Character Archetype Alignments
Talen
I've had to try explaining to each of them the concept of alignment.
And the best way, I've found to do it, is by proxies. Now, warning,
this will probably degenerate into an alignment thread... but the ones
I found (and was hoping others could help), were:
Lawful Good
Optimus Prime, Sparhawk, Captain Vimes, Carrot Ironfoundersson,
Neutral Good
Friar Tuck
Chaotic Good
Robin Hood
Neutral
Reddick (Pitch Black), John Constantine
Now, I was wondering... anyone got any others?
--
Talen
http://shatteredreality.net/talen/
alt.sex.dan-southwick.hamster.duct-tape
- Newsgroup available on Optusnet
The Gurus love you
dvv
<tal...@spamspamspamspam.optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>I've had about three or four new players crop up, and universally,
>I've had to try explaining to each of them the concept of alignment.
>And the best way, I've found to do it, is by proxies. Now, warning,
>this will probably degenerate into an alignment thread... but the ones
>I found (and was hoping others could help), were:
>
>Lawful Good
>Optimus Prime, Sparhawk, Captain Vimes, Carrot Ironfoundersson,
>
>Neutral Good
>Friar Tuck
>
>Chaotic Good
>Robin Hood
>
>Neutral
>Reddick (Pitch Black), John Constantine
>
>Now, I was wondering... anyone got any others?
Well I personally will not argue ... alignment is subjectively viewed.
Instead of modifying your list, I will add new ones ...
Lawful Good - superman
Lawful Neutral - average citizen, the optimal police force
Lawful Evil - an intelligent psychopath
Neutral Good -
Neutral - dalai lama
Neutral Evil -
Chaotic Good - batman
Chaotic Neutral - anarchist
Chaotic Evil - psycopathic/mental degenerative
Yxunomei
to kill everything in sight. That's Chaotic Evil, and Chaotic Evil doesn't
always mean stupid (for an example, an average demon's more intelligent than
an average devil by 3 points). Lawful Evil means doing evil with a cold,
calculated and *sane* mind. So here are my examples:
Lawful Evil = A. Hitler, S. Milosevic, Osama Bin Laden ...
Chaotic Evil = Jack the Ripper
"dvv" <dvv...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:m2nreugme6n7rbur3...@4ax.com...
Guy Hoyle
news:66jreuc956ajpa9qu...@4ax.com...
> I've had about three or four new players crop up, and universally,
> I've had to try explaining to each of them the concept of alignment.
> And the best way, I've found to do it, is by proxies. Now, warning,
> this will probably degenerate into an alignment thread... but the ones
> I found (and was hoping others could help), were:
>
> Lawful Good
> Optimus Prime, Sparhawk, Captain Vimes, Carrot Ironfoundersson,
Don't know who any of these are, so I can't comment.
>
> Neutral Good
> Friar Tuck
Why is he neutral? He's involved with a bunch of robbers, even if they're
robbing wealthy people. And stealing is evil, no matter if it's for a good
cause.
>
> Chaotic Good
> Robin Hood
Again, stealing is wrong, even if it's for a good cause. Even if you do look
good in tights.
>
> Neutral
> Reddick (Pitch Black), John Constantine
Not sure who Reddick is. John Constantine, you may be right about.
>
> Now, I was wondering... anyone got any others?
Better be sure that the players have the same interpretations of these
characters that you do. I'd just tell them that lawful means law-abiding,
chaotic means willing to break laws, and let them figure out good and evil
for themselves. I'd just ditch the alignment system myself, since human
morality (not to mention the morality of other intelligent beings) is
impossible to sum up in a total of nine values.
Guy
Hong Ooi
>> Neutral Good
>> Friar Tuck
>
>Why is he neutral? He's involved with a bunch of robbers, even if they're
>robbing wealthy people. And stealing is evil, no matter if it's for a good
>cause.
Because he stole from the IRS.
--
Hong Ooi | "I had to fight in the Arena to become
hong...@maths.anu.edu.au | Archmaster of my House."
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ | -- Q.
Canberra, Australia |
R. Scott Rogers
Lawful Good
Superman
The Seattle Mariners
[Assuming you accept his moral claims] Muhammad
Obi-Wan Kenobi
Neutral Good
The Minnesota Twins
[Assuming you accept his moral claims] Dalai Lama
Most domesticated dogs
Old Ben Kenobi
Chaotic Good
The Arizona Diamondbacks
The Oakland Athletics
[Assuming you accept his moral claims] Christ
My neighbor's housecat
Han Solo
My own highest ideals
Lawful Neutral
President Bush
A.D.A. Jack McCoy
My own base inclinations
True Neutral
Lao Tzu
Most wild animals
Chaotic Neutral
The Chicago Cubs
Gov. Jesse Ventura
Australia
Capitalism
Lawful Evil
The New York Yankees
Emperor Palpatine
Hitler
Neutral Evil
The Baltimore Orioles
Osama bin Laden
Most, but not all, housecats
Dolphins that kill for fun
Chaotic Evil
The Baltimore Orioles
Hannibal Lecter
The Joker
Moose
My neighbor's Chihuahua
Cheers,
Scott
--
R. Scott Rogers
srogers at mindspring.com
Visit the General Taylor Inn:
http://srogers.home.mindspring.com/dnd/main.html
Thammuz
alignment by the end of the movie.
Nada
"R. Scott Rogers" <sro...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:B913C3CF.39621%sro...@mindspring.com...
Alex Johnson
>
> I've had about three or four new players crop up, and universally,
> I've had to try explaining to each of them the concept of alignment.
> And the best way, I've found to do it, is by proxies. Now, warning,
> this will probably degenerate into an alignment thread... but the ones
> I found (and was hoping others could help), were:
>
> Lawful Good
> Optimus Prime, Sparhawk, Captain Vimes, Carrot Ironfoundersson,
>
> Neutral Good
> Friar Tuck
>
> Chaotic Good
> Robin Hood
>
> Neutral
> Reddick (Pitch Black), John Constantine
>
> Now, I was wondering... anyone got any others?
I've never had to do this, since most people I played with were already
well acquainted with the silliness of D&D alignments. But have you
thought of taking a story everyone is familiar with and drawing your
characters from there? Like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. I didn't
recognize half the names in your list.
LG: Princess Leia [Organa]
NG: Luke [Skywalker]
CG: Han [Solo]
LN: the bureaucratic senators
TN: C-3P0
CN: Anakin [Skywalker] as a teen
LE: Grand Moff Tarkin
NE: Darth Vader
CE: the bounty hunters
LG: Aragorn, Frodo Baggins, Samwise Gamgee, most of the elves
NG: Bilbo Baggins, most of the dwarves
CG: Boromir, Meriadoc Brandybuck, Peregrin Took
LN: most of the entwives
TN: most of the ents
CN: most of the elves of Mirkwood
LE: the Nazgul (aka Ringwraiths, Black Riders)
NE: Sauruman
CE: most of the orcs
hikaru
> LN: most of the entwives
Entwives? I never saw any entwives in LOTR, The Hobbit, or ( I think, its
been a while) The Silmarillion.Did I miss something?
--
Trav
hik...@rfci.diespamdie.net
RGMW Semi-Lurker at large
11/Sept/01: Never forget. Never forgive.
Specs
news:91uH8.5491$Oa1.5...@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
IIRC they had a brief mention in the Two Towers. Don't recall any mention of
Ents in thes Silmarillion at all now that I think of it.
Specs
Kari Korpi
>> Neutral Good
>> Friar Tuck
> Why is he neutral? He's involved with a bunch of robbers, even if they're
> robbing wealthy people. And stealing is evil, no matter if it's for a good
> cause.
>> Chaotic Good
>> Robin Hood
> Again, stealing is wrong, even if it's for a good cause. Even if you do look
> good in tights.
If thieving, even for a good cause, is evil, then so should be killing:
instead of nicking an evil tax collector's gold pieces (and give them
to dirt-poor peasants), you're nicking an orc of his life. The tax
collector can squeeze to poor buggers for more gold if the Merry Men
take his money, but I'd expect the orc has a somewhat more difficult
time complaining to Gruumsh about how he got topped by that bloody
paladin the other day and asking for another go on the Prime Material...
Yet the paladins cheerfully hunt down and slaughter entire tribes
of orcs in the name of all that's good and just.
I'd say that in the *D&D alignment scheme is all about "the end
justifies the means." Meaning if you steal or kill for some good cause
(to help the needy and suffering masses) you're going at good; the
same for killing in self-defence. If you do it for survival (a regular
pickpocket on the street, for example) you're going neutral. And if
you do it purely for self-gratification or because you're furthering
an evil cause such as oppression (not that there can't be LG oppression :)
you're going for evil.
Just my .02 (European) cents...
Cheers,
-Stegu
--
"Burn the bridges
Forge ahead
To the hilt."
- Die Krupps, "To the Hilt"
Guy Hoyle
Guy
John Willy
Mountain Dew, Dorritos and Lora Croft Wallpaper, Nada arrogantly posted ...
> > Chaotic Evil
> > My neighbor's Chihuahua
Kill it quick!
--
Real men: Drive a clutch, Smoke, Don't cover their coffee, Cat-Call the
chicks, Read the paper, Pleasure their woman, Organize appointments on the
cell, Find the best song on any station, Return fire, and unwrap the doylie
from aound the base of the muffin with no tears; All while driving 50
through morning traffic . and make it look easy.
gary
> I've had to try explaining to each of them the concept of alignment.
> And the best way, I've found to do it, is by proxies.
Here's my list
LG:
Superman
James Bond
Mother Theresa
NG :
Neo (The Matrix)
Luke Skywalker (moved to LG by ROTJ)
Spiderman
CG :
John Lennon
Robin Hood
Batman
Dirty Harry
LN :
Mr. Spock (ST:TOS)
George Bush
most militaries
NN :
The Hulk
Swizerland
plants and animals
CN :
The High Plains Drifter (Clint Eastwood - A Fistfull of Dollars, etc.)
Robert 'Mac' MacDougal (Sean Connery - Entrapment)
Conan the barbarian
LE :
Hitler
Senator Palpatine/The Emperor
NE :
Darth Vader
Joseph Stalin
CE :
Alex DeLarge (ala ultraviolence) from A Clockwork Orange
Hannibal Lecter
gmk
Alex Johnson
>
> > LN: most of the entwives
>
> Entwives? I never saw any entwives in LOTR, The Hobbit, or ( I think, its
> been a while) The Silmarillion.Did I miss something?
The entwives were never seen. That's part of the story of the
entwives. But good ol' Treebeard gave the hobbits the story of the ents
and the entwives in The Lord of the Rings (Two Towers, book 3 of 6).
Therein he related how the entwives like orderly gardens and growth,
while the ents were more interested in the revelling in the world and
wandering. But they wandered too long and the entwives couldn't take
it, so they left. The story is that they have, somewhere, the most
beautiful garden forest in the world where they care for the land and
the plants, and the ents now long to find them. There were actually
about 10 pages I think, but the way Tolkien wrote a journey of a
thousand miles took 5 pages and a dinner party 40 pages (rough guesses
for sample topics). You might not remember the story. You may hear the
tale if you watch the movie, but I highly recommend rereading the
books--you'll get so much more.
Alex
Fitz
wrote:
They weren't referred to by that name, but they were foreshadowed in
the story of Aule's creation of the dwarves.
