Whenever I start a campaign I'm always very picky about what age my characters start at because I want them to still be impressionable and not yet set in their ways as a citizen of their given background. Such as "can a drow who is taken away from their homes at birth be good from the start, or does simply BEING a drow make them evil?" I personally believe its your experiences that shape you and not your heritage. This is also partially why I used to always play Blue decks in Magic, but thats for a different topic.
DnD Allignments - Nature vs. Nurture
- Thread starter StrangeButNoStranger
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Huh? See, even if there was a proper question, I still wouldn't know what you guys are talking about... thing is, in GURPS, there really isn't a character alignment; you just do as you please, and face the consequences.
So, uh, would someone kindly fill me in on the basics of character alignment?
So, uh, would someone kindly fill me in on the basics of character alignment?
Basically, there are nine different Alignments, based on a character's belief in Good versus Evil and Law versus Chaos. The Alignments are Lawful Good, Neutral Good, Chaotic Good, Lawful Neutral, True Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil. There are various takes on each Alignment, and just because someone's Evil doesn't mean they're an asshole.
Take my latest character, Luja. He's Lawful Evil, so he does what he wants to further his own agenda, staying within the bounds of the law (As much as he must in order to gain its protection) - especially if he can bend it or use it to his advantage.
Take my latest character, Luja. He's Lawful Evil, so he does what he wants to further his own agenda, staying within the bounds of the law (As much as he must in order to gain its protection) - especially if he can bend it or use it to his advantage.
My group "largely" tends to avoid working off of alignment, preferring characters to have 5-10 Iron Clad personality traits that they hold closely too. Usually this works just as well, we only use Alignment when it's necessary for magical effects.
We use that rule to AVOID those kind of things. People who want to play chaotic evil characters in that way just want to stir shit up and annoy people. I wouldn't want one of them in my group.Ultrajoe said:
On another note, 4e has the following alignments...
Good
Lawful Good
Evil
Chaotic Evil
Unaligned
Ok, no joke i take offense here... you think you cant role play a game-messing chaotic evil?PedroSteckecilo said:
Everyone knows your evil, your locked into stirring up shit... no-one ever trusts you...
Chaotic evil takes balls, Chaotic evil and winning takes effort, Chaotic evil, winning, stuffing everyone else up and coming up with a plausible character is so full of win it bursts out of me and pools into an iceberg of awesome.
Not to mention how cool a well made CE character can be... think Hannibal lector crossed with Kratos... (although its way more fun to be balanced power-wise, psionic katana crazies are way less sinister than a twisted mage or a rouge with a rusty shank and a big ol' bag o' crazy)
My group focuses on the co-operative storytelling aspect of roleplaying (that and creating Kick Ass Action Sequences) so hence a straight "Chaotic Evil" character rarely fits into our style. Though the best example of a chaotic evil character I've ever heard of was a Chaotic Evil Bard who while not overtly (or constantly) treacherous, would always save his own skin first, was cruel, capricious and selfish and often used other characters to further his own ends. So I suppose chaotic evil can, in a way, fit. Also, in one of our games we have a character who the GM insists fits into Chaotic Evil, as he's an unabashedly violent, vengeance obsessed little man who tends to kill people for no reason. Though in that game we're all criminals anyway so he fits in well.
I just feel that ALWAYS playing a Chaotic Evil character can shake up a DM's story setup, and I follow the philosophy that...
It is the GM's Job to create the world, story and situations
It is the Players job to make characters that fit within the GM's concept and will work with what other people have chosen.
I just feel that ALWAYS playing a Chaotic Evil character can shake up a DM's story setup, and I follow the philosophy that...
It is the GM's Job to create the world, story and situations
It is the Players job to make characters that fit within the GM's concept and will work with what other people have chosen.
Ah, heres where we differ in philosophy, i think players should be able to play as they want, and the DM should be able to adapt...PedroSteckecilo said:
That said, we had an AWESOME game where someone was following us, shanking, skinning, brutalizing and dismembering the NPC's around us... me and the DM had it all planned out... and eventually it dawned on everyone that Ultrajoe was Hannibal on steroids...
It was genuinely creepy towards the end, and the story was beautifully woven between dynamic events and static goals...
