Quote from: Shachza on January 08, 2010, 02:18:26 AM
She seems good, and she's got a code of ethics. (see also: when Aniz dropped off Abel.) However, she is willing to kick butt in the name of "You've really pissed me off!" Which is deffinitely not a 'good' quality. She's not capricious or overly whimsical, and she doesn't seem to want to destroy lots of things. She's also not subversive (in the classically evil sense at least).
I would rate her Lawful Neutral.
from this post, an idea came to mind: analyze a character and guess their alignment! :B
Isn't this then a game? And hence should be in The Arena?
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on January 08, 2010, 04:30:18 AM
Isn't this then a game? And hence should be in The Arena?
It's DMFA-related and it looks a bit more like a speculation debate to me. I'd say no.
I noticed no mention of winners, losers or prizes. :pong
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.
Quote from: AmigaDragon on January 08, 2010, 11:34:29 AM
I noticed no mention of winners, losers or prizes. :pong
That doesn't make it not a game. Look at half the threads in the arena. :P
Quote from: Arcblade on January 08, 2010, 11:38:06 AM
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.
The 4.0 system is well..."Watered down". Hes probably talking about the 3.5 system and just trying to bring up the silly slignment discussion.
So are we talking about something like
Dark Pegasus - evil lawful
Regina - evil chaotic
Dan - good chaotic
Alexsis - good lawful
Quote from: Naldru on January 08, 2010, 01:14:31 PM
So are we talking about something like
Dark Pegasus - evil lawful
Regina - evil chaotic
Dan - good chaotic
Alexsi - good lawful
Seems like an easy enough system to understand, if not a bit limiting. Though Regina seems more like ''wannabe evil'' even from a ''headstrong, just plain better than you'' stereotypical-ish evil viewpoint. Which is a category she seems to fit into quite well.
3.5 it is. But is Dan actually chaotic? I'm not convinced.
And Alexi has the tendency to lose her temper and smack people down with mallets. Seems more neutral than lawful to me.
Mab would, at first glance, seem to be some type of good. Possibly lawful good, although I'd probably put her at neutral. But then the question is whether that's just an act. After all, Fae are known to act out parts in the world for kicks, as opposed to being themselves.
I have no clue about Pip. I guess he could be True Neutral.
Abel seems mainly chaotic, and probably neutral.
Quote from: Arcblade on January 08, 2010, 05:35:12 PM
3.5 it is. But is Dan actually chaotic? I'm not convinced.
I think so - remember, his career involved going around killing people who he considered 'evil'.
QuoteAnd Alexi has the tendency to lose her temper and smack people down with mallets. Seems more neutral than lawful to me.
She's been brought up by someone who probably counts as Chaotic Chaotic. It's possible that she counts as 'good' but I'd want some evidence first.
QuoteAbel seems mainly chaotic, and probably neutral.
AFAIK, we haven't seen him do anything evil yet. He's done a number of dickish things, but that goes for most people. However, he has done a number of good things - rescuing Jyrras in SAIA, befriending him and so on. He's also done a lot of good for Dan, even if the latter doesn't realise it yet. Neutral at a pinch, but I'd say he's more good oriented myself.
Alignments (the 3.5 categories) are very wide spectrums. There can be great differences within each category, they're guidelines.
Not every 'Chaotic Evil' person is a homicidal lunatic who would stab someone's puppy in front of a legion of armed guards. You certainly can get those types in that category, but you also get more 'moderate' characters that are still chaotic evil, such as one who is simply an uncaring individualist. You can even have evil characters performing genuine acts of kindness (Such as Ravel from Planescape Torment, wholly Evil but bends over backwards to help the protagonist.)
Quote from: Tapewolf on January 08, 2010, 05:43:55 PM
Quote from: Arcblade on January 08, 2010, 05:35:12 PM
3.5 it is. But is Dan actually chaotic? I'm not convinced.
I think so - remember, his career involved going around killing people who he considered 'evil'.
QuoteAbel seems mainly chaotic, and probably neutral.
