Guess the characters' alignments!

[Caswin]

I want some analysis.  Why are they chaotic evil, etc...

Oh, right.  Content.  That stuff.  Yeah, I can do that.

[Dard]

I would rate Fa'Lina Lawful Neutral.
Neutral, because she doesn't show any traits that I usually associate with evil. She doesn't act for personal gain, for revenge, hatred. Most important: For somebody like her it is strange that she doesn't even strife for power. She has her own little world in which she keeps order and works towards a more common good. OTOH it is clear that she would not hesitate to destroy anything or anybody that would upset her little world. And she doesn't actively work to prevent evil outside of SAIA, even though she probably could. This is why she couldn't count as good.

What I think is more interesting is that she IMO can be seen as Lawful. People with so much power tend to display traits that are anything but lawful: They follow rules only so long as it suits them (which is why I know only very few 'lawful' polititians) or they have to follow them. Nobody could tell Fa'Lina what to do, not within SAIA.
And yet, even though I can't back up my feeling, it seems to me that she would be the type who would actually follow her own rules even when they would put her at a disadvantage. I mean, just look at her conversation with Aniz. Does anybody doubt that there would have been nothing she wanted more than to destroy him? Does anybody doubt that she couldn't?
So: Definitely lawful, which is strange.

Question: Why does everybody here say that Alexsi is Good as opposed to Neutral?
She seems to be a caring type, yes, but have we seen any inclination that it goes beyond her family and immediate friends? Even evil people could do that.

[Tapewolf]

And yet, even though I can't back up my feeling, it seems to me that she would be the type who would actually follow her own rules even when they would put her at a disadvantage. I mean, just look at her conversation with Aniz. Does anybody doubt that there would have been nothing she wanted more than to destroy him? Does anybody doubt that she couldn't?

She could have, no question.  But that wouldn't have helped Abel very much, and besides, if her aim is to try and protect the 'Cubi race, making an almost extinct clan even more extinct is somewhat counterproductive.
Besides which, Aniz didn't start out evil, he went mad.  If he's allowed to live, he might be cured.  Killing him outright wouldn't help.

[A. Lurker]

Question: Why does everybody here say that Alexsi is Good as opposed to Neutral?
She seems to be a caring type, yes, but have we seen any inclination that it goes beyond her family and immediate friends? Even evil people could do that.

Oh, I'll agree that Alexsi is probably pretty straight neutral. No time to worry about silly things like alignments, she's got an inn to run!

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

That doesn't make it not a game.  Look at half the threads in the arena.

Those are full of losers?

[AmigaDragon]

Funnily enough, that's what made me peg Dan as chaotic.  Robin Hood supposedly went around killing and stealing for the greater good.  Dan went around killing people for the greater good, apparently using their race a a guide to determine how evil they are.

Actually, the Robin Hood myth tends to rather downplay the 'killing' part. Armed robbery, yes; actual bloodshed, not so much. Then there's the whole "fighting the Evil Ursurper Prince John and supporting the Good True King Richard" bit that might cast a bit of doubt on the 'chaotic' part of his alignment...if we take that as canon, then neutral good just might describe Robin better as well.

I'd say Robin's methodology is perhaps chaotic but his motives are lawful.

[Darkmoon]

Which alignment system are we using?  When you say it, I automatically think D&D 3.5, because that's the first alignment system I learned.  But D&D 4.0 has a different system, and I'm willing to bet there are a good number of others out there. 

I'm not familiar with any of the systems beyond AD&D 2nd edition. What's the difference?

Shittiness.

[Shachza]

I'm not familiar with any of the systems beyond AD&D 2nd edition. What's the difference?

Just to make sure we're on the same starting page, 3.5 is what I was thinking about in my original post.  This gives you the 9 alignments:
Lawful Good - "Crusader"  Combines honor and compassion in a relentless pursuit to combat everything evil wherever it may hide.
Neutral Good - "Benefactor"  Attempts to do the right thing according to the needs of those you are helping at the time, but does not automatically bias you against others.
Chaotic Good - "Rebel"  A good heart and free spirit guide you to do the right thing on your own terms, the official laws be damned if they disagree.
Lawful Neutral - "Judge"  Reliability and honor guide you to follow the laws, traditions, or your own personal code of conduct without making you a zealot for or against good or evil.
Neutral - "Undecided"  You value balance, neither good nor evil, chaotic or lawful.  You can see all sides and make the best decision without any prejudice.
Chaotic Neutral - "Free Spirit"  You are exclusively an individualist.  You are not motivated by good or evil, but outside of that you do whatever seems like it might be interesting.
Lawful Evil - "Dominator"  You follow the laws or a code of conduct, but you twist their intentions to help only you and to hurt everyone else in some way.
Neutral Evil - "Malefactor"  You are out for yourself first and only, and you do anything you think that you can get away with.
Chaotic Evil - "Destroyer"  The descriptor is most appropriate, you tend to destroy everything you don't like, and most things you do.  Chaotic evil is characterized by an inordinate amount of viciousness.