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fitz
http://mojobob.netnet.net.nz
http://fitz.jsr.com
http://usa.spis.co.nz/fitz
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sir Bob
<snip>
That definition creates some rather bizarre alignment dynamics - like
characters whose alignments flip-flop from Lawful to Chaotic (or
vice-versa) every time they cross a border and all of the sudden the
local laws on sensitive issues are different.
- Sir Bob.
Arcady
> I've had about three or four new players crop up, and universally,
> I've had to try explaining to each of them the concept of alignment.
> And the best way, I've found to do it, is by proxies. Now, warning,
From:
http://www.geocities.com/arcady0/dnd3e/alignment.html
Here are my alignment role models:
CG: Jesus of Nazereth
CN: Timothy Leary
CE: Caligula
All three are agents of chaos. Bent on tearing down the social order of
the day. Lacking any respect for society's definitions of proper
behaivoir, morality, and authority. Of course their reasons and methods
are very different.
Caligula is a little rough since it's hard to justify any ruler as other
than lawful under some definitions. But his behaivoir is classic chaotic.
LG: Abe Lincoln
LN: Confuscious
LE: Hitler
These three dedicated their lives to the ideals of society and the rule
of law and order. But they go about it very differently and have very
different concepts of an ordered world.
NG: Lao-Tzu
TN: Buddha
NE: Manson. Jack the Ripper.
These people have no concern for soceity and structure either way. They
merely have a moral drive for something and live by that drive.
--
World of Fahla: http://home.pacbell.net/arcady0/fahla/
/.)\ Arcady <0){{{{><
\(@/ Projects: http://www.geocities.com/arcady0/
Arcady
Kari Korpi wrote:
> Guy Hoyle <gho...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
> If thieving, even for a good cause, is evil, then so should be killing:
> instead of nicking an evil tax collector's gold pieces (and give them
> to dirt-poor peasants), you're nicking an orc of his life. The tax
Well now... that's what it says in the Bible / Torah anyway:
Thou shall not kill.
There are no conditionals on that statement. If your faith is based
around that book you've no excuses to ever see it as anything but evil.
I'm pretty sure there's a similar statement in the Damapada
(Shakyamuni's quotes <--- the original words of the Buddha which most
Buddhists aren't even aware of the existance of...) but I'd have to dig
for it which I'm not up to for just a casual post on a newsgroup...
Yeah... DnD alignment has a lot of issues. It's very much a flawed ethics system.
The actions of the typical adventurer under most of the real world's
modern ethical systems would be quite easily evil. They work under the
Colonial / Spanish Conquest's ethical systems ---sort of---.
It's an odd mix and mash of modern ethics and the ethics of societies
that expand via genocide.
Yxunomei
"Alex Johnson" <comp...@acm.org> wrote in message
news:3CEE62A7...@acm.org...
> NE: Darth Vader
I think Vader and the Sith lords in general are Lawful Evil.
Talen
<tha...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>I'd see Reddick more as starting out NE, but progressing to a more Neutral
>alignment by the end of the movie.
>
You know, a friend of mine said the exact same thing...
--
Talen
http://shatteredreality.net/talen/
"Anything can be used as a weapon."
"I shall use my love for cheese balls against my
enemy!"
- Adrian Tymes and Marco262
The Gurus love you
Doug Lampert
> Kari Korpi wrote:
>
> > Guy Hoyle <gho...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > If thieving, even for a good cause, is evil, then so should be killing:
> > instead of nicking an evil tax collector's gold pieces (and give them
> > to dirt-poor peasants), you're nicking an orc of his life. The tax
>
>
> Well now... that's what it says in the Bible / Torah anyway:
>
> Thou shall not kill.
Torah makes no such statement. The Torah is in Hebrew, which has
different words for Murder and Kill just as English does. The word
used is Murder.
In fact the Hebrew is in this case even narrower in what is called
Murder than the English.
Only defective translations which take the Hebrew to Greek and the
Greek to Latin and then the Latin to English are likely to make that
mistake.
Looking through the Bible gateway I note:
New International Version: You shall not murder.
New American Standard Bible: You shall not murder.
Amplified Bible: You shall not commit murder.
New Living Translation: Do not murder.
King James Version: Thou shalt not kill.
New King James Version: You shall not murder.
21st Century King James Version: Thou shalt not kill.
American Standard Version: Thou shalt not kill.
Young's Literal Translation: Thou dost not murder.
Darby Translation: Thou shalt not kill.
6 of 10 say murder. EVERY version that says kill uses the obsolete
Thou and shalt in the exact same words as the original King James
version since. Not at all surprising since they are just copying
the King James version. Whereas the six versions with murder have
come up with four different phrases that mean the same thing, just
as would be expected for independent translations.
> There are no conditionals on that statement. If your faith is based
> around that book you've no excuses to ever see it as anything but evil.
But self defence, enforcement of laws, defence of others, and warfare are
all not murder. Killing outside that sort of circumstance is Evil in my
book (and in my game) even if the target is an Ork.
DougL
Jack Rudd
> But have you
> thought of taking a story everyone is familiar with and drawing your
> characters from there? Like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. I didn't
> recognize half the names in your list.
>
LG: Rupert Giles
NG: Xander Harris
CG: Willow Rosenberg
LN: Wesley Wyndham-Price
TN: Cordelia Chase
CN: Ethan Rayne
LE: Mayor Richard Wilkins III
NE: Adam
CE: Spike
Jack Rudd
Stephenls
> Chaotic Good - batman
Let's not start /this/ again.
--
Stephenls
"And he's lawful good, damnit. He just thinks he should make the laws."
Geek
Arguing with Stephenls about White Wolf canon is a lot like arguing
with God over the landscaping of heaven. -Richard Clayton
HADSIL
Neutral Good - Frodo
Chaotic Good - Batman
Lawful Evil - Darth Vader
Neutral Evil - The Master (Doctor Who)
Chaotic Evil - Jason Vorhees
Lawful Neutral - Judge Judy
Neutral - Han Solo
Chaotic Neutral - Stereotypical annoying sidekick of the Hero. Ialous from
tv's Hercules would do.
Gerald Katz
Twin Towers forever!
Stephenls
> LG: Rupert Giles
> NG: Xander Harris
> CG: Willow Rosenberg
> LN: Wesley Wyndham-Price
> TN: Cordelia Chase
> CN: Ethan Rayne
> LE: Mayor Richard Wilkins III
> NE: Adam
> CE: Spike
Rather than give them set alignments, it would be much more interesting,
IHMO, to track their alignments over the course of the series.
Not Buffy, but I'd peg Han Solor as Chaotic Neutral at the beginning of
Star Wars, and Chaotic Good by the end. (The first movie, I mean.)
And Spike, I think, is about to become Neutral Good, or at least
Neutral.
--
Stephenls
E. Pluribus Unum
Yxunomei wrote:
>
> Lawful Evil is not a psychopat who does evil because little voices tell him
> to kill everything in sight. That's Chaotic Evil, and Chaotic Evil doesn't
> always mean stupid (for an example, an average demon's more intelligent than
> an average devil by 3 points). Lawful Evil means doing evil with a cold,
> calculated and *sane* mind. So here are my examples:
>
> Lawful Evil = A. Hitler, S. Milosevic, Osama Bin Laden ...
> Chaotic Evil = Jack the Ripper
One could quite easily be both Lawful and insane.
-EPB
Stephenls
> One could quite easily be both Lawful and insane.
Indeed. Many obsessive/compulsives might fall under Lawful.
Jack Rudd
> And Spike, I think, is about to become Neutral Good, or at least
> Neutral.
Spike's an interesting one. In Season Two, he's your standard CE bad
guy. In Season Four, he starts off that way, and then has the chip
implanted so that, while still CE, he can't actually act according to
his alignment. In Season Five, you can see him becoming less evil over
the course of the series.
(Hypothesis: Spike's alignment tends towards that of whoever he's in
love with at the time. This gets very weird when he's torn between
Drusilla (CE?) and Buffy (LG?).)
I haven't seen Season Six yet, so I can't comment on how his character
develops there.
Jack Rudd
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
>This is why I think alignment needs to be optional.
Because you don't understand it?
--
Saint Baldwin, Definer of the Unholy Darkspawn
-
"So here we are going into battle, butt freaking naked.
What's wrong with this picture?"
Nene Romanova
-
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well." [St. B]
-
Remove the spam-block to reply
Robert Baldwin
>
>
>Kari Korpi wrote:
<snip>
>Well now... that's what it says in the Bible / Torah anyway:
>
>Thou shall not kill.
>
>There are no conditionals on that statement. If your faith is based
>around that book you've no excuses to ever see it as anything but evil.
<snip>
So that whole genocidal side of Yahweh means...
<snip>
>Yeah... DnD alignment has a lot of issues. It's very much a flawed ethics system.
Actually, it works quite well for it's *intended* purpose. The "flaw"
comes in the absurd need some people have to translate a Good/Evil
based fantasy system to our "real" world.
>The actions of the typical adventurer under most of the real world's
>modern ethical systems would be quite easily evil. They work under the
>Colonial / Spanish Conquest's ethical systems ---sort of---.
Or, more appropriately, if you view our world through the Lens of
Alignment, you find out that all those suposedly "good" people in our
history are generally Neutral, at best.
>It's an odd mix and mash of modern ethics and the ethics of societies
>that expand via genocide.
Feh.
Talen
<gho...@airmail.net> wrote:
>"Talen" <tal...@spamspamspamspam.optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>news:66jreuc956ajpa9qu...@4ax.com...
>> I've had about three or four new players crop up, and universally,
>> I've had to try explaining to each of them the concept of alignment.
>> And the best way, I've found to do it, is by proxies. Now, warning,
>> this will probably degenerate into an alignment thread... but the ones
>> I found (and was hoping others could help), were:
>>
>> Lawful Good
>> Optimus Prime, Sparhawk, Captain Vimes, Carrot Ironfoundersson,
>
>Don't know who any of these are, so I can't comment.
<GASP> Optimus Prime is from Transformers, Sparhawk is from the
Elenium and Tamuli books by David Eddings, and Vimes and Carrot are
from the Discworld.
I'm astonished I could find someone who didn't at least know _of_ one
of them. o.o;
>>
>> Neutral Good
>> Friar Tuck
>
>Why is he neutral? He's involved with a bunch of robbers, even if they're
>robbing wealthy people. And stealing is evil, no matter if it's for a good
>cause.
True that he's probably not neutral, but he never struck me as too
committed in either direction. But canonical sources for Friar Tuck,
it seems, are hard to find. The Friar Tuck I remember from the Kevin
Costner film... yeah, you're right. Or am I mixing him up with Little
John? ;p
I'm going to leave the stealing issue alone.
>> Neutral
>> Reddick (Pitch Black), John Constantine
>
>Not sure who Reddick is. John Constantine, you may be right about.
Reddick is an utter psychopath from the movie Pitch Black, played by
Vin Diesel. I highly recommend it to anyone who intends to DM Call of
Cthulu.
--
Talen
http://shatteredreality.net/talen/
"Start small... throw yourself under a Lego train"
- Q, advocating suicide practice
The Gurus love you
Talen
wrote:
>
>
>Kari Korpi wrote:
>
>> Guy Hoyle <gho...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> If thieving, even for a good cause, is evil, then so should be killing:
>> instead of nicking an evil tax collector's gold pieces (and give them
>> to dirt-poor peasants), you're nicking an orc of his life. The tax
>
>
>Well now... that's what it says in the Bible / Torah anyway:
>
>Thou shall not kill.