AFAIK, we haven't seen him do anything evil yet. He's done a number of dickish things, but that goes for most people. However, he has done a number of good things - rescuing Jyrras in SAIA, befriending him and so on. He's also done a lot of good for Dan, even if the latter doesn't realise it yet. Neutral at a pinch, but I'd say he's more good oriented myself.
In Dan's case, doesn't he hold himself to some kind of code, though? Adventurer's code or whatever? It doesn't seem to me like he does just anything he wants to. He does follow the rules of politeness, at least. That in itself is not enough to make him neutral rather than chaotic, of course.
I would err on the side of good for Abel's neutral as well. He may even be good. Not sure yet. Keep in mind, though, that he has some tie to Dan's father. And Destania as well.
Mab is obviously Communist
Well, from what I've seen, I'd have to say Darth Vader is Lawful Evil. Plainly he follows the rule of law as set down by the emperor, but is free to kill and destroy as he sees fit so long as it's in support of said emperor.
The machines from the Matrix are neutral evil or lawful evil, but I'd lean towards lawful evil. Certainly the agents are, although Agent Smith is almost an agent of chaos, chaotic evil, as he's willing to do whatever he can to further his goals.
You all knew this was coming....
NNNNEEEEEEEEERRRRRRDDDDDDSSSSSSS! :U
Hmm... running down the cast page, off the top of my head, I'll have to say...
[Edit it! Edit good!]
Dan: He defends the innocent against creatures and monsters who would hurt or kill them, or at least he did before his retirement. Now... well, he still does that occasionally. Definitely does not have an overt devotion to the law, but despite his goofy personality, he doesn't seem to chafe under it, either. Neutral Good.
Mab: Mab's... different. I daresay we might have a better idea where she's going with this and where to place her when the dust settles, but for the time being, I'm sticking to my interpretation of Chaotic Purple.
Pip: Kii. Kii kii kii kii kiiii. Kii kii, kii kii kii. Chomp. Chaotic Neutral.
Jyrras: He's good-hearted and loyal enough to have the "Good" part down. He also seems very much like the rule-abiding type, Deebs notwithstanding. Lawful Good.
Lorenda: On closer inspection, I'm going to go with Neutral Good. Doesn't seem too much of a stretch.
Wildy: Like I said, about a hundred strips ago, I wouldn't have hesitated to put her under "Evil". It wasn't until a relatively recent flash of actual sympathy (http://www.missmab.com/Comics/Vol_992.php) that I was convinced that her only inclination was not only evil all of the time. Besides that, there's enough supporting evidence to slide her into "Neutral" territory. (Chaotic is a given.) Chaotic Neutral.
Alexsi: There are rules. The rules are there for a reason. So is that mallet she carries around. Call it a variation on Lawful Good.
Abel: Uh... Chaotic Neutral. That's what I'm going with.
Pyroduck: [Still pending current story arc. Actual conclusion not guaranteed at the end of said story arc. Pyroduck's almost in the same league as Mab.]
Azlan: This one's easy. He's in the same "hero" zone as Dan, but much... sillier whenever he can afford to be. I don't see any reason not to file him under Chaotic Good.
Fi: Y'know how helpful he (I'm just going to stick with "he" here) is all the time? That's good. Remember how he fondly remembered Destania and Fa'Lina throwing down over the issue of torturing infants? Uh... I'm going to say Neutral as all get out in this case. True Neutral with a Chaotic tinge.
Kria: Well, "Evil" seems like a given here, at least. I'm sure that's what the families of her many and assorted victims would say. However, the other half makes me wonder -- my first instinct is Chaotic, but her knack for political maneuvering just doesn't mesh with that. Not comfortably, anyway. I'm going with Chaotic Evil on this one, but it's a tight fit.
Biggs: King of the Twinks, man. Chaotic Evil.
The Rats: Obviously, I don't think they're all going to be the same alignment. Based on what relatively little we've seen, I'd put them in Lawful/Neutral Neutral/Good territory.
Matilda: Lawfully, she doesn't seem to be any more or less than Neutral. Morally... er... Neutral Not-Evil.
