Medieval & Fantasy Minecraft Roleplaying
Greetings Explorer, Navigate into the Lobby!
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Be sure to "Get Whitelisted" to join the community on server!
-
Greetings Guest, Welcome to our Medieval Roleplaying Server, HollowWorld! Get Whitelisted Today and join us! Then check out our Starter Guide made just for you.
-
Keep up-to-date on the Server Campaigns!
-
Here's a guide to the Prestige plugin! Read it here.
-
To purchase property at Storm's Landing, Please Click Here!
-
Hey, Guest! Contribute to the Server to keep us Alive!
Alignment issues
- Thread starter Spear
- Start date
Yoda
Lord of Altera
*he may have some odd feelings for Johnny Depp so he doesn't regard what you're saying*
Yoda
Lord of Altera
God dangit cereal.
Ephemarel
Lord of Altera
Doing it.
C
Cubey
Guest
Blame my Mistress, Spear?
Angryboy
Natus de Aurum; Natus ex bellum
I think Elazar (And quite a number of Arcturians in general) would be classified as Good - Neutral - Guardians.
The whole concept of worshipping Harateth as our main God means we are more in line with the Good side, rather than Evil, and we are also (quite obviously) Guardians of Altera, rather than Agents of Grief.
That being said, I've seen characters in Arcturus ranging between lawful and chaotic.
I would say Elazar would be closer to the chaotic side (But not so chaotic as to kill Demons on sight without at LEAST giving them a chance to return to the Nether first).
And now I notice that the entire thread has derailed.
The whole concept of worshipping Harateth as our main God means we are more in line with the Good side, rather than Evil, and we are also (quite obviously) Guardians of Altera, rather than Agents of Grief.
That being said, I've seen characters in Arcturus ranging between lawful and chaotic.
I would say Elazar would be closer to the chaotic side (But not so chaotic as to kill Demons on sight without at LEAST giving them a chance to return to the Nether first).
And now I notice that the entire thread has derailed.
Wikipedia on D&D Alignments said:
Angryboy
Natus de Aurum; Natus ex bellum
This is going by Spear's definition on the Lawful/Chaotic spectrum.
It depends entirely on who we are lawful to. For example, if Lonmar still held the Crown, we wouldn't be anywhere near as Lawful (To the Crown) due to the fact they were our enemies during the GoC.
The Lawful/Chaotic (By D&D standards) would be more like Spear's Guardian/Agent scale, wouldn't it?
It depends entirely on who we are lawful to. For example, if Lonmar still held the Crown, we wouldn't be anywhere near as Lawful (To the Crown) due to the fact they were our enemies during the GoC.
The Lawful/Chaotic (By D&D standards) would be more like Spear's Guardian/Agent scale, wouldn't it?
pyrocide
The Mogul of Cromarcky
Please Spear, let's get this thread fixed.... more people are getting confused!
angry, looks like you read the first post and skipped to the end to reply, which is what I was fearing people would do. Faelin's quote is the correct alignment description... in fact, Fae, could you post all nine alignment descriptions? That would be awesome, and much more eloquent than what I wrote.
If that's okay with Spear, I don't want to hijack his thread.
apollo6000
Lord of Altera
If this just confuses more people feel free to delete it.
Lawful
Lawful
- Lawful Good - You follow the laws to the letter. Killing is not on your agenda, nor is hurting
- Lawful Neutral - You follow the laws but feel they may be bent a little. You kill if it is in your favor but you may not feel right about it, same with injuring.
- Lawful Chaotic - You may follow the laws you may not, who cares?! Killing and injuring, meh.
- Neutral Good - The laws are bendable. You wont generally want to kill or injure but if needed it must be done.
- True Neutral - You have your own rules. You don't really want to kill or injure but, hey if its needed it is.
- Chaotic Neutral - Your rules are your own. Killing people, injuring them? No problem!
- Chaotic Good - You may follow the laws you may not, who cares?! Killing and injuring, meh.
- Chaotic Neutral - Your rules are your own. Killing people, injuring them? No problem!
- Chaotic Evil - DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE. What are these rules you speak of?!?!?! Everyone must die!!!!
apollo6000
Lord of Altera
May have sniped Faelin without knowing....If that's okay with Spear, I don't want to hijack his thread.
Edit: Feel free to post a more descriptive one than mine
pyrocide
The Mogul of Cromarcky
The difference is that Faelin was posting the actual definition from the source of where the alignment table comes from. This reference is sorely needed, as some people still seem to think Lawful Chaotic is an actual alignment.
