|
I always simplified the alignment to more of a statement of belief rather than actions. So for example: a beggar who doesn't dare step out of line but secretly wants to kill everyone but just suffices to being unkind to others around him is Chaotic Evil.
Lawful Good- The only way to find happiness for everyone is by having a strong governing system that helps the downtrodden of society.
Lawful Neutral-The happiness of the individual is often less important than the system as a whole.
Lawful Evil-People are innately evil and chaotic so they must be reminded of Law.
Neutral Good- What will benefit the world and hopefully myself as well?
True Neutral-*Braindead*/I find myself extremely conflicted about where I stand on anything.
Neutral Evil-Others are irrelevent compared to my own happiness.
Chaotic Good-People are innately good inside without the laws that lead to restriction, corruption, and suffering.
Chaotic Neutral-Pleasure is nature's way of telling you what is right.
Chaotic Evil-I am sick of the world we live in and I want to make sure it is known.
I just wanted to hear some people's opinions on this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being true neutral sounds awful and almost non existant. I'm not sure if thats an ailgnment. I request a more nuetral nuetral! Its non partisanship too. Or the emotionless nuetrals from that spaceshow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or the emotionless nuetrals from that spaceshow.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
LG- We can all live happily togther in in a peacefull law bound society
LN- Law/order/effiecny is the most important part of a society. Squables over right and wrong are meaningless before Law/order/effiecny
LE- Law is a tool to achieve the things you want.
NG- Being a good person and doing the "right thing" is the most imporant thing in life
TN- Balance is what is imporant, there is a palce and time for everytime in good measure.
NE- My own interests always outweigh everything and everyone else.
CG- Being a good person is more important than rules
CN- Freedom from law and morality.
CE- I take what I want when I want.
The most extremes of the compasses are with a neutral mix. IE CN is the most chaotic, NG the most good.
I think your NE and LG is accurate but your LE, TN, CN, and CE no so.
but that is my take
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
LG - Do it the right way!
LN - Do it this way!
LE - Do it my way!
NG - Everyone be happy!
NN - Everyone be.
NE - Everyone die!
CG - We're all having fun!
CN - I'm having fun!
CE - I'm having fun killing you!
CN - I can be any one of the other alignments at any moment, because I am CN.
EDIT: And the rest of the spectrum
LG- Laws are necessary to protect the people from the government.
LN- Laws are necessary to protect society from the people
LE- Laws are a convenient way to make the system make me more powerful
NG- Laws have their uses, but you need to know when to ignore them for the greater good.
CG- Treat everyone the way you want to be treated, but I don't want someone telling me what to do.
N- Just trying to get by, without making any waves. Leave me alone!
NE- Screw all of you, the only thing that matters is power, and the last one standing wins.
CE- Yeah, I am disgusting, but you can trust me more than the CN guy. You know I am going to screw you over, 100% of the time...the CN guy will screw you over, too, you just don't know when.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
CN - I can be any one of the other alignments at any moment, because I am CN.
The most common alignment misconception. "I am CN I can evil or good when I want to."
Well your using a sentance to generalize an array of somewhat similar but totally not the same personalities. Anyone have a CE description that doesn't look willing to burn orphanages?
|
LG: to achieve the Good for everyone, we need rules and a system of justice.
NG: the rules are useful as a baseline, but if they stand in the way of Good, away with them.
CG: your conscience tells you how to be Good, not rules.
LN: society needs rules to function. It's not about morality, it's about keeping things going.
N: we can use some rules to give everyone some space, but let's not get carried away with the System. It's your own business if you decide to be Good or Evil; as long as you're not bothering me it's not my problem.
CN: rules have no intrinsic value. Nobody has a right to tell others what to do. You're not particularly Good, but aren't outright Evil either; just minding your own business.
LE: if it's not against the law, it's not wrong. You didn't break any rules, did you?
NE: me, me, me.
CE: the strong do what they want and the weak suffer what they must.
|
True Neutral and Chaotic Neutral are probably the most mis-played alignments. Both are often used as "get out of alignment free" cards.
I see TN as more detached than wishy-washy. A player who chooses this alignment should have something in mind that's more important to the character than morality: e.g. an alchemist who is obsessed by research, a monk who would prefer to meditate on top of a mountain, etc.
CN is often played as "chaotic stupid," or Evil with an Excuse. I agree with the OP's take more or less. My PFS bard is CN: he's a charming rake, more concerned with a wine, women, and song than anything else. He joined the Pathfinder Society to see the world and find material for his latest epic, not to be a hero. But, at the same time, he wouldn't harm anyone unless (in his opinion) they really deserved it. He might pick a rich man's pocket or steal his wife, but he doesn't go out of his way to cause harm to others who haven't harmed him. When Evil with a capital E rears its head, he's as willing as the next person to stand against it, but he's suspicious of anyone who claims to know what's best for others.
What if... There were multiple ways to play alignment. What if most everyone was okay? What if it was always okay as long as no one else at the table has a problem with it? Crazy I know...
Get out of jail free cards are needed with some DMs though. Some have a greatly different idea of alignment than you, and that little C in your alignment goes a long way to compromise.
|
|
What if... There were multiple ways to play alignment. What if most everyone was okay? What if it was always okay as long as no one else at the table has a problem with it? Crazy I know...
Spoken like a true Chaotic Neutral. I approve.
Get out of jail free cards are needed with some DMs though. Some have a greatly different idea of alignment than you, and that little C in your alignment goes a long way to compromise.
Of course, alignment is subject to interpretation, but it's something that a GM should discuss with the players before starting a campaign. Bad role-playing to make up for a bad GM isn't an ideal situation.
What if... There were multiple ways to play alignment. What if most everyone was okay? What if it was always okay as long as no one else at the table has a problem with it? Crazy I know...Spoken like a true Chaotic Neutral. I approve.
