Post by Nimueh on Jan 18, 2011 3:26:27 GMT -5
Taken From:
tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharacterAlignment
Character Alignment
What it ultimately boils down to. In theory. But since it's so fun to argue...
Character Alignment is a shorthand for a given character's (or religion's, society's, organization's, etc.) moral/ethical outlook on Life, the Universe, and Everything. Many roleplaying games use some sort of alignment system as an "ideal" for a character to live up to, though some gamers deride them as crutches to "real roleplaying," and some systems accordingly have none at all. The alignment system most roleplayers are familiar with is the one used in Dungeons and Dragons, which has appeared in a couple of different forms:
The original editions of Dungeons and Dragons drew on the works of Poul Anderson and Michael Moorcock to come up with three alignments: Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic, with Lawful representing honor and obedience to, well, law. Chaotic characters may be insane, but could lean towards a desire for the freedom to do what they want. Whether they do good or evil because of this freedom is what decides their moral leaning. Neutrality alternatively represents neither one (as was the case with animals and people who simply didn't care) or a desire to see "balance" between the two. Later editions kept this as the "ethical" axis of the alignment scale and added a second "moral" axis of Good, Neutral, and Evil.
The ethical axis was more one's attitude towards the position of society and rules: Lawful characters think having an ordered society is important and beneficial; Chaotic characters don't necessarily oppose this but think the freedom of the individual comes first; Neutral characters tend to judge such situations on a case by case basis. If a law was unjust, a lawful person might think it needs retooling, or say that it prevents more problems than it causes. A neutral person might see the need for such a law, but would still think it should be scrapped and redone from scratch. A chaotic person would probably just break it.
This is sometimes lumped in with two different attitudes: whether the character in question believes that the universe as a whole is orderly, and how the character conducts his life, with plans or flying by the seat of his pants. This can produce considerable confusion, as the three levels can exist in any combination.
The "moral" axis can be adequately explained by the focus of those morals: Good people are more focused on you; that is, they feel that they should help everyone else when possible. Neutral people are more focused on us; that is, on the welfare of themselves and their family and friends. They can be charitable, but their "circle" always comes first. Evil people are more focused on me; which of course means that they look out for number one and everyone else can get in line.
Combining the two axes allowed characters to be of nine possible alignments, as follows:
* Lawful Good: Basically, they believe Law is Good, and that you do good by upholding the law. The alignment of The Cape, Paladins. Believes in Truth, Justice and such, but may potentially believe in them a little too much. Poorly portrayed, he tends to be Lawful Stupid, largely depending on your interpretation of "good". In D&D canon up to the most recent edition, archons, celestials who inhabit the Seven Heavens, are Lawful Good. From a non-D&D more realistic perspective however, LGs are likely altruists who believe in an orderly lifestyle for the benefit of their species.
* Neutral Good: Sweetness and light. Doing good is more important than upholding the law, but law is not a bad thing. Not too caught up in Order Versus Chaos; concerned with moral goodness, but often not willing to enforce it in others. If The Messiah isn't Lawful Good, they're probably Neutral Good. Just think "basically nice person" and you've probably got it. (For advanced learners, there's Good Is Not Nice.) Neutral Good states may be really nice places to live, but depending on how idealistic the setting is, they may be deluding themselves. The guardinal celestials of D&D, beastlike creatures who inhabit Elysium, are Neutral Good.
* Chaotic Good: Rebels and free spirits who are more often than not seen opposing tyrants and other oppressive types. They tend to believe that things like order, discipline, and honor get in the way of doing good. Or they may believe too much order is bad for everyone. Whatever their stance is, they act on their ideals before they let laws get in the way, and sometimes they dare the laws to get in the way. Whether they're portrayed as Big Damn Heroes, too damn idealistic, a Manic Pixie Dream Girl or just a damn problem depends on the views of the author, and ultimately the readers. It should also be noted that CGs value individual merit over the 'greater good', but aren't willing themselves to amoral action to see that through.
* Lawful Neutral: The rule-abiding sort. Law and order is more important than whether you're good or evil. Believes in keeping order, though not necessarily in Justice as a universal constant (though they may - this can get complicated). They'll arrest a robber or rapist, but may also kick a family out of their home for failing to pay rent, even if they were poor. May also believe in a Cosmic Order that transcends laws - many monks are Lawful Neutral. Just as often the bad guys as the good guys in an Order Versus Chaos situation. Modrons, D&D beings of geometrically perfect precision and order who inhabit the plane of Mechanus, are Lawful Neutral. Mercenaries who obey their contracts without question, and take either side of the moral spectrum, are Lawful Neutral. The Stoic can make a good lawful neutral.
