Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Horseshoe_Hermit 07-21-07, 01:49 PM	What alignment do you think the character with the following moral traits would have? I'll give information in an order that follows along the way the PHB introduces alignment. First: He never acts without forethought if possible. He doesn't do anything just for fun. With respect to what follows, he feels responsible for bad things that happen (or good things that don't happen) if some act he could have taken beforehand could have prevented it (or caused it). That is, he thinks he mustn't allow himself to use the defense "I didn't know/didn't think..." too often (he judges his own actions; read below to see how he responds when people discover his deeds). I feel I should put this in a spoilerblock. Sorry if it's hard to read. Good/Evil -He protects intelligent life, innocent or otherwise. He never kills "in cold blood". He never kills an aggressor if there is some way to neutralize the threat nonlethally - with strategy, magic, or even running away. When others are the victims, and he believes there is little chance of irreversible personal loss*, he provides the (nonlethal) aid necessary for them to escape; however if they fight back lethally, or if the encounter began with lethal force on both sides, it's a different matter (next point). -In any lethal encounter, whether he began involved or not, he attempts to use nonlethal means to save all parties, in the following order of preference (all, of course, weighed against his evaluation of the probability of success): (1) Himself (without shame, his life is most important, but he acknowledges that everyone has to take some risk when the stakes are high enough) (2) Unique beings (e.g. If it was all one-hundred of some endangered race, against... any quantity less than all of some other race, he saves the race from extinction). (3) Young children (in their formative years) first (4) A balance between saving more people than less, weighed against the likelihood of those saved to be of use to him later (voluntarily or otherwise), and against possibility of those saved doing other undesirable things later If, as he perceives the situation, not everyone can walk away still alive, he will kill so as to most closely respect the guidelines he's laid out for himself above. Now let's be clear: If he thinks his chance of death is too great (and he weighs his own life heavily), he just beats feet. If he can't do that, he will kill to protect himself. But if he's sure only catastrophic coincidences could result in his demise, or if he knows someone who'll revive him, he takes action. He tries his best to prevent anyone from killing anyone else, unless he thinks that someone will have to die, in which case, he steers the encounter, by any means available to him, such that those who die aren't on, or are closer to the bottom of, the list above. *Irreversible personal loss is mental damage or death, most importantly. Physical disfigurement, so long as it still allows functioning - not so bad. Loss of wealth not important at all, unless he had very good reason to believe his wealth could save more lives than those at risk immediately (which is extremely unlikely - that is, it's unlikely he could have the requisite certainty that this were the case). -He is neither altruist nor amoral. In non-life-threatening matters covered above, he will make sacrifices to aid others for one of two reasons: (1) In a manner much befitting Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative, he simply believes that in a generally 'Good', law-governed society, all people faced with his decision should choose the way he does (because it makes everything nicer). Notice that if he does not believe the state of society is that of lawful good rule, he suspends this behaviour (as he believes it carries more personal cost than real benefit to anyone), and undertakes a more case-by-case outlook. Proviso: He does not trouble his coinpurse for beggars. If he wants to aid charity, he does so on a grand scale. (2) Much like the Ferengi, he believes "There's nothing wrong with charity - so long as it ends up in your pocket." -He does not 'respect' life, or recognize its 'dignity', whatever that means (I myself have never known a description of those concepts in some language other than babbling gobbledygook). He has no compassion for others. All that you have read above, and will read below, is just the end result of his meditation on what general rule of conduct would get him closest to his life's goal (coming up soon). -With one exception, he has no problem causing pain for some ends (exception: shall not cause permanent mental damage/trauma). By the same token, so long as he doesn't think an encounter will escalate, he doesn't think an exchange of pain is so bad and has no categorical reason to step in. He has no qualms with oppression on a moral basis, but perhaps on a practical basis. I count exploitation, extortion, blackmail and that lot among oppression. Recall that he does nothing just for fun, only with forethought and the belief that a desired ends will actually come about. -Personal relationship has little bearing on his evaluations of moral matters, with one exception best covered when I get to Law/Chaos. Law/Chaos -He has absolutely no trouble lying. He has reasoned that "lies" do not have primary existence; they exist only as inconsistencies in the beliefs of people. Belief matters more than truth - it's an empirical fact. Furthermore, he believes that lying (and all forms of deceit) are valuable skills, and like any skill, they must be practiced. Very much like Elim Garak from Deep Space Nine in that respect - all else being equal, he'd rather lie. -In general, though, the character tends to keep his word in an actual oath or contract. He will never give it rashly. It is very much like the categorical imperative again - he does have some direct appreciation for the integrity of a man's word. However, if he has concocted a particular scheme, where the payoff is very very great, and the losses (including the chance that popular opinion of his integrity would be reduced) are small, he will give his word with the intention to break it. But if he gives his word with the intention to keep it, he does. Of course, maybe that's a double standard, but that's what I'm asking you for. Provisos: He puts much more weight on the lies he tells people he finds morally virtuous - their good is his good. If he knows someone he's speaking to is dishonest in this respect, he attaches very little weight to his word with that person. -The weight he puts in authority is this: He is willing to believe that an authority figure has determined, that if he acts in such and such a way, things will be nice in the big picture. But he is a control freak and is uncomfortable just accepting the plan. He is Machiavellian when it comes to crime, weighing his profit against the long-term effects of continued criminal success in a formerly stable region. -He values tradition at worthless. The best scenario is the one with the best attributes. He can't even understand how people can disagree with that. Argument by tradition is a well known fallacy (called argument from tradition, surprisingly). -He would judge those who fall short in their duties, but moreso, he judges himself for not having expected it. If he did expect it, more power to him. -He strives to approximate the ideal of philosophy, and be openminded. He defines himself by his ability to adapt (to anything). He puts great weight on the future, and (as said), holds the past to be worthless except for the lessons of history. -He certainly has a personal code for evaluating many things. He also tends to believe that, if it could be known, there is an ideal way for all people to act "so that people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should." He believes freedom to be a vice, merely allowing people to act poorly and endanger themselves and others. He idealizes that there exists a system, where no one has any freedom - every possibility is covered in a strict legal system that dictates how everyone should make every decision. The end result is eternal peace and prosperity. Finding this system, if it exists, would be a grand measure of understanding indeed. *~*~*~ Well, there you have it. My own thoughts: On law/chaos, he lies like there's no tomorrow, but he believes in a personal code, but he finds authority to be arbitrary, but he idealizes a system where it is not. He is never reckless. I don't know whether he's responsible or irresponsible. On Good/Evil, he does many things that look good (protect life, make sacrifices), even if it won't improve his fame, but secretly does many things of evil. He has strong compunctions against killing that are hard to find fault with, but will turn around, use, and abuse that life. One last thing: If you think it matters, this is his end goal: Ultimate knowledge - The total comprehension of all things, such that anything can be shaped into whatever is desired. The ability itself is enough; there's no particular desire to shape it into something. So, what do you think?
Rerecros 07-21-07, 02:00 PM	Lawful Good, though not exactly a paragon of hope that paladin's envision themselves to be. He's a good man, though I think he'd be the last person to realize it. I like him :D
green_girl 07-21-07, 02:06 PM	Definitely Lawful Good, bordering on Lawful Neutral. And yes, not the "I'm going to kill you heathens, fear me!" kind of LG either.
calvinNhobbes 07-21-07, 02:30 PM	He never acts without forethought if possible. This has less to do with alignment and more to do with wisdom. A CN individual with WIS 18 is not going to be rash and impatient either. He doesn't do anything just for fun. Being a bore has nothing to do with alignment. It might reflect of low CHA though. The rest of the post sounds N to me.
jimpaladin 07-21-07, 02:31 PM	I read alot of non-"lawful" ideas. My best guess is TN. perhaps NG/NE depending on how often he has done certain things. alignment is never static or firm it is a way to restrict a player in doing something 180 degrees different than they have to this point. If it is done then alignemnt penaties apply
Horseshoe_Hermit 07-21-07, 02:47 PM	Okay so we have completely contradictory responses. And... Lawful good? To quote a son of Butcher, "-----, are you for real?" You read about the exploitation and the pain; the criminal mindedness, and the lies? "Being a bore," if you mean not engaging in social relaxation, yeah, could be a sign of low charisma. But being a bore, if you mean not doing something *for* enjoyment, has everything to do with alignment. The definition of Chaos is basically the stance of individual freedoms; the position that the life of the individual shouldn't be chained because the greatest part of being alive is the individual's expression. The stance of chaos is to defend a person's right to do things just for fun. The stance of law is to protect some other constant, if at the cost of taking away those freedoms.
