Bandw2 |
okay here's the thing that makes him kinda crazy, he wants to use war as a business to end war as a business.(using his words)
He wants to ultimately make America Free again from what he sees as parasites feeding off of the strong. He hates the political correctness that permeates society and wants everyone to be able to fight for what they want(he hates how oil permeates American foreign affairs). He plans to run for president.
He just knows he's also going to be one of those strong people in the end. Using Raiden's comments "what do you know about what it's like to be weak, you were never hungry, you never knew want".
I liked metal gear revengence for being like the only game that takes place in modern times using modern politics and isn't largely made to be a comment on said politics.
this is what makes me think he's what CE is by pathfinder's definitions he IS EVIL(as he has no compassion for people, and kills when it is convenient) but also strongly holds Chaotic Ethics. He is not self centered but still largely is creating destruction in the world and views that as a good thing.
Orfamay Quest |
Overall, 'ninjas' are much, much more connected with rebellion than monks, and thus they can easily be connected to a chaotic alignment. Of course, ninjas are just as easily associated with a rebellious assassin as they are with being a lord's loyal spy.
I'd say "more easily," if you look at the actual sources. The idea of a ninja as a heroic rebel is very much a late 20th century phenomenon, and strongly the product of American cultural influence.
Even in western literature, the idea of the heroic criminal is relatively new (the first example I can think of offhand is A. J. Raffles, the Gentleman Burglar, which came out in the early 20th century).
Bandw2 |
lemeres wrote:
Overall, 'ninjas' are much, much more connected with rebellion than monks, and thus they can easily be connected to a chaotic alignment. Of course, ninjas are just as easily associated with a rebellious assassin as they are with being a lord's loyal spy.I'd say "more easily," if you look at the actual sources. The idea of a ninja as a heroic rebel is very much a late 20th century phenomenon, and strongly the product of American cultural influence.
Even in western literature, the idea of the heroic criminal is relatively new (the first example I can think of offhand is A. J. Raffles, the Gentleman Burglar, which came out in the early 20th century).
I wouldn't say heroic, but they definitely knew how to kill high ranking people. I believe they invented teh first recorded use of a land mine, using a pressure plate to turn a wheel to strike a flint to light the fuse.
PIXIE DUST |
okay here's the thing that makes him kinda crazy, he wants to use war as a business to end war as a business.(using his words)
He wants to ultimately make America Free again from what he sees as parasites feeding off of the strong. He hates the political correctness that permeates society and wants everyone to be able to fight for what they want(he hates how oil permeates American foreign affairs). He plans to run for president.
He just knows he's also going to be one of those strong people in the end. Using Raiden's comments "what do you know about what it's like to be weak, you were never hungry, you never knew want".
I liked metal gear revengence for being like the only game that takes place in modern times using modern politics and isn't largely made to be a comment on said politics.
this is what makes me think he's what CE is by pathfinder's definitions he IS EVIL(as he has no compassion for people, and kills when it is convenient) but also strongly holds Chaotic Ethics. He is not self centered but still largely is creating destruction in the world and views that as a good thing.
Again, he sounds more CN than CE.
He is thinking about other people and society and is pissed off at the state of society, making him more CN than CE.
CE is, as stated before, the Joker or Clockwork Orange.
Bandw2 |
Bandw2 wrote:okay here's the thing that makes him kinda crazy, he wants to use war as a business to end war as a business.(using his words)
He wants to ultimately make America Free again from what he sees as parasites feeding off of the strong. He hates the political correctness that permeates society and wants everyone to be able to fight for what they want(he hates how oil permeates American foreign affairs). He plans to run for president.
He just knows he's also going to be one of those strong people in the end. Using Raiden's comments "what do you know about what it's like to be weak, you were never hungry, you never knew want".
I liked metal gear revengence for being like the only game that takes place in modern times using modern politics and isn't largely made to be a comment on said politics.
this is what makes me think he's what CE is by pathfinder's definitions he IS EVIL(as he has no compassion for people, and kills when it is convenient) but also strongly holds Chaotic Ethics. He is not self centered but still largely is creating destruction in the world and views that as a good thing.
