schuetz@via.DEC (05/09/85)
I'd like to further the discussion on alignments. While I too wrote up my interpretations of LAWFUL, CHAOTIC, etc, to give to my players to help them roll-play their characters, I think that a better idea is to post examples. Lets take historical or movie characters and just categorize them. e.g. David Carradine's KANE in Kung Fu: VERY LAWFUL, mostly GOOD. Richard Nixon: As CHAOTIC as he could get away with, it seems. Clint Eastwood's KALLAHAN: NEUTRAL, tending towards LAWFUL. - obviously since he wastes quite a few people, can't be considered GOOD, and while he generally is on the side of LAW AND ORDER, he does things his own way. Lets see other examples of characters who exemplify the various extremes. Given that the whole alignment deal is a plane, most of us probably sit in the lawful-good quadrant, but not too far from the neutral center. What famous characters sit where? And why do you consider them so? The Amish farmers: Extremely GOOD, but not so lawful. They have their own rules, but ignore some of those of the state. I myself always understand concepts better from examples. I think others will too. I'd love to come up with a list of typical characters for my players. It would be much easier for them to think, "Now how would CHAOTIC-NEUTRAL "Bandit" (Burt Renolds) behave in this situation?" and then they would have some guideline to help they play their professed alignment. Lets see lots of responses.
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (Wayne A. Christopher) (05/10/85)
> Richard Nixon: As CHAOTIC as he could get away with, it seems.
Chaotic?? Not in the least, I'd say. Anybody who tries to dominate people
by using an institution like government would be Lawful... Nixon was so much
in favor of law and order (maybe HIS law and order, but...) that I can't
really see any Chaotic tendencies... But this isn't net.politics...
Waynelucius@tardis.UUCP (Lucius Chiaraviglio) (05/13/85)
> > Richard Nixon: As CHAOTIC as he could get away with, it seems. > > Chaotic?? Not in the least, I'd say. Anybody who tries to dominate people > by using an institution like government would be Lawful... Nixon was so much > in favor of law and order (maybe HIS law and order, but...) that I can't > really see any Chaotic tendencies... But this isn't net.politics... > > Wayne Chaotic in no way precludes trying to dominate people by using anything whatsoever. Chaotic in Nixon's way of being chaotic refers to being self-centered and disrespectful of the law except for its usefulness as a tool to gain one's own ends. This fits Nixon's description much better. He was, as I said, not in favor of law and order except as it benefitted him, to a great extent. Sure, this isn't net.politics, but using politicians as examples of alignments is a useful tool in frp. -- -- Lucius Chiaraviglio { seismo!tardis!lucius | lucius@tardis.ARPA | lucius@tardis.UUCP }
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (Wayne A. Christopher) (05/16/85)
> Sure, this isn't net.politics, but using politicians as examples of > alignments is a useful tool in frp. Hmm... How about: Lawful Good: Metternich Lawful Neutral: Napoleon Lawful Evil: Hitler Neutral Good: ? Absolute Neutral: ? Neutral Evil: Nixon Chaotic Good: Jefferson Chaotic Neutral: ? Chaotic Evil: Khadaffy This is pretty tough... Can anybody fill in the blanks? This just shows how unrealistic alignments are... Wayne
lucius@tardis.UUCP (Lucius Chiaraviglio) (05/17/85)
_ > > Sure, this isn't net.politics, but using politicians as examples of > > alignments is a useful tool in frp. > > Hmm... How about: > > Lawful Good: Metternich Which Metternich are you talking about? The one I read about in my Modern Political Ideologies course would qualify for Lawful, but certainly not for good. > Lawful Neutral: Napoleon Like, you gotta be jokin', right? Napoleon was pretty much out for his own glory alone. For Lawful Neutral I'd put down your typical bureaucrat (the more tiresome and duller type). > Lawful Evil: Hitler Although I'd say he was definately so much out for his own glory as to disqualify him for Lawful. I'd put Communist apparatchiks down for Lawful Evil; I'd put Hitler in Neutral Evil; few who have gotten to such a high position wanted to do so much sheer destruction. > Neutral Good: ? Let me see, wait, just let me think a minute here. . .uh. . .wait, it'll come to me, uh. . .hmmmm. . .er. . .I'll think of a name in a minute. . .ummm. . . I just forgot the one that I was ummm. . .er, . . .trying to think of. . . . > Absolute Neutral: ? Most politicians are probably fairly close to Neutral, like most people. > Neutral Evil: Nixon See below. > Chaotic Good: Jefferson Would someone who was really Chaotic Good approve of holding people in slavery? > Chaotic Neutral: ? Most of the ones that don't fit in the other two vertically Neutral types. > Chaotic Evil: Khadaffy I'll agree with you there; I'd also put Nixon in the same direction, just not quite as big an alignment vector magnitude. > This is pretty tough... Can anybody fill in the blanks? This just > shows how unrealistic alignments are... > > Wayne Wait. . .I can fill in that blank up there. . .just give me another minute -- I'll think of it in just a little bit. . . . -- -- Lucius Chiaraviglio { seismo!tardis!lucius | lucius@tardis.ARPA | lucius@tardis.UUCP }
quint@topaz.ARPA (Amqueue) (05/21/85)
In article <245@ucbcad.UUCP> faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (Wayne A. Christopher) writes: >... using politicians as examples of alignments is a useful tool in frp. > This is pretty tough... Can anybody fill in the blanks? This just >shows how unrealistic alignments are... > > Wayne I dont know enough about politics, so I tried to use literary figures. My picks are next to yours: Lawful Good: Metternich Plato, Don Quixote Lawful Neutral: Napoleon Machiavelli, all bureaucrats Lawful Evil: Hitler Hitler, Stalin Neutral Good: ? Robin Hood Absolute Neutral: ? got me, i lost on this one Neutral Evil: Nixon Puck from "A Midsummer Night's Dream" Chaotic Good: Jefferson got me again Chaotic Neutral: ? Lazarus Long (RAH, _Methusalah's Children_) Chaotic Evil: Khadaffy Baron Harkonnen, Snow White's Stepmother I found that the various 'mythic figures' that many people were familiar with worked better than others. The only potentially obscure one is Lazarus Long, and most everyone into sf (a good overlap with those into frp, fantasy) has read at least some Heinlein, so pointing them to that isnt that difficult. any comments?
ncg@ukc.UUCP (N.C.Gale) (05/23/85)
If we're in the mood for classifying Literary Figures into
alignments, did anyone ever look at the alignments given by the Ghod
to the Arthurian Mythos (snigger)?
Lancelot - a paladin (spent most of his waking hours cuckolding Arthur)
Tristram - Neutral (why not good?)
Gawain - CN (tricky, this one. Gawain was one of the most enthusiastic
upholder's of Arthur's laws, but then again, he acted in a
fairly Chaotic manner sometimes. Gawain doesn't really fit
into the 3X3 matrix, good heavens!)
some of the others are fairly dodgy, too, but I haven't got the book here.eliovson@aecom.UUCP (Moshe Eliovson) (05/29/85)
Regarding Arthurian Knights: I thought I'd share a cute insight a guy at The Complete Strategist gave me one day. Not that it has much to do with anything... He said that Lancelot was LG and some others were unquestionably Lawful Evil. His example was that Lancelot might stop to help out a peasant while the other would knock him out of the way and ride on (perhaps a little trampling). Despite this, the two knights might work together when Arthur called or perhaps for some other quest. Moshe Eliovson philabs!aecom!eliovson