quote:
We were all impressed when Fazum'Zen Fastfist wrote:
Spike is hot. 
quote:
Bent over the coffee table, Azymyth squealed:
While I doubt most GMs would allow such alignments to intermingle, I could see it happening since LE characters tend to have a knack for lying and manipulating their way into the trust of those of more moral alignments.
Really? I'd attribute that kind of flexibility more to the NE types.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Pretty much, they exploit the law system. They also, as Alaan mentioned, have a sense of some kind of honor.
Essentially, I see LE as using the laws in place for evil purposes while a LG would use them to benefit good. Same place in that a CG type would ba Robin Hood type character while a CE would break the law to benefit only himself and not care about others.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Lex Luthor is Lawful Evil
Magneto is Lawful Evil
Chaotic evil people can be relied on to break the laws without regard. They prefer to break laws just to screw with people. They tend to be unpredictable, though not necessarily insane (but it sure helps). They're your sociopathic mad-killers, too.
The Joker is Chaotic Evil
Sabertooth is Chaotic Evil
Neutral Evil are the ones who, in theory, are the most dangerous. You can't predict exactly how or what their moral compass will direct them to do, except that you can be fairly certain you won't like it. They can be organized, but at the same time they can easily break deals and arrangements as necessary
Dr Doom is Neutral Evil
Two-Face is Neutral Evil
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
No, I didnt randomly kill people.
My total body count for the entire session was 2 orcs, the 2 PCs, and what may or may not have been a small child, I never found that part out.
Paladors game sounds similiar to the one I was in, not everyone had secret agenda's going, but plenty of people had little things going on (people who wrote letters to royalty, had the occasional hour long private session)
A question, why is a player killing another player a huge hot button? I hope I didnt make it sound like it happened every other session or anything. I killed 2 people on month... 2 or 3 something of the game, and we played for a good while after that.
Lyinar Ka`Bael, Piney Fresh Druidess - Luclin
I've been griefed before in pickup/college games, where someone playing the "im a crazy motherfucker" charecter would start a fight and his friends would help out and kill someone bit.
2 on 1's where the 1 wins arent griefing.
The "I killed them while they were sleeping" thing (took me 3 sleep spells to do it, I like to roll 1's with my staff) is simply being proactive, since they would have definatly killed me when they woke up, I dont remember what the duration of sleep is, but I couldnt have gotten far away before they caught me and killed me, especially since(knowing my GM) fleeing in terror would have required ride checks, and my wizard had 0 ranks with 0 strength -1 dex stats.
Lyinar, your kind of charecter/roleplayer would not likely have gotten into the same situation that the two who attacked me did, I'd have lied believably enough that you'd accept it, either in charecter, or because of a good level of bluff/diplomacy(My GM as a rule didnt allow bluff to be used on PC's, except in instances where the dead PC's second charecter ignored what I said based on what could only have been either a personal dislike[that was definatly present, they were pissed] or out of charecter knowledge)
That, or you would not have crossed the whole "kill the evil wizard that would already be dead if it was an NPC, but because is a PC has to be redeemable or something"
Which is more or less what the rest of the group went with. I did get a pretty close watch after that, and didnt pull anything serious the rest of the game.
Lyinar Ka`Bael, Piney Fresh Druidess - Luclin
If you have a party of Good people, with one Evil person, then really the best you can hope for is that the Evil individual is more focused on extreme selfishness (to the regular and callous detriment of others). At least then you can give them incentive to do what you want them to do (money, etc) without risking being a facilitator.
The simple fact of the matter is that certain alignments, by facilitating or even merely knowingly going along with evil parties, are in fact sullying themselves. They become less good. And by the contrary, a villain who regularly does heroic things without some ulterior motive, who knowingly fights evil in the name of good, generally would start drifting away from evil.
A GM in a game with alignments (keep in mind not all systems have alignments), and who allows a group with mixed alignment polarities (IE Good and Evil, Lawful and Chaotic, etc) should expect that at best, they're going to clash and eventually drift toward one another (homogenization into a "gray" area), or they're going to clash and there goes the proverbial neighborhood (someone's not coming out of this alive).
