Harry Potter D20 Heavy 3.5 Varient Help Needed PEACH

[hamishspence]

On Harry Potter alignments- the easydamus site, besides discussing each alignment in detail (it compiles a lot of alignment material all the way up to 3.5, has a chart with the Harry Potter characters, alignments given, and a discussion of the reasoning behind a few of them.

Here is the chart:

http://easydamus.com/alignmenthpc.html

[Zexion]

On Harry Potter alignments- the easydamus site, besides discussing each alignment in detail (it compiles a lot of alignment material all the way up to 3.5, has a chart with the Harry Potter characters, alignments given, and a discussion of the reasoning behind a few of them.

Here is the chart:

http://easydamus.com/alignmenthpc.html

Mmm... I agree with that. And I suppose Lord Voldemort and Bellatrix Lestrange were Chaotic Evil. But Voldemort had creepy-awesome social skills and Bellatrix was one of his followers.

[hamishspence]

Yup- while some people think the site has "holes" and that NG or CG characters should be perfectly willing to murder helpless enemies,

I think it takes the 3.5 alignment system and integrates it with past alignment concepts (like 2nd ed's "alignment tendencies") very well.

[Imbasel]

Sorry, I forgot to post this earlier for spell saves.

For spells that require a save the save is equal to 10+1/2 the caster level+the appropriate attribute.

The attributes that help determine spell saves are Charimsa for Curses and Anti-Curses, Wisdom for Charms and Intelligence for Transfiguration.

[imp_fireball]

How about we have school background bonuses?

Hogwarts
- Gain a 2+ bonus on Charms, and a 4+ bonus to Diplomacy and Intimidate checks against other people from Hogwarts.
Special: Alignment cannot be Chaotic Evil. All Houses are avaliable.

Durmstrang
- Gain a 2+ bonus on Curses/Countercurses, and a 2+ bonus on Dark Arts checks.
Special: Alignment cannot be Lawful Good. House choice is limited to Hufflepuff or Slytherin, with none of the corresponding social bonuses.

Beauxbataons Academy of Magic
- Gain a 4+ bonus on Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Seduction checks.
Special: Alignment cannot be Lawful Evil. House choice is limited to Gryffindor or Ravenclaw, with none of the corresponding social bonuses.

I don't think this is a good idea at all. School backgrounds are only good for setting stimulation - giving it mechanics severely limits the way a back ground applies to roleplaying and roleplaying in general.

and that NG or CG characters should be perfectly willing to murder helpless enemies,

I think anyone should be allowed to murder helpless enemies. Even good guys can be highly logical.

[Zexion]

I don't think this is a good idea at all. School backgrounds are only good for setting stimulation - giving it mechanics severely limits the way a back ground applies to roleplaying and roleplaying in general.

Giving it mechanics makes the schools different, as they should be, and encourages PCs to pick different school backgrounds.

[Imbasel]

I'm with imp_fireball on this one. For the most part, being in a certain school or house is a rping thing. They do gain some in game benefits, but only ones that affect social skills, or in the case of Ravenclaw affect skill points. However, for that given school it makes sense. Also, requiring certain alignment just seems rather silly to me. A school is not going to turn down a student just because their alignment differs.

Other schools may provide different benefits, but not in the ways you have listed there.

[imp_fireball]

Quirrell: Neutral Evil.
Lockhart: Everything Stupid.
Lupin: Chaotic Good.
Moody: Chaotic Good.
Crouch Junior: Lawful Evil.
Umbridge: Lawful Evil.
Snape:

Spoiler

Show

Lawful Good.

Hey, if Snape were LG he would've never did what he did.

I'm not saying LGs are brave martyrs (but LG paladins are supposed to be), but they probably tend to think about the 'greater good' and how things might affect society and living standards of innocents more than others. I don't see Snape as ever having done that.

Also, requiring certain alignment just seems rather silly to me. A school is not going to turn down a student just because their alignment differs.

Include an indication that the student shouldn't behave openly in regards to the illegal alignment. So in HG, they shouldn't behave in a chaotic evil manner and in a way that the staff would catch them, even though they are chaotic evil.

[Zexion]

I'm with imp_fireball on this one. For the most part, being in a certain school or house is a rping thing. They do gain some in game benefits, but only ones that affect social skills, or in the case of Ravenclaw affect skill points. However, for that given school it makes sense. Also, requiring certain alignment just seems rather silly to me. A school is not going to turn down a student just because their alignment differs.

