| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
mods busy post alignment takes
Nah, I'm just kidding. This isn't that kind of alignment thread. Alignment takes are like sandwich definitions: everyone has their own, and arguing about them is the pedagogical equivalent of pressing the crosswalk button several times to make it turn green faster. It accomplishes nothing, but if you find it cathartic, good on you.
No, this is actually about alignment etiquette. Specifically, it's about people policing each other's characters' alignments. I've really soured on it. Especially when it's other players or onlookers.
Alignment is unbelievably subjective. I think it's inarguable that modifying the alignment system is the most common house rule in the entire game, and in D&D besides. A lot of people prefer a more complex Evil, or a higher-standards Good, or to not use alignment at all. Others do like the stock mechanic, of course.
All of these interpretations are fine. They work.
But what happens when they clash? Well, we know the answer to that: We start arguing. That's fine, too. As long as both parties want to argue, they can go to town. It's a lot more problematic, though, when you start an argument with someone who didn't come looking for one.
So here's a scenario.
Let's say I'm joining a new game, and I come in with an elf wizard. This wizard is sweet and friendly to everyone, he likes to help others, but he's also got a quiet mean streak. He likes to be good, but if someone's in his way, he's willing to burn down the guy's home and kill his family in front of him.
What's this character's alignment? Neutral Evil? True Neutral? Chaotic Good? Whatever I pick, there's a risk another player will notice and have an objection. I know because it's happened to me, and lately I've seen it happening to others. It seems to happen a lot on these forums in particular. We love to argue here, don't we?
In this case, though, I'm just trying to play my character true to the way I see alignment. I didn't want to have to defend my character's alignment to someone else.
A lot of GMs will take a laissez-faire approach when it comes to this infamous mechanic--"As long as you aren't being egregious, I'll let you define your own alignment. I care more about how you play your character, anyways."
And in that situation, the best thing as a fellow player to do is mind your own business. You shouldn't need the GM to weigh in and tell you to back off. Someone choosing an unusual alignment for their PC is not an invitation to start a Paladin Falls debate with them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the GM allows it, the GM allows it. That's not an alignment issue, that's an issue of the players (and frankly, the GM) not communicating well about their comfort levels and what they see as right and wrong. Yes, it's an absurd interpretation, but it's also their table.
Besides, you're barely even arguing about alignment at that point. You're arguing about a very objective rule in the Champion's text about a thing they aren't allowed to do.
Yeah, if someone's being egregiously absurd about it and doesn't even have a coherent explanation, that's a lot. I think asking someone, "Hey, just curious, I noticed your character is a Liberator Champion. How do you interpret them being okay with buying and selling the gnome?" is perfectly reasonable.
I've personally been in a situation very similar to the Elf Wizard character because another player noticed my sheet mentioned "Neutral Evil" and thought they needed to correct that.
Also, GMs are free to police it however they like! This is more about fellow players and onlookers stepping in.
Currently playing a CG Gnome through Skulls and Shackles.
And since the campaign borders into some rather not nice things that the players do in order to survive, there are definitely some conflicts. More than normal for a heroic save the day type of adventure.
And yeah, I would not take it well if someone tried criticizing me on my character doing things like lying, stealing, or even executing people. Those are my moral quandaries to navigate through, thank you very much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I've witnessed in a game where we were playing assassins who killed innocent people for money, someone insisting they were NG because they were nice to animals.
*shrug* I've been in games where I, as the assassin, was the nicest person there even though they had a lot of 'G' in their alignments. Luckily none of us bothered each other about it and just played our characters. It was actually one of my better games.
Oh, I think they mean the opposite, aobst--that the player who played the animal-loving assassin was trying to claim they were Neutral Good when they killed people for a living. It confused me for a moment, too.
Oh, and I, too, have been in situations where my Evil PC felt like the only moral voice in a party of Goods. "Listen, I'm not totally morally opposed to killing these goblins if it's actually more convenient, but I just don't see the point when there are so many obvious easy alternatives."
That said, nobody told me I was playing Evil wrong, and I didn't tell anyone they were playing Good wrong--though I did reach out later OOC to ask that we dial things back a couple notches when they found and smashed a bunch of blue dragon eggs. I did that more for comfort reasons than for the sake of "alignment correction". I love playing evil PCs, but I prefer to always be close to the "worst" in the party, so my girl can be slowly influenced towards Neutral or Good. When everyone's an ass, things get darker than I'm comfy with fast.
