Post/Author/DateTime	Post
kyeudo 07-23-07, 04:31 PM	With all of the constant bickering over the exact meaning of alignments, I wanted to throw my two cents in. This is the standards of alignment that I use in my own games: All sentient creatures have a moral and ethical outlook on life, even if they arn't conciously aware of it. This outlook affects how and why they do the things they do. The first part of alignment is the creature's ethics. Ethics are the creature's beliefs on law and order versus freedom and chaos. Lawful creatures are organized, disciplined, and reliable, while chaotic creatures improvise rather than plan, and are flexible and adaptable. Lawful creatures tend to rely on habit and tradition, while chaotic creatures tend to be reckless and irresponsible. Creatures who are ethicaly neutral see the benefits of both being organized and being able to improvise, but do not rely on either method exclusively. The second part of a creature's alignment is its morals. Morals are the creature's beliefs on right and wrong. Creatures that are moraly good put the welfare of others above their own, while moraly evil creatures care about their own personal wellbeing first and foremost. A morally evil creature does not nessasarily believe himself to be evil, but doesn't care much about anyone other than himself. Creatures that are moraly neutral have qualms about causing others harm, but won't make sacrifices to help others either. A moraly neutral creature will still go out of its way to help his friends and family or to inconvienence his enemies and rivals, but complete strangers are treated with indfference. In practical terms, a creature's ethics are how he goes about doing something. A lawful charecter trying to rescue a kidnapped princess will plan out his assault on the castle where she's being held with care, laying out how to get into the castle, how to get back out with the princess, and at least one plan for what to do if something goes wrong. A chaotic charecter trying to rescue the princess will kick in the front door and figure out the rest from there. An ethicly neutral charecter will probably plan a way into the castle, but improvise on the way back out. A creature's morals translate into why the creature chooses to act. A good charecter rescues the princess because she needs help, an evil charecter rescues the princess for the reward money, and the moraly neutral charecter rescues the princess because of his loyalty to the king. Creatures that lack the capacity to make moral and ethical decisions, such as animals and mindless creatures, are considered moraly and ethicly neutral for all purposes relating to alignment. Does anyone have any comments or concerns? Any disagreements?
Anathema 07-23-07, 05:16 PM	I think you'll find that people's opinions on alignment have almost as many differences as there are people with opinions. After all, analyzing alignment is attempting to analyze humanity, and nearly everyone's analyzation is going to be different. I do disagree with your assessment of alignment, but disagreements about this I can live with, because we're not arguing about absolutes .. we're arguing interpretations. I think the real issue with interpreting alignments in D&D is that there is actually more than chaos/law/good/evil we're working with. For some people in a game world, good & evil may be states of necessity or willfulness. For others (such as outsiders), chaos/law/good/evil are states of being; forces that have tangibility like the dark & light sides of the force. When it comes to people, I personally prefer to use a light hand when it comes to alignment, because it's so hard to pin down a person's motivation to one of nine classifications (IMO). When it comes to magical or fantastical or extreme creatures I tend to more rigidly apply alignment, as they are more espousals of alignment than creatures attempting to fit in to it.
Sim_antix 07-23-07, 05:19 PM	Alignment sucks. Alignment as written sucks. Alignment as written in older editions sucks. Alignment as modified and reinterpreted by GMs sucks. Never in its history has alignment done anything but suck. This is about all that ever needs to be said about alignment...
kyeudo 07-23-07, 05:34 PM	I think the real issue with interpreting alignments in D&D is that there is actually more than chaos/law/good/evil we're working with. For some people in a game world, good & evil may be states of necessity or willfulness. For others (such as outsiders), chaos/law/good/evil are states of being; forces that have tangibility like the dark & light sides of the force. I've always worked from the idea that outsiders are souls or collections of souls. They died, went to the plane of their diety/plane that best suited their souls and then were empowered by their diety or by the energies of the plane because of their beliefs. This translates so that a Pit Fiend was once a human soul that was LE in mortal life, went to the nine hells, and gradualy worked his way up from a mortal soul being tormented by merit, backstabbing, and gradualy evolving forms by absorbing more and more evil power. Outsiders have deeper reasons for being good/evil/lawful/chaotic than "I was born this way." They have constantly reinforced their alignment through their personal choices. An Angel cares deeply for others, and for centuries has been a good soul acting to aid others in the struggle against evil, mostly by preventing fiends and other extraplanar evils from dabbling in the lives of mortals.
