Post/Author/DateTime	Post
starfyredragon 04-26-06, 12:30 PM	I was looking over the varient palidin classes in one of the expansion books and thought, "Really? A Slaughter paladin? Who would EVER call themselves that?" Compare for example: Superman vs Doomsday against Xaviar vs Magneto (hypothetically) Superman says "I'm good. I stop bad people. Rawr." Doomsday says "I'm bad. I stop good people. Rawr." Clear-cut "good" and "evil", but it feels...well... fake. However, most of us would call Xavier from the X-men the goodguy, and Magneto the badguy, but here's how they'd put it... (hypothetically) Xavier says, "We're all in this together. Everyone needs to respect everyone else." Magneto says, "I must save my people from those who would do us harm." Less clear cut, but you can't deny how irresistiably REAL it makes characters seem. Everyone sees themselves as the goodguy. And has "good" reasons for what they do. So, what I give here is a basic philosophy behind the actions. (Remember, these aren't definitive, and if you play to have a "break from reality" world, you may not want this. But if you're aiming for realism in character, this is the way to go, or at least something similar.) Neutral Good = "The greatest good is happiness for all." Chaotic Good = "Be yourself, and let others be theirselves. Freedom to choose your life. I'll protect your freedom to choose, even if I don't agree with your choice." Lawful Good = "Must strive for justice and enforce good morals." True Neutral A = "There must be balance in all things, because absolute power corrupts absolutely. So we must preserve balance." True Neutral B = "If I try to decide for anyone, I'm being oppressive. I abstain and profess neutrality in all things." Chaotic Neutral = "Hey, don't get in my way, and I won't get in yours. Fair?" Lawful Neutral = "Loyalty, honor, and alligence to [country, religion, etc.] is of paramount importance." Neutral Evil = "My purpose is to make a profit/obtain power. Its a dog-eat-dog world, and if I don't struggle to flourish, I'll die. Life's not fair, and I don't want to get a bum deal. It's called social darwinism. I don't blame you for going against me, it's to be expected, but that doesn't mean I'll hold back." Chaotic Evil = "It's survival of the fittest, you know? We have to constantly test our mettle against eachother. Otherwise future generations will be weak, sick, and crippled. If we don't cut out the bad parts now, future populations will be even more ill, corrupted, and weak. Then when the real test comes, our species will be wiped out, unless we act now." Lawful Evil = "My [religion, government, etc.] is to be followed. Those who would oppose it must be purged to prevent further corruption. Death to those who threaten our way of life!"
Arikas 04-26-06, 01:20 PM	Best post ive seen in awhile. My table group gets into HUGE debates about this. IMO Chaotic Evil isnt necessarily evil, just a different outtake on life and you hit the nail on the head. it doesnt mean "HEY IM CHAOTIC EVIL! YES! I GET TO MURDER EVERYBODY!" Perfect adaptation! :cool:
JulesCARV 04-26-06, 03:08 PM	I think that the problem is that people try to substitute alignment for a moral philosophy, which is roughly tantamount to substituting a language for a specific work of literature. Alignment is broader than moral philosophy. For example, if you want your character to have a utilitarian outlook of spreading happiness and pleasure, then go for it. If he also happens to be neutral good, great. However, there could also be neutral good people who don't have any such systematic view, and follow their moral intuitions. Another problem with mistaking alignment for moral philosophy is that it doesn't take into account akrasia. Someone could believe that morality involved staying faithful to his spouse, but cheats nonetheless, because he succumbs to temptation easily. He could hold philosophical ideals which, if he followed them, would make him LG, but he doesn't, so he's CN or something. (Or someone could hold an evil moral philosophy but sometimes lets her compassion "get the best of her," breaking her moral code and being good in spite of holding an evil philosophy. This is the dilemma presented in Mark Twain's "Huckleberry Finn."
