You pick at your rations instead, while your ranger eagerly takes the Orc's offer of breakfast to the tune of a line "Sure is pleasant to have real food instead of rations for a change"

Being a dwarf, you immediately take offense at the elf "Why ya smarmy pile of duck smut, are ya tellin me mah cookin ain't good nuf for ya? Sodding orc lover..."

The elf chuckles "No offense, but trail rations are always a compromise compared to fresh cookin'."

Grumbling the dwarf raises a defiant eyebrow. He sinks his teeth into the hardtack, and...after a couple minutes of grinding...successfully bites off a piece. He chews hardily, moaning in exaggerated pleasure. "Ya don't know what ya're missing. Now, here's what I'm a-wonderin: how the hell are we supposed to get our wagon out of here?"

"Just wait a day or two -- they'll move on plenty soon enough, once they get the stock watered and such. Either that, or there's nothing stopping us from joinin' up if they're headed the same way as us"

"Join up with an ORC? No, a HORDE of orcs? Last time I checked they weren't any friends of yours, elf." He squints his eyes as if he is trying to look straight into their souls, then glances at your tin plate "That mighta been poisoned. They could be trying to take all of our treasure. This could all be a great ploy to...to do...." he pauses, mouth open but not finding the right word "....SOMETHING!!"

"It's the same pan they were passin' out to their own folks from. Besides, I think we're safer here than just about anywhere else on these plains. Ne'er-do-wells don't mess around with a caravan like the one we sit amidst, and for good reason, too -- Orcs are fighters not out of some bloodlust, but because when you're out on the open range and someone's tryin' to steal your stock, there are no guards out there to shout for, that's for sure!"

The elf wraps up his meal at this point

You hear a bit of playful rough-housing behind you at this point. When you turn, you see an orc girl laughing and patting a large dog that's sitting atop her, licking her face

The dwarf's shaggy eyebrows raise and lower like a pair of enormous caterpillars trying to dance. Several minutes pass as his cigar burns down into a stub, lighting his prodigious beard on fire. This manages to break him out of his reverie, and he slaps at it with his meaty hands for a moment before it goes out. He huffs, but a mischievous grin spreads across his face. "Fine. Have it your way. I'll, uh...let the orcs be our escort. We'll see who's right."

About two weeks later, the orcs peel off from you, heading their way and leaving you to head yours, no poorer in treasure, yet richer in experiences

After two weeks of walking beside the wagon, the dwarf looks at is boots. Lifting his foot, he finds the soles are worn clean through. He shakes a fist at the elf while trying to lift his foot to display the sole at the same time, resulting in him one-legging it in a short circle "I TOLD YOU THEY WOULD DO SOMETHING!!"

@Alphaeus the elf laughs merrily "You could have just asked to have them patched..."

Putting one foot down, he waggles his fingers before shouldering the pack he had dropped while hopping. "That's aside from mah point. If they hadn't been travelling with us for two weeks, I wouldn't have been walking for two weeks to keep our guard. Me walking is what kept us safe, ya know...ya couldn't have done much with those bloomin reigns in your pasty little hands."

"Well, anyway, I even got to learn a bit of orcish in all that, so I say that makes us richer than we started. You could always have rode the wagon or held the reins for that matter..."

"I would have loved to have held the reins, but noooo. After that time I ran over our cleric four times, you swore you'd never left me drive again. And I still say it was that buggah's fault, not mine."

(OOC: @shalvenay just guessing this was spontaneous fun. If you wanted a more functional chat RP, however, just let me know. Otherwise, just letting my sense of humor lead the way)

@Alphaeus (you're right :) 'twas a spontaneous thing)

Cool cool, just curious

@Alphaeus what did you think by the way?

