Elven Arrogance and Good Aligned PCs
Wildmage
I've been toiling over a moral dilemma when it comes to role-playing
in my campaign. How far can arrogance go before the character becomes
non-good?? In my campaign this strictly applies to elves mostly. I
have one PC in particular who trusts and respects NO ONE but elves and
goes out of his way to make sure that they don't get it good. He
however is LN which is quite appropriate for his alignment. Another
elven PC that died recently was CG and was Mage Patrician. He took
arrogance to the extreme and saw himself better than everyone including
other elves! He took his arrogance to the extreme when he struck a
human servant in the throat with his staff when he found out he had no
silverwear on the table. (He was of course beaten to a bloody pulp and
thrown out of the restaurant.) And a still living Elven PC is a
specialty priest to Corellan Larethian. This deity is of course an
ELVEN diety so his character is focused on elven affairs. He as well
doesn not care about humans or any other race and is CG as well. The
difficulty I have with this arrangement is that they would consent to
anything low if didn't involve other elves as the victims. They would
stand by and watch a human get pickpocketed and subsequently slain as
long as another elf was doing it. Altogether, they see themselves as
superiors to all other races and make it extremely difficult for
non-elven PCs. (There are currently 2 humans and 3 elves.)
The Point:
I'd like to know what other people think about the boundaries of
arrogance and race superiority for good-aligned characters.
Wildmage
ThresholdMURPE
In article <33A655...@dreamscape.org>, ch...@dreamscape.org wrote:
>I've been toiling over a moral dilemma when it comes to role-playing
>in my campaign. How far can arrogance go before the character becomes
>non-good??
There is nothing inherently 'evil' in arrogance. Being arrogant in itself is
not going to result in a character being out of alignment. However, if this
arrogance results in a player going around and killing any person that insults
them in any way, the arrogance has influenced the player to commit an evil
act. However, the evil lies in the final act, not in the arrogance itself.
-Aristotle@Threshold
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
VISIT THRESHOLD MURPE! Online High Fantasy RPG!
Guilds: fighter/mage/thief/cleric/psion/bard/alchemist/shapeshifter
Player run clans, businesses, legal system, nobility, highly developed
religions, missile combat, tons of quests/areas, intense Role Playing!
http://www.athens.net/~aristotle/threshold (WWW Incomplete! Beware!)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
telnet://mud.chelmsford.com -or- telnet mud.chelmsford.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
K. Templer
Wildmage wrote:
>
> I've been toiling over a moral dilemma when it comes to role-playing
> in my campaign. How far can arrogance go before the character becomes
> long as another elf was doing it. Altogether, they see themselves as
> superiors to all other races and make it extremely difficult for
> non-elven PCs. (There are currently 2 humans and 3 elves.)
>
> The Point:
> I'd like to know what other people think about the boundaries of
> arrogance and race superiority for good-aligned characters.
>
arrogance and race superiority? elves only?
feeling superior and therefore act slightly arrogance is one thing...
but those few actions describe seems to be outside the boundary of good
alignment.
any race could have the feeling of race superiority. only in Dragonlance
modules do i remember that elves have this feel... that because they are
good, means that anything that does not agrees with them, is evil, or
non-good.
good alignments should be reflected in the way characters act. not what
their views are. for a race with a view of superiority could mean that
the race look down on other races. but the good aligned, should feel
pity, or even be patronizing to other races. those who would inflict
harm on others for some minor act, are not GOOD.
i always view alignment as a sort of guideline on what character will
do, regardless of their views and their cultural background. the first
part being how the character does things :Lawful means careful,
meticulous (spell?) or something along that way. Chaotic as in random,
wild, or those who do not plan. while the neutral are something in
between. while the second part are the backbone of the character's
action. good, evil, neutral.
those who does good, even in the name of evil, should be consider good
aligned. those who does evil in the name of good, is still evil.
look at it in another way. a knight in the old days are usually some
sort of nobility, therefore consider themselves to be superior to the
normal people. a paladin who is also a knight, could still feel he is
superior to the serfs. but if he where to struck a serf in anger,
because the serf did not bring silverware... would the paladin be still
a paladin?
btw. i need not be an elf to feel superior. my best characters are
usually humans. i frequently play every high level games, and the human
characters usually out perform an elf. but this is not about power.
in my view. the elves desribe above cannot be term 'good'. the players
might claim they are 'good'. but does their actions reflect that? role
playing is not just about talking in old language, or how a character
dress. it is how character acts.
