Willy Wonka's Alignment?
Werebat
- Ron ^*^
Stephenls
> CN or CG? What do you think?
Chaotic Neutral in the book. Chaotic Good in the movie.
--
Stephenls
Geek
"I'm as impure as the driven yellow snow." -Spike
The Black Guardian
> CN or CG? What do you think?
CG -- same as the last time this was discussed here.
--
-=[ The BlakGard ]=-
"Somewhere there's danger;
somewhere there's injustice,
and somewhere else the tea is getting cold!"
Sorcier
> Werebat wrote:
>
>> CN or CG? What do you think?
>
> Chaotic Neutral in the book. Chaotic Good in the movie.
Hm, my recollection of Glass Elevator had him acting far nicer
than Wilder's version did.
(Strangely I haven't read Chocolate Factory...)
Though, even in the movie he had a little bit of a
vindictive/vicious streak.
CG by a thread.
But don't push him...
Going by values though:
Believes in individuality and self expression? Check. "C".
Belives in the betterment of others? Check. Likely "G".
Hell, I'd label Wonka as Good before I would
Gandalf, Merlin, or Glinda. ;)
Now how about Mary Poppins?
Or Dr. Dolittle? (Harrison version of course! Or book version...)
William Burke
Sorcier <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote:
> Now how about Mary Poppins?
The movie version is a pretty good example of a Lawful Good character,
to my eyes. The book version is somewhat more Lawful Neutral, I think
(including all the other books, of course).
> Or Dr. Dolittle? (Harrison version of course! Or book version...)
Haven't seen the movie. The book version is a sterling display of what
happens when a Lawful Good character is in a party of primarily CG and
CN characters.
--p
~consul
> Stephenls wrote:
>>> CN or CG? What do you think?
>> Chaotic Neutral in the book. Chaotic Good in the movie.
> vindictive/vicious streak.
> CG by a thread.
> But don't push him...
> Going by values though:
> Believes in individuality and self expression? Check. "C".
But he was also very full of his rules that everyone had to follow to the letter. He
believed in a harsh punishement for the breaking of them. I'd say Neutral.
> Belives in the betterment of others? Check. Likely "G".
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk ..."
-till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
con...@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com ((remove the INVALID to email))
SMT
"~consul" <con...@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com> wrote in message
news:c92dnv$823$1...@gist.usc.edu...
This is exactly the problem I atempted to raise about alignment back in
February with a series of badly recieved (and honestly quite badly wirtten)
and entirely misunderstood posts about a carnivore/herbivore/omnivore
alignment system.
What we're dealing with here is Willy's PERSONALITY, which evidentally not
compatible with the alignment system as it stands.
To allow for this sort of thing I thought of another fairly straight forward
alignment variation that applieswell to this and I think also makes sense
for a lot of people.
A self/other alignment system using the existing alignments.
You have the alignment that you persue for yourself and the alignment you
wish that others would follow. In Willy's case it would be self - CG/CN and
other LN.
Most LE ppl would want others to be LN, arguably the most easily
dominated/controlable alignment.
Hippies for example would tend to be both self and other CG.
forumite
> In article <VtUsc.77$gZ4.1...@news.uswest.net>,
> Sorcier <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote:
>
> > Now how about Mary Poppins?
>
> The movie version is a pretty good example of a Lawful Good character,
> to my eyes. The book version is somewhat more Lawful Neutral, I think
> (including all the other books, of course).
>
>
Movie Mary Poppins is not Lawful Good. Even Mr. Banks says she brings
chaos. She is not one to let other peoples' rules reflect her
actions, and subtly inspired the children to reject the stoic
lawfulness of the bank. However, despite Mr. Bank's statement, she is
not Chaotic because she does also espouse responsibility, and doesn't
let the children go all out crazy. That she espouses Goodness is
without question. She is Neutral Good.
As for Willy Wonka, I wouldn't say automatically he is Chaotic. Going
by the movie, he has the children sign a contract, enforces it on
Charlie as a test, and during the tour warns of rules and regulations.
However, he is not Lawful either. While a Lawful Good character can
let others make mistakes and learn from them, Wonka goes over the
proverbial line. He's not Neutral to Good and Evil because ultimately
he wants to find a Good child to run the factory and care for the
Oompa Loompas as he does. I say Wonka is also Neutral Good.
Gerald Katz
David Prokopetz
news:d5c9d7f1.04052...@posting.google.com...
> William Burke <passeng...@email.com> wrote in message
news:<passengerpigeon-5A...@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
> > In article <VtUsc.77$gZ4.1...@news.uswest.net>,
> > Sorcier <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Now how about Mary Poppins?
> >
> > The movie version is a pretty good example of a Lawful Good character,
> > to my eyes. The book version is somewhat more Lawful Neutral, I think
> > (including all the other books, of course).
> >
> >
> > --p
>
> Movie Mary Poppins is not Lawful Good. Even Mr. Banks says she brings
> chaos. She is not one to let other peoples' rules reflect her
> actions, and subtly inspired the children to reject the stoic
> lawfulness of the bank.
Note that being Lawful Good doesn't necessarily imply adherence the laws and
mores of the society one happens to be presently inhabiting - go down *that*
road and you're back in the old "the Paladin falls the moment he steps
across the border into the Lawful Evil dictatorship - there's no way in Hell
he'd be willing to respect the local laws, therefore he becomes Chaotic"
problem.
- David Prokopetz.
~consul
> William Burke
> by the movie, he has the children sign a contract, enforces it on
> Charlie as a test, and during the tour warns of rules and regulations.
> However, he is not Lawful either. While a Lawful Good character can
> let others make mistakes and learn from them, Wonka goes over the
> proverbial line. He's not Neutral to Good and Evil because ultimately
> he wants to find a Good child to run the factory and care for the
> Oompa Loompas as he does. I say Wonka is also Neutral Good.
Now, in an earlier post, I said he was Neutral Good ... but now I'm playing with the idea
that he can be Lawful Evil. Forget about how he wants a 'good' child to run the factory
and take care of the Oompa Loompas as being inherently 'good'. I think it can be argued
that he is working purely from a self-interest POV, as he did kidnap them, and won't let
them leave (we haven't seen them try), he keeps them sedated with all the chocolate so
they don't rebel. There is no individuality wrt to his workers. He doesn't educate them or
socialize them in any way so they can interact with London in any meaningful/contexual
way. All for the good of the chocolate business. He's found his niche in the market
system, and will do anything to maintain it, within the laws of the nation. Unless you are
on his property and factory, then he will mutilate and manipulate you to no end, if he
sees fit. That he treats his slave workers with kindness doesn't mean his isn't a evil,
its in his best interest to do so, what with his specialized workforce.
DON'T BE BLINDED BY HIS RAZZLE DAZZLE SMILE! HE'S A DANGER TO SOCIETY!!
Matt Pillsbury
[...]
> He's not Neutral to Good and Evil because ultimately he wants to
> find a Good child to run the factory and care for the Oompa Loompas
> as he does. I say Wonka is also Neutral Good.
