Misconception of being "Unaligned".

719 posts / 0 new
Last post

In our 4th edition game our DM really makes us stick with our alignmment, he will even go so far as to cause things to happen if we were to do things that was totally out of our alignment. Well we have one person who is unaligned and he has some misconceptions about what Unaligned means. We had a few situations come up but one of the most disturbing was one time we were in a dungeon and I myself weren't really thinking that well that game so I had my Wizard just walk over and open tomb without checking it.

Well something came out and attacked us and during the battle I went down. Well the Unaligned Rogue made a stealth check and when nobody was looking he did a Coup de grace on me. We stopped the game right there and asked why he did that. Well he responded that I put the party in danger by doing something stupid like that so I was perceived as a threat so I was taken out of the picture so I wouldn't endanger the rest of the party.

We proceeded to tell him that that is not being Unaligned. He becomes angry because he thinks we are picking on him because he thinks he is playing is alignment correctly. He believes Unaligned means that you can help the poor one moment but then kill a person in cold blood the next. I have read over the description for Unaligned and it does not give you the means to commit great acts of kindness followed by great acts of evil and still keep your alignment as Unaligned. Am I missing something here?

The problem isn't whether he was acting outside his alignment.  (I don't think he was.)  The problem is that your group is using alignment to prevent people from being jerks to one another, and that's not a very good use for alignment.

In the future, if you don't want PCs to backstab one another, make it a rule of the group that people not create characters of any alignment that would backstab one another.
The problem isn't whether he was acting outside his alignment.  (I don't think he was.)  The problem is that your group is using alignment to prevent people from being jerks to one another, and that's not a very good use for alignment.

In the future, if you don't want PCs to backstab one another, make it a rule of the group that people not create characters of any alignment that would backstab one another.



+1 a better version of what i wanted to say

Play whatever the **** you want. Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.

I am not sure why you are asking us for help. Your DM has made changes to the alignment system (as noted by the penalties that get applied when you act outside of your alignment, penalties which don't exist currently in 4E) and you should be talking to him. Did you guys discuss with him first what each alignment meant? Did you discuss what the penalty for breaking your alignment was?
Mudbunny SVCL for DDI Before you post, think of the Monkeysphere
This doesn't sound like an alignment problem.  Instead, it sounds like a problem precipitated by player conflict and excused (maybe) by alignment.  That is, I doubt the rogue's player decided to slit your wizard's throat on the spur of the moment; it's more likely that he's been frustrated for a while, and finally saw an opportunity.

So, in addition to adopting Wrecan's advice with regard to alignment and PvP, try to resolve the player conflict.
The biggest problem is the player thinks he can dish out a big evil sandwich but as long as he sprinkles a bit of goodness here and there he gets to say he is Unaligned.
Your biggest problem, is that he's right.

Unaligned says, in effect, "You don't care about Alignment, you don't pick sides, you can be evil one moment and good the next."
Epic Dungeon Master

Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen!

Your Kingdom awaits!
Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
I do not understand the responses you have received so far that have avoided addressing the in-game nature of the action.

In-game, the action was evil, not "unaligned". He killed a companion who was already helpless. It did not save the party. It did not sacrifice the one for the good of the many. It did not serve the greater good. It did not even serve his own interests.

Altghough there may be out-of-game *player* conflict involved, the action was still evil.

Unaligned folks are not unwilling to commit evil. It simply requires that they have a really good reason to do it. Unaligned folks are ambiguously selfish. Not "selfish-bad" -- just "selfish". Their interests come first. This describes most real-life humans. Do good when you can. And don't do bad if you can help it.
Here are the PHB essentia, in my opinion:
  • Three Basic Rules (p 11)
  • Power Types and Usage (p 54)
  • Skills (p178-179)
  • Feats (p 192)
  • Rest and Recovery (p 263)
  • All of Chapter 9 [Combat] (p 264-295)
A player needs to read the sections for building his or her character -- race, class, powers, feats, equipment, etc. But those are PC-specific. The above list is for everyone, regardless of the race or class or build or concept they are playing.
I do not understand the responses you have received so far that have avoided addressing the in-game nature of the action.

