Exhuming the Character (Sheet): Therkla's Alignment

[Agnostik]

So yeah, I'm YEARS late on this, but the search function still doesn't work, bear with me. :smallredface:

Re-reading the comic today (just how many times have I done it?), I stumbled upon something that I already noticed before, but somehow couldn't put two and two together: Therkla actively avoided Lien's attempt to Detect Evil on her. I remember that I grabbed onto this detail years ago when I first read the comic, but then it sort of faded in my mind and I accepted Therkla as (True?) Neutral. I also think The Giant had mentioned something about her being "an advocate for Neutrality" at some point (probably in the book commentary), that must've helped to establish her as Neutral in my mind.

So now I'm curious. I'm sure it had come up before, and maybe a definitive answer was given; in that case, enlighten me. Was Therkla Neutral Evil? True Neutral (but once again, why try and dodge DE then)? Or did her alignment shift through association with Elan?

P.S. And yeah, I know, alignment system doesn't really matter, they're all complex characters, etc. I just want to know whether there's a definitive answer to that or not.

[RMS Oceanic]

I always thought it was an instinctive Ninja reaction to avoid being scrutinized by a potential enemy. That and Rich keeping different possibilities in the air.

[Cizak]

I don't know if it's been stated anywhere, but perhaps Therkla didn't actually realise what alignment she was. Maybe she figured she was Evil because "hey, I'm working for an Evil man and seeing him as me mentor, I'm probably Evil too".

[Trillium]

I don't know if it's been stated anywhere, but perhaps Therkla didn't actually realise what alignment she was. Maybe she figured she was Evil because "hey, I'm working for an Evil man and seeing him as me mentor, I'm probably Evil too".

Don't people automatically know their own alignment, just as they know their own hit points, skill points, experience point?

[Sunken Valley]

I thought it was because Detect Evil detects the persons existence, even if not evil.

Therkla is N all the way.

[super dark33]

She is True Netural.
Rich said so.

[Steven]

It's also possible she didn't know she was TN.
Nale seemed to think he was LE but there is alot of evidence against that.

Maybe she just assumed she was evil so she thought she better skidaddle.

[Kish]

Don't people automatically know their own alignment, just as they know their own hit points, skill points, experience point?
Considering those strips where Roy had to be reviewed to determine if he actually was the alignment he'd declared for himself, I'd say "No."

[Trillium]

Considering those strips where Roy had to be reviewed to determine if he actually was the alignment he'd declared for himself, I'd say "No."

I guess it was more like "Even though you know you are innocent, the court must first prove it."

I mean, if he was judged Neutral Good and sent to Neutral Good afterlife, he would still be rather lawful and would be less happy than among Lawful Goods. For he is Lawful Good, whatever a daeva decides.

[DeliaP]

She is True Netural.
Rich said so.

Indeed, Therkla is canonically TN. I'm thinking of sigging the post the Giant stated that in, as it settles a whole bunch of other alignments too.

The question is really, "why did she try and dodge Lien's Detect Evil, if she wasn't evil".

AFAIK there hasn't been a canonical answer to that although the primary ones rehearsed above do seem to be either:

a) people don't necessarily know their own alignment (whether Nale was actually Lawful Evil is another case that's been raised for this one, I think?);
or
b) Detect Evil might detect her presence even if it doesn't register her as Evil.

I'm more inclined to go for (a), as:

- (b) doesn't really fit the way the various Detect X spells work (although, yes, the Giant may houserule as he wishes);
and
- this would be kinda in line with Roy's interview with the Deva. Roy wants to be LG, tries to be LG, and may even believe he is LG, but it's the Higher Powers that ultimately hand down that he has in fact been LG, and does not get judged to be NG.

Though I suspect the real reason is actually:

When the Giant wrote the strip where Therkla dodges the Detect Evil, maybe he hadn't really thought as deeply about Therkla's alignment, so instinctively went for the "Ninja works for Evil Boss, better dodge the Detect Evil" panel... and later, when Therkla has become much more developed than just "Ninja half orc in love with Elan", he makes her a sympathetic exemplar of TN.

But the earlier comic is just already out there. If it wasn't coming out one page at a time, but was being written as a book, he could have just gone back and corrected the earlier scene. As it is, sometimes minor inconsistencies occur like this in serial formats. It happens to the best, and is no biggie.

Of course, maybe I am totally wrong here, and actually the Giant was using that scene to foreshadow a crucial plot point that someone might not actually know their own alignment....

[The Pilgrim]

Do you remember how Roy registered as Evil to Miko's Detect Evil, because he was carrying an item very loaded with Evil?

Perhaps Therkla was carrying some evil aligned weapon or item, or just feared she had associated for too long with evil characters and would register as such.

[Trillium]

Do you remember how Roy registered as Evil to Miko's Detect Evil, because he was carrying an item very loaded with Evil?

Perhaps Therkla was carrying some evil aligned weapon or item, or just feared she had associated for too long with evil characters and would register as such.

Would that red imp count as her familiar and make her register as evil, while they worked together?

[Kish]

If Qarr makes everyone who works for someone he works for register as evil, that's quite a power.

[Trillium]

If Qarr makes everyone who works for someone he works for register as evil, that's quite a power.

Well, if some residue in a non-magical item can fool an evil detector, then for a creature of pure evil it should be even easier.

I mean, being a familiar is even a closer bond, than wearing an item, no?

[Kish]

Therkla wasn't a wizard or a sorcerer. Even if Qarr had been her employee rather than her coworker, he would not have been her familiar. As it is his relationship to her was more like...his relationship to Malack (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0861.html).

[Mike Havran]

Therkla is oficially TN, the Giant said he was aiming at TN when he wrote her. But I think she was in the more shady area so it's reasonable for her to fear she might blip as Evil.

[Greatmoustache]

Do you remember how Roy registered as Evil to Miko's Detect Evil, because he was carrying an item very loaded with Evil?

Perhaps Therkla was carrying some evil aligned weapon or item, or just feared she had associated for too long with evil characters and would register as such.

i like the simplicity and innocence of this idea.
:elan: hey she wasn't evil. see, it's just her weapon.

by the way, remember xykon's tiny crown that made roy register as evil?
i don't remember anything about the crown being evil. xykon just took it because it was cool. do you think the crown was evil, and xykon just didn't know about it, OR that xykon's evil just kinda rubbed on to the crown?

edit: trillium also mentioned the "residue" so yeah, what do you think?

[Kish]

"Durkon said so" is obviously not proof, but I see no reason to doubt that Durkon's explanation was the correct one.

That said, a number of people over the years have taken attitudes toward that crown ranging from "speculating that it's actually magical despite what Xykon said" to "snorting dismissively at the whole idea that it might not be magical."

[Oko and Qailee]

*Places one vote for Therkla thinking she was evil*

[Heksefatter]

Tons of possible explanations, many already given:

- Therkla wisely had a reluctance to be scrutinized by a paladin. She's a criminal, working for a bigger criminal. As such, she's instinctively wary of the "cops"/paladins.

- Related to the above: She might not really view paladins as "the good guys." She might consider them self-righteous and judgmental. Remember how Girard viewed paladins and he wasn't evil either. And she probably has at least as many reasons to dislike paladins as Girard did. As such, she's instinctively wary of being "probed" by a paladin, because she on some level - maybe not even consciously - believe that they'll find her evil and smite her.

- She might view herself as evil. Honestly, I had her tipped to be on the less nasty side of neutral evil. She worked for a clearly evil man, Kubota, and consorted with fiends, Qarr. It has been strongly implied canonically and by the Giant that people may be mistaken about their alignment. Therkla had a good reason to be mistaken.

- She's a ninja. As such, she must stay as hidden as possible. No self-respecting ninja would have their alignment probed by anyone, let alone a paladin. It is simply un-ninjaish.

[The Pilgrim]

i like the simplicity and innocence of this idea.
:elan: hey she wasn't evil. see, it's just her weapon.

It's not like what I told didn't happen in the comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0202.html), you know.

What I think is that Durkon explained it quite straight back there. The crown got some evil radiation from being so many years being worn by an evil-to-the-root Lich.

[Sir_Leorik]

The Detect Evil spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectEvil.htm) detects the presence or absence of Evil auras. One of the spell's features is that it detects the lingering aura of Evil spells and creatures. This lingering aura registers as Dim, the lowest level possible to detect with the spell.

Imps have 3 Hit Dice, minimum, and Qarr probably has Sorcerer levels, so he has a minimum of a Moderate Evil aura. If so, Qarr's aura might linger around Therkla for 1-6 minutes. If Qarr has 5 or more Hit Dice, his aura would be Strong, not Moderate, and might linger around Therkla for 10-60 minutes.

While Therkla herself may not be Evil, a lingering Aura would confirm that she is consorting with an Evil Outsider, a crime in Azure City. Just because she is not Evil doesn't mean she can't be convicted of a crime. And given what we know about Daimyo Kubota, Kubota wouldn't hire an attorney for Therkla, he'd slip a dagger into her cell and order her to commit suicide for dishonoring his clan (by getting caught).

[super dark33]

My two agoras:

Therkla didnt want to get caught in the detect evil because she loved Elan.

She thought the fact that she wasnt of a Good allignment would mean he wouldnt love her back, so she wanted to hide it from him.

[Kish]

My two agoras:

Therkla didnt want to get caught in the detect evil because she loved Elan.

She thought the fact that she wasnt of a Good allignment would mean he wouldnt love her back, so she wanted to hide it from him.
If the spell was Detect Good that would be a possible explanation.

If you assume that she knew herself to be True Neutral, then it's the opposite of one; she should have bathed in the Detect Evil and relished Elan's response when Lien said, "I have to admit, she's not evil."

[KillianHawkeye]

While it's true that the Detect Evil spell (as depicted in OOTS) will not only detect Evil creatures but also give a reading on non-Evil ones, I have to say that Therkla's "*gulp!*" and worried eyes expression in the strip in question reveals that she believed allowing herself to be scanned would thwart the spirit of cooperation that she was currently enjoying with Elan.

Since that event was still fairly early in Therkla's time in the comic, my theory is that she started out in the shallow end of the Neutral Evil alignment and became True Neutral as a result of her ongoing interactions with Elan. Otherwise, there seems to be no reason why she would be worried about Detect Evil in the first place.

[Amphiox]

Perhaps Therkla started out as Lawful Evil and moved to True Neutral by the time of her death, making her TN at the time the Giant identified her alignment, (which IARC was after her narrative arc was completed) but perhaps still evil at the time when the spell was attempted to be cast on her.

[Bulldog Psion]

My thought (which is worth no more than the price of a few synapses firing, of course :smallbiggrin:) is that she probably just had a reflexive distaste for any kind of information being collected about her at all. "Detect Evil" shows that she's not evil -- which is more than she wants anyone to know about her. She's not worried about being tagged as evil. She's worried about being tagged as anything, including a generic "not-evil."

The less anyone knows about her, the better. Edit: from her viewpoint, that is.

[KillianHawkeye]

Perhaps Therkla started out as Lawful Evil and moved to True Neutral by the time of her death, making her TN at the time the Giant identified her alignment, (which IARC was after her narrative arc was completed) but perhaps still evil at the time when the spell was attempted to be cast on her.

What makes you think she was ever Lawful? :smallconfused:


My thought (which is worth no more than the price of a few synapses firing, of course :smallbiggrin:) is that she probably just had a reflexive distaste for any kind of information being collected about her at all. "Detect Evil" shows that she's not evil -- which is more than she wants anyone to know about her. She's not worried about being tagged as evil. She's worried about being tagged as anything, including a generic "not-evil."

The less anyone knows about her, the better. Edit: from her viewpoint, that is.

This is another possibility.

