448 réponses à ce sujet

[Lance Botelle]

<SNIP>What I had in mind were examples where there are NPCs who are known to be evil or about to do something evil. In cases like that, I like the PCs to be able to attack them peremptorily, without having to discuss it first, and other situations like that.

Hi Tchos,

Sorry, I missed this post .... That makes sense to me now. I agree. (Also, see next.)
 

Why would Neutral on the second axis be more likely to kill someone than Evil?  Does this also apply to Lawful Neutral and True Neutral being more likely to kill someone than Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil?

Hi Tchos,

Who are you asking this question? Because, I agree with you, in that I believe it takes somebody of "good" or "evil" persuasion to be more likely to kill somebody than one of neutrality. From this perspective, I believe any "neutral" based alignment is less likely to kill somebody than those with a "good" or "evil" tendency. Also, to help with this discussion, we also need to determine what exactly "evil" is. E.g. "Killing" in its broadest sense is an "evil" act. However, we know that there are times when "killing" is a "good" act. i.e. Killing evil is "good" by definition. 
 

I just don't see the point of prohibiting the entire alignment just because you could technically do that. Hell, you could even be lawful neutral/evil and go as rampant because you take your code to the extreme, etc.

Hi Arkalezth,

I think your comment may have been aimed at something I wrote ... forgive me if I have misunderstood. To respond to your comment, I would say that "prohibiting an alignment" can be valid if the world and module design dictate it to be so. (Also, I assume to mean prohibited to PCs only as opposed to all creatures.) E.g. A mod designed for Paladins to destroy a world of demons. There is no point permitting a player to create an evil PC.

Along the same lines, "alignment restrictions" may be necessary to fit within a world design for different/other reasons. However, the restriction can only be properly understood *if* every player also understands the implication of said restrictions. The problem with alignments in general, however, is that they differ in meaning according to ones own personal beliefs in what they should mean. I remember having some *long* debates about this topic (alignments) and it can get quite heavy. In many respects, if we recognise that the main differentiating alignment in many respects is one of good v evil, with chaotic or lawful tendencies, then we are normally on safe ground. The problem arises when we try to "imagine" or play a "neutral" trait, which (as much as I understand the sentiment) simply does not really play out well in a game (if played as it is meant to be played).

Sometimes, it is easier to give examples, so maybe that is something we can consider?

Cheers,
Lance.

[Arkalezth]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was referring to this:

Well, I've played with many pen and paper groups, but none of them ever allowed chaotic evil character alignments...

[Tchos]

I just don't see the point of prohibiting the entire alignment just because you could technically do that. Hell, you could even be lawful neutral/evil and go as rampant because you take your code to the extreme, etc.

 

That's not why it was done.  It was prohibited because chaotic evil characters don't get along well in a party of other alignments, and don't generally have any reason to complete the adventures we were playing.  Again, being chaotic evil does not mean killing randomly.  I said that random killing wasn't an issue because there were no chaotic evil party members, not that chaotic evil party members absolutely must kill randomly.  "I like what I eat" is not the same as "I eat what I like".

 

I also disagree that a lawful evil character would do so, since "uncontrolled" is not compatible with "lawful".  Unless your code is that the only law is that there is no law, which makes me wonder if you could even call it a code.  Neutral evil, sure.  But I have to expect it wouldn't happen as often that way as it would with someone aligned with a disregard for rules.

 

I went back and re-read my earlier statement, and I see how it may not have been clear, so I added an explanation to that post.

 

Who are you asking this question? Because, I agree with you, in that I believe it takes somebody of "good" or "evil" persuasion to be more likely to kill somebody than one of neutrality. From this perspective, I believe any "neutral" based alignment is less likely to kill somebody than those with a "good" or "evil" tendency.

 

I was asking you, but since you agree with that, I must have misunderstood you, and I withdraw the question.

[Lance Botelle]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was referring to this:

Ah! Thanks for that ... I missed that post of Tchos.

Cheers,
Lance.