* True Neutral: Sometimes known as just Neutral, or even Neutral Neutral. Comes in two flavors: Keeping the Balance and Just Doesn't Care. Druids are canonically the former sort, on the same side as the animals. The balance-happy sort may sometimes be characters just too dumb to know the difference, but may also be a Wild Card. It's not uncommon to see True Neutral monks, for instance; not to mention ordinary folks who just want to be left alone. Most Punch Clock Villains fit under this alignment. Your average citizen of Libria (in Equilibrium) is an example of the "Just Doesn't Care" version of neutrality, without necessarily being stupid - the government would probably be Lawful Evil. Druids in D&D were required to be True Neutral until the 3rd Edition of the game, and even then had to maintain "some of nature's neutrality". Mordenkainen, from the Dungeons and Dragons Greyhawk setting, a very powerful wizard who actively tries to keep any major power from getting the upper hand, is an example of the "Balance Keeping" version. Animals, meanwhile, are considered to lack any sort of moral capacity; since moral judgments can't be placed on them, they are canonically true neutral in Dungeons and Dragons. Rilmani, metallic-skinned humanoids from the Outlands, are the True Neutral archetype, maintaining the balance between all the other planes. If True Neutrals include the kind with a head for things, then they most likely typically do not care for idealist virtues and/or politics. Intelligent true neutrals are quite logical in how they go about things, including morals. Employers fire and hire employees in equal measure, etc.
* Chaotic Neutral: The ultimate free spirits, or just lunatics? It can go either way. Chaotic Neutral characters are all about freedom, and don't care so much about morality. Sometimes they're just amoral nutjobs, and sometimes they're generally good people with a wild streak that sometimes leads them into bad things. Often used by players in Tabletop Games to excuse doing anything they feel like (in the case of a Game Master who disables evil alignments - see Neutral Evil, below), and often prohibited by the sort of Game Master who also prohibits outright evil characters. Like Lawful Neutral, however, how "good" they ultimately end up seeming depends on which side of Order Versus Chaos the plot tends toward. The toadlike slaad ("I didn't know what he was talking about, so I ate him."), inhabitants of Limbo, are Chaotic Neutral.
* Lawful Evil: The ordered sort of Evil, that often ends up in charge. Can be a lot like Lawful Neutral, but nastier. Well-structured, large-scale and often scarily successful evil. May believe in keeping order at all costs, or may simply believe that a well-ordered system is so much easier to exploit. Whether an Obstructive Bureaucrat is Lawful Evil or Lawful Neutral is basically a function of whether he enjoys what he's doing (see above example of kicking the family out of the house). Knight Templars are almost always this alignment. If God Is Evil, he's almost always Lawful Evil. On the "bright" side, the Worthy Opponent and Noble Demon are often Lawful Evil (if they're evil at all), as they tend to develop a "Code of Honor" to guide their actions, and can in fact be dependable allies in an Enemy Mine situation where other alignments might fizzle out. In circumstances where you are not a threat to their intentions, Lawful Evil might well be the "lesser of the three evils". BBEGs in general tend towards Lawful Evil - mostly since they plan to construct their very own empire that you'd better fall in line with - as do many Magnificent Bastards. A mercenary who always keeps his contract (good or evil), but enjoys a job where he gets to hurt people, is Lawful Evil and more likely to end up working for the bad guys. The baatezu (devils) of D&D rule the plane of Baator with a Lawful Evil fist, and some of of these were originally Knight Templar angels. As a good reference point, Big Brother (or O'Brien) from 1984 would be Lawful Evil.
* Neutral Evil: Sometimes known as the Asshole Alignment. The Neutral Evil Alignment can be even more dangerous than the Chaotic Evil Alignment - simply because you can't be sure of which way they'll swing in the end. Neutral Evil characters are primarily in it for themselves, because while they are usually villains, they can also swing to the good guy's side, like the Magnificent Bastard they really are. They may also just happen to be on the Good Guy's Team because it's better for them at the moment. Why are they so bad? It could be that Evil Tastes Good or maybe Evil Feels Good. Could be that they've given in to The Dark Side. They could be part of the Religion Of Evil. They could just be, you know, sociopaths. They could take looking out for number one way too far. Or it could be for no readily apparent reason whatsoever. They can be the very embodiment of malice, or just petty thugs. In Dungeons and Dragons, characters who are selfish above all else are Neutral Evil by default. Expect any Neutral Evil state to be Mordor, and a Neutral Evil city the Wretched Hive. The double-dealing, backstabbing, gleefully evil and mercenary fiends called yugoloths, living in the Bleak Eternity of Gehenna, are D&D's archetypal Neutral Evil beings.
