So basically, Lawful stupid is just as disruptive as Evil stupid ... or Chaotic stupid ... or True neutral stupid ... actually any alignment taken to an extreme.
I once played a lawful evil character. She was the king's assassin and went on a rescue mission under orders to kill a character if that character could not be rescued. Most of the time, I played her like a good character because her orders included helping the mission. The main difference was that when the party got where they were going, the other members of the party just knocked out or incapacitated the guards. My character would do that too, but she would kill the guards if it was easier.
That's a way to easily fit an evil character into a game. An example of doing it right. Conflict comes when you decide it's time to kill her in a dispute over how hard "impossible" is
Love the backroads driving. I'm in South Carolina. I once spent a year driving the country using nothing but backroads. I went across the southern U. S. to California up to Washington then across to Maine then down the east coast to Florida.
Antiheros and antivillians are so easy to design and never feel stale if you do them justice as a PC. Rando Mcgoo is a member of the thieves guild in the capitol and I was assigned a mission to get recon on BBEG's supply chain because it is messing up our extortion busuness. Meet the party while I was impersonating a town guard to gather information, helped you solve the town's stupid whatever problem and learned we have similar goals. Maybe I tell you I'm a part of the thieves guild, maybe not. Either way, y'all will help me get my mission done faster and safer and I'll discard you when you're no longer useful, or I'll grow attached to you and stay with your group because I like you, not because I wanna be a hero. Came up with that off the top of my head at 1:30 in the morning. It's not hard to make a compelling evil character, you just need to care about making a cool story with the people at the table and not play like an idiot.
Only masochistic slaves even consider associating with individuals that channel their inner Yugolotth duribg 'recreation' time. In organized dnd LE is allowed. This in tyrannical and inflexibly orthodox -will ally directly with NE (,Yugolloth types) but will nit begsve so directly typically. Only good aligned characters are allowed in my campaigns, N deities are permitted however. In the 'real world ' LE is most prominent and powerful, NE executioners/politicians mist expedient as they possess no conscience or empathy, nor desire to cultivate such -such traits sincerely expressed perceived as an indicator of weakness...LN is also appeased becase theur is continuity if valuation. Full Stop. Pathfinder organized play wasa partial exception as any 'evil' alignment or for a character was disallowed. Nor was PVP confluct/party sabatoge permitted. There weerr opposing factions fir manageable internal conflict, but an evil deity psttin/deity was allowed -this presented significant challenges as particular: obeisances ' are often quite horrific -but only evee involving NPCs.... Aa a NG optimuzed wizards archetype originally, the several sessions I participated in n all survived in the party +all ramdom folks in publuc venues as players) Most were pleasant and cordial, some quirky and obstinant, atbleast one in any given session a N aligned with an evil deity/patron. Typiczll CN...Players chamnel themselves into their characters, aa a form of pretending or, 'becoming'. Even ',good' characters ni assurance of respectful player conduct, but thus is expressed from the plsyer directly, not vicariously through the ', character as 'role play '. Apathy, indifferent, ans, even delight in real world suffering and privstio is everywhere, why glorify in such a mentality ib a role plsy setting -unless as an example of What Not To Be/Aspire To Humanity does not, despite curebt propaganda stipulating otherwise, descend to ascend. But those who descent deliberately grasp onto and draf all others around them /possibly influenced by them into tge downward spiral...
