Post/Author/DateTime	Post
RecycledDM 07-20-06, 02:05 PM	Yes, it's another alignment thread. Not only that, but it's something of a re-tread of a recent alignment thread I can't seem to find right now... In a discussion with my 10-year old son the other day, I was trying to come up with exemplars of alignments--from history, religion, literature, TV shows, movies, real life, etc.--that he would recognize. Frankly, because of both generational gap and his limited life experience, I couldn't come up with too much that we both knew well enough. So, who are some alignment exemplars--real or fictional--that a 10-year old would know about (and that a 30-something might have at least a passing knowledge of)?
Delfedd 07-20-06, 02:19 PM	Chaotic Good George washington Chaotic Neutral Merlin Lawful Good Aslan Neutral Good Gandalf Chaotic evil Darth Vader Neutral Evil The emperor Lawful Evil Monty Burns
Puggins 07-20-06, 03:06 PM	Chaotic Good George washington Chaotic Neutral Merlin Lawful Good Aslan Neutral Good Gandalf George Washington was most definitely NOT chaotic Good. He might have been NG, but I'm leaning towards LG. Chaotic Good people work outside societal structure, they don't build one or replace one with another. I would put Robin Hood in there. The other ones looks great. Chaotic evil Darth Vader Neutral Evil The emperor Lawful Evil Monty Burns Darth Vader was lawful evil through and through- he wanted structure, consequences be damned. He had quite a few misgivings about betraying his Jedi masters even after he thought they were corrupt and incompetent. The Joker is the textbook CE guy, in my opinion. Again, the other two look great.
fefnir 07-20-06, 03:55 PM	for lawful good you could use king aurther and the knights of the round table. There well known by everyone.
Squirrelloid 07-20-06, 04:11 PM	When it comes to questions like G and E, the d+d alignment system doesnt match up to the real world especially well. Good and Evil require a system of morality to define, of which there are several competing systems. And uncountably many potential systems which have yet to be proposed. For instance, how would you place Ayn Rand in D+D alignment? Certainly L, but G or E or maybe even N? Its a tough call, and its going to depend on your personal views of Ayn Rand and her moral philosophy - a wholely subjective decision. People who are "clearly good" and "clearly evil" just means that the consensus of all currently held moral systems is that those people are evil. And even then, we run into unexpected grey areas. Was lancelot really L/G? He's sleeping with his liege-lords wife after all. Further, i bet modern feminists would give a scathing critique of the social situation of the time period it was written in (and to some degree emulated), implying all the (male) oppressors were acting evilly. The reason people have problems with alignment is because alignment doesnt make sense. Value judgements are ultimately subjective (to some standard of morality), and are not absolute statements of measurable proportions.
TeediousPrime 07-20-06, 04:15 PM	It's hard to find a lawful good exemplar in the world. Probably because the truly admirable are people who say to hell with the law when the law is unjust; whereas lawful good people can be blinded to the damage they do by adhering too closely to the rules. If your son is a Harry Potter fan, you can point to Percy Weasley as a good example of LG; so insistent on following the letter of the law that he inadvertantly stood on a side that was causing harm. Darth Vader is definitely lawful evil, as he never did anything evil that he did not see as justified.
Alamanda 07-20-06, 04:19 PM	It's hard to find a lawful good exemplar in the world. Lawful Good = Superman
TeediousPrime 07-20-06, 04:24 PM	The reason people have problems with alignment is because alignment doesnt make sense. Value judgements are ultimately subjective (to some standard of morality), and are not absolute statements of measurable proportions. People do have alignments though, it's just that there aren't immediate consequences for breaking their alignments. RL alignments are far more flexible, and easy to stray from and then fall back into. A guilty conscience is the symptom of a person acting against their alignment; a person who is very usually lawful will be bothered by performing an unlawful act, even one as small as running a traffic light. In the other direction, a person who behaves in a chaotic fashion may find themselves feeling foolish for coming to a stop at a light that has just turned red. In D&D, when alignments clash, often weapons do too. When the neutral good elf ranger comes in conflict with the lawful evil dwarf fighter, the conflict that arises can be settled by drawing arms. When the lawful good restaraunt manager has to deal with the behavior of his chaotic neutral dishwasher, one of the two often has to bend his alignment slightly and behave in a way that is out of sorts with his usual behavior.
TeediousPrime 07-20-06, 04:26 PM	Lawful Good = Superman I don't know about that, he tells an awful lot of lies to keep his secret identity intact.
Burpcycle 07-20-06, 04:31 PM	LG - Superman, King Arthur NG - Jesus CG - Batman LN - Most military personel TN - Bart Simpson CN - Virtually any cartoon character LE - Lex Luther, Dr. Doom NE - Two-Face (he wasn't totally insane, just evil) CE - The Joker Superman and King Arthur both believed in order over chaos and good over evil. Jesus believed in everyone having the possiblity of redemption but didn't really care about law and chaos. Batman believed the law to be ineffectual in getting results. Most military personel will follow orders without question. Bart Simpson just doesn't care about morals or ethics. Virtually any cartoon character is just psychopathic because little kids think they're funny for some reason. Lex Luther and Dr. Doom both enjoyed creating complex, elaborate plans to foil their enemies. Two-Face was just pure evil, though he did lean towards insanity. The Joker was just insane and no patience for complex plans. There you go.
ArcTan 07-20-06, 05:21 PM	When it comes to questions like G and E, the d+d alignment system doesnt match up to the real world especially well. Good and Evil require a system of morality to define, of which there are several competing systems. And uncountably many potential systems which have yet to be proposed. For instance, how would you place Ayn Rand in D+D alignment? Certainly L, but G or E or maybe even N? Its a tough call, and its going to depend on your personal views of Ayn Rand and her moral philosophy - a wholely subjective decision. You're KIDDING me. Ayn Rand is the clearest exemplar of Chaos that I know. Hell, I regularly point her out to people who want some example of a Chaotic philosophy that holds together and makes sense to any degree. She's all about self-reliance, the *individual* deciding what his own value system is for himself, meaning coming only from following your own reason and your own heart, and the root of all evil being the desire to conform to Society and follow Society's rules. People just get fooled by the name "Objectivism", but what she means by it is radically different from what doing something or seeing something "objectively" in ordinary language. Indeed, a lot of moral philosophers would say she's a shining example of *subjectivism* -- she would disagree, but she tends to disagree with everyone. (She herself would admit, though, that her personal moral philosophy is a direct descendant of Nietzsche's ideas, and Nietzsche is also an exemplar of Chaos. God being dead and all that.) If you actually look at all her heroes in fiction, everyone from that chick from Ideal to that dude from Anthem to Howard Roark to Dominique Francon to Franscisco D'anconia to Dagny Taggart to John Galt, they're all exemplars of CG or CN (or, perhaps, CE) alignment, depending on your perspective. But there's no way any of them are Lawful -- Lawful people are consistently bad guys in Rand's books, from Ellsworth Toohey to President Thompson. People who are "clearly good" and "clearly evil" just means that the consensus of all currently held moral systems is that those people are evil. And even then, we run into unexpected grey areas. Was lancelot really L/G? He's sleeping with his liege-lords wife after all. Further, i bet modern feminists would give a scathing critique of the social situation of the time period it was written in (and to some degree emulated), implying all the (male) oppressors were acting evilly. The reason people have problems with alignment is because alignment doesnt make sense. Value judgements are ultimately subjective (to some standard of morality), and are not absolute statements of measurable proportions. Well, yeah. You kind of have to work with any assumed framework in order to make judgments within a certain society's context. D&D simplifies it by giving you an assumed framework that works well with modern assumptions -- good means no unnecessary killing, no torture, love and respect and tolerance, etc. The deal with doing something like this, for a preteen, would be *not* using real historical or literary archetypes who were seen as heroic in *their* frameworks, but using modern ones or modern adaptations of ancient ones who have been defined as appropriately heroic or villainous in *our* context. It's not that hard to do so, because, despite all the conflict over it, at the *basic* level most modern media tend to agree on the definition of good and evil. YMMV, of course. There've been a lot of "classic" lists done before, and I'd hate to rehash them. The hard part, I think, is coming up with a good, consistent definition of "Lawful" -- all too often people interpret "Lawful" as "follows the written law" and "Chaotic" as "breaks the law", which doesn't work. Nor does the stipulation that "Chaotic" has to mean "acts insane and completely unpredictable". I'm no expert on what kids are reading and watching these days, but here's a list that I made based on the Harry Potter universe (all those kids like Harry Potter, right?): LG: Dumbledore (not only has a strong moral code, but applies it *universally* -- has some idea how everyone fits into a better world, even his enemies, and even people everyone overlooks, like house-elves and giants) NG: Harry Potter (really does try to empathize with others, really does have an idea of how to make the world as a whole a better place, but still has his blinders and still acts largely based on his instincts and prejudices) CG: Sirius Black (far more impulsive and prejudiced than Harry, sees good and evil as a matter of his own friends and his own enemies more than anything else) LN: Barty Crouch, Sr. (not truly evil as such, but believes in maintaining the social order and keeping people together above all, even to the point of compromising what's really good -- note that this includes breaking the law) TN: Horace Slughorn (a decent enough guy, but still thinks of his own comfort and his own position before anything else; bends rules when he really wants to, but still mostly committed to the current order) CN: Mundungus Fletcher (won't be held down, won't follow rules, does what he wants even if it goes against what he knows is right) LE: Dolores Umbridge (uses her sense of order and the rules to maintain her own power and abuse others) NE: Severus Snape (a quite bad person in many ways, but will switch sides and alternately follow and break rules, rebel or follow authority, based on what suits him at the time) CE: Lord Voldemort (a sense of his own importance that leads him to do *whatever he wants* at any time, a world that revolves entirely around himself and his own whims -- yes, he has a law, but one for his followers to follow, not himself)
Puggins 07-20-06, 05:23 PM	LG - Superman, King Arthur NG - Jesus CG - Batman The Dark Knight Returns Batman, maybe, but the "modern" batman is strictly Lawful Good- he works alongside the police (ala his longtime friendship with Commisioner Gordon) and works very hard to stamp out corruption in the system. Someone has to work completely outside of the system to really be considered chaotic. Wolverine is chaotic, for example, and is usually depicted as chaotic good. LN - Most military personel TN - Bart Simpson Bart is the textbook CN character in entertainment. True Neutral is hard to represent, truth be told. Maybe Mad Max? I'd say most "real" people are true neutral- they don't operate completely outside of the law, but they'll break the law if it helps them quite a bit. They'll likely not kill anyone or intentionally cause harm, but the won't sacrifice their position to help others.