[CoffeeIncluded]

I always thought that Therkla was evil, probably neutral or chaotic evil (more likely neutral evil), but exposure to Elan caused a slow alignment shift to true neutral by the time of her death.

[Gift Jeraff]

I saw her as a lite LE that became LN, personally.

[Sir_Leorik]

I saw her as a lite LE that became LN, personally.

Therkla was canonically True Neutral. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15667889&postcount=57)

[Gift Jeraff]

Therkla was canonically True Neutral. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15667889&postcount=57)
I know. I'm just talking about the way I interpret the alignment system and the character of Therkla.

I saw her as a lite LE that became LN, personally.

[Reddish Mage]

Therkla was canonically True Neutral. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15667889&postcount=57)

Wasn't this usage of the term "canon" created by those who thought that the author's intent didn't matter (outside what appears in the main books).

[Keltest]

Wasn't this usage of the term "canon" created by those who thought that the author's intent didn't matter (outside what appears in the main books).

I think its biblical in origin.

[Sir_Leorik]

Wasn't this usage of the term "canon" created by those who thought that the author's intent didn't matter (outside what appears in the main books).


I think its biblical in origin.

Keltest is referring to the concept of "canonization", which is not the same as "canonical".

The concept of "canonical" texts or ideas long predates Modernism and post-modernism.

To give an example, nowhere in the film "Return of the Jedi" are Wicket or Paploo referred to as Ewoks. However the canonical name for their species is Ewok ("Wookiee" backwords an anagram of the pronunciation of "Wookie"), as can be seen from the gazillion products that Lucasfilm put out about Ewoks in 1983.

[Rand Race]

Keltest is referring to the concept of "canonization", which is not the same as "canonical".

Canonization: the action of placing into the canon. Canonical: pertaining to the canon. Canon: church law or, in general, a rule (from the Ancient Greek word for "measure").


The concept of "canonical" texts or ideas long predates Modernism and post-modernism.

In reference to ecclesiastical subjects (including, notably, texts) it dates from late antiquity. The more general "rule" meaning is attested from the 16th century. In reference to popular media conforming to an accepted standard it is of fairly recent origin. It was first applied in this way in the early 20th century to Doyle's Sherlock Holmes works, placing it square into the modernist era. A more postmodernist usage of the term is in the idea of a set of works encompassing the 'important' works of a culture (ie, the "Western Canon").

Anyways, canonically Therkla was TN... and Greedo shot first. :smallconfused:

[Vladier]

Anyways, canonically Therkla was TN... and Greedo shot first. :smallconfused:
I'm pretty sure that current stance on the matter of canonicity of either Han or Greedo shooting first is "They shot at roughly the same time, except what Greedo did was a warning shot (thus that ludicrous miss) and Solo actually shot Greedo from under the table", no?

[Sir_Leorik]

Anyways, canonically Therkla was TN... and Greedo shot first. :smallconfused:


I'm pretty sure that current stance on the matter of canonicity of either Han or Greedo shooting first is "They shot at roughly the same time, except what Greedo did was a warning shot (thus that ludicrous miss) and Solo actually shot Greedo from under the table", no?

The editing of Greedo's "shot" is unclear at best. Let's be generous and say that Han shot Greedo under the table, causing the Rodian's blaster to misfire due to muscle reflex. (Rodians have very sensitive fingers, which is usually a plus for Rodian bounty hunters. :smallwink:)

[Reddish Mage]

The editing of Greedo's "shot" is unclear at best. Let's be generous and say that Han shot Greedo under the table, causing the Rodian's blaster to misfire due to muscle reflex. (Rodians have very sensitive fingers, which is usually a plus for Rodian bounty hunters. :smallwink:)

If the author had anything to do with it...actually Lucas clearly changed his mind and edited out Han shooting first. I'm pretty sure pinning down "what actually fictionally happened" is something that at this point real philosophers who would fail to sort it out (the subject of fictional entities happens to occupy the greatest minds in philosophy of the moment when they are not analyzing language, logic and the building blocks of reality).

Anyway, Rich tells us he had Therkla's alignment in mind "from birth" from inception, and we have no reason to believe he meant to write it differently. We had a long discussion about what that mean on the Giant's ideas of neutrality. He agreed alignment was something that reflected the internal disposition of the character (rather than always the outward actions).

The Giant's defense of Therkla's long held neutrality is she didn't involve true innocents (she is shown killing and attacking only guards and ninjas and Hinjo who she probably thinks of as evil), would not kill on her own, and otherwise does not have any really evil traits.

[GoblinGilmartin]

or maybe...just maybe....alignments are BS.

[Domino Quartz]

or maybe...just maybe....alignments are BS.

Your opinion of D&D character alignments is kind of irrelevant to this discussion. Whatever The Giant's attitude towards D&D rules in general may be, the characters in his comic definitely do have alignments.

[Sir_Leorik]

If the author had anything to do with it...actually Lucas clearly changed his mind and edited out Han shooting first. I'm pretty sure pinning down "what actually fictionally happened" is something that at this point real philosophers who would fail to sort it out (the subject of fictional entities happens to occupy the greatest minds in philosophy of the moment when they are not analyzing language, logic and the building blocks of reality).

The original cut of the film is an excellent example of filmmaking, with a shot of Harrison Ford slowly removing his blaster from it's holster, then a cut to Greedo, oblivious to Han's actions, then a cut to Ford, then a great special effect of the shot under the table, Greedo's charred corpse slumping on the table. Lucas shows that he knows how to pace a scene, selecting the best angles and choreographing a classic usually seen in the "Western" genre (the cardshark or cowboy who shoots someone under the table).

I've heard different versions of why exactly Lucas changed the cantina scene in the first place. One version says that when Lucas wanted to release the special editions to coincide with the twentieth anniversary of "Star Wars", the MPAA wanted the Cantina scene changed, to avoid a PG-13 rating, so Lucas made this change. Another version has to do with royalties, and a third that Lucas, a father in 1997, looked back on his work, and was troubled by the thought that he was elevating a murderer to the role of hero. Take your pick, I think it was a terrible decision, not least because the original scene is a classic.


Anyway, Rich tells us he had Therkla's alignment in mind "from birth" from inception, and we have no reason to believe he meant to write it differently. We had a long discussion about what that mean on the Giant's ideas of neutrality. He agreed alignment was something that reflected the internal disposition of the character (rather than always the outward actions).

The Giant's defense of Therkla's long held neutrality is she didn't involve true innocents (she is shown killing and attacking only guards and ninjas and Hinjo who she probably thinks of as evil), would not kill on her own, and otherwise does not have any really evil traits.

Assassinating Hinjo on behalf of her mentor would probably seem like a request Therkla would perform, at least until Elan awoke moral qualms within her. Therkla's version of Neutrality seems to be the "Why can't we all just get along?" version, as opposed to Gannji and Enor's pragmatic self-interest. She wanted to be able to loyally serve Kubota and still be Elan's girlfriend. In the end, Kubota, as a Lawful Evil villain, considered that a betrayal, and poisoned her. Elan, a Chaotic Good hero, didn't care that she'd been working for Kubota, he still tried to save her, and tragically failed.

[ReaderAt2046]

It's also possible that she avoided the Detect Evil because she's not really sure how it works and was getting it mixed up with Detect Thoughts.

[The Pilgrim]

Anyways, canonically Therkla was TN... and Greedo shot first. :smallconfused:

Only if you are a reformed jeddist. If you are an orthodox jeddist, Han shot first.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0081.html

[KillianHawkeye]

It's also possible that she avoided the Detect Evil because she's not really sure how it works and was getting it mixed up with Detect Thoughts.

A ninja without ranks in Knowledge (arcana)? Why, that's almost unthinkable! /sarcasm

:smallwink::smallbiggrin:

[Kish]

Your opinion of D&D character alignments is kind of irrelevant to this discussion. Whatever The Giant's attitude towards D&D rules in general may be, the characters in his comic definitely do have alignments.
What a concept. "Alignments are BS" is a sentiment that should be posted in every thread with "Alignment" in its title!

/sarcasm tag.

[Bulldog Psion]

or maybe...just maybe....alignments are BS.

I would prefer to say that the bizarre, illogical spin that some people put on alignments are B.S.. :smallcool: The system works fine as a shorthand for basic decision-making processes as long as you don't inflate it into some grotesque, exaggerated caricature.

For example -- person tends to follow procedure when possible = lawful.
Person is very spontaneous and dislikes rules = chaotic.
Person doesn't give a hoot either way and does whatever's most convenient at the moment = neutral.

How on Earth can that, for example, be described as B.S.? :smallconfused: It pretty much covers the full range of possible behavior in that regard, as long as you don't make some ridiculous assumption that only a caricatured extreme is possible in each case (e.g., that lawful people will never break a law/rule/procedure, that chaotic people will never follow a rule).

In short, if you treat alignment as a shorthand, rather than monomaniacal all-consuming obsession, it works just fine. You can pretty much turn anything into a caricature if you exaggerate it enough.

[martianmister]

For example -- person tends to follow procedure when possible = lawful.
Person is very spontaneous and dislikes rules = chaotic.
Person doesn't give a hoot either way and does whatever's most convenient at the moment = neutral.

In my view:

Person always follow procedure = lawful.
Person tends to follow procedure when possible = neutral.
Person doesn't give a hoot and does whatever's most convenient at the moment = chaotic.

[Sir_Leorik]

Only if you are a reformed jeddist. If you are an orthodox jeddist, Han shot first.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0081.html

Not correct! Orthodox Jeddists claim that Han was the only one to shoot, and that the Reform Jeddists changed the film to show Greedo shooting because they felt bad that a Rodian was shot without getting a chance to fire. The Reformed Jeddists also don't like Han being a pirate or a smuggler, not to mention his dirty tactics he used to take down Galandro in the Expanded Universe books.


In my view:

Person always follow procedure = lawful.
Person tends to follow procedure when possible = neutral.
Person doesn't give a hoot and does whatever's most convenient at the moment = chaotic.

It's more like this:

Person believes procedures and rules are always necessary = Lawful
Person believes procedures and rules are only sometimes necessary, so they pay lip service to them most of the time, and ignore them when it's inconvenient = Neutral
Person believes procedures and rules are an infringement on their civil liberties and are never "necessary" = Chaotic

[rodneyAnonymous]

The problem with the phrase "Han shot first" is that it implies Greedo shot at all.

[Liliet]

The problem with alignment is that while the axis themselves are fairly obvious, the _borders_ are very muddy and never clearly defined. I think that they depend on context of the setting very much, and everything depends on context, so it's not really correct to say that alignment is simple. It is at its core, but each implementation is very complex.

In other words, it's a gradient, and any clear dividers are entirely arbitrary.

[KillianHawkeye]

The problem with the phrase "Han shot first" is that it implies Greedo shot at all.

Yes, but it's much easier to say than "Greedo was going to shoot Han, but Han killed him before he got the chance." :smallamused:

[Sir_Leorik]

The problem with the phrase "Han shot first" is that it implies Greedo shot at all.


Yes, but it's much easier to say than "Greedo was going to shoot Han, but Han killed him before he got the chance." :smallamused:

How about "Greedo's blaster's energy cell was full"? Or "Greedo was making a Persuasion check and rolled a 1"? Or better yet, "Han fired in self-defense"?

[Ward.]

So now I'm curious. I'm sure it had come up before, and maybe a definitive answer was given; in that case, enlighten me. Was Therkla Neutral Evil? True Neutral (but once again, why try and dodge DE then)? Or did her alignment shift through association with Elan?


I think it's entirely possible she didn't want elan to know she wasn't LG, an alignment fitting with a super hero.

[Keltest]

I think it's entirely possible she didn't want elan to know she wasn't LG, an alignment fitting with a super hero.

Most superheros are actually Chaotic Good or Neutral Good. Theres typically a lot of collateral damage, and im sure the secret identities don't fly with the law.

