What is your prefered character type?

[Walsingham]

Leaving aside the fact that the mob rarely stick to their precious code outside of the movies and purely social occasions...

 

If you stick your own purely personal code of ethics buyt try to benefit the weak and helpless? My grandad mike was reknowned for the fact that whenever he saw a fight he would work out who was going to lose, and jump in on their side. Was he good, or just drunk? Family history indicates the latter. Should we have a new refinement? Drunk Good.?

 

Hoboes might qualify as Drunk Neutral. Wifebeaters as drunk evil.

[metadigital]

No offence, but your grandfather sounds more like like "Stupid Good"; getting into a fight for an unknown cause, and supporting someone simply because you wish to prevent the other side from winning sounds like a recipe for disaster. I hope, for his sake, your grandfather was a good fighter.

[Lord Tingeling]

There is a D&D comedy bit.  It's pretty funny.  One small bit from it goes something like this...

 

I wanna cast...Magic missile!

Why do you want to cast magic missile, there's nothing to attack here.

I...I'm attacking the darkness!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Can I have a mountain dew?

[abkhome]

for the kotor games i prefer

 

Kotor 1: Male - Light Side - Soldier - Jedi Guardian....

 

Kotor 2: Male - Light Side - Jedi Guardian - Jedi Weapon Master....

[metadigital]

for the kotor games i prefer

 

Kotor 1: Male - Light Side - Soldier - Jedi Guardian....

 

Kotor 2: Male - Light Side - Jedi Guardian - Jedi Weapon Master....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Roger]

[metadigital]

That's a lot of Ford Foci ...

[Guest Fishboot]

When I play a brand new, unknown quantity game I usually play a basher-type warrior, just because even the most obtuse developer makes content that dovetails with the basher archetype. As far as personality I usually play a scrupulous, personable do-gooder for the same reason; there's always content for it (and it helps my fake world conscience that in my "authentic playthrough", before I hit the faqs and such to make sure that I've ferreted out every morsel of content good or evil, that I don't do anything too fiendish).

 

I actually hurt my KotOR2 experience a lot by deviating from this script and starting off as a misanthropist darksider, and - not understanding that the influence system basically means that you should reload when you get an "Influence Lost" message, since Influence is a content hurdle rather than an interactivity feature - missed huge chunks of the game.

[EnderAndrew]

When I play a brand new, unknown quantity game I usually play a basher-type warrior, just because even the most obtuse developer makes content that dovetails with the basher archetype. As far as personality I usually play a scrupulous, personable do-gooder for the same reason; there's always content for it (and it helps my fake world conscience that in my "authentic playthrough", before I hit the faqs and such to make sure that I've ferreted out every morsel of content good or evil, that I don't do anything too fiendish).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I often play basher-types from a build perspective, though not from a role-play perspective.

 

I firmly believe that even if your concept is not of a combat-whore, one should build a combat-whore so that you can survive and play your concept.

[Master Gallen]

Back to my previous question:

 

is a vigilante like Dirty Harry chaotic good, or Lawful Evil ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hmm.... it depends on your point of view Meta.

 

To me, sometimes the law itself is "evil" (in real life, mind you). So the laws in a video game are more of an advisory--a guideline if you will. Overall meant to be for the good of people, but like anything else, it needs to be considered before one blindly accepts it. Helping people ease their suffering and righting the wrongs of tyrants in power is my M.O. I would view my character, in your words, as chaotic good.

[metadigital]

Ah, but what if a tyrant is a benevolent dictator, whose munificent bounties provide stablity and self-fulfilment for all the citizens (aside from the most extreme political ones, of course)?

 

What is the price for a societies happiness; so long as the tyrant isn't Vlad the Impaler, Ivan the Terrible or Saddam Hussein; if the tyrant is Baba, Mahatma Ghandi or the Dalai Lama?

 

Are all tyrants bad?

[Baley]

Why was Vlad The Impaler as bad as Ivan the Terrible and Saddam Hussein ?

 

You must know very little about him.

 

And from biased sources....

[Walsingham]

No offence, but your grandfather sounds more like like "Stupid Good"; getting into a fight for an unknown cause, and supporting someone simply because you wish to prevent the other side from winning sounds like a recipe for disaster. I hope, for his sake, your grandfather was a good fighter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

No offence taken. He wasn't completely stupid. He had a thing for supporting the little guy. Generally, bar fights being what they are its a fairly good bet that if you see a random fight, the guy who is being panned wasn't at fault. Not always truie, but good enough.

 

And yes, he was a very good fighter, inasmuch as he fought all the time, but he had his looks intact. He was Irish, and travelled to the UK to sign up at the very start of the war, because he figured we'd start by losing, and sure enough he was right. He got invalided out of a British regt. with a whisky ulcer, which he decided was stupid (how fit do you have to be to get shot by Germans?), made his own way to South West Africa and re-enlisted where they couldn't know his medical history. We don't know what got him in the end, but he died on active service.

 

He also canoed across the English channel prior to the war. A strange man, but not a bad chap.

[Master Gallen]

Ah, but what if a tyrant is a benevolent dictator, whose munificent bounties provide stablity and self-fulfilment for all the citizens (aside from the most extreme political ones, of course)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

That kind sir, seems to be a contradiction in personality types. I just can't see someone being both.

 

Are all tyrants bad?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

By definition, yes.