Squirrelloid 07-20-06, 05:36 PM	NG - Jesus Jesus believed in everyone having the possiblity of redemption but didn't really care about law and chaos. I'm going to take exception to this. And i'm not even a very religious person. We're going to assume a religious perspective for analyzing his actions in the following though: Jesus was as lawful as they come. The political angle of his story is a disagreement over what the law was, between Jesus and the Pharisees. Jesus was the traditionalist in this argument! Jesus, as Christ, is the fulfillment of prophecy. He makes prophecy himself (for example, see Matthew 24 and 25). The very idea of prophecy, that the future is predictable and determined, is a lawful one. Jesus makes a number of definitive statements that are basically religious ultimatums. The ultimate in Lawfulness. John 3 contains a great example. John 3:3 (KJV because i like the language better) "Jesus answered and said unto him 'Verily, verily, i say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.'" He goes on to clarify in one of the most famous NT passages John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Clear requirements set out on what you need to do to get to Heaven. No mitigating clauses. No subjective 'judging' later. Either you believe or you don't, and that determines whether you go to heaven. Jesus's situation is interesting because it is a conflict between two laws. The Pharisees, wanting peaceful coexistence with Rome, are witting pawns of the political law. Jesus is arguing for a return to pure temple law: Matthew 5:17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to [fulfill or preach fully - translational ambiguity]". In a conflict of two legal bodies, the Lawful person will support the law with a _superior_ claim. Any religious person is going to argue religious law is superior - just look at the Republican party today - so the claim that Jesus is an alignment that doesnt include L is ridiculous. So Jesus is at best L/G and at worst L/N depending on your personal religious feelings. (Put the fluffy feel good hearsay aside and actually read the bible before forming an opinion). Of course, "The Devil can cite scripture for his purposes" (Shakespeare, based on Matthew 4:6), but at least you can think about the above.
ArcTan 07-20-06, 05:52 PM	*sigh* Believing in *a* law or a principle by which one should live is not the definition of Lawful. Jesus' various talks about the importance of internal, personal faith as more important than external, politicized faith are what make him closer to NG in D&D terms than LG, though you could certainly argue either way. Certainly the belief that Jesus' only message was a restoration of the original purified Temple law requires an incredibly narrow reading of the text. (The original Temple law did *not* stipulate that it was okay for people to pick food to eat on the Sabbath, that "what comes out of a man's mouth is more important than what goes in" when it comes to the handwashing rule, to "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's" when handling the issue of occupation by a foreign power, quoting Isaiah on "I desire mercy, not sacrifice" in favor of individual compassion over ritual, and various other ideas that gave Jesus a reputation as a populist, a pragmatist and so on.) ...You really don't make a strong case for the Pharisees being Roman collaborators, by the way. They were in many ways more popular because they were the traditionalist rabble-rousers who baited the Roman authorities and represented "true" Judaism -- the collaborators, who controlled the Temple hierarchy and championed a new, "liberal" version of Judaism that was more compatible with Roman ecumenism, were the *Saducees*, who were the Pharisees' perennial enemies, and when Jesus has to choose between them he tends to side with the Pharisees. (Taking their side on the question of the resurrection of the dead, for instance.) He dislikes the Pharisees because they've become hidebound, hypocritical elitists, not because they're Roman collaborators -- one of the controversial things about Jesus in the Gospels is how Roman-friendly he is, despite his insistence on the purity of Scripture and whatnot. (The centurion, the Samaritan woman, his anger at the appropriation of the Court of the Gentiles for a temple market, and so on -- all examples of Jesus being nicer to Gentiles than a religious Jew was supposed to be.) It's only really from a very strict definition of C as the alignment of pure moral relativists -- which means that *no* ancient figure could ever be C -- by which Jesus is strictly Lawful Good. I wouldn't call him Chaotic Good -- there are Lawful *and* Chaotic elements to what he said, individual and community-based parts of his philosophy -- but you can make a strong argument for his being Neutral Good. I'm not really interested, though, in squabbling over real-life religion on a D&D forum, especially since the average preteen isn't going to have a very deep or nuanced understanding of the Gospels. The average preteen's mental of Jesus is just "the ultimate Good", and that's usually either NG or LG depending on your attitude. (It *was* NG in the Gygax days, but books like BoED tend to imply LG is in some way higher.)
Squirrelloid 07-20-06, 06:03 PM	You're KIDDING me. Ayn Rand is the clearest exemplar of Chaos that I know. Hell, I regularly point her out to people who want some example of a Chaotic philosophy that holds together and makes sense to any degree. She's all about self-reliance, the *individual* deciding what his own value system is for himself, meaning coming only from following your own reason and your own heart, and the root of all evil being the desire to conform to Society and follow Society's rules. People just get fooled by the name "Objectivism", but what she means by it is radically different from what doing something or seeing something "objectively" in ordinary language. Indeed, a lot of moral philosophers would say she's a shining example of *subjectivism* -- she would disagree, but she tends to disagree with everyone. (She herself would admit, though, that her personal moral philosophy is a direct descendant of Nietzsche's ideas, and Nietzsche is also an exemplar of Chaos. God being dead and all that.) If you actually look at all her heroes in fiction, everyone from that chick from Ideal to that dude from Anthem to Howard Roark to Dominique Francon to Franscisco D'anconia to Dagny Taggart to John Galt, they're all exemplars of CG or CN (or, perhaps, CE) alignment, depending on your perspective. But there's no way any of them are Lawful -- Lawful people are consistently bad guys in Rand's books, from Ellsworth Toohey to President Thompson. Ah, debating philosophy, how i've missed you. First, Rand found Neitzsche abhorrent. She has at least one article dedicated to deconstructing his philosophical system as wrong because it is subjective to the individual observer. (I will grant Neitzsche's system is a great example of a chaotic system). Second, Rand claims (and is correct to do so) that her philosophy is the direct descendant of Lockian political philosophy and the founding fathers' ideals of US government, and ultimately of Aristotelian ethics. Nothing to do with Neitzsche whatsoever. The only similarity between Neitzsche and Rand's beliefs is they both focus on the individual, a rather minor similarity in the context of the dramatically divergent takes they have on morality following that. Third, Rand is definitely not about people following their own value system. Objectivism is named thus because it assumes (1) reality is objective (in direct contradiction to Kant, who thinks that nothing empirical can be proven - see Critique of Pure Reason), (2) truth can be learned from observation, (3) a moral system can be deduced from reality that is appropriate to humans based upon human nature. The value system she presents is her deductions - she goes over this in great detail in the introduction (or is it the first essay - been awhile) of The Virtue of Selfishness. That is the moral system she is advocating. And she expects that it is repeatably derivable and thus confirmable much like scientific experiments need to be repeatable. (With relatively few axioms it is, though those axioms are of course the sticking points). What she doesn't argue is that everyone has to believe her (though she'd say they'd be wrong not to), and Objectivism's political philosophy maximizes people's ability to choose their own moral system, whether or not she believes them to be right. Given the history of Objectivism as a movement though, her view of what is and isn't Objectivism is pretty harsh and exclusive. So what we have is the case of a battle between multiple Laws (moral systems and their implementations as political philosophy), not between Law and Chaos. This is of course another reason Rand is a perfect example of why D+D morality breaks down, before we even get to the G-E axis. Even the Anarcho-Objectivists (a group Rand found abhorrent) are Lawful (imho) despite the fact they argue for the elimination of government. They've totally stepped outside the entire government paradigm, they aren't even arguing on that level of reality anymore. Their proposed social structuring is just as ordered, its just established on non-governmental principles. Ultimately, what is Law? On what level of meta-reality are we discussing? Even assuming _government_ as the operating unit is making a paradigmatic assumption. Government need not be required for a class-structured, rigidly functioning society. In fact, some of the most 'chaotic' governments (think feudalism) created some of the most arguably 'lawful' societies in human history. Of course, this entire discussion is now outside the realm of 99% of preteens - which isn't surprising, considering how screwed up the entire idea of alignment is. Well, yeah. You kind of have to work with any assumed framework in order to make judgments within a certain society's context. D&D simplifies it by giving you an assumed framework that works well with modern assumptions -- good means no unnecessary killing, no torture, love and respect and tolerance, etc. The deal with doing something like this, for a preteen, would be *not* using real historical or literary archetypes who were seen as heroic in *their* frameworks, but using modern ones or modern adaptations of ancient ones who have been defined as appropriately heroic or villainous in *our* context. It's not that hard to do so, because, despite all the conflict over it, at the *basic* level most modern media tend to agree on the definition of good and evil. YMMV, of course. And whose modern framework do you choose? The KKK? The mainstream feminists? The religious right? The femi-nazis? The ultra-liberals? Do we go by percentage of the population who believes something? Morality by democracy? Ugh! Or do we try to capture some sense of Kantian ethics, or maybe the Lockian rights paradigm. Do we just default to some Utilitarian cost-benefit analysis? Questions of good and evil are so ridiculously complicated in the modern world that any evaluation depends strongly on who's doing the evaluation. The average person's perception of good or evil is mostly a matter of spin by interested parties in a battle for the minds of the masses. But if you must insist, give me a definitively _good_ (easier) or _evil_ literary figure and i'll deconstruct it three different ways with much different conclusions on alignment. Edit: On the Roman collaborators - you're right, it is sadducees. Sorry, my memory is slipping a little bit. As to what Lawful is: So imagine the following - an empire takes over a kingdom somewhere, but the heir manages to escape capture and raise an army. The army wants to expel the occupiers and instate the heir according to formal legal procedures from the Kingdom. The empire of course wants to destroy this attempt and institute a bureaucracy to control the territory in concordance with long-established empirial policy. This isn't a question of good and evil, but neither is it a question of law and chaos, its a question of competing laws. So how is the adherence to religious law any less lawful? (Also, the food on the Sabbath was answered by Jesus with reference to scriptural precedence. I'd have to look up the others to be sure. The use of precedence in justifying actions is clearly a lawful attitude, in fact a very legalistic attitude, and not a chaotic one at all. In the question of which of two laws win when they conflict, either decision is perfectly lawful. The chaotic person should just say: "But they were hungry.")
