Player Alignments

[Crimson-Kobold]

This game was meant to be about RPing, about becoming the character, not playing yourself in someone else's skin with KEWL POWoRZ!!1!!!.

And what, may I ask, is wrong with that? If you want to play yourself in a fantasy setting, why not? Seems to be a perfectly reasonable way to play.

Also, there are other ways to play the game then hardcore RPing 110% of the time. You don't need to be so critical of people who don't meet up to your standards. Ease off eh?

IMO if people wanna play an evil ranger go for it as I can personally justify it. Unlike Female Paladins or Pally Assassins, or Half-Orc Pallys ... I just don't stand for that crap

Wait what? Female Paladins? What's wrong with that? Don't think I ever knew of such a restriction.

And I think the racial restriction was silly. It's basically just a Warrior version of a Cleric, and if other races can be Clerics, why not Paladins? That rule was merely a means to make humans more inviting to play since they generally had little going for them aside from zero restrictions.

Paladin Assassins. Why would you mention that? Yer a jonesing for a fight there

But it makes me laugh. I just envision a Paladin slaying the evil overlord, proud in his victory, only to have some bystander say "Say....wouldn't that be considered an assassination? Thought that's bad in your religion?" and before the Paladin can say "aw crappit", he's just a plain jane fighter.

Yes. The cunning use of words can strip Paladins of their divine gifts "no, it was fair combat!" "Still murder, you murderous jerk."

Ok I'll stop now....

[Jenara]

I decided I will make a different character. I played the Ranger as a Hunter. I should have just been a Fighter then. I should be ashamed of playing the ranger so horrible, I also remember telling Wizard he couldn't be anything, but good a long time ago and now I am here being Lawful Evil Ranger. Sorry Wizard, I will be a LG Fighter/Wizard. A challenge and something comfortable and give me XP penalties if I act out of character.

You don't have to do that... I'm just expressing an opinion. (along with everyone else ).

And just read the 4th rules... Gut reaction, didn't like them, sorry for bashing.

[TigerStripedDog]

And just read the 4th rules... Gut reaction, didn't like them, sorry for bashing.

Don't apologize, there is nothing to apologize for. We were not "bashing" anything about 4th edition. 4th Edition's alignment rules are DIFFERENT, and certainly more flexible. There are so many different classes and ways to play them that you can pretty much make anything you want. I don't like that, but it certainly fits more with what these players are doing.

This wasn't a put down, it was a legitimate suggestion, that I think might lead to more fun "gaming" than what they are currently doing (which is mangling a good system, that works, for no reason).

And what, may I ask, is wrong with that? If you want to play yourself in a fantasy setting, why not? Seems to be a perfectly reasonable way to play.

Everything and nothing is wrong with that. Everything in that its NOT role playing. You can't RP yourself, you are yourself. At that point you have changed it from an RP game to a choose your own adventure game. Dungeons and Dragons being a Role Playing Game (see rules) requires that you Role Play.

Nothing is wrong with it in that if thats how you want to play, and you have a DM who doesn't care about RP then fine, play that way. But don't pretend like you're RPing. Do what Jenara did, own up to it. I am sure we have all done this in some small way or another. Like I said, all of our characters are at least some % our personalities, it can't be avoided. But when you get to a certain % you have stopped RPing. If thats how you want to play, find another game, because the RULES of this GAME say that you can't or shouldn't be able to play LE Rangers... which really, if anyone here thinks he is a LE Ranger they are delusional. Mainly because I bet you don't have the stat requirements for it.

Also, there are other ways to play the game then hardcore RPing 110% of the time. You don't need to be so critical of people who don't meet up to your standards. Ease off eh?

My standards? These are the standards set forth in the rules. This is basic elementary stuff. If you want to debate the high standards that I do have we can get down to the nitty gritty of RP (character death, intercharacter romance, corruption of power, merits and flaws of in game alignment change...), thats probably something left for a better thread.

Whats worse, to leave RP out of it at all, which has been repeatedly suggested here is to remove the most fundamental part of this ROLE PLAYING game... the RP.

Wait what? Female Paladins? What's wrong with that? Don't think I ever knew of such a restriction.

Yeah... wait what? Why can't a female be a paladin?

And I think the racial restriction was silly. It's basically just a Warrior version of a Cleric, and if other races can be Clerics, why not Paladins? That rule was merely a means to make humans more inviting to play since they generally had little going for them aside from zero restrictions.

Again, I don't like this. The other races have advantages that are counterbalanced by the class restriction. It is also meant to show a certain cultural solidarity that I really think people should stick to a little better.

Paladin Assassins. Why would you mention that? Yer a jonesing for a fight there

Agreed.... of course I *believe* that everyone still on here fell on the same side of the fight last time we had it. That said, lets not find out.



