As has been said before, alignments aren't black and white absolutes. Just because a person has a code or a set of values does not preclude them from being Chaotic. And there is nothing that transparent about it.
In my opinion, the feedback we get from the characters are supposed to be supplemental to their actual behavior which Charname would see as they travel together. The player is supposed to imagine that as part of the game and how they play that particular NPC. I might play Shar-Teel as a chaotic evil berzerker who charges into the fray whenever there is a chance for battle, thus making her Chaotic Evil. But it is like playing a character that you didn't create but are merely given the character sheet (with some flavor on the side).
In that, I think the post and the thread is highly theoretical and the "Correct" answer (if such a thing exists) is that you are supposed to play her as Chaotic Evil, not that she plays herself that way.
You see, this is what tends to be mistaken in the D&D world - in the D&D Multiverse, Alignment IS absolute. It is actually a force of nature, and truly exists.
Mortals on the Prime Material Plane (well, most of them, anyway) are "blessed" in that they can "drift" along the alignment scale. Most beings from the Planes do not have this option.
As we can see from the description of Lawful Evil :
"Lawful Evil is referred to as the "Dominator" or "Diabolic" alignment. Characters of this alignment see a well-ordered system as being easier to exploit, and show a combination of desirable and undesirable traits; while they usually obey their superiors and keep their word, they care nothing for the rights and freedoms of other individuals and are not averse to twisting the rules to work in their favor. Examples of this alignment include tyrants, devils, undiscriminating mercenary types who have a strict code of conduct, and loyal soldiers who enjoy the act of killing."
Shar-Teel is definitely Lawful Evil, in that she is loyal to Charname. Loyalty is Lawful. Chaotic is not loyal. She also keeps her word, and that is Lawful behavior. Since her behavior is Lawful, her alignment is more in the Lawful area of the Axis than it is in the Chaotic. The more one acts Lawful, the more Lawful the alignment. No-one disputes that she is Evil, because she acts evil.
If you have a code or set of values and you adhere to them then in D&D, you are demonstrating Lawful behavior. One who is Chaotic might profuse to have a code or set of values, but they will not adhere to them when it is not convenient. This is the major difference here. Case in point - keeping one's word. A Lawful being will keep their word. A Chaotic being will do so, only as long as it is convenient; the moment it is not, their word will be ignored (this is why dealing with Devils and Demons are so different, for example).
@Schneidend - your bit on Sarevok is spot on! " Sarevok rules his cadre of CE Total Badasses because he is the most badass. " However, you will note that Sarevok makes sure that he punishes those who disobey him, and demonstrates that he will kill any and all that stand in his way. He leaves absolutely no room for uncertainty here.
So truthfully, Sarevok rules his cadre of CE Total Badasses not only because he is the most badass, but because he also makes sure that those who betray, disobey, or otherwise displease him are immediately and brutally punished, normally with death. So this little bit here from you "Being true to your word to somebody who can kill you with relative ease isn't Lawful behavior, that's INTELLIGENT behavior. " is simply incorrect here. In the case of Sarevok, it applies, obviously, for he will kill you for any slight, real or imagined, to his authority.
But in the case of Charname and Shar-Teel, this is never demonstrated! Never in your conversation with her is she put under duress. She simply says defeat her in combat and she will follow you. This is why I added the threat part of my convo in my post above. Then it would make sense.
The reason being, that you only remain "true to your word" to one who can kill you with relative ease as long as that threat is real and being threatened. Case in point - any police officer could kill you with relative ease, but normally that threat is not real and not being threatened. So you get stopped for a traffic violation, you profusely apologize and promise not to do it again, and as soon as she is out of sight, you do it again. Chaotic behavior, definitely.
Now, would you do it again if you knew that the next police officer that caught you would simply kill you? I think you would think twice before doing such again!
@Bhaaldog Shar-Teel may have a strong independent personality, but that does not make her necessarily Chaotic. Her actions to join and follow Charname willingly (especially a hated male!!!) and keep her word are definitely Lawful actions, ones that seem to permeate the rest of the time she spends with Charname.
