Alignment personality (versatility question)

Remove all ads!

This might be better as a poll but what alingment('s) is the most versatile in a role play sense? as in which one of the alingments is the least restrictive to a characters actions.
Anything lawful: is restrictive since they all have to follow their conscience or the conscience of their society, even lawful evil characters, belive in following the law unless they can get away with it, but that is only MY opinion.

Neutral good characters belive in following the law for the, good of the most people possible, but they don't follow instructions blindly without questioning and trying to get as much knowledge as possible, and aren't nessacarily the "save every cat caught in a tree type"

Chaotic good characters, are basically the same as neutral good, but the only law they belive in is what they feel is right, and at times can be prone to doing evil or questionable things, like the Punisher for example, who generally leans towards the good side, but also has no real remorse when it comes to toruring people he see's as evil, and as far as revenge is concerened even killing people close to evil people, just to get back at them even if the victim is innocent themselves.

I'm running short on time and this message is getting rantish so I'll do the rest later on.

[ January 23, 2004, 17:19: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

 

How 'bout "chaotic neutral" characters? (I.e: mad-men)

They can do practically anything without feeling bad.

 

I disagree with this statement. Chaotic neutral characters aren't madmen. Unpredictable and somewhat unreliable, maybe; but they are not madmen. Chaotic neutral characters conduct themselves based on the moment or by whim. They do not conform to either good or evil nor do they have any use for laws and rules. Haer'Dalis is chaotic neutral and he is far from being a madman.

 

There you said the reason, they act on a whim. That means you can do wathever you want at the moment you do it. That is the most free thing you do. And they don't have to act against the law, they can do things that are lawful but do it because they just feel like doing them at the moment. That way they aren't restricted to lawful actions. They also don't concern with good and evil so here also they can act like they want, be it a good or a bad action. The only restriction they feel is what they want to do, no exterior pressure to do things one way or the other. All the other alignments have somehow a purpose to their choices, but not the Chaotic Neutral.

 

Look, alignments aren't hardcoded beliefs. If alignments were specifications followed to the letter, they would become like law and upholding an alignment would be a lawful act, including upholding a chaotic alignment, thereby there would be only lawful characters, with maybe a bunch of neutrals.

Any character may follow conscience. Following conscience is generally lawful, but it's not like it necessarily makes you perform exclusively lawful acts. Lawful evil characters may actually believe in innate values of law. Some may be mean, some may be selfish etc and without giving a damn about losers, that makes them more evil than good, if not far on the evil side. Lawful evil characters may also have typically lawful mindsets - imagine an iconic dwarven fighter going evil. Lawful neutral characters are not barred from the "unless they may get away with it" attitude and I would risk a statement that lawful good characters aren't either (lawful good doesn't mean you're a paladin or some such).

Lawful alignment isn't necessarily followed by deep respect for laws, let alone obeying them to the letter. There are lawful criminals, too. They follow some rights and customs of their group (e.g. a guild) while not caring at all about the society's laws. Or they have fixed routines and rigid ways of thinking. Or a wicked code of honour.

When it comes to obeying laws, intelligent characters will more likely follow the spirit of law rather than the letter. Wise characters will probably weigh up the aims of a law rule rather than its text when needed. Both will evaluate the rule's reasonability, too. Lawful doesn't mean law golem.

Just no intrinsic deference for laws. No generic need to obey any fixed sets of rules. Perhaps a belief in healthy balance, or lack of care either way, or lack of discipline to follow rules they believe in. Your description, however, fits most well-played lawful good characters as well.

Your Punisher example might as well be lawful neutral. One could justify any neutral alignment and chaotic good alignment in that case. Depends on a larger view. Generally leaning towards good while doing evil to the evil people makes you more neutral than good, though. Just on the good side, but neutral. Probably lawful.

Essentially, characters neutral towards law and chaos rely on doing what they feel is right. Lawful good characters are prone to think more then feel in this case, but they're still here too. Going against your conscience is hardly a lawful act, that's one. Deity orders, dogmas rules etc override everything mortals come up with, that's two.

