PlaneShift
Gameplay => Guilds Forum => Topic started by: Kuiper7986 on March 12, 2004, 01:14:40 am
-
I got a quote for each type of guild I\'d like to share:
Good Guilds:
\"Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.\"
Evil Guilds:
\"Law! What do I care about the law? Haven\'t I got the power?\"
Neutral Guilds:
\"Your only obligation in any lifetime is to be true to yourself.\"
I just wanted to know. What do you guys think really makes a guild evil, good, or neutral? What\'s the basis of your principles on the alignment you chosen. In simpler terms on what ground is your reason for choosing the alignment of the guild you wanted to be in or created?
BTW: This is a good thread for guild leaders to talk about their point across or any loose ends about their guild\'s alignment, if they do so choose.
-
Not another alignment discussion... jeez...
Well okay, if we really must raise this issue again... but it\'ll end in spam, flames and arguing, as usual.
The Followers of Aliathi believe that Good is what our Goddess tells us is good. We believe that Good is to help others and fight evil wherever it should arise.
(Realistically, I know that this opinion is fundamentally flawed, but this is a game, and the above is IC. There is simply no need to find a \'true\' meaning of alignments- it is what you, as an individual, make of it.)
\'Nuff said. :)
-
Moogie there\'s no flaw with what you said. You believe in what you believe in, I can\'t tell you if that\'s good or evil or right or wrong. Your opinion is the correct answer because it\'s your opinion. Oh yeah I didn\'t actually say there was a need for the true meaning of alignment. I just wanted to discuss it on what people \"believe\" is the meaning of good, evil, or neutral.
-
Good and evil is just the contrast that occurs when blending the percieved motives from one into the perspective of another. Everyone sees good and evil in their own way, it\'s impossible to generalize it.
And ummm, just to clarify, that means just about every person and guild is a bunch do-gooders trying to thwart evil.
-
wedge\'s reply == 100% correct
-
There\'s a fine line between someone who does something evil and thinks its good to him and someone who does something evil and knows its evil.
-
oh look, another people that don\'t see difference between words \'good\' and \'right\'...
if someone evil does something evil, he probably thinks it\'s right thing to do
but if he thinks what he does is good, then he probably has his mind messed up.
as in: If I do something evil I know it\'s not good, but I believe it is the right thing to do.
Xandria made great post about that, why can\'t you people read Xandria\'s posts? ;)
now for the alignment, I think this sums up what the Dark Empire believes in (lawful-evil):We are the ones that embrace the power given by the darkness. The power revealed to the ones that sense the flow of the world. We dwell in pride and glory, fight under command of our empress. Use the power of spell, slay our foes with the steel that stays cold. Honor among the dark ones, it is what we believe in. The loyality and trust shall help us in achieving all of our needs. Side by side, together we\'ll fight, with courage we\'ll slay any foe. With the sense of the strategy, the blindness ain\'t what we undergo. For the thrill of battle we ride, with the great will to stay strong. We dream to achieve our eternal goals, of power, wealth and control.
[/color]
-
Us and them.
good and evil is just another abstract concept; you can argue all day about its connotations, but basically like wedge said it is matter of opinion.
Its just another way to fill yourself with more pride, and more hate for your enemy; \"i am the righteous warrior and i will smite ye infidels!\".
That is why The Mercenary Guild is neutral, we see the futility in both good and evil. But it is true, the conflict it causes is certainly profitable for us.
-
Originally posted by Mogura
Not another alignment discussion... jeez...
Agreed :P
Well, let\'s continue the endless argument then. For me neutrality is when someone or a guild cares only about itself but never do something morally bad to gain power or another thing. They will never do something good or neutral if this is against their aim or simply useless for them. Although, as long as it\'s not an evil deed, they will do everything which benefits them. When i say \'good\' and \'evil\' here, i don\'t mean lawful or chaotic, i mean really \'good/evil\'. A neutral guild is ready to do something chaotic (breaking the law) but as long as no people or guild is damaged in the mean time.
