|
|
|
|
Author |
Topic: Assasin and Alignment (Read 669 times) |
|
Eliandi
Forum God
Last On: 12/25/10
View Profile
Message Player
United States
Posts: 788
|
on Aug 12, 2004, 4:26 PM, Tigrius wrote:Hmm, im afraid that in the world of AD&D very few kills qualify as MURDER...or...
The orc sleeping killed by the paladin, qualifies according to youre statement him as murderer... unless you have another definition of murder then i have.
|
|
There are many ways to play DnD. You can play it as a wargame...kick in the door and kill everything. Ethics and morals have no place. In NWN, this is a common way to play for non-DMed games. I've played NWN that way before...you kill the orc because its computer controlled and will not surrender or run away.
Or you can play it with ethics and morality. Perhaps the orc can be reformed... Maybe there are even orc paladins. Games like this have a much higher emotional punch because you have to ask yourself the hard questions...even the players of non-paladins...even somewhat amoral PCs. It does require a DM...or some clever scripting.
A quote from LOTR
Frodo: It's a pity Bilbo didn't kill him when he had the chance.
Gandalf: Pity? It was pity that stayed Bilbo's hand. Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends. My heart tells me that Gollum has some part to play yet, for good or ill before this is over. The pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many.
|
|
 I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Moonunit921
Expert Poster
Last On: 03/04/05
View Profile
Message Player
Canada
Posts: 118
|
Good quote.
From The Book of Vile Darkness, there are two alignment views in D&D - objective and relative. Objective is the game standard - a creature is evil because it is. A chromatic dragon is evil because that's what chromatic dragons are. A cleric can cast holy smite against a group, and the evil guys take damage and the good guys don't. Evil is defined by the standards - murder, lies, deceit, theft, etc...
Relative is harder to determine, and is the 'real world' view. Evil is defined in the eye of the beholder, so to speak. A crusading paladin is taught by the church that the infidel backwater barbarians are evil due to their practice of cannabilism. The barbarians view it as a form of ancestor worship to eat their dead and gain their strength and knowledge from them. They view the crusading paladin who tries to convert their religion as evil, and the paladin views the barbarians as evil. Who is right?
In the objective sense, you can point at someone and say 'That's evil'. In the relative sense, evil is based on perception.
So, in the discussions we've had we've basically discussed evil in the relative sense, because in the objective view an assassin is evil because he kills for profit. That fits the objective definition of evil. But if you look at it relatively, there can be others who kill for profit (non monetary - consider security or living conditions as profit). Is that evil?
It's all in the Eye of the Beholder. :
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Eliandi
Forum God
Last On: 12/25/10
View Profile
Message Player
United States
Posts: 788
|
on Aug 12, 2004, 10:21 PM, Moonunit921 wrote:A crusading paladin is taught by the church that the infidel backwater barbarians are evil due to their practice of cannabilism. The barbarians view it as a form of ancestor worship to eat their dead and gain their strength and knowledge from them. They view the crusading paladin who tries to convert their religion as evil, and the paladin views the barbarians as evil. Who is right?
|
|
And if the crusading paladin captures a helpless tribesman, and then listens to why they eat thier dead and contemplates his own church's use of relics of past dead leaders....
Damn, that would make some good moral-dilemma roleplaying!!!
I guess since I became an adult, I am strongly attracted to this form of play. I still like some action and adventure, but motivations and ethics make great adventures.
If you want a good read about DnD and religion and ethical dilemmas, goto http://www.enworld.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-58227 (it might be down...EN World's servers were in Florida) for the Compiled Sepulchrave Story Hour (begins with Lady Despina's Virtue and move far beyond)
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
randomjoe4
Experienced User
Last On: 08/27/04
View Profile
Message Player
Unknown
Posts: 12
|
I've been a long standing player of rogue/assassin/thief style chacters. However it isent the action "killing" that decides an alignment for a person. It's the reason for the action. However this is all made on base of opinion of "good" an "evil" which are in terms only openions themselves. I think alignment truely shines in PnP (paper an pencil) games where you can truely see a good DnD person work their part. However i think the alignment system was put into NWN for the soul purpose so you couldent make a paladin/assassin without some sort of drastic draw back.