LucRivNor 04-27-06, 09:27 AM	True Neutral C : "In life, you have to think about you first then others. It's good to have friends but they must give the same that i give." Lawful Evil : "The ultimate goal in life is to get a high social ranking FAST. And the way to get it is by fear. But the other must always believe you are correct and you do thing for the best of us. It's an art to make them think all you do is good for them also... So they must not fear you, they must fear what you prevent by your doing."
starfyredragon 04-27-06, 03:54 PM	True Neutral C : "In life, you have to think about you first then others. It's good to have friends but they must give the same that i give." Lawful Evil : "The ultimate goal in life is to get a high social ranking FAST. And the way to get it is by fear. But the other must always believe you are correct and you do thing for the best of us. It's an art to make them think all you do is good for them also... So they must not fear you, they must fear what you prevent by your doing." The attitude you describe strikes me more as true evil than lawful evil, and fits under the lust-for-power category. To where they use the law as a tool, just as easily as chaos (high social ranking (aka a type of power)= law, while cultivating fear slides into the chaotic evil side. However, I do have to admit, it does remind me of a certain person I consider to fit into the true evil category *koffG.Bushkoff* Sorry, had something in my throat.
Redding MTG Player 04-27-06, 08:23 PM	I am a big fan of palladium's alignment system as it portrays a much more realistic range of alignment, here it is if anyone else would like to use it GOOD ALIGNMENTS Principled Scrupulous Because a character is of a good alignment, it does not make him/her a saint. Good characters can be just as irritating, obnoxious, and arrogant; even prejudiced and full of quirks. However, life and freedom are of the highest priority. Such a person can always be trusted in a life and death situation. A fair number of Cyber-knights are principled. Principled (Good) Principled characters are, generally, the strong, moral character. Principled characters will . . . 1. Always keep his word. 2. Avoid lies. 3. Never kill or attack an unarmed foe. 4. Never harm an innocent. 5. Never torture for any reason. 6. Never kill for pleasure. 7. Always help others. 8. Work well in a group. 9. Respect authority, law, self-discipline and honor. 10. Never betrays a friend. 11. Never break the law unless conditions are desperate. This means no breaking and entry, theft, torture, unprovoked assaults, etc. Scrupulous (Good) Scrupulous characters value life and freedom above all else, and despise those who would deprive others of them. This type of hero is typically portrayed in many Clint Eastwood and Charles Bronson films; the person who is forced to work beyond the law, yet for the law, and the greater good of the people. They are not vicious or vindictive men, but are men driven to right injustice. I must point out that these characters will always attempt to work with or within the law whenever possible. Many cyber-knights are scrupulous. Scrupulous Characters Will . . . 1. Keep his word to any other good person. 2. Lie only to people of selfish or evil alignments. 3. Never attack or kill an unarmed foe. 4. Never harm an innocent. 5. Never torture for pleasure, but may use muscle to extract information from criminals or evil characters. 6. Never kill for pleasure; will always attempt to bring the villain to justice alive no matter how vile he may be. 7. Always help others. 8. Attempt to work within the law whenever possible. 9. Bend and, occasionally, break the law when deemed necessary. This means they may use strong-arm techniques, harass, break and enter, theft, and so on. 10. Distrust authority. 11. Work with groups, but dislike confining laws and bureaucracy (red tape). 12. Never betrays a friend. SELFISH ALIGNMENTS (But Not Necessarily Evil) Unprincipled (Selfish) This, basically, good person tends to be selfish, greedy, and holds his/her personal freedom and welfare above almost everything else. He/she dislikes confining laws, self-discipline and distrusts authority. This is the Han Solo, Star Wars, character. The guy who is always looking for the best deal, associates with good and evil characters, is continually tempted to lie and cheat, and hates himself for being loyal and helping others. Unprincipled Characters Will . . . 1. Have a high regard for life and freedom. 2. Keep his word of honor. 3. Lie and cheat if necessary (especially to those of anarchist and evil alignments). 4. Will not kill an unarmed foe (but will take advantage of one). 5. Help those in need. 6. Not use torture unless absolutely necessary. 7. Work with a group, especially if profitable. 8. Never harm an innocent. 9. Never kill for pleasure. 10. Dislike authority. 