That and i got to skin wenches we had been speaking too only a few hours ago, and drape their innards across the walls...
Yeah, chaotic evil is so win it hurts.
But see that prioritizes your fun over the rest of the players, you and the DM are having your own little laugh in while screwing with everyone else. I wouldn't want to play in a game like that because you and said DM are more interested in playing a 2 Person game than integrating everyone else.Ultrajoe said:
This is true however you must realise that upbringing on the surface, or any upbringing is taught to suppress those urges at all costs. It would be a natural instinct for this surface raised drow to flick that spider off his arm but back in the underdark he would have been taught to believe that his Goddess was blessing him. Hence the upbringing just suppresses different urges within the drow's body.Khell_Sennet said:
If left on his own, or raised in a true neutral way (by which I mean that there is absolutely NO bias between good, evil, law or chaos) I believe that it boils down to random chance whether a drow would help somebody or start stabbing him until it stops being funny.
Sorry if it's offtopic, but I feel that it's relevant, given the 4E changes to the system and the discussion of the system as a whole. But I never liked the Dungeons and Dragons alignment grid anyway. Law and Chaos are alright, I guess, but Good and Evil are RELATIVE TERMS, people! In DnD, if you walk into a town, and kill someone, that's an Evil act, probably Chaotic Evil. At least, that's how I always percieved the way they handled it. In Neverwinter Nights, saving someone from a bunch of zombies would invariably give me Good points. It's just too arbitrary for me.
However, I love the Magic alignment system. Even though I'm sure very few people think of it as an alignment system (it's a card game!), it works bloody well as an alignment system. Because the five Colours of Magic all correspond to different goals and ideals, rather than corresponding to different kind of actions. Also, interestingly, none of the colours care about morality at all. They all have individual codes of ethics, but they disregard standard morality completely in favour of their own different sets of ideals. Almost any act can be spun any way; come about by different motivations or intentions, and therefore be any colour. Heroes are not White, and Villains are not Black.
Since I'm well aware that people may not be familiar with Magic, or think of Magic's Colours as a character alignment system, I'll do my best to explain, and then give a bit of an example that everyone (especially on here) should be familiar with. It's in Spoiler tags since the colour description is very, very, very long, and you might not care.
I've also added spoiler tags to the example, as it too is quite lengthy.
And that's why I think that DnD's system is outstripped by Magic's. No way every single alignment on the grid in DnD could justify the Clone Wars.
Since I should probably say something on the topic, I'd say that JJDWilson is approximately right when he says that an unbiassed Drow would just as likely help someone as do some sort of nefarious deed to that person.
However, I love the Magic alignment system. Even though I'm sure very few people think of it as an alignment system (it's a card game!), it works bloody well as an alignment system. Because the five Colours of Magic all correspond to different goals and ideals, rather than corresponding to different kind of actions. Also, interestingly, none of the colours care about morality at all. They all have individual codes of ethics, but they disregard standard morality completely in favour of their own different sets of ideals. Almost any act can be spun any way; come about by different motivations or intentions, and therefore be any colour. Heroes are not White, and Villains are not Black.
Since I'm well aware that people may not be familiar with Magic, or think of Magic's Colours as a character alignment system, I'll do my best to explain, and then give a bit of an example that everyone (especially on here) should be familiar with. It's in Spoiler tags since the colour description is very, very, very long, and you might not care.
So, first, I'll give an overview of the five Colours of Magic. Magic [Def. #2 [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Magic]] in Magic [TCG] isn't all the same. There are different kinds. And while different kinds of magic can produce the same effect, they usually won't do so in the same way, or with the same amount of energy/mana. The five Colours are: White, Blue, Black, Red and Green. Each colour has two enemy colours, and two allied colours. If you take a standard pentagram, and put White at the top, then the rest in the order above going clockwise, you have the allies and enemies - the allied colours are adjacent, and each colour's two opposites are the enemies. So Blue is allied with White and Black, and opposes Red and Green. Pretty simple, so far. But what does "Blue" mean? It's got a capital 'B', so it's probably not that it's got an azure hue. So here goes:
White - White is characterised by a desire for peace and security and stability on a large scale. White guys look out for each other, and will very often make use of laws or rules as ways of keeping the peace. People who tend to be white are cops, and politicians. White characters aren't just looking out for themselves, though, or even just other White guys. They're looking out for the whole world. And White does this by creating structure. Laws and rules which apply to everyone will result in a harmonious world for everyone. That's what White says. So White has two sides - benevolence to those who would follow its laws, and wrath towards those who would break them.
