Evil or just.........mostly evil?

[moritheil]

I could easily make a counter example.

Yes, but it wouldn't be from an official book. That's the difference. I haven't made up this example - I've summarized it from the BoED. You're more than welcome to look it up and quote it if you want.

The point is, if the example in BoED is as you stated, it is both extremist and ridiculous and does not belong in a rules debate in the first place except as an example of how taking alignment to extremes is bad for the game. If your rules alignment example is a bad one, you can continue to attempt to debate with it, but it still is not a strong plank in your position because it is stupid.

Argumentum ad verecuniam. If it shows up in a WotC book, it must be good!

Btw, you are correct that BoED is 3.5. My bad.

No, if it shows up in a WOTC book, it is how the rules work. Whether or not you apply those rules is a separate step from understanding what the rules are. If you've followed my posts elsewhere, you know that I don't agree with the quality of WOTC publications at times, so it's inaccurate to make the suggestion you did above.

I did not come here to debate. However, if you want to consider this in terms of debate, let me point out how the exchanges have gone. I stated a position. You came along to raise objections to that position, which I answered well enough that you then abandoned your approach, and stated completely new objections, which I then answered. I also raised a few questions of my own, which were ignored (I must assume you did not find them relevant to the central issue.) This pattern repeated until at last you stated that you simply considered the RAW angle that I proposed "stupid" and "ridiculous" - your personal opinions, that you did not quote any RAW for, and that are unrelated to RAW. I don't really think that this "debate," if you want to consider it that, has gone poorly for me at all.

As I have stated before, I'm not really interested in discussing your personal opinions, as they are unlikely to be broadly applicable outside of a campaign that you are involved in. RAW, however, is.

 

[KarinsDad]

Yes, but it wouldn't be from an official book. That's the difference. I haven't made up this example - I've summarized it from the BoED. You're more than welcome to look it up and quote it if you want.

I did try to look it up. What page is this on?

No, if it shows up in a WOTC book, it is how the rules work.

A behavioral example is not a rule.

<snip the inaccurate history lesson, yawn>

 

[KarinsDad]

This pattern repeated until at last you stated that you simply considered the RAW angle that I proposed "stupid" and "ridiculous" - your personal opinions, that you did not quote any RAW for, and that are unrelated to RAW.

You keep calling these opinions. I suggest you go back and reread what I wrote. I first used the word "stupid" in the following context:

The term is "good", not "stupid".

I now quote your BoED RAW to support my POV from a rules perspective:

BoED page 6

Again, the "good is not necessarily stupid" rules comes into play.

This is not opinion. This is called out as a rule in BoED. Players do not have to play their good PCs as stupid. BoED page 5 and 6.

 

[irdeggman]

I don't mean to say that I wont help the party. I mean to say that if they do something and get into a fight they obviously cant win, I have no compunction about leaving them to their deaths rather than dying with them. I dont engage most creatures we fight until 1 or 2 rounds after the start of the fight anyway. I try and give them the bardic bonus to hit and damage and see how the battle goes since I'm not much of a fighter anyway.

Which of the following best describes this type of attitude?

Neutral Good, “Benefactor”: A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them..

Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order.


Neutral, “Undecided”: A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.

Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.
Neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion.

Neutral Evil, “Malefactor”: A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.
Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies.
Neutral evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure evil without honor and without variation.


Chaotic Neutral, “Free Spirit”: A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it.

Chaotic neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom from both society’s restrictions and a do-gooder’s zeal.

The character's starting alignment of Neutral Good definitely seems wrong given the selfish nature and lack of dedication to helping others ("out for herself"). So an alignment change, while keyed to a specific event appears to actually have been warranted based on the viewpoint of the PC - so I would look as the event being the trigger that put the PC over the edge to a different alignment.

I still think that being "out for herself pure and simple" seems to be the best description of the PC given what information we have been. Note that this doesn't preclude helpoing others, when it serves the PC's best interests.

 

[Goldmoon]

Which of the following best describes this type of attitude?





The character's starting alignment of Neutral Good definitely seems wrong given the selfish nature and lack of dedication to helping others ("out for herself"). So an alignment change, while keyed to a specific event appears to actually have been warranted based on the viewpoint of the PC - so I would look as the event being the trigger that put the PC over the edge to a different alignment.

I still think that being "out for herself pure and simple" seems to be the best description of the PC given what information we have been. Note that this doesn't preclude helpoing others, when it serves the PC's best interests.

Once again you make a good point. Perhaps the incident with the dwarf was just the catalyst for the change. My Bard did not start out as N by any means. I was NG towards my party until I discovered they had a death wish.