I think this thread and this post in particular is a good opportunity to pimp theRoleplaying Personality Test created by guess whom

 

Spent three quarters of an hour answering that, I get to the end, and it turns out that there was "an error on the page" thanks Chev

But judging by the questions, options and my choices, I would call myself somewhere around Chaotic good, or at least most of the time

I don't think there's any test that can really judge what a person would be like, someone can be a complete and utter demon like evil person, but still have respect for people that do good even if they oppose it in everyway, and only look out for themselves but still have people close to them and care for there safety. (EDIT: I just rememered a quote from Arnold-Governer-of-California, saying that he respected Hitler's determiniation, potential and drive--which the media tried to use against him--but he didn't agree with what Hitler decided to do with his power, but he still had some degree of respest for him.)

At the same time the opposite could also apply to a saint-like Paladin who has to fight urges to do things against their belifes, take this for example. A long time friend of his/her's is found tortured almost to the point of death and they later on the next day find the tormenter completly defenseless all but fall into his/her lap. the most rightous and good people I'd imagine would even have a hard time trying to know what's right and wrong in a situation like this.

Also when it comes to matters of forgiveness you need to think about, who, why, where, how, when etc. If it is forgiving someone for accidently spilling a dring over your table or whatever then that should be easy enough for most people to forgive, but personally if I had a close friend from however many years back, and I find them doing something as extreme as murder, torture or rape, then forgiveness would come with a lot of time and difficulty if at all, but my veiw on the person would change permanantly.

So I think it's your expiriences and your actions and reactions in life and what you do an dont do that defines what you are really like, more then your opinions or thoughts or feelings, because actions speak a lot louder then then words. (or thoughts and feelings)

And Chev did you come up with that test or did you get it from somewhere?

 

I don't believe in any single alignment.
Anyways, in true life if anyone every had an alignment it would change from time to time.

The most versatile alignment would be CN, but the problem would be that you aren't allowed to focus on anything. Then again CN->NG->CN->CE->CN->TN->CN transformations actually fall under the CN alignment.

 

Hey, thanks for that Chev

I got "Lawful Good Human Sorcerer"

Sounds somewhat right. But I would have said I'd be closer to Neutral Good .

 

The result for me (in Chev's test):
lawfull good
human (or halfling)
wizard / rogue

STR 10
DEX 11
CON 11
INT 16
WIS 15
CHA 13
with formula: ROUND(10+16/SUM(ALLFOCUSES)*FOCUS,0), where all attributes start at 10 and 16 points are distributed

or

STR 9
DE 10
CON 9
INT 19
WIS 16
CHA 13
with formula: ROUND(8+28/SUM(ALLFOCUSES)*FOCUS,0), where all attributes start at 8 and 28 points are distributed

Chev could add similar formulas to his test ...


I tried to answer correctly.
I'm satisfied with this.
I would say I'm closer to halfling as this result shows (human 96, halfling 28, dwarf 22, gnome 22 - all others negative). And my DEX does not really suck as in this test - maybe STR 8, DEX 13-14, CON 12-13).

 

True Neutral is quite versatile...

 

According to that test, I'm a true neutral human wizard - quite odd, really, as I've only made a wizard once on BG2, and that didn't quite leave Irenicus' Dungeon. Also, I didn't have a clue about any of the magic questions. All the classes had negative scores for me... in fact, the highest number on the test was around 40, which was my race.

 

Alignment is a way of categorising what one's actions *amount to*. A person can believe what he wants and interpret his actions how he wants, but this won't alter how others judge him.
As Chev has said, lawfulness extends beyond actual laws into concepts of *order*. Standing in line is lawful behaviour. Making agreements, keeping promises, believing in systems of voting, and having rules for things, are all the sorts of things lawful people abide by.

Judging evil is a matter interpreted in terms of harm and hurt caused. Killing someone who no one likes or cares for will likely be interpreted as ‘not evil’ and may even be interpreted as a good act. Yet killing someone well loved will cause hurt and suffering to others and they will feel anger and hatred towards the killer, thus making the act 'evil'. Thus, whether a person is good or evil is determined in terms of how others react to him or her.

