Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Shade_Hunter 10-20-07, 08:18 AM	Sorry if this isn't the proper forum, not exactly sure where'd it go. But I was wondering if anyone could give me character examples of all the alignments to help me understand D&D alignment a little better. All I know is Robin Hood would fit under chaotic good because he will break laws but to do good, and the Punisher is Lawful Evil (I think?) cause he believes in law and order but giving bad guys a taste of their own medicine, which means extreme violence usually. Can anyone list any other well known characters, and why they fit under that alignment.
Charles Phipps 10-20-07, 08:44 AM	I think this is a D&D General question. However, I'll try and keep my answers tied to the Forgotten Realms so this doesn't get moved. Alignment is "Gamer shorthand" and is not meant to be a descriptor of anything but one's general tendencies. Also, it moves from player character to player character as to how you want to play it. How I run it in the Realms is like this.... Lawful Good: Your typical Obi Wan Kenobi and Luke Skywalker types. They may fight against evil Empires and so on but it's only to create a new and legitimate Republic to replace them. In the Realms they're symbolized by the Triad worshippers. Honorable, Noble, and a bit of a bunch of stick in the muds about rules. Neutral Good: These kinds of Heroes are symbolized by Lathander and Chaunteau worshippers. In fiction, you've got Spiderman and the X-men whom routinely break the law or flout it in order to do good with little care about it but they're not hostile to the law. They're people committed firmly to doing good. Chaotic Good: Robin Hood is the above example of it. Also, when he's not Chaotic Neutral, Wolverine. Characters who actively resent and stick their thumbs up against the law. They have a somewhat anarchist bent that does their own thing and believes government should stay out of their way. They do, however, help people whenever they're so motivated. Han Solo is a good example. Lawful Neutral: Are types that stick to the letter of the rules and obey them. The classic character of Javart from Les Miserables, U.S. Agent from Marvel comics, and your typical government bureaucrats. Lawful Neutrals can be rebels and anti-establishment just like any other party member but they have to follow their OWN code ridiculously strictly. Oddly, depending on whether you term the Punisher as dealing equivalence to crimes or not, he'd possibly be Lawful Neutral (i.e. if he only kills murderers or people who "deserve it"). In the Forgotten Realms, Lawful Neutral characters are signified by Helm and Siamorphe. You WILL follow orders and the chain of command. You WILL serve your nobility for good or ill. Neutral: Neutral characters are those whom are more or less interested in self-gain or amoral projects. Catwoman whom is happy to steal from people as long as no one is hurt but doesn't make an effort to steal from the wicked is probably neutral. Druids of Chaunteau or Silvanus who care ONLY about nature's preservation irregardless of the harm (or help) it does to people are neutral. They don't try to hurt people but they don't go out of their way to be nice. Chaotic Neutral: Like the above Neutral characters but actively hostile to authority to an almost ridiculous degree. Wolverine at his worst is Chaotic Neutral as is Conan the Barbarian. They tear into lawmen if they come after them, don't acknowledge any authority above themselves, and tend to resent any kind of control over them. As a general rule, they don't tend to slaughter the innocent and can be moved to acts of kindness as much as savagery. I'm hard pressed for a Chaotic Neutral god. Lawful Evil are people whom insist the law should not only be followed but should in some way do so that's painful to others (and, usually, beneficial to them). Doctor Doom believes the word of Doctor Doom is absolute and anyone who disagrees should be destroyed. Ditto Lex Luthor, criminal mastermind. They tend to make structured and ordered plans that only benefit others so long as they are enslaved by it. It's your typical fascist Dictator alignment. In Forgotten Realms it's exemplified by Bane. Lawful Evil types usually make some sort of self-justification like "The world is better under me" or "Mutants are being oppressed" but tend to be hypocritical when it comes to sacrificing anything like Magneto's accusation by Wolverine "If you were really so righteous, it'd be you up there." Neutral Evil: Is the alignment of The Kingpin, The Red Skull, and folk like Emperor Palpatine. In addition to having great planning ability, they're also moved by temperament to hurt others even if it hurts their plans. They happily move from long term gain to short term satisfaction. Shar wants to destroy the world and is the goddess of all Nihilists. Mask, on the other hand, is just happy to make money no matter whose life he destroys in the process. Chaotic Evil: Is treated as the psychopath's alignment. The alignment of the Joker, rampaging Orc and Barbarian hordes out to rape or plunder, and Lolth whom is clearly utterly insane. In the Realms, Chaotic Evils are totally (or almost totally) self-interested and (usually) without any real morals. Despite what some players think, Chaotic EVils can be party members. They tend to ONLY care about the group though and anyone else is meat or money.