-
Originally posted by Zephyrus
good and evil is just another abstract concept; you can argue all day about its connotations (...)
or you can simply check in dictionary :P
evil (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/evil)
good (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/good)
anyway, my views on each guild:
neutral-good: Smply making others happy. Making charities and so on.
chaotic-good: Fighting against evil opressor. Rebel-type of people.
lawful-good: Fighting against all evil people. Fanatics in doing so.
true neutral: Minding own business.
chaotic-neutral: Acting how the guild feels like it.
lawful-neutral: Following some kind of code, like honor or local law.
neutral-evil: Breaking the law to gain more wealth and so on.
chaotic-evil: Achieving everything by destruction. Finding it easy to betray others.
lawful-evil: Trying to gain dominion. Following some kind of code while doing so.
err... look at first post. He just wants to hear opinions, not to discuss them
-
Don\'t forget true neutral druid avengers, people! X( ;)
True neutral doesn\'t mean just the maximum \"I don\'t give a darn\" realtionship/view towards other entities.
-
So far, Draklar has made the most sense. I base that on the fact that I like his definition of a Neutral-Lawful guild. lol I know, I\'m so objective it\'s scary. lol
-
What means to be good, evil or neutral? Well, JOIN the Black Order and you\'ll see ... we\'re everything! :D
-
*looks at Annah\'s sig*
how can you be neutral or good if yer true evil?
-
They are good at being evil and they wear neutral colours?
-
Originally posted by Draklar
*looks at Annah\'s sig*
how can you be neutral or good if yer true evil?
rofl :D
this seems utterly pointless to be discussing....
-
Definition of good - Moogie
Definition of Evil - Me
Definition of Neutral - Monketh
anyone else is shades of grey :P
-
argh.. is this thread still here :baby:
ok then.. if it won\'t die..
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20001222b
What Alignment Means
Alignment is central to a D&D character\'s personality. D&D uses two measures to determine a specific character\'s ethical and moral attitudes and behavior.
The moral axis has three positions: good, neutral and evil. Good characters generally care about the welfare of others. Neutral people generally care about their own welfare. Evil people generally seek to harm the others\' welfare.
The ethical axis has three positions as well: lawful, neutral, and chaotic. Lawful people generally follow the social rules as they understand them. Neutral people follow those rules find convenient or obviously necessary. And chaotic people seek to upset the social order and either institute change, or simply create anarchy.
there you have it, the DnD description of all allignments.. is there anything wrong with this?
-
Nope, sounds good.
-
not that there\'s something wrong with it... but that\'s not all d&d alignments description (there are 9 alignments there). What you posted is descriptions of the moral axis and the ethical axis...
Sep: 3 questions:
would you harm anyone, including Mogs?
wouldn\'t Mogs bash annoying n00b?
didn\'t Monketh say that he\'s neutral, but slightly good?
:P
-
Originally posted by Draklar
would you harm anyone, including Mogs?
He wouldn\'t, he\'s a big softy really... ;) *giggle*
Originally posted by Draklar
wouldn\'t Mogs bash annoying n00b?
I sometimes do, but I still consider me purely good, and if Sep does too, then what does it matter? :]
Axsyrus: The difference with this thread (as I discovered above) is this one is what we individually think of our alignments, not what any \'official\' description forces upon us. I think official descriptions suck anyway, alignment is just a way of generally categorising yourself, not trying to struggle and fit yourself into some exact conformity. :) How boring is that.
-
official descriptions help you to find yourself between all those alignments. Give some personality and help you to roleplay. Nothing else. You may say they suck, but the official descriptions are very helpfull when you want to roleplay specific character.
like when you want to roleplay pure good, it would be good to check what do you have to do in that direction. You can make your own definitions, but what\'s the point in making them at all then?
-
This discussion is one of those issues that never die and never grow old. People who discuss it grow old and wise enough to realise for themselves, but what they abandon is taken up by a new generation of seekers of knowledge. There was once a very wise quote:
\"There is nothing new you can learn. All you can do is remember what you always knew\"
I guess what is means is that you can never learn anything until you discover it yourself. Take Calculus. Teachers can tell you unendingly what d/dt means but you never really understand until you realise it on your own.
So it is with good and evil. You cannot say good is such and expect others to agree. Some might and others might not. You can give endless logical explanations and hold philosophical discourses and yet not force conviction for conviction is not to be forced. The individual will only be satisfied with what he or she finally discovers by searching his own intellect. So all this is pointless.
But on the other hand such philosophical arguments are good mental exercise and as such I view the journey as more important than the destination. Hence I will offer my opinion to that end.
Good:
What is white. That which is like the fire. Which illuminates. Which burns all till only the purest remains. Which is great strength and great responsibility at once
Evil:
What is black. That which is like the night. Which obscures and blinds. Which is blackest of black till our eyes cannot see our own selves. Which maddens the weak with fear till they treat each sound as heralding the approach of a mortal enemy. Which emboldens the wicked with the assurance that the deed will go unseen. Which prompts the honest to light the fire of good. Which allows the clever to work invisible to all eyes.