More so an this is just my personal thinking from my experences in life...
Is that the only true evil that exists in the world is neutrality... the indifference of a good or evil person put into a situation an doing nothing. Ya know the true opratunist. a Balor/demon is evil... pure evil no question. There is no ambiguity there. A neutral person is the only real evil left in DnD or i'd even say the world. Seeing as how good an evil are just subjective terms on where you were raised an what your personal beliefs are. that being said enough of samantics =D
An that's my two copper.
~Jse
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Syas
Experienced User
Last On: 08/18/08
View Profile
Message Player
Unknown
Posts: 16
|
on Aug 10, 2004, 4:07 PM, Tigrius wrote:The ordinary assasin, does what he does from money (that would make him chaotic most times) or other reasons - however, i dont see his actions as evil.. he dont... "judge" his target.. if its evil or not.. he dont take side, which is also one of my arguments for stating in NWN/D&D, a assasin should be listed as True Neutral from start.. - he kills it, bcause..... again, im using the line from the manual, which i find - atleast for my char - fits pretty good... its not to be evil, its just.. lives has no values as such..
its like having... no opinion on them... if needed theyre taken, if not, theyre not taken... nothing more nothing less.. |
|
Neutral Good (in a nutshell) means you are out for the betterment of all the Good people of the world, and you are just as likely to do it within the law as you are to do it outside the law. Someone running the Underground Railroad (not sure if you would recognize this reference, basically they helped slaves escape) would be Neutral Good, they were breaking the law to help others. Once laws were changed and slavery was truely abolished, there was no need to break the law anymore, so they wouldn't have. That defines Neutral Good to me.
With that in mind, an Assassin cannot be Neutral Good... MAYBE MAYBE Chaotic Good. To reference the quote above: "however, i dont see his actions as evil.. he dont... "judge" his target.. if its evil or not.. he dont take side,".
An Assassin does what he does for money (as we previously established) which makes him wholly self-serving, regardless of that, as you have stated "he doesn't judge his target". What seperates Good/Evil to me is Compassion.
A "Neutral-Good" Assassin sent by a greedy merchant to eliminate a politician who would, through actions to come, tax the merchants more due to the fact that they overcharge the populace, would not kill the politician because he is a Good person, trying to take Lawful action to show the merchants what they are doing is wrong. There are a million other examples, but I think you get the point.
There's one subject down, two to go:
True Neutral. True Neutral is a funny alignment in D&D, contrary to how the other alignments work, having a True Neutral character does not mean you are as likely to be Good as Evil, and as likely to follow the Law as Break it, it means you are concerned with the Balance of the forces in the world. And in such, you would need to think on a larger scale. A True-Neutral Character might side with Goblins against Lawful Good Knights because if the Knight's raids continue, the Goblins would be wiped out.
Again, there are instances where a True-Neutral character would not, in the name of roleplaying, be able to kill some of his "targets"
The farthest away from Evil I think an Assassin could get would be Chaotic-Neutral, but in the same respect, I don't think Assassins should be able to be Lawful Evil (Lawful Evil are more likely to hire an assassin then be one)
On a parting note, don't confuse the title "Assassin" with the profession. Even a Neutral-Good character could assassinate someone for the right reason, but they would NOT be a "full-time" Assassin, nor in my opinion, would they devote training to it.
Hmm, im afraid that in the world of AD&D very few kills qualify as MURDER...or...
The orc sleeping killed by the paladin, qualifies according to youre statement him as murderer... unless you have another definition of murder then i have. |
|
This would be the beginning of the downfall for most Paladins in any of my games, this action is NOT Lawful Good, it is Chaotic Good. Yes, Orcs are typically "Evil", but what if this was the one "Good" one? Not that it matters, Murding anything in it's sleep is not Lawful, not to mention it goes against the strict code of Honor that most Paladins hold themselves to. If you pick the alignment, you have to play it. This is a malicious act, I totally agree with you, that Paladin is now a Murderer.
