Page 214 - In the Dark of the Night

1st Dec 2012, 5:00 AM in Bridle Gossip
<<First Latest>>
In the Dark of the Night
Average Rating: 5 (1 votes)
<<First Latest>>

Author Notes:

Newbiespud 1st Dec 2012, 5:00 AM edit delete
At this point, I'm pretty sure that my personal hell would be being forced to listen to an alignment argument. Not an infinite number of alignment arguments - just one. The same argument. For all eternity.

Notice: Guest comic submissions are open! Guidelines here. Deadline: January 27th, 2023.



Demonu 1st Dec 2012, 5:04 AM edit delete reply

Post a story about alignment issues ^^
Destrustor 1st Dec 2012, 5:21 AM edit delete reply
Well I had this character obsessed with explosions. He was, I think, chaotic neutral. One time he died, and his afterlife consisted of listening to the powers-that-be arguing about whether he was evil for blowing up so many people for fun, or just insane and really, really fascinated by explosions.
He complained that there weren't enough explosions. "The afterlife sucks!"
Frerichs0 1st Dec 2012, 6:00 AM edit delete reply
That's actually somewhat like our rouge. He blew up our boat that we stole from pirates. The consequences were hilarious our Drow guide used her spider to tie him up in silk and dragged him around for a bit. I'm betting that we will be needing another boat though.
John Walter Biles 1st Dec 2012, 9:56 PM edit delete reply
That sounds like the Mage character, Roger Boom, who never returned from a paradox realm because everything exploded all the time and he *liked* it.
Raxon 1st Dec 2012, 7:09 AM edit delete reply
I have some plans for a paladin who suffers from Chronic Backstabbing Disorder. Symptoms manifest by way of him sleepwalking and stabbing people in the back in his sleep.

In order to prevent himself from losing his lawful good alignment, he sleeps with a rubber knife. I wonder how many people can claim they are the reason their group says things like "I sleep on my back. And I never change positions, not even once."

Because all it takes is forgetting his rubber knife once.
nekollx 1st Dec 2012, 10:49 AM edit delete reply
My Paladin suffered a horrible fate between DMs, the last campign ended with her caught by pirates, turned into a catgirl, and sold off as "all inclusive" slave labor. With the new DM she has just gotten free so she suffers CBD because she can't trust anypony but at the same time suffers a Heroic BSOD if she cant protect her team (whcih she doesn't trust becase of CBD)
MWS 1st Dec 2012, 9:50 AM edit delete reply
I don't normally play in games that have alignments, but I once had a disagreement over whether cutting off a prisoner's feet violated a character's conscience. I wouldn't have prevented said character from doing it, but the player objected to losing points from his conscience trait.
Digo 1st Dec 2012, 10:05 AM edit delete reply
Story? Easy-- take the above comic page and replace "Evil" with "Chaotic" and this was essentially two hours real time of a party argument about our pathetic Monk character.


Thankfully the player switched characters for this last campaign.
Degulus 1st Dec 2012, 11:59 AM edit delete reply
I've got a group with two characters with very questionable alignments. First is our fighter who was Lawful Evil... from a Chaotic Evil country (ruled by a man known only as "the Mad King" if you wanna know what kinda place we're talking about here). Her concept of law happened to be quite skewed. She was respectful of the local authorities and followed local laws when she happened to know what they were, but 90% of the time she acted pretty much Chaotic Evil.

I on the other hand started off saying my Wizard was Neutral Good. But quickly developed into the group's resident coward when I realized how squishy I was at low levels. Morality soon took a massive backseat to fear as the deciding factor in my decisions. After meeting a group of lawful good mindflayers that were supplying a conscience to humanity I soon lost faith in morality completely. This compounded with an offhand comment about the fact that I noticed I hadn't bought food since the adventure started lead the GM to declare that I was Neutral Evil now, and have been stealing the party's food while they sleep all along.

I'd say he's more True Neutral but... since he's only with the party because he considers them free body guards... and our accomplishments have are counted by the number of towns we've accidentally blown up... maybe Evil isn't that far off...
DCHorror 1st Dec 2012, 1:03 PM edit delete reply
Was running a large group once, of which just about every alignment except true neutral was filled.

This lead to a discussion amongst the players if one half could let the other loot the paladin and cleric cause they got drunk.
Vulpixel 1st Dec 2012, 6:37 PM edit delete reply
me: I cast Icy burst there
DM: That hits your ally
me: I know, but it hits more enemies
DM: What's your allignment
me: Unaligned
me: (inside: AWWWW YEAH!!)

Kynrasian 4th Dec 2012, 7:42 AM edit delete reply
To be fair, I play Chaotic Good and I'd still do that if I liked the odds. I don't get why some DMs think that things like that are judged by alignment.
Kadakism 2nd Dec 2012, 3:15 PM edit delete reply
One of my characters was a mercenary who was only with the group because they continued to pay him. He was vain and conceited, but Lawful Neutral in the respect that he had his code of honor, what he would and would not do, etc. For example, he wouldn't kill an innocent for profit but he was the biggest ladies' man out there and a widely known heart breaker/home wrecker.

Our paladin kept insisting that my lawfulness should be in line with his. At every turn, he tried to get me to be all humble and respectful to women and to not take "pay advances" from the cleric who was my employer to begin with. He even argued this with me out of character. I kept insisting that yes, I was lawful and I would do my best to not break the law, but that my own code of conduct dictated my actions rather than his sense of justice and equality. I ended up pointing out that law does not equal good and that I didn't have to conform to what he wanted. So he declared that I must be evil and took every opportunity to kill me that he could.

He actually cut the rope bridge I was walking across at one pointbecause I had taken a jewel he wanted as my payment. He wasn't mad that I had taken it, but that I had had it set into my character's eye patch to look damn sexy. Luckily, I made the world's greatest reflex save and so Burton LaMonte lived to carouse another day.
Malroth 3rd Dec 2012, 5:02 PM edit delete reply
Paladins, are there any game they're in that they don't ruin?
Kynrasian 4th Dec 2012, 7:45 AM edit delete reply
Ones where their player doesn't insist on reenacting Sir Osric from Dorkness Rising.

Which is to say, on the rare occasion that their player plays them properly.
aylatrigger 2nd Dec 2012, 4:28 PM edit delete reply
When I am DMing or GMing, I make it a rule that any class alignment restrictions can be nullified by having a good enough reason in your backstory (like a monk from a chaotic aligned monastery or a paladin following his deity's alignment). So mainly the alignment problems are character interaction, spells or item purposes.

