Which alignments do you play? How do you play them?

[mr duncan]

I played Maer as a psychopath.

Absolutely zero good aligned psychopaths. Zero.

He was special forces, a government spook for the Marches. It said NG on his character sheet, but he was willing to torture, kill and punt puppies if necessary to protect what he considered good. Would he do good in real life? If he happened to be on the good side of a war, sure. But he might very well be on the bad side, because real life is a lot more complicated than D&D. If Alyra is a politician shaking hands and kissing babies, Maer would be the spook waterboarding some poor sob in Gitmo. He was not the sort of person anyone would want anywhere near their kids, yet he was largely D&D good.

This is NOT good, any sane DM who saw you torture or even argue that you should torture should have eroded the 'good' right off that character sheet. This is pretty much the perfect example of a Lawful Evil character telling themselves they are good for doing their evil actions for a good end.

The good alignments do not mean "I fight for the guys in white hats so I am good." You still have to actually BE GOOD.

Paldin1: Orcs are all known and accepted to be lawless and evil villains. It is "good" to purge the world of them. They deserve punishment for their crimes. To kill an orc child is a "mercy" because it will only grow up to be an evil villain otherwise.

Paladin 2: While all orcs are evil, all life is sacred. If orcs threaten good folk I will defend them against the orcs, but otherwise show them mercy in the hope they will redeem their evil ways. To kill any innocent, especially a child, is never justified.

See? Both are clearly valid RP of LG to me. Alignment is about providing a framework within which to develop the personality, morality, and basis for the actions of your character. That's it.

When building villages of 'Always Evil' races I always decorate them with hanging bodies and piles of victims so you can tell their intents just by looking at what they have been up to. Having said that, killing children of sentient races just because they may grow up to be rotten is ALSO evil.

Paladin 1 is willing to purge even children to keep his parent culture safe so paladin 1 is evil. You are not a good guy just because your enemies are evil.

[Zelknolf]

Agreeing with Duncan there, and am a little surprised that it's up for debate. Torture is explicitly defined as evil in D&Dland. You might argue Lawful Neutral by referencing Hoar or Chaotic Neutral by referencing Shevarash (being two non-evil deities who waggle about a philosophy of visiting horrible things onto horrible people-- though all previous statements about how horribly inconsistent D&D alignments are absolutely apply here, and one might note that assassins-- even assassins who only kill bad guys-- are always evil), but good definitely doesn't use torture. Paladins aren't even allowed to tolerate other people doing it, and they (also by definition) fall if they either indirectly help the deed or learn about the deed and don't try to get the one responsible punished for it.

[HEEGZ]

Clearly some of you have never raised children. I am 100% certain that orc children are evil from birth. If you went to sleep with an orc baby in your room, you can bet your life (and lose it) that it will crawl over and do what all children do, only orc-style. It takes little imagination to predict what an older orc child would do...



Paladins, you may safely resume your slaying of entire villages.

[Brokenbone]

I fondly remember a session in Sembia where somehow the Obsidian Blades (and varied dupes) somehow had to pass through an orcish camp near Mulhessen, ended up having to slaughter a whole palisade-thing full of orcs, and some mean DM made a "blue" nonhostile wailing orc child run around in the aftermath. Jacobim shot him dead from a long way away to the horror of some of the dupes, with some "I am sure he had a knife, didn't you see the gleam? Oh he must have dropped it among these mudpuddles seeing as we can't find it. Let's move along shall we?" Didn't have to worry too much about good/evil (frankly couldn't get any more evil on the charsheet), was just dark humor.

Another fond Sembia memory was some kind of mild torture scene of some Zhent informant underneath some business or other, where out of some twisted polite courtesy, while he'd rather hoped we'd "release" him gently, our interpretation was "Well, yes, step up on this stool shall we? Now on with that noose... this should be quick, just let us know when you'd prefer to jump off into that next life, say hello to Bane for us all." I vividly recall tells of like "Here I am, stuck in the middle with you..." tune in a few of our heads. Again I suppose that was fairly evil as well, but when you're in the end simply killing other evil sorts, stabbing 10 Zhents in high action combat is less evil than being polite to a single Zhent who ultimately you assist an essentially involuntary suicide? Probably less painful than seventeen stab wounds, is that mercy? Maybe our thieves' guild was more like a bunch of gentle paladins, who knows!