Actually, they probably would. You see, Hogwarts would expel any witch or wizard who demonstrated Chaotic Evil tendencies. Durmstrang would to the same to anyone demonstrating Lawful Good actions. Beuxbatons, maybe there shouldn't be a restriction there.

Hey, if Snape were LG he would've never did what he did.

I'm not saying LGs are brave martyrs (but LG paladins tend to be), but they probably tend to think about the 'greater good' and how things might affect society and living standards of innocents more than others. I don't see Snape as ever having done that.

Spoiler

Show

He had an alignment change after he realized Lily Potter woudl be killed by the prophecy. He is definitely Good.

[imp_fireball]

Spoiler

Show

That's because he loves her. It's not out of his spontaneous upstanding morals. Also, alignment change is never sudden - and often times a change even reflects a personal decision of the character to change (and they must make the long effort to change too).

His manner of selflessness reflects merely that he isn't completely evil rather than all out good.

[Imbasel]

Characters can be evil and selfish and still not be expelled. Not every character who is evil is going to display those tendencies. A student can still be expelled for doing evil things and being caught, but it doesn't mean that evil students are automatically rejected.

[imp_fireball]

Characters can be evil and selfish and still not be expelled. Not every character who is evil is going to display those tendencies. A student can still be expelled for doing evil things and being caught, but it doesn't mean that evil students are automatically rejected.

True - also neutral or good things can often get a student expelled as well. For the latter, it's usually because a person of significant political influence may have made the decision though.
-----

Draco Malfoy - First level, above average Charisma, average Wisdom (or below average, depends how immature you think he is I suppose), average Intelligence. Physical stats are similar to HP's. Alignment is Lawful Neutral with Evil Tendencies (???). He's too much of a wimp to be all out evil. He tends to use the rules to his advantage. Debatebly, he could be completely evil, but I get the feeling that witnessing actual slaughter of innocents would give an immense feeling of regret. That's just how I saw the character. Maybe it was just because he was always a kid to me.

[Imbasel]

Perfect example would be Hagrid.

[Zexion]

Characters can be evil and selfish and still not be expelled. Not every character who is evil is going to display those tendencies. A student can still be expelled for doing evil things and being caught, but it doesn't mean that evil students are automatically rejected.

Yes... so it should be changed to "It is uncommon for a Previously Restricted Alignment character to make it through schooling at School."

[Imbasel]

Ok, I'm going to cut straight to the point of the matter. I don't think we are going to agree on this just because of personal views on alignment and houses in harry potter. I will not be adding those things to the site, as I don't believe it fits Harry Potter. I do however, thank you for all of your input for Harry Potter d20.

[imp_fireball]

Yes... so it should be changed to "It is uncommon for a Previously Restricted Alignment character to make it through schooling at School."

No it should be 'Characters who are of this alignment are not advised to openly behave in accordance to this alignment in front of figures of authority within the school, or they may get expelled.'

The word *may* hints at the fact that it could all depend on the circumstances. Some schools are more rules reliant than others and less 'guided by intuition from authority' - so the rules of the school may dictate that the student doesn't warrant expulsion even though they may have done something horrible.

[imp_fireball]

Ron never leveled? I mean, he wasn't really good, but he could out duel a good few people.

So could like, 10% of the students.

That makes no sense. At all.

He's probably thinking of HP's scar being a 'secondary affect'.

But that's probably actually just a product of Voldemort's reborn template (he leaves a bit of magic on the person who slew him; he can do this because he's still technically alive after dying since his soul is scattered in different places) more than anything.

The scar's basically a psychic imprint that allows V to find Harry in the future once he'd regrow his body. It becomes obvious after awhile.

I don't think secondary affects are necessary for magic, unless they're magical diseases or poison.

[Zexion]

Ok, I'm going to cut straight to the point of the matter. I don't think we are going to agree on this just because of personal views on alignment and houses in harry potter. I will not be adding those things to the site, as I don't believe it fits Harry Potter. I do however, thank you for all of your input for Harry Potter d20.

*grumbles*

Fine. What else do you need us to help with?

[Imbasel]

I never really did like using the main three as a gauge for character level. Since they are main characters they are above the norm. Most other people of their age, would be average at dueling at best.

The creature section could also use some work, if you would be willing to help.

[hamishspence]

Snape may work OK as True Neutral.