>
>There are no conditionals on that statement. If your faith is based
>around that book you've no excuses to ever see it as anything but evil.
Actually, I'll point out that you're wrong. The Bible's quote is Thou
Shalt DO NO MURDER, not "not kill".
Murder is premeditated, malicious dispatching of someone when you do
not have the right to do that.
But then, I wouldn't be surprised if people claimed the Bible says
'don't kill', because it gives them another chance to call God a
hypocrite (Jesus is the first major figure in the Bible I can think of
that doesn't kill anything at all..)
Talen
<comp...@acm.org> wrote:
>Talen wrote:
>>
>I've never had to do this, since most people I played with were already
>well acquainted with the silliness of D&D alignments. But have you
>thought of taking a story everyone is familiar with and drawing your
>characters from there?
<nods> Well, the thing is, I have to admit, my list is designed
towards my particular set of geeks. Between three of us there are two
copies of Pitch Black (Reddick), most of us are Pratchett fans, almost
all of us at least _watched_ Transformers, and there are more than a
few of us who have read the Elenium and Tamuli books.
This, however, is why I asked for help - to expand the list so that
there were enough people on this list that anyone could recognise
them. Furthermore, I'd prefer it big enough that someone could go
"Hey, the straight-laced, always-honest, utter brick-faced moron who
won't lie to save his own life is lawful good, but so is the
foul-tempered, grouchy, leather-clad old man with his walking stick of
power." and realise the breadth of diference you can HAVE in an
alignment.
<snips> Thanks. ^_^
Cpt Carrot
<tal...@spamspamspamspam.optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>It has been brought to my attention that "Guy Hoyle"
><gho...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
>>"Talen" <tal...@spamspamspamspam.optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>>news:66jreuc956ajpa9qu...@4ax.com...
>>> I've had about three or four new players crop up, and universally,
>>> I've had to try explaining to each of them the concept of alignment.
>>> And the best way, I've found to do it, is by proxies. Now, warning,
>>> this will probably degenerate into an alignment thread... but the ones
>>> I found (and was hoping others could help), were:
>>>
>>> Lawful Good
>>> Optimus Prime, Sparhawk, Captain Vimes, Carrot Ironfoundersson,
>>
>>Don't know who any of these are, so I can't comment.
>
><GASP> Optimus Prime is from Transformers, Sparhawk is from the
>Elenium and Tamuli books by David Eddings, and Vimes and Carrot are
>from the Discworld.
>
>I'm astonished I could find someone who didn't at least know _of_ one
>of them. o.o;
>
Actually, I think Vimes would be more Chaotic Good than Lawful Good. Hence his
view of servants in the palace taking home scraps and such in "Feet of Clay".
Carrot is kind of hard to pin down, although most of the time I would agree to
place him in the Lawful Good category.
Carrot (gosh, where'd I ever get this nickname <g>)
E. Pluribus Unum
Talen wrote:
>
> >Thou shall not kill.
> >
> >There are no conditionals on that statement. If your faith is based
> >around that book you've no excuses to ever see it as anything but evil.
>
> Actually, I'll point out that you're wrong. The Bible's quote is Thou
> Shalt DO NO MURDER, not "not kill".
That depends on the translation, doesn't it? (As I understand it,
however, you are correct: the Hebrew word is closer to "murder" than
"kill.")
> Murder is premeditated, malicious dispatching of someone when you do
> not have the right to do that.
Premeditation is not a requirement (in most, if not all, states).
And "malice" is essentially just the intent to kill, so it's probably
better to say "non-accidental."
> But then, I wouldn't be surprised if people claimed the Bible says
> 'don't kill',
Most modern English bibles do, in fact, say "Thou shalt not kill."
They may have been mistranslated, but they *do* say it.
-EPB
Stephenls
> Actually, I think Vimes would be more Chaotic Good than Lawful Good.
> Hence his view of servants in the palace taking home scraps and such
> in "Feet of Clay".
I'm actually gonna place Vimes as Neutral Good. He doesn't /hate/ order
and laws, but he doesn't believe they're /important in their own right/,
either. He finds them useful for what they do, which is keep scum in
line and prevent Bad Things from happening.
> Carrot is kind of hard to pin down, although most of the time I would
> agree to place him in the Lawful Good category.
Yes. It's possible he's actually Chaotic Evil and just playing a big
joke at the whole world's expense, but mostly he seems to be Lawful Good
with (maybe) Neutral Good tendencies.
Stephenls
> Reddick is an utter psychopath from the movie Pitch Black, played by
> Vin Diesel. I highly recommend it to anyone who intends to DM Call of
> Cthulu.
You threw me off with the spelling.
It's actually spelled Riddic. He would seem to be Neutral Evil at the
beginning of the movie, drifting through neutral as it progresses.
They're working on a sequel as we speak, which will be called "The
Chronicles of Riddic." It should be interesting to see how that turns
out. I hope it has no Alien Monsters in it -- Riddic is an interesting
enough character by himself; monsters would only make the movie /less/
interesting.
Everyone should see Pitch Black, but remember that it's not a good
horror movie, so don't watch it as one. Watch it as a character study
of Riddic.
Talen
<mona...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>Talen wrote:
>>
<snipping>
>> Murder is premeditated, malicious dispatching of someone when you do
>> not have the right to do that.
>
>Premeditation is not a requirement (in most, if not all, states).
>And "malice" is essentially just the intent to kill, so it's probably
>better to say "non-accidental."
Indeed. However.
>> But then, I wouldn't be surprised if people claimed the Bible says
>> 'don't kill',
>
>Most modern English bibles do, in fact, say "Thou shalt not kill."
>They may have been mistranslated, but they *do* say it.
Yeah, but by that score, do we use an unreliable copy, or do we use a
reliable one? If that's not the case, then "Spare the Rod and Spoil
the Child" actually _is_ in the Bible.
--
Talen
http://shatteredreality.net/talen/
"That's quite the sentence.
"And that's the least assholeish thing I could think to
say."
- Genepoole
The Gurus love you
Talen
<car...@rubberchicken.net> wrote:
Well, there's the funny thing about it. Vimes is Lawful, because
there's no actual _law_ against the scraps, you know? It's one of
those little things. However, balls to the wall, he will stick to the
law and won't break it, because then, he wouldn't be a copper any
more, would he?
A character can have an alignment and quirk away from it occasionally.
Tordek does, after all.
--
Talen
http://shatteredreality.net/talen/
"If I ever got whomped by a Pidgeot toter, I'd commit suicide
promptly after. and I'd advise others under the same
circumstances to do the same."
- Pornbot
The Gurus love you
Talen
wrote:
>Talen wrote:
>
>> Reddick is an utter psychopath from the movie Pitch Black, played by
>> Vin Diesel. I highly recommend it to anyone who intends to DM Call of
>> Cthulu.
>
>You threw me off with the spelling.
>
>It's actually spelled Riddic. He would seem to be Neutral Evil at the
>beginning of the movie, drifting through neutral as it progresses.
Odd. On the Australian release of the VHS, his name's been misspelled.
>They're working on a sequel as we speak, which will be called "The
>Chronicles of Riddic." It should be interesting to see how that turns
>out. I hope it has no Alien Monsters in it -- Riddic is an interesting
>enough character by himself; monsters would only make the movie /less/
>interesting.
>
>Everyone should see Pitch Black, but remember that it's not a good
>horror movie, so don't watch it as one. Watch it as a character study
>of Riddic.
Indeed. Hell, it's a good character study _period_. Even the "I know
I'm going to die by the end of the film" characters weren't your
standards, and the ones that eventually got to the end of it _didn't_
shriek at me "I'm going to survive".
Hells, I fully expected Riddic to bite it.
It's also a great study for DMs who are going to DM Call of Cthulu.
It's horror background, horror components, and horror and surreality
all over.
But it's ultimately completely character driven.
And it has _so many good lines!_ I think "Exceptionally bad timing."
is my favourite, up with "Looks clear."
--
Talen
http://shatteredreality.net/talen/
"There is no hope for mankind."
"It took you _this long_ to figure that out?"
- Talen and Fox-lee
The Gurus love you
Guy Hoyle
"Robert Baldwin" <rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:3cf2d631...@news.rio.com...
> On Fri, 24 May 2002 19:36:38 GMT, "Guy Hoyle" <gho...@airmail.net>
> wrote:
>
> >This is why I think alignment needs to be optional.
>
> Because you don't understand it?
Nope. I've been playing RPGs since 1978, so believe me, I know all I want to
know about alignment. In game terms, the only purpose of alignment really
seems to be to keep you from using certain magic items, which is rather
silly. It really tells you very little about the personality of the
character. It's notoriously hard to come up with good examples of each
alignment that everybody can agree on. There's no "scale"; you're either
100% Lawful Good or you're not, despite the fact that nobody plays it that
way (or should).
Guy
Guy Hoyle
> <GASP> Optimus Prime is from Transformers, Sparhawk is from the
> Elenium and Tamuli books by David Eddings, and Vimes and Carrot are
> from the Discworld.
>
> I'm astonished I could find someone who didn't at least know _of_ one
> of them. o.o;
Aha. Don't like mecha, don't like Eddings, don't like Pratchett.
>
> I'm going to leave the stealing issue alone.
Yeah. I was really only trying to provoke comment with that one.
>
> >> Neutral
> >> Reddick (Pitch Black), John Constantine
> >
> >Not sure who Reddick is. John Constantine, you may be right about.
>
> Reddick is an utter psychopath from the movie Pitch Black, played by
> Vin Diesel. I highly recommend it to anyone who intends to DM Call of
> Cthulu.
Ah, ok.
Guy Hoyle
> >You threw me off with the spelling.
> >
> >It's actually spelled Riddic. He would seem to be Neutral Evil at the
> >beginning of the movie, drifting through neutral as it progresses.
>
> Odd. On the Australian release of the VHS, his name's been misspelled.
In the IMDB, it's spelled Riddick
Guy
Jeff Wilder
> It's actually spelled Riddic.
Per the Internet Movie Database, the character's name is Richard B. Riddick.
Jeff
Talen
Wilder) wrote:
Shit, I have more in common with him than I thought. O.o
--
Talen
http://shatteredreality.net/talen/
"Spandex Bear!"
"Styrofoam Rhino!"
"Masturbation Dingo!... wait..."
- Schmuck, Edson, and Jim Stanfield, goin' Maverick
The Gurus love you
R. Scott Rogers
>
>
> Talen wrote:
>>
>>> Thou shall not kill.
>>>
>>> There are no conditionals on that statement. If your faith is based
>>> around that book you've no excuses to ever see it as anything but evil.
>>
>> Actually, I'll point out that you're wrong. The Bible's quote is Thou
>> Shalt DO NO MURDER, not "not kill".
>
> That depends on the translation, doesn't it? (As I understand it,
> however, you are correct: the Hebrew word is closer to "murder" than
> "kill.")
>
>> Murder is premeditated, malicious dispatching of someone when you do
>> not have the right to do that.
>
> Premeditation is not a requirement (in most, if not all, states).
> And "malice" is essentially just the intent to kill, so it's probably
> better to say "non-accidental."
In any event it's ridiculous to make the argument that he makes: "In Hebrew,
the Commandment says 'murder,' not 'kill.' In English, 'murder' means X.
Therefore the Commandment means 'don't do X.'"