GothicDan 10-20-07, 05:14 PM	Tempus and Leira are the most prominent CN deities that come to mind. And I consider Palpatine LE. ;)
Charles Phipps 10-20-07, 05:33 PM	It's always a matter of interpretation. But I don't think any man that risks his own existence for the sake of corrupting a poor soul like Luke is going to be Lawful.
GothicDan 10-20-07, 05:43 PM	It all depends on how and why he chooses to do so. Wishing for one's personal survival isn't specific to any alignment; what defines the alignment is how one does it, why, and its effects. Then again, I constantly teeter back and forth between NE-LE for many character concepts and established NPCs. Szass Tam and Manshoon come to mind. Larloch, I think, is a paragon of NE.
MaskedOne 10-20-07, 07:56 PM	It's always a matter of interpretation. But I don't think any man that risks his own existence for the sake of corrupting a poor soul like Luke is going to be Lawful. Sith Lords sign their own death warrant when they take apprentices. Typically the final proof of competent apprenticeship is the apprentice killing the master to gain a promotion. However, they almost always take them. Luke's power was roughly equivalent to Vader (I'm inclined to consider Anakin slightly stronger) and not limited by being half machine, Palpatine may have considered it worth the risk to replace Vader. That or he may have decided that actively trying to kill Luke with Vader at full strength and on hand was bad for his health. I'm hesitant to think the attempt at corruption was not a calculated move. Now the sadistic kill by lightning rather than summoning Luke's saber and beheading him is another story.
The_Shaman 10-23-07, 10:18 AM	OTOH, that way master and student strive to improve their own abilities through competition. Having no apprentices would lead to stagnation for both the order and the practitioner, while having more than one may lead to an overthrowal of the strong by an alliance of the weak (which was why iirc Darth Revan made the rule that a Sith should have only one apprentice). Anyway, back to the D&D alignment thing: I tend to view lawful and chaotic as - mostly - related to the societal and individualistic tendencies. Lawful characters respect instututions - whether enshrined in laws or not - for their own worth. These institutions and customs create order that is, for them, beneficial for society. Chaotic characters are more individualistic - they can follow a law when they feel like it, but essentially they consider people the proper judges of right and wrong, and any institutions at least somewhat inflexible and inadequate. For a chaotic character, by and large, people are more important than rules - and while a lawful character might agree in principle, s/he'd note that without rules and order, you can't really do anything - whether help people or use them.
Another Gnome 10-23-07, 10:32 AM	"It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me." ~Batman Whatever their alignment, characters are never restricted in their actions by it. Alignment is in a constant state of change and reflects the sum of all the character's actions, weighted in favor of the current trend of long-term choices and motivation.
Owlperson2007 10-23-07, 06:02 PM	In the Realms, Chaotic Evils are totally (or almost totally) self-interested and (usually) without any real morals. Despite what some players think, Chaotic EVils can be party members. They tend to ONLY care about the group though and anyone else is meat or money. ...ie they don't make good player characters and having any evil PCs should be avoided at all costs. Back when I was playing in the seventies the choices were only Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic because it was assumed you'd be Good. I thought D&D was a game of heroism, not an excuse to plunder your friends for fun and profit. As for your characterisations, spot on, though. There is a good Lawful Evil villain in "Elfshadow" by Elaine Cunningham (Kymil Nimesin), though he is uncomfortably close to a colleague of mine and what he and one of his minions did to Zaor in the opening chapter resembles something that was done to one of my friends in a similar situation about ten years ago :(. I'm afraid if one of my PCs made an evil character he'd be forced at least to change it to neutral, I'm fed up of people who think playing evil people - or even being evil people - is fun :(. Not after I've had my house burned down by people who think it's fun to do harm to others, I'm afraid. "It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me." ~Batman Whatever their alignment, characters are never restricted in their actions by it. Alignment is in a constant state of change and reflects the sum of all the character's actions, weighted in favor of the current trend of long-term choices and motivation. Quite right. The challenge for someone playing Lawful Good, for example, is to be Lawful and Good without being a snotty goody-two-shoes and stuck-up prig. I sometimes identify with Batman myself; having been on both sides of the political fence sometimes the just thing to do is to stick up for the law of the land, and sometimes the just thing to do is to try and change it or even - in extreme cases which would take me a lot of soul-searching to do, as a former justice minister - ignore it and start looking for someone else to run the country...by force. :( :weep:
Charles Phipps 10-23-07, 06:08 PM	...ie they don't make good player characters and having any evil PCs should be avoided at all costs. Back when I was playing in the seventies the choices were only Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic because it was assumed you'd be Good. I thought D&D was a game of heroism, not an excuse to plunder your friends for fun and profit. I don't know, everyone loves playing the :censored:. I always liked playing characters who were greedy and didn't much care for the world but got roped into helping the PCs out because they were his only friends. But he'd kill you as soon as look at you. But yes, while I think you can play evil characters. It's better not to play EVIL evil characters. There's mountains of difference between Cyric and Mask and Cyric and Ghaundaur.
