PDA

View Full Version : A debate about alignments



mockingbyrd7
2007-01-15, 02:49 AM
I just had a thought about alignments. SO, my question is the following:

You take two people. Both are of "pure heart", are very nice in general, etc etc. No debate that they're good. However:

Person A is wild, free-spirited, and willing to take risks on a regular basis. However, when Person A is told to do something by an authority figure, they respond and comply with the utmost respect and do not break their word. Is Person A Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, or Neutral Good?

Person B is studious, disciplined, strong-willed and a traditionalist in general. But Person B also dislikes, disrespects, and disregards anyone that tries to boss them around or even set down guidelines, even if they are higher in authority than them. Is Person B Lawful Good, Chaotic Good or Neutral Good?

Debate!

Golt
2007-01-15, 02:58 AM
Person A has got a lawful good alignment and a chaotic good character and vice versa for person B.

That's the biggest flaw in alignment system in Dn'D- there's no distinction between character and alignment.

PirateMonk
2007-01-15, 08:23 AM
That, and the restrictions on paladins. Having to follow your god's principles makes sense. Only being able to worship a few gods does not. Sure, it lets them conveniently cast spells like "Smite Evil," "Detect Evil," "Dispel Evil," and "Protection from Evil," but it's horribly unfair! Just like how it stops explaining how each alignment is the best after Chaotic Neutral... grumble grumble

Talyn
2007-01-15, 08:52 AM
How exactly can one person be wild and free-spirited and still "comply with the utmost respect" the orders of their superiors? I mean, those are pretty contradictory.

I guess I would say that person A is still Chaotic Good. You can be Chaotic and still be fanatically loyal - but you probably have to be loyal to a person (or at least a personality, like a God). To be fanatically loyal to an idea (justice, for example, or peace) or a culture (patriotism, God Save the Queen), you'd have to be lawful.

Person B is Neutral Good.

Snake-Aes
2007-01-15, 08:59 AM
Person A is chaotic, Person B is neutral.

Chaotic means you don't hold "rules" you don't make in high regard, but if you agree to them, why not follow? I doubt person A would do it if it was against his beliefs, or even simply didn't make much sense.Remember: Just because you're chaotic doesn't mean you'll jump the bridge instead of walking through it.

Absolute hate for being bossed might not necessarily be a chaotic tag, Person B ir probably neutral.

Iranon
2007-01-15, 10:47 AM
I would think person A to be lawful good, person B to be chaotic good although outsiders (no, not Outsiders!) would be likely to think differently. This could lead to problems in both cases:

Person A would be likely to run into inner conflicts frequently since their moral obligations will clash with their personal preferences. They might respect authority and follow its lead, but I think they will often feel stifled by it and regard their loyalty as a not-inconsiderable sacrifice.

Person B would be likely to have a hard time with other people. They will see many people who admire their discipline as uninteresting and sheep-like. At the same time, other free spirits will take a long time to recognise them as such.

Querzis
2007-01-15, 12:03 PM
I think its contradictory too. Maybe not person B but person A cant be free-spirited and obey any order they receive. But he can be very loyal to someone he respect or to a friend and if the order he receive dont go against his moral code, he is gonna do it anyway, so person A is probably chaotic.

Person B sound lawfull to me. Maybe he had a bad experience with authority and dont want anyone to boss him around but is personnality is really lawfull. Beside, disrecpecting and disregarding everyone that try to boss you around isnt chaotic, its just stupid. Chaotic good character are never gonna do anything that goes against their moral code but they wont disrespect all the people that gives them order. If a chaotic character think its a good order, he is gonna do it. If he think its a bad order then he wont do it but he probably wont disrespect the one that gave him the order just because of that. So I'm pretty sure he is lawfull but he hate authority for some reason. Or maybe he just as a problem with the one giving him the order.

Amon Star
2007-01-15, 12:44 PM
How exactly can one person be wild and free-spirited and still "comply with the utmost respect" the orders of their superiors? I mean, those are pretty contradictory.

Bruenor Battlehammer from the Icewind Dale books is like that. He's Neutral Good. So, judging by this, I'd say they're both NG.

zeratul
2007-01-15, 12:48 PM
I just had a thought about alignments. SO, my question is the following:

You take two people. Both are of "pure heart", are very nice in general, etc etc. No debate that they're good. However:

Person A is wild, free-spirited, and willing to take risks on a regular basis. However, when Person A is told to do something by an authority figure, they respond and comply with the utmost respect and do not break their word. Is Person A Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, or Neutral Good?

