Community

Ok, this is an RP question, cause as far as I can tell, in RP, though the players know the alignments, our characters don't(not upon being thrown in together without any proper introductions).

So, in a 5-man band, we have 3 unaligned, 1 evil, and I'm good. If good and evil have problems with each other, how can our characters know who is what, when we're working our way through a dungeon? He hasn't done anything particularly evil(killed a beaten thug, who most likely would have gone to freshen up, rearm, and alert more thugs).

Firstly, I'd recommend simply getting rid of alignment.  It has no mechanical effects.

It doesn't matter 'who knows if who is what'.  Just let the characters roleplay ... though I'd still be wary of allowing an evil character, with or without alignment.

Ultimately, that does make the most sense .

Since neither of our classes are reliant on gods, we simply just play out our characters as we see them(I use Good as a formality anyway, I always play good guys ).

Indeed, that is the best thing to do.

Let the chips fall were they may. However, you must be wary of the possible conflicts that may arise between such characters, there is nothing more organic that true character conflict fueled by the character's(and not the Player's) motivations, but things can get a little too personal. Be sure to be on the same page with the other Player about letting the story flow naturally and not forget that you are playing a game with friends and the goal is to have a good time. My humble opinion, as always.

Yup.  Predetermined alignment seem to not add anything to the game.  We got rid of it too in our table.  We decided to let how we play determine our alignment.

Currently that would make me Neutral leaning towards good.  Buddy #1 good - chaotic way.  Buddy #2 Neutral - good.  Buddy #3 neutral - evil (his solution to most problem is to kill everyone.)

How does that affect our table?  Well 2-3 of us constantly restrain our evil bro from acting all evil on innocent people.  He tends to give in most of the time.   We convince the good bro when we doing something borderline evil, that its for the good of many, to look at the big picture. that we got to choose lesser of two evils, nada nada etc ..and he goes along with that.

Who says alignment can't mix and play together. Its done often w/out us being aware of it heh.

Dec 21, 2012 -- 5:23PM, Salla wrote:

Firstly, I'd recommend simply getting rid of alignment.  It has no mechanical effects.

It doesn't matter 'who knows if who is what'.  Just let the characters roleplay ... though I'd still be wary of allowing an evil character, with or without alignment.

Seconded.

Dec 21, 2012 -- 5:23PM, Salla wrote:

Firstly, I'd recommend simply getting rid of alignment.  It has no mechanical effects.

It doesn't matter 'who knows if who is what'.  Just let the characters roleplay ... though I'd still be wary of allowing an evil character, with or without alignment.

That's pretty funny.

You always go on about how alignment shouldn't/doesn't have any mechanical effects.
Yet you'd stop someone from playing an "evil" character regardless of the presence of the AL. system
Me?  I'd call that a pretty big mechanical effect....

You don't need to have an "Evil" label on your character sheet to be evil. His actions and opinions are what make him evil, not the label.

Dec 28, 2012 -- 7:36PM, EnglishLanguage wrote:

You don't need to have an "Evil" label on your character sheet to be evil. His actions and opinions are what make him evil, not the label.

Bingo.

So long story short, we should just be focusing on why good and evil people would work together without worrying about capitalizing the words based on controversial mechanical effects. After all, good and evil are just words, words with many possible capitalizations.

Ideas:

The evil person is a "passive" version of evil instead of an "active" version: while violently non-passive in terms of raw behavior, he doesn't actively champion evil as a cause itself, rather passively spreads the corruption of evil by non-passively hurting people for the sake of hurting people. This person might work with good people if he thinks he could get away with more violence by letting someone else choose targets that are more "arbitrarily" "acceptable" for committing violence against. The internet calls this "the Bitterleaf argument."

They both have a grudge against an even worse evil: the good person hates this worse evil for the damage he inflicts, the evil person hates him for some more personal reason and just happens to be equally ruthless in other regards.

What does the other PC do and say?  Is this other PC acting in a way that a presumably nice person who's likely willing to go out of their way to help others would object to dealing with?  If you are going through areas with forbiddances what do they have trouble with?  If alignment oriented spells (ex: protection from___, order’s wrath, etc...) are thrown around what hurts them more?  (I haven't cared to use 4th edition, just not my taste, so I don't know if forbiddances or assorted alignment spells are still used.)

The way that my groups have typically treated alignment is for the most part you don't ask (it is a very personal question you know ) and for the most part you can figure it out fairly quickly.  There might be some discussion of does anyone mind being in the area of effect of ____ depending on the PC personalities and the party dynamics.  (It might help to think of it like how you generally don't talk about politics/religion/charitable activities at work but you will likely get an idea who the office nice people and who the office jerks are and you might chat about some of that with good-work friends anyway)

For my groups typically alignment is a two word short hand on how a PC looks at the world, responds to things, and pursues their goals; your game may be different. 

One other thing though, sit down and talk with the DM and the other player about the tone of the game, where things are going and how to handle party conflict because the two of you will likely end up with opposing goals at times down the road.

I usually make sure that, should an ally be in the area of effect of my blast, are they ready or if they can handle it(senged some fur of our shifter druid with a burning spray attack once).

Our last session had an unaligned calling for an exicution on a bound but rescued dwarf, and the 1 evil aligned in our group was the one advocating mercy and talking to the dwarf. I of course was likewize inclined to show mercy(even gave one-days rations), and wanted to hear what the rescued captive had to say. An interesting moment indeed .

I think I have to agree with Salla when it comes to alignment, it really does work better as a suggestion meant to help people understand your character as opposed to a binding straitjacket that governs everything you do.