5e has more or less put the nail in the coffin of alignment, because frankly it causes these problems. Alignment won't fix anything. I believe in constructing objectively evil and good stuff, that's just what makes games more obvious, but most people are playing chaotic neutral no matter what their character sheet says. There's a channel called "chaotic neutral" for a reason. Kids don't want to be shoe-horned into roles, so they are like, pathologically opposed to it. What I think most DMs do is to just force alignments on people, but they don't change behaviors. You can strap in and punish characters for "misbehavior". Usually just makes for an argument. Me personally, I am on the fence. I appreciate old-school dynamics, and played most of my DnD as a kid with 1st and 2nd edition. Alignment SEEMED very important to us at the time, I agree. 30 years later, I don't care as much. Alignment was (in my experience) always a litigious way to waste hours at the table--even back in the day. However, I don't like the moral ambivalence as much because if your players are bricks...I ran a campaign recently and the players were basically unable to decide anything on grounds other than strategic. They usually slide into murderhobos when there is no collective concern. It's video games, and I'm not totally against that. Final point: Being an jackass is being evil. We don't commonly come across people we call "evil" because just like nowadays that feels rather judgmental in everyday life. We call them every name under the sun generally speaking. So, my personal approach to evil players is to be "careful" but not clownishly evil because unless I'm in a batman movie, that's kind of unrealistic. My current dudebro is a selfish but basically incompetent woodworker enslaved yadda yadda, kills his employer and escapes. He's lawful evil but sliding heavily into chaos on his journey out of captivity. What's that look like? hitched up with my crew, we cast around looking for work, found a lone merchant who hired us to escort him to the next town over. Ambushed by gnolls. I tried to hide my crimes, but I bashed the merchants head in during the fight and (unsuccessfully) pretended it was one of the gnolls. Nobody was buying this, but I then suggested we pilfer his wagon and their eyes lit up. Since then I've successively implanted the notion that "we're in this together guys, we'll all hang for this!" And yes, this was overtly manipulative, but the weird thing about social manipulation is that it works really well--even against smart players. We stole magical goods, were intercepted by "law dogs" and lied, stole, and ran away from the authorities ever since. These players are now in a criminal outlaw gang and they do not yet realize it. I'm the only evil one in the party! Boy oh boy, playing evil characters can be immensely rewarding.
Oddly enough, the current player base is OBSESSED with character development, collaborative story telling, and narrative, yet they hate the mechanic that I most heavily hear towards making those things better and easier.
@@drivinganddragons1818 when your baseline character is a douchey piece of crap, they don’t have far to go for development. I actually recommend the old guard play evil characters. The kids these days dont seem to know how to play evil. Guy in my current game played a Yuan-ti because of course he did and of course he’s chaotic neutral, so he’s a reskinned dudebro who is “cool with whatever. “. I almost pvp’d the dude but let it go. I SHOULD be dead by now but it’s been almost comical how lucky my guy gets. I pissed on a troll in the middle of combat. Took a few rounds. Nobody seemed to notice.
I disagree with the point about the DM forcing players into alignments. As long as you are clear with your players and warn them about their alignment changes before, it would be a good deterrent. "That marks 3 decisions in a row you've done something selfish and cruel. And 4 actions that could only be interpreted as chaotic. (Lists the actions) Your alignment is dangerously close to switching from neutral good to chaotic neutral." Even if there are no real mechanical consequences for alignment anymore unless you're a good paladin or cleric, people who aren't trying to be bad don't like being told they're being bad.
@@hopelesslydull7588 I see yer point, and I don't actually want a mechanic--I don't think it's worth the effort, unless you want it to be, that seems fine.
Played an Evil character once over a decade. DM got upset that I wasn't causing party drama and the other players hadn’t figured it out, etc. Basically he was expecting "stupid evil". So he decoded that since I was "avoiding the consequences of my choice" to have a paladin come up and accuse me. The party defends my character, and in the discussion, it comes out that my character was working with them on destroying the goblin raiders not to save the villagers. Instead he was doing it to get paid for killing goblins and taking their stuff because even if ghe goblins had been peaceful he would have been doing that because they were "a lesser race" who "didn’t deserve to exist, let alone have land or property". The players and GM were actually surprised when this happened, and I OOC pointed out that you could be evil and work just fine with heroes as long as your goals aligned. I had no reason to go against party because they fulfilled my evil desires just fine. Said DM would pull a bunch of other stuff like this and we got sick of it so that group broke up.
A good GM has to let things play out. He may be excited about what he thinks will happen, but can't get caught up trying to force it. This guy actually sounds like he was playing tin soldiers and not D&D, trying move the pieces for his own amusement as an observer
According to TH-cam I also do initiative wrong, hit points wrong, AC wrong, combat wrong, narration wrong, DMing wrong, world building wrong, understand dice probabilities wrong, eat the wrong kind of Cheetos, magic wrong, falling damage wrong, miniatures and terrain wrong, play the wrong edition, NPC voice wrong, and saving throws wrong. 😂
You think you have it bad, I had two kids doing sex the wrong way! Well I should phone up my ex and tell her we should try it again, this time I will get it right, can you imagine the eggs on her face? 😃
@@drivinganddragons1818 I played my Oathbreaker as polite and reasonable. But at the end of the day he was out for his own gain. Helping his crew? Mainly because a strong crew helps get to his goal sooner. Give a weapon to another play that boosts him? Easy, because an efficient team member is a useful team member.
