|
Post by Elliot Kane on Feb 4, 2006 17:36:05 GMT
This one won't make sense to anyone who is not familiar with the D&D Alignment system, so I think a brief introduction is in order. The basic idea is that every character has enough behavioural tendencies that they can be roughly fitted into a classification (Called an Alignment) that gives all the other players and the GM a rough idea of how they are supposed to behave. Unfortunately, the original definitions are really vague, and each subsequent edition of D&D made them worse, until the truly awful 3rd Ed, which is so useless that they really should have scrapped the system entire. Back when I played, I had a lot of every clever and very experienced players who were always wanting to know why certain behaviour was out of Alignment. After all, with a very poor set of definitions, pretty much anything can be justified, right? You might consider this my ultimate answer - a properly defined Alignment system that explains everything any player really needs to know. If I find a better set of definitions, I'll adopt them - but it hasn't happened yet
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Feb 4, 2006 17:44:15 GMT
Alignment
The Alignment characteristic is a basic indication of your character's behavioural tendencies. It is a tool to aid role-playing, not a strait-jacket in which your character will be forever confined. If you create a character with a starting Alignment that does not match the way you end up playing that character, you will be free to change it. Obviously this should be discussed with the DM, as he will definitely want to know.
Keeping your character's behaviour within the bounds of the Alignment you have given them will obviously gain you experience points for good role-playing. Serious deviation will equally result in EXP penalties.
The following Alignment definitions are used as a common standard within the context of the game. This is necessary to ensure that everyone has the same idea of what constitutes 'chaotic' behaviour, for example, thus avoiding any confusion.
These interpretations sre intended for game purposes only, not for use in real life.
General Concepts
Before we can get into specific alignments, it is necessary to examine the five underlying concepts behind them.
Good & Evil
In real life 'Good' and 'Evil' are concepts that have no meaning outside of the society that defined them. 'Good' acts are simply those of which society approves, while 'Evil' acts are those of which it strongly disapproves. A Viking bringing home a vast amount of loot from raiding, for example, would most likely be considered 'Good' by his fellows and 'Evil' by his victims. Over time, any given society will change its ideas of what constitute 'Good' and 'Evil' according to its current needs. Often, what is considered 'Good' by one generation will be considered 'Evil' by a later generation, and vice versa.
For the purposes of the game it is necessary to establish a set of absolute standards. Anything else results in total confusion and negates the entire point of having an Alignment system in the first place.
Good: is defined as unselfish and moral: doing things for others with no thought of personal gain, or simply because it is the right thing to do. Placing the welfare of others above your own.
Do as you would be done by
Note: 'Moral' is defined as obeying the general rules of personal behaviour layed down by the Judeo-Christian & Islamic traditions (The core precepts of all three being identical). This is simply for the sake of convenience as everybody knows what these precepts are and they are well defined. Trying to use any other definition of 'Moral' is predicated once more upon social convention, hence unworkable.
Evil: is defined as selfish and immoral: doing things for yourself that inflict harm on others, or that you know to be wrong. The pursuit of self-gratification without worrying or caring about the pain you cause. Placing your own welfare above that of others.
Do it to them before they do it to you
Law & Chaos
Are in essence the forces of stability/pattern and change/randomness. Where 'Good' and 'Evil' are social constructs, Law (or 'Order') and Chaos are fundamental underpinning parts of the universe. Their natures are eternal and unchanging (which is certainly a paradox in the latter case). As such, definitions are not predicated upon any kind of social bias.
Law: is the force of stability and pattern (and has nothing to do with criminal law in any way shape or form). Lawful people enjoy working as part of a team, and will often be involved in organising, planning and general preparation. Lawful people generally think before they act..
Without stability there is no true progression
Chaos: is the force of randomness and change. Chaotic people are impulsive, and prefer to work alone rather than as part of a team. They dislike planning, finding it boring, and are always interested in new things. Many are highly creative. Chaotic people usually act before they think.
Without change there is only stagnation
Neutrality
Is not exactly a force, so much as the reconciling of opposites.
One who is Neutral in the 'Good'-'Evil' sense may not be particularly selfish or unselfish, or they may simply be amoral (in other words, they are unable to grasp moral concepts, or come from a society that has none). Others may view 'Good' and 'Evil' as forces that are both necessary, or simply consider them irrelevant (a Druid, for example, is far more concerned with animals than with people).