Since a Chaotic Evil character generally does things for their own self-interests, why is Shar-Teel willing to serve a hated male? It just doesn't make any sense! And why does she abide by her agreement? They should have included a threat part to make her come along in her convo. You want her, you have to make sure she knows that she has no choice in the matter. It is either join or die.
However, perhaps it is an effect from being a Bhaalspawn. One causes others to become beguiled, or whatever. Some sort of magical effect.
Shar-Teel is definitely not a feminist! She does not wish equality.
@Bhaaldog Shar-Teel may have a strong independent personality, but that does not make her necessarily Chaotic. Her actions to join and follow Charname willingly (especially a hated male!!!) and keep her word are definitely Lawful actions, ones that seem to permeate the rest of the time she spends with Charname.
don't forget that she almost fall in love with the male charname....
* Damn it, you lose one well-fought duel to an oafish lout of a man and you get attached. I almost hate to say this but you've earned my respect*- shar-teel quotes
Sure, but not for long! After her personal interest is satisfied, she would leave. That is the problem here. She does not leave.
Perhaps there should be a convo from her, occasionally like "I have seen enough, I shall go now! My curiosity is more than satisfied!" and Charname can then respond with "If you leave now, I will hunt you down and *insert negative consequence here*" sort of thing?
Sure, but not for long! After her personal interest is satisfied, she would leave. That is the problem here. She does not leave.
Perhaps there should be a convo from her, occasionally like "I have seen enough, I shall go now! My curiosity is more than satisfied!" and Charname can then respond with "If you leave now, I will hunt you down and *insert negative consequence here*" sort of thing?
hmmm the closest to CE shar-Teel got for me was a bug in the game... afterawile of gameplay she always started to attack my members... now thats CE for me...but like I said that was a bug in a game and now is gone
This is what the wiki says "Shar-Teel is an amazonian warrior woman who enjoys humiliating male adventurers by challenging them to duels and soundly thrashing them. If she is defeated in a duel by a male member of the player's party, she is impressed and grudgingly pledges to join the group. Extremely aggressive and bloodthirsty, Shar-Teel has a strong hatred of members of the opposite sex and the Flaming Fist mercenary company in particular (although oddly, she's considerably less violent than many other evil traveling adventurers, seeing as how she doesn't attack the party on sight and even compliments the group if it is an all-female party). At the very end of the game, it is revealed that Shar-Teel is the daughter of Angelo Dosan, a lieutenant in the Flaming Fist who is also secretly in the employ of Sarevok. "
@Bhaaldog Shar-Teel may have a strong independent personality, but that does not make her necessarily Chaotic. Her actions to join and follow Charname willingly (especially a hated male!!!) and keep her word are definitely Lawful actions, ones that seem to permeate the rest of the time she spends with Charname.
don't forget that she almost fall in love with the male charname....
* Damn it, you lose one well-fought duel to an oafish lout of a man and you get attached. I almost hate to say this but you've earned my respect*- shar-teel quotes
This is why I think it may be some side-effect of being a Bhaalspawn. Very unlike Shar-Teel to suddenly "get attached" to a male, or to be able to earn her respect as a male...I mean, she basically goes ballistic on Eldoth if Charname's Cha is not high enough...
hehe i still remember the comic book of Baldur's Gate... and Shar-Teel didn't seem to me to be CE aligment....
She saves Ajanitis and Kills Eldoth... i do think she will kill Eldoth.... well she will kill him as soon as she understand that ski is dead or something by his hand...
Shar-Teel is definitely Lawful Evil, in that she is loyal to Charname. Loyalty is Lawful. Chaotic is not loyal. She also keeps her word, and that is Lawful behavior. Since her behavior is Lawful, her alignment is more in the Lawful area of the Axis than it is in the Chaotic. The more one acts Lawful, the more Lawful the alignment. No-one disputes that she is Evil, because she acts evil.
The problem is that *every* NPC who joins your party is loyal to the same degree. They all follow your orders to the letter and will remain loyal so long as your reputation stays within appropriate bounds. So either there's no such thing as a Chaotic joinable NPC in BG, or we have to allow that loyalty is not an exclusively lawful trait. After all, when it comes down to it, everyone's loyal to someone or something.