The benefits of dnd socially are with friends in a private game, or with new acquaintes in a controlled environment. Teal life narcissists/sociopaths too engsge in such public role playing. Allowing evil or evil deity venerating chsrscters virtually assures thrm deference and authority during a gaming season. Unless the party ',face,' is an optimized Paladin (acrusl origindk Paladin, only LG, alignment deviation consequence is loss of all deity patronage until atoned fir, or permanent liss of patronage if an evil act is deliberately commited ir conspired actively towards The player needs to also havw authentic empathy and desure for the well being ir the other players-they are having a 'party' AKA/nit a narcissist or sociopath player. As PF society has eliminated alignments altogether and rediced Palsdin to insignificant mercenaries at bedt, and SnD allows LE characters in organized play (LE tyranny alwsys tge default authority/leader if allowed Unless a Paladin is introduced, but the inevitable acrimony directed towards the Paladin by plsyers/characters/and even the narrator (gm) is tyoicallyan unpleasant experience for the Paladin player, but definitely worthwhile in termd of teal workd character improvement, and a few descent/not narcissistic/sociopath plsyers will quietly appreciate sucha Paladin player.
I don't agree in the least that allowing evil into the party results in any kind of transfer of power to less honest players. Evil is not a blank check for stupidity nor is it a pass to avoid consequences. A good party should only tolerate an evil character in so far as he aligns with the goals and missions of the group, a neutral party only so far as it doesn't negatively impact their personal goals. A narcissist who attempt to use evil as an excuse to run roughshod over the party simply becomes the player of Goblin #7 while the rest of the party does to him what they do to other goblins.
@@drivinganddragons1818 You are certainly entitled to your (falliciois) perception of the 'honest' cooperative LE aligned character. However, as LR is inherently hierarchical, exclusive, and uncompromising (as all devils are and they represent the very definition of LE) then any play Not attempting to subvert good or chaotic aligned characters Or striving for dominance vs other LE characters is not actually role playing LE. Good aligned value cooperation and power sharing for common weal -withiut ulterior motivation Authentic, sincerely expressed Virtue ad its own Reward Eviil alignments are in opposition yo this, dominance /pleasure/absolute unfettered individualism is the objective , all others are expendable as a means to these ends. No compassion, mercy, or grace, just hungry, lust, and avarice. The only 'viirtue' such lower plane axiomatic oriented embrace is Virtue Signalling.
@@truthjustice6454 you are making the classic mistake of those who misunderstand alignment. Alignment does not dictate the individual decisions and actions of a character, it represents where their overall personality and core moral/ethical drives fall on a spectrum. Not every decision a LE character makes is either lawful or evil. Even devils will make decisions that in and of themselves are largely neutral and they are a representation of the objective cosmic constant of that alignment. Particularly in player races, alignment represents world view and motivation more than anything else and if a "good" act will better accomplish an evil character's goal, that's what they'll do, not because theyre good but because it better suits their ends. The definitions I use regarding alignment are gleaned from 30+ years, multiple editions, and numerous books where the mechanics are outlined and defined.