[Kish]

I think it's entirely possible she didn't want elan to know she wasn't LG, an alignment fitting with a super hero.
Again, since the spell she dodged wasn't Detect Lawful Good, that--if she knew she was True Neutral--would give her a motivation to not dodge it.

[snowblizz]

I always read it first and foremost as Therkla not wanting a detection on her. Kinda like the Azure City resistance used Belkar's lead sheet to avoid Detect Good. Although those were probably Good so it muddies the issue.
But I don't know D&D well enough to know how the ability works and what it can do.
Lien seems to think she can make a point to Elan with it. Does that work?

[Kish]

Lien thought Therkla was evil. That's pretty unambiguous.

Detect Evil's function is pretty clearly displayed in the comic: for the person holding Xykon's crown or for an actually evil character it shows "evil," for characters ranging from the ultra-good Elan to the ahem-neutral Vaarsuvius it shows "not evil" without variation or nuance, and it doesn't go through lead. Unless Therkla had an item on her which messed up her reading (which is a possibility but not the way I'm betting), if it hit her, it would have read Not Evil.

[hoff]

I believe people don't have alignments on OOTS, what they have is people who judge on the afterlife them based on their own ideals which happens to be the same as alignments on the D&D players book

[Kish]

I believe people don't have alignments on OOTS, what they have is people who judge on the afterlife them based on their own ideals which happens to be the same as alignments on the D&D players book
One might wonder how you think Detect Evil works at all, then.

[hoff]

One might wonder how you think Detect Evil works at all, then.

They ask their deity to judge the target. Two paladins of different religions could get different answers from detect evil on the same person.

[snowblizz]

Lien thought Therkla was evil. That's pretty unambiguous.

Detect Evil's function is pretty clearly displayed in the comic: for the person holding Xykon's crown or for an actually evil character it shows "evil," for characters ranging from the ultra-good Elan to the ahem-neutral Vaarsuvius it shows "not evil" without variation or nuance, and it doesn't go through lead. Unless Therkla had an item on her which messed up her reading (which is a possibility but not the way I'm betting), if it hit her, it would have read Not Evil.
What I was thinking about is the ability to use this to detect hidden things? As the goblins seem to have done. For Therkla "not evil" may be as bad as "evil".

Personally a neutral Therkla was more of a "ah, okey then that seems a bit odd, but never mind" moment. But I rationalised it as "ninjas don't want to light up all blue on the detector", being detected in any way probably means they lose bragging rights and have to buy everyone else drinks at the next ninja meeting..

[Sir_Leorik]

Most superheros are actually Chaotic Good or Neutral Good. Theres typically a lot of collateral damage, and im sure the secret identities don't fly with the law.

That would be a surprise to Captain America, Captain Britain, Mr. Fantastic, The Invisible Woman, The Thing, Captain Marvel, Captain Marvel, Captain Marvel, Captain Marvel, Captain Marvel (before he turned Evil in PAD's second take on the character), Captain Marvel (nee' Ms. Marvel), The Vision, and the pre-nu52 Superman, all of whom are or were Lawful Good.


I believe people don't have alignments on OOTS, what they have is people who judge on the afterlife them based on their own ideals which happens to be the same as alignments on the D&D players book

Every character in "OotS" has an Alignment. There are merely characters who are better at upholding that Alignment, for Good, Neutral or Evil.

[DeliaP]

Anyway, Rich tells us he had Therkla's alignment in mind "from birth" from inception, and we have no reason to believe he meant to write it differently. We had a long discussion about what that mean on the Giant's ideas of neutrality. He agreed alignment was something that reflected the internal disposition of the character (rather than always the outward actions).

The Giant's defense of Therkla's long held neutrality is she didn't involve true innocents (she is shown killing and attacking only guards and ninjas and Hinjo who she probably thinks of as evil), would not kill on her own, and otherwise does not have any really evil traits.

Was this discussion in the same thread that Therkla's TN status was officially made G-Canon? And did anyone in that thread ask the Giant about why Therkla hid from the Detect Evil??

[Hague]

I'm pretty sure Detect Evil does just that. If someone's not evil, they don't show up. Now if Therkla is in the cone of Detect Evil but is visibly hidden, they would not find any indication of her. Likewise for Detect Good/Chaos/Law. Presumably being a ninja Therkla might've believed she was evil given the nature of the man she worked but likely she probably just didn't want to get detected at all and have a less-than-forum understanding of how a paladin's Detect Evil power works.

[Keltest]

That would be a surprise to Captain America, Captain Britain, Mr. Fantastic, The Invisible Woman, The Thing, Captain Marvel, Captain Marvel, Captain Marvel, Captain Marvel, Captain Marvel (before he turned Evil in PAD's second take on the character), Captain Marvel (nee' Ms. Marvel), The Vision, and the pre-nu52 Superman, all of whom are or were Lawful Good.

I said most, not all. Compared to the sheer number of heros out there, that's a pretty small roster.


I'm pretty sure Detect Evil does just that. If someone's not evil, they don't show up. Now if Therkla is in the cone of Detect Evil but is visibly hidden, they would not find any indication of her. Likewise for Detect Good/Chaos/Law. Presumably being a ninja Therkla might've believed she was evil given the nature of the man she worked but likely she probably just didn't want to get detected at all and have a less-than-forum understanding of how a paladin's Detect Evil power works.

The way ive always run it is that detect evil is a sort of trance, rather than a sight based ability, so just because you cant see the source doesn't mean you couldn't sense it. Therefore a lead sheet would not be enough to block it (ignoring for the moment that lead wouldn't actually block it) because it could go "around" the sheet like it can go "around" rocks.

[Lexible]

or maybe...just maybe....alignments are BS.

A worthwhile perspective.

[Lexible]

For example -- person tends to follow procedure when possible = lawful.
Person is very spontaneous and dislikes rules = chaotic.
Person doesn't give a hoot either way and does whatever's most convenient at the moment = neutral.

How on Earth can that, for example, be described as B.S.? :smallconfused: It pretty much covers the full range of possible behavior in that regard, as long as you don't make some ridiculous assumption that only a caricatured extreme is possible in each case (e.g., that lawful people will never break a law/rule/procedure, that chaotic people will never follow a rule).

Nah. . . people don't behave like that. They're variable. What I prefer to eat? What I didn't have last time (except when I really want what I had last time): clearly chaotic. Except, I also consistently act with a good deal of honesty (to the point of social awkwardness) sticking hard to my policy: clearly lawful. When I look at the complexity of people's behavior, it seems very clear that not only do the alignments (even as principles, let alone any kind of objective reality) not describe the major axes of human behavior, they're not especially useful in describing our reality (indeed, you won't find law/chaos, nor good/evil among the conceptual tool-kits of behavioral theorists and researchers).

The alignment system serves a role-playing crutch, but also as a legitimization of of colonizing baggage that comes with the original RPG: can we have an unambiguous justification for slaughtering/torturing/pillaging/enslaving thinking feeling sentient beings? Uh. . . it's ok, they're evil!

It's fun to swing a sword around. But the nature of that fun changes when you have to deal with the bloody consequences of doing so. Alignments are an excuse not to do heavy lifting.

[martianmister]

Nah. . . people don't behave like that. They're variable. What I prefer to eat? What I didn't have last time (except when I really want what I had last time): clearly chaotic.

How is that chaotic? :smallconfused:


Except, I also consistently act with a good deal of honesty (to the point of social awkwardness) sticking hard to my policy: clearly lawful.

How is that lawful??


The alignment system serves a role-playing crutch, but also as a legitimization of of colonizing baggage that comes with the original RPG: can we have an unambiguous justification for slaughtering/torturing/pillaging/enslaving thinking feeling sentient beings? Uh. . . it's ok, they're evil!

It's actually opposite of that. Without alignment rules we'd have paladins who act like chaotic evil mercenaries.

[Kish]

(ignoring for the moment that lead wouldn't actually block it)
Uh. "A thin sheet of lead blocks Detect Evil (and most detection spells, actually)" is from D&D, it's not something Rich arbitrarily made up for the comic.

[Keltest]

Uh. "A thin sheet of lead blocks Detect Evil (and most detection spells, actually)" is from D&D, it's not something Rich arbitrarily made up for the comic.

Either we aren't playing the same D&D or im falling victim to a huge prank.

[Kish]

Either we aren't playing the same D&D or im falling victim to a huge prank.
The former. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectEvil.htm)
Check the last sentence on the page. Or just do a find on the page for "lead."

[Lexible]

How is that chaotic? :smallconfused:

Spontaneity and unpredictability.


How is that lawful??

Rigid adherence to a principle.

My examples were just rapid choices from my own experience, but seriously: alignment as anything remotely up to navigating the ethical and moral complexity of people? Nope. Not even close.

[Sir_Leorik]

I said most, not all. Compared to the sheer number of heros out there, that's a pretty small roster.

Most Golden Age and Silver Age super-heroes were Lawful Good. Superman, Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, The Flash, Sandman, Captain Marvel, Captain Marvel Jr., Mary Marvel, Captain America, Bucky, The Human Torch, even outliers like Plastic Man, were all Lawful Good. Even Batman was Lawful Good in that period. It's not until Spider-Man comes along that a super-hero who fits the Neutral Good Alignment comes along. He's then followed by Iron Man, the X-Men, and The Hulk, who was more of a Chaotic Neutral anti-hero with a Lawful Neutral alter ego (the whole Jekyll/Hyde thing). If it currently seems that most super-heroes are not Lawful Good, that's because of the influence of Marvel Comics, not because the genre began that way.


The way ive always run it is that detect evil is a sort of trance, rather than a sight based ability, so just because you cant see the source doesn't mean you couldn't sense it. Therefore a lead sheet would not be enough to block it (ignoring for the moment that lead wouldn't actually block it) because it could go "around" the sheet like it can go "around" rocks.

Lead blocks it because the spell description says so. The spell description has said so since 1978. As for Belkar's sheet, he's holding the sheet at an angle designed to deflect Miko's beam. Since Miko was taller than Belkar is, Belkar simply had to judge the correct angle.


Nah. . . people don't behave like that. They're variable. What I prefer to eat? What I didn't have last time (except when I really want what I had last time): clearly chaotic. Except, I also consistently act with a good deal of honesty (to the point of social awkwardness) sticking hard to my policy: clearly lawful. When I look at the complexity of people's behavior, it seems very clear that not only do the alignments (even as principles, let alone any kind of objective reality) not describe the major axes of human behavior, they're not especially useful in describing our reality (indeed, you won't find law/chaos, nor good/evil among the conceptual tool-kits of behavioral theorists and researchers).

Alignments represent philosophical approaches, not behavioral straitjackets. With the exception of Modrons and characters with OCD, no Lawful Neutral characters are obligated to eat, dress or think a certain way. Likewise, Chaotic Neutral characters are not as likely to jump off a bridge as cross it, as likely to drink poison as fine wine, or as likely to cut themselves as go bowling. Lawful Neutral characters might act like obstructive bureaucrats or they could be simple minded followers. Chaotic Neutral characters could be impulsive rebels who do not like being told what to do, or dilettantes who might paint a mural one day, then whip up a violent mob and burn down an alehouse they don't like the next. Elan and Haley represent two different approaches to being Chaotic Good, with Elan an honest and trusting person and Haley a person who suspects that few people have her best interests at heart.


The alignment system serves a role-playing crutch, but also as a legitimization of of colonizing baggage that comes with the original RPG: can we have an unambiguous justification for slaughtering/torturing/pillaging/enslaving thinking feeling sentient beings? Uh. . . it's ok, they're evil!