Dark Pegasus: Your laws do not apply to him. He operates outside of the law. In due time, if all goes to plan, he will put down his own laws, the details of which I'm at a loss toward but am suddenly very interested in. However, the sheer calm level-headedness with which he goes about his business suggests anything but Chaos. Neutral Evil.
Aliyka: I just can't see her being particularly Lawful or Chaotic. In the meantime, she's... well... she's a good person. That much is obvious, "ALIYKA SMASH" notwithstanding. Neutral Good.
Regina: Even if she is a "newblet villain", that doesn't change her total lack of empathy (if I'm using that right) and penchant for hurting and killing people. She doesn't have anything resembling her Second-Uncle's composure, either. Chaotic Evil.
Aaryanna: Another easy one: No particular disdain or support for order as a concept, all the laws she's broken notwithstanding. Lots of rape, murder and torture. Neutral Evil.
Devin: Neutral Jerk. I kid, uh... I'll say True Neutral on this one.
Fa'Lina: Ironically, when I originally posted this, she was the first one to really put me in the "filing a complex character in a D&D alignment" spot. However, the more I think about it, the more closely she seems to fit: She runs SAIA, "evil" classes and all, with no signs of remorse or reluctance. Whatever else she may be, she also conveys a strong sense of order, twisted as it may be. The path there might be complicated and it's anyone's guess exactly what's going through her mind at any given time, but if I had to give her an alignment, it would be Lawful Evil.
I want some analysis. Why are they chaotic evil, etc...
Quote from: Mao Laoren on January 08, 2010, 10:31:10 PM
You all knew this was coming....
NNNNEEEEEEEEERRRRRRDDDDDDSSSSSSS! :U
Yes. Yes I am. >:3
Quote from: Arcblade on January 08, 2010, 11:38:06 AM
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?
Quote from: AmigaDragon on January 09, 2010, 12:51:54 AM
I'm not familiar with any of the systems beyond AD&D 2nd edition. What's the difference?
Up to and including D&D 3.5, it's pretty much the old law/chaos/good/evil system you're probably used to, although the official wording on what each alignment is supposed to mean precisely has changed a bit (for instance, they put some effort into cleaning up the impression that 'chaotic neutral' always meant 'nucking futz').
D&D4, however, pares the alignments down to five: lawful good, good, unaligned, evil, and chaotic evil. Apparently the idea here was to put the emphasis more firmly on the good/evil division instead of the (to most people) more abstract law/chaos axis; it's also worth noting that there's effectively no magic interacting with alignment anymore in this edition. (And yes, you can finally have chaotic evil paladins if you want, though the game recommends that player characters should lean towards the good end of the spectrum.) Essentially, neutral and chaotic good got folded into 'good', lawful and neutral evil into 'evil', and lawful, chaotic, and true neutral into 'unaligned'.
Quote from: Arcblade on January 08, 2010, 08:54:41 PM
I would err on the side of good for Abel's neutral as well. He may even be good. Not sure yet. Keep in mind, though, that he has some tie to Dan's father. And Destania as well.
We don't know much about Dan's father, but we do know that while Abel somehow convinced Destania to teach him various self-defence things, it's not clear that he did whatever Destania was hoping he would do ("A student I once had a vested interest in", #713) and that he loathes Destania for her evil deeds (#811).
Abel is obviously Jerkass Good. :P
(If you're not afraid of losing some hours of your life, I could point you to some TV Tropes entries like Good Is Not Nice (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodIsNotNice) or Jerkass Facade (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JerkassFacade)...)
The best alignment explanation I have seen is RHJunior's Goblin Hollow #58 (http://www.rhjunior.com/GH/00058.html). It seems to explain the whole situation well enough(I think - I've never played D&D).
Based on -that- scale, I can see Dan as "Neutral good". Mab is, well, Mab. I don't think she would fit too well into -any- of the categories.
I suppose characters like Biggs would probably be in the Chaotic Good category...
