignment doesn't mean you have to behave the same way all the time to everyone. Evil characters can be loyal, good characters can be cold, chaotic characters can toe the line, lawful characters can cross it. The only exception are characters who are intrinsically bound to alignment (essentially just Paladins, anti-Paladins, and maybe Hellknights...can't recall if they have a code of conduct). You can have an evil character who can go through a whole campaign without committing a single overtly evil act, if only because they don't want to get in trouble. You can have a CE serial killer who would never think of hurting or inconveniencing their party mates because they genuinely like them.
In another thread (which may have helped to inspire this one?) I mentioned that I generally prefer any Lawful to any Chaotic. And that is generally true...
BUT a lot of that has to do with knowing the local gamers and what habits I can and cannot work with.
No one around here players Lawful in a crappy way (there's one guy with a bit of a stick up his butt, but he's still nice enough that it's never an issue), so I know Lawful is safe with the locals.
However, there are several people in the group who are perfectly good RPers when it comes to Lawful or Neutral who turn into prankster asshats when they play Chaotic. Hence why I get a bit twitchy about Chaos as an alignment (and often theme my games Law vs Chaos with the PCs on the side of Law).
That's actually why Zon Kuthon has become so popular at the table. He's weird enough that the crazies can get their "Lol random" out by whipping themselves and piercing body parts rather than by getting the party killed.
That said, every four or five years, I run a Drow PCs game for a select group of players. Not "good drow" - the game takes place in a major Drow city, and the players' goal is the further the goals of their Drow noble house. And, by selecting my players ahead of time and controlling the setting, I can run a great game (the most recent one last year being particularly fun) with a mostly Chaotic party.
.. but yeah, I can't really rank em. As has been mentioned, so much is context related that it can be difficult, and I haven't had a blind crop of new players in YEARS.
Oiy.. Problem alignments...
9 - Lawful Good
I never have problems with LGs, like, ever. I have never seen "Lawful Stupid" and because of that I tend to believe it is a myth. Usually LG characters are easy to run for.1 - Chaotic Neutral
This is the number one most problematic alignment. The goal usually is "I am going to be evil, but evil is banned, so I am going to sneak it in this way." They disrupt games, they are annoying, they cause no end to problems. The character is dedicated to chaos and freedom exclusively without regard to good or evil. Teacher is making kids study? Kill the teacher! She's infringing on their freedom! Orphanage is forcing a strict bed time on kids? Burn the sucker down! They hate law, period, and will do whatever it takes to disrupt it. No. Thank. You.
Weirdly, I HAVE encountered bad LG. Not with my current locals, but a friend back in college (the one who created Liston Tenngle, see one-liner thread) who played a Sturm-esque holier-than-thou jerk Paladins.
But yeah, I don't think I've ever seen anyone play true "Lawful Stupid" unless they were intentionally playing a parody.
Also, I have less problem with "I just want to be evil" CN than I do with "LOL RANDOM!" CN.
Or, to use an example, my annoying CN characters are less likely to burn down an orphanage and more likely to steal from other PCs or ally NPCs for fun, insult key NPCs during delicate negotiations for no reason, throw poop during a combat encounter (and not in a "this might be the creature's secret weakness" kind of way but a "ha ha, poop!" kinda way), or intentionally activate evil artifacts just to see what they do.
The later being a case where the PCs had stumbled upon an altar to a dark god with blood stains on it and a CN PC decided to cut himself and bleed on the alter just to see if anything happened. The rest of the party was like "No, don't do that. We finished the encounter - let's just leave." He refused. And then he cut himself and bled on the altar.
This same player, playing a more Lawful character, was one of the best RPers I knew at the time. He could just whip out random improv acting and deliver dramatic speeches, and I fondly recall a game where I worked out a particularly tragic backstory for him and he just delivered on every inch of it when the reveal came. He was wonderful player - except when he played Chaotic.
I think though that there are a select few people who are good at everything, a few people who are bad at everything, and most people are good at some things and bad at other ones.
So there probably exist people who would not otherwise cause problems, who would generate problems if a certain thing is written on their character sheet (e.g. "Kender".) It may even be the case that there are people who are drawn to certain options which turn out to be poor choices for them.