Blue - Blue people are opportunists. To our Blue person, life's purpose is to learn what you should be, and to learn how to be that. So in order to find out where Blue should fit, Blue seeks knowledge and information above all else. So Blue's long-term goal is omniscience: The ability to know the place of everyone and every thing. Blue characters tend to be thoughtful and considered. Blue will always think of a plan before rushing in, and will always seek to maximise the knowledge gained. Potentially Blue people are students and scientists, who seek to understand the world by learning and by experiments. Note that Blue characters will almost never destroy anything - they'd much rather steal it or otherwise control it. Because if it's destroyed, it's gone, and it's not coming back. If it's mine... well, then it fits where it should be.
Black - Black people are selfish. That's the simplest way to describe them - Black is the colour of the Self. Every single thing a Black character does is only to benefit himself. Working with a team? Because I can gain strength I wouldn't normally be able to. Saving someone? That someone might know something I can use, and if they don't, well, I'm sure they have gold on them. Black's final goal is omnipotence - the ability to do whatever the hell he likes. And if someone's in Black's way, well, he'll find a way around them. Black won't hold back: He'll use every single tool, every single power available to him to get what he wants. Black isn't limited like anyone else, Black is sheer ruthlessness. Black people are villains: Thugs or criminals are very often Black, and ambitious politicians or businessmen can also fall into this category.
Red - Red guys are fuelled by emotions. People fuelled by anger and rage get the most press as being Red, but people fuelled by Love or despair are just as Red. Red comes from the heart, not the head. Life's pretty simple for Red - do whatever you want at the time. Forget this long-term planning stuff, that's a waste of time. It's all about what you want to do right now. So do it! So Red people hate rules and laws and stuff like that, because it limits what they can do. Which sounds a lot like Black, but isn't as similar as you'd think - Black ignores laws because they're in Black's way, Red ignores laws because they limit freedom. Red is aaaall about freedom as an ideal. And if other people are constrained by laws, well, those laws have got to go. Which tends to mean that so do the people enforcing them. It's very hard for a Red person to live in a traditional civilisation, which tends to be White. Guys who might be red are your bullies and thugs, but also your artists and great lovers. It's all about having fun, for Red. Though, if that means smashing someone's face into the dirt, so be it. Not because I hate that person, or because that person has something I want, I just feel like it.
Green - Green is Nautral. Green is the Colour that most animals/monsters/etc in their natural habitats would get. Mr Green values the natural order over everything else. He would like nothing more than to let the world run its course, without any interference from anyone or anything. Greenie loves to see things grow, and take their natural shape. Green things are wild animals, and nature-deifying tribal types. Additionally, parents all have a Green streak to them, because as much fun as it is to shape your child into your image, most people are very very happy to let their child grow into whatever they want to grow into. And since Green is in favour of defending the natural order, they tend to be in favour of defending everyone who thinks similarly. But what really ticks off Mr Green is when people start getting these ideas to interfere with the natural order, and start imposing their own ways. When people start to shape things. Gardeners who create topiaries are NOT Green, they're more likely to be White. So Green gets angry. And Green smashes. Interestingly, the Hulk is Red, not Green, and Dr Banner is Blue.
If you read that, and are going "The hell?! That wasn't brief!", well, yeah, it kinda was. If you want to challenge me on that, I'll link you to an in-depth discussion on each colour.
White - White is characterised by a desire for peace and security and stability on a large scale. White guys look out for each other, and will very often make use of laws or rules as ways of keeping the peace. People who tend to be white are cops, and politicians. White characters aren't just looking out for themselves, though, or even just other White guys. They're looking out for the whole world. And White does this by creating structure. Laws and rules which apply to everyone will result in a harmonious world for everyone. That's what White says. So White has two sides - benevolence to those who would follow its laws, and wrath towards those who would break them.