-Robbie
Quote from: RobbieThe1st on January 09, 2010, 06:48:31 AM
Based on -that- scale, I can see Dan as "Neutral good". Mab is, well, Mab. I don't think she would fit too well into -any- of the categories.
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.
I was of the impression that an Adventurer responded to the needs of the beings around him, meaning he didn't go around slaying demons just for being demons.. unless said demons were terrorizing or threatening the being populace of Furrae.
Quote from: Mao Laoren on January 09, 2010, 08:14:34 AM
I was of the impression that an Adventurer responded to the needs of the beings around him, meaning he didn't go around slaying demons just for being demons.. unless said demons were terrorizing or threatening the being populace of Furrae.
Point. I was thinking of strip 203, where Dan decides "Let's go kill something!" for laughs. But as it happens, they do follow Azlan's lead on some disappearances. On the other hand, they go looking for the first demon they can find on the assumption that they are responsible (which wasn't even the case, for Aary).
The other thing which sprang to mind was the bit where Dan is explaining to Abel that he's been taught to assume that all Creatures want to kill him unless he kills them first and that practical experience has backed that up.
EDIT:
Oh, oh, oh. Strips 934-936 - Dan's debate with Fi about the morals of killing people. Just to make it even murkier :P
Quote from: Tapewolf on January 09, 2010, 08:09:31 AM
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.
Also, as I see it, the job of an adventurer in Furrae isn't primarily to "kill people for the greater good". It's to
protect 'people' from 'monsters'. The tricky part is figuring out which is which, and with the way the Creature/Being split generally seems to work out in Furrae, well...
Quote from: A. Lurker on January 09, 2010, 08:44:37 AM
Quote from: Tapewolf on January 09, 2010, 08:09:31 AM
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.
Also, as I see it, the job of an adventurer in Furrae isn't primarily to "kill people for the greater good". It's to protect 'people' from 'monsters'. The tricky part is figuring out which is which, and with the way the Creature/Being split generally seems to work out in Furrae, well...
For Dan he gets the added energy boost from hurting creatures/beings for the greater good, maybe that will effect his behaviour a little.
I don't expect him to start bellowing "Your pain gives me strength!" during a battle but he might put off killing them for the extra energy.
Quote from: Dagardo on January 08, 2010, 02:53:12 PM
Seems like an easy enough system to understand, if not a bit limiting. Though Regina seems more like ''wannabe evil'' even from a ''headstrong, just plain better than you'' stereotypical-ish evil viewpoint. Which is a category she seems to fit into quite well.
Ahem. (http://www.missmab.com/Comics/Vol_972.php)
I think taking advantage of someone's trust and using it to murder a dozen people might just push one past "wannabe evil" and firmly into "evil" territory.
Quote from: Madd the Sane on January 08, 2010, 11:52:11 PM
I want some analysis. Why are they chaotic evil, etc...
Oh, right. Content. That stuff. Yeah, I can do that (http://clockworkmansion.com/forum/index.php/topic,6861.msg308060.html#msg308060).
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.
Quote from: Dard on January 09, 2010, 11:17:51 AM
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.
Quote from: Dard on January 09, 2010, 11:17:51 AM
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!
Quote from: Mao Laoren on January 08, 2010, 12:13:38 PM
That doesn't make it not a game. Look at half the threads in the arena. :P
Those are full of losers?
Quote from: A. Lurker on January 09, 2010, 08:44:37 AM
Quote from: Tapewolf on January 09, 2010, 08:09:31 AM
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.
Quote from: AmigaDragon on January 09, 2010, 12:51:54 AM
Quote from: Arcblade on January 08, 2010, 11:38:06 AM
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.
Quote from: AmigaDragon on January 09, 2010, 12:51:54 AM
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.
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.
Noting the failings of 3.5's system reminded me of this... http://punxter.com/pics/G/RPL.jpg (http://punxter.com/pics/G/RPL.jpg)
Quote from: Eibbor_N on January 09, 2010, 03:12:28 PM
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.
QuoteFa'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.
QuoteFalina 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.
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: The1Kobra on January 09, 2010, 10:55:31 PM
*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.