Honestly, huge XP Loss / decent Alignment Shift toward Chaotic if a Paladin pulled this in one of my games. 
Your Pal,
The Alpha
|
| « Last Edit: on: Aug 19, 2004, 1:24PM » |
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Tigrius
Extreme Poster
Last On: 08/30/11
View Profile
Message Player
Denmark
Posts: 524
|
Some very interesting posts..
It also shows the difference in how we view alignment, as well as what we defines as evil as good..
I must say, that i still find the Assasin beeing the only one capable by default beeing True Neutral - aslong as we remember, that not all assasins kills just for money. Something that comes to mind, is f.ex the Mafia' hitmen... often used to wipe out other families... paid ? - perhaps, but that wasnt theyre reason to do it - yet, they was assasins - the correct alignment on those would be Lawful - yes - good or evil ? - well depends.
The assasin which been brought up severel times, is the chaotic - who kills for money.. the assasin as skill, ability to assisinate, reasons not accounted for - is still - neutral..
Which again leads me to rate the normal assasin as class - not as char - as true Neutral..
The man hired by one side in a war to kill the leaders of the other side - would be an assasin - good for those who hired him, considered evil for the other side... but, if the surviving leaders from first stike survives, and pays the assasin to now assasinate the other side, would now be opposite.. so - evil/good are indeed always in the eye of the beholder..
Lawfull/Neutral/Chaotic - are the reasons behind the assasination.. is it for money... for survival of the family (the Italian hitman working for the Cosa Nostra), or - is it something inbetween in reality..
- Tigrius
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Rofelli
Forum God
Last On: 12/04/08
View Profile
Message Player
United States
Posts: 1433
|
As stated, it's all coming down to how evil is defined. Within the context of that definition, the actions of an assassin are either evil, or they are not.
As said, there is a definition of what is evil within the D & D context, and, within that context, an assassin is evil, and, since the alignment requirements (yes, a stupid idea, I agree) for an assassin has to be defined within that context, an assassin must be an evil character; i.e., according D&D morality, an assassin is an evil person.
Now, whether or not an individual sees an assassin is evil is a different story. Even though D&D has an objective morality (defined in the source books), individual characters may see an assassin as good, neutral, or evil, or may even claim that morality is relative, or subjective, and hence that no judgment is possible. What the philosophical situation is in the game may not be what is believed by individual characters. As real people who can look at the game mechanics, we transcend their perspective, and can even disagree, as real people, whether or not D&D has defined evil in a correct manner.
In our higher perspective, we can argue that the actions should be judged on motivation; practical results; mentality of killer; against some defined standard (such as a religion); or claim that it's all relative, subjective, and/or situational. But, again, once we define the moral context, the judgment on the actions fall into place.
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
StarStuff
Forum God
Last On: 12/29/09
View Profile
Message Player
United Kingdom
Posts: 2079
|
A question. Does "assassin" = "hired killer" and "hired killer" = "assassin"? I was under the impression that all assassins were hired killers, but not vice versa. I did have a book about Saladin and the Hashishiyun kicking around somewhere, which I believe explained the origins of the word assassin, but can't put my hands on it when I need it (grrrr).
Anyways, my point was only that there may be some misunderstanding of the meaning of the word, hence this debate about whether NWN/D&D is correct to say assassins are evil. I think if you do a bit of research, you will discover that assassins are indeed evil according to the game's definition of alignments.
Whether alignments are defined correctly is still open to interpretation in my book, but since that's the way the game is written, that's the rules you have to play by when creating a character, unless you have a certain kind of DM running the game you're in.