One time I was a player in a good aligned party. Baal had offered us power to become his followers and search for the Regalia of Evil for him. The rest of the party submitted, becoming evil. I decided it was against my LG monk's alignment to willingly undergo an alignment change, so I said no (though I told the players that I would be fine with the alignment switch OOC). So the rest of the party forced the first of the Regalia of Evil on my monk, making her the wielder and making her evil. I figured since my character originally did not like causing others pain, the forced alignment switch had switched this aspect. So now she loved torturing others. Later on I even convinced the DM to give me a gauntlet that healed anyone ho touched it to 500% of their health, which made them explode and reform 5 times. They would be healed to max health, but would be in extreme amounts of pain. I wore a glove under it to not be affected and I used it on party members, enemies, prisoners, etc. It was fun.

Many alignment troubles I have had are solved by saying the character is one alignment in a certain situation. Like one character combo had a CE character get along with a CG character due to being family and caring for family, despite them both trying to convince the other to switch alignments. Another CE/LG combo had the LG character being forced to be the CE character's guardian due to the little girl making her think that their medieval society had laws against child abuse and abandonment (high charisma can be fun). The LG character was basically picked on by the CE character, including fire, piranhas, and a reference to months spent in therapy.

More on the fire/piranhas:
LG character hugs shapeshifter turned kitten. Shapeshifter turns into fire elemental. LG character, now on fire, runs to docks and jumps in. Dock waters infested with piranhas, so now covered in piranhas. Cure moderate wounds is cast on her. Piranhas are now imbedded in her skin. CE character takes a zippo lighter (rp in our games is usually rule of funny) and burns piranhas off. LG character now on fire again... Jumps into water again... This continues, but eventually wwe get the piranhas off and the LG character not on fire. Later on, the CE character, who is a dread pirate, tries to get her ship. The DM sets tax collectors and says the ship is being repossessed, showing the documentation. The LG character takes the documents. My CE character sets the papers on fire, getting the LG character set on fire as well. Who immediately jumps in the water.
HopeFox 3rd Dec 2012, 12:27 AM edit delete reply
The interesting thing about the games I've been in is that alignment conflicts often end up not happening when I would have thought they would.

The last time I played a lawful evil character, her best friend within the party was chaotic good, because despite their alignment differences, they had very similar personalities. We were all being magically coerced to work in a secret government project, so we didn't get to make any big choices about where we went and what we did, so it just never became a problem.

Also, when I ran a game with two LE characters and a bunch of good-to-neutral characters, the evil characters got on fine with the good and neutral characters, but hated each other.

Just recently, I ran my "Regency England but with D&D" game, and the party went to help out the backwater parish of Yatton, which was run by a vicar who worshipped Hextor. She was lawful evil, most of the townsfolk were lawful evil, and yet the party (NG, N, CG, LN and CN) had no problem helping her fix the parish's problems and generally liked hanging out with her. It helped that she wasn't behind the town's undead plague (not because making undead is wrong, but because making undead is illegal), and she'd achieved the Machiavelli Jackpot with respect to the parishioners (they both feared and loved her). It was just interesting that they didn't object to all of the evil.
Zuche 3rd Dec 2012, 6:23 AM edit delete reply
The Machiavelli Jackpot is such a lovely turn of phrase that I'm tempted to make it into an artifact in some game.

Sometimes I think people are more likely to quarrel when they have the same alignment because they have strong feelings about what the alignment means and they don't match each other's expectations. I'm sure it's not the only reason, but would alignment arguments be as common if this wasn't a problem?
Ramsus 4th Dec 2012, 2:03 AM edit delete reply
Well, I don't have a story but, my Beguiler character Miang had a bizarre morality/social norms standard such that she was true neutral by virtue of not quite ever being quite chaotic or evil enough to fall into one of those alignment slots. She was basically always walking a fine line of it though.
AttentionDeficitGuy 4th Dec 2012, 3:50 AM edit delete reply
Well, I have no stories I can recount first hand, but a friend of mine was in a campaign where this happened:

They had reached the final boss (who I guess was some kind of dark god or something), and the boss telepathically contacted my friend's character, a Chaotic Neutral Druid, and essentially offered him ultimate power if he betrayed the rest of the party. He accepted, resulting in the death of one of the party members and an alignment shift to Chaotic Evil.

Now, some of his powers were dependent on the fact that he was of a non-evil alignment (unfamiliar with Druids, so not sure if that had to do with the Druid class or with multiclassing/prestige classes), and of course he lost these when he had his alignment shift. Hence, my friend suddenly decided that the enormity of what he had done had just hit him, in an attempt to cause a shift back to CN.

It didn't work.

One boss fight later, everybody in the party had been killed. The boss was defeated, too, but because they lost one of their damage dealers and the druid was significantly de-powered, they were unable to survive the encounter. And that is why my friend is no longer allowed to play Chaotic Neutral characters.
Innisa 4th Dec 2012, 10:06 AM edit delete reply
well, right now I'm in a campaign. We are all either good aligned or neutral aligned, but our as the campaign progresses, each character is starting to become a little more twisted. One is learning about bloodbending, my airbender about learning how to bend the air out of people and starting to give into the "spiritual infection", the earthbender just improved his Dai Li interrogation kit, the firebender... well... he now has at least 2 "dragon" rampages a campaign, and the aristocrat has decided once we rescue the Avatar, he will take over his family, and thereby take over the Earth Kingdom...

I don't think "good" parties do the things we do...
frostedWarlock 1st Dec 2012, 5:22 AM edit delete reply
I just realized

The only way the characters referring to the DM strictly as such is if the character's name was LITERALLY DM. Like... Danni Maltava or something that just acronyms to DM.

That's my new headcanon and I'm stickin to it.
Raxon 1st Dec 2012, 7:12 AM edit delete reply
The DM's name is Dawn Magnum.

It's why she was chosen to be the DM.
ThousandYearSunrise 1st Dec 2012, 7:56 AM edit delete reply
Ooh! What if the DM comes from a long line of nerds, such that their name is in fact Dungeon Master!
Raxon 1st Dec 2012, 8:30 AM edit delete reply
That works, but then I can't pretend she's the daughter of Thomas Magnum.
Bronymous 2nd Dec 2012, 11:24 PM edit delete reply
Except that I refer to all of my DMs as DM, regardless of whatever it is they wish to be addressed as. It's a title, kind of like calling the President "Mr. President".
Grey Pen 4th Dec 2012, 6:35 AM edit delete reply
I prefer GM. Because I also act as a referee of sorts when we play other games, besides RPGs. So "Game Master" fits better than "Dungeon Master".
Ryuutakeshi 1st Dec 2012, 5:33 AM edit delete reply
My DM and I have alignment arguments all the frickin' time.

And then there was that time a couple sessions ago where we got to judge another player's alignment.
Kynrasian 1st Dec 2012, 5:58 AM edit delete reply
Alignment issues? Easy.

Just about every one of our players chose "unaligned" because on some level they seemed to believe that being anything else meant that they "had to" behave in a certain way.

As a matter of fact I think they still take Dorkness Rising's take on Lawful Good far too seriously.

