56 réponses à ce sujet

[Tchos]

I thought Pilates were an exercise that involved excessive handwashing after sentencing innocent men to death...  In that regard, it might fit for an evil-themed module.

[Nemo_Studio]

Oh yeah XD "Toot" not "Tooth".

 

I tend to see evil quantified as something that threatens the survival requirements of an individual or a group. I.e. something resulting in death (murder), inhibiting people from supporting their metabolism (food/water/clothing/shelter/motility/senses/&c.), or preventing reproduction (forced sterilization or maiming). But that does make it all a matter of perspective, of course. In the D&D sense, Law-vs-Chaos is favoring the requirements of the group or the individual, respectively.

 

The way I interpret alignments:

 

Good: Empathy (The extreme would be Hyper-empathy)

Neutral: Apathy (The extreme would be sociopathy or psychopathy.)

Evil: Antipathy (The extreme would be: Psychosis, Antipathy Disorders.)

 

Lawful: Conformist

Neutral: Neutral toward conformism

Chaotic: Anti-conformist

 

Given my way of seeing alignments, the most dangerous alignment, for me, would be "true neutral". They don't give a f*ck and do whatever they want to achieve their goals (See "Saemon Havarian" from BG2). They can do virtuous things, when it benefit them, like saving a cat from a tree to gain good publicity, and they can do horrible things, like enact mass enslavement or massacres, for their own gain. Not out of hate like "Evil" characters, but out of "Out of F*ck to Give*.

 

This is why, in my mod, being neutral allows you, in most cases, to do either evil or good, as you see fit.

[Dann-J]

I also tend to allow neutral characters access to both good and evil options in my conversations. However I tend to see true neutral as relatively benign. They may not actively try to help you, but at least they won't actively try to harm you for no reason. They're usually concerned with maintaining a balance that is probably better in the long-term than the ambitions of either good or evil factions.

 

Personally, I consider chaotic characters of any alignment to be the most dangerous. At least other alignments tend to be predictable. D&D is about cooperating together as a party. Unpredictable party members have a tendancy to get people killed.

[-Semper-]

That's strange all of a sudden I can't do my karate properly was it because I didn't listen to the city watch, I'd better go and help the mayor."

 

lawful doesn't mean you have to be a do-gooder.

[Jezla]

As a module builder, I don't like limiting the player's options based on what alignment they may be.  I do, however, think that alignment is a reflection of a character's actions, so where appropriate I may put an alignment shift in.  I try to keep them fairly rare, as it's no fun to have your alignment change just because you choose the meanie's dialogue option.

[-Semper-]

It's all a matter of interpretation and that's not a good game feature to have when it can penalise the player for not seeing things the same way as the writer.

 

yup. that's why i would never integrate alignment shifts. choosing your alignment at character creation is enough to form the role you want to play. shifting points around because you pick a line of dialogue always felt wrong, especially if the module builder clearly misinterpreted the whole system.

[kamal_]

Im in favor of no alignment shifts in general (Paladins kicking cute kittens for no particular reason excepted). My view is that is hard for me to judge the motivation the character has for the choice (of words/actions). Something nominally good or evil could simply be against a pc's moral code. The example I use is the pc in Path of Evil can elect to free slaves they find because while they are evil, they feel that people should not be slaves. Maybe slavery is more evil than they are willing to be, maybe they are individualistic and feel individuals should have choice that slavery doesnt give them. They'd rather have paid help that wont just run to help the heroes who showed up in the castle.

[Lugaid of the Red Stripes]

I think it's a waste of time for a builder to go through a lot of trouble to restrict players, if the alignment system is to be used, it should be to enable the player to do something they otherwise couldn't.  Restricting conversation options, for example, will probably just go unnoticed unless the player happens to replay the same module with a different PC with a different alignment.

 

It would be better to try to attach some sort of bonus to alignment shifts (of course, over-powered classes with restrictions should be their own sort of bonus).  Maybe place a handful of NPCs in the module that will help the PC in some way if their alignment is just right.  That way, the builder can have each NPC explain the alignment system in their own terms, regardless of what the 'true' meaning of the alignment system actually is.

