Post/Author/DateTime	Post
2E Ranger 10-12-05, 09:21 PM	I need some help. Another player and I were just discussing alignments. We were trying to come up with some famous characters to represent each....but their was some disagreement. So, help me out. Here's a list of the characters we were discussing. Post what you think their alignment would be, why, and...if you don't see an alignment represented (and you have a paragon in mind) post an exemplar. - name, (source) Iago, (Othello) Othello, (Othello) MacBeth, (MacBeth) Lady MacBeth, (MacBeth) Hamlet, (Hamlet) Gertrude, (Hamlet) Marcellus Wallace, (Pulp Fiction) Mr. White, (Resevoir Dogs) Zed, (Pulp Fiction) Butch, (Pulp Fiction) Hartigan, (Sin City) Marv, (Sin City) Gayle, (Sin City) Senator Rourke, (Sin City) Porter, (Payback) Now...I know for a FACT that a lot of alignments aren't represented here....But that's just the problem. I can't think of anyone from (well known) film/literature that represents, say, TN. Help me out!
JD 10-12-05, 09:26 PM	There's already a topic addressing this over in the WAPTD section of the forums (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=515243&page=1&pp=50). A lot of your examples have been aligned there.
2E Ranger 10-12-05, 09:43 PM	Ok. Having read that thread, another question comes to mind. Would it be reasonable to look at alignment as being made up of two components? I'm thinking it would be a moral component on one axis, and a social component on the other. Good and evil are pretty well understood, so the moral axis, I think, is cake. The social axis though....can we look at that as being a measure of how well we get along with others / a society? I mean, an evil cult seems to me like its members could be LE....Thoughts?
JD 10-12-05, 10:03 PM	That's pretty much exactly how I think of alignments (I actually see it as a 3x3 grid, but then I play a lot of Su Doku, so I think it's fair to say that I have 3x3 grids on the brain). The lawful-chaotic axis tends to be how readily you follow a certain code of conduct, whether it be a set of written laws, some internal moral code, or something else entirely. In general, the actions of an intensely lawful character can be predicted by closely analysing their code, something that villains like to spend their spare time doing. I think that your idea of relations with a society is a good one as long as it is not followed too closely. By and large, the 'best' societies are lawful, but lawful can be taken too far, as with totalitarian regimes (in D&D this would be everyone walking around with their own personal Inevitable, and be classed as Lawful Evil). Chaotic societies can have laws, but they're often loosely or erratically enforced. Um. I've rambled a lot here, which probably has something to do with the fact that it's 3am and I've had a load of Calpol. Hope this helps.
fatal error 10-12-05, 10:08 PM	Well, how do you look at lawful? Do you think of lawful as following the laws, or as adhering to a personal code? If the latter, why are barbarians, who's cliche has long been a strong personal sense of honor, always chaotic? Does chaotic mean extremist defiance of any attempts by another to express his code of ethics and morals upon another, or simply a refusal to adhere to such attempts? Is evil defined by action or intent? Is self-preservation over self-sacrifice inherently evil or just neutral? Also, while looking up some M:TG card names for my game, I found an interesting series of articles on the philosophies behind the five colors of magic: the gathering, on the official site. Judging from these articles, White represents lawful and good, while red opposes it with chaos and black with evil. However, the articles examples are interesting in that they (I feel) show the flaws of D&D's alignment system. EDIT< I find that paladins are one of the biggest problems with the D&D alignment system, because, unlike most other classes, the paladin changes the way the alignment system is from catagorization by the DM's tastes to a strict rule where player-dm conflicts can come in. If paladins didn't have to be lawful good and not party with evil characters then players would not have arguments with their dm over what defines lawful good and evil.>EDIT
2E Ranger 10-12-05, 10:10 PM	So, can we look at Law and Chaos as being measures of predictablity...in game terms. I know that makes dictionary sense, but do people think it works with the game mechanics?