calvinNhobbes 07-21-07, 03:16 PM	But being a bore, if you mean not doing something *for* enjoyment, has everything to do with alignment. No, it has nothing to do with alignment. The ability to experience enjoyment has nothing to do with ethics or morality. Your explanation makes no sense to me. Some people find great enjoyment creating structure and order. Some people think rebelling is fun. Some think being apathetic is fun. Just because you do something that is fun does not make you chaotic. No matter what alignment you are, you do things you have to and things you want to.
pres_man 07-21-07, 03:42 PM	Neutral. Most of his issues with dealing with others, especially in regards to lethal or non-lethal issues are really just common behaviour for most people and are not really "good" or "evil" traits.
DrMorganes 07-21-07, 03:55 PM	Lawful evil, with slight - VERY slight - leanings toward Lawful Neutral. He is selfish and self-centered, and while his conscience bothers him he doesn't appear bothered enough to actually alter his behavior. He may claim to avoid "I didn't know" as an excuse, but he's certainly using other justifications to salve his conscience. His unwillingness to harm intelligent life is likely due more to his own feelings of superiority than out of any true understanding or caring for the value of the individual. Preservation of "unique" beings is also not based on any feelings of altruism (which doesn't exist in mortals, but that's a discussion for another thread), but out of a warped sense of kindred. He is intelligent and unique. He would not like to die. Therefore, other intelligent, unique beings would also prefer life. However, given the choice between allowing a genocide and giving up his own life, he would save himself and leave countless others to perish. This unwillingness - dare I say flat refusal - to sacrifice his life for another is at best Neutral. I say it's downright Evil. Whichever, this is not a "Good" man as D&D's alignment system defines "Good". He is a coward who will run when he cannot gain a clear advantage to overcome an encounter without killing. My take on this is not because he truly value life as he professes, but because he truly values HIS life. If he cannot overcome a violent encounter using non-violent methods, that means he is not powerful enough to overcome the encounter without risking his own life. He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword after all... "Freedom is a vice" is certainly a strong Lawful trait, as is "doesn't do anything just for fun" (which I interpret as meaning everything he does, he does for a carefully planned reason; he's not much for spontaneity - i.e., Chaotic action). He claims to desire Ultimate Knowledge for the sake of possessing it. However, I say given his strong Lawful tendencies and black heart, he would willingly transform himself into a tyrant to rival the Lords of the Nine should he ever attain this goal. Lawful Evil. Definitely.
calronmoonflower 07-21-07, 04:23 PM	He has a very solid lawful alignment. As for good/evil it is harder to say. Given his priorities are himself first and others second he isn't good, but that alone isn't enough for an evil alignment. If he debases or kills innocents to achieve his goals he would be evil. If not he is neutral on the good/evil axis.
calvinNhobbes 07-21-07, 04:55 PM	Wow, I think this thread definitely signifies why alignment discussions are futile. One description results in alignments ranging from LG to LE to N. Yikes! :confused:
Horseshoe_Hermit 07-21-07, 05:25 PM	Lawful evil, with slight - VERY slight - leanings toward Lawful Neutral. He is selfish and self-centered, and while his conscience bothers him he doesn't appear bothered enough to actually alter his behavior. He may claim to avoid "I didn't know" as an excuse, but he's certainly using other justifications to salve his conscience. I'm not sure what you're referring to. Where did you get the idea his conscience bothers him? I meant that, when he makes a choice, he is very concerned with long-term effects. Getting told down the line - even months later- that something he did had a ripple effect, troubles him if he thinks he should have been able to see that. Which means, he spends a lot of time thinking about his actions, because, as I said, the defense "I didn't know" isn't good enough for his own self-criticism. I meant to contrast it with something more like virtue ethics, where apparently your only obligation is to "act good" right now - saving lives from danger when you're there and the weapons are out, but not seeing that the baron of wherever is actually killing prisoners secretly for some reason, or some group is planning to cause death on a massive scale somewhere. The character is out for knowledge anyway, so he feels obligated to know about these things - things you'd never even know about if you didn't look. Also, the sense that, sometimes what is best is counterintuitive, and