Alignmeant ?

How do we define alignment and actions?

I'm currently trying to understand what a chaotic good character can and can not do.

_________________

http://easydamus.com/chaoticgood.html

When I dont know something about some alingment I go here. It's explained on understandable examples and compares different alingments and their differences.

EDIT: basically... I think you are Robin Hood

_________________
Zendaer Amattis
Torgon Crimsonshade
Khalid Athanalo
CET time zone

Very simplistic way of saying it: Follow your own tune, and don't do morally wrong things. Like, a thief is likely CN, a serial killer CE; whereas your average bardic do-gooder is CG

Or something!

_________________
Whomst've'll'd'mn't I play:
Salema Nefahri :: A penny for your thots
Zrae'a'stra'fryn :: That which nightmares are made of
Khasir :: From the East a storm is coming

Seems like my character kind exists between CN and CG

_________________

Well I always considered alingment similar to temperament definiton where you basically reach into more areas, but one of them is dominant.

_________________
Zendaer Amattis
Torgon Crimsonshade
Khalid Athanalo
CET time zone

Hannibal Lecter wants a word. If you would just follow me into this dark alley...

Oh I looooove alignment discussions. See, I have hardly ever considered it black or white. Sure, if my paladin murders someone, she's probably not going to stay Lawful Good (though you'd be surprised). If my evil guy saves someone from a horrible fate and finds love, he might sneak up to Neutral and decide some people in the world are worth saving!

However, beyond the actual action is the -reasoning-. That is the beauty of the alignment scale (and also its curse). A Chaotic Good character can pretty much do anything! But do they do it for the right reasons?! My paladin murdered a Sharran. Is it still evil? My evil guy saved someone so they could have more fun murdering them another day. Is it still "better?"

Mmm. Who knows!

Edit:: oops never realized I posted twice sorry guys

While real life alignment is not black or white, in the fr setting alignment is black or white. Alignment is a lot about how others see you, and they will often not think about why you murdered someone, just that you did murder someone.

_________________
I am not weird, I am limited edition

I have always had trouble conceptualizing alignment in D&D due to the very vague nature of the system. However I have learned that by changing the descriptors to something more descriptive of a characters potential outlook on life and how they would generally react to a given situation is helpful.

First of all, what is good and evil? If we trade good and evil for selfless and selfish, one can then make a decision more in line with that alignment. In general, a good character will tend to take actions for others over actions solely for themselves.

How about law and chaos? If we think about the adage of the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few or the one describes law and chaos perfectly. The lawful character will generally see to the needs of the many, as most laws are representative of the wishes of the larger portions of a society, over the needs of the few or individual. Conversely, the chaotic character is more likely to stand up for the individual.

So, by using this 'lens', we can say that a character like the well known Robin Hood example is both selfless and stands for the weak in his society, very clearly making him Chaotic Good. Hanibal Lecter on the other hand is very selfish and cares little about the needs of the many only his own culinary needs, which clearly makes him Chaotic Evil.

Then we get to perception versus motivation. For individual actions, only motivation counts for alignment purposes. Sure, to save his own skin, an evil character might save those orphans on the sinking boat. But only to make sure the little brat who stole his treasure map can tell him where it is, one way or another. How the situation looks to everyone else has no impact on the characters actual alignment though, and is something to keep in mind when adjusting alignments for both players and DM's.

_________________
Thine taste in horrid footwear not withstanding, I did not say that thou were in fact an idiot, I merely implied that such things were self evident.

-Krrja

I like your interpretation very much Bravo. It makes for a easier analogy of motivations for alignments.

Hannibal Lecter makes for a interesting case study of alignment. I would actually not see him as chaotic at all. All his actions are miraculously calculated, and his victims chosen for a specific purpose. There is no randomness or unpredicability which a chaotic alignment would dictate. He has an internal code which guides his actions. Of course his motivations are purely selfish but he has preciples, he does not kill indiscriminatly. He kills the weak or foolish, or at times for self presivation. He believes in a certain order and hierarchy (which places him at the top), and has even worked well with others to achieve his goals (as a consultant for the FBI in his early days). He keeps to his word when he gives it. I would probably place him towards the NE/LE spectrum. The code of the serial killer is generally their downfall as their rigidly patterned behaviour is generally how they get caught in the end, as with Hannibal. A chaotic killer would not act in such a way. Being a psychopath this would place him closer to the neutral side as true psychopath would actually be closer to TN then to anything as they would not think in terms of good, evil, law or chaos. A CE example would better as the Joker from Batman. Who is quite the opposite as an unpredictable force of chaos.

