Aller au contenu

Photo

D&D Nerds: need help figuring ME2 character alignments.


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
101 réponses à ce sujet

#76
MaaZeus

MaaZeus
  • Members
  • 1 851 messages

Dr. Peter Venkman wrote...

Collider wrote...

Dr. Peter Venkman wrote...

Collider wrote...

Thane to me is chaotic good. At current, at least. He does want to do good and IIRC almost all of the targets we learn that he killed (Dantius, slavers) were corrupt people who likely deserved it anyway.


Impossible. You cannot have a chaotic good character when they operate solely around the basis of a contract. He is a neutral/chaotic neutral, just like Zaeed.

He doesn't. When you meet him in ME2 he is freelance. He killed Dantius because she was corrupt, rather than for money or a contract.


One out of many. The reason Thane even joins Shepard is to make up for all of the things that he has done in the past. He's a neutral, through and through.



Yup. And his words when joining Shepard was that the suicidial odds do not concern him, only abducted colonists. I might even put him on the good the side. Putting him on Lawful Evil is just wrong, he clearly does have sense empathy and is willing to risk his own neck to save innocents like the workers on Nassana's place.

Obviously his line of work is questionable, though after meeting Irikah I think he started choosing his jobs and only killed bad people. This also led to making those bad people hate Thane and kill Irikah. So atleast he is neutral, but perhaps I would even put him on Chaotic Good as he goes around killing bad people because of what they have done and thinks they deserve it . (Not too different from Garrus actually, his way is just different.) He also gives an impression that he wants to make a world better place even at the risk of costing of his soul (hence the prayers and all).

Old Thane was definetly true neutral, just doing his job without deeper thought or emotional impact. New Thane, while having questionable methods like Garrus, his motives are definetly good, again just like Garrus. Biggest difference between Thane and Garrus is that unlike Garrus Thane perfectly realises how bad some of the things he does are where Garrus is a standard Vigilante and believes that whatever he does are just no matter what the laws think.

Modifié par MaaZeus, 12 mai 2010 - 11:30 .


#77
Dean_the_Young

Dean_the_Young
  • Members
  • 20 684 messages
I've seen arguments about how a lawful good will put good over the law of their land, and I've never believed it. You wouldn't become a Paladin if you didn't believe the law of the land was just: becoming lawful good is dependent on accepting that the laws are good. If you did not deem the laws good but choose to follow them as a knight, then you are lawful neutral. If you promise to obey the laws as a knight with the intent of disobeying when they counter your personal feelings, then you are neutral-good: the laws are great when they work, but they aren't determining for you. Lawful good is strictly for those who believe in the laws always: it goes back into the 'good isn't nice' rule, which applies far more to lawful-good (the rules) than neutral-good (the sentiment).

A well-written exposition on a lawful good religion comes from the Fall From Heaven mythology, a fantasy spinoff of the Civilization Series. For Context: the Order is the religion of Junil, God of Law, who is the leading god against the forces of Evil. His is the religion of Paladins and Crusades against evil.


---

The Order From Street Level

Ozziel, Wandering Scholar



Of all the religions of Erebus, none is as misunderstood as the Order.
Unfortunately, the ones most likely to misunderstand it are its
followers, whose less than pleasant reputations are occasionally
well-deserved. It is hardly a religion of peace and love, but that
isn't to say it is one of war either. It is fundamentally concerned
with justice. As one follower of Junil confessed (after having been
introduced to Sunshine [1]), “nice ain't good, good ain't nice. We're
nasty. Merciless. Pitiless. Maybe even brutal. But if we don't like
you, it'll be with a good reason. Maybe you won't think it's a good
reason, but that don't matter. But we ain't no hypocrites, and we ain't
got no crooked kings, 'cause we ain't no hypocrites.” I could get no
further from this gentleman when he proceeded to pass out on the floor,
however.



“Good isn't nice” is actually an excellent summary of the Order
philosophy. While low-ranking Order priests have been known to do
incredibly idiotic things in the name of Junil [2], acts that can be
directly attribute to Junil, or those who can hear him, tend to
invariably be justified, occasionally in an absurd way. One story,
which my research has found to be more than anecdotal, tells of a Prior
visiting the Balseraph empire in an attempt to negotiate with
Perpentach. During the conversation, he casually, and without
explanation or comment, stabbed and killed one of Perpentach's advisors
when he passed near. Perpentach found the non-sequitur murder from an
otherwise dull ambassador absolutely hilarious, and let him continue as
though nothing had happened. Later, a broken summoning circle was found
in the advisor's room; he'd attempted to summon a demon of Mammon, and
been possessed by it instead. The possession had been perfect, fooling
even Perpentach. The Prior never did explain how he had been so
confident in his actions, or that Perpentach would laugh it off.



The Order's focus on the greater good of all Erebus has some unfortunate
side effects. They place the greater good as more valuable than
individuals, and are quite unbending in their decisions. The most
rational decision is sometimes not the most moral one. For example, let
us take the Werewolf Problem [3]. Whereas most on Erebus either
struggle with it or occasionally try to get more information or find a
third way, the Order's dedicated followers invariably answer the
question with the result that saves five in both, whether it it means
directly or indirectly causing the death of one. They are rational,
logical, and in their most devoted form, somewhat alien to most people
of Erebus. They hand out judgments dispassionately. Nepotism and
cronyism are rare [4], and their laws are absolute and apply to all,
from peasantry to kings.



It is that last part, the equality and absoluteness of law, that makes
the Order surprisingly popular with the oppressed. In nations where the
leadership does not follow the Code, the Order is magnificently
adaptable to a religion of revolution and social change. This may seem
utterly absurd for a theology of law, but the laws of the Order are
applied universally, and in many oppressed states, the leaders are
guilty of breaking these laws. The laws of mortal men are considered,
at best, subservient to the laws of Junil, and moot if the ones making
the laws are themselves criminals in the eyes of Junil. The Order
demands service, first and foremost, to Junil, and this service often
means toppling leaders who do not obey... whether from within or
without.



Another oddity is that the Order's sentences are often far lighter than
those under many more vicious regimes. Compared to those influenced by
the Empyrean, the Runes of Kilmorph, or the Fellowship, most penalties
are harsh, but not completely unreasonable. A thief in Order lands will
be spending a very long time in prison indeed, twice what the Empyrean
would give him at minimum, but compared to the fate he would suffer for
stealing from nobles of the Calabim (obviously), the Svartalfar, my
fellow Balseraphs, or even some Hippus tribes is far, far worse.
Likewise, from whom he stole is less relevant; indeed, to some in the
Order, stealing food from the poor is seen as a greater crime than
taking gold from the rich.



One thing that should be said, however, is that the Order does not
forgive liars, oath-breakers, and those who use unholy powers easily, if
at all. No use of dark magic, even if it's for the greater good, is
considered tolerable, due to its tendency to corrupt those who use it.
This belief is not entirely unfounded, unfortunately, although the speed
and ruthlessness with which the Order persecutes even suspected users
of unholy magics can be quite startling. