What Alignment is Most-Often Played Incorrectly?

[GodBeastX]

Alignments can't be done away with in D&D, as much as people might hate them. Other games don't have things like "Detect Evil" or "Smite Evil" and things of this nature. Honestly? Law and Chaos can die a horrid death, but good and evil I actually like. And in P&P they're not as annoying as PW anyway because it's not a number value.

"You lose 5 good for that suggestion!"

Until you actually do a solid evil act, you're just good.

[BedlamX]

I know it's poor nettiquette to reply to one own post but I had this other thing here in mind. :P

<snip>

<snip>

This is exactly my point, these alignment requirements are there for reeason, perhaps for balance, perhaps because the PRC was designed for such alignments. Choosing LG so you can take a particular PRC is metagaming if you don't intend to RP the PC with that alignment, of course if shifts were given, then the alignment would change and the PRC would be unattainable as it should be.

See...this is why I hate the alignment system. A Shadowbane Stalker has to have sneak attack and be good. They sneak around gathering intel for their religous order. But, by the "rules," if they follow a diety that is Lawful, they must be LG. A LG scout is about as useless as tits on a boar hog. But...there is no restrictions on them not being Lawful. Lawful is the most assinine thing ever written. You can NEVER lie? What kind of BS is this? If you don't run around breaking the rules of your faith/personal ethos...you are following a set of laws. If a good guy lies to an evil dude to serve his chosen following...that is a Lawful act in my book. Just not in the D&D book.

I love that LN shows an inquisitor who ferrets out traitors no matter what the cost as being an example. What if the cost is lieing to someone? That is completely against the Lawful rules (according to the snip quoted earlier).

I will always see alignments as a guide for behavior. I will never see them as a strict set of rules that can never be bent to go along with good RP. I don't mind alignment shifts if a character is CONSTANTLY going against a majority of the "guidelines" for an alignment. But no one has ever played any alignment perfectly in all the games I have played over the years (PNP or computer). Almost all have player their character exceptionally, though. If alignment shifts are needed for playing a class as it should be played, maybe the class alignment requirements need to be looked at again.

[BedlamX]

Alignments can't be done away with in D&D, as much as people might hate them. Other games don't have things like "Detect Evil" or "Smite Evil" and things of this nature. Honestly? Law and Chaos can die a horrid death, but good and evil I actually like. And in P&P they're not as annoying as PW anyway because it's not a number value.

"You lose 5 good for that suggestion!"

Until you actually do a solid evil act, you're just good.

Honestly...the Law and Chaos part is what I really hate, so I agree with you. Good and evil are fairly easy to deal with. Almost all my characters are "good." Mainly because I suck at evil.

I will always play Lawful as having honor and acknowleding the need for structured laws to keep anarchy from destroying civilizations. Lieing and deciet can be effective tools to keep law and order. It has been used by governments throughout time. If one of my "lawful" characters gives his word, he will go through hell and high water to keep it. But a lie to further the goals of his order/faction/whatever...no problems.

But...then again...I'm old and set in my ways...

Now all you damned kids GET OFF MY LAWN!!!!!

[Doubtful]

You're viewing it the wrong way around Bedlam - Alignment doesn't dictate character, character dictates alignment.

A single lie, unless it's a whopper (like 'I love you' or 'Of course I won't set you on fire, shoot your dog and rape your furniture') isn't going to influence alignment much, alignment changes happen for the most part over time, as a character develops and changes.

As you said before "Write a backstory. Create a personality. Stick to it. No need for alignments other than game mechanics." that's true! Alignments exist for mechanical reasons alone - They tie into the starting point of the character and if any changes in that character happen then the alignment will change with them, in the mean time they'll do all sorts of mechanical stuff.

[richardleitch5]

Evananda started out as CG partly because the bard thing and Lliira, but also because I thought her personality fit the alignment as she dint follow every law. Recently she became NG and I completely understand the reasons for it, she keeps her promises 90% of the time tried to avoid telling lies and genially just tried to help people without breaking too many laws but not exactly following them all.

Her good alignment I think will always be the same as many people have told me she acts more like a paladin than most proper paladins in this respect. Disliking people she considers evil and refusing to help people that are overly hostile or follow an evil god.

As for the dogma and holy stuff, I’ve read the wiki and follow what I can remember, even converted someone to Lliira and have made little attempts on another 5. Still most of the time it’s pretty open on the “how” you must follow that god because everyone does so in their own little ways. (Maybe a separate post should be made if this needs talking about more)

[BedlamX]

Evananda started out as CG partly because the bard thing and Lliira, but also because I thought her personality fit the alignment as she dint follow every law. Recently she became NG and I completely understand the reasons for it, she keeps her promises 90% of the time tried to avoid telling lies and genially just tried to help people without breaking too many laws but not exactly following them all.

Her good alignment I think will always be the same as many people have told me she acts more like a paladin than most proper paladins in this respect. Disliking people she considers evil and refusing to help people that are overly hostile or follow an evil god.

As for the dogma and holy stuff, I’ve read the wiki and follow what I can remember, even converted someone to Lliira and have made little attempts on another 5. Still most of the time it’s pretty open on the “how” you must follow that god because everyone does so in their own little ways. (Maybe a separate post should be made if this needs talking about more)

lol...to me, that makes her Lawful Good with some neutral tendencies . That is the main problem with the law/chaos portion of this alignment system. The vast majority of characters do not really fit any of them. They all have a "tendencies" post script to me.