[Nemo_Studio]

I also tend to allow neutral characters access to both good and evil options in my conversations. However I tend to see true neutral as relatively benign. They may not actively try to help you, but at least they won't actively try to harm you for no reason. They're usually concerned with maintaining a balance that is probably better in the long-term than the ambitions of either good or evil factions.

 

Personally, I consider chaotic characters of any alignment to be the most dangerous. At least other alignments tend to be predictable. D&D is about cooperating together as a party. Unpredictable party members have a tendancy to get people killed.

 

 

I don't know. You can count on a turbulent ***hole to be a turbulent ***hole, but somebody which range of reactions goes from being nice to be a complete monster worry me much, much more. You shouldn't trust "neutral" people; the word "neutral is, in that context, almost a misnomer: they are not "neutral", they are on whatever side they have chosen to be. The LN knight will kill you without a second thought if his lord order him to do so, the TN druid will kill you with little mercy if he think you desecrated nature an the CN will kill you to take your gold purse. They don't hate you, they just don't care about anything else but their personal interests, be it duty, spirituality or just plain greed. Empathy is not much of a factor for LN TN or CN.

 

If I was in an D&D like universe and alignments would be a thing, I'd try to stick with "Good" aligned people. The rest just can't be trusted, even LN or LE. They'd both play on words to get whatever they'd want out of me.

 

CG, even if potentially troublesome, mean well and won't stab you in the back for gain (CN) or thrills (CE), but they may lie to protect you or do something that would benefit you in your back. They may be cheats but you can trust them to do the empathic thing like rigging a wager with a rich man to be able to feed their family.

 

Beside Chaotic doesn't mean "Without a plan" or "Witless", Robin Hood is a good example of that. It means to be anti-conformist, to reject society's rules.

[kamal_]

 

You shouldn't trust "neutral" people;

 

Zapp_Brannigan.gif

[Dann-J]

 

I don't know. You can count on a turbulent ***hole to be a turbulent ***hole, but somebody which range of reactions goes from being nice to be a complete monster worry me much, much more. You shouldn't trust "neutral" people; the word "neutral is, in that context, almost a misnomer: they are not "neutral", they are on whatever side they have chosen to be. The LN knight will kill you without a second thought if his lord order him to do so, the TN druid will kill you with little mercy if he think you desecrated nature an the CN will kill you to take your gold purse. They don't hate you, they just don't care about anything else but their personal interests, be it duty, spirituality or just plain greed. Empathy is not much of a factor for LN TN or CN.

 

If I was in an D&D like universe and alignments would be a thing, I'd try to stick with "Good" aligned people. The rest just can't be trusted, even LN or LE. They'd both play on words to get whatever they'd want out of me.

 

CG, even if potentially troublesome, mean well and won't stab you in the back for gain (CN) or thrills (CE), but they may lie to protect you or do something that would benefit you in your back. They may be cheats but you can trust them to do the empathic thing like rigging a wager with a rich man to be able to feed their family.

 

Beside Chaotic doesn't mean "Without a plan" or "Witless", Robin Hood is a good example of that. It means to be anti-conformist, to reject society's rules.

 

 

The point is that true neutral characters will neither help nor harm you unless you get in their way. If you don't bother them, they won't bother you. Unlike an over-zealous lawful good paladin, who will slaughter you in an instant if they think you're an enemy of their faith. I don't think true neutral characters lack empathy either. I think they have to look beyond such concerns in order to maintain a balance. That doesn't mean they *like* having to put other considerations above empathy though.

 

Neutral good or neutral evil characters are probably very different though (the latter would certainly lack empathy).

 

I'd trust lawful evil over chaotic good any day. At least lawful evil is predictable. You're likely to get a better outcome making a water-tight deal with a lawful evil devil than if you accepted the word of a chaotic good fey creature. Provided you didn't leave any ambiguous loopholes in the devil's contract, of course. No matter what agreement you have with a chaotic creature, they could renege on it at any moment. They also have a tendancy to ignore instructions or advice on a whim.