@Shalvenay I assumed that it was just spontaneous, but didn't know if it was actually "a thing" that you guys did here (since actual chat rps are a legit thing, after all)

@Alphaeus we normally have a dedicated room for more serious chat RPs :)

but yeah -- the whole thing with the Orc horde made me want to drop a #notallorcs sidenote :) and it took off from there

hahaha

Yeah, I just felt like doing the obstinate dwarf

yeah, I have a tendency to run against some of the "default target" tropes out there

Oh, I love trouncing the typical ideals when it comes to chars

Alignment comes to mind at this point -- people tend to type-cast them, but I like to reverse a lot of those types

A good person that does tons of horrid stuff in a kind of Grand Inquisition type of spirit, excusing his actions by being necessary to convert evil/heretic creatures.

An evil person that acts extremely holy and good all the time -- the "Angel of Light" -- so that they can better deceive and mislead souls

A true neutral that isn't apathetic and central, but rather equal parts of all extremes

@Alphaeus yeah, I don't place much stock in alignment either

what bugs me worse is hard-pinning of alignments to races and/or classes though

@Alphaeus Regarding the "good" person that does horrid stuff - how would they be considered good?

heck, I could see some folks objecting to a LG rogue

@Shalvenay What? Why?

@MikeQ stereotypes about the class, more or less

I mean, what do you mean by "objecting"? Would that be something like reverse-my-guy-syndrome?

@MikeQ ah. as in "you shouldn't be allowed to play that!"

@Alphaeus indeed.

@Alphaeus Then it's not LG per se, now is it?

The medieval church was far from ethical. It's a prime example of an institution of cruelty that calls itself "good" as a form of justification, but it really isn't

@MikeQ Lawful would be fulfilled by almost maniacally following the laws of their religion and country. Good would be fulfilled by supporting a holy religion.

And also, you just hit my point on the head

Good is determined by the dominant factor, IMO

Good for a savage orc should not be the same as good for refined elf

Well, sure. That's why the religion itself (and/or its associated deity) may have an alignment, but an individual follower doesn't simply "absorb" that alignment by following the religion

I think Evil and Neutral do have a great deal of play room. Good in DnD is extremely well defined, moreso than I think it should be.

I do think, however, you can make an argument around the "means and ends" mentality

Hmm... I suppose you could run into weird ethical dilemma

If you use evil means to reach a good end, or good means to reach an evil end, you're in a dilemma

[gestures above] This is why I'm happier in games that abandon alignment altogether in favor of more open character notes, or for concepts that are very closely tailored to push a particular kind of theme.

In each case you did both types of actions, yet the "end" should, ostensibly, determine your actual motivations and goals

I was thinking more along the lines of a reprehensible-seeming action, but under the assumption that it is the right thing to do

@BESW Quite true. I will say as a DM I allow people to use alignments, but do tell them I believe alignments are fluid in their definition

e.g. "Let me kill you so you can go to heaven"

@MikeQ But what if the person was an exiled holy being cursed by some evil entity to prevent them from completing a divine mission from above, and your actions were helping a holy being serve a holy god on a holy cause and defeat a devil?

The one iteration of alignment I could potentially get behind is that it's an allegiance in the interplanar war for reality, but again--that's using it to push a very specific kind of story which most D&D campaigns aren't interested in.

@Alphaeus Er... I didn't totally understand that. But I think that falls into the systematic problem of "alignment of actions" vs. "alignment of creatures"

@BESW My approach is to assume that most actions are neutral, and it's only extreme actions that would make any difference. Otherwise, ignore alignment whenever possible.

@MikeQ So I'd sit down and think, "What effect does this bring to my game if I'm going to be ignoring it most of the time? Can I get that effect without introducing a mechanic just to ignore it, or do I need that effect at all?"

Like, Masters of Umdaar has each Archaeonaut write a short phrase beginning with "I must..." that describes what motivates them to explore dangerous ruins in search of ancient legendary power. That's gonna come up all the time because it's what you do in that game, and it'll force interesting choices that might eventually lead to modifying the phrase as the character develops.

It serves the same "touchstone for helping me make decisions in line with my characterization" that alignment fills, but it's also got elements of backstory or personality, ties the character to the world, and pushes interesting story moments because changing the phrase is significant but not potentially character-shattering.

@MikeQ Lol, I took that a bit too far, but generally it boils down to that everything you did was to support what is good, but the action itself was evil.