Kaligrad 07-23-07, 06:22 PM	Alignment is a classification, and like all classifications, it is hard to shoehorn people into them. Much like the zodiac, and any number of classification systems set up by psychologists, alignment can only vaguely describe the person it is attributed to, and even then, that is only if you agree with the definitions given. If it is any consolation, however, I do agree with your rather broad and vague definitions. Now where a character would fit into them...we could argue for days about that.
kyeudo 07-23-07, 06:40 PM	Alignment is a classification, and like all classifications, it is hard to shoehorn people into them. Much like the zodiac, and any number of classification systems set up by psychologists, alignment can only vaguely describe the person it is attributed to, and even then, that is only if you agree with the definitions given. If it is any consolation, however, I do agree with your rather broad and vague definitions. Now where a character would fit into them...we could argue for days about that. Alignment should be broad and somewhat vague. This leaves the DM with a much simpler job. With my system, all the DM needs to do is decide whether a character is planning out his actions, making it up as he goes along, or a combination of the two, then ask a player for why his character is doing that action. If you consider his reasons selfish, then it's an evil act. If it's not selfish, then its a good act. Some odd situations may arise where a character does an action that is beneficial to others for entirely selfish reasons, such as setting up a charity to increase one's own prestige and reputation. Such acts are actualy evil acts under my system, but then the right reason is more important than the right outcome.
Vharuck 07-23-07, 08:21 PM	I consider alignments a very useful tool in creating characters. I despise when people say, "Yes, he's an assassin who ruthlessly and remorselessly slaughters for a few gold pieces, but he then gives half his profit to the orphanage!" That's character inconsistancy. If he truly feels enough empathy to other people to give half his money to an orphanage, I cannot begin to comprehend how he suddenly is apathetic when assassinating. And if he gives money to this orphanage because he grew up there and wishes he had help when he was young, he is actually self-centered in what he is doing. He sees this children as himself, and is only helping himself. Alignments are nice tools that help you further define a character. I believe that imagination and creativity flourish best neither when dominated by strict rules or left to total freedom, but when guidelines exist to point in a general direction.
temparus2000 07-23-07, 08:28 PM	personally, I LOVE alignment discussions. Here is my simplified versions of the meanings of the alignment axis: Good/evil axis: your view toward other people in the world as a whole Law/Chaos axis: your view on the restrictions placed upon people by society, whether it be by written law or general expectations of that society. I have found it endlessly helpful as a DM to fully write out what I believe each alignment to be. i then hand those out and say "I know you won't agree with some of this, but alignments are slippery and that's why I wrote it. This is what the alignments mean in THIS campaign."
twiggyleaf 07-23-07, 09:03 PM	I always love to read threads about alignments because, as some have already said, there is no rule-truth - it is all very subjective and therefore no definite edicts can be embraced - yet every bit of discussion illuminates. I agree with Anathema to a certain extent in that I am never too strict with alignment - particularly with player characters as humanoids. I possibly am a bit more stringent with Clerics and especially Palladins, although I realise that there are very different interpertations of Palladins. I tend more towards the moral definitions you proposed but find them in no way to be all-encompassing and feel it is always essential to take each context in itself. Personally, I loathe the approach of some LG characters who see black and white - Kill Goblin, kill prisoner (because he is evil) - as the way to exercise their alignment, but in game terms, sometimes have to accept it. I generally work around the theories that all of the alignments are available to all living beings and we just end up with tendencies. However, these tendencies are not absolute - not for humanoids - maybe they are absolute for Demons and Angels, and even they may deviate due to greater purpose or understanding. Any normal human being (real living person) is subject to fitting into the definition of any alignment throughout their life - we would hope that this would normally steer away from the CE morality. BUT WE ARE ALL SOCIAL CREATURES, and therefore base all our actions on that fact, therefore an evil creature will not wantonly kill and maim everyone around him just for the sake of being evil. Equally, some GOOD people may need to be "a bit sneaky" in order to accomplish their HIGH AIMS.