_________________

aaegus battlehammer™

cloak rockhewer

murtaugh gunn

I tend define Evil by how far a person would be willing to go, rather than their overall pattern of behaviour. It doesn't matter how much gold you give to charity with a genuine fuzzy feeling in your stomach, if a character is willing to kill sentient creatures because it's convenient, they're evil. If a character is willing to torture, they're evil. Slavery? Tends to vary depending on the context, but enslaving someone in the first place is usually pretty damn evil. Etc, etc.

_________________
Currently playing:
Aven Brinyflask
Safaya Dalai
Riyit
Chsera Hile

(Credits to Raua for the sprite, sauce -here-.)

Yeah, the trouble for me has always been the typical definition of chaotic. Usually people think in terms of random. Unfortunately, people always have a reason for their actions, albeit they may be ill thought out or foolish reasons, but reasons none the less.

Taking a look at chaotic societies in FR, elves and drow. Neither are very random, so that can't really describe what is at play as even total anarchy requires some degree of formal interaction between people. But the two extremes of personal liberty tempered by the societies general selflessness and selfishness does do it justice without resorting to implying attitudes that real people just don't have.

There is always a structure to any society that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with law or chaos. By using law and chaos, it implies that an individual or society either has laws, or doesn't. Break a law in a chaotic society, the only difference you might see is that there is less sanitation in a chaotic evil prison cell. Assuming of course you didn't step on a spider in front of a priestess of Lolth, then you might not be seeing a cell...

_________________
Thine taste in horrid footwear not withstanding, I did not say that thou were in fact an idiot, I merely implied that such things were self evident.

-Krrja

Coming back from a hiatus isn't supposed to encourage necromancy, but this is something I see again and again that I feel should really be put to bed.

'Random' and 'crazy' are psychological endowments, not personality types. Treating it is a moral standpoint is, in my opinion, insulting to people who have to deal with mental illness in addition to (not because of) their moral standing. If your character is random and crazy, consider that their alignment may not have anything to do with the fact that they're random and crazy. I've played both Lawful and Chaotic paranoid schizophrenics before, and the difference lies in how they conduct themselves when they're lucid, not in how baffling their actions are.

Now let's talk about chaos. Because it's part of the alignment scale, chaos is representative of a choice, not a state of being. The alignment system represents your choices and beliefs, which it why it can change. As such, it has very little to do with the 'way of the world', especially unchanging states such as city laws or government edicts.

In short, law is doctrine, chaos is freedom. They're much more difficult to implement than good and evil, frankly. But because they are based on alignment, they rely on belief, which means that doctrine/freedom consideration is a matter of how and what the character thinks, separate from rigid systems or other people's views. I've always used them in terms of 'how much I adhere' and 'don't tell me what to do' - for example, Panlamin is practically the physical embodiment of personal freedom, but what someone DOES with that freedom is immaterial to him. Belief in self-determination without regard for morality is Chaotic Neutral.

On the other side of the scale, I personally would define pure law as comfort in adherence. A lawful character has rules that they follow (they don't need to come from an outside force and they don't need to be written down), and instead of morality, they use those rules as a compass. That doesn't mean they use ALL rules as a compass unless their compass says they should.

Here's what I try to use as a baseline to understand alignment:

LAWFUL GOOD - My compass tells me how to help others

LAWFUL NEUTRAL - My compass tells me how to behave

LAWFUL EVIL - My compass tells me how to get what I want


For the record, I agree with Bravo21 in regard to good and evil representing selflessness and selfishness. The table is simplistic, and it's supposed to be. The more complex you make an alignment, the less room there is to represent your character, and one should always remember that alignment is a trait, not the other way around.

_________________
Contents subject to change without warning, reason, necessity, or logical imperative.

Alignment doesn't = personality or temperament. Good is something you do, not a way you are.

You can be a total asshole, and still be a do-gooder.

*Cough* Paladins *Cough*

_________________

Basically, and on the flip side I define good by how far a person is willing to go to in the opposite direction, IE: a paladin willing to throw down his life for the big bad's redemption.

_________________
bad man