 

'Chaotic' means 'unpredictable'. Robin Hood certainly wasn't chaotic - in fact, quite the opposite. He had a strict code of conduct that made his motivations highly predictable. I'd probably classify him as neutral good. He wanted to help others but he couldn't do it within the constraints of the law, because the local authorities were lawful evil. Had the authorities been lawful good, he'd almost certainly have obeyed the law himself. He'd probably have tolerated neutral good or true neutral authorities as well, provided they treated people fairly.

[Arkalezth]

Neutral stuff.

I disagree about your views on neutral characters, and this proves what others said about alignments having different interpretations.

I won't go into a lot of detail for that reason, but neutral doesn't mean (at least, not necessarily, though I suppose it's a possibility, as silly as it sounds) doing something very good today and something very evil tomorrow. To me, and if I had to sum it up in a sentence, it mostly means not being an extremist, neither a saint nor a devil. Which probably applies to most people in real life.

"Killing you to take your gold purse" is the definition of evil. A good character is, of course, less likely to do that than a neutral one, but that doesn't mean that the neutral one is likely to do it at all. "Killing someone who desecrated nature" doesn't have to end with a death either... I suppose it depends on how "desecrative" that person has been. Same could apply to a good druid, the same way a lawful good paladin might sometimes kill for dubious reasons.

Probably most of my characters are some kind of neutral, and I think I play them well. You put some examples, but those are just that, some examples. It doesn't mean that you can't play a neutral character who is trustworthy and/or totally different than those types.

[Dann-J]

I just took this online alignment test, and it suggests that I'm chaotic neutral. I would have guessed lawful evil. It seems I'm a lot less lawful and slightly less evil than I thought.

[Arkalezth]

Slaying puppies always serves a purpose. The test's page doesn't load for me.

 

Edit: I did the first page of this one for the sake of it (I got bored afterwards, which I suppose is chaotic or something ), and I got "true neutral, 8.3% evil, 0% lawful".

 

*High fives Tsongo in a not too excited, nor too apathetic fashion.*

[kevL]

no test needed : Chaotic Good

 

i loathe heirarchies and kiss ****** puppies!

 

 

 

 

[edit] Lol

[Luminus]

A SoZ-party mod featuring an unruly band of Underdark plotters could be fantastic fun.

 

I actually think low-level full party creation could work a lot more effectively in terms of coming up with a good 'evil' module. Because then that does prevent the problem Iveforgotmypassword talks about, where the evil player always wants more than the plot can possible provide (well, why can't I murder Lord Nasher and seize Neverwinter for myself?).

 

When you're playing in the guise of an assembled group of several cut-throats, hedge necromancers, thieves, murderers and cultists, restricting the extent of the player's possible villainy can make a lot more sense.

 

Because no matter whether the party's been hired as mercenaries in an ongoing war or they're all seeking revenge on the local lord who sentenced them to death, it then allows the plot opportunities to be a more low-key kind of evil, centred around the entire group getting what they might just about be able to unanimously agree that they all want, rather than the more unilateral and limitlessly villainous 'Hey, why can't I eat this guy's soul? Actually, why can't I eat everyone's souls?'

I actually made a Drow only "Raid Party" in SoZ. Six drow, each class corresponding to one of the Dark Seldarine, with the Bard being the only good one.

In the beginning, I RPed it as being under disguise with magic or makeup (like Drizzt was doing) and their "purpose" was to establish a base in the surface. Gaining power and money for their House.
In the end, they "returned" with lots of money, power and artifacts, while having a powerful base in the surface.

[Elrith Galadon]

Slaying puppies always serves a purpose. The test's page doesn't load for me.

 

Edit: I did the first page of this one for the sake of it (I got bored afterwards, which I suppose is chaotic or something ), and I got "true neutral, 8.3% evil, 0% lawful".

 

*High fives Tsongo in a not too excited, nor too apathetic fashion.*

 

Maybe you should slay more puppies and pray to the god of internet to load the page. 

 

Got true neutral. 

[Tchos]

I'm neutral good.

[Arkalezth]

Maybe you should slay more puppies and pray to the god of internet to load the page.

After a few sacrifices, the page loaded. I got chaotic neutral.

[Nemo_Studio]

Slaying puppies always serves a purpose. The test's page doesn't load for me.

