Is it ever possible to mix in an evil char with a good group, or vice-versa, logically?
>>47949662
Lawful Evil or Chaotic Good when their goals happen to align in a situation where there isn't much opportunity to act out in a way that offends the rest of the group.
>>47949662
In a song of ice and fire, Roose bolton's neutral evil is sworn bannerman to Robb stark's lawful good
>>47949662
Yes. Alignment does not dictate your actions.
>>47950067
Your actions dictate your alignment so obviously your actions will be done in line with your alignment.
>>47949662
Do you have brain damage, lad?
>>47950096
Not everything you do has to be 100% in-line with your alignment, and each alignment can be played in a myriad of ways.
It's not like Evil characters have to be full baby-murdering Snidely Whiplashes at every moment or Good characters have to be the Second Coming.
>>47950096
No, alignment is more WHY you did the actions.
A chaotic good character who's beating the shit out of a prisoner for information is doing it because he believes it's necessary to reach a good end.
A lawful evil character does the same, but not because it's the Just thing to do; he does it because he wanted to be the one to beat a bound man to within an inch of his life.
>>47949662
A Lawful Evil character is more than willing to ally with a good party if it suits his ends, and understands that not betraying them will be better in the long run. It can even be good to have, since an evil character who wants to stay allied with the group will be able to calmly explain his reasons for wanting to do an evil act, and can give the rest of the party insight from a point of view they might not have considered.
Even murderous psychopaths can have friends.
>>47949662
Yeah, of course. In situations of mutual interest, where both/all alignments see benefits. Or alternately if there's a threat to a plane, country, kingdom, or way of life that characters of both good and evil alignments are part of. Lots of reasons.
>>47949662
The good characters could see the evil ones as tools to be turned against greater evils. Manipulated for selfless reasons.
The evil characters could see the good ones as tools to be turned against greater goods. Manipulated for selfish reasons.
Everyone thinks the other side is playing right into their hand.
Sure.
You might have trouble getting a CE character to fit into a LG/NG group, or an LN character into a predominantly chaotic group.
LE characters are often more group-friendly than CN ones. Yes, they are evil, but they aren't LOLrandumb. NE is selfish, but LE can be someone who's willing to do terrible things for the "greater good", not just for fun or his own profit.
Being evil doesn't mean you have to serve demons or kick puppies just because you can.
Good character in evil group is more problematic. While evil characters have no problem with doing good deeds if they have a reason, good character can't do evil (or permit evil to happen in his presence) repeatedly without turning to evil. Good has higher standards... that's why it is easy to fall, but much harder to find redemption.
Good - Evil is a really bad scale imo. A better one would be Altruistic - Egoistic, in which case they can easily have common goals.
Remember, good/evil is very subjective even if a majority is able to define certain things into those categories.
Alignment is all about intentions and principles which define behaviour and through it actions. Killing babies so they don't suffer a sad life and get to Heaven sooner can be "Good."
TL;DR alignment is a guide to behaviour, not a definite classification.
I am playing my first LE character a monk in a majority good party. I designed the character after reading beyond good and evil, and wanted a character that liked well structured and ordered life but was willing to do horrible things to maintain it.
The hilarious thing is that my character is the only harper in the group.
>>47949662
Depends on the players. Some will see having allies and common goals are good things. Or deliciously evil things.
If anything, the evil char is a source of interactions and stories. One year down the road no one will remember bringing 5 magic wombats to grandma, but they'll always remember their interactions and stories that emerged from the characters themselves.
>>47949662
of course. Apowerfull LG Paladin Monk who leads a group of evil bastards - which are a jined forces of herpes - to keep them in line during cobat.
>>47950046
Roose Bolton betrays Robb Stark. That's an awful example.
>>47954751
Neutral Evil is prone to betrayal (Roose Bolton, Petyr Baelish)
Lawful Evil is superior.
>>47949662
No. If the evil character(s) never actually do anything evil, they aren't evil. If they do evil things, a good character can't just ignore it. Mixed alignment parties inevitably result in either shitty roleplay or intraparty conflict.
