Post/Author/DateTime	Post
melp 08-18-05, 04:20 AM	Okay, this is really long, but I gotta ask. For all my years of playing D&D, I've not been able to find a group of people who can agree on what the alignments mean as far a role-playing goes for how your character is supposed to believe. I've come up with a way to sum up how I think the alignment should be described, and I would like some input as to whether or not I'm close to defining them. For this, I'm ignoring my Christian morals, American law (or the laws of any group or order for that matter), and modern societal ethics, as that are all IRRELIVANT to this discussion. -ETHICAL AXIS- LAWFUL: Follows the laws they recognize because it is the right thing to do. This character never fails to live up to the rules that have been given to them, and accept lawful punishment when the violate them. Typically, this means following the laws of their country, even if they're visiting another, but usually the laws are similar enough that one wouldn't notice the difference. Ex: Ember the monk is in the town square when she notices that all people there start bouncing on their left leg at the toll of a bell. She is informed that even though the Regent of this land has gone mad, but his word is still law, and he has decreed that all those who would wish to live on his land must bounce on their left foot at 2:00pm every Tuesday, failure to do so means death. Not wishing to break the law, Ember begins to hop. Chaotic. Follows the idea of freewill dominates all. This person is so infused with this line of thinking that they ignore the laws of the land, as they have nothing to do with how they view life. Typically these people are viewed as crazy, since they do what they want, when they want to, because they want to. Ex: Krusk the barbarian is traveling with Ember. When he sees the people bouncing, he thinks it’s foolish and begins to laugh. When he’s confronted by hopping guardsmen, he doubles over in laughter. -note- A chaotic person is not necessarily stupid, nor is a lawful person to always be considered smart. These people simply use the ethical axis to help them determine how to go about doing the things they wish to complete in life. -MORAL AXIS- EVIL: This sort of character will do anything that helps them better themselves in their own eyes. Any action they take, helps them further themselves in their ideals, gaining power, being famous, having all the money in the world, etc… Ex: A rich nobleman gives bread to the lowly beggar as he leaves his castle. He goes to the church of Pelor and gives his dues. He openly denounces those who take the lives of innocents and aids in their capture, if he doesn’t venture out and kill them himself. Eventually, his superiors view him in high regard, and he is fully trusted with guarding the king’s treasury alone. His subordinates would follow him to hell, they love him. It’s a good thing too, because in two months, he plans to betray the king, overthrow him, and rule the kingdom himself… GOOD: This alignment is the one that troubles me, perhaps it would be better if I described what it is not. Good is not: “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few,” as it’s wrong and cruel to the few to willingly and readily sacrifice them for the many; nor is it “the ends justify the means.” Depending on the set of laws, lawful characters could believe that; as with chaotic people, if they so decide it at the moment. Evil people seem to have something similar, though it may look more like: “The needs of me outweigh the needs of everyone else,” and “the ends justify the means, so long as the ends are a good payoff for the means.” That said, one could say that good people would say “the needs of others outweigh those of myself.” This, however, is could be an exalted viewpoint, but could still help explain the nature of good. Good people do good things, because it’s the right thing to do. They don’t give the beggar food because it’s a good thing, nor do they because their “good” deities expect it. The act of giving is done to rid the beggar of hunger, and nothing more. No reward is expected or wanted for the act. One could go to further extremes, however, there is a difference between acting in good faith, and being foolish. Kind does not mean good, evil people can be this way, if it helps them get what they want. In fact, anything a good person does, an evil person can too, if it benefits them in anyway that they perceive to be enough to compensate them for their actions. Any combination of alignments (LG, CG, LE, CE) is simply meaning that the character is bound by both sets of rules I have listed, making them a bit harder to play, but adding more flavor to the game. Neutral is not necessarily apathy toward anything, they simply act as they want, usually following the laws, because they don’t want to get in trouble, but wouldn’t hesitate to burn a few cds in their computer, (who’s it going to hurt?). Whew, done. What do you think?
weasel fierce 08-18-05, 12:11 PM	Doesnt sound too far fetched, but I would generally just disregard the alignments as a 70's holdover
Nomad4life 08-18-05, 12:21 PM	Doesnt sound too far fetched, but I would generally just disregard the alignments as a 70's holdover ::Nods:: The best thing you can do for yourself and your players in regard to alignment is to scrap the whole mess at the first opportunity.
