|
2/9/2011 12:27:03 PM
|
MortisCorpus
Posts 420
|
After a few requests by players that shall remain at large, I have written a tid-bit on alignment. This is a running dialogue and will be added to in the future.
Ethos: The credibility or emotional appeal of a persona.
Logos: The primary logic of a persona.
This is a discussion primarily of character Ethos. That would be more clearly described as the primary alignment. Logos would be a logic behind the persona. Logos will only be used in the following explanations for clarity and understanding of how alignment works and what it should mean to your character and your play of that character.
Ex: Lawful = (Logos) Evil = (Ethos)
Some notes on play of evil characters:
Evil is not a "kill them all" mind set. Evil is a self-serving attitude to play that allows a character to make judgment calls that are clearly outside of the normal of right or wrong.
Ex: So we will examine an apple farmer and his crop for instance. A Lawful Good character will not pick and eat a apple, because it was not given and is not right. The neutral will be indifferent and take the apple, but because he is hungry. The evil character will take what he wants and probably burn the apple orchard if the farmer has a problem with it. The exception would be the logos of neutral good or chaotic good which might take an apple for hunger.
Evil doers will always side with the winning force until the opportunity for a more advantageous situation presents itself. Thus, evil doers help defend trinity and fight with you for the purposes of a particular campaign portion; you have a mutual gain by doing so. The evil doer will probably take what advantage he can after the campaign is done so that he is benefitted more than you, even at potential harm to your life or your friends lives.
Evil logos' of lawful and chaotic roles are rare. Most evil people will object to law as it limits their behavior. Examples will be my Mage, He plays a Lawful evil and is of some measured intelligence; thus he does abide by laws and constraints of society so long as the society has the potential to punish or enforce corrections onto him for wrong doing.
This is opposed by chaotic roles, like the criminally insane, which will act in an evil manner at all times and abide by no laws regardless of implications. Most players will find that it is very difficult to role play an insane character and maintain any sort of friendly interaction. The chaotic may take completely random detours in behavior though; like killing everything and everyone except the cute white bunny, which will probably be left maimed or trapped.
--
DM - Moderator - Lord of Ahala
ROT Contributor
|
|
2/9/2011 1:21:50 PM
|
MortisCorpus
Posts 420
|
Why should something be defined? An excellent question! The definition of a word is the way in which a person will choose to use a word. We shall examine... Good.
Good - morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious
Virtuous - conforming to moral and ethical principles
Righteous - morally right or justifiable
Pious - having or showing a dutiful spirit of reverence for god or an earnest wish to fulfill religious obligations
So, is a Yaun-ti who believes that a human needs to be sacrificed in order to appease his god bad? I say no, he is Good in his society and thus a pious and righteous believer of his faith. We should not forget that Good is determined by the social norms of a community.
All a person needs to do to be Good is meet the social normalcy for a given community. A paladin need only worry about the convictions of his particular faith, not the town, for his actions to be deemed "good".
This boils down to good meaning nothing more than the social acceptance of your actions in view of the public that your associate with. The public you do not associate with may have a different view point and think you are evil.
A Good character in Trinity need only obey the simple and few laws in town to be Good. The irony, outside of town, you can murder all the Atlantians you want and you will be praised for your actions.
Neutral - impartial, noncommittal
Simply they do not care... They are indifferent. neutral is the easiest role to accept and play. They will do as they please and so long as nobody is hurt and nobody thinks to ill of them for too long; they will continue on as they always have.
--
DM - Moderator - Lord of Ahala
ROT Contributor
|
|
2/9/2011 3:41:51 PM
|
Pyrotics
Posts 317
|
Nice write up Mort, I agree with everything you said with one *minor* exception:
MortisCorpus wrote:
Evil doers will always side with the winning force until the opportunity for a more advantageous situation presents itself. Thus, evil doers help defend trinity and fight with you for the purposes of a particular campaign portion; you have a mutual gain by doing so. The evil doer will probably take what advantage he can after the campaign is done so that he is benefitted more than you, even at potential harm to your life or your friends lives.