A Neutral person might prefer having a Good person in charge, or as a
neighbor.
--
Matt Pillsbury
pillsy[at]mac[dot]com
Brandon Cope
>
> What we're dealing with here is Willy's PERSONALITY, which evidentally not
> compatible with the alignment system as it stands.
You'll just have to change his personality until it cleanly fits one
of your nine options you have.
Brandon
David Johnston
Careful. He wants "good" by his standards, not by some alignment
system that he's never even heard of. You have look at what
his standards are, before you decide whether his good is Good.
So what are the standards he was looking for? I would say
self-discipline (the ability to resist temptation), and a willingness
to preserve an established status quo and take responsibility
for preserving it. What does that sound like to you?
and care for the
>Oompa Loompas as he does. I say Wonka is also Neutral Good.
Wait a second. That's a bit off. Are you seriously claiming that
a Neutral Good character can't let others make mistakes and learn
from them?
Robert Singers
of wisdom
Or he\you could just understand the alignment system and not make incorrect
assumptions.
--
Rob Singers
"All your Ron are belong to us"
Sorcier
> Sorcier wrote:
>
>> Going by values though:
>> Believes in individuality and self expression? Check. "C".
>
> But he was also very full of his rules that everyone had to follow to
> the letter. He believed in a harsh punishement for the breaking of
> them. I'd say Neutral.
Point.
I've always seen his rules as random and capricious though.
And his punishments as somewhat random (although poetic).
Your points are a big part of why I place him as Good but tottering
real close to the border of Neutral.
I'll think more on it...
The Black Guardian
>>> Going by values though:
>>> Believes in individuality and self expression? Check. "C".
>>
>> But he was also very full of his rules that everyone had to follow to
>> the letter. He believed in a harsh punishement for the breaking of
>> them. I'd say Neutral.
>
> Point.
> I've always seen his rules as random and capricious though.
I wouldn't agree. His rules were for the benefit of all, and fairly uniform.
Every rule broken was basically "don't touch/eat/do that, else there
will be dire consequences."
> And his punishments as somewhat random (although poetic).
What punishments? The only one he gave was to Charlie, but Charlie
redeemed himself, and Wonka easily caved. Everyone else was
punished by their own actions.
> Your points are a big part of why I place him as Good but tottering
> real close to the border of Neutral.
I do agree here. He didn't try very hard to prevent people from
breaking his rules, which puts him very close to Neutral.
The Black Guardian
> Movie Mary Poppins is not Lawful Good. Even Mr. Banks says she brings
> chaos. She is not one to let other peoples' rules reflect her
> actions, and subtly inspired the children to reject the stoic
> lawfulness of the bank. However, despite Mr. Bank's statement, she is
> not Chaotic because she does also espouse responsibility, and doesn't
> let the children go all out crazy. That she espouses Goodness is
> without question. She is Neutral Good.
Definitely agree.
> As for Willy Wonka, I wouldn't say automatically he is Chaotic. Going
> by the movie, he has the children sign a contract, enforces it on
> Charlie as a test, and during the tour warns of rules and regulations.
> However, he is not Lawful either. While a Lawful Good character can
> let others make mistakes and learn from them, Wonka goes over the
> proverbial line. He's not Neutral to Good and Evil because ultimately
> he wants to find a Good child to run the factory and care for the
> Oompa Loompas as he does. I say Wonka is also Neutral Good.
Very convincing. I might change my opinion.
The Black Guardian
While I agree that he's a danger, he's definitely not Lawful Evil.
David Johnston
Guardian) wrote:
>> And his punishments as somewhat random (although poetic).
>
>What punishments? The only one he gave was to Charlie, but Charlie
>redeemed himself, and Wonka easily caved. Everyone else was
>punished by their own actions.
>
>> Your points are a big part of why I place him as Good but tottering
>> real close to the border of Neutral.
>
>I do agree here. He didn't try very hard to prevent people from
>breaking his rules, which puts him very close to Neutral.
Since the whole point was to test them to see who would fall
into the traps set for people who break the rules, trying to
stop them would rather defeat the purpose.
SMT
"Robert Singers" <rsin...@finger.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94F69C89C8C2rsingers@IP-Hidden...
See the thing is when I look at the alignments as written in the books (2E
and 3E) I actually quite like the ideas in theory.
Yet when I try to apply alignments to any real or fictional person I find
they rarely fit, and they seldom work much better when applied to well
developed D&D characters who actually have a deep and well thought out
personality.
Arivne
>
<snip>
>
> Now, in an earlier post, I said he was Neutral Good ... but now I'm
> playing with the idea that he can be Lawful Evil. Forget about how
> he wants a 'good' child to run the factory and take care of the
> Oompa Loompas as being inherently 'good'. I think it can be argued
> that he is working purely from a self-interest POV, as he did
> kidnap them, and won't let them leave (we haven't seen them try),
> he keeps them sedated with all the chocolate so they don't rebel.
> There is no individuality wrt to his workers. He doesn't educate
> them or socialize them in any way so they can interact with London
> in any meaningful/contexual way. All for the good of the chocolate
> business. He's found his niche in the market system, and will do
> anything to maintain it, within the laws of the nation. Unless you
> are on his property and factory, then he will mutilate and
> manipulate you to no end, if he sees fit. That he treats his slave
> workers with kindness doesn't mean his isn't a evil,
> its in his best interest to do so, what with his specialized workforce.
>
> DON'T BE BLINDED BY HIS RAZZLE DAZZLE SMILE! HE'S A DANGER TO SOCIETY!!
It's worse than you think. <grin>
http://www.dribbleglass.com/articles/wonka-scandal.htm
http://www.dribbleglass.com/posters/wonka.htm
Arivne
JB
>
> "Robert Singers" <rsin...@finger.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns94F69C89C8C2rsingers@IP-Hidden...
> > Brandon Cope startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following
words
> > > You'll just have to change his personality until it cleanly fits
one
> > > of your nine options you have.
> >
> > Or he\you could just understand the alignment system and not make
> incorrect
> > assumptions.
>
>
> See the thing is when I look at the alignments as written in the books
(2E
> and 3E) I actually quite like the ideas in theory.
> Yet when I try to apply alignments to any real or fictional person I
find
> they rarely fit, and they seldom work much better when applied to well
> developed D&D characters who actually have a deep and well thought out
> personality.
If you find that it's because you aren't using them properly.
Anonymous Jack
> > CN or CG? What do you think?
Chaotic Evil, and he has the lot of you hoodwinked.
SMT
"JB" <JB...@talk21.com> wrote in message
news:40b5d724$0$17751$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
Oh and you know that do you.
I've been playing D&D for 20 years and DMing for 10 of those with various
groups of players and I have rarely been satisfied with the way alignments
play out including many of my own NPCs and PCs.
People I've played with have had varying opinons of alignment from much more
positive than mine thru to even more negative.
That said I do find alignment usefull as game mechanic, and it is a good
starting point for inexperienced players and undeveloped characters, but I
think that as a character becomes more developed (which with thourough
creation can be from the start) it looses it's relevance beyond it's role as
a game mechanic.