Kenzuki 07-20-06, 06:08 PM	*sigh* Believing in *a* law or a principle by which one should live is not the definition of Lawful. Jesus' various talks about the importance of internal, personal faith as more important than external, politicized faith are what make him closer to NG in D&D terms than LG, though you could certainly argue either way. Certainly the belief that Jesus' only message was a restoration of the original purified Temple law requires an incredibly narrow reading of the text. (The original Temple law did *not* stipulate that it was okay for people to pick food to eat on the Sabbath, that "what comes out of a man's mouth is more important than what goes in" when it comes to the handwashing rule, to "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's" when handling the issue of occupation by a foreign power, quoting Isaiah on "I desire mercy, not sacrifice" in favor of individual compassion over ritual, and various other ideas that gave Jesus a reputation as a populist, a pragmatist and so on.) ...You really don't make a strong case for the Pharisees being Roman collaborators, by the way. They were in many ways more popular because they were the traditionalist rabble-rousers who baited the Roman authorities and represented "true" Judaism -- the collaborators, who controlled the Temple hierarchy and championed a new, "liberal" version of Judaism that was more compatible with Roman ecumenism, were the *Saducees*, who were the Pharisees' perennial enemies, and when Jesus has to choose between them he tends to side with the Pharisees. (Taking their side on the question of the resurrection of the dead, for instance.) He dislikes the Pharisees because they've become hidebound, hypocritical elitists, not because they're Roman collaborators -- one of the controversial things about Jesus in the Gospels is how Roman-friendly he is, despite his insistence on the purity of Scripture and whatnot. (The centurion, the Samaritan woman, his anger at the appropriation of the Court of the Gentiles for a temple market, and so on -- all examples of Jesus being nicer to Gentiles than a religious Jew was supposed to be.) It's only really from a very strict definition of C as the alignment of pure moral relativists -- which means that *no* ancient figure could ever be C -- by which Jesus is strictly Lawful Good. I wouldn't call him Chaotic Good -- there are Lawful *and* Chaotic elements to what he said, individual and community-based parts of his philosophy -- but you can make a strong argument for his being Neutral Good. I'm not really interested, though, in squabbling over real-life religion on a D&D forum, especially since the average preteen isn't going to have a very deep or nuanced understanding of the Gospels. The average preteen's mental of Jesus is just "the ultimate Good", and that's usually either NG or LG depending on your attitude. (It *was* NG in the Gygax days, but books like BoED tend to imply LG is in some way higher.) Another interesting fact about the Pharisees and Jesus, is that he had some pharisee followers! Most notably were Nicodemus and Joseph of Aramathia. Paul the Apostle also was a pharisee. I'de also imagine it was easier for a pharisee to convert to Christianity than it would be for a sadducee, being the pharisees believed in spirits, angels and demons, and ressurection after death. It's not a real big deal to me, as I love discussing history, especially history of this nature hehe.
Squirrelloid 07-20-06, 06:21 PM	*sigh* Believing in *a* law or a principle by which one should live is not the definition of Lawful. As long as i'm on a roll, lets ask the PHB. Sadly, i have a 3e PHB, so my page numbers reference that: A Lawful Neutral character acts as law, tradition, or personal code directs her Um, yeah. So about that definition of Lawful... I seem to recall the 3.5 PHB having a line to the effect of "Ember is lawful because she follows her discipline but Miralee is chaotic because she's dedicated to her art." A hilarious statement because its (1) virtually non-sensical, (2) draws no actual distinction between L and C, and (3) encourages people to treat the alignment system as meaning whatever the hell they want.
RecycledDM 07-20-06, 06:44 PM	Thanks for the ideas guys. I'm not likely to discuss Rand, Nietzsche, or the politics of the Roman occupation of Judea with my 10-year old (well, actually, maybe I am...he's becoming quite the Monty Python fan!); however, the Star Wars, Superman, Batman, X-men, Simpsons, Harry Potter, LOtR, and King Arthur references are quite helpful. Keep 'em coming if you've got more.
TG_Ambro 07-20-06, 10:16 PM	this is a pretty cool thread, the reason (i beleive) several people have a problem with alignment is that it is too hard a question to come up with good answers, or at least answers everyone can agree on. because of eveyone's different perception of reality people really can't agree on just ONE belief, just look at the silly amount of religions there are...i live in a small town with a pop of 10,000, and we have around 27-28 churches...all flavors of Christianity, i don't even know if we have other religions here...but i digress, everyone co-creates thier reality through thier perception of life, if they beleive something, it becomes real for them...take for example a lawful evil archwizard who dominates the king and makes him segregate the peoples (let's say he moves the gnomes into a ghetto) he believes the gnomes have perverted the kingdom and now he thinks he is doing good by moving the offenders away from the "pure" humans in the archwizard's reality he is doing good (he does'nt perceive what he does as evil, most people don't consider themselves evil). take for example hitler, he is a fine examplar of evil, he caused a ton of death and dispair in the world (one need not just look at the holocaust, the whole world suffered) most poeple would call him evil a small few see him as a hero who did good on par with Jesus, that is thier perception (i think they are dead wrong, that's my perception), or the Kamikaze pilot who Americans see as a villain is a hero in Japan, everything is subjective. what they tried to do for DnD was make alignment simple and more fantasy based, where you have bad guys and good guys fighting, and you can pretty much tell who is who. (i actually prefer a more mature and lax alignment system where the alignments mean "this is what the person generaly does") but i can see the game designer's wisdom in trying to make it more fantastic and fun, because that makes it easier foor most people. moving on, here are people i would peg as paragons of alignment. LG = Master Chief from the Halo series. NG = Kenshin Himura from Rurouni Kenshin (if your kid doesn't like manga he prolly won't know this one) CG = Agent Mulder from the X Files. he often work outside the rules to get to the truth. LN = the punisher, he does what he has to do to bring evil in, unlike batman who does'nt use guns or harm people too much. TN = i really dunno....maybe some druid? CN = the Merovingian from the matrix (on second thought maybe he is lawful? what do you people think?) LE = Agent Smith from the matrix NE = The Devil he represents true evil CE = the Joker if ya find any holes in what i say, feel free to point them out, i'm still young and do on occasion make mistakes :D . thanks for reading this
savant_warlord13 07-20-06, 10:18 PM	Chaotic Good George washington Chaotic Neutral Merlin Lawful Good Aslan Neutral Good Gandalf Chaotic evil Darth Vader Neutral Evil The emperor Lawful Evil Monty Burns I think you got 2 of those right
savant_warlord13 07-20-06, 10:19 PM	The best LE I can think of is Hitler
TG_Ambro 07-20-06, 10:20 PM	agreed
LCD2YOU 07-20-06, 10:37 PM	Well, with the kids I've DM'ed for, this is what I used: LG = King Aurther and his Knights from popular literature. LN = Your school's admin office LE = The Mob. The Sorpranos are a LE group NG = Florence Nightingale, the Red Cross/Crescent in their willingness to help anyone N = The laws of nature where it's eat or be eaten but not out of malice, but survival NE = Hordes of crazed Mongols/Nordic Bezerkers and the like who are going on killing for blood lust and little else. CG = Robin Hood. CN = Bart Simpson. As for a group, any pre-teen group that is supposed to get a project completed CE = A gang of thugs whose leaders get killed as a new one rises up through the ranks.