--StarStuff
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Moonunit921
Expert Poster
Last On: 03/04/05
View Profile
Message Player
Canada
Posts: 118
|
I must say, that i still find the Assasin beeing the only one capable by default beeing True Neutral - aslong as we remember, that not all assasins kills just for money. Something that comes to mind, is f.ex the Mafia' hitmen... often used to wipe out other families... paid ? - perhaps, but that wasnt theyre reason to do it - yet, they was assasins - the correct alignment on those would be Lawful - yes - good or evil ? - well depends.
|
|
On this note, there's two ways you can be looking at this, and neither really supports your position IMO.
One is that the Mafia hitmen are part of the family, and are sent to kill members of an opposing family for purposes other than wealth - say, survival or control or power. In this case, even though the hitmen are killers, they are more soldiers than assassins - I believe that's even the term that they use. And being a soldier doesn't automatically make you an assassin as you don't necessarily indiscriminately kill for profit (I know, I have been a soldier 15 years now).
The other side of the coin is that these Mafia hitmen do it because they get paid well - whether they're members of the family or not. In that case they fit the assassin definition perfectly.
An assassin doesn't go out killing marks to restore the balance - an assassin doesn't say "Hey, there's too many good people in the world, I'm going to go whack a few and maybe someone will pay me well for it". Total indifference doesn't mean True Neutral - it might be Chaotic Neutral at best. The TN person balances the alignments, not ignores them. In that view, I don't see how it's at all possible to be an assassin with a TN alignment, without having some serious social issues and playing way out of character.
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
randomjoe4
Experienced User
Last On: 08/27/04
View Profile
Message Player
Unknown
Posts: 12
|
Hahnsoo,
You have just become my offical hero i dident know anyone else ever saw gross point blank =D GREAT MOVIE!
ahhh sorry for the off topic.
~Jse
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Tigrius
Extreme Poster
Last On: 08/30/11
View Profile
Message Player
Denmark
Posts: 524
|
Hmm..
There is another "topic" - i feel might be worth some time - as i see ppl keep refering to it - the True Neutral Alignment.
I havent been able to find a definetion of the True Neutral in the Manuals that actually gives a good describtion.
I have seen this debate before, that a True Neutral would shift side in battle to obtain balance.. - which makes me belive most ppl has "defined" TN as someone/something where you always keep balance.
IMO - that is only ONE definition..
If you see on it logicly - a person who dont CARE about which side gets the upper hand, is also True Neutral.. if he dont act for either off the sides.
Lets take a example - ofc realisticly there is probably flaws in it, but here goes:
World War 2 rages - Germany vs Britain.
Now, According to most arguments i seen - a true neutral (in this case i will use Switzerland) - would first join the English side... then, german side.
There is no doubt - historicly that Switzerland was Neutral during WWII. (i cant remember reading anything bout Switzerland invading first Irland, and then Germany)
So - in fact - Reality takes that defintion out the book - and defines that in reality a Neutral, is also some one who may not side at all.
Sweden was defined neutral during WWII. They did NOT join any of the sides.
So, from this we can conclude that neutrality can have more then 1 definition, which leads us back to the topic.
A true neutral is EITHER ONE: who seeks total balance - OR does NOT take side at all.
A fight goes on between 2 cities - in the middle of the battle stands you. You do not join either of the cities - are you in reality helping, favoring, taking side with anyone ? - no.. that is neutral - defined by history (look up - You are the Char that is Switzerland/Sweden in that battlefield.
So a TN char is EITHER one who helps both sides equally - to keep the balance, or does not take side at all (stays out of the fight completly).
However more issues then balance comes in.
The battlefield again. There is wounded on both sides. A Cleric tends to all who are wounded, on both sides, and makes no difference, he does not care about the battle it self, just the wounded.
Does he seek a balance ? - No. Does he completly stays out of the fight - No. Ahh.. ups... problem.. Is he Lawfull ? - no, he dont serve any authority.. hmm, Chaotic ? - could be - however, as his main concern are the wounded, nah, so dont think so.. Evil ? - he heals both sides.. also the good... then Good ? - no, he also heals the Evil... Balancing? - hmm, oh, there is 15 evil wounded, only 2 good - does he only heal the evil then ? - no, still both..
