TheRPGSite

How do you handle opposing alignments inside the same party?

Our party as it stands:

• Dwarven Fighter-Neutral Good, at the beginning of the game his alignment will have shifted from Lawful Good to Neutral Good to reflect his loss of faith in the Dwarven "System". (Society, laws, etc...)
• Kenku Rogue-Neutral Evil
• Poison Dusk (A lizard man variant) Barbarian- Chaotic Neutral, but with plans to become a Dragon Shaman, and potentially drift towards Chaotic Evil.
• Human Cleric-Chaotic Good
• One unknown race "nature boy"-probably a ranger or druid, with a likely alignment of Neutral.
• One completely unknown race/class but chaotic neutral character

So as you can see it's not too extreme in it's differences but the party has the potential for some serious conflicts. So what has been your experiences with inter-party conflicts? Any stories about more extreme conflicts? How do you see alignments and the way they are to be played by PC's?

This party will start after their village is destroyed, and they find themselves the sole survivors. So for the moment the ties that bind is that, surviving, but  eventually it will have to be something else-and of course that's mostly their choices.

I let the players handle their in game differences, and sit back to watch the fireworks. :devil:

It's very possible for people of disparate alignments to find reasons to stay together if the players behind the masks want to. Raistlin hung out with Caramon and the rest of the DL crew for a long time, despite being driven by hate and envy. On the flip side, if they're choosing opposed alignments because they want the disruption, maybe a different game style would suit it better. A setup designed to focus on interparty conflict, like a throne war, can be great if everyone wants it.

Is it really necessary* for the players to play evil characters? If it is then they will need to play the evil as smart, sinister and shadowy rather than outright rape and pillage at every opportunity. Otherwise there will be an inter-party massacre. Just looking at this party the choice of the Barbarian**class mixed with the CE alignment will be the root cause of any problems in the party, and he will probably be the first to the chopping block. I would ask the player to change either the class or alignment of the Barbarian PC, the NE Rogue if played as "Smart Evil" could go most of the campaign without getting himself into too much trouble with the party.

*Is it ever really necessary to play an evil character or just cool and edgy?

** I have seen as many poorly played Barbarians as I have Paladins.

It's no more necesary to play evil characters than it is to play good ones.

Alignment is their choice, I'd never force that on them.

More later! Lunch now!

These guys are all from the same village? Must have been a pretty cosmopolitan place.

They look kinda set up to kill each other, but hey, for some groups that's half the fun.

If you want to give them the freedom to pick whatever alignment they want (as opposed to saying: "no evil characters") then make them explain why the party is going to stick together and not simply slaughter each other.

Make each player write down (a sentence is fine) how they know each of the other characters in the party.  Encourage them to be old friends, relatives, or possibly even saved each other from something that happened in the past.

The Thief and the Cleric are brothers or cousins.
The Dwarf and the Lizard Man are blood brothers, and were in Dwarven prison together.
The Lizard Man and the Druid are old friends.
The Dwarf saved the Thief's life, and both the thief and cleric are very thankful for this.

That kind of thing.

Quote from: RockViperIs it really necessary* for the players to play evil characters? If it is then they will need to play the evil as smart, sinister and shadowy rather than outright rape and pillage at every opportunity. Otherwise there will be an inter-party massacre. Just looking at this party the choice of the Barbarian**class mixed with the CE alignment will be the root cause of any problems in the party, and he will probably be the first to the chopping block. I would ask the player to change either the class or alignment of the Barbarian PC, the NE Rogue if played as "Smart Evil" could go most of the campaign without getting himself into too much trouble with the party.

*Is it ever really necessary to play an evil character or just cool and edgy?

** I have seen as many poorly played Barbarians as I have Paladins.

I played in a very brief 2e game back in college where me and another guy were both NG (I was a fighter and he was a ranger, I think).  And a friend of ours was a mage who was either LE or NE.

He tried to play the smart and sinister way.  But the problem was, the only evil things he did were against us.  

We let it go when he stole all our stuff.  We let it go when he took control of the crew of the ship we were traveling on in order to make us into his personal servants.  We let it go when he got us imprisoned at the city for crimes he committed.

Up until this point, most of the stuff he did was minor enough or happened without our PCs directly witnessing it.  So it was annoying, but we let it pass.

Then came the breaking point.  We were trying to hide a macguffin from a wandering patrol when he blatantly tells them that we're hiding it from them and they should attack us.  We killed the guards, then we killed him.

The guy threw an honest to God tantrum.  He threw his dice across the room and literally ran out crying because we "ruined all his plans".  It was sad and pathetic.  None of the rest of us knew quite how to react.  The game died at that very second.

Quote from: jgantsThe guy threw an honest to God tantrum.  He threw his dice across the room and literally ran out crying because we "ruined all his plans".  It was sad and pathetic.  None of the rest of us knew quite how to react.  The game died at that very second.

Wait... this was in college???

This is a prime example of someone playing the Chaotic Stupid alignment :p

Quote from: jgantsI played in a very brief 2e game back in college where me and another guy were both NG (I was a fighter and he was a ranger, I think).  And a friend of ours was a mage who was either LE or NE.

He tried to play the smart and sinister way.  But the problem was, the only evil things he did were against us.  

We let it go when he stole all our stuff.  We let it go when he took control of the crew of the ship we were traveling on in order to make us into his personal servants.  We let it go when he got us imprisoned at the city for crimes he committed.

Up until this point, most of the stuff he did was minor enough or happened without our PCs directly witnessing it.  So it was annoying, but we let it pass.

Then came the breaking point.  We were trying to hide a macguffin from a wandering patrol when he blatantly tells them that we're hiding it from them and they should attack us.  We killed the guards, then we killed him.

The guy threw an honest to God tantrum.  He threw his dice across the room and literally ran out crying because we "ruined all his plans".  It was sad and pathetic.  None of the rest of us knew quite how to react.  The game died at that very second.

Quote from: StuartWait... this was in college???

I saw almost the same exact thing at the same exact age.

Quote from: ghost ratThese guys are all from the same village? Must have been a pretty cosmopolitan place.

As I understand it most people are neutral-neither good nor evil. So to me Neutral Evil and Good isn't so far off the path. The Chaotic Good is certainly a noticeable difference from the norm, but the guy is a cleric, and before that an acolyte of a good aligned god, so that fits. The Chaotic Neutrals are actually the easiest for me to deal with, as I see that as the alignment as closest to my own  ideal system.