dknight100 07-23-07, 09:58 PM	The biggest issue with the alignment system, is as i mentioned in the other thread, it lacks scale - to not be neutral, it says they must be committed (well, it says that a neutral character may not have commitment to good or evil), however it states no lower limit of this commitment, and it states that an evil character debases life, which means does stuff that reduces the quality of someone's life, which is a broad issue with no lower limit either. Its completely true to say that a villager who bullies the other villagers, and intimidates them doesn't really belong on the 342nd Layer of the Abyss. However, thats the sort of place they wind up. A better system is the alignment scale, found in Monte Cook's Book of Hallowed Might (iirc), which is a 1-9 scale for law, chaos, good, evil, where law and chaos are opposed, good and evil are opposed (so evil and chaos are like negative points on their opposite's scale). 'Neutrality' is represented by a score of 1-2 in a scale, as it works on the assumption everyone is to some extend, with one side or the other. A 9 on any of the scales is such a level of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos only really achievable by outsiders from a plane of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos. So, bob the mean villager is most likely chaos 2 evil 2 - he likes hurting others, and he doesn't like other peoples rules impinging on his lifestyle. This however, is now clearly distinct from Larry the Psychotic Murderer, with a CE alignment.
CeilingNinja 07-23-07, 10:26 PM	I don't agree at all with your law/chaos assessment. A Lawful person can be very reckless and spontaneous while a Chaotic person can plan and be disciplined easily. Alignment doesn't affect that sort of thing. What Lawful and Chaotic DO represent is their feelings towards government. A Lawful person will follow the rules and laws of a kingdom, and decide that the most important thing is the kingdom itself. A Lawful Good person will perform good actions as long as what he does preserves the law. A Lawful Neutral person will seek a balance that glorifies the law of the world. A Lawful Evil person is like a conquerer, putting down and destroying so to follow his own law or the law of his master and to set it as the law of the land. Chaotic alignment represents no care for the government, anarchy in its truest form. Chaotic Good characters do good things without limitations. Chaotic Neutral characters do not care about the consequences of their actions. Chaotic Evil characters basically destroy everything for their own whim.
Psikerlord 07-23-07, 11:33 PM	I am not fond of alignment. Causes too many arguments. In many other RPGs there is no equivalent. For D&D you have spells etc that have effects based on alignment, so we're stuck with it. We are about to start a new campaign, and I am inclined to suggest all PCs choose a "nominal" alignment, for the purposes of spell effects etc, but that otherwise it doesn't mean anything. Which is kinda how it plays out anyway, given there is no XP penalty for changing alignment (compared to 2nd edition, when there was a penalty). With any luck they'll get rid of alignment in 4th edition.
Vaelan 07-23-07, 11:49 PM	I find your version of Chaos to be unplayable. You are basically saying that all Chaotic people are Chaotic Stupid.
StSteven 07-23-07, 11:52 PM	I don't agree at all with your law/chaos assessment. A Lawful person can be very reckless and spontaneous while a Chaotic person can plan and be disciplined easily. Alignment doesn't affect that sort of thing. What Lawful and Chaotic DO represent is their feelings towards government. A Lawful person will follow the rules and laws of a kingdom, and decide that the most important thing is the kingdom itself. A Lawful Good person will perform good actions as long as what he does preserves the law. A Lawful Neutral person will seek a balance that glorifies the law of the world. A Lawful Evil person is like a conquerer, putting down and destroying so to follow his own law or the law of his master and to set it as the law of the land. Chaotic alignment represents no care for the government, anarchy in its truest form. Chaotic Good characters do good things without limitations. Chaotic Neutral characters do not care about the consequences of their actions. Chaotic Evil characters basically destroy everything for their own whim. I agree with most of this except that I think a LG person would follow the law as long as those laws were actually for the good of the people. Really though, it is just the way you play the character. Either axis could be more important to the character.