Nope. Just because you don't like the D&D Alignment system doesn't mean your strawman will start singing "If I only had a brain!". Gary Gygax put a lot of thought into the early versions of the D&D Alignment system. You might want to try tracking down some early issues of "The Dragon" and reading his comments, or reading the 1E PHB or DMG. :smallannoyed:

[Sir_Leorik]

Spontaneity and unpredictability.

That sounds like Factol Erin "Darkflame" Montgomery, the Lawful Good Factol of the Society of Sensation.


Rigid adherence to a principle.

That sounds like Factol Terrance, the Lawful Good Factol of the Athar. Wait a minute, two characters with the same Alignment, but different personalities? How is that possible? The answer is the "Planescape" campaign setting, "Fantasy Taken to the Edge". I highly recommend you look into it, because it will dispel a lot of stereotypes about D&D.

[martianmister]

Spontaneity and unpredictability.

Eating different type of food doesn't make you chaotic...


Rigid adherence to a principle.

Chaotic characters can be honest. They can rigidly adhere to their own principles.


My examples were just rapid choices from my own experience, but seriously: alignment as anything remotely up to navigating the ethical and moral complexity of people? Nope. Not even close.

Lawful characters can do chaotic things, evil characters can commit good acts.

[Reddish Mage]

Was this discussion in the same thread that Therkla's TN status was officially made G-Canon? And did anyone in that thread ask the Giant about why Therkla hid from the Detect Evil??

Sure, people wonder about that all the time. I don't think he answered why. It's easy to speculate that say: Therkla might not be so certain about her own alignment, or her ninja reflexes instinctively have her ducking to prevent her being probed, and on another level Rich didn't want to make her alignment obvious.


Just because you don't like the D&D Alignment system doesn't mean your strawman will start singing "If I only had a brain!". Gary Gygax put a lot of thought into the early versions of the D&D Alignment system. You might want to try tracking down some early issues of "The Dragon" and reading his comments, or reading the 1E PHB or DMG. :smallannoyed:

I would be interested in hearing some of what Gary Gygax has to say, though I heard mixed opinions. He certainly appears to be coming from left-field and to be more influenced by the likes of Michael Moorcock and Poul Anderson than Aristotle and Immanuel Kant.

[Reddish Mage]

Chaotic characters can be honest. They can rigidly adhere to their own principles.



Lawful characters can do chaotic things, evil characters can commit good acts.

What you said about Chaotic character's doesn't fit the description. Lexible's basic point that there are lawful and chaotic traits in everyone is valid, though I think you are right that there are people that can be labeled "chaotic" and "lawful" and that weighty moral choices are the places that matter most for that determination.

We have had discussions on how "chaotic is chaotic" and so on. It isn't crystal clear how great a departure can be. Like most things, there is not a clear cutoff between the categories. However, a very honest and consistently principled chaotic character is certainly meant to be a departure from the norm.


Law Vs. Chaos
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

[Sir_Leorik]

I would be interested in hearing some of what Gary Gygax has to say, though I heard mixed opinions. He certainly appears to be coming from left-field and to be more influenced by the likes of Michael Moorcock and Poul Anderson than Aristotle and Immanuel Kant.

Moorcock and Anderson are indeed EGG's main sources of inspiration, though it would not surprise me in the least to learn he spent a little time looking at other sources.

EGG's primary sources of inspiration are listed in one of the appendices to the 1E DMG. He also penned a lot of articles in "The Dragon" (later "Dragon Magazine") listing his inspirations, and giving his thoughts about what direction the game should go in. Interviews he gave before his passing in 2007, as well as blog entries and introductions to various game products, can also give insight to what Alignment was intended to accomplish.

We should note that Alignment changed over the various editions. In 1E Alignment was about which team you belonged to. This was true in "Greyhawk", and especially in "Dragonlance", where everything was organized into a cosmic struggle between Good (led by Paladine) and Evil (led by Takhisis), with Neutrality trying to maintain a cosmic balance between Good and Evil to prevent ultimate destruction. In "Dragonlance", when Takhisis is trying to take over Krynn, Gilean and the Neutral gods side with Paladine. When the Kingpriest of Istar is going on a crusade against Evil creatures, and demanding that Paladine give the Kingpriest the power to wipe out Evil, Gilean and Takhisis can both demand that Paladine punish the Kingpriest for his hubris.

This view of Alignment changed in 2E, especially once TSR published "Ravenloft" and "Planescape". I don't want to go into voluminous detail, but "Ravenloft" was a Gothic Horror campaign, where Evil characters ruled, and heroes were in short supply. Individual actions taken by PCs were judged by the mysterious Dark Powers, and PCs who abused their authority could find themselves turning into monsters. "Planescape" was "fantasy taken to the edge", where Alignment was given a new dimension: philosophy. The Faction a PC belonged to could alter the PC's interpretation of his Alignment, and certain Alignments found certain Factions to be anathema.

In 3.X Alignment became more streamlined, with the mechanical effects of Alignment spelled out in great detail, but not much guideline on how to roleplay Alignment.

4E removed almost all mechanical elements of Alignment. Other than certain classes with the Divine Power Source (Avengers, Clerics, Invokers, Paladins), most PCs are free to pick whatever Alignment they want. The number of Alignments was dialed back from nine to five, possibly as a call back to an early version of Basic D&D.

I expect that the nine Alignment system will be back when D&D Next is released. Whether other earlier aspects of Alignment will be back, I have no idea.

In regards to the earlier poster (not Reddish Mage) who expressed distaste for D&D's Alignment system, my answer is simple: if you don't like the D&D Alignment system, don't use it when you play D&D or Pathfinder (or whatever OGL compatible RPG you play). But whether you like it or not, Alignment plays a role in "OotS". The role of Alignment is very nuanced, and I think it is very instructive for DMs who really don't know how to use the Alignment system. Whether it is a sympathetic villain like Redcloak, or a Lawful Good antagonist like Miko, there's plenty of food for thought for budding DMs. But if the concept of Alignment feels like a straightjacket to you, remove it from your game, rather than kvetch.

[Wardog]

What you said about Chaotic character's doesn't fit the description. Lexible's basic point that there are lawful and chaotic traits in everyone is valid, though I think you are right that there are people that can be labeled "chaotic" and "lawful" and that weighty moral choices are the places that matter most for that determination.

We have had discussions on how "chaotic is chaotic" and so on. It isn't crystal clear how great a departure can be. Like most things, there is not a clear cutoff between the categories. However, a very honest and consistently principled chaotic character is certainly meant to be a departure from the norm.

I think part of the problem is that the Law/Chaos axis combines so many different things, things that need not got together.

(In contrast, the Good/Evil axis is a lot simpler than in real-world moral philosophy, because a lot of the things people might argue are good or evil have been shifted to the Law/Chaos axis. Good is essentially "compassion, mercy and altruism" and evil "cruelty and exploitation". Most Good/Evil arguments seem to be basically about "to what extent can we kill people and take their stuff and still be Good?").

It is probably quite hard for a character to have strongly Good and strongly Evil traits at the same time, but entierly plausible for someone to e.g. be a very strong believer in the importance of truthfulness (Lawful) and keeping your word (Lawful) and sticking to your principles (Lawful, except when it isn't:smallconfused:), while also finding authority and heirarchy objectionable (Chaotic) and thinking formal rules and regulations generally make things worse (Chaotic).


There also seems to be two main concepts of what the underlying theme of Law/Chaos is.

I tend to go with (a slightly modified version of) Sir_Leorik's view:
Law thinks rules and regulations and authorities are a good thing. (Bad laws should be replaced with good laws).
Chaos thinks rules and regulations and authorities are a bad thing. (Good laws might exist, but they are either things that people would do anyway, and/or make it easier for bad laws to be imposed).
Neutral thinks rules can be beneficial or harmful, and should be imposed, repealed, or broken depending on the details of the example.


But another fairly common (and quite interesting) concept is more about formal vs informal rules.
Lawful favours formalized rules and heirarchies that make everything clear and consistent for everyone, with police and courts to deal with people who break the rules.
Chaos favours informal rules and traditions and taboos, a society built around personal relationships, and enforcement of rules by means of honour and ostracism or vengence.

I presume this latter concept was the one used when it was decided that Barbarians couldn't be Lawful, because otherwise typical "Barbarian virtues" like loyalty to the clan, honour, sacred hospitality etc are arguably all lawful.

[Reddish Mage]

It is probably quite hard for a character to have strongly Good and strongly Evil traits at the same time, but entierly plausible for someone to e.g. be a very strong believer in the importance of truthfulness (Lawful) and keeping your word (Lawful) and sticking to your principles (Lawful, except when it isn't:smallconfused:), while also finding authority and heirarchy objectionable (Chaotic) and thinking formal rules and regulations generally make things worse (Chaotic).


There also seems to be two main concepts of what the underlying theme of Law/Chaos is.

I tend to go with (a slightly modified version of) Sir_Leorik's view:
Law thinks rules and regulations and authorities are a good thing. (Bad laws should be replaced with good laws).
Chaos thinks rules and regulations and authorities are a bad thing. (Good laws might exist, but they are either things that people would do anyway, and/or make it easier for bad laws to be imposed).

But another fairly common (and quite interesting) concept is more about formal vs informal rules.
Lawful favours formalized rules and heirarchies that make everything clear and consistent for everyone, with police and courts to deal with people who break the rules.
Chaos favours informal rules and traditions and taboos, a society built around personal relationships, and enforcement of rules by means of honour and ostracism or vengence.

I presume this latter concept was the one used when it was decided that Barbarians couldn't be Lawful, because otherwise typical "Barbarian virtues" like loyalty to the clan, honour, sacred hospitality etc are arguably all lawful.

I'm not sure to what extent you are suggesting a reworking of Law vs. Chaos and to what extent you think you have captured the original intention.

Regulation/Authority vs. Lack thereof, is indeed a a Law/Chaos distinction, but is it the defining one? The Giant sees Elan as chaotic despite the fact that Elan has no objection to authority or regulation. 3E has many chaotic traits and does not say which is more important.

The alternative "common concept" of formal vs. informal rules I've seen before (it was striking in one of the Neverwinter Night's games), but I think it is highly problematic. What I think you described was two different levels of society and legal system, not a relatively liking or distaste for social structure in general.

Also, I'm not sure what is "typical" Barbarian because I'm not sure what the Barbarian intends to model.

[Reddish Mage]

Moorcock and Anderson are indeed EGG's main sources of inspiration, though it would not surprise me in the least to learn he spent a little time looking at other sources.

EGG's primary sources of inspiration are listed in one of the appendices to the 1E DMG. He also penned a lot of articles in "The Dragon" (later "Dragon Magazine") listing his inspirations, and giving his thoughts about what direction the game should go in. Interviews he gave before his passing in 2007, as well as blog entries and introductions to various game products, can also give insight to what Alignment was intended to accomplish.

We should note that Alignment changed over the various editions. In 1E Alignment was about which team you belonged to....

This view of Alignment changed in 2E, especially once TSR published "Ravenloft" and "Planescape"...

In 3.X Alignment became more streamlined...

...whether you like it or not, Alignment plays a role in "OotS". The role of Alignment is very nuanced, and I think it is very instructive for DMs who really don't know how to use the Alignment system. Whether it is a sympathetic villain like Redcloak, or a Lawful Good antagonist like Miko, there's plenty of food for thought for budding DMs. But if the concept of Alignment feels like a straightjacket to you, remove it from your game, rather than kvetch.

I have no idea how much input Gygax had on 2E (probably not much on 3E). The "team" approach on 1E seems particularly divorced from traditional philosophic concepts, and it is only with Planescape (which appears prima facie to be Zeb Cook's baby) that it attempts to engage philosophic discourse.

OotS does provide a lot of food for thought using this system. I'm sure few D&D players have seen a sympathetic villain (though LG antagonists are probably in better supply).