Owlperson2007 10-23-07, 08:51 PM	I don't know, everyone loves playing the :censored:. I always liked playing characters who were greedy and didn't much care for the world but got roped into helping the PCs out because they were his only friends. But he'd kill you as soon as look at you. I certainly don't and wouldn't enjoy it if someone else ran one. You probably played someone who was Chaotic Neutral there, not C-Evil: helping the party might even help redeem him. I know someone who was pretty despicable throughout his career and by the age of forty is now sitting in prison thoroughly ashamed of what he has done (he ended up falling asleep in his office with a lit cigarette and barely got out alive; he was arrested for arson because a substantial amount of petrol was found in the rest of the place but confessed to a lot more once it was established it was an accidental fire). In such a situation, working with good characters might teach him to be a bit less Evil? Dave is a lot more fun now he has come to terms with what has happened and has even managed to get a sense of humour about what happened to him when an even bigger bully started tormenting him. I do see what you mean now but still...not for me I'm afraid. But yes, while I think you can play evil characters. It's better not to play EVIL evil characters. It would be a challenge and help you get under someone's skin, I really just wanted to clarify what you thought. As someone with strong moral principles, I'm not sure I would enjoy it myself. Someone who was amoral like Dave would be fun to play, but not someone like Cyric who really ended up shafting most of his friends and got made a God for it (sorry if I seem a bit behind the times, I have only really read the Avatar trilogy and "Elfshadow" and even then it was a long time ago). I like the idea of Kelemvor before he became a God - needing to be paid even for the slightest act of kindness or he turns into a panther as the result of a curse backfiring on him. That would be an interesting challenge to play and I see now what you get out of D&D - a very intelligent and interesting game.
Charles Phipps 10-23-07, 09:35 PM	You probably played someone who was Chaotic Neutral there, not C-Evil He was a murderer and didn't care who he killed for profit or who got in his way. The character was a lot like Artemis Enteri and pretty much deserved to die, which was the irony of the character. In the end he said, dying on the battlefield. "My only regret was that you always saw something I didn't." "Idiots."
GoldDragon 10-24-07, 11:19 AM	Sorry if this isn't the proper forum, not exactly sure where'd it go. But I was wondering if anyone could give me character examples of all the alignments to help me understand D&D alignment a little better. All I know is Robin Hood would fit under chaotic good because he will break laws but to do good, and the Punisher is Lawful Evil (I think?) cause he believes in law and order but giving bad guys a taste of their own medicine, which means extreme violence usually. Can anyone list any other well known characters, and why they fit under that alignment. Well, as was stated earlier it's perception....and PC wise it is the PCs's point of view so If PC is: CHaotic Good, then the PC is interested in doing what is considered "good" in his or her heart and mind with no regard to what other people might think is "good" or "right"...especially when it involves laws or a consensues view oppsosed to the PC's perceptiion. Neutral Good, then the PC sense of right and wrong and actiondepends on the moment and even consensus rather then set laws or or personal feelings or thoughts Lawful Good, then the PC does what is told, does it the way he or she was told to do it, and is rigid in what is wrong and right based on the laws and inflexible and unimaginative and usually lacking free thought and freewill or personal opinon on what is "Good" and basically mindlessly follows and obeys the laws they live buy...especially if a Cleric or Paladin. Chaotic Neutral, then the Pc reacts on whim of the moment. Might be considered mentally incapasitated or even a Lunatic by others True Neutral, then your PC is either a animal living on instincts or tends to act on the Situation and what he or she thinks and/or feel should be done at the moment Lawful Neutral, then laws rule supreme freeing the mind from thought or care as long as there is a law to hide behind or cover his or her hieny. If there isn't a Law that covers the matter then they might petition a committee, panel, bureau or office for one or make such an agency to see into making the law Choatic Evil, then Pleasure and Action is based on selfish whim and fancy with blatent disregard to the law or other people's beliiefs or feelings or thoughts Neutral Evil, then the PC does as he or she wants for own selfish gain by whatever means neccesary though not neccesarily as wrecklessly as a Chotic Evil PC might go about things Lawful Evil, then the PC is not only Selfish but manipluative and if the laws work in his or her favor then he or she will make sure they are enforced, but if the laws go against the PC then he or she will bend or alter them to his or her best favor