So, by above example, we have a TN Cleric, who does NOT seek balance, and do NOT stay out of the fight.. setting up a Alignment chard, you cant fit him into any of the "sides" - he ends up TN - or not on it at all.
Here I find i now have 3 - Three definitions off a TN - not just the "normal" He seeks balance..
TN covers IMO:
The one that seek total balance, the one who does not take ANY side, the one who helps both side, but without attempting to "take" a side.
A good real example of the cleric in reality we find in WWI - where ships with nurses would sail around with a big red cross - attending to wounded, no matter theyre nationality. And i do doubt you find any where that a Nurse suddenly took up a gun, and started to shoot ppl of one side, just bcause the other side lost alot of ppl. And, well, Reallife up to date example.. Red Cross, and similar organisations who aids on the battlefield, for the wounded - without seeking, or attempting to take a balance.
The D&D rules may still only state 1 thing as definition as Neutral - but above we have 2 examples of chars - and transered to reality, 2 examples - who are True Neutral - you may not like it - but reality defines it.
- Tigrius
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Eliandi
Forum God
Last On: 12/25/10
View Profile
Message Player
United States
Posts: 788
|
Trying to make a direct connection between D&D's individual alignment system and the alignment of a state or government is problematic. States have no alignment. Its population does. Its leaders do. Some have a cultural bias. But states do not have an alignment.
on Aug 22, 2004, 1:35 PM, Tigrius wrote:A good real example of the cleric in reality we find in WWI - where ships with nurses would sail around with a big red cross - attending to wounded, no matter theyre nationality. And i do doubt you find any where that a Nurse suddenly took up a gun, and started to shoot ppl of one side, just bcause the other side lost alot of ppl. And, well, Reallife up to date example.. Red Cross, and similar organisations who aids on the battlefield, for the wounded - without seeking, or attempting to take a balance.
|
|
No, the medical professionals are acting in-accordance with Good, because Good values life. Medics not only aided the wounded of the enemy, they often risked thier lives to do so. Chivalry demanded knights spare those who surrendered, and protect the prisoners with thier lives.
Evil does not value life in-and-of-itself, only if there is advantage in saving life. For example, an Evil person might save a life if he thought there might be future gain or if the loss of the life would cause problems.
There are, however, interesting twists. The Japanese in WWII did honor surrender because they decended from the codes of the samurai and not the western knights. Samurai value honor above all else, and Samurai do not surrender. To surrender is to be dishonored, therefore prisoners have no honor. So is it evil for a person who beleives a prisoner has no honor to do harm to a prisoner. That is a cultural interpretation, hard to answer in absolutist terms.
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
hahnsoo
Veteran Poster
Last On: 05/14/06
View Profile
Message Player
Unknown
Posts: 76
|
I usually throw alignment out the window when I roleplay. There is very little reason to handcuff yourself, as roleplaying is more than the two axes of morality and code that are represented in alignment. However, a thought just occurred to me in the past week that may shed light (or cast more shadows) on the whole debate.
Perhaps we should think about alignment as a hard-and-fast game mechanic to quickly evaluate how magic modifies certain instances, rather than a guide to how character translates into action through motive. This principle is already written into the mechanics (Protection from Good, Protection from Evil, +5 vs. Neutral, etc.) and is a staple of fantasy literature (The Spear that will Smote Evil to Ruin, The Chalice of the Pure of Heart, etc.), and maybe we are going too far into trying to ascribe Alignment as a roleplaying guideline, as least for player characters. It has already been mentioned that any single act can be condoned by any alignment given certain motives, social mores, and justifications. The complexity of roleplaying exceeds the constraints of alignment, to be sure, but any stat that is written down on the character sheet is a hard fact of that character, that will translate into some form of game mechanic. Alignment, because of its role in the mechanics of DnD, is a stat. It determines whether or not you are affected by Alignment-axes spells, items, effects, etc. Thus, I propose (and by no means does anyone have to really support this) that Alignment should be treated as a stat, no more, but certainly no less.
|
| « Last Edit: on: Aug 24, 2004, 9:08PM » |
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
StarStuff
Forum God
Last On: 12/29/09
View Profile
Message Player
United Kingdom
Posts: 2079
|
Knee-jerk reaction to the idea of not roleplaying a particular alignment was that I don't like it - sorry! I'm not entirely sure why though...