@@drivinganddragons1818 Yes, there have been many editions and alterations to the original alignment (logic square) axioms The 1st ed Advanced DnD was the most comprehensive, and apolitical Several specific examples referenced. Example: A LE Baron ruthlessly massacring all populations that oppose his /her striving for dominance...Yet will be kind to orphans/children on occasion . Though, such orphans/children are products of a corrupt, tyrannical ends justify means 'order' is not acknowledged, or even of concern to the Baron(ess) . Contrarily, good aligned will strive to establish Systemic authentic Justice, and meritocracy (LG particularly/ Those LG Paladins are actually an existential threat to the real world LE tyranny, even in a for profit entirely fantasy setting where memes are innumerable to discourage such a player class, and popular culture engineered to distort even the proper method of playing such a class..The narrative is so transparent in real world LE society that a small handful of players who genuinely desire to emulate such behavior ad a person and role play such in. public group setting, this in an inherently/systemically hostile party atmosphere (particularly but not limited to players with LE characters that are properly played such alignment -)which I would disallowed from principle ) Even so, a fraction.of a fraction of a fraction of Uncontrolled Opposition to malevolent)( when advantageous also hypocritical) tyranny in a purely fantasy atmosphere with no money or possibility of attention from the desired companionship (rate on such atmospheres) the LG Paladin is castigated relentlessly. Such is the nature of Devils and those aligned with them. .0000001 percent Uncontrolled LG Opposition is too much for them...Even One on the Entire Multiverse
@@drivinganddragons1818 I completely, unequivocally disagree with all the 'ethically the ambiguous ' nature of LE/Any E. If you are referencing source material as Canon for campaigns the Original Source is an appropriate beginning -and conclusion GGygax Advanced DnD Dungeon Masters Guide (1st edition with the flaming giant red sword weilding fiend on the cover) All alignments are represented, along with motivations, and valuation. Any Source Material utilized other than this Original Source is, at best inaccurate, at worst... (more often worst 'modern: interpretations are spuriously and implemented) political/CRT/, Intersectional 'Theory' fender/moral ambiguity propaganda vs the 'loathed and expendable 'other' Ah yes, such folk really are prospering, prospering joyously on their diabolically engineered 'civilization'. For such there is no authentic opposition whatsoever, just the way they like it ...(But will deceive and midirect, establishing innumerable 'controlled opposition: for the appearance of adversity to the 'holy' directive... Ah yes, best such descent as far as possible, not for ascension, but for (The illusion) of authority in the Inferno... Plenty of accomodation there, always vacancies -_-
![เปิดบ้าน พี่ตูน Bodyslam หลังใหม่คนแรก ที่ภูเก็ต l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/flFwcmyDQSk/mqdefault.jpg)
So basically, Lawful stupid is just as disruptive as Evil stupid ... or Chaotic stupid ... or True neutral stupid ... actually any alignment taken to an extreme.
Not taken to extreme, just strawmanned or misunderstood into stupidity.
I once played a lawful evil character. She was the king's assassin and went on a rescue mission under orders to kill a character if that character could not be rescued. Most of the time, I played her like a good character because her orders included helping the mission. The main difference was that when the party got where they were going, the other members of the party just knocked out or incapacitated the guards. My character would do that too, but she would kill the guards if it was easier.
That's a way to easily fit an evil character into a game. An example of doing it right. Conflict comes when you decide it's time to kill her in a dispute over how hard "impossible" is
Love the backroads driving. I'm in South Carolina. I once spent a year driving the country using nothing but backroads. I went across the southern U. S. to California up to Washington then across to Maine then down the east coast to Florida.
I love it. That was the original channel idea: excuse to drive
yeah my player base have mostly the same morals and we laid down ground rules for alignment pretty much as soon as we started playing.
Antiheros and antivillians are so easy to design and never feel stale if you do them justice as a PC.
Rando Mcgoo is a member of the thieves guild in the capitol and I was assigned a mission to get recon on BBEG's supply chain because it is messing up our extortion busuness.
Meet the party while I was impersonating a town guard to gather information, helped you solve the town's stupid whatever problem and learned we have similar goals. Maybe I tell you I'm a part of the thieves guild, maybe not.
Either way, y'all will help me get my mission done faster and safer and I'll discard you when you're no longer useful, or I'll grow attached to you and stay with your group because I like you, not because I wanna be a hero.
Came up with that off the top of my head at 1:30 in the morning. It's not hard to make a compelling evil character, you just need to care about making a cool story with the people at the table and not play like an idiot.
Yep... It's utterly amazing how much you can accomplish by following two simple rules:
1. Don't be stupid.
2. Don't be an ass.
Only masochistic slaves even consider associating with individuals that channel their inner Yugolotth duribg 'recreation' time.
In organized dnd LE is allowed. This in tyrannical and inflexibly orthodox -will ally directly with NE (,Yugolloth types) but will nit begsve so directly typically.
Only good aligned characters are allowed in my campaigns, N deities are permitted however.
In the 'real world ' LE is most prominent and powerful, NE executioners/politicians mist expedient as they possess no conscience or empathy, nor desire to cultivate such -such traits sincerely expressed perceived as an indicator of weakness...LN is also appeased becase theur is continuity if valuation. Full Stop.