As to the debate on whether evil characters can worth with a mostly unaligned or even a good party, well, I think it personally does depend on the quest. If it's an obviously well-meaning quest without much real potential gain for someone who isn't just in it for the sake of helping pepople, it's harder to justify being involved in it as an evil character.

But then, for those of you who have played Mass Effect, think of the Renegade/Paragon divide with Commander Shepard.

For those of you who haven't played Mass Effect, the divide is basically this:

Paragons were people who were sensitive to other cultures and races, tried their best to minimize civilian casualties, protect the innocent, and help people who needed it. A Paragon was someone who was conscientious and was inclined to giving second chances, even to people who might not necessarily have deserved it.  A Paragon would stop to help someone even if they had nothing to offer in return

Renegades were people who took a "my way or the highway" approach to other people, and generally took the approach that the ends justified the means and that whatever needed to be done to get the job done, would be done. The Renegade also was not averse to taking self-serving actions or ones that enhanced their opportunities at the expense of someone else. A Renegade got the job done, and so long as it was done, the Renegade really wasn't all that concerned about what had been done to accomplish it.

Fundamentally, both of these people had the exact same goal and the same journey to complete, they just completed it in very different ways. Both sides had reasonable points, and it's very hard to make an argument that one approach is exclusively right, or that the Paragon option was always the "good" (in the sense of morals or what benefits everyone the most) one. A Paragon would probably see a Renegade as an ignorant, blunt sociopath who was little better than the people he or she was fighting. A Renegade would probably see a Paragon as a naive, high-minded idealist who wasn't willing to make every last sacrifice to complete the mission.

In other words, I think in the right circumstances (and most importantly with a mature player) an evil character can co-exist fine with the other characters, without feeling the need to knife everyone in their sleep and without finding every available opportunity to do little evil misdeeds for no real reason. The problem with evil characters is you just need one who goes too far and gets the entire party in trouble by doing something stupid or worse yet turns against the rest of the party to sour one's view of evil characters as a whole, the rotten apple spoils the bunch so to speak.

In reality, a smart player doesn't go out of his way to be evil, he's just the guy who goes well beyond the pale when it comes to what he's willing to do to achieve whatever the party is looking for. He doesn't mind letting the city guards die fighting the dragon while he goes up and takes the artifact they need from the dragon's cave. Or he can just have self-centered motivations, in it for the gold, or for the chance to shed some blood or win personal glory no matter what the cost. There's plenty of motivations people do for heroes that are perfectly capable of being twisted to bad ends. A Paladin who fights with a zealous desire to uphold good and good values might not be the sort to strike a bargain with a villain even if it might mean lives are saved or that violence is avoided.

In other words, good is a point of view, it's subjective, and everyone has their own personal view on what precisely defines good, and there are plenty of classic archetypes that people use for adventurers that really aren't that well-meaning or "good" as a whole. An adventurer as defined by DnD is basically a mercenary by another name. The adventurer who is a warrior seeking to bring honor to his name or for a truly challenging fight might be seen as an ideal figure in one light, but a bloodthirsty killer in another. And is the Paladin in all his zealous commitment to his or her cause really all that right to go around imposing views or beliefs on others? Is any viewpoint so infallible that it should be held up as unchallengeable? Are all "monsters" really completely that, or are some of them just looking to be left alone?

Dec 31, 2012 -- 3:15AM, Uncle_Bupkis wrote:

I think I have to agree with Salla when it comes to alignment, it really does work better as a suggestion meant to help people understand your character as opposed to a binding straitjacket that governs everything you do.

As to the debate on whether evil characters can worth with a mostly unaligned or even a good party, well, I think it personally does depend on the quest. If it's an obviously well-meaning quest without much real potential gain for someone who isn't just in it for the sake of helping pepople, it's harder to justify being involved in it as an evil character.

But then, for those of you who have played Mass Effect, think of the Renegade/Paragon divide with Commander Shepard.

For those of you who haven't played Mass Effect, the divide is basically this:

Paragons were people who were sensitive to other cultures and races, tried their best to minimize civilian casualties, protect the innocent, and help people who needed it. A Paragon was someone who was conscientious and was inclined to giving second chances, even to people who might not necessarily have deserved it.  A Paragon would stop to help someone even if they had nothing to offer in return

Renegades were people who took a "my way or the highway" approach to other people, and generally took the approach that the ends justified the means and that whatever needed to be done to get the job done, would be done. The Renegade also was not averse to taking self-serving actions or ones that enhanced their opportunities at the expense of someone else. A Renegade got the job done, and so long as it was done, the Renegade really wasn't all that concerned about what had been done to accomplish it.

Fundamentally, both of these people had the exact same goal and the same journey to complete, they just completed it in very different ways. Both sides had reasonable points, and it's very hard to make an argument that one approach is exclusively right, or that the Paragon option was always the "good" (in the sense of morals or what benefits everyone the most) one. A Paragon would probably see a Renegade as an ignorant, blunt sociopath who was little better than the people he or she was fighting. A Renegade would probably see a Paragon as a naive, high-minded idealist who wasn't willing to make every last sacrifice to complete the mission.

In other words, I think in the right circumstances (and most importantly with a mature player) an evil character can co-exist fine with the other characters, without feeling the need to knife everyone in their sleep and without finding every available opportunity to do little evil misdeeds for no real reason. The problem with evil characters is you just need one who goes too far and gets the entire party in trouble by doing something stupid or worse yet turns against the rest of the party to sour one's view of evil characters as a whole, the rotten apple spoils the bunch so to speak.