I wouldn't say *always*; at least not from an objective standpoint; for the most part, in my opinion, an Evil doer will side with either:
1) The side they believe in (this of course refers to core and fundamental beliefs, which for any alignment supersede any statistical analysis of who is "winning") An example of this would be an evil person joining a "losing" side if only because the other side contains individuals that the Evil doer finds objectionable (for whatever reason). I would add that in this situation an Evil person would likely more readily abandon a cause than a Good person in the broadest sense.
2) The side that will benefit them the most personally (even if it's from the derived pleasure of watching a losing side crumble from the inside). This one gels better with what you stated about an evil individual aiding Trinity for his or her own gain.
If neither of the above are applicable, THEN I would say the evil doer would side with the "winning" side.
Just my two cents; others may feel differently.
Pyrotics
--
Drank the O family Kool-Aid.
Primary Toons:
Etoiles (CLICK HERE)
Zap Calenia
Argo Paltesh
|
|
2/9/2011 6:46:16 PM
|
-Kama-
Posts 414
|
sticky'd :P
--
-Kama-
*****Retired DM team, forums administrator, custom content creator and manager, & builder.*****
|
|
2/9/2011 8:23:20 PM
|
MortisCorpus
Posts 420
|
Pyrotics wrote:
I wouldn't say *always*
Pyrotics
True, I am looking at the game from a uncomplicated single vantage, as simple should be taught first. I want people who play evil to understand how they can align themselves for game play and still role play; and in-turn make it known how a good player would allow such action and still role play.
This single and simple vantage in Trinity will always be following the progression of the story line.
edited by MortisCorpus on 2/9/2011
--
DM - Moderator - Lord of Ahala
ROT Contributor
|
|
2/9/2011 8:58:07 PM
|
Ladyhawke
Posts 81
|
MortisCorpus wrote:
All a person needs to do to be Good is meet the social normalcy for a given community. A paladin need only worry about the convictions of his particular faith, not the town, for his actions to be deemed "good".
Okay, in terms of gameplay, and because of curiosity- Can a Lawful Good Paladin have a neutral or evil god? (Blackguard is not a baseclass, and you can only be lawful good to be a paladin.
|
|
2/9/2011 9:31:30 PM
|
Zeus
Posts 152
|
Generally a Paladin wouldn't have an evil god. I'm not even sure if the game will allow it. However, I do believe they can have neutral gods such as Helm and Kelemvor.
--
-Z-
Z&K's Traps: All proceeds go to the Kimball & Kimball fund for underprivileged assassins.
|
|
2/9/2011 11:18:49 PM
|
Pyrotics
Posts 317
|
MortisCorpus wrote:
Pyrotics wrote: I wouldn't say *always*
Pyrotics True, I am looking at the game from a uncomplicated single vantage, as simple should be taught first. I want people who play evil to understand how they can align themselves for game play and still role play; and in-turn make it known how a good player would allow such action and still role play. This single and simple vantage in Trinity will always be following the progression of the story line. edited by MortisCorpus on 2/9/2011
Too true, simple is better for really new people; no point complicating matters.
Not to step on any toes, but I'd like to add my understandings to this list, if that's not desirable, I can remove it:
Quick rundown of the 9 alignments:
Lawful Good: Have a strong desire for order and good as defined as being helpful to humanity as a whole. Occasionally law and good can conflict (this is particularly true for Paladins) and the LG individual would often stress over which choice he/she will make.
Neutral Good: I would describe this as the "pure good" alignment, NG individuals aren't interested in the conflict between order and chaos, and will often go along with society so long as it does not stop them from doing "good". Unlike LGs, NGs will not (as much anyways) beat themselves up over doing something a bit chaotic in order to do good.
Chaotic Good: Chaotic Good characters don't go out of their way to break laws or tear down authority necessarily, but they don't see much value in them either. A CG character is very interested in his or her own personal freedom, and will often not appreciate being told what to do. At the same time, CG characters are interested in "good" and will willingly help it's causes in his or her own way.
Lawful Neutral: Think judges, soldiers, and law enforcement in general. Lawful Neutral individuals are not particularly interested in the morality of a situation, or at least consider it a distant second to the matter of Order. They uphold order over everything else. They tend to not question laws and rules, or if they do, they adhere to them anyways.