But they only represent six special people in a village of about 500 plus people, which to me isn't so bad in my opinion. (I've seen movies and comics with worse premises.)

Up until the village is slaughtered they're really all 0 level people, becoming 1st level "heroes" when the circumstances force them to.

Quote from: StuartIf you want to give them the freedom to pick whatever alignment they want (as opposed to saying: "no evil characters") then make them explain why the party is going to stick together and not simply slaughter each other.

I do want to see some of this, but rather than have them explain we're going to play it out.

QuoteMake each player write down (a sentence is fine) how they know each of the other characters in the party. Encourage them to be old friends, relatives, or possibly even saved each other from something that happened in the past.

We're doing much more than that actually. We've been discussing this in depth for a few weeks now. The village is sort of a commune in some respects, and needs cooperation from everyone to make things work. (And yeah some people stick out or rub things the wrong way. Some people in real life are selfish right? Some are less so, and some are selfless.)

All of them will know each other, in depth.

Quote from: RockViperThis is a prime example of someone playing the Chaotic Stupid alignment :p

Yeah. That's not an issue with alignments. Alignments were (probably) only a handy hook for him to hang his jackassery on.

Quote from: Serious PalAs I understand it most people are neutral-neither good nor evil. So to me Neutral Evil and Good isn't so far off the path. The Chaotic Good is certainly a noticeable difference from the norm, but the guy is a cleric, and before that an acolyte of a good aligned god, so that fits. The Chaotic Neutrals are actually the easiest for me to deal with, as I see that as the alignment as closest to my own ideal system.

I think he may have been talking more about the racial diversity.

Doh! (I should have known that.)

Yeah actually this place is on the frontier borderlands of several major cultures, and races. One of the few of it's type. The race issue will cause them problems depending on which direction they go.

Quote from: jgantsI played in a very brief 2e game back in college where me and another guy were both NG (I was a fighter and he was a ranger, I think).  And a friend of ours was a mage who was either LE or NE.

He tried to play the smart and sinister way.  But the problem was, the only evil things he did were against us.  

We let it go when he stole all our stuff.  We let it go when he took control of the crew of the ship we were traveling on in order to make us into his personal servants.  We let it go when he got us imprisoned at the city for crimes he committed.

Up until this point, most of the stuff he did was minor enough or happened without our PCs directly witnessing it.  So it was annoying, but we let it pass.

Then came the breaking point.  We were trying to hide a macguffin from a wandering patrol when he blatantly tells them that we're hiding it from them and they should attack us.  We killed the guards, then we killed him.

The guy threw an honest to God tantrum.  He threw his dice across the room and literally ran out crying because we "ruined all his plans".  It was sad and pathetic.  None of the rest of us knew quite how to react.  The game died at that very second.

Comedy gold!

Lord Hobie

Quote from: Serious PaulAs I understand it most people are neutral-neither good nor evil. So to me Neutral Evil and Good isn't so far off the path. The Chaotic Good is certainly a noticeable difference from the norm, but the guy is a cleric, and before that an acolyte of a good aligned god, so that fits. The Chaotic Neutrals are actually the easiest for me to deal with, as I see that as the alignment as closest to my own  ideal system.

But they only represent six special people in a village of about 500 plus people, which to me isn't so bad in my opinion. (I've seen movies and comics with worse premises.)

I was thinking about the race/class mixes rather than alignments, but yeah, I know how it is. Players want to play the type of PCs they want, the DM wants them to have an impetus to adventure together. Six special villagers seems like a decent compromise.

Heh. They're certainly not making it easy on themselves, I'll tell you that. The Kenku and the Poison Dusk will be a lot of future baggage for them to deal with, and not every community they come across will be as open minded. In fact few will think twice about considering them monsters, and not the equals of races like halflings, gnomes and dwarves. (The three major races in my home brew.)

Quote from: AoSI saw almost the exact same thing at the exact same age.

What was the result when you saw it?  We all just had a deer in the headlights reaction because it was so bizarre and pathetic.  

Incidentally, I'm scared that there is more than one guy out there like that.  Hopefully it was the same one.  Did your guy name all of his characters "Liff" by chance?  :)

Quote from: James McMurrayYeah. That's not an issue with alignments. Alignments were (probably) only a handy hook for him to hang his jackassery on.

Oh, definately.  This is the same guy that tried to "outsmart" another guy (who wasn't the sharpest pencil in the drawer) by not quite explaining all the rules in a Necromunda game they were playing (in particular, the victory condition of the scenario they were playing).  

The guy once again threw the dice across the room and got upset (though no crying that time) after that guy beat him soundly in the battle (after some of us realized what he was trying to pull and clued the other guy in).

There are a myriad of good stories about that guy.  He later went on to play the not-evil-but-still-incompetent wizard in an Earthdawn campaign.  Many moments of hilarity ensued as he frequently did something stupid (or because he min-maxed so bad that he couldn't do anything physical at all).

Quote from: jgantsWhat was the result when you saw it?  We all just had a deer in the headlights reaction because it was so bizarre and pathetic.  

It was, as in your case but a single stone in the wall of ugliness. I believe he threatened to kick my ass, at the time. I'm small, so this was a pretty safe bet for him. It never came to pass, because another friend of ours- well of mine, anyway, who wasn't so small made it clear that it if he did so things wouldn't go well for him. He was roomies with a couple of guys in the group, and that fell apart over some other game related ugliness that took place later on. I was a wretched loser at that age, no doubt, but this guy made me look like the King of the Wrold in comparison.

Quote from: jgantsIncidentally, I'm scared that there is more than one guy out there like that.  Hopefully it was the same one.  Did your guy name all of his characters "Liff" by chance?  :)

no, they were all "Cal" :D.
And really, I could write a book about this guy he is easily one of the top ten most fucked up people I've ever met, and I've had a pretty fucked up life, so that's saying something.

Another way to handle alignment with a group needs some extra guidance might be to tell them that for your game Evil = Selfish, and Good = Altruistic. So a lawful evil character will follow the law, but use it for their own advantage whenever possible, and not help others unless they're required by law, or there's something in it for them.  A Chaotic Evil character doesn't follow the law, and is  out for themself -- but they're not random, crazy, and sadistic.  Both of these evil alignments will happily work as part of an adventuring party if that's in their best interests.  They don't do things just to be "evil" so if you have a player attempt jackassery, call them on it and ask how their character's interests are served by that behaviour.

