quote:
Faelynn LeAndris spewed forth this undeniable truth:
No.
According to the PHB, yes! 
quote:
Lawful Neutral, Judge: A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.
quote:
Chaotic Neutral, Free Spirit: A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesnt strive to protect others freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it.
Quotes, of course, from the 3.5e SRD. Emphasis mine.
Those descriptions imply that lawful characters try to be organised and logical in everything they do, while chaotic characters don't care quite as much about order and structure in life, with some specifically avoiding it.
You really should become familiar with the concept of character alignment before you start talking about it, Fae. What alignment is, is basically a two-word description of why a character tends to act the way he does (that being, both law <-> chaos and good <-> evil). It's true that there's a lot of room for interpretation. As I said, not all lawful characters keep all of their belongings well organised, and not all chaotic characters just throw things around randomly.
However, lawful characters tend to be organised in life in general, favouring groups with strict structures. Extremely lawful societies have a group of leaders, who of course lead everyone. Then, they have this group that does this one thing for these groups, and this other group does this for these other groups. Everyone, for better or worse, is essentially locked into whatever social group they're supposed to be in. To a lawful character, society is like a machine. Each person is like a part in that machine, with a specific place and purpose. Society can only work if each part is pulling its own weight, and not dragging the team down. Good examples of very lawful societies would be ancient Rome and ancient India (under the caste system). For better or worse, everyone had a certain inescapable place in society. The rich loved the system because it allowed them to be rich no matter what, and the poor hated the system because it kept them poor no matter what, but considering the times in which these civilisations cropped up, the system worked pretty well.
Chaotic characters tend to favour spur-of-the-moment thinking, spontaneity, and they tend to look at the value of individuals rather than a whole group. Chaotic societies tend to be made up more of a large number of individuals who have decided on their own to work together to survive, rather than just one big group. There is some loose structure to the society, but it tends to be constantly shifting and changing. Capitalism is a fairly good example of a somewhat chaotic society, in that you aren't completely locked into whatever social group you're born into. If you're born poor, you can still become successful through hard work and discipline. If you're born rich, and decide to be lazy, you have to be careful. If Mommy and Daddy decide to pull the plug, and you've been failing horribly in school, you're fucked. People are constantly changing where they belong: Some get promotions at work, which means more pay and higher social standing. Others get fired, which means no pay and they're a bum until they find another job. We even change our leaders regularly here in modern Western society.
Do you get it now? Can we move on?
quote:
Ruvyen had this to say about dark elf butts:
Stuff
That has absolutely nothing at all to do with a single analogy you have made. Noted by the fact that immediately AFTER making one of your analogies you come right back and say "but oh, it doesn't ALWAYS mean this, I just meant that's what's usually the case!". When in fact, it's entirely character dependant.
Which is exactly the point. And a point that, oh, several people have been telling you thus far. 
You want to put aligment into the realm of characterization by homogenizing it.
And, um... dude. I really don't think you should be telling anyone else to become familiar with DnD. Especially not to those who have been running them for quite some time.
Edit: With the exception of the last post I might add, although you are still puting it within stricture. But it's the first post thus far.
Do you get it now? Can we move on? Faelynn LeAndris fucked around with this message on 01-06-2006 at 11:08 PM.
Take a hero like Robin Hood or a villian like Kefka. Both were Chaotic but on different ends of the spectrum. Both were very smart about how they went about things. There actions may have seemed brash but the results were often in their favor. Both also led (to a point) an originized group of followers.
A Samurai is Lawful. However, just because a samurai is lawful, doesn't necessarily mean he will abide by the rules of a foreign land. He holds alligence to his lord and nothing else.
Alek fucked around with this message on 01-06-2006 at 11:05 PM.
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
That has absolutely nothing at all to do with a single analogy you have made.
Actually, if you'll look, yes it does, but thanks for not paying attention.
quote:
Noted by the fact that immediately AFTER making one of your analogies you come right back and say "but oh, it doesn't ALWAYS mean this, I just meant that's what's usually the case!". When in fact, it's entirely character dependant.
Saying "it doesn't always mean this", is equivalent to saying "it's character dependent". The reason the general case doesn't always apply is because it's just that: A blanket statement. We're dealing with people here, whether they're entirely imaginary or not, and people don't often follow stereotypes exactly.
quote:
Which is exactly the point. And a point that, oh, several people have been telling you thus far.You want to put aligment into the realm of characterization by homogenizing it.