kyeudo 07-24-07, 12:23 AM	I don't agree at all with your law/chaos assessment. A Lawful person can be very reckless and spontaneous while a Chaotic person can plan and be disciplined easily. Alignment doesn't affect that sort of thing. What Lawful and Chaotic DO represent is their feelings towards government. A Lawful person will follow the rules and laws of a kingdom, and decide that the most important thing is the kingdom itself. A Lawful Good person will perform good actions as long as what he does preserves the law. A Lawful Neutral person will seek a balance that glorifies the law of the world. A Lawful Evil person is like a conquerer, putting down and destroying so to follow his own law or the law of his master and to set it as the law of the land. Chaotic alignment represents no care for the government, anarchy in its truest form. Chaotic Good characters do good things without limitations. Chaotic Neutral characters do not care about the consequences of their actions. Chaotic Evil characters basically destroy everything for their own whim. From the SRD LAW VS. CHAOS Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it. “Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should. “Chaos” implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them. Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others. Devotion to law or chaos may be a conscious choice, but more often it is a personality trait that is recognized rather than being chosen. Neutrality on the lawful–chaotic axis is usually simply a middle state, a state of not feeling compelled toward one side or the other. Some few such neutrals, however, espouse neutrality as superior to law or chaos, regarding each as an extreme with its own blind spots and drawbacks. Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic. Note that this only breifly touches on what kind of society that the two ends of the axis prefers. The rest discribes character traits that either deal with preparation, adaptability, and mind sets. A lawful person does not need to follow the law, he just believes that order is needed to have a functioning life. A chaotic peson is not some sort of anarchist who hates all law, he just doesn't like needing to go through all the mess and bueracracy that gets in the way of his daily life. Lawfulness or Chaoticness applies beyond matters of political oppinion, or it wouldn't be part of the alignment system. It should manifest in how they the character deals with prisoners that have been taken, how he goes about exploring a dungeon, and even how he fights in combat. The reasons Barbarians can't be lawful isn't because all barbarians must be anarchists, its because lawful people believe in being level headed and thinking things through. They don't believe in smashing their way through problems in a blind rage. I find your version of Chaos to be unplayable. You are basically saying that all Chaotic people are Chaotic Stupid. I'm not saying that chaotic people don't plan at all, they just don't think more than a step or two ahead, where as a lawful character would plan the whole opperation out.
Anathema 07-24-07, 12:32 AM	I will say that your alignment should never be a factor in how intelligent or meticulous you are. Alignments should never be anything other than descriptions of motivation. Treading in to personality traits with alignment shouldn't happen any more than gender should apply to ability scores.
calronmoonflower 07-24-07, 02:25 AM	I try to sum up my views on several alignments as simply as possible. Lawful Good: You believe that right and wrong can be put into words and then be enforced. Neutral Good: You do what is right in whatever fashion works best at the time. Sometimes it means that right and wrong can be put into words and other times you do what is right even if it goes against the flow. Chaotic Good: You don't let morals and rules keep you from doing what is right. Lawful Neutral: You seek consistency. Whether this means personal order or social order consistency is the best method in your mind. Neutral: Varies quite a bit. For some it is balance. For other a lack of commitment to other alignments. Some just get this by default, whether it is they very in behavior too much to be put into any other alignment or because they are not capable of any other alignment. Chaotic Neutral: Your not bound by social standards or the concepts of right or wrong. Lawful Evil: You twist laws and social standards to your benefit not matter whom it harms. Neutral Evil: You out for yourself. You do whatever benefits you the most without regards of whom it harms. Chaotic Evil: You indulge all you whims are are not bounds by law of social standards. This is generally separated from chaotic neutral by how far you go to indulge your self. Enjoyment of harming others is normal for this alignment. A good charecter rescues the princess because she needs help, Yep. an evil charecter rescues the princess for the reward money, I believe this is neutral behavior by itself. An evil person will do so for person gain maybe just money using different methods. Other motives like forced marriage to become a royal, heir to the throne or keeping a kingdom at war seem more in line with evil. and the moraly neutral charecter rescues the princess because of his loyalty to the king. Lawful Neutral yes. Others might just not do it or do so for the money. A personal motive will work as well. Creatures that lack the capacity to make moral and ethical decisions, such as animals and mindless creatures, are considered moraly and ethicly neutral for all purposes relating to alignment. Creature like zombies and others with the "always" alignment are exceptions to this.