True Neutral: These are individuals who either have no opinion one way or the other on Order and Chaos or Good and Evil; in most cases, this means that the TN person is simply interested in living their lives without the hassles of the other extremes. TNs could also be those who are actual proponents of neutrality: a balance of order and chaos, good and evil, and all things under the sun.
Chaotic Neutral: Free spirits who essentially do whatever they want. They can occasionally do good things but do not feel any particular drive to do so. Not so much a self-centered point of view as it is a general indifference to others. Ultimately, their main concern is their own freedom.
Lawful Evil: These individuals will either have their own personal code that they follow or will otherwise attempt to work their schemes within the established systems. They tend to be highly organized schemers; if they have henchmen, then they are structured in a rigid hierarchy.
Neutral Evil: whereas NG is the "pure" good alignment, NE is the "pure" evil alignment. They care for neither order nor chaos, using whatever means necessary or convenient to fulfill their schemes.
Chaotic Evil: Unlike LE individuals, those that are CE will rarely scheme, and if they do, they will do so in a frenetic and unorganized manner. They essentially do as they please with no regard whatsoever to anyone around them. I think Mort's definition of being essentially criminally insane and sociopathic is a good description.
I think it might be useful to put up some examples for each of the alignments as well.
For example (heh) I think one really interesting example for Lawful Good is thus:
Both Superman and Batman are Lawful Good.
This is an amusing example because Superman and Batman are quite different from each other and are still the same alignment; I think that this is an important thing to note because it shows that while Alignment describes what you are and gives a guideline for how your character should act, it doesn't necessarily restrict WHO you are.
Some examples off of the top of my head (if you have an objection to some of these, please do speak up, some of them could be debatable).
LG: Batman (depending on the writer that is, i.e. The Goddamn Batman is certainly not LG), Superman, Obi-Wan Kenobi (well, in the prime of his life anyways), Teal'c
NG: Spiderman (most of the time), Luke Skywalker, The Doctor, and *shrug* Harry Potter (why not?), John Sheppard
CG: Robin Hood/Green Arrow (same thing), Malcolm Reynolds (Firefly), C. Bale's Batman (BB and TDK)
LN: Judge Dredd, non Fallout 3 Brotherhood of Steel, Harvey Dent (pre Two-Face)
TN: The Neutral Planet (Futurama), Han Solo, Squall Leonhart
CN: Bugs Bunny, Jack Sparrow, The Incredible Hulk (most of the time), Deadpool
LE: Darth Vader, David Xanatos, Catbert, M. Bison
NE: Biff Tannen, Edmond Dantes, Michael Coreleone, The Master
CE: The Joker, Carnage, Darth Maul, almost all slasher flick villains, Alex DeLarge, Reavers
This post was a lot longer than I had planned....
Pyrotics
edited by Pyrotics on 2/9/2011
--
Drank the O family Kool-Aid.
Primary Toons:
Etoiles (CLICK HERE)
Zap Calenia
Argo Paltesh
|
|
2/9/2011 11:25:53 PM
|
Pyrotics
Posts 317
|
Ladyhawke wrote:
MortisCorpus wrote:
All a person needs to do to be Good is meet the social normalcy for a given community. A paladin need only worry about the convictions of his particular faith, not the town, for his actions to be deemed "good".
Okay, in terms of gameplay, and because of curiosity- Can a Lawful Good Paladin have a neutral or evil god? (Blackguard is not a baseclass, and you can only be lawful good to be a paladin.
I just tested it, a Paladin cannot have a Deity that is not at least Lawful or Good; if it's only one, then the other axis must be neutral. This holds true even if the Paladin levels are taken later (e.g. if a LG Fighter takes Bane for some reason as his deity, taking a Paladin would require a deity shift).
Pyrotics
--
Drank the O family Kool-Aid.
