Alignment Contriversy

[Edena_of_Neith]

Well, everyone has their own opinions on alignment. Here goes mine:

Is your character friendly, sociable, likeable, with a high regard for the value of life, his own and others? Make him lawful good.

Is your character cranky and crochity, or temperamental, or anti-social, or simply unlikeable, but he still has a high regard for the value of life, his own and others? Make him chaotic good.

Is your character somewhere between likeable and unlikeable, social and anti-social, occasionally friendly and occasionally downright mean, but he nevertheless has a high regard for the value of life, his own and others? Make him neutral good.

Does your character place something higher on his priority list than the value of life?
Does he, perhaps, believe society is more important? Balance is more important? Magic is more important? Money is more important? Success is more important?
Well then ...

If he is social and likeable, make him lawful neutral.
If he is unsociable and/or unlikeable, make him chaotic neutral.
If he is somewhere between these extremes, make him neutral.

Does your character enjoy killing? Really, truly, with all his heart? Is watching someone die an ectatic affair? Is it pleasurable, to watch someone screaming in pain as they go? Is it desirable, to have wars and plagues and pestilence just for their own sake? Is it great, to watch a whole people be wiped out?
Well then ...

If your character is social, behaved, and friendly, make him lawful evil.
If your character is anti-social, or behaves irrationally, or is just plain mean, make him chaotic evil.
If your character is somewhere between these two extremes, make him neutral evil.

For exalted and vile alignments, see the Book of Exalted Deeds and the Book of Vile Darkness.

Examples under this system:

Bilbo: chaotic good
Frodo: neutral good
Sam: neutral good (lawful tendencies)
Gollum: chaotic neutral (evil tendencies)
Thorin: neutral
Balin: lawful neutral
Gandalf: neutral good exalted
Beorn: chaotic neutral
Thranduil: lawful neutral
Bard: neutral
Smaug: chaotic evil
The Great Goblin: neutral evil
Elrond: lawful good
William the troll: neutral evil

 

[Will]

Edena, I really really really like that. It's a good, pragmatic way of working out alignment.

I find in a lot of these discussions, particularly when it seems someone is trying to hammer bizarre antisocial behavior into LG ('Yes, I eat babies. But only BAD babies'), a more straight-forward 'how does this smell' approach seems best.

 

[Ipissimus]

Well, everyone has their own opinions on alignment. Here goes mine, etc.

My only problem with this method (though it is a good way to do it if you're new to the game) is that it tends to create cookie-cutter characters. People with the same alignment shouldn't all have exactly the same opinion on every issue. The core difference is underlying philosophies rather than specific beliefs.

Strangely enough this is one place I agree with Haakon. Torture doesn't work, no ifs ands or buts, it just doesn't.

I hope and prey you're right, but I don't buy it. Torture has been going on for thousands of years, in all that time if it simply didn't work we'd notice and stop doing it. Instead, we've refined it into an artform.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I hope and prey you're right, but I don't buy it. Torture has been going on for thousands of years, in all that time if it simply didn't work we'd notice and stop doing it. Instead, we've refined it into an artform.

Not necessarily. Now, whether or not it tends to work, I don't know from experience - that's for sure. Nevertheless, plenty of things that 'don't work' and many more that 'don't work very well' we (collectively) still do, and in spades.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

I hope and prey you're right, but I don't buy it. Torture has been going on for thousands of years, in all that time if it simply didn't work we'd notice and stop doing it. Instead, we've refined it into an artform.

It continues to be done because it feeds the prejudgments of those engaging in it. The data you get from torture is what you WANT to hear. What you believe is the truth, because they're specifically telling you what you want to hear. Because you already believe something similar is happening and want to hear your suspicions acknowledged there is a predisposition to accept what is being said. When I mentioned that you get the same result from a random civilian as an enemy combatant that wasn't supposition. It was the result of experience and the reason word of its ineffectiveness is passed down generations.

 

[Herobizkit]

Is your character friendly, sociable, likeable, with a high regard for the value of life, his own and others? Make him lawful good.

I have read stores in the past about Paladins who were snobs, jerks, and just plain mean-spirited. You can be surly and still be Lawful Good, IMO. Attitude has no (in-game) bearing on personal philosophy.

Oh yes, and I assert that Bilbo is actually Neutral EVIL, not Good... he was only too happy to pass the ring off to his nephew, not because it was the right thing to do, but because of all the trouble it gave him. He was even going to disappear so he wouldn't have to deal with the consequences of his actions.

 

[shilsen]

I hope and prey you're right, but I don't buy it. Torture has been going on for thousands of years, in all that time if it simply didn't work we'd notice and stop doing it. Instead, we've refined it into an artform.

This is the human race you're talking about. Objective and empirical success doesn't have that much to do with whether they use something or not. It's far more likely to be all about belief and tradition. I'd say HeavenShallBurn absolutely has the right of it.

 

[rawgt3]

I forgot to elaborate on my PC's reaction to athority yesterday so here.
He is used to being the leader but when encountered with someone of higher position, he obeys even the most ridiculous request. Unless doing so may have terrible consiquences.
e.g. Whats the consiquences of an order to act like a chicken? Nothing it's not physically dangerous and no one can tease you for being obidiant. However, whats the consiquences of an order to stand at attention for an hour in the scorching sun? heatstroke,dehydration, sunburn, loss of morale...ect. So with such an order he would obey until the officer turned his back then he would quitely relax and snap back to attention when the officer turned back around. Then when he could'nt take it anymore he would respectfully say "Sir! requesting permission to rest Sir!" then when he began feeling dangerously ill he would break attention regardless of the consiquences. If the law says something that does'nt make sense but has little consiquencs for obeying then he obeys. If the law has considerable consiquences then he avoids the law.

 

[Herobizkit]

If the law says something that doesn't make sense but has little consequences for obeying then he obeys. If the law has considerable consequences then he avoids the law.

This tells me that your character only follows the rules when they suit him.

* A Lawful character would follow the rules as written (har har).
* A Neutral character might follow the rules but try and convince his superiors to change the outlandish or outright dangerous ones.
* A Chaotic character would do as you have done.

In all cases, the second axis (G/N/E) would dictate how one might act within the boundaries of those laws.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Thank you for the compliment, Will, Ipissimus. Thanks much.

Herobizkit, an *awful lot* of paladins I've seen played, were played as chaotic neutral, if you go by alignment as I defined it above.
Surly, nasty, arrogant, snide? Chaotic.
Willing to kill just about anything (including party members that get out of line?) Neutral.

I don't want cookie-cutter characters.
Think of it on a sliding scale, from 0 to 10. A 0 means the character most enjoys killing, considers the lives of others most worthless, subscribes to laws and philosophies that most devalue life, wants a system that most hurts people, most wants war and massacre and rapine just for the sake of it, and so on. A 10 means the character wants these things the very least.
Likewise, the lawful to chaotic scale is sliding. 0 is the most smooth-talking, social, socially adaptable, all around likeable, amicable, reasonable, person around. He gets along with everyone, he's the life of the party, he's just incredibly popular. The 10, most chaotic (such as Gollum) is the opposite of this.

In this scenario, a smooth-talking and popular, homicidal psychopath is lawful evil.
A warm, caring, thoughtful, insightful, and popular community leader might be lawful good.
The sneering, bigoted holier-than-thou elf who wants scummy humans to leave him alone, might be chaotic good, but he won't hurt a hair on your head (if he will hurt you, he's chaotic neutral.)
A chaotic evil critter cannot be counted on to be either reasonable or sane. Will it shoot you now, or wait until you get home?
Lawful neutral? The Three Musketeers, anyone?