[Keltest]

I have no idea how much input Gygax had on 2E (probably not much on 3E). The "team" approach on 1E seems particularly divorced from traditional philosophic concepts, and it is only with Planescape (which appears prima facie to be Zeb Cook's baby) that it attempts to engage philosophic discourse.

OotS does provide a lot of food for thought using this system. I'm sure few D&D players have seen a sympathetic villain (though LG antagonists are probably in better supply).

LG antagonists are a bit hard to run while simultaneously not getting the party killed or otherwise crippled during one of their various meetings, giving the players (especially lawful ones) a reasonable chance to beat them, and avoiding being cliché. Chaotic evil or cha-neu villains are much easier because they don't have to make sense or be predictable. They can dunk you in mustard if they feel like it and don't need to explain why.

Or, if theyre me, they can have the party's dwarf paladin walk into a gelatinous cube every time they go underground and have a fun time watching the players try and pull him out without killing him or getting eaten themselves.

[Sir_Leorik]

I have no idea how much input Gygax had on 2E (probably not much on 3E).

EGG had been kicked out of TSR long before 2E went into development. I think the last major contribution EGG made to 1E was "Unearthed Arcana", circa 1985. (2E was released in 1989.)


The "team" approach on 1E seems particularly divorced from traditional philosophic concepts, and it is only with Planescape (which appears prima facie to be Zeb Cook's baby) that it attempts to engage philosophic discourse.

OotS does provide a lot of food for thought using this system. I'm sure few D&D players have seen a sympathetic villain (though LG antagonists are probably in better supply).

There are lots of ways to set PCs against characters of the same Alignment, even ones that are Lawful Good. Differences in religion (for example, Pholtans vs. any other Lawful Good religion), nationality (two nations at war over a scarce resource like water or iron, could conceivably have armies led by two Paladins who know and respect each other, but who will fight because of their oaths of fealty to their respective lords), philosophical differences (the Harmonium has many Paladins counted among their ranks; what's to stop a Hardhead Paladin from coming into conflict with a Paladin from a rival faction, such as the Free League?), and of course the old chestnut of suspicion (that the party's Paladin is being Dominated by a Vampire/replaced by a Doppelganger/infected with Lycanthropy/had his soul placed into the body of an Evil puppet which is now masquerading as the Paladin) can all lead to conflict among Lawful Good characters. If you can't come up with a single reason for PCs to oppose Lawful Good NPCs (and vice versa) you're not trying hard enough! :smallwink:

[Wardog]

I'm not sure to what extent you are suggesting a reworking of Law vs. Chaos and to what extent you think you have captured the original intention.

I'm not sure either :)

I recon its the most sensible way to combine most of the important aspects of Law vs Chaos that typically get brought up, and what seems to be the intention behind most of the official descriptions and definitions, while avoiding a lot of the problems that other interpretations bring up ("what happens if a paladin goes into a realm with Evil laws?")

Whether that actual is the original intention...

[martianmister]

What you said about Chaotic character's doesn't fit the description.

They can't be honest? They can't rigidly adhere to their own principles? :smallconfused:

[Sir_Leorik]

They can't be honest? They can't rigidly adhere to their own principles? :smallconfused:

That's a ridiculous oversimplification. Chaotic Good characters could be completely honest. Elan, for example, feels bad about lying, and he often calls out Roy and Haley when they try to make excuses or lie to him. On the other hand, Haley has a great deal of difficulty not keeping secrets from everyone around her, even when it would be beneficial to reveal those secrets.

Here's my take on Chaotic characters:

Some Chaotic Good characters are very honest, but they are honest because they want to maintain good relationships with other individuals, not because they have been ordered to always speak the truth. There are also Chaotic Good characters who distrust those in authority, believing that the temptation to abuse power is very hard to resist. Their attitude towards legitimate governments is "I assume you are probably corrupt, unless you prove otherwise,". Towards authoritarian (i.e. Lawful Evil) governments, they are outright hostile. Chaotic Good characters focus on individual liberties, but they do that at the expense of society as a whole.

Chaotic Neutral characters care about their own individual liberties. They might be influenced by a Charismatic rabble-rouser into forming small mobs to demand that the government listen to them about an issue, but by nature they don't function well as groups. The most successful Chaotic Neutral groups in the history of the D&D Multiverse are the Xaositect Faction, the people of the Domain of Vechor, and the villagers of Kendermore. The Chaosmen are a rabble that follow Charismatic ideologues, such as Factol Karan (who would propose weird ideas and if anyone wanted in they joined him, if not they could go sod off) or the Anarchists who would try riling the Xaositects into mobs. In Vechor, the citizens obey the will of the insane Wizard, Easan the Mad, whom the Vechorites revere as a god. But Easan makes few proclamations, so when there is a miscarriage of justice, the Vechorites form a lynch mob. As for Kendermore... an entire village of Kender; 'nuff said.

Chaotic Evil characters are only interested in their own self-gratification, which they achieve by hurting others. Chaotic Evil characters can be geniuses, such as Count Strahd, Easan the Mad, Graz'zt, Lolth, Eclavdra, Takhisis, or Cedrik. They don't have to be controlled by their impulses to engage in immediate gratification, so long as their long term plans end up with them achieving what they want. Stupider Chaotic Evil characters, like Thog, most Demons, and Cyric (who's technically a genius but is so insane that he can't maintain a cohesive thought for more than a few days) act on impulse.

The most dangerous Chaotic Evil characters are the ones like Strahd or Cedrik, who seem like they are Lawful Evil due to their attention to detail, their meticulous planning, and their ability to male plans that take years, decades or centuries to come to fruition. But Strahd is only interested in three things: drinking his fill of blood each night, keeping Barovia under his dominion, and finding Tatyana's reincarnation. If he has to choose between these three objectives, feeding (and avoiding destruction) takes priority, followed by claiming Tatyana; ruling Barovia rates a distant third. In general Strahd uses the Vistani as his eyes and ears; the boyars to collect taxes, suppress the Gundarakite rebellion and see to day-to-day affairs; while he spends most of his time searching for Tatyana, researching spells or creating undead. Cedrik uses his Chaotic instincts to benefit the IFCC, but their plans are usually made by Lee, with Nero acting as a negotiator between Lee and Cedrik. Lolth's long-term goals involve conquest and revenge against the Seldarine, but she seems far more interested in pitting Drow factions against each other. Graz'zt spends more time hooking up then he devotes to the Blood War. Easan the Mad and Cyric are insane. Eclavdra has a bad case of Starscream Syndrome (though as of 4E, she and Lolth have patched things up, with Eclavdra serving as an Exarch of Lolth).

In terms of how these Alignments interact with others, Chaotic Good characters may chafe under laws, but they are still Good, and would probably prefer to make speeches about unjust laws rather than overthrow governments. Chaotic Neutral characters generally ignore laws, and when someone tries to point out that they are disobeying a law, the Chaotic Neutral character gets angry, possibly reacting with violence if provoked. Chaotic Evil characters don't get angry. They get even. Chaotic Evil rulers and leaders crush any dissent with a gusto that would make a Lawful Evil tyrant gasp in dismay, and they do so at a whim. Chaotic Evil citizens (such as Evil adventurers) kill first and rarely ask questions. If they see something they want, they take it, killing the owner if necessary. That's how Xykon, Thog and Belkar behave: see it, take it, stab someone if necessary. Wash, rinse, repeat.

[Keltest]

[QUOTE=Sir_Leorik;16706767] and Cyric (who's technically a genius but is so insane that he can't maintain a cohesive thought for more than a few days) [QUOTE]

Actually Cyric got that fixed. hes only mildly crazy again.

[Reddish Mage]

They [Chaotic individuals] can't be honest? They can't rigidly adhere to their own principles? :smallconfused:

I simply point out those are canonically not Chaotic traits. Unlike Sir_Leorik I'm not going to try to give general motives suggesting how chaotic characters behave. I will note Elan doesn't appear particularly distrustful of authority but is claimed to be chaotic by virtue of his zaniness and (perhaps) a tendency to (reluctantly) violate rules. In other threads, the Giant and others claimed a characters who follow their own code of behavior could be lawful so long as they have a clear code of behavior that they rigidly adhere to.

If a character has a set of rigid principles (especially honesty) and this is their primary defining personality trait (rather than having it balanced by, say, a love of individual freedom and a thumb-your-nose-at-authority attitude) then that character appears to be Lawful.



There are lots of ways to set PCs against characters of the same Alignment, even ones that are Lawful Good. Differences in religion (for example, Pholtans vs. any other Lawful Good religion), nationality (two nations at war over a scarce resource like water or iron, could conceivably have armies led by two Paladins who know and respect each other, but who will fight because of their oaths of fealty to their respective lords), philosophical differences (the Harmonium has many Paladins counted among their ranks; what's to stop a Hardhead Paladin from coming into conflict with a Paladin from a rival faction, such as the Free League?), and of course the old chestnut of suspicion (that the party's Paladin is being Dominated by a Vampire/replaced by a Doppelganger/infected with Lycanthropy/had his soul placed into the body of an Evil puppet which is now masquerading as the Paladin) can all lead to conflict among Lawful Good characters. If you can't come up with a single reason for PCs to oppose Lawful Good NPCs (and vice versa) you're not trying hard enough! :smallwink:

Indeed, that's why I say Lawful Good antagonists are easy to create and probably in plentiful supply if you look beyond the most simplistic adventure models. It's easy to imagine lawful good types in conflict with each other or with the PCs.

Adventurers, even if lawful good, are probably going to come into conflict with the authorities simply because of their nature. Adventurers are heavily armed powers-unto-themselves, who feel empowered to root out evil (or achieve their other goals) on their own accord. Not to mention, they are magnates for conflict. None of this is highly agreeable with local authority.

[Sir_Leorik]

and Cyric (who's technically a genius but is so insane that he can't maintain a cohesive thought for more than a few days)

Actually Cyric got that fixed. hes only mildly crazy again.

Cyric's seeing a therapist? That's news to me. :smallwink:


I simply point out those are canonically not Chaotic traits. Unlike Sir_Leorik I'm not going to try to give general motives suggesting how chaotic characters behave. I will note Elan doesn't appear particularly distrustful of authority but is claimed to be chaotic by virtue of his zaniness and (perhaps) a tendency to (reluctantly) violate rules. In other threads, the Giant and others claimed a characters who follow their own code of behavior could be lawful so long as they have a clear code of behavior that they rigidly adhere to.

"Zaniness" in and of itself isn't enough to make a character Chaotic. You could have a Lawful Good character who dresses in ridiculous outfits or speaks only in rhyme. What makes Elan Chaotic is that he doesn't actually care what society thinks of his behavior. He only cares that his friends (especially surrogate father figures like Roy and Sir Francois) show approval for his actions. When told about Armor Check penalties, Elan disrobes in the middle of a dungeon, because his Chaotic Alignment doesn't care about society's taboo on public nudity. When told that the Empress of Blood keeps slaves, he tells her to her face that he disapproves.

[Keltest]

Cyric's seeing a therapist? That's news to me. :smallwink:



"Zaniness" in and of itself isn't enough to make a character Chaotic. You could have a Lawful Good character who dresses in ridiculous outfits or speaks only in rhyme. What makes Elan Chaotic is that he doesn't actually care what society thinks of his behavior. He only cares that his friends (especially surrogate father figures like Roy and Sir Francois) show approval for his actions. When told about Armor Check penalties, Elan disrobes in the middle of a dungeon, because his Chaotic Alignment doesn't care about society's taboo on public nudity. When told that the Empress of Blood keeps slaves, he tells her to her face that he disapproves.

Yeah, apparently he read a book and it made him less crazy. Its been a bit since ive read the particular book, but I believe its Crucible: the Trial of Cyric the Mad.


