|
5 years ago ::
Jul 14, 2008 - 1:07PM
#41
|
|
|
i'm sure the player will want to know his wanton disregard for life and responsibility for his actions...will have repercussions. 
Like a kick in the groin.
I am a strong proponent for this course of action. 
 Kitteh says to click if you're a Mac!
Show
My Tru Colors
Show
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 14, 2008 - 1:21PM
#42
|
|
|
This isn't an alignment problem. It's "player is being a ... jerk," problem. You can either role-play the consequences: PC wakes up in prison, no way out, hand him a blank character sheet, or tell him straight: "I don't care what your alignment is, I'm not going to put up with this ... crap."
Alignment isn't a license to do whatever you want and the DM has to figure out how to go along with it. It's a stat. You don't have to enforce morality among your players. In fact bring up the "I think you're being evil" argument is never worth it. However, you can say, "I'm simply not going to tolerate this type of activity in my game."
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 14, 2008 - 1:33PM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Apr 22, 2008
|
As much as people griped about the "dumbed down" alignment system in 4E, I think that stories like this are likely what inspired them. People have always forever been confused about the differences between say Lawful Evil vs Chaotic Evil, the 3 Neutrals, and Lawful Good vs Chaotic Good.
The truth is, the 4E alignments really aren't that different than the 3E alignments, except they combine a couple groups of similar and confusing alignments into one. It didn't remove the alignments, only the dividing line between them.
People used to play ridiculous intepretations of Neutral in 3E as well. I saw so people who though if they were good 50% of the time, and murdered and stole the other 50% of the time, that they averaged out to go be good. That's nonsense. If you help walk an old lady across the street one day, and then rob and murder another old lady the next, you're still evil.
The player's actions as described are not ony Evil, I'd say Chaotic Evil. They would be this way whether in 3E, or 4E. There are no mechanical penalties for being Evil or changing alignments, however there most certainly be story repercussions.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 14, 2008 - 1:35PM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Apr 22, 2001
|
I see your point, but I still don't see a hole in his case.
seeing as how he doesn't actively seek to harm people, but if they come accross him and... say annoy him, they most likely will die. NPCs at least.
Killing them is actively harming them. And he is going out of his way to make that occur.
How can you not see that?
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 14, 2008 - 1:53PM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2008
|
The 9 alignments weren't that hard to understand imo. Any Good: You go out of your way to help people. Any Neutral(G/E axis): You help people if they're along the way, otherwise don't. Any Evil: You go out of your way to hurt people. Any Lawful: You uphold and obey the law whenever possible and try to make people follow it as well. Any Chaotic: You obey the law only when it serves you. Any Neutral(L/C axis): You obey the law, but you don't go about and enforce it upon others and you occationally break the law if needed. So according to this; the wizard would definitly be chaotic evil. One thing a DM could do is reward people if they play their alignment, while penalizing people who don't. Ofcourse, he could then change it to chaotic evil and keep on killing... Though since he'd accept the fact that he's being chaotic evil, you can justify attempting to get him out of the game using progressively worse methods if he continues. Maybe an opposing group of adventurers? 
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 14, 2008 - 4:45PM
#46
|
|
|
I like that in this edition, you can more or less do away with alignment because it no longer influences mechanics behind the game. As mentioned, what is important now is not what you write in your alignment box, but how disruptive you are to group play in your character's actions, and how well they mesh with the game-play.
I'm oldschool in the sense that I don't believe evil has a role in the groups I play. All chars should at least be 'neutral' and not 'neutral on paper, evil as a mofo in action'. While there are precedents for evil in the group, that still allow great gameplay, it boils down to the idea that again, what is written in the alignment box is irrelevant, its how well the chars mesh. For every Raistlin or Tarrant you have in the party, you'll have the psycho-Belkars that try to ruin it for everyone else by forcing them to comply with his desired roleplay.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 14, 2008 - 4:54PM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Sep 27, 2005
|
Just remember that its the Player's Game too. It is his character. If he is Unaligned, but acting in a way that you deem is "evil", its really not for you to decide, even if you are the DM Let him tell the story of his character the way he wants too. There is no mechanical benefit of having alignment, so who cares? Some of the greatest campaigns I've ever run was when the PCs went trigger happy on a major NPC of the story and forced me (DM) to adapt with it. THATS the fun of group story telling!
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 14, 2008 - 5:24PM
#48
|
|
|
Some of the greatest campaigns I've ever run was when the PCs went trigger happy on a major NPC of the story and forced me (DM) to adapt with it.
THATS the fun of group story telling!
Yeah, except that's not story-telling. It's story KILLING. When PCs go trigger happy on ANY NPC, that's not even really roleplaying. That's just hacking and slashing. How boring. 
Did the PCs face consequences? Was anyone punished in-game? Or were they just lauded for their GREAT story-telling capabilities?
Kitteh says to click if you're a Mac!
Show
My Tru Colors
Show
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 14, 2008 - 5:42PM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
Chaotic Neutral in 3.5 wasn't the 'do anything' alignment like Unaligned in 4E is.
You were ethically aligned to Chaos and you were open to either a good or evil morality.
This is an anarchist. One that believes law is an unwanted and artificial construct to promote weaker entities over naturally selected stronger ones. In other words, Chaos allows the best to rise to whatever authority they can grab for however long they can hold it, While Law promotes a strict set of rules that disrupts this natural selection of the best and most fit to rule.
If you let your players play CN as crazy or worse, Unaligned you were to blame for their poor play.
Unaligned in 4E on the other hand is completely without function and defines itself by what it does not support which is a negative assertion.
Chaotic Neutral wasn't broken, Unaligned is.
BTW, Neutral was an alignment of balance. You saw a need for both Ethics and Moralities. It still isn't as broken as the cop-out alignment 'Unaligned'.
quick get the torches
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 14, 2008 - 5:47PM
#50
|
|
|
Are we really that afraid to call things evil in today's world?
If you murder anyone short of in battle or in self defense, EVIL
If you steal from people - EVIL
How can someone say unaligned would support those actions, numbs my mind.
Actually stealing is Chaotic, not evil.
Ownership is a concept of civilization. By ignoring that concept you are anti-law, or chaotic, not evil.
There are cultures in the world that have no concept of ownership and live in relative harmony. I would hardly call them evil people.
|
|
|
