The Alignments

[KaneQuicktail]

Okay, there seems to be a bit of confusion over the alignments in the shoutbox. Here's my viewing on it (and yes, I've done my research many a time to ensure I'm playing a character properly)

The three ethics are Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic

Lawful is exactly how it sounds. Laws, order, rule, duty, honor. A samurai is lawful, he is bound by his code to obey his lord. A knight is lawful for the same reason. A paladin is lawful because he upholds not just a moral code but the code of his god.

Neutral leans neither towards chaos or order. The druid is neutral like the forest she loves; they do not seek to make rules or have absolute freedom, they are more concerned with being.

Chaotic is freedom. The right to choose one's own path without restriction. The pirate is chaotic because he has no code of conduct, he steals what he can and does with it what he wants. The wandering bard is chaotic because he values his mobility and freedom over all else.

Now for the three morals.

Good believes in helping others and putting them before oneself. Placing value in the rights of all people. The good character would put his own last coin in a beggars cup.

Neutral is much the same as the ethical neutral; leaning to neither side. A neutral person doesn't much care for the well-being of others but isn't selfish about it. Much how when you visit a new town/state/country, you are neutral because you don't know anyone, but you're not about to stab them in the face.

Evil is placing oneself before all others. Concerned with only your well being and getting enjoyment out of the suffering of others. The evil character would take every last coin out of the beggars cup and laugh while walking away.

So now we combine these ethics and morals to get a characters alignment.

Lawful Good - you believe in helping others and upholding the law of the land
Lawful Neutral - law above all else, you neither help nor hinder anyone
Lawful Evil - though you enjoy making others suffer, you do not do it willy-nilly, there is a time and a place for it
Neutral Good - you aren't bound by law, but you don't go disobeying it either. you may have to break a few rules to ensure all come out on top
Neutral - life is a delicate balance and you do not want to disturb that balance
Neutral Evil - you have no desire to follow the rules but no desire to break them either; whatever it takes, you'll get your way
Chaotic Good - You believe in freedom, not your own but for all. A life without rule, the rolling plains or the open seas shared by all.
Chaotic Neutral - It's all about you; you care not for the worries of others just your own freedom and you follow only your own goals
Chaotic Evil - Pretty much the worst kind of person. You break order because you don't care for it, you value your own freedom and tramp on others. You enjoy making people suffer.

Because I didn't feel like making a huge discussion in the shoutbox, we now have this

Here's a better summary of why my ninja is Chaotic Evil:
First of all, ninja have no masters. Much like a ronin, but ninja have not been disgraced blah blah blah. Ninja have to obey no law, they use deceit, trickery, subterfuge, stealth, guile, and assassination. That rules out Lawful and makes him Chaotic (could also be Neutral, but he was played Chaotic). Now for the evil. For the sake of keeping it PG-13, here's the friendly version of how he was. He loved torture and often did things to his victim before he killed them just for his own enjoyment, not to interrogate or anything. He would ask if a shopkeeper had a certain thing in stock, then assassinate him and take it. The party (most of us were evil btw) saved a village that was on the brink of death then enslaved them. Thanatos (my ninja) forced some of the villagers to worship him as a god, as his whole being was obsessed with not just becoming a god, but killing off all of the other gods and enslaving humanity to do his bidding.

So yes, my psychotic sick and twisted ninja was in fact chaotic evil.

That aside, let us discuss the alignments, perhaps a better classification of them, even characters you've had that were of particular alignment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29 used as reference. It cites the PHB, so feel free to look in there also.

[ShiroTenshiRyu]

Well honestly I mostly play Elves. And of those that I've played I almost always play Chaotic Good. Chaotic Good to me offers the most freedom for a go with the flow kind of player that I am. From what I can recall, when I was a Paladin and was Lawful Good by rule I can say it was a challenge. I was the face of the party yet often I found myself having to dance around what the law was. The phrase "For the Greater Good" was painfully over used during that campaign. For my next player I was a Human Bard and True Neutral. This is by far the hardest type to play. With no structure to base your final choice on it can be tough, especially when your DM makes all choices equally tempting. My last three characters have been Chaotic Good. This to me is the easiest to define and play. Like you said it's not just freedom for one, but for all. Generally this encourages a lot of out of the box thinking and solutions.




As far as the personal definitions go though, they were left broad and open for a reason. A lot of D&D is by nature interpretation. The alignments are up to a lot of debate and often for me at least seem to change from Campaign to Campaign, and group to group.