Anyway, I think part of this disagreement is that you (and me, for that matter) view law/chaos as more of a way of life, while Reddish mage seems to be under the impression that its more of a personality.

[hamishspence]

Yeah, apparently he read a book and it made him less crazy. Its been a bit since ive read the particular book, but I believe its Crucible: the Trial of Cyric the Mad.

It was a book that drove him mad in the first place- his own propaganda history of himself- the Cyrinishad - in the previous novel in the series, Prince of Lies.

The book that cured him was The True Life of Cyric - written to tell what really happened.

[Keltest]

It was a book that drove him mad in the first place- his own propaganda history of himself- the Cyrinishad - in the previous novel in the series, Prince of Lies.

The book that cured him was The True Life of Cyric - written to tell what really happened.

See? im not crazy.

[Sir_Leorik]

Anyway, I think part of this disagreement is that you (and me, for that matter) view law/chaos as more of a way of life, while Reddish mage seems to be under the impression that its more of a personality.

That's a point I've been repeating for months on these Forums (and even included it in my .sig at one point): Character Alignment =/= Character Personality. Count Strahd seeks to protect Barovia, since he views it as "his" property. Lolth promotes cutthroat competition for her favor among the Drow houses, to the detriment of not only her people but to Lolth's long term plans. Strahd and Lolth are nevertheless both Chaotic Evil.

Roy is a snarky trash-talker (see the "yo Mama" insults he hurled at the Oracle) who nevertheless is capable of great compassion and does not attack someone just because of their Race or Alignment. O-Chul is a humble servant, who does not suffer fools lightly, and speaks forthrightly even in the face of death. When O-Chul can, he smites Evil; when he can't smite Evil, O-Chul listens and gently offers advice. Roy and O-Chul each approach the Lawful Good Alignment in different ways. Roy is comfortable insulting his enemies, something O-Chul, as a Paladin and Samurai, wouldn't do. But they're both Lawful Good. They both embody the spirit of Law and Good, with O-Chul embodying service to a liege, service to a country and the value of friendship, while Roy embodies leadership, loyalty to friends, keeping commitments to family members, respecting oaths, saving the innocent and standing up to bullies.

Your Alignment is a way of life, a way of life that can sometimes seem inconvenient or start a war. The whole point of the IFCC is that they want the fiends to stop focusing on the differences between their Ethical Alignments and focusing on their shared Moral Alignment. Personality-wise, the IFCC are almost interchangeable, a deliberate choice by the Giant to make them act as one unit.

[Sir_Leorik]

See? im not crazy.

You're not, but Cyric still is. Reading a magic self-help book apparently lowered him from complete madness down to Thanos of Titan level madness- mad, but still able to come up with brilliant schemes, like murdering Mystra, causing the Spellplague and getting locked up by an angry collection of deities for doing so.

[Keltest]

You're not, but Cyric still is. Reading a magic self-help book apparently lowered him from complete madness down to Thanos of Titan level madness- mad, but still able to come up with brilliant schemes, like murdering Mystra, causing the Spellplague and getting locked up by an angry collection of deities for doing so.

I think youre giving him too much credit. Mystra has died before, and while magic was wonky each time, nothing nearly this bad has happened. Something else is clearly going on, hinted at in The Companions (and presumably furthered by the rest of the books in the series that I haven't read)

[Sir_Leorik]

I think youre giving him too much credit. Mystra has died before, and while magic was wonky each time, nothing nearly this bad has happened. Something else is clearly going on, hinted at in The Companions (and presumably furthered by the rest of the books in the series that I haven't read)

I dunno, I've played Living Forgotten Realms; the Spellplague was kinda bad.

I think that Elminster may have been able to resurrect Mystra by absorbing the Chosen energy from her other Chosen and finding a new candidate to be Mystra, but the effects of the Spellplague aren't going away. Returned-Abeir is still sitting there, Dragonborn are running around, and the shorelines are still receded in places. Cyric really outdid himself this time.

[Keltest]

I dunno, I've played Living Forgotten Realms; the Spellplague was kinda bad.

I think that Elminster may have been able to resurrect Mystra by absorbing the Chosen energy from her other Chosen and finding a new candidate to be Mystra, but the effects of the Spellplague aren't going away. Returned-Abeir is still sitting there, Dragonborn are running around, and the shorelines are still receded in places. Cyric really outdid himself this time.

You misunderstood. Obviously the spellplague really sucked for the realms, but its hinted (subtly, ill admit) that it wasn't Mystra's death that caused it (by itself anyway).

Also, as of The Companions, apparently the Netherese believe that the effects are undoing themselves, and the older magic is coming back. Not that this has anything to do with OOTS anymore.

[Sir_Leorik]

You misunderstood. Obviously the spellplague really sucked for the realms, but its hinted (subtly, ill admit) that it wasn't Mystra's death that caused it (by itself anyway).

Also, as of The Companions, apparently the Netherese believe that the effects are undoing themselves, and the older magic is coming back. Not that this has anything to do with OOTS anymore.

Well, the Netherese are going to have to wait a few more months, just like everyone else. (Unless they're playtesting the Beta rules. :smallbiggrin:)

[Keltest]

Well, the Netherese are going to have to wait a few more months, just like everyone else. (Unless they're playtesting the Beta rules. :smallbiggrin:)

It would not actually surprise me. I never liked their inclusion into the story anyway, it seemed like a cheap way to add an evil nation that wasn't run on weave magic.

Take Note Giant. Don't add in a random evil empire from another dimension in the wake of a magical cataclysm just so you have an antagonist who can still be threatening.

[martianmister]

That's a ridiculous oversimplification.

Are you answering to me? :smallconfused:

[warrl]

One of the biggest weaknesses in the alignment system, IMHO, is that it doesn't distinguish between the internal and the external.

Tarquin is an excellent example of what I'm talking about. He's trying to impose a rigid structure on the world around him - Lawful. But his attempts to do so usually involve a lot of clearly-Chaotic behavior. So he's externally Lawful, but internally Chaotic.

Shojo was similar. He wanted and required other people under his authority to behave Lawfully, while he himself behaved Chaotically.

Belkar, on the other hand, is Chaotic both internally (he does whatever he wants) and externally (he'll let other people do whatever they want, unless of course he decides he wants to kill them which is mostly NOT tied to THEIR behavior).

Elan is probably somewhat Lawful internally, having his own set of rules and standards to live by as best he can, but Chaotic externally.

I think it's also safe to say that most people, even most D&D characters, can't be accurately represented by a single point on the alignment chart, but instead rather resemble an amoeba (http://media-3.web.britannica.com/eb-media/86/13486-004-89AFA931.jpg) or a neuron (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/kinser/images/neuron1.gif) with little tendrils reaching out in odd directions depending on subject and circumstances.

[Sir_Leorik]

Are you answering to me? :smallconfused:

No, I was reiterating your rhetorical response to Reddish Mage; in hindsight I should have quoted his post too. :smallredface:

Sorry. :smallredface:

[Sir_Leorik]

One of the biggest weaknesses in the alignment system, IMHO, is that it doesn't distinguish between the internal and the external.

Tarquin is an excellent example of what I'm talking about. He's trying to impose a rigid structure on the world around him - Lawful. But his attempts to do so usually involve a lot of clearly-Chaotic behavior. So he's externally Lawful, but internally Chaotic.

How is Tarquin behaving in a Chaotic manner? He's behaving in an Evil manner, not a Chaotic one.


Shojo was similar. He wanted and required other people under his authority to behave Lawfully, while he himself behaved Chaotically.

He didn't want them to act Lawfully, he simply let them behave in their Lawful fashion, all the better to break the laws himself.


Elan is probably somewhat Lawful internally, having his own set of rules and standards to live by as best he can, but Chaotic externally.

You're confusing Elan's Good Alignment with a Lawful Alignment.


I think it's also safe to say that most people, even most D&D characters, can't be accurately represented by a single point on the alignment chart, but instead rather resemble an amoeba (http://media-3.web.britannica.com/eb-media/86/13486-004-89AFA931.jpg) or a neuron (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/kinser/images/neuron1.gif) with little tendrils reaching out in odd directions depending on subject and circumstances.

The D&D Alignment system is meant to be a simple system. It allows a DM and Players to have a simple us vs. them framework, a'la Moorcock or Anderson; to use Alignment as a means of philosophical exploration, Planescape-style; to use it as the basis of a moral code in a Gothic horror setting, where Dark Powers punish the PCs for moral failures; or it can become more ambiguous for a pulp-style fantasy world, where a person's actions not their philosophical inclination, is of more importance.

And if you really want to, you could jettison Alignment. In a 3.X or earlier game (and in Pathfinder) the DM will need to house-rule a ton of stuff, but if you feel it's important enough to you, abi geizunt. (Alignment doesn't interact very often with rules mechanics in 4E, so there is very little to change if you want to jettison Alignment. Of course if you really hate Alignment that much, you might not be inclined to even try 4E in the first place. :smalltongue:)

[orrion]

One of the biggest weaknesses in the alignment system, IMHO, is that it doesn't distinguish between the internal and the external.

Tarquin is an excellent example of what I'm talking about. He's trying to impose a rigid structure on the world around him - Lawful. But his attempts to do so usually involve a lot of clearly-Chaotic behavior. So he's externally Lawful, but internally Chaotic.

Huh? His attempts involve a lot of EVIL behavior. Just because he's Lawful Evil doesn't mean he can't become erratic or emotionally unstable. I think you're attributing the erratic behavior in these specific circumstances as indicative of alignment when it's really just indicative of Tarquin becoming unhinged over the course of this fight.



Shojo was similar. He wanted and required other people under his authority to behave Lawfully, while he himself behaved Chaotically.

Shojo wanted nothing of the kind. He repeatedly laments the Paladins' Lawful Good and how it forces him to work around them. The Paladins' code is what required them to behave Lawfully. Not Shojo.



Elan is probably somewhat Lawful internally, having his own set of rules and standards to live by as best he can, but Chaotic externally.

Or he's Good, and follows the standards of Good.



I think it's also safe to say that most people, even most D&D characters, can't be accurately represented by a single point on the alignment chart, but instead rather resemble an amoeba (http://media-3.web.britannica.com/eb-media/86/13486-004-89AFA931.jpg) or a neuron (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/kinser/images/neuron1.gif) with little tendrils reaching out in odd directions depending on subject and circumstances.

And yet your arguments are based on imposing those points on these characters rather than allowing room for them to act. You also seemingly forget the other aspects of their alignment. That doesn't mesh very well with that conclusion.

[Liliet]

I'd like to add my cents on theoretical alignment here, too.

<from this point feel free to mentally add "I think" and "in my subjective opinion" to every sentence>

There are lots of different traits/habits/views that influence alignment. People have these all over the spectrum, even Good/Evil is not really as clear cut as it usually appears in heroic fantasy. And these traits add "alignment points" to the total sum... well, to the two total sums, because the axis are independent.

How much each trait/habit/event/position/whatever, I'll just call them all "traits" from now on, is worth, depends on its relevance. Relevance to what exactly? To the DM's/writer's/poster's personal opinion on what alignment is, overarching plot of the story, universal laws, whatever. Context. It must be relevant to the context, and this degree of relevance is very subjective and is the source of most arguments over alignment.

The other ambiguous point is where exactly the borders lie. Both axis in this system are gradients. If we agree on relevance, we can compare which character is more or less Good or Chaotic, but we can't peg them as belonging to one of the nine boxes unless we arbitrarily declare that "x" Evil is Evil, and "x-1" Evil is Neutral. These borders are generally less subjective and flame-inducing than relevance questions, but even more ambiguous and arbitrary.

What's important to understand is that alignment is like this by design. It's pointless to try and fix this, and it's impossible to get everyone to agree if you do. The alignment is objective in-story, but stories are written by people, and in metafictional sense alignment is and will always be subjective. It's not a tool for imposing one moral/philosophical point of view on everyone, it's a tool for each DM/writer/poster to express their personal opinion on the subject matter.