The only support I can muster is that in the same way as you wouldn't give a character a low intelligence and then play them as being able to solve puzzles, you wouldn't give a character a good alignment and go killing folks for the sheer hell of it, or an evil alignment and go round helping people for no return.
Stats still need to be roleplayed IMO, else you might as well throw the whole character sheet out the window... Granted, some roleplaying games do just that, but they don't sound like my cup of tea. I for one would enjoy D&D/NWN a lot less if the game didn't involve designing and roleplaying characters whose personalities have some basis in their stats.
--StarStuff
|
| « Last Edit: on: Aug 24, 2004, 9:28PM » |
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
hahnsoo
Veteran Poster
Last On: 05/14/06
View Profile
Message Player
Unknown
Posts: 76
|
on Aug 24, 2004, 9:25 PM, StarStuff wrote:| Knee-jerk reaction to the idea of not roleplaying a particular alignment was that I don't like it - sorry! I'm not entirely sure why though... |
|
Well, the vast majority of roleplaying games do not have alignment at all... even the ones that do tend not to use a "good/evil" axis (think Palladium), and most roleplaying games tend to instead focus on personality traits. It is NOT necessary to have alignment in roleplaying games, as much as it is not necessary to have stats or skills or levels. That is to say, you choose your framework for playing the "game" at your own discretion and tolerance.
That being said, alignment exists in DnD for a reason. What I'm saying is that it is a stat, a game-mechanic. Most of the arguments about alignment try to make more of it than it actually is, and then justify it with real world or realistic examples. These arguments, while providing interesting discussion fodder, are no more (but no less) relevant than arguing whether or not you can or cannot lift a car with a 24 Strength or whether or not a person with an Etiquette 7 skill can successfully meet the president of the UCAS.
While I did state in the beginning of the post that I tend throw alignment out the window when I roleplay, I ended the paragraph by introducing this idea, and I'll admit that this does cause a bit of confusion. I'm not saying "Don't RP your alignment". I'm saying that to RP your alignment, you have to think of it like a characters stat, with no more, and no less, value than that, just as a cleric with an 18 Wisdom is not always Wise or a wizard with an 18 Intelligence is not always smart.
I think that one can only roleplay an alignment as much as one can roleplay a stat or skill, in a given situation/check rather than "this is the personality of my character". Really, the goals, motivations, and thought process of your character is your own fabrication, and no alignment can really take that away... it may provide a framework for what you build as far as roleplaying, but one doesn't go around wearing STR 18 as a badge at all times (unless you are certain Barbarian PCs that I know). The appropriate stat at the appropriate time... the "game" portion of Role Playing Game is, in essence, this fact. Otherwise, we are improving and acting. Just as stats exists for a reason in the context of DnD, Alignment exists for a reason: A marker to detect for a Detect Alignment spell, a prerequisite to cast certain spells spontaneously, a prerequisite for certain classes, a target for certain magic items, etc. It's a game mechanic, and to remove that mechanic means removing all that has to do with that mechanic (not entirely a bad thing, I might add, but that's for another discussion).
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Tigrius
Extreme Poster
Last On: 08/30/11
View Profile
Message Player
Denmark
Posts: 524
|
My take on the entire alignment position, is the opposite of what the game-mechanics intend - or atleast is handled.
Ppl tend to follow the pattern:
Alignment -> Actions..
Meaning, that when u rp a say Paladin, you chosen LG, and then you are lawfull good, and are supposed to play like it.
While this seem like an.. approach, it also locks the door for alot of RPing..