Person B is studious, disciplined, strong-willed and a traditionalist in general. But Person B also dislikes, disrespects, and disregards anyone that tries to boss them around or even set down guidelines, even if they are higher in authority than them. Is Person B Lawful Good, Chaotic Good or Neutral Good?

Debate!

Person A - chaotic good
Person B - Lawfull Neutral

TinSoldier
2007-01-15, 01:43 PM
Person A could be Chaotic or Neutral. There's not enough information to judge.

Person B is almost definitely Lawful.

Person A and Person B are very close to their stated alignment but with the exception of how they view authority. That doesn't preclude them from being that alignment, it just makes them a little less usual.

They may each have very good reasons for their attitudes towards authority.

Obsidian Blade
2007-01-15, 04:26 PM
I just had a thought about alignments. SO, my question is the following:

You take two people. Both are of "pure heart", are very nice in general, etc etc. No debate that they're good. However:

Person A is wild, free-spirited, and willing to take risks on a regular basis. However, when Person A is told to do something by an authority figure, they respond and comply with the utmost respect and do not break their word. Is Person A Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, or Neutral Good?

Person B is studious, disciplined, strong-willed and a traditionalist in general. But Person B also dislikes, disrespects, and disregards anyone that tries to boss them around or even set down guidelines, even if they are higher in authority than them. Is Person B Lawful Good, Chaotic Good or Neutral Good?

Debate!

I think A would be Neutral. Heck they don't even have to be Good. You don't have to be Lawful to keep your word. Although it's true that a Lawful character can be expected to keep their word and a Chaotic character would have to be watched (depending if their Good or Evil), you don't have to be ONLY Lawful to have a sense of honour.
I think B would be Chaotic. If you have no respect for the hierarchy of wherever you are, then you're not Lawful. If they disliked it and disrespected the people who told them, they could be considered Neutral, but if they totally disregard the rules of society, then they must be Chaotic.

Sage in the Playground
2007-01-16, 07:18 PM
Both neutral in my opinion.

Khantalas
2007-01-16, 07:21 PM
Uh? Why here? In OotS discussion forums? Doesn't it belong in the Gaming forums?

Twilight Jack
2007-01-16, 07:39 PM
I would imagine that it's here because Roy, despite being Lawful Good, seems to have a serious problem with authority figures. His father, Lord Shojo, Miko . . . He doesn't seem to have much time for people telling him what to do. Nonetheless, everything else about his personality screams lawful.

TinSoldier
2007-01-16, 08:15 PM
I would imagine that it's here because Roy, despite being Lawful Good, seems to have a serious problem with authority figures. His father, Lord Shojo, Miko . . . He doesn't seem to have much time for people telling him what to do. Nonetheless, everything else about his personality screams lawful.Maybe "screams" is a bit strong of a word. I think that "whimpers" is probably closer...

Otherwise right on.

Twilight Jack
2007-01-17, 12:09 PM
I see your "whimpers" and raise you a "whispers with conviction."

Green Bean
2007-01-17, 12:14 PM
I always figured that Lawful was a way of thinking (i.e. planning things out, not reacting to surprises as well a Chaotic character), as opposed to opinions on authority and etc

Querzis
2007-01-17, 02:00 PM
I always figured that Lawful was a way of thinking (i.e. planning things out, not reacting to surprises as well a Chaotic character), as opposed to opinions on authority and etc

It is. The opinions on authority are just a minor aspect of the Lawfull/chaotic. Thats why person A is probably Chaotic, even if the respect of authority is usually Lawfull, he still has 3 really important chaotic quality and person B got 3 really important Lawfull quality (yes I said 3 because «strong-willed» is not especially lawfull, its pretty much neutral).

By the way

PirateMonk
2007-01-21, 09:44 AM
What about someone who has great compassion for life, and heals and protects all people, good or evil, regardless of what that person does afterward?

TinSoldier
2007-01-21, 07:48 PM
What about someone who has great compassion for life, and heals and protects all people, good or evil, regardless of what that person does afterward?I would say that probably would be a Good person, and maybe even Lawful.