Action speaks louder than words.
K. Templer
DZIAK
In article <33a68...@news.athens.net>,
ThresholdMURPE <thre...@athens.net> wrote:
>In article <33A655...@dreamscape.org>, ch...@dreamscape.org wrote:
>>I've been toiling over a moral dilemma when it comes to role-playing
>>in my campaign. How far can arrogance go before the character becomes
>>non-good??
>
>not going to result in a character being out of alignment. However, if this
>arrogance results in a player going around and killing any person that insults
>them in any way, the arrogance has influenced the player to commit an evil
>act. However, the evil lies in the final act, not in the arrogance itself.
>
>-Aristotle@Threshold
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> VISIT THRESHOLD MURPE! Online High Fantasy RPG!
> Guilds: fighter/mage/thief/cleric/psion/bard/alchemist/shapeshifter
> Player run clans, businesses, legal system, nobility, highly developed
> religions, missile combat, tons of quests/areas, intense Role Playing!
> http://www.athens.net/~aristotle/threshold (WWW Incomplete! Beware!)
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> telnet://mud.chelmsford.com -or- telnet mud.chelmsford.com
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
My feeling is that as long as they are not committing evil acts (ei
killing for no good reason) then they are still within align. I have a
character right now who is a female Elven Bladesinger. She is hated by all
the other party members, because of this very problem. She is mean to all
other non elven characters and NPCs she even tends to be mean to the elven
characters that talk with non elves. The point here is that she is CG and she
is played in character. The part that makes her good is that fact that aside
from her elven pride, she would lay down her life for the other PCs and she
has proven that time and again in countless fights. The character was
designed to mess up the balance of the game. Since she does not get along
well with the other players it makes it difficult for the other players to
justify having her along. The biggest point is that even with all this she
is still a good character and yes she has done some things that might be
considered evil she did them out of ignorance and foolish pride is a minor
character flaw with the elven race as a whole.
Anzak
Peter White
Wildmage wrote:
>
> The Point:
> I'd like to know what other people think about the boundaries of
> arrogance and race superiority for good-aligned characters.
It is implied in the D&D alignment system is there exists absolute
standards of Good and Evil. As a DM, you must apply these standards to
the characters. Characters are not perfect, nor do they have perfect
knowledge, so some leniency is appropiate; even the Good are not
necessarily disallowed from marginal Evil acts, although only under
exceptional circumstances. Some rules of thumb (all IMHO):
1) Slavery is Evil. Those who tolerate slavery could well be Neutral.
A Good player will find slavery abhorent.
2) Torture is Evil. Good characters will only tolerate it under the
absolutely most desperate circumstances, and atonement may be necessary.
3) Standing around and watching an innocent person get murdered is both
cowardly and Neutral. A Good character will always interfere. Most
Neutral characters would interfere, even at modest risk to themselves.
A non-Evil fighter or even cleric who stands around and lets this happen
could potentially be docked experience for obvious cowardice, although I
would recommed this sanction only if the player really understands the
consequences when he takes his (in)action. (I happen to believe that a
fighter and cleric levels are based on both skill and reputation.)
4) Random acts of kindness is Good. Even most Neutral characters will
do this to some degree, recognizing that medieval society depended on
churches and individuals to help the ill-fortuned. Good aligned
characters will do this more frequently and methodically.
5) Stamping out Evil is Good. If the character has no fire in the
belly for this, regardless of on whom the evil is perpetrated, he is
Neutral.
6) A character who only acts in a Good manner towards his friends (or
race) is Neutral. Good character should know better. Note that even
Evil characters can have friends and _usually_ act in a Good manner
towards them (until the right moment).
--Peter
p-w...@accesscom.com
Bridget Farace
ThresholdMURPE wrote:
>
> In article <33A655...@dreamscape.org>, ch...@dreamscape.org wrote:
> >I've been toiling over a moral dilemma when it comes to role-playing
> >in my campaign. How far can arrogance go before the character becomes
> >non-good??
