Incarnum

[xigbar]

I'm designing a campaign with a slight predicament. One of the players is playing an Incarnate, Lawful Neutral. The first thing is that I will only be DMing for 5 of the dungeons, my friend is doing the other 15. I am doing the first one, because both of the two characters I'm interested in playing have a +1 level adjustment. For the purpose of roleplaying, the Incarnate doesn't get along with who don't share their world view, but just how far does that go. The first character I'd like to play is a tiefling wizard, neutral good, which we've decided shouldn't have much trouble interacting with the Incarnate, because she's too bookish and timid to break the law in most cases anyway. However, I do fancy the idea of SOME internal conflict to add to the story and such, and also consider playing a Goliath Barbarian, Chaotic Good. This would satisfy my desire to have some mild feuds between characters here and there, but how far does this carry in terms of the Incarnates roleplaying? Is he obligated to assault someone who is so strongly opposed to their own moral standing, distracting from the actual game play? I want your thoughts, as both a player and a dm.

 

[Particle_Man]

Talk to the other player and the other DM. There is nothing set in stone here, so it really depends on the individuals in question, which in this case is you three. Talk also about what level of inter-party conflict is desirable and not desirable to the three of you (and to the other players). Make the game fun for all of you. Compromise.

 

[xigbar]

I should point out that one of the other players is a Mindflayer, lvl 1 by the savage species progression, lawful evil (no problem with the Inca.) and the other is undecided, but definitely not lawful (problem?)

 

[Empirate]

You really shouldn't get too fixated on the alignment 'system'. It's more of a set of loose guidelines to encourage character play, not a rules set to invariably determine your character's behaviour.
For example, you can play a guy who's Lawful and interpret it the following ways:

1. follows written law to the letter,
2. has his own set of laws that he follows no matter what, even in violation of written law of the country he's in,
3. is generally disciplined, tight, and orderly, but doesn't hold any more or less to official law than most other people,
4. simply likes orderliness and cleanliness a lot in others,
5. thinks in rigid paths, always applying the same solutions to the same problems,
6. believes everything in the multiverse functions according to certain, secret, rules which humans are mostly too dumb to understand,
7. takes his god's commandments very much to heart, but can't really respect the laws of the land, if they're not in agreement with those commandments,
8. feels bound by his word, and likes to give it in convoluted, highly specific ways,
9. expects everybody else to share his beliefs (pick one or more of the above), or
10. doesn't expect anybody else to do as he does,
11. etc.

Good and Evil are even harder to interpret, as have shown myriads of threads on the issue. In fact, I'd encourage you to develop a personality for a character you're about to play ('bookish and too timid to break the law in most cases' is a good start), then try and find out which of the crude, official alignment names you're going to apply to that.


BTW, I believe your thread topic is completely misleading...

 

[ThatGuyThere]

Incarnates aren't dissimilar from Clerics and / or Paladins - they're governed by their alignment, and it colors their interactions with other characters.

Just as some people will play Clerics and Paladins as strictly unable to have a coherent dialogue with someone their morally opposed to, some will play Incarnates that way. Expect violence.

Others will play Clerics, Paladins, and Incarnates, as council; trying to convince those morally opposed to them that their path is more "correct", more "forthright", and "better"; they'll point out their successes, and the failings of others, and credit them (at least partly) to moral fortitude. Perhaps obnoxiously, perhaps gently - depends on the character(s).

One of these techniques is more likely to end poorly.

For my own games, to help resolve this, I actually freed incarnates from the "must be neutral" part of their alignment restriction - a lawful incarnate must be lawful, and can only use [Lawful] soulmelds, but can be lawful good, leaving them more common ground with, say, chaotic good characters, than lawful neutral incarnates would have.

 

[Empirate]

Incarnates aren't dissimilar from Clerics and / or Paladins - they're governed by their alignment, and it colors their interactions with other characters.

Just as some people will play Clerics and Paladins as strictly unable to have a coherent dialogue with someone their morally opposed to, some will play Incarnates that way. Expect violence.

That kind of alignment is called Lawful Stupid. NO part of a character's disposition must stand in the way of a functional group. If one of the players wants to play something that constrains the options of the other players, he needs a thorough talking-to. Expect violence.

One of these techniques is more likely to end poorly.

Exactly.

 

[ThatGuyThere]

That kind of alignment is called Lawful Stupid. NO part of a character's disposition must stand in the way of a functional group. If one of the players wants to play something that constrains the options of the other players, he needs a thorough talking-to. Expect violence.

Oh, agreed.

But the fact that you / they shouldn't, doesn't mean they don't, and doesn't mean the OP hasn't had (multiple, even) run-ins with those who take their character's alignment as an excuse to be a ... ... grandmother-unfriendly person.

 

[Empirate]

Sadly, you hit the nail on the head there. However, the OP posted like he might be prone to a similar line of thinking, which is why I said what I did.

 

[xigbar]

[MENTION=78958]Empirate[/MENTION]; I've written a page of back story for both potential character. The goliath is champion of the weak kind of archetype, who fights oppression, and the incarnate is...a fascist, basically.

 

[Empirate]

I didn't want to misrepresent you, that was just the way your post came across to me. It seemed as if you put an awful lot of stress on the 'official' alignment (talking about how lawful or nonlawful individual characters were in comparison to the Incarnate guy etc.), rather than character personality. Glad to hear that's not the case.

My money is on the Goliath... give 'im 'ell!