I tend to think of alignment as a background factor for PCs.  I've found that in party politics it rarely becomes an issue unless there are diometric opposites in the same group, in which case they usually do not team up, but instead part company.   Such as the Lawful Good guy does not usually join up with the Lawful Evil party.  In the event that the party is composed of non-opposites it most often, in my experience, simply plays out as interesting but inconsequential "philosophy" conversations between party members as to what's right and wrong, but doen't much effect the group.   Unless... something happens that causes the non-opposite rift to become something important.  Such as the aquisition of an Alignment specific item.   Woah... then you can get some sparks flying.   But even then, usually it pans out that the players themselves resolve the issue, usually by shouting for a bit, and then getting down to business.   Sometimes, if the shouting gets prolonged a Monster or two may appear to focus their attention on the job at hand.   This usually defuses the Alignment debate.

On the other hand, it entirely depends on your world and how important alignment is in your world.   It also depends, I think, on how far along the alignment path the characters have gone.  You can have a Chaotic Evil guy, who is only a little Chaotic Evil, and so it doesn't make much difference.   But woah to him who steps on the toes of he who is Strongly Chaotic Evil.  

- Mark

Hi!
  I either impose char creation rules (no evil or no good, etc)
  Or impose meta-rules, like no pvp, etc
  When setting up these rules, I am clear to include other problem areas. Like with thieves, I request all thieves or no thieves. Thieves tend to hog spotlight time during their heists. And they have no motivation to share that spotlight/treasure with the rest of the group.

  I guess there are other options, but I think clearly communicating to the players what this campaign/game is about is best.

Quote from: Serious PaulThis party will start after their village is destroyed, and they find themselves the sole survivors. So for the moment the ties that bind is that, surviving, but  eventually it will have to be something else-and of course that's mostly their choices.

You should read the 3.5 SRD alignment descriptions carefully.  They are pretty sound and define alignment more by how characters behave than by what they think.  Thus Evil characters do Evil things and Good characters do Good things.  It adds some teeth to alignments.

The two main pieces of advice I'd give have already been given:

1) Make the PCs come up with at least hooks, if not fully developed reasons, that they would associate with one another, rather than just letting that problem be dumped in your lap.

2) Encourage the PCs to use common sense and to not just rely on their alignments for characterisation. Chaotic evil people still have friends, even if they don't treat them very well. and if they're not cretins, they're less likely to screw over someone helping them than someone trying to hurt them. Don't let people play Lawful Stupid or Dipshit Evil. Insist on characterisation - "Why would your character do that?"

One last piece of advice I'd give is not to struggle to keep the party together. If the evil dudes want to sneak off and do evil shit, let them. If the PCs part ways, then the PCs have parted ways. They can always re-encounter one another. If it's looking long-term, then split it into two games, with the players from the other group making up new characters who fit better, and then alternate between storylines. Or come up with reasons to bring the PCs back together - whichever you prefer.

Quote from: StuartAnother way to handle alignment with a group needs some extra guidance might be to tell them that for your game Evil = Selfish, and Good = Altruistic.

With respect to the 3.5 alignment descriptions, Good = Altruistic, Neutral = Selfish, and Evil = Malevolent.  If Selfish is Evil, then where does Neutral fit between Good and Evil?  Please bear in mind that the 3.5 alignment descriptions simply require Neutral characters to have "compunctions against killing the innocent", but doesn't prohibit them from doing so.  Neutral characters are pragmatic and do neither Good nor Evil unless it serves them but they can also do Good or Evil if they need to.  Neutral, after all, occupies the space between Good and Evil and is as Evil as Good, not simply a lesser form of Good.

Quote from: StuartSo a lawful evil character will follow the law, but use it for their own advantage whenever possible, and not help others unless they're required by law, or there's something in it for them.  A Chaotic Evil character doesn't follow the law, and is  out for themself -- but they're not random, crazy, and sadistic.  Both of these evil alignments will happily work as part of an adventuring party if that's in their best interests.

According to the 3.5 alignment descriptions, "'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."  Being Evil isn't being selfish.  It's being malevolent and malicious.  They are psychopaths and sadists, not simply greedy people who keep to themselves.

Quote from: StuartThey don't do things just to be "evil" so if you have a player attempt jackassery, call them on it and ask how their character's interests are served by that behaviour.

Actually, that's exactly what Evil characters and creatures do.  If they aren't doing Evil things, then why are you calling them Evil?

Asking how an Evil player's character's interested are served by being Evil is like asking how a Good character's interests are served by being Good (or, for that matter, how a Lawful character's interests are served by being Lawful or a Chaotic character's interest are served by being Chaotic).

Being Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic means that the character has an ideology that they put above pragmatic self-interest.  The Good character will make sacrifices to help others and the Evil character will take risks to hurt others.  The Lawful character may disadvantage themselves to uphold their honor or follow the rules while a Chaotic character may disadvantage themselves to preserve or uphold individual liberty.  Why did the BTK killer horribly murder people?  Because he was an evil man, and couldn't help himself.  Did it serve his best interests?  Of course not.

That's why I think that so long as players run pragmatic characters that aren't willing to takes risks and do things that don't conflict with their self-interest that they are essentially playing True Neutral characters.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineChaotic evil people still have friends, even if they don't treat them very well. and if they're not cretins, they're less likely to screw over someone helping them than someone trying to hurt them.

Why do you assume this is true?  Here is a quote from a psychopath:

"[M]y mother, the most beautiful person in the world. She was strong, she worked hard to take care of four kids. A beautiful person. I started stealing her jewellery when I was in the fifth grade. You know, I never really knew the bitch -- we went our separate ways." (Source: http://www.hare.org/links/saturday.html)

Don't assume that sentient creatures must have a conscience, must appreciate friendship, or must reciprocate kindness.  It's not true of all human beings in the real world and it doesn't have to be true of Evil characters in a role-playing game.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineDon't let people play Lawful Stupid or Dipshit Evil. Insist on characterisation - "Why would your character do that?"

Aren't there stupidly Lawful, Chaotic, Good, and Evil people in the real world?  Why can't such characters exist in a role-playing game?  Isn't it easier just to ask players not to play Evil characters and so on?