And in D&D Next I have currently got a ban on the douchebag license known as "Chaotic Neutral", because again, their perception of it is coloured by Dorkness Rising. No thanks.
Zuche 3rd Dec 2012, 6:38 AM edit delete reply
What is Dorkness Rising, pre- Kynrasian?

And yeah, I strongly recommend against the chaotic neutral alignment for most people. Alignment is meant to guide decisions, not excuse them.
Kynrasian 4th Dec 2012, 8:10 AM edit delete reply
The Gamers 2: Dorkness Rising. It's a short comedy film depicting a group of gamers playing D&D.

I always felt that Chaotic Neutral represented being 100% governed by your own moral code. Unfortunately that usually gets exploited to be able to play an evil character with a non-evil alignment in a good campaign.
Kadakism 3rd Dec 2012, 12:59 PM edit delete reply
Thanks so much,Kyn. I had never heard of Dorkness Rising, and your comment made me watch it. I loved it, but I can see exactly what you meant. I have yet to deal with "I'm not Evil, I'm Chaotic Neutral" yet, but I have a feeling that I will.
DrunkFilliesopher 1st Dec 2012, 6:08 AM edit delete reply
Fools! Every placer worth his bits has only one true allignment "chaotic chaotic"
Digo 1st Dec 2012, 10:08 AM edit delete reply
Our running gag for an Alignment system grid is:

Lawful Dumb, Good, Chaotic Butter
Lawful Neutered, True Neutral, Twinkie Stuffing
Awful Evil, Evil, Toast
Raxon 1st Dec 2012, 4:53 PM edit delete reply
My favorite alignment is chaotic stupid/lawful stupid.

My character argues that the only way to truly cure mummy rot is to kill the patient and rez them later. He would also argue that if he was exposed to a plague, it's best to kill him so that others will not suffer the same fate.

Also, the inability to understand the difference between disease and poison makes everyone desperate to always be the absolute paragon of health.

Otherwise, they may be found with a dagger in their back, and missing their head, so they can be rezzed later by clerics.
Digo 2nd Dec 2012, 8:49 AM edit delete reply
Well, when death is reduced to an annoyance I can see why that thought process is valid.
Raxon 3rd Dec 2012, 7:58 AM edit delete reply
It only costs a few diamonds, and I'm sure the cleric in town would gladly perform the resurrection in exchange for bringing back his only daughter.
Zuche 3rd Dec 2012, 8:18 AM edit delete reply
Twinkie stuffing? That's perfect, Digo. I must remember that one.
Sparkles 1st Dec 2012, 1:43 PM edit delete reply
in the end, my friend's rogue is chaotic greedy.
BadHorse 1st Dec 2012, 6:08 AM edit delete reply
I've lived that hell...

for like an hour.

I had a guy arguing that he could be Lawful and kill anybody he wanted under any circumstances because the Law he believed in was Survival of the Fittest.

And that he could break any other laws he wanted without compunction because he didn't believe in those laws.
BadHorse 1st Dec 2012, 6:09 AM edit delete reply
Oh and if memory serves he was claiming LN or even LG and not LE.
Rednal 1st Dec 2012, 6:16 AM edit delete reply
That's a clear example of somebody who has absolutely no idea of how the alignment system actually works, not what it's really supposed to do... bleh.
Gerkuman 1st Dec 2012, 7:01 AM edit delete reply
I could see him making a case for Lawful Neutral, if he twisted his character to make it so that they dispassionately killed whoever was necessary because it was the survival of the fittest.

But if they wanted to kill those people? Clearly evil.
Oblivious 1st Dec 2012, 7:53 AM edit delete reply
It is possible for a lawful good character to be a murderous scumbag, but it takes a bit of creativity. For example, one of our antagonists for the longest time was a paladin, of all things. By all outward appearances, he was your stereotypical paladin, with a noticeable difference. The main one being, this paladin seemed to take the definition of "evil heathens and heretics," as he put them, way too far, to the point where was a tyrannical enforcer on the island city we were trapped on. He was acting well within his alignment, as smiting evil is kinda what a paladin does, but he was overzealous. It became so bad that at one point, he ended fighting his best friend and lieutenant because our wizard (whom said paladin was especially hell-bent on killing, since he was a godless weaver of pagan magics, go figure) convinced him that goodly men don't act this way. The campaign ended not with an epic clash, but with a broken paladin going into self-exile to atone for some of the horrible things he had done.

I miss that campaign...

P. S. As a side note, the alignment argument never came up once during the campaign.
KathiraNarae 1st Dec 2012, 10:53 AM edit delete reply
Ah, that was like Miko Myazaki from The Order Of The Stick, then.

On the comic, I predict hilarity ensuing. This'll be good.

P.S. Side-note, I have never actually played a tabletop RPG in my life. I do read a lot of those type of comics, though.
BadHorse 4th Dec 2012, 7:08 AM edit delete reply
Running a game right now with a Heironeous-loving Wizard who happens to be a twisted Necromancer. Same backstory, but Evil alignment. Thinks of herself as good and just, wants to eradicate all Evil in the world. Just happens to have killed several children to perpetuate her life.
Sparksol 1st Dec 2012, 6:22 AM edit delete reply
Currently playing with a party of one CN rogue, one CG caster who has misinterpreted his alignment and should probably be LN, one N caster (me), one NG druid, and (sigh) one Chaotic Good Enough fighter.
As to the CG/LN caster, I've heard the argument about how his alignment works, and no one can make heads or tails of it. I can't even describe it.
And that fighter...
darkwulf23 1st Dec 2012, 7:10 AM edit delete reply
That's why they simplified the alignment system in 4e and made the paladin follow the alignment of the god that he is currently serving. Because of stuff like that. And if you really want to screw around with the alignment system. Base it around the Dresden files version of the Fair Folk's beliefs.
Raxon 1st Dec 2012, 7:24 AM edit delete reply
I just realized that pinkie may never have thought Zecora was evil.

In season 2, she says, "Sometimes it's fun to be scared!"
Akouma 1st Dec 2012, 7:32 AM edit delete reply
Have I told the story of when I held up a game for like ten solid minutes because I refused to break my (Lawful Good) alignment? We were in a society run by mages, and magic-users can't legally be arrested for any reason by commoners. The party gets arrested anyway and my Magus argues with the bailiff for ten real-world minutes about how his detainment was unlawful and he should be released immediately.

(Also, before anyone says that arguing for your own release from prison probably isn't "good" we were tossed in basically for doing our job.)
Oblivious 1st Dec 2012, 7:35 AM edit delete reply
You mean that alignment argument that happened in our last .5 session, Newbie?
LoganAura 1st Dec 2012, 9:04 AM edit delete reply
I still have nightmares *shudders*
Rugsrat 1st Dec 2012, 8:09 AM edit delete reply
Ah, Alignment. There was definitely a time that I threw all of my players for a loop when one of them was spamming detect alignment while on board their ship, and low and behold! one of the crew members pinged Chaotic Evil.