Sinaz 08-18-05, 12:26 PM	Here are the new alignments for v.3.5, soon to be printed as errata Bored The PC lives in a strange temporal warp as he vamps in and out of existence appearing when addressed by another only to mutter things like "I thought we were still at the tavern" or "look for what? where'd all my spells go?" Selfish The PC strives only to hog the glory, gold, and spotlight of the adventure. Anally Retentive The PC works to rewrite reality as it occurs by praying to the gods that according to reality as written (RAW) (sic) ;) things shouldn't have panned out the way it has... 'whether you're a god or not, ahem.' Anoying The PC has one agenda: kill anyone he feels like, especially his friends because he has no sense of morals and is guided by a misfit puppet master. "Nuetral" has been replaced with "Stupid" and is loosely defined as "Making it up as I go, and complaining all along the way."
CryoSilver 08-18-05, 10:04 PM	Alignment... Sigh... The only comment I can make is that "neutral" is not "do what I bloody well please." That's NE. Neutral is taking everything in stride, not going too much either way. To compare it to a religion, true neutral is Taoism. You don't seek to make the world a better or worse place; you just "are." The Tao abides in nonaction... Very few people play neutral right because they just can't relate to that mindset: they can't understand the idea of not being good or bad. Nothing wrong with that; it's just a Western idea, the sharp division of good and bad.
mikey_ak 08-18-05, 11:26 PM	A quick and easy way I've found to describe the Alignments : each part of an alignment has a phrase that goes with it. String them together for an extremely rough way to describe behavior. Lawful - In accordance with the strictures of a higher power or system... Neutral - In a logical and balanced way... Chaotic - By whatever means necessary... Good - ...improve the situation of innocents and decent people. Neutral - ...maintain balance and justice. Evil - ...increase your own power and improve your situation. Pick one from Group A, tie it to one from Group B and there you go. Granted, this is really, really simplifying things. Call it a quick and dirty way to a basic ideal or somesuch. - Mike
Azzy 08-19-05, 03:26 AM	Anally Retentive The PC works to rewrite reality as it occurs by praying to the gods that according to reality as written (RAW) (sic) ;) things shouldn't have panned out the way it has... 'whether you're a god or not, ahem.' Yeah, that's me. In real life. ^_^;
loaba 08-19-05, 03:55 AM	LAWFUL: Follows the laws they recognize because it is the right thing to do. This character never fails to live up to the rules that have been given to them, and accept lawful punishment when the violate them. Typically, this means following the laws of their country, even if they're visiting another, but usually the laws are similar enough that one wouldn't notice the difference. Ex: Ember the monk is in the town square when she notices that all people there start bouncing on their left leg at the toll of a bell. She is informed that even though the Regent of this land has gone mad, but his word is still law, and he has decreed that all those who would wish to live on his land must bounce on their left foot at 2:00pm every Tuesday, failure to do so means death. Not wishing to break the law, Ember begins to hop. This is not Lawful. A Lawful person would join the Chaotic in laughing at the silly people who are hopping at the whim of a capricious lord. Lawful, or as I like to say, Order, does not mean following the written Law. A Lawful persone respects order and honor and knows that society is better off for it.
Board_Rider 08-19-05, 02:29 PM	I have always viewed alignments, and anything in text really, as what they were intended to be: Guidelines. While I think every interpretation here is good I have my own thoughts on alignment as well. Just as I am sure that 100 people have 100 views. I think it just depends on the DM really and how he/she wants to enforce it. Me? Eh...I am a little laid back. Lawful Good Paladins in my games do not have to uphold every law all the time. I view this example in a soldiers mindset. Not only do they have to work within the law but they must help the people and follow a churches edicts. Having said that I do not want my players having to feel that they must juggle all three at once. Are there going to be laws that they question and break? You betcha. Can they question the "strange" high priest? Yep. Can they be people themselves and ignore a few reaching hands from the poor to move ahead? Oh yeah. I have played with some DMs who are not like that at all. So it all just depends.
CryoSilver 08-19-05, 05:58 PM	Well yeah, no one expects you to be an exemplar of your alignment every second. Even the SRD says you aren't expected to be... Nine distinct alignments define all the possible combinations of the lawful–chaotic axis with the good–evil axis. Each alignment description below depicts a typical character of that alignment. Remember that individuals vary from this norm, and that a given character may act more or less in accord with his or her alignment from day to day. Use these descriptions as guidelines, not as scripts.
Board_Rider 08-19-05, 07:13 PM	Well yeah, no one expects you to be an exemplar of your alignment every second. You would be suprised....
CryoSilver 08-19-05, 08:49 PM	Every day. It's half the fun of life, seeing how stupid people can be.