This is all paraphrased from pages 105 and 106 of the D&D Players Handbook version 3.5.

[Eibborn]

That system doesn't work in DMFA any more than it does in the real world.

It's okay and accepted for cubi to rape, torture, et cetera, so Fa'lina is Chaotic Good for running a school that teaches people how if they already want to know. Fa'lina is Lawful Good because she has her own rules and codes of behaviour. She didn't throw Aniz to the dogs because there was something more important at stake than revenge.

Fa'lina is Lawful Evil for being a supporter of rape and violence who never seems to directly get her hands dirty and who follows her own rules. Falina is Chaotic Evil for unleashing those people on the world to do whatever they please.

I don't feel like doing the in betweens, but if she can be any of the above she can probably manage the others.

[Arcblade]

Noting the failings of 3.5's system reminded me of this... http://punxter.com/pics/G/RPL.jpg

[Noone]

It's okay and accepted for cubi to rape, torture, et cetera, so Fa'lina is Chaotic Good for running a school that teaches people how if they already want to know. Fa'lina is Lawful Good because she has her own rules and codes of behaviour. She didn't throw Aniz to the dogs because there was something more important at stake than revenge.

Actually, in a DnD system, alignments are absolute. Rape, needless torture, murder, et cetera, are almost always 'evil'. Teaching that at a school, even if for someone else's benefit entirely, is evil, especially since she's encouraging them to be evil as well.
Also, about Aniz, there are a lot of politics that the readers don't know about. She even said she would gladly throw him back to Zinvth if not for politics. We don't know what the repercussions of her doing that are, so it's impossible to judge her in that instance, since it may even be worse than just letting him go.

Fa'lina is Lawful Evil for being a supporter of rape and violence who never seems to directly get her hands dirty and who follows her own rules.

Being manipulative does not make someone Lawful, you can *easily* be chaotic, yet still be pulling strings carefully while hiding in the background, Lord Shojo in OOTS is a great example of this.
As for following your own rules, there may be more than respect for lawfulness that makes a character do this. A person might do that because there might be obvious repercussions for doing so. I'm guessing that she values her reputation greatly, and any damage (amongst cubi) would serve to deter students from applying.

Similarly, Mab seems to have a large, detailed plan going. However, just having a plan doesn't necessarily make her 'lawful', she's definitely 'chaotic'. Being chaotic doesn't mean said character always behaves randomly or like a loony.

Falina is Chaotic Evil for unleashing those people on the world to do whatever they please.

Well, again, this doesn't make her chaotic. It can easily qualify as evil yes, but I could see a Lawful or Neutral Evil person doing this as well, provided they benefit from it.

I don't feel like doing the in betweens, but if she can be any of the above she can probably manage the others.

I think the problem is that you're approaching this from a 'Computer RPG' alignment perspective, which is not a very good perspective to take. Most computer DnD RPGs handle alignment *terribly*, whereas well-defined table-top worlds can make very good use of the system. Helping someone almost always makes you good, however, a computer can't know what motivates the character. Maybe they just want the reward, or maybe they want a loyal follower, or a favor to call on later, you really don't know. You can be evil and help people out genuinely. You can even be evil without ever doing an evil act (though that is rare, it largely requires that said evil character never has the means or opportunity to perform evil acts). Similarly, it's almost impossible to stay neutral, yet, I'd find most neutral characters often choose the 'good' option, if there's somehow a situation that requires either a good or evil choice with no middle ground.

[Turnsky]

*stuff*

i'm no DnD Player, but i always felt that "chaotic" anything generally meant that you followed neither Lawful or Unlawful, but generally followed your own path, wavering between the two.

[Cogidubnus]

i'm no DnD Player, but i always felt that "chaotic" anything generally meant that you followed neither Lawful or Unlawful, but generally followed your own path, wavering between the two.