In-game, the action was evil, not "unaligned". He killed a companion who was already helpless. It did not save the party. It did not sacrifice the one for the good of the many. It did not serve the greater good. It did not even serve his own interests.

Altghough there may be out-of-game *player* conflict involved, the action was still evil.

Unaligned folks are not unwilling to commit evil. It simply requires that they have a really good reason to do it. Unaligned folks are ambiguously selfish. Not "selfish-bad" -- just "selfish". Their interests come first. This describes most real-life humans. Do good when you can. And don't do bad if you can help it.



Exactly!!
I think the correct phrasing would be "My character does this because he's an idiot". Even evil characters don't go around killing everyone who make an inconvenient mistake, unless the offending person is easily replaced, and the character is the "despicable jerk" cliche. An ally who makes a mistake is a fool, not a threat.

As a side note, how did the rogue do a "stealth" c d'g? Was it during the fight, in which case the rogue is wasting his actions not fighting the enemy, or after, when I would think the rest of the party is paying attention to the fallen wizard?
That's Someone, with a capital S. "Cat's out of the bag on that one, isn't it? Who puts cats in bags, anyway? Cats hate bags." -Sheogorath, Oblivion
Seeker95,

Nothing in the very brief alignment section requires Unaligned people to come up with a good reason to commit an evil act.  All it means is they haven't actively chosen to commit themselves to a set of moral principles:

"If you choose an alignment, you’re indicating your character’s dedication to a set of moral principles: good, lawful good, evil, or chaotic evil."

"Most people in the world, and plenty of player characters, haven’t signed up to play on any team—they’re unaligned. Picking and adhering to an alignment represents a distinct choice."
-Excerpts: Alignment

Note how "unaligned" is not amongst the set of moral principles to which characters might dedicate themselves.  Unaligned is what happens when you choose not to choose.

Being unaligned means there's no restrictions in your character's behavior.  Any restrictions would therefore have to be chosen by the group out-of-game, and a pretty common one is "Don't be a douche."

So asking an unaligned character to justify an action is ridiculous.  An unaligned character has chosen not to ally themselves with a specific set of moral principles.  There's nothing for them to justify against.

Here's all there is about the unaligned:
"If you’re unaligned, you don’t actively seek to harm others or wish them ill. But you also don’t go out of your way to put yourself at risk without some hope for reward. You support law and order when doing so benefits you. You value your own freedom, without worrying too much about protecting the freedom of others.

A few unaligned people, and most unaligned deities, aren’t undecided about alignment. Rather, they’ve chosen not to choose, either because they see the benefits of both good and evil or because they see themselves as above the concerns of morality. The Raven Queen and her devotees fall into the latter camp, believing that moral choices are irrelevant to their mission since death comes to all creatures regardless of alignment.
"

Now, the PC in question said he killed the wizard because his rash actions endangered the group and, most importantly, the unaligned character.  Seems to me he didn't actively want to harm the wziard, but he felt the wizard's actions put him in danger.  That's well within the wan description  above.

Bottom line: Don't rely on alignment to regulate character interactions.  That's not its purpose.

Edited to add: I agree the rationale here is thin, and idiotic, but so what?  If you don't want PCs to kill one another, make that the rule.  Don't engage in a hyperlegal reading of the alignment rules to enact a very reasonable table rule.  Just enact it.
Unaligned says, in effect, "You don't care about Alignment, you don't pick sides, you can be evil one moment and good the next."

Except it doesn't say that.

Unaligned
Just let me go about my business.
If you’re unaligned, you don’t actively seek to harm others or wish them ill. But you also don’t go out of your way to put yourself at risk without some hope for reward. You support law and order when doing so benefits you. You value your own freedom, without worrying too much about protecting the freedom of others.
A few unaligned people, and most unaligned deities, aren’t undecided about alignment. Rather, they’ve chosen not to choose, either because they see the benefits of both good and evil or because they see themselves as above the concerns of morality. The Raven Queen and her devotees fall into the latter camp, believing that moral choices are irrelevant to their mission since death comes to all creatures regardless of alignment.