A villain in the group of heroes should understand that chances are if the rest of the party catches on to what they're up to, the villainous character is probably going to get his ass kicked, and may well end up dead or otherwise unplayable (had a superhero game once where the heroes brought the villain PC in their midst to justice; he became an NPC under GM and was a serious threat because he knew all their secrets).
Granted, there's quite a lot of good roleplaying that can be had by having members of opposing alignments butt heads (either literally or verbally). Seeing Batman arguing with the Punisher, for instance. Batman is Neutral Good (Good by Any Means Necessary). Punisher is Neutral Evil (keep in mind the Punisher is a mass murderer; his motives and victims are largely irrelevant).
And when you look at the spectrum of heroes, you get an interesting spread.
Superman would be Lawful Good. Yes he excludes telling people he hides out as a human and allows the illusion that he's Superman all the time to continue, but he has been legally deputized, and he's practically the image most people think of as Ultimate Good.
Batman is Neutral Good. I will disregard the laws of man and social ethics in the name of justice, but I still have boundaries I will not cross, and I will attempt to bring criminals to justice if at all possible. (Wolverine has also eventually drifted to Neutral Good, though he has definite NE leanings).
Green Arrow is Chaotic Good. Ollie is your quintessential militant hippy. He breaks the law, resists attempts to organize too formally, and encourages freedom in all things. On the other hand, he is very definitely a hero. Plastic Man is also Chaotic Good, without the rhetoric.
Entities like the Spectre (and most cosmic entities in the same vein) represent True Neutral (though the Spectre has definite Lawful Neutral tendencies)
Heroes like the Guardian (in DC) and Captain Atom (also DC) are Lawful Neutral. They follow the orders and laws of the land, with a tendency toward Good, but they are ultimately soldiers and enforcers of the powers that be.
If you were going to make a team with these guys, there would have to be certain extreme allowances made for their differences. The JLA, a team of Good-Aligned members (even Plastic Man is Chaotic Good) is HEAVILY strained by the difference in alignment at times (particularly by Batman's tendencies). On the other hand, Batman is extremely close to Plastic Man and Green Arrow Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael fucked around with this message on 01-04-2006 at 03:15 PM.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Maradon! had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
Your alignment is determined by your actions, not vice-versa
Don't mix real life philosophy with games theory, amigo.
In real life, I concede you may have a point. Your actions help determine what category you operate in. Your crime or lack of crime determines if you are law abiding or not law abiding.
However, in real life there's no quasi-omniscient entity that has to know vital statistics about you to make things work. Or if there is, at least it's not any human.
In the game, however, for the purposes of, for example, the D&D universe, alignment is a vital statistic. Not, perhaps, as vital as your physical statistics (Strength, Dex, Con), or Mental statistics (Int, Wis, Cha), but it is a feeler of your character's moral compass. It's a descriptor that helps define your character.
In a game like Shadowrun, for instance, moral compass is generally not that important. (Things may have changed since 3rd Edition Shadowrun, but last I recall there was no alignment system). It's not important in Mechwarrior (the RPG component of Battletech). Your character's moral compass is not something the game itself is designed to explore. Mainly because the general motif of both of those games is survival in extreme conditions. You may be the nicest guy in the world, but put in an extreme military op for the sake of the world, or trying to outrun trouble in a world that, by definition, lacks the morality and ethics of the real world (or, for that matter, anything beyond general corporate ethics), you will find yourself doing unusually harsh, cruel, or even inhuman things to others.
Likewise, White Wolf games tried to avoid defining alignment by defining your personality traits (Nature and Demeanor) rather than moral compass. It was meant as an aid to get you in your character's mindset. There was a method to your madness, as it were. However, if you look at the WoD games, they were set in a world were only idiots were truly heroic, because truly heroic characters were either Classical Greek-style tragic heroes in disguise (IE some fatal flaw that brings them down, often the fact they were so heroic), or they were ineffective mockeries (keep in mind that, by the book in WoD, there was no way to "win". It runs counter-current to the entropic theme of the WoD "gothic punk" setting).
