|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2013 - 8:34PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2013
|
I understand the Alignments, and this is more 3.5 than anything. But my main issue is, what dictates what's exactly Evil and not Evil. I ask mainly cause Paladin's have the ability to sense Evil, and I'm not sure how to list characters. Obviously, Preforming acts of breaking law like robbery and theft is not Evil, just Chaotic. But where does Killing people fall down to? Killing cannot be an Evil act, as even Paladins kill. Even when it's just a disagreement.
The reason I ask is because I have an NPC who my Paladin demands is Evil. She has killed people, but she was hired as a Merc to kill. Which she did, she killed thugs, and thieves, but some were unarmed. And obviously, as some mean people have in stories, she has a heart of gold. In the sense, she took the Merc job to pay a healer to cure her Tribe of a sickness.
Regardless of cliches or not, how do I judge this of alignment?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2013 - 8:38PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Feb 20, 2012
|
Stop using alignment for mechanical effects, and then who cares what it does?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2013 - 8:39PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jun 19, 2004
|
Stop using alignment for mechanical effects, and then who cares what it does?
+1
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out hereSpoiler:
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here
If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here
Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2013 - 8:45PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2013
|
Because, Alignment is part of the game. Like I said, this is 3.5, and in 3.5 Alignment actually comes into play with how the game works. The Paladin can sense Evil, AND one of it's attacks can only do damage TO Evil foes. If I was to just wipe that out, being a Paladin would be rather pointless.
Even though it has no Mechanical play in 4.0, I always feel Alignment is a very crucial and interesting aspect to the game. Helps determine who you are, instead of a skitzo who does anything at the drop of the hat just because they think it would be cool. Not to their character at all...
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2013 - 8:54PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jun 19, 2004
|
Thats just a Bad RPer that does whatever they want. They aren't in character at all at that point. Unless they have a reason to do what they are doing.
But the issue is XYZ feat/power/etc doesn't work with alignment. Ok, let it worth without alignment. They have to be evil to smite them? Meh, just make them smite whomever and have it mean something. The paladin CAN smite the woman giving out bread to orphans, but that better have some really strong backlash if the game isn't extremely boring and humdrum.
I played 3.5 and PF. Although I am primarily a fan of 4e I did take all of the stuff with alignment from 3.5 before I switched over. I took out the lawful/chaotic/good/evil restrictions. I took out the extra damage some evil things get against good creatures and vice versa. It didn't ruin the game, it made it have more depth. If my characters were just acting randomly without caring about their character I didn't say "oh well, guess its time to bring back the alignment handcuffs for you", I sat them down and asked them why they wanted to do those things.
In the end if you have a table full of people who want a silly "do whatever whenever" adventure and will have more fun with that than a serious game. Well then maybe you should be DMing that game and not your game.
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out hereSpoiler:
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here
If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here
Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2013 - 9:06PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2013
|
No, no, no, you're not taking my point. Youre fighting with me with about 'If Alignment is a worthy mechanic'.
But that is not my arugment/question. Im trying to figure out a line for Evil. What would make one Evil, is doing just evil acts be considered evil? What if someone does an Evil act for good reasons?
No one in my game plays randomly, but they know their role. They know their character, I was stating how Alignment helps players figure out where their character stand on issue. This problem Im having is a little deeper than just Alignment. How everything is not simply black and white. Understand?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2013 - 9:14PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jun 19, 2004
|
I understand what you are saying.
Allow me to say what I mean better.*
Your group needs to come up with your group's definition of evil in order to play with alignment. The clearer you are with that understanding the better the experience at table will be. Now, this conversation, to avoid later problems if you are having problems now, needs to be pretty indepth and take some time to mull over some gray areas and get the opinions of the players. The reason I said "do away with it" is because if you have to ask a question like this it means there is likely a problem that alignment has caused. And the answer to "alignment is causing me problems" is generally "stop using it then". Not because it is an easy answer, not because we like to/want to change the system. It is because it is far less of a hassle in the long run and the short run than the alternative.
Lets take something else to compare it to.
If someone in here said "I'm working on a sandbox campaign. What is the best way to design a huge number of encounters so that no matter where my players go, they will always have something to fight?"
Generally speaking the advice they will get is "don't make a massive number of encounters" for varying reasons. Centauri will say making a ton of encounters is pointless and you should talk to your players to see what they want to do and then design those encounters together. I would say make a few encounters, learn how to wing encounters with minimal prep and then do a mixture of "winged" encounters and rough encounters you can reskin to the occasion. YagamiLight, when he gets unbanned, would say "use a random table to generate everything, all monsters and maps and whatnot" and don't design a ton of encounters.
Now, you CAN make a massive list of monsters. That is doable, but a massive amount of effort compared to the easier alternatives. So when you ask a question that has a long-drawn out method and a quick, easy and effective method, you will find a lot of answers supporting the latter.
That make more sense?
Edit: the *ed line because I phrased that wrong.
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out hereSpoiler:
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here
If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here
Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2013 - 9:22PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Feb 20, 2012
|
Im trying to figure out a line for Evil. What would make one Evil, is doing just evil acts be considered evil? What if someone does an Evil act for good reasons?
Ask a priest. A philosopher. Your mother. Anyone with some moral authority.
We cannot, will not, and should not answer this question for you, and the fact that it would come up in these terms is exactly why alignment is a terrible, terrible idea.
