Roleplaying/Alignment Dilemmas

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Originally posted by Q'alooaith: Evil, Looking (sic) out for number one, that's the prime motive of the evil person nothing matter's (sic) appart (sic) from the self and things that benifit (sic) the self.

I disagree. Are evil characters incapable of loving? Sacrifice? I think that you're a bit too busy yelling at us to think creatively. This is why we're having this discussion. Hardly anybody, character or no, is without feeling, or mercy. An evil alignment does not a black heart make.

[ 01-21-2005, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: Illumina Drathiran'ar ]

[Q'alooaith]

You don't listen to me so why should I listen to you?

I did not say that evil char's where unable to love, and so on

Your just looking to try and poke hole's in the basic stucture I constructed.

Look at what I've posted, alignments should not be used to drag you down a route you don't want to go, but they do suggest certain things about each charactor..

Evil charactor's are out for themselves, this is why they are evil their prime motivation is the self..

Now, this does not rule out an evil charactor from falling in love, saving innocent lives and so on, because these actions and diffrences are what make it your charactor..


Realy, if picking your alignment made all the choices for you, what fun would that be?


I could say this a thousand times and somone would still say "but your wrong", and to them I say I don't give a flying ferret.

[LennonCook]

Originally posted by Q'alooaith: Lennon, before I rip you to shreads let me point out..

shreads?

Keldorn is Lawfull good, when somone is "good" they believe in higher laws, whereas lawful believes in the law of the land and keeping order (imagine law as opposed to chaos, so it must also include order and so on)

Again, I disagree. I see Lawful Good as helping others even at the expense of the self (= good), only where the law does not explicitly disallow it, and especially when the law requires it (= lawful).

I just stopped reading there because you're not willing to see my point of view.

It's not a matter of "I don't see your point of view", but rather of "I hold a different point of view". You have a right to have and post opinions, and I have a right to disagree with them. You are trying to say I don't have a right to disagree with you. Why? The most obvious reason is becauase you don't have a good counter argument, but you still want to argue. Now, I'm sure you don't want people to think that your ability to respect other opinions is as bad as your spelling...
The ideal of netiquette tells us that if you disagree with someone, you should argue their points rather than their motives, or that particular person; and that if you can't do that, you should refrain from posting. And now we've both had our fair share of breaking that ideal, let's get this discussion back on track shall we?

[LennonCook]

Originally posted by Q'alooaith: Look at what I've posted, alignments should not be used to drag you down a route you don't want to go,

Exactly.

but they do suggest certain things about each character..

The way they work in this game, yeah, they do. But realy, this isn't ideal: your alignment should describe you, rather than defining you. Alignment ideally is not a justification for an action, but rather a tool to describe your actions and determine how other people might see you. Infact, I've posted once before that I see everything on the record screen as being this way - simply a tool for describing actions and determining things from them. But that is for another thread.

[Jerr Conner]

Another way to go around Alignment is to have other characters do stuff occassionally, du to their alignment.

[Cerek]

Since we're having a discussion about alignments, here are a couple of examples from the PnP days that give good examples of how someone could do something seemingly outside their alignment. Both examples center on paladins, who are by definition, Lawful Good.

1) In the AD&D comic series, one of the primary characters was a paladin. But he had a serious character flaw. He was an alcoholic. He upheld the ideals of good and law on a daily basis, but he would get roaring drunk every night. While that may not specifically violate the Lawful Good alignment, it certainly is not the type of behavior the commoners expect to see from a paladin. In the comics, he did suffer because of his affliction. In Issue#1, he was fighting an evil wizard (or fighter/wizard) and got hit with a Rod of Wilting - which permanently reduced his Strength to 3! He eventually got some Guantlets of Ogre Power and - much later in the series - finally managed to redeem himself and regain his natural strength.

In game terms, the losing of his Strength would have been the DM's "punishment" for acting in a manner unbecoming of a paladin.

2) In Dragon magazine several years ago, a DM was describing the actions of a paladin in the party playing under him. At the end of the adventure, the party was approached by a dryad. Several members were injured and the dryad immediately starting trying to Charm various party members. The paladin was basically the only one that could stop her attempts, but since he didn't know what she would try to make the Charmed characters do, he really couldn't justify attacking and killing her. Finally, he just punched her square in the nose, which caused her to run away. The DM penalized the paladin some XP points for his action, but said that he later decided he had been wrong. The paladin had ended a potentially dangerous situation without causing any permanent damage or harm to the offender. In hindsight, he had handled the situation the best he could.

I disagree with many of the opinions offered so far. Alignment does define your character and the actions he/she can be expected to take. You have a choice about which alignment to choose BEFORE you create the character. That means you should have already considered what the PC's personality and motivation will be - and you should then choose an alignment that is compatible with these factors. While alignments are "guidelines" (and are definitely subject to change during game play), they do define the actions your character can be expected to take and the game and/or DM is perfectly within their rights to punish or penalize a player that violates their chosen alignment.

[Jerr Conner]

However, what about NPCs? If you're truly rping to alignment, then if you're good wouldn't you inevitabely cave to the pressure of your party members? You may be the leader, but they have a say.

[Cerek]

Originally posted by Jerr Conner: However, what about NPCs? If you're truly rping to alignment, then if you're good wouldn't you inevitabely cave to the pressure of your party members? You may be the leader, but they have a say.