One who is Neutral in the Law-Chaos sense may not have a marked preference for either planning or spontaneous action, or they may simply allow others to dictate the course of events by just 'going with the flow'. Others may see the importance of both forces, and actively work to balance their lives accordingly. Many will be self-centred but not really selfish.
Without light there is no shadow
Specific Alignment Definitions
Lawful Good (LG): The LG character works towards bringing the greatest benefit to the largest number of people. S/he believes that a stable and well ordered society is the best hope of happiness for the majority of people. LG characters tend to become adventurers because they think they can do the most good over the long term by doing so.
Chaotic Good (CG): The CG character wants to help people now. S/he believes that it is up to every individual to do what they can to help others when they can. Individual freedom is the best way of guaranteeing happiness for all. CG people usually become adventurers when they are recruited on the spur of the moment to help destroy a local menace,
Neutral Good (NG): The NG character is not really bothered about the amount of social freedom granted by his government, only whether the people are happy or not. S/he will happily work with other people or alone as the need dictates. NG characters will usually become adventurers in order to protect others.
Lawful Neutral (LN): The LN character wants a nice quiet world in which everybody has the security of knowing their place and nothing ever changes. S/he enjoys routine and dislikes surprises. Those few LN characters who become adventurers usually do so because they feel that they cannot get the quiet life they want as long as outside menaces exist. They tend to be pretty annoyed about it too.
Chaotic Neutral (CN): The CN character craves adventure and excitement - now! Always fascinated by new things, and utterly bored without change, the CN character is the ultimate butterfly. S/he is highly inquisitive and often very quick witted. Most are wanderers who wish to see the world, or exist in a mad social whirl. Those who become adventurers do so for the excitement.
True Neutral (TN): The TN character either believes that Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are all intrinsically necessary to the world and its people - part of a vital balance of forces that should not ever be allowed to tip too far in any direction - or has completely abandoned all interest in human affairs. The majority of TN people are Druids or hermits, who fall into the latter category. TN characters who go adventuring will usually do so in order to preserve the balance or to counteract a threat to nature.
Lawful Evil: The LE character will work to gain the greatest long term benefit to him/herself. If other people get hurt in the process, well, so what. You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs, right? LE characters dream of a nice ordered society with them on top - or at least pulling the strings behind the scenes. LE characters who go adventuring usually do so in order to gain resources that will allow them to become more powerful or otherwise support their long-term aims.
Neutral Evil: The NE character will certainly accept any reasonable opportunity to gain personal benefits or self gratification, but will tend to weigh the risks before doing so. S/he doesn't care if other people get hurt, but certainly cares about whether s/he will have to face any consequences as a result. NE characters who go adventuring usually do so because they think that the possible gains outweigh the risks.
Chaotic Evil: The CE person wants self gratification now. If s/he sees something s/he wants and is strong enough to take it, s/he will do so (Note that 'strong' is not used here to refer only - or even primarily - to physical strength. Use of superior wit or charm or anything else is also included). There is no point worrying about possible consequences, as they may or may not happen. The strong prey on the weak, and that's just the way of the world. CE characters who go adventuring will usually do so on impulse and with the promise of easy loot.
End Note: The vast majority of people of all races have no means of identifying alignment, and only work on whether they like someone or not. A Merchant Prince may well be LE, but he may still be a good employer who deals fairly with his customers - both things that will undoubtably benefit him enormously in the long term. He may have a better general reputation than a LG Merchant Prince who is socially inept but secretly sets up a number of charitable foundations. Evil, like good, comes in many degrees, and is not always interested in ruling the world, or even a tiny part of it.
There is however one peculiar aberration common to people of all races: whatever they may do in pursuit of their goals, no sane person ever thinks of themselves as evil. Everyone, without exception, justifies what they do by reference to religion, social injustice or personal circumstance. They often maintain that everyone else would do the same things if they had the courage, the will, or the intelligence to do so. Sometimes they could not help themselves, had no choice or were simply obeying orders. Matters were taken out of their hands. It was a cry for help.
The excuses are endless, but the end result is this: do not accuse anyone of being evil unless you wish to deeply offend them!