So for the next few hours, in game and out of game, they tailed her, confronted her, and basically scared the crap out of her, only to find out what they were actually pinging was this amulet that covers up the wearer's alignment.

She had been tasked by her family to guard this stupid thing. Eventually they ended up putting it inside a bag of holding, then putting that bag inside another bag of holding.
The Hittite 1st Dec 2012, 8:39 AM edit delete reply
That's when it pays to carry around a lead sheet.
GrayGriffon 1st Dec 2012, 8:54 PM edit delete reply
... you do know that putting any Item with a pocket dimension, inside of another item with a pocket dimension, causes an explosion that makes everything within a 100 yard radius of said items cease to exist?
sidhe3141 2nd Dec 2012, 10:45 AM edit delete reply
No, that's only if a portable hole is involved. Bags of holding inside bags of holding just means that only the outermost bag functions.
Rugsrat 3rd Dec 2012, 6:13 AM edit delete reply
Yeah, it was just 2 bags of holding, not a portable hole. Even if it was, I wouldn't have done that, because that's completely absurd. And the story doesn't exactly end there, there were some other consequences of destroying that amulet. But that was not the subject of discussion for this story time.
Raxon 3rd Dec 2012, 7:54 AM edit delete reply
Try this next time. Stick two bags of holding halfway inside each other, then reach into each one, and pull them the rest of the way inside each other.

Your DM will love you for it, honest.
Anvildude 3rd Dec 2012, 1:47 PM edit delete reply
I feel like you don't quite understand the 'fail to function' or even the basic premise of a Bag of Holding. First off, when they 'fail to function' they still work as regular bags. So you can put a bag inside a bag.

Second, YOU CAN'T PUT TWO BAGS INSIDE EACH OTHER. It's physically impossible, no matter how large they are on the inside. Even if one or both are turned inside out, there's still an 'inside', and you can't put them each entirely inside each other.
Kadakism 4th Dec 2012, 3:37 AM edit delete reply
Sticking the two bags inside of each other was Raxon's way of referring to another story about a particular character who tried this stunt. And lost both arms as a result. Hilarity ensued, from what I hear.

And I don't want to hear what you can and cannot do in a fantasy world. I can create several gallons of water in a town guard's LUNGS just by waving my hand and mumbling a few words. Physics just needs to take a rain check.
BadHorse 4th Dec 2012, 7:15 AM edit delete reply
Shouldn't have lost his arms.

If you were stuffing one bag into a bag of holding, you wouldn't lose your arm.

And the trick described can't put both bags into the other, as while you are pulling the bottom of each bag into the mouth of the other, you are simultaneously and equally pulling the mouth of each bag off the bottom of the other - you'd achieve the same amount of nothing no matter how hard you pulled.
Raxon 4th Dec 2012, 7:59 AM edit delete reply
A character with sufficiently low scores in intelligence and wisdom can surprise you with what they're capable of.
Kynrasian 4th Dec 2012, 8:24 AM edit delete reply
A friend of mine once came up with a theoretical scenario where the one party member climbs into a bag of holding with another party member picking up that bag and taking it with them into their own bag of holding and so on until only I remain, and then I fly up a mountain or wall or such and then they all unpack at the top. Basically, Russian Dolls.
DracoS 1st Dec 2012, 8:27 AM edit delete reply
My group occasionally argues over the nature of "lawful" and "chaotic".
XandZero2 1st Dec 2012, 9:13 AM edit delete reply
You know, all of the above comments are exactly why I usually don't play systems that have an alignment system.

Dark Heresy, Dragon Age, Pony Tales...

^Those just let you go off and do whatever the buck ya want.

I honestly think it's kind of silly to label your character when it's their actions that speak for who they REALLY are, ya know?

-And realistically, people (and the more interesting characters) are always shades of gray, not something so easily designated as 'good,' 'evil,' or 'lawful neutral.'
Zuche 1st Dec 2012, 11:02 AM edit delete reply
And most of those greys fit within one alignment or another. Alignment was always meant as a tool, not a point of contention. It's a useful guide for players striving to establish a personal code for different characters. It helps them get a feel for the broad strokes, letting them fill in between the lines later.

Most of the players that go straight to neutral/unaligned or chaotic neutral are trying to say, "I'll do what I want." That's silly. You can always do what you want when you're playing a character. Lawful good racist? Yes. Pacifist chaotic evil? Yes again. Both of these are tricky, but they do get more interesting results than most players would offer with a character who was simply a racist or a pacifist.

My favourite paladins have been recovering addicts. My favourite neutral evil was a mercenary who contributed heavily to charity, believing that this would contribute to political instability.

My favourite NPC is Iggwilv for her wonderfully complicated personal relationship with Graz'zt and her bizarre ambitions for manipulating the Abyss. She's as meddlesome as Elminster ever was, but on a much grander scale. Both could have so much more. Both seem to think that would be a waste of time and trouble. Both can be helpful, disruptive, inconsistent, and dangerously unpredictable. If you were running both of these NPCs with little more knowledge of them than that, your best guidepost for giving them widely different personalities is alignment. Mannerisms will only take you so far. Methods are better, because they'll help you distinguish goals, but alignment helps you define major differences between those methods, even when they appear to be identical.
Raxon 1st Dec 2012, 4:36 PM edit delete reply
I just got the idea for a Chaotic Neutral character who does good things in the most evil way possible. He goes door to door asking for contributions for charity... At 3AM. He feeds the hungry by chucking potatoes at them. He gives water to the thirsty by way of a fire hose. He works a suicide hotline, and convinces people not to kill themselves, and instead shifts the blame for their feelings of sorrow and helplessness off on other people. (Basically talking them into committing murder instead of suicide.)

While hunting in the forest, he finds an injured fawn near the corpse of its mother, who died caught in a trap. He uses the fawn to feed the orphans in town. I'm not totally sure if this is Chaotic Neutral, or Lawful Evil. Both descriptions fit quite well.
Forderz 1st Dec 2012, 8:30 PM edit delete reply
I would classify him as straight Neutral Evil. He might end up doing good, but its clear he delights in causing others pain. He uses his "good deeds" as a way to avoid the trouble caused by actual evil acts, but his motivations are entirely selfish.
Raxon 2nd Dec 2012, 11:35 AM edit delete reply
Alternatively, I could have a character who genuinely is good, but he has a touch of teh evuls, and sometimes when doing something, like reading to children, for example, he will begin to embellish on the story.

"And then the woodsman pinned the big bad wolf to the bed, grabbed a small knife, and said, 'Now, my friend, let's fix that nasty little lying habit of yours.' He grinned wickedly as he plunged the knife deep into the wolf, and cut out his- I mean, um, And then he slew the wolf, and saved Red's grandma, and they all lived happily ever after. The end."