Quote from: Turnsky on January 10, 2010, 12:23:37 AM
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.
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...
Quote from: Arcblade on January 09, 2010, 10:14:23 PM
Noting the failings of 3.5's system reminded me of this... http://punxter.com/pics/G/RPL.jpg (http://punxter.com/pics/G/RPL.jpg)
It always reminds me of this (http://www.rhjunior.com/GH/00058.html)...
Quote from: Arcblade on January 09, 2010, 10:14:23 PM
Noting the failings of 3.5's system reminded me of this... http://punxter.com/pics/G/RPL.jpg (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.
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on January 10, 2010, 05:59:24 AM
Quote from: Arcblade on January 09, 2010, 10:14:23 PM
Noting the failings of 3.5's system reminded me of this... http://punxter.com/pics/G/RPL.jpg (http://punxter.com/pics/G/RPL.jpg)
It always reminds me of this (http://www.rhjunior.com/GH/00058.html)...
Me too.
Quote from: Dard on January 10, 2010, 09:08:57 AM
Quote from: Arcblade on January 09, 2010, 10:14:23 PM
Noting the failings of 3.5's system reminded me of this... http://punxter.com/pics/G/RPL.jpg (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...
Quote from: Dard on January 10, 2010, 09:08:57 AM
Quote from: Arcblade on January 09, 2010, 10:14:23 PM
Noting the failings of 3.5's system reminded me of this... http://punxter.com/pics/G/RPL.jpg (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.
Quote from: Cogidubnus on January 10, 2010, 03:29:26 AM
Quote from: Turnsky on January 10, 2010, 12:23:37 AM
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.
QuoteThe 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.
QuoteIf 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.
QuoteCan 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.
Quote from: Arcblade on January 10, 2010, 12:24:21 PM
(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.
ROCKS FALL EVERYONE DIES (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RocksFallEveryoneDies)
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
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?
Quote from: Keaton the Black Jackal on January 10, 2010, 08:06:33 PMROCKS FALL EVERYONE DIES (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RocksFallEveryoneDies)
Ahhhhhh .... so that's what happened to
those two blokes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08CPyX3UZZg) ?
They were playing AD&D, it all makes sense now!
:D
Quote from: LizardSaul on January 12, 2010, 05:11:35 PM
I'd say the Fae operate outside our scale of morality.
You mean they willfully ignore moral considerations, or something else?
Quote from: Psy-Kosh on January 13, 2010, 11:10:26 AM
Quote from: LizardSaul on January 12, 2010, 05:11:35 PM
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.
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. :P
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...
Quote from: Psy-Kosh on January 13, 2010, 11:10:26 AM
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:
Quote"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.
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! (http://www.missmab.com/Comics/Vol_1031.php)
Also, stone statues makes gardens real nice (http://www.missmab.com/Comics/Vol_1027.php) ! :D
Evil lies in hurting others.
Hurting yourself isn't evil, just stupid.
(With compliments to R.A.H.)
Quote from: LizardSaul on January 13, 2010, 02:21:37 PM
THE INTERNET defines evil as such:
Quote"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.
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on January 13, 2010, 05:01:02 PM
Evil lies in hurting others.
Hurting yourself isn't evil, just stupid.
(With compliments to R.A.H.)
Actually, I believe that should be "
knowingly hurting others". *has read the book*
Quote from: Shachza on January 13, 2010, 05:56:28 PM
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.
Actually, the latter is Stupid Neutral Stupid (http://"http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StupidNeutral"), resulting in getting killed once one faction realizes he's a complete moron... A true druid would side with the faction that causes the least damage to the natural world, which would most likely be the kingdom since Orcs raze and consume everything behind them. In a deliberately drawn-out conflict, it would tear up the scenery and turn the countryside into a wasteland... which is against a Druid's code.
Fae are easily classified under the D&D system: True Chaotic. Mab is, by Fae standards, Chaotic Good, though, as she has stronger altruistic motives compared to the otherwise-seen Fae attitude.