And you're putting words in my mouth. Just because lawful characters tend to act in way X, doesn't mean that one specific lawful character can't act in way Y, which is similar to but different from way X. It's just that there are certain truths about the alignment one chooses for their character.
Chaotic characters don't much care about order and structure, period. Some even go out of their way just to piss off authority. For that matter, neutral characters don't care that much either. That doesn't mean that a chaotic character can't make plans, it's just that the plans they make tend to be pretty general, with the overall quality of them depending on the character's intelligence and wisdom. A chaotic character that cares about strict order and structure in plans and groups isn't chaotic, but in fact lawful.
A lawful character can over-plan for a situation, putting in more work than is necessary. And, if their plan happens to be going a little poorly, but the one lawful character doesn't see much reason to change anything, they'll often stick with the plan despite what others may say, only changing it or improvising if things really start to get bad. A lawful character can "act chaotic" if he has a good reason to, such as a LE villain trying to throw off his enemies by being unpredictable and acting strange. However, a lawful character who doesn't hold themselves to any standards and doesn't care about organisation or authority isn't lawful, but instead either neutral or chaotic.
quote:
And, um... dude. I really don't think you should be telling anyone else to become familiar with DnD. Especially not to those who have been running them for quite some time.
That comment was probably out of line, and I'm sorry. But still, it seems you just don't get some of the fundamentals of alignment. That, and I've never said even once that alignment is the only viable or existing way to define a character, it's just a foundation that one builds upon when making their character. It describes the general way in which a character acts, it's up to the player to think about the specifics. Ruvyen fucked around with this message on 01-07-2006 at 12:02 AM.
quote:
Azymyth spewed forth this undeniable truth:
You're still taking alignment as being the sole determinate on how a person acts. Lawfulness doesn't directly equate to orginization nor does chaoticness directly equate to disorginization.
I've already answered this, but no, I'm not, and yes, lawfulness does equate to value placed on organisation, and chaos does equate to value placed on personal freedom and spontaneity.
quote:
Take a hero like Robin Hood or a villian like Kefka. Both were Chaotic but on different ends of the spectrum. Both were very smart about how they went about things. There actions may have seemed brash but the results were often in their favor. Both also led (to a point) an originized group of followers.
So, they were smart, and that's what caused their loose plans to work. Robin Hood was certainly chaotic. He was essentially the leader of his group, but never took it to mean terribly much. He was probably the leader due to being the smartest of all of them, and not by any talent with leadership.
I'd say Kefka was more neutral. He was messed up and unpredictable, but he was in charge, period. While not the most organised leader ever, he kept his followers in line.
What it seems you're doing (forgive the assumption) is making the statement that chaotic = more evil than lawful. That's just not true. Kefka wasn't chaotic just because he was evil, and Robin Hood may have broken the law and been a free spirit, but what objectively evil acts had he committed? Had he murdered any innocents? Kicked any puppies?
quote:
A Samurai is Lawful. However, just because a samurai is lawful, doesn't necessarily mean he will abide by the rules of a foreign land. He holds alligence to his lord and nothing else.
So, he cares about authority. Only one type of authority, that of his lord, but he still places value on it. Plus, samurai held themselves to the Code of Bushido, going so far as to kill themselves if they couldn't comply with either Bushido or their lord's orders. Whether or not he breaks the laws of a foreign city is irrelevant, unless of course he's doing it just to spite a foreign authority (that's chaotic behaviour).
quote:
A sleep deprived Gadani stammered:
So what if a chaotic character's whim is to strategize to do something?
Then that's their whim. They have no logical basis for the decision, but they'll make it.
quote:
Ruvyen wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
Then that's their whim. They have no logical basis for the decision, but they'll make it.
So I don't understand why Lawful characters are going to be more strategic than a Chaotic character that wants to be.
e: also are you saying that Chaotic characters have no capacity for logic?
e2: also I don't play D&D so you can probably ignore me Gadani fucked around with this message on 01-07-2006 at 12:19 AM.
quote:
So quoth Gadani:
So I don't understand why Lawful characters are going to be more strategic than a Chaotic character that wants to be.e: also are you saying that Chaotic characters have no capacity for logic?
e2: also I don't play D&D so you can probably ignore me
But ignoring people is no fun.
Lawful characters aren't more strategic than a chaotic character that wants to be, it's just that usually, a lawful character likes a well-organised group under a good leader with a good plan, while a chaotic character dislikes the very concept of a leader or hierarchy, and prefers a group of free individuals that have chosen to work together and not a bunch of mindless drones following one guy's orders.