vonklaude 07-24-07, 03:03 AM	All sentient creatures have a moral and ethical outlook on life, even if they arn't conciously aware of it. This outlook affects how and why they do the things they do. The first part of alignment is the creature's ethics. Ethics are the creature's beliefs on law and order versus freedom and chaos. Lawful creatures are organized, disciplined, and reliable, while chaotic creatures improvise rather than plan, and are flexible and adaptable. Lawful creatures tend to rely on habit and tradition, while chaotic creatures tend to be reckless and irresponsible. Creatures who are ethicaly neutral see the benefits of both being organized and being able to improvise, but do not rely on either method exclusively. The second part of a creature's alignment is its morals. Morals are the creature's beliefs on right and wrong. Creatures that are moraly good put the welfare of others above their own, while moraly evil creatures care about their own personal wellbeing first and foremost. A morally evil creature does not nessasarily believe himself to be evil, but doesn't care much about anyone other than himself. Creatures that are moraly neutral have qualms about causing others harm, but won't make sacrifices to help others either. A moraly neutral creature will still go out of its way to help his friends and family or to inconvienence his enemies and rivals, but complete strangers are treated with indfference. In practical terms, a creature's ethics are how he goes about doing something. A lawful charecter trying to rescue a kidnapped princess will plan out his assault on the castle where she's being held with care, laying out how to get into the castle, how to get back out with the princess, and at least one plan for what to do if something goes wrong. A chaotic charecter trying to rescue the princess will kick in the front door and figure out the rest from there. An ethicly neutral charecter will probably plan a way into the castle, but improvise on the way back out. A creature's morals translate into why the creature chooses to act. A good charecter rescues the princess because she needs help, an evil charecter rescues the princess for the reward money, and the moraly neutral charecter rescues the princess because of his loyalty to the king. Creatures that lack the capacity to make moral and ethical decisions, such as animals and mindless creatures, are considered moraly and ethicly neutral for all purposes relating to alignment. Does anyone have any comments or concerns? Any disagreements? I'm taking a mystical approach to alignments, which I believe to be in keeping with the setting. In essence I view alignment as an attribute of the soul. It is therefore not explicable in the ordinary scientific sense that we are used to (and reflexively apply). This feels 'right' for a fantasy setting based on Medieval Europe, and, unlike a causal psychological explanation, it covers all D&D phenomena without exceptions. In short: Alignment is a detectable compulsion to act a certain way. Players are not permitted to exploit alignment, so as DM I look for consistency between what they do and the motives they say they are following. I apply this principle to any aspect of RP. If Bob says that his character 'Flora' loves flowers, I look for Flora to show some appreciation of flowers. Players, societies, NPCs, and indeed all entities in my game often contain tensions and contradictions in their alignment behaviour. This is mandated by RAW, but even if it wasn't I find it promotes good gameplay. One can observe that most storytellers use precisely these tools to good effect; It's when your Lawful character breaks the law that your story comes to life and you start to wonder what's going to happen. That said, I follow the definitions laid out in the books. I feel your re-definitions are reasonable up to the point that you disallow Chaotic characters to plan. RAW doesn't support you on that, and as RAI it feels like you are disadvantaging Chaotics to no useful end. But maybe I've overlooked something; what do you get out of it in terms of good gameplay? Finally, on animals, I take as my reading that things 'incapable of moral action', as one cohesive concept, cannot be non-Neutral. Simply being 'incapable of action' has no effect on alignment. This works for me, and seems to abide by the RAW. -vk Oh, one other small note: I don't assume 'Lawful' necessitates having laws, despite the nomenclature. The 'Lawful' alignment description in RAW doesn't mandate a legal system, and I like the freedom it gives me to mix things up a little. However, I feel any DM saying 'Lawful' implies 'Laws', i.e. a legal system, is doing the right thing.
