RO PHB, Part 8: Alignment Part 2

Update schedule only partially hosed. Finishing up alignment tonight, regular schedule to continue tomorrow at some point.

Alignment, Part II

- Sometime around the release of 3e, Wizards of the Coast released an online questionnaire that, supposedly, determined what your "real-life" alignment was (though I imagine you could answer in the "voice" of your character to get the desired result). One of my friends rated as neutral, mostly because he was being deliberately obtuse, demanding more information from each question. However, not one, but two others scored as chaotic evil; one of them happened to be my at-the-time DM.

- In case anyone wondered or cared, I placed as lawful neutral. To illustrate the disparity between the two editions, I don't agree with the 2e write-up for "my" alignment.

- "'My character is going to act like a person who believes this.'" Great advice in such a simple sentence. I also like this gem that people forget when edition change comes around: "[W]hat's the point of playing a game if the players don't have fun?"

- Unfortunately, you can't have fun if you play evil alignments. "A group of players who play a harmonious party of evil characters simply are not playing their alignments correctly." Probably true, but this doesn't preclude them from working together as a team (like most adventuring parties), nor does it automatically disqualify them from having a fun time at the table regardless of party dynamics. Playing evil alignments is discouraged, but it feels like a token attempt to pacify potential objectors to the game; it may help to consider the politics surrounding the game at the time.

- There's a play example in here concerning the actions of a nine member party, each representing a different alignment. They go to a ruined castle to rescue a kidnapped peasant, eventually throwing down with the kidnapper and his gorgon pet; two of them die in the fight, and conflict arises when the remainder discuss how the treasure is to be divided. I'm kind of sad that it ends before they start stabbing each other.

- Going back to my comments about alignment and intelligence, there's a real lack of it here. The chaotic neutral character could easily be a rabid boar or an animated rag; he just does whatever strikes him at the time, not because it sounds like a good idea or because it's what he wants to do, but because that's what his alignment dictates he should do. Give the CN character any capacity for rational thought, and he becomes the true neutral character, who sounds like he's just waiting for an excuse to drop the hammer on the dungeon or the party, depending on /who's winning/.

- With the exception of the neutral evil character, all of the neutral characters seem like they are (or are being played by) utter morons. I think this might be due to a lack of understanding about how neutrality operates on the ethical and moral axes. 3e's approach was to consider them as "pure" alignments: neutral good was "pure good", chaotic neutral was "pure chaos", etc., and that seemed to work pretty well. No, true neutral was not "pure pure".

- You can almost hear the nerd lisp coming out of the lawful neutral character's mouth.

- Finally, the chapter ends by reneging on its "alignment is not a straightjacket" stance. If the DM thinks you're not playing the alignment you have written on your character sheet, you'll be penalized for it through the docking of experience points (which, depending on your class, may be the least of your concerns). Change and growth of character, it seems, cost experience points rather than award them.