Of course I would hope that this person's conscience would make him or her counsel any evil persons that they protected or healed from doing any more evil.

PirateMonk
2007-01-24, 07:03 PM
No, they do not. They are not concerned by the actions of others.

TinSoldier
2007-01-25, 12:21 AM
No, they do not. They are not concerned by the actions of others.Who are you replying to? Your post doesn't make any sense without context.

Iranon
2007-01-25, 09:24 AM
IMAO, rarely giving a toss about moral consequences, coupled with general benevolence would make them N or CN (with good tendencies).

The Giant
2007-01-25, 09:26 AM
Uh? Why here? In OotS discussion forums? Doesn't it belong in the Gaming forums?

The Voice of Mod: I agree. To Gaming!

Spartan_Samuel
2007-01-25, 09:52 AM
Person A is Chaotic Good based upon my opinion that even though they are 'told' to act in a lawful nature, you never specified as to whether or not they did infact follow the lawful guidelines set before them.

Person B is Neutral Good based upon my opinion that he is lawful to his own morale and reasoning, but when placed in a situation where he no longer follows the laws he set for himself and rather is set a new list of laws from someone else, he acts chaotic in the eyes of those who set the new list of laws onto him. Therefore, acting both lawful in his view and chaotic in the view of his audience, he is neutral.

Indon
2007-01-25, 10:27 AM
Depends on circumstances, in my opinion. A chaotic good character can be perfectly compliant with authority that they consider to be good. The conflict would only come when CG comes into contact with LN or LE; when told to do something _evil_ by an authority figure. Even then, a CG character may just be loyal to that particular affiliation or nation. Alignments are trends, they generally ignore exceptions.

So I'd call A Chaotic Good, and if pressed for more detail I'd say weakly chaotic, strongly good.

Similarly, being lawful does not neccessarily mean respect for any particular nation. A lawful good character of one nation can feel free to ignore the laws of any other nation when inferior (read: different) from the laws of their own nation, though this manifests most strongly when going from a generally lawful nation to a chaotic one. On the other hand, if he actively resents authority simply because it's authority, that's definitely a chaotic characteristic.

So, I'd say that dependent on interpretation (which is probably up to the player, or the DM for an NPC), B could be strongly lawful, weakly lawful, or simply neutral.

Really, alignment isn't a measure of what you do, it's a measure of why you do. Motivations can allow for wildly varying interpretation of alignment.

Thomas
2007-01-25, 10:44 AM
Person A is Lawful Good, Person B is Chaotic Good. Alignment doesn't describe personality traits (disciplined, wild, homebody...) - it describes attitudes on the Group-Individual axis and the Nice-Naughty axis.

Saph
2007-01-25, 11:10 AM
A: Chaotic Good
B: Lawful Good

Respecting authority doesn't mean that you do whatever you're told. If you point at a lawful person and say "sit!" they aren't going to obey you. If a lawful person doesn't respect the source of authority, he won't necessarily follow it. And chaotic people can respect and obey people or institutions they admire.

Remember that nobody is completely consistent, except for utter lunatics. Someone who's 100% chaotic or 100% lawful is probably insane, dead, a total social outcast, or all three.

- Saph

Talyn
2007-01-25, 08:03 PM
What about someone who has great compassion for life, and heals and protects all people, good or evil, regardless of what that person does afterward?

I'd say they were Neutral Good with a healthy dose of STUPID. Unless they were doing it because they swore an oath to do so (rather than out of true compassion), in which case they would be Lawful Neutral (and stupid).

OzymandiasVolt
2007-01-25, 08:29 PM
"Oh hey, look, it's the guy who killed 50 of my friends and will continue killing if he survives the night! Well, time to get a-healin'."

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-25, 08:31 PM
Hey, if a player actually managed that for long enough, I'd say they get inducted into godhood with the healing and "sickeningly good" domains.

TheOOB
2007-01-25, 08:42 PM
Law and Chaos has nothing to do with your respect to authority figures, it has to do with how strict your own personal code is and how likely you are to stray from it should the situation call for it.

A lawful person has a strict code and tends to stick to it even when it is disadvantagous, thus they tend to more resistant to change, more predictable, and more reliable. A Chaotic person does whatever they think is best at the moment and tends to more accepting of chance, more unpredicable, but also more unreliable.