JD 10-13-05, 07:14 AM	Do you think of lawful as following the laws, or as adhering to a personal code? It's a combination of both, really. Discipline is important as well. If the latter, why are barbarians, who's cliche has long been a strong personal sense of honor, always chaotic? Always non-lawful, I think you mean. This has a couple of reasons, and because it interests me, I'm going to discuss them. As I've mentioned previously, large societies tend to be lawful out of necessity. Having an advanced but chaotic society is a very precarious endeavour, and often prompts a regime change. Barbarians are not, by and large, city slickers. They are usually either nomads or inhabitants of small, primitive villages. They tend to have little respect for legitimate authority, instead trusting their own judgement. However, the much more pertinent reason is the way a barbarian fights. The barbarian's rage is one of the most chaotic styles of fighting in the PHB (only the Frenzied Berserker PrC from CW takes it further), sacrificing defense in favour of a series of immensely powerful blows. A barbarian who becomes lawful becomes far more cautious and reasoned in combat, and therefore loses the ability to rage. Does chaotic mean extremist defiance of any attempts by another to express his code of ethics and morals upon another, or simply a refusal to adhere to such attempts? I think there's room for both in the alignment, as well as room for those who will let their behaviour be dictated (though they won't be happy about it). Is evil defined by action or intent? I'd say intent, definitely. Our party was suckered by the BBEG into finding a tremendously powerful magic item for him. While the end result (giving the enemy much more power) was evil, our intentions were good. Is self-preservation over self-sacrifice inherently evil or just neutral? I would say neutral. Let's take a very minor example, one that most of us have probably encountered at one time or another. On your way home from the pub one evening, you see a man being attacked in an alleyway. Reasoning that it's none of your business, you turn your collar up and walk on home. Now, that certainly isn't a good act, but I'd be hard pushed to accept it as evil. Also, while looking up some M:TG card names for my game, I found an interesting series of articles on the philosophies behind the five colors of magic: the gathering, on the official site. Judging from these articles, White represents lawful and good, while red opposes it with chaos and black with evil. However, the articles examples are interesting in that they (I feel) show the flaws of D&D's alignment system. Hmm, I'll have to look out for those. I find that paladins are one of the biggest problems with the D&D alignment system... I agree. The D&D alignment system is a very loose collection of, well, not even rules but guidelines. Defining exactly what they are (which is crucial when a paladin strays close to falling) is next to impossible. The paladin's code seeks to redress some of this, but it's far from foolproof. The paladin has been abused a lot, either through players or DMs who think that they should be Lawful Stupid, or through sadistic DMs who are determined to see a paladin fall. The only advice I can give to anyone playing a paladin is to check out the paladin's code (or make up an appropriate one) and make sure that both they and their DM know and understand it. A well-played paladin can be an absolute joy; the one in my group has become a folk hero after sinking most of his money into the redevelopment of an impovershed village. So, can we look at Law and Chaos as being measures of predictablity...in game terms. I know that makes dictionary sense, but do people think it works with the game mechanics? To a certain extent, yes. However, it's important not to pigeonhole the alignments as one particular thing. They're an eclectic mix of traits, that sometimes seem to contradict each other. I'd strongly suggest reading the descriptions of law vs chaos (http://d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#lawVsChaos) in the SRD or PHB. It's also important to realise that characters may act outside of their normal alignments if adverse conditions restrict their actions. This should not be cause for an instant alignment change or (apart from in extreme cases) a full-blown fall for a paladin. It is when the restrictions are removed that you see the true measure of a character... though when the restrictions are in place you can often see how devoted certain players are to their philosophy. :D
Leap_UK 10-13-05, 07:46 AM	I use law vrs chaos as social alignment....with Lawful is the alignment of industrious, literate (typically prose) divided-specialist-labour culture where latitude is lost in deference to reliability. Chaotic conversely is the alignment of relaxed, pictorial (or at least poetic/allusory) generalist culture where latitude is valued over reliability. Lawfuls criticise chaotics as work-shy, loose, sloppy and corrupt (nepotism is not a sin to chaotics, its normal). Chaotics see lawfuls as enslaved, uptight, strict and robotic. The good v evil bit is mostly about despair. Good is about joi d'vive, vibrance, hope, shared joy, friendship - so it is very easy for a CG, sick of being bullied by govt, can turn CE as they despair of the power of the state. Evil then is about sneering despair and degradation. Think f cynical sneering raistlin with no warmth to his laughter - a good example of Evil. Well thats my 2p worth :D Oh and a couple of examples on the literacy bit: Chaotic classes: Barbarian (Illiterate), Sorceror (not spell booky), Bard (poetry over prose) Lawful classes: Wizard (spell booky), Paladin (codified behaviour), Cleric (prayer books)
