RPGMemes

10342 readers

4 users here now

Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

483

Tasha's alignment (startrek.website)

submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

94 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I would argue that for game purposes, having an E on your character sheet means "I like inter-party conflict so much I am willing to instigate it" whereas having an unaccompanied N on your sheet means "I just want to have fun with my party". Tasha is, as far as I know, a team player like 75% of the time, so I would accept her being true neutral as long as she does not inflict her sadism on things that affect the party negatively

I am also perfectly down with having people with a G on their character sheet do horrifying things "for the greater good". They have indicated they want to be a hero by writing that G on their character sheet, so as long as the other people at the table think their actions are heroic then there is no issue.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I would argue that for game purposes, having an E on your character sheet means "I like inter-party conflict so much I am willing to instigate it"

"Stupid Evil" is not a valid alignment anymore than "Lawful Stupid" Paladins. Decent players can role play a party with both Good and Evil characters in it without it constantly descending into bickering and threats of violence.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think you are confusing "inter-party conflict" with the players at the table getting mad at each other. For example, last session, my LE artificer and the CG rogue were experiencing some conflict regarding him making a pact with my warlock patron, which in-game devolved into my artificer threatening to kill his adopted son while he threatens to kill me. Out of game, we had a quick conversation that went something like this:

Me: I don't really want this character to die, but just so you know I have this bugbear Rogue I've been dying to play for years, so don't feel bad about stabbing Artificer to death.

Friend: I don't want to do PvP right now either. But I am really attached to Son and I might not be able to forgive you OOG for killing him

Me: Fair enough, I promise that I won't go through with it.

Then we went right back to RPing our characters threatening to stab each other's loved ones. Thats what I mean by inter-party conflict. If you can't be civil at the table, you're either being a bully or you're going to be kicked out of the table.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That all sounds reasonable, but you don't have to have Evil in your alignment for inter-party conflict. Some of the best story telling happens when different characters are trying to do the right thing, but disagree as to what that is.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

I think what you are proposing sounds similar to what I said at the end of my first comment.

Example: most people I've talked to about Goblin Slayer peg his alignment as Lawful Good, but I'm fairly certain if you decided to do ethnic cleansing in your game the other players might take issue with that.

I think the strongest counterargument would be something similar to playing as a sort of Monster Rights activist in a more traditional sword & sorcery setting, trying to get kobolds and goblins standing in civilized society so people cant just kill them for fun. You'd be facing a lot of opposition from the world, and your goals likely run perpendicular to those of the other players, but that seems like the same kind of fun as what I am doing in my campaign. However, based on my argument earlier, this would be a Lawful Evil character lmao