Thus not enough information is given about the characters to determine law-chaos axis, however they both seem lawful, person A tends to do what they are told, no matter what, and person B tends to follow their traditional ideas even if told otherwise.

PirateMonk
2007-01-25, 09:12 PM
Hey, if a player actually managed that for long enough, I'd say they get inducted into godhood with the healing and "sickeningly good" domains.


"Oh hey, look, it's the guy who killed 50 of my friends and will continue killing if he survives the night! Well, time to get a-healin'."

Quoted because these actually reduced me to hysterical laughter. Maybe I'm just tired. I'm glad I wrote that.

zachol
2007-01-25, 10:25 PM
Hmm... person A sounds mostly neutral or possibly chaotic.
I wouldn't call him lawful.

Person B... person B is mostly lawful.
Example: Hermit. An ascetic hermit would be totally lawful whatever.
However, hermits do not respect society, nor do they respect laws.
Person B sounds like a hermit.

tbarrie
2007-01-25, 11:51 PM
Law and Chaos has nothing to do with your respect to authority figures[...]


The PHB explicitly says that it does.

CuthroatMcGee
2007-01-25, 11:58 PM
I would call both of these characters Neutral Good, with person A tending towards Chaotic and person B tending towards Lawful. A character can take an official alignment and then tend towards something else. For example, a hard-line paladin like Miko is Lawful Good tending towards Lawful Neutral (not caring about circumstances, only about the letter of the law).

PirateMonk
2007-01-26, 05:25 PM
What about someone who will attack things on sight, but happens to live in the Underdark (or similar place)?

Indon
2007-01-26, 05:54 PM
What about someone who will attack things on sight, but happens to live in the Underdark (or similar place)?

Neutral (Or rather, the action is neutral, they could be any alignment). They're just trying to stay alive in a place where they, with great justification, believe that everything is hostile.

Whamme
2007-01-26, 06:23 PM
Isn't the healbot neutral?

PirateMonk
2007-01-26, 06:35 PM
Evil Person: Wow, thanks for saving my life, even though I was a horrible murderer. You really opened my eyes. From now on, I'll be Good.
Stupid Healbot: No, that's fine, stay Evil.
EP: I don't mind.
Healbot: No, go on, be Evil.
EP: But I want to be good!
Healbot: No, be evil pleasepleasepleasepleasepleaseplease! We can go slaughter a village if you want...
EP: O-kay. <Backs away>

It doesn't fit with my description, but...

Stephen_E
2007-01-26, 08:26 PM
I just had a thought about alignments. SO, my question is the following:

You take two people. Both are of "pure heart", are very nice in general, etc etc. No debate that they're good. However:

Person A is wild, free-spirited, and willing to take risks on a regular basis. However, when Person A is told to do something by an authority figure, they respond and comply with the utmost respect and do not break their word. Is Person A Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, or Neutral Good?

Person B is studious, disciplined, strong-willed and a traditionalist in general. But Person B also dislikes, disrespects, and disregards anyone that tries to boss them around or even set down guidelines, even if they are higher in authority than them. Is Person B Lawful Good, Chaotic Good or Neutral Good?

Debate!

Person A is either 1) A submissive wimp to such a degree that he has no alignment period, unless there is no other sentient creature within miles. 2) Insane. 3) An illogical construct put forward to create argument, because there is no valid responce within the framework put forward.

Person B is primarily Chaotic. Per PHB RAW - Studious, disciplined and strong-willed are null conditions.Traditionalists tend to be lawful, but aren't exclusively required to be (it's one of the subsidary "Law" features. "dislikes, disrespects, and disregards anyone that tries to boss them around or even set down guidelines, even if they are higher in authority than them." are core features of Chaotics.

Note that "Self-discipline" or "Discipline" isn't a feature of "Law", although people often assume it is. In part the Monk alignment restriction reinforces this misnomer, but that's like the old problem of using Paladins in alignment discussions. Class alignment/behaviour restrictions are weird hiccups involving all sorts of mixed up stuff, including metagaming reasons, which means you should avoid using them as alignment guides.

Stephen

Soniku
2007-01-26, 10:03 PM
Person A is either 1) A submissive wimp to such a degree that he has no alignment period, unless there is no other sentient creature within miles. 2) Insane. 3) An illogical construct put forward to create argument, because there is no valid responce within the framework put forward.