I mean have you ever seen someone who is a problem because they cause trouble for the rest of the players that happens to be playing an LN character at the time? I haven't. I personally won't play evil alignments that aren't LE because I have no clue how to be a) unapologetically evil in an objective sense and b) not a drag on the game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oiy.. Problem
3 - Neutral Evil
Oh no. NE are the bottom of the barrel with only a couple of peers. The only alignment worse are the two to come. The Neutral Evils are in it for Evil regardless of law or chaos. Some people, the same people who see NG as pure good see NE as pure evil. While I don't think NG is the most good by any stretch NE isn't the most evil but it is absolutely evil and a serious problem.2 - Chaotic Evil
This one probably should be number 1, but since this is my list it isn't... Why? Because it is universally banned...
Weird that you see people play alignments as prescriptive instead of descriptive.
You've seen NE players devoted to Evil? I've seen NE players who were self-motivated, determined to amass personal power regardless of the consequences.
You've banned CE players? I've seen CE players be valuable (although odd) minions... er... teammates when they have a strong leader to direct them.
Your CN players are backdoors to CE? I guess that's because CE is banned. I've seen CN players be in it "for the fun" as often as I've seen them be in it "for the crazies"
I guess I'm saying that I'm in the "no disruptive alignments, only disruptive players" camp.
|
|
I mean have you ever seen someone who is a problem because they cause trouble for the rest of the players that happens to be playing an LN character at the time? I haven't.
I absolutely have.
I personally won't play evil alignments that aren't LE because I have no clue how to be a) unapologetically evil in an objective sense and b) not a drag on the game.
I get that, and I don't disagree. It's totally true that there are players who are problematic playing one alignment but not another. That's what I was referring to when I referred to easily sorted out problems. But it seems like a lot of people blame the alignment rather than the abilities or the attitude of the player.
Weird that you see people play alignments as prescriptive instead of descriptive.
In the sense of alignment being descriptive, I just can't imaging coming up with a character I like then thinking "what alignment should they be" and having NE or CE be the best choice.
I think if you come up with a backstory, personality, etc. of a character you would want to play, and the thing that seems correct to write down is "neutral evil" then that there stands a good chance that the character in question isn't going to play well with others.
I mean, I would play "self-motivated, determined to amass personal power regardless of the consequences" as CN, personally, since that's (IMO) the most selfish alignment.
I'm not sure the difference between descriptive and proscriptive in terms of alignment is meaningful when you're talking about "another person's character". It's not immediately obvious how to tell the difference between "this person is playing this way because of their alignment" or "this person has this alignment because of how they intend to play."
But as for a specific example, we've been talking about maybe playing Hell's Vengeance, which requires evil characters and fully half the group (myself included) can't come up with anything they'd think was fun to play (the closest I've gotten to an idea I liked was based on that "literally insane" Psychic archetype from Heroes of the Darklands, because that's probably a valid reason to be evil.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
ANY ALIGNMENT THAT AM NOT TRUE SMASH AM CRAPPY ALIGNMENT ANYWAY.
BARBARIAN AM INTRIGUED, HOWEVER, BY PERSON WHO AM PLAYING NEUTRAL NOT BY BEING UNABLE TO CARE OR BEING SUPER JUDGMENTAL BUT INSTEAD AM INCAPABLE OF DOING ANYTHING IN HALF MEASURE.
JUST KEEP DOING EXTREME LAW, CHAOS, GOOD, AND EVIL ACTS IN TURN BASED ON WHAT CHARACTER AM FEELING AT ANY GIVEN TIME, AND IT AM ALL BALANCING OUT GIVEN FEW CASTINGS OF PROPER PROTECTION FROM WHATEVER SPELL.
BARBARIAN NOT SEE THIS DONE PROPERLY BEFORE.
Until Paizo came along alignments were proscriptive. This descriptive, alignments don't matter, thing is a very new thing. I don't have many young players.
CE won't make a good minion if played right. CE is the Starscream. You'll betray the master the first chance you can.
Oh the master died? Goodbye. He's not getting raised. I'm in charge now.
Odd. Even in 1e and 2e, we'd look at our characters, think about what type of person we wanted them to be, and assign the closest alignment that would fit our concept. After that, I don't think it impacted us in the slightest (although I think I remember the GM calling for a slide from CG to CN once).
Even in our Evil games, it seemed to work out. Our CE psychos fell in line under the NE and LE masterminds. Maybe it helped that the masterminds had profitable goals, the psychos didn't want leadership roles, and the masterminds were the wizard and cleric. And maybe it was because the players realized:
1. Even evil people have friends.
2. (meta) The game must go on.