Reallife example... the guy that puts a knife in another saturday evening (sadly to much of that around 
Well, if we are to follow the "setup" which most seems to hang on then:
Guy is evil -> guy must go to town and put knife in someone -> goes to town -> knife in someone..
In reality - our actions, no matter good or bad (according to the law) - defines our alignment, while often it seems in D&D - youre alignment defines youre actions..
Its one of those egg or chicken first discussions, but nevertheless..
To return to the above..
The guy is in town, he dont like someone, he is used to handle it with violance, drags knife, puts it into the other, he is now by his actions deemed evil.
This is reallife.. and for me RPing, that is also usually my take on alignment... youre alignment is determed by youre actions, not the other way around - in fact - youre alignment can never determine youre actions, youre actions will always determine youre alignment..
The paladin which father is bankrupt, treatened to be thrown out of his home, may suddenly be more greedy - according to the way many tend to take on the game - you can not be greedy - youre alignment is LG.. ppl tend to see Alignment as a STATIC stat... youre x.. therefor youre actions can not be y..
Take that into RL, and you find it falls to the ground.. A good, honest cop can suddenly fall for a bribery.. - well - that can not be - a good cop is LG - he upholds the law... according to most ppl's (im generalazing a bit, i know ) - he can not be bribed... well, life dont works like that... and D&D is a mirror of reallife, just in a very different envoiroment..
So, the paladin, suddenly taking from the temple-chests to help his father, the assasin actually working purely for good - are all possible.. What i look after in NWN/D&D - is where alignment mirrors youre actions... as RL is.. infact the NWC review page even have a "area" for this... how do you view the other guy/girl's alignment..
I have a Dwarven Defender who are set as LG - (class-restriction)- yet according to my stats, some see him as Chaotic or Neutral - well, i dont disagree.. My DD plays according to his goals, wishes, dreams, etc.. that may sometime actually lead to he gets an alignment hit one way or the other.. (just as in reallife) - well, then thats how it is...
I for one, would like to see ppl play more according to theyre story, and character's life, ambitions, etc - and then let theyre actions, determine the alignment..
You could say the optimal alignment system is where its based on youre story until now..
(messy - yes, impossible ? - nearly - realistic ? - totally.. )
So, to go a little far, a paladin's actions should not be determined by his alignment, but his alignment should be determined by his actions.. (which they do a little if you play NWN OC/SOU). And if we put realism into RPing and D&D - then we also need to accept that sometimes a Paladin actually takes some gold for him self, the assasin actually protects the old beggar woman, by no other reason then symphati..
and so forth..
So, once starting a game - you should actually go so far, to not have any alignment at all (or true neutral).. and then as youre character grows, acts, his alignment should take hits accordingly.. which also is in reallife..
This is imo the way the alignment system should work at any time....
- Tigrius
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Tigrius
Extreme Poster
Last On: 08/30/11
View Profile
Message Player
Denmark
Posts: 524
|
My take on the entire alignment position, is the opposite of what the game-mechanics intend - or atleast is handled.
Ppl tend to follow the pattern:
Alignment -> Actions..
Meaning, that when u rp a say Paladin, you chosen LG, and then you are lawfull good, and are supposed to play like it.
While this seem like an.. approach, it also locks the door for alot of RPing..
Reallife example... the guy that puts a knife in another saturday evening (sadly to much of that around
Well, if we are to follow the "setup" which most seems to hang on then:
Guy is evil -> guy must go to town and put knife in someone -> goes to town -> knife in someone..
In reality - our actions, no matter good or bad (according to the law) - defines our alignment, while often it seems in D&D - youre alignment defines youre actions..
Its one of those egg or chicken first discussions, but nevertheless..
To return to the above..
The guy is in town, he dont like someone, he is used to handle it with violance, drags knife, puts it into the other, he is now by his actions deemed evil.
This is reallife.. and for me RPing, that is also usually my take on alignment... youre alignment is determed by youre actions, not the other way around - in fact - youre alignment can never determine youre actions, youre actions will always determine youre alignment..
