Upon re reading the original post I would have to say that your character strikes me as Chaotic Neutral. He's like a schizophrenic, a zealot maybe who has a somewhat twisted idea of what good is. As I understand it he would be capable of killing even innocent children if he thought they were evil. A madman trying to enforce his idea of good and in doing so occasionally turns his wrath to the people who might not deserve it.

That would be Chaotic Neutral, right?

[quote="IronAngel"][quote="TeroSNS"]I think going for your own principles goes for the moral(good and evil axis), not ethical (law-chaos)
chaotic aligned beings dislike law, and mostly even oppose it, which I assume your character does. By doing good things you should be chaotic good.[/quote]

I'm not sure where you pull the moral/ethical distinction anyway. The words are synonyms, and mean the exact same thing in Latin/Greek respectively. Sometimes, ethics refers to the systematic philosophical study of moral, but that's another matter.[/quote]

Ethics are the rules and laws which come from around you, and moral is something that is generated within. Check the dictionary. they are not synonyms.

actually I change my statement, he should be chaotic neutral for killing his victims. Chaotic good would probably make up some other punishment, but not killing.

besides you can't compare languages like that, many languages have incomplete vocabulary in some areas, while excelling in other areas.

_________________
My favourite sniper loadout: Huntsman, jarate, bushwacka.
Team Fortress 2 is FREE TO PLAY!

I can assure you you are wrong. It has been stated in every general introduction to philosophy I've read, and in every course in ethics, philosophical or theological, that I've taken in high school and University. Any reputable dictionary will agree. Throughout the history of philosophy, the two terms are used interchangeably.

There is a slight difference in how the words are used in language. There's social ethic, professional ethic etcetera. The meaning of the word remains the same, however.


I still don't understand the Chaotic part. Where does this come from? Breaking laws has nothing to do with it; you can be a paragon of Lawfulness or a paragon of Chaos and have similar disregard of law.

_________________

According to this your character may very well be chaotic good and not chaotic neutral. Here's Chaotic neutral as well so you can decide which fits your character best.



You can check out the rest of the alignments here

They're often referred to as such in external sites from what I've seen.

_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player

يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل

I'd say that by going strictly by what the OP stated and the definitions provided by D&D Wiki, that the character would most likely be CG or CN.

@Iron: You're correct in a philosophical sense. However, D&D is written for the layman and therefore dumbed down to a much more simple and black and white version.

_________________


"I once took the high road and it took me straight to hell and I stood there all by myself." -Hank III

You will note that Hoar is Lawful Neutral and this kind of lawless vigilantism is exactly his portfolio. I should think the fact that there's a lawful god who behaves like this is evidence enough.

You certainly shouldn't go by the D&D charicatures of the alignments in the PHB. They don't apply. Defendable ideas and DMs' word counts. Systematic reasoning always trumps some game designer's ideas. I doubt anyone anywhere, ever, has taken the contents of the D&D alignments seriously.

_________________

If you can justify it, then the alignment is fine. I personally wouldn't go LN unless he is really strongly inclined to his personal beliefs, though.

_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player

يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل

True: almost any character can justify almost any alignment. They are so vague that with a slightly different phrasing of a personality, you get a completely different alignment.

In this case, the importance of just punishment and doing what has to be done, was emphasised many times. It's not (primarily) done for any personal gratification or a hate of criminals, but rather a principle. He respects paladins and other honorable people, even if the Cordorian law they uphold is not truly justice.

If he did it for the gold, or because he wanted to rebel, he might be Chaotic or Neutral.

_________________

The entire allignment system always seem silly to me, anyways. I don't honestly think I'm very good at staying completely true to any single one of them, and I rarely ever try to, either. Just as that, I couldn't care less how most classes are played (aside from monks having certain roles, I suppose, paladins and such, too), as long as the character in question is entertaining for everyone around it, and its player.

For a Robin Hood style vigilante, I'd probably choose CG myself, but if he's got more of a mean streak, I guess CN. Then again, he's got his own laws, so maybe LN... See what I mean? It doesn't really matter, as long as you don't make him Evil, and have him steal from the rich and give to the poor.

_________________
Profiles: DakoDako & ElWacko

Characters: Currently trying my best to stick to Beridoc Brushgale

There are some things, I have to say, that 4th Ed improves on dramatically. Alignment is one of them.

_________________
I keels u with my axe!

"Do ye know where the Holy-Flamin' Frost-brand Gronk-slayin' Vorpal Hammer o' woundin' an' returnin' an' Shootin'-Lightnin'-out-yer-bum is?"

I think 4th ed made alignment worse. Now it's linear.

_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player

يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل

*Waves a holy symbol and splashes holy water everywhere.*
Back! Back foul 4th Edition! Back to the pits that spawned you!

On topic, however, I tend to stick loosely to whatever alignment I pick. Garnith is slightly insane, so he's chaotic, but his good-ness is somewhat debatable considering one of his best friends is a necromancer. However, he tends to avoid conflicts, encourages various people (Read: His friends and his other friends) not to try to kill each other, and is generally a nice guy.

