From: n9046319@fozzie.cc.wwu.edu (Jeremy Corley)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: New D&D Alignment ...
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:57:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: fozzie.n9046319.721418266
Organization: Western Washington University

stv@unislc.uucp (Steve Spencer) writes:

>Tom Walcott (friar@spock.uucp) wrote:
>: >Sounds like Chaotic Neutral to me.
>: >Some players think CN means to "keep the balance in a chaotic way".
>: >The way I see it, a CN person is partially insane (aren't we all?) and does
>: >_exactly_ as he pleases - at the moment. 
>: >One second later, however, he may do the opposite - just for fun. It's a very 
>: >hard alinment to play.
>: >
>: Yes, but I think CN is forced to balance out his evil with his good, in a
>: choatic fashion.  I think that Ammoral characters would end up just doing
>: what they want.  It's pretty much taking the Neutral part out, and being
>: simply chaotic.  (Not to sound like D&D).  
>: 
>I wholeheartedly disagree. To worry about rather you good is balancing with
>your evil, and all that sort of jibberish is by no means chaotic. To worry
>about such things is defenitely a form of lawful tendencies. Okay, I'm not
>exactly sure if the books agree with me on this, but here's how I see it:
>Good= good
>Evil= evil
>Neutral= Neither good nor evil (but not neccessarily a "keep the balance"
>	granola head).
>Choas= doing action without forethought. Acting on impulse.
>Law= planning things, and seeing how they affect other things

>THUS:
>Chaotic/Neutral= Acts without forethought, as long as the goodness, or
>		evilness of the deed is outside of the scope of neutrality.
>		(which really gives you a lot of leeway to either side).
>		This is basically what most people are. The take each choice
>		one at a time, and may at times tend to be greedy.
>Lawful/Neutral= Are worried about how their neutrality effects the "big 
>		picture". Now these people are your "keep the balance"
>		granola heads.
>True Neutral=   Now this is a hard one to pin down. Basically, I'd say that 
>		a true neutral keeps a good/evil balance in their life, but
>		will not generally be concerned with how that good/evil fits
>		in with their surroundings. ie. they will not tend to act
>		more toward the evil side if they are around good people
>		(where a LAWFUL/NEUTRAL might). They will simply keep their
>		OWN balance.
>So basically, I would say the new alignment is unneeded.

>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>It's the sputter of a raindrop. It's the sunlight on my face
>My mind's eye into other realms. It's my paradise escape. 

>Steve Spencer	SLC, Utah 	stv@unislc.slc.unisys.com

	I thought this would fall under evil.  Someone who is
selfish enough to do "whatever he damn well pleases".  I do
however agree the a True Neutral person does not have to _actively_
be Neutral.  This is the way I see it:

	Good = Helps out others.
	Evil = selfish or (at the extreme) sadistic.
	Neutral = a little of both.

	Lawful = has some code of conduct, ie organized
	Chaotic = no code of conduct.
	Neutral = a little of both.

	If one of these is neutral then usually the other
is strong.

	examples:

	LG - self explanitory, Helps people and probly has
		a code of ethics and laws.

	LN - Law and order type, or can help or hurt others, but
		will keep word.

	LE - Uses laws to advantage, or to punish.  Some knights
		could fall under this even if under a "good" king
		because they abuse or push their power over others
		even though they remain within the laws.

	NG - likes to help others, will keep word a lot of the time, but
		no real code of honor or any such thing.

	N - This is the guy who will help people sometimes (even if not to
		his advantage) and get things for himself at others.  Maybe
		a limited sence of honor.

	NE - Limited form of honor, tries to keep word sometimes, may have a
		small sence of honor.  Generally very selfish or sadistic.

	CG - Will break word in a blink.  Has little/no honor, but does things
		to help others.

	CN - No honor code at all and will help people sometimes, sometimes not.
		Very unrealiable.

	CE - No honor code at all, very selfish or sadistic, will break word
        	without a thought.

	Notes:  Lawful people do not always have to follow the laws of the land.
	Lawful only means that they have a personal sence of honor.  Thus a man
	who is an outlaw like robin hood who steals from the rich and gives to
	the poor, but will never stab a man in the back or break his word will
	be LG.

	By these rules, G-N-E is just a sence of morality, and _not_ some inherant
	trait, thus a paladin cannot "detect" them.

	These are directed to the types of campains I run where there are no
	"good/evil" struggles it merely depends on which side you're on.  Ever
	take a look at dnd from a goblin's perspective?  Adventurers are constantly
	breaking down _their_ doors killing all their families and taking everuthing
	they own.
		The ultimate racism occurs in dnd when these creatures are labeled
	"CE" and such.  I think that there would be good goblins and bad ones when
	you have a race of so many (before you go making assumptions about why I'm
	making this point you should know I'm a male WASP.)  I can see labeling a
	government, but a race?

		I also throw out much of the "evil demon" crap.  I can see these
	beings as just being from another plane and trying to gain power by using
	us "foreigners", but I find it real thin to think they do it "just because
	they're evil".  Does that pay alot? Maybe it has a good retirement plan.

	Sorry, but my bad guys have to have a _reason_ for what they do...

	Just my $0.02.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Senator Kennedy, What are you going to do about the abortion bill?"
"Pay it, I guess."
				J. Corley
			n9046319@henson.cc.wwu.edu