| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| Zersch09-25-06, 10:23 AM | I was reading some posts last nights, and I read alot (and have heard alot from my friends) as to why alignment should be removed, or why alignments are not a good idea. I thought about this a bit, and then read Tarvok's "Four Alignments" thread (again, just wow dude). Here's my thoughts on starting this thread. Whether we like alignments or not, they ARE in the books. I would like to see some discussion generated as what you feel makes a particular alignment. With today's gamer, there is most definently an advanced idea of these ideals. Tarvok began with four specific alignments and situations, I would like a more broad and general feel for this thread. Many people have different ideas as to what situation might apply a specific alignment, or vice versa. So, pick an alignment, write what you think it is all about, provide an example if you want, and let's see what we can turn up. |
| CryoSilver09-25-06, 04:39 PM | I'll start with the most poorly understood alignment: Chaotic Neutral - Following the Path of Least Resistance We're all familiar with "Chaotic Stupid" characters: the ones that are Chaotic Neutral because they're "insane" or "random." However, this only one aspect of chaotic amorality. I see CN as following the path of least resistance toward a given end; the thought process as follows: 1. CN character wants something/needs to do something 2. CN character considers his options 3. CN character picks the easiest way of getting the job done Easiest; not msot random, nor most illegal. Consider: A CN character (Steve) needs money to pay off some gambling debt. He weighs his options: he could work for it, but that's slow and hard. He could rob someone, but that could be dangerous. He could also hustle some rube out of it, which is easy, and he's good at. Steve picks option 3. If Steve had been CG, he'd probably have picked option 1. If he'd been CE, it'd have been 2. However, the overall easiest way of getting it done was option 3, and Steve, being CN, tends to follow the path of least resistance. |
| ZeronHitaro09-25-06, 05:24 PM | Meh, I wouldn't call Chaotic Neutral the path of least resistance. Personally I think it's more fitting as: Chaotic Neutral,The path of greatest directness. To give minor elaboration (too tired to debate heavily). A Chaotic Neutral character want to get from point A to point B and a bunch of enemies are in the way. LG/NG- Tries to talk way through peacefully CG- Also tries to talk but will resort to intimidation tactics LN- Will walk right through, talking to anyone who stops them but will resort to armed combat if provoked enough TN/CN- Will walk right though, will attack immdieatly if hostilities are shown Also my 2cp on the alignment system, I like it and here is how I run it: You chose your base alignment, but you roleplay your character however your image fits. A LG character can commit an act that doesn't fit within the LG spectrum, but as a result (depending on how powerful the act is and how often the character acts out of alignment), then the PCs alignment is subject to change based on actions. Also I have nothing against declairing a PC to be evil if they show evil actions. However they are warned that by turning evil they will not be "super villians" or anything of the like. rather they have to learn to deal with bounty hunters, not being allowed in any villiages, having to make connections and do despicable acts, ect. Not all that evil is cracked up to be, such as the "Evil Stupid" alignment. Evil Stupid: I burn villiages and eat elf babies for absolutely no reason! |
| MadMan09-25-06, 05:39 PM | Our group has had a few agruments over alignment as well. Mostly over Lawful Good. My GM believes all LG characters should all be paladin-like. ie. A LG paladin gives his word to an evil enemy who will help the party that he will not harm him and will work with him to get a job done. Even though he is a threat always planning to dupe the party and kill us all, the Paladin will keep his word until provoked. A LG Dwarf fighter on the other hand, in the same party, IMO, would work with the enemy until he sees fit, then will dispose of the enemy, at a time he sees as being fit! The Dwarf and the Paladin both know the enemy is plotting death for the party, but the Paladin won't do anything about it because he gave his word. The Dwarf on the other hand, knowing evil, attacks and tries to kill the enemy the first chance he gets, when the job is done, or almost done, wanting to act BEFORE the enemy gets the upper hand, or escapes, thus saving all lives of the party. My GM says that a dwarf acting in that manner wouldn't and couldn't be LG. Alignment is all semantics. It's how YOU see it. The LG Paladin gives his word and stands by it, maybe even trying to stop the dwarf, where the dwarf is more concerned about protecting his friends,his family, and any innocents the enemy might kill thereafter. In my opinion BOTH can be LG. Any opinions? |
| Darkxarth09-25-06, 09:07 PM | Meh, I wouldn't call Chaotic Neutral the path of least resistance. Personally I think it's more fitting as: Chaotic Neutral,The path of greatest directness. To give minor elaboration (too tired to debate heavily). A Chaotic Neutral character want to get from point A to point B and a bunch of enemies are in the way. LG/NG- Tries to talk way through peacefully CG- Also tries to talk but will resort to intimidation tactics LN- Will walk right through, talking to anyone who stops them but will resort to armed combat if provoked enough TN/CN- Will walk right though, will attack immdieatly if hostilities are shown I disagree. A Chaotic Neutral person isn't stupid (well, not necessarily). They don't necessarily have a chip on their shoulder, ready to fight anyone at the slightest provocation. I could show you a perfectly good example of Chaotic Neutral in a free-spirited Bard who lives only for the music, not for Good or Evil. Evil Stupid: I burn villiages and eat elf babies for absolutely no reason! Don't be silly! That's Chaotic Evil! But seriously, Chaotic Evil is often presented as nothing more than a senseless violence. But, that is not the case. Though a Chaotic Evil being could be an insane murderer, but not necessarily. Chaos does not imply randomness or insanity, and Evil doesn't imply "baby-eating and village burning." In fact, a Chaotic Evil being could be just as sauve and careful as a Lawful Evil being. Case in point, Loki, Norse God of Trickery. Deities & Demigods puts him as Chaotic Evil, and I completely agree. He doesn't have any qualms against murder, stealing, lying, cheating, etc. And he seeks to bring down the current "regime" as it were. And he still works towards his own goals, using complex plans. So, clearly he his both Chaotic and Evil, and yet he plans, and doesn't act like a random, insanse, psychopathic murderer. |
| makeshiftwings09-25-06, 09:42 PM | Only a few posts in, only one alignment discussed so far, and already nobody agrees on what it means. Now you see why some of us don't like alignment. ;) |
| MadMan09-25-06, 09:44 PM | Only a few posts in, only one alignment discussed so far, and already nobody agrees on what it means. Now you see why some of us don't like alignment. ;) One Alignment discussed? Did you read my post? lol :D And to add to the CN opinions...it's a messed up alignment, and can be interpreted in many ways. For example, IMO, Jarlaxe is CN. I don't believe he's evil ( I should add I know he's done evil things lol), and he has proven he's chaotic! lol |
| Darkxarth09-25-06, 09:45 PM | Only a few posts in, only one alignment discussed so far, and already nobody agrees on what it means. Now you see why some of us don't like alignment. ;) Only one? MadMan talked about Lawful Good and I discusses Chaotic Evil. Of course, only one alignment mentioned has been debated about, I guess. If that's what you meant. |
| MadMan09-25-06, 10:20 PM | Well I just had a decent argument with my GM on the phone about alignments. I told him of this thread, my opinions on LG and CN, which he both disagreed with. So, I agree, get rid of alignments! lol :D Too many headaches, too many different interpretations. Semantics! Freakin' Semantics! On a side note, if there weren't any alignments, the main bad guy in our game would be sooooo dead. Freakin' LG restrictions! ;) |
| Bobfred2109-25-06, 10:38 PM | Madman, as far as I am concerned, your take on lawful good is completely wrong. You're right in so far as to say that not all LG characters have to be AS good as paladins, however the dwarf you present us is neither good nor lawful. A lawful good person does not kill someone "as soon as they get the chance" because they know the person is trying to bring the party down. 1. Few people would put themselves in that position. Good characters especially should have qualms about working with people they know to be evil. 2. A good character would keep their eye open and quite firmly on the evil character (even a Paladin would). A chaotic good character might kill said villain "as soon as they get the chance" but the act itself would not be a CG good act by any means. 3. You're forgetting the LAWFUL part of LG. Lawfulness tends to be a matter of honor and all that jazz. So a lawful good character would, at best, keep their eye on the character and ONLY break their word AFTER the enemy had broken theirs. The difference between Paladins and LG is the paladins code, which typically involves things like never telling a lie, always trying to redeem the enemy first, celibacy, being completely pure of vices, that kind of thing. |
| MadMan09-25-06, 11:13 PM | I understand, and I know it wouldn't be a lawful act, and maybe I exagerated a bit on the killing at 1st chance. But yes, we did agree to work with an evil villian (the GM gave us no other choice lol), and the villian is planning on more than just killing the party. He wants control of the town we've built, and the power of the region through our armies, basically. We all know want he wants and that he has the means to achieve it. Our whole party except 1 is LG I believe. So no-one can do anyhing. The dwarf wants his head on a platter and knows the realms will be better place with him dead, as this villian will and has killed many, many people! He is evil, and he uses our alignments againts us. The lawful part of the dwarf wants to save the friends, family, and innocent people of the town, but cannot due to being LG. So I do understand, and I regret makin' the dwarf LG, but I have always played CG dwarves, and thought to try something different. As I said, it's the only reason this villian (or as my GM would say "you mean the dwarf") is still alive. lol :D |
| Greyman09-25-06, 11:37 PM | The difference between Paladins and LG is the paladins code, which typically involves things like never telling a lie, always trying to redeem the enemy first, celibacy, being completely pure of vices, that kind of thing.The paladin's code of conduct only really requires them to (1) always be Lawful (respect legitimate authority, behave with honour, etcetera), (2) always be Good (aide those in need, punish those who harm others, et cetera), and (3) never do, nor associate with, Evil. Anything else (celebacy, purity, et cetera) is something a particular knightly order might add to the basic code, but isn't precisely required to keep their abilities (other than the need to Lawfully respect legitimate authority). |
| Darkxarth09-25-06, 11:45 PM | I understand, and I know it wouldn't be a lawful act, and maybe I exagerated a bit on the killing at 1st chance. But yes, we did agree to work with an evil villian (the GM gave us no other choice lol), and the villian is planning on more than just killing the party. He wants control of the town we've built, and the power of the region through our armies, basically. We all know want he wants and that he has the means to achieve it. Our whole party except 1 is LG I believe. So no-one can do anyhing. The dwarf wants his head on a platter and knows the realms will be better place with him dead, as this villian will and has killed many, many people! He is evil, and he uses our alignments againts us. The lawful part of the dwarf wants to save the friends, family, and innocent people of the town, but cannot due to being LG. So I do understand, and I regret makin' the dwarf LG, but I have always played CG dwarves, and thought to try something different. As I said, it's the only reason this villian (or as my GM would say "you mean the dwarf") is still alive. lol :D You realize that "knowingly associating with Evil beings" is against the Paladin Code, right? I don't know if any of you are Paladins. But with a group of mostly LGs, it seems likely. Even if there is no better choice, it's still against the Code. That doesn't mean you can't do it, it just means that if you do, you are breaking the Code and immediately lose your special Paladin powers. |