@BESW I do agree. My current campaign I'm running has alignment as pretty much irrelevant. In the past, however, I've done ones where alignment is critical (there was a psychological one that involved breaking out of a kind of uber-slavery. Whole story took place on a single fiefdom.)

(And it doesn't invite arguments about real-world philosophy quite so readily.)

I suppose I meant more along the lines of... don't use alignment as a prescriptive thing. Instead, reserve questions of "is this evil" for stuff like smite evil and detect evil

Yes, I do agree.

@MikeQ which is why I like 5e's handling of that sort of thing

There are some things that are unquestionably alignment based, merely because you need some kind of determining factor

In which case, it would be reserved for stuff like "demons made of evil incarnate" or "zombies being animated by evil energies" or "dude who murders innocent bystanders"

Also, @Shalvenay do tell, because I don't touch 5e after I read the mechanics once and decided it was too simplistic

@Alphaeus ah. 5e made alignment completely optional. smiting is for whoever the paladin decides needs it, and detect evil type stuff etal work off a specific list of creature types

Yeah, I like what 13th Age did with smiting. Sounds similar to 5e's approach.

Hmmm. The smiting is generally the way I homebrew 3.5e anyway, so that's cool. I like the idea of evil being more tied to specific creatures/things

See, I don't want to invite spontaneous ethical discussions like "This random merchant acts in self-interest, are they evil?" or "The paladin forgot to do the dishes, is he evil now?"

I re-flavored my 13th Age paladin's Smite Evil ability as "Smite Oppressor," since he was dedicated to preserving freedom.

And, the obvious worst case, "My character is evil and therefore I have to burn down the orphanage"

@BESW I like that idea. "I judge you as evil" versus "The monster manual judges you as evil"

Exactly!

It helps that 13th Age isn't as big on active intercession by the divine as a major theme.

@MikeQ Totally true. I agree on all counts.

@MikeQ aye. because creatures are more variable than the MM gives them credit for (save for extraplanars and such monsters that are definitionally aligned if you will)

Heck, nobody's sure which Power gave my paladin his powers and mission. He's... not very well-studied, he just received a vision of "the Lady" one day.

lol

It's probably one of the 13 Icons of the Age, but that still leaves him with the Elf Queen, the High Druid, and the Priestess as obvious candidates.

Even then, @Shalvenay, I've never adhered to the pure alignments of extraplanar beings. I mean, the idea of a Fallen Angel is quite a common example. Modrons can go rogue from the lawful brethren. Etc.

@Alphaeus indeed

Someday I will run an adventure about a runaway inevitable. But it will not be in D&D.

Hahaha

@Alphaeus I like to treat it as their "default" alignments. If the players are in a dungeon and run into a devil, and it's not an NPC that I've really thought about, then statistically, it's probably evil.

^^Right.

It's a general rule, not a universal rule

One of the things that I think supports our interpretation of fluid alignment in even "alignment central" things like 3.5e is that there are many ways to "bend" alignment

For example, Lilitu can Shroud Alignment, even from spells and the like

Ur-Priests are evil godless beings that can steal powers from other beings.

eeh. I consider that less "alignment is diegetically fluid" and more "not even the designers are sure what alignment's for."

Lmao, good point there

Alignment persists because it's traditionally a very recognizable element of the D&D franchise, so it must persist. Wizards struggles in each edition to make it fit, or make it optional without calling attention to its superfluousness, depending on the designers' ideas and the mandate handed down from their Production Overlords.

^^That is true of many things in DnD

Since I don't play D&D anymore, I don't have to worry about what alignment is or isn't or how it can or can't work. I don't need to decide if Orks are Always Evil or if angels can fall.

Well, generally I don't worry about it anyway unless someone else is a DM ;)

That said, I feel ya.

This is also why I'd use 13th Age if I ever wanted to play a D&D-like system (rather than just tell D&D-like stories) again: because its designers weren't laboring under the Yoke of Franchise they got to pick the bits they liked and wanted and could make fit into the game well... and leave out the rest.