Hey, don't be mean :p I'm kinda like person A. I love takeing risks, all those things that give adrenaline rushes, and I also tend to be quite free spirited and jokey unless I -really- have to be serious about something. But that doesn't mean I don't respect authority. Hey, if a policeman asked me to help out in an investigation I would be all for it. Generally authority figures are the thing that keeps large groups of people from the ruin caused by the less pleasant people around, and most of the time have good intentions. A is chaotic good in my opinion.



Person B is lawful good. He's, to me, the steriotypical mature samurai type warrior.
This guy is very common in samurai movies: He works by honor and dicipline, the traditions of whatever fighting style he practaces. Doesn't resort to trickery or other dishonorable forms and usually keeps his word, but he doesn't like people bossing him around or giveing him orders at all. Person B is a bit more extreme than that but the general idea of it is the same: A diciplined and traditional type who likes to be in charge and will act against orders if they contradict his own personal laws.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-26, 10:15 PM
Hey, this is a fun game. Mind if I join?

Say there's a renowned mercenary leader that's known for his bravery on the battlefield and never going against his employer, unless the employer turns out to either be double-crossing him or using them for immorale reasons. Sometimes people think he's a jerk with his seemingly amorale actions, but in the end, it always turns out that he was working in everyone's best interests. He only kills armed opponents, though he has no qualms with killing them before they get a chance to draw their weapon. His word is absolutely binding, so long as he doesn't have a reason to distrust you. However, he's a constant liar when it comes to explaining himself and his actions, and if he doesn't consider you trustworthy or you're a stranger, he'll likewise bluff the living hell out of you.

To his soldiers, he's fair and generous. He spends most of his own earnings on improving his troops' gear, training, and stronghold(s). He's generally a tolerant person towards them, since he never hires a man he doesn't already trust. However, if they ever turn coats or go against his own morality, he can be severe, dangerous, and absolutely terrifying. Despite this, a lot of his favorite troops are trained primarily for covert operations, especially spying and sabotaging, the good leader's own favorite work.

So, what alignment would you give this guy?

shaka gl
2007-01-26, 10:28 PM
Since i started playing D&D, ive noticed that the only thing that alignments actually DO, is create debates.

Oh... and prohibit you to play 90% of complex characters.

I say: to hell with them.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-26, 10:56 PM
Wait... so your answer is to say that players may only choose stereotypes?

shaka gl
2007-01-26, 11:10 PM
Sadly, most of the time, yes. There are exceptions, but with Good characters, yes, i believe its almost imposible to play something complex.

Stephen_E
2007-01-26, 11:43 PM
Hey, don't be mean :p I'm kinda like person A. I love takeing risks, all those things that give adrenaline rushes, and I also tend to be quite free spirited and jokey unless I -really- have to be serious about something. But that doesn't mean I don't respect authority. Hey, if a policeman asked me to help out in an investigation I would be all for it. Generally authority figures are the thing that keeps large groups of people from the ruin caused by the less pleasant people around, and most of the time have good intentions. A is chaotic good in my opinion.


With all respect, while you may beleive you fit Type A, I strongly suspect that anyone who knows you well would disagree. You may well fit many of the bits, but that was the problem with the description, for anyone to fit ALL of the terms he used, a number been contradcitory, would be very odd to say the least. Doyou ALWAYS give you superiors (bosses, co-workers with more senority, Govt leaders) the "Utmost respect".

Re: Person B), I suggest you look at the alignment page from the PHB. His complete dismissal and lack of respt for authority is neither "Law" by DnD RAW or very Samurai by everything I've ever heard about them.

Stephen

The_Werebear
2007-01-26, 11:49 PM
Hey, this is a fun game. Mind if I join?

Say there's a renowned mercenary leader that's known for his bravery on the battlefield and never going against his employer, unless the employer turns out to either be double-crossing him or using them for immorale reasons. Sometimes people think he's a jerk with his seemingly amorale actions, but in the end, it always turns out that he was working in everyone's best interests. He only kills armed opponents, though he has no qualms with killing them before they get a chance to draw their weapon. His word is absolutely binding, so long as he doesn't have a reason to distrust you. However, he's a constant liar when it comes to explaining himself and his actions, and if he doesn't consider you trustworthy or you're a stranger, he'll likewise bluff the living hell out of you.