Again, he sounds more CN than CE.
He is thinking about other people and society and is pissed off at the state of society, making him more CN than CE.
CE is, as stated before, the Joker or Clockwork Orange.
both examples have literally NO chaotic tinge, AT ALL, they fall directly under neutral evil. They kill because it is the most convenient for them or because they enjoy it, and no other reason.
he is very much evil, because he doesn't care about any specific person, he just believes that society is wrong. He will kill anyone in his way. CN wouldn't kill no one but they won't kill random citizens in a city (along with the president's assassination) just to create instability.
he specifically has chaotic ideals and evil morality. that is why he is CE.
Aelryinth RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 |
lemeres wrote:
Overall, 'ninjas' are much, much more connected with rebellion than monks, and thus they can easily be connected to a chaotic alignment. Of course, ninjas are just as easily associated with a rebellious assassin as they are with being a lord's loyal spy.I'd say "more easily," if you look at the actual sources. The idea of a ninja as a heroic rebel is very much a late 20th century phenomenon, and strongly the product of American cultural influence.
Even in western literature, the idea of the heroic criminal is relatively new (the first example I can think of offhand is A. J. Raffles, the Gentleman Burglar, which came out in the early 20th century).
Uh, Robin Hood?
In the far east, the wandering master/monk tends to fall into this role.
Indeed, China wiped out the original Shaolin temple because the wandering monks fell under this trope one time too many.
The Trope is as old as dirt.
==Aelryinth
lemeres |
lemeres wrote:
Overall, 'ninjas' are much, much more connected with rebellion than monks, and thus they can easily be connected to a chaotic alignment. Of course, ninjas are just as easily associated with a rebellious assassin as they are with being a lord's loyal spy.I'd say "more easily," if you look at the actual sources. The idea of a ninja as a heroic rebel is very much a late 20th century phenomenon, and strongly the product of American cultural influence.
Even in western literature, the idea of the heroic criminal is relatively new (the first example I can think of offhand is A. J. Raffles, the Gentleman Burglar, which came out in the early 20th century).
Of course. The work of assassins and spies is hard and thankless most of the time. Hell, I think it is mostly only popularized due, in part, to the work of intelligence agencies during WWII (where it played a vital part in saving lives while facing an indisputable 'evil' force).
Not to mention James Bond (which was originally based on the experiences Ian Fleming during WWII while working in "Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare" (aka- Special Operations Executive, the precursor to current British spy agencies) which, I kid you not, had Ian Fleming and Christopher Lee working in an organization based near Sherlock Holmes' address (and they were often referred to as "Baker Street Irregulars" after the kids Holmes used as intelligence agents), and this organization stopped the nazis from controlling a dam which would have been instrumental in Germany developing a nuke.
That bit of excitement you felt reading that? That is the admiration WWII put in us for spies.
Orfamay Quest |
Orfamay Quest wrote:lemeres wrote:
Overall, 'ninjas' are much, much more connected with rebellion than monks, and thus they can easily be connected to a chaotic alignment. Of course, ninjas are just as easily associated with a rebellious assassin as they are with being a lord's loyal spy.I'd say "more easily," if you look at the actual sources. The idea of a ninja as a heroic rebel is very much a late 20th century phenomenon, and strongly the product of American cultural influence.
Even in western literature, the idea of the heroic criminal is relatively new (the first example I can think of offhand is A. J. Raffles, the Gentleman Burglar, which came out in the early 20th century).
Of course. The work of assassins and spies is hard and thankless most of the time. Hell, I think it is mostly only popularized due, in part, to the work of intelligence agencies during WWII.
Not to mention James Bond (which was originally based on the experiences Ian Fleming during WWII while working in "Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare" (aka- Special Operations Executive, the precursor to current British spy agencies) which, I kid you not, had Ian Fleming and Christopher Lee working in an organization based near Sherlock Holmes' address (and they were often referred to as "Baker Street Irregulars" after the kids Holmes used as intelligence agents), and this organization stopped the nazis from controlling a dam which would have been instrumental in Germany developing a nuke.