There are of course extremes. Like in the other end with lawful good: Many ordinary, good and upstanding citizens would probably fall into this category. While they wish the world to be an orderly and nice place for people to live without suffering, they aren't as fanatic about it as say paladins that they would risk life and limb for it.
See, I think this is the distinction between a neutral character with good leanings and an actual Good character. I think there are plenty of neutral people who recognize that having the world be a nice and orderly place benefits them, but who are not willing to go out of their way to make it more so. While intentions and motivations are important, philosophy is worth very little if it doesn't inform action. That action doesn't have to go so far as the Paladin seeking direct combat with the forces of evil, but they need to be willing on some level to put themselves or their resources to use helping others in an altrusitic fashion.
You see, this is what tends to be mistaken in the D&D world - in the D&D Multiverse, Alignment IS absolute. It is actually a force of nature, and truly exists.
Mortals on the Prime Material Plane (well, most of them, anyway) are "blessed" in that they can "drift" along the alignment scale. Most beings from the Planes do not have this option.
As we can see from the description of Lawful Evil :
"Lawful Evil is referred to as the "Dominator" or "Diabolic" alignment. Characters of this alignment see a well-ordered system as being easier to exploit, and show a combination of desirable and undesirable traits; while they usually obey their superiors and keep their word, they care nothing for the rights and freedoms of other individuals and are not averse to twisting the rules to work in their favor. Examples of this alignment include tyrants, devils, undiscriminating mercenary types who have a strict code of conduct, and loyal soldiers who enjoy the act of killing."
You miss my point. In the first place, what I was saying was that the 'DEFINITION' that we are using is like trying to capture a shadow on the wall with your hands. You can personally hold every Lawful Evil character the the extremely limited definition you have in that paragraph, but I think would not cover 99% of the lawful evil characters in Faerun. it is very VERY possible to play both lawful and evil and exhibit none of the traits you list. So long as you try and hammer alignment into a single paragraph like that you are going to miss out on the meaning entirely.
In addition to that, alignment is by no means absolute in that any player character (or NPC), in fact anyone not from the higher or lower planes has free will. That means that their adherence to any given alignment or ethos is ephemeral at best.
One DMG or another suggests that you set up a sliding scale ruler for alignments for the players. As they act, you can move them + or - on the scale according to what you believe their alignment should be. This to me indicates that there is a range, not a single bullet point for alignment and any character at any given time can be anywhere on that range.
No, you cannot have a Lawful and Evil character that does not act both Lawful and Evil, at least, not for long. For as you post, the "sliding scale ruler for alignments" will shift according to what actions they take. Note that it has everything to do with actions here. This is because in the D&D Multiverse, Alignment is real and is a part of Nature.
So, perhaps you have a character that starts off Lawful and Evil. But if this character does not act accordingly, their alignment will shift, dependent on what actions it takes that are not Lawful and/or Evil.
Of course there is a range! I already posted this above (those of the Prime Material are "blessed" in that they can drift along the Alignment range). I have never stated that one HAS to act according to their alignment! I have stated that to REMAIN a specific alignment, one must act accordingly! A big difference here.
Obviously, those who do not act as their current alignment will drift towards another, depend upon their actions.
Note that those not of the Prime Material Plane do not normally enjoy this "blessed state" - meaning that they are normally "fixed" to their alignments. There are some exceptions to this, but they are very rare.
You do not normally encounter Lawful Good demons, nor Chaotic Evil Planetars...etc.
"The problem is that *every* NPC who joins your party is loyal to the same degree. They all follow your orders to the letter and will remain loyal so long as your reputation stays within appropriate bounds."
Obviously, this is a purposely programmed part of the game. Not that they do not remain loyal in that sense even if your reputation stays within appropriate bounds! Sometimes they fight and kill one another (if you do not have high Cha).