he wants to knowingly determine the best course - improving on the traditional method of intuition. His unwillingness to harm intelligent life is likely due more to his own feelings of superiority than out of any true understanding or caring for the value of the individual. Preservation of "unique" beings is also not based on any feelings of altruism (which doesn't exist in mortals, but that's a discussion for another thread), but out of a warped sense of kindred. He is intelligent and unique. He would not like to die. Therefore, other intelligent, unique beings would also prefer life. Interesting. Would you explain further? I already know about how altruism is a myth, though, so you can skip that. I'd offer my own account of what his motives are, but I really want to hear your thoughts first. I will remind you, however, that I did write that he will manipulate and exploit others. Is that what you meant by "warped sense of kindred"? However, given the choice between allowing a genocide and giving up his own life, he would save himself and leave countless others to perish. This unwillingness - dare I say flat refusal - to sacrifice his life for another is at best Neutral. I say it's downright Evil. Whichever, this is not a "Good" man as D&D's alignment system defines "Good". Hmm. I guess, if DnD Good is so, then he can't be good for exactly that reason. Glad we cleared that up. Rerecros and green_girl had me going for a minute there. He is a coward who will run when he cannot gain a clear advantage to overcome an encounter without killing. My take on this is not because he truly value life as he professes, but because he truly values HIS life. If he cannot overcome a violent encounter using non-violent methods, that means he is not powerful enough to overcome the encounter without risking his own life. He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword after all... Lolzers. Probably right. But, I mean, if there is good chance of success, and the risk/reward schism is great enough, he will fight. "Freedom is a vice" is certainly a strong Lawful trait, as is "doesn't do anything just for fun" (which I interpret as meaning everything he does, he does for a carefully planned reason; he's not much for spontaneity - i.e., Chaotic action). Tell that to calvinNhobbes. He claims to desire Ultimate Knowledge for the sake of possessing it. However, I say given his strong Lawful tendencies and black heart, he would willingly transform himself into a tyrant to rival the Lords of the Nine should he ever attain this goal. Ooh, black heart. Is that just the cowardly unwillingness to die, or something else? Lawful Evil. Definitely. The first assertive claim so far. calronmoonflower, he does not kill people "to achieve goals", other than "to live." Where there is time, there is a way.
calvinNhobbes 07-21-07, 05:42 PM	Tell that to calvinNhobbes. Don't bait me. The ability to have fun or find enjoyment in life has NOTHING to do with alignment. I don't even know how to argue against such an obviously rediculous idea.
Horseshoe_Hermit 07-21-07, 08:11 PM	Don't bait me. Umm... wasn't trying to? The ability to have fun or find enjoyment in life has NOTHING to do with alignment. I wasn't talking about ability. That certainly would be a ridiculous idea. I was talking about desire. Desire to have fun; desire to do [other things] even if unfun. Does that change your view?
calvinNhobbes 07-21-07, 10:09 PM	Umm... wasn't trying to? Calling someone out is baiting. I was talking about desire. Desire to have fun; desire to do [other things] even if unfun. Does that change your view? What!?!? You think being lawful means you have less desire to have fun? And being chaotic means you don't want to do things that are unfun? That is completely rediculous. The desire to have fun has nothing to do with alignment.
fatal error 07-21-07, 11:28 PM	Well, if all his beliefs about not killing are simply artificially created by his analysis of the best way to achieve his goal, he's clearly not going to be good. At the same time, his emphasis on planning places him squarely in law. His hatred of tradition is based upon cold logic and reasoning that the most practical way should always be followed, thus bringing lawfulness against lawfulness. Essentially the same for lying; he finds lies to be extremely practical to use in most situations, and thus, logically, they should be used. Since he is just manipulating his environment in whatever way is most practical, while driving towards his ultimate goal with precise planning, I say:u:/:b: Err, I mean Lawful Evil. After all, the only reason he isn't killing people is because he thinks not killing them will get him to his goal faster.
calvinNhobbes 07-21-07, 11:53 PM	At the same time, his emphasis on planning places him squarely in law. Where does it say that planning is a lawful trait?
Khadmus 07-22-07, 08:58 AM	LN, I'd say. At least, for purposes of spells such as detect law.
