AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

Last edited by Amarynth on Mon, Jun 08 2015, 22:03 PM, edited 1 time in total.

I'm amazed at the number of True Neutrals, you people are indecisive.

Gauss ho!

Unfair, I have more than one character.

One of my character's alignments fits her perfectly, while the other should have been changed when she was rebuilt as she is completely not that alignment. Trying to work her towards acting it but aiyee it is difficult.

Naivatkal wrote:

Unfair, I have more than one character.

Feel free to write a post about additional characters and their alignments.

wow... I actually didn't expect to see that many true neutrals

I'm more shocked at only 27% being evil.

Talyne: NG (voted choice)

Valerius: CG

Luca: TN

Why the post? Curiosity?

That Guy wrote:

I'm more shocked at only 27% being evil.

Only 27%? I was surprised to see it that high. A perfect three-way split would be 33%/33%/33%. At the time of this post, Good is 26%. So yeah, a surprising number of Neutrals out there. If there's any particular axiomatic leaning right now, it's Lawful with 39%.

"Good" being the visible minority makes me wonder at all the insistence for 'evil' and conflict. There is plenty evil, and potential (if not active) conflict already.

Analog Kid wrote:

"Good" being the visible minority makes me wonder at all the insistence for 'evil' and conflict. There is plenty evil, and potential (if not active) conflict already.

actually, it kinda looks like good and evil are pretty balanced out. Neutral seems to be the prevailing alignment.

We're going to dominate the world with our indifference!

Haven't we already?

Oh...

..Meh.

Eh, I might post Crow's alignment, or not. It doesn't really matter, or does it? I'm not exactly certain either way, but then, I don't really care ...either does Crow, truly.

The chaotics really need to get their shit together though. Definite lack shown.

It's no secret that Lyraesel is Chaotic Good like most of her brothers and sisters.

Vilraniel was True Neutral and transitioned into Neutral Evil after her interactions with Kohlingen and ultimately vengeance against anyone else near the Kohlingers!

That Guy wrote:

I'm more shocked at only 27% being evil.

I've unfortunately run into characters who consistently do evil acts but have neutral and some even good alignments on their sheets, probably to avoid certain mechanics. They inevitably seem to get "corrected" by DMs.

I usually choose neutrals because I find extremes to be very cartoonish and somewhat unbelievable. The idea of a guy who almost always acts in a certain way (like Ned Flanders or Dr. Evil) is silly to me.

MightNMagic wrote:

That Guy wrote:

I'm more shocked at only 27% being evil.

I've unfortunately run into characters who consistently do evil acts but have neutral and some even good alignments on their sheets, probably to avoid certain mechanics. They inevitably seem to get "corrected" by DMs.

I usually choose neutrals because I find extremes to be very cartoonish and somewhat unbelievable. The idea of a guy who almost always acts in a certain way (like Ned Flanders or Dr. Evil) is silly to me.

More or less this. It's hard to make a character that isn't neutral since you have to actively try to fit into the other alignments, whereas neutral just is.

OpenTheRift wrote:

MightNMagic wrote:

That Guy wrote:

I'm more shocked at only 27% being evil.

I've unfortunately run into characters who consistently do evil acts but have neutral and some even good alignments on their sheets, probably to avoid certain mechanics. They inevitably seem to get "corrected" by DMs.

I usually choose neutrals because I find extremes to be very cartoonish and somewhat unbelievable. The idea of a guy who almost always acts in a certain way (like Ned Flanders or Dr. Evil) is silly to me.

More or less this. It's hard to make a character that isn't neutral since you have to actively try to fit into the other alignments, whereas neutral just is.

I'm pretty much exactly the opposite. It's hard for me to make a character that isn't good, since indifference doesn't come naturally to me. Good is my default, I'd have to actively try to fit in to neutral, have to remind myself all the time not to care about things.

Where are Drakos' Chaotic Evil bros?!

chaotic evil isn't an amian supported alignment

Drakos_Vek wrote:

Where are Drakos' Chaotic Evil bros?!

There's 8 of them you silly.

And more!

I thought LE would be more popular.

I think DMs should hand out alignment points like candy. The spread might look different then.

Lascer wrote:

I thought LE would be more popular.

I think DMs should hand out alignment points like candy. The spread might look different then.

this works in pnp where the dm is omniscient, but in amia they don't have a clue what your character is like.

well, my character is like a chocolate sunday with whisky soaked almonds on top.

OpenTheRift wrote:

Lascer wrote:

I thought LE would be more popular.

I think DMs should hand out alignment points like candy. The spread might look different then.

this works in pnp where the dm is omniscient, but in amia they don't have a clue what your character is like.

I disagree with this, personally. I think actions during a supervised event could potentially warrant minor shifts.

Faded Wings wrote:

OpenTheRift wrote:

Lascer wrote:

I thought LE would be more popular.

I think DMs should hand out alignment points like candy. The spread might look different then.

this works in pnp where the dm is omniscient, but in amia they don't have a clue what your character is like.

I disagree with this, personally. I think actions during a supervised event could potentially warrant minor shifts.

It's happened before, and should continue to happen.

The one problem with shifting alignments is knowing the characters motives. Not intentions, necessarily, but what the "endgame" of their action is. You could get a very different impression of my character if you took everything he said and did at face value. And that's basically all a DM has, unless they ask you. In any case, I've found "thought bubbles"-- oO(Hm, I wonder if that gnome is looking this way)Oo --help DMs understand your character better when possible alignment-shifting stuff is in the works.

Well of course the DMs would talk to the player about the character, do some probing and such. Which is what I think happens before alignments are shifted anyways (barring a formal request by the player).

Naivatkal wrote:

Well of course the DMs would talk to the player about the character, do some probing and such. Which is what I think happens before alignments are shifted anyways (barring a formal request by the player).