* Chaotic Evil: If Chaotic Neutral indicates the truly free spirit, Chaotic Evil is the truly evil free spirit. Whereas the Chaotic Neutral is concerned only with his freedom but isn't a really horrible person, the same can't be said for the Chaotic Evil character. They will do whatever they want to (even if, and sometimes, especially, it hurts other people) and (to them) rules don't matter. Whereas a Neutral Evil character will sometimes follow the law if it is convenient, the same can't really be said for the Chaotic Evil character. So why are they evil? Perhaps they're in it for profit. Maybe they are narcisstic or egotistical. Or maybe they're simply insane; most but not all psychopaths and sociopaths fall under this designation. But contrary to what some believe, Chaotic Evil does not always mean the kind of wanton, meaningless slaughter and destruction associated with Stupid Evil. Indeed, it is often the more calculating and intelligent villains of this kind that are the most dangerous. Being Chaotic Evil doesn't mean a character HAS to slaughter an entire village just because he's passing through. But being Chaotic, he does whatever he feels like regardless of the rules, and being Evil, he doesn't mind if it hurts other people or is otherwise wrong, either. Serial Killers are good examples of Chaotic Evil. It's the canonical alignment of tanar'ri (demons), beings who were created in and by an endless semisentient Abyss that itself is dedicated to entropy, in Dungeons and Dragons. A great example of how Chaotic Evil can be done well and not be Chaotic Stupid, see the Joker.
It helps to think of it as a 3x3 square with the moral and ethical axes on each side, and all the possible alignments surrounding True Neutral like so:
Further Reading:
www.angelfire.com/rpg2/vortexshadow/alignment.html
tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharacterAlignment
Character Alignment
What it ultimately boils down to. In theory. But since it's so fun to argue...
Character Alignment is a shorthand for a given character's (or religion's, society's, organization's, etc.) moral/ethical outlook on Life, the Universe, and Everything. Many roleplaying games use some sort of alignment system as an "ideal" for a character to live up to, though some gamers deride them as crutches to "real roleplaying," and some systems accordingly have none at all. The alignment system most roleplayers are familiar with is the one used in Dungeons and Dragons, which has appeared in a couple of different forms:
The original editions of Dungeons and Dragons drew on the works of Poul Anderson and Michael Moorcock to come up with three alignments: Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic, with Lawful representing honor and obedience to, well, law. Chaotic characters may be insane, but could lean towards a desire for the freedom to do what they want. Whether they do good or evil because of this freedom is what decides their moral leaning. Neutrality alternatively represents neither one (as was the case with animals and people who simply didn't care) or a desire to see "balance" between the two. Later editions kept this as the "ethical" axis of the alignment scale and added a second "moral" axis of Good, Neutral, and Evil.
The ethical axis was more one's attitude towards the position of society and rules: Lawful characters think having an ordered society is important and beneficial; Chaotic characters don't necessarily oppose this but think the freedom of the individual comes first; Neutral characters tend to judge such situations on a case by case basis. If a law was unjust, a lawful person might think it needs retooling, or say that it prevents more problems than it causes. A neutral person might see the need for such a law, but would still think it should be scrapped and redone from scratch. A chaotic person would probably just break it.
This is sometimes lumped in with two different attitudes: whether the character in question believes that the universe as a whole is orderly, and how the character conducts his life, with plans or flying by the seat of his pants. This can produce considerable confusion, as the three levels can exist in any combination.
The "moral" axis can be adequately explained by the focus of those morals: Good people are more focused on you; that is, they feel that they should help everyone else when possible. Neutral people are more focused on us; that is, on the welfare of themselves and their family and friends. They can be charitable, but their "circle" always comes first. Evil people are more focused on me; which of course means that they look out for number one and everyone else can get in line.
