Alignments

[Maxgoof]

Pretty good analysis of the different alignments.

There are subtle shades to them, as well.

For example, a Lawful Good character is tricked into giving his word to help a particular character accomplish something. It is then revealed that this character is evil. Does the LG character:

1) Claim that he gave his word under false pretenses and is therefore void? If so, the character is GoodLawful (goodness comes before law).
2) Bites his tongue and fulfills his word, vowing revenge at the earliest opportunity? If so, the character is LawfulGood (law comes before goodness).

[SolidusRaccoon]

Thanks that really cleared it up.

And Max?

3) Break tha badguys neck for lying and deception.

[Mjolnir]

3) Break tha badguys neck for lying and deception.

Nope. That's Chaotic Good.

Honestly, though, I would play that situation with my character fulfilling the letter of the promise and then arresting the guy for any wrong doings once the promise was fulfilled. (Should the situation allow, of course.) That could be why I tend towards NG or CG in my characters.

Although, I did have fun playing a LE character in Spelljammer once.

- Mjolnir

[Dragoon The Griffin]

Munchkin != True Nuetral. Most Druids are NN. NN means you have no leaning to law, chaos, good, or evil. NN does not seek to harm others as evil does, nor does it seek to benefit others as good does. NN is neither favoring law nor chaos, it respects legtimate authority, bust isn't necessarily going to obey it. NN is self intrested without disrespect for others, NN is logical but not bogged down by strict codes and overly complicated laws.

NN can be passive: "I'm just not comited to anything". A Mercenary who follows pay rather than codes is this type of NN, as is the average commoner who doesn't care much either way, his day-to-day is more important than nailing himself to ideals such as law or chaos and good or evil.

or it can be active: "All things require balance, law, chaos, good, and evil are all just concepts which are dagerous in extreams." Active NN is most common amoung Druids and clerics of NN dieties (like Obad-Hai). Active NN is also good for diplomats and mediators, they are the best way to get an unbiased solution, and how to blend opposed ideals. It also doesn't go throwing off an aura to irritate either side of the bargaining table.

[Mjolnir]

Munchkin != True Nuetral. Most Druids are NN. NN means you have no leaning to law, chaos, good, or evil. NN does not seek to harm others as evil does, nor does it seek to benefit others as good does. NN is neither favoring law nor chaos, it respects legtimate authority, bust isn't necessarily going to obey it. NN is self intrested without disrespect for others, NN is logical but not bogged down by strict codes and overly complicated laws.

I agree with your text-book definition. However, I have never seen someone pull that off successfully.

NN can be passive: "I'm just not comited to anything". A Mercenary who follows pay rather than codes is this type of NN, as is the average commoner who doesn't care much either way, his day-to-day is more important than nailing himself to ideals such as law or chaos and good or evil.

I disagree about the average commoner. Most of them, I would say, are LG. They obey their laws and are, in general, good people. If they were N, they would disregard the laws that they thought would hinder themselves, as long as it didn't effect others.

But, as with everything here, that's up to the D(or G)M.

or it can be active: "All things require balance, law, chaos, good, and evil are all just concepts which are dagerous in extreams." Active NN is most common amoung Druids and clerics of NN dieties (like Obad-Hai). Active NN is also good for diplomats and mediators, they are the best way to get an unbiased solution, and how to blend opposed ideals. It also doesn't go throwing off an aura to irritate either side of the bargaining table.

If anyone out there has seen "Record of Lodoss War" then you'll agree with me when I say an Active True Nuetral character with any kind of power (Karla) is probably the most dangerous person in the game. They will ensure that no kingdom gets too powerful or that there are too many monsters out and about. If played well, they can be a real assett to the game (either as a hero or villian, or both) but, and this is Ralph's point, all too often, they degrade into Munchkinish.

All of the above is why I neer allow True Neutral characters in my campaigns.

- Mjolnir

[The JAM]

It sounds like a NN is just a "movie extra" or something similar.

[Shyal_malkes]

I like Ralph's comparison though I always thought a Lawyer made a good example of someone "lawful evil"

appologies to any lawyers out there.

[Sebastian]

Nice esposition of the alignments, but I have to disagree on Robin Hood, he wasn't against prince John for the sake of it, he wanted to bring back King Richard on the throne, he was lawful, not chaotic.

A good example of chaotic good could be Conan (or the incredible hulk ) fundamently a nice guy but don'ttry to tell him what to do or how to behave.

Oh, and hi, everybody, long time reader, first time poster and of course it was a RPG related comic to bring me to subscribe the forums , I think that tells more than enough about me.

[Mjolnir]

Nice esposition of the alignments, but I have to disagree on Robin Hood, he wasn't against prince John for the sake of it, he wanted to bring back King Richard on the throne, he was lawful, not chaotic.

I don't think trying to topple the legal ruling government would be lawful.

VTW, welcome to the forum.

- Mjolnir

[Sebastian]

Nice esposition of the alignments, but I have to disagree on Robin Hood, he wasn't against prince John for the sake of it, he wanted to bring back King Richard on the throne, he was lawful, not chaotic.