When one of my characters got Shifted to TN, the DM supervising asked me how I felt about the shift, considering her actions and her as a character, and even asked If I thought CN would be more appropriate. And It was actually nice to see them explain their rationale behind the shift, in addition, I got to voice my opinion about it OOC along with explain -why- she acted as she did as a character. I.e. her motives, and (Luckily for me) we agreed that TN fit her morals much cleaner than NG did, and had in fact thought the shift was a long time coming.

So, As for DM shifts, I think it's great when it's explained, and when the player gets to explain to, and hopefully the two can reach an amicable agreement, but they shouldn't be done without the prior discussion, unless something drastic happens.

Naivatkal wrote:

Well of course the DMs would talk to the player about the character, do some probing and such. Which is what I think happens before alignments are shifted anyways (barring a formal request by the player).

No. I am sorry, but this is not my experience of the matter. While I, as a player, understand my characters motives. At times, I will say.. from my perspective, that DM's do not understand my character. Sure, they have followed her/him for a length of time, but after all, it is just that limited perspective they have over a period of time. Sure, I can appreciate their input, but it does not say I need to agree with them. In addition, the DM team, in my opinion of course, are very reluctant to allow character shifting from one alignment to another. While, if it happens under their DM watch, they do not feel need to discuss the matter with the player at hand. And yes, we can all come up with whatever explanation and justifications for characters behavior or the shift from DM perspective, but the fact is that in Amia the shift towards certain alignments are increasingly difficult and you're not given a proper justification for that either. My apologies, if I hurt someone's feelings, but I've really fought around this matter without DM team giving me, in my opinion, a proper case to deal with.

Yar, Raua.

Just reiterating support, Naiv

If you guys want to avoid alignment shift drama altogether, just choose chaotic evil. Noone questions that alignment. :p

Raua wrote:

Just reiterating support, Naiv

As was I, to you! lol

joe15552 wrote:

If you guys want to avoid alignment shift drama altogether, just choose chaotic evil. Noone questions that alignment. :p

Damn right. Cause you know you gonna get shanked if you do. Or have a party thrown for you. And then probably shanked. Maybe not, though. Who knows?

Yeah, you gonna get shanked.

joe15552 wrote:

If you guys want to avoid alignment shift drama altogether, just choose chaotic evil. Noone questions that alignment. :p

Yes, the only problem with that alignment is coming up with new hair-brained schemes of world domination :twisted:

(I kiiiiid of course

)

I don't think a point here and there would effectively do anything more than give the player a heads up what the DMS are seeing. I also think, since they run the gods that care about alignment, what they see matters, arguably more than what the player or character thinks. Also, if points were handed out, one should be able to put forth a request for points were towards the alignment they think is correct, just like we do currently. Only it would matter more because the points were actually a reflection of actions. The fact that alignment is supposed to matter, that good and evil are not subjective here, but it can be almost totally ignored if the player doesn't feel like it bothers me. Like people ignoring low ability scores.

Also, sorry: I forgot this was a hot button issue here that always sparks some debates. Feel free to ignore the dead horse.

Out of curiosity though, if I were to mention on the bio DMS dropping alignment points as they saw fit was entirely accepted and encouraged, would DMS do such?

*Is in the minority again* Changing the current subject a bit, I always thought LE was a popular alignment, apparently I was wrong.

People tend to forget, too, that there are certain things that are flat out Evil in FR. Like, murder. Evil points, weeeeeee

There's too many possible variations in the act of killing to blanket the act as outright 'evil' especially in the FR setting.

Murder is a specific scenario =p

Essentially, killing in cold blood, without necessity. Though assassination is a very grey area on that; however I would reckon it's still considered Evil.

Killing in defense, or killing a rampaging monster is not murder.

murder is a charged word for the act of killing, sure you can add connotation to it but ultimately the act is killing, taking a life. even in modern society we recognize degrees of killing. in war a killer is given medals and money, in rage they are given prison or execution.

the point is that even the act of killing is riddled with ethical dilemmas (and we could go into ethics as a whole but you know that is swiss cheese in and of itself) so how can it be judged one way or another. ala back to the "DMs don't know what you're doing"

i mean even my absolute favorite kantian ethics can be argued back and forth, and that's a pretty sound ethical structure.

LG represent, dawg!

Naivatkal wrote:

Killing in defense, or killing a rampaging monster is not murder.

But entering a lair of Yuan-Ti and killing everything that moves is murder, by those standards. It was not in self defense. They were not rampaging. They were in their own cave, minding their own business. Maybe plotting to take over the world. Maybe. Did you try talking to them? No. You rushed in. They attacked you because you invaded their home, you attacked them back and started the massacre. Yuan-Ti are extremely intelligent beings. They have children. Your actions are justified by "they are evil", and therefore your slaughter is automatically considered neutral. If you did the same thing in Bendir Dale, you would be considered extremely evil. It's a flawed system, and we all accepted it. Trying to explain it rationally is futile.

True, however it's one of those things you just have to accept.

And I don't know the lore of the area, for all I know the Yuan-ti do actually come out and kill people.

But hey, monsters serve one purpose. Tasty XP machines!

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0975.html

That last panel. <3

When playing a game, much justification simply has to be rolled with. Mobs exist for xp. Killing them is how the game progreses. It isn't an action on the alignment scale (barring unique circumstances).

But the alignment system in DnD is objective, and beings outside your character judge tour actions all the time. Does a paladins receive a fall because they felt they committed evil, or because the god powering them felt they did? How can a characters alignment mean anything if no one but them can judge it?

Lascer wrote:

How can a characters alignment mean anything if no one but them can judge it?

Wow. QFT.

What is your character's alignment?

Who is online