Combining the two axes allowed characters to be of nine possible alignments, as follows:
* Lawful Good: Basically, they believe Law is Good, and that you do good by upholding the law. The alignment of The Cape, Paladins. Believes in Truth, Justice and such, but may potentially believe in them a little too much. Poorly portrayed, he tends to be Lawful Stupid, largely depending on your interpretation of "good". In D&D canon up to the most recent edition, archons, celestials who inhabit the Seven Heavens, are Lawful Good. From a non-D&D more realistic perspective however, LGs are likely altruists who believe in an orderly lifestyle for the benefit of their species.
* Neutral Good: Sweetness and light. Doing good is more important than upholding the law, but law is not a bad thing. Not too caught up in Order Versus Chaos; concerned with moral goodness, but often not willing to enforce it in others. If The Messiah isn't Lawful Good, they're probably Neutral Good. Just think "basically nice person" and you've probably got it. (For advanced learners, there's Good Is Not Nice.) Neutral Good states may be really nice places to live, but depending on how idealistic the setting is, they may be deluding themselves. The guardinal celestials of D&D, beastlike creatures who inhabit Elysium, are Neutral Good.
* Chaotic Good: Rebels and free spirits who are more often than not seen opposing tyrants and other oppressive types. They tend to believe that things like order, discipline, and honor get in the way of doing good. Or they may believe too much order is bad for everyone. Whatever their stance is, they act on their ideals before they let laws get in the way, and sometimes they dare the laws to get in the way. Whether they're portrayed as Big Damn Heroes, too damn idealistic, a Manic Pixie Dream Girl or just a damn problem depends on the views of the author, and ultimately the readers. It should also be noted that CGs value individual merit over the 'greater good', but aren't willing themselves to amoral action to see that through.
* Lawful Neutral: The rule-abiding sort. Law and order is more important than whether you're good or evil. Believes in keeping order, though not necessarily in Justice as a universal constant (though they may - this can get complicated). They'll arrest a robber or rapist, but may also kick a family out of their home for failing to pay rent, even if they were poor. May also believe in a Cosmic Order that transcends laws - many monks are Lawful Neutral. Just as often the bad guys as the good guys in an Order Versus Chaos situation. Modrons, D&D beings of geometrically perfect precision and order who inhabit the plane of Mechanus, are Lawful Neutral. Mercenaries who obey their contracts without question, and take either side of the moral spectrum, are Lawful Neutral. The Stoic can make a good lawful neutral.
* True Neutral: Sometimes known as just Neutral, or even Neutral Neutral. Comes in two flavors: Keeping the Balance and Just Doesn't Care. Druids are canonically the former sort, on the same side as the animals. The balance-happy sort may sometimes be characters just too dumb to know the difference, but may also be a Wild Card. It's not uncommon to see True Neutral monks, for instance; not to mention ordinary folks who just want to be left alone. Most Punch Clock Villains fit under this alignment. Your average citizen of Libria (in Equilibrium) is an example of the "Just Doesn't Care" version of neutrality, without necessarily being stupid - the government would probably be Lawful Evil. Druids in D&D were required to be True Neutral until the 3rd Edition of the game, and even then had to maintain "some of nature's neutrality". Mordenkainen, from the Dungeons and Dragons Greyhawk setting, a very powerful wizard who actively tries to keep any major power from getting the upper hand, is an example of the "Balance Keeping" version. Animals, meanwhile, are considered to lack any sort of moral capacity; since moral judgments can't be placed on them, they are canonically true neutral in Dungeons and Dragons. Rilmani, metallic-skinned humanoids from the Outlands, are the True Neutral archetype, maintaining the balance between all the other planes. If True Neutrals include the kind with a head for things, then they most likely typically do not care for idealist virtues and/or politics. Intelligent true neutrals are quite logical in how they go about things, including morals. Employers fire and hire employees in equal measure, etc.
* Chaotic Neutral: The ultimate free spirits, or just lunatics? It can go either way. Chaotic Neutral characters are all about freedom, and don't care so much about morality. Sometimes they're just amoral nutjobs, and sometimes they're generally good people with a wild streak that sometimes leads them into bad things. Often used by players in Tabletop Games to excuse doing anything they feel like (in the case of a Game Master who disables evil alignments - see Neutral Evil, below), and often prohibited by the sort of Game Master who also prohibits outright evil characters. Like Lawful Neutral, however, how "good" they ultimately end up seeming depends on which side of Order Versus Chaos the plot tends toward. The toadlike slaad ("I didn't know what he was talking about, so I ate him."), inhabitants of Limbo, are Chaotic Neutral.