Board_Rider 08-19-05, 11:31 PM	Every day. It's half the fun of life, seeing how stupid people can be. Well said and I agree. :clap:
Prak, the Mad 08-20-05, 05:03 PM	A quick and easy way I've found to describe the Alignments : each part of an alignment has a phrase that goes with it. String them together for an extremely rough way to describe behavior. Lawful - In accordance with the strictures of a higher power or system... Neutral - In a logical and balanced way... Chaotic - By whatever means necessary... Good - ...improve the situation of innocents and decent people. Neutral - ...maintain balance and justice. Evil - ...increase your own power and improve your situation. Pick one from Group A, tie it to one from Group B and there you go. Granted, this is really, really simplifying things. Call it a quick and dirty way to a basic ideal or somesuch. - Mike so using that, the Punisher, would be CN?
Man in the Funny Hat 08-20-05, 08:46 PM	It isn't that alignment needs to be understood by everyone to fit precisely one, particular interpretation and no other; for alignment to be interpreted precisely the same by every DM, every player, in every campaign. That's not what alignment is supposed to be for or how it's supposed to be used. What's important is that both you and your DM understand each others views on alignment BEFORE issues regarding alignment become a problem in the middle of a game. I have my own way of looking at alignments. I think it's correct, but more importantly it works for me and I don't care to alter it. I make my way of looking at alignments clear and plain to my players (http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/alignments.htm for example) before a campaign starts so that when a paladin PC "decides to take a walk" when it's clear that another PC wants to be able to torture a captive for information that character has just lost his paladinhood (at least temporarily), but when that same character accepts a foe's surrender and then promptly executes him that paladin is not necessarily doing anything wrong (and may indeed be doing things quite "rightly"). Without knowing the distinction I draw between these two rather similar acts and their very different consequences the player of a paladin character does not KNOW - as he well should - the limitations of right and wrong behavior for his character. By making it clear beforehand we drastically reduce the probability that it will ever become an issue, and in knowing how I handle alignment-related problems in/out of the game the resolution of any problem that DOES arise is almost never going to be a game-stopper. THAT is what you need to know about alignment.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-20-05, 08:55 PM	Well yeah, no one expects you to be an exemplar of your alignment every second. I guess you're not on the DM/Player boards then. Every other days, we get 'surprise, you're evil for not helping that puppy', ' suprise, you're evil and I'm taking your sheet to pervert your character into something he would never become' and 'dude, you can't do that, you're Good' threads.
CryoSilver 08-20-05, 08:56 PM	See my post about stupid people being funny.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-20-05, 09:03 PM	See my post about stupid people being funny. The joke's on you when they're your DM.
Azzy 08-20-05, 09:31 PM	The joke's on you when they're your DM. So true. :(
CryoSilver 08-20-05, 09:53 PM	The reason my characters are always TN when I play with that kind of DM.
jukar 08-20-05, 10:07 PM	so using that, the Punisher, would be CN? I would say yes. He's a vigilante, but ultimately isn't concerned with doing good, only with (as the name implies) punishing. Vigilantism is naturally leaning towards CN, and is definitely so when motivated by personal reasons (such as revenge, in the Punisher's case).
Nidair 08-21-05, 05:04 PM	A quick and easy way to describe the Alignments : each part of an alignment has a phrase that goes with it. String them together for an extremely rough way to describe behavior. Lawful - In accordance with the strictures of a higher power or system... Neutral - In a logical and balanced way... Chaotic - By whatever means necessary... Good - ...improve the situation of innocents and decent people. Neutral - ...maintain balance and justice. Evil - ...increase your own power and improve your situation. Pick one from Group A, tie it to one from Group B and there you go. Granted, this is really, really simplifying things. Call it a quick and dirty way to a basic ideal or somesuch. - Mike Sigged.
Mula 08-21-05, 05:41 PM	Chaotic - By whatever means necessary... Good - ...improve the situation of innocents and decent people.Chaotic Good characters would not use whatever means necessary. For example, torture would be totally out of the question.
mikey_ak 08-21-05, 09:01 PM	Chaotic Good characters would indeed use torture, just not the brutal kind. Think horribly out-of-tune music, illusions showing things horrifying to the torture subject, etc. :) Wow, can't believe I got sigged, heh. - Mike
Azzy 08-22-05, 12:52 AM	Chaotic Good characters would not use whatever means necessary. For example, torture would be totally out of the question. Okay, imagine this. Children of a small town have been disappearing over the the course of the past month. The good guys (our intrepid PCs) stumbled upon a kidnapping in progress. After a quick skuffle, they apprehend the villian, tie him up and proceed to interogate him. The PC leading the interrogation is CG. However, the badguy isn't very talkative as to why he's kidnapping children, what has happened to the children and where they currently are. PC: Thell me why and where you've taken the kids. BG: ... PC: Look, if you don't talk, I'm going to kill you. BG: (laughs) Go ahead. If you kill me, you'll never know. PC: I didn't say I'd be quick about it. BG: Bah! I know your type you woul... PC: (interupting) Wouldn't? What do you think is going to cause me to lose sleep--torturing you, or not being able to save those children. BG: You're bluffing. PC: (proceeds to extract information... very painfully) --- No good character is going to use torture when there are other means available. Nor good character is going to kill anyone when there's a better option. However, when it comes down to the wire, a chaotic good character will say sod all and torture or kill evil people in order to save the lives of others (especially the innocent). There are even times that Joe Holy, the paladin will willingly break major rules when it comes to the welfare of others--mind you, such LG characters will beg, plead and cry before (and probably during) using such loathsome means. But when you have to decide between your personal sense of honour, dignity and morales and the death, torture, enslavement of utter destruction of innocent lives--what would you do? A paladin is likely to say, "I would rather suffer eternal damnation than let others suffer and die at the hands of my own inaction."
