*D&D 4ed*

[Harlune]

Anyone have any experences trying out a archery focused Ranger yet? Every single play test I've read so far only seems to go into melee rangers and blade cascade cheese.

[mlangsdorf]

I've built one through 20th level but haven't played. It looks like it will be effective in casual play but I don't know how well it would against serious min/maxers.

[josephbt]

Murdering other characters is the norm in my group.

Funny though, evil AL is looked down upon.

[Ramnza]

Sorry the only experience with an archer is the cleric archer and it kicks butt.

[Judging__Eagle]

I've seen a lot of comments about "Evil" parties.

I've played in games like that; the real reason was that pretty much everyone wanted to play a monster, and go around raiding towns that they didn't like or raiding caravans.

So, it was more of a Monster game that sent the PCs into the Underdark.

As for the comments about PCs randomly killing NPCs and such.

What do you call it when the PCs don't want to kill all of the bad guys?

What do you call it when they don't murder people that they can forcibly restrain? .... like being able to capture and hold a Mummy Sorcerer with just a large (6 PC) party of lvl 6 PCs)

Or when the most killingest Librarian in the group decides to spare the life of the BBeG?

This BBeG being an NPC cleric that they've been antagonized by over the course of several adventures, and who the PC 'should' have killed the 1st time they fought him... the DM just simply gave him enough HP to run away.

Seriously, we didn't kill the evil BBeG Cleric. We tied him up and took him to the capital. The local intelligence agency took him into permanent custody. At this point I don't know if that's worse, but whatever.

The entire campaign the DM was basically trying to force us to kill the 'bad guys.

Every time we showed clemency to enemies that we had subdued or chose to tie up our enemies, instead of gutting them or executing them; he tried to force our hand into killing them.

"Roleplaying" DM my ass. "Storytelling" DM my ass.

[Kaelik]

I would now like to direct everyone to the part of the PHB that specifies allies and enemies, pg 57:

"If a power directly affects one or more creatures or objects, it has a “Target” or “Targets” entry. When a power’s target entry specifies that it affects you and one or more of your allies, then you can take advantage of the power’s effect along with your teammates. Otherwise, “ally” or “allies” does not include you, and both terms assume willing targets. “Enemy” or “enemies” means a creature or creatures that aren’t your allies (whether those creatures are hostile toward you or not). “Creature” or “creatures” means allies and enemies both, as well as you."

You are your own enemy. Welcome to shitville.

[Jotoco]

I would now like to direct everyone to the part of the PHB that specifies allies and enemies, pg 57:

"If a power directly affects one or more creatures or objects, it has a “Target” or “Targets” entry. When a power’s target entry specifies that it affects you and one or more of your allies, then you can take advantage of the power’s effect along with your teammates. Otherwise, “ally” or “allies” does not include you, and both terms assume willing targets. “Enemy” or “enemies” means a creature or creatures that aren’t your allies (whether those creatures are hostile toward you or not). “Creature” or “creatures” means allies and enemies both, as well as you."

You are your own enemy. Welcome to shitville.

Heh!

I thought you were your worst enemy.

What about effects that emanate from you? You always hit yourself?

[Talisman]

That's utterly hilarious. Also incredibly stupid. I like how they specifically call out that you are not an "ally."

Judging_Eagle: That's...a new one on me. I've played games where the GM tries to keep us from killing BBEGs, but never ones where he tried to make us kill BBEGs.

[JonSetanta]

Well sure, you are your own worst enemy.

... until a party member decides to "have fun" and backstab you either because you had something they wanted, or it seemed be a well-thought out and awesome idea.

I always assumed in D&D any spell that affects allies can also affect the user. Hmm.

Also, there needs to be some kind of spell, maneuver, or general use of action point to deal, say, double damage in retribution against someone that was your ally at one point in combat but is now an enemy.
You know, as an in-game rule to wipe out "I play Chaotic Neutral!" characters quickly and legally when they decide to pull a double-cross.
Damage would become the special Nerdrage Revenge type.

[Jerry]

You know, as an in-game rule to wipe out "I play Chaotic Neutral!" characters quickly and legally when they decide to pull a double-cross.

[Warning! In a bad case of hypocrisy, I make a long post; now, long posts don't annoy me; unwarned long posts do]

I hated how in the pathfinder/paizo adventure path, the chaotic neutral enemies can act all evil without becoming evil.