If your CN is refusing to do something because they don't want to harm good people... That isn't CN. That is CG. The character is choosing, actively, good over evil and avoiding actions that are evil. That is the definition of Chaotic Good."People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others."
That's Chaotic Neutral -- they won't want to kill innocents, but they won't go out of their way to help others.
I agree with you. The Evil people of my past campaigns don't mind if they help people or hurt people as long as their actions benefit themselves. Selfishness with a healthy dose of pragmatism is usually what we'd see. Makes me wonder whether our "Evil" campaigns were other people's "Neutral" campaigns.
I've always figured that, as a player with most of my GMs, evil and LG are off the table due to misconceptions about the ability for them to get along with others. I also generally find N to be my favorite alignment to RP, followed by NG/LN/CN (tied) because they come naturally to me and are rarely challenged.
As a GM I put players on the honor system and let them enforce their own alignments, and so I worry about managing a disruptive player and not whether their actions fit 2 letters on a piece of paper or if they should change one.
Sure they would. CN doesn't care if it is good or evil. Why wouldn't they kill a bunch of innocents? If that will get them what they want they don't care about good or evil.
My character motivation to not kill a bunch of innocents across all 9 alignments is based in the idea that it is very rarely a practical decision, and I don't have characters who actively dump INT and WIS. Even with a distaste for established and enforced order, non-evil alignments have moral issues with killing, and ignoring that, all that senseless violence leads to is more and more restrictions.
Like a 6x10 cell because I couldn't beat the guards, or having to change my face and name and lose any hard-won reputation because I'm a wanted criminal, or spending forever in the CN plane (limbo?) because I didn't manage to survive the town guards of scythecritopolis. CN can make plans for their future, and disdaining authority doesn't mean ignoring the fact that a guardsmen's blade in my stomach kils just as well as a protean's.
My favourite trope is the anti-hero so the alignments I most like to see at the table are neutral, lawful neutral and chaotic neutral. That is provided chaotic neutral is not simply a substitute for psychotic or other extremely anti social behaviour.
Next would be the good alignments which are all more or less okay with me. Lawful good as a problem alignment seems more like an Internet forum phenomenon than an actual in game problem from my experience.
The evil alignments are generally the most problematic with chaotic evil typically the worst and lawful evil the easiest to work with.
Alignment arguments and people thinking they need to do something lawful, or evil or whatever. The main reason I don't use standard alignments (if any) in games I run - unholy blight might become demonic blight, etc. in mine.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've always found Neutral Evil characters to be pretty playable and accommodating to the party so as long as there profiting someway. Save that village. Sure, pay me. Destroy that Lich. Sure, pay me. Don't kill that goblin/orc/drow baby. Sure, pay me.
Given that most adventuring parties are glorified mercenaries anyway I don't how this won't work in most games. Ultimately, I think the same goes for the other Evil alignments and Chaotic Neutral. Also, it's good to remember that even sociopaths can have friends, or at least certain people they don't want to see die.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
4 - True Neutral
TN is... Bad. They are hard to run for if they play the alignment. Fortunately most don't. True Neutral are your average townsfolk and as such they have very little motivation to become adventurers. They don't care about law or chaos, meaning they don't mind order or freedom, they just want to be left alone. They won't go and challenge evil because they don't care. They only care if it directly impacts them 9/10 times. This makes them terrible for adventuring parties.
I find most of your opinions on this subject pretty disagreeable/out right ridiculous, but this one I've seen a few people post about in different places so I thought I address it.
Alignment does not for most people inspire people to go adventuring. Nor does it motivate them I have made literally 0 characters and never heard of a single one that woke up in the morning and said "I'm getting out of bed to uphold the law/Do good" people have more clearly defined goals than that.
I'm going to save my family home/ascend through the ranks of society/get a powerful weapon or more powerful generally/save the world/stop a serial child snatcher/investigate that big f~#@ off hole/I'm bored lets go on an adventure
being neutral does not preclude someone from doing any of these things.
not caring about law or chaos does not mean your don't have a philosophy or a political agenda, neutral people will have a way they want the world to work, it just won't be based on the fundamentals of law and chaos. Their will be a lord/king/rebellion that has interests most aligned with your own, help it, not because they represent chaos or the law but because its in your best interest.