>
> There is nothing inherently 'evil' in arrogance. Being arrogant in itself is
> not going to result in a character being out of alignment. However, if this
> arrogance results in a player going around and killing any person that insults
> them in any way, the arrogance has influenced the player to commit an evil
> act. However, the evil lies in the final act, not in the arrogance itself.
>
> -Aristotle@Threshold
throughout time and space. Arrogant, smug, proud to be a Timelord.
It's an honor and a privilege that You, as a mere Human, do not enjoy.
But as a Timelord, a superior sort of being, it's his duty to
protect the weaker races from destruction at the hands of badguys,
since they obviously couldn't protect themselves.
It's this kind of thinking..
"We elves are a lot better than humans. It's a given. Humans are
pathetic, short-lived wretches with no artistic ability. They can't
even see in the dark! Therefore, we elves should, as the mighty,
superior good guys we are, seek to protect the weaker races, like
humans, from annihilation. They obviously couldn't do it themselves."
That kind of elf would still be good. Not particularly nice,
wouldn't get along terribly well with people of other races, but
certainly good.
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> VISIT THRESHOLD MURPE! Online High Fantasy RPG!
> Guilds: fighter/mage/thief/cleric/psion/bard/alchemist/shapeshifter
> Player run clans, businesses, legal system, nobility, highly developed
> religions, missile combat, tons of quests/areas, intense Role Playing!
> http://www.athens.net/~aristotle/threshold (WWW Incomplete! Beware!)
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> telnet://mud.chelmsford.com -or- telnet mud.chelmsford.com
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Bridget Farace
Dave Harper
Following the agenda of the New World Order, Wildmage
<ch...@dreamscape.org> wrote:
>I've been toiling over a moral dilemma when it comes to role-playing
>in my campaign. How far can arrogance go before the character becomes
>non-good??
Personally, I allow good characters to be arrogant, proud, racist,
sexist and prejudiced.
However, I don't allow them to do evil.
This sounds like a contradiction in terms; it's not. I describe evil
as hurting people, taking pleasure in it and using unnecessary
violence. Okay, that's a bad description, but I'm not about to
reproduce my entire alignment tables here. Basically, though,
whenever that PC's arrogance (or racism, or sexism, or whatnot) makes
them do evil - even indirectly, by doing nothing, it counts as evil.
When it simply is insulting and offensive, they're good - but they get
a bad reputation. Just being offensive and annoying doesn't mean
you're evil, or even neutral.
For example, if an Elven cavalier responds to a call for aid from an
elven maiden but not from a human woman, when all else is the same -
and the human woman suffers because he didn't help - that counts as an
evil act. If the PC helps her anyways, but grumbles about it and
calls her insulting names and whatnot, I'll count is as a good act.
And if the PC helps her, but charges her for it (or charges her MORE
for it) for being human, I call it a neutral (non-good) act.
Dave
"What's for dessert?" -Me
"AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!" -My mother
"YOU *NEVER* ASK FOR DESSERT!!" -My father
"Space aliens have taken my child!" -My mother
"So, is there any pie left?" -Me
scott
> Following the agenda of the New World Order, Wildmage
> <ch...@dreamscape.org> wrote:
>
> >I've been toiling over a moral dilemma when it comes to role-playing
> >in my campaign. How far can arrogance go before the character becomes
> >non-good??
>
> Personally, I allow good characters to be arrogant, proud, racist,
> sexist and prejudiced.
> However, I don't allow them to do evil.
>
> This sounds like a contradiction in terms; it's not. I describe evil
> as hurting people, taking pleasure in it and using unnecessary
> violence. <snip> Just being offensive and annoying doesn't mean
> you're evil, or even neutral.
> For example, if an Elven cavalier responds to a call for aid from an
> elven maiden but not from a human woman, when all else is the same -
> and the human woman suffers because he didn't help - that counts as an
> evil act. If the PC helps her anyways, but grumbles about it and
> calls her insulting names and whatnot, I'll count is as a good act.
Hmmm. I think that I'd be a little stricter. In a case where the elven
cavalier responds to a call for aid from a human women, and then proceeds
to 'insult her and whatnot', I don't think this should be called "good".
Obviously it isn't directly evil, but above you did say "I describe evil as
hurting people, taking pleasure in it and using unnecessary violence."