On the matter of evil people still having people who care for them: 'Evil' people can only have friends and/or people who care for them if these people don’t know (or deceive themselves about) the evil one’s actions. When they *discover* the evil one’s character, would they trust him? The answer is, only if they were idiots. Why care for someone who would do you harm or see harm done to you; someone who wouldn’t help you even if you were in dire need?
How does the evil person discriminate between *who* he hurts? It is determined according to whether he *wants* them in some way. Being evil doesn’t stop desire e.g. an evil man would still have a sex drive, so he will choose to whom he will reveal his evil nature i.e. ‘be evil’ to, based on this need (unless he can fulfil this need by force (which is within his nature, since it would cause suffering)). Yet as each desire is fulfilled, the *priority* desire changes and something is no longer useful or required for a time. It is at these times that the evil nature of the character is revealed to those around him and it’s inevitable that people will learn his ways and spread the word (looking out for their friends). The evil person finds himself ostracised and reacts with hostility and anger. His experience that no one can be trusted is reinforced, so he goes on his way, giving nothing to anyone and only ever taking. He becomes full of hatred. How can he hide this? Does it make him *lovable*? I don’t see how even the father of such a person wouldn’t be effected by this anger and hatred. At first it will be an argument and harsh words and soon it will be hostility and the destruction of the relationship.
No, I don’t see that anyone who is evil by nature can have any meaningful or lasting relationships, not even among those as evil as he, for evil knows evil and distrusts it all the more (than ‘gullible’ good people who are always trusting).

Chaotic neutral is definitely the most ‘free’ since such character is unconstrained by written/spoken rules or rules of morality. This *is* the alignment of lunatics (like it or not). To everyone (including themselves) his or her actions are unpredictable. This is frightening, as anyone who has experienced it will tell you. Look at Joe Pesci’s character in Goodfellas. From moment to moment you would be unsure whether he was going to share a joke with you or kill you.

The best source of an explanation of alignments – a concept that in my experience is not generally well understood – see the players handbook AD&D 2nd. Edition. It is the most fundamental concept to D&D (and role-playing) – the whole point of playing the game. Whatever else there is in BG2 can be got from other games e.g. the hack and slash, the graphics, the story line.

One doesn’t have to believe in alignments to have one, Sythesong! Others will be the arbiters of what alignment you are!

 

Very well, I'll try to remember that keldor.

But like I said, alignments can change and even a character of evil alignment has a chance of turning neutral, and possibly even good.
This is no stray occurence, and in some cases is unavoidable. Let's say a character who revels in death and carnage (possibly due to the fact that everyone's been trying to kill him too) has gotten quite a taste for it, but at some point meets someone who manages to doesn't want to kill him for a change. Let's say its a meeting wherein he was at a distinct disadvantage, and yet the stranger doesn't try to kill him. The character can do many things at this point, including choosing to ignore the fellow also. Let's say he does this, and afterwards returns to his general lifestyle.
That's already a quick alignment change.
So since change is unavoidable, if only time weren't considered CN is inevitable. (philosophical statement, no connection with D&D)

btw,
Chev I've been trying to take the alignment test to no avail. Nothing happens everytime I click result. I tried not putting answers, and it displays the TN Sorcerer/Mage message, but does nothing for 20 minutes when I put in answers.