A lot of people will call a Neutral/Unaligned character "evil" and claim that this is an example of an evil character working with a good party or vice-versa.
>>47954769
ASoIaF is awful for trying to fit characters to DnD alignments. Tywin isn't evil, he's just a ruthless pragmatist (ignoring his attitude towards Tyrion). Petyr Baelish is probably evil, because he's just fantasy Ledger-Joker, complete with all the plot-armor.
>>47954805
>ruthless pragmatist
That's the definition of evil. He's selfish, ruthless, and out for his own interests = evil.
He's also fair and values honor, which makes him lawful.
>>47949662
>Good in evil party
sting operation or working with criminals to prove own innocence after huge fuckup.
>Evil in Good party
Waiting for big betrayal or doing this as a sort of probationary/community service punishment.
>>47954815
But it isn't his interests, it's his family's interests that he sets above all others. He puts the family above his own desires (not murdering Tyrion at birth).
Yep. Common cause in the story, or deception concealing true colors, or old friends from youth, or any number of other reasons. It's pretty easy.
>>47955006
"The family" is not an entity that can be served or helped. Why does he do it "for the family"? Because that's what he values. It's still his decision and desires.
>>47955267
By that argument good characters aren't good because they're just doing what they value.
Tywin does not put himself above others, which is a necessary trait for DnD style evil. He's neutral.
>>47955310
So how is that any different then someone acting in service to some dark, Evil lord? Is a truly selfless servant to Literally Satan a Good character no matter how many people they horribly torture?
Hypothetical situation:
>Barony under threat from a horde of hobgoblins
>Baron convinces 4 adventurers to find any means to divert or defeat the horde
>LE Fighter joins because he may earn enough prestige to secure a knighthood and a noble wife
>CG Ranger joins because he doesn't want to see people suffer and die under the tyrannical boot of the hobgoblins
>CE Rogue joins because he was promised treasure, and he can crack a few skulls with no repercussions to get it
>LG Paladin joins because it is his duty to battle evil in the name of all that is good and righteousbut don't think any evil is going to go unsmitten when it's all over. The baron threw a hostage in the oubliette when the hostage's family failed to pay the ransom on time
>>47950723
Sounds like you're describing a Lawful Neutral character to me.
If anything Lawful Evil is the most dangerous of the three.
Maybe if the good characters don't realize the evil character is evil.
>>47954424
CN =/= LOLrandumb.
A LE would never do terrible things for the "greater good", the fact he's evil implies he'd only do good things for his own profit/fun.
Seems you've really confused evil with neutral.
>>47954507
You want LN then, LE is practically the conquer the world type.
>>47954782
You pretty much hit he nail on the head, congrats.
My group is 1 NG, 2 CG, 3 N and 2 CN and we get along fine. I'm certain a few might have ulterior motives or plots but I'd be very surprised if they involved fucking the group over.
>>47955803
>CN =/= LOLrandumb.
True, but it's often played as such. Or as an excuse to cry "chaotic neutral!" when the player is That Guy who wants to steal from the party, murder random NPCs and do retarded shit
>A LE would never do terrible things for the "greater good", the fact he's evil implies he'd only do good things for his own profit/fun.
>Seems you've really confused evil with neutral.
Nope. Neutral doesn't do evil things like murder (not all killing is murder), torture, etc., but doesn't go out of his way to help others either.
Am overused example: The Operative from Serenity. He admits he's evil, but he does what he does to create a "perfect" world. Not for himself: as monster, there's no place for him in the world he helps to create.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxcTDoE_Kbg
>>47949662
I've got a question?
Have you ever played a game called Fable?
You know where you can be a complete dickhead and still be considered a hero because you solved peoples problems?
It's kind of like that.
>>47949662
Yeah this can be fun,if not horribly cliched. Its like every time superman/batman has to work with one of their villains in order to defeat a greater threat.
Can TN work in any type of party?
What would a party entirely comprised of TN characters look like?
>>47958704
A group that wants to do the quest and not bitch at each other over ethics.
