Badger Kyre said:
LadyRhian said:
I guess I would say that my games come closer to the third type of Alignment, even though I am GMing AD&D. I had to throw out a player who was playing a Chaotic Good Barbarian because... I told him it was because he didn't even ask her if it was okay, and that this was incompatible with his alignment. Now, the character should have known this, but the player's attitude was "It's just an NPC, so it shouldn't matter. It wasn't like I did it to another PC or something."
I would have changed him to chaotic neutral ( aka, selfish bastard )
- tend to assign alignments rather than ask - and you and i discussed other D&D versions before, where clerics earned their spells and you changed to a paladin as a sort of prestige class at level 9 - by earning it -
( which i blame on wizradry
)
Anyway, the reason i responded to this post was it reminded me so much of that anti-hero i hated so much as kid, Thomas Covenant... and an argument I had with a friend who loved the books ( and was of dubious moral character himself )
We could split hairs on CN versus "evil" - after all, is it not selfishness, not just greed for money, that is the root of evil?
But IMO, evil alignment implies a degree of dedication to malice, rather than just sociopathy- which is what we call it in real life when someoen doesn't think as others as "real", no?
I can't help but wonder to what degree this guy was just, not a roleplayer and not engaging in the RP element of the game ( barbarian class appeals )...
But maybe that's yet another separate tangent.
Love my tangents, ya know... nice seeing you post again, Lady.
As a ps; I am fond of the big 5 and myers-briggs personality tests, was recently discussing that with my psych study partner, how the alignment system is a 2-axis/3 position version.
Odd timing there...
It was that whole "Didn't see anything wrong with it" that I felt crossed the line into evil. I felt that evil characters see people as tools and toys for their amusement and pleasure. Here's my reading of the AD&D alignment chart-
Lawful Good- thinks laws are good because they protect people from bad things happening to them (generally). Hates unjust laws, will work within the system to see them changed. Obeys the law.
Lawful Neutral- The Law is the Law and is meant to be followed, good, bad or indifferent. If anyone knows Les Misérables, this is Inspector Javert to a T. You will be held to the standard of following the law, and if you break a law, woe to you. The law is all.
Lawful Evil- The law is very useful, but will use the laws to benefit him or herself. Never breaks their word, but getting it can be difficult. Likes the law insofar as it makes society easier to control. Unjust laws are just too bad for the people they discriminate against. Likes laws that favor himself.
Chaotic Good- Freedom is better than any laws. Laws can hurt people as well as help them and more often hurt. Will ignore unjust laws and even break them to prove how unjust they are. Wants good for people, but laws don't generally help in this regard. The person with the most freedom can do the most good. Has a personal code of morality that may conform to some laws in society, but not all of them.
Chaotic Neutral- I have the freedom to do what I want, when I want. Is contemptuous of laws and doesn't give a flying leap. Personal freedom is all, and if that causes someone else grief, so be it.
Chaotic Evil- Not only will I do what I want, when I want, but I will tread over everyone else to get my way. I have mine, now root, hog, or die! If you're not strong enough to defend your stuff from me, I should be able to take it, and you can cry about it until you dessicate, I don't care. I am the only one who matters.
True Neutral- Either a fence sitter, or someone who truly doesn't care about morals or laws or lack of either. Druids only respect the laws of nature and nothing else. At times, they can seem benevolent or malevolent depending on what they are doing (from the view of others), but they are only following the uncaring law of mother nature. For example a druid may kill a rabid bear because of the damage it is doing to the ecosystem. To a community suffering the attacks of said bear, he's doing a good deed. Two years later, there is a blight on the crops and the druid does nothing because that's how nature is- and now the same community sees him as evil for not fighting the blight.
Neutral Good- Good is the aim. Laws are fine if they promote it, likewise Chaos. All that matters is that Good is done.
Neutral Evil- Here is the same, but mainly for evil. If I can work within the law and use the law to steal your farm from you, that's what I'll do. If showing up with 20 of my best buds on horseback with swords and killing everyone works better, I can do that, too.
Essentially, evil alignment is all about "me", whereas good is all about others and doing for other people.
MasterOfWorlds said:
I actually really like the alignment system in Robotech. I ran BESM for my friends and created a multiverse that went through various areas in games, books, movies, and the like, but BESM doesn't really have an alignment system.
I like the alignment system that can cover both allegiance and attitude, but sadly, not all of the people in the Empire from Star Wars are evil, controlling, kick your puppy just for grins kind of people, and the Rebels have plenty of people who are just slimy and make your skin crawl.
One of my main problems with the alignment system, especially as far as D&D goes, is that almost everyone sees Lawful Good as Lawful Stupid, and that's one of the nicer names I've heard it called. This bothers me because of two reasons. The first being that I tend to play lawful good characters, and the second being that just because someone is good and obeys the law does not mean that they will sit there and try to hold off the whole horde of zombies by themselves when they could easily go to the town they would defend and tell them to commence operation GTFO.
The whole point of a Lawful Good character, as least as I play them, is that they know the laws and can use them to their advantage, not get in trouble with the law, and generally have a good standing with authority. The idea being that the law is there to protect the people and if the law is unjust, it can be changed. Lawful Good characters don't need to be naive or tell the truth to people that they know are evil. They might save a villain from falling off the cliff, but only so that who they've wronged can see them stand trial.
I think the alignment that my friends would call one of my famous characters, at least in my group, is "Ruthlessly Pragmatic." That character isn't very likeable, but he gets the job done.
Yeah, I remember when Paladins were considered stupid. I remember a party that wanted to send the Paladin out of the room so that they could slaughter the prisoners. The Paladin went (it was couched as checking the area for patrols), but when he got back and saw what they did, he was not pleased, and ended up leaving the party. After turning them in to the appropriate authorities.
You don't even need to be a Paladin to make moral choices like that. In my earliest days playing D&D, I got my party slaughtered by following my alignment. I chose lawful good, and the two morally ambiguous neutral elves in my party decided to get into the Keep on the Borderlands and attack the powers that be there, kill them and loot the keep. My character stayed quiet, took the last watch and lit out for the keep to warn them. When the elves showed up and were asked "Friend or Foe?" They said "Friend!", got told "You lie!" and were ballista bolted for their bending of the truth. Neither survived, and the players were quite upset with me. But the GM said I had played my alignment well and gave me bonus experience.
See, I think the problem with the "Lawful Stupid" is not that the person is misplaying their alignment, but the player believes he shouldn't rock the party's boat by getting the rest of the players killed by opposing them- because that would make the other players dislike him. So he bends and allows his character to fall for stuff that they would vigorously oppose if they were really playing their alignment correctly. "Hell no, I am not going to walk out so you can slaughter these prisoners- we are supposed to be better than them, and better than that."