Neutral:
What is transparent. That which is like the river. Ruled by its own purpose. Heading to its own destination by breaching or bending around obstacles. That which flows steadily through Realms Bright and Realms Dark alike not pausing to look at either.
That being said I leave most of it as a matter of interpretation. But I will say this that Good and Evil are like day and night. Each has an end and is sure to be succeeded by the other. Neutral is like the river that reflects the sun in the day and the black sky at night. Also, even during the day there will be caverns no light will ever reach, and during the night there will be lamps which will illuminate their surroundings even on the blackest of nights.
In the end i\'d like to suggest that you not let your alignment direct your actions. Instead allow your actions to decide your alignment. And if you really do choose an alignment don\'t just say: \"I am good/evil/neutral\" and sit pretty. Do something to forward your cause.
PS:
Many of the guilds say \"Bhuuu I am evil.\" or \"Woot I am good\" and do nothing:rolleyes:. That is partly because they are lazy bums and partly because the general gamer is moronic enough to mistake roleplaying charachter for the player. This ends up scaring potential charachters off since, unlike me and maybe Kiern, most of you people here want to be the person remembered as popular, cool and all around nice. So I urge all gamers to learn to differentiate the player from the game and you will have a much better gaming experience.
-
Originally posted by Auran
In the end i\'d like to suggest that you not let your alignment direct your actions. Instead allow your actions to decide your alignment.
someone here misses the point of alignments...
alignments help you to build character around some specific model.
If you already have a model then there\'s no point in picking alignments
and following your suggestion will result in people \"roleplaying\" themselfs most of the time...
-
Ah Draklar my friend it is not so. To perfectly roleplay you don\'t build a good ,evil or neutral charachter. You build a deep and interesting charachter unfettered by bounds of definitions and then judge from it what its alignment should be. The Charachter( i donot say \"is\" but \"should\" ) should not be built around the alignment. It is far better to judge the alignment once you have the charachter.
Charachters are never pure alignment except in very rare cases and these are generally stereotypical and boring. An interesting charachter is more often than not a cocktail. So its much better to build a charachter and then judge its aligment.
-
Auran, I\'m not going to discuss this with you. I would just advice you to play some p&p rpg and see how alignments work there.
I\'ll just say how did I make my new character (hey, this in the whole discussion might be actually useful):
So I was supposed to join the Dark Empire. Knowing that I should turn to evil (I was already lawful so that didn\'t make difference), I searched for many lawful-evil descriptions. Finally I found really good one, where I could see points showing how should lawful-evil character act like. I took ones I liked and dropped ones that I didn\'t. From this I made a custom character, that was still going under lawful-evil description.
-
Draklar anyone but Moogie. I\'d strap a c-4 bomb to there head anyday. And all evil people have a weakness mine is Moogie :P
-
Lets just say that I don\'t call P&P RPG with its rules the final word. The ultimate RPG is Real Life. But nevermind. Thats the difference between you and me. I won\'t argue about this further since it would only end up making you look bad. I don\'t want that since i like your new charachter and wouldn\'t want it to go down the drain like the last one. When you get angry you tend to say silly things which ruin your image. So you should see I like you well enough to look out for you.;)
-
yup, some difference I\'d say... i don\'t see real life as a game, and I don\'t play any roles there... I\'m just myself...
but calling real life \"RolePlaying Game\"... well that\'s interesting idea :)
Sep: you are evil, but you aren\'t definition of it... and that\'s good for you in my opinion...
same for Mogs, I think it\'s much better and more interesting to be just highly good.
-
Originally posted by Auran This discussion is one of those issues that never die and never grow old.People who discuss it grow old and wise enough to realise for themselves, but what they abandon is taken up by a new generation of seekers of knowledge.
Hear ye, hear ye. Members of the PS forums, bear witness to the fact that Auran has just officialy denied being wise. He states that the wise know that this discussion is futile, then he continues to post, discussing this topic. Therefore he cannot be wise.
Just wanted to make sure everyone noticed. It\'s not often that we get to see Auran insert his foot into his mouth. (although it couldn\'t be hard with that mouth! rofl)
-
Hear ye, hear ye. Members of the PS forums, bear witness to the fact that Phinehas is a moron.
Just wanted to make sure everyone noticed. (although you must be pretty ignorant not to have noticed this before! rofl)
-
yeah, Ax, I\'m aware that you hate me. I assume it has to do with that one conversation in irc?