On the other hand, one of the undiscovered countries of D&D game theory (and the one thing all those parent groups in the 70's and 80's never got when they were poo-pooing D&D for all those years) was the fact that D&D is at it's core a game about heroes. And heroes need definition. Granted, some magical items are keyed to be more effective in the hands of people of like alignment (no unholy reavers in the hands of paladins, etc), but the alignment system is designed to (like White Wolf's tangential offshoot) help define a general direction your character faces the world in, both as a guide for you the player and for the GM to understand the definition of your character in the GM's campaign.
Further, as to the argument that your actions define alignment, that's why alignments aren't written in stone. It's also why an alignment shift is a serious issue. Someone who's alignment shifts from Lawful to Chaotic (much less Good to Evil) is a serious event. It's the stuff legends are made of. Frank Castle not only went from Good to Evil when his family was massacred, he shifted from a Lawful outlook to something in the Neutral range (bordering on Chaotic).
Likewise, no one is saying that playing an antihero (a villain who's goals coincide with good; Elric of Melniborne, the Punisher, etc) isn't fun, and nothing says their actions can't be taken in a quasi-heroic light. But there is a reason why those guys don't tend to team up with large cadres of classic-style heroes.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael had this to say about Duck Tales:
However, in real life there's no quasi-omniscient entity that has to know vital statistics about you to make things work. Or if there is, at least it's not any human.
Played without any sort of alignment for years now. 
And I have to decide whether to stick to my RP guns when the party shifts towards the shifty side, or go along with it so long as they don't go evil. The DM has told me that he wants me to do the former, so I wonder if it might end up with me against virtually the whole party. That wouldn't be a problem with the exception of an exceptionally strong half-orc barbarian/fighter in our group. But that wouldn't be the DM's style from what I can tell. Or it could be all of us against the one cleric/rogue who keeps doing odd, borderline evil stuff.
But I still agree that alignment shouldn't be totally restricting, only a major character personality shift should lead to a change in alignment.
quote:
Lashanna had this to say about pies:
Played without any sort of alignment for years now.
Our games are a sham! 
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
Hey, Azrael Heavenblade, it's OK, really. At least you're not gay. Right? ... right? Shit.
Alignment stuff.
Keep in mind that direct conflict isn't always the inevitable answer to alignment difficulties, and that being lawful doesn't mean you have to obey all laws you come across, just that you have a definite moral code that you follow to the best of your abilities. Also, in every character, despite full alignment, there's going to be some part of it they place greater emphasis on - a Chaotic Good character who's more Good than Chaotic might cooperate with and even defend the status quo if it's shown to be the only way, and a True Neutral character who's more Neutral along the good/evil axis than the chaos/law axis would be one that looks upon Neutrality as a moral thing, rather than an apathy thing. Just because you're Lawful Something doesn't mean you can't turn a blind eye if something HAS to be done, and it doesn't mean you're conflicting with your character's ideals by doing so, either. If it comes down to the law or the common good, what would your character choose?
If it DOES come down to conflict, keep in mind that you don't have to kill them - and if, indeed, your character is Good, you might not WANT to unless the individual you're conflicted with is shown to be irredeemable, especially if you've travelled with them to any extent and don't completely hate them.
In the end, though, it comes to this: listen to your character. Consider their personality, and ask yourself what they would do if it wasn't a game and they could act as they wanted to. If it conflicts with the general aura of the game, either alter it to something similar but acceptable, or consider having an out-of-game chat about all this.
quote:
There was much rejoicing when Azrael Heavenblade said this:
In the campaign I'm currently in, I'm the only Lawful-aligned character, and it's split 50/50 good/neutral. The one problem is that we kinda have the reverse situation of the 'one villain in the heroes' party', instead it's the 'one hero in the morally ambiguous rogues' party'.And I have to decide whether to stick to my RP guns when the party shifts towards the shifty side, or go along with it so long as they don't go evil. The DM has told me that he wants me to do the former, so I wonder if it might end up with me against virtually the whole party. That wouldn't be a problem with the exception of an exceptionally strong half-orc barbarian/fighter in our group. But that wouldn't be the DM's style from what I can tell. Or it could be all of us against the one cleric/rogue who keeps doing odd, borderline evil stuff.
But I still agree that alignment shouldn't be totally restricting, only a major character personality shift should lead to a change in alignment.
Whether or not you "stick to your guns" should be up to you. Just because you're a Lawful character doesn't mean you can't ever change (and not change alignment, I mean change as a person while keeping your alignment the same).
The way I see the Lawful alignment is:
Lawful characters are the "thinkers". When they're going to do something, they plan beforehand, and their plans are always good. The lawful character is always thinking critically and rationally about everything, including themselves and their own actions. This is why they make amazing planners: They almost always anticipate where things may go wrong, and revise their plans in case they do go wrong. Unfortunately, if something completely unexpected happens, the lawful character has a hard time acting spontaneously, and would rather back off and form a new plan than try to play things by ear.
Lawful warriors, for example, are dangerous opponents on the battlefield. Not only are they disciplined and powerful fighters themselves, but you can bet that if they were expecting to fight, they have a good plan for victory, and usually even if they weren't expecting to fight, they have a general plan to use in combat as a back up (such as "go for the priests first, then the mages, then mop up the warriors"). They are easily defeated if you can find a huge flaw in their strategy, but good luck finding that flaw. It likely doesn't exist.
Getting back to personal changes, ask yourself two questions: What are the reasons for sticking to your guns? And is there a good reason to just go along with the party (so long as, of course, they don't turn evil)? If you can find a good reason to just go along with it (aside from the fact that you've already gotten to know them, that would actually be taking a step into Chaotic territory, feeling rather than thinking rationally), then I see no reason why you can't.
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Ruvyen said:
Lawful warriors, for example, are dangerous opponents on the battlefield. Not only are they disciplined and powerful fighters themselves, but you can bet that if they were expecting to fight, they have a good plan for victory, and usually even if they weren't expecting to fight, they have a general plan to use in combat as a back up (such as "go for the priests first, then the mages, then mop up the warriors"). They are easily defeated if you can find a huge flaw in their strategy, but good luck finding that flaw. It likely doesn't exist.
quote:
How.... Alek.... uughhhhhh:
Also, all lawful warriors like swords.
Actually, lawful warriors almost always use the wepaon most appropriate for the situation, which may or may not be a sword. Lawful warriors also tend to favour weapons with more tactical bonuses instead of heavy damage, such as the flail's bonus to Disarm checks, or the halberd's bonus to Trip attacks.
It's the chaotic warriors that tend to irrationally cling to one type of weapon, and usually the one that seems the most badass and cranks out the most damage.
quote:
Mr. Parcelan attempted to be funny by writing:
The fact that Ruvyen defines his character by his alignment does not surprise me in the least.
Did I say that? I simply explained the tendencies for characters of certain alignments. Of course there's some wiggle room. For example, although they all place importance on order and structure, not all lawful characters are particularly good strategists. It's just that if you compare a lawful character with an equal but chaotic character, and ask them to, say, lead a seige on a castle, the lawful character is more likely to break through due to ahving some logic to their plan, while the chaotic character is more likely to break through because of their unpredictability. They have no real strategy, and as such it's hard to say what they're going to pull next.
As for weapons, it only makes sense. A chaotic character is likely to stick with a weapon exclusively just because they like it, despite the possible superiority of other weapons. A lawful character can focus on certain weapons they like, and if they're fighters even specialise in them, but a lawful character is likely to look for the most effective weapon for a situation, regardless of if they like it or not. For example, if the two aforementioned characters are going against a monster with slashing resist, and are armed with weapons that each deal one damage type and together cover all three, you don't know what the chaotic character is going to do. He might stubbornly try to use a slashing weapon because he just likes getting slashy on things, or he might find it a better idea to use another weapon for now. The lawful character is more likely to have studied and planned for this beforehand, and will almost definitely use a bludgeoning or piercing weapon immediately, regardless of their personal preference, due to the fact that it gets around that resistance.