>>47949662
Logically speaking, it'd be hard to pull it off. The only way in which this works if their goals align. Now normally for adventures for maximum dosh, you can work something out. But if you try to have anything more than a surface plot of "Kill dem goblins" the party will end up fighting each-other, or there will be bent alignments.
>>47954782
Pretty much this, desu.
Though to better answer it, Chaotic Evil and Lawful Good can never co-exist. Their fundamental beliefs are so inconsistently different, that if the two were to try and get together, they'd have no reason to like each-other. It's total contrarian. You like bread? I hate bread. You want peace? I want conflict. You think we should do things legally? I think we should just kill the guy.
Etc.
>>47949662
Depends on how cool the players are with it.
>>47959660
That sounds like the best kind of group. Think I might try it out.
>>47955814
while my monk was at his monastery he watched as every needless element was mercilessly destroyed: weeds, vermin, predators. Every creatures life and well being was not more important then the gardens well being. think less balance of the world and more guest in the house of a tyrant
We're playing Kingmaker and I'm playing an evil character, the city's head crime boss. The good characters don't like it, but I structure and keep organized the crime so they accept it, since without it things go back to random muggings and alleyway rapes/murders. I also can get things done that they can't, like when rabble rousers started weaseling their way into the city and causing unrest. Legally they couldn't do anything so they asked me to take care of the problem.
All my henchmen are also evil so it's not like they're just giving me the exception either.
>>47954751
Robb also ignored lots of good advice from Roose, which led to the betrayal. Robb was an idiot politically.
>>47958704
I'm sure it's possible to make an interesting true neutral character, I just have never seen anyone succeed.
Pretty much all the time I've seen a player take that alignment it's because having actual principles or strongly held beliefs might get in the way of what's most convenient at the moment.
>be CE fuckhead
>love killing
>like really love killing
>it's so fucking fun
>find out some shitbag is going to kill everyone in the kingdom
>I live in this kingdom, I don't want to get killed
>I want to kill the people in the kingdom
>I'm not gonna let shitbag kill them, then I'll have no one to kill
>I'm gonna kill this shitbag
>shitbag is strong
>I hope I'm able to kill shitbag
>a bunch of goody-two-shoes fuckheads want to kill shitbag too
>some babble about saving lives
>whatever
>they say I can help out if I only kill the bad guys
>get to kill shitbag and don't have to worry about anyone getting on my ass about killing
>score
>>47949662
>Is it ever possible to mix in an evil char with a good group, or vice-versa, logically?
You're kidding right?
Of course it is.
Pic more related than ever
>>47954805
>because he's just fantasy Ledger-Joker
That's literally the worst character to compare him to.
>>47949662
Sure. I constantly play NE characters, and they work according to a very simple mercenary archetype - you pay me (and this doesn't necessarily have to be money, or even anything material, basically as long as you've got something I need), and I do what you need me to do. Whether the actions are good, bad, or anything in between doesn't matter to me. However, I always make sure that no matter what we're doing, my long-term goals and interests aren't getting interfered with. And most importantly, I never give out freebies, like saving someone solely for the kindness of my heart or something. So, for example, if our party comes across some merchant being raided by bandits, I look him over and make sure he'll be able to pay me before I go and save his ass. Otherwise, he's on his own.
Now, this sort of behavior could create some tension between strict LG policeman-types, but at least with my companions, we seem to make it work, as long as they understand the fact that, like I said, I don't do things out of the kindness of my heart. Sure they might give me a bad look every now and then, but all in all we get along.
>>47958704
>What would a party entirely comprised of TN characters look like?
A bunch of hippies sitting in the middle of the woods, doing fuck-all, because "muh neutrality". You can't do anything, ever, without tipping the scales one way or the other. And that's why TN only works for animals or plants and shit.
>>47949662
It can be done, but it's more often than not just a huge pain in the dick for the party members and the DM to make everything work without fudging the rules. I think this video sums it up the best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrhZPLpgWbg
>>47967345
>Dexter
>Lawful
He goes around murdering people. That is not lawful.
>>47969093
lawful doesn't mean do-gooder
good means do-gooder generally
lawful means they uphold a personal standard of morality, and he only murders the guilty, so he feels just in his actions.