Of course, they never attack Charname. Since they tend to follow Charname loyally regardless of alignment, and they never attack Charname, I rather suspect that this is an undocumented effect of being a Bhaalspawn. Much like Rand al'Thor affects those around him, I suspect. The part of Charname that is divine is affecting those around him.
@WebShaman Well, from a meta standpoint, this is a pretty common genre convention that we're supposed to accept without thinking about. Bioware has made half-hearted attempts to provide a reason for everyone to follow the PC to the ends of the earth in their various games, but few of them have been very convincing. The only RPG I've played that really made me feel like the PC was a leader who could inspire loyalty was Mass Effect.
Well I dunno...if you are evil and on the walkabout for random men to slap around with the sharp end of yer sword (doesn't sound paticulary lawful or neutral) just to prove your battle dominance and in the process get a beat down by a team wearing the best armour and magical weapons dragging a horde of gold behind them while you have some crappy iron sword a barely enough gold for an inn, I would think it made sense to join them. The talk of being loyal is a cover for hot meals and some sweet gear until we head on and slaughter the rest of the sword coast!
Tbh I think any ce character would want to join the party. Your group after all has a pretty high carnage factor, no matter where you go someone wants to bob you on the nugget. Charnme must have one irritating face.
@WebShaman CHARNAME demonstrates his ability to kill Shar-Teel by beating the tar out of her. Willingness to do so at any time isn't important, and with so few followers to be had it would be ill-advised for CHARNAME to stab Montaron just to prove Shar-Teel should obey. Sarevok has probably never just killed a member of his inner circle to prove a point, he would instead kill lesser underlings or rivals. Similarly, an Evil CHARNAME's hold over Shar-Teel would be based on how swiftly and brutally he kills his enemies, not how willing he is to stab Montaron.
@WebShamen, I am not saying that you can have a Lawful Evil character that doesn't act both Lawful and Evil. I am saying that my view of what Lawful and what is Evil are significantly wider and more varied than your narrow viewpoint.
And all I can say is I am glad I never have to play at your table. Because... Geez. I bet players are flipping alignments all the time over there. Even if they are actually playing their alignment.
I agree that Shar-Teel certainly seems to be Chaotic Evil at the beginning "if you are evil and on the walkabout for random men to slap around with the sharp end of yer sword (doesn't sound paticulary lawful or neutral) just to prove your battle dominance ". Thus, it seems very strange that she "suddenly" becomes fiercely loyal and holds to her word.
That is basically what I am saying here. She totally changes her whole philosophy.
" get a beat down by a team wearing the best armour and magical weapons dragging a horde of gold behind them while you have some crappy iron sword a barely enough gold for an inn, I would think it made sense to join them."
*blinks*
Maybe in your game. Didn't happen this way in mine. More like got beat by an individual with crappy armour (no magical weapons at all) with barely rags on (no gold whatsoever). No-one in their right mind would wish to join this person!
"CHARNAME demonstrates his ability to kill Shar-Teel by beating the tar out of her."
No, Charname demonstrates just that - his ability to beat the tar out of her. Charname does not demonstrate, at any point, that he is willing to kill Shar-Teel if she in any way disobeys him.
"Willingness to do so at any time isn't important, and with so few followers to be had it would be ill-advised for CHARNAME to stab Montaron just to prove Shar-Teel should obey. "
Willingness to do something is always an important factor. That said, I disagree that one has so few followers that it would be ill-advised not to kill one (or more) just to prove a point. But even in that case, Charname could just kill a passersby. "You are as much worth to me, Shar-Teel, as this lowly cretin is if you betray me" *kills beggar* "Don't forget it!"
"Sarevok has probably never just killed a member of his inner circle to prove a point, he would instead kill lesser underlings or rivals."
This is just so wrong! We know that Sarevok demonstrates his willingness to threaten his 'inner circle" if they do not bring results (see all those letters found). Sarevok would sacrifice anyone to get what he wants. He is merciless, ruthless, and will kill you if you do not keep him pacified. The only reason he doesn't do this himself is because they all get killed first by Charname. How do you think Sarevok is going to react to the failure of his "inner circle" not to provide him with what he demands? By playing patty-cake?