The fact that Ruvyen is a raging idiot doesn't surprise me.
quote:
Ruvyen stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
Lawful warriors, for example, are dangerous opponents on the battlefield. Not only are they disciplined and powerful fighters themselves, but you can bet that if they were expecting to fight, they have a good plan for victory, and usually even if they weren't expecting to fight, they have a general plan to use in combat as a back up (such as "go for the priests first, then the mages, then mop up the warriors"). They are easily defeated if you can find a huge flaw in their strategy, but good luck finding that flaw. It likely doesn't exist.
This has absolutely nothing at all to do with Alignment, like... Nothing. The only thing this would have to do with alignment is POSSIBLY the fact that a Lawful Good Character may be in the role of Leader or whatever, and direct accordingly, but even that isn't alignement specific.
Chaotic Evil can be cold calculating killers with plans upon plans upon plans, upon backup plans, and follow them through. Sean was/is particularly nasty about that as I recall.
Likwise for Chaotic Good. Likewise Rob was exactly how you described a Lawful Character and he was full on Chaotic. Rob and Pved are exceptionally calculating and descisive Chaotic players.
Hell Nuetral alignments are just as calculating.
In fact, nothing you said at all pertains to any particular alignments at all. All you've described is characterization.
quote:
Ruvyen had this to say about (_|_):
Did I say that? I simply explained the tendencies for characters of certain alignments. Of course there's some wiggle room. For example, although they all place importance on order and structure, not all lawful characters are particularly good strategists. It's just that if you compare a lawful character with an equal but chaotic character, and ask them to, say, lead a seige on a castle, the lawful character is more likely to break through due to ahving some logic to their plan, while the chaotic character is more likely to break through because of their unpredictability. They have no real strategy, and as such it's hard to say what they're going to pull next.As for weapons, it only makes sense. A chaotic character is likely to stick with a weapon exclusively just because they like it , despite the possible superiority of other weapons. A lawful character can focus on certain weapons they like, and if they're fighters even specialise in them, but a lawful character is likely to look for the most effective weapon for a situation, regardless of if they like it or not. For example, if the two aforementioned characters are going against a monster with slashing resist, and are armed with weapons that each deal one damage type and together cover all three, you don't know what the chaotic character is going to do. He might stubbornly try to use a slashing weapon because he just likes getting slashy on things, or he might find it a better idea to use another weapon for now. The lawful character is more likely to have studied and planned for this beforehand, and will almost definitely use a bludgeoning or piercing weapon immediately, regardless of their personal preference, due to the fact that it gets around that resistance.
Wut? 
That made no sense, and again its pure characterization....
And in your second paragraph you got the tendancies completely reversed anyway. 
A lawful Character is typically more prone to go for his/her version of thier "Holy Avenger" or likewise iconic/chosen weapon. A chaotic character is more prone to bounicng all over the place for the very reasons you listed in the first paragraph.
fyi Strategy and predicablity have nothing to do with Chaotic alignment, thats not exactly what Chaotic is refering to. A Chaotic Character can get just as strategic as any Lawful character, and likewise a Lawful Character can be entirely unpredicatable. Faelynn LeAndris fucked around with this message on 01-06-2006 at 12:53 PM.
Alignment has little to do with how you acquit yourself in combat. Lawful people don't make better fighters. One of the bloodiest conceivable conflicts in D&D cosmology (the Blood War) is based around lawful legions constantly conflicting with chaotic legions. It balances out.
Secondly, I didn't say you HAD to play with alignment in order to have a satisfying roleplay experience. In fact I went so far as to point out several game systems with either a lack of an alignment system (Mechwarrior, Shadowrun), or having only a pseudo-alignment system (White Wolf). If you need more examples of non-alignment games, look at the Star Wars system, and the d20 Modern system (you may, MAY have allegiances in d20 Modern, but it's not required, and so long as you don't do anything obviously of the Dark Side, or specifically draw upon it's power, you aren't a darksider in the Star Wars game).
I certainly never insinuated your gaming experiences, Lashanna and Sean, were shams. I've played in games in alignment-less systems (like the West End Games Star Wars system, Shadowrun 1st-3rd edition, Mechwarrior, and d20 Modern campaigns) where the roleplay was immensely satisfying.