Chaotic characters most certainly have the capacity for logic, especially rhe more intelligent ones. As well, the logic of unintelligent lawful characters tends to be horribly flawed. However, a chaotic character is the type to do whatever they want for whatever reason they feel like doing it, whereas a lawful character likes to have a good, logical reason and action plan before doing anything. Lawful characters also tend to accept a certain code of honour or ethics, as they can see the logic in it and decide that that is how they'd like to live. Chaotic characters often reject such codes, and any inconvenient rules or regulations in general.
Or also why a Lawful character could just ... do something whimsical within the law. Gadani fucked around with this message on 01-07-2006 at 12:42 AM.
quote:
Gadani said this about your mom:
I'm still not understanding why a Chaotic character wouldn't just logically strategize something that might not be within the law. :<
They most certainly could, but generally they don't. Strategy implies a definite method for doing something. A definite method implies order and structure, which implies a hierarchy.
When a lawful character plans, it's usually all some time beforehand. They anticipate situations before they might happen, and develop strategies to at least get the group out of the situation alive. Then, if they're the leader of the group, they'll get everyone to follow the strategy. Of course, this isn't always perfect. Sometimes, something completely unexpected happens, and the lawful character just doesn't have time to use logic.
When a chaotic character plans, it's as the situation happens. After all, the best time to work your way out of a bad situation is when you're in the situation. Some spontaneous good idea will likely come to the chaotic character, which they can then suggest to the rest of the group. Of course, everyone else gets their turn, as well. Just because there is little to no logic behind what they do, doesn't mean they can't recognise good ideas.
[EDIT- As well, lawful characters aren't required to have shoved a halberd in their asses. Ruvyen fucked around with this message on 01-07-2006 at 12:50 AM. They're certainly able to play practical jokes if they just feel like it one day. Alignment is a guideline, and not a strait-jacket. So long as the joke doesn't cause too much chaos, I don't see why a lawful character couldn't do it.]
quote:
Ruvyen obviously shouldn't have said:
When a lawful character plans, it's usually all some time beforehand. They anticipate situations before they might happen, and develop strategies to at least get the group out of the situation alive. Then, if they're the leader of the group, they'll get everyone to follow the strategy. Of course, this isn't always perfect. Sometimes, something completely unexpected happens, and the lawful character just doesn't have time to use logic.When a chaotic character plans, it's as the situation happens. After all, the best time to work your way out of a bad situation is when you're in the situation. Some spontaneous good idea will likely come to the chaotic character, which they can then suggest to the rest of the group. Of course, everyone else gets their turn, as well. Just because there is little to no logic behind what they do, doesn't mean they can't recognise good ideas.
Oh I get it now
quote:
This insanity brought to you by Ruvyen:
Stuff
Um, Kefka was most definately Evil. If someone who was once either an associate or partner to him failed to, in his eyes, maintain their usefulness, Kefka would outright kill them. He didn't give them a peptalk or simply cast them aside, he obliterated them. That is not nuetral. When he created the World of Ruin, he didn't do it to necessarily to create an order he could rule under (though it helped), he did it because he could. He delighted in the destruction.
And if Robin Hood didn't take his role as leader of the Merry Men seriously, there wouldn't have been any Merry Men. He cared about each member enough to rescue them if they were in trouble. By your defination of Chaotic behavior, a group such as that couldn't exist. Their free-spirited nature would cause them to drift apart very quickly.
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
Sean had this to say about the Spice Girls:
This thread has only gotten worse since Ruvyen was involved.
Pre-Ruyven's rantings... I rated this thread a BlackMage on the voting system.
Since Ruyven started displaying the depths of his stupidity, I now rate this thread a Wakka.
quote:
This one time, at Azymyth camp:
Um, Kefka was most definately Evil. If someone who was once either an associate or partner to him failed to, in his eyes, maintain their usefulness, Kefka would outright kill them. He didn't give them a peptalk or simply cast them aside, he obliterated them. That is not nuetral. When he created the World of Ruin, he didn't do it to necessarily to create an order he could rule under (though it helped), he did it because he could. He delighted in the destruction.
I wasn't clear enough there, sorry. Kefka was neutral as to the law <-> chaos axis, with some chaotic tendencies. He was, of course, most certainly evil. 