Pathfinder organized play wasa partial exception as any
'evil' alignment or for a character was disallowed. Nor was PVP confluct/party sabatoge permitted. There weerr opposing factions fir manageable internal conflict, but an evil deity psttin/deity was allowed -this presented significant challenges as particular: obeisances ' are often quite horrific -but only evee involving NPCs....
Aa a NG optimuzed wizards archetype originally, the several sessions I participated in n all survived in the party +all ramdom folks in publuc venues as players) Most were pleasant and cordial, some quirky and obstinant, atbleast one in any given session a N aligned with an evil deity/patron. Typiczll CN...Players chamnel themselves into their characters, aa a form of pretending or, 'becoming'.
Even ',good' characters ni assurance of respectful player conduct, but thus is expressed from the plsyer directly, not vicariously through the ', character as 'role play '.
Apathy, indifferent, ans, even delight in real world suffering and privstio is everywhere, why glorify in such a mentality ib a role plsy setting -unless as an example of
What Not To Be/Aspire To
Humanity does not, despite curebt propaganda stipulating otherwise, descend to ascend.
But those who descent deliberately grasp onto and draf all others around them /possibly influenced by them into tge downward spiral...
5e has more or less put the nail in the coffin of alignment, because frankly it causes these problems. Alignment won't fix anything. I believe in constructing objectively evil and good stuff, that's just what makes games more obvious, but most people are playing chaotic neutral no matter what their character sheet says. There's a channel called "chaotic neutral" for a reason. Kids don't want to be shoe-horned into roles, so they are like, pathologically opposed to it. What I think most DMs do is to just force alignments on people, but they don't change behaviors. You can strap in and punish characters for "misbehavior". Usually just makes for an argument.
Me personally, I am on the fence. I appreciate old-school dynamics, and played most of my DnD as a kid with 1st and 2nd edition. Alignment SEEMED very important to us at the time, I agree. 30 years later, I don't care as much. Alignment was (in my experience) always a litigious way to waste hours at the table--even back in the day. However, I don't like the moral ambivalence as much because if your players are bricks...I ran a campaign recently and the players were basically unable to decide anything on grounds other than strategic. They usually slide into murderhobos when there is no collective concern.
It's video games, and I'm not totally against that.
Final point: Being an jackass is being evil. We don't commonly come across people we call "evil" because just like nowadays that feels rather judgmental in everyday life. We call them every name under the sun generally speaking. So, my personal approach to evil players is to be "careful" but not clownishly evil because unless I'm in a batman movie, that's kind of unrealistic. My current dudebro is a selfish but basically incompetent woodworker enslaved yadda yadda, kills his employer and escapes. He's lawful evil but sliding heavily into chaos on his journey out of captivity. What's that look like? hitched up with my crew, we cast around looking for work, found a lone merchant who hired us to escort him to the next town over. Ambushed by gnolls. I tried to hide my crimes, but I bashed the merchants head in during the fight and (unsuccessfully) pretended it was one of the gnolls. Nobody was buying this, but I then suggested we pilfer his wagon and their eyes lit up. Since then I've successively implanted the notion that "we're in this together guys, we'll all hang for this!" And yes, this was overtly manipulative, but the weird thing about social manipulation is that it works really well--even against smart players. We stole magical goods, were intercepted by "law dogs" and lied, stole, and ran away from the authorities ever since. These players are now in a criminal outlaw gang and they do not yet realize it. I'm the only evil one in the party! Boy oh boy, playing evil characters can be immensely rewarding.
Oddly enough, the current player base is OBSESSED with character development, collaborative story telling, and narrative, yet they hate the mechanic that I most heavily hear towards making those things better and easier.
@@drivinganddragons1818 when your baseline character is a douchey piece of crap, they don’t have far to go for development. I actually recommend the old guard play evil characters. The kids these days dont seem to know how to play evil. Guy in my current game played a Yuan-ti because of course he did and of course he’s chaotic neutral, so he’s a reskinned dudebro who is “cool with whatever. “. I almost pvp’d the dude but let it go. I SHOULD be dead by now but it’s been almost comical how lucky my guy gets. I pissed on a troll in the middle of combat. Took a few rounds. Nobody seemed to notice.
