ace_of_something: I refuse to do this based on the fact that it's off of ad&D or 2nd ed. THAT WAS 2 EDITIONS AGO!
theklng: that site is way off. batman is not lawful good with his little regard towards established law, and assassins are not neutral evil because they don't kill out of spite, but out of either orders or for money.
It's a hard concept for people to grasp but 'lawful' good does not mean 'follows the law' it just means that they act with consistency, order, and planning. These are all things batman does.
batman does not act with order, order implying law. and where do you see the planning of his? he is not a villain, he does not plan; he goes to rescue people, having a disregard towards the bureaucracy that is law while doing so. at the end of the dark knight, batman is running from the police, implying he did something bad. there is certainly no hold towards law for him; you can seen numerous proofs of this in both the comic and the movies.
After this post I will no longer respond to the topic of batman's alignment because it's kind of a stupid argument and shame on me for getting into it.
They specifically say in all three versions of players handbooks that I've seen; that lawful does not nessicarrly respect the established order just that your individual actions are ordered. Meaning say, every night you don a costume, go out on a patrol around a similar perimeter. You always react the same to dangerous situations, with say cold indifference. Lawful in D&D does not mean "OBEYS THE LAW" it means you act with order, organization, patterns, sensibility, logic. If the lawful in lawful good meant blindly following the law what would a chivalrous hero do when a Tyrannical leader rules the country with an iron fist of law?
Sorry I've had this argument with many a Paladin player. And I leave with a quote of a wise old DM i once knew... "There are two kinds of paladins, Lawful good and Lawful stupid, I only allow the former."
you're contradicting yourself. organized order is law. look up order on www.dictionary.com and see your for yourself. in the same way, lawful characters would be under lawful rule at any rate, which means they would obey their own authority. why do you don the same costume and patrol the same route at night? because you were ordered to do so.
if you're action out of your own right, you are no longer lawful, because you don't care about what's happening to others; it is a selfish act, and egotism is opposed to what society wants from you. which also answers your supposedly "paradoxal" question: if a tyrannical leader leads a country, a "lawful good" person would see, if it was the will of the society of people living beneath the rule, that the tyrant was disposed of. (afterwards you would of course establish your own rule and law and make everyone else follow it because you think you are RIGHT, based on what people from the society expect from you; unbeknownst that you will yourself turn into the next tyrant because you'll be stuck up in those same beliefs).
i could go into depth why lawful is either extremely fitting, throwing in a bunch of sociology and psychology, or why it is mislabelled because d&d players not neccesarily are the most intelligent players on the planet (at least not in human sciences).
ace_of_something: I refuse to do this based on the fact that it's off of ad&D or 2nd ed. THAT WAS 2 EDITIONS AGO!
theklng: that site is way off. batman is not lawful good with his little regard towards established law, and assassins are not neutral evil because they don't kill out of spite, but out of either orders or for money.
It's a hard concept for people to grasp but 'lawful' good does not mean 'follows the law' it just means that they act with consistency, order, and planning. These are all things batman does.
batman does not act with order, order implying law. and where do you see the planning of his? he is not a villain, he does not plan; he goes to rescue people, having a disregard towards the bureaucracy that is law while doing so. at the end of the dark knight, batman is running from the police, implying he did something bad. there is certainly no hold towards law for him; you can seen numerous proofs of this in both the comic and the movies.
After this post I will no longer respond to the topic of batman's alignment because it's kind of a stupid argument and shame on me for getting into it.
They specifically say in all three versions of players handbooks that I've seen; that lawful does not nessicarrly respect the established order just that your individual actions are ordered. Meaning say, every night you don a costume, go out on a patrol around a similar perimeter. You always react the same to dangerous situations, with say cold indifference. Lawful in D&D does not mean "OBEYS THE LAW" it means you act with order, organization, patterns, sensibility, logic. If the lawful in lawful good meant blindly following the law what would a chivalrous hero do when a Tyrannical leader rules the country with an iron fist of law?
Sorry I've had this argument with many a Paladin player. And I leave with a quote of a wise old DM i once knew... "There are two kinds of paladins, Lawful good and Lawful stupid, I only allow the former."
you're contradicting yourself. organized order is law. look up order on www.dictionary.com and see your for yourself. in the same way, lawful characters would be under lawful rule at any rate, which means they would obey their own authority. why do you don the same costume and patrol the same route at night? because you were ordered to do so.
if you're action out of your own right, you are no longer lawful, because you don't care about what's happening to others; it is a selfish act, and egotism is opposed to what society wants from you. which also answers your supposedly "paradoxal" question: if a tyrannical leader leads a country, a "lawful good" person would see, if it was the will of the society of people living beneath the rule, that the tyrant was disposed of. (afterwards you would of course establish your own rule and law and make everyone else follow it because you think you are RIGHT, based on what people from the society expect from you; unbeknownst that you will yourself turn into the next tyrant because you'll be stuck up in those same beliefs).