Quote from: John MorrowWhy do you assume this is true?  Here is a quote from a psychopath:

"[M]y mother, the most beautiful person in the world. She was strong, she worked hard to take care of four kids. A beautiful person. I started stealing her jewellery when I was in the fifth grade. You know, I never really knew the bitch -- we went our separate ways." (Source: http://www.hare.org/links/saturday.html)

Don't assume that sentient creatures must have a conscience, must appreciate friendship, or must reciprocate kindness.  It's not true of all human beings in the real world and it doesn't have to be true of Evil characters in a role-playing game.

A psychopath is the paladin of the chaotic evil set. Having a diminished conscience and limited moral reasoning skills doesn't make a chaotic evil character automatically a psychopath. The evil alignments can be as subtle or extreme as the good ones. The Eberron example of a Lawful Evil innkeeper who commits the terrible crimes of watering down his ale and overcharging customers comes to mind as a useful counter-balance.

QuoteAren't there stupidly Lawful, Chaotic, Good, and Evil people in the real world?  Why can't such characters exist in a role-playing game?  Isn't it easier just to ask players not to play Evil characters and so on?

I don't think there are actually people who are Lawful, Chaotic, etc. in real-life, at least if we use the D&D terms. There certainly are stupid people, both in real life, and as characters in games and fiction.

However, there's a difference between what we might call a "naturalistic" stupidity for characters and the stupidity of many evil characters. The example given above, of a character fucking over the entire party for no reason at all (by spontaneously telling the guards they were stealing the macguffin), is a good example of something that's unrealistically stupid. It is a nonsensical thing to do, not just a stupid thing to do.

This very often seems to be the case with evil characters. They are played as the most extreme evil possible - psychopaths, tyrants, etc. - except when they're playing as being nonsensical dickheads. If that's all your players are capable of, then I don't blame you for wanting to ban it - many groups hate paladins for similar reasons (paladins are often played as the most extreme, fanatical kind of lawful good). But evil characters don't have to be played that way - they can have all the characterisation and depth that playing a good character can bring, just in different ways. Playing with a well-played evil PC in the group can be a rewarding and entertaining experience if characterisation is favoured over mere alignment.

Quote from: John MorrowAren't there stupidly Lawful, Chaotic, Good, and Evil people in the real world?  Why can't such characters exist in a role-playing game?  Isn't it easier just to ask players not to play Evil characters and so on?

In answer to the first point, I'd say the character should be Lawful Stupid if their Character has a low intelligence.   And Lawful Smart if they have a high intelligence.  

In answer to the second point, I'd say no, that's not really the point of the exercise.  Not for me anyway.   The point is to find ways so that Alignment makes sense in the game.  Not to eliminate it for the sake of making parties cohesive.   Alignment is a story element that is designed to imbue the game with various levels of coherency at the story level.   For example, the Characters meet a Lawful Good Deity, and they've spent a year rampaging and pillaging.  There is a logic to the outcome of the encounter.   That sort of thing.   That said, I don't think it plays well to over emphasize alignment.  I usually just take note of the actions of the Characters during the game and don't make a big fuss about it... until the day that they encounter ... THE DEITY OF ... whatever.   Or the Sacred Sword of ... whatever.  I try not to overplay Alignment.  If not played well Alignment can too easily become formulaic and lose a considerable amount of its potential charm and usefulness as a story element.   When is the last time you read a Medieval Romance wherein the Red Knight said, "Ok you Chaotic Evil bastards!  I'm Lawful Good, see?   And now you're gonna get right in the teeth, see?"  It doens't play well when used as a method for determining action.  Rather I have Alignment trail behind action, but with eventual consequences, potentially.  So if the Characters DO pillage and burn for a year, they become Chaotic Evil.   Not the other way around.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineA psychopath is the paladin of the chaotic evil set. Having a diminished conscience and limited moral reasoning skills doesn't make a chaotic evil character automatically a psychopath. The evil alignments can be as subtle or extreme as the good ones.

Yes, Evil can be subtle, but it doesn't have to be.  And I think that to be Evil, one should actually have to be, well, Evil.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThe Eberron example of a Lawful Evil innkeeper who commits the terrible crimes of watering down his ale and overcharging customers comes to mind as a useful counter-balance.

Yes, I've had the Eberron example tossed at me before but I fail to see how it fits the description of Evil offered in the 3.5 SRD.  

Let's go to the SRD:

"Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit."

Is the bartender really debasing or destroying innocent live by watering his ale?

"'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."

Is the bartender hurting, oppressing, and killing others by watering his ale, a luxury item?  Is he killing without qualms when it's convenient?  Is he actively pursuing Evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master?

"People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships."

That sounds a lot more like the bartender to me.  He seems to have compunctions against killing the innocent and lacks the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.  

For the Eberron interpretation of alignment to be correct, then Thieves could not be neutral, since cheating for personal gain, even if you don't actually hurt anyone, is apparently Evil in that setting.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI don't think there are actually people who are Lawful, Chaotic, etc. in real-life, at least if we use the D&D terms.

Oh, sure there are!  There are people willing to die for honor and people willing to die for liberty, just as there are people willing to die to help others and people willing to risk death to hurt others.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThere certainly are stupid people, both in real life, and as characters in games and fiction.

Not acting out of self-interest or pragmatically does not necessarily make one stupid, though a True Neutral character would probably think so.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineHowever, there's a difference between what we might call a "naturalistic" stupidity for characters and the stupidity of many evil characters. The example given above, of a character fucking over the entire party for no reason at all (by spontaneously telling the guards they were stealing the macguffin), is a good example of something that's unrealistically stupid. It is a nonsensical thing to do, not just a stupid thing to do.

Yet there are people who really do stuff like that.  From a perspective that values self-preservation, friendship, and so on, yes it was stupid.  From a perspective that values screwing people over even more, it wasn't.  Were the 300 Spartans stupid or smart?  That all depends on your perspective and what you value most.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThis very often seems to be the case with evil characters. They are played as the most extreme evil possible - psychopaths, tyrants, etc. - except when they're playing as being nonsensical dickheads.

I think it's an equally bad injustice to alignments to neuter Evil and reduce it to simply selfish or crooked behavior.  D&D has 3 alignments on the Good to Evil axis and not 2 for a reason.  

Quote from: PseudoephedrineIf that's all your players are capable of, then I don't blame you for wanting to ban it - many groups hate paladins for similar reasons (paladins are often played as the most extreme, fanatical kind of lawful good).