[Lance Botelle]

I was asking you, but since you agree with that, I must have misunderstood you, and I withdraw the question.

Hi Tchos,

No problem ... I get a bit confused if I miss a post, but I think we are all thinking along the same lines.

Bottom line: A killing option is good if and when the PCs alignment and the situation warrants it. i.e. No indiscriminate killing conversation lines just to allow a player to kill for the sake of "combat" play. (Which is what my "joke" was aiming to demonstrate and got me onto alignments that may possibly allow such conversation lines ... alignments which I don't think make for viable playing options ... and "go against the spirit of D&D" in that sense.)

Cheers,
Lance.

[Dann-J]

I just don't see the point of prohibiting the entire alignment just because you could technically do that. Hell, you could even be lawful neutral/evil and go as rampant because you take your code to the extreme, etc.

 

Indeed. A 100% lawful character wouldn't hesitate to do whatever was necessary to uphold their fanatical views. A 100/100 lawful good character can be more dangerous than a 25/25 chaotic evil character, if you happen to get in the way of their convictions.

 

That's the problem with grouping alignments into just nine categories. A 100/100 fanatical lawful good character gets lumped in with a 75/75 lawful good character, even though the latter has at least some wiggle-room when it comes to reasoning with them.

 

Intelligence level should play an important part in determining behaviour. A highly intelligent chaotic evil character wouldn't go on an indiscriminate killing spree at the slightest provocation - although they might bide their time and take revenge in a more subtle way later if they feel they've been slighted. Whereas you really don't want to spill the drink of a low-intelligence chaotic evil half-orc while in a tavern, as they're likely to cave your skull in no matter who might be around to witness it.

[Arkalezth]

That's not why it was done.  It was prohibited because chaotic evil characters don't get along well in a party of other alignments, and don't generally have any reason to complete the adventures we were playing.

Fair enough.
 

I also disagree that a lawful evil character would do so, since "uncontrolled" is not compatible with "lawful".

Well, first of all, and just so it's clear, I said "could" - i.e. in the realm of possibility, but not necessarily likely. A tyrant governor can be lawful and kill by the thousands. A very strict judge can be lawful and punish every petty crime with death. A mafia boss can be lawful. OK, maybe it's not as extreme as "you exist, so you die", but the number of bodies on the way may be the same.

Probably going a bit off-topic here... probably not even talking about the same thing as Tchos anymore.

Edit: Dann might have explained it better. The word "fanatical" sums it up.

[Lance Botelle]

<SNIP>Intelligence level should play an important part in determining behaviour. A highly intelligent chaotic evil character wouldn't go on an indiscriminate killing spree at the slightest provocation - although they might bide their time and take revenge in a more subtle way later if they feel they've been slighted. Whereas you really don't want to spill the drink of a low-intelligence chaotic evil half-orc while in a tavern, as they're likely to cave your skull in no matter who might be around to witness it.

Hi Dann-J,

I always imagine intelligence as the guide that determines how well a creature carries out their natural alignment choices.

Probably going a bit off-topic here... probably not even talking about the same thing as Tchos anymore.

Hi Arkalezth,

Agreed, although I always find alignments an interesting discussion.

Cheers,
Lance.

[Tchos]

Well, I never meant to say that extreme examples can't exist.

 

And I definitely agree with Dann's Chaotic Stupid half-orc example.

[Lance Botelle]

Well, I never meant to say that extreme examples can't exist.
 
And I definitely agree with Dann's Chaotic Stupid half-orc example.

Hi Tchos,

Now, this begs the question to ask is there a correlation between being "stupid" and "chaotic" behaviour?

I know some may argue that may not be the case (think Klingons), but I still can't help but think there is one still. Perhaps, it's because we can associate a lack of wisdom relating to chaos rather than a lack of intelligence? e.g. Wiser Klingons are less chaotic perhaps?

Food for thought ..
Lance.

[Tchos]

Well, you can ask that, but I don't think I'll be the one to get into it. 

[Lance Botelle]

Well, you can ask that, but I don't think I'll be the one to get into it. 