I think you're confusing lawful with the definition of one who follows the legal laws.
>>47969093
>He goes around murdering people. That is not lawful.
He goes around murdering people very lawfully.
A lawful neutral character has a set of laws or codes (more than just a general belief) that they abide by which don't need to have been created with the intention of being good, by the local law of the land, by the law of a god, or by another figure of authority.
Dexter is regimentally Lawful, despite breaking the law or failing to uphold his code all the time.
His chaotic impulse and desire drives his actions, but his actual actions and intent are very lawfully guided by his Code.
As to whether he is evil, he doesn’t kill the good or even slightly evil people, he only ever kills those that he is certain are violently evil offenders that the world is better off without.
His intentions and actions are not really evil.
As to whether he is good, he doesn’t kill people for justice or for the good of anyone, he generally only kills because he likes it and could stop, but doesn’t.
His intentions and actions are not really good.
In short, Dexter is how I Lawful Neutral.
>>47969163
>lawful means they uphold a personal standard of morality, and he only murders the guilty, so he feels just in his actions.
You were close, but this is wrong.
Morality and good versus evil don’t play into it.
It’s Order versus Chaos.
Lawful means they uphold a personal standard of order.
>>47969266
>he only murders the guilty, so he feels just in his actions.
that was me paraphrasing the wiki page for dexter, not really my own words
>>47954805
>fantasy Ledger-Joker,
CHAOSH
IS A LADDER
>>47969266
>>47969288
>that was me paraphrasing the wiki page for dexter, not really my own words
Fair enough.
I also realized I implied order versus chaos has nothing to do with morality, which is wrong too, but confuses the point.
Let's just agree that the other guy has the wrong idea about what lawful is.
Party on.
>>47954751
Well there's Daenerys who is also evil and Barristan who's Lawful Good
>>47950096
not necessarily. your actions can change your alignment.
>>47949662
From my experience in GMing Good and Evil (in DnD terms) have very similar means but vastly different ends since most of the campaign is means of doing X or getting THING its highly likely outside of magic means or alignment effective powers (which don't come up as often as you think when its not a strictly Us verses pure evil forces) that the characters or even the players will find their companions alignments until the very end. They won't know that that stingy wizard is actually lawful evil or that retired soldier is neutral good because they're both fighting bandits trying to kill them and getting their shit back at most the evil one might be more of an ass to the bandits and the soldier might wish to show some mercy, but without stating "I AM X" no one can really tell. That's good. I find that once someone declares to the group "I AM X" they subconsciously feel as though they must exaggerate their actions to justify their statement which is never good.
What I find is much harder is getting Law and Chaos getting along together cause that is stuff which ALWAYS comes up if you even get near a city or place with a government.
>>47966948
>it's because having actual principles or strongly held beliefs might get in the way of what's most convenient at the moment.
DING DING DING
You got it! That's the ethics code they have.
>>47968233
also druids
>>47949662
They can if the evil one is sneaky about it.
>>47954489
>Remember, good/evil is very subjective
It is in the real world, but in D&D terms they are very derived directly from very real sources and are very much objective in nature.
>>47969093
>"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is by no means anything but Lawful and Good. Prisoners guilty of murder or similar capital crimes can be executed without violating any precept of the alignment. Hanging is likely the usual method of such execution, although it might be beheading, strangulation, etc. A paladin is likely a figure that would be considered a fair judge of criminal conduct."
>>47969293
LADDAH*
>>47968233
TN is supposed to be rarest of the alignments, practically only ever achieved by enlightened individuals who have attained true balance between the cosmic forces. It's a very new idea that neutrality is the most common alignment and that you're an dogmatic fundamentalist if you fall into any of the other ones.
>>47968233
Wow, you're fucking retarded.
>>47973694
Your pic agrees with him.
>>47973785
How so? Do you lack basic reading comprehension?
>>47968233
>You can't do anything, ever, without tipping the scales one way or the other
that's not what TN is. TN means not being compelled to do good or evil, and not being compelled to follow any kind of personal code, yet not being completely whimsical.