For Christians, it's sort of moot, though, since Christ was pretty clear in
his opposition even to justified killing of the sort that was not considered
murder in the Hebrew tradition. So a Christian arguing whether the
Commandment bans all killing or just murder is sort of like the Solicitor
General trying to defend a law to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the
Articles of Confederation allow it.
Cheers,
Scott
--
R. Scott Rogers
srogers at mindspring.com
Visit the General Taylor Inn:
http://srogers.home.mindspring.com/dnd/main.html
Stephenls
> Per the Internet Movie Database, the character's name is Richard B.
> Riddick.
D'oh.!
Doug Lampert
> Talen wrote:
> >
> > >Thou shall not kill.
> > >
> > >There are no conditionals on that statement. If your faith is based
> > >around that book you've no excuses to ever see it as anything but evil.
> >
> > Actually, I'll point out that you're wrong. The Bible's quote is Thou
> > Shalt DO NO MURDER, not "not kill".
>
> That depends on the translation, doesn't it? (As I understand it,
> however, you are correct: the Hebrew word is closer to "murder" than
> "kill.")
He explicitely references TORAH in the origianal quote.
Which is in Hebrew, hence translation to English is irrelevant.
> > Murder is premeditated, malicious dispatching of someone when you do
> > not have the right to do that.
>
> Premeditation is not a requirement (in most, if not all, states).
> And "malice" is essentially just the intent to kill, so it's probably
> better to say "non-accidental."
But both are pretty much required for the Hebrew word. Every Rabbi I
have ever heard discuss this states that the acurate translation would
be more like 'Thou shalt not commit first degree murder'. In fact
English lacks a word with that exact conotation, so we use Murder.
> > But then, I wouldn't be surprised if people claimed the Bible says
> > 'don't kill',
>
> Most modern English bibles do, in fact, say "Thou shalt not kill."
> They may have been mistranslated, but they *do* say it.
Most modern English bibles do NOT say this.
I did a survay of ten and listed the results, giving both bible and
wording.
I was surprised that kill came as high as 40%. But note that my
source was an evangelical Christian group, and that such groups are
notorious for rejecting modern translations. Which is why three
of their ten translations were the King James version. Drop those
as not being 'Modern' and the ratio is thrown further toward murder.
Note that EVERY edition that said kill used the EXACT same wording
as King James, these were not in fact independent modern translations,
they were at best updates of King James and most admit this.
DougL
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
>
>"Robert Baldwin" <rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com> wrote in message
>news:3cf2d631...@news.rio.com...
>> On Fri, 24 May 2002 19:36:38 GMT, "Guy Hoyle" <gho...@airmail.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >This is why I think alignment needs to be optional.
>>
>> Because you don't understand it?
>
>Nope. I've been playing RPGs since 1978, so believe me, I know all I want to
>know about alignment. In game terms, the only purpose of alignment really
>seems to be to keep you from using certain magic items, which is rather
>silly.
If that's all you know about the *D&D alignment system, you've wasted
the last 24 years.
It really tells you very little about the personality of the
>character. It's notoriously hard to come up with good examples of each
>alignment that everybody can agree on. There's no "scale"; you're either
>100% Lawful Good or you're not, despite the fact that nobody plays it that
>way (or should).
Feh.
Guy Hoyle
> On Tue, 28 May 2002 13:36:48 GMT, "Guy Hoyle" <gho...@airmail.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Robert Baldwin" <rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com> wrote in message
> >news:3cf2d631...@news.rio.com...
> >> On Fri, 24 May 2002 19:36:38 GMT, "Guy Hoyle" <gho...@airmail.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >This is why I think alignment needs to be optional.
> >>
> >> Because you don't understand it?
> >
> >Nope. I've been playing RPGs since 1978, so believe me, I know all I want
to
> >know about alignment. In game terms, the only purpose of alignment really
> >seems to be to keep you from using certain magic items, which is rather
> >silly.
>
> If that's all you know about the *D&D alignment system, you've wasted
> the last 24 years.
Haven't actually played D&D since 1983, so I guess I could be behind the
times. What do you find so commendable about this system? I really want to
know.
>
> It really tells you very little about the personality of the
> >character. It's notoriously hard to come up with good examples of each
> >alignment that everybody can agree on. There's no "scale"; you're either
> >100% Lawful Good or you're not, despite the fact that nobody plays it
that
> >way (or should).
>
> Feh.
I guess that means you disagree, that it's very easy to classify people by
alignments. Or maybe you meant something else?
Guy
David Klassen
> Kari Korpi wrote:
>
> > Guy Hoyle <gho...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > If thieving, even for a good cause, is evil, then so should be killing:
> > instead of nicking an evil tax collector's gold pieces (and give them
> > to dirt-poor peasants), you're nicking an orc of his life. The tax
>
>
> Well now... that's what it says in the Bible / Torah anyway:
>
>
> There are no conditionals on that statement. If your faith is based
AAhhh...actually, there are. One first has to note that ending the life
of someone is not always "killing" by the writer's of the Torah. In fact,
most societies only considered the ending of the life of those within the
same society as a Bad Thing. If you are Hebrew and you whack a Caananite,
more power to you; no contradiction with the Ten Commandments AT ALL!
Bradd W. Szonye
> Actually, it works quite well for it's *intended* purpose. The "flaw"
> comes in the absurd need some people have to translate a Good/Evil
> based fantasy system to our "real" world.
There's a similar problem going in the other direction: Many people try
to impose a single real-world moral system on the fantasy world. People
who lack broad experience in real moral systems tend to assume that
they're all basically the same, so of course they view D&D alignments in
terms of their own moral system. They don't realize that there's more
than one way to be altruistic or to make personal sacrifices to help
others.
> Or, more appropriately, if you view our world through the Lens of
> Alignment, you find out that all those suposedly "good" people in our
> history are generally Neutral, at best.
That's not surprising, since many real-world moral systems focus on "do
no evil" rather than "do good, even though it might hurt you." What we
call "moral" and "good" in real life generally translates to D&D as
merely Neutral; the Good alignment would be called "heroic" in real
life.
Here's a rough translation from D&D terms to real-world descriptions:
Good - heroic, saintly, supererogatory
Neutral - good, moral, kind, ordinary
Evil - evil, immoral, cruel, mean-spirited
Lawful - law-abiding, disciplined, conforming
Neutral - basically honest and reliable, but ordinary
Chaotic - rebellious, dishonest, unreliable
A simple, neutral character might be "basically good" but lack heroism
and self-sacrifice; likewise, he'll respect laws and honesty, but not
feel bound by oaths or laws when they're out of sync with his moral
compass. A Neutral character will let you borrow a cup of sugar; a Good
character will let you borrow the last cup of sugar in his pantry. A
Neutral character won't drive through a red traffic light during the
day; a Lawful character will stop at the red light even at four o'clock
in the morning, when nobody else is around.
--
Bradd W. Szonye Work: br...@cup.hp.com
Software Design Engineer Home: bra...@concentric.net
Hewlett-Packard, Cupertino Phone: 408-447-4832
Bradd W. Szonye
> My haphazard list:
Heh. This is good! I have a few additions:
> Lawful Good
> Superman
> The Seattle Mariners
> [Assuming you accept his moral claims] Muhammad
> Obi-Wan Kenobi
The Detroit Red Wings
Princess Amelia
D.A. Nora Lewin
E.A.D.A. Ben Stone
A.D.A. Paul Robinette
A.D.A. Jamie Ross
Lt. Anita Van Buren
Det. Sgt. Max Greevey
Det. Rey Curtis
> Neutral Good
> The Minnesota Twins
> [Assuming you accept his moral claims] Dalai Lama
> Most domesticated dogs
> Old Ben Kenobi
Gourry Gabriev
A.D.A. Claire Kincaid
A.D.A. Serena Southerlyn
Det. Mike Logan
> Chaotic Good
> The Arizona Diamondbacks
> The Oakland Athletics
> [Assuming you accept his moral claims] Christ
> My neighbor's housecat
> Han Solo
> My own highest ideals
The San Jose Sharks
Lina Inverse
Shambala Green
> Lawful Neutral
> President Bush
> A.D.A. Jack McCoy
> My own base inclinations
D.A. Adam Schiff
Lawrence Weaver
Capt. Don Cragen
> True Neutral
> Lao Tzu
> Most wild animals
Zelgadis
A.D.A. Abigail Carmichael
Det. Lennie Briscoe
> Chaotic Neutral
> The Chicago Cubs
> Gov. Jesse Ventura
> Australia
> Capitalism
The Chicago Blackhawks
Lina Inverse
> Lawful Evil
> The New York Yankees
> Emperor Palpatine
> Hitler
>
> Neutral Evil
> The Baltimore Orioles
> Osama bin Laden
> Most, but not all, housecats
> Dolphins that kill for fun
The Colorado Avalanche
> Chaotic Evil
> The Baltimore Orioles
> Hannibal Lecter
> The Joker
> Moose
> My neighbor's Chihuahua
The Colorado Avalance with Claude Lemieux
Princess Martina
I was going to argue that Jack McCoy is Lawful Good rather than Lawful
Neutral, but I'm not sure. In fact, he seems Lawful or Good but rarely
both at the same time. In particular, he was much more Good than Lawful
when Abby Carmichael first showed up. I dunno whether that indicates a
complex character or just uneven scriptwriting.
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
>
>"Robert Baldwin" <rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com> wrote in message
<snip>
>> >Nope. I've been playing RPGs since 1978, so believe me, I know all I want
>to
>> >know about alignment. In game terms, the only purpose of alignment really
>> >seems to be to keep you from using certain magic items, which is rather
>> >silly.
>>
>> If that's all you know about the *D&D alignment system, you've wasted
>> the last 24 years.
>
>Haven't actually played D&D since 1983, so I guess I could be behind the
>times. What do you find so commendable about this system? I really want to
>know.
The issue isn't whether I find the alignmnet system commendable. It
is that the system is not as you represent it. There are *some*
people who both understand *and* dislike the system. You do not seem
to be among them.
The alignment system makes perfect sense *if* you havd a high fantasy
world based on a cosmology where Good & Evil are physical forces of
the universe. And that is the D&D system.
>>
>> It really tells you very little about the personality of the
>> >character. It's notoriously hard to come up with good examples of each
>> >alignment that everybody can agree on. There's no "scale"; you're either
>> >100% Lawful Good or you're not, despite the fact that nobody plays it
>that
>> >way (or should).
>>
>> Feh.
>
>I guess that means you disagree, that it's very easy to classify people by
>alignments. Or maybe you meant something else?
It means nothing in the above paragraph was correct, worth responding
to in any greaty length or something a person who understands the D&D
cosmology would have said.
Jeff Wilder
> I was going to argue that Jack McCoy is Lawful Good rather
> than Lawful Neutral, but I'm not sure. In fact, he seems
> Lawful or Good but rarely both at the same time. In particular,
> he was much more Good than Lawful when Abby Carmichael first
> showed up. I dunno whether that indicates a complex character
> or just uneven scriptwriting.
No way he's Lawful Good. He's too often out to punish, rather than do
the Good thing. (I.e., St. Cuthbert rather than Heironeous.)
Reluctantly I put him at Lawful Neutral. I say "reluctantly" because
McCoy fairly often shows some seriously ethically-challenged behavior.
If he weren't otherwise so gung-ho on order, tipping the scales (so
to speak), I'd put him at True Neutral.
Of course, he's gettin' up there, so we might just have to settle on
Lawful Senile. (Abe Simpson is Neutral Senile, of course.)