LOL ... No, I agree. It's getting far too complex to think about any more.

Cheers,
Lance.

[Dann-J]

Now, this begs the question to ask is there a correlation between being "stupid" and "chaotic" behaviour?

 

 

I'd argue that people of low intelligence are more likely to blindly follow laws or conventions set down by others, whereas intelligent people capable of independent thought are those more likely to be perceived as chaotic. Intelligent people are more likely to flaunt convention, whereas people of low intelligence are more likely to conform. Some of the most destructive things are done by people who have good intentions, but who put little thought into the full consequences of their actions.

 

Chaotic behaviour isn't necessarily destructive. Things like flash mobs or yarn bombing are deliberately disruptive, but usually for the better.

[kevL]

but that leaves something out: Ambition.

i used to be surprised by what intelligent people can flagrantly ignore when it serves their agenda/ambition/etc.

[Dann-J]

but that leaves something out: Ambition.

i used to be surprised by what intelligent people can flagrantly ignore when it serves their agenda/ambition/etc.

 

People like that tend to have high intelligence, but low wisdom.

[kevL]

++

[kamal_]

An old Dungeon Masters Guide defined high intelligence/low wisdom as knowing smoking was bad for you (+ intelligence), but not stopping (- wisdom).

[Lance Botelle]

Hi All,

Just to throw this into the whole alignment equation .... bear with me with this ...

Is there such a thing a "darkness"? (I mean, it's just a lack of light, right?)

When considering some of these things, I do wonder how much of one thing we define is just a lack of something else (normally a lack of something positive). So, with respect to "evil" and "chaos", how much of that "negativity" is actually due to a lack of something "positive", rather than being an entity in and of itself.

e.g. Do we consider somebody "evil" because they lack much good? Is somebody "chaotic" because they lack self-discipline to observe a law?

Now, taking this to its extreme, "law", ideally is the result of a "good" source, although we also recognise that some "laws" are bad, but is that because the "law" is passed by somebody lacking "good"?

Perhaps a deeper question (and one that I try to look at in my D&D story, "Deep Within" https://onedrive.liv...890A9181FA!1692), is to ask whether "pure evil" can exist as its own entity? Especially, if we consider degrees of "evil" may be considered lack of degrees of goodness about a person.

EDIT: Of course, in a D&D environment, we have the "negative plane of existence", which tries to play a "definitive" slant on something that may not be quite as definitive as reality may otherwise suggest.

Just thinking aloud.
Cheers,
Lance.

[kamal_]

You're not evil if you simply lack good, you'd be neutral or evil depending. Good and evil are positive concepts, that is you have to have some of them, rather than negative concepts where you have to lack the opposite. Thus a cow is neutral since it lacks both good and evil, while a demon is evil because it lacks good and has evil. You can also get neutral from a balance of good and evil.

[Lance Botelle]

You're not evil if you simply lack good, you'd be neutral or evil depending. Good and evil are positive concepts, that is you have to have some of them, rather than negative concepts where you have to lack the opposite. Thus a cow is neutral since it lacks both good and evil, while a demon is evil because it lacks good and has evil. You can also get neutral from a balance of good and evil.

Hi Kamal,

I know that is the D&D position .... I don't necessarily agree about "evil" being a "positive" concept. Maybe a "negative" force, which is why words like "suck" or "drain" seem fitting when talking about "evil". But, that would be more fitting with "evil" being a "lack of something" ... a bit like a large hole. i.e. A hole is defined by the earth around it, even though it itself is not actually anything.

Using your examples, a "neutral cow" is "neutral" (in my opinion) not because it has any "evil" within it, but because it lacks a degree of "good" that enables it to do anything that qualifies as "good". However, this also begs the question whether creatures (other than the main races) can even qualify as having a "moral nature" that can even have a qualification of an alignment. In this sense, "neutral" is fitting because it is a substitution for any kind of real alignment, being of good or evil.