Not evil, just morose and creepy.
Consumer Unit 5012 4th Dec 2012, 12:25 AM edit delete reply
That sounds like the sort of thing that actually was told in the older versions of fairy-tales.

As Nanny Ogg says, you can tell they're for children because of all the blood.
Xoia 1st Dec 2012, 3:15 PM edit delete reply
Alot of it is for noobs or bad roleplayers.
I LARP, and we don't have alignments. Alot of people do whatever they feel like, doing whatever is best in the situation, using all meta knowledge, regardless of how they acted in the past, or how they described themselves.
Zuche 2nd Dec 2012, 5:20 PM edit delete reply
No, a lot of it is used to poor effect by inexperienced or inflexible players. The alignment system is a perfectly serviceable creative tool.
Tatsurou 1st Dec 2012, 4:57 PM edit delete reply
I never could figure out the alignment system, so here's what I did.

I wrote down on a little sheet of paper the full description of how my character came to their decisions, what they thought was important, and their own personal code of morality. I would then hand that sheet of paper to the DM and ask what alignment fit best.
angelwuff 1st Dec 2012, 9:14 AM edit delete reply
lessee. alignment issues. not quite directly so, but my first game if shadowrun ended with the team exchanging gunfire and grenades after trying to rip eachother off after being paid for their first mission. perhaps more realistic, but not fun... :P so I banned PvP fights to make games last longer than one run.
Zarhon 1st Dec 2012, 9:49 AM edit delete reply
Alignment, eh? Pony Team Bravo might have a slight issue with that...

For our last session, our DM left us a high-value prisoner that we more or less need info from to proceed. I suggested intimidation and torture, due to the treacherous nature of our prisoner.

The problem? The setting is pony tales. The prisoner is a Changeling Queen (who asked for "parlay" after we de-petrified her). The torture in question is threatening a Changeling Queen's horn / teeth, which the DM says is on par with murder and would be unthinkable for our characters.

On the other side, the Changeling Queen almost succeeded in having all of us executed on top of her hive (by beheading, no less!), which only a good use of the Element of Laughter saved us from. She also ordered torture / medical experimentation on a baby foal (it happens to be a transformed eldritch abomination).
Philadelphus 1st Dec 2012, 11:51 AM edit delete reply
*Ahem*. Some of PTB might have a slight issue. I've always tried my best (and will continue to try) to argue for a peaceful solution.

(Of course, it's funny that with my chosen combat talents I'm also probably the best fighter of the group.)
Guest 1st Dec 2012, 11:41 PM edit delete reply
We're talking alignment and we haven't Mentioned Mouse? Though then again, her alignment is more of an issue for everyone else.
Demonu 2nd Dec 2012, 7:42 AM edit delete reply
The issue I had with that is that in a My Little Pony setting, cold blooded torture shouldn't be the first thing you think of.

And yes, I would have raised an argument/let it have consequences but that wouldn't be so much alignment issues as the fact that the person who used to get bullied and made standing up to bullies a part of his background, resorts to bullying himself.

"Give me the information I want or I'll inflict bodily harm on you" isn't that much different from "Give me your lunch money or I'll beat you up."
deeman45 1st Dec 2012, 1:09 PM edit delete reply
I thought Twi's player was a newbie. Surely she's not SO used to alignment discussions at this point to be as jaded as she is?
Raxon 1st Dec 2012, 4:38 PM edit delete reply
I think it's more the tension and irritation caused by the arguments.
JediChipmunk 1st Dec 2012, 2:51 PM My pet peev. edit delete reply
I once played in a game where I, the chaotic good fighter, had to repeatedly stop the Paladin player from committing atrocities. I had personally captured a bandit and wanted to bring him in to the local magistrate for questioning and trial. The Paladin wanted to torture him for information and then kill him. This sort of thing just seemed to just keep happening. I kept asking the DM, "How can you let him play a Paladin like this? Shouldn't he loose his powers or something?" He said that he sorta just smites everything, and if his God doesn't like what he is smiting, he will hit him with a lightning bolt or something.

This blew my mind. Its like Yoda saying it's fine to use anger to power the force, just as long as you have good intentions.
The whole point of playing a Paladin is getting cool powers but at the cost of having to play a good guy. I think he got his idea of playing a Paladin from World of Warcraft or something. Where as a Paladin you can take quests to murder farmers for money just because a quest giver asks you to. I don't remember what happened to that particular campaign, all I remember is I hated that frickin Paladin.
Nem 1st Dec 2012, 5:15 PM edit delete reply
You can play a Paladin like that, it just requires good justification. Usually that the character is such an overriding zealot that they've adopted the "shoot 'em all and let their god sort 'em out" mentality. The best parallel to draw would be to liken it ot the Salem witch trials (where proof of innocence was that the person died during testing."

For this specific case though, it does indeed sound like your paladin was just using the class as window-dressing for a more sociopathic character. A good DM probably should've used his "my god will strike me down if I do wrong" edict to try and steer him into more properly fleshing out the character.
Xoia 1st Dec 2012, 3:11 PM edit delete reply
I don't believe in chaotic or good.
This is the axis
Crazy Normal Obsessive-compulsive

I play benevolent crazy characters.
Cadoo the Ice Ghost 1st Dec 2012, 5:52 PM edit delete reply
In a D&D campaign that I'm playing in right now, there are five players: A Lawful Evil Bugbear Dragon Shaman, a Lawful Evil Aasimar Warlock, a Lawful Neutral Human Monk, a Lawful Neutral Bugbear Cleric/Sorcerer/Geomancer, and me, the Chaotic Good Bugbear Duskblade.

All of us Bugbears are from the same tribe, and we believe it's the best for the world that we kill all gnomes possible. We were taught growing up that gnomes were the source of all of our suffering. Upon learning this, our warlock argued with us that our alignments should be evil then.

This resulted in a twenty minute argument about whether or not we were being evil by slaughtering gnomes who we thought were legitimately evil.

Now the warlock, the DM for this campaign, and myself had all had the same DM for a different campaign who we highly regarded for his opinions. We ended up contacting him, and he agreed that we could be good or neutral, because we thought we were doing good for the world.