It can. It can also mean that you're insane and do random things, or it can mean that you're extremely unlawful and stand entirely against order out of hand.

The alignment system is honestly very bad at what it does, in my opinion. It's a device designed to describe a character's general opinions and outlook on life, but in effect it tends to very much promote extremes and two-dimensional characters. Without having to go very far with it, you'll get things like Lawful Stupid paladins and Chaotic Stupid bards and the like - which, while amusing, is not a very good way to describe a well-developed character accurately (although, it tends to work fine for your average mustache-twirling villain).

If you're careful to merely use the alignment system to describe a character's general jist, it can work. In effect, however, you tend to start to have arguments over what constitutes a chaotic versus a lawful act. Can a Lawful Good character rebel against a Tyrant? Can a Chaotic character promote order when it's clearly for the best? The system can sort of break down here if you use it like a straightjacket rather than a very, very general guideline.

[A. Lurker]

It may be worth remembering that alignment in D&D in particular, despite occasional protests to the contrary, does serve as a 'team color' of sorts. If you're lawful good, that doesn't just mean that you like things nice and orderly for the greatest good of all; it also means that you're on the same 'side' as other lawful good beings, including the real heavy hitters like gods and such. Of course, since it's magic, you can end up on a given 'team' quite naturally just by being yourself without ever deliberately applying for membership...

Basically, to have a functional alignment system, you need meaningful factions for people to align themselves with. (Otherwise it really is only a poor shorthand to describe your character's actual personality.) D&D traditionally goes with Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos as such camps, which actually works if you can adopt a belief in these things being objective, Platonic ideals for the sake of fiction...but most of us have been raised on the notion that seeing things in black and white like that is a bad idea (and it certainly usually is in real life), and so the concept actually clashes with our established worldview enough that the fit is vaguely uncomfortable at best. Even D&D authors aren't immune, I think...

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Noting the failings of 3.5's system reminded me of this... http://punxter.com/pics/G/RPL.jpg

It always reminds me of this...

[Dard]

Noting the failings of 3.5's system reminded me of this... http://punxter.com/pics/G/RPL.jpg

It is not a noting of failings of the 3.5 system, it is a noting of inconsistent writing of the Batman character.

[LionHeart]

Noting the failings of 3.5's system reminded me of this... http://punxter.com/pics/G/RPL.jpg

It always reminds me of this...

Me too.

Noting the failings of 3.5's system reminded me of this... http://punxter.com/pics/G/RPL.jpg

It is not a noting of failings of the 3.5 system, it is a noting of inconsistent writing of the Batman character.

I wouldn't call it "inconsistent writing" so much as "evolution" of the character...

[Arcblade]

Noting the failings of 3.5's system reminded me of this... http://punxter.com/pics/G/RPL.jpg

It is not a noting of failings of the 3.5 system, it is a noting of inconsistent writing of the Batman character.

(sighs)  Let me clarify.  I note the failings of the system, which reminds me of that picture.  The picture itself is, yes, a note of inconsistency in Batman's character. 

[Noone]

i'm no DnD Player, but i always felt that "chaotic" anything generally meant that you followed neither Lawful or Unlawful, but generally followed your own path, wavering between the two.

It can. It can also mean that you're insane and do random things, or it can mean that you're extremely unlawful and stand entirely against order out of hand.

That madmen and lunatics fall into chaotic alignment category doesn't mean that it's all that it consists of. Chaotic characters value their freedom greatly, and they don't like being forced to answer to anyone else.

The alignment system is honestly very bad at what it does, in my opinion. It's a device designed to describe a character's general opinions and outlook on life, but in effect it tends to very much promote extremes and two-dimensional characters. Without having to go very far with it, you'll get things like Lawful Stupid paladins and Chaotic Stupid bards and the like - which, while amusing, is not a very good way to describe a well-developed character accurately (although, it tends to work fine for your average mustache-twirling villain).

I think that's not so much a flaw of the system as it is a misuse of the system. Paladins receive a lot of attention, because they have very strict guidelines as to how they behave. Of course, a lot of people think of paladins as characters that go 'me paladin, you ebil, me smite', etc. I sincerely doubt that that's the intention of the alignment system. In all fairness, if someone makes an 'alignment stupid' character, they're probably not going to make a well thought out character, alignments or no. I find this especially true with a lot of chaotic evil villains, who have no motivations other than being evil to everyone they meet (zap the messenger, kick the puppy, etc). It's not necessarily the systems fault that such characters are made however, that it's used in that manner.