| MadMan09-26-06, 12:48 AM | You realize that "knowingly associating with Evil beings" is against the Paladin Code, right? I don't know if any of you are Paladins. But with a group of mostly LGs, it seems likely. Even if there is no better choice, it's still against the Code. That doesn't mean you can't do it, it just means that if you do, you are breaking the Code and immediately lose your special Paladin powers. Actually 1 character is a kensai, but has 5 or so levels of Paladin. I still call him the Paladin. Very Interesting, I'll have to bring that up! lol :D |
| makeshiftwings09-26-06, 12:58 AM | One Alignment discussed? Did you read my post? lol :D Well, I meant only one that two different people had brought up. But, as you've seen, now that someone else decided to talk about LG, nobody agrees on that either. For every 50 or so "you're completely wrong" posts, you'll get one "i completely agree with X" post. That's the whole problem with alignment that some people just can't seem to grasp. There IS no actual correct interperetation. All the words used to describe the alignments are essentially intangible to the point of meaninglessness: "honor", "sacrifice", "freedom". Each word means something different to each person. |
| MadMan09-26-06, 01:03 AM | Well, I meant only one that two different people had brought up. But, as you've seen, now that someone else decided to talk about LG, nobody agrees on that either. Actually I brought LG up hours before you posted, and I seem to be the only 1 who disagrees with it. lol For every 50 or so "you're completely wrong" posts, you'll get one "i completely agree with X" post. No. I think you're completely wrong! :D j/k |
| Zersch09-26-06, 01:20 AM | Well, this is interesting. It is one of the main reasons that I decided to go with this. All the alignments in the PHB do just give but a blurb. But how about expanding those little definintions? That's kinda what I'm getting at. No alignment should be constrictive enough that the characters feel they must rush headlong into death and glory. Maybe some guidelines would help here. What is the alignment's view on oaths, bonds, promises? What is the alignment's view on attacking innocents? What is the alignment's view on providing aid or assistance to others in need? What is the alignment's view on authority and laws? What is the alignment's view on individuality? What is the alignment's view on friendship? What is the alignment's view on being attacked with greater numbers? What is the alignment's view on torture or maining? What is the alignment's view on cheating? What is the alignment's view on lying? What is the alignment's view on using poisons? How are the gifts that they recieve (feats, special abilities) best used? Now, not every one of these questions need be answered, but if we can pull together, I think we can start to see some clarity in what alignments really are. I would readily agree with some people that alignments should NOT be used, but again, the heart of this is that alignments are in the book. We should be able to be creative enough to come up with some good, possibly expanded guidelines. |
| Pandaemoni09-26-06, 01:33 AM | The problem with alignments is that they are so vague that every member of a six-person player group can easily develop a reasonable interpretation of what they mean, yet have no two of them agree. I don't think that means they should be eliminated, nor do I even think they need to be clarified. They are only there to serve as guides for characterization purposes, and just as there are more than nine kinds of personality in the world, there should be more than nine differet moral/ethical stances a character can take. What needs to happen to "fix" them, in my opinion, is that the DM should take aside any player playing an alignment-restricted class (bard, barbarians, monks, of course paladins, assassins, etc.) and discuss what their elignment means to *them*. The DM should make his views clear as well, but so long as the player's take on it doesn't strike the DM as unreasonable (even if the DM has a somewhat different view), the DM should grant the player leeway to play things that way without consequence. Alternately, the DM can give his opinion on what it means and require the player to conform to that. Personally, I suspect that would be less fun for the player as it makes his alignment less intuitive to him...but it does fit the notion from the PHB that alignments are "objective." (In that case, good, evil, law and chaos *are* what the DM says they are, and that is objectively determinable.) Alignments are a great "first step" in determining the character of a ... um ... character, but even in the case of a paladin I don't think one should treat the alignment as a straight jacket that absolutely determines the characters actions in the face of moral and ethical quandaries. As for me I'd usually think of Chaortic Neutrals as those who let good and evil things happen around them without really caring enough to get involved. They tend not to make long-term plans in any great detail (and what plans they do have they frequently modify "on the fly" as circumstances present themselves). They might tend to be resentful of people making demands on them (or they might absolutely ignore those people and so not care), and they tend to follow their own whims. They make excellent hermits and backwoodsmen, because they can live alone without caring what other people are doing (and what good or evil might befall them) and greatly enjoy not having to conform their behavior to that of the community. They probably tend to se self-sufficient and probably feel that others should be self-sufficient too. |
| CryoSilver09-26-06, 01:37 AM | I'm not a big fan of alignments, and when I have to use them, they tend to be fluid. Here's an interesting thought: what if the player doesn't know his PCs alignment and just acts the way he feels his character should act, and the DM tracks the PC's alignment secretly? |
| makeshiftwings09-26-06, 02:05 AM | Here's an interesting thought: what if the player doesn't know his PCs alignment and just acts the way he feels his character should act, and the DM tracks the PC's alignment secretly? You mean like: Player: "So, ok, I'm going to examine this door here, and then walk over to the wall and look at..." DM: "BAM! You lose all your druid abilities!!!" Player: "What? What are you talking about?!" DM: "I've been secretly keeping track of your alignment and just decided you became lawful good!" Player: "What? Why?" DM: "It's a secret." |
| Myree09-26-06, 02:06 AM | I need to spend more time drafting a more appropriate answer directly to what was requested in the thread, but wanted to throw my 2cp in first (see, I DO realize what I am about to say is slightly off-thread -- but then I'm Chaotic Neutral, so....). This is taken directly from a post I put in early in the "Jack Bower's alignment" thread, but I think it's worth repeating (but, then again, I'm just quoting my favorite philosopher, right?:D ) Just didn't want someone feeling deja vu or thinking I'm plagarizing someone else. "...it leads to another exhaustive discussion on the merits of alignment and the definitions behind them. After all, most people (including your favorite real-world villians and terrorists, as psychotic as the rest of us see them) really believe that THEY are/were the "Good Guys". Same can be said for the crusaders who tried to free Jeruselem and the "missionaires" who tried to "save" the Native Americans, polynesians, and how many others, many times destroying their lifestyle, if not bringing death and deprevation in their wake. (Why is it I feel someone warming up their "flames"? I'm not suggesting these are all evil, just that perspective and results matter more than intent!!!!) In the Fantasy/SF genre, I've always been interested by characters who come across as evil, but with the greatest of "Good" justifications. One I recall well was in Iron Helm and the rest of the Maztica Trilogy (By Doug Niles) named Bishou Domincus of the crusaide losely based on the Conquestadores. As far as he was concerned, he was saving the poor savages that they were destroying, bringing civilization to a wild area that really already had it's own variation of magic (that I always thought was under explored in D&D itself). What does this say about humanity itself? Well, we are all nuts to someone, I suppose. But within the game -- well, there lies the fun of playing the role well. I have always thought of the alignment is a way to help US see the character the way the world does, and then give us the ammo to play the part to match -- even if it means that they are a little delusional to meet that end. After all, history is written by the winners, right?" |
| Greyman09-26-06, 02:38 AM | Well, I meant only one that two different people had brought up. But, as you've seen, now that someone else decided to talk about LG, nobody agrees on that either. For every 50 or so "you're completely wrong" posts, you'll get one "i completely agree with X" post.No. I think you're completely wrong! No. I completely agree with makeshiftwings! I just need 49 more people to disagree to prove it. |
| CharlieRock09-26-06, 08:06 AM | Just off the top of my head ..... Scene: A gobbo has been stealing goats from a nearby village and has been captured by the "Hero". -------------------------------- LG: Where are the goats? Gobbo: I won't tell you! LG: Well, you won't be stealing anymore . *Drags Gobbo off to the village* Gobbo: Noooooo LN:Where did you hide the goats? Gobbo: I won't tell you! LN:You'll tell the Magistrate, when he sentences you to life in the Dungmines for stealing. *Drags Gobbo to jail* Gobbo: Noooooooo LE:Where are the goats hidden? Gobbo: I won't tell you! *SLICE* NG:Your evil goat stealing days are over! *SLICE* NG: Now, to go find the goats. TN:You are a plague to these people! *SLICE* TN: Poor goats. NE: Listen to me closely,Gobbo. If you want to live you will write a ransom note to the owner of the goats .... CG:Thief! Where are the goats you stole? Gobbo: I won't say! *Beats the gobbo and drags him to jail* CN:Thief! Where are the stolen goats? Gobbo: You'll never find them! CN: Oh, yeah *Slices off a hand* CN:Change your mind? CE:Now, DIE! *SLICE* CE: Now, to kill those goats. |
| Ut-Napishtim09-26-06, 09:02 AM | I don't think that means they should be eliminated, nor do I even think they need to be clarified. They are only there to serve as guides for characterization purposes, and just as there are more than nine kinds of personality in the world, there should be more than nine differet moral/ethical stances a character can take. Yeah, that's pretty much my thinking as well. The problems really come in when the DM tries to browbeat the players with alignment, or more rarely when a player or two lacks the ethical maturity to comprehend it (i.e. the twelve-year-old who plays a Paladin because he thinks it's a kewl character and then goes around torching villages and raping livestock). As Pandaemoni said it's pretty much up to the DM to discuss with the player before the game to make sure their on the same page with alignment restricted classes. For everyone else it's not really that important since they're aren't penalties for alignment change anymore. As a DM I don't browbeat my players about it, and my players are mature enough to understand when I warn them that torturing an NPC will shift their alignment towards evil. For more subtle "gray" areas where the PCs often have to choose the lesser (in their minds) of two evils it's best to just let it slide. Nitpicking every situation as a potential alignment hit is frustrating to players and fosters a GM vs. Players feeling in the game. :twocents: |
| Zersch09-26-06, 12:33 PM | First off, thanks for all the discussion being generated. To be honest, it's alot more than I thought I'd get out of the thread. I have been playing RPG's for over 18 years now, and throughout that time, my two mainstay games have always been D&D and Shadowrun. Shadowrun is one of the main reasons that I had originally questioned the alignment system, seeing as it has nothing of the sort. So, I do get where you are coming from, and your comments are wholly appreciated. But to as where D&D is concerned, I do use alignments, and many DM's, players, and groups do as well. I saw many threads as to why alignments should be taken out or why they are a bad idea, and a few that stated that alignments are no problem, or how to use them in a positive way. Again, the heart of this wasn't an attempt to fix alignments, but yes a clarification. Also, whether alignments are a good idea or bad is not relevant. Just attempting to see what we can do to broaden the horizons of those who do wish to use, and continue to use the alignment system. Whether WotC chooses to remove then (at some point down the line, I won't even begin to reference 4e) or not, is not the question at hand. How a DM or player chooses to handle the topic or approach alignments also isn't really what I was going for, either. I wanted some thought generated as to the core concept of alignments. They can do with the information what they choose to. There are certain classes (and even races) that are heavily reliant upon specific alignments, and I can see discussion generated about them, but I think once we have some broad, genralized answers constructed about an alignments or a group of alignments I think we can then see how that affects them. So, again thanks for all the comments on both sides of the aisle. |