That bit of excitement you felt reading that? That is the admiration WWII put in us for spies.
But spies aren't criminals.... well, our spies aren't criminals, anyway. Actually, the tradition of heroic spies goes back long before WWII, but one of the reasons for that is that spies.... well, our spies,... are actually doing a difficult and dangerous job for something much bigger than themselves (like Queen and Country).
That's one of the essential literary requirements for being a hero -- working for something beyond yourself. A ninja freedom fighter could easily be a hero,.... but the idea of a "freedom fighter" is really an American trope, not a Japanese one, so we didn't see those until the 1970s martial arts craze. Similarly, a Mafia boss who is acting to protect the underprivileged is a hero, but we didn't see that (in mainstream US culture) until The Godfather came out.
The Shaolin monks of popular myth were (as Aelryinth pointed out) often this kind of hero, working for the common people against bandits or oppressive emperors, but that (of course) was in Chinese myth, not Western or Japanese. Japanese fiction was much more into morality tales of duty and loyalty....
lemeres |
But spies aren't criminals.... well, our spies aren't criminals, anyway. Actually, the tradition of heroic spies goes back long before WWII, but one of the reasons for that is that spies.... well, our spies,... are actually doing a difficult and dangerous job for something much bigger than themselves (like Queen and Country).
That's one of the essential literary requirements for being a hero -- working for something beyond yourself. A ninja freedom fighter could easily be a hero,.... but the idea of a "freedom fighter" is really an American trope, not a Japanese one, so we didn't see those until the 1970s martial arts craze. Similarly, a Mafia boss who is acting to protect the underprivileged is a hero, but we didn't see that (in mainstream US culture) until The Godfather came out.
The Shaolin monks of popular myth were (as Aelryinth pointed out) often this kind of hero, working for the common people against bandits or oppressive emperors, but that (of course) was in Chinese myth, not Western or Japanese. Japanese fiction was much more into morality tales of duty and loyalty....
Ah, but are they 'honorable'? That is the sticky thing you have to deal wtih public perception- spies, by the nature of their job, have to be liars. They ahve to betray and deceive. And assassins ideally should stab in the back/sleep or use poison (a "coward's" or "woman's" weapon). Even if they are on your side, there is always that fear, that suspicion that they would betray you just as easily if the deal was good enough.
Plus, a good spy should make it so that no one ever even know they are a spy at all. And if they are discovered? Many times, they 'disappear' or end up gutted in a back alley. Their bodies may never make it back home, and their superiors may only have a vague idea of their death because the reports have stopped coming.
While there are examples of heroic spies, I wonder if the entire air of mystique was anywhere near present levels before WWII and the Cold War Era, where you finally got some good PR through news stories and movies dramatizing their work. Because it was hard to show their good work without...well...ruining it. So people mostly hear about their bad work (ie- the work of enemy spies and your own that double crossed you)
Aelryinth RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 |
Yes, spies were always considered ungentlemanly and untrustworthy, even if they came from the upper classes themselves. They certainly weren't thought of as heroic or something to be lionized...any respect you had for a spy was based on a change in personal belief. Overall, they were considered necessary scum.
It wasn't until the 1900's came around and spies acting nobly for their beliefs became a thing of fiction that the public attitude started to change. Now, a spy is considered a heroic person risking his all for his country and beliefs...if he's on your side. If he's on the other side, he's still treacherous scum.
Look how Russia treated that spy team that got caught angling for corporate secrets. The woman on the team was personally praised by Putin and became an internet celebrity overnight in her homeland.
==Aelryinth
Aelryinth RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 |
Aelryinth wrote:Chaotic is almost by definition the emotional end of the spectrum. Inner peace is not going to be something they have. More like inner exultation, or inner rage, or inner hate...but not inner peace.
