Do you rp this game
Hi
Do any of you guys rp this game? So what I am looking for answers to is if you was chaotic evil would you only travel with evil people from the start
Do any of you guys rp this game? So what I am looking for answers to is if you was chaotic evil would you only travel with evil people from the start
0
Comments
Rasaad's quest would never be complete without Viconia's input.
And when playing not-evil but pragmatic character, it is always a good idea to have an evil tank to throw on the line of fire - either he survives and grants me an easy victory, or he perishes, ridding the world of his evil presence. A win-win situation! ]:)
As a good player I use similar reasoning: I can travel with evil companions while putting their skills to use for noble ends and at the same time limiting the evil deeds they can do.
If you are evil and want to play an evil party then you can ignore the good people from the start or you can just use them until it is convenient to get rid of them. There are lots of evil people you can pick up eventually and you may also want to try getting some neutrals too if you need them.
So, if I were a chaotic evil character, the alignment of other people would be irrelevant to me. I would travel with whomever I could dominate into submission. Anyone who challenged my authority openly would be immediately executed, preferably by my own hand. My motivation for everything I did would be my own pleasure and power. I wouldn't do any quests unless there was a high gold or magic item reward for it. I would be following the main plot only because of the assassins out to get me, and my desire for revenge against whoever was trying to kill me.
I wouldn't be stupid. I would only commit murder or theft when I had something clear to gain from it, and I would make sure there were no witnesses. If the Flaming Fist knows I'm a killer, I've done something stupid, and I deserve to die. I hate stupid people, and I have no intention of being one. Every once in a while, I'd kill someone just because they pissed me off, and I'd relish the enjoyment of seeing their fear, and watching them suffer. (See the original BG opening movie and put yourself in Sarevok's shoes.) But I'd make sure no one saw me do it, and I'd leave no evidence. If you're going to be a murderer, then be a good one, or die as you deserve.
Once I uncovered Sarevok's plot, I would respect him as my rival. I must kill him and take his place, of course, but I would respect him while I did it. If I could find a way to steal his identity and take the helm of the Iron Throne, and finish his plot myself, that would be ideal. Perhaps I could find someone like Edwin to do some live dissections of Doppelgangers and find some kind of spell....?
If I couldn't fulfill his plan myself, then I would have to expose him. If the weaklings that run Baldur's Gate couldn't handle him after that, then I'd have to handle him myself. As for the Bhaal essence, and the possibility to ascend to godhood, well, hell yeah!
Once captured by Irenicus, I would try to make deals with him if I thought he could help me bring out more Bhaal power. I might even pretend to let him think he had the upper hand. After he had exhausted his usefulness to me, I would kill him, of course. Maybe I'd sodomize him first, in revenge for what he did to my harem of witches and my bodyguards. My minions are mine to abuse. Anyone else who touches them dies. Perhaps I could rebuild his underground lair, and use it for myself. The nymphs would stay, as my concubines.
I get into the heads of my characters. You've actually intrigued me, here. Stepping inside the chaotic evil mind as I perceive it is making me want to roleplay a chaotic evil character myself, one of these days. It'd be an interesting change from my usual toons.
I have even completed (role playing) BG2 with a party containing Firecam and Viconia. While these two are opposites on almost every front, my Charname kept on intervening and separating them before they came to blows. It made for some interesting banter and some tense moments but was still fun.
Understand that probably your average PC probably doesn't know for sure what the alignments of their companions are. They probably know what their general dispositions are and even some of their world views (probably if they are interested enough to ask or listen), but not necessarily their alignment.
People don't walk around with tatoos on their skulls saying "My name is Xzar and I am CHAOTIC EVIL!!!" Sure he is creepy and more than a bit insane, but unless you pay attention to what he does behind your back, you don't necessarily know that he kicks babies for a living.
The way I see it, in my circle of friends there are some that I don't necessarily see eye to eye with and there are some that I wouldn't trust to watch my kid, but I don't KNOW that they are EVIL. I just know that Frank is a special kind of P!&CK and leave it at that. I'd still go on a road trip with him.
And, as @the_spyder points out, most characters do not know one another's alignments to begin with. My Blackguard is just looking to survive and then later thrive by taking advantage of the chaos of the iron shortage. If he can manipulate Minsc or Jaheira into helping him do that, so be it.
Suffice to say, I do indeed roleplay this game.