Jeff
Guy Hoyle
> The issue isn't whether I find the alignmnet system commendable. It
> is that the system is not as you represent it. There are *some*
> people who both understand *and* dislike the system. You do not seem
> to be among them.
>
> The alignment system makes perfect sense *if* you havd a high fantasy
> world based on a cosmology where Good & Evil are physical forces of
> the universe. And that is the D&D system.
That is the D&D environment, but the game system itself is not much
dependant upon alignment. You can run a game just fine without it. For me,
worlds where "good" and "evil" and "law" and "chaos" are quantifiable forces
tend to seem rather cartoony to me, not "high fantasy". If you're having fun
with it, though, then good! Having fun with the game is what it should be
about. I'm only stating my own opinions and preferences here.
>
> >>
> >> It really tells you very little about the personality of the
> >> >character. It's notoriously hard to come up with good examples of each
> >> >alignment that everybody can agree on. There's no "scale"; you're
either
> >> >100% Lawful Good or you're not, despite the fact that nobody plays it
> >that
> >> >way (or should).
> >>
> >> Feh.
> >
> >I guess that means you disagree, that it's very easy to classify people
by
> >alignments. Or maybe you meant something else?
>
> It means nothing in the above paragraph was correct, worth responding
> to in any greaty length or something a person who understands the D&D
> cosmology would have said.
Ah. And you chose to do so in a rude and dismissive fashion, for some
reason, instead of saying so. Gotcha.
Understanding the D&D cosmology isn't a high priority to me because very
little in it appeals to me. The thing that bothers me about it that so many
people have taken it as the definitive style, rather than using myths, fairy
tales, and the genre itself as a basis. But again, that's my opinion; if you
get it and like it, that's fine for you. It's just that, if your tastes
don't run that way, you either have to pretty much rewrite large chunks of
the rules, or find another game.
I do look forward to some of the third-party D20 stuff coming out now, such
as Atlas Games "Occult Forces", which attempts to put historical ideas about
magic into a gaming perspective. If I had the chance to play in a campaign
where these magic systems instead of the default D&D one was being used, I
would consider giving it a shot.
Guy
R. Scott Rogers
> bra...@concentric.net (Bradd W. Szonye):
>
>> I was going to argue that Jack McCoy is Lawful Good rather
>> than Lawful Neutral, but I'm not sure. In fact, he seems
>> Lawful or Good but rarely both at the same time. In particular,
>> he was much more Good than Lawful when Abby Carmichael first
>> showed up. I dunno whether that indicates a complex character
>> or just uneven scriptwriting.
>
> No way he's Lawful Good. He's too often out to punish, rather than do
> the Good thing. (I.e., St. Cuthbert rather than Heironeous.)
> Reluctantly I put him at Lawful Neutral. I say "reluctantly" because
> McCoy fairly often shows some seriously ethically-challenged behavior.
> If he weren't otherwise so gung-ho on order, tipping the scales (so
> to speak), I'd put him at True Neutral.
I agree that he should be LN. (Atticus Finch, now there's a lawyer who rings
in as LG.)
However, McCoy's obsession with punishing the guilty is one of the chief
characteristics of the Paladin, whom we know to be LG. Since McCoy's job is,
in fact, the prosecution of people he believes to be guilty, and since the
show focuses on its character's jobs, we really lack sufficient data to
judge McCoy on most other fronts. It's entirely plausible that he really is
LG, given that the most apparent element of his character is that of a
Paladin.
R. Scott Rogers
> "Robert Baldwin" <rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:3cf59e28...@news.rio.com...
>> The issue isn't whether I find the alignmnet system commendable. It
>> is that the system is not as you represent it. There are *some*
>> people who both understand *and* dislike the system. You do not seem
>> to be among them.
>>
>> The alignment system makes perfect sense *if* you havd a high fantasy
>> world based on a cosmology where Good & Evil are physical forces of
>> the universe. And that is the D&D system.
>
> That is the D&D environment, but the game system itself is not much
> dependant upon alignment. You can run a game just fine without it. For me,
> worlds where "good" and "evil" and "law" and "chaos" are quantifiable forces
> tend to seem rather cartoony to me, not "high fantasy". If you're having fun
> with it, though, then good! Having fun with the game is what it should be
> about. I'm only stating my own opinions and preferences here.
No! If you don't accept that alignment is, in fact, the whole point of DND,
and that without it you might as well play Yahtzee, then Baldwin won't be
able to enjoy his own game of DND. You have an ethical obligation to agree
with him, because without your agreement his experience of the game becomes
meaningless. What, you think you can just play your game your way and let
others do likewise? Not so, my friend. Enjoying DND your own way is not a
victimless crime.
>>>> Feh.
>>>
>>> I guess that means you disagree, that it's very easy to classify people
>>> by
>>> alignments. Or maybe you meant something else?
>>
>> It means nothing in the above paragraph was correct, worth responding
>> to in any greaty length or something a person who understands the D&D
>> cosmology would have said.
>
> Ah. And you chose to do so in a rude and dismissive fashion, for some
> reason, instead of saying so. Gotcha.
Not worth bothering. Baldwin seems to be the only person in the
English-speaking world who didn't get the memo on just how asinine the whole
"Feh" thing is. Everyone else has already tried forwarding it to him. But so
deep and subtle is his intellect that to him, alexicographical monosyllables
are the most profound form of logical assertion, that he persists. My
suspicion is that Baldwin admires the language of the Smurfs, in which a
single monosyllable could mean almost anything at any time, and yet every
Smurf always knew what was meant when the monosyllable was spoken.
"My response means that what I was responding to wasn't worth responding to"
indeed. It would be funny if Baldwin didn't mean for us to take him
seriously.
Guy Hoyle
Ah, thanks. I was beginning to suspect that this was just another "My way is
the only way" conversation. I won't be wasting any more time with this
thread.
Guy
Jeff Wilder
| Not worth bothering. Baldwin seems to be the only person
| in the English-speaking world who didn't get the memo on
| just how asinine the whole "Feh" thing is.
The only person?! Baldy himself picked it up from the
Squeaky*Bah!*Troll. (Baldy spends so much time rimming MSB, it's
not surprising he contracted SOMETHING, I suppose.) They even
rationalize the idiocy the same way, almost verbatim.
Jeff
Sea Wasp
> Not worth bothering. Baldwin seems to be the only person in the
> English-speaking world who didn't get the memo on just how asinine the whole
> "Feh" thing is.
Pfui.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.htm
Jeff Wilder
| However, McCoy's obsession with punishing the guilty is
| one of the chief characteristics of the Paladin, whom we
| know to be LG.
Ah, but I think what we really see in McCoy is the desire to
"convict the accused," not (or, rather, in addition to) "punish
the guilty." That's LN. (And I still think that "punish the
guilty" as a goal sounds like "retribution," which is also LN.)
BTW, in case it matters, the job of a prosecutor is seeking
"justice," not convictions. We all know -- if only from TV --
that the reality is different. The IDEAL is LG. The reality is
(almost always) LN.
Since we also know that McCoy has a disturbing obsession with the
Clash, that's more evidence (on top of his occasional bouts of
non-ethical behavior) that he may not even be Lawful!
Prosecution rests, Your Honor.
Guy Hoyle
news:CttJ8.1247$aZ6.20...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> "R. Scott Rogers":
>
> Ah, but I think what we really see in McCoy is the desire to
> "convict the accused," not (or, rather, in addition to) "punish
> the guilty." That's LN. (And I still think that "punish the
> guilty" as a goal sounds like "retribution," which is also LN.)
I find terms such as "punish the guilty" and "convict the accused" to be
much more helpful in playing PCs and NPCs than abstract terms like "Lawful
Good" and "Lawful Neutral". True, coming up with a comprehensive list of
them would be impossible, but a few dozen would be good for most RPGs.
Guy
R. Scott Rogers
> R. Scott Rogers wrote:
>
>> Not worth bothering. Baldwin seems to be the only person in the
>> English-speaking world who didn't get the memo on just how asinine the whole
>> "Feh" thing is.
>
> Pfui.
Arr.
R. Scott Rogers
> "R. Scott Rogers":
>
> | However, McCoy's obsession with punishing the guilty is
> | one of the chief characteristics of the Paladin, whom we
> | know to be LG.
Note: I agree that McCoy really is LN. I just think it's conceivable that he
could be LG instead.
> Ah, but I think what we really see in McCoy is the desire to
> "convict the accused," not (or, rather, in addition to) "punish
> the guilty." That's LN. (And I still think that "punish the
> guilty" as a goal sounds like "retribution," which is also LN.)
>
> BTW, in case it matters, the job of a prosecutor is seeking
> "justice," not convictions. We all know -- if only from TV --
> that the reality is different. The IDEAL is LG. The reality is
> (almost always) LN.
The real-life prosecutors I've known, and I've only known a handful, have
actually been of the seek-justice type. And McCoy does show a genuine
concern with the actual guilt of those he prosecutes. He's willing to bend
the law to get at the guilty; he's not willing to disregard guilt to apply
the law. Unless this last season has marked a change in his character; I
watch the show in its many rerun formats. He also has a more sweeping idea
of culpability than most people, including the legislators of the state of
New York.
> Since we also know that McCoy has a disturbing obsession with the
> Clash, that's more evidence (on top of his occasional bouts of
> non-ethical behavior) that he may not even be Lawful!
What obsession with the Clash? You mean, as in the influential late 1970s
post-punk band led by Joe Strummer? That Clash? I've never noticed it, which
is too bad, because the Clash rule. "Combat Rock" makes my desert-island
list any day of the week. I'd be thankful for any explanation you could
offer to this reference.
Guy Hoyle
news:B91BE99C.39EFD%sro...@mindspring.com...
> From the letters of Sea Wasp (5/30/02 1:39 PM):
>
> > R. Scott Rogers wrote:
> >
> >> Not worth bothering. Baldwin seems to be the only person in the
> >> English-speaking world who didn't get the memo on just how asinine the
whole
> >> "Feh" thing is.
> >
> > Pfui.
>
> Arr.
>
Guy
Guy Hoyle
"R. Scott Rogers" <sro...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:B91BEB51.39EFE%sro...@mindspring.com...
> > Since we also know that McCoy has a disturbing obsession with the
> > Clash, that's more evidence (on top of his occasional bouts of
> > non-ethical behavior) that he may not even be Lawful!
>
> What obsession with the Clash? You mean, as in the influential late 1970s
> post-punk band led by Joe Strummer? That Clash? I've never noticed it,
which
> is too bad, because the Clash rule. "Combat Rock" makes my desert-island
> list any day of the week. I'd be thankful for any explanation you could
> offer to this reference.
It's true. The blonde ADA was investigating a company that could find out
almost anything about you that was online, and McCoy was revealed to be
surfing a large number of Clash-related websites. Plus, he always uses the
same password.
Guy
E. Pluribus Unum
"R. Scott Rogers" wrote:
>
> The real-life prosecutors I've known, and I've only known a handful, have
> actually been of the seek-justice type. And McCoy does show a genuine
> concern with the actual guilt of those he prosecutes. He's willing to bend
> the law to get at the guilty; he's not willing to disregard guilt to apply
> the law.
And yet you conclude he is Lawful? Strange. I would say he's NG:
seeking justice, but not by any particular code.
Now, *Ben Stone* was LG.
-EPB
R. Scott Rogers
Cool. Thanks. Is his password "Clash" or what?