Kragg Bonemeal 10-13-05, 08:57 AM	Law vs Chaos. Lawful at its purest form is total, enforced communism... the Star Trek mentality. Everything done is done only for the good of the whole community. You do something, not because it is good for you, and you don't NOT do something because it hurts you, the evaluation is whether or not it benefits the group. Think "Formians", those extraplanar ant creatures, that are Lawful Neutral. They don't kill you for fun or to stop you from doing evil... they kill you to feed their young so they can turn the whole world into a big colony. Very lawful. In Forgotten Realms, the church of Bane is Lawful Evil. They want to oppress everyone under the strict tenure of their religion and their god. Chaos is all about ME. Egocentric libertarianism. You do your thing, I'll do mine, as long as you don't bother me I won't bother you... dude. Puff, puff, pass, man. :) Barbarians believe in the "right of might". Who leads the tribe? The strongest? What's that you say... the smartest? No... cuz meat head over there will just knock him down and lead everyone away. Drow are chaotic evil. They have "laws" and "rules"... like "don't get caught". :) They are encouraged to scheme and betray as long as the outcome is a favorable result for them. Uh... I didn't post anything about Good, did I? Ok... Lawful Good are those people in the Red Cross that have a structured heirarchy and command structure to organize massive movements to help victims. Chaotic Good is the guy down the road that sees people on TV starving, says "Screw this!", loads his pickup full of food and blankets and tries to drive down there to help because he knows he can find someone in need and help. Forget the cops, blockades, etc.... he is going to help someone that is being overlooked because of the darn bureaucrats taking too long.
JD 10-13-05, 09:21 AM	Oh and a couple of examples on the literacy bit: Chaotic classes: Barbarian (Illiterate), Sorceror (not spell booky), Bard (poetry over prose) Lawful classes: Wizard (spell booky), Paladin (codified behaviour), Cleric (prayer books) I see what you're getting at here, but I think you're in danger of oversimplifying things a little. While the disdain of a chaotic character or the respect of a lawful character towards things written down may be an expression of their alignment, there's nothing to prevent a bookish character from being chaotic (my CN bard is a keen reader, actually) or a lawful character being distrustful of words (he's adventuring with a LN druid who believes that written laws stunt the development of one's conscience). In addition, the cleric, sorceror and wizard have no alignment restrictions (though the examples you've posted are popular choices for them). It's also up for debate about how bookish the always-lawful monks are. ;) While a character's reaction towards rules and traditions can be a good litmus test of their law-chaos alignment, boiling it down to something as simple as literacy is a dangerously slippery slope down towards "lawful is smart and chaotic is dumb".
Leap_UK 10-13-05, 10:02 AM	I see what you're getting at here, but I think you're in danger of oversimplifying things a little. While the disdain of a chaotic character or the respect of a lawful character towards things written down may be an expression of their alignment, there's nothing to prevent a bookish character from being chaotic (my CN bard is a keen reader, actually) or a lawful character being distrustful of words (he's adventuring with a LN druid who believes that written laws stunt the development of one's conscience). In addition, the cleric, sorceror and wizard have no alignment restrictions (though the examples you've posted are popular choices for them). It's also up for debate about how bookish the always-lawful monks are. ;) While a character's reaction towards rules and traditions can be a good litmus test of their law-chaos alignment, boiling it down to something as simple as literacy is a dangerously slippery slope down towards "lawful is smart and chaotic is dumb". Whilst there are no alignment restrictions as regards cleric, sorcerer and wizzy there ARE alignment preferences and it is those I was refering to (and the alignments describe cultures - and its more prose literacy as opposed to pictorial/symbolic/allusion/poetry that is the destinction....although lawfuls will often see literacy as a good thing in itself (even if its a good thing that should be only in the hands of the "few") whilst chaotics are not attracted to the solidity of writing things down..... Oh gods I apologise for that sentence!!!! :) And....as my own preference is for Chaotic I am hardly saying chaos=dumb.....it is more that the specialised and highly literate culture of a lawful society will reach further than a chaotic one in terms of "achievement".... Chaotics would rather lay back and party :)
JD 10-13-05, 11:11 AM	A lot of the time, yes, but I can think of situations where chaotic characters would be the proactive ones and lawful characters would retreat saying they needed more time to plan... ...but now we're getting into specific character traits that can, honestly, be shown by any alignment. Alignments are supposed to be vague: on average, each one covers one-ninth of all the characters ever dreamed up (I would be interested in a most popular alignments survey, though), and that's one hell of a lot of ground. Nailing them down with certainties is a futile task; instead we try herding them with concepts. Ugh. Cough medicine makes me poetic.