In reality, a smart player doesn't go out of his way to be evil, he's just the guy who goes well beyond the pale when it comes to what he's willing to do to achieve whatever the party is looking for. He doesn't mind letting the city guards die fighting the dragon while he goes up and takes the artifact they need from the dragon's cave. Or he can just have self-centered motivations, in it for the gold, or for the chance to shed some blood or win personal glory no matter what the cost. There's plenty of motivations people do for heroes that are perfectly capable of being twisted to bad ends. A Paladin who fights with a zealous desire to uphold good and good values might not be the sort to strike a bargain with a villain even if it might mean lives are saved or that violence is avoided.

In other words, good is a point of view, it's subjective, and everyone has their own personal view on what precisely defines good, and there are plenty of classic archetypes that people use for adventurers that really aren't that well-meaning or "good" as a whole. An adventurer as defined by DnD is basically a mercenary by another name. The adventurer who is a warrior seeking to bring honor to his name or for a truly challenging fight might be seen as an ideal figure in one light, but a bloodthirsty killer in another. And is the Paladin in all his zealous commitment to his or her cause really all that right to go around imposing views or beliefs on others? Is any viewpoint so infallible that it should be held up as unchallengeable? Are all "monsters" really completely that, or are some of them just looking to be left alone?

Beautifully said . The mindset of Malgarron is that sometimes, to achieve the greater good, one must walk with a small bit of evil(that would be our halfling thief ). In the end, good ultimately will triumph.

Dec 31, 2012 -- 3:15AM, Uncle_Bupkis wrote:

I think I have to agree with Salla when it comes to alignment, it really does work better as a suggestion meant to help people understand your character as opposed to a binding straitjacket that governs everything you do. ?

For the record, this is not what I said (or at least not what I meant to say).  Alignment is crap and should be removed from the game, burned, and the ashes scattered into space so that there is no risk that they will ever combine again and force a horrible game mechanism on any player.

Dec 31, 2012 -- 9:50AM, Salla wrote:

Dec 31, 2012 -- 3:15AM, Uncle_Bupkis wrote:

I think I have to agree with Salla when it comes to alignment, it really does work better as a suggestion meant to help people understand your character as opposed to a binding straitjacket that governs everything you do. ?

For the record, this is not what I said (or at least not what I meant to say).  Alignment is crap and should be removed from the game, burned, and the ashes scattered into space so that there is no risk that they will ever combine again and force a horrible game mechanism on any player.

+1.

Into the sun with you.  Bonus points if they strap binary morality choice systems from other games to the same rocket. 

Dec 31, 2012 -- 2:26PM, Matyr wrote:

Dec 31, 2012 -- 9:50AM, Salla wrote:

Dec 31, 2012 -- 3:15AM, Uncle_Bupkis wrote:

I think I have to agree with Salla when it comes to alignment, it really does work better as a suggestion meant to help people understand your character as opposed to a binding straitjacket that governs everything you do. ?

For the record, this is not what I said (or at least not what I meant to say).  Alignment is crap and should be removed from the game, burned, and the ashes scattered into space so that there is no risk that they will ever combine again and force a horrible game mechanism on any player.

+1.

Into the sun with you.  Bonus points if they strap binary morality choice systems from other games to the same rocket. 

Another +1.  A vote for choice is a vote for fun.

Dec 28, 2012 -- 7:52PM, Salla wrote:

Dec 28, 2012 -- 7:36PM, EnglishLanguage wrote:

You don't need to have an "Evil" label on your character sheet to be evil. His actions and opinions are what make him evil, not the label.

Bingo.

Yep

Is any viewpoint so infallible that it should be held up as unchallengeable?

Yes.

Jan 1, 2013 -- 10:29AM, Sir_Joseph_the_Crowe wrote:

Dec 28, 2012 -- 7:52PM, Salla wrote:

Dec 28, 2012 -- 7:36PM, EnglishLanguage wrote:

You don't need to have an "Evil" label on your character sheet to be evil. His actions and opinions are what make him evil, not the label.

Bingo.

Yep

So... why not just ignore what it says on the sheet and don't be restricted by it?

Jan 1, 2013 -- 10:32AM, Matyr wrote:

Jan 1, 2013 -- 10:29AM, Sir_Joseph_the_Crowe wrote:

Dec 28, 2012 -- 7:52PM, Salla wrote:

Dec 28, 2012 -- 7:36PM, EnglishLanguage wrote:

You don't need to have an "Evil" label on your character sheet to be evil. His actions and opinions are what make him evil, not the label.

Bingo.

Yep

So... why not just ignore what it says on the sheet and don't be restricted by it?

Alignment isn't a restriction. It's a guideline of how the character typically behaves. It's a broad brush. One Lawful Good guy organizes a guild to find a way to prevent corrupt business practices, the other becomes captain of the city guard. One Chaotic Evil guy burns a city and picks through the rubble for treasure, the other lurks in an alleyway on Skull Street.

The Lawful Good guard starts taking a few bribes here and there and next thing you know he's the ring-leader of the whole corrupt organization (and is now lawful evil). The guy on Skull Street 'rolls' a priest and finds an interesting book that changes his way of thinking. Not going so far as to turn himself in... he decides to go to other cities and preach to the local thugs about what he learned from the holy book and show them a better way of living. If nothing else, he'll put those Skull-breaking skills to use until they fall in line.

Alignments change. Hopefully for a good role-playing reason. What's on the sheet should be a rough guideline, though. A lot of times, the player writes something down as the intention, but when it comes to actual play, it comes out different than they originally planned. Sometimes one event changes the course of the character forever.