--------------------------------
Even the second paragraph doesn't say you can be evil one minute and good the next. It indicates that moral choices are irrelevant to the mission. Killing Xun's cleric did not further the mission. The PC went out of his way to commit an evil act without any progress toward the accomplishment of the mission. He killed a companion who was already unconscious.
Here are the PHB essentia, in my opinion:
  • Three Basic Rules (p 11)
  • Power Types and Usage (p 54)
  • Skills (p178-179)
  • Feats (p 192)
  • Rest and Recovery (p 263)
  • All of Chapter 9 [Combat] (p 264-295)
A player needs to read the sections for building his or her character -- race, class, powers, feats, equipment, etc. But those are PC-specific. The above list is for everyone, regardless of the race or class or build or concept they are playing.
I suspect that the answers would be quite different if anyone else had asked the original question.
Here are the PHB essentia, in my opinion:
  • Three Basic Rules (p 11)
  • Power Types and Usage (p 54)
  • Skills (p178-179)
  • Feats (p 192)
  • Rest and Recovery (p 263)
  • All of Chapter 9 [Combat] (p 264-295)
A player needs to read the sections for building his or her character -- race, class, powers, feats, equipment, etc. But those are PC-specific. The above list is for everyone, regardless of the race or class or build or concept they are playing.
I think another problem is people are assuming that Unaligned is supposed to be what Chaotic Neutral was and it isn't.
I do not understand the responses you have received so far that have avoided addressing the in-game nature of the action.

In-game, the action was evil, not "unaligned". He killed a companion who was already helpless. It did not save the party. It did not sacrifice the one for the good of the many. It did not serve the greater good. It did not even serve his own interests.

Altghough there may be out-of-game *player* conflict involved, the action was still evil.

Unaligned folks are not unwilling to commit evil. It simply requires that they have a really good reason to do it. Unaligned folks are ambiguously selfish. Not "selfish-bad" -- just "selfish". Their interests come first. This describes most real-life humans. Do good when you can. And don't do bad if you can help it.



Seeker pretty much hit the nail on the head with this one in my opinion.

Leroy Jethro Gibbs NCIS "A slap to the face is humiliating. A slap to the back of the head is a wake up call."

 

Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th Edition

Even the second paragraph doesn't say you can be evil one minute and good the next. It indicates that moral choices are irrelevant to the mission. Killing Xun's cleric did not further the mission. The PC went out of his way to commit an evil act without any progress toward the accomplishment of the mission.


The rogue felt it did further the mission.  According to Xun, the rogue's action was justified as follows:

"he responded that I put the party in danger by doing something stupid like that so I was perceived as a threat so I was taken out of the picture so I wouldn't endanger the rest of the party"

You (and I) may decide the rogue misjudged the benefit of killing the rash wizard vs. the benefits of keeping him alive, but poor math skills shouldn't be a prerequisite for maintaining an alignment.

The rogue did not actively seek the wizard harm.  They had been adventuring together for some period of time and the rogue had apparently never tried to hurt the wizard (or any other party member) previously.  The rogue only acted when he perceived that Xun's wizard was putting him and the other party members in danger.  He may have perceived wrong, but his actions in response to the perception were in line with an unaligned character.
Let it be stated clearly that the player in question is an ass and would have received a DMG against the side of the head for this action in any of my games.

But I'm still with Wrecan here; he didn't actively seek to harm the Wizard. He sought to deal with something he considered a threat to himself. If it was an Orc laying there, bleeding to death, he would've done the same.

Yes, it was shallowly hidden player vs. player behaviour.

Yes, the player that did this was an ass.

But no, he was not acting out of Alignment, because he doesn't have one.
Epic Dungeon Master

Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen!

Your Kingdom awaits!
Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
Unaligned folks are not unwilling to commit evil. It simply requires that they have a really good reason to do it. Unaligned folks are ambiguously selfish. Not "selfish-bad" -- just "selfish". Their interests come first. This describes most real-life humans. Do good when you can. And don't do bad if you can help it.