What I did say was that D&D was in part designed (after a certain point; original D&D with the four race/classes didn't have alignment, as I recall) to have further skeletal definition for your character by including an alignment system. It was later expanded into the cosmology of the planes and now touches quite a lot of things.
Further, what I did say was that while Maradon's comment about actions defining alignment is how things work in the real world, defining your alignment early on in a game is important in some campaigns to give the GM (and yourself) some frame to stick to. It's never written in stone, however. You can shift alignment, but it represents a fundamental shift in how you see the world.
Likewise, there was at the start of this some conversation about what certain alignments represent, and I tried to give examples.
I personally play characters with one alignment, but they have X tendencies. I may play a Neutral Good character with Chaotic tendencies (Ja'Deth was originally an example of this), I may play a Chaotic Good character with some Neutral Evil tendencies (Dymus is generally a good guy but he has a strong, vicious, self-concerned mean streak), I may play vigilante lawmen (Jan and Dymus' son Lanavar is Neutral Good with Lawful Evil tendencies).
Just because I don't expressly espouse your style of roleplay, don't assume that I can't see the point to it. Likewise, don't assume I'm going to attack your style of play. Even in my HS games, alignments are more general mindset modes than something I force characters to stick to. The characters in HSX certainly shifted alignments over time. Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael fucked around with this message on 01-06-2006 at 03:25 PM.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
ACES! Another post by Faelynn LeAndris:
This has absolutely nothing at all to do with Alignment, like... Nothing. The only thing this would have to do with alignment is POSSIBLY the fact that a Lawful Good Character may be in the role of Leader or whatever, and direct accordingly, but even that isn't alignement specific.Chaotic Evil can be cold calculating killers with plans upon plans upon plans, upon backup plans, and follow them through. Sean was/is particularly nasty about that as I recall.
Likwise for Chaotic Good. Likewise Rob was exactly how you described a Lawful Character and he was full on Chaotic. Rob and Pved are exceptionally calculating and descisive Chaotic players.
Hell Nuetral alignments are just as calculating.
In fact, nothing you said at all pertains to any particular alignments at all. All you've described is characterization.
I didn't say specifically that chaotic and neutral characters can't have any plans or strategies. It's just that they're far more disorganised than lawful characters by definition, and thus their plans tend to be less specific. A lawful character tends to justify his actions based on logic and logic alone (example, a lawful neutral judge sentencing a vigilante to death for murdering a villain. The law has been broken, and punishment will be handed out accordingly), while a chaotic character tends to be far more subjective with their reasons for certain actions. They act in a certain way because they just feel it's a good idea, they like doing it, etc.
Also, lawful characters don't make better fighters, nor did I ever say so. Lawful characters are, however, more organised and usually more disciplined. When a chaotic character plans, they keep things general in case the plan needs to be changed somewhere or thrown out entirely, and are always ready to improvise. When a lawful character plans, they try to anticipate what could go wrong beforehand, and change the plan so that it can't go wrong. The plans, however smart or stupid, tend to be specific. A chaotic character usually doesn't care precisely how things are done, so long as they're done and done well, and may even encourage people working for them to be creative in their methods (but also to not be stupid in doing them). A lawful character does care about precisely how things are done, and will often tell those working for them exactly how something is to be done.
quote:
Ruvyen had this to say about Cuba:
dubious stuff about alignment
Ok, in all seriousness though, I think you're venturing more into the character itself than alignment. Alignment is more along the lines of morals and ethics of the character (or lack thereof), not how he handles himself in combat. Even attributes such as intelligence and wisdom don't really explain combat savvy. A barbarian can have a 7 intelligence and be dumb as an ox in social situations but still be a brilliant warrior--think of idiot savants.
You all should play less D&D. Try a system without alignments, which are more or less redundant for player characters anyway.
May I recommend GURPS? Tarquinn fucked around with this message on 01-06-2006 at 06:12 PM.
Faelynn LeAndris fucked around with this message on 01-06-2006 at 06:37 PM.
quote:
ACES! Another post by Alek:
Ok, in all seriousness though, I think you're venturing more into the character itself than alignment. Alignment is more along the lines of morals and ethics of the character (or lack thereof), not how he handles himself in combat. Even attributes such as intelligence and wisdom don't really explain combat savvy. A barbarian can have a 7 intelligence and be dumb as an ox in social situations but still be a brilliant warrior--think of idiot savants.