[oldgrayrogue]

Paldin1: Orcs are all known and accepted to be lawless and evil villains. It is "good" to purge the world of them. They deserve punishment for their crimes. To kill an orc child is a "mercy" because it will only grow up to be an evil villain otherwise.

Well Paladin 1 would get some evil points for rationalizing murdering children in my game

Would that apply to a baby devil? (assuming there is such a thing) Or a baby Yuan Ti? Black Dragon? Illithid? See my point? Its all gray. And yeah I can see the shift points.

[orangetree]

Killing orc children is evil! (got 1 evil point for this very topic actually...)

I find this topic very interesting to me, especially as I have had my character go through quite a wide range of alignments.

To me, I think about personality first. Their history, general ideals... their race, all of that goes into a 'soup' of various key decisions they might make, and general deposition... then I make a call, on their alignment. When playing I give alignment the consideration it is due, as their 'default' act... but circumstances, emotion and the very decision being made might go completely against that alignment. It is not set in stone, its a very hazy vague idea. The general direction of the wind, but a good character can do evil acts, or be pushed to them.

Sometimes one must do a little evil to do a lot of good though. It doesn't change the act though... This is fine for most people. A paladin however has to walk an even finer line. To me, their alignment isn't in the alignment system. Its an extreme personality, of incredible fortitude where they do what is Right, what is Good, and what is Just in that order. If what is Right conflicts with what is Good... they must tread carefully, or lose their paladinhood. (Especially as what is 'right' can be a lot of different things..)

[oldgrayrogue]

Clearly some of you have never raised children. I am 100% certain that orc children are evil from birth. If you went to sleep with an orc baby in your room, you can bet your life (and lose it) that it will crawl over and do what all children do, only orc-style. It takes little imagination to predict what an older orc child would do...



Paladins, you may safely resume your slaying of entire villages.

Having raised three orcs . . . .err children . . . myself I wholeheartedly agree.

[Veilan]

What I find most interesting about alignment discussions is that many people seem to view alignments as something to be defined by the characters that "fit" that alignment, which I find arsy-versy.

To me, it just seems more natural to portray a character, and let the alignment follow. It's never going to be perfect, and there may be changes, but a "change" is not an inconsistency - ideally, any alignment adjustment (I hate the word "hit", because some people tend to treat it like that - (seldom) reward and (frequently) punishment for straying from some notion of a narrow definition) just means you roleplayed in a memorable fashion, in a situation where alignment does not suffice to catch all the complexities of a three-dimensional character.

I don't think being "true" to one's alignment should be a goal at all. Certainly never when it contradicts vital character traits of the envisioned persona. It's just complicated by DnD where some mechanics are based on it, but I still think that alignment should be an attempt to broad-brushedly capture the complex moral and ethical fibre of the character described, not a category that the character has to follow.

Cheers,

[orangetree]

What I find most interesting about alignment discussions is that many people seem to view alignments as something to be defined by the characters that "fit" that alignment, which I find arsy-versy.

To me, it just seems more natural to portray a character, and let the alignment follow. It's never going to be perfect, and there may be changes, but a "change" is not an inconsistency - ideally, any alignment adjustment (I hate the word "hit", because some people tend to treat it like that - (seldom) reward and (frequently) punishment for straying from some notion of a narrow definition) just means you roleplayed in a memorable fashion, in a situation where alignment does not suffice to catch all the complexities of a three-dimensional character.

I don't think being "true" to one's alignment should be a goal at all. Certainly never when it contradicts vital character traits of the envisioned persona. It's just complicated by DnD where some mechanics are based on it, but I still think that alignment should be an attempt to broad-brushedly capture the complex moral and ethical fibre of the character described, not a category that the character has to follow.

Cheers,

I suspect this is why the alignment system was removed and replaced with something more one dimensional.

Personally, I don't have a problem with people trying to play their alignments. I actually encourage it. People, by and large _do_ have a framework in which they work in, and make decisions on. Maybe the alignment system cant capture it, but its better then nothing. If its used as a guide, and not an absolute, it is not a bad thing to have. It provides an opportunity for RP, and a general guide for a DM. That is always a good thing. I like being able to see PCs and decide what events I can run, given their alignments...