CeilingNinja 07-24-07, 09:09 AM	Well, I personally love the word 'can' cause that doesn't mean 'always.' The mini-descriptions at the end of the alignments sum them up perfectly, I think. Lawful Good combines honor and compassion. Neutral Good is doing what is good without bias for or against order. Chaotic Good combines a good heart with a free spirit. Lawful Neutral means you are reliable without being a zealot. Neutral means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion. Chaotic Neutral represents true freedom from both society's restrictions and a do-gooder's zeal. Lawful Evil represents methodical, intentional, and frequently sucessful evil. Neutral Evil represents pure evil without honor and without variation. Chaotic Evil represents the destruction of beauty and life but also of the order upon which beauty and life depend. The whole attitude and personality part of the Law/Chaos description is what causes Chaotic Stupid characters to be manifest. They read 'reckless and untrustworthy' and think "Gee, guess I don't have to think anything through." Being reckless and untrustworthy is, IMO, not an alignment thing but an intelligence, wisdom, and charisma thing. Having smarts, common sense, and social skills is what prompts a person to do certain things. The word reckless does mean not caring about the consequences of an action, but I think the DnD creators meant it more on a further level than not caring about busting the door down in a dungeon. I think they meant it like not caring if your actions cause the local mandates to not like you, to not care if your actions break laws or tread on someone's foot. Chaotic would represent spontaneity and freedom, but I don't think stupid is a descriptor of the entire alignment. Busting down a door is, perhaps, the stupidest thing you can do in a dungeon. If any of my players do that, I just cringe. You don't know what's behind the door, there could be a fire trap, or a squad of orcs waiting with arrows pointed at the door. Busting it in could be the last thing you ever do. As meticulous as they are, Rogues should be considered Lawful under the descriptors given. No reckless person would be sure to check every door and every hallway for traps.
StSteven 07-24-07, 10:05 AM	I think calronmoonflower nailed them all just about perfectly. I do think that the neutral guy saves the princess because she's hot though:D .
vonklaude 07-24-07, 10:26 AM	The whole attitude and personality part of the Law/Chaos description is what causes Chaotic Stupid characters to be manifest. They read 'reckless and untrustworthy' and think "Gee, guess I don't have to think anything through." Being reckless and untrustworthy is, IMO, not an alignment thing but an intelligence, wisdom, and charisma thing. Having smarts, common sense, and social skills is what prompts a person to do certain things. The word reckless does mean not caring about the consequences of an action, but I think the DnD creators meant it more on a further level than not caring about busting the door down in a dungeon. I think they meant it like not caring if your actions cause the local mandates to not like you, to not care if your actions break laws or tread on someone's foot. Chaotic would represent spontaneity and freedom, but I don't think stupid is a descriptor of the entire alignment. Busting down a door is, perhaps, the stupidest thing you can do in a dungeon. If any of my players do that, I just cringe. You don't know what's behind the door, there could be a fire trap, or a squad of orcs waiting with arrows pointed at the door. Busting it in could be the last thing you ever do. No, no! You've got it all wrong! We Chaotics are crazy and free. We save the Princess because the paladin is hot and we want to adventure with him. We bust down doors because we want to see what is behind them. Now! And we tear off our cod-pieces first because... You are correct of course. Chaotic need not be stupid. That's for things like Int and Wis, just as you say.
kyeudo 07-24-07, 12:38 PM	Creature like zombies and others with the "always" alignment are exceptions to this. Zombies have always been one of my pet peeves about the system. They are evil, but, being mindless, they never made a choice to be evil in their entire existance? That just goes against the entirity of the alignment system. Evil implies intentional disregard for others. Zombies must do as their creator instructs them, and without instructions they just sit and continue with the last orders they were given. They can't choose to do evil, so they shouldn't be evil. I feel your re-definitions are reasonable up to the point that you disallow Chaotic characters to plan. RAW doesn't support you on that, and as RAI it feels like you are disadvantaging Chaotics to no useful end. But maybe I've overlooked something; what do you get out of it in terms of good gameplay? Finally, on animals, I take as my reading that things 'incapable of moral action', as one cohesive concept, cannot be non-Neutral. Simply being 'incapable of action' has no effect on alignment. This works for me, and seems to abide by the RAW. Chaotic characters don't have to be chaotic stupid. They can make intelligent decisions in every situation. I just can't see a chaotic character sitting down and planning a raid out. I can see him deciding to go raid the castle for treasure, go over there and figure out how to get in. Once inside he figures out the best way to get to the treasure. Once he has the treasure he figures out how to get out with it. All his decisions can be good, solid decisions, but he never had to think more than one step ahead.