-
lol, what conversation? that post was just the lamest post I\'d seen for a while so I couldn\'t stop myself replying to it :P
-
Yeah, it was lame, I\'ll be the first to admit it. But I couldn\'t resist. It all seemed so redundant, and then Auran started his post off so cool, and then like, posted a 500 word essay on the subject. Anyway, since I got us Off Topic, I\'d better get us back On. I\'d have to say that I believe something in between Drak and Auran(I could be mistaken, I didn\'t read all the posts). I think that you shouldn\'t be too inhibited with what your alignment is, but I do believe that it helps rp if you try and stick with a general alignment. Take me for instance, I\'m neutral, sometimes I do things that\'d be classified as \"good\" and sometimes I do things that would be considered \"evil\", but in the long run, I\'m just in it for myself and you all can get lost. :D
-
Oh lordy! Pinehas doesn\'t approve of my actions8o! Whatever shall I do?(:P
I do and say what I like Piney. I didn\'t care what anyone thougth before why would you think I could make an exception for you. Blab all you want I love it:). I do what i feel like and offer no explanations or excuses. Countless people think I am a fool and countless others think I am a genius. I don\'t care either way. I know who I am; \"The guy who will get you stuff when you die\", and I am happy being that guy;). Its all that matters.
BTW: Thank you for thinking my post started out cool. Not that I needed your approval but I must respect the deed that you do. I am a fair man;).
Anyhow Drak:
Yes RL is roleplay where you play as yourself. Some realise it others don\'t. Either way, play everyone does.
-
So much discussion about a simple thing, there is Good, there is Evil and there is Neutral, each have their standarts or something that sounds like that. Your alignement is built while you role play. Its not that abstract, at least not in a game, Planeshift seems to use D&D\'s way of characterizing the alignment( Neutral Evil Good / True Chaotic Lawful) and i think that\'s just fine.
-
Well, technically, in PS, the alignments are decided by the community since it\'s not as rigid as some other games.
-
Well I have to go with Auran on this one, I dont completely agree but he is the closest to the truth from my point of view, I see wat draklar is saying tho (well I believe I do) but, in the end it is really other ppl who decide ur alligment judged on ur actions...Of course u could go with the whole
Evil:Dictator
Neutral:Lazy dude who screws up
Good:Guy who beats the dictator
Or you could realize that in the end there is no allignment, an evil man can do a good thing as easy as a good man can do an evil thing
And before you even think of posting on the whole \"Evil is the easy path\" think of this is it easier to be hated by ppl or loved by them
\"Evil is the selfish acts\" giving somebody help will make you feel good and so if you do have money to give, giving it would be a selfish act.
So in the end there are too many ways of looking at evil good and neutral so, I decided never to really care for them (same with the different shades of gray (or grey)).
-
Erhem.... I dug this thread up because I wanted to share my views on alignment (views, its just my opinion).
I believe there is no good or evil... Good and evil are just propaganda. They are just excuses to make people flock to your banner.
Now Justice is real. Fairness is real. Rightness is real. But good and evil are just propaganda. There is no true evil, just someone who wants something awfully bad, and is an advertising genius.
That is why neutrality is the best. Neutral aligned beings see everything as cause and effect, no strings attached.
The philosophical neutral sees good, evil, law and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. The middle way of neutrality is advocated as the best, most balanced road in the long run. Followers of this way can act naturally, without prejudice and compulsion.
Adapted from D&D 3rd Ed. PHB, pp.89
Besides, true evil can only exist in a world where true good exists, as my fellow guild members illustrate.
Good, and Evil, being defining philosophies, are also diametrically opposite, meaning they repell and attract each other. It is also their nature, to NEED the other to exist, no good without evil to contrast against. Neutrality is the common ground between the two, the grey zone, where evil and good no longer really exist, it is more a state of cause and effect, because good sees evil as bad, and evil sees good is bad, but who is right? Both? Neither? Well, the answer is both are right, and finally, both are wrong... because it is all cause and effect, to neutral eyes.
-- Myysst
Well something over neutrality or the \"balance concept\" I read long ago.
It was the answer of a wiseman who was asked about the good and evil principles... The picture he used as an answer was:
\"Look at this mountain.. it has a shiny side with all the bright colors where the sun touches it.... and it has a shadow/dark-side which defines it\'s depth and contures.... you can\'t take away any side from the mountain ... only as a whole it is complete\" So he said that in a balanced world you have to accept the presence of good end evil... you can\'t eleminate one of them without destroying nature in itself. So being neutral and supporting a healthy \"nature\" you have to accept good and evil and have to see that their presence is balanced.