The paladin which father is bankrupt, treatened to be thrown out of his home, may suddenly be more greedy - according to the way many tend to take on the game - you can not be greedy - youre alignment is LG.. ppl tend to see Alignment as a STATIC stat... youre x.. therefor youre actions can not be y..
Take that into RL, and you find it falls to the ground.. A good, honest cop can suddenly fall for a bribery.. - well - that can not be - a good cop is LG - he upholds the law... according to most ppl's (im generalazing a bit, i know ) - he can not be bribed... well, life dont works like that... and D&D is a mirror of reallife, just in a very different envoiroment..
So, the paladin, suddenly taking from the temple-chests to help his father, the assasin actually working purely for good - are all possible.. What i look after in NWN/D&D - is where alignment mirrors youre actions... as RL is.. infact the NWC review page even have a "area" for this... how do you view the other guy/girl's alignment..
I have a Dwarven Defender who are set as LG - (class-restriction)- yet according to my stats, some see him as Chaotic or Neutral - well, i dont disagree.. My DD plays according to his goals, wishes, dreams, etc.. that may sometime actually lead to he gets an alignment hit one way or the other.. (just as in reallife) - well, then thats how it is...
I for one, would like to see ppl play more according to theyre story, and character's life, ambitions, etc - and then let theyre actions, determine the alignment..
You could say the optimal alignment system is where its based on youre story until now..
(messy - yes, impossible ? - nearly - realistic ? - totally.. )
So, to go a little far, a paladin's actions should not be determined by his alignment, but his alignment should be determined by his actions.. (which they do a little if you play NWN OC/SOU). And if we put realism into RPing and D&D - then we also need to accept that sometimes a Paladin actually takes some gold for him self, the assasin actually protects the old beggar woman, by no other reason then symphati..
and so forth..
So, once starting a game - you should actually go so far, to not have any alignment at all (or true neutral).. and then as youre character grows, acts, his alignment should take hits accordingly.. which also is in reallife..
This is imo the way the alignment system should work at any time....
- Tigrius
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Eliandi
Forum God
Last On: 12/25/10
View Profile
Message Player
United States
Posts: 788
|
I agree, alignment is changeable during a campaign. Characters evolve and develop. But they do not start with no alignment, because they begin as mature people. Mature people have a value and belief system, and all alignment really is is a shorthand for the PCs basic beliefs. So a PC with any sort of history should have alignment.
As far as a Dwarven defender being roleplayed more nuetral or chaotic vs lawful. As a DM, thats cool. The player can run the PC however they want. Depending on the campaign, however, this might have reprocussions. For example, Dwarven Defenders have a very specific place in the society of many DnD campaigns 9but not all). They are the disciplined, die for the dwarven hearth warrior. The special abilities they get come from the special training they get as part of defending the stronghold. If the PC was seriously deviating away from law to chaos, I would tell the player that perhaps the PC no longer feels comfortable with all the discipline required as a Dwarven Defender, and some of his DD comrads are not happy with his lack of respect for rules and authority. The player could refocus, and shift back toward law, or not. If they continued to favor chaos, I would tell him the clan has removed his from the rolls of the Clan defenders (I would work this into the roleplaying) and until the PC re-establishes his bond with his former comrades, he can no longer level as a DD because he is not receiving the training. Advancement as a fighter or whatever else is fine.
The same thing would be true for a fallen Paladin, ie a Paladin no longer rigorously upholding the tenents of his/her faith. But the warning/banishment could come from either the church, his/her paladin order, or even directly from the diety (depending on how you want to handle divine intervention).
This is all GOOD roleplaying, and can be very fun. I DMed a Star Wars campaign where one of the PCs struggled alot with the tenents of the Jedi. Note, we never discussed this in terms of good or evil, only in terms of his actions vs the Jedi code. Much more interesting than either a campaign where ethics and alignment are irrelevant and anyone can do anything, or where the DMs and players never roleplay ethical challenges and therefore alignment is ignored.
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(I still hope alignment gets written into NWN2 though! 
)