2E Ranger 10-13-05, 04:31 PM	So, I was thinking about this in terms of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance....and its sequel...and I came up with this. Lawful = Static Chaotic = Dynamic Now, those books claim (correctly) that one can't exist without the other. Static society depends on dynamic change for improvements. Dynamic change depends on static society to codify those imrpovements...as an example. So, if your DM is hassling you about acting out of alignment, point this out. Also, on further reflection and the reading of the posts, I think that the Lawful/Chaotic axis should be broken into two subgroups...One subgroup should be about the characters attitude about working with others and their dependability to that group. The second, and I feel that this is only made necessary by the Monk's alignment restrictions, is their dedication to their craft/skill. Let's assume that the second subgroup wasn't there...just for fun...this would be the alignment table broken into blurbs. LG - "How can we make the world a better place?" LN - "How can we keep things running smoothly?" LE - "How can we gain?" NG - "What needs done to make the world a better place?" TN - "What needs done to keep things running smoothly?" NE - "What can be gained?" CG - "How can I make the world a better place?" CN - "How can I keep things running smoothly?" CE - "How can I gain?" Those neutral ones gave me some trouble, and I'm not happy with them. Anyway, I've decided during the course of this that I'm scrapping the Monk's alignment requirement.
JD 10-13-05, 05:30 PM	I believe the lawful requirement for monks is supposed to reflect the high level of discipline required to train as one. It's something that fits the flavour of the kind of abilities that the monk gains at eleventh level and above, but it also serves to make the class flavour even more restrictive (there's a topic somewhere on the forum about just that). I have to say, I can't blame you for scrapping it.
Leap_UK 10-14-05, 04:34 AM	A lot of the time, yes, but I can think of situations where chaotic characters would be the proactive ones and lawful characters would retreat saying they needed more time to plan... ...but now we're getting into specific character traits that can, honestly, be shown by any alignment. Alignments are supposed to be vague: on average, each one covers one-ninth of all the characters ever dreamed up (I would be interested in a most popular alignments survey, though), and that's one hell of a lot of ground. Nailing them down with certainties is a futile task; instead we try herding them with concepts. Ugh. Cough medicine makes me poetic. Which is why I kept my original post a bit vague :) The concepts work as general views of types of society and people - typically. That does not exclude occasional acts of industriousness for chaotics, for example, but as a rule they will not be anyway near as interested in such as lawfuls would.
2E Ranger 10-14-05, 04:48 AM	Do you guys think there is anything to my last post? I mean, is Lawfulness a measure of reliability and the willingness to work with others? Am I barking up the wrong tree? I know the game defines it differently, but I think the SRD actually defines it two ways...the whole inclusion of "discipline" really throws things off. When I think Chaotic, I think elves. When I think elves, I think individualists. When I think Lawful, I think dwarves. When I think dwarves, I think clans. Anyway, just some thoughts
Leap_UK 10-14-05, 05:04 AM	Do you guys think there is anything to my last post? I mean, is Lawfulness a measure of reliability and the willingness to work with others? Am I barking up the wrong tree? I know the game defines it differently, but I think the SRD actually defines it two ways...the whole inclusion of "discipline" really throws things off. The lawfuls are definately more willing to work together - it is a lawful thing to want betterment and working together gives more power for this (division of labour and economy of scale). When I think Chaotic, I think elves. When I think elves, I think individualists. When I think Lawful, I think dwarves. When I think dwarves, I think clans. Anyway, just some thoughts That works. But elves can work together they just are more suited to improv working together (with no set organisational routine in the way lawfuls have).