i could go into depth why lawful is either extremely fitting, throwing in a bunch of sociology and psychology, or why it is mislabelled because d&d players not neccesarily are the most intelligent players on the planet (at least not in human sciences).
i understand the definition of the word law. I work in Law enforcement. But IN THE D&D GAME that's not what it means.
ace_of_something: I refuse to do this based on the fact that it's off of ad&D or 2nd ed. THAT WAS 2 EDITIONS AGO!
theklng: that site is way off. batman is not lawful good with his little regard towards established law, and assassins are not neutral evil because they don't kill out of spite, but out of either orders or for money.
It's a hard concept for people to grasp but 'lawful' good does not mean 'follows the law' it just means that they act with consistency, order, and planning. These are all things batman does.
batman does not act with order, order implying law. and where do you see the planning of his? he is not a villain, he does not plan; he goes to rescue people, having a disregard towards the bureaucracy that is law while doing so. at the end of the dark knight, batman is running from the police, implying he did something bad. there is certainly no hold towards law for him; you can seen numerous proofs of this in both the comic and the movies.
After this post I will no longer respond to the topic of batman's alignment because it's kind of a stupid argument and shame on me for getting into it.
They specifically say in all three versions of players handbooks that I've seen; that lawful does not nessicarrly respect the established order just that your individual actions are ordered. Meaning say, every night you don a costume, go out on a patrol around a similar perimeter. You always react the same to dangerous situations, with say cold indifference. Lawful in D&D does not mean "OBEYS THE LAW" it means you act with order, organization, patterns, sensibility, logic. If the lawful in lawful good meant blindly following the law what would a chivalrous hero do when a Tyrannical leader rules the country with an iron fist of law?
Sorry I've had this argument with many a Paladin player. And I leave with a quote of a wise old DM i once knew... "There are two kinds of paladins, Lawful good and Lawful stupid, I only allow the former."
you're contradicting yourself. organized order is law. look up order on www.dictionary.com and see your for yourself. in the same way, lawful characters would be under lawful rule at any rate, which means they would obey their own authority. why do you don the same costume and patrol the same route at night? because you were ordered to do so.
if you're action out of your own right, you are no longer lawful, because you don't care about what's happening to others; it is a selfish act, and egotism is opposed to what society wants from you. which also answers your supposedly "paradoxal" question: if a tyrannical leader leads a country, a "lawful good" person would see, if it was the will of the society of people living beneath the rule, that the tyrant was disposed of. (afterwards you would of course establish your own rule and law and make everyone else follow it because you think you are RIGHT, based on what people from the society expect from you; unbeknownst that you will yourself turn into the next tyrant because you'll be stuck up in those same beliefs).
i could go into depth why lawful is either extremely fitting, throwing in a bunch of sociology and psychology, or why it is mislabelled because d&d players not neccesarily are the most intelligent players on the planet (at least not in human sciences).
i understand the definition of the word law. I work in Law enforcement. But IN THE D&D GAME that's not what it means.
This is why they simplified alignments in 4th ed.
the simplified alignments i agree on; but lawful good remains as one of them. if you indeed believe that "law" is not the same definition in dnd as it is in the real world, then perhaps have a second look. i won't doubt you once you find and quote what 'lawful good' means in dnd, but i frankly believe that the authors of dnd wouldn't go and make a new definition of something as well known as "law".
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
this is exactly what i said it was before. while a region's law my differ, there's always obedience given to an authority. QED. now that this is settled, i shall leave this thread alone.
There's a 4th ed? I'm still on 3.5. I'm with Amnestic I think I'll stay there.
I've only taken a short peek at the rulebooks my brother downloaded, I didn't like them though, much preferred the 3.5 version of the game. I don't really hate the 4th version, I just don't want to play it.
And yes, you are crazier than Sauron you sociopath you.
Oh, and I'm going to nickname you Galley, like a ship. :D
I've only taken a short peek at the rulebooks my brother downloaded, I didn't like them though, much preferred the 3.5 version of the game. I don't really hate the 4th version, I just don't want to play it.
And yes, you are crazier than Sauron you sociopath you.
Oh, and I'm going to nickname you Galley, like a ship. :D
Maybe I'm not as bad as the evil types? Galley? I suppose that's acceptable. Even cute maybe...
I've only taken a short peek at the rulebooks my brother downloaded, I didn't like them though, much preferred the 3.5 version of the game. I don't really hate the 4th version, I just don't want to play it.
And yes, you are crazier than Sauron you sociopath you.