"Similarly, an Evil CHARNAME's hold over Shar-Teel would be based on how swiftly and brutally he kills his enemies, not how willing he is to stab Montaron. "
This again makes no sense. If Charname never threatens Shar-Teel with harm, then what sort of repercussion should Shar-Teel fear for leaving Charname? None. None whatsoever. On the other hand, if Charname is willing to stab Montaron, for example, merely to make a point, I think that would leave a huge impression on Shar-Teel. This guy means what he says!
Now we come to something completely different :
" I am not saying that you can have a Lawful Evil character that doesn't act both Lawful and Evil. I am saying that my view of what Lawful and what is Evil are significantly wider and more varied than your narrow viewpoint."
Ah, how interesting! I did not make the rules, so, now it is my "narrow viewpoint". Whatever! You play your game, I will play mine.
"And all I can say is I am glad I never have to play at your table. Because... Geez. I bet players are flipping alignments all the time over there. Even if they are actually playing their alignment. "
Ah, no. I have DMed for years now. Both PnP and in NWN (ala DM Client). Most RPers have a sound understanding of alignment and the rules. Never have had a problem like you are describing. Never. Not in over 30 years of gaming. Of course, the Players that I DMed did not try to play Lawful Good mass murderers, or Chaotic Evil saints, either. So go figure.
And house rules abound.
I normally like to throw alignment rules totally out the window. I never did like alignment. Much to much like a straightjacket to me. I prefer the RP aspect of playing, myself, and helping players by providing the optimal RP environment for their characters. Only in very special cases, did I have to really consider alignment issues (like those who play alignment restricted classes). Then I normally worked together with the player to get optimal RP enjoyment out of the experience.
For example, if the player's character was about to do something that would have a profound effect on said character due to alignment, I would normally have a normal conversation with that player, outlining the possible consequences and seeing if that was ok with that player. Often, players do not understand the consequences, or cannot see them (which is normal, because they are immersed in their character role). Stepping aside from that for a moment to help them in their RP is something that marks a good DM in my book. YMMV.
I can say that my players always said they valued me for my good judgement and in providing an optimal RP environment. But perhaps they were stretching the truth, what do I know? They always came back for more!
One Paladin player in question managed to "survive" an entire Campaign without falling due to superb RPing! He avoided every moral trap, worked through all the conundrums, and basically was a shining example of a smart, wise Paladin. Needless to say, the party excelled with him as leader.
Again, we don't disagree that acting out of alignment (excessively) shouldn't generate a change in alignment. I just don't feel that alignments are cookie cutter and can be summed up in a single paragraph. Heck, I'd say people would be hard pressed to map out a single alignment in several 'Martin' sized book series'. I also am of the opinion that player characters have free will and are thus not bound to the kinds of black and white restrictions that a Demon or Devil would be.
Also, I think that "Lawful" alignment is horribly abused and miss-represented because of the inclusion of the word "Law" in it and it's association with 'Lawful citizens'. (D@#%N you Mr Moorcock... Joke).
As for Shar-Teel, I can forgive her devotion to the party as a game mechanic and nothing more. Put it down to her following at first because she got bested (regardless of equipment) and then later realized that there was profit and experience to be had in hanging around. Or look at it as she is chaotic and really has nothing better to do with her time than kill things with a group that doesn't make her stomach turn? Or maybe she has a thing for Charname? Or maybe she is just looking for who will come out on top, Saravok or Charname and will party up with whoever comes out on top? I think any of these or probably endless others could more than explain the discontinuity (assuming that it is).
I say again that I think the NPCs that you get are supposed to be character sheets that you play yourself and that the flavor that they give is nothing more than a guideline. In several of the Conventions I have attended over the years, you can get into adventures where you are given a character to play. I think that is more or less what we are doing in BG. If you don't like that, play multi-player solo or play IWD.
Comments
Mortals on the Prime Material Plane (well, most of them, anyway) are "blessed" in that they can "drift" along the alignment scale. Most beings from the Planes do not have this option.