| MadMan09-26-06, 03:05 PM | No. I completely agree with makeshiftwings! I just need 49 more people to disagree to prove it. :rofl: |
| Tarvok09-26-06, 10:54 PM | First off, thanks for the compliment, Zersch. I was particularly proud of that post of mine, and I'm glad a few people enjoyed it. Alignments. As I have said in other threads, I "ruminate endlessly on alignment, positive and negative material energy, the outer planes, and the relationships between the three." It's nice that people here seem to have a tolerance for exceedingly long posts. :D One thing to keep in mind is that, in D&D, Good and Evil, while they are differences of opinion, they are differences the nature of which is larger than human beings. Celestial, infernal, and abyssal beings make war over this difference in opinion, and a person's alignment indicates which of these groups he would feel most at home with. Indeed, in most cosmologies, it indicates which group he WILL be at home with, after he dies. Good vs. Evil First off, I think the PHB's explanation of these alignments, while perhaps unsatisfying to the philosophically minded, is suitable as a guide for the average player. Good implies helping people, compassion, etc. Evil implies hurting people, cruelty, etc. I think we *all* get an idea of what these mean from the descriptions, and that it is entirely possible that our debates are due more to the limitations of language. I think the things we are attempting to describe are real, it's just that our attempts to describe them... including the D&D Alignment System itself... are inadequate. Speaking of language, I think one clue as to the nature of "good" vs. the nature of "evil" lies in the fact that there are only *three* major outer-planear languages, and not four. The lower planes have two, abyssal and infernal, while the upper planes have only celestial. Further, those of us who have been playing D&D know well that the lower planes have been, and are probably always by definition, locked in a conflict known as the "Blood War." This War occurs between the denizens of The Abyss (Chaotic Evil) and the denizens of Hell (Lawful Evil). Between them is an area known as the Gray Waste, their battlefield, and home to Neutral Evil beings that play both sides against the middle. There is no equivalent in the Upper Planes. Heck, even the names of the different upper-planear domains are disputable. There is a single language: Celestial. I have heard of a thing called the "Celestial Chorus" which I got the impression is a debating society where Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic Good aligned beings mix it up eternally... but it never breaks into open conflict (thus making it so those who choose not to participate are free to their decision). Very simply put, GOOD entites do not fight over differences of opinion, wheras EVIL entities do. These debates over alignment we have occur on the Internet, however similar debates play out in the real world. By the consensus of settings for D&D, whether you are good or evil can be demonstrated by how inclined you are to go to war over the matter of Law and Chaos. So far, I haven't seen any flamewars; that is a Good sign. :) Hey, just for fun, how many of you have taken (as yourself) the alignment test in the old 3.0 Heroes Guide (or whatever it was called). What did you come out? The test considers me to be Lawful Neutral with heavy Lawful Good leanings. (Then again, the PHB lists "What is your alignment?" as an extremely rude question, so perhaps that question is a major faux pax.) I do have more thoughts on Good and Evil, but I'll save those for later. This post is long enough. |
| Jhaelen09-27-06, 02:20 PM | I have heard of a thing called the "Celestial Chorus" which I got the impression is a debating society where Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic Good aligned beings mix it up eternally...Hmm, that's the name of one of the magical groups in White Wolf's Mage - The Awakening RPG, specializing in Prime magic :) |
| Darkxarth09-27-06, 04:22 PM | Just off the top of my head ..... Scene: A gobbo has been stealing goats from a nearby village and has been captured by the "Hero". ....................... CE: Now, DIE! *SLICE* CE: Now, to kill those goats. There it is again. Blatant prejudice against the Chaotic Evil alignment. CE does not mean stupid. He might randomly kill Goblins, especially if they get in his way. But I think going out of his way to kill goats that were already stolen, it doesn't fit the profile. But firstly, we must ask ourselves why the CE being is there in the first place? If a villager asked him to rescue the goats, there's no way he would say, "Ok, can do." He's more likely to mug the villager, and leave. What he's not likely to do is wander into the village and begin randomly slaughtering villagers, or track down a single Goblin just to kill it and then find the village's goats just to kill them. It's just not going to happen. There's no reason to do it. If he just wanted to be evil, it's much more evil to allow the Goblin to continue stealing goats from the village, then to go up there, stop the Goblin, and then kill the goats. It doesn't make any sense. And, just because he's chaotic, doesn't mean he ignores common sense, that would be stupid, and Stupid Evil is a whole different alignment, right up there with Chaotic Stupid and Lawful Stupid. |
| Wolf_Boy09-27-06, 08:21 PM | I think the chaotic evil would be perfectly willing to save the goats from the goblin if it was lucrative enough to be worth his time. Also, once he found the goblin it would be in the goblins best interest to tell him where the goats were because he is in no way opposed to torture and may very well enjoy such a prospect. The goblin is not going to survive this ordeal unless of course he provides an even more lucrative counter offer than the villagers, in which case as the CE has no loyalties to the villagers and has no problem with switching sides the second it benefits him. Also if he can he will have no qualms with taking up the goblins offer then once he gets what he wants out of it, turning on him, returning the goats and collecting that bounty too. |
| Darkxarth09-27-06, 08:41 PM | I think the chaotic evil would be perfectly willing to save the goats from the goblin if it was lucrative enough to be worth his time. Also, once he found the goblin it would be in the goblins best interest to tell him where the goats were because he is in no way opposed to torture and may very well enjoy such a prospect. The goblin is not going to survive this ordeal unless of course he provides an even more lucrative counter offer than the villagers, in which case as the CE has no loyalties to the villagers and has no problem with switching sides the second it benefits him. Also if he can he will have no qualms with taking up the goblins offer then once he gets what he wants out of it, turning on him, returning the goats and collecting that bounty too. True, good point. I hadn't thought of that scenario... you make an even better point. |
| Tarvok09-27-06, 08:56 PM | RE: Chaotic Stupid You know, I am having trouble imagining a "smart" chaotic evil being. Part of the problem is that I am neither Chaotic nor Evil. The other part is that, well, when it comes right down to it, there really aren't that many "chaotic evil" characters in any given setting that don't exist primarily as hero fodder. Lawful Evil can often serve as a crafty foil, but chaotic? It's only a matter of time before they **** off more than they can chew (heh, how's that for mixed metaphors!), and get theirs. Even Edward Johnson (see "Party of the Four Alignments") is portrayed as being at least somewhat "chaotic stupid." Another part of the problem is that we're probably all looking from the perspective of a lawful society, given that we currently live in one. In a lawful society, chaotic evil IS the hardest way to survive. You're both ******* people off and leaving yourself vulnerable to prosecution. A lawful-evil is slippery enough to evade the system, while a chaotic-good might have the sympathy of lawful-good to escape punishment for their imprudence... but not chaotic evil. Perhaps in a chaotic environment, lawful evil would qualify as "lawful stupid." People *strongly* value their freedom from lawful tyrrany (this would be sort of an aboriginal or nomadic society, like the tribes that used to move about in northern asia), and so someone attempting to create an evil regime is going to be slaughtered by everyone, the chaotic goods (who really hate them), the chaotic evils (who also hate them), and even the odd lawful good fellow. The lawful good fellow, on the other hand, can count on the tolerance of chaotic good people (even if they think he's a bit of a kook). The chaotic evil person, while disliked because he's a really mean guy, could easily slip into the chaos and escape any retribution for his deeds. |
| kelvinaw27309-27-06, 09:39 PM | My take on alignments ... Lawful implies logic, predictable behaviour and self-discipline. Lawful Characters are often honourable, but do not need to be. However they tend to be organised and consistant. Chaotic implies intuitive, emotional and self-indulgent behaviour. Chaotic characters can be hopnourable but tend to do so within their own frame of referenbce rather than anyone elses. Chaotic characters tend to be disorganised and inconsistent. Good implies a sense of worth and appreciation of others. Good characters tend to be empathic to the needs of others and forgiving of their weaknesses. Good characters will tend to do things for others if they are needed, regardless of the status of the other person. Evil actually comes in two forms: One form does not care about others. Other people - their needs or wants - are irrelivent to the evil character. He might have no malice for them, but he will not help them or shed tears of their death. If it is convenient to kill them he will, otherwise he does not care. The more extreme form of evil is where the character actively wants to make people suffer. He derrives pleasure from their physical and emotional pain, and views a corpse with satisfaction. To him the lives of others are not irrlivent, they are there for his personal entertainment and pleasure. Neutral does not imply not caring. Neutral characters do care, but they care in a restrictive way. They care about their nearest and dearest, but not about people in another country. They will help their kin, but perhaps not the stranger. Given a clear choice Neutral characters favour good ones, because they are more trustworthy and easier to live next door to. |
| CharlieRock09-27-06, 10:13 PM | I always play CE characters as pure 100% evil. Like the guy on clockwork orange. Now he wasn't chaotic stupid either. But, Chaotic AND evil. :) |