Close to what I think, but I ease up on Unaligned a bit more from leaning so much towards good.  "Do good when there is little risk towards you and brings favor, or if the risks match the rewards.  Do bad if helps you, there will be no consequences, no one really gets hurt, and you can look in the mirror without regret afterwards."

Evil for me lies towards more "Selfish", as in all their motiviations lie in fulfilling their desires of accumulation(of Wealth, Food, Power), satisfaction(of Anger, Lust, Envy, Pride), or safety(of Power, Life, Secrets, Pride).  If the actions do not satisfy the desires, there is no point in taking the action.  If it does, then woe to anyone you have to step on to obtain it.  But its always good to delay or replan the course of actions to limit the possible consequences to a minimum.

Chaotic Evil is of course, "For the Lulz." or "Because." grade motivations.  Same motivations as of Evil, for fulfilling desires of accumulation, satisfaction, and safety.  Just no cares about the consequences of their actions.  Worse though, may be due to the simple fact they enjoy the acts they do.

Though all this can't help make me wonder, what action of the Wizard did the Rogue claim was his excuse to kill him?
I had a very similar situation to this happen in a 3e game. I'll skip the story, but my DM and I talked about it later, and he said something to the effect that he should have, at least temporarily, changed the offending characters alignment to evil. He committed an obviously evil act, therefore he is evil, at least during the moment the action takes place and immediately after. You can't hide behind neutrality/being unaligned when you commit great acts of either evil, OR good for that matter.

Call it temporary insanity, but it's still a crime.
I suspect that the answers would be quite different if anyone else had asked the original question.


Not by me.  This has been my attitude towards unaligned since the article I linked was first published.  I've said similar things here and here (and elsewhere)
I do not understand the responses you have received so far that have avoided addressing the in-game nature of the action.

In-game, the action was evil, not "unaligned". He killed a companion who was already helpless. It did not save the party. It did not sacrifice the one for the good of the many. It did not serve the greater good. It did not even serve his own interests.

Altghough there may be out-of-game *player* conflict involved, the action was still evil.

Unaligned folks are not unwilling to commit evil. It simply requires that they have a really good reason to do it. Unaligned folks are ambiguously selfish. Not "selfish-bad" -- just "selfish". Their interests come first. This describes most real-life humans. Do good when you can. And don't do bad if you can help it.

There's no question that the player in question is an idiot who doesn't care about keeping his actions realistic, or even consistent, and to me there's also no question that he's using the tired dogde of "hey, I'm not evil, because I wrote Neutral/Unaligned down on my character sheet!"

However, in my experience, even stupid evil-but-not-really PCs don't murder each other on the spur of the moment.  The DM's view of alignment is already hopeless, so arguing about whether the offending PC violated the terms of "unaligned" seems beside the point: even if everyone at the table agrees that his actions were evil, it doesn't bring Xun's PC back to life--nor does it prevent the same moron from PKing other PCs the next time he gets irritated.

So while it's clear that there are significant in-game problems, I would argue that resolving the clear metagame issues will resolve the in-character ones.
Unaligned folks are not unwilling to commit evil. It simply requires that they have a really good reason to do it. Unaligned folks are ambiguously selfish. Not "selfish-bad" -- just "selfish". Their interests come first. This describes most real-life humans. Do good when you can. And don't do bad if you can help it.


Close to what I think, but I ease up on Unaligned a bit more from leaning so much towards good.  "Do good when there is little risk towards you and brings favor, or if the risks match the rewards.  Do bad if helps you, there will be no consequences, no one really gets hurt, and you can look in the mirror without regret afterwards."

Evil for me lies towards more "Selfish", as in all their motiviations lie in fulfilling their desires of accumulation(of Wealth, Food, Power), satisfaction(of Anger, Lust, Envy, Pride), or safety(of Power, Life, Secrets, Pride).  If the actions do not satisfy the desires, there is no point in taking the action.  If it does, then woe to anyone you have to step on to obtain it.  But its always good to delay or replan the course of actions to limit the possible consequences to a minimum.

Chaotic Evil is of course, "For the Lulz." or "Because." grade motivations.  Same motivations as of Evil, for fulfilling desires of accumulation, satisfaction, and safety.  Just no cares about the consequences of their actions.  Worse though, may be due to the simple fact they enjoy the acts they do.