-- Manden
Just some ideas about alignment.
-
Eh, I figure I might as well throw in my two-bits.
Personally, to me, the only way you can truly do evil is to go against your own morals, ethics, and conscience. If you just blatantly ignore what your body, and arguably your soul, is trying to tell you, then it will more than likely be evil. But that\'s more of a \"be in harmony with the world argument\" rather than defining good and evil.
I liked Draklar\'s definitions. To me, a Lawfully-Good person is a Knight, a Champion of the weak, upholding honor, chivalry, and fighting the evil ones with a vengeance. I don\'t like em ^^\'. Chaotic-Goods are the vengeance-type people, the Robin Hoods of the land. In the end, their deeds are beneficial to all, but it\'s not exactly very legal.
Lawfully-Neutral would be...someone who doesn\'t take sides, someone who obeys the laws of neutrality. Chaotic-Neutral would be...hmm...someone who does what he wants when he wants, and is either aligned with no one, or has both good and evil alliances. He\'s not evil, but he isn\'t good either.
Lawfully-Evil people would be evil by profession. Typically nice guys you might get along with, but you\'d never want to get on their bad sides. Sangwa and Draklar are good examples, I think. People who have a code, morals, ethics, but are evil because of their profession, not necessarily their personality. Chaotic-Evil people would be the ones to look out for. Chaos, rampage, destruction, those are their main tools. They do what they want, when they want, and not too many people like them. A good example would be a thief who kills his victims then takes their money.
That\'s my take on everything, with the main difference between lawful and chaotic being following the rules vs following your own rules.
And sorry if I wound up repeating some things, because I only skimmed through the last half of the forum thread.
-
I agree with you Zetsumei, Im Lawful Evil and that is because of my proffesion more then for my personality, even if I can be evil sometimes like I was to Annah (...).
l just thought that the example with the thief that steals money wasnt very good because being a thief can be pretty much a proffession. To me, a thief could be chaotic evil only when he cares as much about the misery he is causing his victims that he does about the money. He just loves being evil and theres nothing but his personality that guides guides his actions. Please correct me if Im wrong ;)
-
I agree completely.
Still most of rogue-like characters are neutral-evil.
They don\'t care about law that much, but still don\'t break it just for the fun of doing so...
-
Actually I think \"genuine\" thieves are chaotic neutral, since they can be stealing a worthless pocket clock from a commoner in a momment and be stealing a famous jewel in another they aren\'t predictable.
Thieves aren\'t out there to kill people; they don\'t respect people but their objective is not to hurt or impose their will, just to get wealthy ^^ and be known among other thieves.
They do it as naturally as a smithy froges his swords ^^. It\'s their work :D.
That\'s how I see it :), not saying you are wrong, thieves can be evil but they aren\'t \"genuine\" that way :P.
-
thief = malefactor ;) (not always but mostly)
anyway, nice description of lawful-evil, Zet... that would also include Aelya, Kwartz and Fiere I guess... So I guess you got it right ;)
-
My example was of a thief killing his victim, not just thieving in general. Thieve\'s run the gamut, from chaotic-good to lawful-evil, with chaotic neutral and evil in-between. Chaotic-good would be robin hood, chaotic-neutral a...petty thief, I suppose, I dunno, chaotic-evil being the ones you have to look-out for, and lawful-evil the ones who only go after the big-shots. I\'m unsure about lawful-evil being for thieves though, as chaotic-neutral and lawful evil seem to be a lot alike in this particular profession, to me anyway.
-
I think thief can be lawful-evil only if he works for government.
chaotic-neutral... hmm.... I think not that serious about stealing, simply doing so when he feels like it...
-
I could see a thief as lawful-evil, lets say they work for an organization. They steal and kill( for the broader assassin/rogue definition of thief) for their employer accordign to the set rules. Maybe they work for an evil government or a rigid thieves guild. I dunno thats how i would rationalize that.
Fiere is neutral-evil (shhh don\'t tell the Princess) but she has her loyalties :]
-
Wow Fiere. ltns. Great to see you back.
-Venge
-
Thanks Venge!
Nice to be back although I was never truly gone, just lurking in shadow ;)
-
No wait I mean thieves (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=thieves)... those who steal as a profession, not assassins or spies or robbers... thieves real ones who just like to steal stuff stealthly. You are characterizing the rogue class, which the thief is part of.
