Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rolan7]

Disgaea(1)'s angelic planes were vaguely creepy for that reason.  The angels are simple, somewhat alien beings which have no personality.  In a trance-like voice, as they attack, they demand "repent".  Or your cessation.

It was a lovely counterpoint to the daemonic plane, the demesne of the player characters.  All of them had a frankly obnoxious amount of personality.  Including the (unknowingly) fallen angel, and the avatar of human fuckyeah-ness (the not-FlashGordon).

All these vibrant, unique characters were facing a force of...  repent.  join.  fall.  An overwhelming, emotionless force calling for compliance and uniformity.

[Bohandas]

I mean, the... Where do you get these things? It's not an assumption, the monster manual flat out says gold dragons go out and actively quest for good. And the draconomicon (which I'd think is a bit of an authority on D&D dragons) states that they have a great amount of patience for other people and mentions nothing of this violent eating of anyone. They don't even outright kill evil people unless they are actively doing evil acts.

Gold dragons are not just creatures with an explicable alignment attached onto them because of poor writing assuming it's fine to slap random dualities onto things. They actually work for that alignment and fit it in a reasonable and logical way.

Except in Eberron, where "always" such-and-such-alignment is generally downgraded to "usually" that alignment

But yeah, otherwise they're usually more like chinese dragons of the serene luck-bringing wisdom-dispensing variety.

[Tack]

The plane of order, then, would be populated by species which carnivorously devour the corpses of animals whose lifespans are just long enough to accommodate the journey to the feeding-ground?

[scrdest]

Anoia is afore-afore mentioned goddess of draw-stuck.
I think scrdest was referencing a god of concerned citizens.

Not quite, a god of... actually not really well explained, Nuggan. 'Concerned citizen' as in 'those damn kids with their ragtimes and their Wagners are ruining our XXIth century society, signed Concerned Citizen' type.

[highmax28]

Question on a few instances of alignment in certain acts:

Our party Druid has a tendency to confuse opponents by making out with them. One of the guys he was doing this to got hit with a charm spell from someone else and kept making out with him against his will until the battle was over. The party fighter saw this, who is lawful good, goes up to him and shoots him in the head, saying it was to "end his suffering".

Is this a chaotic act or an evil act? Because he instantly got shot to chaotic neutral alignment for this (also, I don't want anyone getting pissy and saying its a hate crime and starting a flame war. He did it because his character didn't want the guy to live on knowing he was technically forced into a make out session with the Druid, which the Druid was then trying to get in his pants)

On the topic of said Druid, my character (a chaotic neutral barbarian) ended up causing a dwarf to lose his arm because I used him as a weapon while his arm was stuck on a shield planted into the ground. The Druid heals him, and while we rested, he slept next to the one arm dwarf, who, in the middle of the night, starts crying because he shock finally left him and he realized he has no arm now. The Druid responds to the crying by patting his head and saying "it's gonna be ok". He then, after a discussion on how greater restoration should restore a single lost limb, he puts he arm back on using the spell.

Question on this one: what alignment would you consider this Druid? Other deeds he has include masturbating in public, doing jobs without gold payment, trying very hard to fuck a paladin (who I'm trying to kill), flirting with everyone male, aiding Druids in a civil war because it's he right thing to do, and constantly joking with a party member who's a 15 year old girl who gets nosebleeds from lewd thoughts of him making out with another dude. My DM thinks he's a borderline psychopath, but I don't know honestly

[kilakan]

Well, in my opinion depending on the personal laws the paladin is following, shooting a person being subjected to physical and mental rape would definitely qualify as lawful.  Maybe not good, as you could probably have done it in a way without killing him but definitely lawful.

The druids definitely chaotic-psychopath; from what is pretty obviously evil-deriving pleasure from others misery (forced rape), to the 'good deeds' of doing things without payment and healing the dwarfs arm.  Though depending on his motives for the jobs without payment, and aiding the druids in the civil war she could be full on chaotic-evil.

I mean, looking at the druids actions individually;
Making out with enemies in combat-Probably rape, definitely to all the other party members to kill various people and a rather good example of self-satisfying lust.  pretty darned evil

Masterbaiting in public-Chaotic, extremely lustful and possibly evil if it was done to purposefully shock/mentally wound others.

Flirting with a 15 yo girl-Chaotic again, neutral if it's not done to purposefully make the party member feel awkward/bad.  Evil if that's the intent.

[My Name is Immaterial]

I think kilakan has it pretty spot on.

[highmax28]

Druid is a dude, despite being named Crystal (he's a Genasi Druid, who the DM and him agreed that his Dick is soapstone that he sharpens weapons with...). And the public masturbation is more like a "fuck it, I'm doing this now" than to shock people. They aren't flirting with the 15 year old party member, but he keeps fucking with her by mentioning stuff like that because he enjoys her reactions. I'm pretty sure my guy keeps him in line by punching him in the face over and over...

