|
5 months ago ::
Dec 21, 2012 - 5:20PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Dec 11, 2012
|
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).
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 21, 2012 - 5:23PM
#2
|
|
|
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.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 21, 2012 - 5:32PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Dec 11, 2012
|
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 ).
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 21, 2012 - 6:26PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Nov 11, 2011
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 24, 2012 - 7:21PM
#5
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 26, 2012 - 4:44PM
#6
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 28, 2012 - 12:41PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Nov 27, 2006
|
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....
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 28, 2012 - 7:36PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 28, 2012 - 7:52PM
#9
|
|
|
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.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 29, 2012 - 6:47AM
#10
|
|
|
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.
A character sheet is a player's love letter to the DM. If someone wants to do something and they want to do it well, let them. Encourage them. Have fun with it. -Unknown
An adventure is a DM's love letter to the players. If the DM wants something to happen in the game, let it. Encourage the DM. Have fun with it. -Centauri I'd love for input as to what it should be rather than arguments against why I shouldn't have it at all. -lialwyn Best defense that I've read in favor of having alignment systems as an option
Spoiler:
Show
However, if some people are heavily benefiting from the inclusion of alignment, then it would behoove those that AREN'T to listen up and pay attention to how those benefits are being created and enjoyed, no? -YagamiFire
But equally important would be for those who do enjoy those benefits to entertain the possibility that other people do not value those benefits equally or, possibly, do not see them as benefits in the first place. -wrecan
That makes sense. However, it is not fair to continually attack those that benefit for being, somehow, deviant for deriving enjoyment from something that you cannot. Instead, alignment is continually attacked...it is demonized...and those that use it are lumped in with it.
I think there is more merit in a situation where someone says "This doesn't work! It's broken!" and the reply is "Actually it works fine for me. Have you considered your approach might be causing it?" than a situation where someone says "I use this system and the way I use it works really well!" and the back and forth is "No! It is a broken bad system!" because the former posits that improvement could be made...the latter only undermines the enjoyment of the person who is using alignment. -YagamiFire
|
|
|