To his soldiers, he's fair and generous. He spends most of his own earnings on improving his troops' gear, training, and stronghold(s). He's generally a tolerant person towards them, since he never hires a man he doesn't already trust. However, if they ever turn coats or go against his own morality, he can be severe, dangerous, and absolutely terrifying. Despite this, a lot of his favorite troops are trained primarily for covert operations, especially spying and sabotaging, the good leader's own favorite work.

So, what alignment would you give this guy?

Any of the Good, but mostly likely chaotic.

The fact that he refuses to work for immoral people and tries to produce the best result supports good. However, the lying and bluffing would tend to support chaos, even if he is overall honest and trustworthy in the end. Robin Hood is most often pegged as CG, but is portrayed as true to his word and honest. I have no doubts he would lie his ass off to cover what his operations were, even to Maid Marian or some peasents.

Soniku
2007-01-27, 08:11 AM
With all respect, while you may beleive you fit Type A, I strongly suspect that anyone who knows you well would disagree. You may well fit many of the bits, but that was the problem with the description, for anyone to fit ALL of the terms he used, a number been contradcitory, would be very odd to say the least. Doyou ALWAYS give you superiors (bosses, co-workers with more senority, Govt leaders) the "Utmost respect".


Well, I said I'm kinda like person A. Person A and B are both quite extreme and very few people in real life have such absolute traits. To answer your question, usually. Unless what they ask me to do is something stupid, blatently wrong or whatever I'll do it. As I said I'm not nearly as extreme in the utmost respect thing as person A, but I'm generally a reliable person for superiors to ask for something done, and an unreliable person for everyone else. (I want to keep my job :smallbiggrin:)

Hm, I'm really bad at explaining what I mean :smallsigh: Oh well

And I know B isn't exactly a samurai, which is why I said samurai type, the sort who abide by honor and all that stuff. I would try to explain my point further but I just woke up and my brains still in second gear. I'll be back!

PirateMonk
2007-01-27, 08:42 AM
Wait... so your answer is to say that players may only choose stereotypes?

Hey, that just gave me the idea for a Silly Message Board Game. Thanks!

No, wait, it won't work. Maybe as a numbered list...

PirateMonk
2007-01-28, 11:03 AM
What about a Belkar-Robin Hood who stabs the rich, takes their kidneys, and gives all their money to the poor?

Maglor_Grubb
2007-01-28, 11:56 AM
No, no! He steals kidneys from those rich enough to pay for new a private hospital and gives them to poor people who die without new kidneys, but can't pay an operation. :P

PirateMonk
2007-01-31, 07:29 PM
Since this is dead anyway, can I submit fantasy strategy computer game characters for alignment assignment?

Mike_G
2007-01-31, 10:36 PM
I think the Alignments are Lawful for A and Chaotic for B. Personalities are not the same as alignments.

A) has a carefree personality, but that doesn't mean he has a chaotic alignment. Hinjo is a carefree type, but he's a Lawful Good Paladin. Following rules and respecting authority are Lawful traits.

B) has a studious, disciplined personality. Plenty of anarchists are studious. Doesn't mean they're Lawful. Hating and disrespecting authority are pretty solidly Chaotic traits.

PirateMonk
2007-02-01, 09:07 PM
Can someone answer my question, please?

White Blade
2007-02-01, 10:06 PM
Hey, this is a fun game. Mind if I join?

Say there's a renowned mercenary leader that's known for his bravery on the battlefield and never going against his employer, unless the employer turns out to either be double-crossing him or using them for immorale reasons. Sometimes people think he's a jerk with his seemingly amorale actions, but in the end, it always turns out that he was working in everyone's best interests. He only kills armed opponents, though he has no qualms with killing them before they get a chance to draw their weapon. His word is absolutely binding, so long as he doesn't have a reason to distrust you. However, he's a constant liar when it comes to explaining himself and his actions, and if he doesn't consider you trustworthy or you're a stranger, he'll likewise bluff the living hell out of you.

To his soldiers, he's fair and generous. He spends most of his own earnings on improving his troops' gear, training, and stronghold(s). He's generally a tolerant person towards them, since he never hires a man he doesn't already trust. However, if they ever turn coats or go against his own morality, he can be severe, dangerous, and absolutely terrifying. Despite this, a lot of his favorite troops are trained primarily for covert operations, especially spying and sabotaging, the good leader's own favorite work.