(Btw, it's Lawful Good (LG), Lawful Neutral (LN), Lawful Evil (LE), Chaotic Good (CG), Chaotic Neutral (CN), Chaotic Evil (CE), and simply Neutral, sometimes called "True" Neutral (N, sometimes TN).)
(Btw, it's Lawful Good (LG), Lawful Neutral (LN), Lawful Evil (LE), Chaotic Good (CG), Chaotic Neutral (CN), Chaotic Evil (CE), and simply Neutral, sometimes called "True" Neutral (N, sometimes TN).)
Angryboy
Natus de Aurum; Natus ex bellum
I actually did read the whole thread, including your post, hence why I said
Angryboy
Natus de Aurum; Natus ex bellum
The problem with the chart is that its based on D&D and traditional roleplaying games.
This is Altera.
We have Good Gods. We have Bad Gods.
We have people who follow the Law to the letter. We have people who play by their own rules.
We have people who follow their Gods (Whether good or bad). We have people who serve Queen Grief.
The chart is more of a guideline than actual rules.
If every RP (Game, movie, book, your imagination) follow it exactly, then it would get way too predictable and boring.
This is Altera.
We have Good Gods. We have Bad Gods.
We have people who follow the Law to the letter. We have people who play by their own rules.
We have people who follow their Gods (Whether good or bad). We have people who serve Queen Grief.
The chart is more of a guideline than actual rules.
If every RP (Game, movie, book, your imagination) follow it exactly, then it would get way too predictable and boring.
Lord_Sinclair
Lord of Altera
pyrocide
The Mogul of Cromarcky
*sigh*
In every setting in DnD:
This is (insert setting here).
We have Good Gods. We have Bad Gods.
We have people who follow the Law to the letter. We have people who play by their own rules.
We have people who follow their Gods (Whether good or bad). We have people who serve terrible demons that want to wipe out all life.
And because you think that different gods and supernatural forces requires a different alignment table shows you don't quite understand the alignment table. It has nothing to do with specific good and evil gods. It doesn't matter who the law enforcers are. All it matters is that your character has free will, and whether he respects life, tradition, and custom, or doesn't.
And yes, the alignment table is a guideline. A good man can give into an evil impulse once, and still be a good man in his heart (and probably is ashamed of his evil act). Now, if he starts taking the evil path more than on a few very stressful/pivotal moments, he's neutral, and probably turning evil if he starts to enjoy doing evil acts.
I hope that helps you understand better.
edit:
Sinclair, the alignment table isn't meant to simply "label" people. It is a guide to help you understand your character better. When faced with a difficult decision, you can look to your character's alignment and ask yourself "What would a Lawful Good person do?" (or whatever alignment you may be). It does also help identity the character to others when reading character pages. It is much simpler to say "Alignment: CG" than "Alignment: My character tries to seek out those in need and help them however he can, even if it means stealing a loaf of bread to feed hungry peasants. He's never felt at home in the courts, and most high society, despite his noble birth. ect ect ect..."
In every setting in DnD:
This is (insert setting here).
We have Good Gods. We have Bad Gods.
We have people who follow the Law to the letter. We have people who play by their own rules.
We have people who follow their Gods (Whether good or bad). We have people who serve terrible demons that want to wipe out all life.
And because you think that different gods and supernatural forces requires a different alignment table shows you don't quite understand the alignment table. It has nothing to do with specific good and evil gods. It doesn't matter who the law enforcers are. All it matters is that your character has free will, and whether he respects life, tradition, and custom, or doesn't.
And yes, the alignment table is a guideline. A good man can give into an evil impulse once, and still be a good man in his heart (and probably is ashamed of his evil act). Now, if he starts taking the evil path more than on a few very stressful/pivotal moments, he's neutral, and probably turning evil if he starts to enjoy doing evil acts.
I hope that helps you understand better.
edit:
Sinclair, the alignment table isn't meant to simply "label" people. It is a guide to help you understand your character better. When faced with a difficult decision, you can look to your character's alignment and ask yourself "What would a Lawful Good person do?" (or whatever alignment you may be). It does also help identity the character to others when reading character pages. It is much simpler to say "Alignment: CG" than "Alignment: My character tries to seek out those in need and help them however he can, even if it means stealing a loaf of bread to feed hungry peasants. He's never felt at home in the courts, and most high society, despite his noble birth. ect ect ect..."