All About Alignment
- Thread starter Archon
- Start date
So, quick 1:30 session then? I'm sure there's loot the other players won't miss!Archon said:
Also, considering my 3.5 character is Chaotic Neutral that I've generally been playing as only caring about party members/friends while approaching everything else with a loot justifies the means attitude... I think I'm actually almost right on for his alignment in the article's terms.
As for the example of the Paladin, I feel it's necessary to point out Lawful Good doesn't mean Lawful Nice.
If the enemy is a drow, an avowed enemy of everything, breaking a few fingers wouldn't violate his code. He's only going to kill the drow anyway. Sparing it would be a violation of his code.
If the enemy is a drow, an avowed enemy of everything, breaking a few fingers wouldn't violate his code. He's only going to kill the drow anyway. Sparing it would be a violation of his code.
This has always been one of my favorite topics (and one of the biggest reasons I am sad about the 4e neutering of the alignment table).Archon said:
Without doing a full article like you have done, my basics come down to:
Anything + Neutral means that your motivations are almost all encompassed by that anything. Neutral Good means that doing Good is the biggest force in your life. Lawful Neutral means that maintaining order is the most important. So in a way, we actually get a 4-4-1 split of alignments. In one camp are the Pure alignments:
Neutral Good
Lawful Neutral
Chaotic Neutral
Neutral Evil
Camp 2 has the Combinational alignments
Lawful Good
Chaotic Good
Lawful Evil
Chaotic Evil
And then there is Neutral neutral (true neutral) which generally has its own discussion.
The first camp focuses solely on one aspect, people in these camps may have opinions on the other axis, but they just aren't as strong as their primary one. A Lawful Neutral person could be in general 'good', but they just aren't as moved to action by it, as they are by Law and Order (not the TV show!).
The Second camp are people more divided by two philosophies. They actually have an easier time rationalizing different types of actions due to the multiple forces on the. Even a Lawful Good character needs to sometimes consider doing the Good thing versus doing the Right thing. Of course, these people are most 'at peace' or whatnot, when they can do both. Lawful Evil likes to be greedy and self-centered, especially when he plays the system right.
As an aside, the best way to distinguish Lawful Evil from Chaotic Evil: The former is a lawyer, who stays within the complex system of rules to achieve whatever selfish goal he wants. The latter is a hacker, who seeks endlessly to bypass the rules to get what they want.
It isn't lawful either though! Remember that if we want to strictly go by alignment (which isn't real world, by the way) here I think are the outcomes:TsunamiWombat said:
Lawful Good: Tries to reason with the Drow, and tell him he still has a chance to redeem himself before the execution that is to come for him. However, the LG character can't cause pain even if he knows he needs the information, now will he be able to be a vigilante enough.
Neutral Good: Tries to reason with the Drow, as LG above. However when push comes to shove he puts the law aside, and will consider more forceful options to get the information out. Still probably not straight up torture, but everything but.
Chaotic Good: Maybe tries to reason with the Drow, but has no real problem crunching some fingers. The greater good is simply too important to waste time being reasonable.
Lawful Neutral: It is clearly time to strike a bargain. Afterall, the Drow has needs, and you have needs, there must be SOME intersection, right? However, if it is demonstrable that none exist, then a well planned out system of interrogation will have to be done, but know that no pleasure will be gained by it.
True Neutral: Could bargain, could reason, could go straight for the throat. Any possible strategies offer the same pull.
Chaotic Neutral: Might try to interrogate just because it would be fun. Might not be so great at it either. Clearly the Drow has something you need, and you need to get it from them, so why waste time with a process or planning?
Lawful Evil: It is clearly time to strike a bargain. You promised someone you'd get this information from the Drow, but you don't really have any personal stake in the people above. Sadly you just dislike going against your word. You aren't planning on killing the Drow anyway, not when you could get him to be your minion and swear loyalty to you.
Neutral Evil: First, you'd hurt him just to make him know you mean business. Make him realize this isn't some joke. You'd give him one chance after that, one final opportunity to do this the easy way. If he fails, you torture the information out of him, and then kill him. Not because you think he is bad or wrong, but because he dared to defy you.
Chaotic Evil: You were promised shiney somethings for this information, so why beat around the bush? You start hurting him while asking him questions, and hopefully he gives you the answer before he dies. Sadly, him giving the answer isn't really going to help him any, since torture and death are both his reward and punishment.
Note that I assume here that the PC involved is actively trying to get the information, no matter the alignment.