Tiger

[Ismaels-Legacy]

LE Ranger???? I'm not even sure HOW you would go about doing THAT since I tend to think of LE as more urban, manipulative individuals who use others to meet their own ends. The very concept is so opposing a ranger that my brain melts just contemplating the concept!

[BryantTheSwordsman]

Lawful Evil doesn't have to follow the rules of everyone else (though he usesthem when he needs to). A LAwful Evil character could have a code that he follows, and will adhere to them strictly. The evil part is he only cares about his own cause and the furthering of it. A LE ranger could still be a protecter of the forest and he would protect it to his very last breath for it is code of conduct. This also means he does not care who he has to kill, manipulate, or torture to make sure the forest is protected. He might not kill children or kill in cold blood. (the kids don't know any better and to kill in cold blood is no fun). So he has a code of conduct, but doesn't care about anything else and the furthering of his goals.

[TigerStripedDog]

And what, pray tell, stat would that be, Tiger? The above statement is a nice 'gamer' insult, but an insult none the less. Keep a civil tongue.

What are you talk about insult? Who did I insult IL, everyone and myself? There are stat requirements (in 2E at least, and I thought in 3E as well) that are pretty high... 13 str, 13 dex, 14 con, and 14 Wisdom? Thats pretty high.

The FACT is that there are unlikely to be any of us that meet or exceed those stats. If anyone here has that high opinion of themselves they should read about narcissism. I am not saying none of us have stats that are high... but that man? I doubt it. AND, even if we have those stats, what are the chances that we share a mystical bond with nature, animals, the gods, magic, or anything else required to be a ranger.

Cool your jets IL, I didn't insult anyone. I stated a realistic fact about everyone.

Tiger

[Ismaels-Legacy]

Sorry, dude. I took it wrong. The way I read it, I saw it as a jab at CK, saying that he didn't have a high enough Intelligence stat to play a LE Ranger. My bad.

Edit: after re-reading the whole thing, I see where you were going with it. Again, I apologize! I'm going to remove the my post and your response to it as a means of keeping the thread cleaned out.

Edit take Dos: Err....maybe I'll get Phindar to do it since this is his forum.

[Jenara]

And just read the 4th rules... Gut reaction, didn't like them, sorry for bashing.

Don't apologize, there is nothing to apologize for. We were not "bashing" anything about 4th edition. Tiger

This thread has way gone past the original subject so I'll keep this brief.

Tiger, ok look I do agree with most of what you said, BUT, I am more aware that these are our views, they are interpretations of a game, simple as, at the end of the day if someone wants to play a different version, or interpret the rules in a different way then let them.

Alignment is subjective, even in 2ed it seems, I was thinking about Die Hard for some reason, that the actions performed by John McLane could (and are in the book) considered not that actions of a Hero, he does things that most "Good" people would consider well... "Evil".

I'm not out to upset anyone, just express my views, I just get carried away.

Jen.

[greenknight]

Tiger, ok look I do agree with most of what you said, BUT, I am more aware that these are our views, they are interpretations of a game, simple as, at the end of the day if someone wants to play a different version, or interpret the rules in a different way then let them.

This is a key point. For my part, when a player wants to play a character I ask myself two questions. Is it balanced, and does it fit in my game setting? That last one is largely personal preference, unless you're using a published setting (and even then, most DMs adjust the setting a bit). So maybe in Cole's setting, Female Paladins are too weird, while in another DMs setting, Demihuman Paladins are relatively common.

TSR used to use the trademark "Products of your Imagination". That pretty much sums things up, but it's important to keep in mind that it's the DM's imagination which is most important for any given game. But different DMs imagine different things. And while those things might appeal to different people, it doesn't necessarily make one DM's imagined world "bad" and another's "good", except in the minds of individual players.

Alignment is subjective, even in 2ed it seems, I was thinking about Die Hard for some reason, that the actions performed by John McLane could (and are in the book) considered not that actions of a Hero, he does things that most "Good" people would consider well... "Evil".

Exactly. Most DMs have a pretty good idea of what kind of behavior falls into what alignment, but if you talk to different DMs you'll find that they do tend to disagree with each other about the specifics. For example, the 2nd Ed PHB equates Good with honesty. I disagree, and put honesty/dishonesty on the Law/Chaos axis. The way I see it, a CG character could lie, cheat and steal money from rich Evil people and still be Good aligned.

[Crimson-Kobold]

Everything and nothing is wrong with that. Everything in that its NOT role playing. You can't RP yourself, you are yourself. At that point you have changed it from an RP game to a choose your own adventure game. Dungeons and Dragons being a Role Playing Game (see rules) requires that you Role Play.

Roleplaying is simply playing a role. In this case, you would be imagining yourself in a fictional situation, so that one can find out... just what would you do in that situation. In fact, since our actions define who we are, it's not even yourself, but a character based on yourself. Ultimately, you are playing a role, regardless if the character is based on yourself or not.