While Kefka didn't seem to follow any laws or regulations himself, outright destroying those that were useless to him, his army did have a hierarchy, with him as leader. Creation of the World of Ruin just to blow shit up definitely shows some heavy Chaotic leanings from Neutral, too, so you might be right there.
quote:
And if Robin Hood didn't take his role as leader of the Merry Men seriously, there wouldn't have been any Merry Men. He cared about each member enough to rescue them if they were in trouble. By your defination of Chaotic behavior, a group such as that couldn't exist. Their free-spirited nature would cause them to drift apart very quickly.
An all-chaotic group can stay together if they want to and feel it's a good idea, and can even choose a leader for themselves if they want to. A chaotic group could most certainly exist, as chaotic characters can see that working with others toward a common goal is a good idea. However, Robin Hood wasn't what was keeping the Merry Men together, it was their goal (that being, stealing from the tax collectors of corrupt royalty, and giving it to the poor).
If a member was in trouble, of course Robin Hood saved them. That's why he's Chaotic Good.
quote:
Batty had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
Ruvyen, shut the hell up and stop talking about shit, seriously. You blab and blab and blab on when multiple people have pointed out why you're wrong with not a single person backs you up. That generally means you need to take a step back, assess why no one agrees with you and why everyone else is saying something else, and shut the hell up.
Actually, I already have taken a step back.
True, sometimes I'm wrong about some things. I don't have all the right answers to everything.
However, here I've said nothing that the PHB and some basic logic couldn't tell you.
Oh, and the amount of people who agree with viewpoint X has no bearing on the correctness or logic of viewpoint X.
quote:
Ruvyen had this to say about Duck Tales:
Oh, and the amount of people who agree with viewpoint X has no bearing on the correctness or logic of viewpoint X.
Mathematical Property of Ruvyen:
Ruvyen is always equal to wrong.
quote:
Ruvyen had this to say about Punky Brewster:
However, Robin Hood wasn't what was keeping the Merry Men together, it was their goal (that being, stealing from the tax collectors of corrupt royalty, and giving it to the poor).
This is wrong as well It was his leadership and charisma that turned them into what they were to begin with (They did not exist as an organized group at all until he took over), and then maintained them through all the hardships. His leadership also pulled them back into the fold when hopelessness was taking over some of the members. He was a pure, charismatic leader.
It was absolutely Robin Hood who kept them together and focused on the goal, even when all seemed lost. Note, he was also a calculating, well organized, mastermind. No just making plans on the fly to suit the situation. All his assaults were forethought.
Note, the "Organized Group Leader" implied.
quote:
Ruvyen had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
Oh, and the amount of people who agree with viewpoint X has no bearing on the correctness or logic of viewpoint X.
Good thing he never said that then!
Sure, he said that 'people have pointed out why you are wrong' but he never said 'You are wrong because multiple people say so'.
As he said -- take a step back and see why people are saying you're wrong. If you're actually right, show them why you are right and back it up with evidence.
Win.
I dunno, but WoW has made me admit to myself that I really do enjoy smishing elfies into gooey purple paste :3
quote:
And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Led was all like:
I really do enjoy smishing elfies into gooey purple paste :3
I hate you. Die.
quote:
Alek had this to say about Punky Brewster:
Psionics is the only real way to go.
No pun intended, but what I'm about to say is going to blow your mind...
I actually KINDA SORTA approve of the rules in the Expanded Psionics Handbook. In the proper campaign setting, it could be very cool stuff to use.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
But that's just me.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Falaanla Marr had this to say about Pirotess:
Good thing he never said that then!Sure, he said that 'people have pointed out why you are wrong' but he never said 'You are wrong because multiple people say so'.
As he said -- take a step back and see why people are saying you're wrong. If you're actually right, show them why you are right and back it up with evidence.
Win.
Actually, he said:
quote:
You blab and blab and blab on when multiple people have pointed out why you're wrong with not a single person backs you up.
He's comparing numbers.
And I've never claimed to be 100% correct, I've just been discussing my viewpoint. I've made a few vaguely (at times, obviously) insulting comments here, and for that, I apologise. They were way out of line, and I'm sorry. However, you can't say that any viewpoint dealing with D&D is right or wrong, since the game is defined by how one plays it. Different people have different understandings of the systems in place, and some of the systems and rules (the alignment system being one of them) can be completely left out with little modification to the rules left in.
quote:
Ruvyen impressed everyone with:
He's comparing numbers.
Yes, but he never said you were definitely wrong because of these numbers. Just that you blab on and on when people don't support you and many are opposed with reasons.