I'm not sure how to respond to that. My gut tells me... Maybe, sure why not.
Yeah, sometimes you skip that though, or worse your GM tells you its okay and the problems crop up later. It was a bid deal in my last campaign that the DM was heavily enforcing alignment but early on it was "oh anything is okay". When he was threatening to change someones alignment to good against their will for not actively letting teammates die, and told me it wasn't nuetral good to kill sentients in a warzone I quickly jumped on the CN train to avoid trouble down the road. My brother jokingly told me if he forces me into good I need to burn an orphanage to burn balance things out. I wasn't doing bad roleplaying, I wasn't taking the excuse to do whatever I wanted. Just playing someone without a lot of personal attachments or care for good or evil. He was really mild.
|
|
It was a bid deal in my last campaign that the DM was heavily enforcing alignment but early on it was "oh anything is okay". When he was threatening to change someones alignment to good against their will for not actively letting teammates die, and told me it wasn't nuetral good to kill sentients in a warzone
Wow... just... wow. It sounds like your GM didn't understood the concept of alignment at all. I hope he was better with other parts of the game. In that situation, no one could blame you for gaming the system a little -- I would have done the same.
My CN PFS gnome I try to play his chaotically as possible. He is level 8 without killing anything yet. As a sorcerer dip in heavens oracle he does cheer teamamtes on when they coup de graz people though. With his high charisma(28) my group often makes the mistake of having him be the face. It is very frequent he runes himself face first into a trap or drinks all the potions the group finds.
When I met my faction leader all I did was insult him and when asked why he said "I hate that guy, he always tells me what to do!"
Here's how I actually explain it to my players:
LG: Buttercup
NG: Miracle Max's Wife
CG: Wesley
LN: Fezzik
N: Miracle Max
CN: Inigo Montoya
LE: Prince Humperdinck
NE: Vizzini
CE: Count Rugen
Got to call foul on Wesley being CG. I seem to recall he was probably the #1 rules lawyer of the movie. Cannot see him being chaotic, with that personality. Wesley may have been LG. Buttercup was definitely Good, but was she Lawful? She basically just did what everyone told her to do. I think that makes her NG (Naive Good). Andre the Giant may fit the CG niche, he was definitely good natured, but was rather a free spirit.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Got to call foul on Wesley being CG. I seem to recall he was probably the #1 rules lawyer of the movie. Cannot see him being chaotic, with that personality. Wesley may have been LG. Buttercup was definitely Good, but was she Lawful? She basically just did what everyone told her to do. I think that makes her NG (Naive Good). Andre the Giant may fit the CG niche, he was definitely good natured, but was rather a free spirit.
I knew I was going to have to defend this. To give you a fighting chance, I'm typing this post with my left hand. :)
Wesley was a (spoiler alert?)pirate. No lawful character would engage in piracy. He lies, steals, cheats, and nearly overthrows a monarch. Regarding his being a rules lawyer, you're talking about the marriage, right? He was hardly arguing points of law -- he was BSing Buttercup to get her to feel better about running away with him (see below). The character was a combination of Zorro, Robin Hood, and Captain Blood -- any of which could be held up as the very model of CG.
Regarding Buttercup: As you said, she does what people tell her to do -- it may be naive but it's also the definition of Lawful. She agrees to a marriage out of obedience rather than love. When Wesley rescues her (the second time), he has to convince her that her marriage wasn't valid. Only a lawful character would let a coerced sham-wedding stop them from from being with their True Love.
And Fezzik is LN all the way. He's a joiner and doesn't care about the morality of those in charge. First it was Vizzini and later it was the Brute Squad. He believes in fair-play and he's loyal to his friends. Good-natured, sure, but Good-aligned characters don't sign on as muscle for murder/kidnapping plots.
|
Well, I'm not left handed either, but Fezzik is definately good!
His lack of intellect and desire to be accepted led to his exploitation by Vezzini. His naïvité stopped him from realising the harm he was doing until the events of The Princess Bride.
Inigo and he joined the brute squad in the middle of the film because they were at a loose end. Despite the name, the brute squad was a temporary measure to increase manpower in the perfectly legal forces of the crown, and at this stage they didn't know anything about the Prince being (spoiler alert!) evil!
It's a cute idea, but trying to shoehorn these nine characters into the nine alignments was always going to fail. : )
It's always nice to be reminded of my favourite film though. Sorry to put a crimp in your style. I thought it fitting, considering the rocky terrain...
|
|
His lack of intellect and desire to be accepted led to his exploitation by Vezzini. His naïvité stopped him from realising the harm he was doing until the events of The Princess Bride.
Inconceivable!
You're not giving the big guy enough credit. He had no problem killing someone for money, as long as it was done sportsmanlike. I stand by my assessment: Fezzik was never motivated by benevolence -- he was a mercenary for 2/3 of the film. Later, he is motivated by loyalty to his friends. Admirable yes, but not moral.
Inigo and he joined the brute squad in the middle of the film because they were at a loose end.
Inigo wasn't a member of the Brute Squad... he was rounded up by them.
It's a cute idea, but trying to shoehorn these nine characters into the nine alignments was always going to fail. : )
Alignment being what it is, no quick explanation is ever going to be perfect. As a GM, these characters fall into my personal interpretation, more or less. No one ever agrees 100% on alignment, which is why I can't resist these threads.
It's always nice to be reminded of my favourite film though. Sorry to put a crimp in your style. I thought it fitting, considering the rocky terrain...
Naturally, you must expect me to attack with Capo Ferro... What's funny is that I've been using this comparison at the beginning of campaigns for almost 15 years and Fezzik is never the one that people argue with me about. :)