Guy Hoyle
> From the letters of Guy Hoyle (5/30/02 2:48 PM):
>
> >
> > "R. Scott Rogers" <sro...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:B91BEB51.39EFE%sro...@mindspring.com...
>
> Cool. Thanks. Is his password "Clash" or what?
They didn't say, but I like to think so.
Guy
Bradd W. Szonye
>> The real-life prosecutors I've known, and I've only known a handful,
>> have actually been of the seek-justice type. And McCoy does show a
>> genuine concern with the actual guilt of those he prosecutes. He's
>> willing to bend the law to get at the guilty; he's not willing to
>> disregard guilt to apply the law.
E. Pluribus Unum <mona...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> And yet you conclude he is Lawful? Strange. I would say he's NG:
> seeking justice, but not by any particular code.
>
> Now, *Ben Stone* was LG.
Yeah, Stone was definitely Lawful Good. McCoy, however, is an excellent
example of a character who's very hard to place on the alignment chart.
The key to finding his alignment is determining what his *general*
attitudes are, but even that is difficult.
We know that McCoy is sometimes willing to go to great lengths to see
that the courts serve the greater good, which suggests a Good alignment.
However, we also know that he has a personal obsession with criminal law
as a kind of game, where justice is a byproduct of winning the case;
that suggests a Neutral alignment. He's even occasionally prosecuted
people out of spite, abusing his power, which is Evil. Overall, I think
his attitude straddles the border between Good and Neutral.
On the other axis, he's even more inconsistent. McCoy shows a lot of
respect for Law, sometimes as an end in itself, but often as the rules
to a game -- and he's not above bending the rules to get ahead. He also
has a soft spot for personal freedom and rebellion, especially when the
1960s come into play. Despite the inconsistency, I do think he's Lawful:
he's a good example of a character with a conflicted Law-Chaos
alignment. In AD&D, that would mean a Neutral alignment, but a
"conflicted" character cannot be Neutral in D&D3. Instead, he's "Lawful
with strong Chaotic tendencies."
Overall, then, I would say that Jack McCoy is Lawful Neutral with some
Good tendencies and strong Chaotic tendencies. You could even argue that
he is Lawful Good (but inconsistent). Honestly, I think the writers try
to portray him as the show's "Lawful Good hero" but with a lot of
tension and inner conflict. Compare that to Ben Stone, who was a more
traditional "rock solid" Lawful Good. Same alignment, but very different
characters -- Stone's alignment hardly ever wavers, while McCoy's is all
over the map.
In other words: Ben Stone would make a good paladin. Jack McCoy would
make a good ex-paladin.
Michael Scott Brown
> Not worth bothering. Baldwin seems to be the only person in the
> English-speaking world who didn't get the memo on just how asinine the
whole
> "Feh" thing is. Everyone else has already tried forwarding it to him. But
so
> deep and subtle is his intellect that to him, alexicographical
monosyllables
> are the most profound form of logical assertion, that he persists.
When Baldwin offers a "Feh" as a *logical assertion*, you might have a
leg to stand on, you lying sod.
By all means, please tell us - what *is* the minimum number of
syllables we are allowed to employ when communicating the concept of "Your
statement is so obviously wrong as to be worthy only of contempt?"
Hmm?
-Michael
R. Scott Rogers
Five. Absolutely, five syllables. "That's contemptible." "I'm contemptuous."
"You earn my contempt." "Wrong, you lying sod." "Jesus, you're dense, eh?"
"Obviously wrong." "Not worth bothering." Five. That's the minimum.
Alternately, zero. If a thing is obvious, it by definition does not need to
be said. If a thing is worth saying, it is by definition not obvious. Unless
it is obvious but the commentator is a complete ass who enjoys wasting
people's time. Then all bets are off, because we're dealing with literary
masturbation.
What's with the lying sod business? A sod I may be, but I've not lied.
Michael Scott Brown
> > By all means, please tell us - what *is* the minimum number of
> > syllables we are allowed to employ when communicating the concept of
"Your
> > statement is so obviously wrong as to be worthy only of contempt?"
> > Hmm?
>
> Five. Absolutely, five syllables. "That's contemptible." "I'm
contemptuous."
> "You earn my contempt." "Wrong, you lying sod." "Jesus, you're dense,
eh?"
> "Obviously wrong." "Not worth bothering." Five. That's the minimum.
<laughter> Good show.
Naturally, I find greater efficiency in one well chosen Word of Spite.
> Alternately, zero. If a thing is obvious, it by definition does not need
to
> be said. If a thing is worth saying, it is by definition not obvious.
Unless, of course, the point is to call attention to the error to make
sure others don't miss it - such as the original writer. And in such
situations, it's hardly efficient to go on about it. Just stick the
thumbtack on the absurdity and carry on, hoping against hope that the
writer, on second look, realizes his mistake and corrects. If not ...
well, then we flame him. Intensely.
> What's with the lying sod business? A sod I may be, but I've not lied.
In fact, you did, in claiming that Baldwin believes:
> >> monosyllables are the most profound form of logical assertion
Neither 'Feh' nor 'Bah' or 'Pfui' are offered as logical arguments, and
claiming that they are is a lie - in fact a somewhat slanderous one, as
were any of us to suggest "we win the argument because we said
[monosyllable]", we would be deservedly laughed off the stage and your
criticism of the practice would be well-founded. But that is not the case,
and your statements were therefore well off the mark. Apologize to Robert!
*Accurate* criticism. Is it too much to ask?
-Michael
E. Pluribus Unum
"Bradd W. Szonye" wrote:
>
> We know that McCoy is sometimes willing to go to great lengths to see
> that the courts serve the greater good, which suggests a Good alignment.
> However, we also know that he has a personal obsession with criminal law
> as a kind of game, where justice is a byproduct of winning the case;
> that suggests a Neutral alignment. He's even occasionally prosecuted
> people out of spite, abusing his power, which is Evil. Overall, I think
> his attitude straddles the border between Good and Neutral.
>
> On the other axis, he's even more inconsistent. McCoy shows a lot of
> respect for Law, sometimes as an end in itself, but often as the rules
> to a game -- and he's not above bending the rules to get ahead.
Here's where I quibble: I think McCoy has respect for the *law* (little
"l"), not Law. Other than that (which shifts him more decisively into
Neutral on the L/C axis), I agree with you completely.
> He also
> has a soft spot for personal freedom and rebellion, especially when the
> 1960s come into play. Despite the inconsistency, I do think he's Lawful:
> he's a good example of a character with a conflicted Law-Chaos
> alignment. In AD&D, that would mean a Neutral alignment, but a
> "conflicted" character cannot be Neutral in D&D3. Instead, he's "Lawful
> with strong Chaotic tendencies."
Hrm. See, I can't buy "Lawful with Chaotic tendencies." That's
Neutral(ish).
How about "Neutral with Lawful tendencies?"
-EPB
Bradd W. Szonye
>> Despite the inconsistency, I do think [Jack McCoy is] Lawful: he's a
>> good example of a character with a conflicted Law-Chaos alignment. In
>> AD&D, that would mean a Neutral alignment, but a "conflicted"
>> character cannot be Neutral in D&D3. Instead, he's "Lawful with
>> strong Chaotic tendencies."
E. Pluribus Unum <mona...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Hrm. See, I can't buy "Lawful with Chaotic tendencies." That's
> Neutral(ish). How about "Neutral with Lawful tendencies?"
Like I said, that's how it used to work in AD&D: "neutral" could mean
that you were in balance or in conflict; either way, you "averaged out"
to neutrality. That is, neutrality is the result of a lack of commitment
or roughly equal commitment to both extremes.
D&D3 works a little differently. You can't end up neutral by favoring
both extremes. Instead, neutrality is its own attitude: the lack of
commitment (whether intentional or not) to either extreme. There is no
"averaging out"; instead, your alignment is the attitude you favor most
strongly: law, chaos, or a lack of commitment to either.
Jack McCoy has a strong commitment to law, but he also has a strong
independent streak. Because of his extreme attitudes, he can't be
neutral. Therefore, we need to judge whether he's more committed to law
or independence, and I think he's more lawful than chaotic (but not by
much).
Honestly, I like the D&D3 approach better. To me, neutrality implies
moderation: conflict and tension between extremes is hardly neutral!
Note that a moderate (neutral) political position avoids extremes
entirely -- you're not moderate if you take an extreme liberal stance on
some issues and an extreme conservative stance on others.
R. Scott Rogers
> "R. Scott Rogers" <sro...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:B91C190B.39F42%sro...@mindspring.com...
>>> By all means, please tell us - what *is* the minimum number of
>>> syllables we are allowed to employ when communicating the concept of
>> "Your
>>> statement is so obviously wrong as to be worthy only of contempt?"
>>> Hmm?
>>
>> Five. Absolutely, five syllables. "That's contemptible." "I'm
>> contemptuous."
>> "You earn my contempt." "Wrong, you lying sod." "Jesus, you're dense,
>> eh?"
>> "Obviously wrong." "Not worth bothering." Five. That's the minimum.
>
> <laughter> Good show.
> Naturally, I find greater efficiency in one well chosen Word of Spite.
Ah.
>> Alternately, zero. If a thing is obvious, it by definition does not need
>> to
>> be said. If a thing is worth saying, it is by definition not obvious.
>
> Unless, of course, the point is to call attention to the error to make
> sure others don't miss it - such as the original writer. And in such
> situations, it's hardly efficient to go on about it. Just stick the
> thumbtack on the absurdity and carry on, hoping against hope that the
> writer, on second look, realizes his mistake and corrects. If not ...
> well, then we flame him. Intensely.
I've noticed. But I've also noticed that the whole "Feh" thing has never,
ever worked as you say you intend it to do. I know of not one instance where
anyone has seen the "Feh" and replied, "Ah, yes, I see. I was wrong. Thank
you. Here's the corrected version." Years of uninterrupted failure, a
perfect zero in the win column, and yet you continue to believe in the
efficacy of your chosen course of action. This says what about you, other
than that you might be ready to become the coach of the U.S. men's national
soccer team?
>> What's with the lying sod business? A sod I may be, but I've not lied.
>
> In fact, you did, in claiming that Baldwin believes:
>
>>>> monosyllables are the most profound form of logical assertion
First off, I was clearly and deliberately overstating things for rhetorical
effect to mock him. "Feh" deserves mocking. So does "Bah," but since its'
also what a sheep says, it mocks itself. The basic point is that "Feh" is
stupid and asinine. Second, get a frickin clue. Wrong =/= lie. I might be
incorrect in believing that the "Feh" crap is intended to signify something,
but I'm not lying in maintaining that the person who writes it means it to
be taken for an argument. Say it with me again: Being wrong does not equal
lying. And how is it that you want to have it both ways? "Feh" isn't an
assertion, you say. "Feh" is a deeply meaningful symbol we use in place of a
larger statement about the wrongness of a piece of text, you say. Both
cannot be true. Either "Feh" carries argumentative significance, in which
case it's a silly affectation, or it does not, in which case it's a stupid
waste of time.
> Neither 'Feh' nor 'Bah' or 'Pfui' are offered as logical arguments, and
> claiming that they are is a lie - in fact a somewhat slanderous one, as
> were any of us to suggest "we win the argument because we said
> [monosyllable]", we would be deservedly laughed off the stage and your
> criticism of the practice would be well-founded. But that is not the case,
> and your statements were therefore well off the mark. Apologize to Robert!