GawainBS 07-22-07, 09:31 AM	Where does it say that planning is a lawful trait? It can easily be deduced by reading fluff about Lawful races. Also, a Chaotic individual simply doesn't believe in the merits of planning (to a certain extent), because he thinks chaos will always prevail over the most careful laid plans. Hard to express, but for me, the tendency to plan ahead signifies or even exemplifies Lawfulness. Overal, I'd say this guy is Lawful Evil.
OleOneEye 07-22-07, 10:35 AM	Kudos for making a personality first, then seeking to apply an alignment to that. The differences of opinion show the weaknesses of the alignment system. As DM, I would have no problem if you chose lawful neutral, lawful evil, true neutral, or neutral evil. Any of those four could easily be argued to encompass this character depending on your opinion of the alignments, and the DM's opinion. What is relatively certain is he is not a good alignment. Also, it is hard to justify any chaotic alignment for him.
Stormbrand 07-22-07, 11:04 AM	Somewhere between Neutral and Lawful Evil, depending on how he is played in practice - start Neutral then keep track of where he leans the most. His opposition to killing seems more of a personal tabboo than true principle. He is in favour of a Lawful Good environment for the same reason most TN people are - because LG will be nice to you. As for his word, he may or may not break it. That means that he does not value promises or trustworthiness for it's own sake. Non-lawful trait. Seems to be fond of an 'ordered society' which controls everything, but does not feel personally beholden to such a society (his attitude towards tradition). Prepared to oppress others = debase innocent life. Evil acts. Note: the description of Lawful Evil includes some personal rules to pretend superiority over other villains. ------ On the issue of fun or not and alignment, Chaotic will do more things for fun alone - and feel no restrictions on the subject. Lawful characters can still have a developed sense of fun, but recognises that there are things more important. And some people do just prefer order. *shrug* I hate pointless rebellion.
Horseshoe_Hermit 07-22-07, 01:08 PM	Calling someone out What is "calling someone out"? Anyway, what about this idea: Since alignment, in DnD, has some sort of substantial existence in the form of an Aura that surrounds a person (detectable with magic), it makes sense that the Aura a person gives off is somehow causally related to the acts the person does. Intentions are how we measure morality in the real world, but it seems that actions are more important in DnD - isn't there that innocuous spell with undead, and casting it is a strictly evil act? Becoming a lich is strictly evil? And if you're a paladin, your Aura of righteousness is threatened when you do something evil, even if it wasn't intentional at all. You could be dominated and kill some children, and still you would have to seek atonement. So it seems to me, that this guy would find himself somewhere between Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil, at any given time, depending on how frequently he undertakes acts that are expressly evil. As for his saving of lives - do you think that would shift his alignment toward neutral (on the good/evil axis) at least? Of course it would never bring him to good, since as shown, he saves lives only when a neutral character would. If that's not true, then his alignment would eventually end up evil, never countered with shifting back. Which means it would be right to place him at lawful evil in the first place. @fatal error: Lawful is :w:, Chaotic is :r:, wouldn't you agree? Also, why do you figure this guy is both Blue and Black?
Caelic 07-22-07, 01:15 PM	I have to ask: has this character read Machiavelli? Some of his beliefs are straight out of The Prince. That said: I think whether the character falls into the category of Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil depends in part on how he's played within these guidelines. Actions do, indeed, play a part in determining alignment. I'm very tempted to say "Lawful Evil"--because, frankly, a complex, realistic evil character with depth and verisimilitude is such a joy to encounter in a world of "Nyahahahah! I'm evil! I run around sticking my sword in people at random for no other reason than that I can!" On the other hand, I find it hard to say that a character who is committed to bringing about a "good" society is totally evil...even if he's doing it for purely rational and calculated reasons. In that sense, I might argue that his good actions and his selfish motives balance each other out, resulting in an overall state of neutrality.