Straploknight 10-27-07, 01:18 PM	Chaotic Neutral, then the Pc reacts on whim of the moment. Might be considered mentally incapasitated or even a Lunatic by others If your insane, I prefer to see CN as the ultimate survivors alignment. You place your well being above everything else. Your willing to deal with both devils and saints as long as you come out on top. IIRC correctly didn't one of the PHBs or DMGs use a party composed of every alignment and put them in a situation where they where in something like a desert with a limited supply of water? Anyways; Lawful Good - would equally ration the supply of water and would be willing to give up some or all of his water to ensure the survival of the group. Lawful Neutral - would equally ration the water between both healthy and infirm, if somebody perished would equal ration the water again. Lawful Evil, would control the ration of water and dispense it as he saw fit, but always to his advantage and not the group. Neutral Good - would agree to ration the water as long as everybody dervived some benefit, but wouldn't quibble over who got what and how much as long as everybody got some. True Neutral - Might agree to ration the water or might not as long as no particular faction would benefit entirely from doing so and as long as his needs were met. Neutral Evil - Wouldn't want to ration the water, and try and keep as much as he could for himself, nor would he be interested in aportioning some water to help the group. Chaotic Good - Would agree to ration the water and would be willing to give out a portion of his water if he thought somebody might deserve it. Chaotic Neutral - would try and take as much water as he though he would need, might give some of his water out as long as it was to his benefit. He would support whatever faction was in his best interest even to the detriment of the group. Chaotic Evil - Interested only in his survival and would take whatever water he thought would be needed as well as the water of those he thought could not keep it. Would not give out water to help the group since that would be a detriment to his survival.
Charles Phipps 10-27-07, 02:20 PM	The biggest thing a PC might also remember is that alignment is shorthand. It's easy to say "Drizzt Do'Urden is Chaotic Good" but it might be more accurate to say... "Drizzt Do'Urden is a traumatized survivor of a bizarre society with a nebulous grasp on surface morality that he does his best to act only on with careful forethought. This can result in his activities being seemingly random in what he agrees to since he follows his heart. Overall, he is motivated by his strong friendships and loyalty." Also, almost everyone has exceptions. It's entirely possible to have a Chaotic Evil monster who will selflessly die for a specific person or thing but overall is still Chaotic Evil.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 10-27-07, 09:18 PM	Well, as was stated earlier it's perception....and PC wise it is the PCs's point of view so If PC is: Lawful Good, then the PC does what is told, does it the way he or she was told to do it, and is rigid in what is wrong and right based on the laws and inflexible and unimaginative and usually lacking free thought and freewill or personal opinon on what is "Good" and basically mindlessly follows and obeys the laws they live buy...especially if a Cleric or Paladin. That sounds like a pretty biased (and wrong) definition to me.
Straploknight 10-27-07, 10:11 PM	When I think LG, I think Superman. IMO, LG folk tend to think in terms of the group rather than themselves and temper thier actions so that they are in the best interest of the group, this can be good or bad of course given the scope in which the character thinks. If a LG person has a problem with a rule or an order, I think they are just as likely to break that rule or order as the CN guy provided it was for the greater good (why take the peasents last copper for taxes if the peasent will starve or why gun down people who are simply looting food and water to survive even though there might be an edict agaisnt all looting).
Charles Phipps 10-27-07, 10:12 PM	I loved one definition. "The best rules are flexible enough that their spirit never needs be violated. Those who can't follow the spirit of the rules, though, are beneath contempt." And I don't think the group is necessarily always the case either. A Paladin would defend a child from a Lynch Mob even if he had to kill 19-20 people to do it.
Straploknight 10-30-07, 01:36 AM	Well I say, group, but there are always special cases. I should have said perhaps in a very broad sense.