11. Never betray a friend. Anarchist (Selfish) This type of character likes to indulge himself in everything. He is the insurgent, con-man, gambler and high roller; the uncommitted freebooter seeking nothing more than self-gratification. This character will, at least, consider doing anything if the price is right. These people are intrigued by power, glory and wealth. Life has meaning, but his has the greatest meaning. Laws and rules infringe on personal freedom and were meant to be broken. An anarchist aligned person is always looking for the best deal, and will work with good, selfish or evil to get it; as long as he comes out of the situation on top. The anarchist is continually teetering between good and evil, rebelling, and bending the law to fit his needs. Often mercenaries fall into this category. Anarchist Characters Will . . . 1. May keep his word. 2. Lie and cheat if he feels it necessary. 3. Not likely to kill an unarmed foe, but certainly knockout, attack, or beat up an unarmed foe. 4. Never kill an innocent (but may harm or kidnap). 5. Not likely to help someone without some ulterior motive (even if it's only to show-off). 6. Seldom kill for pleasure. 7. Use torture to extract information (not likely to torture for pleasure). 14 8. Does not work well in a group (this is the cocky, loudmouth who is likely to do as he damn well pleases). 9. Have little respect for self-discipline or authority. 10. May betray a friend. EVIL ALIGNMENTS Miscreant Aberrant Diabolic All evil characters are not bent on universal genocide or domination over all living creatures. They are not all maniacal people actively seeking to harm innocent people. Nor are all evil characters sadistic and untrustworthy. Many evil characters may actually seem kind or likable. There is nothing wrong with playing an evil character, although he may not survive too long if he betrays or harms too many people. This is fantasy role-playing, not reality. You can play any type of character you desire, just continue to play in character. Evil alignments are a step beyond the self-gratification of the selfish alignments. Evil characters are ruthless individuals who are willing to say or do anything to achieve their goal. Human life has little meaning to them, and friends tend to be (but not always) people to use, and discard when they are no longer of value. Evil aligned people do not automatically slay any good aligned person because of different ethics and philosophy. All the better to use good to achieve their own goals, for the end always justifies the means. Miscreant (Evil) This self-serving, unscrupulous character is out only for himself. Power, glory, wealth, position, and anything that will make his life more comfortable is his goal. It matters not who gets caught in the middle, as long as he comes out smelling like a rose. This person will lie, cheat and kill anyone to attain his personal goals. Miscreant Characters Will . . . 1. Not necessarily keep his word to anyone. 2. Lie and cheat anyone; good or evil. 3. Most definitely attack an unarmed foe (those are the best kind). 4. Use or harm an innocent. 5. Use torture for extracting information and pleasure. 6. May kill for sheer pleasure. 7. Feels no compulsion to help without some sort of tangible reward. 8. Work with others if it will help him attain his personal goal. 9. Kill an unarmed foe as readily as he would a potential threat or competitor. 10. Has no deference to laws or authority, but will work within the law if he must. 11. Will betray a friend if it serves his needs. Aberrant (Evil) The cliche that there is "No honor among thieves." is false when dealing with the aberrant character. This is a person who is driven to attain his goals through force, power, and intimidation. Yet the aberrant person stands apart from the norm, with his own, personal code of ethics (although twisted ethics by the standards of good). He expects loyalty from his minions, punishing disloyalty and treachery with a swift, merciful death. An aberrant person will always keep his word of honor and uphold any bargains. He will define his terms and live by them, whether anyone else likes it or not. Aberrant Characters Will . . . 1. Always keep his word of honor (he is honorable). 2. Lie to and cheat those not worthy of his respect. 3. May or may not kill an unarmed foe. 4. Not kill (may harm, kidnap) an innocent, particularly a child. 5. Never kills for pleasure. 6. Not resort to inhumane treatment of prisoners, but torture, although distasteful, is a necessary means of extracting information. 7. Never torture for pleasure. 8. May or may not help someone in need. 9. Work with others to attain his goals. 10. Respect honor and self-discipline. 11. Never betray a friend. Diabolic (Evil) This is the category where the megalomaniacs, violent, and most despicable characters fall. This is the cruel, brutal killer who trusts no one and has no value for anyone or anything that gets in his way. Aberrant aligned characters find these dishonorable people just as revolting as a good aligned character. Diabolic Characters Will . . . 1. Rarely keep his word (and has no honor). 2. Lie to and cheat anyone. 3. Most certainly attack and kill an unarmed foe. 4. Use, hurt and kill an innocent without a second thought or for pleasure. 5. Use torture for pleasure and information. 6. Kill for sheer pleasure. 7. Likely to help someone only to kill or rob him. 8. Not work well within a group (consistently disregarding orders to do as he pleases). 9. Despise honor, authority, and self-discipline. 10. Associate mostly, with other evil alignments. 11. Betray friends (after all, you can always find friends).
