Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mal Malenkirk" data-source="post: 4648700" data-attributes="member: 834">I found them a bit tacky and cumbersome before.Now you can write Budhist for alignment, it doesn't matter.Still, I have to point out that the two 'most missed' alignment seem to be chaotic good and lawful evil.&nbsp; But they were almost impossible to play in a coherant manner. Lawful Evil :&nbsp; You have an order/oath/law to do something but it goes against your immediate interest.Common answer was:A - You deliberately twist the order/oath/law to get your way.&nbsp; How Lawful can you really be?B - You abide by the order/oath/law even though it costs you personnally.&nbsp; How Evil can you really be?Same for Chaotic Good.A just and legitimate government facing a crisis enlist/conscipt/order you to do X action in the interest of the community.A - You refuse and the community is hurt.&nbsp; How Good can you really be?B - You Obey.&nbsp; How chaotic can you really be?Sometime there was C - You refuse but then proceed to the exact thing you were ordered to.&nbsp; How silly can you get?&nbsp; It's still B, dummy!Most Chaotic Good were in practice closer to Chaotic Neutral or Neutral good if you scrutinized their actions.But they felt cool; they had Robin Hood alignement!&nbsp; That's what the manual said!&nbsp; I was always bemused how Robin Hood could be considered CG.&nbsp; In most story he fights for the rightful king!&nbsp; And as soon as Richard is back on the throne he goes back to his farm and quietly pays his taxes.&nbsp; Not that Chaotic, if you ask me.&nbsp; He was NG by the old system and just Good now, IMO.---I think the current alignment is cleaner, having gotten to the essentials, and yet it is now irrelevant! So people can put CG on the sheet if it makes them feel good.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mal Malenkirk, post: 4648700, member: 834"] I found them a bit tacky and cumbersome before. Now you can write Budhist for alignment, it doesn't matter. Still, I have to point out that the two 'most missed' alignment seem to be chaotic good and lawful evil. But they were almost impossible to play in a coherant manner. Lawful Evil : You have an order/oath/law to do something but it goes against your immediate interest. Common answer was: A - You deliberately twist the order/oath/law to get your way. [I]How Lawful can you really be?[/I] B - You abide by the order/oath/law even though it costs you personnally. [I]How Evil can you really be?[/I] Same for Chaotic Good. A just and legitimate government facing a crisis enlist/conscipt/order you to do X action in the interest of the community. A - You refuse and the community is hurt. [I]How Good can you really be?[/I] B - You Obey. [I]How chaotic can you really be?[/I] Sometime there was C - You refuse but then proceed to the exact thing you were ordered to. [I]How silly can you get? It's still B, dummy![/I] Most Chaotic Good were in practice closer to Chaotic Neutral or Neutral good if you scrutinized their actions. But they felt cool; they had Robin Hood alignement! That's what the manual said! I was always bemused how Robin Hood could be considered CG. In most story [I]he fights for the rightful king[/I]! And as soon as Richard is back on the throne he goes back to his farm and quietly pays his taxes. Not that Chaotic, if you ask me. He was NG by the old system and just Good now, IMO. --- I think the current alignment is cleaner, having gotten to the essentials, and yet it is now irrelevant! So people can put CG on the sheet if it makes them feel good. [/QUOTE]

Verification