Another thing, mister "can't tell a lie from an error," slander is spoken. I
have not spoken a word to you ever. To say that anything I have written is
slanderous is a lie by your standards, because in point of fact the issue is
one of libel. To post unsupported claims that I am a liar and a slanderer is
itself libelous, but not slanderous, unless you speak your comments about me
to another person.
> *Accurate* criticism. Is it too much to ask?
How about learning to use libelous words like "slanderous" and "liar"
accurately and with care?
Nah, I won't hold my breath.
Cheerio,
Michael Scott Brown
> > thumbtack on the absurdity and carry on, hoping against hope that the
> > writer, on second look, realizes his mistake and corrects. If not ...
> > well, then we flame him. Intensely.
>
> I've noticed. But I've also noticed that the whole "Feh" thing has never,
> ever worked as you say you intend it to do. I know of not one instance
where
> anyone has seen the "Feh" and replied, "Ah, yes, I see. I was wrong. Thank
> you. Here's the corrected version."
Actually, it rather works exactly the way it is intended to. People
that say stupid things need to be punished. Sticking a fork in their eye on
the matter (metaphorically) tends to frustrate them into making more idiotic
statements that then justify further holy flaming. In short, of *course* it
is provocative! I don't think it would be half as much fun if the person
were going to be reasonable about it.
The monosyllable Power Words do exactly what they intend.
> >>>> monosyllables are the most profound form of logical assertion
>
> First off, I was clearly and deliberately overstating things for
rhetorical
> effect to mock him.
How very good of you to make that clear. Carry on.
> Second, get a frickin clue. Wrong =/= lie.
Except when you have the means to know perfectly well that you're wrong,
and are therefore doing so deliberately . . .
> I might be incorrect in believing that the "Feh" crap is intended to
signify something,
> but I'm not lying in maintaining that the person who writes it means it to
> be taken for an argument.
!!
> And how is it that you want to have it both ways? "Feh" isn't an
> assertion, you say.
Tsk. "Feh" isn't a *logical* assertion (using that term as you did
implies that it is part of a logical argument). It's most certainly an
assertion - but an aesthetic one.
> cannot be true. Either "Feh" carries argumentative significance, in which
> case it's a silly affectation, or it does not, in which case it's a stupid
> waste of time.
Tsk. You are now abusing logical dichotomies. "Feh"'s significance is
not "argumentative".
> Another thing, mister "can't tell a lie from an error," slander is spoken.
I
> have not spoken a word to you ever. To say that anything I have written is
> slanderous is a lie by your standards, because in point of fact the issue
is
> one of libel.
<grin> My own petard and the relevant hoisting has been noted.
-Michael
E. Pluribus Unum
"Bradd W. Szonye" wrote:
>
> > Hrm. See, I can't buy "Lawful with Chaotic tendencies." That's
> > Neutral(ish). How about "Neutral with Lawful tendencies?"
>
> Like I said, that's how it used to work in AD&D: "neutral" could mean
> that you were in balance or in conflict; either way, you "averaged out"
> to neutrality. That is, neutrality is the result of a lack of commitment
> or roughly equal commitment to both extremes.
>
> D&D3 works a little differently. You can't end up neutral by favoring
> both extremes. Instead, neutrality is its own attitude: the lack of
> commitment (whether intentional or not) to either extreme. There is no
> "averaging out"; instead, your alignment is the attitude you favor most
> strongly: law, chaos, or a lack of commitment to either.
I can't agree with you that this is what the 3e alignment rules hold.
Be that as it may, I'm bowing out of this debate. I (should) know
better than to get involved in any thread on this group with the word
"alignment" in the subject.
-EPB
Fox Lee
compose a decent followup message header to lure the rare and wild
"Guy Hoyle" <gho...@airmail.net> to our campsite. We have, however,
recorded its cry, as heard on Fri, 24 May 2002 13:14:52 GMT, which is
as follows:
>> Neutral Good
>> Friar Tuck
>
>Why is he neutral? He's involved with a bunch of robbers, even if they're
>robbing wealthy people. And stealing is evil, no matter if it's for a good
>cause.
Um... I was under the impression that part of the Law-Chaos/Good-Evil
system was to differentiate lawless activity (like theft) from evil
activity (like, say, killing helpless people). I mean, if "Character
A" steals a bunch of gold from "Evil dictator who has more gold than
he can count" in order to stop "Character B" from dying a slow and
painful death at the hands of the horrible flesh-eating disease he has
succombed to, do you /honestly/ consider "Character A" to be evil?
Chaotic, sure - but evil? Are you /kidding/?
-------------------------------------
Fox-san the Malletspace Administrator
http://welcome.to/FLStudios
http://fly.to/namida
http://turn.to/ADistantGate
The girl your mother warned you about
Fox Lee
compose a decent followup message header to lure the rare and wild
recorded its cry, as heard on Sat, 25 May 2002 10:31:30 GMT, which is
as follows:
>Well now... that's what it says in the Bible / Torah anyway:
>
>Thou shall not kill.
>
>There are no conditionals on that statement. If your faith is based
>around that book you've no excuses to ever see it as anything but evil.
Key word there - IF. My faith isn't, and I think it's farily safe to
say that D&D is not - or at least, not wholly - based around it,
either.
Guy Hoyle
news:vKCJ8.35$8A...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Actually, it rather works exactly the way it is intended to. People
> that say stupid things need to be punished.
On the other hand, if I was making statements that are factually incorrect,
I'd just rather somebody tell me what the errors are. I'm willing to admit
when I've made mistakes, and welcome the opportunity to learn from them.
Guy
Guy Hoyle
"Fox Lee" <fox...@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:3cf71284...@news.dodo.com.au...
> At least a month into our trip, my companion Fox is still yet to
> compose a decent followup message header to lure the rare and wild
> "Guy Hoyle" <gho...@airmail.net> to our campsite. We have, however,
> recorded its cry, as heard on Fri, 24 May 2002 13:14:52 GMT, which is
> as follows:
>
> >> Neutral Good
> >> Friar Tuck
> >
> >Why is he neutral? He's involved with a bunch of robbers, even if they're
> >robbing wealthy people. And stealing is evil, no matter if it's for a
good
> >cause.
>
> Um... I was under the impression that part of the Law-Chaos/Good-Evil
> system was to differentiate lawless activity (like theft) from evil
> activity (like, say, killing helpless people). I mean, if "Character
> A" steals a bunch of gold from "Evil dictator who has more gold than
> he can count" in order to stop "Character B" from dying a slow and
> painful death at the hands of the horrible flesh-eating disease he has
> succombed to, do you /honestly/ consider "Character A" to be evil?
> Chaotic, sure - but evil? Are you /kidding/?
Yeah. I was oversimplifying to a large degree on that one. But I still
consider a short, descriptive phrase such as "steals from the rich to give
to the poor" much superior to oversimplifies abstractions such as "lawful
evil"; it tells me about his personality and his society.
Guy
R. Scott Rogers
> "R. Scott Rogers" <sro...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:B91C5886.39F85%
>> Second, get a frickin clue. Wrong =/= lie.
>
> Except when you have the means to know perfectly well that you're wrong,
> and are therefore doing so deliberately . . .
Brown, it's time to stop writing in English and go back to your native
tongue. Being wrong despite having dismissed contrary arguments is still not
lying. It's just being wrong. Lying, in the context of stating an opinion,
as is the case here, would be stating an opinion that one knows or believes
to be wrong. I'm willing to accept, after hearing from you, that the "Feh"
crap isn't, after all, a logical assertion, and is therefore a stupid waste
of time. This would make me wrong. If I accept this position, it would
thereafter be a lie on my part to say otherwise in future.
I don't actually accept this position, though, given the long record Baldwin
and other "Feh" types have of responding to responses to "Feh"s by saying
words to the effect of, "I've already said 'Feh'," which in fact asserts
that the "Feh" carried argumentative weight in the first place. This is
contrary to your arguments here, but typical of your trying to defend what
is nothing more than a minor troll actually has some value.
I don't mind you claiming that I'm a sod, or that I'm stupid, or that I'm
wrong. But to question my integrity when I state an opinion is to assume
knowledge of my motivations that you cannot possibly have, and it is to
insult my character. I am, in point of fact, not lying. You have no way of
knowing whether I am or not -- you have no way of knowing what I really
believe and whether my sincere belief is really contrary to the opinion I
state. The only possible evidence you can have as to the sincerity of my
opinion is my own statements on the matter, which you know and which you
reject. By your own twisted standards, that makes you a liar.
Or do you only apply your absurd little definitions to other people? Which
boils it down to you're either a liar by your own standards, or a hypocrite
by everyone else's. Take your pick.
Cheers,
Prospero
an oppressive goverment. King Richard was off to the Crusades and left
Prince John to run the country in his absense. He over taxed the people, and
the people could do nothing about it. The common people where mostly at the
whim of the nobility. The Sheriff of Nottingham is usually depicted as cruel
and harsh. Robin Hood become an outlaw to fight against a system he saw as
unjust. Hence he would not be lawful, but would still be good. Stealing
taxes back to give to the people would not be lawful, but in this case good.
(Stealing for himself to hoard would not).
Prospero
David Klassen
> Lawful Good - Superman
>
> Neutral Good - Frodo
I tend to think most Hobbits fall into the Lawful bin. However,
Frodo does show some level of...not quite contempt, but leaning
that way...for the standard stay-at-homeness of standard Hobbits.
I think I could be convinced this is due to a more fundamental
belief in Neutral over Law.
> Chaotic Good - Batman
I'm unconvinced of EITHER of these categories. Batman's actions are
motivated by the fact that he *wants* a perfect, orderly society, but
recognizes that the current system is so flawed that to get what he
want's he often has to work outside it and even oppose it. That he
dislikes the *current* set of rules are regs is no indication that
he values personal independance over an order society in general. I
tend to think quite the opposite -- thus that he is Lawful.
He is also does not get very high Good marks. The methods he employs
and the pain and suffering he can, and *will* cause in the name of
some 'greater good' just don't seem to line up well with the altruism
of Good. His methods are only one step short of Dirty Harry/Death Wish.
I'd put him sqarely into Neutral land.
> Neutral - Han Solo
You want to make Batman Good, but not Solo?! Note, I'm not arguing
that Han should be D&D Good, just that he seems far closer to it than
Batman is.
> Chaotic Neutral - Stereotypical annoying sidekick of the Hero. Ialous from
> tv's Hercules would do.
Again, this guy is pretty close to Good. The altruism and self-sacrifice
are there. He's out helping folks for no reason other than to help them.
Guy Hoyle
"Prospero" <pros...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:7uNJ8.34190$ec1.5...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
Well, let's look at it this way: you're Prince John. Your brother, King
Richard, has beggared the country with his obsession with fighting the
Crusades, and has had to be ransomed from imprisonment several times. The
only way to raise the money is to tax the people, but there's an outlaw,
Robin Hood, who keeps accosting your tax collectors and your nobility,
flouting the laws of the land and severely hampering your ability to aid
your brother and sovreign lord.
In this version, what's John's alignment? What's Robin's? The facts remain
the same as in the legend, but the interpretation is different.
Guy
Bradd W. Szonye
>> D&D3 works a little differently. You can't end up neutral by favoring
>> both extremes. Instead, neutrality is its own attitude: the lack of
>> commitment (whether intentional or not) to either extreme. There is
>> no "averaging out"; instead, your alignment is the attitude you favor
>> most strongly: law, chaos, or a lack of commitment to either.