Cam S. 04-28-06, 01:12 AM	I'm not sure the difference between chaotic good and lawful good need be quite so complex as you write it. IMHO, the difference between a CG character and an LG character is this: If given the same choice, the decisions would go as such: CG: Would rather break unjust laws. LG: Would rather uphold just laws. However, despite this small problem, I do think you're rather spot-on.
Yevgeny 04-28-06, 03:32 AM	The guy that started this thread is thinking in terms of moralization, which I also think has little to do with alignment. You could be Chaotic Evil and believe firmly in being nice to people and not hurting them. You just cave to your base urges all the time, because at heart you are utterly selfish and lacking in empathy. Admittedly, that would be a pretty rare scenario, but real life evildoers often know what they do is wrong, and don't even try to make excuses. The moral frameworks presented do have use though: They can help characters who deviate from society's norm to accept themselves, instead of feeling guilty. A Chaotic Evil dude who follows that kind of philosophy wouldn't be plagued by nagging concerns that he should be a nicer guy. The good and (to a lesser extent) neutral alignments agree the best with the humanist principles that most people share these days (even a lot of conservatives who would balk at the term humanist), but what do the other alignments equate to? I'm about to get off topic... Lawful Neutral = "Loyalty, honor, and allegiance to [country, religion, etc.] is of paramount importance." The mindset of the bureaucrat. Problem is, thinking only of rules detaches you from the nicer things in life, and it's a short slide into being mean-spirited and rotten. Neutral Evil = "My purpose is to make a profit/obtain power... It's called social darwinism..." Typical conservative philosophy- might makes right. To hell with caring about people, because at heart everyone is as selfish as me, right? Chaotic Evil = "It's survival of the fittest, you know?...." Conservative philosophy taken to a more ridiculous extreme. You have to imagine this is what corporate heads are thinking like when they know they're causing cancer, death and horror for the poor, to earn an extra buck. "If they deserved to live they'd do something about it, wouldn't they?" Lawful Evil = "My [religion, government, etc.] is to be followed... Death to those who threaten our way of life!" The insane extreme version of the bureaucrat mentality. The LN bureaucrat sees less orderly people enjoying life at the expense of the rules and hates it, gets twisted with jealousy and views the whole world as irredeemably corrupt. He thinks he's imposing order to make things sane, but he's really just crushing other people out of envy-induced sadism. Really, Alignment to my thinkin' is just your heart's true desire. If you hate surprises and want things to make sense, you're Lawful. If you hate structure and like to do things as you please, you're Chaotic. If you don't care about anyone but yourself, to the worst extreme, you're Evil. If you are willing to sacrifice your own comfort to help other people because it feels right to you (aren't you so nice?), you're Good. And in Dungeons & Dragons, that desire has a metaphysical effect, producing qualifiable patterns in your soul, aura, or whatever. Or vice versa. Maybe our characters don't have a choice, and their desires are created by the invisible patterns of their souls. That's up to house rules, eh? :-) Point is: Alignment is what a character desires/feels. Morals are just the excuses they make up for that after the fact. Or I'm full of hooey. --
Need_A_Life 04-29-06, 03:32 PM	Depends on your game. Personally I'd prefer to scrap alignment all-together, it's trying to make philosophy black-and-white and while D&D shouldn't be a debate on whether or not the killing of orcs is evil, it should cross the PCs minds that they should refrain from killing the unarmed peasant regardless of his race. I think I would rather ask for a player to answer one of the shorter questionaries and get an idea of what sort of character they're playing and throw alignment out the window. Detect [Alignment] spells, holy smite/smite evil(etc.) would be based on Smite Infidel so that it harmed anyone with a different patron deity than your own. Problem solved!
