Alignments [Archive] - Wizards Community - Pages Merged by Solauren

Alignments [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
LordBritish2
08-14-05, 10:30 PM I was just wondering what everyone's definitions of the alignments are? I am interested in seeing the different interpretations there are.
Unca_Laguna
08-14-05, 10:45 PM the way I work it in my champaign, all societies are inherantly lawful and characters who are chaotic are those who reject social norms. those who are neutral (on the order/chaos scale) act in accordance with the moral dimention of their alignment regardless of what is socially acceptable. true neutral people take either a "hands off" aproach to life, or are individuals who serve themselves without helping or harming others. chaotic neutral characters are all insane in my champaign. i should note, if a character wants to be lawful on the basis of personal dicipline rather that social conformity, I will make an exeption for them (this occurs when someone becomes a monk usually). I have made it clear to my players that alignment is MY domain. all my players started their characters as true neutral and I changed there alignments according to their behavior.
imperialjunkie
08-14-05, 10:46 PM Please dear Lord no! Not another general thread on alignments!
Unca_Laguna
08-14-05, 10:48 PM meh, I haven't seen one of these before. it's like NBC says when they advertise reruns, "if you haven't seen it, it's new to you!"
imperialjunkie
08-14-05, 10:52 PM meh back at you. I don't mean to be derisive. Different threads on alignment opinions are fairly common. Enjoy the reading.

*looks down at shirt*

Durn! I have meh meh on my shirt.
Cymraegmorgan
08-14-05, 10:57 PM TN = Neither here nor there, hither or yon. Joe Everyman, Jane Everywoman.
LG = Too uptight to be NG + highhanded mercy.
NG = Good to the last drop + savior complex.
CG = Individuality + Charity.
CN = All about the personal space + lacking in social skills.
CE = Short attention span meanness + bad personal hygiene.
NE = Eats puppies for breakfast + eats kitties for lunch + loves to be hating.
LE = Traditionalist + Arrogance + tendency to be uncharitable.
LN = One Way is the Absolute Truth.

As Bill Shakespeare said, "Brevity is the soul of wit."
braindead345
08-15-05, 01:42 AM 3rd ed. has really botched alignments. Good, evil, law & chaos all come in varying degrees. The old square alignment chart from 1st ed. is still best because it showed how two characters can have the same alignment but differ greatly in degrees of goodness or lawfulness (and their lack of these traits).
Lord Ian Stark
08-15-05, 02:00 AM I was just wondering what everyone's definitions of the alignments are? I am interested in seeing the different interpretations there are.

Oh there are many. I would love to post the million threads on this topic, however with the primary search function down and the secondary dealing with google or something unkown, I guess we'll never now. ;)

My group basically follows what's in the RAW and don't bother to much with the details. We play it as black and white.

But then again we have been playng for many years so we aren't trying to learn this game.
Cantankerous
08-15-05, 04:32 AM The Biggie for me is that the alignments don't restrict, they define. The VERY BROAD outline within which all else falls reads as follows.

Law espouses an ideal that values the group above the individual, it is better for one to die/suffer so that the many may live/advance.

Chaos espouses that the one has as much inherent value as the many.

Good espouses the sanctity of life. Life positive.

Evil assigns no special sanctity to anything. Life negative.

Neutrality lies between the extremes.

True Neutrality in this paradigm is NOT the undecided. It is the quest for balance.

Anyone who isn't willing to make their personal philosophy (read alignment) primary in their lives simply does not have one. Most people aren't Neutral in this paradigm, they are simply without alignment. They are also restricted TOTALLY to NPC classes. Only those who make the philosophical stand have the chutzpah to become something more; whether for good or for ill.

Like animals, shrubbery and rocks, the sheople with no alignment are treated as though they were neutral alignment wise for what spells do what to them.

Isshia
Gedrin
08-15-05, 04:56 AM LG: If everyone knows and uses the rules, things will turn out for the best, providing we have (and we should have) rules that work toward the good. It's best if people have a guide to the correct principles for living a good life are.

NG: I view all N alignments as middle grounds.

CG: Rules tend to get in the way and keep people from focusing on what the right thing to do is. Wondering what is legal prevents people from wondering what is right. It's best if people figure out for themselves what the right thing in a situation is.

LN: It is important for things to work. There are codes, rules and principles that provide for ways for things to work. Rules, codes and principles that fail, should be reevaluated. People need the rules because often times when people don't follow them, they make destructive choices.

NN: see NG

CN: It is important to me that I get my things done and working, but I don't really care about your rules. I generally expect other people to do the same, and that's fine too. As long as we can all get our stuff done, and no one gets in anyone's way, that's fine.

LE: Control is important. There must be control, otherwise random elements will rise to act against your interests. People should obey the codes and rules, and serve the interests of those in power. The welfare of others is secondary to the greater goal.

NE: see NG

CE: I don't care about your rules. I don't care about you. It's not that I'm out to break your rules, or hurt you... I just don't care if I do break your rules and hurt you.
Thesen
08-15-05, 08:13 AM This is actually my reply to another post, but I thought it would help out here as well.