Neutral people are not hermits they do not need to be left alone and they are not sociopaths. I saw you think CN would kill a bunch of innocent people because its convenient, that is literally evil and by the rules of the game also evil. Your idea of chaotic neutral is informed by the fact people wanting to play chaotic evil people can't so they write down chaotic neutral and play chaotic evil.
A good person will not kill innocence
A Neutral person might let them die if they have no other choice and it helps them achieve something they perceive to be a bigger goal. Two innocents die but you topple a government going after you and your family.
An evil one will if its convenient and meets a goal. Even a chaotic evil person doesn't have to go round murdering people willy nilly doing so can impede them in broader goals (yes they can have broader goals), or just be pointless, some people just aren't worth killing. They can do that sort of thing if they're playing the Joker. But you don't have to be the joker to be chaotic evil.
True neutrality has goals, it has friends, it has family all of these things can motivate one to operate in a party, heck a party can be these things.
|
|
Just my two cents, and there's a modicum of change depending on how he's played, but Geralt from the Witcher series of games is a shining example of True Neutral done right.
In any case, I'd say I've always had the hardest times with CN characters, but that's mostly because it's an alignment that attracts disruptive players who want an excuse to just do whatever they want.
I find most of your opinions on this subject pretty disagreeable/out right ridiculous,Eh, from what I have seen I agree the same with regards to yours. That is okay though, people can have different opinions.
So you think the idea that you have problem players not alignments is outright ridiculous? Because that's the opinion I've expressed in this thread
Neutral means neutral, neither law nor chaos. Good nor evil. So you don't have a proclivity. I get it, that Paizo changed what the alignments mean, but in my opinion they don't have the ability to do that. I follow the old code on alignments because everything we have now is based on that.
Brexit means brexit = another meaningless sound bite
Followed by appeal to tradition, old does not = right or good, im afraid this applies to your definition of alignment as much as it does anything else.
TN used to state that you would turn against your own party if your party outnumbered the enemies. It is not good for adventurers in my opinion. Though again, that is my opinion and my opinion largely only matters for my characters or for players at my table. Just as yours does.
First of all any rule that says characters have to respond to x with y is ridiculous.
Aside from that what you are doing is stuanchly sticking to an unhelpful definition of alignment that doesn't facilitate fun gaming simply because it's old? Am I understanding that?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I most definitely subscribe to the idea of “there are no bad alignments, just bad players”, but I still find this an interesting idea to think about. So here‘s my two CP on the topic.
(Keeping in mind that I am a relative newbie to tabletop gaming, and that these are simply my opinions and experiences.)
9: Neutral Good – While I haven’t GMed for very many of them, I have a hard time picturing a NG character being terribly disruptive. Also, IMHO, the alignment that a lot of adventures are built towards.
8: Chaotic Good – While usually a bit quirky, the CGs I’ve seen have always been good to game with.
7: Chaotic Neutral – I’m not trying to be contrarian with this; CN is the most popular alignment in my area and, minus a couple of inter-party scuffles, they usually play nice with everyone else at the table.
Perhaps part of that is due to their shared focus on freedom and individuality – but that’s just conjecture on my part. That being said, I usually make sure the player in question isn’t trying to play Evil-but-totally-not-Evil before the game begins.
6: Neutral Evil – Alright, so hear me out. Neutral Evil characters are (usually) exceptionally self-centered, but that doesn’t always mean that they are disruptive.
Again, this dips back to the idea I mentioned above, but I think that this also shows a good example of how a NE character can contribute a lot to a group when played right.
5: Lawful Evil – As several other posters have said, LE characters tend to be your best bet if you want to run an Evil character in a Good group. That being said, I feel that while a Chaotic character can still manage to have some non-disruptive fun in a primarily Lawful party, a strongly Lawful character might be in for a rough time in a more free-spirited group.
4: True Neutral – Though this alignment is a personal favorite of mine, there is an awful lot of variance in what it can represent – and some of the players who do choose it just don’t know what alignment would suit them better, leaving their characters feeling a bit confused and lacking direction or motive.
3: Chaotic Evil – I have very mixed feeling about his alignment. While I personally have a soft spot for it, there are just so many ways it could go wrong. That being said, similar to my NE story above, there are also plenty of ways to get it “right”.
Case in point: my group’s CE Ranger would likely give his life to save his Animal Companion (a vicious eagle who is just as bloodthirsty as he is), or our group’s Oracle (who is his childhood friend).
Also, gods help you if you try to go after his friends while he’s around.