Needless to say, our warlock has been pouty over alignment since then and he refuses to talk about it at this point.
sunbeam 1st Dec 2012, 9:53 PM edit delete reply
This isn't quite a story about alignment issues. Well, I had issues picking my character's alignment, so I guess it fits. This is the story of my still-going pan-aligned character.
He's lightly modeled after the Sixth Doctor. He is chaotic neutral because he acts like every alignment. He's not good and evil so much as he's kind and selfish. He treats innkeepers, royalty, and the police with deference, and treats everyone with the same rather high level of respect. Meanwhile, he decides not to turn in a ship captain for smuggling heavy liquor, while also idly considering that he could summon a fire elemental in the 180 proof alcohol's secret compartment in the ship, while he's on the dock, about 10 minutes after tipping the crew for putting up with his wacky teammates. He uses highly experimental magic to momentarily shunt the spirit of an old drinking buddy of his (his best friend from aeons ago) into the mind of a young knight, not realizing that the knight was actually forcibly removed from his own mind, and after the spell runs out, the boy simply dies. To further the Cleric's journey towards self-improvement, he provokes him by verbally mocking his girlfriend into casting blade barrier on him, which he shrugs off, but leads the cleric to question his own morals and look deeper into himself. He respects the sanctity of human life but also thinks that the true ferocity found in the jungle should be understood and accepted into your life for a greater understanding of the world.
But the best example of his chaotic neutrality happened about 4 hours ago. We were journeying to a lost city, that no one had ever returned from alive. Except one man, and he was gibbering and insane. We wanted information, so I went to visit the man, and found that he was living with his oldest daughter, whose husband had died and who had three children. I left twelve gold pieces on the table as I talked my way into the house and into the back room where the old man stared at the wall all day. My character has telepathy, and his head was just reeling with two words repeated over and over again. I clearly wasn't going to get any information through conventional methods, so I tried something more drastic. I made it clear to him that what I was about to show him wasn't real and couldn't harm him in any way...and I cast phantasmal killer on him, and read his mind to see what it was.
He actually only survived because the party wizard cast true seeing on him to break the illusion. After that, I sent my cleric buddy to heal the insanity with heal, and set up a bank account that would send the family 5 gold a week for several years. I then tried very hard to get drunk at 9 in the morning, but I have +5 constitution, so that failed, so I was just surly and depressed through most of the rest of the day's journey.
my current character's alignment is set, if memory serves, at 97 degrees.

a few more interesting traits about her: her age is "none of your business", her weight is "a lady never tells", eyes are "two", hair "yes", skin "hopefully" and height "this tall". those ones i can remember because they're still on the half-finished/updated online character sheet.

DM calls me out on it a couple sessions in when he finally looks at that part of my sheet and does a double take after.

lulz are had by all and my alignment is never brought into question again, mainly because my stand on alignment is "**** it". if it ever becomes relevant, i'll have the DM decide what it is based on my RPing of the character up until now.
PipeDream 2nd Dec 2012, 2:52 PM edit delete reply
my bipolar character was an anoyance to the groups paladin. she was basicly inspired by research in psychology and an image of Pinkie Pie from Cupcakes. she would be a nice and bouncy person for most of the time, acting completly CG and then she would go ahead and murder and go as far as canibalism when she was pushed over the edge. when next we made character the PC who played the paladin went all pissy and said "well if he can then i'm alowed too" and made a character who would do whatever the fuck he pleased and killed and murdered and then when it was convenient for him he would be good. all except him could see how my character was a tragic one and his was just him being a pissy kid. that kind of thing is pretty sad... especially cause I made my bard because I wanted to play an insane character who was insane in the literal sense and who truly tried to fight her nature.
ShadowDragon8685 2nd Dec 2012, 3:30 PM edit delete reply
I have two alignment thingies, funnily enough from the same session of an Exalted game.

Long story short: my character is a Night Caste and we were playing an Exalted game set on Modern-day Earth. (That's important.) After the first campaign arc ended inconclusively with us calling in nukes on an undead horde unleashed on some Latin-American hell-hole where some Infernals had been up to no damn good, we were called to go to England, where it turned out a large chunk of the Welsh countryside had just up and been covered in fog; people who went in (including a squad of SAS Terrestrial Exalts) did not come out, UAVs and ground drones sent in did not come out, photography directed at the area, orbital, airborne, and ground-based, showed either fog or static, and lastly, they had sent in a Celestial who did not come out. So they decided that sending in a whole squad of Celestial Exalts was the only option, and in we went. We went in, our gear changed to medieval equivalents (my reversible camouflage suit became a woodland cloak, and my sniper rifle became an English Longbow,) and it turned out we wandered into Arthurian Britain - a few hundred pocket-time years after the last Celestial they sent in - a freaking Abyssal - killed Arthur and everybody else and took over, turning the place into his own persona oppressive regime designed to provoke rebellions so he could murderate them horribly and satisfy his killboner.

We're freaking out over the possibility of having to try and kill an Essence 6 (or worse, 7) Abyssal, and going Guerilla; in the woods, we come across some riders from one of the usurper king's dukes, with a statement from their duke proclaiming that they will be confiscating every child under the age of 2 in every village they come across. We assume that they're going to be rendered into Soulsteel, and decide these mothers needed to die.

The first "alignment" issue I had came after I used the Night Caste's concealing-anima ability that prevents anyone from seeing WHO you are over how AWESOME you are to give myself a shining golden overlay that looked like Isaac Clarke's Dead Space armor, and I followed up on it with a beautiful three-die stunt in which I climbed onto and over one of the riders (on his horse,) grabbed his arm and smashed the Mighty Boot down upon it hard enough to sever it from his body, armor and all. The alignment issue came into play when I was trying to use a Charm that made the stunt awards from using Charms that fit with Solar Hero Style fill up your Overdrive mote pool equally to the regular motes you get from the stunt. The GM ruled that though it was a beautiful stunt, the brutal, gruesome nature of it was more in keeping with Infernal Monster Style than Solar Hero.

The second came after we had captured one of the bad guys. The Twilight wanted to interrogate him (rather akin to the way Dr. Vahlen interrogates captured aliens,) and being Compassion-primary, I was having none of it, arguing that doing so was just wrong and sick. The Twilight got upset, and yelled "Fine, why don't you just KILL him, then!" so, without thinking, I declared that I put a throwing knife through his eye.

Then a beat passed and I said "I'm eating Limit for that, aren't I?" (Spoiler: Yes, I did.) Damned if I did, damned if I didn't. Probably a little more damned for having done, though.
Bronymous 2nd Dec 2012, 6:04 PM edit delete reply
All of my games. ALL of them. Ever.
Hariman 2nd Dec 2012, 8:07 PM edit delete reply
So, for an alignment story, there's a mod in the Living Greyhawk game. The story in the mod is that a rich man made a deal with a demon to give up his firstborn child to the demon for wealth and success. But the man, he loves his daughter, and there's an out to the contract. If the father can somehow retrieve a specific unholy and very powerful magical axe for the demon, the man will be able to keep his daughter.

But the axe is guarded by elementals, living topiary, and a Hound Archon in the service of one of the good Gods of the realm.

So the party has a choice. Either sacrifice the little girl to keep the unholy weapon from the demon, or give the demon a great and unholy weapon to save a little girl's soul.

My group is given the options, and among the party, there is a paladin. (And the quest is marked "potentially impossible for a paladin to complete")We look at the options, then tell the father we will retrieve the blade and save the girl, a mere infant.

Even with taking the out to destroy the axe and give the shards to the demon, greatly weakening the weapon in the long run, yet still fulfilling the bargain, the paladin loses his paladin powers for directly opposing his God's desires.