Primary Toons:
Etoiles (CLICK HERE)
Zap Calenia
Argo Paltesh
|
|
2/10/2011 2:44:40 AM
|
MortisCorpus
Posts 420
|
I should preface that these discussions are completely open to interpretation and that my views on alignment are skewed to my mind-set. I try to be as open and per diction as possible, however; I would encourage you all to seek your own guidance by finding defined terms and learning for yourselves. The above mentioned references by fellow players are all logical and sound arguments, but .. few.. refer to defined terms of meaning. This is not meant as a insult or demeaning dialogue but as a matter of fact per modern English diction, and last lest we forget, in my own skewed view point.
I want to discuss logos last because it is the most confusing aspect to alignment.
Logic is the first thing that reflects a person. It is the means by which action is digested and then acted upon by the Ethos or true nature. That stated, Logos is the logic behind the persona. What logic tells us is the right thing, is the right thing, that roots to the ultimate demeanor of a person.
So, we could state that logos is the mental stability or understanding of structure and law, thereby excepting it, being impartial to it, or being unable to comprehend it and thus being ignorant of anything structured or lawful.
I will start with a simple description of lawful logos.
Ex: I am a law abiding person. I do what is set forth by those before me as law. I know the law, will follow the law, and will uphold the law. A note of upholding the law is a very important aspect to lawful logos. It is as stated law - full. Full of law and contrived from law thus a person who will not only follow the law but uphold the law and support order.
Next, we will examine neutral logos.
Ex: Neutral is a true statement to the Ethos followed. So, neutral good is a True good persona. This person sees law, recognizes law, and will do as law dictates. This person will not up-hold the law, however. This person will not commit a bad or neutral act under scrutiny but will do what is necessary for the common good even if it is frowned upon at that given moment. An example is eating an apple from the apple farmers orchard if he is starving, and without permission. He would probably seek out the farmer after, for some sort of compensatory payment or good act in exchange for the fruit consumed.
Last, Chaotic logos.
Ex: Instability that is random and entirely unperfected. Chaotic good people are prone to acts of bad behavior as their moods swing. A good example of a chaotic good follower would be a bi-polar priest. He may be pious one moment and generous and the next he may recite hate and discontent unto his flock to incite violence typically not seen from such an order. Chaotic logos is one that is typically mis-played or chosen for class progression and then ignored and role-played as a different alignment for purposes of fitting in society.
The only role that is traditionally described in this role is a barbarian who goes into rage fits and loses control of rational thought. He may lose himself in his rage and lash out at his friends until he calms down.
Each of these logos may be applied to the ethos chosen and taken in their predisposed path as seen fit for your own role-play purposes.
--
DM - Moderator - Lord of Ahala
ROT Contributor
|
|
2/10/2011 7:32:42 AM
|
Pyrotics
Posts 317
|
MortisCorpus wrote:
So, we could state that logos is the mental stability or understanding of structure and law, thereby excepting it, being impartial to it, or being unable to comprehend it and thus being ignorant of anything structured or lawful.
I will start with a simple description of lawful logos.
Ex: I am a law abiding person. I do what is set forth by those before me as law. I know the law, will follow the law, and will uphold the law. A note of upholding the law is a very important aspect to lawful logos. It is as stated law - full. Full of law and contrived from law thus a person who will not only follow the law but uphold the law and support order.
Last, Chaotic logos.
Ex: Instability that is random and entirely unperfected. Chaotic good people are prone to acts of bad behavior as their moods swing. A good example of a chaotic good follower would be a bi-polar priest. He may be pious one moment and generous and the next he may recite hate and discontent unto his flock to incite violence typically not seen from such an order. Chaotic logos is one that is typically mis-played or chosen for class progression and then ignored and role-played as a different alignment for purposes of fitting in society.
The only role that is traditionally described in this role is a barbarian who goes into rage fits and loses control of rational thought. He may lose himself in his rage and lash out at his friends until he calms down.
Each of these logos may be applied to the ethos chosen and taken in their predisposed path as seen fit for your own role-play purposes.
While your interpretation would not be incorrect for lawful and chaotic, I think that those two views are particularly limited and give far too much of the sway to the neutral portion.