As we can see from the description of Lawful Evil :
"Lawful Evil is referred to as the "Dominator" or "Diabolic" alignment. Characters of this alignment see a well-ordered system as being easier to exploit, and show a combination of desirable and undesirable traits; while they usually obey their superiors and keep their word, they care nothing for the rights and freedoms of other individuals and are not averse to twisting the rules to work in their favor. Examples of this alignment include tyrants, devils, undiscriminating mercenary types who have a strict code of conduct, and loyal soldiers who enjoy the act of killing."
Shar-Teel is definitely Lawful Evil, in that she is loyal to Charname. Loyalty is Lawful. Chaotic is not loyal. She also keeps her word, and that is Lawful behavior. Since her behavior is Lawful, her alignment is more in the Lawful area of the Axis than it is in the Chaotic. The more one acts Lawful, the more Lawful the alignment. No-one disputes that she is Evil, because she acts evil.
If you have a code or set of values and you adhere to them then in D&D, you are demonstrating Lawful behavior. One who is Chaotic might profuse to have a code or set of values, but they will not adhere to them when it is not convenient. This is the major difference here. Case in point - keeping one's word. A Lawful being will keep their word. A Chaotic being will do so, only as long as it is convenient; the moment it is not, their word will be ignored (this is why dealing with Devils and Demons are so different, for example).
@Schneidend - your bit on Sarevok is spot on! " Sarevok rules his cadre of CE Total Badasses because he is the most badass. " However, you will note that Sarevok makes sure that he punishes those who disobey him, and demonstrates that he will kill any and all that stand in his way. He leaves absolutely no room for uncertainty here.
So truthfully, Sarevok rules his cadre of CE Total Badasses not only because he is the most badass, but because he also makes sure that those who betray, disobey, or otherwise displease him are immediately and brutally punished, normally with death. So this little bit here from you "Being true to your word to somebody who can kill you with relative ease isn't Lawful behavior, that's INTELLIGENT behavior. " is simply incorrect here. In the case of Sarevok, it applies, obviously, for he will kill you for any slight, real or imagined, to his authority.
But in the case of Charname and Shar-Teel, this is never demonstrated! Never in your conversation with her is she put under duress. She simply says defeat her in combat and she will follow you. This is why I added the threat part of my convo in my post above. Then it would make sense.
The reason being, that you only remain "true to your word" to one who can kill you with relative ease as long as that threat is real and being threatened. Case in point - any police officer could kill you with relative ease, but normally that threat is not real and not being threatened. So you get stopped for a traffic violation, you profusely apologize and promise not to do it again, and as soon as she is out of sight, you do it again. Chaotic behavior, definitely.
Now, would you do it again if you knew that the next police officer that caught you would simply kill you? I think you would think twice before doing such again!
Since a Chaotic Evil character generally does things for their own self-interests, why is Shar-Teel willing to serve a hated male? It just doesn't make any sense! And why does she abide by her agreement? They should have included a threat part to make her come along in her convo. You want her, you have to make sure she knows that she has no choice in the matter. It is either join or die.
However, perhaps it is an effect from being a Bhaalspawn. One causes others to become beguiled, or whatever. Some sort of magical effect.
Shar-Teel is definitely not a feminist! She does not wish equality.
* Damn it, you lose one well-fought duel to an oafish
lout of a man and you get attached. I almost hate to say this but you've earned my respect*- shar-teel quotes
Perhaps there should be a convo from her, occasionally like "I have seen enough, I shall go now! My curiosity is more than satisfied!" and Charname can then respond with "If you leave now, I will hunt you down and *insert negative consequence here*" sort of thing?
something tells me that her father turned her to the dark side.....
But yeah, there's some flexibility in alignments. It's why I like the Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic system from 0E and BECMI better.
and then SCARY_WIZARD only played Neutral characters
Very odd.
She saves Ajanitis and Kills Eldoth... i do think she will kill Eldoth.... well she will kill him as soon as she understand that ski is dead or something by his hand...
In addition to that, alignment is by no means absolute in that any player character (or NPC), in fact anyone not from the higher or lower planes has free will. That means that their adherence to any given alignment or ethos is ephemeral at best.