| otakutaylor09-27-06, 10:27 PM | Warning: loooong post. Lawful: The means justifies the end because the means is more important than the end. Choatic: The end justifies the means because the end is more important then the means. Good: the best way to help others. Evil: the best way to help me. (sounds selfish, yes.) Neutral: whatever is fair. Lawful Good: As long as I tried to do good (means), it is ok if it's really the wrong thing to do.(end) Example: A LG paladin in control of an army sees the evil enemy army equally positioned across from his. If he attacks he'll throw the whole nation into war for years, but by letting them live he is allowing them to get away with murder, sabotoge, and other vile acts. He attacks, the good aligned thing to do, even if in the end all he did was start a war. Chaotic good: Even if it's not the nicest thing to do (means), it's ok as long as it's for the greater good. (end) Example: A CG elven ranger stealthily encounters an orc encampment, he alone could never survive of he tried to infiltraite or attack. The orcs have captured an human woman and intend to beat the information of where the elven city is out of her, and it looks like she's going to cave in soon. For the lives of all the elves in the city, he puts an arrow through her skull and runs away. Lawful evil: As long as I still tried to be evil (means), it's ok if it's actually a way to save others. (end) Example: A LE wizard has built a gigantic device, capapble of releasing a poison on the entire nation, doing so would kill millions (he wants them to die for being mean to him). Before he can activate it a group of adventurers show up and disable the device so it'll only destroy him and anyone in his tower, meaning the adventurers too. his plan is ruined, he can't achive his goal anymore, and he'll end up killing himself if he goes ahead with it instead of trying to escape and maybe managing to erect the machine again. He still pulls the switch. Chaotic evil: Even if I somehow benefit others, even my enemies, (means) it's ok as long as I get what I want. (end) Example: A CE Barbarian walks into town and finds a group of adventurers looking for a fighter type to aid them on a quest, this quest is noble and just and will benefit the lives of everyone in the town. the dungeon thye have to traverse contains a magic axe, which they offer to him if he helps. He hates this town, and everyone in it. He'd like no more than to kill each and every one of them, personally. He agrees and helps them with the quest, as long as he still gets the awesome axe at the end. Lawful Neutral: good or evil does not matter, only what they really did. Example: a professional thief sneaks into the mayors mansion in order to steal things, he find out the mayor is really a mind flayer and wants to use the town as componants for a spell. The theif kills the mind flayer, announces to the town his intent, and... the LN judge throws in him jail for murder, trespassing, and speaking freely about the mayor (which is illegal in this town.) Chaotic Neutral:his good or evil actions do not matter, only what his intent was. Example: Two men are trying to date the same woman, one of them is CN. each of them brings her flowers, candy, gifts, magical +2 longswords. Yet neither of them can get her affection away from the other. The CN man decides to kill the other, and does so. (evil) but she does not like him more because of it. he admits he was wrong and turns himself into the police(good), all for her. She still does not like him, even though he did all of it for her, it's because of what he did she can never be with him. Neutral Evil: Whichever thing is more evil i'll do it. Example: a NE man is given a two choices, to save the life to 20 people, or to save the life of a different 10 people. He goes with 10 because he's a jerk and wants the 20 to die. the choice changes to 10 or 10. this time he is in one group and his wife is in the other. He chooses to save himself. He is later given the choice to save himself for a tree. He laughs and chops down the tree himself. Neutral Good: Whichever thing is more good, i'll do it. Example: a NG guy is given the same first choice, save 20 or save 10. He saves the lives of 20 people. it changes to 10/10. He is now in one group and his wife is in the other. He chooses to save her. He is then given the choice for either him or tree to die, he still chooses himself because it is not his right to decide for another to die before him, even some random tree. True Neutral: Whichever is fair. Example: a TN guy is given the same example, 20 and 10. The choice is one or the other, the only fair thing is to choose at random. It changes to 10/10 one with him, one with his wife. The only fair thing to do is to choose at random. He is later given the chance to choose between himself and a tree. He chooses at random. If you can't guess, being 100% of any of the alignments, sound like a dumb idea. That's why a paladin can turn his cheek, an elven ranger can still try to sneak in, a powerful wizard can still run away to fight again later, and a jerk of a barbarian can still double cross his party members at the last second. oh, and remember, if you think you're not going to be dumb enough to trade your own life for some tree, remember, humans are usually neutral, not always. Sorry for long post, but I just wanted to say these and see if anyone actually agrees. If this is in the wrong place, i'll move it. |
| Darkxarth09-27-06, 11:25 PM | Warning: loooong post. Lawful: The means justifies the end because the means is more important than the end. Choatic: The end justifies the means because the end is more important then the means. Good: the best way to help others. Evil: the best way to help me. (sounds selfish, yes.) Neutral: whatever is fair. These are pretty decent statements, for summaries. Lawful Good: As long as I tried to do good (means), it is ok if it's really the wrong thing to do.(end) Example: A LG paladin in control of an army sees the evil enemy army equally positioned across from his. If he attacks he'll throw the whole nation into war for years, but by letting them live he is allowing them to get away with murder, sabotoge, and other vile acts. He attacks, the good aligned thing to do, even if in the end all he did was start a war. Hmm... I think I agree with you here. Though this brushes against the Code of Honor. Chaotic good: Even if it's not the nicest thing to do (means), it's ok as long as it's for the greater good. (end) Example: A CG elven ranger stealthily encounters an orc encampment, he alone could never survive of he tried to infiltraite or attack. The orcs have captured an human woman and intend to beat the information of where the elven city is out of her, and it looks like she's going to cave in soon. For the lives of all the elves in the city, he puts an arrow through her skull and runs away. I don't think I agree here. I believe that the CG Elf would do his best to save the woman, but, that's debatable. Lawful evil: As long as I still tried to be evil (means), it's ok if it's actually a way to save others. (end) Example: A LE wizard has built a gigantic device, capapble of releasing a poison on the entire nation, doing so would kill millions (he wants them to die for being mean to him). Before he can activate it a group of adventurers show up and disable the device so it'll only destroy him and anyone in his tower, meaning the adventurers too. his plan is ruined, he can't achive his goal anymore, and he'll end up killing himself if he goes ahead with it instead of trying to escape and maybe managing to erect the machine again. He still pulls the switch. Hmm... I don't agree at all. He's orderly, not necessarily insane. Just because he has a plan, doesn't mean he'll kill himself to complete it. Chaotic evil: Even if I somehow benefit others, even my enemies, (means) it's ok as long as I get what I want. (end) Example: A CE Barbarian walks into town and finds a group of adventurers looking for a fighter type to aid them on a quest, this quest is noble and just and will benefit the lives of everyone in the town. the dungeon thye have to traverse contains a magic axe, which they offer to him if he helps. He hates this town, and everyone in it. He'd like no more than to kill each and every one of them, personally. He agrees and helps them with the quest, as long as he still gets the awesome axe at the end. I agree here. This is much more in tune with the CE alignment. Lawful Neutral: good or evil does not matter, only what they really did. Example: a professional thief sneaks into the mayors mansion in order to steal things, he find out the mayor is really a mind flayer and wants to use the town as componants for a spell. The theif kills the mind flayer, announces to the town his intent, and... the LN judge throws in him jail for murder, trespassing, and speaking freely about the mayor (which is illegal in this town.) Maybe they put him in jail, but I think they're going to give him some reward for saving the town, even if he did have evil intentions to start with. I mean, surely they'd be grateful to him for saving the entire town from a Mind Flayer. Though, I agree they'd still be irked about the rest of it. Chaotic Neutral:his good or evil actions do not matter, only what his intent was. Example: Two men are trying to date the same woman, one of them is CN. each of them brings her flowers, candy, gifts, magical +2 longswords. Yet neither of them can get her affection away from the other. The CN man decides to kill the other, and does so. (evil) but she does not like him more because of it. he admits he was wrong and turns himself into the police(good), all for her. She still does not like him, even though he did all of it for her, it's because of what he did she can never be with him. Hmmm... this is a kind of complicated example... I'm going to leave this one alone. Not sure whether I agree or not. Neutral Evil: Whichever thing is more evil i'll do it. Example: a NE man is given a two choices, to save the life to 20 people, or to save the life of a different 10 people. He goes with 10 because he's a jerk and wants the 20 to die. the choice changes to 10 or 10. this time he is in one group and his wife is in the other. He chooses to save himself. He is later given the choice to save himself for a tree. He laughs and chops down the tree himself. Hmm... it depends. I agre with the last two. But I'll only agree with the first one if he doesn't gain ANYTHING from saving the 20 people. Self comes first, spite second. Neutral Good: Whichever thing is more good, i'll do it. Example: a NG guy is given the same first choice, save 20 or save 10. He saves the lives of 20 people. it changes to 10/10. He is now in one group and his wife is in the other. He chooses to save her. He is then given the choice for either him or tree to die, he still chooses himself because it is not his right to decide for another to die before him, even some random tree. Nope. I agree with the first two, but not the last. A random NG Commoner is not going to sacrifice himself for a regular old tree. Maybe a NG Druid, but only because they're dedicated to nature. Your average NG being knows that it can do more good alive, than sacrificing itself to save one tree. True Neutral: Whichever is fair. Example: a TN guy is given the same example, 20 and 10. The choice is one or the other, the only fair thing is to choose at random. It changes to 10/10 one with him, one with his wife. The only fair thing to do is to choose at random. He is later given the chance to choose between himself and a tree. He chooses at random. No, I don't agree. The TN person wouldn't just choose at random. He'd examine his choices carefully, and choose the option he thought was best, probably saving the group of 20. No, the True Neutral man would most likely choose himself, unless he has Good tendencies. In the last option, he chooses himself, because trees are less important than him. Not that he's egotistic, it's just that trees, ordinary trees, are non-sentient. If you can't guess, being 100% of any of the alignments, sound like a dumb idea. That's why a paladin can turn his cheek, an elven ranger can still try to sneak in, a powerful wizard can still run away to fight again later, and a jerk of a barbarian can still double cross his party members at the last second. oh, and remember, if you think you're not going to be dumb enough to trade your own life for some tree, remember, humans are usually neutral, not always. Sorry for long post, but I just wanted to say these and see if anyone actually agrees. If this is in the wrong place, i'll move it. Even though I don't agree with much of it, nothing personal of course, it still contributes to the thread and this is definitely a fine place to post it. |
| otakutaylor09-28-06, 12:11 AM | I should have stated this earlier, but If I do it kind of subtacts from the whole of the idea. The examples I tried to give at suppsed to be 100% examples. Someone who is 100% of any particular alignment and will never act differently even if it's a far far better idea in either ways (means or end) to do the other. Example: NG is normally considered 100% good, 0% evil. but you can't be 100% anything (a saint is usually considered to be 100% good) A non-fanatic NG is really more like 50% law, 50% chaos, 80% good, 20% evil. Meaning for him to decide to do the evil thing over the good thing, it'd have to be 4 times as worth it than the good thing. but choosing law or chaos it's which ever is a better idea. A non-fanatic paladin LG by contrast is about 80% law, 20% chaos, 80% good, 20% evil. This paladin could make the distinction between attacking the enemy army and staying his hand to save the nation from war. attacking his enemy for his crimes, crimes which really were evil are both lawful things and good things to do, but keeping the nation from a fruitless war is a good act that's at least 4 times the better idea than attacking. I hope I didn't just complicate it further. |