ArcTan 07-20-06, 10:41 PM	Ah, debating philosophy, how i've missed you. First, Rand found Neitzsche abhorrent. She has at least one article dedicated to deconstructing his philosophical system as wrong because it is subjective to the individual observer. (I will grant Neitzsche's system is a great example of a chaotic system). And yet much of her early writing about moral philosophy sounds like it's quoting Nietzsche. She repeatedly said Nietzsche was a major influence on her and on her rejection of Kant -- whose Categorical Imperative, by the way, is the essential *definition* of Lawfulness as it occurs in Moorcock and, basically, in D&D as well. Leonard Peikoff has said that Rand differs from Nietzsche in that she's "optimistic" where Nietzsche is "pessimistic" -- Rand thinks that by following your own Reason to its logical end you *will* find objective truth, while Nietzsche just said that doing so is what enables you to survive in the world after the fiction of objective truth -- i.e. God -- has died. Needless to say, Nietzsche makes more sense to most modern philosophers. Rand seems to be taking a Nietzschean *ideal* -- when talking about aesthetics rather than philosophy, she classifies herself as a Romantic, firmly in the Nietzschean camp of the Great Man as originator of morality in and of himself -- but trying to claim there's something "objective" about it, primarily by simply asserting there is. Second, Rand claims (and is correct to do so) that her philosophy is the direct descendant of Lockian political philosophy and the founding fathers' ideals of US government, and ultimately of Aristotelian ethics. Nothing to do with Neitzsche whatsoever. The only similarity between Neitzsche and Rand's beliefs is they both focus on the individual, a rather minor similarity in the context of the dramatically divergent takes they have on morality following that. Enh, Rand was way more influenced by Nietzsche in her early years than Locke and certainly the Founding Fathers. You only have to read certain passages side-by-side to see it. In any case, "focus on the individual" is the definition of Chaos. Third, Rand is definitely not about people following their own value system. Objectivism is named thus because it assumes (1) reality is objective (in direct contradiction to Kant, who thinks that nothing empirical can be proven - see Critique of Pure Reason), (2) truth can be learned from observation, (3) a moral system can be deduced from reality that is appropriate to humans based upon human nature. The value system she presents is her deductions - she goes over this in great detail in the introduction (or is it the first essay - been awhile) of The Virtue of Selfishness. That is the moral system she is advocating. And she expects that it is repeatably derivable and thus confirmable much like scientific experiments need to be repeatable. (With relatively few axioms it is, though those axioms are of course the sticking points). What she doesn't argue is that everyone has to believe her (though she'd say they'd be wrong not to), and Objectivism's political philosophy maximizes people's ability to choose their own moral system, whether or not she believes them to be right. Given the history of Objectivism as a movement though, her view of what is and isn't Objectivism is pretty harsh and exclusive. Rand repeatedly resisted any attempt to systematize or categorize this human value system. That's the point -- Kant was anathema to her because Kant thought you could work out a universal moral system based on the constant interaction between human beings, hence the Categorical Imperative; Rand thought moral reason sprang literally out of a vacuum, out of the Fountainhead of the individual. She used weasel words a lot to try to deny this, but this is essentially what she said. She would *say* things like claiming that the moral intuitions upon which a right-thinking person based his actions were systematically provable the way scientific facts were, but she was unable to actually describe a system for finding or communicating such "facts" -- because, of course, there isn't any, and we've known there hasn't been any ever since David Hume challenged people to find one. What she meant was that certain moral intuitions were self-evidently true because they were consonant with the sense of truth she named Reason. So what we have is the case of a battle between multiple Laws (moral systems and their implementations as political philosophy), not between Law and Chaos. This is of course another reason Rand is a perfect example of why D+D morality breaks down, before we even get to the G-E axis. Enh. A Randian character "listens" to nobody except himself. The fact that he thinks of himself as being a rational person who acts consistently doesn't make him Lawful. Lawfulness is predicated on caring about fitting into a universal moral system that's part and parcel of the world itself, and can equally be applied to all individuals within it -- the Kantian categorical imperative. This is how it was described in Moorcock, anyway, and how I take it for D&D (which is itself awfully inconsistent about how it describes Law -- but if we take your definition, almost no one in the world would be Chaotic). Even the Anarcho-Objectivists (a group Rand found abhorrent) are Lawful (imho) despite the fact they argue for the elimination of government. They've totally stepped outside the entire government paradigm, they aren't even arguing on that level of reality anymore. Their proposed social structuring is just as ordered, its just established on non-governmental principles. Government has absolutely nothing to do with Law or Chaos. As you say, a group of people can be completely in favor of the total destruction of the existing governmental system and be Lawful. What *matters* is their attitude toward how individuals should interact with each other and from what source people should take their moral reasoning. Law is about Singularity, Chaos about Diversity and Individuality. Ultimately, what is Law? On what level of meta-reality are we discussing? Even assuming _government_ as the operating unit is making a paradigmatic assumption. Government need not be required for a class-structured, rigidly functioning society. In fact, some of the most 'chaotic' governments (think feudalism) created some of the most arguably 'lawful' societies in human history. Exactly. It's not a question of "how many laws one follows" at *all*. We need to look at what Moorcock eventually claimed he meant when he *invented* the terminology of the Law/Chaos dichotomy. Lawful people eventually hope for all human beings to be able to make decisions based on a universal, predictable set of rules so that all society functions as a unit. Chaotic people hope for individual choice and autonomy within that system -- they believe the highest good is the power and uniqueness of the individual. However, either one could go either way on the simplistic concept of *following rules*. A society of slaveholders and slaves, where slaveholders wield extreme capricious power over slaves, is *very* Chaotic (think the drow). A society where people romp around and relax all day, but are all part of an integrated family when they do so, is very Lawful, even if the people don't seem very unhappy, hidebound or oppressed. (Think Arcadia.) Of course, this entire discussion is now outside the realm of 99% of preteens - which isn't surprising, considering how screwed up the entire idea of alignment is. It's only screwed up if you choose to make it difficult. And whose modern framework do you choose? The KKK? The mainstream feminists? The religious right? The femi-nazis? The ultra-liberals? Do we go by percentage of the population who believes something? Morality by democracy? Ugh! Or do we try to capture some sense of Kantian ethics, or maybe the Lockian rights paradigm. Do we just default to some Utilitarian cost-benefit analysis? Questions of good and evil are so ridiculously complicated in the modern world that any evaluation depends strongly on who's doing the evaluation. The average person's perception of good or evil is mostly a matter of spin by interested parties in a battle for the minds of the masses. But if you must insist, give me a definitively _good_ (easier) or _evil_ literary figure and i'll deconstruct it three different ways with much different conclusions on alignment. *shrug* For purposes of a *game*, intuition and DM fiat work well enough. Making an NPC Evil or Good is the same as the writer of a book saying he wants to make his character a "good person". Yes, the *analysis* of what *makes* those actions good or evil and how we should judge and so on and so forth can be bickered about by philosophers for generations, but *most ordinary people in the modern world* will tend to agree when you pick a simple example of a good person and an evil person and ask them which one is good and which one is evil. People who take care of their families, give money to charity and try to be nice to everyone are generally seen as good; serial killers and such are generally seen as evil. You don't need to analyze it or justify it to empirically know that most people will agree on one or the other -- the groups you name are fringe groups within society, and if you don't confront them on their pet issues like race and class, they usually will agree on the basic goodness or evilness of a random person. D&D doesn't claim to be able to do a complex philosophical dissection of what *makes* something good or evil, and it honestly shouldn't try. What's important is that it can present groups of people that all the players and the DM can agree are good or evil, depending on their actions, and in most cases doing so is not terribly problematic. As to what Lawful is: So imagine the following - an empire takes over a kingdom somewhere, but the heir manages to escape capture and raise an army. The army wants to expel the occupiers and instate the heir according to formal legal procedures from the Kingdom. The empire of course wants to destroy this attempt and institute a bureaucracy to control the territory in concordance with long-established empirial policy. This isn't a question of good and evil, but neither is it a question of law and chaos, its a question of competing laws. Yeah. But *everyone* wants to uphold a system of some kind. Robin Hood, the quintessential Chaotic Good rogue, nonetheless had a vague ideal of overthrowing Prince John and bringing back the true King from the Crusades. The fact that he was nominally supporting a particular law, a particular power group, didn't make him personally less Chaotic. Law and Chaos are a matter of *attitude*, not what group you're part of. It's a matter of large-scale philosophical alignment, not group affiliation. You can very easily have Lawful criminals and Chaotic cops. So how is the adherence to religious law any less lawful? If you perceive your adherence to religious law as a matter *for yourself* based on *your own* interaction with the world and with God and not part of your large-scale contribution to society -- if you think religious law is primarily a matter of self-improvement and not a matter of social identification -- then you're Chaotic, no matter how strictly you follow *your own* religious law. Yes, there are some minor things about D&D that contradict this, notably the Monk's requirement to be of Lawful alignment, but I regard that as a pecularity of Monkhood in D&D (that Monks *have* to tie themselves to some cosmic principle or somesuch to gain their supernatural powers). For the most part it works. (Also, the food on the Sabbath was answered by Jesus with reference to scriptural precedence. I'd have to look up the others to be sure. The use of precedence in justifying actions is clearly a lawful attitude, in fact a very legalistic attitude, and not a chaotic one at all. In the question of which of two laws win when they conflict, either decision is perfectly lawful. The chaotic person should just say: "But they were hungry.") The Chaotic person would be implicitly using a *higher* principle -- "People who are hungry deserve to get fed" -- and would still, in that sense, be relying on principle. What really matters in the end is what the person considers most *important* -- is it most important to implement one's own desires and assumptions first, or most important to justify those desires within a set institutional framework first? And the evidence shows that Jesus tended to do things first and then explain them to the Pharisees when they demanded it of him. He certainly didn't ask *permission* to do the things he did or say the things he said. And quite a few of his teachings he didn't *even* give to the Pharisees -- he explicitly said that some truths were meant for the disciples only, and he not only allowed but encouraged them to leave those not in the know in the dark, which is more of a Chaotic impulse than a Lawful one (Law always seeks to bring more into its system if possible). In any case, the "precedent" wasn't really a precedent -- the precedent was the fact that David had broken the Law before when *he* was hungry, and God forgave him because he had a higher purpose, restoring the Kingdom. It was explicitly *not* a statement about the Law itself -- it was a statement of a historical precedent when someone admirable had ignored the Law because there was a lot more at stake, so trust your instincts and hang the Law. It had never actually been stated or encoded as an exception to Law (or else what Jesus did would *not* have been against the Law) -- it was an illustrative example of a point in history when breaking the Law was acceptable. That's a Chaotic ideal. You have to realize that Jesus was *debating* the Pharisees, not acting *as* a Pharisee and attempting to gain approval for his actions from them. It repeatedly says he doesn't, and that they get angrier and angrier with him as time goes on -- he's using rhetorical tricks to instead gain street cred from the audiences of these little debates. He's proving he can beat them at their own game. But it never says that he goes through legal loop-de-loops *before* committing an action to let people know it's okay. He usually just does it and only starts arguing with people once they challenge him.