With DnD/PF, sometimes the best ways to deal with conventions like alignment, is to avoid thinking about it too much.

Like weapon alignment, which is conceptually and mechnically very silly

^^Again, Alignment doesn't make a difference unless the DM says it does

and most good DMs I know don't place emphasis on alignment

I mean, I can roll with some basic stuff

@Alphaeus In pathfinder, weapon alignment is actually a tangible, measurable property of the weapon. Even if the weapon isn't intelligent.

Yeah, ik. I do PF too.

I literally NEVER do anything with that

And the main DMs I'm around don't either.

What about when dealing with creatures that have DR/good?

@BESW Kinky ;P

Actually, no, that's not a good example. Good-aligned weapons are meant to be conceptually similar to holy water.

But something like DR 10/lawful, that's where things get headachy

@MikeQ Generally, we handle good/bad as something attributed specifically by magically enhancing them, like with Flaming or Freezing.

Depends on the DM specifically how this works

I generally have an Alignment Bane type of enchantement (flavor depending on the game).

@MikeQ Obviously lawful weapons are ones which have been properly registered with the local authorities and the appropriate permits have been issued.

(Captain's Fancy Sweetheart would approve.)

@BESW It's time to change the topic when you've made me picture a Naughty Whip :P

"The beast may be immune to our holy water, but can it withstand our legal water?"

@BESW Chaotic water.

Well obviously, chaotic-aligned water is just like mundane water, but less organized, and maybe it tastes like parking tickets

Evil water is just Pepsi.

Or maybe it's similar to a stolen apple in the Elder Scrolls games

^^Neutral Weapons

Also, @BESW coke ftw

lol

@MikeQ I've generally treated Chaos alignment as meaning more contextualised, specific to circumstance, as opposed to the blanket application of some standard or convention. The representation of Chaos alignment as being "random stupidity because no reason" is Lawful propaganda.

@Erics hahaha :D

lmao, good point

When in the past I've had to codify law and chaos for a game, I've used rule vs act utilitarianism.

I've got some Centaurs that have been pushed out of their home range by some Owlbears. The Centaurs (CG) are all "Oh, this is sad, but we can adapt. If we can get our home back we will, but if not we can adapt" ... and meanwhile some Tortles (LG) are going "Noooo! This is wrong! That's the traditional range of the Centaurs. Please kind adventurers, right this wrong. Even if they are damn foolish hippies."

@Erics the party, however, are neutral rangers and druids, that neither want to displace the owlbears NOR leave the centaurs without a home.

And the Centaurs are all like "Meh, you know what, the grass is greener this side of the river. We're good."

Meanwhile the other side of the river is ruled by a Lawful Evil overlord that wants the Centaurs to stay out of his province, but they are being welcomed by Chaotic Evil demonic insurgents that actually want to eat them.

hey again @Asteria

hai hai @Shalvenay

how're things going?

@Asteria not much here, need to work out a bit of logistics, and decide on some color coding :p. also, is this your Blades char that's getting rewrote, or something else?

@Asteria re-writing in a technical sense (build details) or characterization sense (background and whatnot)?

@Shalvenay my blades char, which I was pretty proud of

@Alphaeus characterization sense.

@Asteria are they saying why they're reworking them?

@Asteria boo hissss there is evil among you

I was warned he's pretty anal about things before I accepted the group invite, so I asked a few people in this chat for suggestions and feedback on my character before turning it in...but he's still weirdly unhappy about it

@Asteria interesting. is he providing feedback at least?

I would BURNINTE for this crime

@Asteria That's the kind of thing that would make me leave a campaign. I don't mind having a GM work WITH me to rewrite a char he feels is off, but if he was just taking it upon himself to alter my character he can do without my character

@Alphaeus yeah, I'd get run off rather fast by the GM rewriting my char out from under me, as well

@Asteria ....

that's some pretty bad GMing IMO

@Alphaeus he litterally just took the google doc, edited to please him, then gave it back. "Heres yo character"

(granted: I am wide open on chars by and large -- you're talking to someone who has GMed for a mustelid with Rogue levels)

@trogdor burninte-ing is acceptable, yes. are you available for hire?

