38 Responses to 673 – White Smoke Mountain • 41

  1. Anti-paladins…

    Is it me, or was this created just so that the aforementioned douches could have all of a paladin’s power whithout being forced to, at least nominally, be “good guys”? A kind of fan service?
    (Just like, in 4E, IIRC, you can be a paladin whatever your alignement)

    • I think they were actuually created to be a specific foil for regular paladins. They HAD to be chaotic evil, and you really can’t play that in a party setting for more than about ten minutes.

      • Are you sure about that? I’ve had no end of…calm, civil discussions with my previous gaming group about the meaning of alignments, and I still feel that most players act like common mafia thugs most of the time. If that’s not scratching the “neutral” territory from the bottom then I don’t know what is.
        I think though half the blame is on any DM who doesn’t make his players understand that every action has an unequal, bloated out of proportion reaction.

        If you’ve watched The Gamers 2: Dorkness Rising then you can see exactly what I mean(though I suspect everyone here understands anyway).

        Of course, if you’re evil or neutral and define your char’ to be thugish etc. then you have the right to act like it. Just don’t define your drunken dwarven fighter as “good” and stagger to the nearest ale house while the town’s on fire because the militia’s commander didn’t promise mountains of gold for it.

        • Chaotic evil is defined primarily as overwhelmingly selfish, and disrespectful of any life not it’s own, which I don’t think would work very well in a party setting. Now you could certainly play a “party-centric” CE character who had some larger purpose for staying loyal and true to his mates, and for gameplay I think this might be entertaining and worthwhile. However, I do think you would be subverting what CE is, and would really be playing something a little different.

          • I understand what CE is, my point was to point out that some(alot? most?) players act almost CE but call themselves neutral or good.
            Because, you know, NPCs aren’t people.

            ETA: I’d like to emphasize that I’m talking about “scratching the CE”, i.e characters that are CE or almost there, on the lower side of being “neutral”.
            You know, politicians.

            • LOL, no doubt.

              I’m playing a paladin right now in a D&D game. I decided that as a “Good” character he would never kill anyone he didn’t absolutely have to. In 4e this results in a lot of prisoners since the mechanic for not killing an opponent is basically saying “I want him alive” after the final blow falls.

              As a wisdom 8 religious fanatic I decided however that he only sees other humans as “real” people, so non-humans are likely to be slain out of hand. (He’s got a little room for character development.)

            • Well I usually envisioned the alignments like so:

              LG: Goody Two-shoes. Apologizes to intelligent monsters before killing them.
              CG: A more cowardly goody-two-shoes…will save his own skin if things are going badly and then try to come back to loot the bodies or rez his partners, but only when he’s sure it’s safe.
              LE: A lot like Ming the Merciless…Evil, but if he makes a promise, he’ll keep it, possilby even if it means he’ll get killed.
              NN: Tree Hugging druids. Will work against whichever side is winning to preserve the “balance”, unless the winning side is particularly anti-nature (I.E. Saruman)
              CN: Selfish jerk. Doesn’t work well with others, and will pick your pocket if your back is turned.
              CE: Selfish jerk who tortures kittens in his spare time. Will stick a dagger in your back if your back is turned, then loot your body.

              • *groan* *facepalm*
                I really shouldn’t allow myself to be drawn into a discussion about alignments, but… gah. Really, are alignments so hard to get, as basic character archetypes? Apparently so.

                LG as “Goody Two-Shoes”?? Please. What’s with this “lawful good = uptight and stupid” cliché?

                Since when is “chaotic” alignment defined as “cowardly”??? That’s even more nonsensical that the misconception that many people seem to have that “chaotic = insane”.

                True neutral is not limited to or defined by druids or nature worship, dammit. That was a stupid AD&D concept of forcing druids to be TN, which resulted in AD&D elves not being able to become druids (WTH?)! Same with the “neutral characters have no own opinion and will randomly side with one group or another” idea. No, no, fracking no.

                And you forgot NG and NE. NE is usually seen as the most selfish alignment, whereas CN is theclassic alignment for your basic rogue, and who says rogues can’t have friends or be part of a team? They simply figure that they must look out for their own interests because no-one else will do it.

                • Being subjective in the extreme, everyone has their own interpretations of alignments. Truthfully, I like to interpret what any alignment means to a specific character only. I have played many different stripes of LG, and other alignments as well. My earlier discussion was more from a book view. I don’t think anyone can give a definitive and hard definition of an alignment, only guides for how to figure it out yourself.

                • And where did I mention intelligence anywhere under LG?