Blue - Blue people are opportunists. To our Blue person, life's purpose is to learn what you should be, and to learn how to be that. So in order to find out where Blue should fit, Blue seeks knowledge and information above all else. So Blue's long-term goal is omniscience: The ability to know the place of everyone and every thing. Blue characters tend to be thoughtful and considered. Blue will always think of a plan before rushing in, and will always seek to maximise the knowledge gained. Potentially Blue people are students and scientists, who seek to understand the world by learning and by experiments. Note that Blue characters will almost never destroy anything - they'd much rather steal it or otherwise control it. Because if it's destroyed, it's gone, and it's not coming back. If it's mine... well, then it fits where it should be.
Black - Black people are selfish. That's the simplest way to describe them - Black is the colour of the Self. Every single thing a Black character does is only to benefit himself. Working with a team? Because I can gain strength I wouldn't normally be able to. Saving someone? That someone might know something I can use, and if they don't, well, I'm sure they have gold on them. Black's final goal is omnipotence - the ability to do whatever the hell he likes. And if someone's in Black's way, well, he'll find a way around them. Black won't hold back: He'll use every single tool, every single power available to him to get what he wants. Black isn't limited like anyone else, Black is sheer ruthlessness. Black people are villains: Thugs or criminals are very often Black, and ambitious politicians or businessmen can also fall into this category.
Red - Red guys are fuelled by emotions. People fuelled by anger and rage get the most press as being Red, but people fuelled by Love or despair are just as Red. Red comes from the heart, not the head. Life's pretty simple for Red - do whatever you want at the time. Forget this long-term planning stuff, that's a waste of time. It's all about what you want to do right now. So do it! So Red people hate rules and laws and stuff like that, because it limits what they can do. Which sounds a lot like Black, but isn't as similar as you'd think - Black ignores laws because they're in Black's way, Red ignores laws because they limit freedom. Red is aaaall about freedom as an ideal. And if other people are constrained by laws, well, those laws have got to go. Which tends to mean that so do the people enforcing them. It's very hard for a Red person to live in a traditional civilisation, which tends to be White. Guys who might be red are your bullies and thugs, but also your artists and great lovers. It's all about having fun, for Red. Though, if that means smashing someone's face into the dirt, so be it. Not because I hate that person, or because that person has something I want, I just feel like it.
Green - Green is Nautral. Green is the Colour that most animals/monsters/etc in their natural habitats would get. Mr Green values the natural order over everything else. He would like nothing more than to let the world run its course, without any interference from anyone or anything. Greenie loves to see things grow, and take their natural shape. Green things are wild animals, and nature-deifying tribal types. Additionally, parents all have a Green streak to them, because as much fun as it is to shape your child into your image, most people are very very happy to let their child grow into whatever they want to grow into. And since Green is in favour of defending the natural order, they tend to be in favour of defending everyone who thinks similarly. But what really ticks off Mr Green is when people start getting these ideas to interfere with the natural order, and start imposing their own ways. When people start to shape things. Gardeners who create topiaries are NOT Green, they're more likely to be White. So Green gets angry. And Green smashes. Interestingly, the Hulk is Red, not Green, and Dr Banner is Blue.
If you read that, and are going "The hell?! That wasn't brief!", well, yeah, it kinda was. If you want to challenge me on that, I'll link you to an in-depth discussion on each colour.
I've also added spoiler tags to the example, as it too is quite lengthy.
Now, having outlined those 5 Colours, I'd like to share an example of how any act can be interpreted or motivated by any of those colours. We've all seen Star Wars, yeah? Know the general plot with the Clone Wars, and how the Senator/Chancellor/Emperor Palpatine overthrew the Republic so he could forge the Empire, with himself at its head? Well, even though in the actual continuity that was about as Black an act you can get, if you forget that, it's not that hard to come up with a reason for a White Palpatine, or any other colour.