The paladin didn't hesitate. Not for a second. His powers were less important than the little girl's soul.

It's unfortunate that Living Greyhawk ended not long after that, but it was a great character defining moment for the paladin.
ShadowDragon8685 3rd Dec 2012, 11:50 AM edit delete reply
Take a Fourth Option: Kill the demon.

And yeah, one of the things I liked about 4e was that it did away with "lol you fall!" as a character mechanic, because it was kind of bullshit to link someone's vital class features - without which they might as well roll up a new character because they will be UTTERLY useless in a fight in a game where the overwhelming majority of game mechanics center around fighting - with in-character choices.

Of course, ditching alignments, I did not like. I rather prefer the 3e alignment grid.
Urthdigger 2nd Dec 2012, 10:07 PM edit delete reply
One of my biggest alignment issues is the distinction between neutral and chaotic, primarily between neutral good and chaotic good. A good character will typically obey the rules anyway, because they're set up for the common good of the people. At this point, you may have a character whose philosophy is "I'll obey the rules, but only because they make sense. Moment they get in my way, they're gone." This is arguably more neutral than chaotic, but outside of the proper setting (evil governments), it's difficult to be more "chaotic" without drifting into neutral, or even straight up evil.

There is of course the option of just making the character straight up random, but that gets old after a while. And that's more of a quirk than a statement on the character's moral views on rules and law.
Kayeka 3rd Dec 2012, 2:04 AM edit delete reply
And that's why they ditched "neutral good" and "chaotic good" in fourth edition. And good riddance. Now they only need to get rid of the rest of it, and we're cool.

The only reason alignments are such a big part of role-playing culture is because everyone is familiar with the bithchfest that inevitably ensues whenever someone tries to play a complicated character.
Zuche 3rd Dec 2012, 7:06 AM edit delete reply
It helps to look at it this way: the neutral good person puts the greatest good first. If that means breaking the law, then so be it. If it means bringing down some vigilante that's taken it upon himself to stir up trouble along the border with the Grand Duchy of Bad Nasty Wrong, then that sucker is going down. This isn't to say the lawful good character won't break the law or the chaotic good one won't go after the vigilante. It's just that, in general, these are actions they'd take reluctantly. Likewise, the neutral good individual might reject taking action in either case for a number of reasons.

People can always find or make exceptions. It's when the exceptions become the rule that a given alignment should be reconsidered.
Raxon 3rd Dec 2012, 7:48 AM edit delete reply
I always saw neutral as "Having common sense".

A chaotic good character does what he wants. A neutral good character would bend rules and laws, usually with the statement that it's all for a good cause, or that it will be worth it in the end.
Zuche 3rd Dec 2012, 8:51 AM edit delete reply
Hmm. Since the general alignment for most humans in a D&D game is neutral, I guess that's a valid interpretation more often than not. Then you get the likes of the Rilmani and others obsessed with maintaining "the balance". They tried to drop that lesson on us in Dragonlance with mixed success. (I guess the lesson as about the peril of successfully battling monsters.)

Getting back to the common sense interpretation, Dustin Hoffman played an interesting character in Hero. He was not a likeable fellow, in trouble with the law for some pretty shady dealings and forever telling his son that you had to look out for number one in this world.

Then he goes out and puts himself at risk to save a bunch of lives. He gripes about it the whole way, but never hesitates. Then he ducks out into the night and confusion, with no one knowing who saved them. What follows after that provides a good example of why he considered his actions in this place a violation of common sense, but it also highlights how much of a jerk he is, even when he's got a case.

You could play him as neutral with a hero complex, or as chaotic good with an overcompensating urge to stop being, as he sees it, a victim. Really, you could try to steer him toward any alignment, but those are the two easiest courses toward playing that character accurately.
Consumer Unit 5012 4th Dec 2012, 12:34 AM edit delete reply
I can't remember the name of the game off-hand, but one Fantasy Heartbreaker (a games that's basically someone's home-published "D&D, but..." game) that I read a review of had one neat idea: The metaphysically important alignments of the setting were those of the Elder Gods, and as such had only a very tenuous connection to human morality.
terrycloth 3rd Dec 2012, 12:34 PM edit delete reply
A chaotic good character would consider breaking the rules good in and of itself. The fact that government happens to not be causing massive suffering *right now* doesn't excuse it from the fact that it's a big ball of unnecessary structure just waiting to be abused, and it's everyone's duty to weaken and oppose the laws whenever reasonably possible in order to help maintain the freedom of the people.

The cops want to arrest that pickpocket and *throw him in prison* just because he took someone's coins? That's brutal, disproportionate punishment! Wait, now they want to cut off his hand so he won't do it again? How can you just stand there and let it happen? WHEN WILL YOU RAGE?!
ShadowDragon8685 3rd Dec 2012, 9:10 PM edit delete reply
Chaotic Good doesn't necessarily mean "Anarchist." It CAN mean "Anarchist," but it doesn't have to.
HopeFox 3rd Dec 2012, 12:20 AM edit delete reply
They pretty much all are the same argument...
JediChipmunk 3rd Dec 2012, 9:26 PM Blow your mind... edit delete reply
One book I read recently really puts the alignment system in the blender. It's called "The River King's Road" and I recommend it to anyone who wants to mess with their GM's head about alignment.

Here is the situation. The King has a brother. If this brother has the King, the King's wife, infant son, some of his men and the entire village (maybe 100 people in total) they are in killed so he can become the new King. Does that make him evil?

Well yeah seems to be the obvious answer. But then what if the brother did this because he knew the King was planning on starting a war with a neighboring kingdom, where thousands or ten-thousands would die? On top of that he knows that their kingdom does not have the financial strength to win this war but the King cannot be talked out of it?

The thing is, the story never actually makes a decision for us, just tells the story of what happens. Only one character seems to be irredeemably evil. But everyone else is just muddling through as they try to survive and protect what they care for most. That being themselves, their people, or their own child.
Zuche 4th Dec 2012, 6:18 AM edit delete reply
Killing the infant son is an evil act, no matter how you justify it. Where most people go wrong is with assuming that only evil people perform evil actions. It's about the pattern.

The brother might have been a good man at the start of this pattern, but it's hard to argue he's a good one afterward, based on what you described. He might not be an evil one, but he covered some impressive distance on a certain paved road of infamy.
KathiraNarae 4th Dec 2012, 10:52 AM edit delete reply
The brother is evil, because he killed an infant son. There are a few more good ways out of that situation than murdering the current royal family.