Oh, I think they mean the opposite, aobst--that the player who played the animal-loving assassin was trying to claim they were Neutral Good when they killed people for a living. It confused me for a moment, too. I, too, have been in situations where my Evil PC felt like the only moral voice in a party of Goods. "Listen, I'm not totally morally opposed to killing these goblins if it's actually more convenient, but I just don't see the point when there are so many obvious easy alternatives." X3
I felt like it was the best cover ever! No one was going to expect the nicest person to be the reason someone died last night in town after I just convinced everyone we didn't have to murder someone for the item they had.
Haha, same! I was playing a Neutral Evil cleric of Vecna who posed as a priestess of Pelor. She honestly didn't really like to hurt anyone she didn't have to, but if she had to, well... nobody was about to accuse the lady who'd just flown off the handle at her partymembers for mass dragon infanticide. X3
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not how everybody runs alignments (it's not RAW, for example), but it's a fun interpretation I don't dislike at all!
Alignment takes are like sandwich definitions
I am a sandwich monist (all things past, present, future, and potential) are, were, and will be sandwiches. How do I apply this to alignment?
I mean, it's pretty close to RAW. Stabbing someone for cash is "willing to victimize others for their own selfish gain" and standing between someone else and a knife is "protecting others from harm, even if doing so puts the character in danger".
I think the CRB goes more into it than what I'm seeing in the AonPRD, but hey, unless someone else can materialize the fuller definition I swear I remember reading, you're right and I'm wrong about that! :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cool! I don't hate that definition at all. It doesn't say Evil characters can't have loved ones or be kind to people or be a team player, it's literally just, "You are willing to do bad things at least sometimes for selfish gain." And "selfish gain" can encompass a lot--revenge, not wanting to admit you're wrong about the right way to solve the problem, etc, etc. That's neat! I like that RAW.
I'm being off-topic, though. X3
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this can be generalized beyond alignment to just say that it's generally rude to police how someone RPs a character.
The only real exception is if there's some sort of roleplay requirement established ahead of time for the character (like a cleric's anathema) and even that should generally be handled carefully.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, but if I convey my point clearly and concisely then I don't get to write over ten paragraphs preaching at people about it. :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this can be generalized beyond alignment to just say that it's generally rude to police how someone RPs a character.
The only real exception is if there's some sort of roleplay requirement established ahead of time for the character (like a cleric's anathema) and even that should generally be handled carefully.
I generally see something like that up to the DM to police, not the players. The most I'd do is make a mention to the DM if it was bothersome. At worst, I can always find a new game if I don't mesh with a group though I rarely have to do that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When it comes to an evil character, I think what matters most is OOC communication. Evil characters can work just fine, but you need to know that the player is genuinely interested in playing cooperatively. There are a lot of non-disruptive reasons a player might want to play an evil PC. Maybe they want a redemption arc. Maybe they enjoy the challenge of making an evil PC who can play nice with do-gooders. Maybe they're excited for the potential for drama, but are fine with ditching the character if any OOC issues emerge. Maybe they're just rolling with a different personal definition of Evil and what they call Evil you'd call Neutral. (This may be a problem, depending, but usually it's not gonna matter, and this whole thread's about why sometimes it's okay to just live and let live on that one.)
Essentially, an evil PC is like a lone wolf PC: They can work, but you need to know what you're doing. I'm always very clear when I run a game that I do allow evil PCs (and lone wolves, too), but you have to have some strategy for making sure they're team players. Plus, I'd ideally want them to be moving towards at least some level of redemption, since the themes I like to explore in my games (found family, friendship, kindness conquering malice) are pretty idealistic and "edgy assassin who starts out an assjackal and ends the game an assjackal" may not be a great fit.
I'll admit I can have strong(Nuanced but still strong) opinions about alignment. I tend to play with people who have similar opinions so I tend to avoid it. The difficult thing is when I enjoy living world games, and there people can be very loosey goosey with alignment in a way that can be frustrating, but i still enjoy being a part of the community. IF conversations about alignment come up in conversation I'll talk about it. But I mostly just try to view characters by their actions in those settings, and react to what I see in character as such.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a matter of fact, we are absolutely talking about the busybodies. :P
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the biggest thing people mess up about alignment.