For example, when a plague struck, a CN merchant did not detect as evil, even though he was making money off of poor and destitute plague victims by seling a fake "miracle cure."

Yet when my character's 10 year-old son was killed by a crime lord, I was considering chaining his legs up, giving him a saw, setting the building (abandoned fishery) on fire, and telling him that if he wanted to survive, he'd have to saw off his legs.

The DM said that that would be Evil, and I'd turn that alignment-wise.

So, in the DM's view, sadistically killing something who killed your defenseless child is enough to turn a Neutral man evil, but making money off of people's misery under false pretenses isn't.

[RandomCasualty2]

I hated how in the pathfinder/paizo adventure path, the chaotic neutral enemies can act all evil without becoming evil.

For example, when a plague struck, a CN merchant did not detect as evil, even though he was making money off of poor and destitute plague victims.

Yet when my character's 10 year-old son was killed by a crime lord, I was considering chaining his legs up, giving him a saw, setting the building (abandoned fishery) on fire, and telling him that if he wanted to survive, he'd have to saw off his legs.

The DM said that that would be Evil, and I'd turn that alignment-wise.

So, in the DM's view, sadistically killing something who killed your defenseless child is enough to turn a Neutral man evil, but making money off of people's misery under false pretenses isn't.

That's because of the two definitions of evil.

One is simply being selfish. If you care about no one but yourself, your'e evil. That's the definition of alignment.

The other is by performing evil acts, casting evil spells, doing evil things. This technically makes you radiate evil, but it doesn't really change the way you act. Thus even if you're not selfish and do things to save the world, if you perform "evil acts", you still become evil.

Now a neutral character basically cares about friends and family, and other people he has relationships with but doesn't care much about others. If you go by the first definition of evil and the definition of neutral, then neutrals can exploit people or murder people in brutal fashion and still remain neutral.

It's the problem that they want evil to be some kind of stigma that hangs with you that people can detect, yet it's also supposed to be an indicator of your personality. But because it's trying to be both, it doesn't really work well as either.

Still, I believe that DMs should let neutral characters cross the line from time to time without switching to evil, especially if there's good reason for it. What your character did doesn't sound evil to me. If your character did that to people all the time for fun, then it would be evil, but doing to to someone who killed someone he cares about is just a sadistic form of justice.

[Jerry]

If your character did that to people all the time for fun, then it would be evil, but doing to to someone who killed someone he cares about is just a sadistic form of justice.

I wanted to pull a Mad Max, a guy who does not strike me as Evil. I think that its fine to treat enemies like shit if they really deserve it.

[Maxus]

I'm all for allowing good guys to stop being good guys for a little while.

It's unreasonable to expect someone who's just suffered a horrific loss at the hands of another to be so inhuman they don't think about getting revenge.

Revenge isn't a good thing--it tends to be disproportionate--but it won't turn you evil. Well, unless you horribly execute your enemy, his family, all his friends, and the dog.

But once you've gotten revenge, it's not like you'll start doing those kinds of things to random people for the fun of it.

[Username17]

There is a persistent idea that disease is somehow "natural" and doing things that ensure that people will die by plague's hand is somehow morally purer than simply stabbing people in the face.

Case in point: The Romanovs ran an aristocratic and authoritarian hellscape where basic medical care was denied to people without noble blood. Stalin ran a bureaucratic and authoritarian hellscape where people chosen seemingly at random were determined to be enemies of the state and shot outright or deported to prison camps where they might never be seen again.

The death tolls of the Romanov dynasty were crazy higher than anything Stalin could have ever dreamed about. From the end of the Czar to the end of Stalin's iron fisted rule, the actual life expectancy of women basically doubled. Influenza kills so many more people than even the bloodiest wars that it's not even funny.

But many people would call Stalin "evil" and Czar Nikolai "neutral" or even "good." As a utilitarianist, I don't accept the logic. I can see where they are coming from, but it strikes me as horrible and short sighted.

-Username17

[Jerry]

But many people would call Stalin "evil" and Czar Nikolai "neutral" or even "good." As a utilitarianist, I don't accept the logic. I can see where they are coming from, but it strikes me as horrible and short sighted.

-Username17

Being jaded, I don't see politicians in general as "Good," so from what you explain, I don't see either as being "good" guys. In fact, from what you described, both sound "Evil (by D&D standards)."