Let's look at the Galaxy before the Clone Wars. The Senate was slow and clumsy, ineffective at resolving conflicts. The Jedi were slow to act, only helping when they saw a benefit for all involved. Palpatine, or Darth Sidious, saw an opportunity to change that. By overthrowing the current regime, (by an admittedly long winded and complex procedure of artifical infighting and seperation of certain states from the Republic, etc, etc) he guaranteed stability for the Galaxy and its people. Yes, some would die in the transitional period (Clone Wars), but after that, there was a firm government who knew what they were doing, and didn't waste time debating for years until the situation had changed so much that the debate's outcomes were moot. The Jedi, acting without Senatorial approval, an independent and potentially dangerous order of powerful warriors, was neutralised. Palpatine is now the Hero of the People, and has guaranteed a better way of life, and easier resolution of conflicts for all. This is White, very White. Some sacrifice so that many can benefit. If Palapatine had done this just so he could be hailed as a Hero, and be given a position of power in return for his deeds (or create such a position out of the strife he caused), this is very Black (Canon-Palpatine). A Red-aligned Palpatine would have caused chaos among the Galaxy, then done nought but revel in it, enjoying himself. Whether or not a new government arises and everything settles back down doesn't even occur to Red-Palpatine. His purpose would have been to vent, to experience the chaos, or whatever he felt like at the time. Green-Palpatine would have created strife in the Galaxy with the intent of the formation of a stronger government, and a stronger Galaxy because of it. A Blue-Palpatine is the hardest to imagine, but basically, he would have sparked the Clone Wars just to see what happened. Just to know if the Galaxy was strong enough to survive such chaos. See, his actions are the same in each case (Starting the Clone Wars), the outcomes similar (strife into new order), but the motivations (and thus Colours) completely different. This is what I meant by saying that every colour can be Good or Evil. Of course, in the above, the act was determined by the example I used, so morality springs from there.
Additionally, all the colours can be combined to form the motivations for even more complex acts. Palpatine is more like Blue-Black (or UB) than monoBlack villain - he believed himself superior due to his mastery of the Dark Side of the Force, and as such, he should rule over those below. This fits in with Black's lust for personal power, and Blue's philosophy of "everything in its place".
Let's look at the Galaxy before the Clone Wars. The Senate was slow and clumsy, ineffective at resolving conflicts. The Jedi were slow to act, only helping when they saw a benefit for all involved. Palpatine, or Darth Sidious, saw an opportunity to change that. By overthrowing the current regime, (by an admittedly long winded and complex procedure of artifical infighting and seperation of certain states from the Republic, etc, etc) he guaranteed stability for the Galaxy and its people. Yes, some would die in the transitional period (Clone Wars), but after that, there was a firm government who knew what they were doing, and didn't waste time debating for years until the situation had changed so much that the debate's outcomes were moot. The Jedi, acting without Senatorial approval, an independent and potentially dangerous order of powerful warriors, was neutralised. Palpatine is now the Hero of the People, and has guaranteed a better way of life, and easier resolution of conflicts for all. This is White, very White. Some sacrifice so that many can benefit. If Palapatine had done this just so he could be hailed as a Hero, and be given a position of power in return for his deeds (or create such a position out of the strife he caused), this is very Black (Canon-Palpatine). A Red-aligned Palpatine would have caused chaos among the Galaxy, then done nought but revel in it, enjoying himself. Whether or not a new government arises and everything settles back down doesn't even occur to Red-Palpatine. His purpose would have been to vent, to experience the chaos, or whatever he felt like at the time. Green-Palpatine would have created strife in the Galaxy with the intent of the formation of a stronger government, and a stronger Galaxy because of it. A Blue-Palpatine is the hardest to imagine, but basically, he would have sparked the Clone Wars just to see what happened. Just to know if the Galaxy was strong enough to survive such chaos. See, his actions are the same in each case (Starting the Clone Wars), the outcomes similar (strife into new order), but the motivations (and thus Colours) completely different. This is what I meant by saying that every colour can be Good or Evil. Of course, in the above, the act was determined by the example I used, so morality springs from there.
Additionally, all the colours can be combined to form the motivations for even more complex acts. Palpatine is more like Blue-Black (or UB) than monoBlack villain - he believed himself superior due to his mastery of the Dark Side of the Force, and as such, he should rule over those below. This fits in with Black's lust for personal power, and Blue's philosophy of "everything in its place".
And that's why I think that DnD's system is outstripped by Magic's. No way every single alignment on the grid in DnD could justify the Clone Wars.
Since I should probably say something on the topic, I'd say that JJDWilson is approximately right when he says that an unbiassed Drow would just as likely help someone as do some sort of nefarious deed to that person.