Alignment is so easily manipulated that simple language may modify whether one views the alignment of a character to be appropriate or not. Pick something that seems to fit, and just be your character. No one is going to tell you off if you do something that may not be 100% good, evil, chaotic, or lawful.

_________________
"Hi, I'm Garnith, and I'm an Invisophile."
Garnith, Ranth, Rick, Burick, Elail, Deryl, Kane, Rini.
Suggestion Rule of Thumb: Don't think about how neat it would be to use, think about how neat it would be for people to use against you.

Ethics exist because of peers.

_________________
Dwagin [Duh-wa-GIN] N. - 1a. Small and cute thingum, particularly fond of four legged scaled creatures of the metalic and chromatic varieties.

-Extraordinarily ordinary in the mostest of ways.

[quote="IronAngel"]I can assure you you are wrong. It has been stated in every general introduction to philosophy I've read, and in every course in ethics, philosophical or theological, that I've taken in high school and University. Any reputable dictionary will agree. Throughout the history of philosophy, the two terms are used interchangeably.

There is a slight difference in how the words are used in language. There's social ethic, professional ethic etcetera. The meaning of the word remains the same, however.


I still don't understand the Chaotic part. Where does this come from? Breaking laws has nothing to do with it; you can be a paragon of Lawfulness or a paragon of Chaos and have similar disregard of law.[/quote]

chaotic part comes from direct hatred and opposement against law, for he thinks it has failed, as he clearly states in his info.

if that isn't chaotic, then what is?

P.S. dwagins link was awesome, I wish I could do that.

_________________
My favourite sniper loadout: Huntsman, jarate, bushwacka.
Team Fortress 2 is FREE TO PLAY!

[quote="Yurell"]I think 4th ed made alignment worse. Now it's linear.[/quote]
but on second thought, it will not make players go at each others throats.

_________________
My favourite sniper loadout: Huntsman, jarate, bushwacka.
Team Fortress 2 is FREE TO PLAY!

I have already said that law does not equal Law.

The first is a mortal concept and can be a small part of Lawfulness but isn't necessary a part of it at all. Monks probably despise human laws as insignifigant and below them, yet they must be Lawful. Barbarians, on the other hand, are generally honorable and hold their tribal tradition and laws in very high regard, yet the tendency to go berserk makes them Chaotic. Banites are typically Lawful Evil, but they care nothing for weak laws and would crush them all under Bane's tyranny.

Similarly, this PC like all Hoarites, disdains laws because they have failed in fulfilling their true task, that of true Law and Justice. The goal is very lawful.

_________________

Re-read Irons posts starting from the last one on page one. He is correct in his assertions regarding alignment. Amia employs both game mechanical and metaphysical (for want of a better word) concepts of 'alignment'.

Iron, please don't open the lawfully Chaotic or chaotically Lawfull can of worms.... please. That argument ended in the removal of alignments from PnP when 'we' used to play it.

_________________
Jess Incognito:- Ah, but the phoenix may fly only when its feathers are grown...

Olaf Grudgebringer: Stroppy Cleric or Morradin

Krunk (Underdark): Stay back! He's a bit mad.

the_incognitos@live.com

Yep. You've successfully described how two of my characters see "law" and honor. My Hoarite monk is as well a priest. If you say or do something blaspmhemous against Hoar, he will hurt you right then and there if it's bad enough, whether he is in the wilderness, Cordor, hell, right infront 10 Law Knights if the situation called for it. He's not unlawful, he simply considers the Law of his God as superceeding any petty mortal's law. He still obeys them out of wisdom when in a settlement, but if there's ever a place man's law and Hoar's law overlap, the latter wins out in his mind without a second thought.

As for my former barbarian PC(who is still just as choatic as ever), it could be said he is nigh as chivalrous as the most pious knight if the right person is infront of him. He has a sense of "honor" and there are a lot of things he just won't do because he feels he's nobler than such actions. And a lot of time, he doesn't go against the law, even if it urks him just because he's smart enough to know he doesn't want to bother with the crap that happens afterwards. Yet, he still has a "rage" of sorts, he is spontaneous in the midst of battle, has a devil-may-care/my-way-or-no-way ethos, and if you piss him off enough, well, let's just say he suffers a violent relapse, at your expense.

Indeed. He's LN or TN, if you ask me. There's nothing chaotic about what he said.

_________________
My Characters:
Yuilith Kethil Menaiivan Garadeth

I believe somewhere in LN, TN or NG (or NE, depending on if his reason for 'justice' is evil or good), given the arguments presented.

_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player

يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل

well I will play the alignments as I see fit, no matter what anyone says. People tend to have different views about them. besides I am really crappy in debating xD

_________________
My favourite sniper loadout: Huntsman, jarate, bushwacka.
Team Fortress 2 is FREE TO PLAY!

Well. I must admit I have learned a lot about the alignment system and RP and unfortunately I am more confused then ever. That being said I think I am starting to get quite a good and full mental picture of how my character thinks. I will now retreat in to the game and spend some time RPing with him to find out what works for me. I will also take a very serious look at Hora and how people play Hoarite's. I am actually leaning towards lawfull and neutral maybe even good if I change the concept a little.