[ January 24, 2004, 16:35: Message edited by: Scythesong Immortal ]

 

According to Chev's test, I am a True Neutral Human Fighter/Barbarian who displays Chaotic Good tendencies

 

Scythesong, one's actions move the pendulum of alignment. The more good one does, the more the alignment moves towards good. The less lawful one behaves, the more the pendulum swings towards chaotic. No quick changes of alignment, but quick *responses* to circumstances. You'd have to do a lot of good deeds to swing the pendulum from evil to good! Most responses to circumstances cause *tiny* fluctuations. Grand deeds cause larger swings but even these are unlikely to actually alter alignment at once. In your example, the evil guy who isn't attacked, realistically *might* think on it. I think he would more likely think the other a weak fool, but he *might* come to a different conclusion. If for example, this other was a female he might conclude she didn't attack because she fancied him. Then he might try to find out if this was true and if it was, he would likely have a relationship which would likely end with him falling out because of his inability to trust. However, she might effect his personality such that he tries to impress her or tries to see things her way. Maybe she introduces him to her friends which forces him to 'be polite' for once. Then he might find out that 'being polite' has it's rewards! Low and behold, new experiences! He thinks on the development and explores the new concept of 'goodness'. This would equate to a period of alignment re-appraisal - not a change, by no means, but the potential for one. He begins to *act* differently i.e. 'good', maybe doing someone a favour, or at least not insulting someone, and the pendulum swings slightly towards nuetral (in terms of good and evil). If he starts to pay for things instead of stealing them, the lawful aspect of his alignment would start to change. If he donates some money to charity, the pendulum would swing slightly - but only if he was donating without doing so for profit - for to do *that* is to donate money with selfish intentions, which is still evil. Can you see now how it works? In reality, alignment change is difficult because the old ways of acting and thinking are deeply ingrained from years of experience. It's easy to fall back into the old ways. When this evil guy's temper flares, will he scream abuse and stomp away or even lash out, or control himself and find a new method of dealing with troublesome situations? To find the new way is much harder than to respond in a way he knows well.

 

I think I misused a word or two.
My point was that given an ever-drastically-changing world, it's very possible for just about anyone to have an alignment change sooner or later. (Or at least, anyone normal. I wouldn't bet on one on Korgan, for example.)
And its very possible the process might just repeat itself.
For anyone to have only one alignment is too ideal to be fitted into the forgotten realms unless he/she just happens to have his/her own particularly interesting story.
IMO, anyway.

 

A few thoughts:

Lawfulness may even transcend both law and order concepts. Sometimes it's a mindset. Or even dull predictability. Just like versatility or flexibility may have chaotic connotations.

Killing someone evil is killing no less. Killing just because he's evil is evil too. No less evil, if you kill for loot, revenge, experience from fight, whatever such reasons. Killing in fight, or execution doesn't fall under here, of course.

Some people see good/evil as morals and lawful/chaotic as ethics. Not there, as I said, but the idea has some merit.

As for CNs, they don't really have to be the most free ones. Probably TN is the most unrestrained and CN is the most actively exploiting freedom. Doesn't mean it really has the freedom. After all, CGs aren't really likely to see Good as a set of binding restrictions. Even some LG's don't, but that's not the point here.

As for my test, I gave the link because I found that a better idea than commenting on each one person's views and points.

The test goes by my system, which means it doesn't blindly follow the dichotomy with neutral in the middle. There's no fixed sum total to partial alignment score. Subtracting from good isn't equal to adding to evil, for example. An TN character may still be more LG than a real LG one, balanced by chaotic tendencies or covered by strong balance tendencies. It doesn't go only by philosophy, it also includes practical and painfully realistic checkpoints. To the point of tongue-in-cheek observation that upholding a chaotic code strictly is a lawful act

Much the same for classes. It's as possible to get negatives for all classes as to get 200 in one (AFAIK some can accommodate even 300 points - the number of checkpoints for each isn't the same). Perhaps it means a person is not really an adventurer type . Having a class as your first chosen one doesn't mean it's your perfect class, it's just the best-matching one according to the test. Abundance of wizards and bards is a result of putting people from our world in quasi-mediaeval & magic-intense world of countless dice and neverding tables. Focus on intellect and formal education, focus on mental training more than physical one etc. Also higher intelligence than average, as computer users tend to be much more intelligent that overall population per average. Bard is when it's less geekish and more playful. Clerics have a future in this test too. Fighters won't be common - just how much real fighting has one seen in his modern life?