[KaneQuicktail]

I fully agree that it's left to interpretation. I think they're more like guidelines to follow for general play of your character. Are you going to be that way at every single turn? Of course not. Everyone is tempted to do a bad thing once in a while, or good for that matter.

The only time I've ever seen alignments come into play was for spells; mostly protection from evil or detect evil. The alignments are by no means a set rule that you have to abide by to play the game.

You could say.... D&D is Chaotic

[ShiroTenshiRyu]

>> Seriously you went there Kane ><

[KaneQuicktail]

You know it's true. Each edition is drastically different with complete rule changes. Plus, who religiously obeys all the rules? Not me, that's for sure!

I guess the book itself is Lawful due to the nature of being a book of rules, but the gameplay is definitely Chaotic. I'd even go as far as to say its evil.... you know... cause suffering and all.... damn critical failures.

[ShiroTenshiRyu]

Hey those rules caused a suicidal Tiamat

[Trixsie Vixen]

Just some random extra thoughts:


Who wants to take over the world?  In a way almost any alignment might want to do that for their own reasons (Certain LG could be accused of it), but the common contenders (and those mentioned in the Shoutbox) are LE or CE.  Fourth ed despite all the things I don't like about it, highlights the difference with Devils vs Demons.  Devils (LE) want to corrupt.  They want to take over the world in the most strict sense of the words because they want to usurp the existing infrastructure.  Demons (CE) want to destroy.  So they don't want to take over so much as replace the existing infrastructure whether it be LG, CG or another faction of CE.


Neutral can take two forms, passive (individual) or active (global).  The version described above is passive in that it is almost by default simply by not being L or C, and/or G or E.  Active is a step beyond that by striving to maintain the balance.  While a passive neutral would rarely preform acts belonging to the other alignments regardless of the situation because their individual adherence to balance is key, an active would preform actions of any alignment if that was what it took to restore balance, because global balance is key.


And lastly a house rule I use in campaigns with a strong alignment focus (since often it can just be a bit vague and that's fine), is to state which has priority the ethical or moral axis.  This can then be seen as which is the ultimate end and which is the means to that end, eg LG, generally obeying the law and doing good are desirable goals in their own rights but when placed in a circumstance when one has to choose between having to breaking the law to do good, which does the player choose?  This can be answered if one knows whether good is a means towards the ends of law or vice versa.  This fits rather nicely with the ethical philosophy dichotomy of utilitarianism versus deontology.


Don't even get me started on the alignment of orcs and why the books are wrong!!

[Eon_Guipagho]

TL;DR
I am not going to get into another debate over alignments.  I did it 20yrs ago when i started playing D&D.  It's old now, besides I have better things to to do...like go and buy crickets for my lizards.  They're hungry.

[Trixsie Vixen]

It's a pity you didn't read it then because these posts a more a discussion than a debate.


I've been playing for about 21 years, and I'm open to new thoughts and points of view.

[Eon_Guipagho]

I'll join in since I don't want to be that whiny bitch in the corner, but I am going to gripe a bit.

What Kane has posted is nothing new.  I've been playing about as long as you have, Trixie.
I have written and sold campaigns in the past.  I even have the first and second edition manuals/guides in my possession.  Hell, I also still have the dice i bought back when I first started playing, before many on this thread were born. I am also currently working on another campaign that is a challenge for me.  I have a friend who writes short stories, some romance which I am going to turn into quests for my campaign.  The challenge is taking all the characters from different stories and having them all tie in together or at least lump a few of them together in smaller tribes.


As for the way I play I have always mostly played Chaotic Good characters.  The typical Woodland Elf Ranger.  I did play a Chaotic Neutral Necromancer once, but that went down hill when he though the rest of his group was plotting against him.  I have always wanted to play a True Neutral character, but I always pictured them sitting in the corner screaming because they don't know what to do in fear of causing good or evil to prevail.

[Trixsie Vixen]

For the record I started at 9 with the Red box basic set and played through to immortals when I reached highschool I started AD&D and included the 2nd ed rules very soon after.  I still play 2nd ed every week with a group of 40 yo + cynical bastards who don't let you get away with anything.  I've played every alignment and one of my most iconic characters was a CN necromancer who was teamed with a paladin.  It was hilarious since the player new I was the insane grave robber but his character could never pin it on me.


Good times.


I now slum it a bit playing 4e but don't really see it at "true D&D" it's just another fantasy RPG.