"I'm doing this because I'm good aligned."
When it should be:
"I'm good aligned because I'm doing it."
Alignment shouldn't drive your behavior, just be a descriptor of it.
Here's the biggest thing people mess up about alignment.
"I'm doing this because I'm good aligned."
When it should be:
"I'm good aligned because I'm doing it."
Alignment shouldn't drive your behavior, just be a descriptor of it.
I'll also add that alignment cannot be an excuse for bad dinamics at a table. If you sticking to your idea of Lawful good paladin playing police on the party is making everyone else have less fun, maybe instead of shielding yourself on the alignment of your character you should just compromise a bit and adapt to the general dynamic. This is a game first and foremost afterall.
First of all:
[…] if someone's in his way, he's willing to burn down the guy's home and kill his family in front of him.
That course of action is arguably Chaotic and definitely Evil. If that‘s your disposition, so are you.
Now, interpreting someone‘s Alignment from a rules perspective is the GM‘s prerogative.
Interpreting another character‘s actions and behaviour, on the other hand, and reacting according to their own character’s Alignment and values, that‘s called roleplaying and well within a player’s rights.
In the above scenario a suitable reaction for a Good character would have been to banish, try and arrest or ouright kill your character for their crimes, not tell you what you can or cannot do, for what it‘s worth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll also add that alignment cannot be an excuse for bad dinamics at a table. If you sticking to your idea of Lawful good paladin playing police on the party is making everyone else have less fun, maybe instead of shielding yourself on the alignment of your character you should just compromise a bit and adapt to the general dynamic. This is a game first and foremost afterall.
There‘s nothing more obnoxious than a well played paladin.
That‘s why, at our table, paladins and their ilk need the approval of all the other players.
Specifically, it's about people policing each other's characters' alignments. I've really soured on it. Especially when it's other players or onlookers.
Correct don't do it. You should roleplay your response to their character. You shouldn't call out to the GM regarding another players role playing or bad take on their characters alignment.
It is a game. Have fun. Respect that other people can have a really weird take on things.
Lead by example.
Only intervene if the behaviour is problematic in respect of another player, and the GM isn't picking up on it, or maybe the GM doesn't know about a personal undercurrent.
I don't consider it the other players' jobs to police alignment. GM does that.
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't consider it the other players' jobs to police alignment. GM does that.
I was trapped in a RIFTs campaign once that I hated. I loved the system, but oh man... the mechanics were just awful, and not at all balanced from book to book, which was a problem since this was a universe-switching campaign.
But RIFTs has a pretty interesting alignment system, and my favorite alignment in it was the Aberrant alignment. I think it was absolutely the alignment that you enjoyed playing, KC.
Aberrant (Evil)
The cliche that there is "No honor among thieves" is false when dealing with the Aberrant character. This is a person who is driven to attain his goals through force, power, and intimidation. Yet the aberrant person stands apart from the norm, with his own, personal code of ethics (although twisted ethics by the standards of good). He expects loyalty from his minions, punishing disloyalty and treachery with a swift, merciful death. An Aberrant person will always keep his word of honor and uphold any bargains. He will define his terms and live by them, whether anyone else likes it or not.
If an anti-hero, he will completely disregard the law and deal out justice as he deems fit. He will never be cruel or vindictive, and will always be absolutely positive that the person is guilty before he deals out his brand of justice. However, once he condemns the character, he will see to it that he is destroyed.
Whether a villain or a corrupt and extreme anti-hero, the Aberrant character looks upon people without honor or a sense of loyalty as worthless and disgusting lowlifes.
Do not think of the Aberrant character as a misguided good guy. He or she will break all laws with impunity, harass victims, destroy property, assault, blackmail, torture, and murder. Only their methods and degree of violence may vary...An Aberrant Character Will . . .