calvinNhobbes 07-22-07, 04:47 PM	It can easily be deduced by reading fluff about Lawful races. Also, a Chaotic individual simply doesn't believe in the merits of planning (to a certain extent), because he thinks chaos will always prevail over the most careful laid plans. Hard to express, but for me, the tendency to plan ahead signifies or even exemplifies Lawfulness. So basically you have no direct evidence and it is just your opinion that planning is a lawful trait. Gotcha. Have you seen a good bank heist movie? Say Ocean's 11, 12, or 13. I would definitely say the main characters are Chaotic in alignment (personal freedom, avoids authority, resents restrictions, challenges traditions, etc.) and they are completely capable of complicated planning and organization. One of the poster boys of Chaotic (Captain Jack Sparrow) is also forms several long term plans. The difference between Lawful and Chaotic is what they do when the plan doesn't work as they thought. Lawful can be "close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, and a lack of adaptability". While Chaotic has "adaptability and flexibility". But the actual ability to form a plan is not restricted by alignment. It is restricted by intelligence. On the issue of fun or not and alignment, Chaotic will do more things for fun alone - and feel no restrictions on the subject. Where does it say Chaotic will do more things for fun? I have reread the description of Chaotic in the SRD over and over again and can not find anything mentioning Chaos having more fun. I know "girls just want to have fun", so if you can find some evidence all or even most girls are chaotic then I'll believe you. ;) What is "calling someone out"? Personally addressing another poster in a negative context. There was no need for your snide comment addressing me by name in response to another person's comment.
GawainBS 07-22-07, 04:50 PM	So basically you have no direct evidence and it is just your opinion that planning is a lawful trait. Gotcha. Yes, especially the deducing that the part "for me" expressed my opinion. Got me square there. Also, the fluff about Githzerai, Formians and Modrons was written by me, without consent of Wizards. Damn. You got me twice.
Vidahr 07-22-07, 05:02 PM	When we're going to involve mobster-ish movies and Jack sparrow, you should at least do it right. Ocean's xx, they are mobsters, no way around it. What does ORGANIZED crime do? Organize their crime? Like in...Plan... The whole escaping from law is just by 'using' it. The lack of moral is not chaotic, it's definitly on the good-evil axis. And our good friend Jack Sparrow wholeheartedly admits there's no careful planning, he just goes with it along the road. He just litterally remarks that a few times.
calvinNhobbes 07-22-07, 05:54 PM	Also, the fluff about Githzerai, Formians and Modrons First, Githzerai aren't even listed as requiring a lawful alignment. Second, the fluff mentions nothing of their planning abilities. Structure is not the same thing as planning. Third, I see nothing in the Formian fluff outlining their amazing planning abilities either. Once again, structure is not the same thing as a plan. I am unfamiliar with Modrons. A professional army is usually well structured and disciplined (lawful). That does not mean they have a plan of attack. A band of rebels has no structure or discipline (the chaotic good alignment is even referred to as the rebel). What is stopping them from developing a plan of attack. When we're going to involve mobster-ish movies and Jack sparrow, you should at least do it right. Ocean's xx, they are mobsters, no way around it. What does ORGANIZED crime do? Organize their crime? Ocean's X is not an example of organized crime. Organized crime is LE. You consider the main characters to be evil? Please read the description of LE, I've highlighted some important aspects. A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises. Like in...Plan... The whole escaping from law is just by 'using' it. They do not use the law the escape it! The flaunt the fact they are so good a breaking the law and getting away with it! A lawyer or politician is an example of someone lawful who uses the interpretaton of the laws to their advantage, not a bank robber! The lack of moral is not chaotic, it's definitly on the good-evil axis. The good-evil axis is ethics, the lawful-chaotic axis is morals. And our good friend Jack Sparrow wholeheartedly admits there's no careful planning, he just goes with it along the road. He just litterally remarks that a few times. Of course he does! NOT because he is Chaotic though. But because he is smart. Is is trying to seem crazy and foolish to lull people in a false sense of security. Anyone who has seen the movies knows Jack has long term plans thought out days, months, even years in advance.
IceFractal 07-22-07, 06:50 PM	Since D&D alignment seems based more on actions than motivations, he could be anywhere from LG to LE to N, depending on what events have occured. If, by coincidence, he had only opportunities to help people, he may end up LG. Conversely, if his goals always required evil acts, and he did those, then he'd end up evil. Whether basing alignment primarily on actions makes sense is a different question, but that it is in D&D is pretty clear. Now actions aside, IMO he's LN. Being willing to lie and occasionally break his word doesn't prevent him from being lawful, anymore than liking puppies prevents a blackguard from being evil. The fact that he may be willing to do evil in search of his goal doesn't mean that he's evil yet, nor does his sometimes willingness to do good make him LG.