One DMG or another suggests that you set up a sliding scale ruler for alignments for the players. As they act, you can move them + or - on the scale according to what you believe their alignment should be. This to me indicates that there is a range, not a single bullet point for alignment and any character at any given time can be anywhere on that range.
So, perhaps you have a character that starts off Lawful and Evil. But if this character does not act accordingly, their alignment will shift, dependent on what actions it takes that are not Lawful and/or Evil.
Of course there is a range! I already posted this above (those of the Prime Material are "blessed" in that they can drift along the Alignment range). I have never stated that one HAS to act according to their alignment! I have stated that to REMAIN a specific alignment, one must act accordingly! A big difference here.
Obviously, those who do not act as their current alignment will drift towards another, depend upon their actions.
Note that those not of the Prime Material Plane do not normally enjoy this "blessed state" - meaning that they are normally "fixed" to their alignments. There are some exceptions to this, but they are very rare.
You do not normally encounter Lawful Good demons, nor Chaotic Evil Planetars...etc.
Now we get to BG.
@Kaigen :
"The problem is that *every* NPC who joins your party is loyal to the same degree. They all follow your orders to the letter and will remain loyal so long as your reputation stays within appropriate bounds."
Obviously, this is a purposely programmed part of the game. Not that they do not remain loyal in that sense even if your reputation stays within appropriate bounds! Sometimes they fight and kill one another (if you do not have high Cha).
Of course, they never attack Charname. Since they tend to follow Charname loyally regardless of alignment, and they never attack Charname, I rather suspect that this is an undocumented effect of being a Bhaalspawn. Much like Rand al'Thor affects those around him, I suspect. The part of Charname that is divine is affecting those around him.
Tbh I think any ce character would want to join the party. Your group after all has a pretty high carnage factor, no matter where you go someone wants to bob you on the nugget. Charnme must have one irritating face.
CHARNAME demonstrates his ability to kill Shar-Teel by beating the tar out of her. Willingness to do so at any time isn't important, and with so few followers to be had it would be ill-advised for CHARNAME to stab Montaron just to prove Shar-Teel should obey. Sarevok has probably never just killed a member of his inner circle to prove a point, he would instead kill lesser underlings or rivals. Similarly, an Evil CHARNAME's hold over Shar-Teel would be based on how swiftly and brutally he kills his enemies, not how willing he is to stab Montaron.
And all I can say is I am glad I never have to play at your table. Because... Geez. I bet players are flipping alignments all the time over there. Even if they are actually playing their alignment.
I agree that Shar-Teel certainly seems to be Chaotic Evil at the beginning "if you are evil and on the walkabout for random men to slap around with the sharp end of yer sword (doesn't sound paticulary lawful or neutral) just to prove your battle dominance ". Thus, it seems very strange that she "suddenly" becomes fiercely loyal and holds to her word.
That is basically what I am saying here. She totally changes her whole philosophy.
" get a beat down by a team wearing the best armour and magical weapons dragging a horde of gold behind them while you have some crappy iron sword a barely enough gold for an inn, I would think it made sense to join them."
*blinks*
Maybe in your game. Didn't happen this way in mine. More like got beat by an individual with crappy armour (no magical weapons at all) with barely rags on (no gold whatsoever). No-one in their right mind would wish to join this person!
"CHARNAME demonstrates his ability to kill Shar-Teel by beating the tar out of her."
No, Charname demonstrates just that - his ability to beat the tar out of her. Charname does not demonstrate, at any point, that he is willing to kill Shar-Teel if she in any way disobeys him.
"Willingness to do so at any time isn't important, and with so few followers to be had it would be ill-advised for CHARNAME to stab Montaron just to prove Shar-Teel should obey. "
Willingness to do something is always an important factor. That said, I disagree that one has so few followers that it would be ill-advised not to kill one (or more) just to prove a point. But even in that case, Charname could just kill a passersby. "You are as much worth to me, Shar-Teel, as this lowly cretin is if you betray me" *kills beggar* "Don't forget it!"