Classic monks are tremendously disciplined, not emotional. Chaotics are by definition far more whimsical and devil-may-care. That doesn't mean they can't work hard...but it means they are doers of deeds, not accomplishers of tasks. The long, hard grind of day to day repeating efforts over and over again, which monks do on the long slog to enlightenment, is anathema to Chaotics. Be like working in a cubicle maze as a corporate drone, or something!
==Aelryinth
honestly if you want inner peace I think you'd need to be true neutral. Lawful like mentioned has too much baggage and chaotic is too focused on the now.
edit: oh my god that typo
No, Lawful has the inbuilt conceit of the One True Way going for it.
Neutrals by their nature are getting tugged in many different directions and would hardly be likely to have inner peace, they'd literally have conflicts all around them.
Lawful types cling to one way and follow it through for good or ill much more easily then Neutrals and Chaotics, who are far more likely to ditch a hard path for something easier.
==Aelryinth
Aelryinth RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 |
untrue. If you know your way is the one true way, you aren't distracted by other possibilities. It's pretty much the definition of serenity, perfect assurance in yourself and your way.
Neutrals and Chaotics aren't really going to have that kind of self-assurance, because they'd be more willing to entertain alternatives to their own path.
We can argue 'legitimacy' all day, of course, but 'effective' is probably the better word.
==Aelryinth
kyrt-ryder |
What's more effective for inner peace than letting go of your personal cares and attachments, of learning to 'ride the wave' of destiny accepting whatever fate has in store for you whilst walking your path... or rigorously adhering to One True Wayisms?
As I said before, Lawful has way too much baggage to lay claims to exclusivity to inner peace.
Arachnofiend |
Bandw2 wrote:Aelryinth wrote:Chaotic is almost by definition the emotional end of the spectrum. Inner peace is not going to be something they have. More like inner exultation, or inner rage, or inner hate...but not inner peace.
Classic monks are tremendously disciplined, not emotional. Chaotics are by definition far more whimsical and devil-may-care. That doesn't mean they can't work hard...but it means they are doers of deeds, not accomplishers of tasks. The long, hard grind of day to day repeating efforts over and over again, which monks do on the long slog to enlightenment, is anathema to Chaotics. Be like working in a cubicle maze as a corporate drone, or something!
==Aelryinth
honestly if you want inner peace I think you'd need to be true neutral. Lawful like mentioned has too much baggage and chaotic is too focused on the now.
edit: oh my god that typo
No, Lawful has the inbuilt conceit of the One True Way going for it.
Neutrals by their nature are getting tugged in many different directions and would hardly be likely to have inner peace, they'd literally have conflicts all around them.
Lawful types cling to one way and follow it through for good or ill much more easily then Neutrals and Chaotics, who are far more likely to ditch a hard path for something easier.
==Aelryinth
Dude, Irori's entire deal is the fact that he doesn't believe there's a "one true way" to do anything and everyone has a different path to enlightenment.
Tectorman |
Aelryinth wrote:Dude, Irori's entire deal is the fact that he doesn't believe there's a "one true way" to do anything and everyone has a different path to enlightenment.Bandw2 wrote:Aelryinth wrote:Chaotic is almost by definition the emotional end of the spectrum. Inner peace is not going to be something they have. More like inner exultation, or inner rage, or inner hate...but not inner peace.
Classic monks are tremendously disciplined, not emotional. Chaotics are by definition far more whimsical and devil-may-care. That doesn't mean they can't work hard...but it means they are doers of deeds, not accomplishers of tasks. The long, hard grind of day to day repeating efforts over and over again, which monks do on the long slog to enlightenment, is anathema to Chaotics. Be like working in a cubicle maze as a corporate drone, or something!
==Aelryinth
honestly if you want inner peace I think you'd need to be true neutral. Lawful like mentioned has too much baggage and chaotic is too focused on the now.
edit: oh my god that typo
No, Lawful has the inbuilt conceit of the One True Way going for it.
Neutrals by their nature are getting tugged in many different directions and would hardly be likely to have inner peace, they'd literally have conflicts all around them.
Lawful types cling to one way and follow it through for good or ill much more easily then Neutrals and Chaotics, who are far more likely to ditch a hard path for something easier.