Lol

Unfortunately not

@Asteria >:{ I feel like a lynching is in order right here, for we have found ourselves a GM heretic and blasphemer of the universal laws of GMing.

@Alphaeus theres universal laws? uhoh

^^Rule C of the Universal GM Code: The Player's characters are NOT your characters.

@Alphaeus how many rules are there?

Ohh. Welp, he tore that rule to shreds and spat on it.

42

Yeah....if that's the kind of GM he is, I might suggest potentially pulling out of the campaign

@Alphaeus Rule B BURNINATE him XD

@Alphaeus Unfortunately there's difficult social ties involved that make it hard for me to drop out

@Asteria to the GM himself, or the rest of the group?

@trogdor Rule T TROGDOR BURNINATES ALL

@Asteria So, here's the deal. "I can't participate, I'm sorry. There was this random cat, you see. It had mumps. I left my window open, and...."

@Shalvenay The GM is my partners best friend, has been since kindergarten. My partner invited me to the group to get to know his friends better.

@Asteria oof groan

@Alphaeus "And....now I'm dead. gotta go bye"

@Shalvenay yeah

@Asteria eeeh that I a sticky situation indeed

it may be "sorry, but this isn't the right activity for me to get to know these folks by"

haha.

Do something really, REALLY stupid and kill your char

My character pulls out a knife and stabs the Imperial Guard that was giving us our mission

I mean, this is not at all good advice, but I would not want to know this guy if my first impression of him was him doing that to me :\

@Alphaeus sobs we're assassins. stabbing things is our joooob

@Asteria Stab the boss assassin

@trogdor Totally agreed.

@Alphaeus hmm, the boss assassin is an NPC, so that could be doubly satisfying.

Yeah I would avoid the group entirety,.... Except that sounds like it is bound to hurt your SO,... Which is not a fun idea

X(

@trogdor I'm suspecting that they may be fine in contexts where these sorts of problems (sounds like extreme railroading to me) don't come up

@trogdor damned if I do, damned if I don't

(just like my own RP issues are heavily context-dependent)

@Shalvenay this is possible but,... Not automatic

@trogdor true. it's worth trying at least IMO

@Asteria Then I'd suggest being "that player" for this game. The cheesy Chaotic person that does the most stupid stuff that totally derails the plot and gets themselves killed.

Perhaps I judge social groups too harshly,.. But what can I say, I'm picky

Do enough stupid things, die, and you're free

I still don't understand why "I feel this wouldn't be a good context to get to know them in" isn't a valid/good answer to the question at hand here

@Shalvenay I met my partner at my first ever RP (he was the GM), I met a handful of friends at one's he's hosted, and another handful at a freeform. For my partner, who connects with people best through TRPG's and video games, it's a pretty good way to get to know someone

@Shalvenay I am not saying it definitely isn't but its a complicated problem and that solution could also cause it's own issues if taken the wrong way

@Asteria nods have you talked to him about it at least?

And I certainly don't have all the variables

@Shalvenay yup, got the basic "I know he over does it, but he's my besty" reply

@Alphaeus I don't wanna hinder the other players experiences, but I certainly won't be struggling to stay alive

@Asteria ah. do you have a sense of why the group tolerates this agency violation?

@Alphaeus plus, that poison looks reeaallly tasty

@Asteria do you consider the damage to your character as extensive?

Did he re write major stuff or just change a lot of phrasing?

@Asteria hrm, that might have something to do with it...

Yeah that sounds like a pretty close nit "we will accept stuff" group, unfortunately in this context

@Asteria that is pretty dang big X(

@Asteria so that's a diametric change from a char I like to a trope-ish bleh char.

If he was going to change stuff, I'd at least expect good taste

Also, from personal experience:

@trogdor Over the three years since I started RPing, I think she's the first character I actually took a lot of pride it writing. So it's pretty sucky

**If Everyone in a group is closely tied to the GM, and you are not...be prepared for unusual stuff to happen, and to have no support if you object.