So, what alignment would you give this guy?

"I keep my word. Except when I don't. Because either:
A. I'm paranoid.
B. Your evil.
C. I think its for the best.

But I'm very nice to my men, and to people around me, and to people I like. I've got mercy issues. It doesn't quiet make sense, so I just kill people who stab me in the back. Beyond my betrayal issues, I am blatantly chaotic good." I'd say his betrayal issues probably make him not Exalted (BoED Good. Which is the standard for only the very best of the best.). But I'd say he is still a resoundingly good figure, clearly not lawful (from such a short description that = chaotic.) and so I'd say: Chaotic Good

PirateMonk
2007-02-02, 02:30 PM
Can someone answer my question, please?

I don't particularly like being ignored when I ask a question...

Amon Star
2007-02-03, 05:14 AM
Since this is dead anyway, can I submit fantasy strategy computer game characters for alignment assignment?

I don't see why not.

Zincorium
2007-02-03, 07:28 AM
I don't particularly like being ignored when I ask a question...

Right. And of course, since you have such a huge footprint in the thread after a single, one-line post, it had to have been deliberate on our part, right?

And go ahead. Or, y'know, start a new thread, since you said yourself that this one was dead. Mostly people don't keep track of where a thread is going after the second page unless they're actively debating at the time.

We'll happily analyze or debate, depending on the time it's been up, any situation or character profile you care to submit, but be aware there will be a lot of fence sitting, since all of it is based solely on personal viewpoint.

Elliot Kane
2007-02-03, 04:23 PM
A. would be NG: he clearly has a strong sense of hierarchy & duty yet at the same time he is 'wild & free' when possible. The first part is Lawful, the second Chaotic, so the two cancel each other out giving Neutral.

B. would be LG. S/he is clearly a highly ordered person. The fact that s/he rejects the hierarchy of his/her society is irrelevant, especially as we do not know what that society is like. A LG person living in a LE society is almost guaranteed to disagree with their social superiors.

The concept of 'Law' in D&D owes nothing to criminal or social law, and everything to the writings of Michael Moorcock, where Law & Chaos are in eternal opposition as the forces of stability & change respectively. A character with a strong personal code who plans a lot and likes routines is thus always Lawful.

***


Hey, this is a fun game. Mind if I join?

Say there's a renowned mercenary leader that's known for his bravery on the battlefield and never going against his employer, unless the employer turns out to either be double-crossing him or using them for immorale reasons. Sometimes people think he's a jerk with his seemingly amorale actions, but in the end, it always turns out that he was working in everyone's best interests. He only kills armed opponents, though he has no qualms with killing them before they get a chance to draw their weapon. His word is absolutely binding, so long as he doesn't have a reason to distrust you. However, he's a constant liar when it comes to explaining himself and his actions, and if he doesn't consider you trustworthy or you're a stranger, he'll likewise bluff the living hell out of you.

To his soldiers, he's fair and generous. He spends most of his own earnings on improving his troops' gear, training, and stronghold(s). He's generally a tolerant person towards them, since he never hires a man he doesn't already trust. However, if they ever turn coats or go against his own morality, he can be severe, dangerous, and absolutely terrifying. Despite this, a lot of his favorite troops are trained primarily for covert operations, especially spying and sabotaging, the good leader's own favorite work.

So, what alignment would you give this guy?

LN. It sounds to me like he has a very strong personal code of ethics that he always adheres to, but he's capable of both good and evil actions as his code dictates.

Mick_the_Rogue
2007-02-03, 04:29 PM
A ) would be Neutral good-ish, I mean gnomes (according to the PHB) are free willed and prone to pranks but have lawful tendencies as well, so neutral good

B) I'd say Lawful grumpy, the other parts are really just aspects of his personality that don't affect his alignment...at least that's how I'd do it

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-02-03, 04:33 PM
Ahh, good to see people agree with my character's alignment. Sometimes other players get a little uppity when they see me do something that appears "evil", or what they perceive as an oxymoron in his actions towards chaos and law. I figured that, despite his ocassional lawful or evil tendencies, he's chaotic good.

I like to think of alignments that way. It's the sum total of your actions and beliefs that determine what you are, not individual points.