Dan is either Neutral or Lawful Good... I'm going with Lawful Good since he holds himself to a high standard. And, once he learns that contrary to previously observed, not
all Creatures are horrific nightmares that need to be destroyed to keep the world "Good", just most of them (The cubi and demons themselves say that). And once he does recognize that there are "Good" Demons and Cubi, he immediately, in his dramatic manner, goes overboard in his attempt to atone and set right the world. His "go out and kill something", while not a Paragon of Virtue, is always handled in a way that what he does is for good ends. He's not chaotic by any stretch of the word, just idiotic.
Arryanna: Chaotic
Evil Emo. Any questions?
Fa'Lina: Lawful Neutral. She's decidedly Amoral, I'd qualify her as a Mildly Evil considering some of the horrors endorsed by the SAIA. Of course, she's also an "Inhibitor of Evil", as her academy's strictly (but not stupidly) amoral standpoint and her own "nurturing" nature enable 'cubi to go "good" instead of tend to the evil Power-tripping inherent in creatures. I'm not sure about this, but she seems to encourage "good" unintentionally, as she does set a moral precedent that encourages harmony, at least between 'cubi.
Aliph, AKA Dark Pegasus: Lawful Evil. He's above normal laws, but he binds himself to a code of conduct, but does behave in a Dangerously Genre Savvy manner to prevent unnecessarily dying. He and Dan Ti'Fiona seem to have at least a grudging respect for each other, which helps highlight his Lawful aspects.
Kria: Chaotic evil, hands down. Yes, she's nice to those she knows or is horny for, but beyond that, she's Evil to the core, complete with claiming she's "Above good and evil (http://"http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AboveGoodAndEvil")". For those of you who are moral relativists... I advise you read the general consensus between that page and this one (http://"http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhatIsEvil") and think about what it also might be saying about you (http://"http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeelRealization").
Pre-zombie Devin: Jerkass/Chaotic Good. Revealed in his dying scene, in case it wasn't obvious from his profession. (Defender of Beings/Hero)
Most Creatures are a strain of Evil by default, due to a genocidal "Might-makes-Right" upbringing.
Abel is Neutral, possibly Neutral Good due to his Being origin... and getting hit by a Deus Angst Machina to keep him out of the Evil territory for
centuriesAlexi is Lawful Neutral.
Pyroduck is Chaotic Good.
Jyrras Gianna is Chaotic Neutral in the "Mad Scientist" manner. Non-canonically, he'd even go so far as to kill the Annual Bringer of Cheer and Holiday Spirit to please his artificially-constructed, True Neutral 'daughter'.
Moira Den Gianna, being a Lawyer, is Lawful Evil of the Card-Carrying degree.
Seth Gianna, on the other hand, seems Neutral Good. Apparently, Opposites attract, and here Good and Evil aren't always at odds, particularly since Seth is only concerned with applying his morality to the local level.
Lorenda is Neutral Good that struggles with occasional acts of evil, such as eating irritating people. She seems to be moving away from her sentient diet, though, as she begins to understand just
how wrong killing beings is.
Aliyka is True Good... I'm not sure she
hasn't taken at least a few Exalted feats by now. Such as Sacred Vow: Vow of Nonviolence.
Aslan: Another Chaotic Borderline Good fey.
Fi: True Neutral.
Both Wildy and Biggs are Chaotic Evil, in the "Orcish Warlord" sense. Biggs is current leader of the Twinks, a self-identified Always Chaotic Evil culture, and Wildy... outright claims to be evil, and proves it when given power. Of course, she's not homicidally evil, unlike Regina and Kria Soulstealer. She prefers to ruin people's lives through more insidious methods.
Pip is Neutral.
Matilda is a Neutral Good defector from the Chaotic Evil nature of her race. Like Seth, she does the best she can in her local area.
Merlitz... I'm not sure. I'd put him as Chaotic Neutral with a dash of good... but part of that is also drawn from my experiences with the original Merlitz over on Furcadia, which I know
isn't the same as Comic Merlitz.
Quote from: Scow2 on January 13, 2010, 09:06:18 PM
Quote from: Shachza on January 13, 2010, 05:56:28 PM
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.