(One more note: I know that not every CE character is a Psychopath or a Sociopath – it’s just that they seem to be common personality types among the CEs I’ve seen.)
2: Lawful Neutral – While I have seen this alignment only rarely, and I am currently GMing for a very well-played one, I can definitely imagine this alignment being a real spanner in the works for a lot of groups. Again, you can find lots of variance in what this actually represents.
1: Lawful Good – I tried very hard to not put this here. I re-jigged this list several times, but LG remains the only alignment that I would be worried to see on someone’s character sheet. Part of this is to do with my aforementioned local meta of Chaotic characters – I would feel bad for anyone trying to play a Paladin in my area – but also, to me at least, this alignment seems to be the hardest to really play well. If played badly, it can come across as Lawful Stupid; but even if played masterfully, it can be a real damp towel on everyone else’s game. This doesn’t even have to be caused by the direct actions of the player or character in question.
Imagine you were an adventurer. Now imagine that you, and most of your party, were pretty easygoing sorts – you didn’t worry overmuch about doing the “right” thing, and although you all may have wildly differing viewpoints on some subjects, you generally get along alright.
Now imagine the final member of your party was basically Mr. Rogers, but a Wizard.
He was nice, he was intelligent, and he never really caused trouble. His only wish for the rest of the group was that they got along with each other, and that they always tried to be the best version of themselves that they could be.
That’s all solid stuff. I would enjoy playing with that character, and I would enjoy playing with that group.
The problem, in my mind, is as follows: because of the well-mannered Wizard tagging around with the group, there is all of a sudden a feeling of… limitation. Sort of like how you might feel a bit uncomfortable swearing in front of your grandparents, you would likely feel a bit uncomfortable doing something – anything – that could be construed as morally questionable while in a group with this guy.
In this way, even though this character isn’t doing anything purposefully to disrupt the group, his presence and attitude affects the way the other characters act, or feel like they should act.
Yes: most adventures are made with a party of primarily Good characters in mind. However, there is also usually some leeway given – with the idea that a lot of the time, there will also be some not-so-by-the-book characters involved in saving the day.
I think it boils down to this; LG, being something of an "ideal" alignment, can end up changing the course of the game and clashing with the party more often than most other alignments.
TLDR:With so much trouble in PUGs, it's kinda hard bein' good old Lawful G.
…That turned out a lot longer than I thought it would be. Ah well.
Good gaming to everyone. o/
It's not unhelpful. You just don't pick it, you pick the one that you will actually play. Most of the people claiming they play TN are actually playing what we would have called TN (Good) or meaning True Neutral with leaning toward Good, or just Neutral Good.
It is unhelpful, the definition you give is explicitly anti party friendly to the point of their being explicit rules as how characters of the alignment react to certain situations which may not even be advantageous to the character. In a game that relies on party cohesion I'd say rules that explicitly inhibit this are unhelpful. Telling people not to play an alignment because their definition of it doesn't match your own isn't helpful either.
Language is interpretable putting a definition of True neutral in print does not make it the singular definition or right. You're attitude that yours is the only interpretation and that it isn't an interprtation at all but in fact a fact contradicts your earlier statement and is quite abrasive.
It isn't so much it is old, it is that it is a word, and that word has a meaning. A meaning which was decided long ago. You don't change the word wings to mean a jet engine. Wings are wings. If you want a jet engine then use the word jet engine.
people can have different opinions.
Wing can refer to one side of a building or the part of a body one can also 'wing it' meaning to improvise, one can also be a wing man, which can refer to a type of pilot or someone that you take with you to a bar I believe. Wing isn't seeming to cut and dry after all. Neutrality can refer to something's PH level or a lack of bias or a philosophical alignment, to think that one of those (a philosophy) can have one clean simple clear definition that applies to everyone that subscribes to it is quite reductionist in my opinion. Language is not an exact science and if you think it is you should read 1984 you might enjoy the bits on new speak.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aside from that what you are doing is stuanchly sticking to an unhelpful definition of alignment that doesn't facilitate fun gaming simply because it's old? Am I understanding that?It's not unhelpful. You just don't pick it, you pick the one that you will actually play. Most of the people claiming they play TN are actually playing what we would have called TN (Good) or meaning True Neutral with leaning toward Good, or just Neutral Good.
It isn't so much it is old, it is that it is a word, and that word has a meaning. A meaning which was decided long ago. You don't change the word wings to mean a jet engine. Wings are wings. If you want a jet engine then use the word jet engine.