Having established my cred as a gamergirl though, years of experience don't make me right only being right would do that,  Any false ideas I may cling to would just be long held OLD false ideas.  Argument from authority are not worth anything.


Anyway, I would like to hear any thoughts anyone has including you Eon, but I can't until after I sleep.


So share away!

[KaneQuicktail]

The years of experience don't make you any better at D&D. It's all about imagination. I started when I was about 8, my dad taught me how to play AD&D and now he has passed his dice onto me. Quite literally too, I have old character sheets, illustrations, handbooks and miniatures (god I hope they aren't lead). But anyways, I've run countless campaigns both player and DM side.

Anyone can be a rules hound, I used to do it and I was told that I was. I've since mended my ways and now I make it all about the players having fun. Hell, I break rules just for them to have fun and sometimes do impossible things for them. Anyone can also make a set story with amazing characters with amazing backgrounds and fantastic cities with a thriving populace, but the players never have to follow the story you set in place.

As I said, the nature of D&D is chaos, as the players are able to do whatever they want. If they want to burn down the ship that's bringing them to their destination, they can do it (damn half-dragons).

The alignments really only affect characters that are dependent (I'm looking at you Paladins) on how they behave. A fighter can choose any alignment they want and if they start misbehaving according to that alignment, there's not much you can do to punish them. So I just ignore the alignments completely (but you keep your damn toes in line Paladin. I'm gonna make you earn that Detect Evil) and let the players play how they want. At the end of the day, it's just a game

As for a true neutral, fun story. Buddy of mine played with a true neutral druid. Their party had encountered a bunch of skeletons and couldn't get through their DR because they didn't have magic weapons. The druid, however, had a silver dagger. The party kept asking for the dagger so they had a chance and the druid said "I don't know how I feel about that. Let me think on it." Needless to say, they ran through the skeletons and ditched the druid.

[Trixsie Vixen]

Off topic, but a bad habit I have as a DM is the Deck of Many Things.  Damn I love it.  The chance at glory the irrevocable death.. accumulating avoid any situations and pairing it with the Alternate Reality spell from the Tome of Magic.


My group has through much hilarity and tears decided that the best strategy (depending on whether the cards go back in the deck after each draw) is to take 11 or take more.  It takes up a whole session and they are normally memorable.


But if the party isn't already at a position of significant power it can suddenly tip the whole game into Monty Haul territory.  And that's not good unless everyone is on board for that style.


But it's SOOOO hard to resist!  And I have self-control issues 

[KaneQuicktail]

I have to agree, DoMT is by far the most fun way to screw with the party. Depending on the level of the party, I usually give them the option between a magical item from the quest-giver's armory or to draw from the DoMT.

Hilarity ensues. I had a player draw twice, he lost all his worldly possessions then he got 3 wishes. Needless to say, he got his equipment back and thensome.

[anoni]

(The photos didn't automatically resize themselves o.o)

The alignment: Game of Thrones edition [My opinion] (No spoilers don't worry)

Lawful Good: Ned Stark

A man who is bounded by honor and mercy, he will do what is good and what is lawful for the realm, at all costs.

Lawful Neutral:
Varys

A man who will do whatever it takes to protect the greater good, even if it involves screwing people over from time-to-time.

Lawful Evil
Tywin Lannister

An extremely fierce and evil character, he does his misdeeds in the art of warfare. He is a man of composure, but of great darkness as well.

Neutral Good:
Tyrion Lannister

A man who ultimately is a good person, who is out in the interest of himself and those he loves. However, the methods he goes by can be considered self-centered and he has no interest in honor.

Neutral:
Bronn

A man who simply does whatever the person-with-the-money tells him to do. He has no real cares, no real motives, simply to look out for himself.

Neutral Evil:
Sandor Clegane (The Hound)

He is a man of seemingly no morals, he enjoys the art of warfare and has his best time on the battlefield. He cares not who he serves, or why he must fight, only that he can relish in the slaughter.

Chaotic Good:
Daenerys Targaryen

Although she has her own interests at heart, she will do whatever it takes to get her way. She wishes for a world free from oppression and she'll use any tactic or method to get that dream.

Chaotic Neutral
Petyr Baelish (Little Finger)

He will use any deceptive trick, no matter how sinister, to get to his goals. He is only out for himself and no one else, he will destroy everyone if it means he could get higher in the world.

Chaotic Evil:
Joffrey Baratheon

He enjoys suffering to such a high degree, he will do whatever it takes to make everyone around him suffer. He is a sinister person, who has no empathy or compassion, he is the definition of evil.