ArcTan 07-20-06, 10:43 PM	As long as i'm on a roll, lets ask the PHB. Sadly, i have a 3e PHB, so my page numbers reference that: Um, yeah. So about that definition of Lawful... I seem to recall the 3.5 PHB having a line to the effect of "Ember is lawful because she follows her discipline but Miralee is chaotic because she's dedicated to her art." A hilarious statement because its (1) virtually non-sensical, (2) draws no actual distinction between L and C, and (3) encourages people to treat the alignment system as meaning whatever the hell they want. Sigh. You realize that taking it to this extreme basically enforces the idea that "Chaotic = Psychotic" that makes D&D so annoying with certain players, right? Take this literally enough and Chaotic Wizards are impossible, because what *Chaotic* character could possibly discipline herself to sit down and read instead of running around in circles bashing her head against the wall? And of course CN characters must headbutt and/or stab everyone they see, because following a principle of not killing innocents for no reason is Lawful. I would say that there's a big difference between having principles you live by and having an actual personal *code*. And that the Jesus of the Gospels has the former far more obviously than he has the latter. (Go on, try to extract a self-consistent, comprehensive moral code based on what Jesus says and does in the Gospels. I dare you.)
Rolof 07-20-06, 11:07 PM	CG: Definitely Robin Hood, the old books even used to use him as an example. I'd also venture to say Sherlock Holmes if your son is familiar with him. Although Holmes did work with Scotland Yard, he also held them in contempt for their lack of relative skill, and sometimes withheld info he had if he believed the person who committed the crime deserved to get away. He was also not above committing small crime himself, such as breaking and entering to find clues. Also, he had a penchant for playing practical jokes on Watson by showing up in disquise just to see if Watson would know it was him. Zorro's a good one, too. CN: If your son has seen any of the Lethal Weapon movies, I'd say Mel Gibson's character at least started out as CN... though in the later movies he calmed down a bit and might have been CG. Depending on what part of her history in the comics you look at, another good one is Felicia/Black Cat. CE: Any villain your son recognizes who's favorite quote is "MUHAHAHAHAHAHHA" Joker, definitely. LG: Superman, Spiderman. "With great power comes great responsibility." Pretty much says it right there. LN: Feudal samurai, if your kid is into that sort of stuff. For myself, I disagree with the poster who said military people, that may be true in the upper ranks, but the rank and file vary widely, though they may act in a LN manner, beneath they often have turmoil over whether it's right. Lawyers; at least supposedly. LE: Vader, for sure. Also the priest in Hunchback of Notre Dame, forget his name at the moment. NG: In my opinion, most real life people. Your neighbor up the street is probably a decent guy or gal, but let them be late for work and they will put the pedal to the metal and hope there's no radar traps. I'd also venture to say most of them pay their taxes cause they have to, not because they think it's some great community thing to do, and probably not above taking a job "under the table" if they can get by with it, or leaving that "gambling winnings" space blank if they happen to win a grand or so at Atlantic City. Not sure how well this will translate to your son, though. N: ? Heck, I've been playing for 2 decades and this is the one I still have the most trouble with myself. Best example I know is just to tell him animals. Though a few people may take offense to that, saying their dog is devoted and loyal, so should be called LG, etc etc. NE: Definitely Emperor Palpatine, maybe Magneto as well.
Limousine_Liberal 07-20-06, 11:40 PM	I'd offer LG--Jean Luc Picard, Captain America, Cyclops, Galahad, Optimus Prime, The Lone Ranger, The Tick (stupid, but he tries), George Bailey (It's a Wonderful Life) NG--Indiana Jones, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Luke Skywalker, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Connor MacLeod (Highlander) (all the "neutrals" are pretty hard, and easily debatable though) CG--Wolverine, Iceman, Gambit, Robin Hood, Han Solo, Mal reynolds (Firefly) LN--Javert, Boromir, Robert E. Lee, Data (ST:TNG), James Bond, Spock, The Architect (Matrix) True Neutral--Merlin, C-3P0, Jawas, Jayne (Firefly), Rambo (from First Blood) CN -- Garfield (the cat), Conan, Q (from Star Trek: TNG), Bender (Futurama) LE -- Jabba the Hutt, Doctor Doom, Scorpius (Farscape), Lore (from Star Trek:TNG), Mr. Potter (It's a Wonderful Life), NE -- Hannibal Lecter, Stewie Griffin, Hans Gruber (Die Hard), Eric Cartman, Vizzini, Count Rugen and Prince Humperdink (Princess Bride), the Borg (Star Trek:TNG) CE -- Carnage (Spider-Man), Joker, Green Goblin, The Kurgan (Highlander), Betelgeuse (Beetlejuice)
ArcTan 07-21-06, 12:59 AM	NG: In my opinion, most real life people. Your neighbor up the street is probably a decent guy or gal, but let them be late for work and they will put the pedal to the metal and hope there's no radar traps. I'd also venture to say most of them pay their taxes cause they have to, not because they think it's some great community thing to do, and probably not above taking a job "under the table" if they can get by with it, or leaving that "gambling winnings" space blank if they happen to win a grand or so at Atlantic City. Not sure how well this will translate to your son, though. Enh. While it may seem harsh, I don't think most ordinary people *are* NG. NG means actually being *good*, not just "decent" (i.e. not overtly bad). To be NG you should be the kind of guy who honestly tries your best at your job instead of just blowing it off, the kind of person who always takes time to be nice and say something to make a kid smile, even if it's not their kid, the kind of person who always tips 20% in a restaurant, the kind of person who, even in an ordinary group of friends, everyone will call "A really great person". N: ? Heck, I've been playing for 2 decades and this is the one I still have the most trouble with myself. Best example I know is just to tell him animals. Though a few people may take offense to that, saying their dog is devoted and loyal, so should be called LG, etc etc. Animals are only TN because we don't really believe they can make moral choices. If they could, there certainly would be LG animals as well as CE animals. The ordinary animal that does nothing but hunt for its food and try to avoid predators is TN. So is the ordinary human who does nothing but go to work, pay his bills, try to be decent to his wife and kids, is occasionally a total ass to that co-worker he hates, and avoids breaking the law but cheats on his taxes. (Again -- being good *to people you love, and are supposed to be good to* doesn't make you particularly good. You're not Good just because you love your family -- Good means sticking your neck out for people you have no special liking for or obligation to.)
WayneTheGame 07-21-06, 08:23 AM	I seem to recall the 3.5 PHB having a line to the effect of "Ember is lawful because she follows her discipline but Miralee is chaotic because she's dedicated to her art." A hilarious statement because its (1) virtually non-sensical, (2) draws no actual distinction between L and C, and (3) encourages people to treat the alignment system as meaning whatever the hell they want. Actually it said Mialee is Neutral (as in True Neutral) because she doesn't care either way and just wants to be dedicated to her art. Which is basically what a True Neutral person does. "I don't care about good or evil, I just want to be left alone" My ideas: Lawful Good: Superman, King Arthur/Knights of the Round Lawful Neutral: Police (follow the letter of the law, even if it's stupid) Lawful Evil: Sauron, Darth Vader, Hitler (pretty much any Dictator), Montgomery Burns, Tony Soprano True Neutral: Scholars (see Mialee distinction above), C-3P0 Neutral Good: Harry Potter Neutral Evil: Emperor Palpatine (manipulate anyone and everyone to get your goals.) Chaotic Good: Robin Hood Chaotic Neutral: Conan (do what you feel like...) Chaotic Evil: The Joker, any psychopathic killer
High Octane 07-21-06, 09:06 AM	You want some exemplars? Watch Pirates of the Carribean! Will Turner: Neutral good. He does what he feels is right whenever and wherever. Commodore Norrington: Lawful Neutral. Follows the law. "By remembering I serve others Mr. Sparrow, not just myself." Barbosa: Neutral Evil. He uses the law when necessary for his needs, but breaks them often enough if it suits his purpose. "The code is more what you would call guidelines than actual rules." CAPTAIN Jack Sparrow: Chaotic Neutral. He went back and forth between good and evil, only casually refers to the code as what he wanted his crew to do, broke the law MANY times. "You Cheated!" "PIRATE!" also "You ignored the rules of engagement in a fair fight!"..."The only rules that matter are these: What a man can do, and what a man cannot do." Where else, hmmm.... Chaotic Good: Rouroni Kenshin. He does good deeds and has a disdain for authority. When he was the Manslayer, he was Chaotic Evil. Back to Star Wars: The Jedi are Lawful Good by nature. Point of note: One doesnt have to follow the laws of the land to be lawful good. A rebel leader can be lawful good if he agrees to authority in general, just not an evil one. Han Solo would be Chaotic Neutral in the beginning, Chaotic good before long. Darth Vader is the DEFINITIVE Lawful Evil. He follows orders, oppresses people, all in the name of order. Neutral Good: Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa. All nonviolent people who worked for good causes. Lawful Evil: Hitler, Stalin, Saddam. Chaotic Evil: Osama Bin Laden. Neutral: Anybody who doesnt care enough to be good or lawful or chaotic, and doesnt want to be evil.
VrecknidjX 07-21-06, 09:21 AM	CE: Any villain your son recognizes who's favorite quote is "MUHAHAHAHAHAHHA."Okay, this has to make it in print somewhere. Maybe I can pull some strings. Dave
babysamurai 07-21-06, 09:29 AM	Chaotic Evil: Osama Bin Laden. Actually, last time I heard about that guy, he was running a Kebab shop in North London.
Harkle 07-21-06, 10:32 AM	Well I see people wit lots of problems figuring out Chaotic Neutral, especially playing. Personally I thnk the absolute best example of a Chaotic Neutral Chracter is Jack Sparrow, sure he's got a good side, but he's also got a bad side so it all balances out.
TG_Ambro 07-21-06, 12:04 PM	Chaotic Good: Rouroni Kenshin. He does good deeds and has a disdain for authority. When he was the Manslayer, he was Chaotic Evil. hmm, Kenshin does'nt have a disdain for authority, he often works with the police or says "we'll let the police handle this one, that we will" if he does'nt believe he should be involved. Sano is a better example of CG (when he was Zanza he was CN). Kenshin is NG because he has both lawful and chaotic parts of himself, so they balance out, i believe that makes him NG. he carries around a sword when swords have been banned(not because he likes breaking rule, but because he needs his sword to protect people, not lawful or chaotic, just good) but will work with the police if he is truly needed(niether lawful or chaotic, just good). i know working with government is'nt the best example of chaos or law...but i think it gets the point across. in his battosai mode he was NE...haven't seen the Samurai X stuff so i'm not too sure.