Hong Ooi
Of course, the same could be said of communism.
Hong "or capitalism" Ooi
--
Hong Ooi | "Well, that about WANGER up the
ho...@zipworld.com.au | WANGER of your WANGER, Hong.
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ | WANGER."
Sydney, Australia | -- MSB
JB
> > > See the thing is when I look at the alignments as written in the
books
> > (2E
> > > and 3E) I actually quite like the ideas in theory.
> > > Yet when I try to apply alignments to any real or fictional person
I
> > find
> > > they rarely fit, and they seldom work much better when applied to
well
> > > developed D&D characters who actually have a deep and well thought
out
> > > personality.
> >
> > If you find that it's because you aren't using them properly.
> >
> >
>
> Oh and you know that do you.
Yes. That they work fine and don't interfere in anyway shape or form
with character development is was my first clue.
> I've been playing D&D for 20 years and DMing for 10 of those with
various
> groups of players and I have rarely been satisfied with the way
alignments
> play out including many of my own NPCs and PCs.
> People I've played with have had varying opinons of alignment from
much more
> positive than mine thru to even more negative.
>
> That said I do find alignment usefull as game mechanic, and it is a
good
> starting point for inexperienced players and undeveloped characters,
but I
> think that as a character becomes more developed (which with thourough
> creation can be from the start) it looses it's relevance beyond it's
role as
> a game mechanic.
It *is* a game mechanic and doesn't have any relevance beyond that
anyway. You could, in theory, choose an alignment to assist you in
developing a character personality but the correct use of alignment is
to assess general attitudes via personality and assign them to the bin
that fits best. It's just that simple - a best fit operation. Nobody is
going to fit all of the "a so and so aligned character will do this"
examples but guess what? It doesn't matter one bit.
Your complaint makes me wonder exactly how you do use alignments.
JB
"Hong Ooi" <ho...@zipworld.com.au> wrote in message
news:frsbb05s8oss78c8g...@4ax.com...
Sure, if a thousand other countries adopted communism without any
problems then your country's inability to use it would indicate
incorrect usage.
SMT
Whilst the manifestation of the alignment system has varied at various times
and places in my experience, what your describing is not far different from
how it has often been.
I think that we are having this dispute is exactly the problem I have with
it.
Now maybe you have been very fortunate and I have been very unfortunate in
our respective experiences.
In my experience there is no other aspect of the game that causes so much
debate and dispute as alignment.
I've never heard anyone challenge a characters actions/behaviour on the
basis of their say their race, but I've seen sesions grind to a hault over
alignment arguments. It's true this tends to happen mostly with not such
good players and/or rules lawyers, but I've seen alignment conflicts with
even the best players I've ever played with.
Look as us here, we're not even talking about a specific example, and yet we
are pretty much telling each other how we should interpret something which
is a subjective and relative matter (unless your gonna have a strict by the
books alignment situation which is when you end up with the aformentioned 1
dimensional stereotypes).
Michael Scott Brown
news:ca4d1755.04052...@posting.google.com...
Oh, look, it's Brandie, posting again in an attempt to make sure that
there is *no one else* who does not also believe he is a moron.
Hint, Brandie - personality is not alignment.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> See the thing is when I look at the alignments as written in the books (2E
> and 3E) I actually quite like the ideas in theory.
> Yet when I try to apply alignments to any real or fictional person I find
> they rarely fit, and they seldom work much better when applied to well
> developed D&D characters who actually have a deep and well thought out
> personality.
Such a deficiency suggests that you are incompetent. Ethical complexity
usually implies neutrality. Mark it and move on.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> CN or CG? What do you think?
Old version or new version? Something tells me that the upcoming
Deppification is going to make for one sinister chocolate factory.
Wonka's weird - we don't really get much sense of his true ethical
character in that movie because there are so few ethical decisions he makes
on the law/chaos axis. His traps are all nonlethal, he cares for the
welfare of his oompas and of children, he wants a trustworthy young man with
a golden heart to run his factory... these are all hallmarks of Good ethics.
But we don't really see much law/chaos decisionmaking at all; the whole show
takes place in his factory so his opinions on society at large are invisible
to us.
It could be argued that someone creating an elaborate structure to find
someone honest is probably looking for a lawful good individual (implying
that he himself is as well), but LG is just the stereotypically uberhonest
value set; they don't have the market cornered on the idea. The oompas are
probably LG, though, and he does consider himself their guardian ... if one
puts in the birds-of-a-feather argument then this is suggestive of a LG
alignment for Wonka; benevolent but strict about his values. He's just one
of those rare ones with a lot of mad-artist personality.
Ultimately, we are stuck interpreting him in our own way, because we are
not the author who imagined him. :(
-Michael
JB
> "JB" <JB...@talk21.com> wrote in message
>>It *is* a game mechanic and doesn't have any relevance beyond that
>>anyway. You could, in theory, choose an alignment to assist you in
>>developing a character personality but the correct use of alignment is
>>to assess general attitudes via personality and assign them to the bin
>>that fits best. It's just that simple - a best fit operation. Nobody is
>>going to fit all of the "a so and so aligned character will do this"
>>examples but guess what? It doesn't matter one bit.
>>
>>Your complaint makes me wonder exactly how you do use alignments.
>>
>
>
> Whilst the manifestation of the alignment system has varied at various times
> and places in my experience, what your describing is not far different from
> how it has often been.
Gygaxian interpretations are in the past. Only the present matters.
> I've never heard anyone challenge a characters actions/behaviour on the
> basis of their say their race, but I've seen sesions grind to a hault over
> alignment arguments.
That's alarm bell number one. Actions (and their underlying motivations)
define alignment not the other way around. Anyone who says "you can't do
that it's against your alignment" is *grossly* misusing alignment.
Paladins may cause themselves problems with errant behavior but if you
aren't up to following the rather simple ethos of a Paladin then *don't
play one*. The DM can assist a player on uncertain ground.
> It's true this tends to happen mostly with not such
> good players and/or rules lawyers, but I've seen alignment conflicts with
> even the best players I've ever played with.
> Look as us here, we're not even talking about a specific example, and yet we
> are pretty much telling each other how we should interpret something which
> is a subjective and relative matter (unless your gonna have a strict by the
> books alignment situation which is when you end up with the aformentioned 1
> dimensional stereotypes).
The morality associated with each alignment category is subjective. What
alignment is and the application of the alignment rules are not.
David Johnston
wrote:
>
>See the thing is when I look at the alignments as written in the books (2E
>and 3E) I actually quite like the ideas in theory.
>Yet when I try to apply alignments to any real or fictional person I find
>they rarely fit,
They fit just fine as long as you bear in mind that they are a
continuum.
Robert Singers
> See the thing is when I look at the alignments as written in the books
> (2E and 3E) I actually quite like the ideas in theory.
> Yet when I try to apply alignments to any real or fictional person I
> find they rarely fit, and they seldom work much better when applied to
> well developed D&D characters who actually have a deep and well
> thought out personality.