Draco- even in the 2nd book he was gloating enthusiastically over the Muggle-borns being attacked by whatever was in the Chamber of Secrets.

If you take the view that, on average, roughly a third of people are evil (the rest Neutral or Good) I don't see much of a problem with allowing characters like Draco to be evil.

I agree with "no alignment restrictions for any of the houses" though.

[Zexion]

If you take the view that, on average, roughly a third of people are evil (the rest Neutral or Good)

I disagree. In real life, it's split up more like 25% of people are Good, 70% of people are Neutral, and 5% are Evil.

[hamishspence]

But in D&D "humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral"

70% of people being Neutral (Lawful, Chaotic, and not either) qualifies as "Usually Neutral (any)"

Which is definitely an alignment tendency.

In the Random NPC table in DMG, as much as 50% of the NPCs you meet will be Evil. In the Power Center Alignment table it's lower, but certainly not as low as 5%. And in the Community Alignment table in Cityscape (for communities larger than small towns) it's also more like a third.

It's hard to assess alignment in real-life terms. On a questionnaire, maybe 5% of people will say it's justified to murder 1 person and harvest their organs to save 5. Or that, if the choice was between saving a drowning child (at no risk to the self, and the only sacrifice being ruined trousers) and doing nothing, that they would do nothing.

But questionnaires aren't necessarily very reliable evidence.

Eberron Campaign Setting points out that Evil characters may tend to be selfish and cruel, looking out for themselves and exploiting others, but they don't necessarily deserve to be attacked by adventurers.

[Imbasel]

Here's my take on alignment for individual characters and for the HP world in general. More people tend to neutral in good in harry potter then not. Also, when I make individual characters you don't have to use the alignment i put up, you can change it sot suit your own needs. Same for alignment in general in harry potter. If you think your campaign would be better suited to having more evil people just put more evil people in. Those are just my thoughts anyway.

[Imbasel]

True seer will be up tonight or tomorrow.

[imp_fireball]

I disagree. In real life, it's split up more like 25% of people are Good, 70% of people are Neutral, and 5% are Evil.

That's more or less true in our society - but in other societies where life is harder, there probably is more evil people out there, since rough life simply brings out their evil side to the point that they 'turn to the dark side'.

There will always be a neutral majority though.

But in D&D "humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral"

In D&D, humans aren't really much of an exception from the other races. In fact, the other races are much like humans. To say that most races that aren't of any alignment are 'usually neutral' would be bland.

Neutral, by affect is the majority because it's easier to be neutral than evil. If you are good or evil, chances you will make more enemies (usually if you're evil) or the way you run your life will require more responsibility (if you're good).

In the Random NPC table in DMG, as much as 50% of the NPCs you meet will be Evil. In the Power Center Alignment table it's lower, but certainly not as low as 5%. And in the Community Alignment table in Cityscape (for communities larger than small towns) it's also more like a third.

Those tables are their to provide more fun for players in return for less work for GMs in creating NPCs. They assume that most parties are good aligned, and if you encounter more evil people there will be more combat (because evil's gotta die hur hur). That's fun right?

Under those tables, the only neutral NPCs are boring bystanders (which are almost non existant in most rail roading games) - the evil ones are all potential villains at a later point and the good ones are all quest givers. Sometimes, the neutral ones provide side quests.

In cities, if nearly every NPC were evil then it'd be hell for paladins trying to navigate through a maze when trying to detect evil on individuals. There's still a good percentage of evil people because there still needs to be danger and fun to be had in a city beyond buying/selling (which is 'boring' while killing and combat is 'fun').

The powers say that evil is higher than a miniscule percentage because 'fiction logic' dictates that evil would lose the 'war' otherwise if they were that outnumbered. It also assumes that neutral would help evil or good (when IMO, most neutrals want none of either or just want to live their own lives).

Eberron Campaign Setting points out that Evil characters may tend to be selfish and cruel, looking out for themselves and exploiting others, but they don't necessarily deserve to be attacked by adventurers.

That's kinda how police operate too. Which proves that yet again, they're always a better resource than vigilantiism in a verisimillitude world.
---

The easydamus site on 'alignment and intelligence' actually relates to the attribute wisdom rather than intelligence. People always get the two scores mixed up. :P

The major precepts of this alignment are freedom, randomness, and woe. Laws and order, kindness, and good deeds are disdained. Life has no value. By promoting chaos and evil, those of this alignment hope to bring themselves to positions of power, glory, and prestige in a system ruled by individual caprice and their own whim. The chaotic evil creature holds that individual freedom and choice is important, and that other individuals and their freedoms are unimportant if they cannot be held by the individuals through their own strength and merit. Thus, law and order rends to promote not individuals but groups, and groups suppress individual volition and success.