* Lawful Evil: The ordered sort of Evil, that often ends up in charge. Can be a lot like Lawful Neutral, but nastier. Well-structured, large-scale and often scarily successful evil. May believe in keeping order at all costs, or may simply believe that a well-ordered system is so much easier to exploit. Whether an Obstructive Bureaucrat is Lawful Evil or Lawful Neutral is basically a function of whether he enjoys what he's doing (see above example of kicking the family out of the house). Knight Templars are almost always this alignment. If God Is Evil, he's almost always Lawful Evil. On the "bright" side, the Worthy Opponent and Noble Demon are often Lawful Evil (if they're evil at all), as they tend to develop a "Code of Honor" to guide their actions, and can in fact be dependable allies in an Enemy Mine situation where other alignments might fizzle out. In circumstances where you are not a threat to their intentions, Lawful Evil might well be the "lesser of the three evils". BBEGs in general tend towards Lawful Evil - mostly since they plan to construct their very own empire that you'd better fall in line with - as do many Magnificent Bastards. A mercenary who always keeps his contract (good or evil), but enjoys a job where he gets to hurt people, is Lawful Evil and more likely to end up working for the bad guys. The baatezu (devils) of D&D rule the plane of Baator with a Lawful Evil fist, and some of of these were originally Knight Templar angels. As a good reference point, Big Brother (or O'Brien) from 1984 would be Lawful Evil.
* Neutral Evil: Sometimes known as the Asshole Alignment. The Neutral Evil Alignment can be even more dangerous than the Chaotic Evil Alignment - simply because you can't be sure of which way they'll swing in the end. Neutral Evil characters are primarily in it for themselves, because while they are usually villains, they can also swing to the good guy's side, like the Magnificent Bastard they really are. They may also just happen to be on the Good Guy's Team because it's better for them at the moment. Why are they so bad? It could be that Evil Tastes Good or maybe Evil Feels Good. Could be that they've given in to The Dark Side. They could be part of the Religion Of Evil. They could just be, you know, sociopaths. They could take looking out for number one way too far. Or it could be for no readily apparent reason whatsoever. They can be the very embodiment of malice, or just petty thugs. In Dungeons and Dragons, characters who are selfish above all else are Neutral Evil by default. Expect any Neutral Evil state to be Mordor, and a Neutral Evil city the Wretched Hive. The double-dealing, backstabbing, gleefully evil and mercenary fiends called yugoloths, living in the Bleak Eternity of Gehenna, are D&D's archetypal Neutral Evil beings.
* Chaotic Evil: If Chaotic Neutral indicates the truly free spirit, Chaotic Evil is the truly evil free spirit. Whereas the Chaotic Neutral is concerned only with his freedom but isn't a really horrible person, the same can't be said for the Chaotic Evil character. They will do whatever they want to (even if, and sometimes, especially, it hurts other people) and (to them) rules don't matter. Whereas a Neutral Evil character will sometimes follow the law if it is convenient, the same can't really be said for the Chaotic Evil character. So why are they evil? Perhaps they're in it for profit. Maybe they are narcisstic or egotistical. Or maybe they're simply insane; most but not all psychopaths and sociopaths fall under this designation. But contrary to what some believe, Chaotic Evil does not always mean the kind of wanton, meaningless slaughter and destruction associated with Stupid Evil. Indeed, it is often the more calculating and intelligent villains of this kind that are the most dangerous. Being Chaotic Evil doesn't mean a character HAS to slaughter an entire village just because he's passing through. But being Chaotic, he does whatever he feels like regardless of the rules, and being Evil, he doesn't mind if it hurts other people or is otherwise wrong, either. Serial Killers are good examples of Chaotic Evil. It's the canonical alignment of tanar'ri (demons), beings who were created in and by an endless semisentient Abyss that itself is dedicated to entropy, in Dungeons and Dragons. A great example of how Chaotic Evil can be done well and not be Chaotic Stupid, see the Joker.
It helps to think of it as a 3x3 square with the moral and ethical axes on each side, and all the possible alignments surrounding True Neutral like so:
| Alignment Chart | Order Versus Chaos | ||
| Ethical | Lawful | Neutral | Chaotic |
| Good | Lawful Good | Neutral Good | Chaotic Good |
| Neutral | Lawful Neutral | True Neutral | Chaotic Neutral |
| Evil | Lawful Evil | Neutral Evil | Chaotic Evil |
Further Reading:
www.angelfire.com/rpg2/vortexshadow/alignment.html