It's not simply stupid Evil that's a problem.  Smart Evil can also be a very big problem, so long as the character doesn't forget to actually be Evil, which is what a lot of these suggestions look like to me.

Years ago, one of the people I role-play with was GMing a game and made a slip of the tongue.  He meant to say "Evil and malign!" in a sinister voice and wound up saying "Evil and benign!" by mistake.  Everyone laughed at him and it became one of those group joke quotes.  "Evil and benign" is an oxymoron.  If the character is benign, then they just aren't Evil.  It's like not getting points for disadvantages that don't actually disadvantage a character in Champions.  Something that doesn't hinder a character isn't a disadvantage.  If a character is benign, then they aren't Evil.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineBut evil characters don't have to be played that way - they can have all the characterisation and depth that playing a good character can bring, just in different ways. Playing with a well-played evil PC in the group can be a rewarding and entertaining experience if characterisation is favoured over mere alignment.

Oh, sure, but it can still end badly, especially if the player is very smart and good about it.  After all, the BTK killer managed to maintain a family and even become a deacon at his church while kidnapping, torturing, and killing people on the side.

Also, don't think that psychopaths can't be clever or have to be loony insane.  In fact, psychopathy indicators include being superficially charming ("a real cool cat") and a fairly high IQ (good grades in school or disparity in achievement).

Quote from: VBWyrdeIn answer to the first point, I'd say the character should be Lawful Stupid if their Character has a low intelligence.   And Lawful Smart if they have a high intelligence.

The problem, though, is what does it mean to be smart?  If you claim that one must be pragmatic if one is smart, then I think that's missing the point.  Pragmatism fights all of the ideologies of the outer alignments at one point or another, which is why it belongs in the middle with True Neutral.  In fact, I think "Pragmatic" is a pretty good euphemism for Neutral in many cases.  This is also why I think the 4 corner alignments are unstable.  They force a character to serve two masters.  The Paladin, for example, will inevitably run in to situations where they must choose against being Lawful or being Good, where they can't have both.  If they are pragmatic about being Good, then they aren't being Lawful.  If they are pragmatic about being Lawful, then they aren't being Good.  

Quote from: VBWyrdeIn answer to the second point, I'd say no, that's not really the point of the exercise.  Not for me anyway.   The point is to find ways so that Alignment makes sense in the game.  Not to eliminate it for the sake of making parties cohesive.

Well, the alignments do make sense in the game.  What doesn't make sense to me is for characters to essentially ignore their own alignments or the alignments of others for the sake of party cohesion.  Why call a character Evil if they aren't going to act Evil?  Why call a character Good if they aren't going to act Good?  And so on.

Quote from: VBWyrdeAlignment is a story element that is designed to imbue the game with various levels of coherency at the story level.   For example, the Characters meet a Lawful Good Deity, and they've spent a year rampaging and pillaging.  There is a logic to the outcome of the encounter.   That sort of thing.

Sure.  And that logic crumbles if the Deity ignores their rampaging and pillaging to be nice to the PCs.

Quote from: VBWyrdeThat said, I don't think it plays well to over emphasize alignment.

I'm not claiming that the players should over emphasize alignment so much as I'm claiming (A) that they shouldn't underemphasize alignment, either (e.g., reducing Evil to selfishness or watering ale) and (B) that the over emphasized form is a legitimate way to play the alignment, though not the only way.

Quote from: VBWyrdeI usually just take note of the actions of the Characters during the game and don't make a big fuss about it... until the day that they encounter ... THE DEITY OF ... whatever.   Or the Sacred Sword of ... whatever.  I try not to overplay Alignment.  If not played well Alignment can too easily become formulaic and lose a considerable amount of its potential charm and usefulness as a story element.

What purpose do you think alignment serves, other than serving as a sort of "team jersey"?

Quote from: VBWyrdeWhen is the last time you read a Medieval Romance wherein the Red Knight said, "Ok you Chaotic Evil bastards!  I'm Lawful Good, see?   And now you're gonna get right in the teeth, see?"  It doens't play well when used as a method for determining action.

When was the last time you read an adult story where the Evil characters were harmless, benign, and just one of the guys?  In fact, how many stories have evil characters as protagonists that don't, at some point, betray their comrades or hurt innocent people?

Quote from: VBWyrdeRather I have Alignment trail behind action, but with eventual consequences, potentially.  So if the Characters DO pillage and burn for a year, they become Chaotic Evil.   Not the other way around.

Oh, I have no problem with that.  But I'd be pretty annoyed or at least disappointed if you told me that my character was Evil for watering ale or Good just because I didn't kill any innocent people.  That Neutral alignment is a band between Good and Evil (which logically includes both slightly Good and slightly Evil) and not a thin line at exactly the 50/50 point.

People can have some things in common, even when they possess extreme differences. And I've personally never been prone to adopt the notion that evil characters don't think about anything beyond themselves. Cruelty is enough to me to establish a character as evil, even if they do have an attachment or two. This wouldn't work with some people's approaches to alignment, but it would be perfectly viable in my campaigns; perhaps they all have a common purpose, perhaps some of the opposite aligned characters are siblings who actually have a very strong bond to one another. The good character won't kill his evil brother, because he can't bring himself to do it even if he knows he should; the evil brother would kill everyone else in the world - slowly - but not his brother. And so on...

Quote from: John MorrowWell, the alignments do make sense in the game.  What doesn't make sense to me is for characters to essentially ignore their own alignments or the alignments of others for the sake of party cohesion.  Why call a character Evil if they aren't going to act Evil?  Why call a character Good if they aren't going to act Good?  And so on.

I wouldn't.  Again, I go to the Trailing Alignment model.  If the Character behaves Evilly then he or she is called Evil.   If they simply strut around announcing that they are "Evil" but save small children, help the elderly, and give money to the poor... then it makes no difference that they call themselves "Evil" - they are good.   Alignment is a reflection of the moral aggregate of one's actions.

Quote from: John MorrowSure.  And that logic crumbles if the Deity ignores their rampaging and pillaging to be nice to the PCs.

Indeed, it most definitely does.  Which is one reason why Alignment is useful to the Gamesmaster.   The Lawful Good Deity shows up amidst the Chaotic Evil party.   Suddenly there's a lot of cringing, begging, moaning, and make-shift promising going on.   If they are stupid enough they attack.  And die.  If not, which should be the standard case, they simply crawl to a safe spot and "rethink their lives" for a bit.   Maybe they change their ways.   Maybe not.   But meeting a Deity should be a Memorable Experience.   If the GM plays the Deity like a milk-sop little pussy who is trying to Appease the Players so they won't be mad at him ... well that should be criteria for expulsion from the venerable ranks of the Great Gamesmaster's Guild, for sure.   Don't draw your sword unless you mean to use it.   And don't whip out a Deity unless it Means Business!