 

[werk]

Once again you make a good point. Perhaps the incident with the dwarf was just the catalyst for the change. My Bard did not start out as N by any means. I was NG towards my party until I discovered they had a death wish.

What difference does the party's death wish have on your character's alignment?

You went from outwardly helpful to selfish convenience? Outside factors should not change your characters personal morals.

As an example:
Your are working for the mayor or something, he sends you on a quest that is much more difficult than he explained to you. When you return from your suicide mission, he informs you that not only is he not willing to pay you more than agreed because the higher difficulty, he is actually not able to pay what you agreed upon. But he is very thankful and appreciates your work, telling you that you have saved the town.
Do you attack him and take the money/become mayor by attrition/burn the town to the ground?
Do you beat him down to teach him a lesson?
Do you tell him that you understand, and while it is unfortunate, you understand his situation?
How do you handle that situation if you are NG, N, NE, or CN?

----------------------

Now you are neutral, maybe you should try to establish what your neutral character believes and jot down some notes for playing that way. Then after you finish your next sesssion, go back to your notes. Are you playing along those lines, or are you all over the place, doing whatever you think is 'correct' or 'what your character would do' at that time/instance?

My impression is that you are a reactive roleplayer, that your character, like you IRL, can change his behavior on a whim as he feels appropriate. While that's how it works in real life, that's usually a little difficult to play predictably without being CN. While that may be a good strategy for longevity, it's...basically...too easy. Part of the challenge of playing a character is trying to play the role, rather than doing whatever you want or whatever you as a player may think is the best for the character. Play the character, not the player.

 

[Goldmoon]

What difference does the party's death wish have on your character's alignment?

You went from outwardly helpful to selfish convenience? Outside factors should not change your characters personal morals.

As an example:
Your are working for the mayor or something, he sends you on a quest that is much more difficult than he explained to you. When you return from your suicide mission, he informs you that not only is he not willing to pay you more than agreed because the higher difficulty, he is actually not able to pay what you agreed upon. But he is very thankful and appreciates your work, telling you that you have saved the town.
Do you attack him and take the money/become mayor by attrition/burn the town to the ground?
Do you beat him down to teach him a lesson?
Do you tell him that you understand, and while it is unfortunate, you understand his situation?
How do you handle that situation if you are NG, N, NE, or CN?

----------------------

Now you are neutral, maybe you should try to establish what your neutral character believes and jot down some notes for playing that way. Then after you finish your next sesssion, go back to your notes. Are you playing along those lines, or are you all over the place, doing whatever you think is 'correct' or 'what your character would do' at that time/instance?

My impression is that you are a reactive roleplayer, that your character, like you IRL, can change his behavior on a whim as he feels appropriate. While that's how it works in real life, that's usually a little difficult to play predictably without being CN. While that may be a good strategy for longevity, it's...basically...too easy. Part of the challenge of playing a character is trying to play the role, rather than doing whatever you want or whatever you as a player may think is the best for the character. Play the character, not the player.

I dont believe her general outlook has changed at all. Just her outlook towards the party. The have shown an inability to make decisions that are condusive to living. She strongly feels that they will get her killed if she lets them therefore she has detached herself from them emotionally. Her personality, goals and motivations have not changed at all, just her feelings toward the party.

 

[werk]

I dont believe her general outlook has changed at all. Just her outlook towards the party. The have shown an inability to make decisions that are condusive to living. She strongly feels that they will get her killed if she lets them therefore she has detached herself from them emotionally. Her personality, goals and motivations have not changed at all, just her feelings toward the party.

So you are only goodly to people that 'deserve' it?

 

[Goldmoon]

So you are only goodly to people that 'deserve' it?

Not necessarily, I am just not wiling to lay down my life for someone who gets themself into a certain death situation due to stupidity. If one of them is wounded in battle and dying, I will do everything I can to save them except put my own life in danger. I wont, however charge to their defense when they decide to attack a dinosaur rather that simply avoid it.

 

[KarinsDad]

So you are only goodly to people that 'deserve' it?

Should one be good to evil people? To neutral people? To only good people?


BoED states an example that using a Fireball on Orc Women and Children is an evil act due to the fact that these are non-combatants.

That's nonsense. The vast majority of Orc Women will raise or care for other Orc children and the vast majority of Orc Children will grow up to be Evil Orc parents. Hence, it's like killing cockroaches. You stamp out as many as possible as quickly as possible.


BoED also has a caption and illustration that a Paladin has to choose between supporting love and destroying evil when he finds two lesbian succubus (or some such). Again, nonsense.


I totally disagree with WotC for these examples. In other words, each group has to decide morality and alignment for their game. Many alignment questions are very blurry and open to debate.