It\'s chaotic neutral because stealing is agaisnt the law, but thieves have no interest in making people\'s lives miserable, it sometimes happens, but not their main objective.
-
Definition (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=thief): [n] a criminal who takes property belonging to someone else with the intention of keeping it or selling it
criminal = malefactor
by d&d alignments
malefactor = neutral-evil ;)
-
Just because it says criminal? Ok, it\'s a kind of criminal, but not a melfactor criminal =P.
Thieves don\'t quite fill the Malefactor\'s (?Neutral Evil, ?Malefactor?: A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn?t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.?) shoes. Thieves have a restless nature against the law, since they know the law but still defy it and they also care about who they kill, because they only do so to protect themselves (that\'s why they steal instead of looting).
In the other hand they are more like the Free Spirit (?Chaotic Neutral, ?Free Spirit?: A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn?t strive to protect others? freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it.?) char, since they respect their freedom, don\'t care about the law abiding people or about the law itself, they do as they please and they do what they do generally for themselves.
-
well there are thieves like neutral-evil...
this is pointless tho\', as thief could be any alignment besides lawful-good...
-
Sangwa,
Ok thieves only but I still think my idea applies. There is the term \"Professional Thief\" which implies employment however illegal it may be in light of whatever laws (fantasy or real).
In which case if one is a career thief doing another\'s bidding they may follow particular rules and codes making them lawful evil.
I am not saying \"Thieves are lawful evil\" just that they could be.
Rogues could too :D
So in other words I think we are both right.
Heck as somone mentioned above thieves could be chaotic-good like Robin Hood.
Tough to manage lawful-good though I bet one could figure it out ;) Would depend on the law of the land and just what sorta gov\'t ruled there. But thats a whole \'nother ball of wax.
In reguards to the \"Malefactor\" definition you listed (what edition is that btw please?) I begin to wonder if Neutral-Evil is the right alignment to classify Fiere as since my concept doesn\'t fill some of those requirements precisely. I don\'t think she fills any other ones exactly either and if she did she would change just to be a pest :P
-
Originally posted by Fiere
Tough to manage lawful-good though I bet one could figure it out ;)
like I said above - nope :)
from website about creating chars in 1st edition of AD&D:
\"A Thief may not be Lawful Good, but may be lawful or good or any other alignment.\"
-
Yes the alignment is strange.
You character may think following a certain alignment but depending on what happened to him he may still think like that and act on the behalf of some one with a different alignment.
In that case his actions are aligned with his master\'s/employers\'s but his way of seeing things and his reasons for doing those things may be his own and have his own alignment.
EDIT: Sometimes thieves are confused with rogues.
However they can also be lawful good.Not my original idea, but according to GBA\'s Fire Emblem I\'ll show you an example: Ostia (A Lawful Good capital) hires a thief to work for them, stealing and spying evil enemies.
-
Hey Sangwa, where were you getting that nice, long, lovely information from before?
-
you mean this (http://srd.pbemnexus.com/description.html)?
-
Originally Posted by Draklar
like I said above - nope
Oh dear, you\'ve gone and told me no. I don\'t comprehend that word terribly well ;)
But seriously I still think just about anything can be rationalized out. ~ Edit note:*points down to Redmonk\'s post* Thanks Redmonk!Thats what I mean :D ~ Whether its allowed by the ruleset of a particular game is another matter. Apparently according to to first addition D&D it\'s not allowed but even that depends on your DM. I generally figure alignment by D&D too though I never got the chance to play 1st edition ;( (so deprived)
I don\'t know what the alignment rules are for PS if there are set ones and I haven\'t looked recently so maybe there are.
Anyway I\'m gonna just agree to disagree on the points considered above for Thieves in general and what is allowed for PS remains to be seen (for me anyway)
On another note the originator of this post said ( and I need to catch up on posts between then and this page)
Good Guilds:
\"Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.\"
Evil Guilds:
\"Law! What do I care about the law? Haven\'t I got the power?\"
Neutral Guilds:
\"Your only obligation in any lifetime is to be true to yourself.\"
Hmm well Fiere personally follows the second two as an individual and makes a slight adjustment to number one for herself
\"Do not be overcome , but overcome obstacles with whatever means neccessary.\"
Still sticking with a personal alignment of neutral-evil,what do you guys personally qualify yourselves as?