Quote from: John MorrowI'm not claiming that the players should over emphasize alignment so much as I'm claiming (A) that they shouldn't under emphasize alignment, either (e.g., reducing Evil to selfishness or watering ale) and (B) that the over emphasized form is a legitimate way to play the alignment, though not the only way.

A sensible corollary.   Underemphasis is just as bad as over emphasis, yes.

Quote from: John MorrowWhat purpose do you think alignment serves, other than serving as a sort of "team jersey"?

I don't think of Alignment as a 'team jersey" at all.  I play it that Alignment is a Current Indicator of aggregate moral status in the eyes of the Absolute Deity in the Game World.   Characters do things of different Alignments all the time.  Especially Chaotic Characters.   They can do Good things one day, and Evil things the next.  They can even behave Lawfully when they want because they ARE Chaotic, and still be Chaotic, in fact more-so.   Lawful Characters however lose their Lawful status when they behave Chaotically.   Law is the thing that never deviates.   Sometimes Good can be Evil (which is a sin, but even Good people sin sometimes), and Evil people can sometimes be Good (no one is perfect, hehe).   So the point is that the way I use Alignment is to simply aggregate up the Character's Actions and determine, What is their Alignment?   I never insist that they Play according to their Alignment if they don't want to, I just at some point announce, "No, Tod, you're not Lawful anymore.  You broke eighteen major Laws and kicked the temple cat, and cursed out the Judge of the Law four times."  ... And even then, I don't announce it... but if and when they meet the Deity of Law... they'll be in for a rude shock.   Oh well.  That's what Consequences are about.

Quote from: John MorrowOh, I have no problem with that.  But I'd be pretty annoyed or at least disappointed if you told me that my character was Evil for watering ale or Good just because I didn't kill any innocent people.  That Neutral alignment is a band between Good and Evil (which logically includes both slightly Good and slightly Evil) and not a thin line at exactly the 50/50 point.

Again, I don't try to squeeze the Characters into their Alignment, nor make excuses for why they are the Alignment they started out as.   I let it go with the flow.  If they want, however, to be Lawful Evil, they had better act that way on their own volition and do Lawful Evil things.   But then, I don't encourage that either.  

The way it works in my world is that you can decided you want to be a specific Alignment in your head.  That's nice.   If you play it that way that's all that counts.  

OR - you can affiliate yourself to a specific Deity.   Well, that's another kettle of fish right there.   Once a Character swears an Oath of Whatever to a specific Deity then they are going to serve that Deity, and if the Deity is Chaotic Good then they have a vested interest in acting Chaotic Good in order to please their Deity.   This provides focus for the Player to think, "What would my Deity want me to do?"   And so in this case, and only in this case, does Alignment in my World act as a Leading Indicator rather than a Trailing one.   And the way that works is that if the Character fails to serve the Deity, or does things opposed to the Alignment of that Deity, then the Deity can get miffed.   There may be a confrontation, and the Character may wind up losing their special privileges, or be chastised in some way, or if it's bad enough, or the Deity happens to be ruthlessly Evil, destroyed.

EDIT:  Oh yes, and by the way, in my World, because of this style of using Alignment, most Characters are neutral or close to it.   Neutral is simply where no specific Alignment path has been adhered to and their motives are usually centered on the question, "What is good for me right now?"   Nor are their any Neutral Deities in my World.   In fact, the Deities ARE the personifications of the Alignments.

Quote from: John Morrowsnip

The point I wanted to make was telling your players "that for your game Evil = Selfish, and Good = Altruistic".  I wasn't making a statement about the intended / universal way alignment is treated in 3.5 D&D. ;)

Quote from: BrimshackCruelty is enough to me to establish a character as evil, even if they do have an attachment or two. This wouldn't work with some people's approaches to alignment, but it would be perfectly viable in my campaigns; perhaps they all have a common purpose, perhaps some of the opposite aligned characters are siblings who actually have a very strong bond to one another.

Fair enough.  But once that common purpose has ended?

Quote from: BrimshackThe good character won't kill his evil brother, because he can't bring himself to do it even if he knows he should; the evil brother would kill everyone else in the world - slowly - but not his brother. And so on...

Well, the 3.5 SRD description says that Good characters will make personal sacrifices to help others, so I would argue that the Good character who refuses to kill his Evil brother is violating his alignment and is behaving in a Neutral manner (he's "committed to others by personal relationships", which is actually part of the description of Neutral characters in the SRD).

What I'm arguing here is that people should be willing to call characters what their behavior shows them to be rather than the label that they want to have.  If the character behaves in a Neutral and pragmatic manner, then what's wrong with just calling them Neutral?

Quote from: StuartThe point I wanted to make was telling your players "that for your game Evil = Selfish, and Good = Altruistic".  I wasn't making a statement about the intended / universal way alignment is treated in 3.5 D&D. ;)

Sure, and we could say that Evil = Sad and Good = Happy for an individual game but then Evil kinda stops being, well, Evil, doesn't it?

Quote from: VBWyrdeI wouldn't.  Again, I go to the Trailing Alignment model.  If the Character behaves Evilly then he or she is called Evil.   If they simply strut around announcing that they are "Evil" but save small children, help the elderly, and give money to the poor... then it makes no difference that they call themselves "Evil" - they are good.   Alignment is a reflection of the moral aggregate of one's actions.

[...]

Quote from: VBWyrdeEDIT:  Oh yes, and by the way, in my World, because of this style of using Alignment, most Characters are neutral or close to it.   Neutral is simply where no specific Alignment path has been adhered to and their motives are usually centered on the question, "What is good for me right now?"   Nor are their any Neutral Deities in my World.   In fact, the Deities ARE the personifications of the Alignments.

Thanks for the clarification.

Just some advice for letting your players be "evil" in a mixed alignment party.  Your mileage may vary, etc. etc.   For my D&D, any of the evil alignments are limited to NPCs.  So if you change your alignment to evil... instant NPC. :)

Quote from: StuartJust some advice for letting your players be "evil" in a mixed alignment party.  Your mileage may vary, etc. etc.   For my D&D, any of the evil alignments are limited to NPCs.  So if you change your alignment to evil... instant NPC. :)

I think that would be better advice.