==Aelryinth
I recall words to that effect in the Inner Sea Gods book. He had no problem with whoever it was that was the first guy to use the Starstone to ascend (was that Aroden, or did he just establish the test while someone else was the first?), but Irori looks down on the other three/four? gods that copied him, lamenting that their ascension was unoriginal.
Aelryinth RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 |
Aelryinth wrote:Dude, Irori's entire deal is the fact that he doesn't believe there's a "one true way" to do anything and everyone has a different path to enlightenment.Bandw2 wrote:Aelryinth wrote:Chaotic is almost by definition the emotional end of the spectrum. Inner peace is not going to be something they have. More like inner exultation, or inner rage, or inner hate...but not inner peace.
Classic monks are tremendously disciplined, not emotional. Chaotics are by definition far more whimsical and devil-may-care. That doesn't mean they can't work hard...but it means they are doers of deeds, not accomplishers of tasks. The long, hard grind of day to day repeating efforts over and over again, which monks do on the long slog to enlightenment, is anathema to Chaotics. Be like working in a cubicle maze as a corporate drone, or something!
==Aelryinth
honestly if you want inner peace I think you'd need to be true neutral. Lawful like mentioned has too much baggage and chaotic is too focused on the now.
edit: oh my god that typo
No, Lawful has the inbuilt conceit of the One True Way going for it.
Neutrals by their nature are getting tugged in many different directions and would hardly be likely to have inner peace, they'd literally have conflicts all around them.
Lawful types cling to one way and follow it through for good or ill much more easily then Neutrals and Chaotics, who are far more likely to ditch a hard path for something easier.
==Aelryinth
Didn't say anything about enlightenment. Said serenity.
And while Irori's whole thing might be 'there is no one way', there are hundreds of martial orders plenty happy to advertise that theirs is the best of the options that are out there...and most of them worship Irori.
:) I never said that everyone's "One True Way" was the same.
==Aelryinth
Bandw2 |
Bandw2 wrote:Aelryinth wrote:Chaotic is almost by definition the emotional end of the spectrum. Inner peace is not going to be something they have. More like inner exultation, or inner rage, or inner hate...but not inner peace.
Classic monks are tremendously disciplined, not emotional. Chaotics are by definition far more whimsical and devil-may-care. That doesn't mean they can't work hard...but it means they are doers of deeds, not accomplishers of tasks. The long, hard grind of day to day repeating efforts over and over again, which monks do on the long slog to enlightenment, is anathema to Chaotics. Be like working in a cubicle maze as a corporate drone, or something!
==Aelryinth
honestly if you want inner peace I think you'd need to be true neutral. Lawful like mentioned has too much baggage and chaotic is too focused on the now.
edit: oh my god that typo
No, Lawful has the inbuilt conceit of the One True Way going for it.
Neutrals by their nature are getting tugged in many different directions and would hardly be likely to have inner peace, they'd literally have conflicts all around them.
Lawful types cling to one way and follow it through for good or ill much more easily then Neutrals and Chaotics, who are far more likely to ditch a hard path for something easier.
==Aelryinth
i'm talking more the neutral apathy type. lawful is too concerned with what others are doing and following a set path(oh god i just ate walnuts on accident, now i have to start all over).
DM Under The Bridge |
I hear a lot of talk on this, but last year in a pathfinder campaign had no power problems with a vanilla monk with boar style.
Great char, had a lot of fun, outshined others at the table. Got to use all my monk abilities (including slow fall) at least once.
Take some strong feats and clearly have a build in mind and the monk should be fine.
Would boar style monk again. Would vanilla monk again and try other feat chains.
Arachnofiend |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Arachnofiend wrote:Aelryinth wrote:Dude, Irori's entire deal is the fact that he doesn't believe there's a "one true way" to do anything and everyone has a different path to enlightenment.Bandw2 wrote:Aelryinth wrote:Chaotic is almost by definition the emotional end of the spectrum. Inner peace is not going to be something they have. More like inner exultation, or inner rage, or inner hate...but not inner peace.