| Tarvok09-29-06, 12:08 AM | I'm not sure it's possible to be 100% of any alignment within the confines of the Prime Material Plane. It is definately so in the Outer Planes, but the aggregate of actions on the Prime are Neutral, practically by definition. The necessities of flesh force one to take "neutral" actions most of the time, and because of the mixing of good and evil, it is even difficult to avoid situations where any choice is an evil one... the challenge of the Paladin. To be "100%" anything is to court death, whether it be the just smack-down of the chaotic-evil, or the noble sacrifice of the lawful-good. And even these can fall short, particularly if the "noble sacrifice" becomes and end, rather than a means... Today, I'm going to take a further look into the nature of Good and Evil. Today's theme: the greater meanings of those words, in terms of alignment, can be deduced from the common usages of those words. Good is, well, good. There are foods that are good for you. There are good paying jobs. Some guys are just plain good at what they do. People exchange goods in the marketplace. Good, very simply put, is something beneficial. Evil is, well, evil, and there are many evils in the world. Hunger, lonliness, injustice, death... these are great evils. A man toils, and yet another eats; that is an evil. I don't know what else to say about this; we all know the situations we'd rather not find ourselves in, and things other could do to put us into these situations. The full "natives" of the Neutral plane, the Middle plane, are the animals. Most encounters between animals is going to be neutral in nature... being good for one, yet evil for another. When the wolf goes to hunt, and encounters the deer, he may get the deer. This is good for the wolf, but evil for the deer. Or, the deer may escape, and the wolf goes hungry... a perilous situation for the Wolf; good for the deer, but evil for the wolf. Even when the man goes to hunt, the balance of Good and Evil is maintained, for the flesh of men is no more valuable than the flesh of animals. The beings tending toward the Outer Planes, Men, Elves, Dwarves, Orcs, Goblins, the endless list, however, are capable of attempting genuinely Good or Evil actions. In this context, I define a Good action as an action which is beneficial for all involved parties, and an Evil action as an action which, in the long run, results in Evil for all involved parties. An example of the most basic of Good deeds is a genuine trade, in which there is no force or fraud. When men with differing talents and equal access to raw materials trade with one another, both end up in a better position than either could have been without the trade. This is why the items found at the marketplace are referred to as "Goods," for even a lesser trader leaves in a better condition than he arrived--nothing but good occurs between traders at the marketplace (traders being distinguised from confidence men and thieves... but I repeat myself). An example of a basic evil act is plain, ordinary theft. For the theft certainly harms the victim, and the theft even harms the thief! For in taking the easy path, he allows his ability to generate his own wealth to atrophy, rather than develping it further. He puts himself at risk; every time he thieves, he takes the chance that he will be caught. It is also possible that his community will get wise to the fact that things go missing whenever he is around. It is the nature of men to take vengence upon those who harm them, and so, in the end, not only is the victim in a worse position than before; so is the thief! One of the most manifestly evil acts is Murder. The harm of murder goes far beyond the victim, for his family is emotionally and economically harmed, as well. In addition, vengence is even more sure where murder is concerned. Even if the murderer manages to sow the seeds of doubt about his guilt, he may end up dead, anyway... and he'd only be the first, in that case. For his brethren will take to vengence, as well, starting a cycle of evil that can last for generations before two families ultimately bring it to an end. Then there are those who are caught in the crossfire of the feud... well, you get the idea. A killing of any kind can be no better than a neutral action, since killing is always evil for one side of the act. If, however, it is good for others, without the evils that go along with theft or murder, then it can be considered a neutral act. Vengence in a clear case of murder (Sriking down the Evil One!!!), for example, can be regarded as a neutral act, since it removes a murderer from the community before he (or even his disruptive presence) can cause any further damage. Killing for meat, as I said earlier, is also a neutral act: bad for the animal, good for the man. Any man who tries to say that killing is EVER a Good act is either mistaken, or Evil. Then there is the issue of self-destructive altruism. I believe altruistic self-destruction is also at best a neutral act; it is evil for the one doing it, but potentially good for the recepiant. Self-destructive altruism is probably only acceptable in cases where there is a choice between either the neutral altruism or an evil alternative. Certainly, those who choose altruism over evil when the choice presents itself are rightly celebrated as good men, even heroes. Those who choose altruism over genuinely constructive activities (choose Neutral over Good)... I regard such as "pretenders." BTW, for those wondering about "killing" undead, demons, and devils, understand that these things are not "alive" in the same sense you and I are. These beings are not killed... they are merely destroyed, as an object might be destroyed. I think this is the last I have to say on the subject of Good and Evil. Lacking responses, I shall move on to Law and Chaos. |
| otakutaylor09-29-06, 01:15 AM | Wow... I've never really seen someone do a really good job of describing Good and Evil, without using the context of law and chaos. Tarvok +7 Deep Thought points. I hadn't thought of the outer planes atually being 100%, That's a good point. I do have a question though, Unless i'm remembering the Races of the wild wrong, in the example "day in the life of an elf" the main character of the story (who is CG by defenition because he is an elf, but we're only looking at the good side) He walks by an orchard and plucks a fruit, Apple I think. the orchard owner, as far as I recall grows apples for all the elves, but he does so without intent to trade them. he lets his fellow elves take them as they need. This trade of good isn't quite as balanced as "I'll give you an apple in exchange for an orange" which I believe is your defenition of good. In this example I believe the orchard owner would thus be the person doing a good act, giving up something of his own to someone who needs it with no desire to gain himself. Is this good being defined with chaos? or good as opposed to neutral trade? Even trade, where both sides trade items of equal worth to each other, would be a neutral act wouldn't it? Again if I am wrong, or in the wrong place, please inform me as such. |
| coreyvw09-29-06, 01:23 AM | My point of view on the necessity of alignments in a changing 'real' world... More and more people want to do whatever feels good and that is seeping into DND alignment discussions more and more. DND for me has always been the fantasy idealistic world of Good VS Evil i.e. Starwarsian. It is a mechanic for outcomes in spell use, NPC/monster actions/reactions and most pleasingly a perameter or goal for the players to acheive when Role Playing. I've always, from the beginning seen alignment choice as how will I play this character even against my own values or judgements. That's the fun part (for me) is the true roleplaying that comes with adhering to your chosen alignment. It IS the theater. The road less traveled. It is always interesting to observe RPGers that don't grasp that doing somthing that will compremise that player's character at that critical decision making momment is ROLE playing and looking foolish or whatever is the play! Be chivalric, dare to play Lawful Good and robustly roleplay those black and white values. In response to the last post I read, I don't agree that killing is never good. War, however loathsome, is sometimes necessary. You wouldn't stand idly by as a stranger is about to end the life of an innocent. If the only way to stop it (lets say distance is the problem) you would take the shot and saving the innocent was good, or the greater good if you must. |
| ArcTan09-29-06, 01:28 AM | The thing is that this is an intellectual exercise that's been done tons of times before. I'm sure if you looked at this board's archives, 20% or more of the storage space is dedicated to threads talking about alignment. There are lots of conflicting answers, including some really elegant, really interesting ones -- personally I came to a conclusion about what Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are about a long time ago and am relatively satisfied with it. However, these threads never die, because there's *never* any single interpretation that satisfies everybody and doesn't immediately lead to a whole eruption of bickering if someone tries to push it as the way alignment works. Which means it is something that's consistently inconsistent from game to game, and something that will always cause headaches and problems if you try to confront it head-on (i.e. make alignment a big issue in your campaign -- and when people say "alignment doesn't cause headaches if you do it right", they mean "don't make it an issue"). So while I think it's an interesting intellectual exercise, I don't think it's a good core element for D&D to have. |
| Zersch09-29-06, 02:18 AM | Is this good being defined with chaos? or good as opposed to neutral trade? The orchard owner providing apples without any compensation is performing a CG act. He is looking out for the greater good of the community by providing his apples to everyone. ArcTan, let's hear what ya got in the way of ideas on alignments. Remember, I started this thread under the premise that alignments are included in the PHB, so we could examine them. Care to take your alignment ideas against my questions? Granted, they are vague and generalized, but that too was a premise of the thread. Also, I must apologize to everyone, I haven't really contributed much to the conversation, and I am working up some information on my own views of the alignments, but life gets in the way. Soon though, and again apologies. |
| journeyman77709-29-06, 03:13 AM | Warning: Huge Post Ahead I'm going to focus on NG, CN, LN, and NE for now; since few characters treat both aspects of their alignment as completely equal (a paladin is Lawful GOOD for example). NOTE: A character may certainly have a particular issue on which he acts contrary to his usual alignment (A good character who believes charity is subsiding lazyness, a blackguard who loves his family dearly, an impulsive bard who nevertheless always keeps his word, or the discipled monk who considers unpredictability the key to victory.) What is the alignment's view on oaths, bonds, promises? Good: Useful in getting people to do good things or avoid evil, but it should be understood that it's ok to break it if it would stand in the way of doing Good. Evil: Does it benefit me? If it does, I'll abide by it. If not, I'll ignore it. Law: It is the very fabric upon which society is built. Only by knowing how others will act in a given circumstance can we accurately plan for the future. Chaos: How can I know what the future holds? Keeping my word to you may not be in my best interests, it might not be in your best interests either. I'll just deal with things as they come up. What is the alignment's view on attacking innocents? Good: Never! Evil: Who cares if their innocent? I only care if they are useful to me. Law: I am just following orders. Chaos: I suppose I might....in the right situation, but in general, probably not. What is the alignment's view on providing aid or assistance to others in need? Good: Of course! As we have received, so shall we give to others that they may know the joy and fellowship of the pure in heart. Evil: Only if I can charge interest, or get some good PR out of it, or maybe if he's one of those foolish types who will willingly become my slave in return. Law: Do I owe him? If not, will he be able to pay me back at some later date? Chaos: Am I in a charitable mood? It really depends whether I feel like it at the time. What is the alignment's view on authority and laws? Good: Does the authority work toward the benefit of all? Are the laws just? Evil: What can I get out of it? What can it do to me if I don't play by the rules? Law: Authority is necessary for civilized life. Laws are necessary to ensure that authority is applied consistently. The laws were made for good reason, I will obey them unless a more important commitment requires otherwise. Chaos: I don't like being told what to do. If I obey them, it's because I wanted to do that anyway. They don't really expect us to follow every little regulation all the time, besides, it's ok as long as I don't get caught, right? What is the alignment's view on individuality? Good: All people have worth, however, some are leaders, some are followers. Evil: It's all about me. Other people can do what they want only until I say otherwise. Law: The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. An individualist is a potential threat to the system and should be converted or contained if at all possible. Chaos: I have the right to choose my own path, be my own person, and do what I think is best. To thine own self be true. What