I was stating how Alignment helps players figure out where their character stand on issue
You were demonstrating the precise opposite: your character knows exactly where he stands on the issue, and the alignment labeling is muddying the otherwise crystal water.
Alignment labels are not information, they are a conceit of knowledge.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2013 - 9:30PM
#9
|
|
|
pretty sure that it is widely agreed that the "ends justify the means" mentality is immoral. which means that she is not good. but does it mean that she is evil?
it certainly sounds like she is willing to do evil to get what she desires. and since it is her tribe and not some neighboring tribe that makes it a somewhat selfish act to sacrifice the happiness of strangers for the happiness of her loved ones
however she isn't hurting people for the sake of hurting them either. (like she enjoys it or feels a rush or some such explicitly evil mumbo-jumbo)
if 0 were neutral and 10 were saintly and -10 was pure evil. i would give her a -2 from what you have told me. just on the evil side of neutral. it is really hard to be good. but it is quite easy to rationalize immoral action
for example if someone would give me medicine for my sick family members, but to get it i had to go on a killing spree in the county jail? They don't exactly hand out medals for that kind of behavior. probably will get me sent to the electric chair, in fact.
categorizing someone as neutral, evil, or good only allows for non-actors, saints, or demons which is a pretty 2-dimensional story-telling. (often what you get from Hollywood action movies)
as far as the paladin senses go you don't have to be so binary. you could describe her as a dim light surrounded by/strugginling against/succombing to darkness or whatever you feel is appropriate for her character. you could even make the evil only ability do half damage.
if you want a more in depth reason for what makes someone evil or not evil you need to read some philosophy of ethics. there are quite a few conflicting theories. if you use one, make sure you players know which one ahead of time so they can plan accordingly.
I think a lot of your problem is that you are trying to decide if someone is evil based on their actions. you need to look at their intent. you character seems to want to help people she cares about at the expense of people she doesn't care about. which is largely a selfish action. she doesn't want to lose her loved ones but doesn't care if others lose their loved ones. if she was truly good she would be attempting to save all parties involved. however, if she was truly evil she would just say screw it find some recently orphaned kittens to torture. I mean it's not she spends all her time searching for people to kill so she can get her hands on a new +2 sword (most PCs)
in 4e it specifically says that alignment is more about whether or not your character has decided to join one side or the other in a war going on the between the "good" gods and the "evil" gods. and has little to do with your character's personal ethics and decision making. meaning you could be unaligned i.e. not joined either side of the conflict and still torture kittens or feed hungry orphans. hell, you could join the side of evil for any number of reasons and try to make them win using only good actions. or perhaps you want the good side to win but decide that you will do so using you patented kitten torture techniques. will you have conflicts with your allies if you chose either such path. probably. but they wouldn't be boring.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2013 - 9:35PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jun 19, 2004
|
pretty sure that it is widely agreed that the "ends justify the means" mentality is immoral. which means that she is not good. but does it mean that she is evil? it certainly sounds like she is willing to do evil to get what she desires. and since it is her tribe and not some neighboring tribe that makes it a somewhat selfish act to sacrifice the happiness of strangers for the happiness of her loved ones however she isn't hurting people for the sake of hurting them either. (like she enjoys it or feels a rush or some such explicitly evil mumbo-jumbo) if 0 were neutral and 10 were saintly and -10 was pure evil. i would give her a -2 from what you have told me. just on the evil side of neutral. it is really hard to be good. but it is quite easy to rationalize immoral action for example if someone would give me medicine for my sick family members, but to get it i had to go on a killing spree in the county jail? They don't exactly hand out medals for that kind of behavior. probably will get me sent to the electric chair, in fact. categorizing someone as neutral, evil, or good only allows for non-actors, saints, or demons which is a pretty 2-dimensional story-telling. (often what you get from Hollywood action movies) as far as the paladin senses go you don't have to be so binary. you could describe her as a dim light surrounded by/strugginling against/succombing to darkness or whatever you feel is appropriate for her character. you could even make the evil only ability do half damage. if you want a more in depth reason for what makes someone evil or not evil you need to read some philosophy of ethics. there are quite a few conflicting theories. if you use one, make sure you players know which one ahead of time so they can plan accordingly. I think a lot of your problem is that you are trying to decide if someone is evil based on their actions. you need to look at their intent. you character seems to want to help people she cares about at the expense of people she doesn't care about. which is largely a selfish action. she doesn't want to lose her loved ones but doesn't care if others lose their loved ones. if she was truly good she would be attempting to save all parties involved. however, if she was truly evil she would just say screw it find some recently orphaned kittens to torture. I mean it's not she spends all her time searching for people to kill so she can get her hands on a new +2 sword (most PCs) in 4e it specifically says that alignment is more about whether or not your character has decided to join one side or the other in a war going on the between the "good" gods and the "evil" gods. and has little to do with your character's personal ethics and decision making. meaning you could be unaligned i.e. not joined either side of the conflict and still torture kittens or feed hungry orphans. hell, you could join the side of evil for any number of reasons and try to make them win using only good actions. or perhaps you want the good side to win but decide that you will do so using you patented kitten torture techniques. will you have conflicts with your allies if you chose either such path. probably. but they wouldn't be boring.
Unc, you gotta get some sort of method for curbing that rampant case of lowercasing you have going on.
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out hereSpoiler:
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here
If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here
Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
|
|
|