And again, I never said specifically that stupid characters could not be fantastic warriors, or that alignment determines combat performance entirely. Combat was just a quick example off the top of my head.
I suppose a better example would be what their homes may look like.
To a lawful character, especially True Lawful, order and organisation are paramount. Everything will have a certain appropriate place in the house, and is to remain in that place unless there's a good reason to remove it from that place (the room's on fire, for example). Some of these appropriate places may not be what others would expect, but the lawful character always has a good reason for doing anything. They may be fond of any objects in their home, but such objects will likely serve a good purpose as well if they're significant. When making expansions and buying new things for their home, the lawful character thinks carefully about it. What are the advantages and disadvantages of having something? What are the advantages and disadvantages of not having something? Only if the lawful character logically comes to the conclusion that it's a good idea will they begin to act on it. Note, however, that the logic itself will probably rely on the character's Intelligence and Wisdom: No matter how lawful, a stupid, naive character is a poor critical thinker. But they do try.
A chaotic character's house, while probably not being dirty or a mess, will be pretty disorganised. Things will be placed in what may seem like random spots, because they like them there. The only justification a chaotic character feels they need to do something is that it seems like a good idea at the time. "Hey, why not put the fireplace in the study? I seriously doubt any of my books will get burned, especially if I keep an eye on things!" A lawful character may be a bit more paranoid with how they organise things, such as keeping flammable materials away from the fireplace, due to what could happen. However intelligent they may be, chaotic characters tend to trust their gut more than rational thought. They may be good critical thinkers, but they won't often use those skills. After all, what's the use of spending a whole lot of time and money planning and building expansions to your house if you've slipped up somewhere and not noticed, and the whole thing ends up not working? There is such a thing as overthinking, and that's something chaotic characters specifically try to avoid when it comes to their next move.
That's the best example of Lawful vs. Chaotic that I can think of right now. I find that when it comes to alignment, Evil vs. Good is a generalisation of your character's heart, not necessarily your actions. An evil character can perform good deeds for the "wrong" reason. If a village is under seige by orcs (here I go with combat again!), an evil character and a good character can cooperate to save it. It's just that they have different reasons. The good character obviously wants to save the peasantry, while the evil character wants to slaughter some orcs, and the peasants have offered a reward for it, too! Sweet! He doesn't care about the lives of the peasants, just collecting his pay and killing things.
Lawful vs. Chaotic also doesn't describe your actions, but it does describe how you come to the conclusion that certain ideas are good, while others are bad. Lawful characters, when forming a first opinion on an issue, tend to look at all sides of the issue and come to their own, logical conclusion. The downside is that once they've come to that conclusion, they can be somewhat closed-minded, not accepting other viewpoints unless you can really wow them with the logic behind those viewpoints. Chaotic characters use subjective reasoning. They do things because their gut told them it was a good idea at the time, or they like doing it. However, if something else seems like a better idea later, the chaotic character has no problems switching, even if it means backtracking just a bit.
quote:
Nicole had this to say about the Spice Girls:
Ruv: I think you're getting away from the core here. Alignment doesn't determine how you decorate your house; it determines your character's current moral framework (or lack thereof). Personal quirks like how organized and disciplined you are are just that - quirks. They have nothing to do with morality unless the character takes some sort of lesson from it. Morality determines the why behind an action, and unless the character invites it into other facets of themself, that can pretty much just be it. You CAN have a character who determines everything by their alignment, but that's sort of like someone who determines everything in their life by their religion - possible and ultimately their own choice but kind of pointless and strange.
Which is why that was just an example of tendencies. Morality does determine the why behind actions, but the why behind an action can also determine some of the smaller effects of the action itself. A lawful character can have a disorganised-looking house, if there's a good reason for that to happen, and a chaotic character can straighten things up if they feel like it. As a whole, though, lawful characters are organised while chaotic characters are not.
quote:
This one time, at Ruvyen camp:
As a whole, though, lawful characters are organised while chaotic characters are not.
No.