It's hard for me to understand how exactly you percieve alignment but all I
can say is you appear to be doing it wrong. Alignment is both less complex
and more subtle then you appear to understand.
--
Rob Singers
"All your Ron are belong to us"
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
forumite
> "forumite" <foru...@netzero.com> wrote in message
> > Movie Mary Poppins is not Lawful Good. Even Mr. Banks says she brings
> > chaos. She is not one to let other peoples' rules reflect her
> > actions, and subtly inspired the children to reject the stoic
> > lawfulness of the bank.
>
> mores of the society one happens to be presently inhabiting - go down *that*
> road and you're back in the old "the Paladin falls the moment he steps
> across the border into the Lawful Evil dictatorship - there's no way in Hell
> he'd be willing to respect the local laws, therefore he becomes Chaotic"
> problem.
>
> - David Prokopetz.
Of course, but Mary Poppins is still not Lawful Good. Blowing away
the applicant nannies such that she's the only applicant left is not
Lawful Good behavior. Acting as if she got the job before she was
officially hired is not Lawful Good. Cheating by chivalry in the
horserace is not Lawful Good behavior.
Gerald Katz
Brandon Cope
Thus, to be non-neutral, you must be a two-dimensional caricature who
is a simpleton.
Thank you for showing why alignment must be tossed.
Brandon
Robert Singers
>> Such a deficiency suggests that you are incompetent. Ethical
>> complexity usually implies neutrality. Mark it and move on.
>
> Thus, to be non-neutral, you must be a two-dimensional caricature who
> is a simpleton.
>
> Thank you for showing why alignment must be tossed.
Only you would make that leap Brandon.
--
Rob Singers
"All your Ron are belong to us"
forumite
> On 26 May 2004 15:20:46 -0700, foru...@netzero.com (forumite) wrote:
>
> >As for Willy Wonka, I wouldn't say automatically he is Chaotic. Going
> >by the movie, he has the children sign a contract, enforces it on
> >Charlie as a test, and during the tour warns of rules and regulations.
> > However, he is not Lawful either. While a Lawful Good character can
> >let others make mistakes and learn from them, Wonka goes over the
> >proverbial line. He's not Neutral to Good and Evil because ultimately
> >he wants to find a Good child to run the factory
>
> Careful. He wants "good" by his standards, not by some alignment
> system that he's never even heard of. You have look at what
> his standards are, before you decide whether his good is Good.
> So what are the standards he was looking for? I would say
> self-discipline (the ability to resist temptation), and a willingness
> to preserve an established status quo and take responsibility
> for preserving it. What does that sound like to you?
>
All that proves is he strives for Good and wants Good. All archons,
guardinals, and eladrins want that. Law/Chaos axis is not defined.
> and care for the
> >Oompa Loompas as he does. I say Wonka is also Neutral Good.
>
> Wait a second. That's a bit off. Are you seriously claiming that
> a Neutral Good character can't let others make mistakes and learn
> from them?
No, what I'm saying is that a Lawful Good person would not let
Augustus be sucked up a pipe, Violet turn into a blueberry, Veruka
fall down into the furnace, or Mike get shrunk. A Lawful Good person
would not go to such extreme measures to teach a lesson. The
Everlasting Gobstopper bribe, however, was a Lawful Good test.
Robert Singers
>> Wait a second. That's a bit off. Are you seriously claiming that
>> a Neutral Good character can't let others make mistakes and learn from
>> them?
>
> No, what I'm saying is that a Lawful Good person would not let
> Augustus be sucked up a pipe, Violet turn into a blueberry, Veruka
> fall down into the furnace, or Mike get shrunk. A Lawful Good person
> would not go to such extreme measures to teach a lesson. The
> Everlasting Gobstopper bribe, however, was a Lawful Good test.
That's a weird leap to make. Seems entirely lawful for me to not interfere
with a test that has been set, especially it's outcome.
David Johnston
>rgorma...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote in message news:<40b54fe2...@news.telusplanet.net>...
>> On 26 May 2004 15:20:46 -0700, foru...@netzero.com (forumite) wrote:
>>
>> >As for Willy Wonka, I wouldn't say automatically he is Chaotic. Going
>> >by the movie, he has the children sign a contract, enforces it on
>> >Charlie as a test, and during the tour warns of rules and regulations.
>> > However, he is not Lawful either. While a Lawful Good character can
>> >let others make mistakes and learn from them, Wonka goes over the
>> >proverbial line. He's not Neutral to Good and Evil because ultimately
>> >he wants to find a Good child to run the factory
>>
>> Careful. He wants "good" by his standards, not by some alignment
>> system that he's never even heard of. You have look at what
>> his standards are, before you decide whether his good is Good.
>> So what are the standards he was looking for? I would say
>> self-discipline (the ability to resist temptation), and a willingness
>> to preserve an established status quo and take responsibility
>> for preserving it. What does that sound like to you?
>>
>
>All that proves is he strives for Good and wants Good.
How does it prove that? What is he doing that is so good?
>> and care for the
>> >Oompa Loompas as he does. I say Wonka is also Neutral Good.
>>
>> Wait a second. That's a bit off. Are you seriously claiming that
>> a Neutral Good character can't let others make mistakes and learn
>> from them?
>
>No, what I'm saying is that a Lawful Good person would not let
>Augustus be sucked up a pipe, Violet turn into a blueberry, Veruka
>fall down into the furnace, or Mike get shrunk.
What? None of them? I'm pretty sure at least some LGs have no
problem with harshly punishing disobedience of the rules. I certainly
don't think a Neutral Good person is crueler than an Lawful Good
person.
Michael Scott Brown
complexity
> > usually implies neutrality. Mark it and move on.
>
> Thus, to be non-neutral, you must be a two-dimensional caricature who
> is a simpleton.
> Thank you for showing why alignment must be tossed.
Thank you for showing why the group considers you a moron.
-Michael
William Burke
rgorma...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote:
It's also worth noting that, at least in the book, none of them are
killed or seriously injured. (Well, Violet is blue forever.) On the
other hand, they are arguably punished all out of proportion to their
crime, which isn't Lawful Good.
--p
Robert Singers
> It's also worth noting that, at least in the book, none of them are
> killed or seriously injured.я (Well, Violet is blue forever.) On the
> other hand, they are arguably punished all out of proportion to their
> crime, which isn't Lawful Good.
"Proportion" is a subjective judgement you're making.
William Burke
Robert Singers <rsin...@finger.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Out from under a rock popped William Burke and said
>
> > It's also worth noting that, at least in the book, none of them are
> > killed or seriously injured.я (Well, Violet is blue forever.) On the
> > other hand, they are arguably punished all out of proportion to their
> > crime, which isn't Lawful Good.
>
> "Proportion" is a subjective judgement you're making.
Hence the use of the word "arguably."
--p
Bryan J. Maloney
He lets kids lick things that taste like snozzberries! That's just
perverse.
Robert Singers
> Robert Singers wrote:
>
>> Out from under a rock popped William Burke and said
>>
>> > It's also worth noting that, at least in the book, none of them are
>> > killed or seriously injured.я (Well, Violet is blue forever.) On the
>> > other hand, they are arguably punished all out of proportion to their
>> > crime, which isn't Lawful Good.