Cantankerous 10-14-05, 08:42 AM	Do you guys think there is anything to my last post? I mean, is Lawfulness a measure of reliability and the willingness to work with others? Am I barking up the wrong tree? I know the game defines it differently, but I think the SRD actually defines it two ways...the whole inclusion of "discipline" really throws things off. When I think Chaotic, I think elves. When I think elves, I think individualists. When I think Lawful, I think dwarves. When I think dwarves, I think clans. Anyway, just some thoughts Law and Chaos do have those differing ideals within them, but they are far from definative by themselves. Reliability is far from all of Law. It is a facet of Law. So is Honor. So is judgementalism. Over focus on any single aspect or facet skews the picture. Likewise, Chaos is not merely Individualism. It is not merely the Dynamic idea. As a philosophical ideal it holds all dicotomies. It's very Flexibility is a type of stasis, for instance. A Chaotic can be utterly honorable personally and yet totally oppossed to the idea of Honor... that is the true Chaotic dicotomy. The true Chaotic could be personally honest at all times (and thus reliable) while holding it as a vital component of life that everyone (himself included) MAY LIE if it suits their needs. Really, if there is a truism about Law and Chaos that really divides them, it is the group first ideology of Law that Chaos disavows. Law tries to level the playing field philogicly, this is why Order becomes such an intrinsic part of what Law represents. Chaos differs here entirely. The Chaotic individual might be as SELF disciplined as any LN Monk, but they wouldn't want that level of discipline required and would probably rebel against it if it was. This is why elves (as Tolkein presented them, which is where D&D gets 90+% of it's Elven ideal) are the perfect representatives of the Chaotic (good) ideal. They are often honorable, often very family or society (even Clan) oriented, very often honest to a fault... but always as individuals. The elf who isn't might be distrusted by his bretheren, but they'd also recognise his right to be so. The dwarf who pulled that though would quickly find himself an outcast. Isshia Isshia
pwatson1974 10-14-05, 12:46 PM	Well my simplistic take is: Lawful cares more for the many than the few. If they have to imprison some innocent people to ensure the town is safe, well, that's regrettable but necessary. Chaos is about individual rights, the rights of the few trump the safety of the many. They dislike being told what to do. They might do it, but only because they think its the right thing to do. Good cares about other people more than themselves. They tend to make sacrifices for others simply because its the right thing to do, rather than for a reward. Evil is about the self. It's me, me, me and if I have to kill that old widow there to get what I deserve, well, so what? Neutral has two elements, either not strongly following the opposing alignments (which is by far the most common one, especially with the partially neutral alignments), or actively trying to balance the alignments, which tends to be the preserve of the dedicated true neutral. That's my overly simplistic take on alignment components. Hope it makes sense.
FriendoftheDork 10-14-05, 01:59 PM	Ugh... this is exactly why I'm removing aligments Isshia... You may have made up your mind, but alot of others are still confused, and this may not be as clear-cut as you make it up to be. As for the characters mentioned, most of them can be any and all alignments, depending on their lifes we do not know about and the lack of clearly defined alignment in this game. Let's take Butch from Pulp Fiction.... yeah he may seem chaotic neutral, but he could also be chaotic evil for that matter or good, as all we see in the movie of the character is within a short time periods + the gold whatch sequence. yes we can define what each act is, but that is all.
Unknowable 10-14-05, 02:04 PM	Well, how do you look at lawful? Do you think of lawful as following the laws, or as adhering to a personal code? Adherring to societal structure is how I would define a Lawful character. If the latter, why are barbarians, who's cliche has long been a strong personal sense of honor, always chaotic? Barbarians live in small loosely structured tribal societies that exist mostly on the level of survival. As the structure is very loose and constantly changing, there are few societal norms. A strong personal sense of honor might be common among Barbarians but it is likely not based upon anything having to do with human society and is often likely to directly conflict with it. Does chaotic mean extremist defiance of any attempts by another to express his code of ethics and morals upon another, or simply a refusal to adhere to such attempts? A chaotic character doesn't even need to refuse to adhere, they just don't adhere. Either by conscious refusal, by disregarding, or even by simply being oblivious. It's defined by action and need not be intellectualized. Is evil defined by action or intent? Intent. Is self-preservation over self-sacrifice inherently evil or just neutral? Neutral. Killing someone for reasons other than survival is evil. Also, while looking up some M:TG card names for my game, I found an interesting series of articles on the philosophies behind the five colors of magic: the gathering, on the official site. Judging from these articles, White represents lawful and good, while red opposes it with chaos and black with evil. However, the articles examples are interesting in that they (I feel) show the flaws of D&D's alignment system. I have no idea what you are talking about. EDIT< I find that paladins are one of the biggest problems with the D&D alignment system, because, unlike most other classes, the paladin changes the way the alignment system is from catagorization by the DM's tastes to a strict rule where player-dm conflicts can come in. I don't see how. Could you expand on what you mean by this? If paladins didn't have to be lawful good and not party with evil characters then players would not have arguments with their dm over what defines lawful good and evil.>EDIT I can't see why a DM would allow evil characters into his group. I don't allow evil PCs and haven't in over a decade.