Oh, and I'm going to nickname you Galley, like a ship. :D
Maybe I'm not as bad as the evil types? Galley? I suppose that's acceptable. Even cute maybe...
Evil characters get a very unfair rap from D&D. The personification of Good/Neutral/Evil seems to be community/everyone/me; and along the evil scale:
Lawful Evil are your politicians and lawyers, Neutral Evil being the vigilantes and Chaotic Evil being the Bully/Cowards.
Torquemada could be quite easily classed as Lawful Neutral. Hannibal Lecter is True Neutral, though leaning towards CN.
As for Bats, I'd say he's Lawful Neutral tending towards Neutral Good, whilst the Joker is Chaotic Neutral tending towards Neutral Evil. Spidey would be Lawful Good, as would Supes. Wolverine is more true Neutral.
Evil characters get a very unfair rap from D&D. The personification of Good/Neutral/Evil seems to be community/everyone/me; and along the evil scale:
Lawful Evil are your politicians and lawyers, Neutral Evil being the vigilantes and Chaotic Evil being the Bully/Cowards.
Torquemada could be quite easily classed as Lawful Neutral. Hannibal Lecter is True Neutral, though leaning towards CN.
Do you mind? I'm trying to make myself seem less mental here, not crazier than Hannibal lecter and Sauron.
Although it would seem that the classes are a bit extreme.
The classes determine your motivations more than your actions. Chaotic tends to deliberately fight against laws placed on society, Fathers for Justice could be easily seen as Chaotic Neutral, as could Robin Hood.
Evil characters get a very unfair rap from D&D. The personification of Good/Neutral/Evil seems to be community/everyone/me; and along the evil scale:
Lawful Evil are your politicians and lawyers, Neutral Evil being the vigilantes and Chaotic Evil being the Bully/Cowards.
Torquemada could be quite easily classed as Lawful Neutral. Hannibal Lecter is True Neutral, though leaning towards CN.
Do you mind? I'm trying to make myself seem less mental here, not crazier than Hannibal lecter and Sauron.
Although it would seem that the classes are a bit extreme.
The classes determine your motivations more than your actions. Chaotic tends to deliberately fight against laws placed on society, Fathers for Justice could be easily seen as Chaotic Neutral, as could Robin Hood.
I always saw Robin Hood and Batman as more Chaotic Good than Chaotic Neutral, but I suppose it's a bit subjective really.
Evil characters get a very unfair rap from D&D. The personification of Good/Neutral/Evil seems to be community/everyone/me; and along the evil scale:
Lawful Evil are your politicians and lawyers, Neutral Evil being the vigilantes and Chaotic Evil being the Bully/Cowards.
Torquemada could be quite easily classed as Lawful Neutral. Hannibal Lecter is True Neutral, though leaning towards CN.
Do you mind? I'm trying to make myself seem less mental here, not crazier than Hannibal lecter and Sauron.
Although it would seem that the classes are a bit extreme.
The classes determine your motivations more than your actions. Chaotic tends to deliberately fight against laws placed on society, Fathers for Justice could be easily seen as Chaotic Neutral, as could Robin Hood.
I always saw Robin Hood and Batman as more Chaotic Good than Chaotic Neutral, but I suppose it's a bit subjective really.
Indeed, who's to say what Bats and Robin (Gosh, that's rather appropriate) were actually 'Good'? You know that the two of them would be fighting against each other if they were in the same timeline.
Alignment: True Neutral- A true neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. He doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most true neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil after all, he would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, he's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way. Some true neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run. True neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion. However, true neutral can be a dangerous alignment because it represents apathy, indifference, and a lack of conviction.
Race: Humans are the most adaptable of the common races. Short generations and a penchant for migration and conquest have made them physically diverse as well. Humans are often unorthodox in their dress, sporting unusual hairstyles, fanciful clothes, tattoos, and the like.
Class: Bards- Bards often serve as negotiators, messengers, scouts, and spies. They love to accompany heroes (and villains) to witness heroic (or villainous) deeds firsthand, since a bard who can tell a story from personal experience earns renown among his fellows. A bard casts arcane spells without any advance preparation, much like a sorcerer. Bards also share some specialized skills with rogues, and their knowledge of item lore is nearly unmatched. A high Charisma score allows a bard to cast high-level spells.
I solved this whole Law, Neutral, Chaos, Good, Neutral, Evil thing in grad school.
Your view on law, neutrality, and chaos are derived from whether you align yourself with "act" or "rule" based codes of coduct. The act-based moral agent considers only the results or consequences of the single act while the rule-based moral agent considers the consequences that result of following a rule of conduct.
An act-based agent is "chaotic". A rule-based agent is "lawful". Chaotic agents make determinations on an act-by-act basis. "In this case, lying about whether or not I'm hiding Jews in my house will save lives." Lawful agents make determinations on a rule basis. "Lying, as a rule, is wrong." Neutral agents are "rule of thumb" based, or "rules with exceptions".