That would depend on what your alignment is and what your party members are pressuring you to do. The execution of Viconia is a good example. I don't recognise the diety of the cleric conducting the execution, but he does call her the Mistress of Mayhem, which is a pretty solid clue that she is an evil diety. Also Jaheira and Minsc both speak out against the execution. Jaheira is half-elven, so she would normally have an inbred hatred of drow and Minsc is a good-aligned ranger. If the two of them feel the execution is wrong, then that should be persuasive to any PC alignment other than Lawful Good. Keldorn is the only PC I know of that does not dissaprove of the execution, and his comments could persuade an LG character that the execution IS within the limits of the law.

It also depends on the class of your PC. Cavaliers in PnP were pretty arrogant and felt they were always right. At least that is how it is basically written in the UA. So a cavalier isn't going to be as willing to accept advice from party members as a different class would be. Again, that is based on general description. There are certainly plenty of players that would play a cavalier as more respecting of other opinions and could still keep his/her actions within the class and alignment restrictions.

Of course, none of these "restrictions" actually apply in BG2 unless you download and install the Virtue Mod. Otherwise, you can have a situation like SixOfSpades mentioned earlier where a Lawful Good kensai is leading a party made up of Korgan, Viconia and Edwin. Trust me, NO self-respecting PnP DM would allow THAT much alignment discrepency in a party. You might have ONE evil character and ONE LG character, but the two of them will not get along and the rest of the party will usually have to keep intervening between the two. That situation actually happened in the first campaign I ever played in. I started with a CG ranger, but found an item that eventually turned me to evil. The DM allowed me to keep my ranger abilities and I became a Stalker instead of a ranger. But our party leader was a paladin. I asked the DM (since I was a new player) if my character would stay in the group and (if so) would I allow the paladin to continue as leader. He said my Stalker didn't have to leave just because he didn't agree with the paladin and he said an evil character would be more than happy to let an LG paladin lead the way and be the first to take any damage. Still, our characters had several clashes and the party cleric had to actually cast Hold Person on my Stalker to keep me from attacking the paladin after one confrontation. My character eventually got killed before the paladin and I did come to blows, and my next ranger character managed to maintain his CG alignment. So it is possible for individual characters of opposite alignments to work together for a brief time. But it would be ridiculous for a DM to allow an LG character to be the leader of an entire party made up of evil characters. The party would never follow his orders and would most likely end up killing him in his sleep one night - provided the players actually roleplayed their characters.

[LennonCook]

Originally posted by Cerek: I disagree with many of the opinions offered so far. Alignment does define your character and the actions he/she can be expected to take. You have a choice about which alignment to choose BEFORE you create the character. That means you should have already considered what the PC's personality and motivation will be - and you should then choose an alignment that is compatible with these factors.

But, can't this change on a game-by-game basis? Isn't it the DM's decision whether you choose your alignment or not, whether you know your alignment or not, and even whether or not to use this alignment system?
I quite like the way Torment does it. You start of as True Neutral, and your alignment changes as you play depending on how you play. In this way, your alignment is a description of you rather than a definition.

While alignments are "guidelines" (and are definitely subject to change during game play), they do define the actions your character can be expected to take and the game and/or DM is perfectly within their rights to punish or penalize a player that violates their chosen alignment.

I agree about this - that a character may be "punished" for straying from their alignment - but for a very different reason. I will, as you did, take as an example the Paladin. Firstly, a disclaimer: I think Paladins should be lawful neutral, rather than lawful good. They follow the doctrines of their god in every situation, regardless of who that benifits or doesn't. Ofcourse, the counter to this that I often consider is that Lawful Neutral could be said to follow the letter of the law, while Lawful Good follows it's spirit (and Lawful Evil bends it, and finds loopholes in it, so the law can justify anything they choose to do). But anyway, Paladins are Lawful, from the perspective of their god (but may be chaotic from the perspective of the government, or to a paladin of another god)... I see their "fall" not as a punishment for straying from their alignment, but as a rejection from their god. In other words, it is a punishment from the god for breaking the law, rather than a punishment by the DM for straying from their alignment.

In this regard, I also think that Clerics should be Lawful Neutral from their god's perspective (although again, not necesarily from society's). Infact, I see a Paladin and a Cleric being much the same thing. I see a Paladin as simply being a Cleric with more of a tendancy to fight in their god's name destroying enemies and recruiting followers, while a Cleric will prefer to celebrate their god with existing followers. Infact, I see a Druid as simply being a Cleric of Nature. As such, I don't see the necesity of, or the sense in, seperating these three.

[shadowhound]

Originally posted by Cerek: That situation actually happened in the first campaign I ever played in. I started with a CG ranger, but found an item that eventually turned me to evil. The DM allowed me to keep my ranger abilities and I became a Stalker instead of a ranger. But our party leader was a paladin. I asked the DM (since I was a new player) if my character would stay in the group and (if so) would I allow the paladin to continue as leader. He said my Stalker didn't have to leave just because he didn't agree with the paladin and he said an evil character would be more than happy to let an LG paladin lead the way and be the first to take any damage. Still, our characters had several clashes and the party cleric had to actually cast Hold Person on my Stalker to keep me from attacking the paladin after one confrontation. My character eventually got killed before the paladin and I did come to blows, and my next ranger character managed to maintain his CG alignment.

Thats what I LOVE about P&P gaming, the sheer amount of roleplaying opertunities.