Classic monks are tremendously disciplined, not emotional. Chaotics are by definition far more whimsical and devil-may-care. That doesn't mean they can't work hard...but it means they are doers of deeds, not accomplishers of tasks. The long, hard grind of day to day repeating efforts over and over again, which monks do on the long slog to enlightenment, is anathema to Chaotics. Be like working in a cubicle maze as a corporate drone, or something!
==Aelryinth
honestly if you want inner peace I think you'd need to be true neutral. Lawful like mentioned has too much baggage and chaotic is too focused on the now.
edit: oh my god that typo
No, Lawful has the inbuilt conceit of the One True Way going for it.
Neutrals by their nature are getting tugged in many different directions and would hardly be likely to have inner peace, they'd literally have conflicts all around them.
Lawful types cling to one way and follow it through for good or ill much more easily then Neutrals and Chaotics, who are far more likely to ditch a hard path for something easier.
==Aelryinth
Didn't say anything about enlightenment. Said serenity.
And while Irori's whole thing might be 'there is no one way', there are hundreds of martial orders plenty happy to advertise that theirs is the best of the options that are out there...and most of them worship Irori.
:) I never said that everyone's "One True Way" was the same.
==Aelryinth
If you're going to make a definitive statement on the One True Meaning of the Lawful alignment, you may want to make sure that statement isn't directly opposed to the philosophy of one of the main Lawful Neutral deities in Pathfinder.
That's pretty much the definition of pulling s&&~ out of your ass.
Aelryinth RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 |
Or, it's the definition of people taking things too literally and inclusively.
LN is basically the definition that overall, there is no one true way, but individually, there certainly is...a wonderful paradox for ultimate law to try and reconcile.
Neutral apathy would be about as far from serenity and enlightenment as you could hope to get. "It's probably better, but I don't care" is pretty much neither of those options.
==Aelryinth
Aelryinth RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 |
Bluenose |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Orfamay Quest wrote:lemeres wrote:
Overall, 'ninjas' are much, much more connected with rebellion than monks, and thus they can easily be connected to a chaotic alignment. Of course, ninjas are just as easily associated with a rebellious assassin as they are with being a lord's loyal spy.I'd say "more easily," if you look at the actual sources. The idea of a ninja as a heroic rebel is very much a late 20th century phenomenon, and strongly the product of American cultural influence.
Even in western literature, the idea of the heroic criminal is relatively new (the first example I can think of offhand is A. J. Raffles, the Gentleman Burglar, which came out in the early 20th century).
Uh, Robin Hood?
In the far east, the wandering master/monk tends to fall into this role.
Indeed, China wiped out the original Shaolin temple because the wandering monks fell under this trope one time too many.
The Trope is as old as dirt.
==Aelryinth
China has Outlaws of the Marsh, and of course both China and Japan have experience with peasant rebellions that sometimes attract monastic support.
And yes, the 'heroic criminal/outlaw' is a very old trope.
Bandw2 |
Or, it's the definition of people taking things too literally and inclusively.
LN is basically the definition that overall, there is no one true way, but individually, there certainly is...a wonderful paradox for ultimate law to try and reconcile.
Neutral apathy would be about as far from serenity and enlightenment as you could hope to get. "It's probably better, but I don't care" is pretty much neither of those options.
==Aelryinth
releasing your worldly ambitions too impossible for monks?
PIXIE DUST |
Um... Lawful Neutral does not have anything to do with laws and a LN does not necessarily care what others thinks other.
A LN is simply about routine, tradition, and order. Even if it is simply themselves. A LN could simply focus on performing certain rituals and such at strictly mandated times and such following a very strict personal code (like the teachings of Buddha). Being neutral means they are free of the overwhelming tug of either good or evil (they may feel slight tugs in either direction but not anything major) and being Lawful simply implys order and tradition, so in fact, a tranquil monk would be more LN than anything...
EntrerisShadow |
I feel like the best thing I saw explaining alignments was a series of concentric circles representing Evil, Neutral, and Good and Law, Neutral, and Chaos.