Though all this can't help make me wonder, what action of the Wizard did the Rogue claim was his excuse to kill him?



Without waiting to have traps checked for I rushed in and opened the tomb without thinking and a creature came out and started attacking. He felt that because of my mistake I endangered the party which in turn he felt he was given the right to kill me when he had the chance because he was Unaligned.
I think another problem is people are assuming that Unaligned is supposed to be what Chaotic Neutral was and it isn't.


No, I'm assuming Unaligned is what it means -- lacking any alignment that can act as a guide to behavior.

Chaotic neutral meant somebody dedicated to spreading chaos and liberty.  An Unaligned character isn't dedicated at all. 
He felt that because of my mistake I endangered the party which in turn he felt he was given the right to kill me when he had the chance because he was Unaligned.


That's because your whole group doesn't understand alignment.  Alignment doesn't "give rights".  And being unaligned doesn't restrict behavior.  The problem is that, apparently, the only restriction on being a jerk was that you find something in the description of your alignment to justify being a jerk.  i still don't see why the answer isn't to institute a new table rule: Don't be a jerk!
He felt that because of my mistake I endangered the party which in turn he felt he was given the right to kill me when he had the chance because he was Unaligned.


That's because your whole group doesn't understand alignment.  Alignment doesn't "give rights".  And being unaligned doesn't restrict behavior.  The problem is that, apparently, the only restriction on being a jerk was that you find something in the description of your alignment to justify being a jerk.  i still don't see why the answer isn't to institute a new table rule: Don't be a jerk!



What do you mean we don't understand what alignment is? Alignment is almost like a type of personality and in certain situations certain people feel like they have the right to do something. When you are good you feel like you have the right to vanquish evil, or if you are lawful you feel you have the right to deal justice to those who break the law.
I don't think this is a question of alignment. I've always played that even Good and Lawful Good characters can perform the occasional evil act, usually resulting in them having to atone.

It's a question of party cohesion. The rest of the group should turn the rogue's logic around on him, and say they can't tolerate a party member who is willing to kill the other members without a fair discussion from the group. And really: if you were the rest of the party, wouldn't you be rather nervous around that rogue? I say just kick the character out, even if he's Lawful Good.
Without waiting to have traps checked for I rushed in and opened the tomb without thinking and a creature came out and started attacking. He felt that because of my mistake I endangered the party which in turn he felt he was given the right to kill me when he had the chance because he was Unaligned.



....Thats it?  Didn't help you get better, or not bothering to help save you are both actions I can understand.  Out right killing though for stupidity....yeah, that was simply an act of evil and possibly closing in on Chaotic from my opinions on the aligment.  Note, my opinions on alignment.

I know I've done stupid things in game, heck I've purposely done stupid things to get the ball rolling if it was in character.  I fumble a Perception check, I dive right in thinking its clear rather then wait for someone else to double check.  I may pull off Dagerously or Functional Genre Savvy at times in character, but sometimes playing ignorance is fun too.

But to out right kill a party member, for carelessness or stupidity?  Ugh.  Either that is Evil/Chaotic Evil levels, or simply Jerk reaction.

My reaction in unaligned would have likely been to let the wizard make death saving throws, while dealing with the problem he left behind.  If he was still alive after everything was done, or got back up then lucky him.  If he died, yay.

On wrecan and alignments?  Yeah, I agree.  It doesn't "Give rights" or limits behavior(to a degree).  It is supposed to set the motivation of the character, and why he does what he does.  If there is no motivation, take a hard look again at why you would do such a thing in character.  If the motivation is completely against your alignment, something is going to change.  Either your alignment, the character trying to redeem himself, or a consequence waiting in the wings.
I'm going to toss my two cents in with wrecan.  It doesn't matter how many people agree or disagree with your definition of Unaligned, the problem is with a character being a douchebag, and the way to solve the problem is to out and out state that there will be no douchbaggery.