But please don't let us deviate from the subject. I'm really open for feedback and will reply all mail. Bug reports are even desired - with line numbers from error alerts, please (thanks, Quicho!). Most of those are fixed with each subsequent update. The algorithm is at present almost 50 pages of code and the number of different combinations approaches infinity, so it's not so easy to track down all potential problems.

 

Chev,
Quote: “Lawfulness may even transcend both law and order concepts. Sometimes it's a mindset. Or even dull predictability. Just like versatility or flexibility may have chaotic connotations.”

You seem confused. Lawfulness is *always* a mindset. ‘Dull predictability’ is a subjective viewpoint of what another may think of as a vital (not dull) duty (to a higher purpose to which ‘variety’ has no part). The lawful person is perfectly able to be flexible and/or versatile. Only where laws are concerned *might* the lawful person be *seen* (by someone else) to be restricted more than the chaotic one, but he himself *won’t* feel restricted! Only the chaotic person feels restricted by rules! You are interpreting the concept *subjectively*, which is a mistake.

Quote: “Killing someone evil is killing no less. Killing just because he's evil is evil too. No less evil, if you kill for loot, revenge, experience from fight, whatever such reasons. Killing in fight, or execution doesn't fall under here, of course.”

‘Evil’ is, again, a subjective concept. When speaking *objectively* about evil, destroying evil *is* good - *Defining* evil is the difficult part! This field is called ‘ethics’. ‘Good’ characters MUST HAVE preconceived codes of goodness by which they define ‘evil’. The paladin, for example, defines his morality according to what his God demands. Thus, religious people always have moral codes, since they believe in a higher power that makes rules that must (or should) be obeyed. When you say, “Killing just because he's evil is evil too” – this is merely your opinion – but an opinion founded on something. What is it founded on? The word of God? If so, then you are defining evil according to a *theological* doctrine of some type. Is it founded on your personal experience? If so, you are defining evil according to some *personal philosophy*.

Quote: “Some people see good/evil as morals and lawful/chaotic as ethics.”

People often misunderstand the definition of ‘morals’ and ‘ethics’; morals are the codes of conduct themselves e.g. ‘thou shalt not kill’ and ‘thou shalt not steal’. ‘Ethics’ is the *study* of such codes.

Your test Chev, while clearly of interest to people, presupposes that you yourself have a complete grasp of alignments.

Quote: “As for CNs, they don't really have to be the most free ones. Probably TN is the most unrestrained and CN is the most actively exploiting freedom.”

First, to use ‘TN’ (true neutral) is, I would suggest, misleading to some. It implies that the two SEPARATE aspects of alignments can be combined into one, when in fact, the two parts are utterly distinct from one another. Remember, there may be some reading this post who have far less of a handle on this much misunderstood subject.
Now, the neutral neutral character will *sometimes* act in a chaotic manner so that he appears to be the same as the CN character. He is no less free to act chaotically than the CN is. He is NOT constrained in any way by his alignment. However, his chaotic actions *have so far* been *offset* by lawful actions so that the *overall* alignment position (for the *lawfulness* aspect of his alignment) is neutral.

To all: The idea that alignment constrains and restricts is widespread, it would seem, but it’s incorrect. The chaotic evil character is about as ‘free’ as one can get because he is utterly selfish and yet quite clearly CE is also one of the extreme alignments!

Alignment is a conceptual tool to help the player conclude how his character will act in any given situation. It’s a *guide* for the player and a ‘role-playing-meter’ for the DM (which he uses to judge how well the player is role-playing, and to give feedback to the player about same). Imagine a blundering, wishy-washy, indecisive mage, so embroiled in his studies that he has proved incapable of making decisions that have no bearing on his work. Now imagine another character, a flighty drama queen of a bard who is beautiful and fickle, so capricious and whimsical that she can barely focus herself on one project before she is onto the next. Of the effects her work have on the world, and how, for example, she drives men crazy with love, lust and jealously wherever she goes is, she is oblivious and careless. Now think of a druid, a staunch defender of nature who lives utterly alone in a tiny mud hut in the middle of a field of brambles. Paladins and orcs alike are targeted as a blight on the world if their damned meddling gets out of hand. She cares not a whit for love, marriage, cities, sieges, poetry or magic; the pantheons of the ‘gods’ are without meaning, as are the needs and deeds of their deluded followers. Strangely (to most people), she doesn’t even particularly care for the birth of a new foal – she would care no more or less if it fell dead from its mothers womb and was eaten by carrion – the great cycle of life and not interfering with its majesty, is her cause. Each of these completely different characters could be neutral neutral! The latter being the type that makes a conscious effort of neutrality and the former two being so without thought. *Characters* don’t feel restricted by alignment any more than we in the real world do.