StSteven 07-24-07, 01:34 PM	Zombies have always been one of my pet peeves about the system. They are evil, but, being mindless, they never made a choice to be evil in their entire existance? That just goes against the entirity of the alignment system. Evil implies intentional disregard for others. Zombies must do as their creator instructs them, and without instructions they just sit and continue with the last orders they were given. They can't choose to do evil, so they shouldn't be evil. Yeah...zombies don't seem to fit the alignment system right, at least at first glance. They are mindless, thus you would think that they are incapable of moral action. They, without a doubt though, have no respect for life. They got the way that they are by being imbued with evil at their creation. At that creation, with the evil (tangible) force placed into them, they were then set upon the path to commit evil acts. Their compulsion (to steal a word from another thread) or tendency or whatever you call it was made a part of their being upon creation. That makes it fit the system.
Anathema 07-24-07, 02:55 PM	I just can't see a chaotic character sitting down and planning a raid out. As I said; alignment should govern only motivation. Alignment should never dictate personality traits like patience, meticulousness, or cautiousness. A chaotic person who burns their hand in a fire isn't going to be careless about taking their food out the next time just because they're chaotic. That's my only issue with your interpretations, is that they attempt to incorporate how a person behaves into their outlook on society (which is what alignment is, your societal outlook). The only thing I disagree with is that you're ascribing things to alignment that shouldn't be. These things should be divorced, because otherwise you're more or less telling someone how to play their character based on the alignment they've chosen. As I said before, alignment should have no bearing on personality traits any more than gender should have a bearing on ability scores. No matter what logical argument you may come up with to support your idea, it is not proper to do so, for the health of your game.
wrecan 07-24-07, 02:57 PM	I don't think people should play alignments. People should play, and the alignment is based on how they play. Nobody should ever justify an in-game action with, "Well, my alignment is..." Alignment is not a motivation.
Vharuck 07-24-07, 03:47 PM	Zombies have always been one of my pet peeves about the system. They are evil, but, being mindless, they never made a choice to be evil in their entire existance? That just goes against the entirity of the alignment system. Evil implies intentional disregard for others. Zombies must do as their creator instructs them, and without instructions they just sit and continue with the last orders they were given. They can't choose to do evil, so they shouldn't be evil. They are outside the norm. They aren't just animate objects, they're corpses animated by evil magic. In my book, they're evil for the same reason demons are; it's just how the world works.
temparus2000 07-24-07, 05:48 PM	Zombies have always been one of my pet peeves about the system. They are evil, but, being mindless, they never made a choice to be evil in their entire existance? That just goes against the entirity of the alignment system. Evil implies intentional disregard for others. Zombies must do as their creator instructs them, and without instructions they just sit and continue with the last orders they were given. They can't choose to do evil, so they shouldn't be evil. An uncontrolled zombie will try to kill any living thing it sees. Not for food, not because it's defending its territory, not because it feels threatened. It will try to kill because that's its nature- kill the living. That's why a zombie is evil.
CeilingNinja 07-24-07, 05:58 PM	Like Vharuck said. They're corpses reanimated by evil magic. Their bodies are filled with evil magic, and despite their mindless actions, they are still considered evil.
kyeudo 07-24-07, 06:06 PM	Like Vharuck said. They're corpses reanimated by evil magic. Their bodies are filled with evil magic, and despite their mindless actions, they are still considered evil. I supose I have to live with that as far as the RAW exist. However, I have major problems with negative energy being evil. but thats for another thread.
CeilingNinja 07-24-07, 06:10 PM	Negative energy isn't evil, but when used to revive the dead, that's wholly evil.
kyeudo 07-24-07, 07:51 PM	I don't think people should play alignments. People should play, and the alignment is based on how they play. Nobody should ever justify an in-game action with, "Well, my alignment is..." Alignment is not a motivation. This is a good opinion on alignment. Alignment arises from your actions and motivations, not the other way around. I think we all can agree on that.