The above reasoning can also be used to disqualify a neutral position being one made from "equal amounts" of "good" and "evil". The concept seems a little absurd unless viewed purely as a "D&D mechanic" ... but that is why the games mechanics sometimes causes problems with personal interpretation of the alignment rule because we (as human beings) do not think mechanically when we consider good and evil in our own lives.

The example of the demon is the only one with which I struggle because it does appear to display "existence", which would not be the case if it were pure evil. (That is the point behind my book I mention above by the way.) And, while trying to observe other posters sensitivities regarding the matter, when we look at our own reality, and the "source of evil", we find that even the devil/satan was said to be a fallen angel. i.e. They came from something that was "good" originally. Now, this does open up a huge can of worms with respect to our own reality and why there is "evil" etc. But, to keep things simple, I suppose (from a D&D perspective) we need to assume "evil" does take on a force of some kind, which, for simplicity, we assume to come from its own "negative" plane. However, as I try to explain above, as moral human beings (playing an abstract game), such mechanics around alignment will cause difficulties from time to time for the reasons I try to explain.

Cheers,
Lance.

[kevL]

Lance,
with due respect to the idea you're intent on creating your own gameworld @ Althea,

redefining DnD concepts like "negative" and "evil" is sorta like relocating Samargol in the Sword Coast

I mean it works (just do it), but in a more strict DnD 'verse, Negative like Positive is an energy source, while Good & Evil *are* absolutes, rather than one being the absence of the other

 

[quickedit] The point being that "darkness" is 'tangible'.

[kamal_]

By positive I mean the logic use, meaning it contains x. So you could hypothetically test a demon for evil and the test would come back positive. I use negative the same way, the cow tests negative for both good and evil.

One old dms guide gave as their example of neutrality a druid (back when druids had to be pure neutral) who helped the townsfolk against orc raiders (a good action since orcs are defined as inherently evil), and when the townafolk got the upper hand and started chasing down the orcs, the druid switched sides and aided the orcs (an evil action since the orcs are evil). Thus neutrality was defined as both in the cow sense and in the sense of committing good and bad in generally equal amounts. This made the concept not only amoral (cows dont care about right and wrong), but good/evil in balanced measure. We also see this in nwn2, as you commit good/evil acts you move towards the other side, and if you start out evil you become neutral when you've committed enough good to offset your evilness. This was also how the old dm guides handled it, a continuum where half good and half evil meant neutrality., and actions that were good/evil would move you towards one side until you became predominantly good or evil and your alignment was switched to reflect it.

[kamal_]

When it comes to the Planes is when we get "pure" neutrality. Consider modrons, they were given as the exemplary species of lawful neutrality. They, at least the higher order ones, have enough cognitive ability to consider the concept of good and evil (unlike our cows), but they simply do not care about the good/evil concept as they are all about order (lawful). I understand modrons have actually been replaced by formians as the lawful neutral exemplar species more recently.

[Lance Botelle]

Hi KevL/Kamal,

Just to be clear here ... I agree with both of you about the D&D alignment system, and it's the one I try to adhere to in my own modules (up to a point). My only "concern" was that it is hard to "play" such a system when it appears at odds to reality, especially when considering player PC actions. It works fine for a monster system (to a degree), but feels weird when referring to animals (which we know to be amoral), and especially strange when referring to PCs actions ... except we accept it as such for the benefit of the game and working out its mechanics.

i.e. I also play "evil" in a "positive influence" sense (as Kamal says), even though that feels at odds with normality (to me anyway).

So, rest assured, while I may not play every aspect of the alignment system due to campaign settings, I do try to use the remainder within the understanding of the alignment system as it stands. e.g. Modrons are neutral ... I just see them as without any good or evil inclination as opposed to having equal amounts of good and evil ... if that makes more sense.

It's just a topic I find interesting to discuss when I have the opportunity.

Cheers,
Lance.

[kevL]

... it is hard to "play" such a system when it appears at odds to reality

think Medieval.

"It's real man!! gaaah!!!"


/ oh wait ... <g>