As Qui-Gon Jinn said, "She's a politician, and not to be trusted."

[Koumei]

but it won't turn you evil. Well, unless you horribly execute your enemy, his family, all his friends, and the dog.

Shit, there goes Cao Cao (and just about everyone else of the era). Clanwide extermination for seven generations! And all members of their household, including servants... and digging up ancestors to mutilate the corpses and steal their stuff. In a sack.

[Talisman]

What your character did doesn't sound evil to me. If your character did that to people all the time for fun, then it would be evil, but doing to to someone who killed someone he cares about is just a sadistic form of justice.

What your character did does sound evil to me...justifiable, perhaps, but evil. However, one evil act does not an alignment change make; otherwise, villains would become neutral every time they did something that was neither good nor evil, and chaos and mayhem would rain down upon all.

If you did that in a game I was running, I'd say "Okay, you can do that, but that does count as an evil act. Keep it up and you'll get an alignment change."

Or if you were playing a paladin, I'd get out my 8-pound sledgehammer and crush your mini. Because paladins don't get to slide the way normal people do.

[Jerry]

What your character did doesn't sound evil to me. If your character did that to people all the time for fun, then it would be evil, but doing to to someone who killed someone he cares about is just a sadistic form of justice.

What your character did does sound evil to me...justifiable, perhaps, but evil. However, one evil act does not an alignment change make; otherwise, villains would become neutral every time they did something that was neither good nor evil, and chaos and mayhem would rain down upon all.

If you did that in a game I was running, I'd say "Okay, you can do that, but that does count as an evil act. Keep it up and you'll get an alignment change."

Or if you were playing a paladin, I'd get out my 8-pound sledgehammer and crush your mini. Because paladins don't get to slide the way normal people do.

I was a Neutral Rogue Sailor, if you must know.

[Talisman]

Neutrals get more slack. If you do that once, fine. If you start going all "Saw" on all the bad guys...let's just say every bad guy had to start somewhere.

But I believe the guilt of the "victim" plays a part as well. That's why you only stab people in the face if they deserve it.

[Jerry]

Neutrals get more slack. If you do that once, fine. If you start going all "Saw" on all the bad guys...let's just say every bad guy had to start somewhere.

But I believe the guilt of the "victim" plays a part as well. That's why you only stab people in the face if they deserve it.

The only part that I disagreed with on the DM's part was that CN merchants selling fake medicine to plague victims weren't spontaneously turning CE.

[CatharzGodfoot]

I still have no idea what CN actually means. If neutral means 'unaltruistic' (Is that a word?--Reciprocal altruism does not count), and chaotic means 'individualistic', then CN creatures should just be selfish to the detriment of others. Unfortunately, that's taken by NE, so evil has to become more evil.

I think a workable alignment system could be generated if you went by something like this:

• LN = inequality aversion
• N = greatest good for me and my buddies
• CN = greatest good for me
• LE = passive-aggressive & malicious exploitation of social norms while still attempting to follow them
• NE = I actively make life worse for people who aren't my friends
• CE = I'm selfish, but not so selfish that I wouldn't pay to make you suffer.
• LG = I'm altruistic, but I enforce social norms because they lead to greater good for everyone
• NG = I'm altruistic, but I look out for my friends first
• CG = I'm an indiscriminate altruist

Hmm, maybe not...

[Voss]

So law = egalitarian and chaos = selfish? That doesn't seem right.

[Username17]

So law = egalitarian and chaos = selfish? That doesn't seem right.

It makes as much sense as any other definition of Law and Chaos people have.

I think this is why they got rid of CG, CN, LN, and LE from 4th edition. No one can really tell the difference between NE and LE anyway so you might as well combine them. Not super happy with all the things they did with the new alignment system, but I can see where they are coming from replacing D&D's alignments with Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay's alignments.

-Username17

[RiotGearEpsilon]

Law and Chaos make more sense when you boil them down to their metaphysical extremes. Law as a force that invokes predictability, servitude, hierarchy, and stability, Chaos as a force that invokes inspiration, instability, manumission, equality. Either can be 'good', but neither of them has anything to do with benevolence or malevolence, necessarily.

[JonSetanta]

Neutral is the best.
Big buffer zone for many despicable deeds without getting called "vile fiend" in the process because, you know, you give candy to kids and help old people across the street in the evenings.