1. Always keep his word of honor (at least to those he deems worthy of it).
2. Lie and cheat to those not worthy of his respect; good, selfish, or evil.
3. May or may not kill an unarmed foe.
4. Never kill an innocent, particularly a child, but may harm, harass or kidnap.
5. Never torture for pleasure, but will use it to extract information and intimidate others.
6. Never kill for pleasure; will always have a reason.
7. May or may not help someone in need.
8. Rarely attempt to work within the law.
9. Break the law without hesitation.
10. Have no use for the law or bureaucracy, but respects honor, self-discipline, and the “concept” of laws and order.
11. Works with others to attain his goals.
12. Usually take “dirty” money, though his twisted code of ethics may prevent him from doing so in some instances.
13. Never betray a friend. Never.
★ ---- ★ ---- ★ ---- ★
My main problem with the alignment was that my GM was continually policing me and my boyfriend's two characters, a married couple who was raised by a mega corp and were on the run from it. We chose aberrant to reflect that we had done some pretty terrible things for the corporation and that it had influenced who we were... a pair that would work with others, cared about each other, but were slow to trust others.
Then the GM decided that just about every powerful NPC in his world was a psychic who could read alignment, and they would slam doors in our faces every time we tried to talk, saying, "You're evil! I don't deal with evil!"
Now realize that my character, Satu, was the party's face. She was the chief social character. We wanted to play reluctant team players and the GM was making it so we held back the team. Now, I have no idea if RIFTS had a mechanic where all powerful NPCs had inserted alignment meters, or he was just being a jerk to us, but I started looking for ways to get us out of that campaign.
★ ---- ★ ---- ★ ---- ★
It was however a useful campaign in three ways:
1) I learned that I could play an evil PC if that PC had a really interesting code of honor.
2) I learned to look for red flags in campaigns and drop them near instantly when I found them.
3) It caused me to look outside home games, and look seriously at Organized Play, where teamwork and fair play from both the player side and the GM side is encouraged.
I learned a lot from that game, but man, it was a painful lesson.
Hmm
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Love me some rifts! You have to go in though with the understanding that it's built on it being unbalanced: a vagabond or villager is as much a class option as is a glitterbot pilot with a 1 ton robot with an attached railgun or a cosmoknight that can take a nap in a sun. The DM has to be the one to balance the game because it doesn't do that itself.
Now on alignments from there, this is the best one IMO:
Taoist Alignment (Good)
Taoist characters are rather eccentric. They are not selfish, in that they care nothing for wealth, riches. or any personal gain, but they are self-centered in that they'd rather have fun than be bothered by serious obligations. Ultimately, the Taoist is always torn. On the one hand, the character should work for the good of others. However, the attainment of wisdom, insight, and even Immortality are also the goals of the Taoist. Also, since a Taoist takes the long view, the character is willing to let people suffer if it's possible they'll learn from the experience.
Taoist Characters Will ...
1. Intend to keep their word of honor, when they give it. However, if things change, well . . .
2. Avoid Lies (except in fun).
3. Cheat whenever necessary.
4. Will not kill an unarmed foe (but will take advantage of the situation) .
5. Never harm an innocent.
6. Not use torture unless absolutely necessary.
7. Never kill for pleasure.
8. Usually help those in need.
9. Refuse to take any position of leadership or authority, except in a short-term emergency.
10 . Ignore the law and the rules, whenever they feel they can get away with it. However, they will never violate the law for personal gain.
11 . Usually make fun of authority.
12 . Usually, but not always, stick by a friend.
Alignment can change during play as a character’s beliefs change, or as you realize that your character’s actions reflect a different alignment than the one on your character sheet. In most cases, you can just change their alignment and continue playing.
There is no time table for this. If your character is doing some evil stuff for his own benefit, then he's evil. If he only does that evil stuff rarely, then he'd probably be neutral most of the time, with occasional dips into evil.
Unless you have class abilities tied to alignment, it doesn't really matter.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that Kobold Catgirl is largely, but not completely, correct.
In an ideal world the table will have a reasonably coherent definition of good/evil and maybe even law/chaos and the GM will lightly monitor what happens to make sure people don't stray TOO far from what their character sheet says. ESPECIALLY if a character is getting some mechanical benefits from their alignment/dogma/anathema.
I know that, as a GM, I try very hard to just trust my players on this and to not worry about it. Occasionaly, I'll ask something like "Why would your Champion consider that action reasonable?" and try hard to accept the answer. But that relies on a mostly shared understanding of alignment and players who are mostly reasonable.