Chevalier, Quote “Subtracting from good isn't equal to adding to evil, for example.”

This is true but:

Quote: “An TN character may still be more LG than a real LG one, balanced by chaotic tendencies or covered by strong balance tendencies.”

is wrong. The neutral neutral character’s alignment (which can be seen as a meter of the sum of his actions) clearly states that the SUM of his actions = Neutral. Thus he must have less good than someone whose TOTAL = Good!

You say “balanced by chaotic tendencies or covered by strong balance tendencies” which means ‘countered by’ or ‘off-set by’; to off-set is to *subtract* from – but to argue the above is to NOT subtract from the LG-ness of the CN character. Subtract from = reduce, make less. Therefore LG made less by CN becomes less than LG. Precisely *how much* less than LG is apparent from the character’s alignment i.e. CN!

Scythesong,
Quote: it's very possible for just about anyone to have an alignment change sooner or later. (Or at least, anyone normal. I wouldn't bet on one on Korgan, for example.)

Of course, but because an alignment change is possible doesn’t make it *likely*. My point is merely that alignment can’t be changed easily, nor is it common. D&D is true to real life in this matter; you only have to look to see how people tend *not* to change, hence the sayings ‘a leopard cannot change its spots’, ‘once a thief, always a thief’, et al. Women marry men in the hope it will change them; people demand promises from others in efforts to hold them to certain courses, society threatens and imposes punishments and imprisonment to make people change; doctors and politicians constantly try to get people to give up smoking and the like, people go to therapy to break cycles of damaging behaviour. There are loads of examples proving that behavioural change is hard.

Quote: For anyone to have only one alignment is too ideal to be fitted into the forgotten realms unless he/she just happens to have his/her own particularly interesting story.

It’s impossible for anyone to have more than one alignment without having multiple personalities! This has nothing to do with interesting stories. Everyone in the real world has a unique life story – everyone. Thus, for any made up character to have anything like a realistic personality, they should be written as having unique characteristics. It’s just that in literature, movies, D&D etc., we usually aren’t interested in the ‘dull’ and ‘conventional’ types. Just because Aerie has had uncommonly tragic experiences, and Valygar has an uncommonly complex history with mages, etc. doesn’t mean that everyone in the BG2 world is like this. In this sense, BG2 is *unrealistically* written because in reality, there are far fewer characters with such ‘fascinating’ backgrounds. Regardless however, *all* characters would have a personality that fitted one of the alignments. Perhaps you fail to see that some are far more common than others?