Allow me to posit my own view on Lawful vs. Chaotic if I may be so bold:
Lawful - I personally view this term as a bit of a misstep in itself, it probably would be better put as some term involving order (though the term "Ordered" does sound weird...), as order is really more the opposite of chaos. That said, I view a Lawful persona to be one that has interested in following some strict set of rules and order, wherein everything must have some sort of structure and rigidity. A soldier's SOP in the field, a book of laws for a group of people, religious dogmas to be followed, a samurai's code, or a knights code, some ethical code or standard that they live by. Lawful persona are often defined by a strict rigidity and a dislike of change (unless said change reflects on the person's personal ethos of good/evil/whatever). Lawful is also about logic, or logos as you stated. This logic doesn't have to be particularly faultless, but it does have to go some way in explaining the person's actions; this is often why it can be difficult to play a Lawful Evil character: people often find it difficult to rationalize evil actions.
A Lawful person also often respects tradition, and will go out of their ways to adhere to them when possible (this is why most Dwarves are lawful).
An important distinction to note is this: a Lawful person does not necessarily have to follow the laws of the land around them, (s)he should recognize them, and possibly honor them, but the decision to adhere to them is often more going to weigh on the Ethos, to use your term, of their alignment. Just because lawful values structure, does not mean that they can't recognize when a certain structure is wrong.
Chaotic - my view of the term Chaotic is a lot more broad than Mort's (which is neither a good thing nor a bad thing). Chaotic individuals are characterized by personal freedom and fluidity for change. They roll with the punches and are often opposed to the idea of doing something simply because it is traditional, or because someone tells that that it shouldn't be done. They don't have to be anarchists or be insane (though they could be), they simply desire a complete freedom to do whatever they want, unfettered by laws and traditions. Their actions may inadvertently follow certain laws and traditions, but they aren't done BECAUSE of those laws and traditions. Chaotics are free spirits that don't want to be weighed down by systems of law and order, this is why Elves tend to lean in the chaotic direction. Whereas a neutral person may recognize laws and follow them and break them on a case to case basis, a chaotic person would not normally take them into account (or may actively oppose them for no other reason than to oppose them). They are chaotic in the sense that they are often unpredictable in their actions, as said actions are not often dictated by logic and reasoning, and often more on desires and whims: a far less quantifiable property.
Again, these are just my opinions on the matter, I encourage you to discover your own.
Pyrotics
--
Drank the O family Kool-Aid.
Primary Toons:
Etoiles (CLICK HERE)
Zap Calenia
Argo Paltesh
|
|
2/10/2011 8:15:41 AM
|
MortisCorpus
Posts 420
|
Pyrotics wrote:
Allow me to posit my own view on Lawful vs. Chaotic if I may be so bold:
Pyrotics
Certainly, I agree, and such is encouraged. Yet I must reiterate that I am striving for the most robust yet simple definition for new role-players. This is a overall statement for new minds in a developed world. I would encourage those who are well rounded role-players to develop cliques for teaching outside of this thread.
I find the feed-back and questions satisfactory. I would seal this thread for purposes of keeping it to a fine point of definition and not a multi-paged query into multi-view-points of savvy and intelligent minds.
But..
It will remain open for purposes of allowance of further additions from the player body. I would simply ask that you direct questions of above statements to the authors in private message versus adding to this thread out of curiosity.
edited by MortisCorpus on 2/10/2011
--
DM - Moderator - Lord of Ahala
ROT Contributor
|
|
2/10/2011 5:48:29 PM
|
Aroen
Posts 323
|
Something I'd like to add to the role play concept, well two things:
Know thyself:Know what motivates your character (besides loot and gear). What are likes, dislikes, fears, etc. You don't need a book of info to draw on, but what makes your character tick?
To thine own self be true:Act as your character would and say what you would. Now this dosen't mean always say the same few things, but if you are a Lawful Good Paladin...odds are you will be at best stoic in the presence of deamons and the like. Also, if a group dosen't seem to fit...be an outsider or contact the DM leading the event.
I think whats been covered thus far gives great concepts, but I had to add these in because I feel that they are the glue that binds everything else mentioned together.
--
DM
Master Senchal Knights Hospitallier
Leader: Loremasters of Annam and Oghma
|
|
pages:
1 |
|---|