This is for you who are in doubt how a certain alignment should or could be played. When I have difficulty remembering, I try and look over the things that are listed on this site. Can be rather helpful. Hopefully it works for you.

http://easydamus.com/alignment.html

_________________

I am fundamentally opposed to the idea. You don't play an alignment, you play a character with a unique personality and motives. Your behaviour causes you to be labelled with a certain alignment. Your alignment does not cause you to behave a certain way. The direction of this causal connection is critically important, but something people seem to forget all the time.

That doesn't necessarily invalidate this page as a checklist of what alignment your character could be. But the actual content is rather thin and simplified, so the practical use is quite limited, IMHO.

Nice of you to post it, though. If it works for you, cool.

_________________

+1

_________________
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

Here. If one is having trouble with an alignment, it's a character development issue, not because one does not know how to do Chaotic Neutral things.

_________________
Thine taste in horrid footwear not withstanding, I did not say that thou were in fact an idiot, I merely implied that such things were self evident.

-Krrja

I think this is good starting point for players unfamiliar to DnD/Amia. Even if you play a character, you still need to determine an alignment when you create the character and the backstory.

It's of course the players choice whether or not the character deviates from his/her chosen alignment, and I think this is a good road map of where characters lie. However as we see with the most prevalent character in the Neverwinter campaigns, Aribeth de'Tylmerande, characters can don and cast off alignments like clothes if the conditions are right.

_________________
Kael Gerrad: Hardest thing ye'll learn to do in this life is be free.
Syfe McCaul: Death comes only to the deserving.

Totally agree! +2


I'll decide how I'll play my alignment thank you very much. If the gods don't like it I'm sure they'll let me know and that would be some nice RP.

I've been a lo-ong time critic of the DnD alignment system. Without going into the history of how the two axes were created, both represent very narrow, ethnocentric, incredibly biased philosophies. The evolution of the alignment system, as people with greater nuance and understanding than Gygax and his Mary Sue gaming friends got into the game and behind the helm, reflects a dogmatic attachment to the axes, while attempting to allow people to, as written above, play characters that happen to have alignments.

That said, I actually completely agree with the link provided. It accurately reflects the way alignment, particularly good and evil, are described and are supposed to work in D20 games. What a surprise, because the description is taking word for word from [link="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm"]the SRD[/link], so it's as official as it gets.

Given that the alignment system is flawed, many things about D20 are flawed, but when you play a game, you play within its rules. People spend a lot of time here getting FR lore 'right,' and though I don't share their passion for the setting and its stories, I know exactly why they do it. I'm like that too with settings like I like - WH40k, for instance, and no, I don't like Space Marines. So, by the same token, we should be spending that much time getting the rules right too. And frankly, people aren't.

I'm speaking here very specifically of the Lawful Stupid alignment. We all know what I'm talking about: 'good' characters that run around beating the all living hell out of anything in black, slicing first and asking questions later, asserting that their might makes right. Let's be clear, I have no problem with this RP. In fact, I love it. These kinds of characters make great bad guys because they bring a lot of moral complexity to the table: is it alright to use the tools of evil for good? Is it moral to oppress evil? And so on.

The thing is, that's not Lawful Good, or any good, it's evil. Killing, oppressing, bossing people around, shouting orders, demanding - and enforcing - compliance; all those are typical evil. From the SRD:



Bolded for emphasis. Killing when convenient. How many Good characters have tried to find a non-peaceful solution to the conflict between Holvin and the kobolds? It doesn't respect 'good' life. It doesn't say respect non-scaly life. It just says respect life. I'll wager, though, less than one in ten good aligned characters even thought about not killing the kobolds. And seriously, any good character that calls grinding 'hunting' needs to be looking at neutral from the other side of the spectrum. Good people do not 'hunt' sentient creatures. Period.

So, yes, I'd love for people to start paying attention to their alignment, because right now, the great majority of players are not. Alignment is an accessory they put on for certain occasions, not a reflection of their characters core values.

_________________
You dare mock the Tibbly one, catcherer of drowses?

You can decide how you play your character all you like, but you at some level or another fit into the alignment system of D&D, ideally the alignment is interpreted by both you and DM but it seems as though some folk like to debate this.

I like this alignment grid.

No need imo

_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham

Bah, my post was deleted before I got to submit it. A quick recap.

Yes, character first, alignment second, but you do have to pick an alignment and I think this is a fine tool to get a brief overview of the different types and what it could entail.

This topic should have a less "absolute" title, like "Quick recap on alignments" without having to sort through D&D books that only vaguely describe it. So, not saying you are doing it wrong... just a friendly overview for new folks and people who are dealing with alignments they are unfamiliar with.

Wasn't meant to be a bible of any kind to dictate how you play your characters. Certain alignments can be tricky to portray and this can spark an idea or two on how to handle it.

