Seeking Clarification on - Gorethar and Goretharian Law

jadeia · Post by **jadeia** » Tue Apr 15, 2003 4:10 am

Palladins are just pussies with big swords.. *evil grin at Kaelyn*

KinX · Post by **KinX** » Tue Apr 15, 2003 7:44 am

jadeia wrote:Palladins are just pussies with big swords.. *evil grin at Kaelyn*

funnily enough, Kaelyn doesn't use swords...

Spell Singer · Post by **Spell Singer** » Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:01 am

On the ends justify the means... sigh, the arguement is morally bankrupt for crying out loud and last I checked good people had morals. There is that saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" well if you start pulling out "ends justify the means" arguements you are not on the road to hell you are doing 230 km/h in the express lane. No one uses this argument except to justify doing something they know is wrong in the first place. And doing something you know is wrong is not something a good person should be doing.

The law-chaos axis is a modifier to the good-evil axis it always has been and it always will be. And law and chaos in D&D have little to do with the meaning of the words. Law means you are of the mind set "the needs of the many exceed in value the needs of the one", chaos is the other way around. Lawful good looks to the good of the society while chaotic good looks to the good of the individual. But neither emphises that above goodness. A CG person is no more likely to engage in an evil act than is a LG person, and a NG absolutely not they are keen on "goodness"...well NG and NE are not very understandable in D&D anyway since the person probably is NG(with lawful tendancies) for example rather than "neutral" good.

Now as to what Janur said. Well speaking for Kaelyn he is a combination of the two. He does not act without making sure that all the points of his checklist are filled in. He give a lot of thought to ensuring he is doing the correct thing but once his decision chain is complete then he does what he thinks is right. Without a doubt calling him selfrightous is correct. And he does not count cost when he does what he thinks is right. He does it, to be frank playing that is the hardest part of playing Kaelyn.

As for the peanut gallery comment, that is addressed to Vian I suspect. Kaelyn knows enough about swords not to grab the sharp part and that is it, Vian runs around with the big sword.

WrathOG777 · Post by **WrathOG777** » Tue Apr 15, 2003 7:19 pm

>"As a rule, "good" is the concern for the welfare of
other sentient creatures. "Evil" is the inverse, a lack of concern for the
welfare of others."

What spellsinger is describing is Good vs evil. Above is in the desciption about alignment here http://boards.blackdagger.com/viewtopic.php?t=7813 . Below is part of the law/chaos description.

>"The ethical component of the character's alignment is where he stands
between law and chaos. Lawful characters view the world as essentially
ordered, or at least a place where order must be established and maintained. Chaotic characters see no such order, and usually disdain its establishment unless necessary. "

Folks keep bring up the example of breaking some rule as 'evil'. Good and evil have nothing to do with rules. NO act in itself is good or evil, it is the intentions that are good or evil. That is exactly why a game cannot accurately give good vs evil alignment shifts progamaticaly.

Vanor · Post by **Vanor** » Tue Apr 15, 2003 10:31 pm

Spell Singer wrote:The law-chaos axis is a modifier to the good-evil axis it always has been and it always will be.

They are, but I tend to agree with the explantion of them on this web site more then yours. It's about order vs freedom and not group vs person.

...well NG and NE are not very understandable in D&D anyway since the person probably is NG(with lawful tendancies) for example rather than "neutral" good.

A NG does not have to have lawful tendancies. A NG person sees that there is an advantage to order, and there is an advantage to freedom. That doesn't mean a LG person is a tyrant, but typicaly a LG person is much more likely to try and force his or her opinion on someone, to save them from themself, then a NG or CG person is.

a NG person is called in 3e "true good" much like a NN person is called true netural. They care about what is good above all else, the protection of the innocent, the freedom to be happy, ect, are all that matters to them, how they cary out that task is secondary. To them the ends do justify the means, to a point. They won't do something truely evil, but they are willing to break the law, or a few bones if doing so means they can achive a good goal.

They don't hate order, they see it as a good thing in some cases, but they don't believe it is neiscary or required either.

But the bottom line is this. Everyone has their own take on Alignment, and no one can ever win this argument. It's been going on since D&D first started being played with an alignment system.

jadeia · Post by **jadeia** » Wed Apr 16, 2003 7:49 am

I hate these Lawful-Chaotic & Good-Evil debates, well after the third one anyhow.

When all else fails, remember the golden rule: "Alignment in 3rd Edition reflects the way you play your character, it doesnt restrict it like 2nd Edition."

Its a monumental shift in thinking, and rightly so.

Your alignment should trail your actions. If this were PnP, it would do so more accurately. As this is online, it does so only when DM's or scripts casn adjust it for you.

Just dont let your alignment FORCE you to act a certain way. Its just an indicator.

In fact the whole theory of alignments is completely ridiculous IMHO. It's like trying to divide 6 billion people up on earth, into twelve star-signs.

We all know about Astrology, and it's ruthless quest in "guiding" people is complete rubbish.

So is an alignment system in D&D. Thats IMHO.

KinX · Post by **KinX** » Fri Apr 25, 2003 6:13 am

jadeia wrote:In fact the whole theory of alignments is completely ridiculous IMHO. It's like trying to divide 6 billion people up on earth, into twelve star-signs.

We all know about Astrology, and it's ruthless quest in "guiding" people is complete rubbish.

*shock-horror*
no it isn't

Scurvy_Platypus · Post by **Scurvy_Platypus** » Fri Apr 25, 2003 8:37 am

Most of the people that have been gaming long enough know that Alignment used to be an attempt to legislate morality.

And if anyone that's still reading this thread thinks they've got a new take on Alignment, what it means, how to implement it, etc, chances are you're wrong. The issue of Alignment has been debated since it was first put forward in the Dragon Magazine, and it's been continually debated for over 15 years.

Alignment discussions remind me of when I used to work in the paint section of a hardware store. You'd have these paint chips that all total had over a hundred different versions of white, and you'd still get some joker that would look at one and say, "I really like this color...but could you add just a drop of (insert any other color here) to it? Then it'll be perfect." This wasn't a once a day kind of thing either. You're talking 4 out of 10 customers are doing this sort of thing.