melp 08-22-05, 04:17 AM	Okay, it seems I've finally gottem explained to me what I needed. I've been seeing that the alignment thing has been totally up to interpretation, but there are a few things that I just cannot agree with. I've seen torture as a good act mentioned. This is never a good act, no matter what type of torture is used (defined in the BoED.) I've never seen anywhere a place that says a neutral person needs to maintain balance of anything. They're actions may have that tendancy, but only because they don't act too strongly one way or the other. After looking at things, I get why so many people say that Lawful people value order over law. I guess a point in my defence is, what if, in my example, this bouncing was simply to test the loyalty of his subjects, or the ability of new people to obey his sense of order? Would not the enforcement of bouncing be lawful? Or, more importantly, wouldn't Ember have the tendancy to obey such a command, because she know the value of order? I can't agree with the idea of alignment being subjective to a campaign, I must apologize. This seems to me to a lazy way out of roleplaying a harder/too easy of a role for a campaign. Nothing I've read, for D&D or any form of, let's say "religious text," says this is so. Sometimes being the good guy just makes your life hard, and severly limits your options, makes for a good story and many good roleplaying opportunities for the clever player. I know alignments are general concepts to help us roleplay better, but I'm seeing things that I believe are evil and/or chaotic things in the good column. I guess what I tried to get at in this is: We've all got WAY different views on this beast of a topic, and perhaps a few of us could find some middle ground. Heh, I gotta admit, I'm tired of going into a thread, seeing some make a very well stated point, possibly one with which I disagree, and some nut says "good people would kill the king to stop him from having a bad itch because the bad feeling would go away!" or, uh, something equally useless...
Mula 08-22-05, 09:11 AM	Azzy, the PCs in question would simply make Intimidate checks to see if they successfully 'bluff' the villain. Using physical torture would give bonuses to this check, but as said, it would be evil or neutral at best. “Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.Intimidate is a useful skill when dealing with situations like that. Of course, you might also give the villain a quick death and use speak with dead, if available. Additionally, there are other divination spells that could reveal the needed information, such as commune but those tend to be out of reach at lower levels (and if the necessary caster is otherwise missing).
Azzy 08-22-05, 10:13 AM	Azzy, the PCs in question would simply make Intimidate checks to see if they successfully 'bluff' the villain. Right, do note that I implide when no other recourse is available. ;) Using physical torture would give bonuses to this check, but as said, it would be evil or neutral at best. I'm not even going to argue that torture isn't an evil act--because it is. I'm just saying tht there are times when, even the greatest of heroes may have to stoop to such lows (but, again, when there are no other options available). Intimidate is a useful skill when dealing with situations like that. If it works, of course. ;) Of course, you might also give the villain a quick death and use speak with dead, if available. That's not exactly a good act, either. That whole killing bit, then wrenching the victim's soul from its resting place. Equally loathsome. Just looks prettier on the surface. Additionally, there are other divination spells that could reveal the needed information, such as commune but those tend to be out of reach at lower levels (and if the necessary caster is otherwise missing). Exactly. Lest I sound like a broken record, when no other course of action is available. :)
Mula 08-22-05, 11:16 AM	If it works, of course. ;)Yes. The standard, torture-free application of Intimdate allows only one check but when it is combined with torture, you can make multiple checks to extract the desired information. The victim can also try to Bluff and give false info. All this can be found in the Book of Vile Darkness. That's not exactly a good act, either. That whole killing bit, then wrenching the victim's soul from its resting place. Equally loathsome. Just looks prettier on the surface.Well, a quick death is a lot more merciful than torture, don't you think. And speak with dead doesn't 'wrench the victim's soul from its resting place'. The spell merely reads the imprints left in the corpse, leaving the soul undisturbed. When you have no fancy spells available and time is of the essence, even good characters might use torture. That's not Good, however, and for good people, the end should never justify the means.