(ADDED:  I think you understand the problem, which is that mixed-alignment Good & Evil parties are just not viable except for, maybe, a very short game with a clear common goal that forces the characters to work together.)

Quote from: John MorrowFair enough.  But once that common purpose has ended?

Beyond teh scope of my suggestion, but for the record I would have constructed the purpose in such a manner as to last the balance of the campaign.

Quote from: John MorrowWell, the 3.5 SRD description says that Good characters will make personal sacrifices to help others, so I would argue that the Good character who refuses to kill his Evil brother is violating his alignment and is behaving in a Neutral manner (he's "committed to others by personal relationships", which is actually part of the description of Neutral characters in the SRD).

What I'm arguing here is that people should be willing to call characters what their behavior shows them to be rather than the label that they want to have.  If the character behaves in a Neutral and pragmatic manner, then what's wrong with just calling them Neutral?

1) A willinngess to sacrifice for others does not entail the necessity of killing any particular person, even an evil one. (Surely you can imagine other ways of sacrificing for others or even confronting the evil characters.) Your inference from a willingness to sacrifice to a need to kill is more than a bit of a stretch, to say nothing of the social manicheanism in the concept which is no model of good behavior in any event.

2) With respect to Neutrals commiting to others by personal relationships, the point is that this the (only) way that neutrals form such commitments rather than by virtue of principles (as with goods). You appear to be reading this to mean that anyone who is committed to others by virtue of a relationship is neutral. To wit, good characters have no personal relationships, or perhaps their relationships do not commit them to others.

Oddly Fundamentalist reading of the SRD on both points.

On the last point, I do not disagree with it in principle, aside from the strangeness of the "should". It's a game really, and I am always at a loss to explain the frequency with which judgements of "ought" and what we are "supposed" to do seem to enter into that. If I break every 3rd rule in the SRD, the fact may be worthy of note, but "should" doesn't enter into it. Players may choose to run alignment any way they wish, even contradicting themselves right and left if they so choose. Criticism may help them to understand what they are ding, but what they "should" or for that matter should not do, has no bearing on the discussion.

I am more disturbed, however, that your final paragraph is offered as an answer to my own points as it's more than a little circular. Reminds me a bit of conservative Christians lecturing their liberal bretheren on the need to follow what the Bible says rather than follow their private interpretations. ...all the while ignoring the very real prospect that the liberal types may have a better handle on the text to begin with.

What the SRD says as far as alignment is not as narrow as your construction. And when some of us choose to allow for possibilities such as I have mentioned, we are not violating the terms of your holy text. We are applying those terms in ways we find interesting. If that strikes you as inappropriate, then so be it.

Quote from: BrimshackBeyond the scope of my suggestion, but for the record I would have constructed the purpose in such a manner as to last the balance of the campaign.

I wanted to, but the last minute nature of character generation means I'm playing catch up. I've got a few ideas and some stuff to work on-but I am still down two player characters. (Really no ones fault, other than scheduling conflicts-no one is avoiding making a character or purposefully delaying, or anything like that. It's just worked out this way.)

One of the concepts I plan on using in the game is a television show like rotating cast concept, where eventually a few people can rotate in and out, and we don't need everyone to have a game. But that's a meta game concept.

In game they'll be the sole survivors of a small town that was slaughtered (And this is just me talking aloud, not a specific reply to anyone at this point) and near the village is a small Dwarven outpost. This is an official Republic outpost, and so when they go missing eventually someone will miss them, and send someone (Well a lot of someones actually since this will be a small platoon of dwarven soldiers that go missing, along with some specialized magical and clerical support.) to look into what's happened.

When the Republic finds out it's men have been slaughtered any witnesses will suddenly become very much in demand. Of course that means the players.

Then there is the possibility they may seek revenge or to discover the people who killed their village-assuming they're not blamed.

It occurs to me that this entire discussion, in microcosm, reminds me of everything I hate about the alignment system in general, in actual play, in fooken THEORY.

More to the OP: This thread wouldn't exist if the alignment system didn't exist!


Make of that what you will...:what:

I used to hate the alignment system, but now a days I kind of like it. It's an added challenge for us, to make characters and give them these values and morals, and seeing if we can make those ideas work.

Meh, I've come to the conclusion that alignments are pretty pointless unless you are playing Stormbringer.

If they are prescriptive, then its one more thing for the GM to try and police.  And in the end, the PC will act however the character wants, anyways (and will usually act just like the last 6 characters by that player).

If alignments are descriptive, then they usually fail to be complex enough to encompass a truly three-dimensional personality and thus aren't very useful.  Sure, something like the Palladium system is a lot more realistic than the D&D alignment wheel (which I never did care for, give me the simple L/N/C of BD&D any day), but it still is rather simplistic when faced with real world personalities and actions.

I like the take that the "Design Patterns In RPGs" guy has on alignment: if you want to use it as a means of tagging some characters as "on the PCs' side - don't kill them" and tag others as "enemies - kill them if you like", it works grand. If you want to tie it in with the metaphysics a la Stormbringer or Planescape (or, indeed, the old alignment languages in early editions), that also works. If you want to take it more seriously than a tagging system, but at the same time don't want to hardwire it into the metaphysics, you get problems.

Quote from: SpikeIt occurs to me that this entire discussion, in microcosm, reminds me of everything I hate about the alignment system in general, in actual play, in fooken THEORY.

More to the OP: This thread wouldn't exist if the alignment system didn't exist!


Make of that what you will...:what:

Actually, I don't agree with this at all. I'm not saying it automatically would exist (either with or without the DnD alignment system), but I don't agree with saying it automatically wouldn't exist either. A player who wants to play an "evil" character could create a conflict with another player's "good" character whether the DnD alignment system is used to label the characters as such or not. A Star Wars mini-campaign I played in once comes to mind for me. We had no alignments, yet still encountered conflict both among the PCs and between the PCs and the NPC authorities because of the choices of a few of the players through their characters. It was still an entertaining and memorable campaign (we got kicked off Mon Calamari for getting into a "bar fight" and flooding one of their underwater stations). On the other hand, I played a LE knight in a Birthright campaign (non-scion based) where most of the players played LN and LG characters and we did ok. My character was of the variety that while not seeking out violence and death wantonly, felt no remorse for killing when he felt it was warranted, and even derived a secretly held amount of pleasure from demonstrating his "strength". He also felt strongly about the social hierarchy and maintaining/improving his place within it by just about any means he could get away with. He was a thug, pure and simple, but still managed to get along with the other members of the "party" (who were his social peers, and as such deserving of respect, at least until he had elevated his own status). Alignments in place, yet still a fun, and non-disruptive, game.

