Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sol.Dragonheart" data-source="post: 3692437" data-attributes="member: 54316">Interesting read.  However, as always, defining alignment is a virtually impossible task, particularly when combining the LNC and GNE axes.  Allow me to analyze and point out a few issues with your examples. <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> All of what you describe here could just as easily be applied to a NG or CG character.  All of the defining traits that Abelus is noted for stem from, using your definition of Good, a regard for others.  One does not lie, treats others well, and aids others in need because one cares and respects for people outside of oneself.  All the issues presented and the manner in which he comports himself are directly related to moral conduct, and there is no defining Lawful influence that differentiates him from other Good characters. This, however, is one of the flaws of the alignment system.  Because Law and Chaos are so ill defined, attempting to integrate them with the true alignments, Good and Evil, results in them being, at best, a mere flavor or spice to the true nature and actions a character takes.  What defines this character as Lawful by your ethos?  Her actions, as you mention, have little consistency, and her actions seeem far more in line with a Neutral character, as by your standards, a character who does not weigh out personal, immediate decisions on a consistent basis by a code of action, but still has a general philosophy, would be a Neutral, not Lawful character. Again we see a character being defined here not by the Lawful or Chaotic element, but by the secondary, and much more dominant, GNE axis.  What element of this character truly defines him as evil?  He is merciless, and expects others to respect his sense of honor, but yet shows loyalty to his fellows and honors his superiors.  This character strikes me far more as a LN character rather than a LE character, due to the fact he still shows a level of regard for others who are close to him,  no matter what the source may be. You see, no matter how you define alignments, there will always be debate, always be another way to look at an action, and logical reasoning why one definition is not as valid as another.  I believe that the original idea behind alignments, that of creating a a tool to help further detail and define a characters personality and overall mindset, has actually become detrimental to that very purpose.  Instead of really evaluating a characters mindset, personality, and history, when choosing actions or creating a psychology for a character, people always attempt to first or primarily define their alignment, and then use that as a basis for developing that character along those lines. This results in homogenized, often ill defined characters whose actions and history are defined not by who and what they are, where they came from, their land, their experiences, and more, but by the fact that this action is "what a X aligned character would do".</li> </ul></blockquote>

Verification