I can see a NE or LE using a mixture of both good and evil characters, manipulating both while keeping them under control thanks to his high charisma and social skills.
considering myself to be lawful neutral or lawful good, i'd rather be with other lawfuls (regardless of good or evil).
if i actually had to be around coran/alora/neera/safana/quayle/kivan (all chaotics), i'd probably go crazy
even the neutrals (true neutral, who switch sides whenever the other is losing, neutral evil, who are only around long enough to use you and neutral good who don't obey laws either) wouldn't be fun to be around. as lawful I wouldn't murder/steal/break the law, regardless of how good my intentions were
i'd much rather be around kagain and edwin. i did a LN bounty hunter route once with kagain, edwin, xan, yeslick and ajantis, sure they argued but no-one broke da law!
I definitely agree that the Lawful/Chaos scale can be a big source of interparty conflict.
However, you seem misinformed about the meanings of some alignments. For one thing, Lawful does not mean you follow the law, it means you follow one code or another. A villain who commits heinous acts but has committed himself to never killing children or practicing slavery is likely Lawful Evil, regardless of how he feels about the laws of the city-state of Baldur's Gate.
BG's explanation of True Neutral is hopelessly bogus. True Neutral characters concerned with balance are so concerned on a grander, more cosmic scale. Switching sides to whoever is losing every single time would be the agenda of a crazy person.
With regards to Good/Evil and Lawful/Chaotic. I think we are free to interpret it in our own way as needed to fit our own stories, and indeed understanding of the issue, For example I regard 'Good' and 'Evil' as intent as opposed to action. Somebody who is empathetic and seeks to help others, may still do bad things if he believes it will be for the 'greater good'. Somebody can be inclined towards Law and Order, but not necessarily agree with the Order of wherever he is, and thus break that particularly order.
A good example would be a hero who served the Flaming Fist authorities faithfully under Scar, but then fights against the authorities once it comes under the influence of Angelo. Or respects the laws of Baldur's Gate, but believes the Council of Six and the Cowled Wizards in Athkatla are corrupt and abusive of their power.
Even Caramon and Raistlin appeared (I don't know what the 'Official' stats are) to be on opposite ends of the spectrum where that was concerned. Caramon was very loyal and appeared to be driven by some more group mentality type attitude, whereas Raistlin was more individualisticly focused.
At the end of the day, I kind of see a Party as something analogous to my circle of friends in real life. We get along (mostly) even if our individual ideologies don't always match. There are several Democrats and one or two Republicans. There is one guy who always was 'The rebel' in the group and another who is a Lawyer. If I were to assign alignments to these guys, we none of us would be exactly the same. Yet we make it work.
A chaotic good person believes the law can be wrong and follows his/her own moral code, doing what they believe is right regardless of what the local laws think about it.
A lawful good person believes the law can be wrong and follows his/her own moral code, doing what they believe is right regardless of what the local laws think about it.
So chaotic good = lawful good. And that is just silly! (but not as silly as saying that the opposite of chaos is law. The opposite of chaos is order, the opposite of law is independence or maybe freedom/anarchy)
This is because alignment is retarded. Originally "lawful good" must have been written to be "must obey local law"... which raised the issue that according to it, paladins must catch escaped slaves if they cross the border into a country where slavery is legal. Or must perform human sacrifice for an evil god if they enter an evil country, etc.
So they "patched" lawful alignment to be "they follow their own personal code", which makes it indistinguishable from chaotic good.
Worse yet, every official example of "chaotic good" has been of someone who is simply CRAZY despite the fact that isn't at all what the description says
Like any Lawful character, Lawful Good characters have a personal code of conduct, follow the laws of their land, follow or enforce hierarchies, and/or are part of a knightly order or other organization with a codified system of behavior. Politically, Lawful Good characters usually seek ways to improve a system from within.
Chaotic Good characters resent these sort of things both as limitations on the freedoms of individuals and as potential tools for evildoers to hinder the efforts of Good people or hurt innocents. Politically, Chaotic Good characters will typically affect change through outside pressure, such as social activism or outright rebellion.
These alignments both do what they think is best for others and themselves, but their methodology could not be more different.
Drizzt Do'Urden is a pretty good example of Chaotic Good, because he is interested in the common good but he champions a region of Faerun that has a lot of individual communities of varying sizes and thus has no real use for the conventions of any of them in particular. He also has no specific code for his behavior beyond trying to do the right thing and keeping people like the Ten Towns who just want to be left in peace from being swallowed up by all the much larger factions stomping around.