is the alignment's view on friendship? Good: To be a friend is to care for another's feelings, dreams, and general welfare. So, I am by definition a friend to all sentient beings. Evil: Either a fool who helps me for little or nothing or is leverage against my enemies. Law: Friendship is a voluntary obligation to one another entered by mutual agreement and dissolved by the same. Chaos: I became your friend because I wanted to. If I don't want to be your friend anymore, that's my choice. What is the alignment's view on being attacked with greater numbers? Good: What action will most benefit the cause of good? Evil: What action is most likely to let me live (and maybe profit) through this? Law: What is my duty? Chaos: I don't owe the rest of these guys anything, then again, I could do pretty well in all the confusion, and I can always run away later if it looks hopeless. What is the alignment's view on torture or maiming? Good: Never! Evil: Sure, the ends justify the means after all. Law: Will my honor allow it? Has he earned it? What is the accepted course of action in this situation? Chaos: I won't rule out the possibility, but it wouldn't be my first choice. What is the alignment's view on cheating? Good: To what end? Evil: Can I get away with it? Law: To win without honor is worse than losing. Still, my duties may take precedence over such a minor point. Chaos: Depends on the situation. If someone else is going to cheat, I can too. Besides, it's still a fair match of my skill against their perception. I can't help it if they aren't good enough to catch me. What is the alignment's view on lying? See above What is the alignment's view on using poisons? Good: It should be avoided if at all possible. Evil: The only things that really matter is what I can do to you and what you can do to me. I'll use whatever methods I choose. Law: It is a tool like any other. I simply use the best tool for the job. Chaos: I'll use it if I want to, who are you to tell me it's wrong? How are the gifts that they receive (feats, special abilities) best used? Good: For the benefit of others whenever possible. Evil: Only for my benefit. Law: First as my duty requires, then in a manner consistent with local regulations. Chaos: I'll use them wherever and however I want. |
| otakutaylor09-29-06, 04:43 PM | Jounreyman777, I'm not sure if this is just personal opinion, but your chaotic seems a little evil in some of those examples. That and personally I think "the end justifies the means" is chaotic, not evil. We've all seen action movies where the hero does some pretty dang evil things for the greater good. That's, as afar as I know, chaotic good following the end justifies the means. |
| journeyman77709-29-06, 05:37 PM | Jounreyman777, I'm not sure if this is just personal opinion, but your chaotic seems a little evil in some of those examples.I'm describing CN there, so a little evil at times is expected, just as a little good at other times would be. It depends more on the character's natural inclination than any grand philosophy. That and personally I think "the end justifies the means" is chaotic, not evil. We've all seen action movies where the hero does some pretty dang evil things for the greater good. That's, as afar as I know, chaotic good following the end justifies the means.No, this is D&D, "the ends justifies the means" is evil, pure and simple. While this may not match up with RL views, D&D specifically describes some acts as being evil regardles of intent (such as killing an innocent). Chaotic Good is more "I do good my way, you do good your way, and I'll oppose anyone who stands in the way of that" (oppose, not necessarily violently). I'm curious what action movies you are thinking of (judging by the movie, the Punisher would not be considered good in a D&D setting). "For the greater good" has been the rational behind everything from religious persecution, to wars, even to genecide. "The good of the many is greater then the good of the few" is more Lawful than it is good, whereas a chaotic good character would argue that you cannot compare and exchange lives as if they were coins. To use Star Trek for some character examples: LG = Spock, NG= Doctor McCoy, CG=Captain Kirk, CN=Trelane (or the Ferengi), LN=the average klingon, LE=the Borg, ect. Basically, if you can't imagine Captain Kirk or Robin Hood doing it, it probably isn't CG. Why characters do things (extreme generalization): Good: Because it will benefit others Evil: Because it will benefit me Law: Because it is something I should do. Chaos: Because it is something I want to do Mix and match those and you can get most ot the other alignments pretty easy. True Neutral is the one that is really tricky to express. |
| Jhaelen09-30-06, 04:03 AM | Warning: Huge Post Ahead:cookie: Excellently done! I definitely agree with your examples. :) I remember having written up something similar a long time ago for every alignment. I had created it for my Dark Sun campaign because characters were so frequently confronted with acts typically considered evil (that's what you get when living in a world ruled by evil sorcerer kings...). So I wanted them to have some basic guidelines on how to behave in morally ambigious situations. |
| Tarvok09-30-06, 07:09 PM | Wow... I've never really seen someone do a . Tarvok +7 Deep Thought points. Thank you. :) He walks by an orchard and plucks a fruit, Apple I think. the orchard owner, as far as I recall grows apples for all the elves, but he does so without intent to trade them. he lets his fellow elves take them as they need. This trade of good isn't quite as balanced as "I'll give you an apple in exchange for an orange" which I believe is your defenition of good. -f. At first, I misread this, and thought that the elf was taking apples without the permission of the owner. Even in this case, it is a matter where good men may differ. The question of whether a man may fully own a portion of the earth is definatly up to question, and it is entirely possible the elf doesn't recognize the "owner" as having title to each and every fruit of the land, regarding life, itself, as a free thing, However, a slower reading revealed that the orchard owner is complicit in this. In this case, his permission is probably not only good, it may well be lawful good, particularly under the Law of Moses. Under said law (this is RL, BTW), anyone and everyone is allowed to pass through any grain field, vineyard, orchard, etc., even to eat from the field, provided he does not take in harvesting tools (baskets, scythes, etc.) As to the example, the orchard owner loses very little, while a hungry elf on an unsuccessful hunt gains much. In addition, it eliminates any tensions between the elves and the humans over the issue of land ownership. The elves permit the humans to plough, plant, and harvest, provided they are allowed to take small amounts here and there, as well as to travel and to hunt. Even trade, where both sides trade items of equal worth to each other, would be a neutral act wouldn't it? In trade, two good acts have been performed. A farmer gives to a blacksmith grain, which he cannot produce as a blacksmith. The blacksmith repairs the farmer's plough, which cannot be done as a farmer. Both walk away better than they began. Good, all around. Trade is not a sum zero transaction. (Now, if one of them have goods which were acquired by evil means, this does not make the trade evil. At worst, it is neutral, if the other party is aware of the first party's nature. However, it is the original acquisition that is the evil, not the trade. This has implications that go further than you might think.) In response to the last post I read, I don't agree that killing is never good. War, however loathsome, is sometimes necessary. I believe the classic phrase is "necessary evil." It is necessary because we live on the prime material plane. An evil is committed to prevent further evil. The prevention is good, however, the death remains evil. Thus, the act is neutral, as is killing for sustenance. It is an act that is unnecessary, and therefore unheard of, in places where there are only good beings (such as the Upper Planes, or certain isolated times and places in the Prime). Killing is also rampant in places dominated by evil (such as the Lower Planes or, once again, certain isolated times and places on the Prime). Warning: Huge Post Ahead This is, in my opinion, the BEST POST IN THE THREAD. You have captured the essence of the four, and given superior examples to illustrate them. :w00t: This is an awesome thread guys, Keep it coming! |
| Man in the Funny Hat09-30-06, 07:32 PM | The question you should be asking isn't, "What are the definitions of each individual alignment?" The question to ask is, "What do you believe is the PURPOSE of alignment in the game?" |
| otakutaylor09-30-06, 10:30 PM | On the topic of the elf in the orchard, I think I realize why this particular form of trade is still good, albiet rather chaotic. In this example, I'm tempted to assume that by the fact that this elf so "carelessly" takes an apple from an orchard, he does so without hesitiation because in the society, the orchard owner is granted the same privilages. Theoreticly the owner would be just as allowed to take as he needs from the other elves, or ask in the case of uncommon commodities, (unless the item in question is being rationed do to low resources). By this I assume that although the trade seems one sided at any one juncture, all elves are entitled to take from each other as they need as long as the provide the same right to the other elves. This same example made me thing of how dwarves, as lawful good, would handle a similar event. This is pure speculation, but I would venture to guess that if a young dwarf were to wander past the mess hall (since dwarves rarely have orchards) and decide he wants something quick to eat, he could very easily just pick something small up and eat it, however if dwarven society this would likely be seen as stealing unless the dwarf makes his intent known. Dwarves are very easily bound by their word and I assume that a dwarf who walked into the mess hall, grabbed an apple, and shouted to the cook "Put this on my tab." would not only be believed that he would pay it, but in full at his earliest opportunity. This may partially explain why dwarves can rack up such high drinking bills, it's almost natural for a dwarf to make sure he pays his debt. Neutral good however, cannot believe in either extreme without really knowing the person in question. Thus the only way to be safe and fair when both parties are unsure of the others alignment, is to have a fair, open, and obvious trade of goods. A friend you've known your whole life who's proven to be lawful good about keeping his promise to pay you back tomorrow is someone a NG shop keep would easily allow. Same as knowing he could ask for any equal favor if his CG friend asked for a quick bite. Unless i'm mistaken, fair trade has evolved out of humanities natural varrying alignments. It's seen as good because, done properly, it proves both sides intent was as the other believed, good. |
| journeyman77710-01-06, 04:14 AM | :cookie: Excellently done! I definitely agree with your examples. :)My first cookie! You have my eternal gratitude.:) This is, in my opinion, the BEST POST IN THE THREAD. You have captured the essence of the four, and given superior examples to illustrate them.Thank you. That means more to me than you know. In defending the alignment system on other threads I am often told "No one can ever agree on them!" by those who who want it gone. I am gratified beyond measure that we have proved them wrong. Lest I drift too far off topic, what shall I address next? The extremes (LG, LE, CG, CE), or the ever difficult TN? |
| Roivas10-01-06, 04:44 AM | Alignment is often colored with statements of "in my opinion", or "for my character", but the answer from the PHB is simple. To paraphrase; alignment is not a striaghtjacket for a character, it is general guideline for their behaviour. A lawful good person could still commit an act of evil without any issues, people are not consistant from day to day and their alignments are just to aducate spell effects, nothing more. In the case of people who have to have a certain alignment it becomes a bit more important, but from there it all comes down to character, scenario, and GM. Three things that D&D assumes we are smart enough to puzzle out on our own, this may not be true, but it saves spending 200+ pages describing morals. You might want to come up with a diffinitive version of what it means to be good, but I've played quite a few paladins in my day, and half of them would attack the other half within a few minutes of talking with each other. Were any of them evil? No, they just had wildly different outlooks on life, this leads to conflict. Everyone is different, no two people are not on fire. |
| journeyman77710-01-06, 05:36 AM | Well said, but you kind of lost me at the end. No two people are not on fire? |