"Sarevok has probably never just killed a member of his inner circle to prove a point, he would instead kill lesser underlings or rivals."
This is just so wrong! We know that Sarevok demonstrates his willingness to threaten his 'inner circle" if they do not bring results (see all those letters found). Sarevok would sacrifice anyone to get what he wants. He is merciless, ruthless, and will kill you if you do not keep him pacified. The only reason he doesn't do this himself is because they all get killed first by Charname. How do you think Sarevok is going to react to the failure of his "inner circle" not to provide him with what he demands? By playing patty-cake?
"Similarly, an Evil CHARNAME's hold over Shar-Teel would be based on how swiftly and brutally he kills his enemies, not how willing he is to stab Montaron. "
This again makes no sense. If Charname never threatens Shar-Teel with harm, then what sort of repercussion should Shar-Teel fear for leaving Charname? None. None whatsoever. On the other hand, if Charname is willing to stab Montaron, for example, merely to make a point, I think that would leave a huge impression on Shar-Teel. This guy means what he says!
Now we come to something completely different :
" I am not saying that you can have a Lawful Evil character that doesn't act both Lawful and Evil. I am saying that my view of what Lawful and what is Evil are significantly wider and more varied than your narrow viewpoint."
Ah, how interesting! I did not make the rules, so, now it is my "narrow viewpoint". Whatever! You play your game, I will play mine.
"And all I can say is I am glad I never have to play at your table. Because... Geez. I bet players are flipping alignments all the time over there. Even if they are actually playing their alignment. "
Ah, no. I have DMed for years now. Both PnP and in NWN (ala DM Client). Most RPers have a sound understanding of alignment and the rules. Never have had a problem like you are describing. Never. Not in over 30 years of gaming. Of course, the Players that I DMed did not try to play Lawful Good mass murderers, or Chaotic Evil saints, either. So go figure.
And house rules abound.
I normally like to throw alignment rules totally out the window. I never did like alignment. Much to much like a straightjacket to me. I prefer the RP aspect of playing, myself, and helping players by providing the optimal RP environment for their characters. Only in very special cases, did I have to really consider alignment issues (like those who play alignment restricted classes). Then I normally worked together with the player to get optimal RP enjoyment out of the experience.
For example, if the player's character was about to do something that would have a profound effect on said character due to alignment, I would normally have a normal conversation with that player, outlining the possible consequences and seeing if that was ok with that player. Often, players do not understand the consequences, or cannot see them (which is normal, because they are immersed in their character role). Stepping aside from that for a moment to help them in their RP is something that marks a good DM in my book. YMMV.
I can say that my players always said they valued me for my good judgement and in providing an optimal RP environment. But perhaps they were stretching the truth, what do I know? They always came back for more!
One Paladin player in question managed to "survive" an entire Campaign without falling due to superb RPing! He avoided every moral trap, worked through all the conundrums, and basically was a shining example of a smart, wise Paladin. Needless to say, the party excelled with him as leader.
But I digress. Think what you will.
Also, I think that "Lawful" alignment is horribly abused and miss-represented because of the inclusion of the word "Law" in it and it's association with 'Lawful citizens'. (D@#%N you Mr Moorcock... Joke).
As for Shar-Teel, I can forgive her devotion to the party as a game mechanic and nothing more. Put it down to her following at first because she got bested (regardless of equipment) and then later realized that there was profit and experience to be had in hanging around. Or look at it as she is chaotic and really has nothing better to do with her time than kill things with a group that doesn't make her stomach turn? Or maybe she has a thing for Charname? Or maybe she is just looking for who will come out on top, Saravok or Charname and will party up with whoever comes out on top? I think any of these or probably endless others could more than explain the discontinuity (assuming that it is).
I say again that I think the NPCs that you get are supposed to be character sheets that you play yourself and that the flavor that they give is nothing more than a guideline. In several of the Conventions I have attended over the years, you can get into adventures where you are given a character to play. I think that is more or less what we are doing in BG. If you don't like that, play multi-player solo or play IWD.