Depending upon the actual 'insults and whatnot' I may term it
hurtful and unnecessary violence, especially if the cavalier takes
pleasure in it.
Of course there is no absolute answer - there is a large grey area. But,
it isn't easy being good. That's why the majority of people are neutral.
Dragar Steelepoint
Master of the Blade
______________________________________________________________
The World of Irial, Grimoire Arcana, World Shapers' Page, and AD&D
Page at http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/1820/
"I don't suffer from insanity.
I enjoy every minute of it."
Jason Hatter
Bridget Farace (janetf@*nospam*popalex1.linknet.net) wrote:
: A good example of an arrogant good guy is Doctor Who :) Fights evil
Definetly the earlier Doctors, as well as #6. However, Doctors 4,5, and
7, while occasinally smug, were rarely arrogant. In fact, occasionally
(especially with #5) they were downright humble...
--
Jason
http://www.cris.com/~towonder/
RPG stuff at http://www.cris.com/~towonder/rpg.html
featuring Sailor Moon V at http://www.cris.com/~towonder/fanfic.html
David Carroll
In article <5o9aur$o...@chronicle.concentric.net> Towo...@cris.com (Jason Hatter) writes:
>
>Bridget Farace (janetf@*nospam*popalex1.linknet.net) wrote:
>: A good example of an arrogant good guy is Doctor Who :) Fights evil
>
>Definetly the earlier Doctors, as well as #6. However, Doctors 4,5, and
>7, while occasinally smug, were rarely arrogant. In fact, occasionally
>(especially with #5) they were downright humble...
I don't know... I would say numbers 4 and 7 were among the most arrogant
and patronising of the lot, particularly in the 'darker' eras (with some
wonderful stories as a result). Even #5 was alien to the point where
he just didn't understand humans very well - he would do his best for
his companions, but often seemed to forget about their human frailties
(especially Tegan).
Off topic, I know, but it's a fascinating study of a character who
wanders round doing 'good', which has a lot of relevance to role-playing
(an alternative to doing good as a byproduct of finding lots of money,
which seems the standard rationale in many games).
^o^
David C
'The things I do for my people' - Lucas Buck
Stuart Nicholson
In article <33A655...@dreamscape.org>, ch...@dreamscape.org says...
>
>
>The Point:
>I'd like to know what other people think about the boundaries of
>arrogance and race superiority for good-aligned characters.
>
>
Interesting. Well, I would say that watching some one get killed if elves
weren't involved would be an evil act. However watching someone get
pickpocketed might not be. This problem is an alignment vs. culture
problem...is it evil to watch a "heathen orc" get beaten by a mob? I think the
dm needs to set guidelines for alignment...
A strict alignment model might say that a "good" character couldn't watch a
theft, murder or slavery of any race. A race based alignment might suggest
that an elf wouldn't allow murder, but might not feel it wrong to enslave a
lesser race (if they were well treated) or interfer with a petty theft between
"lesser" races.
All in all I think that alignment is a very tough subject in AD&D, but it
usally make for a good decussion.
Stuart
Just a thought
Toby
On Tue, 17 Jun 1997, Wildmage wrote:
> I've been toiling over a moral dilemma when it comes to role-playing
> in my campaign. How far can arrogance go before the character becomes
> non-good??
As far as it wants. How is arrogance an evil thing?
[Of course, in an Ideal World, alignment doesn't exist....]
--
this puke stinks like beer
http://members.tripod.com/~Tesseract
Trestius
Peter White <pwh...@cellnet.com> wrote in article
<33A6D1...@cellnet.com>...
> Wildmage wrote:
> 1) Slavery is Evil. Those who tolerate slavery could well be Neutral.
> A Good player will find slavery abhorent.
Have to agree here.
> 2) Torture is Evil. Good characters will only tolerate it under the
> absolutely most desperate circumstances, and atonement may be necessary.
Sometimes it is necessary to 'interrogate' people, but I agree that it
certainly isn't a Good act. I doubt that Neutral characters would have too
much problem with it.
> 3) Standing around and watching an innocent person get murdered is both
> cowardly and Neutral. A Good character will always interfere. Most
> Neutral characters would interfere, even at modest risk to themselves.