And thanks again for all the wonderfull input. I have really enjoyed following the discussion.

Without trying to sway you further, I suggest reading the NWN Wiki page on alignment.

Rule of thumb is, as a general rule, if you can justify it go ahead ^^

_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player

يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل

Yeah, that's the way. Despite everything I've said (and I'm always right!), you should ignore me and do what you want. It's your character. You know him better than anyone else, and you must pick the alignment that you think reflects his personality best. If it's grossly out of line, a DM may change it, but that's no loss. It's not a punishment, so don't worry about it in advance.

The same goes for cinmay. Don't worry about what others say about your alignment. The most important thing is to play a character, and picking an approximate alignment is secondary. DMs can change it if they really disagree (though they rarely do), but that doesn't change how you play your character. It doesn't have much mechanical effect on your PC, after all.

_________________

Wait, Iron. Are you Ironic now?

Edit; Bad pun. Yes. But i'm slightly confused... you mean it, seriously?

_________________
Amia Minecraft Server Ip: vps1602.directvps.nl
NWN Damage Calculator: http://www.afterlifeguild.org/Thott/dnd/
NWN Build Calculator: http://nwvault.ign.com/View.php?view=Other.Detail&id=856

I'm very serious. I hate people trying to tell other people how to RP. I do it myself, but you have to take it as a fair attempt at convincing you why I'm right, not a command to dogmatically accept my point of view.

Everyone has the right to try convince others to see things their way, but no one should have to submit to someone else's opinion unless they're genuinely convinced it's right (or it's the DMs' stance and one they must enforce).

I would love to see everyone agree with me. But it should be because they realize my opinion is better than theirs, not because they just want to conform.

_________________

I am naturally more liberal regarding alignments, so it is rare that I ever change anyone's alignment, even when I notice an incongruency between behavior and alignment. I do like bumping people's alignment a little teeny bit in one direction or the other, just to keep things dynamic and interesting without really sending a huge tell (the 1-pt change itself is a little note to the player that says he or she is being watched "by the gods" so to speak).

This is because I am of the opinion that no PC is the paragon of their alignment, even your LG paladins, although they have the most call to be so. If you in fact are, then it is the hallmark of an incredible person. But the truth of the matter is, your behavior at certain times may not reflect your alignment. Good people may still tell little white lies. Evil people can still donate to charities. Neutral people can make the choice to slap a mouthy ho or show her some respect, whatever situational ethics demands.

When you do something that violates your Lawful/Chaotic/Good/Evil/Netural alignment, and you come this realization, there should be a kind of guilt that comes. A quiet guilt, maybe, one you do not express but suffer from anyway. The paladin who knows that that suspicious/questionable person is in trouble but doesn't put in 100% of himself to help that person, suspecting it may be a trap, may inevitably wrestle with the guilt that he was not perfectly good in that situation. If you do not have this guilt, or I, as a DM, can find over an extended period of time no outlet or expression of this guilt, I believe it to be the admission of a different alignment.

No, the times when alignment truly matter to me are in very specific situations. The make or break situations. The point of no return, the moment of truth. Whatever choice you make in these kinds of situations, given adequate time to consider your actions (even if that is just a matter of moments), is the reflection of your alignment. It is a secret and sick little joy I have as a DM - putting people in dramatically prepared encounters or situations with the intent to see whether they do as their alignment dictates.

And honestly? I am surprise sometimes, and then I consider the action they took, and whether I would still rationalize it being within their alignment. A lot of the times, I find a rationalization. A small handful of times, I do not, and I make a few changes that go beyond a point.

And oh God, this thread doesn't need to become another debate on alignment, but to the original topic: vigilantism has its place in a good story, in a culture, a society, in the total sum of the human experience.

Our storytellers (PR agents throughout history, if you will) have given us the idea of the vigilante, rather than the action of vigilantism. That is, the person who systematically avenges perceived injustices that neither human law nor divine authority correct. (Man won't do anything about it, the gods won't punish this person, so it is upon me to be the angel of death).

This supposes there is a great amount of thought into being a vigilante, or that people become career vigilantes. I could see extremist Hoarites getting into this very odd business, but generally, a person is not a vigilante, they are just a person who had committed an act of vigilantiism, which may or may not violate their alignment.

I almost want to say the original topic is easier to navigate and understand if you cease thinking of the "individual who is a vigilante" and more of vigilantism as an action that doesn't necessarily define the person. You start to see it in an applicable context if your mind is on alignment.

[quote="IronAngel"]I would love to see everyone agree with me. But it should be because they realize my opinion is better than theirs, not because they just want to conform.[/quote]

would that make playing in nwn fun anymore?

_________________
My favourite sniper loadout: Huntsman, jarate, bushwacka.
Team Fortress 2 is FREE TO PLAY!