Alignment Contriversy

[Ipissimus]

Edna of Neith: Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were creating cookie-cutter characters, if you apply your method creatively then it can work out well.

On the torture thing: Well, I disagree that people don't pay attention to empirical evidence. It may take a while (i.e. acceleration due to gravity) but it does eventually sink in. If it didn't, we wouldn't be as good as we are at tech.

I think the part that's being forgotten in this senario is verification. Now, interrogators aren't stupid. They know that their victim is very likely to lie. So, they varify it, either against what they already know or by investigating the new lead. And the victim knows that if they lie, their torturer is going to come back and probably do something much worse. The best you can hope for is that you've bought some time for rescue.

 

[Herobizkit]

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.

Paladins are as dicey a subject around here as you can get; browse any thread with the word 'Paladin' in the title to see what I mean.

Just because the PLAYER wanted to make an excuse to kill anything they wanted doesn't mean they were playing their proper alignment. You said it yourself; they had LG on their sheet but they were PLAYING CN. Either they'd lose access to their Paladin powers, or the DM would smile and say, "Battle on!"... in the latter case, obviously the DM doesn't care about aligments. And if he doesn't care, then I wouldn't stress so much about your own.

Threatening to kill party members is a good indication that the player of said Paladin is you "kick down the door" type of player... he's there to kill things and take their stuff, while using K3wl P0w3rz and an in-game "excuse" to do so.

MY point is this -- attitude does not equal alignment. You can be snide, arrogant, and a jackass and still ACT for the greatest good if you're a decent role-player.

I don't want cookie-cutter characters [...]
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?

I admit this is a bit trite, but if you don't want cookie-cutter characters, why are you pigeon-holing all of these attitudes into specific aligments?

* A smooth-talking, homicidal psychopath COULD be LE, but could just as easily be NE or CE.
* A bigoted holier-than-thou elf is likely CG, but could just as easily be CN or LG. (In my experience, Paladins are the ultimate example of such racist behavior, but this also depends on what type of game the DM is running - traditional "Good vs. Evil" or "Shades of Grey").
* A CE critter can't be counted on unless you have him bested, and only for the time you have him bested. Works for most E alignments.
* And the Three Musketeers as LN? Chances are, but they could just as easily be any of the Goods. In fact, they might be ALL of the Goods... Athos might be NG, Porthos might be CG, Aramos might be LG, and D'Artagnan is probably LN or LG.

 

[rawgt3]

Hmm...well unfortunately I have yet to read the three muskeys. Anyway< I guess the next Q I should ask is: Would this char. have any place in the Fist of Valor. because he shares the same zeal for destroying evil and chivalry and apreciates their use of stratagy rather than "Lawful Stupid" tatics but would they oust him because of his "sneaky if nessecary" tatics which he veiws as just another stratagy?

 

[Herobizkit]

Personally, I LOVE the Disney live-action version of "The Three Musketeers". If you've never seen it, do so - it has an awesome cast.

I don't know too much about the Fist of Valor, but if you're going to follow a church based on Paladins, you'd best be Lawful Good and follow all of their tenets. Those guys don't &$@! around when it comes to being a Knight.

 

[rawgt3]

I will. And the fist of Valor are in the CC along with the AoB, GoG, and DoL which he might also join. ta ta.

 

[kenobi65]

Personally, I LOVE the Disney live-action version of "The Three Musketeers". If you've never seen it, do so - it has an awesome cast.

Oliver Platt (as Porthos) steals that movie.

"For a chase, the Cardinal recommends this excellent '24 Cabernet. You can't have any, you're too young."

"This sash was a gift to me from the Queen of America!"

"You, boy, are arrogant, hot-tempered, and entirely too bold. I like that...reminds me of me."

 

[rawgt3]

Also whether or not he would obey the tenants would fall back on the alignment discussion we had earlier.

 

[rawgt3]

Alright! It says that the Fist of Valor are dedicated to the virtues of Valor(duh),Courage,and righteousness. They are champions of the downtrodden and stalwart punishers of evil. They often uses political conntacts to gather info. about evil tainting the nobility. They are sworn to eradicating evil everywhere. They also belive in a FAIR fight (see previous pages). They don,t give up tactical advantages but RARELY (not to be confused with never) fight from the shadows. He TYPICALLY announces his presence so their enemies know that they are about to feel some holy wrath. In the affiliation score modifiers their are only 3 things that mention being lawful. (out of 20 modif. total.) : lawful align. gives +1, Bringing lawbreaker to justice +1, breaks the law -2. Everything else has to do with fighting evil and joining the army. oh. it also says that spearheading the revision of an unjust law yields +1. So based on this info and everything I've said about my char. align. would he be a sucessful member of the FoV. It also says all members must be good.

 

[haakon1]

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.

I'm not a veteran (bad ankles), but I'd claim to be a Vietnam War "buff" and fairly knowledgeable on Northern Ireland and on World War II, both book knowledge and talking to veterans. The literature all says backs up what HeavenShallBurn is saying . . .

As for the argument that if people do it, it must be effective, soldiers killing civilians on purpose (i.e., murder) seems to happen as at least isolated incidents in every war. That doesn't mean it's at all effective in winning a war. It's just human nature that some people do angry, ineffective things.

 

[rawgt3]

Ahh! but did'nt some civilians in vietnam act as spies or actually fight americans ,or were they just soldiers in disguise? Either way sometimes either burning villages to destroy possible weapons or killing(,imprisoning,subdueing,whatever it takes,ect.) "civilians" could be crucial to victory. But it really just depends on whether or not the majority of natives like you being there.And you should'nt automatically assume that they want to kill you. So wait for proof before you start knocking heads.