@Asteria oh I hold how I have made my characters as practically sacred

This is abomination to me

A suggestion to change something is welcome, doing without asking is BURNINATE teritorry

@trogdor ikr? I get really tied to my character concept. My characters all begin as a person, not as a class or role or whatever. They evolve around a picture, usually, taking form as I "discover" who they are

I just created a character I really, really love (well, two actually) and in both cases the DMs left my characters as they are. In the case of the first one, the DM worked with me through chat for a week because there was a ton of background/setting stuff I needed to make work with my concept, but my concept was respected and left intact

In a flip sense, speaking as a DM, I just had a person join a campaign late. I worked with him personally to build the character, letting him set the direction and then me give input where the storyline needed my guidance.

I would be more understanding if your character just completely did not fit the setting, but that is far from the case here

Yeah, I mean...in that case I just don't accept the mismatched char and ask the person to rewrite them, explaining why they don't fit

See, the problem I have with this is that my character builds (as the actual class and whatnot) always stem directly from the character personality/background.

@Alphaeus yes exactly, in that case you pull them aside and explain that they need to change something you don't hack up their char concept for them and then say FIN

@Asteria -- does he rewrite everyone's chars, or did he single you out for that treatment, btw?

Pardon my French (don't know the standards in this chat yet), but this person is being a legit dick

@Alphaeus we don't call people that around here (unless that's the name they go by :)

@Shalvenay I....don't know, actually. I might have to ask my partner when I get home if his was edited

Yeah we try to keep the words here PG

@Asteria that would be good to know.

@trogdor Good to know. But the cat's out of the bag, so to speak. I'll temper things in the future ;)

@Alphaeus pardon my french, but I do believe you mean he's a secousse

It would be a bad sign in my book if yours was the only one yeah

which is jerk...in french....cuz....pardon your french....yeah

@Asteria Phallus came to my mind.

or just pull a fast one and call them a Mowen Dhunewassal

@Alphaeus I won't complain too hard

XD

because no one ever knows brogue ;)

We work very hard to be nice here, above and beyond the usual expectations of most Stack Exchange sites. Many online RPG communities are notoriously argumentative and we try to provide a warm, welcoming alternative.

@trogdor if mine's the only one I think I would be pretty offended. I was proud of Jensai

@BESW Well understood, and I'll keep things in line as I move forward.

@Asteria I would take it even worse than that and personally assume I was being picked on for being "the new kid"

@Asteria lol

@trogdor hell, with what I dealt with in my first game, being the "new kid" is the least of my worries

@Asteria lmao

Mmm yeah some groups are better than others accepting the new kid

Because we work very hard to be respectful and kind, we even sometimes manage to talk constructively about subjects which would normally quickly fall into bickering and attacks--though difficult or controversial (or just long-winded) topics often move to the Not A Bar just so people don't feel obliged to choose between participating or leaving if it's not a subject they want to engage with.

Mine was alright at it I think XD

Good to know. I've been in all sorts of chats, so I can say I do respect well regulated ones

(Did have one that was ridiculously OVER regulated...that was as bad as the ones that are total free-for-alls)

@Alphaeus mhm, thats why I like popping in here now and then. it's a breath of fresh air in a too-little or too-much sea of internetiness

Yeah those are reasons I am in here most days at least a little

Yeah, I feel you

I'm in another community that is awesome

Though to be fair not all conversations here engage my interest

@Asteria My main worry, if I were in your situation, would be that it's a sign the GM has a very different vision of Blades than you do.

Works off of a similar principle

(Nothing is off-limits there, but still well managed in it's own odd way).

but yes.

back to the topic at hand

Keep us updated on how this goes

@Asteria Did you ask the GM something along the lines of "Hey I noticed that you made these edits in my character backstory, could you please explain why?" ?

The specific "editing your character" is bad enough, but the way you describe the edits, as a fundamental shift in the tone and theme and how you'll engage with the world and the other players... that's potentially a symptom of an underlying miscommunication about the nature of the game you're playing.

And if you and the GM don't synchronize your vision of the game, then no matter how the character-editing pans out you'll keep having more problems.