The word "moot" used to mean "up for discussion at a later date." Now it means "not worth discussing."
The meaning of words change all the time. Linguistic drift is a thing.
Aside from that what you are doing is stuanchly sticking to an unhelpful definition of alignment that doesn't facilitate fun gaming simply because it's old? Am I understanding that?It's not unhelpful. You just don't pick it, you pick the one that you will actually play. Most of the people claiming they play TN are actually playing what we would have called TN (Good) or meaning True Neutral with leaning toward Good, or just Neutral Good.
It isn't so much it is old, it is that it is a word, and that word has a meaning. A meaning which was decided long ago. You don't change the word wings to mean a jet engine. Wings are wings. If you want a jet engine then use the word jet engine.
The word "moot" used to mean "up for discussion at a later date." Now it means "not worth discussing."
The meaning of words change all the time. Linguistic drift is a thing.
That's quite funny actually, is it cause no-one ever wanted to do those later date discussions xD
|
I have a preference for heroic games, so I get nervous about evil alignments unless discussed ahead of time with the whole group.
Otherwise no problems.
I agree with Chromantic Durgon that alignment isn't exactly the first thing I want to learn about a character. As a GM I usually get at least a short paragraph worth of character concept before we start talking alignment, and as a player it's not uncommon for me to start a game without knowing most of the characters' alignments.
I mean, I would play "self-motivated, determined to amass personal power regardless of the consequences" as CN, personally, since that's (IMO) the most selfish alignment.
Good-Evil is the Selfless-Selfish axis.
TN used to state that you would turn against your own party if your party outnumbered the enemies. It is not good for adventurers in my opinion. Though again, that is my opinion and my opinion largely only matters for my characters or for players at my table. Just as yours does.
Personally I prefer an interpretation of TN that makes it a playable alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find most of your opinions on this subject pretty disagreeable/out right ridiculous,Eh, from what I have seen I agree the same with regards to yours. That is okay though, people can have different opinions.
Neutral means neutral, neither law nor chaos. Good nor evil. So you don't have a proclivity. I get it, that Paizo changed what the alignments mean, but in my opinion they don't have the ability to do that. I follow the old code on alignments because everything we have now is based on that.
TN used to state that you would turn against your own party if your party outnumbered the enemies. It is not good for adventurers in my opinion. Though again, that is my opinion and my opinion largely only matters for my characters or for players at my table. Just as yours does.
Wow, that's just - wow. So you, who quotes as a holy law that a GM can and should change anything that doesn't suit him in the rulebooks, actually dismisses other people variants of the alignment. That's kinda hypocritical you know. Not the mention that Pathfinder IS A DIFFERENT GAME THAN 1e/2e DnD (whichever is the one you first read), and has different rules for almost everything. And BTW, 3e DnD changed alignment, not PF...guess they wanted it more user friendly like most of the rules.
I just figured out that you consider RPG books to something akin to holy scripture:
"I can cheat (no matter what players say), it says so in the book."
"TN alignment means you have no motivation - it says so in the (irrelevant) book."
"C/MD doesn't exist - there's nothing about it in the book!"
Player: "Can I change Legalistic curse to come from a LN plane, I'm not comfortable with it being from Hell, but the drawback of no possibility of breaking promises is awesome." HWalsh: NO (you're trying to gain an unfair advantage) - it says in the book the curse is from Hell."
Straw man I see.
A bit exaggerated but these are mostly paraphrasing your own quotes. The "it's in the book" is mostly my conclusion I got from your posts. EDIT: also, it was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek.
I can fudge as the GM because it is part of the game normally. If the players are against it, then I'm not under an obligation to run. I'm allowed to have my own GM'ing style.
One thing I don't understand about your fudgeing and leveling the field against over-specializers, is why do you even play PF, which is the one of the most player-choice friendly RPG, why not something which has more GM control and is less charater-building game, like 5e?
TN means you don't have a proclivity towards good, evil, law, or chaos not that you don't have motivation. It just means you're concerned mostly for your own needs. It does make it difficult to adventure traditionally.
Power, self-defense, gold and boredom are "your own need". All excellent motivators for adventuring. Neither relevant to alignment.
C/MD relies on so many factors to occur that it only comes up if the game world is built in such a way that it is a thing. There are so many caveats that make C/MD not a thing that it's hardly an issue. It requires high level (12+) play, requires the GM to allow full access to every spell from every book, it requires games that have no pressing concerns, it requires a world that doesn't plan for, and have counters for, commonly used tactics.