>>
>> "Proportion" is a subjective judgement you're making.
>
> Hence the use of the word "arguably."
Yes. Perhaps I should have said you're obviously wrong :-)
William Burke
Robert Singers <rsin...@finger.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Out from under a rock popped William Burke and said
>
> > Robert Singers wrote:
> >
> >> Out from under a rock popped William Burke and said
> >>
> >> > It's also worth noting that, at least in the book, none of them are
> >> > killed or seriously injured.я (Well, Violet is blue forever.) On the
> >> > other hand, they are arguably punished all out of proportion to their
> >> > crime, which isn't Lawful Good.
> >>
> >> "Proportion" is a subjective judgement you're making.
> >
> > Hence the use of the word "arguably."
>
> Yes. Perhaps I should have said you're obviously wrong :-)
Ha. Fair enough.
To argue it more visibly: (also, Wonka spoilers)
All the children do is act greedy and impulsive and not listen to their
parents. The traditional punishment for this ranges from a scolding to
a spanking. Instead, Wonka essentially scars them for life. (Well,
Veruca doesn't really suffer at all, except for being covered with
trash. The other three undergo drastic and somewhat irreversible body
modifications.)
Is this really a just and reasonable punishment?
Then again, it is Roald Dahl, so maybe.
--p
Robert Singers
> All the children do is act greedy and impulsive and not listen to their
> parents. The traditional punishment for this ranges from a scolding to
> a spanking. Instead, Wonka essentially scars them for life. (Well,
> Veruca doesn't really suffer at all, except for being covered with
> trash. The other three undergo drastic and somewhat irreversible body
> modifications.)
>
> Is this really a just and reasonable punishment?
The huge flaw in your argument is that Wonka is not "their parents". He's
definately something /other/ than their parents. His "laws" will be
different. By his laws the punishment may be "proper". The punishment may
also be trivial by his standards. By this I mean for example that he may
have a different view regarding bodies.
The Black Guardian
>>>>> It's also worth noting that, at least in the book, none of them are
>>>>> killed or seriously injured.я (Well, Violet is blue forever.) On the
>>>>> other hand, they are arguably punished all out of proportion to their
>>>>> crime, which isn't Lawful Good.
>>>>
>>>> "Proportion" is a subjective judgement you're making.
>>>
>>> Hence the use of the word "arguably."
>>
>> Yes. Perhaps I should have said you're obviously wrong :-)
>
> Ha. Fair enough.
>
> To argue it more visibly: (also, Wonka spoilers)
>
>
>
>
> All the children do is act greedy and impulsive and not listen to their
> parents. The traditional punishment for this ranges from a scolding to
> a spanking. Instead, Wonka essentially scars them for life. (Well,
> Veruca doesn't really suffer at all, except for being covered with
> trash. The other three undergo drastic and somewhat irreversible body
> modifications.)
Rubbish. Wonka does nothing of the sort. He simply lets them play in traffic
until they get smacked by a car.
> Is this really a just and reasonable punishment?
If they're foolish enough not to heed his warnings... Sure. >:)
--
-=[ The BlakGard ]=-
"Somewhere there's danger;
somewhere there's injustice,
and somewhere else the tea is getting cold!"
Werebat
So Willy Wonka is from the Far Realm?
How would he deal with Tom Bombadil and the Mad Hatter?
- Ron ^*^
Matt Pillsbury
Ethical complexity is hardly the only way to add depth to a charac-
ter. Alignment isn't a useful classification scheme for every genre,
but for the sort of stories D&D is designed for, it works very nice-
ly indeed.
[...]
--
Matt Pillsbury
pillsy[at]mac[dot]com
Tim Fitzmaurice
> > Is this really a just and reasonable punishment?
>
> If they're foolish enough not to heed his warnings... Sure. >:)
Since he wasn't in the business of punishing kids for misbehaving on a
tour, but testing the kids to see who was suitable for the factory, isnt
an argument simply over whether the punishment for misbehaving was just or
not currently sitting in slightly the wrong context at the moment (I can
see arguments existing for how the context of testing makes the ethics
more goodly or more evil - be interesting to see which argument people go
for most).
Tim
--
When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart
ICQ: 5178568
~consul
> No, what I'm saying is that a Lawful Good person would not let
> Augustus be sucked up a pipe, Violet turn into a blueberry, Veruka
> fall down into the furnace, or Mike get shrunk. A Lawful Good person
> would not go to such extreme measures to teach a lesson. The
> Everlasting Gobstopper bribe, however, was a Lawful Good test.
I've finally said that my opinion of him is not Lawful Evil, nor Chaotic or Neutral Good.
It is Neutral Evil. In general, of course, as there are plenty of evil folks who do 'good'
actions for the sake of fitting in, or for not causing folks to go ballistic on him.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk ..."
-till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
con...@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com ((remove the INVALID to email))
~consul
> It's also worth noting that, at least in the book, none of them are
> killed or seriously injured. (Well, Violet is blue forever.) On the
> other hand, they are arguably punished all out of proportion to their
> crime, which isn't Lawful Good.
In the -FUTURE-, Violet will have an immense increase in her incidence of skin cancer, due
to the loss her melanin in her skin. Mike Teevee has developed a bone disease where he can
no longer support his own body structurebeing stretched and malformed. Same with Agustos,
as he obviously broke all his bones and cartilage when he got squeezed through the tube,
probably additional brain damage due to suffocation from being in the tube so long.
Veruca is probably fine, she just got dumped in the garbage. Maybe she caught an exotic
disease, given the genetic manipulated ingrediants and non-OSHA regulated production means.
Mouse
a finger to the sky and proclaimed:
>So Willy Wonka is from the Far Realm?
>
>How would he deal with Tom Bombadil and the Mad Hatter?
>
> - Ron ^*^
Deportation and a nice stew, respectively.
--
Either way, I hate you Count Chocula, if I didn't already.
- Drifter Bob, rec.games.frp.dnd
William Burke
~consul <con...@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com> wrote:
> William Burke wrote:
> > It's also worth noting that, at least in the book, none of them are
> > killed or seriously injured. (Well, Violet is blue forever.) On the
> > other hand, they are arguably punished all out of proportion to their
> > crime, which isn't Lawful Good.
>
> In the -FUTURE-,...
Well, you can say that if you want. I remember the book specifying that
they're all going to be all right, but it's been a long time.
--p
~consul
> Well, you can say that if you want. I remember the book specifying that
> they're all going to be all right, but it's been a long time.
Yeah, it did say they were going to be alright.
forumite
> Out from under a rock popped forumite and said
>
> >> Wait a second. That's a bit off. Are you seriously claiming that
> >> a Neutral Good character can't let others make mistakes and learn from
> >> them?
> >
> > No, what I'm saying is that a Lawful Good person would not let
> > Augustus be sucked up a pipe, Violet turn into a blueberry, Veruka
> > fall down into the furnace, or Mike get shrunk. A Lawful Good person
> > would not go to such extreme measures to teach a lesson. The
> > Everlasting Gobstopper bribe, however, was a Lawful Good test.
