Alignment Contriversy

[rawgt3]

Thanks for the tips but heres some background for ya. My PC belives in two things primarly:chivalry and harmony with nature. He tries to like as honorably as he can and fight the
fair fight. Which to him includes various "dishonorable acts" if nessisary. e.g. if outnumbered use ambush and other guerilla tacts. He also belives in repentance and therefore tries to give the enemy a chance to surrender unless they have threatened/attempted to kill already. He leads by example as a "Paragon of Virtue" and helps others at all times by doing what is best for them rather than what they want. He also belives that severe punishment and maybe torture are sometimes nessisary. Some people just will not listen and must be taught that bad actions have bad consiquences.
He also hates wasteful industry and tries to persuade others to live WITH nature rather than against it. He basicly wants everyone to live like elves (as far as conservation goes) he is not as haughty as other elves.
As far as law goes, he thinks that people should have the right to self expression (with consideration for others of course) but without the fear of punsishment people would have no logical reason to behave with honor. However, each trial must be handled induvidually because their are often difficult circumstances and moral dilemas behind crimes. He is often annoyed by people that try to enforce stupid laws like "keep of the grass" or "No running",
and is particularily not fond of people who are to cowardly to backup their laws.
e.g. wimpy cop:"You can't do that!"
My PC: "Oh yeah? Watch me! and by the way,I CAN do anything.The question is whether I SHOULD."
So there you go.Now you can decide ( I know it does'nt matter what you think but I'm curious Oh.Sorry if it's to long, got carried away.

 

[Will]

I'd argue:
A LG person honestly and truly believes that civilization, authority, law, and honor are genuinely good and valuable things in life. Any time there is uncertainty, the LG person will err on the side of 'well, the King IS King.'
Even if a law seems harsh or the servants of the king seem to be overstepping their bounds, the LG person will tend to believe 'well, they wouldn't be running from the cops if they didn't have something to hide.'

A CG person believes law, authority, lipservice to 'honor,' and all that are rot, self-serving excuses used to bind and destroy the spirit. Civilization serves to crush, not to uplift. Freedom of expression, freedom to live without the threat of the king's men, that is the true good.
A CG will honor agreements... when it is the right thing to do. A CG person isn't untrustworthy, at least if you understand his motives. A CG person isn't capricious at all -- randomness has nothing to do with it.

A NG person sees laws and obligation as potentially good, potentially bad, and is more apt to pick and choose. He may follow rules simply so as not to create trouble until he knows he must act against a rule, not because he has any great respect for rules in of themselves.


Anyhow, that's my view.

I'd argue the character is CN. Acting 'honorably' can mean almost anything, so isn't a real strong indication of anything. His 'goodness' comes more from a moralistic 'this is the way people should live' rather than a looser altruism. He espouses a goal he thinks would be good for all people, but he's willing to promote it through torture and any means necessary, which isn't a particularly hardline 'good' view.

He has absolutely no trust or believe in rules at all, doesn't heed any authority but his own. And his honor doesn't get in the way of pragmatism.

I vote CN.

 

[haakon1]

The GM belives strongly that I should be NG ,but he is also very prejudiced: LG= insensitive and stupid CG= "I wont obey you out of spite". I've tried persuading him to be more open minded but to little effect.

Given the choice of Neutral Good, Lawful Stupid, and Chaotic Stupid, I'd pick . . . Neutral Good.

 

[moritheil]

A CG will honor agreements... when it is the right thing to do. A CG person isn't untrustworthy, at least if you understand his motives. A CG person isn't capricious at all -- randomness has nothing to do with it.

What about CG fey who are described as fickle and mischievous?

 

[Will]

They aren't human? Eh, I'm dodging the point... fair enough.

I should say 'A CG person doesn't have to be capricious at all, and can in fact be fairly 'honorable' -- at least if you understand his motives.'

I think one confounding factor is motivation. A LN character with a goal of 'save the world by making everyone civilized' is going to be different than a LN character who simply serves authority because it's the honorable thing to do.

I suppose the view of CG I outlined and the fey is the difference between being driven toward a Higher Purpose and not having any particular goal.

(I still vote CN, given the squirrely way the justifications seem to land. Bullying cops doesn't strike me as Lawful in the slightest, and it's not particularly Good, either)

 

[Ipissimus]

Thanks for the tips but heres some background for ya. My PC belives in two things primarly:chivalry and harmony with nature, etc.

From this, I'd say Neutral Good. The character as described seems to act in accordance with his conscience unfettered by law or disrespect of the law.

What about CG fey who are described as fickle and mischievous?

Fickle and mischievous doesn't necessarily mean untrustworthy, they're just not honorable in the normal sense of the word. I see Chaotic Good beings as individualists who go with what feels good to them and if they drag a few people along with them, that's fine as long as it's their own choice. A mischievous fey's idea of a good time, like pantsing the mayor while he's giving a speech or dragging a particularly charming and willing child off to faerie to teach them magic, isn't our idea of a good time but it amuses them. Of course, they have to deal with the consequences of their actions if they are unwise.

But when things get serious, you can count on a CG being to try to do the right thing. They might not have a use for honor and duty but they do believe that every individual should be free to work to better themselves. Tyrrany, destruction and irresposibility don't promote such a healthy environment.

 

[roguerouge]

Thanks for the tips but heres some background for ya. ...

... Oh.Sorry if it's to long, got carried away.

Oh, your post wasn't long, don't worry about it. Why should you have to apologize for being enthusiastic? People will read or not read your posts on these boards based on what you have to say.

 

[roguerouge]

Well, I answered the quizes correctly dave and alignment does matter cause we have alot of organizations in the game. My PC's church is ehlonna but he also likes the church of heironieus,
guards of the green and disiples of legend (all in CC)but he does'nt want conflicting loyalties or some of their xtremist veiws. The GM belives strongly that I should be NG ,but he is also very prejudiced: LG= insensitive and stupid CG= "I wont obey you out of spite". I've tried persuading him to be more open minded but to little effect.

It sounds like alignment, and certain types of role playing, are not going to be big on this GM's agenda. It kind of sounds more like a kick in the door campaign, which can be fine, so I'd pick something and get ready for fights!

 

[Will]

From this, I'd say Neutral Good. The character as described seems to act in accordance with his conscience unfettered by law or disrespect of the law.

I'd argue that his bit about 'no patience for useless laws' is exactly a disrespect for the law; agreeing with the law when it happens to say things you agree with isn't respect, it's simply not having a mindless kneejerk against laws. Not following the laws when you don't agree with them, even when following them have no important consequences? That's Chaotic, I think.

One thing I've concluded in these alignment discussions is that when someone starts off with 'My character believes X,' you're better off ignoring that sentence and reading on; I remember posts along the lines of 'my character works to protect the innocent and be a shining paragon' and then follow it up with 'and he tortures people for fun.'

Proof is in the pudding... monster, or something.

 

[buzz]

My suggestions would be:

1. For you and your DM (in particular) to actually read the alignment rules, especially the commentary in the DMG.

2. To worry less about what alignment your PC should be and more about what alignment you want it to be.

Bonus: Your DM should not be dictating your PC's alignment beyond a group agreement as to whether Evil PCs are allowed.