Yah, I sorta like this view of CE since it doesn't express that CE's are 'stupid cold blooded murderers'. They can be, but that isn't a prerequisite of the alignment.

Smart CE's have been people like:

- Voldemort
- Dr. Doom
- Dr Evil, I suppose (he's sorta smart in a satirical way)
- The Joker
- ... and others

He prefers to work alone, as he values his freedom.

Unless he has something like a dozen goons that obey his every whim. Even if running an organization becomes difficult, they may still continue running it until the lowlies begin challenging their position. At that point, they might disband the organization altogether and consider everyone below them that they can get rid of their enemies.

Also, you don't have to be villainous to be evil aligned. The site seems to suggest that by it's assignment of the characters. Granger isn't necessarily good - personally, I view good by a person's actions. I'm not certain if Granger would risk her life out of altruism if she wasn't convinced by other characters such as HP or dumbledore.

Also Dumbledore, even if he doesn't fully obey the system out of personal beliefs, he seems to highly value organization enough to place him in the LG zone. An LG person can choose not to abide by a system if they believe it is corrupt. If they had the power to fix it, they'd probably elect to replace it with a more benevolent, better organized, smoother running system that is less prone to corruption. In fact, I think I remember reading about how D wanted to do just that.

Meanwhile, a CG person would be looking out for the little guy - they'd worry mainly about removing the source of corruption but not necessarily about replacing it with another system. Ie. They might suggest that everyone under the previous oppressive government emigrate to their homeland rather than go to the trouble of founding a new government.

[hamishspence]

In D&D, humans aren't really much of an exception from the other races. In fact, the other races are much like humans. To say that most races that aren't of any alignment are 'usually neutral' would be bland.

Neutral, by affect is the majority because it's easier to be neutral than evil. If you are good or evil, chances you will make more enemies (usually if you're evil) or the way you run your life will require more responsibility (if you're good).

In the MM, halflings are "usually neutral" but most of the others have some kind of alignment bias. CG for elves, LG for dwarves, NG for gnomes.

Aside from humans, most races do have a bias, even if its only "usually neutral".

Hermione tends to grow a bit over time. It was she that was the main force behind the rescue of Sirius Black (albeit prompted a bit by Dumbledore's "What we need is more time"). Though, given that she tends to risk herself for friends, she might be LG with LN tendencies, or even LN with LG tendencies.

[imp_fireball]

or even LN with LG tendencies.

Probably go with that one. Except I think the correct term is 'LN with Good tendencies' meaning that she's always lawful, but sometimes her neutralness switches over to goodness.

Not every close friend of the protagonist needs to be good.

Also, did Sirius Black ever have any truly altruistic motives?

Or was he just Harry's godfather whom was wrongly accused, etc., etc.

[AtlanteanTroll]

Probably go with that one. Except I think the correct term is 'LN with Good tendencies' meaning that she's always lawful, but sometimes her neutralness switches over to goodness.

Not every close friend of the protagonist needs to be good.

Also, did Sirius Black ever have any truly altruistic motives?

Or was he just Harry's godfather whom was wrongly accused, etc., etc.

He fought against the Death Eaters?

[imp_fireball]

He fought against the Death Eaters?

Opposing evil doesn't make you good. It means you think the world is probably better off with people that don't want to kill you or your close friends.

That's a neutral motive, imo.

When it comes to neutrality, it's more about 'who's side are you on?' rather than 'are you morally upstanding or morally degrading?'.

This is also different from those who wish to 'stay neutral' during a war. In that case, neutrality is a political term. :P

[AtlanteanTroll]

Opposing evil doesn't make you good. It means you think the world is probably better off with people that don't want to kill you or your close friends.

That's a neutral motive, imo.

When it comes to neutrality, it's more about 'who's side are you on?' rather than 'are you morally upstanding or morally degrading?'.

This is also different from those who wish to 'stay neutral' during a war. In that case, neutrality is a political term. :P

Maybe, but opposing them would make him not Good, not neutral. If you're not with 'em, you're against 'em.