Every discussion of alignment in the end boils down to either the question of borders ("how Evil should a person be to peg an Evil on the detector and is this degree of Evilness enough to warrant immediate death sentence from a paladin?") or the question of relevance ("is Nale Chaotic because of his dislike of laws and regulations and general erratic pettiness or Lawful because of his adherence to plans and some narrative structures?")


Take, for example, the Therkla question. I, personally, would peg her as Neutral Evil, but the Giant decided otherwise. Why? I have my ideas about this. Basically, they boil down to three versions/aspects that are not mutually exclusive:

1) The Giant's opinion on where the border of Neutrality lies is different from mine;
2) The Giant's opinion on the relevance of certain traits is different from mine;
3) When imagining Therkla, the Giant has come up with other aspects of her life that pushed her higher up the moral scale but were so irrelevant they were never even mentioned on-panel.

Version 1 is the simplest and probably pretty likely to be true. I prefer to peg more people on border of Evil/Neutral as Evil, and the Giant prefers to peg them as Neutral to make all his Evil villains truly Evil for narrative purposes.


Version 2, however, is not easy to dismiss either.

Version 2a says that one major redeeming trait of Therkla, the ability to empathise with people and want all that you like to be friends, is much more relevant than I think it should be. It's not terribly likely, since judging by the gaming articles, the Giant seems to subscribe to the idea that even Evil has loved once; and OotS itself has Redcloak who, while picky about who gets his empathy, is very passionate and even altruistic about these, and Nale and Sabine who seemed to genuinely love each other (and I'd really like to see more of this love).

Version 2b says that in Giant's eyes Therkla's damning traits are not as relevant as in mine. This is supported by Enor and Ganji, other mercenary types, also being TN while I'd put them lower. Willingness to kill people for the sake of other people who would pay/thank/promote you for this, without ever thinking of whether the victims deserve it and what goals you serve to accomplish by doing that, is pretty bad in my eyes.


There's, of course, version 3 which is my personal headcanon because it's the most Watsonian of them all. Off-panel, just where we don't see her, Therkla gives money to hospitals, orphanages and schools, pets dogs and takes great interest in politics, coming to genuinely believe that Kubota's rule will bring people more good than Hinjo's rule. It wouldn't be terribly good writing if this was the actual source of difference, though, and there's not much to discuss there. Versions 1 and 2 are much more relevant to the topic of this thread...

[Lexible]

Nope. Just because you don't like the D&D Alignment system doesn't mean your strawman will start singing "If I only had a brain!". Gary Gygax put a lot of thought into the early versions of the D&D Alignment system. You might want to try tracking down some early issues of "The Dragon" and reading his comments, or reading the 1E PHB or DMG. :smallannoyed:

Oh no! Scowlyface! As it so happens, I began reading Gygax in 1st edition as they were being published in the late 70s, thanks very much... so I have a few decades of perspective on this, ok? Cute pun aside, neither ethicists nor behaviorists really use the the alignment constructs as presented in D&D. If you don't my examples fine, but you have not addressed the fundamental variability and contradiction in individual and collective human behavior which renders Gygax's alignments nothing more than gross cartoonishness. I have played RPGs with an without alignment systems, and stand by opinion that alignment is for folks not interested in doing heavy lifting with ethics in their campaigns.

[Sir_Leorik]

Oh no! Scowlyface! As it so happens, I began reading Gygax in 1st edition as they were being published in the late 70s, thanks very much... so I have a few decades of perspective on this, ok? Cute pun aside, neither ethicists nor behaviorists really use the the alignment constructs as presented in D&D. If you don't my examples fine, but you have not addressed the fundamental variability and contradiction in individual and collective human behavior which renders Gygax's alignments nothing more than gross cartoonishness. I have played RPGs with an without alignment systems, and stand by opinion that alignment is for folks not interested in doing heavy lifting with ethics in their campaigns.

Have you ever played "Planescape"?

[Liliet]

Oh no! Scowlyface! As it so happens, I began reading Gygax in 1st edition as they were being published in the late 70s, thanks very much... so I have a few decades of perspective on this, ok? Cute pun aside, neither ethicists nor behaviorists really use the the alignment constructs as presented in D&D. If you don't my examples fine, but you have not addressed the fundamental variability and contradiction in individual and collective human behavior which renders Gygax's alignments nothing more than gross cartoonishness. I have played RPGs with an without alignment systems, and stand by opinion that alignment is for folks not interested in doing heavy lifting with ethics in their campaigns.
I still think it depends on how you use it. Out-of-box it's unusable and contradictory anyway, so it needs to be tweaked and fixed in any case. With enough of tweaking towards "making sense" it can be used for lifting pretty heavy.

Well, except the players will have to accept the DM as the ultimate authority in that regard. That is a feature of alignment that doesn't always fit, true. But only that. Everything else... well, it won't do the work for you, but it presents a nice framework to work within if you like the basic idea of L-C and G-E distinction. If you don't, well, tough luck. You two (you and the alignment) just weren't made for each other.

[Sir_Leorik]

I still think it depends on how you use it. Out-of-box it's unusable and contradictory anyway, so it needs to be tweaked and fixed in any case. With enough of tweaking towards "making sense" it can be used for lifting pretty heavy.

I disagree with that assessment. I don't view Alignment as being inherently unusable. What I am willing to concede is that there are situations where the Alignment system is not appropriate, at least the way the Core Rules presents it. But there are plenty of campaigns where Alignment can be used to cause dramatic conflict, or put the players in a moral quandary, without "tweaking".

[Lexible]

Have you ever played "Planescape"?

I haven't. How is it?

[Lexible]

I disagree with that assessment. I don't view Alignment as being inherently unusable. What I am willing to concede is that there are situations where the Alignment system is not appropriate, at least the way the Core Rules presents it. But there are plenty of campaigns where Alignment can be used to cause dramatic conflict, or put the players in a moral quandary, without "tweaking".

I agree that alignment in RPGs is quite usable. To my own mind just tends to narrow the questions, rather than conjure ambiguities and complexities. But mayhap I just haven't played with folks who did really cool things with the alignment system.

[Liliet]

I disagree with that assessment. I don't view Alignment as being inherently unusable. What I am willing to concede is that there are situations where the Alignment system is not appropriate, at least the way the Core Rules presents it. But there are plenty of campaigns where Alignment can be used to cause dramatic conflict, or put the players in a moral quandary, without "tweaking".
The idea and the basic framework are more than usable, they are awesome. Things like "poison and torture are evil regardless of the situation" and "paladins fall for consorting with Evil characters"? Not so much. Just like "doing the evil thing for the ultimate good outcome is impossible because succumbing to evil gives strength to the fiends which is worse than any possible ultimate good".

There's a part of alignment rules that needs to be ignored for it to work as intended, and a part of alignment rules that needs to be made up on the spot because there's no printed rules for that. This part is significant because different people make it up in different ways, and if they are lazy about it, it results in WTFs like "The DM said my character has to do at least one Chaotic thing a day, or he'll shift me to Neutral!"


Initially upon learning what alignment is, I was absolutely happy with it and thought it was perfect. Then I started stumbling upon complains of it making no sense, and slowly came to realize just how much of the work on alignment making sense I did myself, in my head, without even thinking of it. Maybe "tweaking" isn't the right word, it's more like "specifying" and "interpreting".
I was actually going for the Russian joke about modifying/finishing with a file (is that even the correct translation?...), but either it's untranslatable or I just don't know how to translate it adequately. The joke is that everything works if you spend enough time modifying it... never mind.

[Sir_Leorik]

I haven't. How is it?


I agree that alignment in RPGs is quite usable. To my own mind just tends to narrow the questions, rather than conjure ambiguities and complexities. But mayhap I just haven't played with folks who did really cool things with the alignment system.

"Planscape" did really cool things with the Alignment system. It took the boring description of the Outer Planes from the 1E Manual of the Planes and injected tons of philosophical debates, moral quandries, and a Steampunk homebase in Sigil, City of Doors.

In "Planescape" the PCs belong to competing Factions, each one promoting a philosophical viewpoint, not all of which are based on Alignments. The Athar are as close as possible to being atheists in a D&D game, since they deny that the gods, or "Powers", are divine. The Believers of the Source, or Godsmen, believe that through hard work anyone can become a god (though this may take multiple reincarnations to happen). The Bleak Cabal believe that there is no rhyme or reason to existence: it's not supposed to make sense. So the Bleakers devote themselves to alleviate suffering, since suffering is as meaningless as happiness.

The Doomguard believe that the ultimate goal of existence is entropy: the multiverse is falling apart, and the good Sinkers try to slow down the decay, while Evil ones try to speed it up. The Dustmen believe that everyone is already Dead; they contend that "True Life" would be free of pain, suffering, and misery, while "True Death" would be a release from suffering, unlike the "False Death" everyone, living, dead and undead, are stuck in.
The Fated believe that you need to earn and take whatever you deserve; they consider charity a sin, and neither give or nor accept any.

The Fraternity of Order (Guvners) believe in studying the laws of the universe in order to become masters of existence. The Free League are a collection of mostly Neutral people who banded together to keep from being abused by the other Factions; they deny they're a Faction, and seek to preserve the Independance of their members. The Harmonium believe that the only way to achieve multiversal peace and harmony is for everyone to listen to and believe in the Harmonium way.

The Mercykillers are devoted to Justice at any cost, and seek to punish the guilty (usually by hanging them). The Revolutionary League are a band of Anarchists seeking to infiltrate every other Faction, and destroy them from within. Once the Factions are gone, they plan to take over Sigil and discover the true meaning of existence. The Society of Sensation is devoted to experiencing every possible sensation in the multiverse, from eating new foods, drinking new wines and seeing new plays, to reliving the memories of others recording on special magic items, being tortured to experience pain, fasting to experience want, and praying to different gods to experience piety.

The members of the Sign of One believe that they are the center of the Multiverse, and that they are imagining everything into existence. The Transcendant Order are a group of monastic ascetics, who seek to combine action and thought, until they are able to act without thinking. Finally, the Xaositects are Chaotic. They embrace Chaos.

With the exception of the Harmonium, Guvners and Mercykillers (who must be Lawful), Bleakers (who can't be Lawful), Fated (who can't be Lawful Good), Xaositects and Anarchists (who must be Chaotic), every Faction contains members of all nine Alignments. A Lawful Good Dustman would view Entropy as progressing faster than it should, and would try to inhibit it. A Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil Dustman would view Entropy as falling behind schedule, and seek to speed it up. A True Neutral Dustman would be trying to maintain Entropy on it's natural course, neither inhibiting or excellerating its progress. Even among the Lawful Factions there are tensions; the Lawful Evil Factol of the Mercykillers and her Lawful Good Paladin second-in-command are constantly arguing over how to mete out punishments, with Factol Nilesa arguing for more executions, and Arwyl Swan's Son arguing for commuting lesser crimes to life imprisonment.

I'm probably not doing the setting the justice it deserves in this synopsis, since I've only touched on the Factions briefly and haven't mentioned other aspects of the campaign. It definitely takes the Alignment system and shows how to make it more complex, with characters of the same Alignment from different Factions working at cross-purposes.


The idea and the basic framework are more than usable, they are awesome. Things like "poison and torture are evil regardless of the situation" and "paladins fall for consorting with Evil characters"? Not so much. Just like "doing the evil thing for the ultimate good outcome is impossible because succumbing to evil gives strength to the fiends which is worse than any possible ultimate good".

There's a part of alignment rules that needs to be ignored for it to work as intended, and a part of alignment rules that needs to be made up on the spot because there's no printed rules for that. This part is significant because different people make it up in different ways, and if they are lazy about it, it results in WTFs like "The DM said my character has to do at least one Chaotic thing a day, or he'll shift me to Neutral!"