Squirrelloid 07-21-06, 01:12 PM	Sigh. You realize that taking it to this extreme basically enforces the idea that "Chaotic = Psychotic" that makes D&D so annoying with certain players, right? Take this literally enough and Chaotic Wizards are impossible, because what *Chaotic* character could possibly discipline herself to sit down and read instead of running around in circles bashing her head against the wall? And of course CN characters must headbutt and/or stab everyone they see, because following a principle of not killing innocents for no reason is Lawful. Hey, i was just quoting the darn PHB. I don't have time to respond to line by line to your comments, sadly. It would probably start to derail the thread anyway. But I do want to comment on Moorcock and Kant's Categorical Imperative. First, Moorcock's alignment system is one of those sacred cows that should be sacrificed in the name of improving the game, since currently all it does is make analytical players scratch their heads and everyone else feel compelled to make their character act as parodies of what they think their alignment means (unless they just ignore it). Second, the Categorical Imperative is the biggest load of bull that philosophy has ever constructed. Ultimately, all solutions should be hypothetical imperatives - anything else leads to an unreasonably stringent and nonsensical morality. Thou shalt not kill becomes a prohibition on killing anyone ever, even if by doing so you'd save hundreds, thousands, or even millions of lives. (And any trying to sneak around this one only makes a mockery of the _categorical_ in categorical imperative). The Categorical Imperative as a basis for action also makes questions of good and evil synonymous with law and chaos. If you are lawful you are good. If you are chaotic you are evil. And there is hardly any middle ground. (Ok, Kant does define 4 types of people in order of goodness under the categorical imperative, but none of them is neutral, just less good or more evil than higher categories). And this is a necessary condition of any morality even resembling the categorical imperative. If we assume a second moral axis, the Lawful group won't even recognize it as legitimate (everyone who does not follow our rules is chaotic), and corner alignments become impossible, because the categorical imperative becomes the ultimate arbiter of good and evil, not just law and chaos. Paladins can't exist in this universe - sure, they might occasionally do things that are _good_, but they'd only do them because it was the lawful thing to do. (Or similarly they might occasionally be lawful, but only because it was the good thing to do). In either case they are either L/N or N/G, depending on which axis they think is dominant. Finally, i laugh at the moorcockian concept of a universal moral system. It also makes impossible any serious villains because villains have to be irredeemably evil in that sort of system, not misguided people acting for their own version of good. The type of villains who make for good stories have their own story and are ultimately sympathetic characters gone astray. To the OP: Ditch alignment. Seriously. Create villains who are acting for different goods than the players. Your son may not understand at first, but it will be much more valuable to him when he comes to understand that good and evil are subjective terms applied to actions individuals don't agree with, not universal monoliths defined in absolute terms.
Limousine_Liberal 07-21-06, 02:38 PM	First, Moorcock's alignment system is one of those sacred cows that should be sacrificed in the name of improving the game, since currently all it does is make analytical players scratch their heads and everyone else feel compelled to make their character act as parodies of what they think their alignment means (unless they just ignore it). I disagree. While I do think the rules should be careful to de-emphasize alignment (except as it relates to paladins), I do think it is a useful starting point from which to craft a character. It might be a interesting idea, perhaps to switch to a more traditional authoritarian/libertarian dichotomy rather than "Law" and "Chaos" as they presently exist
ArcTan 07-21-06, 05:13 PM	Hey, i was just quoting the darn PHB. I don't have time to respond to line by line to your comments, sadly. It would probably start to derail the thread anyway. But I do want to comment on Moorcock and Kant's Categorical Imperative. First, Moorcock's alignment system is one of those sacred cows that should be sacrificed in the name of improving the game, since currently all it does is make analytical players scratch their heads and everyone else feel compelled to make their character act as parodies of what they think their alignment means (unless they just ignore it). I don't have that hard a time with it in my games, honestly. Lawful people think about others -- Chaotic people think about themselves. That one-line description works fine unless you try to philosophically analyze it. Note that this is different from being "selfless" or "selfish" in the Good/Evil sense. Good people give of themselves to help others -- Evil people harm others to serve themselves. Law and Chaos define which part of that you put emphasis on -- are you LG and do you crusade to make the world as a whole a better place as part of a grand plan, or are you CG and do you do right by the people you personally care about, and follow your emotional impulses toward empathy and charity? Second, the Categorical Imperative is the biggest load of bull that philosophy has ever constructed. Ultimately, all solutions should be hypothetical imperatives - anything else leads to an unreasonably stringent and nonsensical morality. Thou shalt not kill becomes a prohibition on killing anyone ever, even if by doing so you'd save hundreds, thousands, or even millions of lives. (And any trying to sneak around this one only makes a mockery of the _categorical_ in categorical imperative). The Categorical Imperative as a basis for action also makes questions of good and evil synonymous with law and chaos. If you are lawful you are good. If you are chaotic you are evil. And there is hardly any middle ground. (Ok, Kant does define 4 types of people in order of goodness under the categorical imperative, but none of them is neutral, just less good or more evil than higher categories). And this is a necessary condition of any morality even resembling the categorical imperative. If we assume a second moral axis, the Lawful group won't even recognize it as legitimate (everyone who does not follow our rules is chaotic), and corner alignments become impossible, because the categorical imperative becomes the ultimate arbiter of good and evil, not just law and chaos. Paladins can't exist in this universe - sure, they might occasionally do things that are _good_, but they'd only do them because it was the lawful thing to do. (Or similarly they might occasionally be lawful, but only because it was the good thing to do). In either case they are either L/N or N/G, depending on which axis they think is dominant. If you think like a hidebound philosopher, and you use the Categorical Imperative as *the only way to decide issues of right and wrong* rather than a guideline as a way to *think about right and wrong* -- which is how most people who idly think of themselves as "Kantian" deal with it -- then, yes, you're not LG, you're LN. Paragons and exemplars of Law, pure and unalloyed, cannot be Lawful Good or Lawful Evil, and taken to the extreme they aren't even recognizably human -- the modrons, the formians, the inevitables. I don't see why this is a problem. Most real-life Lawful people aren't absolutely devoted to the ideal of Law, any more than most real-life Evil people are absolutely devoted to an "ideal" of Evil. I think our disagreements here come from the idea that in order for there to *be* an absolute Law and Chaos, those ideals have to be definable in strict, written terms rather than being nebulous tendencies, the same way people view Good and Evil as nebulous tendencies. I can't speak to exactly what the Ultimate Law is or even claim that there is such a thing, but, nonetheless, a Lawful person is someone who treats the world as though there is one and tries to follow it. They think there's some *kind* of categorical imperative and tend to talk and act as though that's how you should approach moral problems, regardless of how successfully they manage to live that out. Their tendency when you approach them with a moral dilemma is to try to draw as many analogies with parallel situations elsewhere as they can. They're made intensely uncomfortable by the idea that their behavior is inconsistent, or that they're unprepared to take from others what they give to others. (Even Lawful Evil people -- LE people who screw other people over nonetheless tend to think they "deserve" what they get when they do so, by virtue of having proven themselves superior within the system.) I think your problem here is that you're using a false idea of D&D alignment -- alignment is hidebound and restrictive if you *make it hidebound and restrictive* -- if you say an Evil character is incapable of doing things that are Good, a Lawful character *must* obey a strict system of written laws and a Chaotic character *must* be a zany psychopath, and so on. Every official pronouncement on alignment and every good alignment-using DM that I know doesn't treat it that way. Alignment represents poles, tendencies, ways to *describe* what people are and how people act -- but everyone has free will, everyone can act inconsistently or illogically, and the alignments in their pure form are largely incomprehensible and beyond human ken (the outsiders and the Outer Planes). Finally, i laugh at the moorcockian concept of a universal moral system. It also makes impossible any serious villains because villains have to be irredeemably evil in that sort of system, not misguided people acting for their own version of good. The type of villains who make for good stories have their own story and are ultimately sympathetic characters gone astray. Untrue. Evil people *think* they're good but they're not. People who really do believe in absolute morality frequently invoke this idea -- it's a basic part of most religious thought -- and there's nothing particularly inconsistent about it. Plenty of people do what they think is right but are, nonetheless, wrong. Even people who don't claim to believe in absolute right and wrong still *treat* it that way -- they will unflinchingly oppose people who they believe to be in the wrong even as they understand and empathize with the reasons said people are wrong. To the OP: Ditch alignment. Seriously. Create villains who are acting for different goods than the players. Your son may not understand at first, but it will be much more valuable to him when he comes to understand that good and evil are subjective terms applied to actions individuals don't agree with, not universal monoliths defined in absolute terms. It's up to the OP how he wants to raise his son in terms of thinking about morality. And it's *certainly* up to the OP how he wants to treat morality *in a game*. For one thing, the core D&D setting doesn't work at all if you toss out morality -- magic like _detect evil_ and entities like Outsiders are predicated on the idea of the Platonic ideals of good, evil, law and chaos existing in the world somewhere. You can get rid of this and replace it with the d20 Modern idea of Affiliation or something like that, but, honestly, there's no reason you can't run interesting, sympathetic and believable characters in a world with a cosmology of absolute good and evil. Most real-world cosmologies of absolute good and evil were, after all, concocted by thinkers who were observing the real world, and most such cosmologies are observed by people who live within it, and I've never had any evidence that artists who really believe in such cosmologies -- the devoutly religious, or otherwise -- are incapable of creating characters just as nuanced and interesting as moral relativists.
ArcTan 07-21-06, 05:16 PM	Commodore Norrington: Lawful Neutral. Follows the law. "By remembering I serve others Mr. Sparrow, not just myself." I strongly object, as a fan of Norrington. He's Lawful Good in the first movie, definitely -- he truly believes in the ideal of safe, peaceful commerce across the high seas, and he wants to stop Jack not just because he has to but because he really believes Jack hurts people (which he *does*). The "By remembering I serve others" thing is a sign that he's LG, not just LN -- rather than just trying to get a promotion and impress his superiors he goes above and beyond to do what he sees as his true duty, which is stopping all threats, even crazy supernatural ones. By the second movie, of course, he's slid down to being True Neutral at best. Which is one of the second movie's greatest sins.
ArcTan 07-21-06, 05:34 PM	I disagree. While I do think the rules should be careful to de-emphasize alignment (except as it relates to paladins), I do think it is a useful starting point from which to craft a character. It might be a interesting idea, perhaps to switch to a more traditional authoritarian/libertarian dichotomy rather than "Law" and "Chaos" as they presently exist Authoritarian/libertarian *does* describe Law and Chaos, just not perfectly. The problem is that people tend to confuse this with "obeying the law" (meaning whatever law exists in the society in which they live) and "breaking the law". A Lawful person likes the *idea* of laws and rules, but that doesn't mean they blindly follow whatever laws and authorities exist, just like a Chaotic person likes the *idea* of individuals doing what they want, but that doesn't mean they'll do insane, unpredictable things just for the hell of it. It should also be emphasized that this is about personality and individual outlook on life. A cop who nominally serves the law but *acts* Chaotic is a Chaotic person. A member of a rebel organization who's nominally an outlaw but *acts* Lawful -- who hopes to reunite the country under a better system -- is Lawful.
Limousine_Liberal 07-21-06, 07:17 PM	Authoritarian/libertarian *does* describe Law and Chaos, just not perfectly. That's why I suggested to a switch to a more traditional description of the terms. I think they could clarify it a bit if they went used a more straight forward "authoritarian/libertarian" framework. (It might also be easier to clarify for people that "authoritarians" are not necessarily bound to follow the "law.")
allenchan 07-21-06, 07:26 PM	This is one I saw awhile back on the forums that probably makes the most sense to me: LG -- "because justice demands it" CG -- "because I felt it was the right thing to do" NG -- "because it helped people" LN -- "because it is how things have to be" N -- "because it is how things have always been done" CN -- "because I thought it had to be done" LE -- "because it served my purposes" NE -- "because it got me something I wanted" CE -- "because I felt like it.
Damior 07-21-06, 09:19 PM	LG-Chewbacca(helps his friends, follows instruction) NG-Jean Valjean(helps people, is fugitive from the law, but holds his promise to the bishop very carefully) CG-Dumbledore(is good, but has some unconventional methods) LN-Javert(follows the law to the letter, no matter what) N-cant think of any CN-Jack Sparrow(does everything he can to cover his own behind, regardless of how it affects others) LE-Darth Vader-(only does things he feels are justified, but is ruthless in doing so) NE-cant think of any CE-cant think of any
MuteFlute 07-21-06, 09:51 PM	I dont think you can really put any superhero as LG, NG maybe at a push. Yes they follow the law, but they also act outside the law, it is illegal to take the law into your own hands. If superman was truly lawful he would have been upfront about his abilities and who he was, instead of wear his pants outside his tights. Also, he would have joined the police force, instead of being a newspaper writer. As for TN, try reading the sandman series of comics by Neil Gaiman and tell me that the Seven are not True Neutral. Thats all they can be, you might read that Dream seems a good person, but take a deeper look into what is written and you will find evil/sadistic/gross/mean acts that he had committed. As for the person who quoted the bible, I think you meant to put KJVI or KJI, as KJV would have been before the tudor revelution of the printing press.
Vegepygmy 07-22-06, 12:36 AM	You're KIDDING me. Ayn Rand is the clearest exemplar of Chaos that I know. Hell, I regularly point her out to people who want some example of a Chaotic philosophy that holds together and makes sense to any degree.You're absolutely right, ArcTan, but it's probably pointless to argue about it.
FloppyLlama 07-22-06, 01:48 AM	Second, the Categorical Imperative is the biggest load of bull that philosophy has ever constructed. Ultimately, all solutions should be hypothetical imperatives - anything else leads to an unreasonably stringent and nonsensical morality. Thou shalt not kill becomes a prohibition on killing anyone ever, even if by doing so you'd save hundreds, thousands, or even millions of lives. (And any trying to sneak around this one only makes a mockery of the _categorical_ in categorical imperative). No need to sneak around it. You find it nonsensical and stringent. A Kantian might not. You have yet to make any sort of argument as to why you shouldn't kill period is a "load of bull" you just assume that people will agree. Obviously a hardcore Kantian would not. You fail to bridge the gap between thought structures in the least bit, so you pretty much fail to make any sort of an argument other than "This is what I think, here's an example (which oh so obviously applies, because everyone shares my assumptions). I'm right" The Categorical Imperative as a basis for action also makes questions of good and evil synonymous with law and chaos. If you are lawful you are good. If you are chaotic you are evil. And there is hardly any middle ground. (Ok, Kant does define 4 types of people in order of goodness under the categorical imperative, but none of them is neutral, just less good or more evil than higher categories). And this is a necessary condition of any morality even resembling the categorical imperative. And further you fail to understand the basic concept of "good". Good is, and always will be, defined (whether from a personal perspective or not) by rules. You OUGHT to behave this way (sound familiar?). Good boils down to what you should do, because it is GOOD. Anything other than a moral system that comes down to complete subjectivity will come down to laws. You could accuse Utilitarianism as much as Deontology. (To clarify: One is good according to a moral system if they attempt to achieve what is good according to that moral system. Whether the laws are as simple as "this is what is good, if you achieve it, you are good" or specific as "Following this law is good because of X and X reason", it's still laws. If you can't already see the LG/(NG/CG) split here, while still seeing what I mean [that law is involved], I could try to explain it) Hence, just because "moral law" has "law" in it, does not mean you are lawful in the D&D sense for following it. Just because Lawful Good has "Lawful" in it, it does not necesarily imply law in the LEGAL sense. Lawful in the D&D alignment system means what lawful in the D&D alignment system means. You can't draw it directly to a singular external usage of the term, so stop trying.
MEAT 07-22-06, 03:20 AM	Yes, it's another alignment thread. Not only that, but it's something of a re-tread of a recent alignment thread I can't seem to find right now... In a discussion with my 10-year old son the other day, I was trying to come up with exemplars of alignments--from history, religion, literature, TV shows, movies, real life, etc.--that he would recognize. Frankly, because of both generational gap and his limited life experience, I couldn't come up with too much that we both knew well enough. So, who are some alignment exemplars--real or fictional--that a 10-year old would know about (and that a 30-something might have at least a passing knowledge of)? I didn't get to read this entire thread and I have to go soon so I'll make this quick and hope I'm not repeating what was already said. Alignment in D&D is broken into Morality (Good, Neutral, or Evil) and Jurisprudence (Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic). The problem with morality is that it's highly susceptible to ones own personal views of what [is] good and what [is] bad. Some of the things I like or dislike, my wife feels the opposite way about, but I'd be hard-pressed to call these issues evil. Often, when a conqueror succeeds in taking over an area (reference Cesar or Ghengas Khan for some great examples) he is looked upon as a moral and just ruler, however when someone fails to conquer (reference Saddam Hussein or Adolph Hitler for some great examples) they are looked upon and evil dictators. Really, as a society we set the precedence for what is "good" and what is "evil" with our laws. It's our laws which make us civil and separate us from immorality. Regarding jurisprudence, this is also impossible to define with so many laws people follow without falter, and others [everybody] breaks (reference the freeway speed limit). The concept of a lawful person is impossible with bureaucrats making up laws which help promote their own agenda. I believe this was even worse in the dark/middle ages before any watch-dog groups were available. I'm sure some aristocrats simply made up rules from time to time to dispense of problematic issues or citizens. As for chaos, let's face it, everyone between the ages of 13-19 is for the most part chaotic in their jurisprudence. This is an inescapable truth. Most D&D characters start off their adventuring careers within this age group making a functional choice of jurisprudence ill-conceived in regards to how their character will eventually feel after a few more years of "life" to mature. Time limit's up. Got to go. Hope I made sense. No time to recheck.
pres_man 07-22-06, 03:53 AM	So, who are some alignment exemplars--real or fictional--that a 10-year old would know about (and that a 30-something might have at least a passing knowledge of)? LG: Captain America, Superman, Optimus Prime, Mr. Fantastic, Invisible Woman NG: Spider-Man, Batman, The Thing CG: Robin Hood, The Human Torch LN: Commodore Norington in "Curse of the Black Pearl", Bobo Fett TN: Butterburr CN: Punisher, Hulk, Conan LE: Darth Vader in Episodes IV-VI, Doctor Doom, Riddler, Two-Face NE: Lex Luthor (depending on the version), Penguin CE: Green Goblin, Joker
ArcTan 07-22-06, 02:58 PM	I didn't get to read this entire thread and I have to go soon so I'll make this quick and hope I'm not repeating what was already said. Alignment in D&D is broken into Morality (Good, Neutral, or Evil) and Jurisprudence (Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic). The problem with morality is that it's highly susceptible to ones own personal views of what [is] good and what [is] bad. Some of the things I like or dislike, my wife feels the opposite way about, but I'd be hard-pressed to call these issues evil. Often, when a conqueror succeeds in taking over an area (reference Cesar or Ghengas Khan for some great examples) he is looked upon as a moral and just ruler, however when someone fails to conquer (reference Saddam Hussein or Adolph Hitler for some great examples) they are looked upon and evil dictators. Really, as a society we set the precedence for what is "good" and what is "evil" with our laws. It's our laws which make us civil and separate us from immorality. Regarding jurisprudence, this is also impossible to define with so many laws people follow without falter, and others [everybody] breaks (reference the freeway speed limit). The concept of a lawful person is impossible with bureaucrats making up laws which help promote their own agenda. I believe this was even worse in the dark/middle ages before any watch-dog groups were available. I'm sure some aristocrats simply made up rules from time to time to dispense of problematic issues or citizens. As for chaos, let's face it, everyone between the ages of 13-19 is for the most part chaotic in their jurisprudence. This is an inescapable truth. Most D&D characters start off their adventuring careers within this age group making a functional choice of jurisprudence ill-conceived in regards to how their character will eventually feel after a few more years of "life" to mature. Time limit's up. Got to go. Hope I made sense. No time to recheck. L/C is *not* called the Jurisprudence Axis. It's called the Ethical Axis. And it has very little to do with following the written law. In fact, if there was a capricious ruler who changed the laws at a whim, a truly Lawful character would almost be *required* to oppose him -- the ruler would, by definition, be upholding the "law" (his law) but be a direct enemy of Law.