| Zersch10-01-06, 11:14 AM | Rovias, I would like to second journeyman's statement. Well said, but yes a bit confusing at the end. Alignments are a moral compass, and not straightjackets. A paladin is a culmination of everything that a particular religion is comprised of, but that doesn't mean when sitting in that infamous bar waiting for the next adventure (we've all been there...too many times) that his eye may wander over to the barmaid as she makes her round. Not every decision that an individual PC makes is swayed by their moral compass or the alignment system as it were, as it may not be 100% crucial to gameplay or affecting the direction of the game. (A good example of things not being crucial might be that there is only one outhouse in the entire city. :eek: ) But this game is about making decisions, as well thinking outside the box. That's why I like the alignment system, it gets us thinking beyond our own normal parameters to solve complex dilemmas and situations. Everybody, myself inlcluded has the "In my opinion..." within themselves, you can't get away from that, no matter how hard you try. Even here, when reading these posts, we all do. Human nature and all that jazz. Excellent catch Rovias. |
| Tarvok10-01-06, 05:00 PM | In other words, Zearsch, it is OK (even necessary, when we live on the Prime) for a Lawful Good character to committ a neutral act. He might even commit an evil and/or chaotic act, though he's likely to be bothered by it (perhaps for years) and, if a Paladin, would definatly try to atone for it. Hey, that would actually make a great concept for a Paladin to be able to stop advancing as a paladin (switching to another class, like Fighter, for a while), and yet take up Paladin again several adventures later (forbidden by core rules, but allowed in PHB2, IIUC). During the course of an adventure, the Paladin knowingly commits an evil act, believing it to be necessary, but bothered intensly by the memory of the act. Stripped of his holy powers, he switches class to something--not evil, but dark. Lacking an opportunity to properly atone, he continues adventuring, but always carries the baggage of the memory with him. (He does not suffer alignment shift, merely can't continue to be a paladin without atonment.) However, as the campaign arc reaches its climax, he discovers that he was tricked... and by whom... and a way to make the situation right again! He dives into the matter, risking everything: his wealth, his reputation, his friendships--even his very life--to right the wrong he committed. As the party gears up for the final fight with the BBEG, he suddenly finds his powers active... As to the question asked by the Man in the Furry Hat, the reason I like Alignment is because of things like what I wrote above: it provides a mechanism for the adjudication of moral magic (a staple in fantasy settings), and provides a set of limitations which make for grand adventures! Why are limitations good? Well, aren't dungeons limitations? If you could simply make a beeline to the BBEG, the game wouldn't be fun, would it? It is having to overcome obstacles, find ways around limitations provided by the environment, that is the essence of adventure. The limitations could be sparsity of clues in a mystery (requiring deductive reasoning), a variety of factions in a political game (requiring tact and craftiness), or plain old dungeon walls (requiring a good geographic mapping ability). Alignment is just one more possible set of "dungeon walls" to employ. On that note, a good DM no more designs a lose-lose moral situation than he does a dungeon maze that consists solely of dead ends, contains no treasure, and does not lead to the BBEG. However, much as a dungeon can have secret doors, he is certainly allowed to make *difficult* moral quandries. BTW, speaking of alignments... rofl (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0068.html). |
| journeyman77710-01-06, 11:53 PM | You know, this thread might good enough for the repository. Does anyone know how to apply to have it moved there? |
| dizfactor10-02-06, 04:35 AM | For the record, I think the alignment system should probably be chucked. That said, here are my definitions: Lawful: Believes in a system of laws, traditions, and customs. Feels most comfortable in a highly organized and formal environment. Believes in a centralized system of government organized according to certain explicit basic laws and principles. Chaotic: Suspicious of laws, traditions, and customs. Feels most comfortable in a loose, relaxed, and informal environment. Rejects a strong central government and a tightly-organized society. Good: Will go out of one's way to help others. Will take risks and make sacrifices for altruistic reasons. Evil: Regularly willing to hurt or kill others in pursuit of one's own goals, and or deeply involved in systematic abuse of others. -------------------- Lawful Good: Generally believes that people, when left to their own devices, will tend to be tempted towards evil behavior, and society as a whole will degenerate into cruelty and selfishness in the absence of a strong but benevolent moral authority. Therefore, seeks order in the service of good. Believes a just system of laws are necessary for the moral guidance of individuals and the common benefit of society. Believes that responsibility to society trumps concern for personal gain. Generally of the opinion that good works done by well-meaning folks in a disorganized way are ineffective, and often counterproductive, and should be left to (or at least coordinated with) professionals and agents of a recognized authority. Believes that enforcement of the law needs to be tempered with mercy and compassion. Troubled by unjust laws and governments that operate with disregard for the governed. Strives to achieve a well-ordered, just, and merciful society, where laws are commonly understood and obeyed by all in the name of the common good, but will not generally sacrifice the principles of good in so doing. Will uphold the law, but will look for the most favorable interpretation of those laws as it pertains to the interests of the people. Will sometimes invoke the "spirit of the law" for the benefit of those in need even if it technically violates the "letter of the law." As a rule, loyal and patriotic, but in extreme circumstances may rebel against the existing system in the name of a higher order or idealized form of the system (e.g. a corrupt ruler who subverts the law and encourages evil to flourish may be overthrown in the interests of restoring the principles and traditions on which the society is based) Neutral Good: Believes in working for the well-being of others. Whether that's through the establishment of a just and well-organized government or less-organized activities doesn't matter. Believes that good works can be impeded by either excessive bureaucracy or excessive disorganization, and seeks to balance the two. Believes that some people benefit from more structured situations, and others need to be free to go their own way, and is satisfied with either approach as long as they increase the overall health and happiness of the people in question. Strives to achieve a good society, where people are happy and healthy and safe, by whatever means seem most appropriate, but will not generally sacrifice the principles of good in so doing. Judges a system by its results: will oppose a system which is legal but which does not work for the good of the people, or a system which allows people freedoms which they are abusing to cause harm to others, but will support any system which seems to be working for the common betterment of the people. Chaotic Good: Generally believes that people, when left to their own devices, will tend towards good behavior, and therefore seeks freedom in the service of good. Suspicious of governments and large institutions and believes that power corrupts: a highly-structured society will start producing petty-minded bureaucrats and outright tyrants who will inevitably use and abuse their station to lord it over the little guy. Generally of the opinion that good works too often get tied up in "red tape." Believes that personal freedom and the pursuit of happiness trumps concern for tradition and the laws of governments. Believes that freedom needs to be exercised with responsibility and concern for the well-being of your fellow man, and troubled by people who abuse their gods-given freedom to hurt other people. Strives to achieve a free society, where people are allowed to to as they please as long as they harm no one, but will not generally sacrifice the principles of good in so doing. Chaotic Neutral: Resistant to the restrictions of law and government. Uncomfortable when confined by routine, the expectations of others, or tradition. May actively seek to undermine governments and large institutions, or may simply rebel almost out of habit. May occasionally act irrationally out of desire to confound others' expectations or to prove a point. May compulsively meddle with, seek to subvert, or outright defy social conventions and institutions, and most likely takes joy at seeing the great and respected figures of society taken down a few notches. May harbor some contempt for the "sheep-like" masses who cower in the face of authority, or for the "snivelling" bureaucrats who serve it, but will not go out of his or her way to either torment them or free them. May see the world as a great struggle, not between good and evil, but between freedom and tyranny. May strive to overthrow the established order, or may simply try to live as free of its interference as he or she can. If the former, it will not be out of concern for the fate of the subjects of the regime, or out of desire to conquer and replace the regime, but rather simply to watch it come down. Chaotic Evil: Does not believe in or accept the idea that anyone has any right to tell him or her what to do. Does what he or she wants, and what he or she wants to do is usually not pleasant for others. To the degree that the philosophy is articulated, generally believes that law and government are tools used to protect the weak from the strong, and that the "morality" espoused by many societies and religions is an attempt to keep the strong from achieving their full potential by burdening them with guilt. Seeks power and personal pleasure above all other goals. Will seek to indulge his or her own desires and urges, without regard for the needs of others. Will lie, cheat, steal, murder, enslave, torture, rape, etc. to their heart's content without even a shred of hesitation or remorse. Seethes with contempt for the weak and the soft, and for those "foolish" or "weak-minded" enough to champion their causes. Will often take special pleasure in cruelty and sadism. Often highly volatile emotionally. Will not willingly compromise, will not willingly accept authority except insofar as serves his or her own purposes, has no loyalties which will not be betrayed in an instant should it prove advantageous. Regards all other people as either rivals or prey, and as such finds it difficult, if not impossible, to work effectively in conjuction with others for very long, or to join any sort of organization or institution. Neutral Evil: Pursues personal desires and power with no moral restraints. Willing to work within established societal frameworks, institutions, and organizations if necessary, and equally willing to undermine and/or destroy them if that becomes more advantageous. Often sees value in nurturing alliances and friendships, and will not throw away strategically valuable relationships lightly, but loyalties are ultimately shallow and can be betrayed if necessary. Similarly, will often see value in maintaining the facade of lawful behavior so as to avoid trouble with authorities, but feels no real obligation or loyalty. Doesn't really care about the fates of either institutions or individuals in and of themselves, except insofar as they affect their own plans, and will seek their own advantage in any situation. Utterly ruthless and usually utterly pragmatic. Lawful Evil: Generally believes that people, when left to their own devices, will tend to be lazy, weak, and selfish, and society as a whole will degenerate into weakness and collapse in the absence of a strong authority. Believes in a strict, hierarchical social order which he or she feels must be maintained by the ruthless application of power. Believes that he or she best serves his or her own interests by maintaining and defending that order while simulataneously clawing his or her way to the top of the hierarchy. Believes that mercy and altruism are weaknesses which society cannot afford if it is to remain strong, especially in the face of competing civilizations and the threat of barbarism. Generally inclined towards draconian legal systems, severe punishments for offenders, and ruthless purges against "enemies of the state." Will uphold the law, but will look for the most favorable interpretation