 

edit: I do like how you raised your points though, at what cost indeed. Haha...Brain jerky does a body good. :D

[Walsingham]

Ivan the Terrible began as Ivan the Good. He was an incredibly nice guy for the first part of his reign (by local standards). Then, around the time he married his second wife he went batshot crazy. Began poking people, including his son, to death with his sceptre and generally being unbelievably unpleasant. Founded a 'dark monastic order' or secret police-****-special forces who went about making certain that everyone feared him.

 

If you have trouble believing people can be evil, I suggest you start with him.

[Master Gallen]

If you have trouble believing people can be evil, I suggest you start with him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not sure if that was directed towards me, but...

 

I don't know anybody who doesn't agree that there are some people that are evil and twisted in this world. But being an evil tyrant and a kind person at the same time??? Bah! Don't see it...well unless perhaps they suffered from multiple personalities. The crazy factor always throws a wrench in logic.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Ah, but what if a tyrant is a benevolent dictator, whose munificent bounties provide stablity and self-fulfilment for all the citizens (aside from the most extreme political ones, of course)?

 

What is the price for a societies happiness; so long as the tyrant isn't Vlad the Impaler, Ivan the Terrible or Saddam Hussein; if the tyrant is Baba, Mahatma Ghandi or the Dalai Lama?

 

Are all tyrants bad?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First conscientisation, then exercise of political rights, is part of the human development of everyone. As a tyrant prevents this from happening, his actions can be said to be bad or evil.

 

He may of course be full of good intentions and a decent person - which case it might be more accurate to describe him as a dictator, since the word tyrant itself has evil connotations. Or he may be insane, or a genuinely evil person. But tyranny itself is bad.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Ivan the Terrible began as Ivan the Good. He was an incredibly nice guy for the first part of his reign (by local standards). Then, around the time he married his second wife he went batshot crazy. Began poking people, including his son, to death with his sceptre and generally being unbelievably unpleasant.  Founded a 'dark monastic order' or secret police-****-special forces who went about making certain that everyone feared him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First rule of politics - bribe the historians.

[EnderAndrew]

Just kill the historians and appoint new ones. Then you save the bribe money.

[Walsingham]

If the last couple of years have taught us anything it is that people believe what they want to believe. They don't even ASK historians.

 

*mutter mutter*

[metadigital]

Why was Vlad The Impaler as bad as Ivan the Terrible and Saddam Hussein ?

 

You must know very little about him.

 

And from biased sources....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The give-away is in the name ... "

If you have trouble believing people can be evil, I suggest you start with him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not sure if that was directed towards me, but...

 

I don't know anybody who doesn't agree that there are some people that are evil and twisted in this world. But being an evil tyrant and a kind person at the same time??? Bah! Don't see it...well unless perhaps they suffered from multiple personalities. The crazy factor always throws a wrench in logic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I take it you have no problem with the postulate that a good person can be a bad ruler, correct?

A sociopathic personality type is actually well-suited to leadership; some ridiculously high percentage of business executives have some form of sociopathy. Nevertheless, try and take a leader's power away, and a winsome personality may fade to the underlying lust for power that it masked, whilst there was no threat to the power.

 

Take Zimbabwe; Mugabe ruled for decades without mishap or serious complaint; then, when it looked like he was to lose power, he began to change. He adopted Saddam Hussein's tactics, using them in an African context (rather than Arabic): by this I mean he attacked the "West" in such a way that he scared off the other African leaders (who are the only ones who might have an influence on his leadership) by becoming "more black than black". His logic, which seems to have been bourne out in the public attitudes in Africa, is that anyone criticizing him would be a white-supremicism-sympathizer, a lick-spittle to the colonial overlords.

 

The result is that he has turned a once normal democracy into a despotic tyrany; those in his favour rape those he disfavours of political power and material assets (like the white farmers).

 

Right, so now let's consider a nasty person who is a good leader. Well, according to our old friend Machievelli and his seminal advice in The Prince, it behooves a leader to rule the people so they remain happy and productive. In other words, to keep a long and successful reign, the sovereign needs to give something back to the people. Feeding the people stops civil unrest, which will unseat the sovereign faster than a rival.

[Master Gallen]

I take it you have no problem with the postulate that a good person can be a bad ruler, correct?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Correct. I believe that people would agree that the general consensus in being a "good person" is to be kind to your fellow man or woman. That opinion has nothing to do with your leadership skills, or lack there of.

 

 

In other words, to keep a long and successful reign, the sovereign needs to give something back to the people. Feeding the people stops civil unrest, which will unseat the sovereign faster than a rival.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not following you Meta. Were you meaning to offer both sides of the coin?

[metadigital]

Right. What I mean is:

 

It is in the best interest of the sovereign to keep the people well and moderately contented (or at least not so malcontented that they would risk death through insurrection rather than lead their current lives).

 

So, life under a "selfish" tyrant (which is just a word meaning single autonomous rule) might be less nasty than under a "nice guy". It is in the interests of the leader to keep the society ticking over. No-one wants to be Pol Pot.

[Walsingham]

I agree with Archbishop Desmond Tutu's assessment of Bob, when he said that he was once one of Africa's rising stars, offering much hope for the future, but seemed to have since "...gone bonkers in a big way".

 

I personally think he has tertiary stage syphillis, like Hitler had. Hence all the hand rubbing, and the general persecution complex/insanity.

 

This brings up an important question

 

"What can change the nature of a man?"

 

i.e. what hope do we ever have of altering our nature, and what can cause it to happen?

 

Which, shockingly actually relates to role-playing.

[Lancer]

Man.. Has it been some time since I posted. I normally DM but if I were a player I would go with a fighter type. Playing a character that has no recollection of his past is always lots of fun as games such as the BG series, KOTOR, and Planescape have proven.