Dec 28, 2012 -- 12:41PM, CCS wrote:

Dec 21, 2012 -- 5:23PM, Salla wrote:

Firstly, I'd recommend simply getting rid of alignment.  It has no mechanical effects.

It doesn't matter 'who knows if who is what'.  Just let the characters roleplay ... though I'd still be wary of allowing an evil character, with or without alignment.

That's pretty funny.

You always go on about how alignment shouldn't/doesn't have any mechanical effects.
Yet you'd stop someone from playing an "evil" character regardless of the presence of the AL. system
Me?  I'd call that a pretty big mechanical effect....

That's about a big of a mechanical effect as I can think of. I thought you were a proponent of  evil paladins. I was almost even convinced... dang. I was wanting to play my Chaotic Evil Paladin Monk of a Thousand Face Palms with an ancestral +1 Holy Unholy Axiomatic Chaotic silvered chainsaw named Bull Cutter.

I DM the group that wildside316 is in. We use alignment as an RP tool, not a game mechanic, and he did specifically say that this was "an RP question". It's as important / meaningless as writing down your gender or background. It really has no effect on the game itself, especially since I'm not currently aware of any alignment-oriented spell effects (though I don't read up on wizard / sorcerer stuff), but it's intended as a reminder of the path which the character has chosen, and will be changed if the character exhibits conflicting behavior.

wildside316 also is not aware that the player using an evil character isn't really role-playing, but simply enjoying a game from his teen years while we play next door to where he lives, and only decided on 'evil' alignment to mess with our friend / player who said "I hate rogues", to which he responded "Fine, motha&@#%#@, I'm evil!" Ha! It's good that everyone here is capable of dissecting and deconstructing topics, though. It helps others to see things from multiple points of view.

The problem with evil characters is /only/ when it causes a problem in the group.  As long as there is no party conflict and everyone at the table gets along, I see no problems.

The only issue /I/ see is when the DM says, "I don't think (entirely subjective) you're playing your paladin right.  Enjoy being a fighter..." which is an utter load of crap.

NailsBoneski, If there is an evil person in a party with Paladins, then there is an almost inevitable conflict brewing, in much the same way that the CIA might react to discovering one of it's agents had secret ties with terrorist groups and foriegn governments. When the discovery is revealed there is bound to be what the rogue might consider an over-reaction that the Paladin would consider as being prudent measures, lol.
   


  

Unless the rogue strikes first with his own prudent measures!

Dec 28, 2012 -- 7:36PM, EnglishLanguage wrote:

You don't need to have an "Evil" label on your character sheet to be evil. His actions and opinions are what make him evil, not the label.

No, which is why if your actions don't match the alignment the DM should consider changing it to match how your character is acting.

Keep in mind that the "Evil" label can reflect, not your current action, but your past actions. The character could have done any number of evil deeds in the past to have earned the Evil alignment (ie he used to work for a bandit group who's motto was "leave no witnesses" and would murder the people they robbed)

If the character generally behaves good and shows that his intentions (whatever reason he put Evil on his character sheet) are no longer evil, then the alignment can change if he wishes, an altruistic action of self-sacrifice may even be the catalyst of that change, and alignment change can even be seen as a reward. The Evil Alignment here doesn't dictate the character's actions, but it is a reflection of his current or past actions.


If anything Alignment can be used by a character to augment their actions. ie being Evil could be a statement of intent, an evil wizard willing to do anything to gain ultimate power, by declaring himself evil the player is basically stating that he isn't going to be held back by an moral scruples. Likewise an character with a dark past could be seeking redemption, and being Evil reflects the atrocities he commited in the past, his goal of redemption can be measured by his allignment change over the course of gaming, and he might behave more heroic then the Paladin he fights alongside of, regardless of his evil alignment.

Being Good is also a declaration, it doesn't stop a character's actions but Evil acts could cause the character to loose that alignment. Note it has no real mechanical value, a Neutral character can behave the same as a good character, it is only a declaration of intent really, or reflects an idealistic background. It doesn;t control a character unless they are intentionally seeking to be controlled by it (ie a Paladin from 3rd edition is trying to get the mechanical benifits of being good)

"It really has no effect on the game itself"

The word might not, but I think the RP element behind it really IS the game - the combat is basically just roleplaying in reation to dice-rolls when you think about it.

How about if, instead of getting into an argument about whether or not we should capitalize Good and Evi by adding mechanical effects (as they are just words and have many possible capitalizations), we come up with RP ideas for how/why good and evil people could work together?

As NailsBoneski said, "this was 'an RP question'"

Jan 4, 2013 -- 7:31AM, MrCustomer wrote:

No, which is why if your actions don't match the alignment the DM should consider changing it to match how your character is acting.

Keep in mind that the "Evil" label can reflect, not your current action, but your past actions.

That seems self-contradicting. Your first and third paragraphs state that alignment matches current beliefs/goals/actions but your second paragraph says that the label can be attached due to past actions. The lines "The Evil alignment here doesn't dictate the character actions, but is a reflection of his current or past actions" and "being Evil reflects the atrocities he committed in the past" support that.

I'm a little confused as to what point you are making here.

If alignment can be a reflection of the past, how far back does that extend? A former murderer (which is subjective in itself) is no longer "Evil" after how much time? 100 years? 10 years? The moment he decides to be something completely different?

If i used alignment, it would be a rather simplistic label of a current character. A PC seeking redemption and honestly trying would be good despite his flaws, not Evil. Keyword being If there...

Wait wait...

If Good and Evil are subjective...how can a character be Evil? How can their actions be Evil?

How can any of the party be Good? How can their actions be Good? How can they even be heroes? Heroes fight the Good fight? They fight Evil right?