The Evil circle encompassed self, with neutral blending into Family/Friends, and Good spreading into All Life with there being degradation to mark how intensely that instinct was. So if Neutral is blue and Good is green, there's a turquoise barrier that represents how much more the person cares for their circle as to what happens in the world at large.
The Law-Neutral-Chaos circles did something similar but had two different sets, one from Tradition to Iconoclasm and one from Planning to Reactionary. (I think anyway - it has been a while.)
So being CE doesn't necessarily mean you're better or worse than a NE- it's actually completely irrelevant. Daemons aren't worse because they're NE; they're worse because their omnicidal nihilism is a threat to pretty much all existing creatures. The mercenary NE Yugoloths of D&D on the other hand are considered slightly less terrible than demons because their motivations are at least understandable.
You could have a CE who is just kind of an unbalanced jerk, or a NE who is just a selfish coward - or in either case they could be complete monsters. Hell even LE, despite its reputation as the least evil of evil alignments, can put those people to shame. Just look at some of the tyrants throughout history, especially when they started to colonize. They engineered some of the worst atrocities imaginable on a scale that makes (the definitely CE) Ed Gein look like child's play.
LazarX |
In comics for me...
Lawful Evil.. Lex Luthor, Dr. Doom, both are very in with the notion of strength through hierarchy.
Captain Cold...He even goes far enough to set up dental and retirement plans for the Rogues.
Nabuu, he fights for Order, but really has no consideration for the free will and rights of anyone he can dominate. That and he is a complete Jerk.
Neutral Evil.. Dr. Druid afer his Heel Face Turn. most of the petty third raters in Spiderman's rouge's gallery. Hannibal Lector.
Chaotic Evil... The Black Cat seems to ride the shuttle train between Chaotic Good and Chaotic Evil, bu she's always a me-first kind of person. Mark Hall, as Extant... sometimes even as Hawk, but if you're looking for the supreme example in comics... no one passes Joker.
Bandw2 |
I feel like the best thing I saw explaining alignments was a series of concentric circles representing Evil, Neutral, and Good and Law, Neutral, and Chaos.
The Evil circle encompassed self, with neutral blending into Family/Friends, and Good spreading into All Life with there being degradation to mark how intensely that instinct was. So if Neutral is blue and Good is green, there's a turquoise barrier that represents how much more the person cares for their circle as to what happens in the world at large.
The Law-Neutral-Chaos circles did something similar but had two different sets, one from Tradition to Iconoclasm and one from Planning to Reactionary. (I think anyway - it has been a while.)
So being CE doesn't necessarily mean you're better or worse than a NE- it's actually completely irrelevant. Daemons aren't worse because they're NE; they're worse because their omnicidal nihilism is a threat to pretty much all existing creatures. The mercenary NE Yugoloths of D&D on the other hand are considered slightly less terrible than demons because their motivations are at least understandable.
You could have a CE who is just kind of an unbalanced jerk, or a NE who is just a selfish coward - or in either case they could be complete monsters. Hell even LE, despite its reputation as the least evil of evil alignments, can put those people to shame. Just look at some of the tyrants throughout history, especially when they started to colonize. They engineered some of the worst atrocities imaginable on a scale that makes (the definitely CE) Ed Gein look like child's play.
here's my problem, that's not what alignment is defined as in pathfinder.
Aelryinth RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 |
I'd personally make Lex Luthor NE...he has no respect for laws as long as he isn't caught, and his only concern is getting and keeping himself on top. Doom, however, is renowned for his authoritarianism and the value of his given word.
CE - joker. Two face, relying completely on luck for his decisions. Maximus the Inhuman genius, maybe. The Green Goblin, definitely. Note how CE tends to have more then a touch of madness in it.
I'd make Captain Cold NE...he's a law breaker, but takes care of his own. He's not, for example, anything like a mafia don, and doesn't have a rigid code for the Rogues. They are simply family.
Black Cat is textbook CN, very similar to Catwoman.