For what it's worth, I do not believe I have ever seen anyone play chaotic good with any modicrum of success. In my opinion, almost no one plays any chaotic according to the literal book view. Most lean towards neutral good/evil with a select few doing a decent job at true neutral. "Good" characters usually follow the majority of laws and "evil" ones usually go against quite a few of them (depending on what the laws are based on, of course).

[richardleitch5]

hehe maybe she will turn lawful as time gose.

[KimKandor]

I think you're thinking in too black and white terms, Evanada was most certainly chaotic when she was created here, and her actions would gradually move her towards being lawfull, yes she does act most lawfull at times, but she doesn't agree with all of the laws. Nothing should give a giant alignment shift in one fell swoop unless the action itself is a giant one such as if she went off on a killing spree, but a little lie here and there, if the intention actually is helping promote a law seems perfectly acceptable.

Oh and before you tell folks to get off your lawn, I owned that lawn before you were born sonny

[GodBeastX]

From DM standpoint, I see her as alot of chaos but strives for law, leaving her neutral. I remember an event where she was going to raise somebody but got in a fight with the guardsman during it then threw up her hands and said "Fine! I won't raise her then!" hahah!

She does alot of free spirited things. Also, in P&P, alignment shifts happen on the spot. Alot of what people think is good/evil/etc isn't as good or evil as you might think. Sure donating to the poor gets you 1 point of good alignment in NWN2, but that won't mean squat in P&P

[KimKandor]

Sure donating to the poor gets you 1 point of good alignment in NWN2, but that won't mean squat in P&P

That would depend on the DM or module being played wouldn't it? I mean some DMs might consider it more important while others not, and some modules might be more greed oriented or money centric. I've not played a ton of PnP to be honest but the few times I did the DM was the deciding factor.

Wouldn't it be great to have DM_bot which understood actions and converstations .. then DMs wouldn't have to police this stuff and could get on with storytelling or mucking in PCs little imaginary lives that they do so well.

[richardleitch5]

Hey that guard started the fight by not letting her close to the wounded and poking her with his sword! *rolls eyes* silly males accusing Evan of being a vampire….hmmm sounds like a good plan…vamp Evan and her blood donning services.

[GodBeastX]

Let me put it this way. Good and evil are cosmic auras in D&D. Do you think dropping a few coins in a hungry man's cup will shift you to good?

"Geeze, I've been murdering my whole life... here hungry man. Have some coin. Sweet! I qualify for paladin now!"

Overall though, yes, it's DM discretion of course, but I don't know a single campaign where that'd give me much. I personally consider actions like that Quirks of the character, more than alignment changers.

[BedlamX]

I think you're thinking in too black and white terms, Evanada was most certainly chaotic when she was created here, and her actions would gradually move her towards being lawfull, yes she does act most lawfull at times, but she doesn't agree with all of the laws. Nothing should give a giant alignment shift in one fell swoop unless the action itself is a giant one such as if she went off on a killing spree, but a little lie here and there, if the intention actually is helping promote a law seems perfectly acceptable.

Oh and before you tell folks to get off your lawn, I owned that lawn before you were born sonny

I was only going off the limited info that was posted here on her and, what was posted there was, by the rules posted earlier, almost perfect Lawful behavior. It was just to show that different people will have different ideas about what Law and Chaos (maybe even good and evil) really mean in D&D.

Strange thing is, we seem to be in agreement about "bending" the guidelines on Lawful alignment. Problem is, the stupid books don't really leave that whole lieing part open for discussion. This is why I don't like the system as is. It ain't gonna ever change, I know. But it just annoys me that after making a complete personality, it really does not fit into any of the alignments available. Thus my inclination to add sub scripts to alignments (Lawful Good with Neutral Good tendencies). Even the official books use these quite a bit when describing NPCs and even some dieties.


And...as for owning the land before I was born...had no idea anyone pushing 60 (assuming the age for legal ownership is 18) actually played computer games .

[TheBlankStare]

This discussion is always a fun one. It's been debated ever since it was introduced decades ago. We should really have a separate thread for what we all think of the alignment system and why it shouldn't apply to our own characters. :P

Getting back to the original post . . . "What alignment is most often played incorrectly?"

So far Lawful Good is in the lead but I haven't seen anyone really put forth any reasons why they believe that to be so. I haven't seen anyone really play this alignment all that well since Baragorn the paladin met his death a while back. I think that the Lawful Good alignment is probably one of the hardest to play because LG people tend to not ask for very much in return for their good deeds. D&Ders tend to want to get lots of "stuff" for their characters (gear, gold, XP) and that more or less conflicts with the LG character's much nobler goals. Also, it takes a special type of character that can rise above the masses and become the shining beacon on the hill and most people who strive to be saints fail.

What do you guys think?

[Doubtful]

I still maintain my origional view: All of the above.

Why? Because you don't play an alignment, you play a character. TBS, sorry I'm going to use you as an example - Nothing personal.

Why is their this bizarre concept that all LG people must be paladin style heroes?
You could have an thief who's happily broken most of the laws in a given city; a merchant who has ammassed millions of coins in personal wealth...

All that LG means is that A - The person has a strong moral code that they adhere to for the vast majority of their time.
and
B - They do things for 'good' and the general betterment of their society.

You are simply mistaking LG for Paladin. They are very very different things.