Mick_the_Rogue
2007-02-03, 05:11 PM
Most of my campaigns I get rid of, or stream line, alignments because most players find it too confusing unfortunetly...I mean there are empteen ways to play any single alignment, I mean look at Big Ear from Goblins, versus Miko. They both are (or were) LG, and, more to the point, paladins, however they are completely different people

Dervag
2007-02-03, 05:24 PM
I think that A is lawful because they take orders very well. Even if they'll do whatever they like as long as there's no law against it, they (apparently) always obey the restrictions of law and the dictates of authority when those restrictions and dictates apply.

I think that B is chaotic because the only authority they listen to is the one inside their own head.

PirateMonk
2007-02-03, 06:55 PM
Right. And of course, since you have such a huge footprint in the thread after a single, one-line post, it had to have been deliberate on our part, right?

And go ahead. Or, y'know, start a new thread, since you said yourself that this one was dead. Mostly people don't keep track of where a thread is going after the second page unless they're actively debating at the time.

We'll happily analyze or debate, depending on the time it's been up, any situation or character profile you care to submit, but be aware there will be a lot of fence sitting, since all of it is based solely on personal viewpoint.

Sorry.

Anyway, to start, Lord Bane (Warlords III, really old).

The Dark Horseman of Death, Bane made an alliance with Lord Sartek, Horseman of War and Chaos and Keeper of the Beasts of Chaos, to lay waste to Etheria. He was later defeated by the Sirian Knights, led by Lord Albion, who located the last Dragonshard and used it to destroy him. Bane returned fifty years later to get revenge on everyone who played a role in his defeat, driving the Sirians out of Mortuus, his skull-shaped citadel, reclaiming the Realms of Death, slaying Sartek in the Realms of War for his failure to destroy the Dragonshard in the Mines of Duernoth, destroying the High Elves of the tundra, capturing the Isle of the Beast to launch an assault on Agraria (Siria's continent/region), butchering the Wood Elves of Silvermoon, once again conquering the Empire of Selentia and looting the crypt of a long-dead emperor, destroying the Agrarian Orders of Knighthood, and finally, slaughtering Albion and his family.

Yes, that was just a summary of each scenario. Have fun.

Zincorium
2007-02-04, 01:59 AM
Anyway, to start, Lord Bane (Warlords III, really old).

The Dark Horseman of Death, Bane made an alliance with Lord Sartek, Horseman of War and Chaos and Keeper of the Beasts of Chaos, to lay waste to Etheria. He was later defeated by the Sirian Knights, led by Lord Albion, who located the last Dragonshard and used it to destroy him. Bane returned fifty years later to get revenge on everyone who played a role in his defeat, driving the Sirians out of Mortuus, his skull-shaped citadel, reclaiming the Realms of Death, slaying Sartek in the Realms of War for his failure to destroy the Dragonshard in the Mines of Duernoth, destroying the High Elves of the tundra, capturing the Isle of the Beast to launch an assault on Agraria (Siria's continent/region), butchering the Wood Elves of Silvermoon, once again conquering the Empire of Selentia and looting the crypt of a long-dead emperor, destroying the Agrarian Orders of Knighthood, and finally, slaughtering Albion and his family.

Yes, that was just a summary of each scenario. Have fun.

Chaotic evil. The evil is kinda obvious, there's no sugarcoating of the acts here, but I guess the chaos bit could use some backing up. Lawful is usually (not always) characterized by a very strong belief and reliance upon the 'system', either a political, military, or religious structure in most cases. Lord Bane does not seem to be attempting to control or create a structure to the world, he's tearing down all existing ones for personal revenge.

In this case, Lord bane is both seeking revenge on former allies, not due to betrayal, but simply because they were around and could be blamed. He's going to extreme lengths to not simply oust or defeat his foes, but to completely slaughter them. He seems very emotionally driven, and lets that decide on his behaviour.

PirateMonk
2007-02-04, 08:52 AM
Yes, agreed. He wasn't just out for revenge for his defeat, though; it's hinted that he is also very upset at what the Sirians are doing to his carefully crafted decay. It also mentions "the repulsive twittering of songbirds replacing the soothing screams of tortured prisoners," and probably something else.

Edit- Also, he had a sort of empire when he first started conquering that the Sirians had to take down piece by piece, and he presumably rebuilt it as he went. As for the slaughter issue, they're of very little use to him except as prisoners to produce the aforementioned screams or as corpses to reanimate.