And we've just about ALL been at the table when some player is just WRONG. The Paladin who wants to burn down an Orphanage for the lols, the lawful police officer character who wants to execute prisoners even when it is quite convenient to turn them into the authorities, etc. When this happens SOMEBODY has to step in.
Yeah, it SHOULD be the GM. But some GMs hate confrontation, or they don't want to piss off that particular player for whatever out of game reason, or they're just bad at their job. When that happens, AND when the violation is egregious enough, then I think players are justified in stepping in and at least raising the issue and pushing on things a little.
Bystanders should nearly always shut up. But we're all human, we sometimes interfere in situations we shouldn't because we just can't help ourself. If I saw a Paladin burning down an Orphanage for the lols and the GM and players weren't doing something I'd find it hard to keep quiet :-(.
To greatly complicate things, we all bring our personal sense of morality and ethics to alignment discussions. In various alignment arguments I've seen people who seem, from my point of view, to be functioning psychopaths in their arguments as to what is justified. I hope I never find myself at the table with some of them :-). And some of them I'd probably be afraid (if their real life personas are at all similar to their online personas) to bring up alignment variations at the table as I'd think they could literally get violent.
Edit: And yes, in PFS I have literally seen the paladin character (PF1) wanting to burn down an orphanage essentially for the lols. The player was youngish (14 or so?) and shut up when the GM (his father IIRC) just said "No".
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that Kobold Catgirl is largely, but not completely, correct.
Actually, I'm Small-ly correct. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes, it's also just ignorance. Like the classical "Necromancer of Pharasma".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When it comes to an evil character, I think what matters most is OOC communication. Evil characters can work just fine, but you need to know that the player is genuinely interested in playing cooperatively.
I think all alignment directions can go so far that they become a problem and detriment to the party. Evil and Chaotic alignment are the most common and most talked about, but I have a Lawful character that I have had to rein in a few times. The problem is that he can cause decision paralysis for the group by trying to analyze everything to excruciating detail and continuing to suggest alternate plans or plan variants for consideration.
Edit for clarity: It is my own character. I as the player have to rein in my own character.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This reminds me of when a fellow player recently attempted to police my Champion in Agents of Edgewatch. I loved the way it was handled.
Champ: I swing my mace in a downward arc towards the gang leader's face. 42 to hit.
GM: A crit! How do you want to play this?
Champ: Catching his head between my mace and the wall, I leave behind a crater in the wall. The thug's neck and upper body dangle from said hole, his head masked in the shadows of its depths.
Rogue: "Aren't you kind of bloodthirsty for a champion of the medical god, Qi Zhong? Isn't one of his anathema 'no killing?'"
Champ: "You need not fear. Our amoral friend here is still very much alive." *Slaps hand playfully on thug's limp knee*
Thug: *gurgles in severe pain*
Rogue: "What!? How is he even still alive?"
Champ: "By the grace of Qi Zhong my unbelieving friend!"
Other players: *Attempt to stifle laughter in the background*
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the GM's take on alignments is alpha and omega because they are the deities and the whole universe. But it has to be shared and discussed beforehand so that players are ok with it. Just like houserules.
I also think there is a third hidden axis on the alignment grid and I call it jerkitude. It is how much your PC will use their alignment as an excuse to ruin the fun for the other players.
And I've seen it with all alignments.
|
|
I'll also add that alignment cannot be an excuse for bad dinamics at a table. If you sticking to your idea of Lawful good paladin playing police on the party is making everyone else have less fun, maybe instead of shielding yourself on the alignment of your character you should just compromise a bit and adapt to the general dynamic. This is a game first and foremost afterall.There‘s nothing more obnoxious than a well played paladin.
That‘s why, at our table, paladins and their ilk need the approval of all the other players.
I respectfully disagree.
You can play a Paladin perfectly AND let other PCs behave how the players feel like. The code in no way forces you to police the other PCs.
Just like the PF2 anathemas apply only to the PC and not to the rest of the party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
+1
This whole: "My moral code forces me to direct the group the way I want." is Lawful Stupid.
If you can't lie, it's fine for you, but it doesn't mean the others can't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, my champion's "no killing" anathema never stopped anyone else.
If anything, it made our good cop bad cop routines when using Coerce just that much more terrifying.
(My Champion was always the bad cop.)