1.) Evil, like good, can't be measured in extremes. (i.e. "I am good so I ALWAYS help people", or "I am evil so I ALWAYS commit murder!") You could very easily have a religious fanatic (LE) who honestly believes he is good, yet performs evil acts similar to the Inquisition or the Salem witch trials. On the same note, you can have a king perceived to be a "tyrant" (CG) for his attack against a neighboring nation over trade disputes. Neither of these characters is acting with the intent that they are following an alignment. They just act.

2.) Alignment is insanely important. Alignment is the blueprint of your character's personality. It helps you decide who your character is. Alignment is a GUIDELINE for your roleplaying, though, and it shouldn't determine your every act. Cops can be considered LG, but that doesn't mean that they can't act a little chaotic and "let you off with a warning" when they pull you over.

3.) Evil does NOT equal emotionless. Evil characters can love and be loved just the same as good ones. Think of a movie you've seen where the antagonist lost a relative or friend and was insane with agony. A party of evil PCs can still have friendship and trust, its just that their actions as a whole are selfish and evil.

That's all I got. Hope I helped if anyone needed it.
LCD2YOU
08-15-05, 08:16 AM listen to me. My thoughts on alignments are correct. Everyone else, unless they agree with me is wrong.

Don't listen to the following people:

Gedrin

Cantankerous

Lord Ian Stark

Cymraegmorgan

imperialjunkie

I don't know enough about the others, but I'm sure they are wrong too.

Generally, the people I just named have ideas that are not devisive enough and smack of common sense.

======================================== ==================

Honestly though, there are several good ideas and can help you.

I look at alignments on what the character, PCs and NPCs, are really trying to do. I also look at the character's statistics as what they can understand will determine if they are acting in some fashion.

A character who tries to be good but does something "evil" because they just don't know any better did not commit an evil act. It might have been wrong to do their action, but not evil. Likewise, I person who has to make a snap decision, ie the DM is counting down 5, 4, 3....., and makes a decision based on what they know at the time may make a wrong decision but not an evil one.
High Octane
08-15-05, 08:27 AM 3rd ed. has really botched alignments. Good, evil, law & chaos all come in varying degrees. The old square alignment chart from 1st ed. is still best because it showed how two characters can have the same alignment but differ greatly in degrees of goodness or lawfulness (and their lack of these traits).

FINALLY someone else believes in the idea of alignments having a degree!
clarkvalentine
08-15-05, 08:50 AM I was just wondering what everyone's definitions of the alignments are? I am interested in seeing the different interpretations there are.