If you're careful to merely use the alignment system to describe a character's general jist, it can work. In effect, however, you tend to start to have arguments over what constitutes a chaotic versus a lawful act. Can a Lawful Good character rebel against a Tyrant?

This scenario really depends on the type of Lawful character, some would without a second's hesitation, since they might value their personal code of conduct more than an agreement with someone. (Lawful does not necessarily mean following laws.) You could also have a character who feels all agreements are sacred, and wouldn't rebel no matter how much he would like to.

That said, there are a few things to consider. One, that a lawful good character being legally/contractually/lawfully bound to serve someone evil is a very, very unlikely possibility. Most wouldn't deal with such people, and if they had to, they would be very careful in their dealings, being sure not to get caught by fine print or the like. Next, I know it's often portrayed that Lawful Evil characters follow the 'letter of the law', exactly. They do so when it benefits them. However, there's nothing stopping a Lawful Good character from doing the same. If a Lawful Good character found himself legally bound to serve a Tyrant, he'd likely follow the letter of his instructions, while subverting the intent of the Tyrant, trying to weaken his position, etc.

A good example might be of a paladin king who is bound to grant an evil cleric three favors. The first two the cleric spends asking for information, with which the paladin responds with a whole bunch of half answers, none technically lies, but they answer as little as possible. Next, the priest asks to be brought 'the head of a certain noble'. The paladin complies, by bringing the noble alive (since he technically brought his head), with a large host of armed guards, and then doesn't help the cleric escape that situation.

Can a Chaotic character promote order when it's clearly for the best?

I'll assume you're talking about a chaotic good character here for a moment, but, yes, they very well can. But such a character likely wouldn't have very much respect for said order and would be willing to bend and twist it the moment he stops thinking it's for the best.

[Shachza]

(sighs)  Let me clarify.  I note the failings of the system, which reminds me of that picture.  The picture itself is, yes, a note of inconsistency in Batman's character. 

The failings of the system comes mostly from players' and GMs' inability to tweak it as the situation warrants.

One of my friends has a chaotic evil character who gave a magic item that has an endless supply of water in it to a desert town.  Sounds nice?  Water was their currency; sure he gave everyone enough water to never have to worry again, but in the process he wrecked their entire economic system.  He provides food, shelter, and jobs to an entire other city.  The catch is that everyone in that city worships him and works to actively bring down the gods of D&D.  He plays quite well as a "Destroyer," but he's so good with the chaotic nature of the alignment that you can't assume he'll just storm in and use mass destruction on everything.

[Sunblink]

ROCKS FALL EVERYONE DIES

I'm sorry, I just needed to break up the D&D speak in the only way I knew how.

Although at first the only character I pegged as being a certain alignment was Fa'Lina under Chaotic Neutral. But as Eibbor_N stated, she's really a complicated case, as are all the characters. They're too multidimensional to have their morals encapsulated in a category or any system of categories, no matter how flexible the system is. In this case we're just chucking characters that offer a variety of grays to their actions into places that are so black-and-white even if they're offering a few more shades than usual. We're really going to need something like the Kinsey Scale of Morality here.

... *steals 'Kinsey Scale of Morality' for metaphorical purposes the next time she writes, copyrights the phrase so no one steals it*

Just so my post isn't a total pointless eyesore: I'd consider Dark Pegasus to be some kind of Lawful Evil anyway. He's really obviously evil. HOWEVER. He's shown some degree of integrity, regardless of how insufficient it is to redeem himself. It's more like a kind of lawfulness that helps him avoid the stereotypical behavior of likeminded Demons - or villains - of his ilk. So he might not have anyone else's feelings in mind other than his own when he happens to spare someone's life, or he could just be doing so because he has no reason to resort to violence or exterminate that particular person. Or what I'm blathering on about could just be outlined in his personality info on his profile and I can't be bothered to look at the moment really this post is getting too obnoxiously long and pretentious why can't I stop typing whyyyyyyyyyyyy

[LizardSaul]

I'd say the Fae operate outside our scale of morality.

Most demon characters, like Kria, seem to lend themselves to the evil side of the spectrum with gleeful abandon. Lorenda, however, is pretty interesting - she was brought up by an evil demon, is a carnivore and, yes, does eat beings (or did?). At the same time she shows a strong streak of morality and cares a lot about her friends. Chaotic Good, perhaps?