But nothing is really Evil? Or is everything Evil ALSO Good? It's subjective right?

Jan 5, 2013 -- 6:06AM, YagamiFire wrote:

Wait wait...

If Good and Evil are subjective...how can a character be Evil? How can their actions be Evil?

How can any of the party be Good? How can their actions be Good? How can they even be heroes? Heroes fight the Good fight? They fight Evil right?

But nothing is really Evil? Or is everything Evil ALSO Good? It's subjective right?

Thank you for proving that alignment should not be a game mechanic.

OK, so without talking about game mechanics, what would make compassionate people want to work with ruthless egotists?

Jan 5, 2013 -- 3:27PM, crzyhawk wrote:

Jan 5, 2013 -- 6:06AM, YagamiFire wrote:

Wait wait...

If Good and Evil are subjective...how can a character be Evil? How can their actions be Evil?

How can any of the party be Good? How can their actions be Good? How can they even be heroes? Heroes fight the Good fight? They fight Evil right?

But nothing is really Evil? Or is everything Evil ALSO Good? It's subjective right?

Thank you for proving that alignment should not be a game mechanic.

I know! It's crazy right!

Wtf is D&D even thinking? A game of heroic fantasy? Impossible! Good and Evil are subjective! You CAN'T play heroes in the game because you're just villains! It's totally stupid to even think of some sort of good/evil paradigm! Won't anyone think about the Orcs of Mordor? Or how about Sauron? That guy worked really hard on his ring and even made a bunch of other rings with it to give as gifts! That is nice, right? Isn't that good?! And then two fat, lazy hobbits toss it into a volcano?! WTF?! How evil!

...

Your detector kicking in YET? If not, I suggest you send it in for repairs...

My detector's working fine, thanks.  It's BEEN working fine.  It's yours that quite in need of some recalibration.

You can be good or evil without having a game mechanic for it, Yagamifire. It is only when it is a game mechanic when people argue about it. I have never seen a alignments argument in 4e. Because it is not a mechanic.

YagamiFire can't ignore a discussion about alignment.  He thinks it's the bestest most coolest idea EVAR and that all should bow down to his opinions on the subject.

Jan 4, 2013 -- 10:21PM, TheForgottenCommand wrote:

That seems self-contradicting. Your first and third paragraphs state that alignment matches current beliefs/goals/actions but your second paragraph says that the label can be attached due to past actions. The lines "The Evil alignment here doesn't dictate the character actions, but is a reflection of his current or past actions" and "being Evil reflects the atrocities he committed in the past" support that.

I'm a little confused as to what point you are making here.

A evil being doesn't do evil 24/7, as many normal actions are neutral, and they could even do good acts on a regular basis. We have serial killers who could be described as good family men. A sociopath could donate to the poor simply because it strokes his ego and not out of actual concern for their wellbeing.

Very few people do evil, just for the sake of being evil, unless they are also crazy. In D&D there are evil beings that might (devils, demons) and of course those nutjobs that worship evil gods. 

At any event, starting as Evil, is a player choice, as is remaining Evil.
 

If alignment can be a reflection of the past, how far back does that extend? A former murderer (which is subjective in itself) is no longer "Evil" after how much time? 100 years? 10 years? The moment he decides to be something completely different?

Do we not still prosecute Nazi war criminals?  Murder in of itself does not make one evil, even good people make mistakes, but I refered to someone who was willfully murdering many innocent people in cold blood.

How long will he remain evil? there is no general answer to such a question. He might be an evil person for life, he might come to understand the error of his ways after time passes, he might change quickly when something makes him realize the error of his ways.

If i used alignment, it would be a rather simplistic label of a current character. A PC seeking redemption and honestly trying would be good despite his flaws, not Evil. Keyword being If there...

Of course, if the PC wanted to reflect that he might not always succeed in the path to redemption, the Evil label would be appropriate.

"flaws" are different then being Evil, one can have a great many bad flaws and still be neutral. A bad temper, greedy? Not enough to be Evil.  Murder someone in anger? One "evil" act doesn't make you evil. So even a murderer, or a criminal doesn't need be evil.

Now a mass murderer? a person that kills innocent people in cold blood. Your columbian drug lord is evil, your serial rapist is evil, Your former KGB operative who trortured prisoners into signing false confessions even knowing they are innocent? those aren't just flaws. It is not a simplistic to label them as Evil.

In fact the label "Evil"  provides a mechanical difference between the simply corrupt, selfish, greedy etc, and the truely Evil people. As you mention, you don't need to be evil to do the PC seeking redemption. Good and Evil should be extreme sides of the alignment, with most (bad or good) being neutral.

Which is why Good should react so strongly to an Evil character. It is akin to discovering your married to a serial killer, literally. It is on a whole different scale.

If you are saying that most Good and Evil characters should probably be Neutral, then I agree with you. Good and Neutral should be seen as extremes. PCs should only be these allignments if they want to make a definate statement about their character, or if their actions are so extreme as to warrent it. 

Jan 6, 2013 -- 7:07AM, YagamiFire wrote:

Wtf is D&D even thinking? A game of heroic fantasy? Impossible! Good and Evil are subjective! You CAN'T play heroes in the game because you're just villains! It's totally stupid to even think of some sort of good/evil paradigm! Won't anyone think about the Orcs of Mordor? Or how about Sauron? That guy worked really hard on his ring and even made a bunch of other rings with it to give as gifts! That is nice, right? Isn't that good?! And then two fat, lazy hobbits toss it into a volcano?! WTF?! How evil!