Why is this series only focused on D&D? It's cool that you, obviously, put a lot of effort into analysing the D&D alignment system in the light of philosophy and all, but the subtitle of the article series is "Your introduction to tabletop gaming." and it's very rare that you DON'T focus on D&D. It's not the only tabletop game, you're just worsening an already bad tendency with not giving your readers a chance to broaden their horizons by referring to more RPGs. Please do? As it is, I'm a great RPG fan but there's really not much I can take out from your articles.
I'm not saying you focus ONLY on D&D - there's a fair amount of references to RPGs in general (though I find that most of the time I don't agree with your philosophy of gaming, but that's beside the point), but you really rarely call upon other systems when discussing stuff. I just think that's hurting people's views on the hobby, or at least puts them askew.
I'm not saying you focus ONLY on D&D - there's a fair amount of references to RPGs in general (though I find that most of the time I don't agree with your philosophy of gaming, but that's beside the point), but you really rarely call upon other systems when discussing stuff. I just think that's hurting people's views on the hobby, or at least puts them askew.
Yeah, it never happens.Archon said:
I have NO idea where the concept of Darth Vader as Lawful Evil comes from.[/quote]
Anakin starts off as Chaotic Good. Screw the State, but here's some nice toys for Mum.
Losing Padme alignment flips him - so he jumps to Lawful Evil (Most big changes are complete opposites - Han's slow drift from NE to NG was more of an arc). From here he controls the largest army in the galaxy (The three films are basically LE vs CG) The betrayal of the order could be seen as due to the death of Padme (And the Hand of Vecna? Gosh, that's awfully appropriate for Darth)
While he's in command, he does violate orders, all the time. But look at Animal Farm where "Some animals are more equal than others". That's still a lawful Evil tenant that allows it's leaders to kick the peasantry.
In the end though, Luke's arc (CG-LG) shows Annakin what he could have become and as the Emperor (NE) tries to kill him, Anakin flips back to CG, dumps Palpatine and dies with a Good Alignment.
Darth's a tantrum thrower, but he wields power and for that you sort of need a Lawful edge to keep you defended. Chaotic Overlords have to pay their troops - who then desert as soon as Mr. CG turn up.
Hmmm....I think I will have to ponder this further. One thing I would say though is that although Kant wrote LG and Nietzsche may have wrote CE, I don't believe they themselves were of that alignment. Most of Nietzche's work was changed after his death and he was dying of syphillis (I believe) at the time. Like Darth, Vitriol can make a hard man seem cruel.
And then take Corporal Carrot from the Discworld. He's so Lawful Good it shines. (Vimes is Neutral Good, but he's not getting that Lawful badge anytime soon) [Vetenari the Lawful NEUTRAL, playing Lawful Evil wants Vimes where he can be manipulated]
But Carrot shot a man in cold blood, regularly lets thieves go and is attached to a creature that just yells Chaotic Evil.
"We judge others by their behavior. We judge ourselves by our intentions." - Ian Percy
Totally Totally disagree.zHellas said:
Mr. Campaign Screwer is Chaotic Evil, (Sod the Law, I want fun) he's your Douche, Asshole King has to go to Neutral Evil because he's the Devil's Advocate, Chaotic Goods are usually what you'd like your party to be at the start - and bond into Neutral Goods.
Lawful Good's can be pain in the necks, but the UN are Lawful Good (or at least try to be). UNIT are also Lawful Good. Torchwood seem to be Chaotic Neutrals.
And poor old True Neutral, if ever there was a class that got shafted more than you.
Yoda is True Neutral(Wise). C3P0 is True Neutral(Coward). Most of the droids are TN, except IG-88 who's Lawful Evil, and R2 who is Lawful Good.
and what about Mr. "Shall I destroy this meatbags master" HK-47 himself?The_root_of_all_evil said:
But to be honest I actually wonder if droids are capable of understanding the concept of morality at all?
On the topic: Personally I think that using the alignment system as "fluff" for the pole-playing part of a pen & paper and as a means to balance classes somehow breaks the system. I don't think it is able to perform well in both fields.
No proper paladin, or no proper Good character for that matter, would ever consider torture, because causing explicit harm to others, intentionally, for whatever gain, is a severe breach of alignment. The Books of Exalted Deeds and Vile Darkness actually set this as an Evil act, not just Chaotic;Zechnophobe said:
Thus, I severely disagree with the prospect that a chaotic good would readily consider torture. I would rather say that, while a Lawful Good character would never go out of his way to extract information from an unwilling person, a Chaotic Good character would resort to whatever means they are free to reach for; divination, subterfuge, lying, enchantments. Torture is something only Neutral and Evil alignments can consider, ever. A Good character that does so is earning him or herself a possible alignment shift.The Book of Exalted Deeds said:
Another fact that must be pointed out; while Paladins are one of the classes that face the most dillemmas about how they should act in given situations, there is actually a very simple answer given; When in doubt, go for the Good option rather than the Lawful option. A Paladin is sworn to do Good and defend Good - whether its abstract notion or a God embodying it. This notion overrules all else in a Paladin's code, because the Paladin's code is dedicated to the preservation, and the striving for, the virtues. For a Paladin, there should never be any doubt whatsoever as to what actions he or she should do in this regard.