[Anker Steadfast]

ROCKS FALL EVERYONE DIES

Ahhhhhh .... so that's what happened to those two blokes ?
They were playing AD&D, it all makes sense now!

[Psy-Kosh]

I'd say the Fae operate outside our scale of morality.

You mean they willfully ignore moral considerations, or something else?

[Anker Steadfast]

I'd say the Fae operate outside our scale of morality.

You mean they willfully ignore moral considerations, or something else?

I think it's more a case of being darn near Omnipotent + nonlinear lives = vague grasp of morals, though not necessarily evil.

[A. Lurker]

Well, if you can't clearly peg somebody on one end or the other of an axis, there's always neutrality to fall back on. Sometimes, being neutral is a deliberate choice...but then again, sometimes it does mean you're just being kind of wishy-washy on that whole 'alignment' thing.

As for the Fae in general, my first impression would be "chaotic neutral". A society that treats its own government, laws, and rules as just one big game while individuals apparently go about their lives chasing whatever whim they feel like? Sounds CN enough to me on the surface...

[LizardSaul]

You mean they willfully ignore moral considerations, or something else?

Like someone stated above, in a situation where none of the usual human frames of reference apply - that is, mortality, the brevity of existance, etc - it is only natural that a different world view is developed. Furthermore, they have a more free-flowing concept of time, as proved by Rose when she refers to Mab's friends as "linears."

THE INTERNET defines evil as such:

"Evil, in many cultures, is a broad term used to describe what are seen as subjectively harmful deeds that are labeled as such to steer moral support."

Keyword "subjective" - fae might commit deeds that beings see as evil, while the fae themselves see nothing wrong with it. Ergo, different scale of morality. Furthermore, while this could be said to be true of creatures such as demons and cubi as well, since they have long lives and prey on beings, the fae are an extreme case seeing as how they even live in a world of their own. Mab has an obvious sympathetic streak, which might be explained with the fact that she has been living with Dan and the others for a long while - while fae such as Rose, who disdainfully refer to time-bound beings as "linears", might better show the point I'm trying to make.

You know, in hindsight, that was probably pretty badly written and made no sense. Heh, sorry.

[Anker Steadfast]

Good points ... so the Fae isn't really evil at all!
Offcourse, there's no points in keeping it low key, when you can show the world!

Also, stone statues makes gardens real nice !

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Evil lies in hurting others.

Hurting yourself isn't evil, just stupid.


(With compliments to R.A.H.)

[Shachza]

THE INTERNET defines evil as such:

"Evil, in many cultures, is a broad term used to describe what are seen as subjectively harmful deeds that are labeled as such to steer moral support."

Keyword "subjective" - fae might commit deeds that beings see as evil, while the fae themselves see nothing wrong with it. Ergo, different scale of morality. Furthermore, while this could be said to be true of creatures such as demons and cubi as well, since they have long lives and prey on beings, the fae are an extreme case seeing as how they even live in a world of their own. Mab has an obvious sympathetic streak, which might be explained with the fact that she has been living with Dan and the others for a long while - while fae such as Rose, who disdainfully refer to time-bound beings as "linears", might better show the point I'm trying to make.

You know, in hindsight, that was probably pretty badly written and made no sense. Heh, sorry.

Actually, you can fit Fae in to the D&D view of morality very easily.  The "evil" alignments are such because the people who follow them knowingly commit harmful deeds specifically to aid themselves in a goal.  Often these deeds are done in spite of less "evil" alternatives.

Neutral alignments walk the lines between good and evil.  Fae easily fit into the neutral category because their "evil" deeds are sometimes just collateral damage.  Sometimes they genuinely support the methodology, but SOMETIMES they don't.  I agree with the chaotic neutral assessment because their motivations are self-serving, but not with malicious intent, and each fae can swing between "good" and "evil" as needed.

The classic example of Neutral is this:
A kingdom is being invaded by a horde of orcs.  A Neutral Druid is asked to help by the king.  Two outcomes arise: either the Druid refuses to take any part in the whole mess, or he helps the king until the king starts winning, and then he goes to help the orcs; switching sides as needed so that neither eradicates the other.  The second response can be seen as evil by both sides of the conflict, but is it?  If his core motivation is to establish a balance between the two powers, then it is not, though some of his actions will seem to be otherwise.