When I GM, if a player asks me "Am I playing in alignment?" I respond "Do you think you're playing to alignment?" Unless they're doing something obviously incompatible, I let their interpretation of alignment rule their own characters.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
LordBritish2 08-14-05, 10:30 PM	I was just wondering what everyone's definitions of the alignments are? I am interested in seeing the different interpretations there are.
Unca_Laguna 08-14-05, 10:45 PM	the way I work it in my champaign, all societies are inherantly lawful and characters who are chaotic are those who reject social norms. those who are neutral (on the order/chaos scale) act in accordance with the moral dimention of their alignment regardless of what is socially acceptable. true neutral people take either a "hands off" aproach to life, or are individuals who serve themselves without helping or harming others. chaotic neutral characters are all insane in my champaign. i should note, if a character wants to be lawful on the basis of personal dicipline rather that social conformity, I will make an exeption for them (this occurs when someone becomes a monk usually). I have made it clear to my players that alignment is MY domain. all my players started their characters as true neutral and I changed there alignments according to their behavior.
imperialjunkie 08-14-05, 10:46 PM	Please dear Lord no! Not another general thread on alignments!
Unca_Laguna 08-14-05, 10:48 PM	meh, I haven't seen one of these before. it's like NBC says when they advertise reruns, "if you haven't seen it, it's new to you!"
imperialjunkie 08-14-05, 10:52 PM	meh back at you. I don't mean to be derisive. Different threads on alignment opinions are fairly common. Enjoy the reading. looks down at shirt Durn! I have meh meh on my shirt.
Cymraegmorgan 08-14-05, 10:57 PM	TN = Neither here nor there, hither or yon. Joe Everyman, Jane Everywoman. LG = Too uptight to be NG + highhanded mercy. NG = Good to the last drop + savior complex. CG = Individuality + Charity. CN = All about the personal space + lacking in social skills. CE = Short attention span meanness + bad personal hygiene. NE = Eats puppies for breakfast + eats kitties for lunch + loves to be hating. LE = Traditionalist + Arrogance + tendency to be uncharitable. LN = One Way is the Absolute Truth. As Bill Shakespeare said, "Brevity is the soul of wit."
braindead345 08-15-05, 01:42 AM	3rd ed. has really botched alignments. Good, evil, law & chaos all come in varying degrees. The old square alignment chart from 1st ed. is still best because it showed how two characters can have the same alignment but differ greatly in degrees of goodness or lawfulness (and their lack of these traits).
Lord Ian Stark 08-15-05, 02:00 AM	I was just wondering what everyone's definitions of the alignments are? I am interested in seeing the different interpretations there are. Oh there are many. I would love to post the million threads on this topic, however with the primary search function down and the secondary dealing with google or something unkown, I guess we'll never now. ;) My group basically follows what's in the RAW and don't bother to much with the details. We play it as black and white. But then again we have been playng for many years so we aren't trying to learn this game.
Cantankerous 08-15-05, 04:32 AM	The Biggie for me is that the alignments don't restrict, they define. The VERY BROAD outline within which all else falls reads as follows. Law espouses an ideal that values the group above the individual, it is better for one to die/suffer so that the many may live/advance. Chaos espouses that the one has as much inherent value as the many. Good espouses the sanctity of life. Life positive. Evil assigns no special sanctity to anything. Life negative. Neutrality lies between the extremes. True Neutrality in this paradigm is NOT the undecided. It is the quest for balance. Anyone who isn't willing to make their personal philosophy (read alignment) primary in their lives simply does not have one. Most people aren't Neutral in this paradigm, they are simply without alignment. They are also restricted TOTALLY to NPC classes. Only those who make the philosophical stand have the chutzpah to become something more; whether for good or for ill. Like animals, shrubbery and rocks, the sheople with no alignment are treated as though they were neutral alignment wise for what spells do what to them. Isshia
Gedrin 08-15-05, 04:56 AM	LG: If everyone knows and uses the rules, things will turn out for the best, providing we have (and we should have) rules that work toward the good. It's best if people have a guide to the correct principles for living a good life are. NG: I view all N alignments as middle grounds. CG: Rules tend to get in the way and keep people from focusing on what the right thing to do is. Wondering what is legal prevents people from wondering what is right. It's best if people figure out for themselves what the right thing in a situation is. LN: It is important for things to work. There are codes, rules and principles that provide for ways for things to work. Rules, codes and principles that fail, should be reevaluated. People need the rules because often times when people don't follow them, they make destructive choices. NN: see NG CN: It is important to me that I get my things done and working, but I don't really care about your rules. I generally expect other people to do the same, and that's fine too. As long as we can all get our stuff done, and no one gets in anyone's way, that's fine. LE: Control is important. There must be control, otherwise random elements will rise to act against your interests. People should obey the codes and rules, and serve the interests of those in power. The welfare of others is secondary to the greater goal. NE: see NG CE: I don't care about your rules. I don't care about you. It's not that I'm out to break your rules, or hurt you... I just don't care if I do break your rules and hurt you.
Thesen 08-15-05, 08:13 AM	This is actually my reply to another post, but I thought it would help out here as well. 1.) Evil, like good, can't be measured in extremes. (i.e. "I am good so I ALWAYS help people", or "I am evil so I ALWAYS commit murder!") You could very easily have a religious fanatic (LE) who honestly believes he is good, yet performs evil acts similar to the Inquisition or the Salem witch trials. On the same note, you can have a king perceived to be a "tyrant" (CG) for his attack against a neighboring nation over trade disputes. Neither of these characters is acting with the intent that they are following an alignment. They just act. 2.) Alignment is insanely important. Alignment is the blueprint of your character's personality. It helps you decide who your character is. Alignment is a GUIDELINE for your roleplaying, though, and it shouldn't determine your every act. Cops can be considered LG, but that doesn't mean that they can't act a little chaotic and "let you off with a warning" when they pull you over. 3.) Evil does NOT equal emotionless. Evil characters can love and be loved just the same as good ones. Think of a movie you've seen where the antagonist lost a relative or friend and was insane with agony. A party of evil PCs can still have friendship and trust, its just that their actions as a whole are selfish and evil. That's all I got. Hope I helped if anyone needed it.
LCD2YOU 08-15-05, 08:16 AM	listen to me. My thoughts on alignments are correct. Everyone else, unless they agree with me is wrong. Don't listen to the following people: Gedrin Cantankerous Lord Ian Stark Cymraegmorgan imperialjunkie I don't know enough about the others, but I'm sure they are wrong too. Generally, the people I just named have ideas that are not devisive enough and smack of common sense. ======================================== ================== Honestly though, there are several good ideas and can help you. I look at alignments on what the character, PCs and NPCs, are really trying to do. I also look at the character's statistics as what they can understand will determine if they are acting in some fashion. A character who tries to be good but does something "evil" because they just don't know any better did not commit an evil act. It might have been wrong to do their action, but not evil. Likewise, I person who has to make a snap decision, ie the DM is counting down 5, 4, 3....., and makes a decision based on what they know at the time may make a wrong decision but not an evil one.
High Octane 08-15-05, 08:27 AM	3rd ed. has really botched alignments. Good, evil, law & chaos all come in varying degrees. The old square alignment chart from 1st ed. is still best because it showed how two characters can have the same alignment but differ greatly in degrees of goodness or lawfulness (and their lack of these traits). FINALLY someone else believes in the idea of alignments having a degree!
clarkvalentine 08-15-05, 08:50 AM	I was just wondering what everyone's definitions of the alignments are? I am interested in seeing the different interpretations there are. When I GM, if a player asks me "Am I playing in alignment?" I respond "Do you think you're playing to alignment?" Unless they're doing something obviously incompatible, I let their interpretation of alignment rule their own characters.