My standards? These are the standards set forth in the rules. This is basic elementary stuff. If you want to debate the high standards that I do have we can get down to the nitty gritty of RP (character death, intercharacter romance, corruption of power, merits and flaws of in game alignment change...), thats probably something left for a better thread.

Whats worse, to leave RP out of it at all, which has been repeatedly suggested here is to remove the most fundamental part of this ROLE PLAYING game... the RP.

It's not a on or off thing. You make it sound like either you are or you're not.

But it's not so simple. You can have actor worthy roleplaying, which is too excessive for my tastes, you can have a moderately serious roleplay, semi serious, right down to roleplay lite. I would say that your level of roleplay doesn't fit the group in question. Wouldn't fit my group, I know that for sure. And there is certainly nothing wrong with that, hence why I think it's not fair to judge other groups for not playing at the level of roleplay that YOU expect of YOUR group.

There are many many levels of roleplay one can use, from the hardcore to the lite. And as a little bit to toss out, given some of the tones present, Edition doesn't matter in this. All the Edition does is dictate what actions are possible, nothing more.

Again, I don't like this. The other races have advantages that are counterbalanced by the class restriction. It is also meant to show a certain cultural solidarity that I really think people should stick to a little better.

It's an aribitrary rule. You can justify it for your setting anyway you want, but ultimately, that's how it started out. One that, barring setting lore, has little reason beyond the rules.

[TigerStripedDog]

Alignment is subjective, even in 2ed it seems, I was thinking about Die Hard for some reason, that the actions performed by John McLane could (and are in the book) considered not that actions of a Hero, he does things that most "Good" people would consider well... "Evil".

Certainly Alignment is subjective, really more to the DM and the group psychology than any individual (since you itnerract with the group with alignment).

But that doesn't mean it should be ignored. If I as the DM define what I believe that CG, or LG, or NG are I will demand that those characters with said alignments follow somwhere within their alignment (as I have defined). To shed alginment requirements at all, is ludicrous. Which I believe you agreed with.

Roleplaying is simply playing a role. In this case, you would be imagining yourself in a fictional situation, so that one can find out... just what would you do in that situation. In fact, since our actions define who we are, it's not even yourself, but a character based on yourself. Ultimately, you are playing a role, regardless if the character is based on yourself or not.

I have already explained that this isn't the case. Even imagining yourself in a fantastic situation is not Role Playing. Its a choose your own adventure, there are some similarities, but it is not role playing.

It's not a on or off thing. You make it sound like either you are or you're not.

But it's not so simple. You can have actor worthy roleplaying, which is too excessive for my tastes, you can have a moderately serious roleplay, semi serious, right down to roleplay lite. I would say that your level of roleplay doesn't fit the group in question. Wouldn't fit my group, I know that for sure. And there is certainly nothing wrong with that, hence why I think it's not fair to judge other groups for not playing at the level of roleplay that YOU expect of YOUR group.

There are many many levels of roleplay one can use, from the hardcore to the lite. And as a little bit to toss out, given some of the tones present, Edition doesn't matter in this. All the Edition does is dictate what actions are possible, nothing more.

This stuff is in the rules. Its not about my expectations, its about the actual game. Its about the spirit of the thing, how the game was meant to be played. And it is, unfortunately all too edition dependent. With every edition (including 2E) I have seen RP decrease in groups... drastically. Its almost a logrithmic curve. But we have covered that in other parts of this thread and other threads as well.

I guarantee that good RP will enhance every group. Whatever level you are used to, whatever amount of RP you have done before. I laid out a formula in another thread... if you break down your time in game, think 33.3% Fights and Dice, and 66.6% RP. Thats going to be your sweet spot. All of my best session, all of my best quests fall right about there.

It's an aribitrary rule. You can justify it for your setting anyway you want, but ultimately, that's how it started out. One that, barring setting lore, has little reason beyond the rules.

How do you get to declare that something is arbitrary? Where did that come from? That rule has TONS of meaning and reason. The logic in that rule is so clear cut that you'd think it was done with laser tools. The makers of the game didn't think it was arbitrary. Probably why that rule persisted for too long.



Tiger

[greenknight]

Everything and nothing is wrong with that. Everything in that its NOT role playing. You can't RP yourself, you are yourself. At that point you have changed it from an RP game to a choose your own adventure game. Dungeons and Dragons being a Role Playing Game (see rules) requires that you Role Play.

Even the 2nd Ed AD&D PHB disagrees with you there. Try reading "The Real Basics" right at the start of the book. I'll quote one little bit for you:

"It means that whenever the character is called on to do something or make a decision, the player pretends that he is in that situation and chooses an appropriate course of action."