MEAT 07-22-06, 07:50 PM	L/C is *not* called the Jurisprudence Axis. It's called the Ethical Axis. And it has very little to do with following the written law. In fact, if there was a capricious ruler who changed the laws at a whim, a truly Lawful character would almost be *required* to oppose him -- the ruler would, by definition, be upholding the "law" (his law) but be a direct enemy of Law. Humm, minor nit there; [ethical] = "1. Adhering to ethical and moral principles; 2. Conforming to accepted standards of social or professional behavior." [moral] = "1. Relating to principles of right and wrong; i.e. to morals or ethics; 2. Concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles." Looks like a big loop. Moral = ethical. Seems pretty clear to me that morality and ethics are one and the same. The axis presented in D&D for law and chaos is a wonderful example of jurisprudence, imo. [law] = "1. A rule or body of rules of conduct inherent in human nature and essential to or binding upon human society; 2. The collection of rules imposed by authority." [jurisprudence] = "1. The branch of philosophy concerned with the law and the principles that lead courts to make the decisions they do; 2. The collection of rules imposed by authority." Is there any way to misinterpret this?
djbabygod 07-22-06, 07:56 PM	I strongly object, as a fan of Norrington. He's Lawful Good in the first movie, definitely -- he truly believes in the ideal of safe, peaceful commerce across the high seas, and he wants to stop Jack not just because he has to but because he really believes Jack hurts people (which he *does*). The "By remembering I serve others" thing is a sign that he's LG, not just LN -- rather than just trying to get a promotion and impress his superiors he goes above and beyond to do what he sees as his true duty, which is stopping all threats, even crazy supernatural ones. By the second movie, of course, he's slid down to being True Neutral at best. Which is one of the second movie's greatest sins. I disagree with you there, and agree...hmm... Yes I think in the first one he was LG (or at least thought of himself that way) but you could see that he was beginning to doubt his own actions a bit. in the 2nd one, one of the BEST things about it is what happened with norrington. they actually show consequences of actions, and that bad things happen to good people. norrington is likely LN in the 2nd one, borderline LE arguably, but I think they're going to redeem him in the 3rd one. those are the best character arcs. I think what happened to him was realistic for the period and circumstances.
Kresalak 07-22-06, 09:22 PM	Jack Sparrow's CNness is emphasized by his speach to Elizabeth on "what a ship is".
ArcTan 07-23-06, 01:39 AM	Humm, minor nit there; [ethical] = "1. Adhering to ethical and moral principles; 2. Conforming to accepted standards of social or professional behavior." [moral] = "1. Relating to principles of right and wrong; i.e. to morals or ethics; 2. Concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles." Looks like a big loop. Moral = ethical. Seems pretty clear to me that morality and ethics are one and the same. The axis presented in D&D for law and chaos is a wonderful example of jurisprudence, imo. [law] = "1. A rule or body of rules of conduct inherent in human nature and essential to or binding upon human society; 2. The collection of rules imposed by authority." [jurisprudence] = "1. The branch of philosophy concerned with the law and the principles that lead courts to make the decisions they do; 2. The collection of rules imposed by authority." Is there any way to misinterpret this? In common usage "jurisprudence" refers to the way courts interpret the laws created by the legislature. The laws of the government, in other words. The problem with this is that it pins down your alignment to a very contingent, very specifically-located-in-time-and-place thing -- the particular government of your particular civilization. If you have one attitude toward the United States' laws and another attitude toward China's laws, your L/C alignment shouldn't shift if you move from one country to another. If you're on a desert island with one other person and no government or laws exist where you are, L/C alignment still comes into play. And so on. "Moral" and "ethical" are often used interchangeably with each other in ordinary conversation, yes. This is why ordinary dictionaries are not a great tool to use to find out what words mean in specialized contexts. In philosophical terms -- the terms that D&D borrows for its term Moral Axis and Ethical Axis -- "moral" means the "what" of values -- what do we vallue? what's important? what goal are we striving for -- and "ethical" the "how" of how we achieve those values. (That's what "ethos" originally means -- your method of doing things.) In D&D terms, the moral axis defines how you value yourself relative to others, which is the central question of most "what" questions in morality. Are you obligated to give of yourself to help others? Should you see yourself as equal to others and get by, giving as good as you get? Or do you have the right to exploit and harm others for your own gain? The ethical axis defines the way you think about your actions and consider yourself relative to other people. Do you think about your actions in terms of the overall system of how people interact, and try to follow some overall set of rules in what you do? Do you sometimes take your cues from the environment around you and sometimes innovate, depending on what works? Or do you operate solely based on your own internal intuitions about how to do things and let the rest of the world sort itself out? That's the two axes in a nutshell -- Good means helping others, Evil means harming others, Law means trying to act consistently with the world, Chaos means letting the world go hang and being consistent only with yourself.
Potato_Dragon 07-23-06, 02:09 AM	I'm sure much of this has been said already, but I felt like chiming in on the whole alignment thing. First, alignment doesn't really apply to us ordinary commoners and experts. By the D&D system, the vast majority of "normal" people are simply neutral, and the remaining small minority are part neutral: NG, LN, CN, NE. I've been called a "good person", but never a "bad person" (at least that I know of), yet objectively I would only be N, not NG. The "humans tend toward no particular alignment, not even neutrality" line in my 3.0 player's handbook is pure crap, at least in regards to the common folk. However, members of PC classes are probably different (see below). Alignment does tend to apply to extraordinary people, though: The heroes and villians, the saints and despots, and the crusaders of any cause, good or ill. Not all of them are famous, like Hitler or Ghandi - likely there are many who accomplished significant deeds that history is unlikely to notice, or worked entirely in secret, or died a martyr before their name could be known. Personally, given sufficient opportunity and cause (as in, being put through the kind of events that often forge a normal person into an extraordinary one) I could see myself becoming some other alignment, most likely CG or NE depending on how things went down. Or possibly even remaining N and becoming a Rilmani-type anti-extremist crusader. Something I object to, though, is trying to portray real-world people as alignment exemplars. The problem is that most people seem to go purely by the person's actions. Extraordinary people often find themselves, by accident or design, in extraordinary situations. And extraordinary situations often result in behaviors that, at least superficially, appear to be inconsistent with one's alignment. For example, killing is generally evil, yet a good-aligned person who takes down a murderous psychopath is committing a noble and heroic act, not an evil one. (I'm going by D&D standards of alignment here, not necessarily real-world ones.) Let's take Osama bin Laden as an example. A few people here threw him out as an example of CE. Probably most non-D&Ders would classify him similarly as well, due to his most famous action appearing CE by our standards. However, by all accounts, his motivation is to bring a particularly strict version of traditional islamic law down on the people, something that a chaotic person would almost certianly not do. So CE, CN, and CG are probably out. At the same time, his methods and tactics are very dishonorable by most people's standards, even taking into account the unfortunate necessities involved with conducting guerilla warfare, so the lawful alignments are probably out too. That leaves NG, N, and NE. Which of these three is open to debate. If he's sacrificing of himself to accomplish what he and his followers truly believe is good and right for everyone, then he's NG. A misguided and/or conflicted NG, but NG nonetheless. If he's doing it for entirely selfish reasons or simply wants to hurt people, then he's NE. If he's a former hero who has become so obsessed with fighting evil that he's lost his moral compass, then he's N or NE. Unfortunately, while NE is probably a bit more likely than the other two, only someone who both knows him intimately and is an impartial judge of D&D alignments can judge which of those three alignments he belongs to, and probably no such person exists. With few exceptions, the same could be said of other famous people - you can get a general range, but you usually can't pinpoint one's alignment based solely upon behavior. On the other hand, using fictional characters as alignment exemplars - no problem. Good fiction offers an intimate view into a character's attitudes, motivations, and personal history - it's how they're made believable, understandable, and (usually) sympathetic. One could reasonably know enough about a fictional charcter to make an accurate judgment as to what their alignment is. Captian Picard of Star Trek? LG, obviously. Robin hood, or at least the semi-fictional version most people are familiar with? Nobody's going to not say CG. Darth Vader from Star Wars? LE, quite likely. The Joker from Batman? CE, duh. While some well-known characters might still be debateable, it's much easier to find definite exemplars from among the fictional than the real. Just my couple of pennies.
RedUncle 07-23-06, 05:12 AM	LG - RoboCop CG - Rambo NG - Willow LN - The Terminator (consider both 1 and 2) N - your average man on the street... the everyman CN - Conan the Barbarian LE - Hans Grüber NE - Jason CE - Freddy Krueger haha... can anybody guess my favorite movies?
countbubba 07-23-06, 09:08 AM	I would say, almost everyone in this world is neutral by D&D standards. Remember, not sinning doesn't make you good. Good is going out of your way and making sacrifices to help others. That doesn't just mean putting money in the collection plate at church or donating a little money here and there to help causes. To truly be good, you have to make a sacrifice that is significant to you, for someone you may never have met before. Most people, at least, most people I can think of, are willing to drop everything and help out their close friends and family, but probably wouldn't be willing to do the same for some stranger on the street. According to the Player's Handbook, this is one of the hallmarks of neutrality on the good-evil axis. But there are also plenty of evil people. Think about the current Valerie Plame scandal. Whoever leaked that information destroyed someone's career and endangered her life simply for political revenge. If that's not evil, I don't know what is.