                  Saying “Sorry, but I have to kick your butt and chop your head off” is a far cry from “Duh…I trust everyone until they actually attack me”

                • You misinterpret my interpretation of Law/Chaos.

                  Lawful = Honorable
                  Chaotic = Self serving, breaks their word if it suits them, not insane.

                  • No-where in the rulebooks does it mention chaotic alignment equals self-serving. You made that up.

                    Lawful evil is self-serving, he simply makes sure his evil deeds are legal. (LAwful does not automatically mean honorable. A LE villain can be honorable, but he doesnt have to. Not to mention that many evil people see themselves as pillars of the community.)

                    A chaotic good freedom fighter against a tyrannical regime is not self-serving, he risks his life.

  2. @Vincent
    Yea, but if you really wanted to be “divine”, not worry about narrow alighment restrictions and actually kick ass you’d go cleric anyway.

  3. Tsk…Darn those Mirrors of Opposition!

    Speaking of loot, has anyone else ever wondered how a very bulky item, say, Baba Yaga’s Hut, could even have a chance of appearing in some monster’s loot, let alone underground? It’s a full sized HOUSE for crying out loud! I’m sure some monster is just walking around with the thing in their back pocket…

  4. With Bunker it’s a bit too obvious. I’d like to see what would come out if Martin or Enkidu looked in the magic mirror!

    • It’s a very old D&D cursed magic item, at least from 1st edition AD&D. There were lots of D&D themes running through Army of Darkness.

      • Usually the reverse-alignment counterpart “clone” from the mirror tried to kill you, or pull you into the mirror and take your place, or something equally nasty. I’m trying to remember how to beat an opposition clone: Killing him in combat worked, and I think it made you immune to further copying by the mirror. Not sure if simply smashing the mirror made the mirror clone disappear, too.

        Since all the gear the clone had was copied and thus not real it disappeared when he was slain, too. I’m not sure what happened if your character carried weapons or gear that was tied to his alignment… like a holy sword. Maybe the evil counterpart then had an unholy sword? And vice versa.

        • A lot of that stuff was up to the DM, and I’m playing this mirror as a “variant” model, perhaps because it was cracked. The dupe generally just jumped out and tried to kill you, but Evil Bunker has other plans.

      • Heh. I have a friend who worked as a production assistant on Army of Darkness. They had a really nervous moment when they shot the first scene, the one that repeated the last scene in the previous movie where Bruce Campbell and his car drop out of the sky into the medieval world. They had the crane holding the car up positioned on the hill in the backdrop, well out of the shot. When they were setting up the shot and reeled the car up, the crane tipped, the operator fell out, and the crane rolled over him without actually touching him in any way. (Their liability insurance company for that movie must have heard a million dollars cry out—and suddenly breathe a sigh of relief.) 😈

        On the subject of the mirror of opposition, I remember my rather munchkin of a 3E character, a monk named Cern with the Vow of Poverty, Vow of Nonviolence and Vow of Peace feats from The Book of Exalted Deeds. Such a monk can have an absolutely obscene Armor Class. (To be somewhat fair, I played as if I had those feats from first level even though I didn’t have all three until sixth. In short, obeying the restrictions of those feats without actually having them and their benefits.) When he happened to look in a mirror of opposition, opposition, Cern would not strike his “evil twin” and instead tried to redeem him. (“Think of the good we could do together!”) Cern’s AC was so high he literally could not hit himself except on a 20.

        When his evil twin finally did hit him, that was a violation of the Vow of Nonviolence and Vow of Peace feats, and his AC took a nosedive. Real Cern just shook his head sadly then proceeded to knock his punk ass down. (Nonlethal damage, of course.) 😛

  5. I wonder whether the teenager playing the ‘princess’ is horny enough to take anti-Bunker up on that offer — and how far he’s willing to take it before stereotypical teenage homophobia kicks in.

    So… Is this evil double the brother Bunker referred to?

    … And how much time will it take Bunker’s “best friends” to dump him like a hot potato in favour of anti-Bunker? =_=

  6. 1) Ha hum. I assumed naming the character as princess of Lesbianania pointed to a desire to engage in roleplay bonobo imitations with women, rather than men. Interesting.

    2) Wuh-oh. Kid Bunker must have been a conscientious Paladin to balk at killing his evil opposite. I could understand a reluctance to kill a brother he actually grew up with, but this is… different. Hmmm. Could the Arabax we know be the Paladin mount of anti-Bunker, rather than of Bunker himself?

    3) I was going to do that anyway. ^^