>
> That's a weird leap to make. Seems entirely lawful for me to not interfere
> with a test that has been set, especially it's outcome.
The problem is not the existence of a test, but what encompasses the
test, in this case failure of the test.
Gerald Katz
forumite
> On 27 May 2004 15:47:03 -0700, foru...@netzero.com (forumite) wrote:
>
> >rgorma...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote in message news:<40b54fe2...@news.telusplanet.net>...
> >> On 26 May 2004 15:20:46 -0700, foru...@netzero.com (forumite) wrote:
> >>
> >> >As for Willy Wonka, I wouldn't say automatically he is Chaotic. Going
> >> >by the movie, he has the children sign a contract, enforces it on
> >> >Charlie as a test, and during the tour warns of rules and regulations.
> >> > However, he is not Lawful either. While a Lawful Good character can
> >> >let others make mistakes and learn from them, Wonka goes over the
> >> >proverbial line. He's not Neutral to Good and Evil because ultimately
> >> >he wants to find a Good child to run the factory
> >>
> >> Careful. He wants "good" by his standards, not by some alignment
> >> system that he's never even heard of. You have look at what
> >> his standards are, before you decide whether his good is Good.
> >> So what are the standards he was looking for? I would say
> >> self-discipline (the ability to resist temptation), and a willingness
> >> to preserve an established status quo and take responsibility
> >> for preserving it. What does that sound like to you?
> >>
> >
> >All that proves is he strives for Good and wants Good.
>
> How does it prove that? What is he doing that is so good?
>
He doesn't want a greedy person to run his factory. He tests for a
good, honest child.
> >> and care for the
> >> >Oompa Loompas as he does. I say Wonka is also Neutral Good.
> >>
> >> Wait a second. That's a bit off. Are you seriously claiming that
> >> a Neutral Good character can't let others make mistakes and learn
> >> from them?
> >
> >No, what I'm saying is that a Lawful Good person would not let
> >Augustus be sucked up a pipe, Violet turn into a blueberry, Veruka
> >fall down into the furnace, or Mike get shrunk.
>
> What? None of them? I'm pretty sure at least some LGs have no
> problem with harshly punishing disobedience of the rules. I certainly
> don't think a Neutral Good person is crueler than an Lawful Good
> person.
A Lawful Good society can have a death penalty as not. However, the
death is to be quick. A Lawful Good society would not tolerate
mutilation. Neutral Good wouldn't tolerate mutilation either, but
motivation is key. Neutral Good is tolerant of poetic justice.
Gerald Katz
David Johnston
>> > No, what I'm saying is that a Lawful Good person would not let
>> > Augustus be sucked up a pipe, Violet turn into a blueberry, Veruka
>> > fall down into the furnace, or Mike get shrunk. A Lawful Good person
>> > would not go to such extreme measures to teach a lesson. The
>> > Everlasting Gobstopper bribe, however, was a Lawful Good test.
>>
>> That's a weird leap to make. Seems entirely lawful for me to not interfere
>> with a test that has been set, especially it's outcome.
>
>The problem is not the existence of a test, but what encompasses the
>test, in this case failure of the test.
Uh...what? In any case I'm inclined to go with Lawful Neutral.
David Johnston
>> >No, what I'm saying is that a Lawful Good person would not let
>> >Augustus be sucked up a pipe, Violet turn into a blueberry, Veruka
>> >fall down into the furnace, or Mike get shrunk.
>>
>> What? None of them? I'm pretty sure at least some LGs have no
>> problem with harshly punishing disobedience of the rules. I certainly
>> don't think a Neutral Good person is crueler than an Lawful Good
>> person.
>
>A Lawful Good society can have a death penalty as not. However, the
>death is to be quick. A Lawful Good society would not tolerate
>mutilation. Neutral Good wouldn't tolerate mutilation either, but
>motivation is key. Neutral Good is tolerant of poetic justice.
Why are Lawful Goods not tolerant of poetic justice?
Werebat
Because they're bad poets.
- Ron ^*^
William Burke
This isn't their fault, though; nothing rhymes with paladin.
--p
David Johnston
Saladin.
Justin Bacon
Werebat
A $50 bill inside a Paladin's hat?
- Ron ^*^
Robert Singers
wisdom
> The problem is not the existence of a test, but what encompasses the
> test, in this case failure of the test.
You're saying that a Lawful alignment would not set a test that could be
failed? Also can I suggest to you that if you want to decide on what the
test comprises you should possibly consider the good\evil axis.
Brandon Cope
>
> Gygaxian interpretations are in the past. Only the present matters.
Only if you are playing 3.x
Brandon
Brandon Cope
> Brandon Cope startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following words
> of wisdom
>
> >>
> >> What we're dealing with here is Willy's PERSONALITY, which
> >> evidentally not compatible with the alignment system as it stands.
> >
> > You'll just have to change his personality until it cleanly fits one
> > of your nine options you have.
>
> Or he\you could just understand the alignment system and not make incorrect
> assumptions.
I used and understood the alignment system in 1e. After getting rid of
that crap, I have no interest in using any alignment system again. The
fact that I ran AD&D for years without alignment only proves that I
don't *need* it.
Brandon
Brandon Cope
> "Robert Singers" <rsin...@finger.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns94F69C89C8C2rsingers@IP-Hidden...
> > Brandon Cope startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following words
> > of wisdom
> >
> > > "SMT" <gn5s...@asahi-net.or.jp> wrote in message
> > > news:<40b4e217$0$1002$44c9...@news3.asahi-net.or.jp>...
> > >>
> > >> What we're dealing with here is Willy's PERSONALITY, which
> > >> evidentally not compatible with the alignment system as it stands.
> > >
> > > You'll just have to change his personality until it cleanly fits one
> > > of your nine options you have.
> >
> > Or he\you could just understand the alignment system and not make
> incorrect
> > assumptions.
> >
> > Rob Singers
> > "All your Ron are belong to us"
>
> and 3E) I actually quite like the ideas in theory.
> Yet when I try to apply alignments to any real or fictional person I find
> they rarely fit, and they seldom work much better when applied to well
> developed D&D characters who actually have a deep and well thought out
> personality.
That's because alignments are cookie-cutter molds for two-dimensional
dungeopn crawlers so that they can justify murdering and stealing from
other sentients.
Brandon
Brandon Cope
> "SMT" <gn5s...@asahi-net.or.jp> wrote in message
> news:40b5b90b$0$1006$44c9...@news3.asahi-net.or.jp...
> >
> > "Robert Singers" <rsin...@finger.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns94F69C89C8C2rsingers@IP-Hidden...
> > > Brandon Cope startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following
> words
>
> one
> > > > of your nine options you have.
> > >
> > > Or he\you could just understand the alignment system and not make
> incorrect
> > > assumptions.
> >
> >
> (2E
> > and 3E) I actually quite like the ideas in theory.
> > Yet when I try to apply alignments to any real or fictional person I
> find
> > they rarely fit, and they seldom work much better when applied to well
> > developed D&D characters who actually have a deep and well thought out
> > personality.