Unknowable 10-14-05, 02:14 PM	Law vs Chaos. Lawful at its purest form is total, enforced communism... the Star Trek mentality. Everything done is done only for the good of the whole community. You do something, not because it is good for you, and you don't NOT do something because it hurts you, the evaluation is whether or not it benefits the group. Think "Formians", those extraplanar ant creatures, that are Lawful Neutral. They don't kill you for fun or to stop you from doing evil... they kill you to feed their young so they can turn the whole world into a big colony. Very lawful. In Forgotten Realms, the church of Bane is Lawful Evil. They want to oppress everyone under the strict tenure of their religion and their god. Chaos is all about ME. Egocentric libertarianism. You do your thing, I'll do mine, as long as you don't bother me I won't bother you... dude. Puff, puff, pass, man. :) Barbarians believe in the "right of might". Who leads the tribe? The strongest? What's that you say... the smartest? No... cuz meat head over there will just knock him down and lead everyone away. Drow are chaotic evil. They have "laws" and "rules"... like "don't get caught". :) They are encouraged to scheme and betray as long as the outcome is a favorable result for them. Uh... I didn't post anything about Good, did I? Ok... Lawful Good are those people in the Red Cross that have a structured heirarchy and command structure to organize massive movements to help victims. Chaotic Good is the guy down the road that sees people on TV starving, says "Screw this!", loads his pickup full of food and blankets and tries to drive down there to help because he knows he can find someone in need and help. Forget the cops, blockades, etc.... he is going to help someone that is being overlooked because of the darn bureaucrats taking too long.I really like these explainations of the alignments. I don't agree in the scrictest sense but I do very much so in a looser sense.
jokem 10-14-05, 02:28 PM	I really like these explainations of the alignments. I don't agree in the scrictest sense but I do very much so in a looser sense. According to the books, Chaos is based upon personal relationships, Law is based upon a code of Ethics. A Chaotic might be loyal to his friends, but a Lawful would be loyal to a code of ethics. I tend to think of a True Neutral like a merchant. He obeys the laws of the society where he goes to trade goods because it is in his interest, it is also in his interest not to cheat a member of a chaotic community as it would tend to make him unwelcome there once word got out. He also might help someone who is in trouble that he finds on a trade route, but probably will not go out of his way to do that.
Unknowable 10-14-05, 03:06 PM	Well my simplistic take is: Lawful cares more for the many than the few. If they have to imprison some innocent people to ensure the town is safe, well, that's regrettable but necessary. Chaos is about individual rights, the rights of the few trump the safety of the many. They dislike being told what to do. They might do it, but only because they think its the right thing to do. Good cares about other people more than themselves. They tend to make sacrifices for others simply because its the right thing to do, rather than for a reward. Evil is about the self. It's me, me, me and if I have to kill that old widow there to get what I deserve, well, so what? Neutral has two elements, either not strongly following the opposing alignments (which is by far the most common one, especially with the partially neutral alignments), or actively trying to balance the alignments, which tends to be the preserve of the dedicated true neutral. That's my overly simplistic take on alignment components. Hope it makes sense. This is pretty much the basis on which I use alignments in my game.
Unknowable 10-14-05, 03:17 PM	Ugh... this is exactly why I'm removing aligments Isshia... You may have made up your mind, but alot of others are still confused, and this may not be as clear-cut as you make it up to be. As for the characters mentioned, most of them can be any and all alignments, depending on their lifes we do not know about and the lack of clearly defined alignment in this game. Let's take Butch from Pulp Fiction.... yeah he may seem chaotic neutral, but he could also be chaotic evil for that matter or good, as all we see in the movie of the character is within a short time periods + the gold whatch sequence. yes we can define what each act is, but that is all. I have my players reframe from assigning there character an alignment until the third level.
FriendoftheDork 10-15-05, 11:37 AM	I have my players reframe from assigning there character an alignment until the third level. Ok... but if the players can play their characters well before 3rd level, why add alignment to the game at that point? And what do you do with paladins until 3rd level? They still have to ACT LG right?