Actually, the latter is Stupid Neutral Stupid (http://"http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StupidNeutral"), resulting in getting killed once one faction realizes he's a complete moron... A true druid would side with the faction that causes the least damage to the natural world, which would most likely be the kingdom since Orcs raze and consume everything behind them. In a deliberately drawn-out conflict, it would tear up the scenery and turn the countryside into a wasteland... which is against a Druid's code.
Ok, so forget the Druid part, since that class' stereotypes get in the way of the analogy. Also, why do you assume he's an idiot? Make him a god bent on establishing said balance of power if that makes my point clearer. If you want a better scenario too, then just make both sides opposing human kingdoms.
Quote from: The1Kobra on January 10, 2010, 01:31:31 PM
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.
Well, of course. Most Chaotic characters would fall under that purview, I think, but Turnsky had already said something to that effect.
Quote from: The1Kobra on January 10, 2010, 01:31:31 PM
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.
I also doubt that it's the intention of the alignment system as well. It's a roleplaying tool, and should be used more like loose guidelines rather than a straightjacket. This is in part why Paladins -do- get singled out, because their alignment
is a straightjacket. They lose all class features if they don't follow their guidelines to the letter. Now, as you've said, if the paladin is particularly clever, this can be a boon to them, as they might be able to wiggle out of a situation in which they are obligated to do a bad thing. But I would also argue that it can be just as much a bane to them, as they might be obligated to ignore the greater good in deference to their own sworn oath.
This isn't entirely just player stupidity, either. Not to D&D nerd out too much, but take a look through the Book of Exalted Deeds if you have it. :B It's stances on how good and lawful good alignments, and how ends justifying the means in particular work, shows more of what I mean.
QuoteThis 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.
Ah, but now we are in a section of overlap, or perhaps disagreement. A person who follows his own personal code of conduct is chaotic, not lawful. While it is true that a Paladin swears a personal code of conduct, she swears one that is in line with Good and Lawfulness. To a certain degree, lawfulness is subjective, depending on what exactly the Paladin has sworn (an Oath to uphold the law of the Kingdom? The laws of her hometown?), or whether or not it is a more general oath to the concept of Order itself. In this circumstance, swearing an oath to the concept of Order, I can see a Paladin possibly rebelling against a Tyranny, if it was particularly messy or chaotic. I still see it as doubtful, however. Unless the oath was to only beneficial order, she'd be as bound to whatever was more orderly just as much as the Auditors of the Universe. Or, at least, if she would be if she wanted to keep her class features.
Conflicts between good and law tend to be particularly thorny as well. If a Paladin has to choose between the two, often it's stated that they simply lose class features and must atone.
QuoteThat 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.
I agree, but I and my chaotic self find the entire concept silly. Laws are good laws only as much as they are Just laws. Justice is a concept above law, in my opinion, but this is philosophy and we're already rules lawyering, so I digress.
I would say that it's not really that unlikely. For example, the town guard is made up of Paladins who have sworn an oath to uphold justice in the land, and they answer to the King's Seneschal, who is in charge of domestic affairs in the Kingdom. The Seneschal is not a paladin. Corruption does what it does - pressure from external forces, dissatisfied nobles cause trouble, and eventually compromises are made. A man is made Seneschal who is not entirely honorable. He instructs the Paladins to ignore certain individuals, despite their flaunting of the law.
They would be unable to do anything but obey. They may be able to somehow subvert their efforts, but the fact remains that they could do nothing that would directly, and depending on how the order was worded, indirectly hinder them.
QuoteA 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.
This now becomes a game of legalism, which, while not necessarily bad, seems silly to me in that context.
Were I to have to answer to those who meant Evil to my family and those I loved, I would hope that I could lie, and I think I would feel little remorse for it. Perhaps this is wrong of me, and perhaps it is wrong that I would feel no remorse over it. It's true, the Paladin King through his wits could avoid telling the Cleric anything of value - but then it's simply a matter of who is more clever at asking questions, and who is more clever at giving answers. An evil cleric who was able to wrangle three favors out of a Paladin, I imagine, might be clever enough to ask his questions in the right way as to find the information he seeks. Being clever merely lets the Paladin escape his predicament, but only as far as he is clever. It isn't a real solution.