I fail to see how any of this requires alignemen mechanics.

Jan 6, 2013 -- 4:30PM, EnglishLanguage wrote:

I fail to see how any of this requires alignemen mechanics.

Agreed.

Jan 6, 2013 -- 4:31PM, LolaBonne wrote:

Jan 6, 2013 -- 4:30PM, EnglishLanguage wrote:

I fail to see how any of this requires alignemen mechanics.

Agreed.

I too fail to see how the OP's question, about (as far as I can tell) people working together despite differing worldviews about the worth of others (others should be helped vs. others hsould be used), depends on agreeing first whether or not there are also mechanical differences between the worldviews.

Jan 6, 2013 -- 4:30PM, EnglishLanguage wrote:

I fail to see how any of this requires alignemen mechanics.

Many games have different systems to distinguish between the extremes of Good and Evil that matches the rest of the mechanics in the game. Be it Vampire the Masquerades "Humanity" system, to WestEnd Game's StarWars "Darkside/Force point" system. Generally these "alignment" systems are only there to support other mechanical systems in other parts of the games.

In the case of D&D 3.5, there were  spells and abilities that work off Allignment. Smite Evil, Detect Evil, Protection from Good, as well as alignment based spells and so forth. In that system allignment really only matters to the intended targets. And really is no different then tagging things as Animal, Magical Beast, Outsider, Dragonic, Monsterous Humanoids....

For most characters, they didn't require allignment. Neutral would suffice.

In 4th edition, allignment is simplified, which works pretty much the same.  

Yes you could do most things without Alignment, but there has to be consideration to how an existing system works, in the case of 3.5, deciding on what Protection from Evil works against    is a good example, or if a Paladin can use his Smite Evil attack on a group of bandits (who may or may not be Evil).

The Paladin using Detect Evil to know if the prospective "treasure Hunter" joining the group isn't Evil.

Otherwise an alignment system isn't needed, again I commonly suggest that most PCs be Neutral in any game system 

Jan 6, 2013 -- 2:53PM, MrCustomer wrote:

A evil being doesn't do evil 24/7, as many normal actions are neutral, and they could even do good acts on a regular basis. We have serial killers who could be described as good family men. A sociopath could donate to the poor simply because it strokes his ego and not out of actual concern for their wellbeing.

Very few people do evil, just for the sake of being evil, unless they are also crazy. In D&D there are evil beings that might (devils, demons) and of course those nutjobs that worship evil gods. 

At any event, starting as Evil, is a player choice, as is remaining Evil.

Ok, now you've gone and lost me. Was that the point you were tryin g to make in your original post? I agree with the 24/7 part, but the contradiction is still there and still needs explaining. You said "No, which is why if your actions don't match the alignment the DM should consider changing it to match how your character is acting" (present tense) and right after said "the "Evil" label can reflect, not your current action, but your past actions" (past tense). This is assuming that we have similar ideas about the past. I assume that by acting you mean the most dominant alignment a character has currently, not as in "I was grumpy three hours ago and now i am Evil". Even if a creature is not evil 24/7, if it is the most dominant belief/action, then it is "Evil".

Do we not still prosecute Nazi war criminals?  Murder in of itself does not make one evil, even good people make mistakes, but I refered to someone who was willfully murdering many innocent people in cold blood.

True, but criminal prosecution does not choose alignment, justified or unjustified. Let's say a person commits multiple murders out of bloodlust, goes into hiding for a decade, and then changes (drastically). They confessed to the deed and are willing to be prosecuted and either imprisoned or killed.  At that moment are they Good or Chaotic Evil by DnD standards? Government prosecution does not reveal or hint at alignment, only that an alignment might have been Evil at a certain point.

How long will he remain evil?...He might be an evil person for life...he might change quickly when something makes him change the error of his ways.

But by your earlier reasoning, he would still be Evil to represent his past actions, or at least possibly could be. Right? Or, by this sentence, the moment he changes his ways he changes alignment?

Of course, if the PC wanted to reflect that he might not always succeed in the path to redemption, the Evil label would be appropriate.

I disagree. There are many people, fictional heroes and real people alike, that fail and fail often in thier quest to be become better or to serve an ideal. In fact most people do. Regardless if they actually are evil or not, are they Evil in D&D terms?

"flaws" are different then being Evil, one can have a great many bad flaws and still be neutral.

Agreed. Wondering why you put flaws in quotation marks, but agreed. In fact, would consistantly failing be a bad flaw? Would it be more appropriate for said character to be Evil or Unaligned? 

Now a mass murderer? a person that kills innocent people in cold blood. Your columbian drug lord is evil, your serial rapist is evil, Your former KGB operative who trortured prisoners into signing false confessions even knowing they are innocent? those aren't just flaws. It is not a simplistic to label them as Evil.

First thing, a former KGB agent is not a garenteed Evil person. Its a very common archetype for the former assassin/cutthroat/bandit to change thier ways and become more inspired to do good and actually doing more good than many others.

Secondly, no, those aren't just flaws. Those are professions and actions driven by deep-set flaws. A former killer may struggle with anger or bloodlust while sincerly trying to change. That is a flaw, and a serious one at that. The question is, is it enough to label him Evil? And i do believe it to be simplistic to label the entirety of a PC or a NPC's beliefs, attitude, goals, wants, and actions into an ambigous, one word label.

In fact the label "Evil"  provides a mechanical difference between the simply corrupt, selfish, greedy etc, and the truely Evil people. As you mention, you don't need to be evil to do the PC seeking redemption. Good and Evil should be extreme sides of the alignment, with most (bad or good) being neutral.