I don't think trying to topple the legal ruling government would be lawful.

VTW, welcome to the forum.

- Mjolnir

Well, I don't think that trying to restore the legitimate ruler on the throne would be chaotic. Beside wasn't Prince John an usurper?
Another example, do you think that Luke Skywalker and the princess Leia should be considered chaotic because they wanted to topple Palpatine?

[Mjolnir]

Well, I don't think that trying to restore the legitimate ruler on the throne would be chaotic. Beside wasn't Prince John an usurper?

He was in the legend, but in actual fact, John was the rightful ruler while Richard was off on the Crusades. In fact, John was a much better ruler than Richard, at least for the English. Hell, Richard only spoke French, while John sign the Magna Carta into law.

Another example, do you think that Luke Skywalker and the princess Leia should be considered chaotic because they wanted to topple Palpatine?

Yes. They were willing to do whatever it took to overthrow the government. Including disregarding any laws that hindered them. It's not evil, it's chaotic.

- Mjolnir

[Chaser617]

Granted, this is probably because Picard was one of my favorite TNG characters (well him and Data), but I think Picard had more leanings towards LG, he did break the rules every now and then, and he bent them quite a bit if he had to.

Though granted yes, Big Blue is DEFINATELY LG, and to be honest, he is probably my favorite superhero of all time.

[Kerry Skydancer]

I'm still trying to figure out what Picard is supposed to be. Chicken, or turkey? Or maybe buzzard? They'd all fit...

[Roberto the Dane]

That means Batman is Chaotic Evil. He is mentally warped, intent on causing pain and death. However, he attacks criminals, since his obsession is the criminal that killed his parents.

Roberto the Dane

[RHJunior]

Personally, I don't accept "neutral" as a legitimate alignment. There's no such thing as someone who is neither good nor evil. True neutrality is impossible--- either your actions foment good or evil. And self-centredness--- refusal to align with any system of law, any code of morality--- is not a font of good.

[Mjolnir]

That means Batman is Chaotic Evil. He is mentally warped, intent on causing pain and death. However, he attacks criminals, since his obsession is the criminal that killed his parents.

Whoa there. Batman CE!?!?! No way! He is obsessed, I'll grant you that, but there is one overriding factor about Batman. I think Superman said it best:

"Something bad happened to you, didn't it?" asked Superman. "Someone died, I think. And you were all alone in a world that didn't make sense. I know all about ... being alone. I understand you better than you know. Because when it's all said and done ... when you tear all the outer trapping away from the heart of The Batman, the cape, the cowl, the shadows and the night ... what you're left with is a man. A man who, more than anything thing, doesn't want to see anyone else die."

Batman's obsession is with riding Gotham, and the world, of crime. But Batman does not kill.

- Mjolnir

[Wayfarer]

"Something bad happened to you, didn't it?" asked Superman. "Someone died, I think. And you were all alone in a world that didn't make sense. I know all about ... being alone. I understand you better than you know. Because when it's all said and done ... when you tear all the outer trapping away from the heart of The Batman, the cape, the cowl, the shadows and the night ... what you're left with is a man. A man who, more than anything thing, doesn't want to see anyone else die."

So... does this mean that Superman and Bat Man at some time met?

[Dragoon The Griffin]

Most Druids are true neutral, as are lizardfolk. I've never seen someone powergame by using both holy and unholwy or lawful and chaotic weapons. The average munchking is ususally either CN or N(or)CE, eratic and may or may not be entirely bloodthirsty. One must also remeber that actions speak louder than a pair of letters on a character sheet, if someone starts committing large amounts of heavily alignmented acts without special circumstances their alignment will shift. If you have a throne of bone you are evil, if you summon the undead en mass you are generally evil (there is the occaccional 'good' necro who does not use the undead for vile purposes, he may be able to keep a nuetral alignment). NN is about balance, internal and external. and as such if properly played would shy away from alot of alignment driven enchantments. Additionally NN has the drawback of not much stufff is made for it. NN doesn't have a holy avenger, a book of vile darkness, or any of that kind of mess.

Don't mistake bad RPing for a bad concept. A properly played NN character can be a fun challenge to play. Particularly if around lots of characters of extream alignments, and trying to convert them to a more balanced way of thinking.

[Mjolnir]

So... does this mean that Superman and Bat Man at some time met?

That's exactly what that means. Superman met Batman about a year into each of their careers and they couldn't stand each other. However, due to multiple cases together and time spend with the JLA, they have formed a friendship. They trust each other but don't always agree with each other's methods.

- Mjolnir

P.S. For those of you that don't know, I am speaking of the Post-Crisis DC Comics characters, not those portrayed in other media.

[Mjolnir]

Don't mistake bad RPing for a bad concept. A properly played NN character can be a fun challenge to play. Particularly if around lots of characters of extream alignments, and trying to convert them to a more balanced way of thinking.

I agree that they can be a challenge. However, I have not met a player good enough to play one faithfully, myself included. I believe that you are right, however, when you say that alignment shifts are a necesity in any case where there is no good reason for the actions.

- Mjolnir