Initially upon learning what alignment is, I was absolutely happy with it and thought it was perfect. Then I started stumbling upon complains of it making no sense, and slowly came to realize just how much of the work on alignment making sense I did myself, in my head, without even thinking of it. Maybe "tweaking" isn't the right word, it's more like "specifying" and "interpreting".
I was actually going for the Russian joke about modifying/finishing with a file (is that even the correct translation?...), but either it's untranslatable or I just don't know how to translate it adequately. The joke is that everything works if you spend enough time modifying it... never mind.

I blame the brief write-ups in the 3.X Core Rulebooks. While they're better than the ones from 2E (especially when it comes to Chaotic Neutral), they could have been elaborated on much more. Space was obviously at a premium. :smallannoyed:

[Liliet]

I blame the brief write-ups in the 3.X Core Rulebooks. While they're better than the ones from 2E (especially when it comes to Chaotic Neutral), they could have been elaborated on much more. Space was obviously at a premium. :smallannoyed:
I don't think it would have been much better had they elaborated. I was recently making several characters for fun in Hero Lab, and some of them were CG. That character builder makes it more or less mandatory to pick a deity for your character (or a philosophy, or atheism), and offers a list of them. I was trying to find a suitable CN deity for my rogues/bards. Something about their lifestyle being approved by their gods, but their altruism, kindness and heroism being their personal qualities that have nothing to do with it.

I wanted to pick CN deities that would promote Chaotic things that are fairly Neutral morally, like travelling, freedom, arts; hell, even wine and gambling would do. Instead? There's a NG deity of wine and freedom, and the CN deity is of mindless destruction. The best CN deity I found was of pirates and strife.

That's their idea of CN.

No, it wouldn't have been better if they had elaborated.


I once picked up a Book of Exalted Deeds. I hoped for more adequate explanation of alignments and cool ideas about it, thinking, like you, that there just wasn't enough space in core books. That was a book fully devoted to the details of alignment, and you know what? The idea that sacrificing your own goodness and purity for eventual total good (by using poison, torture on consorting with fiends) was Evil and meaningless because it served to increase the total amount of Evil in the world eternal struggle angels demons blah blah blah was from there. There was more than enough space, and that's what they chose to write.


No, alignment is by design just a framework where you have to fill in the blanks yourself to the best of your ability. Unless you accept the guys at WotC - the ones who wrote the Monster Manual aka "the list of sentient creatures you shouldn't feel guilty about killing" - as moral authorities. I don't.

[Sir_Leorik]

I don't think it would have been much better had they elaborated. I was recently making several characters for fun in Hero Lab, and some of them were CG. That character builder makes it more or less mandatory to pick a deity for your character (or a philosophy, or atheism), and offers a list of them. I was trying to find a suitable CN deity for my rogues/bards. Something about their lifestyle being approved by their gods, but their altruism, kindness and heroism being their personal qualities that have nothing to do with it.

I wanted to pick CN deities that would promote Chaotic things that are fairly Neutral morally, like travelling, freedom, arts; hell, even wine and gambling would do. Instead? There's a NG deity of wine and freedom, and the CN deity is of mindless destruction. The best CN deity I found was of pirates and strife.

That's their idea of CN.


Out of curiosity, which campaign setting were they pulling these deities from? Because Olidammara, the Chaotic Neutral Oeridian god of Bards, Hedonism, Thievery, and Armadillos, would fit right up your alley, if he weren't WotC's product identity.

There's also Tritherion, a Chaotic Good Flan god of Liberty and Freedom, Norebo, a Chaotic Neutral Suel god of Luck, Gambling and Risks, and of course Zagyg, (formerly Xagig Yeregerne, the Archmage of Castle Greyhawk and Lord Mayor of the City of Greyhawk), the Chaotic Neutral demigod of Humor, Eccentricity, Occult Lore and Unpredictability.

All of them are discussed in Complete Divine, save Zagyg who appears in Expedition to Ruins of Greyhawk.


No, it wouldn't have been better if they had elaborated.


I once picked up a Book of Exalted Deeds. I hoped for more adequate explanation of alignments and cool ideas about it, thinking, like you, that there just wasn't enough space in core books. That was a book fully devoted to the details of alignment, and you know what? The idea that sacrificing your own goodness and purity for eventual total good (by using poison, torture on consorting with fiends) was Evil and meaningless because it served to increase the total amount of Evil in the world eternal struggle angels demons blah blah blah was from there. There was more than enough space, and that's what they chose to write.


No, alignment is by design just a framework where you have to fill in the blanks yourself to the best of your ability. Unless you accept the guys at WotC - the ones who wrote the Monster Manual aka "the list of sentient creatures you shouldn't feel guilty about killing" - as moral authorities. I don't.

What about the guys at TSR? Or Paizo? Or various third party publishers? Or webcomic authors? Or opinionated DMs? :smallconfused:

[Liliet]

Out of curiosity, which campaign setting were they pulling these deities from? Because Olidammara, the Chaotic Neutral Oeridian god of Bards, Hedonism, Thievery, and Armadillos, would fit right up your alley, if he weren't WotC's product identity.

There's also Tritherion, a Chaotic Good Flan god of Liberty and Freedom, Norebo, a Chaotic Neutral Suel god of Luck, Gambling and Risks, and of course Zagyg, (formerly Xagig Yeregerne, the Archmage of Castle Greyhawk and Lord Mayor of the City of Greyhawk), the Chaotic Neutral demigod of Humor, Eccentricity, Occult Lore and Unpredictability.

All of them are discussed in Complete Divine, save Zagyg who appears in Expedition to Ruins of Greyhawk.
Ouch. It was Pathfinder, and I'm an idiot. To be fair, there was like a hundred deities there... and a lot of content was clearly copy-pasted from 3.5, so I thought deities were too... but it's really not fair to blame the WotC for that.

OK, the deities was my mix-up, but the Book of Exalted Deeds is still there, and still needs to be ignored if you want to have an interesting game.




What about the guys at TSR? Or Paizo? Or various third party publishers? Or webcomic authors? Or opinionated DMs? :smallconfused:
The webcomic authors, opinionated DMs and religious figures can influence my worldview for the best of their ability, so long as I get the final world on what the actual rules in my game are. I, or my friends that I trust not to be idiots and am willing to play ethical heavy lifting with.

Who is and isn't the moral authority for me is a trick question that's beside the point, and the point is that it's the DM who has the authority and responsibility to define alignment rules for their table. The WotC get no vote there, after the mess they've made of it in their official material. (seriously, it's silly as hell, I'm willing to let a lot of things slide for the sake of following rules, but the alignment slip-ups are just too ridiculous on too serious and interesting and freaking RELEVANT a subject)

[Sir_Leorik]

Ouch. It was Pathfinder, and I'm an idiot. To be fair, there was like a hundred deities there... and a lot of content was clearly copy-pasted from 3.5, so I thought deities were too... but it's really not fair to blame the WotC for that.

Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms have a wide variety of deities for different Alignments (and cultures). I recommend Complete Divine for a good write up of the Oeridian, Suel and Flan pantheons from the "Greyhawk" campaign setting.

As for Pathfinder... :smallsigh:
Pathfinder Chronicles is set on a really messed up planet. No disrespect to Paizo, but half the deities there seem to be a walking endorsement of the Athar's philosophy.


OK, the deities was my mix-up, but the Book of Exalted Deeds is still there, and still needs to be ignored if you want to have an interesting game.

I recommend ignoring Book of Exalted Deeds and the 3.0 Book of Vile Darkness. (The 4E Book of Vile Darkness is actually much better, in that it provides game hooks and rules for Evil PCs that aren't comically Evil.) Instead, I recommend looking for some of the 2E products released by TSR, such as Complete Paladin's Handbook, On Hallowed Ground, Complete Villain's Handbook, The Factol's Manifesto, and several articles and Forum letters published in "Dragon Magazine". Some of the former can be found in .PDF format, but for the "Dragon" articles you'd need to find back issues. :smallfrown:

[Liliet]

Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms have a wide variety of deities for different Alignments (and cultures). I recommend Complete Divine for a good write up of the Oeridian, Suel and Flan pantheons from the "Greyhawk" campaign setting.

As for Pathfinder... :smallsigh:
Pathfinder Chronicles is set on a really messed up planet. No disrespect to Paizo, but half the deities there seem to be a walking endorsement of the Athar's philosophy.



I recommend ignoring Book of Exalted Deeds and the 3.0 Book of Vile Darkness. (The 4E Book of Vile Darkness is actually much better, in that it provides game hooks and rules for Evil PCs that aren't comically Evil.) Instead, I recommend looking for some of the 2E products released by TSR, such as Complete Paladin's Handbook, On Hallowed Ground, Complete Villain's Handbook, The Factol's Manifesto, and several articles and Forum letters published in "Dragon Magazine". Some of the former can be found in .PDF format, but for the "Dragon" articles you'd need to find back issues. :smallfrown:What I wanted from that book, actually, was some assistance on creating the pacifistic characters. Because I want my characters to be saints. It's more fun to me that way. But I didn't find any decent character creator that would use BoED material, and building a character manually is... er... difficult.

Some of the WotC's articles of alignments are a lot of fun, but you still have to turn on your brain and sort through them, decide which books you are going to ignore and which you are going to seek out even though they are from the different edition.

And thanks for the advice. I don't think I'm going to specifically seek these out, though. I can do alignment by myself pretty well... have you read my post above? About the relevance and arbitrary borders? Sure the WotC can offer some ideas on what can be relevant and where the borders can be set, but I already have a fairly good idea of that (=

[hamishspence]

While I like BoED, and wouldn't ignore it as a starting point- I agree that there's bugs that it requires the DM to fix, talk over with players, etc.

[Liliet]

While I like BoED, and wouldn't ignore it as a starting point- I agree that there's bugs that it requires the DM to fix, talk over with players, etc.

Well that's exactly my point - alignment system is the single greatest thing about DnD, and the mechanical effects of alignment often make the game and the setting more interesting, but it needs some tweaking and creative interpreting to actually _work_.

[multilis]

Therkla's alignment was lawful good, she may have not started that way, but thanks to the influence of Elan, she ended that way.

All you have to do is look at Diva's discussion with Roy on his ending up judged Lawful Good and put Therkla in his place. It is not the killonazi friends that matter, it is how you shift them to be less harmful.

[Liliet]

Therkla's alignment was lawful good, she may have not started that way, but thanks to the influence of Elan, she ended that way.

All you have to do is look at Diva's discussion with Roy on his ending up judged Lawful Good and put Therkla in his place. It is not the killonazi friends that matter, it is how you shift them to be less harmful.
Are you really sure that Kubota's pet assassin shifted him to be less harmful and not more?

[multilis]

Are you really sure that Kubota's pet assassin shifted him to be less harmful and not more?
I said T alignment *in the end*. (After *she* was helped by Elan)

She tried, just as Roy tried to limit damage of Belkar at time Roy was judged by Diva. Belkar at the time still did evil including giving the ring of jumping to Roy hoping/betting that Roy would act stupid and die.

[Lexible]

Therkla's alignment was lawful good, she may have not started that way, but thanks to the influence of Elan, she ended that way.

Why would CG Elan impel Therkla towards LG?

[Kish]

Are you really sure that Kubota's pet assassin shifted him to be less harmful and not more?
Are you really sure the woman he poisoned as soon as she tried to get him to do anything other than what he wanted shifted him...at all, ever?

[Liliet]

Are you really sure the woman he poisoned as soon as she tried to get him to do anything other than what he wanted shifted him...at all, ever?

She was a useful tool, so she opened up opportunities. Given that she was an assassin, those were... pretty specific opportunities.