Any good character who isn't completely archetypal will be TN with small leanings towards G/E or L/C
>>47974371
>Any good character who isn't completely archetypal will be TN
Get that shitty homebrew outta here.
>>47974551
Any character complex enough to not be summed up in one or two sentences will invariably be TN
Alignments aren't real life nor should they dictate how you play your character anyway
>>47974573
>will invariably be TN
No, not according to the metaphysics of D&D. Neutraility is an incredibly narrow path to follow as that graph shows. It's far more common for someone to be Lawful Good leaning towards Neutrality than the other way around because of how the cosmic forces work in D&D.
>Alignments aren't real life
Exactly. And in D&D Neutrality is something only very few people attain.
>>47954751
ASoIaF is also trash, so that's a thing that should be taken under consideration
>>47974754
>stoplikingwhatidontlike.jpg
>>47974709
Question: Are all characters in D&D of a metaphysical alignment?
Because I've heard it both ways and you seem to be saying that if you're evil at all, even a little, you would ping under detect evil.
>>47980613
>Are all characters in D&D of a metaphysical alignment?
Yes.
>if you're evil at all, even a little, you would ping under detect evil.
Yes. Detect Evil detects evil. If you fall into the evil side of the alignment scale then it will detect you as such.
>>47969638
>stops her plans for world conquest to end the slave trade for little to no personal benefit
>evil
I don't understand this meme
>>47949662
I always just said that mortals are all unaligned and that alignment was a function of being an outsider or magical. I don't know why more people don't do this. It solves so many table fights.
>>47982522
Dragon heritage makes her inherently evil, it's like D&D orcs.
>>47954805
>Littlefinger
>fantasy Ledger-Joker
1/10 comparison, the only thing they have in common is being able to consistently and correctly guess what other people will do in response to what they do.
two completely different kinds of characters with completely different kinds of objectives.
>>47963190
I hope they asked for your help on this day, the day of your daughter's wedding
In general people who play evil characters in a group of mostly good/neutral alignments are doing so just to be disruptive. They are the special fucking dramallamas who constantly berate the paladin, derail the game, kill important characters, or betray the party.
LE is barely an exception and even then is usually dumber than it should be.
NE or CE players in good parties are guaranteed to be the most edgetarded friendless goth kids in the room at any given time. DO NOT entertain the their fucking college freshman philosophy course drivel under any fucking circumstances if you want a serious game. The players themselves exhibit the worst of the hobby on a regular fucking basis and in general will constitute a great source of embarrassment if anyone finds out about your D&D game.
He will be as selfish as his character and will fancy himself as the funny one in the group and when he leaves the room you will all agree that he is the annoying one. He will not make positive contributions to the group, he will not bring food, he will not respect house rules, he will not use coasters. You will be expected to provide things for this person over and above what you would anyone else when you do not expect it. He will be invasive. He will be painfully negative.
And what's worst of all is that after a few games you're his new best friend because he can't fucking connect to anyone else. Hope you enjoy reading his ULTRA SERIOUS new space horror novel about when the cursed earth scientists found a singularity called the screaming void and sent earth's ships (which are all named by mixing a vampire name with a gun) into it to find the Howling Dark Nebula and all the crew is hallucinating because he has no fucking idea how horrific regular space travel is so all he can write is a fucking reskinned 40k fanfic and WOE BETIDE YOU if you point out that you'd rather go to the Weed & Hookers Galaxy than this fucking nonsense.
>>47982591
That's retarded. Orcs are only evil in D&D because they are the engineered servants of an evil God, and good and evil exist on a physical level.
There is no such thing in GoT, all humans have free will. They also don't literally have dragon blood either.
>>47950046
Robb is Lawful Stupid, he's That Guy playing his first paladin.
>>47954769
That sounds like something lawful neutral would say to be honest.
>>47971333
Well, not really. All it does is list a handful of things that are indeed strictly evil or good, and that's more just spells and such, not complex moral decisions.
>>47949662
>not playing an edgy tryhard NE warlock who absolutely adores his LG paladin older sister.
>>47949662
It can be done but better yet. Just don't
