Alignment

[Blank]

The only way it makes sense is if Hades was relating a tactic to us, where he would go in first, get everyone to follow, and then run back. Such an action would be setting up his teammates to be in more danger than him, and in turn, the tactic or Hades can be labled lawful evil.

Edited September 3, 2006 by Blank

[metadigital]

Yeah, but everyone knows that Hades is Chaotic ...

[Jorian Drake]

I am Chaotic Lawful !

[Blank]

Yeah, but everyone knows that Hades is Chaotic ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Anyway, I want to know when we will get another PnP game going. CoF was thinking of DMing a CoC thing...

Edited September 7, 2006 by Blank

[DGwar]

Chaotic Nuetral would be the only D&D alignment that would allow you to do whatever you wanted....

[Maria Caliban]

Atreides:

 

"What kind of alignment are we looking at for a character like the Punisher? The dude's got a righteous cause - fighting on the side of justice but the methods he employs are pretty badass themself."

 

I've mused upon this hypothetical for some time now - approximately the time it took me to read the thread - and can come to only a single conclusion: The Punisher is Lawful Evil.

 

All other answers are false and I fear they are not given in good faith.

[metadigital]

Not sure anyone is guilty of not giving answers in good faith ...

 

 

... BUT, what about Dirty Harry?

[Atreides]

Thanks for the replies guys. What's up with the lawful btw? The Punisher isn't motivated by obeying the law. If anything he should have a chaotic swing, right?

[alanschu]

He believes he is enforcing a Law that is way to lax.

 

It's like Vhailor, the Lawful Neutral Mercykiller of Torment!

[Pop]

Funny, I always considered vigilantism to be chaotic. Then again, he's not really out to do "good" per se. The "do whatever it takes to get it done" alignment is lawful neutral. Hard to tell, really.

 

Things like this are the problem with the D&D system <_< Although admittedly, the Punisher's moral universe is probably too muddled/complex to apply the order/alignment scale to.

Edited October 3, 2006 by Pop

[alanschu]

The impression I get with the Punisher is he is all about justice. I guess he's a bit different than Vhailor as there are laws that the Punisher breaks, but Vhailor seems like the best comparable to him...someone who's actions are dictated by laws, and judgment in particular.

[Dark_Raven]

Not sure anyone is guilty of not giving answers in good faith ...

 

 

... BUT, what about Dirty Harry?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lawful Neutral. He believes in upholding the law but does not always go for the "good" approach to it.

[Darque]

Funny, I always considered vigilantism to be chaotic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Very curious.

 

Chaotic people wouldn't care if laws were broken.

 

I'd see someone taking that path as being on the Lawful Neutral/Neutral Good axis.

[Pop]

I dunno, someone who would see the law as being wrong and would rather break it than change it, or someone who feels that the law doesn't do enough and that criminals and wrongdoers are best dealt with outside the law, I would see as chaotic. They forsake the law to accomplish their goals. I think a lawful neutral character would possibly break the law in order to maintain it (if that makes any sense), but the Punisher doesn't really do that.

 

I find that Lawful characters are hard to play for this reason. They tend to think in terms of categorical imperatives, and that makes for some interesting ethical considerations. Obviously, there are going to be times when law is unable to deal with a threat or wrong, and that presents a pretty big problem for a lawful character. rulz r hard.

Edited October 3, 2006 by Pop

[Darque]

But are they really breaking it? Or enforcing the law as they believe it to be?

[Blank]

I think these characters defy the system. The punisher does good things in general, but uses "evil" means to do them. He doesn't abide by the government's laws, but abides by an ulterior ideal of law that he invents himself.

 

And if you are willing to do bad in order to do good, are you really totally good anymore? And if you abide by rules but only you abide by them and only you know of them, are you really lawful?

[Pop]

So far as I understand it, the D&D chaos/law alignment system is based on external, societal law. At least according to the conventional definition of the alignment, chaotic good characters can have their own personal ethical codes, they just happen to not jibe with external law, and if they have to choose between the two they'll choose the latter. Lawful characters will choose the former.

 

That's the textbook example, anyway. As a player and a DM, it's always been hard to put those alignment archetypes into practice There's always a situation in which it would be preferrable to be one or the other. It's actually much harder to be neutral, imo. It's really not pragmatic to consciously try and balance between the extremes.

[Darque]

This is why I included Neutral good in the example.

 

Neutral goods tend to do good (such as shooting a bad guy in the head. " ) even if it's against the law... because it was the "right thing" to do.

 

So maybe this kinda thing is just a pure N/G thing.

[Atreides]

I dunno, is Punisher Chaotic Good? Chaotic Neutral?

[metadigital]

So far as I understand it, the D&D chaos/law alignment system is based on external, societal law. At least according to the conventional definition of the alignment, chaotic good characters can have their own personal ethical codes, they just happen to not jibe with external law, and if they have to choose between the two they'll choose the latter. Lawful characters will choose the former.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, my understanding is that "Lawful" refers to an external, societal law. After all, a character would be completely irrationally unpredictable if they didn't adhere to some sort of ethical framework, even if it was just that their good overrides all other concerns.

 

So Paladin Prada would sooner renounce her knighthood than break a code of law, even if that code of law would result in greater good for everyone.

 

The corollary is that a Chaotic person will do whatever is required for an ultimate requirement (good, evil or cosmic balance), rather than to just follow a code of ethics.

 

Now the dilemma is that Dirty Harry / the Punisher are trying to defeat evil by any means necessary ... but it might be for ultimate good OR for spite to prevent another evil being from prospering ... it's all in the intent.

 

So the characters could be Chaotic/Neutral Good OR Lawful Evil/Neutral, I think.

[Walsingham]

Isn't the point of the story, and at least some of the interest arising from teh fact that he may be either? I tought that was how they wrote the stories. Another example would be Dredd. In some stories he's this cretinous fascist. In others h's the only way to get stuff done.

[metadigital]

Yes.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Ive got a really detailed and geeky question:

 

 

In D&D, you can use spellcraft to figure out which spell an opponent casts and detect magic to see magical objects etc. But is there any way to see what deity fuels a divine spell? (except seeing what symbol he is waving and if hes shouting "the power of Gruumsh comples you!" )

 

Like, could you see if a cleric follows Tyr or Helm just by feeling the spell? Could a Tyr cleric fool people to believe he is a Nerull cleric?

Edited October 6, 2006 by Kaftan Barlast

[Pop]

That's a good question :|

 

In FR, I believe Cyric had an ability that could mask his followers' connection to him, but other than that, I don't think you can trace it through magic. All deities had to give spell power to their followers through Mystra's weave, so I don't know if you could trace a spell back to them or back to Mystra.

 

On the other hand, I thought that all clerics couldn't cast spells without a holy symbol of their deity.

Edited October 6, 2006 by Pop

[metadigital]

Don't they usually adopt a walking billboard posture anyway, like a bunch of teenagers slathered in logos? Certainly Paladins like to trumpet their allegiance.