I actually agree with some of these. Don't want to take it further on this thread.
Legalistic has a specific flavor from the world. It's far beyond a LN plane. That flavor creates a coherent world setting.
Yes. And I'm talking about changing that flavor, as a player for any reason, to create a DIFFERENT coherent world setting.
Your complaint boils down to:
"I'm going to attack you because you, in your personal game, don't run it the way I want it run."
Most of your arguments boil down to "No, you're wrong, because that's not how I play/how it was written in '88."
Yes, it frequently seems that I'm attacking you on these boards, and that is mostly because you phrase things that are pretty open to debate as "I'm always right/there is no way but my way", and it kinda gets under my skin, I admit. But that doesn't mean my arguments are wrong or false.
I'm not going to apologize to you for running games the same way I've run them since 1988.
The problem is, your argument (in this thread) is based on rules from '88. rather than rules from 2000/2008., by which the most of the people on these forums are playing.
My players and I have fun, and that is all that is required.
I actually believe that, and certainly have no intention to take that away from you. But have any of those players played a different style game with a similarly accomplished GM? Where one CAN have an input on the design of the rules, the world and path the adventure takes? I mean I get that some people want all the work done for them, and only come to roleplay and roll the dice, but many of us wants to have input on certain things.
what the heck even is C/MD
Caster-martial disparity. Not relevant to this thread, but relevant to my rebuttal of HWalsh points.
The only alignment I've ever had problems with is CN - It was a problem because the player altered his character's actions because of his alignment and used it as an excuse to his way of acting.
My group have started to move away from using alignment more and more. We just play our characters. Sadly, alignment is mechanically relevant in Pathfinder. In those cases, we turn to the DM to evaluate our current alignment. Other factors such as alignment changes from corruptions or what not take precedence but it doesn't govern the way we play our characters.
With that said, religious characters still need to be faithful and Paladins needs to be Paladin-like.
That is fairly close to how my group does it. Only ones we really worry about for alignment is alignment restricted characters like pallys clerics etc.
Also we Just do CN as it is in it for themselves but they won't burn a orphanage down for a buck that is more NE (CE if the reward is your own amusement)
Most of my players have years of experience under multiple GMs. Most of them won't play with GMs anymore that aren't me or one of the other people in my group who has a similar style to mine. My players aren't fans of sandbox. They are fans of narrative stories where they feel epic and where they get to accomplish things.
They like that they can get into almost cinematic situations where their characters have a clear arc that has a beginning, middle, and end. When, usually, character death means something and isn't the result of a bad die roll. One player, who played in one of my Star Wars games still recounts with pride his character's main arc.
Yes, and we can do the same with our partial sandbox campaigns.
My players like that the world is a world that their characters were born into rather than one that they created. It isn't a matter of someone else doing all the work for them, it is a matter of the game feeling less like a game. You don't get to pick the history of the United States when you are born in the real world. You don't get to pick how physics works when you turn 16. The world, when it has a strong framework, feels like a real world.
Strong framework is no less strong just because multiple people contributed to it.
United States physics is a straw-man (although a funny one, considering how many people there believe a flat earth and similar stuff), 'cause you can't cast spells in United states, nor is it populated by dragons and people who can wrestle adult elephants. And I don't believe for an instant that your worlds have history that is known in as many details as real world history. And even something as detailed as the real world history cannot prevent you from inventing something, 'cause it doesn't cover every persons life. Point being, I can think of something you didn't. Anyone can, 'cause you're not omniscient. You can either work with me to create something realistic and believable and that fits, or you can ban anything you didn't thought of. You obviously prefer the later. And your players obviously like you for it.
I mean I'll concede the point that your players tried other types of games and don't like them, but all those statements of meaningful, awesome and epic can be (and are) achieved in other types of games as well.
Anyone can make a great character when they can warp the world to suit their needs. It takes real work, real effort, to make a character that fits into an existing framework and is just as impressive.
This is one of those statements I'm talking about. It's just false. It's a matter of preference, nothing else. I can make a character that is wholly made from existing lore (and I'm currently playing one, with by-the-book Legalistic curse), as easily I can make something totally non-existant in Golarion, or anything in-between.
I would also say that (IMO of course) it takes imagination (all people have, not everyone uses it) to invent some lore, while anyone can read it from a book.