 

Edit: I did the first page of this one for the sake of it (I got bored afterwards, which I suppose is chaotic or something ), and I got "true neutral, 8.3% evil, 0% lawful".

 

*High fives Tsongo in a not too excited, nor too apathetic fashion.*

 

Heh, I got the neutral good on that one (You are 61.1% Good. You are 10.3% Lawful.). I'm goodass  , but not by much guess. I liked the test.

 

 

My point is that SANE, well-adjusted and empathic people are, in D&D's, "Good" aligned. Normal people are "Good", but may not always are able to express their true nature.

 

Good and evil are subjective and putting values on them is to be biased; Good is what one wants and evil is what one do not wants. Consequently, when it come to ethics, D&D has a romantic bias. It considers "empathy" (The paladin giving part of his hard-earned loot to charity.) as "good", in other word as something "Desired", and it considered "antipathy" (Like an evil rogue throwing a sack of puppies in the lake for sh*t and giggles in front of orphans that just wanted to adopt them.) as "Evil", in other words as something "Undesired".

 

The bias, in this case, isn't a bad thing. Its a narrative device which creates entertaining fictional universes which physical laws, or rather metaphysical laws, are empathic to its inhabitants' ethic. Evil guys (Psychotics aggressive types) lives in horrible wastelands and use foul, twisted magic, (Cooperative, nice understanding people.) Good guys live in harmonious villages (That'll get razed by evil guys, giving a reasons for the PC to become a warrior to get revenge.), using holy and righteous magic. Of course, in D&D, things are not always that obvious, thank god, writers will mix up things to keep things interesting, but it does give to DMS and PCS, a handy frame of reference for characters' pathos, psychology and motives.

 

Neutral, from the good and evil spectrum of D&D alignment system, are an extremely complex issue. Because unlike *Politically* neutral (Hated by our friend Zapp Brannigan.), *ethically* (Note the subtlety.) neutral people do not care about D&D's "Good" (Empathy) or D&D's "Evil" (Antipathy). They care about something else which could be anything (Themselves, religion, money, politic or "SCIENCE!"). Empathicaly (Is that even a real word in English?) neutral people are extremely dangerous because they have NO innate notion of "Empathy and Antipathy". They do not have a "Black and White" (Racist, I know.) morality, but a "Orange and Blue" morality.

 

The LN Cop, who cares only about laws, will arrest you if you steal bread to feed your family even if it means to send you to an horrible prison for decades where you won't be able to care for your family members and they will die. He didn't do it just to be a dick, he did it to uphold his cherished notion of law.

 

The TN Lawyer, who always seeks ways to augment his wealth, will forge documents to cheat somebody out of all their inheritance, not because he hates the system or hates the person they are cheating. He feel no antipathy toward his victim nor does he disapproves of the judicial system since he knows how to take advantage of it. He just saw a occasion to make himself richer and took it.

 

The CN Revolutionary libertarian anarchist, who feels that surrealistic that egoistic approaches are the only way to express himself, will decide to, like Breton once described the surrealist movement, "pick a gun and shoot at random in a crowd". He isn't doing this out of hatred, he does it to reject society's conventions, to the detriment of other people's well-being, because empathy is not a factor for him.

 

I think our problem is purely cosmetic. The word "Neutral" sounds meek, impassioned, passive and, most wrongful of all, "Balanced" (I call BS on that, F* the red robes.). I really like how the Planescape handle the issue of calling their books which subject were the outer planes (Magical lands that incarnate all Alignments). They divided the planes into three books, from which two were named in a straightforward way: "Plane of Chaos" for the chaotic planes, "Plane of Law" for the Lawful planes. But, for the "Neutral" planes, they opted for a different approach because, I think, of the "wet towel" effect the word "Neutral" has. They called this book "Plane of Conflict" which, for me, fits the *true* nature of those who's ethics (And not politics. Don't call me Zapp   .) are neutral toward the concept of D&D's "Good" (Empathy) and D&D's "Evil" (Antipathy).

 

TL;DR Version: In short, what I'm saying is that while Evil characters are Bastards, Neutral characters are absolute d-bags.

[rjshae]

I'm apparently Lawful Neutral.

 

Thought I was NG. Figures.