End Note: As a general rule, any system of government that depends on the arbitrary whims of the people (Democracy) is Chaotic, whilst any unelected ruler (Autocracy) is Lawful. A Neutral position would involve a limited form of Democracy, such as the one extant in England during the Napoleonic era - only male landholders could vote, and MPs were unpaid, meaning only the rich could afford to be MPs, effectively meaning that government stayed in the hands of a small elite.
A belief that individual rights are more important than individual responsibilities is Chaotic (putting individual freedom above all) whilst the reverse is, of course, Lawful. Believing that rights and responsibilities are both important and should be properly balanced is Neutral.
An Evil system of govt is one where the people are ruthlessly exploited for the benefit of those in power; a Good system one where those in power act as public servants and work for the benefit of all.
|
|
|
Post by janggut on Feb 6, 2006 9:15:19 GMT
EK, that's a very nice explanation which is very clear & i'm sure people will understand them the first time it's read. however, the alignment explains only act, yet not motive. what of say, spy who would worm his/her way through the social ranks of the enemy till he/she is way up in the tops posts then unleash hi/her true mission - to overtake the enemy by any means possible? motive, i feel, maybe can be of true alignment rather than act alone. sadly i have no idea on how to implement that in the current D&D system although Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic 2 has done that quite successfully.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Feb 6, 2006 9:23:01 GMT
Alignment is based on what a character is truly like, not any acts they may be putting on. Your spy would basically be pretending to be someone he was not, so his true alignment would not be easily apparent. Good question though, Jang, thank you Motives for any action may differ, but at the end of the day they all come down to selfish or unselfish - hence 'good' or 'evil'. The moral system is there to stop justifications for wiping out whole villages of innocents and other blatantly evil acts ("My character knew they would die a horrible, painful death from the plague, so to save them that agony, he killed them all!"). The purity of a motive is often open to question, hence the need for absolute standards in a game world.
|
|
|
Post by Gray Lensman on Feb 6, 2006 17:20:05 GMT
Alignment, to me, describes a pattern of general behavior rather than a sum total of every act a character has done in his life. The thing is that much of what a character does depends on the situation. A good character may feel that he is forced by circumstance to do something he believes is wrong for the greater good, for instance. (Such as in Salvatore's Promise of the Witch-King, where an innocent woman is the catalyst for an evil undead sorcerer's curse. Do you kill her to save the world, or do you try to save her and risk losing everything?) Some characters may do bad things for good motives, or do good things for bad motives. Also, characters can be complex, and may not be easy to pin down. For instance, the cold-blooded assassin who butchers people for money may have a soft spot for children. (IMO, he would be Lawful Evil.) A normally good person may have a serious character flaw. I try to look at what a character is on balance. Always a tricky thing to classify human behavior in simple classifications.
|
|
|
Post by LaFille on Feb 8, 2006 4:07:51 GMT
I don't know for paper and web RPGs, but in some game RPGs' systems the alignment isn't set definitely. Like in NWN, it changes along the way with the actions and decisions of the player; in some other games, the whole alignment principle is replaced by a reputation system (like in Divine Divinity) or by the way people perceive you depending on affinities and interests (ex.: Fable).
|
|
|
Post by Gray Lensman on Feb 8, 2006 4:17:20 GMT
It's possible for characters to change alignment during the course of play, LaFille, yes. Characters can change and grow during gameplay. (In fact, I encourage it; it's the whole point of roleplaying, IMO.) If a character changes enough, it's possible to switch to a different alignment. The evil character may decide to reform, etc. A good system should allow for this. It is also possible for magic to change someone's alignment. Personality-altering spells or curses are not unknown in D&D, for instance. I've rarely seen it in play, personally, but it can happen. Alignment is a guideline, not a locked box. I prefer an alignment system that is dynamic and allows for character growth.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Feb 8, 2006 9:16:35 GMT
AFAIK it's only D&D that uses this kind of alignment system. I've seen other versions, where some vague descriptive trait or attitude is given as a way of adding focus to the character, but nothing that really works or has any point beyond an attempt to emulate the D&D setup.
Other systems - such as Call of Cthulhu or the White Wolf games (Vampire, Werewolf, etc) - have no Alignment type system whatsoever. The focus of such games is very rarely 'good vrs evil' however, so they don't need any way of differentiating.