In fact, most people are lawful neutral because most people want to ‘live in peace while allowing everyone else to ‘do what they want’’. This is a broad and superficially liberal attitude; *superficially* because allowing everyone else to ‘do what they want’ really means ‘do what they want *within reason*’ i.e. as long as what you do doesn’t impinge on me and *my* rights and desires. ‘Living in peace’ demands a good amount of respect for others which requires RULES like keeping the noise down, not trespassing, not driving in a manner that endangers others, etc.
Most people *aren’t* good because they tend NOT to go about doing good deeds. N.B. Not being evil does NOT equate to being good. Most people, in fact, keep themselves to themselves; they mark out their little bit of territory and generally stick to it, and involve themselves only with people of their own choosing.
Good people are rare, as are evil people. Evil people are rarer than good people because when a person harms others in any way, it gets around and soon the ‘evil’ one gets shunned to one extent or another. Since people need people (if only to mate) it stands to reason that being evil is not going to be adopted by many. On the other hand, good people are rare because being Lawful Neutral is easily passed off as being good *but takes far less effort*. Thus, many people do so, and they only get found out when they are really needed for help and support.
Being chaotic is rarer than being lawful because, as I have said, people tend to want to keep themselves to themselves i.e. the chaotic person, who ignores noise ‘rules’, and shouts and sings in the middle of the night after getting drunk, is widely considered an ill-mannered, disrespectful person who will receive glares and perhaps more the next day! The man who urinates up against your house because he feels the desire to, is not going to be welcomed for it. The same goes for the man who drops his trash where he wants i.e. over your garden fence. The man who cuts your tree down because he doesn’t like it. Steals what he wants because ‘it makes more sense’ etc. etc. This person cheats at cards, lies, parks his car where he wants regardless of the trouble it might cause, and so on – *none of which actions* make him evil. Is this a common character? I think not!
In the same vein, the man who *never* breaks the law, *never* lies, *never* cheats, steals, or does something disorderly without having a battle of conscience, is also rare (though more common than the chaotic person because anarchistic behaviour is less tolerable than orderly behaviour).

To all: Alignment in the D&D game inspires thought about ethics and theology. The game writers knew from the start that for maximum role-playing fun, players would need to learn about ethics because only then could a player really begin to understand the concept of alignments, which is fundamental to the game of 'trying to think like someone else' (role-playing).
Yet what most players do is play D&D *as themselves* without ever learning the admittedly intellectually challenging concepts of morality and alignment. This is why, for example, the paladin is included – to make players *ask* or *wonder about* why he must or must not do this or that. It draws attention to the ways paladins differ from us (where they do!).

[ January 31, 2004, 12:51: Message edited by: keldor ]

 

Charge!

If defining it nicely in an especially convinient way, yes. That can be construed. However, there are lawful, balanced and chaotic traits independent from stance in the struggle between law and chaos. Being pedantic, obsessive-compulsive or anal retentive is a lawful trait and can balance the scale in lawful direction.

Lawful characters may well feel restricted. Knowing the boundaries of their personal codes and manners of behaviour up to the point of "I'm too lawful to do that" stance.

Which, essentially, is your subjective view on what's objective and subjective evaluation as to whether this given concept fulfils the criteria

I don't need to be religious to know or feel that killing someone just because I disagree with him, have been offended by him, or know him to have done wrong, is a murder and an evil act. Justifiable only by absolute necessity and so legally as possible carried out execution. Or self-defence. What you're talking about, is anti-evil neutral, much like Helmites. Of the most core anti-evil zealots and yet not good themselves.

Again, that includes someone's personal, own study. Also, it can't really be said all people except Smith or Jones misunderstand morals

As any test beginning with Wizards' own alignment test.

The separation of lawful/neutral chaotic comportment from good/neutral/evil comportment is largely artificial. A character is a well-integrated entity and more likely a point on a plane rather than two independent points on two independent axes.

Which presupposes you have a full grasp etc... you know the rest

That's not even wrong. That's internally contradictory. You can have more potential for good and do more good deeds than an LG and still remain TN for your prevailing commitment to balance. Let's say he's L50 G50 and C5 E10, N12 N 15. Lawful Good. You're L70 G70, C30 E10 and N95 N 120. True Neutral. Perhaps your personality is richer

Excuse me, but who has said contrary? By the way, it's perfectly possible to have gradations (one LG may be 60% Lawful and 90% Good, another 90% Lawful 60% Good), tendencies (especially important for partially neutral characters), and even exceptions from alignments. Some people also argue for the possibility of conflicting alignments modifying a character's performance depending on special conditions such as danger or stress. I don't think that's necessary - alignment gradation suffices - but it's important enough to mention.

 

Chaotic Evil! That's the way to go!

*Goes off to heat up last night's leftovers of elven baby stew in the microwave while pouring out a glass of Unicorn blood*