The main issue I've always had with people citing the Book of ED/VD is that they are the extreme outliers of alignment, meant for those going way way way too far above and beyond their chosen label. I've read both, and actually had a fellow PC who used ED. It was more of a pain than it was worth, but back on topic. The torture question is pretty black and white, I will agree just from the moral standpoint of one doesn't injure your captives, that's an evil act. The two alignment books, try to supplant modern moral philosophies onto the whole of a medieval system and that's where my large problem with them shows up.
Also, those two books turn alignment into the appalling straitjacket I've seen too many times. Alignment for all this philosophizing isn't the be all and end all of your character. Sure it affects certain spells and magic items, but so what? We're still playing dynamic mortal characters who should make a choice based on who they are not what two letters you have written on your character sheet. The people who try and unwaveringly stick to it tend to do the worst roleplaying from the various groups I've been in. It's the people willing to explore the character rather than the alignment that makes the game work.
Also, those two books turn alignment into the appalling straitjacket I've seen too many times. Alignment for all this philosophizing isn't the be all and end all of your character. Sure it affects certain spells and magic items, but so what? We're still playing dynamic mortal characters who should make a choice based on who they are not what two letters you have written on your character sheet. The people who try and unwaveringly stick to it tend to do the worst roleplaying from the various groups I've been in. It's the people willing to explore the character rather than the alignment that makes the game work.
Would it? Morality isn't set in stone and Drows are sapient humanoids just like the PCs. It's entirely reasonable that the captive could change their ways given the chance. It's not as if we haven't met good Drows before like that famous one which everyone loves. Druzt? Drijt? Oh, something like that.TsunamiWombat said:
Not only that but you're killing your captive who has been disabled. It's not a great distance to stretch that to Murder which is most definetly against Paladin codes. Killing, no, but murder? That's evil.
I can't see a Paladin justifying the torture and subsequent murder of a drow captive, or a DM accepting that justification. I believe the proper thing to do would be to negotiate for the information they have, turn them in to the proper authorities once able to and try to redeem them.
I completely agree. I often like to take a more realistic view of alignment, one that people could internalize in the real world. The problem with the most extreme forms of alignment, is that lets be honest, there are more than 9 types of people in the world. That's even sillier than Astrology.Explorator Vimes said:
If you were to try and put those 9 alignments on the real world, and have each roughly equally represented, how would you describe them? Obviously Evil would not be nearly the extreme hate/pain lovers that we see in a fantasy game.
Furthermore, I think there is this odd attachment to the idea of Good vs Pure Good. We like the idea of being Pure Good. Except when it prevents us from doing what we want to do. Then it gets boring.
I second this, no paladin code is going to let them torture and then murder their captive, it comes with the territory of being the Lawful Good guy that if you take a prisoner you gotta turn them in. You don't get to be Judge, Jury, and Executioner, especially if you're a Paladin. A Lawful Good noble might do it because it's just an alignment and the occasional hit isn't going to automatically shift them, but the paladin and even sometimes the cleric don't really get that leeway, it's why they get the nicer toys overall.Amnestic said:
This has been without a doubt the best Check for Traps article/thread combo to date.
The insight and research that went into this one really showed. =)
And as a note on alignments, I let veteran players of D&D pick what they want. Fore new players, I never even mention alignments to them and let them play their characters however. It's pretty rare that any game mechanic makes a check for alignment before 3rd level or so.
Once new players get the groove of things, a gaming group can instruct/guide them on melding their character's actions to thier alignment to enhance the roleplaying, and the gameing experience.
Otherwise, what's the point?
The insight and research that went into this one really showed. =)
And as a note on alignments, I let veteran players of D&D pick what they want. Fore new players, I never even mention alignments to them and let them play their characters however. It's pretty rare that any game mechanic makes a check for alignment before 3rd level or so.
Once new players get the groove of things, a gaming group can instruct/guide them on melding their character's actions to thier alignment to enhance the roleplaying, and the gameing experience.
Otherwise, what's the point?