Soooo... renaming this failure, lol. Feel free to post better alignment descriptions.

_________________

True, such guides can be helpful during development.

I usually translate D&D alignments into Freedom and Selfishness. Freedom as a ratio between the many and the individual for Law and Chaos. And selfishness as a ratio between good and evil. An evil character is far more likely to think of themselves first. A Lawful character is more likely to put the freedoms of society before his own. This allows me to rationalize an alignment in terms more humanistic and understandable than a vague sense of neutrality, chaos, or law. The chaotic evil character isn't evil because of some esoteric ideal, he's simply too selfish to be otherwise.

_________________
Thine taste in horrid footwear not withstanding, I did not say that thou were in fact an idiot, I merely implied that such things were self evident.

-Krrja

Both your alignment and your classes are results of who your PC is, not vice versa, IMO.

"Because I am a furious, illiterate, bloodlusting warrior who doesn't respect anyone's rules but my own, I am a Chaotic Neutral Barbarian." Alignment and classes serve as reflections of what the PC is by virtue of who they are, rather than lenses that somehow focus the PC to be something; that's what I lean towards.

_________________

I say lawful stupid is!

Its stupid to quote out of context too...

Rhe webpage motivates why alignment x y z is rhe best, it doesnt state a fact.

_________________
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

It is stating a fact...

X is the best because of Z.

Not: X can be the best because of Z.

It changes from 'is' to 'can be' and 'considered by [aforementioned alignment]' at various points in the text.

So it's not just a literary error, it's simply wrong.


It's also entirely in context - I simply omitted the explanation of why it is the most dangerous.

The "...is the most dangerous alignment because..." lines seem to be (to me at least) a purposeful literary choice and meant to be phrased as such, despite the somewhat confusing nature of it.

Meaning that they all equally share the title of "Most dangerous" for their own given reasons.

It also contrasts the "can be a dangerous alignment" of the neutral and good with the definite statement of the evil alignment

'Most' infers absolute singularity, though.

For example, if people have varying numbers of apples:

Mr X has one.
Mr Y has two.
Mr Z has two.

You can't say Mr Y or Mr Z have the most apples - that statement is false.

You can however say Mr X has the least.

Pedantry is fun

Actually most just means the greatest amount, so while you could not say that either Y or Z has "more" than the other you could say that (Y, Z, or Y & Z) have the "most" as they share he same number which happens to be the greatest amount.

Confusing as hell, sure but technically a correct statement.


...Has this thread reached its purpose and also been derailed enough yet?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superlative

"... the superlative is the form of an adjective (or adverb) that indicates that the person or thing (or action) modified has the quality of the adjective (or adverb) to a degree greater than that of anything it is being compared to in a given context."

They have the most 'together', but not singularly.

You can say Y + Z have the most.

You can't say Y has the most - or Z has the most.

Both Y and Z in the given context are subjective, not objective and as such multiple things can be the "most" whatever for their own specific reasons (Meaning that the context for them is not the same.) [Also the Y+Z but not Y or Z argument only holds true if you have a quantitative measurement not a qualitative.].

It is the same reason that all companies can advertise themselves as the "Best" as no objective basis is applied.

Further common usage trumps technical grammatical standard.

I am sure you both know what was intented by the D&D team when they wrote it, eh?

* Lawful evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil.

* Neutral evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure evil without honor and without variation.

* Chaotic evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents the destruction not only of beauty and life but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.

Given different situations, they can all be "most" dangerous.

This topic wasn't something to debate, just a guide to go through. Something to mark as favorites for future references or something like that.
But I won't complain about your nitpickings.. ^^

_________________

Quite, but the parameter for 'most dangerous' in this instance remains the same. It is constant to the individual - it's not written by multiple people with differing opinions.

Multiple companies adverts, advertising themselves as 'best' are written by different people with different opinions (Or the same person who's writing it on behalf of someone with different opinions).

Factors comprising the 'opinion' are in no way related, it's only the total... Just like if you asked someone with 2 bananas and another person with 2 bananas and a pear how much fruit they had.



Common usage dictates 2 things can't be 'most', as well. You proved that yourself!





Sorry Ulir, I just found it funny! ^_^

...What the hell does this have to do with alignment again?

Every alignment is the most holiest, most dangerous, most pious, most coolest, bestest alignment ever. At least within their own respective outlooks. There.

_________________

Your outlooks are all insane, save mine.

_________________
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.

I played the what DnD character are you...it said I'm a chaotic evil elf wizard

Huh?

Well I reject your fantasy reality and substitute my own!

There.

_________________
Thine taste in horrid footwear not withstanding, I did not say that thou were in fact an idiot, I merely implied that such things were self evident.

-Krrja

*scribbles something about straightjackets and how they come out when the talk of Lawful Good necromancers comes around*

_________________
If you have the power to destroy the world...then you have to take responsibility for the world...don't you?