>
Or you aren't using them properly.
Brandon
Brandon Cope
> "Hong Ooi" <ho...@zipworld.com.au> wrote in message
> news:frsbb05s8oss78c8g...@4ax.com...
>
> Sure, if a thousand other countries adopted communism without any
> problems then your country's inability to use it would indicate
> incorrect usage.
Except the ratio isn't nearly 1000-1 for alignment.
Brandon
William Burke
Come to think of it, where IS Mr. Knickerbocker, anyway?
--p
Robert Singers
of wisdom
>> Or he\you could just understand the alignment system and not make
>> incorrect assumptions.
>
> I used and understood the alignment system in 1e. After getting rid of
> that crap, I have no interest in using any alignment system again. The
> fact that I ran AD&D for years without alignment only proves that I
> don't *need* it.
So you're saying your contribution to this thread is irrelevant and
uninformed. I'd kind of guessed as much.
David Prokopetz
news:ca4d1755.04052...@posting.google.com...
No, I think Gygaxian judgements can safely be discarded in favour of your
own common sense even if you're playing 1e. ;)
- David Prokopetz.
Michael Scott Brown
> That's because alignments are cookie-cutter molds for two-dimensional
> dungeopn crawlers so that they can justify murdering and stealing from
> other sentients.
You know, Brandon, do you *ever* stop to consider that statements like
this, that you proudly offer up as ostensible "proof" of the flaws in D&D,
might just be a wee bit off the mark past first edition? You have once again
proven solely that you are gifted with an unstoppable quotient of ignorance.
-Michael
Werebat
>
> In article <40B8A6...@cox.net>, Werebat <rpoi...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > William Burke wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <40B828...@cox.net>, Werebat <rpoi...@cox.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > David Johnston wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 28 May 2004 16:43:17 -0700, foru...@netzero.com (forumite) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Why are Lawful Goods not tolerant of poetic justice?
> > > >
> > > > Because they're bad poets.
> > >
> > > This isn't their fault, though; nothing rhymes with paladin.
> >
> > A $50 bill inside a Paladin's hat?
>
> Come to think of it, where IS Mr. Knickerbocker, anyway?
Ah, you just saved me the trouble of having to forge my headers and make
the exact same response. :^)
My 4-year-old son now demands to listen to "throwing dice along the
wharf" ("Singapore") every time we get in the car, and he sings along to
the whole song. Very amusing.
As for myself, I think that "Jockey Full of Bourbon" is the best driving
song EVAR.
- Ron ^*^
Sorcier
>
> A Lawful Good society can have a death penalty as not. However, the
> death is to be quick. A Lawful Good society would not tolerate
> mutilation.
????
Losing a hand for theft seems in keeping with LG.
As would a brand for some crimes.
> Neutral Good is tolerant of poetic justice.
Heck, LG can be tolerant of it too!
But it prefers codified systematic justice.
Sorcier
> David Johnston wrote:
>
>>Why are Lawful Goods not tolerant of poetic justice?
>
> Because they're bad poets.
Haiku are Lawful.
(Draw your own conclusions...)
Sorcier
> Sorcier wrote:
>
>>And his punishments as somewhat random (although poetic).
>
> What punishments? The only one he gave was to Charlie, but Charlie
> redeemed himself, and Wonka easily caved. Everyone else was
> punished by their own actions.
C'mon, the fix was in!
Sorcier
>>Werebat wrote:
>>
>>>CN or CG? What do you think?
>
>
> Chaotic Evil, and he has the lot of you hoodwinked.
Hey, like I said, if Wonka's Evil, Gandalf and Glinda are
positively fiendish!
Christopher Adams
>
> Losing a hand for theft seems in keeping with LG.
> As would a brand for some crimes.
You are a crazy man. Lawful Good is still Good, and mutilation or branding as a
punishment is not Good. It's Neutral at best, and mutilation probably skews all
the way to Evil.
--
Christopher Adams
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nath Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you
understand?
You're not a bad person. You're a terrific person. You're my favorite person.
But every once in a while you just can be a real cunt.
- Bill
Bruce Grubb
I would say the fact that no one can agree on what the alignnments of many
fictional and historical characters proves that if not badly designed the
alignment system in 3.x is as badly explained as it was in AD&D1 days.
David Johnston
<mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>Sorcier wrote:
>>
>> Losing a hand for theft seems in keeping with LG.
>> As would a brand for some crimes.
>
>You are a crazy man. Lawful Good is still Good, and mutilation or branding as a
>punishment is not Good. It's Neutral at best, and mutilation probably skews all
>the way to Evil.
While I think harsh punishments for wrongdoing are more Lawful than
Good, I think your categorisation might put an unacceptable proportion
of the past's population in the Evil category.
David Johnston
wrote:
>I would say the fact that no one can agree on what the alignnments of many
>fictional and historical characters proves that if not badly designed the
>alignment system in 3.x is as badly explained as it was in AD&D1 days.
I would say it reflects more than anything, differences in perception
concerning the moral nature of such characters. Willy Wonka's a
particularly egregious example since a lot of people find him
benevolent and a lot of other people find him sinister. It depends
on how seriously you take what happened to the people who failed
his test and how much you hold him liable for setting up the test.
Michael Scott Brown
news:bgrubb-1D24CD....@news.zianet.com...
Thus proving once again (in case anyone here would forget) that you,
too, are a FUCKING MORON.
Listen closely, Grubb, for this might be that bright and shiny moment
where the point finally gets through to you.
DIFFERING CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE ALIGNMENTS OF *FICTIONAL CHARACTERS* ARE
THE RESULT OF DIFFERENT ******INTERPRETATIONS******* OF THOSE CHARACTERS.
The flaw lies not with the alignment system, but with the variation in
each person's impression of those characters (as well as variations in
presentation).
Try a little test, Grubb. Describe Batman's ethical motives and beliefs
in a fashion that is absolutely 100% in conformity with EVERY SINGLE VERSION
OF BATMAN EVERY PUBLISHED. Remember, now, this extends from the original
gun-toting vigilante to the Adam West camp version in the tights, to the
superman-killing psychotic Dark Knight.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
news:40bb56e0...@news.telusplanet.net...
> While I think harsh punishments for wrongdoing are more Lawful than
> Good,
Harshness has nothing to do with Lawful or Chaos. RTFM.
-Michael
Brandon Cope
> "Bruce Grubb" <bgr...@zianet.com> wrote in message
> news:bgrubb-1D24CD....@news.zianet.com...
> > In article <a%fuc.16707$be....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > "Michael Scott Brown" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > You know, Brandon, do you *ever* stop to consider that statements
> like
> > > this, that you proudly offer up as ostensible "proof" of the flaws in
> D&D,
> > > might just be a wee bit off the mark past first edition? You have once
> again
> > > proven solely that you are gifted with an unstoppable quotient of
> ignorance.
> >
> > I would say the fact that no one can agree on what the alignnments of many
> > fictional and historical characters proves that if not badly designed the
> > alignment system in 3.x is as badly explained as it was in AD&D1 days.