-
What alignment does a thief have that works for the government and whos only job is to recover (steal) things from evil dictators and barons, who have stolen the stuff from the poor. and then hand them back to its rightful owners??? Lawful-good?
-
hehe... that\'s lawful-neutral actually :P
-
How\'s it neutral? (just curious really)
-
your still not lawful in anyway of stealing.
i would assume Neutral-good.
-
hehe... for both of you:
first you have to look at all those other careers that base on working for government:
city guard, judge, lawyer
they\'re all lawful-neutral and that\'s because they follow law and orders given by their government.
The example given by TheRedMonk is same - the thief follows orders given by government.
I\'d like to point out that there wasn\'t mentioned that he believes stealing from evil and giving to poor is right thing to do, thus I don\'t see in what way he\'s good himself. Now if that was mentioned, he would be lawful-neutral by working for government and chaotic-good by believing stealing from evil and giving to poor is right thing to do.
All in all you could say he\'s either neutral-good (he believes in both law and chaos, yes strives to do good) or simply forget about alignments...
-
A character may think in one way and act in another. A thief may be Lawful Good (or any other alignment), but his actions(stealing) are chaotic neutral, his intentions however may be Lawful Good (or of the other alignment).
Lawful Good people would rarelly resort to stealing unless they saw it as the only way to avoid suffering.
PS: A while ago I was talking of \"Genuine\" Thieves who steal as a profession and not for third parties; not meaning that they are friendless or that they won\'t join any kind of organization/team, but that if they do so, they do it for themselves.
That is the Chaotic-Neutral version of thieves, I am sorry for my lack of clearness ;).
-
Originally posted by Sangwa
Lawful Good people would rarelly resort to stealing unless they saw it as the only way to avoid suffering.
well that is clear... lawful-good character would rather die than do something against their honor...
Paladin is best example of lawful-good character. They won\'t ever do something that they see as \"unjust\" stealing is one of those things.
chaotic-good - will use \"unjust\" ways to fight evil
neutral-good - will use \"unjust\" ways only when it\'s necessary
lawful-good - will never do something that is \"unjust\"
taking one\'s property is unjust whatever you might do with it afterwards...
-
Yes, but it depends if the Paladin has more Good in him then Law ;).
If he thinks defending Good is above defending the law then he might do that in a very extreme situation, I doubt it would ever happen and if some thinks it would then some one should give an example ^^.
However that also applies to Lawful Evil and Lawful Neutral.
It seems Lawful Good characters take Law more seriously then the other Lawful chars. At least that\'s the first impression one gets.
The best example of a Lawful Neutral character is a Judge and I don\'t think a Judge would resort to thievery since it goes against his true essence: Law.
-
Evil:
Anything which impairs the happiness of a being or
deprives a being of any good; anything which causes
suffering of any kind to sentient beings; injury;
mischief; harm; -- opposed to {good}.
stealing one\'s property causes suffering. Being good can\'t lead you to stealing...[/color]
-
but what if a thief works for a charity organisation and finances the business to help the poor, by stealing from people that have so much money they dont even notice they have been robbed??? They dont suffer from it and he steals only for a good cause... :D
-
ever heard of guy called Robin Hood? :D
he was chaotic-good
it still causes suffering, but chaotic side allows that...
-
Stealing is as evil as magic or swords. It depends on how you use it. You can steal stuff like watches or gold or you can steal something a person can\'t live without. It\'s the ones who use it, and not the act itself, that are evil.
-
well neither it\'s good... so one\'s good side won\'t push him to stealing :P
-
but like I said the person robbed doesnt miss the things stolen from him. So the thief is really not causing any suffering...just brings happiness to the ones he helps. ;)
Thanx for taking your time anwering
-
Well of course the golden ring you steal of that fat rich merchant in way too expensive clothes could have a very sentimental value. As it remembers him to his just passed senile mother who sold everything including their food which made the other childs starve to death only so he could fulfill his dream.
OT: good and evil is of course in the eye of the beholder, stuff like neutral good is somewhat limiting. I think you just have to play your character in the way you think he is.
-
your still not lawful in anyway of stealing.
By whose laws? Thats my point, if you are assuming the setting is the standard sort where stealing and murder is illegal than that holds true. But like Redmonk\'s example there may be a case where the laws of the land permit such things (fantasy can be anything right? ;) )
Also perhaps the disconnect here is that I am assuming general fantasy not strictly D&D of any addition. Even if it were strictly D&D its still DM\'s discretion, if she creates her own world instead of using a mod anything goes no?