QuoteI'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.
Depends on the Chaotic character, yes, and some could. But would it be a Chaotic act? Probably not.
Quote from: LionHeart on January 13, 2010, 08:36:40 PM
Actually, I believe that should be "knowingly hurting others". *has read the book*
<nitpick>
So, if the aftermath of a a kidney operation hurts like hell, does that make the surgeon evil? >:3
</nitpick>
Quote from: LionHeart on January 13, 2010, 08:36:40 PM
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on January 13, 2010, 05:01:02 PM
(With compliments to R.A.H.)
Actually, I believe that should be "knowingly hurting others". *has read the book*
Only if I'm quoting, rather than paraphrasing.
Scow2, using "" in your url tags breaks them. Just so you know.
Quote from: Tapewolf on January 14, 2010, 05:37:15 AM
Quote from: LionHeart on January 13, 2010, 08:36:40 PM
Actually, I believe that should be "knowingly hurting others". *has read the book*
<nitpick>
So, if the aftermath of a a kidney operation hurts like hell, does that make the surgeon evil? >:3
</nitpick>
All dentists are evil !!
.. just saying.
Quote from: Tapewolf on January 14, 2010, 05:37:15 AM
Quote from: LionHeart on January 13, 2010, 08:36:40 PM
Actually, I believe that should be "knowingly hurting others". *has read the book*
<nitpick>
So, if the aftermath of a a kidney operation hurts like hell, does that make the surgeon evil? >:3
</nitpick>
Arguably, while that's hurting, it's also healing, and the heal outweighs the hurt.
Or so I understand the Hippocratic Suggestion to be saying.
Quote from: Cogidubnus on January 14, 2010, 02:33:15 AM
QuoteThis 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.
Ah, but now we are in a section of overlap, or perhaps disagreement. A person who follows his own personal code of conduct is chaotic, not lawful. While it is true that a Paladin swears a personal code of conduct, she swears one that is in line with Good and Lawfulness. To a certain degree, lawfulness is subjective, depending on what exactly the Paladin has sworn (an Oath to uphold the law of the Kingdom? The laws of her hometown?), or whether or not it is a more general oath to the concept of Order itself. In this circumstance, swearing an oath to the concept of Order, I can see a Paladin possibly rebelling against a Tyranny, if it was particularly messy or chaotic. I still see it as doubtful, however. Unless the oath was to only beneficial order, she'd be as bound to whatever was more orderly just as much as the Auditors of the Universe. Or, at least, if she would be if she wanted to keep her class features.
Conflicts between good and law tend to be particularly thorny as well. If a Paladin has to choose between the two, often it's stated that they simply lose class features and must atone.
"
Lawful Neutral, "Judge": A Lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. ..." Page 105, D&D Player's Handbook.
And I tend to agree with the D&D assessment. Chaotic characters don't have personal codes of conduct; they don't outline how they should behave at any given time. They pick a general theme (good, neutral, or evil) and then react to each new situation according to their own whims as colored by their chosen theme. When confronted by an orphan begging for change a chaotic good person might give them a nickel, $100, invite them home for a meal, simply alert a kind-hearted friend to the orphan, or any number of things; whichever one seems convenient for the character and beneficial for the orphan. A Chaotic Evil person might very well kill the orphan for presuming to talk to her, or just maim the orphan, or give her a coin and then call for authorities to arrest the orphan for stealing coins; anything convenient for the character, but detrimental for the orphan.
A lawful character will have an idea of what to do about an orphan beforehand. If she follows the local laws, then those will guide her, if it's a personal code-of-conduct, then that lays the groundwork. If her code denounces orphans as non-people then you know that the character will always ignore the orphan, because that's what she believes in. She doesn't change how she reacts barring extreme circumstances (say the orphan grabs and tries to restrain her, making it impossible to ignore the orphan).