Vaelan 07-24-07, 08:12 PM	I'm not saying that chaotic people don't plan at all, they just don't think more than a step or two ahead, where as a lawful character would plan the whole opperation out. A chaotic charecter trying to rescue the princess will kick in the front door and figure out the rest from there. I think you can see where I would get the idea that you're saying that Chaotic characters don't plan at all. I would say that anyone, when tasked with a sufficiently delicate operation, would plan quite extensively. It is, at times, a simple necessity and thus I do not believe it should be a significant part of alignment. Alignments should never be anything other than descriptions of motivation. Treading in to personality traits with alignment shouldn't happen any more than gender should apply to ability scores. I agree. Describing personality traits tends to contradict the statements that people aren't perfectly consistent and that alignments represent a broad range of attitudes. Alignment arises from your actions and motivations, not the other way around. I think we all can agree on that. The text says that alignment represents your general moral and personal attitudes. As such, I would say that they arise from your general moral and personal attitudes, for which motivations, but not actions, could be a synonym for. Then actions arise from motivations.
Mock26 07-24-07, 08:17 PM	I personally think that at the beginning of every campaign, or whenever a new player joins an existing game, that everyone needs to sit down and discuss thier viewpoints and expectations on the alignment of their characters and that the DM should give his views and expectations on those same alignments. This will go a VERY LONG way towards preventing potential problems about alignment that may creep up in the future.
temparus2000 07-24-07, 10:44 PM	I think you can see where I would get the idea that you're saying that Chaotic characters don't plan at all. I would say that anyone, when tasked with a sufficiently delicate operation, would plan quite extensively. It is, at times, a simple necessity and thus I do not believe it should be a significant part of alignment. QFT I am so sick of people playing a chaotic character as someone who flies by the seat of his pants in all situations. Sure that is a possible aspect of the alignment, but chaotic dosen't mean "don't plan ahead". At its heart, chaotic simply means that, as a general rule, you believe personal choice overrides the expectations of others. Whether or not you "plan things" is not at the center of this alignment. For instance, a Death Slaad is basically an embodiment of chaos. It is chaotic to its core, chaos is part of its nature. It also has an int of 18, making it a genius. A death slaad, I believe, would NOT just charge into a battle without thinking ahead (possible escape routes, does it look like I can take these guys, etc.) It isn't stupid just because it does whatever it feels like doing.
pres_man 07-24-07, 11:58 PM	I don't think people should play alignments. People should play, and the alignment is based on how they play. Nobody should ever justify an in-game action with, "Well, my alignment is..." Alignment is not a motivation. While agree with you as a general idea, there certainly can be players and characters where alignment can be used to help decide actions. For example, paladins, paladins must never do an evil act and must maintain their LG alignment. It is perfectly reasonable for a player to decide to have the character act in a certain way to maintain that alignment, though the character should not be rolelplayed as thinking in that fashion.
BlackHalfDragon 07-25-07, 01:22 AM	it also depends how you define "evil act" burning corpses to prevent plague ? is it evil - after all it is desecrating the dead ? I know in modern theology and all that lark that a vaccine which may kill say .5% of people who take it is considered morally neutral as the INTENT is to save lives but unfortunately the reactions are an unwanted side effect. so perhaps a characters intentions are what counts that said "an evil mage isnt detectable as evil if he's having a pint in the pub" innit ?
calronmoonflower 07-25-07, 02:48 AM	I think calronmoonflower nailed them all just about perfectly. Thanks. Negative energy isn't evil, but when used to revive the dead, that's wholly evil. It has never been stated what exactly animates undead. Undead my be fueled by negative energy, but that alone will not animate a corpse. Personally I think skeletons and zombies got slapped with the always evil alignment for the mechanical effects.
CeilingNinja 07-25-07, 08:27 AM	It has never been stated what exactly animates undead. Undead my be fueled by negative energy, but that alone will not animate a corpse. Personally I think skeletons and zombies got slapped with the always evil alignment for the mechanical effects. Yah, but still, whatever is animating them is the essence of pure evil. I can't think of anything more evil than desecrating the dead, reviving a body that doesn't want to be alive again, and using it to turn against people, perhaps even its family and friends.
kyeudo 07-25-07, 10:33 AM	Yah, but still, whatever is animating them is the essence of pure evil. I can't think of anything more evil than desecrating the dead, reviving a body that doesn't want to be alive again, and using it to turn against people, perhaps even its family and friends. Yes, I'll agree that that it is evil to animate zombies and skeletons to use to kill innocents, but what about buying a corpse from the owner's family, animating it, and using it as a worker in your new mining buisness?