Ra's Al Ghul and Red Skull would be LE. Viper, on the other hand, is NE at best, and more likely CE (that insanity element again).
==Aelryinth
shroudb |
while it isn't defined by insanity, it usually rides alongside it.
reason being that when you activly try to simultaneously spead both chaos AND do harm, you usually aren't that good in the mental health department:
someone trying to rule a place through his "evil mastermind" plans won't be chaotic. he would be LE
someone killing, stealing, doing !@##! for personnal gain only and not giving a damn about anything else wont be chaotic, he would be NE.
someone trying to simultaneously do harm and chaos, i.e. throwing a fireball into a building with peasants not for personnal gain, but just so that he can spread chaos and laugh at it is usually not right in head.
Aelryinth RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 |
chaotic isn't defined by insanity. Joker is CE though, he breaks laws just to break them.
never said it was. But the 'enlightenment' of CN is usually described as madness. When even your thoughts have no form or reason, to the average person, you're totally insane.
Sure, Law can have Insanity associated with it, too, but that's usually specific disorders heightening one aspect of a personality, i.e. megalomania, OCD, and the like.
You want bat(*&t crazy, you go Chaotic. For instance, the Joker could be considered 'enlightened' Chaotic, as he's pretty much firmly convinced that reality is one big joke written for his benefit, and he's the punchline.
==Aelryinth
kyrt-ryder |
The Enlightenment of CN isn't madness, it's harmony.
It's reaching the zen of not giving a s*+! about the storm swirling around you, riding it without a care.
EDIT Example: "This is the hand I was dealt and it doesn't matter. Gonna do what I can with what I have and whatever will be will be and that's all that it is."
gamer-printer |
Everything I understand about Buddhism and enlightenment, requires a disciplined mind, and within the confines of Pathfinder alignment system all fits under "lawful".
All the considerations about CN is harmony on the path to enlightenment is crazy talk, and though you're free to believe whatever you want - there's no way a monk can be a monk and not be lawful (but that fits within my own understanding of the game alignment system, which may be different than yours...)
We must agree to disagree, because I can never agree that chaotic anything is a proponent to a path to enlightenment. You just don't understand Buddhism, if you think its so.
Bandw2 |
Bandw2 wrote:chaotic isn't defined by insanity. Joker is CE though, he breaks laws just to break them.never said it was. But the 'enlightenment' of CN is usually described as madness. When even your thoughts have no form or reason, to the average person, you're totally insane.
Sure, Law can have Insanity associated with it, too, but that's usually specific disorders heightening one aspect of a personality, i.e. megalomania, OCD, and the like.
You want bat(*&t crazy, you go Chaotic. For instance, the Joker could be considered 'enlightened' Chaotic, as he's pretty much firmly convinced that reality is one big joke written for his benefit, and he's the punchline.
==Aelryinth
alignment is not tied to your mental faculties at all. >_>
Bandw2 |
Everything I understand about Buddhism and enlightenment, requires a disciplined mind, and within the confines of Pathfinder alignment system all fits under "lawful".
All the considerations about CN is harmony on the path to enlightenment is crazy talk, and though you're free to believe whatever you want - there's no way a monk can be a monk and not be lawful (but that fits within my own understanding of the game alignment system, which may be different than yours...)
We must agree to disagree, because I can never agree that chaotic anything is a proponent to a path to enlightenment. You just don't understand Buddhism, if you think its so.
then you haven't read when chaotic is defined as in pathfinder.
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
gamer-printer |
How exactly are you defining Enlightenment G.P. ?
When the truth of life is revealed to you - that is the definition of enlightenment, and to Buddhists you're are no longer confined to the reincarnation cycle and can no longer be reborn (but that's esoteric).
While you are eschewing material things and concepts in the process of following the path to enlightenment, you do so in the confines of a defined structure in your mind (which requires discipline).
The whole point to reincarnation is that you have not figured out how to achieve enlightenment, so you die and get another chance in your next life. When you've figured it out, you're booted out of the cycle and can achieve Nirvana. Of course some people never figure it out.