Sphyre 05-07-06, 09:52 AM	Less clear cut, but you can't deny how irresistiably REAL it makes characters seem. Everyone sees themselves as the goodguy. And has "good" reasons for what they do. So, what I give here is a basic philosophy behind the actions. (Remember, these aren't definitive, and if you play to have a "break from reality" world, you may not want this. But if you're aiming for realism in character, this is the way to go, or at least something similar.) While I agree with what you mean, I think the word "good" is overused. People do despicable things and know they do them. They have their reasons for doing them, whether or not they see them as "good." Not always do they veiw them as doing "good" when they are doing "evil," moreso the fact is that they do "evil" because they want to. They can know they are evil, and they choose to be. They don't need to be dillusional. There are a lot of very selfish. but logical reasons to be evil. In your point about magneto, he may not specifically think he's being good, by wanting to kill humans. What he's doing is benefiting him, and he knows that. He's taking the opportunity because he has the resources to make things better for him. He lacks caring for humans, and compounded by the fact that they fear mutants, he comes to a different solution than Xavier. Which is to wipe out the opposition of stupid humans who fear them, as opposed to work with them to get them to understand. Neutral Good = "The greatest good is happiness for all." Chaotic Good = "Be yourself, and let others be theirselves. Freedom to choose your life. I'll protect your freedom to choose, even if I don't agree with your choice." Lawful Good = "Must strive for justice and enforce good morals." True Neutral A = "There must be balance in all things, because absolute power corrupts absolutely. So we must preserve balance." True Neutral B = "If I try to decide for anyone, I'm being oppressive. I abstain and profess neutrality in all things." Chaotic Neutral = "Hey, don't get in my way, and I won't get in yours. Fair?" Lawful Neutral = "Loyalty, honor, and alligence to [country, religion, etc.] is of paramount importance." Neutral Evil = "My purpose is to make a profit/obtain power. Its a dog-eat-dog world, and if I don't struggle to flourish, I'll die. Life's not fair, and I don't want to get a bum deal. It's called social darwinism. I don't blame you for going against me, it's to be expected, but that doesn't mean I'll hold back." Chaotic Evil = "It's survival of the fittest, you know? We have to constantly test our mettle against eachother. Otherwise future generations will be weak, sick, and crippled. If we don't cut out the bad parts now, future populations will be even more ill, corrupted, and weak. Then when the real test comes, our species will be wiped out, unless we act now." Lawful Evil = "My [religion, government, etc.] is to be followed. Those who would oppose it must be purged to prevent further corruption. Death to those who threaten our way of life!" I don't quite agree with your interpretation of lawful and chaotic. I consider myself a lawful person, but I find myself agreeing more with your chaotic alignments. At least in my opinion, lawful actions and thoughts, are in accordance to a set of morals and rules the subject follows. This doesn't mean it's the government per say, but it does mean that they are consistent in how they approach situations. While a chaotic person acts more on impulse. The chaotic person does not weigh options off of the same criteria everytime. Sometimes you feel like stealing and killing a chicken from a farmer because you want food, and sometimes you feel like buying it from the farmer. You choose, you don't exactly follow a protocol, or have consistency in your choices. I think your definitions of chaos and lawful are based more on what you think the words really mean, than on what they mean in the D&D alignment system. Law is more about consistency, and chaos is more about inconsistency. As such with any post... every post comes with a big non-spoken IMO in front of it. ;)
diphycue 05-09-06, 10:12 PM	The CE seems to be more TN to me... Survival of the fittest, weaning out the weak, mating for future generations... I mean...the way you describe CE seems just animalistic.
kelvinaw273 05-10-06, 03:11 PM	The CE seems to be more TN to me... Survival of the fittest, weaning out the weak, mating for future generations... I mean...the way you describe CE seems just animalistic. Yes, I know many people who use that justification that they are 'self centred neutral' and not evil. Yet greed is the root of all evil, and selfishness is greed. Neutral characters are not 'I don't care either way', they are 'I care about me and mine, you look after you and yours'. The good person cares about the stranger, the neutral cares only for his own, the evil person cares for nothing above himself - that is my definition. Likewise, neutrality between law and chaos is the same: it is not that the neutral person does not care abou these extremes, they just don't see them as their problem. By and large, neutral people favour the good and lawful in their lives because lawful people are predictable and good people make good neighbours. On the occasions when they favour the evil and the chaotic, it is usally because they reject outside influence (and favour chaos) or more likely they are being threatened or stand to gain a great deal. Hence neutral does not favour social darwinism - he looks after his own, and those not his own ... well it's a hard world, but what do you expect him to do about it? Evil favours social darwinism, because if aunt sally is losing her mind that is her problem!