I agree with Ionas its all in the eye of the beholder ( no not the floating eyeball monster :P )
-
Again, the guy doesnt even notice he has been robbed!...so he cant miss the ring with very sentimental value that his mother gave him... ;)
-
that doesn\'t change anything...
both when someone noticed or not,
guy stole to do good -> chaotic-good
-
Hell notice when he looks at his finger. And is very likely to place a huge bounty on the thief and ring. Which could have its benefits, since you can just return the ring with a random victim.
-
Originally posted by TheRedMonk
Again, the guy doesnt even notice he has been robbed!...so he cant miss the ring with very sentimental value that his mother gave him... ;)
Very flawed logic. He will miss it as soon as he looks for it.
Taking from others without their consent is, of course, never good, no matter how much Sangwa may construe it to be so. :P
-
I meant a wrestling ring...not a finger ring :D Thanx guys for helping a confused fellow who doesnt get much about chaotic, lawful and rings... ;) and whats up with all these fruit wars...Cant understand whats so funny about it...its like \"I p0wn you!\"...\"no! Lemon rewls Oranges!\"...anyway...as long as you have fun a guess its ok ;)
(and oh...who said he was wearing the ring???)
-
It\'s not evil, if the one who stole it didn\'t have the intention to cause suffering. It\'s not good, but it isn\'t evil aswell.
It\'s as evil as buying the ring, since the objective is the same (to aquire the ring) but the method used is Chaotic.
PS: Hey Monketh! You make me look bad! I don\'t construct things! =P =P =P
-
Ok, so this is basically what we\'ve heard for the last several posts, and I also looked on one site. According to the site:
It does not depend on the act that is good or evil. Actually:
If it strengthens the neighbourhood, populace, world, etc., it should be considered good.
If it weakens the neighbourhood, populace, world, etc., it should be considered good.
And also, how Monketh said that taking things from others are never good.
What if a paladin stole a great artifact of evil from a dark mage? That would be considered good because he is preventing the mage from damaging whatever he has in mind. However, if the paladin stole the artifact to use it for himself, it can be considered evil. But maybe not, because maybe his intention is to do something good.
Even if the paladin was lawful good, stealing an artifact in order to save the world is probably not against his code, especially since its from an evil character.
Another thing, you have to look at evil and good from different perspectives. Lets say a King ordered a genocide on a bunch of lepers in order to save the rest of his people from leoprosy. To his people, he\'s a hero. To the lepers, he\'s a crazy, senile, cruel, etc. tyrant.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Besides that, I also have an opinion on true neutrality. Whoever is true netural doesn\'t nessacarily mean he acts to give gains to himself. Doesn\'t it mean he strives to balance good and evil so that one side doesn\'t become too exsistent? There aren\'t many characters like this, especially among humans(because of their natural chaotic/changing ways), and even among other races, it is extremely rare.
---------------------------------------------------------------
WHEW! That was my third and longest post ever lol. Thx for hearing me out.
-
Originally posted by Flamin_Newb
What if a paladin stole a great artifact of evil from a dark mage?
If paladin does such thing, his GM removes nice number of exp from the character for playing against role ;)
Originally posted by Flamin_Newb
Even if the paladin was lawful good, stealing an artifact in order to save the world is probably not against his code
yes, stealing is very honorary thing, isn\'t it? ;)
Part of paladin\'s code from some website:Honor: Be forthright and have integrity in all things. Do not lie, cheat or steal. Do not use poison or other dishonorable tactics. Do not take an unfair advantage in combat. Likewise, do not let people take unfair advantage of you.
[/color]
-
Originally posted by Draklar
yes, stealing is very honorary thing, isn\'t it? ;)
Part of paladin\'s code from some website:Honor: Be forthright and have integrity in all things. Do not lie, cheat or steal. Do not use poison or other dishonorable tactics. Do not take an unfair advantage in combat. Likewise, do not let people take unfair advantage of you.
[/color]
So killing an evil wizard is allowed but stealing his evil weapon of mass destruction isnt?
Yes i see the sense in that :)
Has anyone yet mentioned that there is also a scale of evilness/goodness/neutralness? Since someone might be very evil or only slightly evil.
Falming_newb, i think you mean that weakening the neigborhood is evil. Otherwise it could be fun being good, killing the townsfolk while saying i do it all for the purpose of the goodness ;)
And i think of being neutral as being like most of us are in real life, just living their lives not doing much evil or good.