@the_spyder
I did not mean to suggest that Chaotic/Lawful conflicts would prevent parties from working together. I asserted only that it was a common source of conflict. While good/evil is often hard to recognize in the heat of the moment, it's generally pretty easy for a Lawful character to object to a Chaotic character stealing a bunch of stuff.
Your definition, despite forgetting to account for the good part and only comparing lawful and chaotic, do make a clear distinction between the two.
However that is YOUR definition not the game's or D&Ds definition, and that is the crux of the issue.
In reality there is no such thing as alignment... it is wholly a (badly written) construct of certain fictional settings, and as such you and I don't get to redefine it in such a manner.
That being said it is still horribly written.
As written lawful good individuals are incapable of grasping that an all powerful ruler might be evil and make evil laws. They are rigid thinkers who place petty laws above morality... AND will not lie even to save an innocent.
And a chaotic good character is incapable of grasping that an all powerful ruler who is good can do good for the people. They are anarchists for the sake of anarchy regardless of the quality of government.
Yes it is possible that they would follow local authority, but if the law is unjust or if they simply follow a different code of conduct, they are not merely going to lock step with the legal system 'Because they are lawful'. I personally would think that most successful thieves guilds are run by some form of Lawfully aligned leadership, yet they make a business of flaunting the law. Equally any number of societies, both secret and open, defy or openly oppose the law. A 'tendency towards groups or society' does not in any way guarantee that they will follow 'The Law'.
Also, i don't agree that 'Lawful' or 'Chaotic' tendencies are necessarily any easier to identify in a person than 'good' or 'evil'. In some people, yes. In others absolutely no. Are there common examples of extremely obviously lawful or chaotic people? Sure. but I would not say by any means that everyone is so easily read (without magic).
You seem to misunderstand alignment as some form of absolute, rigid descriptor the character must adhere to at all times and has no exception behavior from. It isn't, at least not for mortals, who can shift alignment with relative ease. Chaotic Good characters are perfectly capable of recognizing that powerful leaders aren't necessarily corrupt and can do good. By that same token, Lawful Good characters are perfectly capable of recognizing harmful laws (drawn up by a powerful Lawful Evil bureaucrat no doubt) or all-powerful tyrants. They subscribe to different ways of bringing about positive change, but are of course aware that their methods could be used to evil ends in the wrong hands.
Even if an all-powerful leader can be benevolent, a Chaotic Good character would still prefer more freedom, and thus might distance themselves from the society that leader is in charge of, willing to step aside and let others live under their benevolent dictator in peace. Open rebellion is not the automatic response of the Chaotic Good character. A Chaotic Good character might even get involved in the politics alongside his Lawful Good buddy if the environment is that pleasant and amenable enough to change.
Even if an all powerful leader who rules by the laws of the land or some ancient codex might be ultimately corrupt, a Lawful Good character is dedicated to promoting a society that protects people and helps as many of them while hurting as few of them as possible. The law being used to truly oppress is an abomination of what the Lawful Good character stands for, and in extreme circumstances of Lawful Evil tyrants they are just as likely to rebel or secede as their Chaotic Good buddy.
@the_spyder
You're preaching to the choir, here. I'm usually the first to point out that Lawful does not necessarily mean "following the laws of the land." I gave an admittedly obtuse example, though, you're right. A better one in the War of the Spider Queen series I recently started reading would be Ryld Argith (seemingly Lawful Neutral drow Fighter) and Pharaun Mizzrym (seemingly Neutral or perhaps Chaotic Evil drow wizard), two friends discussing the market district in Menzoberranzan. Ryld wonders aloud why the matron mothers don't send in troops to clean up the riff-raff and organize the chaos of the market and its neighborhoods so people aren't killing and robbing each other in the streets and might conduct themselves with more dignity, to which Pharaun argues that historically the market is more profitable, entertaining, and the goods are of higher quality when the market is allowed to run as a hectic, cosmopolitan urban wilderness. While not really a conflict, perse, it is a bit more of a clear cut argument than you might oftn have between Evil and Good characters, where Evil can often arguably justify just about anything short of slavery or murdering some guy for no reason.
It is funny though that my Lawyer friend is very much a Lawfully aligned person. Funny how sometimes it works out that way.
In most games that I've played, shifting alignment has very few direct mechanical consequences. Like I said, unlike demons or devils, mortals are not so intrinsically tied to their alignments.
Or all the variations more or less superfluous?