Quote from: Brimshack1) A willinngess to sacrifice for others does not entail the necessity of killing any particular person, even an evil one. (Surely you can imagine other ways of sacrificing for others or even confronting the evil characters.) Your inference from a willingness to sacrifice to a need to kill is more than a bit of a stretch, to say nothing of the social manicheanism in the concept which is no model of good behavior in any event.

Uh, let's go back to the example as you framed it:

Quote from: BrimshackThe good character won't kill his evil brother, because he can't bring himself to do it even if he knows he should; the evil brother would kill everyone else in the world - slowly - but not his brother

You framed the problem as one in which the Good character should kill his brother.  You are familiar with the word "should", right?  You wax poetic about it quite a bit later on in your reply.

If the Good character should kill his brother (which clearly implies that it is the Good and right thing to do) but won't because of his personal connection to his brother, then he's acting in a Neutral manner, not a Good manner.  Given that his brother would have to be pretty dangerous or awful in order for execution to be how a Good character should deal with him (remember, you lectured me on how the Good alignment doesn't demand the execution of Evil characters) and given that you also said that his brother would kill everyone else in the world except his brother, that suggests that his brother was not simply sitting in the corner thinking Evil thoughts.

Look, I've played this game before.  Offer an anecdote or example that clearly implies certain things and then when someone makes a reply that assumes the implications, pretend that they weren't there.  Of course given the perspective that you express on interpreting text below, I presume you think that words just sort of mean whatever you want them to mean at that moment, right?

Quote from: Brimshack2) With respect to Neutrals commiting to others by personal relationships, the point is that this the (only) way that neutrals form such commitments rather than by virtue of principles (as with goods). You appear to be reading this to mean that anyone who is committed to others by virtue of a relationship is neutral. To wit, good characters have no personal relationships, or perhaps their relationships do not commit them to others.

No.  What I am saying is that if a character puts their personal relationships above the welfare of innocents, then they are Neutral because they are putting their own interests (a personal friendship or relationship) above the lives of innocents.  

Yes, a Good character can have relatives and personal friends that they care about, but if they are unwilling to stop those relatives and personal friends from victimizing innocents in a a significant way, then I think it puts their Goodness into question.  

It's like the firefighter who refuses to go into a burning building because he's afraid of leaving his wife a widow or a firefighter who refuses to turn his brother in, even though he knows his brother is an arsonist.

Quote from: BrimshackOddly Fundamentalist reading of the SRD on both points.

Yes, strawmen are usually easy to knock down.  That's their whole purpose.

Quote from: BrimshackOn the last point, I do not disagree with it in principle, aside from the strangeness of the "should". It's a game really, and I am always at a loss to explain the frequency with which judgements of "ought" and what we are "supposed" to do seem to enter into that. If I break every 3rd rule in the SRD, the fact may be worthy of note, but "should" doesn't enter into it.

I used "should" in the sense that I find the reluctance that people seem to have to using the Neutral alignment seems a bit odd to me.  It's there.  It's pretty clearly defined.  It seems to fit a lot of characters.  Why do people insist on labeling characters with one alignment that doesn't fit very well when the system provides another alignment that fits much better?  And ultimately, I think that leads to at least some of the complaints that people level at the alignment system being unrealistic and unworkable.  I think the one in the 3.5 SRD was designed to hold together pretty well.

Quote from: BrimshackPlayers may choose to run alignment any way they wish, even contradicting themselves right and left if they so choose. Criticism may help them to understand what they are ding, but what they "should" or for that matter should not do, has no bearing on the discussion.

Read "should" as in "you should be true to yourself" or "you should not put your hand on the table and bang it with a hammer".  You can choose to do anything you want to with your hand, including putting it on the table and banging it with a hammer.  But if you do so, don't complain to me that it hurts and I'm going to think you are being pretty stupid.

Quote from: BrimshackI am more disturbed, however, that your final paragraph is offered as an answer to my own points as it's more than a little circular. Reminds me a bit of conservative Christians lecturing their liberal bretheren on the need to follow what the Bible says rather than follow their private interpretations. ...all the while ignoring the very real prospect that the liberal types may have a better handle on the text to begin with.

And that reminds me a bit of smug liberal Christians admonishing conservative Christians about how they have a better handle on the text, while clearly paying almost no attention to the actual text, even when the language is very clear and unambiguous.

Quote from: BrimshackWhat the SRD says as far as alignment is not as narrow as your construction. And when some of us choose to allow for possibilities such as I have mentioned, we are not violating the terms of your holy text. We are applying those terms in ways we find interesting. If that strikes you as inappropriate, then so be it.

In other words, you are finding the meanings you want in the penumbra of the alignment system, right?

I also think that people should be willing to admit when the text of a book, be it Bible, the US Constitution, or the D&D 3.5 SRD doesn't support the conclusions that they want and simply admit that they are just substituting their own ideas instead.  If you already know you can choose to use the alignment system however you want, why not simply say that you aren't bound by the rules and written and want to do your own thing?  Why go through the trouble of insisting that the SRD is flexible just so you can ignore what it plainly says because you find doing so interesting?

Alright John, I can argue a few points, but I clearly did misread your argument. In the main, I am wrong here. Please accept my apologies for the unwarranted harshness of my reply.

Quote from: BrimshackAlright John, I can argue a few points, but I clearly did misread your argument. In the main, I am wrong here. Please accept my apologies for the unwarranted harshness of my reply.

Fair enough.  And in return, I'll apologize for harshness of my reply.

Quote from: WarthurI like the take that the "Design Patterns In RPGs" guy has on alignment: if you want to use it as a means of tagging some characters as "on the PCs' side - don't kill them" and tag others as "enemies - kill them if you like", it works grand. If you want to tie it in with the metaphysics a la Stormbringer or Planescape (or, indeed, the old alignment languages in early editions), that also works. If you want to take it more seriously than a tagging system, but at the same time don't want to hardwire it into the metaphysics, you get problems.

I like this. It is classy.