>
> THE RESULT OF DIFFERENT ******INTERPRETATIONS******* OF THOSE CHARACTERS.
In a well-defined alignment system, different interpretations would be
minimal. Thus, the alignment system in D&D is not well-defined. If the
system is not well-defined, then it is broken.
Choke on that Mikey.
Brandon
Brandon Cope
Relative morality appears!
Brandon
David Prokopetz
Literary interpretation differs widely no matter *what* metric you attempt
to apply - it's just about a definitional quality of literature.
- David Prokopetz.
Christopher Adams
>
> While I think harsh punishments for wrongdoing are more Lawful than
> Good, I think your categorisation might put an unacceptable proportion
> of the past's population in the Evil category.
And the problem with that is?
Seriously, though, the alignment system in D&D is explicitly designed to
describe the actions of fictional characters in a fantasy setting according to a
simple moral-ethical system loosely based on modern Western notions of morality.
A lot of people (or more precisely, societies) that existed in the past were
pretty evil by today's standards, and that's reflected in the fact that they'd
be judged as Evil if you were to do something as foolish as apply D&D alignment
to the real world.
It probably helps that I agree with the D&D alignment system when it says that
cruelty in the name of Good is not Good itself.
Christopher Adams
>
> In a well-defined alignment system, different interpretations would be
> minimal. Thus, the alignment system in D&D is not well-defined. If the
> system is not well-defined, then it is broken.
You misread his statements (I suspect deliberately, but then I suppose I am
replying more to correct the disinformation you produce than to correct your
mistakes).
The disagreements are not caused by differing interpretations of the alignment
system, but by differing interpretations of the characters. For example, if my
personal opinion of the Batman is coloured by the hard-ass version in "Kingdom
Come", who goes to arguably totalitarian lengths to keep order in Gotham City,
then my description of him under the alignment system of D&D is going to be
different from that of someone whose opinion of the Batman is coloured by comics
which portray him as a tough but fair man who is motivated primarily by a
compassionate desire to never see anyone else suffer what he went through as a
child, and who works as much within the law as the unusual nature of his
opponents allows. Both of our opinions will be different from someone whose
primary image of the Batman is Adam West in too-tight spandex.
The D&D system is simplistic, but this does not affect its utility since it is
supposed to describe characters who exist within a morally simplistic universe.
Christopher Adams
>
> Seriously, though, the alignment system in D&D is explicitly designed to
> describe the actions of fictional characters in a fantasy setting
> according to a simple moral-ethical system loosely based on modern
> Western notions of morality.
Addendum: that is, in the real world people cannot easily be categorised as
"favouring social order" or "favouring individual freedoms" in isolation from
their full spectrum of moral, ethical, and social opinions. The few exceptions
are people who are fanatical (and I don't mean that in any negative sense) about
a particular cause which *can* be itself generally identified with such things;
hardcore libertarians can arguably be used as examples of Chaotic politics.
Nevertheless, it's clear from the descriptions in the core rules and in other
products like the Book of Exalted Deeds, which includes a section specifically
advising exalted characters to be "ahead of their time", i.e. modern, in their
attitude towards issues like slavery and justice, that the alignment system is
based on the generally-prevailing opinions within Western society in the present
day.
Robert Singers
wisdom
> In a well-defined alignment system, different interpretations would be
> minimal. Thus, the alignment system in D&D is not well-defined. If the
> system is not well-defined, then it is broken.
>
> Choke on that Mikey.
He might choke laughing at you. What pay off do you get being so dense in
public?
Werebat
>
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<PVJuc.16762$Tn6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> > "Bruce Grubb" <bgr...@zianet.com> wrote in message
> > news:bgrubb-1D24CD....@news.zianet.com..
> > > "Michael Scott Brown" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > You know, Brandon, do you *ever* stop to consider that statements
> > like
> > > > this, that you proudly offer up as ostensible "proof" of the flaws in
> > D&D,
> > > > might just be a wee bit off the mark past first edition? You have once
> > again
> > > > proven solely that you are gifted with an unstoppable quotient of
> > ignorance.
> > >
> > > I would say the fact that no one can agree on what the alignnments of many
> > > fictional and historical characters proves that if not badly designed the
> > > alignment system in 3.x is as badly explained as it was in AD&D1 days.
> >
> > DIFFERING CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE ALIGNMENTS OF *FICTIONAL CHARACTERS* ARE
> > THE RESULT OF DIFFERENT ******INTERPRETATIONS******* OF THOSE CHARACTERS.
>
> In a well-defined alignment system, different interpretations would be
> minimal. Thus, the alignment system in D&D is not well-defined. If the
> system is not well-defined, then it is broken.
>
> Choke on that Mikey.
Ooo! He gotchoo cold DISSED!!! SNAP!!!
- Ron ^*^
William Burke
Werebat <armor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
(sorry, piggybacking, cause I have him killed)
> Brandon Cope wrote:
>
> > In a well-defined alignment system, different interpretations would be
> > minimal. Thus, the alignment system in D&D is not well-defined. If the
> > system is not well-defined, then it is broken.
Literary analysis was RUINED!
--p
Michael Scott Brown
ARE
> > THE RESULT OF DIFFERENT ******INTERPRETATIONS******* OF THOSE
CHARACTERS.
>
> In a well-defined alignment system, different interpretations would be
> minimal. Thus, the alignment system in D&D is not well-defined. If the
> system is not well-defined, then it is broken.
> Choke on that Mikey.
<falls on the floor laughing>
Please, Cope. No alignment or ethical system can control how people
interpret the motivations of fictional characters they read about.
Suggesting that an "alignment system" would somehow magically force everyone
in the universe to feel the same way about Batman's nature (despite wildly
varying portrayals of the character over the last century) is the apotheosis
of sheer stupidity.
Once again, you have been led to water, but have quite profoundly
refused to drink - as befits an ass, I suppose. The only thing I'm choking
on is my sense of horror at the concept of someone AS FUCKING MORONIC AS
BRANDON COPE being allowed to live.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> > I would say it reflects more than anything, differences in perception
> > concerning the moral nature of such characters. Willy Wonka's a
> > particularly egregious example since a lot of people find him
> > benevolent and a lot of other people find him sinister. It depends
> > on how seriously you take what happened to the people who failed
> > his test and how much you hold him liable for setting up the test.
>
> Relative morality appears!
Non sequitur.
-Michael
JB
What, no reference to "King and Country"? Do you just lurk for weeks on
end waiting for someone to mention alignment so you can make a stupid
comment?
JB
> > > Of course, the same could be said of communism.
> >
> > Sure, if a thousand other countries adopted communism without any
> > problems then your country's inability to use it would indicate
> > incorrect usage.
>
> Except the ratio isn't nearly 1000-1 for alignment.
How the hell would you know what the ratio is? Most people in this
Newsgroup (the D&D players at any rate) either use alignment without
difficulty or don't use it for good reasons. It's only idiots like you
and Grubb who consistently fail and from your reports of their comments
we know your players are no better than you.