If you ignore this advice because you must have an alignment system you're going to have to houserule what alignments mean, same as previous editions.  In which case this board can't help you, you'll have to work something out with your group.
Well... At least we got custom avatars....
Well the Unaligned Rogue made a stealth check and when nobody was looking he did a Coup de grace on me.


I think this part of the original post is something people are overlooking.

Not knowing the particulars of the situation, but forgoing attacking the current threat and hiding, waiting for the opportune time to gank something you perceive as a threat.

This is why I really, really dislike the unaligned alignment.  People can use it as an excuse to do whatever, whenever they want and either hide behind and/or justify the action with the unaligned shield.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/20.jpg)

I'm going to toss my two cents in with wrecan.  It doesn't matter how many people agree or disagree with your definition of Unaligned, the problem is with a character being a douchebag, and the way to solve the problem is to out and out state that there will be no douchbaggery.

If you ignore this advice because you must have an alignment system you're going to have to houserule what alignments mean, same as previous editions.  In which case this board can't help you, you'll have to work something out with your group.



QFT

We all know rule Zero

Well there also should be  rule 0.5 which states don't be a jerk, don't be a jerky DM, don't be a jerky player, don't be passive-aggressive towards another player, don't be aggressive-aggressive towards another player, don't ever have your PC/NPC act out your own anger towards another player. 

There should never ever be any player on player violence. Occasionally, if both players are okay with it and  they work it out ahead of time they can roleplay out non-lethal conflict as long as it advances the story. Like when Sam and Dean comes to blows, but later in the episode they resolve their stuff and go kick demon butt. 

Bottomline the alignment of the player in question is not the issues the issue is that he is killing another player which is terrible for the game.

Not liking the new forums.

 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/18.jpg)

 

 

this is akin to some dude causing a car accident (an honest mistake, not recklessly), but only the dude was seriously injured.  So because the kids in the car could have been hurt the other driver walks up and puts a bullet in his head.  This is not unaligned, this is Evil.  The shooter will go to jail for life and the dead guy would have gotten a traffic ticket.  Unaligned may have left him dying there or gave him a good talking to and a warning when he was conscious again, but to straight out kill a member of your party (that I assume has done good in the past) is not unaligned.  Now if the wizard had knowingly caused harm to the party it may be a different story.
"The great epochs of our life come when we gain the courage to rechristen our evil as what is best in us." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Well the Unaligned Rogue made a stealth check and when nobody was looking he did a Coup de grace on me.


I think this part of the original post is something people are overlooking.

Not knowing the particulars of the situation, but forgoing attacking the current threat and hiding, waiting for the opportune time to gank something you perceive as a threat.




If he'd waited for the opportune moment and ganked an Orc that he believed to be a threat to him, nobody would've batted an eyelash. Even if said Orc was far less dangerous then a Wizard running around doing stupid things in a dungeon.

The player is an ass, yes. The character however, is simply looking out for himself. However poorly justified the player explains it, that's what the character did. He removed something that he felt  threatened his life.
Epic Dungeon Master

Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen!

Your Kingdom awaits!
Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
Well the Unaligned Rogue made a stealth check and when nobody was looking he did a Coup de grace on me.



This is why I really, really dislike the unaligned alignment.  People can use it as an excuse to do whatever, whenever they want and either hide behind and/or justify the action with the unaligned shield.



The unaligned alignment is not the issue, it is the Rogue players bad behavior. In previous editions the other player would do the same bad behavior and then justify it with his chaotic netrual or true neutral alignment.

It is like Lustor in the Gamers movie going around killing peasants for no good reason then claiming over and over again that he/she is not evil he/she is just being chaotic.  

Not liking the new forums.

 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/18.jpg)

 

 

This is why I really, really dislike the unaligned alignment. People can use it as an excuse to do whatever, whenever they want and either hide behind and/or justify the action with the unaligned shield.




Man, I really dislike "X" because "X" can be used by douchebags to justify them being douchebags.


...

I think what you really dislike are people being doucebags.
I suspect that the answers would be quite different if anyone else had asked the original question.