Horseshoe_Hermit 07-22-07, 08:03 PM	Personally addressing another poster in a negative context. There was no need for your snide comment addressing me by name in response to another person's comment. . . . d'oh. Well, in matters such as these, perception is truth, so I guess my intentions are irrelevant and I won't bother relating them. I will attempt to use this incident to improve my sense of 'snide'. ... I'm sorry. "The good-evil axis is ethics, the lawful-chaotic axis is morals." Really. Now I've always wondered what the difference between the two was. At first I assumed they were the same thing. Then I kept hearing them as separate entries in lists (i.e. "It's unethical, it's immoral, and..."), so I wondered what the difference was. I could never see how they were used differently. Well, I'll see if I can corroborate your claim with my personal experience. Please, carry on everyone. We've got some nice discussion going on, and evaluating my character's place on the axes obviously has to come after fixing up the system itself. ... damnit. That looks sarcastic. Well it's not.
calronmoonflower 07-22-07, 08:33 PM	So basically you have no direct evidence and it is just your opinion that planning is a lawful trait. Gotcha. Planning is a action most associated with the lawful alignment. It cannot be said from that that planning makes you lawful. It's like guilt by association. Association does not mean correlation.
calvinNhobbes 07-22-07, 10:45 PM	Horseshoe_Hermit No problem, and I apologize if I was too hasty in my accusation. But I find it better to air any grievances and call people out. Clarifications are then made and flame wars averted. Planning is a action most associated with the lawful alignment. It cannot be said from that that planning makes you lawful. Well stated. Although I have no idea how or why the association got started. I suppose it could be a result of execution. As part of their definitions, lawful is "reliable", while chaotic as "irresponsible". Even if they both have a plan, the lawful individual is more likely to execute it.
Stormbrand 07-22-07, 11:21 PM	Where does it say Chaotic will do more things for fun? I have reread the description of Chaotic in the SRD over and over again and can not find anything mentioning Chaos having more fun. I know "girls just want to have fun", so if you can find some evidence all or even most girls are chaotic then I'll believe you. ;) Lawful is 'reliable' while chaotic is 'irresponsible' - I would guess that an irresponsible person would do what was fun with less thought for consequence. That is my deduction. I agree/concede that the relationship between Law/Chaos and fun is only indirect.
calvinNhobbes 07-22-07, 11:52 PM	Lawful is 'reliable' while chaotic is 'irresponsible' - I would guess that an irresponsible person would do what was fun with less thought for consequence. That is my deduction. I agree/concede that the relationship between Law/Chaos and fun is only indirect. I can see your point, but what is "fun" for an individual is not something you can generalize. A LN and CN person could both find the same activity fun for much different reasons. In addition, I would like to add that a chaotic person does not necessarily have less thought for consequence, they just don't care about the consequence. The ability to predict and analyze consequence is wisdom not alignment.
DrMorganes 07-24-07, 10:04 AM	Don't bait me. The ability to have fun or find enjoyment in life has NOTHING to do with alignment. I don't even know how to argue against such an obviously rediculous idea. As I mentioned above, I don't think "doesn't do anything for fun" was intended to mean this guy doesn't have hobbies that give him joy. Rather, I believe the statement was an indication of the character's focus and self-discipline. Example: My wife, bless her, is a chaotic soul. It's one of the things I love about her. She looked at me the other day and said, "Just for fun, let's ..." The balance of the conversation is immaterial (but decidedly G rated); the point here is that was her way of saying, "I'm bored. Let's chuck the stuff on the schedule for tonight and go do something else." This is NOT the sort of behavior I see this fellow indulging in. He does EVERYTHING for a reason. Spontaneous action is something he avoids.