I disagree with the point about the DM forcing players into alignments. As long as you are clear with your players and warn them about their alignment changes before, it would be a good deterrent.
"That marks 3 decisions in a row you've done something selfish and cruel. And 4 actions that could only be interpreted as chaotic. (Lists the actions) Your alignment is dangerously close to switching from neutral good to chaotic neutral."
Even if there are no real mechanical consequences for alignment anymore unless you're a good paladin or cleric, people who aren't trying to be bad don't like being told they're being bad.
@@hopelesslydull7588 I see yer point, and I don't actually want a mechanic--I don't think it's worth the effort, unless you want it to be, that seems fine.
Played an Evil character once over a decade. DM got upset that I wasn't causing party drama and the other players hadn’t figured it out, etc. Basically he was expecting "stupid evil". So he decoded that since I was "avoiding the consequences of my choice" to have a paladin come up and accuse me. The party defends my character, and in the discussion, it comes out that my character was working with them on destroying the goblin raiders not to save the villagers. Instead he was doing it to get paid for killing goblins and taking their stuff because even if ghe goblins had been peaceful he would have been doing that because they were "a lesser race" who "didn’t deserve to exist, let alone have land or property".
The players and GM were actually surprised when this happened, and I OOC pointed out that you could be evil and work just fine with heroes as long as your goals aligned. I had no reason to go against party because they fulfilled my evil desires just fine.
Said DM would pull a bunch of other stuff like this and we got sick of it so that group broke up.
A good GM has to let things play out. He may be excited about what he thinks will happen, but can't get caught up trying to force it.
This guy actually sounds like he was playing tin soldiers and not D&D, trying move the pieces for his own amusement as an observer
Thanks for the talk, and the ride.
Detect evil doesn't detect evil in 5e
I know, just another reason 5e is inferior. You wanna change the spell go ahead, but don't be lazy, change the name too.
According to TH-cam I also do initiative wrong, hit points wrong, AC wrong, combat wrong, narration wrong, DMing wrong, world building wrong, understand dice probabilities wrong, eat the wrong kind of Cheetos, magic wrong, falling damage wrong, miniatures and terrain wrong, play the wrong edition, NPC voice wrong, and saving throws wrong. 😂
You forgot stat rolling.
@@drivinganddragons1818 🤣
You think you have it bad, I had two kids doing sex the wrong way! Well I should phone up my ex and tell her we should try it again, this time I will get it right, can you imagine the eggs on her face? 😃
I Been playing a lawful evil and thank you for validating a few things. I thought I was an odd one out.
The problem I see most common is that self centered, egotistical players seem to think lawful evil means lawful bastard.
@@drivinganddragons1818 I played my Oathbreaker as polite and reasonable. But at the end of the day he was out for his own gain. Helping his crew? Mainly because a strong crew helps get to his goal sooner.
Give a weapon to another play that boosts him? Easy, because an efficient team member is a useful team member.
Algo
The benefits of dnd socially are with friends in a private game, or with new acquaintes in a controlled environment. Teal life narcissists/sociopaths too engsge in such public role playing. Allowing evil or evil deity venerating chsrscters virtually assures thrm deference and authority during a gaming season. Unless the party ',face,' is an optimized Paladin (acrusl origindk Paladin, only LG, alignment deviation consequence is loss of all deity patronage until atoned fir, or permanent liss of patronage if an evil act is deliberately commited ir conspired actively towards The player needs to also havw authentic empathy and desure for the well being ir the other players-they are having a 'party' AKA/nit a narcissist or sociopath player.
As PF society has eliminated alignments altogether and rediced Palsdin to insignificant mercenaries at bedt, and SnD allows LE characters in organized play (LE tyranny alwsys tge default authority/leader if allowed Unless a Paladin is introduced, but the inevitable acrimony directed towards the Paladin by plsyers/characters/and even the narrator (gm) is tyoicallyan unpleasant experience for the Paladin player, but definitely worthwhile in termd of teal workd character improvement, and a few descent/not narcissistic/sociopath plsyers will quietly appreciate sucha Paladin player.
