|
TormentedDragon -> RE: Making Interesting Characters (Discussion) (5/16/2013 18:06:00)
|
A word on the alignment chart, and how it is often misused:
For some reason, people seem to think that the alignment chart necessarily locks your character in to a certain set of actions. This rigidity of thinking is what is actually harmful to both character and roleplay, not the chart itself. The key is to realize that what Captain Barbados said regarding the Pirate Code applies here as well: the Alignment chart is more guidelines than actual rules.
The real purpose of it is to define a certain set of motivations and guidelines for general character behavior, as a quick reference for both yourself and the others in your group. The good and evil axis is perhaps best interpreted in terms of selflessness and selfishness - the good have a tendency to think of others and act to their benefit, perhaps at the expense of the self, the evil have a tendency to think of themselves and act to their own benefit, at the expense of the others, and the neutral might help another or themselves, but generally not to the point of sacrifice or to the point of harm.
You can apply this idea of selflessness or selfishness to a grander scale, too - worldviews and philosophy. Good characters will see organizations, governments, campaigns, crusades as opportunities to improve lives, to create wellbeing, etc. Evil see them as methods for personal gain. Serve the people, or serve the government, etc. Neutral may not really care, or may have some idea of there being a grand balance to the world.
As for lawful - chaotic axis, it's a rubric of how tied to law they are. The more lawful you are, the more you hold to rules and regulations, and try to act within the context of the law as it stands. The more chaotic you are, the less use you have for laws. You may even consider them to be harmful - those of chaos see nothing wrong with thumbing their nose at law and law enforcement or acting outside the system. It does not mean they have no moral code, mind, but they care nothing for society's terms of how it should be applied.
Neutral falls in the middle, again. They may see the merit of law, but are less holden to it. They may simply not care that much about it beyond making sure they aren't inconvenienced by law-breaking, or might have some kind of philosophy on there being a need to balance laws with leniency, etc.
Combine the two for great justice: lawful good suggests a character who believes in the power of law to promote the health and wellbeing of the people, or could simply be someone who is genuinely good-hearted and likes to follow the rules, or any other option you can think of. There is similar flexibility in each of the other five alignments, so long as you do things right and make alignment fit the character concept, rather than trying to shoehorn character concept into a rigid idea of what the alignment dictates.
Additionally, alignments can easily change. If the character doesn't seem to fit what you picked for alignment, modify the alignment! If a character has a philosophical shift in their view of morality, rework the listed alignment to fit! Alignment is not intended to be static. It is not intended to be rigid. It is not intended to limit your choices.
It just provides a basic framework, a reference point, to describe their motivations and give an idea of what they might do in a given situation.
Now, all that said, it's not necessary. It can be useful, but you only need it if the system you're playing in requires it, which these boards don't. If you like it, use it, if not, don't. But it's not the horrible thing I see it being made out to be, provided you use it right.
|
|
|
|