[thinkpig]

What I find most interesting about alignment discussions is that many people seem to view alignments as something to be defined by the characters that "fit" that alignment, which I find arsy-versy.

To me, it just seems more natural to portray a character, and let the alignment follow. It's never going to be perfect, and there may be changes, but a "change" is not an inconsistency - ideally, any alignment adjustment (I hate the word "hit", because some people tend to treat it like that - (seldom) reward and (frequently) punishment for straying from some notion of a narrow definition) just means you roleplayed in a memorable fashion, in a situation where alignment does not suffice to catch all the complexities of a three-dimensional character.

I don't think being "true" to one's alignment should be a goal at all. Certainly never when it contradicts vital character traits of the envisioned persona. It's just complicated by DnD where some mechanics are based on it, but I still think that alignment should be an attempt to broad-brushedly capture the complex moral and ethical fibre of the character described, not a category that the character has to follow.

Cheers,

I like what you've said here-- But rather than a goal, I think of my alignment as a tool for me to weigh my choices against.

My Aurilian, Gibreel, was neutral evil. He was a selfish and cunning ranger (16 int) who grew up in Nashkel, on the edge of a nation that is racist against elves (Amn) growing up with the uneducated children of miners who alienated and abused him. While the upbringing fostered the hateful individualistic NE core of the character, he would have gladly given his life for anyone in the cult of Auril, who were the only family and affection he ever knew. And if he were ever given power over the fate of an abused half-elf child, total alignment change may have been possible in the character.

As it is, he and Holly sacrificed their firstborn son to Auril, because Auril doesn't take male priestesses, and we were utterly devout children of the frostmaiden.

Gibreel would have told you that he was lawful good, if you showed him the alignment system. He'd say he followed a strict personal code of quenching fires, which make men weak, of never eating cooked food of any kind, that he was an ascetic, bonafide holy man and protector of nature. He was a hypocrite, but a sincere one.

[Zelknolf]

Would that apply to a baby devil? (assuming there is such a thing) Or a baby Yuan Ti? Black Dragon? Illithid? See my point? Its all gray. And yeah I can see the shift points.

Interestingly, D&D totally handles this. Creatures that are "always evil" (like demons, devils, undead, or chromatic dragons) don't get treated the same as creatures that are "usually evil" (like kobolds, goblins or orcs). The description in the books states that the former group is evil by nature, while the latter group is evil by culture. (e.g. an orc raised by good guys will probably learn the values and habits of good guys; a black dragon raised by good guys will probably melt their faces off and pickle whatever's left, then eat the bodies while the other children watch).


So, on that list, you're not allowed to kill the baby yuan'ti or illithid. You are allowed to kill the baby black dragon. Also a baby devil if one happened to exist somehow (but current sources say they don't; devils are ageless).

[thinkpig]

Illithids do not have babies, they are abberants grown from epic illithid brain hive... uh... things. They're sort of like the Bene Tleilaxu in Dune

[Galadorn]

Lots of great points about how alignment should not be the guide to /all/ RP of any PC. But this is a game, and everyone has different opinins about how to play it and how to interpret the 'rules', and everyone has a lot of freedom to also make a lot of choices. In this game, alignment is still part of the "rules", and for me if you one day play a Paladin, and die, you can roll up a new PC say a cold blooded assassin the next day. Two days... and you, the same person IRL, go from a Lawful Good to a Chaotic Evil PC. We're allowed to do that no problem. I suppose the player thinks many different ideas for PCs are interesting and fun to play. And in this game, with rules, it is kind of 'cool'/'fun' to "portray" a certain PC-class for yourself and for the fun (approval?) of all the other players playing their PCs in the game world... so... we play on.

but, are we... 'supposed' to accept and act accordingly to even an alignement restriction as strict as a Paladin's? Most say "No based on IC situations."... but others would say: "You picked Paladin, you must adhere no matter what."