 There is do mechanical difference. This is D&D's 4e definition of the Evil alignment straight from the     PHB1: Evil characters don't neccessarily go out of thier way to hurt people, but they're perfectly willing to take advange of the weakness of others to aquire what they want." Granted, thats not the full definition, but that's pretty much it. What you listed are flaws and character traits that are in the definition of Evil. As long as they want it, and are willing to exploit others, then they are Evil, no matter the source (according to D&D).

Jan 6, 2013 -- 7:31AM, Yokel wrote:

You can be good or evil without having a game mechanic for it, Yagamifire. It is only when it is a game mechanic when people argue about it. I have never seen a alignments argument in 4e. Because it is not a mechanic.

If Good and Evil are subjective then NO, no one can, in fact, be good OR evil. Ever. Because they are not "such things". If blue, as a color, is subjective based on the viewer then NOTHING is actually blue. It is entirely in the eye of the beholder.

As for your point about 4E...have you seen any arguments in 4E regarding the rules concerning how far ships can travel in hyperspace when they're willing to take structural integrity damage?

Jan 6, 2013 -- 5:54PM, TheForgottenCommand wrote:

Ok, now you've gone and lost me. Was that the point you were tryin g to make in your original post? I agree with the 24/7 part, but the contradiction is still there and still needs explaining. You said "No, which is why if your actions don't match the alignment the DM should consider changing it to match how your character is acting" (present tense) and right after said "the "Evil" label can reflect, not your current action, but your past actions" (past tense). This is assuming that we have similar ideas about the past. I assume that by acting you mean the most dominant alignment a character has currently, not as in "I was grumpy three hours ago and now i am Evil". Even if a creature is not evil 24/7, if it is the most dominant belief/action, then it is "Evil".

I am refering to changing alignment based upon based on one's current actions, not about what the pre-existing allignment is.
   
Alignment is more then just an isolated act. One Evil action is not ussually going to reult in a change of alignment from one extreme to the opposite. So it takes progressive and continual change over a period of time before an allignment changes just a single degree.

The DM making an allignment change would require systematic and repeatative, or extreme behavior, simply being "grumpy in the morning" is not enough to be evil, and killing someone for a fresh cup of coffee is perfectly justifiable. Generally this will involve either a warning or the DM asking the player about the potential change, or else the Player asking the DM about changing an allignment, such as "hey my character is evil, but I've been hanging out with the paladin and have learnt alot from him, if I continue to do good deeds to mend my ways, can I change my allignment?"

It isn't something that happens overnight, so in the process of changing to a new allignment, he still has his old allignment.

In the case of starting with an allignment, it is a declaration of his past deeds, which I can only persume to be severe if it results in him being evil.

But by your earlier reasoning, he would still be Evil to represent his past actions, or at least possibly could be. Right? Or, by this sentence, the moment he changes his ways he changes alignment?

The DMG deals with the mundane of alignment changes. Really this would be a personal thing, some would have changed their allignment, others might not. I would assume the first question is do they feel genuine remorse? If they were in the same situation would they do the same thing?

In game terms the DM would talk to the player, find out what the players intention were and what the player wanted. Then continuing on that general course they would change 1-step after a period of time. This isn't something that should be done arbitarily.

Shortcuts can be taken, that is what the Atonement Spell, among other things, is for. A remorseful character can either correct an alignment change with hard work, or they could seek out a cleric to atone their sins (which might require a quest or deed as per the spell)     

I disagree. There are many people, fictional heroes and real people alike, that fail and fail often in thier quest to be become better or to serve an ideal. In fact most people do. Regardless if they actually are evil or not, are they Evil in D&D terms?

Well that is really the opposite, isn't it? Simply failing to reach an ideal isn't going to make you evil, you would simply stay at a pre-existing alignment. However I will point out that often (and even with fictional characters) bad people who strive to change their ways often fail and fall back in thier old ways. Especially true in stories where an evil person doesn't change their way regardless of the attempts to make them see the error of their ways.

 

Agreed. Wondering why you put flaws in quotation marks, but agreed. In fact, would consistantly failing be a bad flaw? Would it be more appropriate for said character to be Evil or Unaligned? 

Well that would depend on how bad they fail, wouldn't it? If failing means the dead corpses of innocent people, or other evil acts, then I would say they are still evil. Otherwise failing to be Good might mean they only becomes Neutral.

Jan 6, 2013 -- 10:47PM, MrCustomer wrote:

I am refering to changing alignment based upon based on one's current actions, not about what the pre-existing allignment is.

Okay. Clear cut. I can work with that. I believe I understand your reasoning and this is my disagreement. You believe that the changing of an alignment is a multi-step process that takes effort and committment to obtain the "award" of chaging your alignment (put award in quotation marks because i believe it to be a by-product rather than a goal, since alignment is meta-gaming).
   

Alignment is more then just an isolated act.

And this is where we differ. Oftentimes, alignment is a process, but there are exceptions. And the PC's reserve the right to be exceptional should they choose to be. There are events that can change the core of thier beliefs and goals literally overnight. Things like unexpected lifesaving mercy, hometowns burning, the betrayl of close friends, or something equally horrible/powerful.

And simply put, i believe we are arguing philosophy. As soon as a character decides to be something else, they change alignments. Then and there. They may not do well as Good;they mail fail and fail hard. But that does not make them Evil until they decide to be Evil either by giving in to anger, sadism, blah blah blah other vices to the point that it eclipses their other intentions.