DrMorganes 07-24-07, 11:29 AM	I'm not sure what you're referring to. Where did you get the idea his conscience bothers him? I meant that, when he makes a choice, he is very concerned with long-term effects. Getting told down the line - even months later- that something he did had a ripple effect, troubles him if he thinks he should have been able to see that. Which means, he spends a lot of time thinking about his actions, because, as I said, the defense "I didn't know" isn't good enough for his own self-criticism. I meant to contrast it with something more like virtue ethics, where apparently your only obligation is to "act good" right now - saving lives from danger when you're there and the weapons are out, but not seeing that the baron of wherever is actually killing prisoners secretly for some reason, or some group is planning to cause death on a massive scale somewhere. The character is out for knowledge anyway, so he feels obligated to know about these things - things you'd never even know about if you didn't look. Also, the sense that, sometimes what is best is counterintuitive, and he wants to knowingly determine the best course - improving on the traditional method of intuition. I got that from the second paragraph of your first post: With respect to what follows, he feels responsible for bad things that happen (or good things that don't happen) if some act he could have taken beforehand could have prevented it (or caused it). I see from your expanded explanation above that I misinterpreted this, likely based on your choice of words. He doesn't "feel bad". He has no conscience. Feeling obligated to know about the long-term ripples of this actions strikes me as a way to further understand the Cause/Effect relationships of his plans. Understanding how a small miscalculation now can snowball into a large issue later is crucial to maintaining control. It's a scientific interest with its roots in his desire to know (and perhaps control) everything. It is not an emotional reaction. However, he IS still mortal. Like all of us, he needs his rational constructs to justify his actions. You said it yourself: "I didn't know it would happen" is not a valid justification. The implication here, however, is twofold. The first I discussed above: deepening his understanding of Cause and Effect to improve his long-range plans. The second is a method of safeguarding his sanity. White Wolf's Vampire: The Masquerade puts forth a similar idea that I think expresses what I'm trying to say. In that game, the characters have an "ability score" called Humanity - a measure of how far they've succumbed to the bestial urges of their supernatural forms. (I don't know if the new edition of the rules, Vampire: The Requiem, has the same mechanic.) Vampires in that game tell themselves, "A beast I am, lest a Beast I become." The point being they must commit smaller, more easily justified atrocities to protect their sanity, to prevent themselves from losing control and degenerating into complete monsters that live only to kill. I see similar intellectual gymnastics playing out in this character's mind. Interesting. Would you explain further? I already know about how altruism is a myth, though, so you can skip that. I'd offer my own account of what his motives are, but I really want to hear your thoughts first. I will remind you, however, that I did write that he will manipulate and exploit others. Is that what you meant by "warped sense of kindred"? Not really. This guy strikes me as arrogant in the extreme, arrogant on a level most folks have a hard time relating to, arrogant like mind flayers are arrogant. He has an absolute certainty of his own inherent superiority. The "warped sense of kindred" is the best he can do when it comes to empathy. HE is unique and special. While there are no others like him, there are others who are unique and special. These others are beneath him, of course, but he will act to preserve them if he can based on his own arrogance. As I mentioned earlier: If HE is unique, and does not want to die, others who are unique must not want to die, either. It's the best he can do to relate to lesser beings, in part because he truly believes he is above them, and in part because he truly does not care what they may think or feel in the matter. I finally got around to watching the 2nd and 3rd movies in The Matrix last night. I saw pieces of this character in Mr. Smith, particularly in the final fight between Smith and Neo in Matrix: Revolutions. This may seem a contradiction to what I've said above about this character rationalizing his behavior. I don't think it is. I see it as a more detailed example of his rationalizations. He doesn't even know he's doing it. He simply believes, and created that belief over years of development. Hmm. I guess, if DnD Good is so, then he can't be good for exactly that reason. Glad we cleared that up. Rerecros and green_girl had me going for a minute there. Ah, but that's the crux of this, isn't it? You asked what alignment we thought this character would be. The fact that you asked the question in the framework of the game means that we must discuss the answer using the definitions and examples provided by the game. Otherwise we're not discussing a construct of the game. Instead we're having a philosophical discussion of real-world ethics and morals. The two are similar, one being based on the other, but it's a mistake to confuse them. Ooh, black heart. Is that just the cowardly unwillingness to die, or something else? It takes more than a cowardly unwillingness to die to qualify for a "black heart". It's everything. This guy is a cold, aloof, self-centered, uncaring prick who will leave a child to die rather than sacrifice himself in an attempt to save her, and then go to bed.
DrMorganes 07-24-07, 11:32 AM	Gods and demons, y'think I'm putting a bit much into this conversation? Can you tell I have a background in acting? :D