of those laws as it pertains to their own interests. Will often use the "letter of the law" to increase their own power even if it clearly violates the "spirit of the law." As a rule, loyal and patriotic, but in extreme circumstances may rebel against the existing system in the name of preserving it from destruction (e.g. may conspire to overthrow a leader whose diplomatic policies are seen as a form of appeasement which endangers the whole of the society, or whose "lax" approach to maintaining public order is seen to invite chaos in the streets, and replace that leader with someone stronger). Lawful Neutral: The great struggle is not between good and evil but between civilization and savage anarchy. Believes that law and order are the bedrock of civilization. Considers duty and responsibility to society to trump free will and the wants and needs of individuals. Believes in absolute impartiality, and will struggle to interpret the law and tradition in such a way that makes exceptions neither for mercy and compassion or for self-interest. Believes that every thing has a proper place, and will work to put everything in its place. Will seek to delegate all problems to proper and legitimate authorities, and will resist "meddling" by unsanctioned individuals or informal groups. Will not hesitate to use cruel and draconian means to enforce the law and protect civilization to the degree permissable when such is perceived to be necessary, but will not do so lightly or regularly, and will not generally see such methods as being absolute necessities under normal circumstances. May be interested in "civilizing the wilderness" through exploration and colonization, or may be interested in preserving civilization through isolation to protect against polluting influences. True Neutral: Distrusts extremes of any kind. Generally believes that order of some kind is necessary, but at the same time wary of granting any authority figure excessive power or regimenting life too closely or carefully. Sees Good as basically benevolent, but does not feel people are obligated towards altruistic behavior at their own expense and does not feel that society can realistically be made "Good," and perhaps doesn't think that it should be even if it could. Sees Evil as an inevitable, perhaps necessary, part of the world, but will not personally go out of his or her way to get what he or she wants at the direct expense of hurting or killing others. Resents the "busy-bodied moralizing" and "naive optimism" of Good, while condemning the "petty selfishness" and "pointless, short-sighted cruelty" of Evil. Resists the "stifling" and "dogmatic" nature of Law, while considering the "wild" and "unrestricted" nature of Chaos a step too far in the other direction. Generally inclined to believe that any conflict has at least two sides and that all parties involved usually share some of the blame. Believes that society is healthiest when there is room for variety, and when advocates of dogmatic points of view counterbalance each other. Will start to get uncomfortable if any one side gains too much power, and will take risks to "correct" this if they feel it is getting out of hand. Will work to shore up established authorities if civilization is sliding into barbarism, will engage in subversive or even revolutionary activity against an overbearing central authority, will work to defeat evils rampaging unchecked, and will oppose the moralists of "good" if they interfere too heavily in other people's affairs, persecute or seek to exterminate people for "evil" beliefs and practices, or seek to mandate "good" behavior in any way. Unless born into or otherwise living in an extreme situation (a brutal dictatorship, a time of great upheaval, etc.), generally inclined towards fighting in defensive conflicts to preserve the status quo, and inclined to oppose any sort of crusade to radically alter it. In victory, will oppose punitive measures against the defeated and will immediately work to ensure that their fellow victors do not avail themselves of the opportunity to entrench themselves into power, serving as voices of restraint and moderation in this as in most things. |
| journeyman77710-02-06, 03:21 PM | Wow, I'm impressed. I guess we can chuck the "if you don't like alignments, you don't understand them" argument out the window while we're at it. We definitely need to see about getting this into Redgar's Repository. I just might make this thread required reading for any new players I get. |
| Woas10-02-06, 03:46 PM | Personally I am in the "No more alignment" camp and have taken it out of my own games that I run. One of the problems I have with alignment is that the system wants to do too much at once. Alignment should be fluid - that is, a characters actions should not really be defined by the alignment written on the sheet. It is the opposite way. You roleplay the character the way you want to and based on what is presented to them as it comes up. Those situations and how the character handles them then defines the alignment. So as I mentioned a characters alignment could easily swing around (especially law/chaos axis) quite often (session to session even?). But then on the other hand alignment is meant to be this rigid structure that represent unasailable forces in the universe/planarverse/whatever. There are spells and items that work only for Lawful beings... for only Evil beings.. etc. If a character is lawful and does a couple actions that would seem chaotic what are they really? |
| journeyman77710-02-06, 03:59 PM | You roleplay the character the way you want to and based on what is presented to them as it comes up. Those situations and how the character handles them then defines the alignment.The problem with that is that you often end up reacting the way "you" would, not the way the character would. Alignment serves as a useful way to check ourselves when playing a character that has a very different worldview than we do. So as I mentioned a characters alignment could easily swing around (especially law/chaos axis) quite often (session to session even?). This is already covered. The book already notes that characters that seem to swing from one extreme to the other frequently should be considered neutral on that axis. If a character is lawful and does a couple actions that would seem chaotic what are they really?That's completely between the player and the DM. The books note several actions the are inherently evil and a few that are inherently good, but none that are inherently lawful or chaotic. Further, it never notes how many actions or of what severity can be take before your alignment changes. Only paladins need to worry about a single act affecting them, and even then it probably didn't change their actual alignment. |
| Tarvok10-03-06, 09:51 PM | If a character is lawful and does a couple actions that would seem chaotic what are they really? Human. :) (Or Elf, Dwarf, Orc, Lizardman, or other sapient species native to the Prime Material Plane...) :P Ultimately, though certain species have certain tendencies, natives of the Prime, though they tend toward an ultimate Outer Planear destination, are crafted from Neutral materials. Certainly, everyone deviates from time to time. Paladins in particular usually try *really* hard not to (since in failure, they trigger the need to atone, which isn't always pleasant), but everyone displays eccentricities. Some simply usually behave in a particular fashion because that's just how they generally are. Others actively strive to emulate the denizens of the Outer Planes in their actions. Both will occasionally behave in a manner contrary to their alignment. Both can, and often will, shift along the spectrum one way or another as they move along in life. For the record, I think the alignment system should probably be chucked. That said, here are my definitions: <snip> You certainly have a basic understanding of the alignment system, though to the "Neutral" section, I would have added that many "Neutral" beings are such simply because they do not consider rightness or wrongness very much, either because they prefer not to, or because they cannot (animals). Still, that was a phenomenal set of descriptions. From that set of descriptions, I have two possible predictions as to your objection to the system. One possibility is that you believe actual humans do not conform absolutely to those archtypes, and as such Alignment fails as a descriptive system. The other possibility is that the system is so frequently misunderstood or abused by DMs and/or players that it is more disruptive than useful. But enough of my inane prognostications. I am curious as to your specific objections to the system. In addition, what do you do with the outer planes? Do you just do away with the "epic battle of Good vs. Evil" (and it's lesser-known counterpart, the not-so-epic fraternal bickering between Law and Chaos :P ), or do you handle it differently? |
| ArcTan10-04-06, 01:34 AM | The problem with that is that you often end up reacting the way "you" would, not the way the character would. Alignment serves as a useful way to check ourselves when playing a character that has a very different worldview than we do. ...Enh. For many people, the big deal is about being a person who fights in personal combat for a living, a person who travels the world over with no close personal ties to any nation or homeland, a person whose life is put in extreme danger as a part of his basic job, a person who reveres and draws power from a literally, objectively existent deity, a person whose mind is able to cause physical changes in the world by just concentrating, a person who has a natural lifespan extending for centuries, etc. Understanding what it means to be an Elven Paladin who can prepare and cast divine spells is a much bigger stretch for me than understanding what it means to be Lawful Good. Hell, I'm not so sure that I'm not Lawful Good in real life anyway (how sure can any of us be what our own alignments are?). |
| CharlieRock10-04-06, 07:37 AM | The alignment argument ender: "Prove It." :) |
| ArcTan10-04-06, 08:10 AM | The alignment argument ender: "Prove It." :) In this case, I was making a general assertion that I don't expect to be true for everybody -- there are people who make a career out of playing characters whose primary difference from themselves is in their moral worldview (although I still think there are more *interesting* ways to describe that than the two-word alignment). That said, any argument can be ended by saying "Prove it" and then refusing to accept anything as proof. I think I've given more than enough evidence supporting my assertions about alignment on these boards -- at the very least, the number of words I've spent on the subject equals or outweighs those anyone has. There's no way you can accuse me at this point of simply asserting things and giving nothing to back them up. |
| CharlieRock10-04-06, 08:15 AM | Actually, I meant that in support of the "Is this action lawful or chaotic?" predicament. In those cases you as a player can prove it by actively role-playing it. If done well, the DM does not have a concrete list of Dos or Donts. So, the argument is useable by both sides. If the DM feels you are out of alignment he may require you to "prove" your deeds match your words by role-playing it. |
| ArcTan10-04-06, 08:43 AM | Actually, I meant that in support of the "Is this action lawful or chaotic?" predicament. In those cases you as a player can prove it by actively role-playing it. If done well, the DM does not have a concrete list of Dos or Donts. So, the argument is useable by both sides. If the DM feels you are out of alignment he may require you to "prove" your deeds match your words by role-playing it. ...That's not the "end" of an alignment argument, dude, that's the beginning of an alignment argument. The fact that saying "Prove it" doesn't actually provide any *basis* for proving it means that the player may then proceed to snowball you with a dubious but prolific torrent of words accompanying each of his actions explaining to you why despite your intuition that it's Chaotic he sees it as Lawful. Even if he doesn't go quite that far, simply telling someone he has to play a Lawful character to be Lawful doesn't actually solve any problems or end any arguments, since it may well be that his idea of Lawful genuinely differs from yours by quite a bit. |
| pres_man10-04-06, 10:00 AM | For many people, the big deal is about being a person who fights in personal combat for a living, a person who travels the world over with no close personal ties to any nation or homeland, a person whose life is put in extreme danger as a part of his basic job, a person who reveres and draws power from a literally, objectively existent deity, a person whose mind is able to cause physical changes in the world by just concentrating, a person who has a natural lifespan extending for centuries, etc. Sounds like some people want to play neutrally aligned characters. |