Not by me.  This has been my attitude towards unaligned since the article I linked was first published.  I've said similar things here and here (and elsewhere)

THanks for pointing me that direction, wrecan. You are vindicated. (I disagree with your position, but respect its consistency.)

I quoted the whole post for context because of its distance from my reply.

Here are the PHB essentia, in my opinion:
  • Three Basic Rules (p 11)
  • Power Types and Usage (p 54)
  • Skills (p178-179)
  • Feats (p 192)
  • Rest and Recovery (p 263)
  • All of Chapter 9 [Combat] (p 264-295)
A player needs to read the sections for building his or her character -- race, class, powers, feats, equipment, etc. But those are PC-specific. The above list is for everyone, regardless of the race or class or build or concept they are playing.
Your quote seems to be the wrong way around... I believe the first one is yours and the second one is Wrecan's.
Epic Dungeon Master

Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen!

Your Kingdom awaits!
Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
As has been said, the problem here is the player being a douche. But it's also that the group see's the alignment system as permission to act certain ways (rather then as guideance for deciding how one would react) and that the group is looking to the alignment system for a solution, rather then discussing it, or taking spaceboots advice and working it out in character (though this is a slippery slope).
I know I come off as Hostile and abrasive. It is not my intention to do so, I am just a very emotionally driven individual. I apologize if I come off as such to you and ask that you please don't take it personally, as I can assure you, it is not intended as such. ---------------------------------------------------------
duel colour
You are Red/Blue!
You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what I create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
--------

6.jpg
D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

Storm Sorcerer: Bowling with the gods
If he'd waited for the opportune moment and ganked an Orc that he believed to be a threat to him, nobody would've batted an eyelash.

I would still call it evil if the orc was a member of the party.

Here are the PHB essentia, in my opinion:
  • Three Basic Rules (p 11)
  • Power Types and Usage (p 54)
  • Skills (p178-179)
  • Feats (p 192)
  • Rest and Recovery (p 263)
  • All of Chapter 9 [Combat] (p 264-295)
A player needs to read the sections for building his or her character -- race, class, powers, feats, equipment, etc. But those are PC-specific. The above list is for everyone, regardless of the race or class or build or concept they are playing.
What do you mean we don't understand what alignment is? Alignment is almost like a type of personality


I mean you don't understand alignment (in 4e) because you think it "is almost like a type of personality".

An alignment, as I quoted, is choosing one of four sets of moral principles... unless you are unaligned, in which case, you've not chosen to align yourself with any of those four sets of moral principles.

Being unaligned means you can't use alignment to define the character's behavior.  Rather, you have to use what the rest of us in the real world use -- the character's actual personality.  This character is a disruptive paranoid jerk.  But he's also unaligned.  Were he to choose an alignment, he'd likely choose evil.  But he didn't choose an alignment, so he's unaligned.

When you are good you feel like you have the right to vanquish evil, or if you are lawful you feel you have the right to deal justice to those who break the law.


But he doesn't have an alignment -- he's unaligned.  I know that's a difficult concept, especially for people who have played prior editions in which you have place yourself into one of nine boxes, but 4e is different.

If you thought Unaligned meant he can't be a douche, you were wrong.  The solution is to make a new rule: don't be a douche.  Problem solved.

You're welcome.
As a team focused player, there is no way I would have one of my characters contunine working with another character who was seen killing a defenseless ally in the manner described here. If I was playing another unaligned character my response would be either never let me see you again or an immediate pvp based on how close I was with the wizard. If I was good, It would be get out of my sight, If I was lawful good it would be demand a surrunder and take him to a magistrate, and if he refused,we'd throw down in game.

Out of character, If this happened more than once, I'd see it as a problem with play styles and either the plaryer of the party-killer would go, or I would. For me, D&D is a co-operative game, not a competitive one. I don't have room for that kind of playstyle at my table.

How about if the Orc was an NPC that travelled with the party and constantly did stupid things that could get everybody killed?

For completeness, add to that the possibility that talking to it would not help and that telling to GTFO would make it turn on you and possibly kill you itself. (Nothing was stated on this part, so it might as well be true...)
Epic Dungeon Master

Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen!

Your Kingdom awaits!
Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
Sign In to post comments