Option 1: Kill the king and queen, and instate self as regent while raising the kid to listen to other people, have a better grasp of finance, and never start wars unless you absolutely have to.
Option 2: Obfuscate the king's orders such that they become orders that won't start a war.
Option 3: Rally the masses to rebellion by getting a copy of a declaraion of war signed by the king out to them. The people don't want much of a war, and will hopefully peacefully protest against it enough that the king changes his mind.
Option 4: Fabricate some evidence, get the king convicted of treason and jailed/excecuted, take control of the country. When circumstances have changed enough and the king's still alive, pardon him and put him back on the throne with a stern warning not to do that again.
Option 5: More evil than the above options, but still not 'kills babies' evil. Kill the king, marry the queen. And raise the kid as in option 1.

5 options all less evil than what was done. A bit of thought is all it takes.
Guest 3rd Dec 2012, 10:20 PM edit delete reply
The closest any of my groups have come to having alignment issues was when I was playing a neutral good rogue, who took sneak attacks whenever she could, in the same party as a knight, who had to always give his enemies a fair fight and stick to his code. Between us and the DM, we ruled that the knight realized that he could not control my character, an just went the "Rogue, I am dissapointed in you for sneak attacking" route, while my rogue tried not to fight too dirty and didn't go breaking the law all over the place just to troll the knight.

Actually, reading through the comments on this comic has inspired me to try being a paladin. The group I'd be doing this with is made up of people who are reasonable about character restrictions, like the one I mentioned above. That should keep the possibility of going Lawful Stupid/Paranoid/Annoying down to a minimum.
Raxon 4th Dec 2012, 6:40 AM edit delete reply
One of these days, I think I might go through the entire archive and leave a comment on each page, giving a list of tropes that page uses, with matching links to TV Tropes.

I'm scared that Newbie might kill me for it, though. Tropes are not bad. However, I could potentially be wrecking a lot of homes. If you've ever visited TV Tropes, you know what I'm talking about.
Digo 4th Dec 2012, 7:16 AM edit delete reply
I know what you mean, but I think it be more wrecking yourself more than anything. Still... I admit I'd like to see you make that list for my guest comics.
Raxon 4th Dec 2012, 7:25 AM edit delete reply
Two hundred fourteen strips, plus maybe thirty to fifty guest strips. Not altogether undoable. I think- I'm pretty sure that you have at least five of those. Maybe ten.

Might be a good opportunity for me to learn a thing or two.
Lyntermas 4th Dec 2012, 7:51 AM edit delete reply
Raxon, you're just posting because you wanted to be first post for the late page, aren't you?

Although, if you were to attempt Troping all of the comic pages so far, that would be quite a feat.
Raxon 4th Dec 2012, 8:08 AM edit delete reply
No, actually. It just sounds like something I would do.

Also, I got a little bored, and that idea popped into my head.
Digo 4th Dec 2012, 8:03 AM edit delete reply
Seven pages to be precise.
The idea *IS* doable and if you're familiar enough with Tropes (I'm assuming you are), then after a dozen pages it should be pretty easy to get a good list going per page.

I mean, if that's what you want.
Do you have that kind of free time though?
Raxon 4th Dec 2012, 8:06 AM edit delete reply
To do it all in one sitting? Nope.

To do it just a page or two at a time? That's really not a lot of time each day.
Digo 4th Dec 2012, 8:26 AM edit delete reply
Not a lot per day, but the nickels add up. Can you handle the nickles? ;)
Kadakism 4th Dec 2012, 8:09 AM edit delete reply
I'll not be reading such a tropes list, Raxon. I only recently resurfaced from the darker corners of Lampshade, and I intend not to go back for some time.
Hemi-PoweredDrone 4th Dec 2012, 8:16 AM edit delete reply
Oh, you'll be back. They always come back.

Just give it a week, maybe a month tops. The one day you'll Google the name of a show and what will be one of the first results? BOOM
Kadakism 4th Dec 2012, 8:26 AM edit delete reply
Please, I can't. I haven't eaten or seen the sun in so long... My wife, I don't even know is she's still alive... Will she even recognize me now that I'm cynical and genre-savvy? Why do you torment me so, Tropes?
Hemi-PoweredDrone 4th Dec 2012, 8:12 AM edit delete reply
YOU'RE A MAD MAN, RAXON! why would you subject these fine people to that website? The things I've seen over there, they've made me such a jaded asshole. Don't do that. Don't give the world more jaded assholes.
Zuche 4th Dec 2012, 8:31 AM edit delete reply
Raxon, I know this doesn't describe what you're planning to do, but it does bring this quote to mind:

"Congratulations, you can link to TV Tropes. This does not mean you have special insight into the storytelling process, much less the author's mind. Stories don't need to fit into neat boxes, you know."

I spent the last hour and a half searching the GitP forums in search of that signature quote (by SPoD, last seen on the forums back n March). I hope you appreciate the irony.
Raxon 4th Dec 2012, 8:43 AM edit delete reply
I know, but it's just bbcode. It's really not hard to learn, and it's quick and easy to link. I'm actually surprised that some people haven't taken five minutes to learn to link.

Also, the last comment I made is fitting, considering the subject matter and situation. Besides, I occasionally link things besides tv tropes. It's just that tv tropes is easy to grab what I need from.

TV Tropes: Awesome Yet Practical.
Zuche 4th Dec 2012, 8:59 AM edit delete reply
Oh, sure, it's relevant. I was just reminded of that quote. There were a lot of people who seemed to post only to effectively proclaim, "First to identify and link trope!" on those forums back when she added that to her signature.

At a certain point, I suspected the majority linkers were contributors looking to advertise. Maybe it wasn't true, but it stands out from most wikis in this regard.
Zuche 4th Dec 2012, 10:20 AM edit delete reply
Did... did we accidentally send Newbiespud to Personal Hell? :(
Anon 4th Dec 2012, 10:23 AM edit delete reply
Where is the new comic :(
Newbiespud 4th Dec 2012, 10:29 AM edit delete reply
Late, due to a buffer derp. Sorry about that.
Kirby 4th Dec 2012, 4:50 PM edit delete reply
I know it's a bit late and not many people will probably read this, but I found a little blog post that someone wrote about alignment that I think's rather interesting;
Kirby 4th Dec 2012, 4:51 PM edit delete reply
Wrong link. Although that one's semi-D&D related to. In a 'I have the weirdest boner right now' sort of way.
Fillosof 13th Jul 2013, 12:30 AM edit delete reply
That kind of situations is exactly the reason why I think alignment system is artificial, superfluous and insufficient at the same time. It's only real purpose is to support the Cleric's, Paladin's and Outsiders spell mechanics. Thus, GURPS is the true way to roll, ya crude twinks.
Don't get me wrong, I loved D&D (3.5 one though)I had my fare share of cool "roleplay LE or LG character in 10 different ways" trials, and I have seen great things done within that system, but it leaves out too much details.
Take William Munny from Unforgiven for example. None of those I had argued this with was able to fully express this character via alignment system, not to mention some of the more complicated stuff, like main protagonist from ' Брат (Brat)' series or RL examples.

Still, this comic is great, and I want to thank you for that, dear author.