These alignment-hardwired (supposedly? say the rules?), like Paladin (and the old 'must-be-TN' Druid), have set rules in our game system that say you /must/ adhere to an alignment ideal (like how druids now just must have "neutral" in their alignment somewhere), or, the mentioned specific extreme, like how Paladins must remain LG or lose their powers. So, to be a Paladin in D&D, wether you think alignment is supposed to be your PC guide or not, you as a player if you want to play a Paladin that keeps her powers... then you must use LG as your RP guide. Now, all kinds of moral decisions will appear in game - and if you say to yourself: "This is what my LG Paladin would (should?) do. I don't agree IRL or want to do that, so I won't." --- is that an INFRACTION of the "game rules"... ? Most would say: "No, "I" can do what i want, it's my PC." ....Or, is every PC just NOT supposed to be hardwired into an alignment and can move up and down the scale on a whim, since some believe alignment is not the "rule" but a background stat that needs not be adhered to "not seriously"....? Know what I mean? All depends who you are. We are, apparently, allowed to roll a PC and plan the future (sort of). Example: "I want to make a Paladin that does fall from grace and eventualyl ask for approval for a Blackguard." Well that poor Paladin, from the start is a 'doomed-Paladin'... the player knows and may or may not tell anyone. So, how does that affect the other players and PCs around? What a shame! Everyone that Paladin interacts with, "expects" that PC to act a certain way... so puts 'faith' in a 'certain' strain of behaviors, possibly placing their lives in that PC's hands more than once, and poof, one day, that players decideds 'now's a good time', and holding the last rope of the suspension bridge as the rest of the party dashes across, he makes one final anti-prayer to Tyr telling him to get bent, and drops the rope killing 4 other PCs and a rare purple turtle at the bottom of the chasm - PC turns evil - more RP happens over a long while - PC becomes a Blackguard. Sweet. Great PC development! Your are not required (at all apparently) to adhere to your strict PC alignment restriction, because we have freedom to play any class or race or alignment and you 'just wanted' to decide when you go from the expected LG to CE in one drop of the rope. (poor turtle).

If you CHOOSE to play a Paladin... but you are in fact at heart in real life a Neutral Evil person, or hells, even you just might be having a bad day in real life... but you made this Paladin. He's LG. He's "supposed" to act LG. Do LG things. In the game world. So, can you just say: "I don't use RP as a guide for my PC actions.", and just go ahead and do anything? Or 'should' even you, the owner of that LG Paladin, RP with respect to the alignment a Paladin must have?

Some might say for "some" classes they "should"....or god forbid, ..."have to"?

hmmmm... I know a lot people here are sitting back saying to themselves: "Nobody gonna tell me how to RP my PC.".... and this is why when a DM is watching, if something is done against a PC's /actual alignment/, that PC might get a small to large "alignment adjustment". But if someone thinks Paladin is a "cool class to play, why not this time?", and rolls a Paladin... I think for especially that PC, who's powers are governed specifically due to respecting the LG ideal, that that player IS required to RP/act in game towards that specific extreme end of ultimate good. Again there is a lot of lee-way here since the game we play is so open for so much variation in everything that is possible, and with so many different and unique new personalities walking around and bumping into each other.

We want freedom to develop our PCs of course, and one of the big ones, everyone loves to see and especially play, and that opens waves of awesome options for further exciting RP is that "fall from grace" idea. Done a few times already i'm sure. It's also fully acceptable, since we /are/ in control of our PCs and are not restricted to doing such a thing.

I personally hope that if a player rolls any PC, that he/she plays THAT PC. If it's a Paladin for a few levels, then /be/ that Paladin, and go the Blackguard route only if the situations presented in game make sense for that PC to actually move out of LG, ...i just don't like a LG Paladin dropping the rope so to speak to fullfill some predetermined path to become a blackguard without real good and hopefully long term RP that "leads" that way.

[Rumple C]

reads the thread

eyes glaze over

[Ithildur]

reads the thread

eyes glaze over

*grin* This is tame compared to people over on the GITP forums debating morality/alignment of not just DnD characters but different game systems as well as the popular OOTS comic characters.

The author himself takes various liberties from core DnD definitions of alignment for his own worlds which is fine obviously, and he's aware that he's doing so and has explained his views multiple times. There's still a few people over there that completely ignore both his explanations of his own characters' actions as well as SRD definitions of alignments and wildly go off on their own extrapolations, firmly convinced they are right "Tarkin isn't that bad" "Varsuuvius is utterly and irredeemably evil" "All paladins are like Miko" etc etc