As noted in the first paragraph, I allowed my players to change Alignment if their vision for the character needed it, as characters do develop through play. I don't know how common this attitude is amongst GMs.
|
|
|
Post by Shan on Feb 8, 2006 19:34:23 GMT
In a game situation like this how different would your alignment and your reputation be? It looks to me like they would be closely related. Shan
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Feb 8, 2006 20:02:45 GMT
Not necessarily, Shan. A good person with no social skills might not be highly regarded, and the reverse is true
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Feb 8, 2006 23:54:16 GMT
The alignment system is a guideline to show what you are likely to do and why, while a reputation system is based around how well known your character is and what he is known for doing. After all it is possible that the evil doctor in a village has been mildly poisoning the populus to keep custom coming in, and a group of adventurers comes in and wipes him out before outing him. They then have to deal with the reputation problems of having killed a respected doctor of the community. Equally it is also possible that the same group comes in and proves to the village that the doctor has been making them sick and so gaining the boost to their reputation for destroying a corrupt doctor.
|
|
|
Post by Shan on Feb 12, 2006 2:28:39 GMT
When you build a character using a specific alignment, how do you know how to hold them to this alignment? In the computer games I've played, I had to choose an alignment, but then I have always chosen whatever dialogue options I liked the best according to the situation. Sometimes I end up of a different alignment thatn I started with. In most games like this do you have to take the evil choices if you build an evil char or take the good choices if you build a good char or chaotic or neutral. Sometimes I have had no idea in the computer games where the decision I made at the time fell until I saw my alignment shift and then I would wonder why. Shan
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Feb 12, 2006 11:00:29 GMT
This is why an RPG is freeform acting, Shan You aren't given multiple choice options. You decide what your character does, says, and ulltimately is. The idea is that you create a character, as you would for a novel or other story, and instead of writing his/her story you and a group of friends create a kind of living story, starring your character and all of theirs. Ideally, you don't pick an Alignment then try to match your actions to it; you create a character, then give it the Alignment that best fits that character. Hope that helps
|
|
|
Post by Shan on Feb 12, 2006 22:46:30 GMT
Thanks Elliot. That makes alot of sense. I think it would be alot easier for me to do that than to try to match a character's action to whatever alignment I had picked for her. With all the help you guys have given me, I might get the hang of this RPG thing yet. ;D Shan
|
|
|
Post by Shan on Feb 12, 2006 23:02:07 GMT
The alignment system is a guideline to show what you are likely to do and why, while a reputation system is based around how well known your character is and what he is known for doing. After all it is possible that the evil doctor in a village has been mildly poisoning the populus to keep custom coming in, and a group of adventurers comes in and wipes him out before outing him. They then have to deal with the reputation problems of having killed a respected doctor of the community. Equally it is also possible that the same group comes in and proves to the village that the doctor has been making them sick and so gaining the boost to their reputation for destroying a corrupt doctor. Thanks DragonLord. With what you and Elliot have said, I think I get how your reputation could be different from you alignment or how they could possibly be close to the same. So in a way you character could have a not so good reputation but still be of a good alignment, right ? Shan
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Feb 12, 2006 23:49:02 GMT
Right, Shan
|
|
|
Post by Konrad Flameheart on Feb 13, 2006 1:12:25 GMT
Not wishing to bombard you with more to think about shan, the Starwars RPG hasn't adopted an alignment based system as such. You are gain points during play based on your actions and these pull you to one side of the force be it light or dark.
However it does also have a points based reputation system whereby your character can gain recognition throughout the galaxy based upon how powerful s/he becomes.
|
|
|
Post by LaFille on Feb 13, 2006 2:13:07 GMT
Thanks for the info, guys. Am I right to say that a D&D game could be played as well without that strict alignment system (in theory)? I mean, further than illustrating your character's moral and behavioral tendencies, it doesn't have impact anywhere else in the "mechanic" of the game, or does it?
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Feb 13, 2006 2:27:53 GMT
It does, LaFille, but only because there are spells that can detect it, and if the character chooses to serve a deity, they have to be of compatible Alignment.
That said, abandoning the Alignment system entirely would not require very many changes. It plays a role in the game, and sometimes an important one - but it's not critical. None of the rules are, really.
|
|
|
Post by LaFille on Feb 13, 2006 2:56:26 GMT
Oh yes; and the alignment can restrict choices of spells too, if I remember correctly. Anyway; thanks Elliot.
|
|