Good, neutral, and evil are determined by the scope of your "circle of morality". Ethicist Peter Singer describes morality as "as an expanding circle which begins with the individual, then embraces the family and soon the circle includes first a class, then a nation, then a coalition of nations, then all humanity, and finally, its influence is felt in the dealings of man with the animal world".
A Good person concerns himself with a very broad circle, such as "the world" or "living things" or "all good creatures". His level of concern does not decrease much as it radiates outward; he is likely to risk his own life to save a stranger or a stray dog.
An Evil person concerns himself with a very small circle, such as "himself and people personally valuable to him" and his level of concern decreases sharply as it radiates outward. He might risk his life to save his wife, probably wouldn't to save a friend, and certainly wouldn't to save a stranger (unless a reward, etc. made it worthwhile).
A Neutral person concerns himself with a modest circle, such as "himself, family, friends, and community" and his level of concern decreases modestly as it radiates outward. He is selfish, but treats friends and family with fairness, and might risk his life to help his community, but probably wouldn't to save a perfect stranger.
In short, Good/evil determines FOR WHOM you care about the consequences of an act, and Law/chaos determines HOW you evaluate the consequences (as an act or as a rule of action).
All the D&D alignments make perfect sense under this system and it's really easy to apply.
MOST people are Neutral-Neutral. Most of us live our lives with moral rules of thumb, but occasionally evaluate our choices on a case-by-case basis. Most of us worry about ourselves, our friends, and our family, but don't worry too much about starving strangers in far-off places, or if we do, only a little.
"Lawful Evil" people follow rules that they believe will lead them to gain. So they may have a rule "don't lie, because a reputation for honor is valuable" and they will abide by it. And we all know some chaotic people. These are the ones that will lie "as long as no one gets hurt". They follow no rules except that in any given choice, they will choose whatever act gets their circle the best consequence. etc.
D&D 4 got rid of this system just as I had it figured out, dammit.
you pretty much elaborated what i said earlier (although in a broader sense, i just did it for what a lawful person is).
the only thing i disagree with, is the notion of that most people are true neutral / neutral-neutral, and that neutral is as self serving as you say. i'd go so far to say that most people on the scale of this system would be classified as lawful, above all. because they stick to pride and principles in fear of being on their own. lawful or chaotic, then whichever nature they belong to; an evil character is self serving, a good character is selfless, and neutral is the inbetween, drawing principles from both, but eclectically.
There's a 4th ed? I'm still on 3.5. I'm with Amnestic I think I'll stay there.
They made 4th Edition to be more like World of Warcraft. I shit you not in the slightest. It is made for the "Video game Generation". They also raped the Forgotten Realms into a horrible world of crap. It makes me want to puke.
They made 4th Edition to be more like World of Warcraft. I shit you not in the slightest. It is made for the "Video game Generation". They also raped the Forgotten Realms into a horrible world of crap. It makes me want to puke.
That is so lame. Paladins cannot be anything but LG. Unless they Anti-Paladins and are CE.
Screw that, I'll stick with my chaotic neutral thing, at least I kinda understand half of the rules involved there.
Doesn't sound very accurate. My dex and con are too high and my int is too low. I'm not sure about the true neutral thing either, I tend more towards Neutral Good the way I see it.
Doesn't sound very accurate. My dex and con are too high and my int is too low. I'm not sure about the true neutral thing either, I tend more towards Neutral Good the way I see it.
It was inaccurate for me as well. It put my STR too high. I am pretty strong, but I am no 17. I am more like around a 15.
Tbh my stats are probably higher than they should be since i wanted to do lots of middle ones and i picked the higher of the two purely because i'm vain :D
you're contradicting yourself. organized order is law. look up order on www.dictionary.com and see your for yourself. in the same way, lawful characters would be under lawful rule at any rate, which means they would obey their own authority. why do you don the same costume and patrol the same route at night? because you were ordered to do so.
if you're action out of your own right, you are no longer lawful, because you don't care about what's happening to others; it is a selfish act, and egotism is opposed to what society wants from you. which also answers your supposedly "paradoxal" question: if a tyrannical leader leads a country, a "lawful good" person would see, if it was the will of the society of people living beneath the rule, that the tyrant was disposed of. (afterwards you would of course establish your own rule and law and make everyone else follow it because you think you are RIGHT, based on what people from the society expect from you; unbeknownst that you will yourself turn into the next tyrant because you'll be stuck up in those same beliefs).
i could go into depth why lawful is either extremely fitting, throwing in a bunch of sociology and psychology, or why it is mislabelled because d&d players not neccesarily are the most intelligent players on the planet (at least not in human sciences).