You can go further than that example, and many people do by creating a whole different persona for specific characters. But you can also roleplay yourself, if you really want to.

If thats how you want to play, find another game, because the RULES of this GAME say that you can't or shouldn't be able to play LE Rangers...

That's how it is in AD&D, but both 3e and 4e allow LE Rangers. Palladium Fantasy also has Rangers which are very similar to D&D Rangers, except they can be of any alignment.

Which brings up an interesting point. D&D is strongly based on archetypes. There are no Evil aligned people with the powers of Rangers in AD&D because the rules say there aren't. But the rules do a very poor job of explaining exactly why all Rangers must be Good. And at least my imagination is good enough that I can imagine Evil Ranger types working.

Again, I don't like this. The other races have advantages that are counterbalanced by the class restriction. It is also meant to show a certain cultural solidarity that I really think people should stick to a little better.

Well yeah, but it just doesn't make any sense that Elves and Half-Elves can't be Rangers. Which they can't in the 1st Ed AD&D PHB. Now, you might say that in the 2nd Ed AD&D PHB, Elves and Half-Elves can be Rangers. That's because they wised up a bit in 2nd Ed and realized that several of the racial restrictions in the 1st Ed PHB were stupid. And then they wised up a lot more when 3e came out and removed nearly all the racial restrictions on character classes.

Or you could say that allowing more races to play particular classes is what breaks every edition of the game past 1st Ed.

Ultimately, each person is going to have their own opinion about which races should be allowed to take which classes. But just sticking to one point of view (even a 2nd Ed PoV) and saying that's universally right won't work for everyone. It won't even work from an AD&D perspective.

[Wizard_of_Wumbo]

Tiger! one thing you are not aware of is that we are playing PATHFINDER, same general rules with some slight modifications, and i think its more fun role-playing as a character that is unique and original in concept as well as personality rather than just another paladin of whoever, who happens to have a neat backstory and a nice moustache.

[Jenara]

Alignment is subjective, even in 2ed it seems, I was thinking about Die Hard for some reason, that the actions performed by John McLane could (and are in the book) considered not that actions of a Hero, he does things that most "Good" people would consider well... "Evil".

Certainly Alignment is subjective, really more to the DM and the group psychology than any individual (since you itnerract with the group with alignment).

But that doesn't mean it should be ignored. If I as the DM define what I believe that CG, or LG, or NG are I will demand that those characters with said alignments follow somwhere within their alignment (as I have defined). To shed alginment requirements at all, is ludicrous. Which I believe you agreed with.
Tiger

Ok, read the blog, it has my views on what the 9 alignments mean... Comment and give me your view. That goes for everyone. Doesn't matter what edition you play, tell me what it means to you.
Then we can see what we all think.

I tend to post my thoughts on some of the more talked about issues there.

[Tempest]

Certainly Alignment is subjective, really more to the DM and the group psychology than any individual (since you itnerract with the group with alignment).

But that doesn't mean it should be ignored. If I as the DM define what I believe that CG, or LG, or NG are I will demand that those characters with said alignments follow somwhere within their alignment (as I have defined). To shed alginment requirements at all, is ludicrous. Which I believe you agreed with.

I know that I'm going to be going out on a limb here, and stepping on a classic DnD convention, but I'm going to go ahead and say it: the alignment system, while a fun way to help define a character (I started back in second eddie too you know), is a rather clunky and, I think, inadequate.

I think morality, as it is portrayed in DnD is a fairly cut and dried endeavor. Kill orc good, kill villager bad. Beyond that, we as individuals bring certain expectations of alignment to the table as well, like GK's comments on the alignment axises.

Generally speaking, I found the alignment system to exist mostly as a leash. You may do this, you may not do that. Penalty if you act like outside that alignment.

And that is why I think the alignment system fails.

The most interesting form of characterization is seeing the changes in a character over time. Dynamic characters are the ones that hold on to us, because they, like us, change. Not only are dynamic characters more interesting, but they are also more realistic. Even the most honest people lie sometimes. The alignment system tends to be utilized to enforce how a character should be roleplayed. To me, its more of a hindrance then a help.

Beyond characterization considerations, I think the next biggest problem is how vague the concepts of lawful, neutral, chaotic, good, and evil can be, as far as they are defined in the core books. I can't get players at the same table to agree on these values, not to mention the scale of an internet forum. I think its more interesting and fruitful to focus on actions rather then how well one adheres to an arbitrary moral scale.

Now, I will admit, that, when it comes to roleplaying, mechanics, generally speaking, are irrelevant. If you have a group of people who like to roleplay, I don't care what system you hand them, they're going to find a way to nurse as much Rp out of their characters as they can.

But I still think that the alignment system tends to box in the thinking of player's morality concepts, and restrict character development rather then advance it.