SneakyPetey 10-15-05, 12:38 PM	Now...I know for a FACT that a lot of alignments aren't represented here....But that's just the problem. I can't think of anyone from (well known) film/literature that represents, say, TN. What about the Watchers from Marvel Comics? :)
2E Ranger 10-18-05, 03:59 AM	So, I was obsessing a little bit more over this, and I came up with a new set of over-simplifications...I know this is the last thing we need...but here it is anyway LG - Axiomatic Mercy LN - Absolute Justice LE - Convenient Justice NG - Conditional Vigilante TN - Circumstantial Morality NE - Inhibited Megalomania CG - Unconditional Righteousness CN - Unpredictable Apathy CE - Uninhibited Malevolence
Cantankerous 10-18-05, 04:44 AM	As catch phrases, LG = "axiomatic mercy" seems about right. But LN and (especially) LE seems a bit off. Law and Justice don't have the same meanings or even a direct relationship when you are talking Lawful Alignment. It can, but certainly doesn't need to. LN is all about order and reguularity and OBEYING such laws as are in place, irregardless if they have any semblence of Justice to them or not. LE doesn't give a flying fig in a hurricane about Justice. Whether it's convenient or not is irrelevant. LE is almost entirely about CONTROL, and Justice is just another word that the weak use to try to manipulate the system, instead of by force or guile, as the LE person does it. NG isn't about Vigilantism. It is ALL about Good, without consideration to Law or Chaos Neutral seems pretty good. Circumstantial Morality (and ethics) seems to pretty well sum up MOST Ture Neutrals. Of course, there are those few who are all about Balance as a means and an ends of it's own though too. Don't forget them. Neutral Evil could be right, with some, but usually it seems that Neutral Evil is just the diametirc opposite of Neutral Good. It is evil unchained. It cares nothing for anything BUT evil. Righteousness is a term far better applied to Law. Righteousness is : n : adhering to moral principles . Chaotics don't adhere well to anything (unless you use ALOT of super glue) so, the term isn't quite fitting. We might actually get a better fit for LG by calling it Axiomatic Righteousness, since LG is not ALWAYS merciful, but almost by definition, it is Righteous. For CN, just "unpredicable" works better than unpredictable apathy, as a CN can (and often is) utterly dynamic in their unpredictability, showing no more signs of apathy about anything than any other Alignment does. Uninhibited AND Unabridged Malevolence I'll go for. Isshia
2E Ranger 10-18-05, 05:58 AM	Maybe some revisions, and some explanations/questions... LG - Axiomatic Righteousness - You convinced me. It's better this way LN - Absolute Adherence - I was kind of trying to drive at this with my last definition, but your comments led to this refinement. LE - Contractually Coercive? (I've taken to alliteration and poor spelling) - I really have always seen the LE alignment as being the alignment of scummy lawyers and devils. People who will twist words but, if the contract is airtight, will not renig on the deal. NG - Conditional Vigilante. - I like this one. I think that you definition of NG as being "without consideration to Law or Chaos" is more in line with CG than NG. I see an NG character as being someone who feels that Law and the law are tools that should be at least considered, if notworked with, before, if proven useless, tossed aside. I could, however, be wrong. I did start this thread, after all.... :D . TN - Circumstantial Morality - Thanks. However, about the balancey types...I've always thought that they belonged more, but not entirely, in the LN camp. Here's why...They believe that the world should have equal amounts of good and evil, law and chaos, right? Their ethos is "Balance in all things," which they strictly adhere to. They are in a unique spot, though, of being able to increase both the amounts of Chaos and Law in the world under their prime directive. Bottom line, for me, is that if they have an ethos they strictly adhere to, it seems they should be lawful. NE - Inhibited Megalomania. - I also liked this. They are people who see their own needs as paramount, but feel that there are times to adhere to methods and times to abandon them, generally depending on some kind of risk v. gain scale. I must admit, though, that this has always been a difficult alignment for me to get ahold of. CG - Dynamic Righteousness? - So, that seems slightly oxymoronic with the dictionary definition there, but I think it works. I've always seen CG characters as "ends" oriented, always favoring the best means possible to gain a good end. Mostly I think about Robin Hood. He stole, which was bad, to do good things. A CG character, I think, would be adherent to increasing the good in the world above all method-based consideration. CN - Unpredictable Morality - I think this works better. Someone could be opposed to stealing bread, but not milk, and I think they would would be CN. Correct me if I'm wrong. CE - Uninhibabridgeted ;) Malevolence - I like it. Fire back your thoughts, one and all...