I don't agree in the least that allowing evil into the party results in any kind of transfer of power to less honest players. Evil is not a blank check for stupidity nor is it a pass to avoid consequences. A good party should only tolerate an evil character in so far as he aligns with the goals and missions of the group, a neutral party only so far as it doesn't negatively impact their personal goals. A narcissist who attempt to use evil as an excuse to run roughshod over the party simply becomes the player of Goblin #7 while the rest of the party does to him what they do to other goblins.
@@drivinganddragons1818
You are certainly entitled to your (falliciois) perception of the 'honest' cooperative LE aligned character.
However, as LR is inherently hierarchical, exclusive, and uncompromising (as all devils are and they represent the very definition of LE) then any play Not attempting to subvert good or chaotic aligned characters Or striving for dominance vs other LE characters is not actually
role playing LE. Good aligned value cooperation and power sharing for common weal -withiut ulterior motivation Authentic, sincerely expressed Virtue ad its own Reward
Eviil alignments are in opposition yo this, dominance /pleasure/absolute unfettered individualism is the objective , all others are expendable as a means to these ends. No compassion, mercy, or grace, just hungry, lust, and avarice.
The only 'viirtue' such lower plane axiomatic oriented embrace is Virtue Signalling.
@@truthjustice6454 you are making the classic mistake of those who misunderstand alignment. Alignment does not dictate the individual decisions and actions of a character, it represents where their overall personality and core moral/ethical drives fall on a spectrum. Not every decision a LE character makes is either lawful or evil. Even devils will make decisions that in and of themselves are largely neutral and they are a representation of the objective cosmic constant of that alignment.
Particularly in player races, alignment represents world view and motivation more than anything else and if a "good" act will better accomplish an evil character's goal, that's what they'll do, not because theyre good but because it better suits their ends.
The definitions I use regarding alignment are gleaned from 30+ years, multiple editions, and numerous books where the mechanics are outlined and defined.
@@drivinganddragons1818
Yes, there have been many editions and alterations to the original alignment (logic square) axioms
The 1st ed Advanced DnD was the most comprehensive, and apolitical
Several specific examples referenced.
Example:
A LE Baron ruthlessly massacring all populations that oppose his /her striving for dominance...Yet will be kind to orphans/children on occasion . Though, such orphans/children are products of a corrupt, tyrannical ends justify means 'order' is not acknowledged, or even of concern to the Baron(ess) .
Contrarily, good aligned will strive to establish Systemic authentic Justice, and meritocracy (LG particularly/ Those LG Paladins are actually an existential threat to the real world LE tyranny, even in a for profit entirely fantasy setting where memes are innumerable to discourage such a player class, and popular culture engineered to distort even the proper method of playing such a class..The narrative is so transparent in real world LE society that a small handful of players who genuinely desire to emulate such behavior ad a person and role play such in. public group setting, this in an inherently/systemically hostile party atmosphere (particularly but not limited to players with LE characters that are properly played such alignment -)which I would disallowed from principle )
Even so, a fraction.of a fraction of a fraction of Uncontrolled Opposition to malevolent)( when advantageous also hypocritical) tyranny in a purely fantasy atmosphere with no money or possibility of attention from the desired companionship (rate on such atmospheres) the LG Paladin is castigated relentlessly. Such is the nature of Devils and those aligned with them. .0000001 percent Uncontrolled LG Opposition is too much for them...Even One on the Entire Multiverse
@@drivinganddragons1818
I completely, unequivocally disagree with all the 'ethically the ambiguous ' nature of LE/Any E.
If you are referencing source material as Canon for campaigns the Original Source is an appropriate beginning -and conclusion
GGygax Advanced DnD Dungeon Masters Guide (1st edition with the flaming giant red sword weilding fiend on the cover)
All alignments are represented,
along with motivations, and valuation. Any Source Material utilized other than this Original Source is, at best inaccurate, at worst... (more often worst 'modern: interpretations are spuriously and implemented) political/CRT/, Intersectional 'Theory' fender/moral ambiguity propaganda vs the 'loathed and expendable 'other'
Ah yes, such folk really are prospering, prospering joyously on their diabolically engineered 'civilization'.
For such there is no authentic opposition whatsoever, just the way they like it ...(But will deceive and midirect, establishing innumerable 'controlled opposition: for the appearance of adversity to the 'holy' directive...
Ah yes, best such descent as far as possible, not for ascension, but for
(The illusion) of authority in the Inferno... Plenty of accomodation there, always vacancies -_-