The motives are always just, which is why I can't fully say they'd be chaotic evil. They do things without payment a lot because they not only see no value in it, but they don't see why people wouldn't do it that way (he hasn't taken a single coin yet during looting, though he'll take random garbage and baubles).

And the guy isn't a paladin, he's a basic Dragonborn fighter... But he's definitely chaotic as fuck. If he took the Druid off of the man and spared him, it would have been lawful good.

So I guess that makes the Druid... Chaotic Neutral? I don't even know, the evil acts and the good acts are done so randomly that I deny him being neutral good

[BlackFlyme]

Seems to exemplify some of the worst Chaotic player traits.

What is the alignment on their sheet? Oh, I see it now.

Definitely seems Chaotic, and doing equal if not more Evil than Good would make it very hard to justify being Good. I mean, there are always the uncommon exceptions to doing an evil-on-paper act with the right justification, like casting a spell with an [evil] descriptor for a noble cause, or if the DM allows it, on acceptable targets. But this Druid just sounds insane.

[kilakan]

Yeah, he sounds pretty batshit crazy to me.  It's sorta like how you said that some of the things are 'fuck it I'm doing this now' and that sounds very much like an excuse that someone uses when they like... take a shit in a public fountain.  Doing things to purposefuly fuck with someone as well is kinda.... malicious, it's like a dark grey on the side of evil in my opinion.  Sorta like how fey run either chaotic good or chaotic evil with the distinction usually being 'does it seriously harm someone?'

[scriver]

Question on a few instances of alignment in certain acts:

Our party Druid has a tendency to confuse opponents by making out with them. One of the guys he was doing this to got hit with a charm spell from someone else and kept making out with him against his will until the battle was over. The party fighter saw this, who is lawful good, goes up to him and shoots him in the head, saying it was to "end his suffering".

Is this a chaotic act or an evil act? Because he instantly got shot to chaotic neutral alignment for this (also, I don't want anyone getting pissy and saying its a hate crime and starting a flame war. He did it because his character didn't want the guy to live on knowing he was technically forced into a make out session with the Druid, which the Druid was then trying to get in his pants)

While I'd definitely say that executing a victim out of pity (as opposed to punishing the perpetrator) is definitely not particularly Lawful Good, I'd also say that non-paladins does not have to be the super pure and good and unstainedly moral examples that paladins have to be. It should be possible to be a not particularly LG person and still skirt inside the borders of the LG area, unless they repeatedly and consequently act contrary to this alignment.

The action itself is harder to judge because it probably involves metabusiness between the players, rather than just being between the ingame characters.

[Jimmy]

Scenario:

True Neutral Wizard performs Dominate Person on rich old widow, has her sign will to leave her house to another party member, Teleports her to Wizard's stronghold and instructs a minion to look after her while the Wizard is off adventuring. Periodically comes back to refresh the domination spell.

Lawful Evil act? Worth an alignment shift?

[scriver]

It's easily Evil. You are taking advantage of others for your own selfish gain. And no, it doesn't matter that it's a party member in that will, it's still for personal gain, they are associates of you and you benefit by extension.

I don't feel any one action should be enough to change anyone's alignment by itself, unless it's literally ritualistically selling your soul to the devil by sacrificing babies with rusty knife. From a theoretical viewpoint, I see alignment more as a sum of your morals, instincts, and acts, as well as the motivation behind and consequences of your actions. Translated into a gameplay perspective, I feel that would mean Alignment shift should happen over time, as a result of un-aligned actions stacking up and tipping the scale.

The aft of repeating the domination, for example, would result in an alignment shift down fairly quickly.

[Criptfeind]

Lawful evil? I'd go neutral evil probably. Forcibly mind controlling someone is almost certainly not within the rule of the law. It's certainly a very evil act, and so worth an alignment shift, especially along the good evil axis (a weaker shift along the lawful chaotic axis), at least without extenuating circumstances. How far it shifts them is pretty dependent on the person in question and all their other actions and such, but I'd probably bump them down to evil pretty quickly, especially with repeated uses.

Edit: And about that druid people were talking about a week ago, if this was 3.5 I'd bust his ass down to chaotic evil and take away all his class abilities. Or if he could actually roleplay well and actually pull off having some type of mental illness I'd maybe let him stay true neutral, in the same way an animal is because of lack of mental facilities, but put a bestow curse effect on him that gives him -6 wisdom.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Doing illegal things doesn't preclude being lawful evil. Corruption and tyranny through law are very LE, which in the case of abusing contract law like this it definitely is. The demarcation between LE and NE is more with whether or not you sometimes indulge the urge of destruction for fun.