I suspect this would be your idea of an alignment change, for every word a period of time in which most/all of thier goals/actions/beliefs reflect thier alignment:
Actual Alignment:      [------------------------Evil---------------------------------][Unaligned-----
How they are Acting: Evil-Evil-Evil-Unaligned-Unaligned-Unaligned-Unaligned-Unaligned-Unaligned

And my own...
Actual Alignment:      [---Evil-----][----------------------------Unaligned--------------------------]
How they are acting: Evil-Evil-Evil-Unaligned-Unaligned-Unaligned-Unaligned-Unaligned-Unaligned

Honestly, the alternative doesn't make sense to me. If "The Evil alignment can reflect the atrocities he committed in the past" then that assumes that he has stopped committing atrocities and acting similar to his former alignment. If alignment doesn't stay current, at what point does it change. the DM's whim? If, as you say, alignment is a statement of intention, how could it be anything but current intention for it to be accurate/reliable. What if i told the party that there was an Evil wizard in the tower, except that he used to be Evil, is acting Unaligned or Good, and is trying to change. At this point, PCs are fighting and killing past Alignments, not past crimes, put past Alignnments.

killing someone for a fresh cup of coffee is perfectly justifiable.

...You have cruel Starbucks in your area...
But seriously, isn't that against

Alignment is more than just an isolated act

If it takes "repettative and extreme behavior" to change an alignment, does it not take repetative and extreme alignment to establish it? Or are you saying that alignments are not always multi-step processes?

 

this will involve either a warning or the DM asking the player about the potential change

Why would the player need a warning about changing a label? Alignment is derived from a character's actions/beliefs and changes with said character. It is a tack, a supplemental and ineffective summary of a character's ac/be/go/att.  Characters should fear actions for in-game consquences, not meta-gaming tags. If the characters have an in-game reason for it, that should override a player's concern over alignment, since now they are playing thier character against a summary of how the character presently is.

In the case of starting with an allignment, it is a declaration of his past deeds, which I can only persume to be severe if it results in him being evil.

Or it is a declaration of how that character is right at the start of the game. If a character has been zealously good, wickedly depraved, and in the middle of the two, i would label it on how the character is as he starts the game, not a summation of his past deeds.

The DMG deals with the mundane of alignment changes.

Are there exciting changes in alignment? I thought it was as exciting as taking the sticker off a new shirt.

Shortcuts can be taken, that is what the Atonement Spell, among other things, is for.

...? This worries me. Are we even talking about the same edition?! I know 3rd edition had a far more mechanical view of alignment and that would be far different than arguing 4th, what with Detect Evil and ...something else I'm sure.

Well that is really the opposite, isn't it?

The opposite, no. What i meant was regardless of other possible philosophies in real life, would this count in D&D terms. However, there are many people that would consider evil that D&D may consider Unaligned or people D&D would call Evil and select people would call good or evil. Its not exactly equatable.

 

Simply failing to reach an ideal isn't going to make you evil, you would simply stay at a pre-existing alignment.

Ahh, here it is. Results vs. Intention. Simply different views, I guess. Not much to say...

However I will point out that often (and even with fictional characters) bad people who strive to change their ways often fail and fall back in thier old ways.

At that point thier intention and actions/beliefs/goals have changed.
 

I doubt this is making much headway in either direction due to different viewpoints. If you wish to continue, then i will as well. But this will probably become repetative and a waste of effort.

Also, i was dissapointed in your lack of response to the final third of my post. I was hoping to hear your response. I will just assume you dismissed it out of hand.

Jan 6, 2013 -- 5:54PM, TheForgottenCommand wrote:

Jan 6, 2013 -- 2:53PM, MrCustomer wrote:

Now a mass murderer? a person that kills innocent people in cold blood. Your columbian drug lord is evil, your serial rapist is evil, Your former KGB operative who trortured prisoners into signing false confessions even knowing they are innocent? those aren't just flaws. It is not a simplistic to label them as Evil.

 

First thing, a former KGB agent is not a garenteed Evil person. Its a very common archetype for the former assassin/cutthroat/bandit to change thier ways and become more inspired to do good and actually doing more good than many others.

Secondly, no, those aren't just flaws. Those are professions and actions driven by deep-set flaws. A former killer may struggle with anger or bloodlust while sincerly trying to change. That is a flaw, and a serious one at that. The question is, is it enough to label him Evil? And i do believe it to be simplistic to label the entirety of a PC or a NPC's beliefs, attitude, goals, wants, and actions into an ambigous, one word label.

Since we're talking DnD here, whether or not the KGB agent is evil is up to the DM, so long as said KGB agent is an NPC.  If the KGB agent has not had a life-altering paradigm shift, he or she is evil.  If something drastic occurred after the fall of the Berlin Wall, or whatever, that could change things, but distance in time or location from evil acts does not make one less evil.  

As for the notion that everyone is the hero of their own story, I can buy that; but that doesn't mean that they're not evil, nor that they don't think of themselves as evil.  A short conversation with a career criminal or gangster shows that to be true, at least in my experience.

Jan 8, 2013 -- 9:11AM, rednblack wrote:

I can't believe I'm posting here, but here it goes.

Ashamed to post here? I agree that it may have gotten out of hand...

Since we're talking DnD here, whether or not the KGB agent is evil is up to the DM, so long as said KGB agent is an NPC.  If the KGB agent has not had a life-altering paradigm shift, he or she is evil.

Agreed. The point of my post was not that time has an inevitable effect on a character, but that a former lifestyle is no guarentee of a current one.

As for the notion that everyone is the hero of their own story

That is not what i intended to say. It was meant to be an example. How many players have come up to thier DM's and said in essence "I used to be a bad guy, but now I'm a good guy."

My guess is many.