> A non-Evil fighter or even cleric who stands around and lets this happen
> could potentially be docked experience for obvious cowardice, although I
> would recommed this sanction only if the player really understands the
> consequences when he takes his (in)action. (I happen to believe that a
> fighter and cleric levels are based on both skill and reputation.)
This, and all of these points depend on the specific situation. Even a
Paladin in Dark Sun (if one could exist) wouldn't interfere when Hammanu
decides to execute a number of people. To do so means certain death. Now
the Paladin (again, I know they don't exist in DS) might swear his
vengeance on the tyrant and spend the rest of his relatively short life
trying to kill him. My point is this: a Good aligned character can observe
Evil acts and not interfere if he knows that he cannot change the outcome.
He certainly wouldn't enjoy the spectacle.
> 4) Random acts of kindness is Good. Even most Neutral characters will
> do this to some degree, recognizing that medieval society depended on
> churches and individuals to help the ill-fortuned. Good aligned
> characters will do this more frequently and methodically.
True.
> 5) Stamping out Evil is Good. If the character has no fire in the
> belly for this, regardless of on whom the evil is perpetrated, he is
> Neutral.
I don't think that you need to have a drive to eliminate Evil to be Good.
I think most people would agree the Conan would be CG, but he doesn't go
around looking for Evil to destroy just because its Evil. If you find
yourself stamping out Evil whenever you encounter it, you may be Good
character.
> 6) A character who only acts in a Good manner towards his friends (or
> race) is Neutral. Good character should know better. Note that even
> Evil characters can have friends and _usually_ act in a Good manner
> towards them (until the right moment).
True enough, but remember that being condescending and arrogant is not Evil
or even Neutral. Elves may be arrogant and distant, but if the see someone
being murdered they will interfere even if the victim is a Dwarf. Elves
are Good (most of them anyway), and so are Dwarves and Halflings. Its us
humans that are the problem.
> --Peter
> p-w...@accesscom.com
>
Blake A. Duffey
Someone wrote:
> > 3) Standing around and watching an innocent person get murdered is
both
> > cowardly and Neutral. A Good character will always interfere. Most
> > Neutral characters would interfere, even at modest risk to themselves.
> > A non-Evil fighter or even cleric who stands around and lets this
happen
> > could potentially be docked experience for obvious cowardice, although
I
> > would recommed this sanction only if the player really understands the
> > consequences when he takes his (in)action. (I happen to believe that a
> > fighter and cleric levels are based on both skill and reputation.)
I find this a TREMENDOUSLY narrow view. Don't confuse the concept of
heroism with alignment considerations. A person can be lawful good AND
cowardly. They are certainly NOT mutually exclusive. Granted, the
'typical' good character in a D&D/AD&D campaign is a 'go getter', a 'smash
the evil people', etc. etc. etc. See, a cowardly character has trouble
getting XP (often the driving factor in role-playing). A knightly
character (paladin, perhaps) might take a vow to allow no evil to go
unpunished. I don't think it is accurate to say that ALL good characters
will ALWAYS do ANYTHING. Alignment is an indication of how a character
acts. A good character would not perpetrate evil acts. A good character
would certainly feel the urge to interfere in evil acts, but he should not
be FORCED to by the GM, citing alignment.
> > 5) Stamping out Evil is Good. If the character has no fire in the
> > belly for this, regardless of on whom the evil is perpetrated, he is
> > Neutral.
Beep. Wrong again. Heroism DOES NOT EQUAL Goodness (although they are
often related in an AD&D campaign).
Example: a halfling farmer -> he gives to the local church, he volunteers
at the soup kitchen, he helps the poor old women across the street, etc.
He is kind and generous to all he meets. A group of ogres invades his
village, and begins XXX (fill in evil, ogre-ly things). The farmer runs
for his life, trying to save his family and friends (if he can).
This does not reduce his goodness (certainly a vague concept). He may be
cowardly. BUT, he remains 'good' (from a D&D perspective).
matthew dickinson
Yes there's a difference between heroism and being good, but does the player
role play his cowardlyness? If not it doesn't apply. Just because there is a
difference doesn't mean that it may always be used as an excuse. The cowardly
adventurer is a rarity else he wouldn't be adventuring.
For what it's worth,
Maddog