E. Pluribus Unum <mona...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I can't agree with you that this is what the 3e alignment rules hold.
Why can't you agree? Do you have a rules citation? More than one
rulebook supports my claim. Common sense also supports my position:
neutrality implies a moderate position, not a mixture of extreme
attitudes. If you are strongly pro-choice and anti-welfare, does that
make you politically neutral? No.
The Players' Handbook gives the rules and the Hero Builder's Guide tells
you how to apply them in practice. According to the PHB, neutrality is a
lack of commitment to either extreme, whether intentionally (a desire
for balance) or not (apathy). The HBG tells you to sample the various
attitudes of the character, counting how many are lawful, neutral, and
chaotic. The "bucket" with the most attitudes is the general attitude
and therefore the alignment. The on-line version of the HBG survey
confirms the rule: If you have no neutral attitudes, then you can't be
neutral, and you can even switch directly from law to chaos by changing
the answer to a single question.
I don't know where people get the idea that mixing extremes is
"neutral." The one thing that comes to mind is the way that many people
used to play druids: they'd always favor the underdog, acting like a
hero one week and a villain the next. We used to *ridicule* that kind of
play; why is it now considered a reasonable way to play a neutral
character?
Consider three characters living in a slum neighborhood:
1. An old man has lived there his whole life, since before it became a
slum. He keeps to himself. While he refuses to add to the neighborhood's
problems, he knows that trying to help will only get him hurt, maybe
killed.
2. A young woman grew up in the neighborhood, and she's sick of all the
crime that goes on there. She's tried helping out the poor and needy,
doing volunteer work for her church and the local soup kitchen, but it
doesn't really change anything. She becomes a vigilante, hunting down
the drug dealers. Sometimes, she hurts innocent bystanders. Can't make
an omelet without breaking eggs.
3. A boy belongs to one of the local gangs. His loyalty and charisma
took him to the top of the pecking order, and he gets a thrill from the
power, just as he gets a thrill from boosting cars and cutting up his
rivals. One thing he won't tolerate, however, is mistreatment of women.
He killed the pimp who used to beat his mother, and he'll stop any
similar abuse he sees.
The old man refuses to help or hurt; he stays out of the way and lets
"nature" run its course. He's neutral. The other two are full of
conflict. The young woman is basically good, but she has an evil taint.
The boy is basically evil, but he has a strong good streak. Neither of
them are neutral! They're certainly not neutral in the common sense of
the word; they're quite involved in the local situation, and they're not
seeking any kind of compromise. They're not neutral in the D&D sense
either.
If the young girl becomes more callous in her pursuit of justice, she'll
eventually go from being good (but tainted) to being evil -- do not pass
Go, do not write in a neutral alignment. Likewise, if the boy gives up
his harmful ways and devotes his life to helping the local women, he'll
go directly from being evil to being good. Neither character is purely
good or evil, but neither is any other mortal!
In summary, conflict is not neutrality. Only moderate attitudes qualify
as neutral. Mixing extremes just makes you a conflicted extremist. In
D&D, black and white do not blend into gray. Instead, they're three
different colors, and the dominant "color" determines your alignment.
> Be that as it may, I'm bowing out of this debate. I (should) know
> better than to get involved in any thread on this group with the word
> "alignment" in the subject.
Eh? I didn't see any flames flying. Just because somebody disagrees with
you on a rule doesn't mean it's arguing for the sake of arguing.
Aaron F. Bourque
<snip>
>In this version, what's John's alignment? What's Robin's? The
>facts remain the same as in the legend, but the interpretation is
>different.
. . .
Hint: In DnD, there is no such thing as moral relativism.
Aaron "The Mad Whitaker" Bourque
--
http://delinquents.keenspace.com/d/20010703.html
Damn the tree and all its kind!
Nothing's impossible in the hot soul.
Hell damn crap fun!
Guy Hoyle
news:20020531130507...@mb-ct.aol.com...
> From: "Guy Hoyle" gho...@airmail.net
>
> <snip>
> >In this version, what's John's alignment? What's Robin's? The
> >facts remain the same as in the legend, but the interpretation is
> >different.
> . .
Which is why I don't like DnD, I guess. I prefer to let players play their
characters the way they want without comparing them to some arbitrary,
abstract alignment system. Their actions have consequences, both positive
and negative. If they keep breaking the laws, that will provoke some
reaction from the authorities or even the gods. In some societies, killing
somebody might be OK if they're an outlaw or an outsider without the
community's protection; in another society, that might be murder. In some
places, the law expects you to seek redress yourself for wrongs done to you;
in others, you have to go to the authorities or you are guilty of breaking
the law yourself.
Guy
Aaron F. Bourque
>"Aaron F. Bourque" <aaronb...@aol.comstat> wrote in
>message
>news:20020531130507...@mb-ct.aol.com...
>> From: "Guy Hoyle" gho...@airmail.net
>>
>> <snip>
>> >In this version, what's John's alignment? What's Robin's?
>> >The facts remain the same as in the legend, but the
>> >interpretation is different.
>>
>> . . .
>>
>> Hint: In DnD, there is no such thing as moral relativism.
>
>Which is why I don't like DnD, I guess. I prefer to let players play
>their characters the way they want without comparing them to
>some arbitrary, abstract alignment system.
It's not abstract in DnD (and its arguably not arbitrary, depending
on whether the DM and players have an agreement of what's
what beforehand--i.e: the Player's Handbook). Good and Evil,
Order and Chaos are tangible, quantifiable forces that shape the
DnD world(s) and the beings within.
>Their actions have consequences, both positive
>and negative. If they keep breaking the laws, that will provoke
>some reaction from the authorities or even the gods. In some
>societies, killing somebody might be OK if they're an outlaw or
>an outsider without the community's protection; in another
>society, that might be murder. In some places, the law expects
>you to seek redress yourself for wrongs done to you; in others,
>you have to go to the authorities or you are guilty of breaking
>the law yourself.
. . .
I know from experience that alignment does not prevent you from
doing that.
Guy Hoyle
"Aaron F. Bourque" <aaronb...@aol.comstat> wrote in message
> From: "Guy Hoyle" gho...@airmail.net
> It's not abstract in DnD (and its arguably not arbitrary, depending
> on whether the DM and players have an agreement of what's
> what beforehand--i.e: the Player's Handbook). Good and Evil,
> Order and Chaos are tangible, quantifiable forces that shape the
> DnD world(s) and the beings within.
I guess I need to look this up for myself. Could you give me some page
references, please? I'll have to borrow a friend's copy of 3E, all I have
are earlier editions.
>
> >Their actions have consequences, both positive
> >and negative. If they keep breaking the laws, that will provoke
> >some reaction from the authorities or even the gods. In some
> >societies, killing somebody might be OK if they're an outlaw or
> >an outsider without the community's protection; in another
> >society, that might be murder. In some places, the law expects
> >you to seek redress yourself for wrongs done to you; in others,
> >you have to go to the authorities or you are guilty of breaking
> >the law yourself.
>
> . . .
>
> I know from experience that alignment does not prevent you from
> doing that.
Doing what? In one society, punishing someone who wronged you is perfectly
fine with the law; in another society, it is illegal. What do the rules have
to say about that?
Guy
R. Scott Rogers
> "Aaron F. Bourque" <aaronb...@aol.comstat> wrote in message
> news:20020531155456...@mb-da.aol.com...
>> I know from experience that alignment does not prevent you from
>> doing that.
>
> Doing what? In one society, punishing someone who wronged you is perfectly
> fine with the law; in another society, it is illegal. What do the rules have
> to say about that?
A quick response would be that a preference for order makes one Lawful, a
preference for Freedom makes one Chaotic. So disobeying the law when the law
encourages disorder (such as legalized blood feuds) can be Lawful. Obeying
the law when the law protects freedom (such as outlawing censorship) can be
Chaotic.
And one can prefer a certain sort of order or freedom to the exclusion of
other kinds. So someone who strictly adheres to, say, a code of Bushido,
even where such behavior is against the law, is Lawful.
So, in the case you propose, we can't tell whether the person is Lawful or
Chaotic (I'm setting aside Neutral for the sake of clarity). Is he seeking
revenge because be believes that by doing so he upholds order in society? If
so, he's probably Lawful even if the revenge is illegal. If he seeks revenge
because he believes it's necessary to protect his own freedom, he's probably
Chaotic even if the revenge is legal.
Also, the degree to which one is willing to harm another, even in
punishment, might very well have implications on the Good-Evil line.
And the pages you seek are from the PHB, somewhere after page 80, IIRC. Page
83 or 87, I think. But it's not in front of me.
Guy Hoyle
think I understand the issue better now. I'm still not very happy with the
way they portray alignment there, though; morality is way too complex and
interesting to boil it down the way they do.
Instead of requiring a Paladin to be Lawful Good, why not have him required
to adhere to a code such as: honor your god, further his aims, help the
helpless, smite the unbeliever wherever you may find him, oppose injustice,
and abstain from carnal intimacy? That personalizes the paladins in my world
(at least in one culture; another type of paladins might be required to mete
out justice wherever it is needed, keep no more material goods than you can
carry on your person and your horse, pursue no intimacies beyond the bond of
marriage, teach all who ask the laws of our god, and put no other law above
the law of our god.)
The alignment definitions in the OGF are someone else's interpretations of
good and evil, lawful and chaotic. It makes no sense to me that people in
every society would agree to them. Why should I play in someone else's world
when I can play in my own?
Guy
Bradd W. Szonye
> Um... I was under the impression that part of the Law-Chaos/Good-Evil
> system was to differentiate lawless activity (like theft) from evil
> activity (like, say, killing helpless people). I mean, if "Character
> A" steals a bunch of gold from "Evil dictator who has more gold than
> he can count" in order to stop "Character B" from dying a slow and
> painful death at the hands of the horrible flesh-eating disease he has
> succombed to, do you /honestly/ consider "Character A" to be evil?
> Chaotic, sure - but evil? Are you /kidding/?
Yes, there's a difference between unlawful behavior and evil behavior.
However, theft is usually both, because theft almost always hurts
people. In fairy tales, like Robin Hood, you find a lot of "victimless"
thefts, where no *innocent* people get hurt, at least. In real life,
however, theft is almost always unlawful and evil.
E. Pluribus Unum
"Bradd W. Szonye" wrote:
>
> > Be that as it may, I'm bowing out of this debate. I (should) know
> > better than to get involved in any thread on this group with the word
> > "alignment" in the subject.
>
> Eh? I didn't see any flames flying. Just because somebody disagrees with
> you on a rule doesn't mean it's arguing for the sake of arguing.
I'm not ducking the discussion because of potential flames, but rather
because of the complete and utter futility of alignment debates. My
apologies for sticking my nose in in the first place.
-EPB
Robert Baldwin
If I were to compose a 500-word form post, and use that, I'll bet
they'd complain about the wasted bandwidth. Some people demand
*personalized* abuse.
--
Saint Baldwin, Definer of the Unholy Darkspawn
-
"So here we are going into battle, butt freaking naked.
What's wrong with this picture?"
Nene Romanova
-
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well." [St. B]
-
Remove the spam-block to reply
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
>
>Ah, thanks. I was beginning to suspect that this was just another "My way is
>the only way" conversation. I won't be wasting any more time with this
>thread.
<shrug>
Suit yourself. You won't be the first to overlook what was explicitly
stated in favor of satisfying your own need to avoid learning
something.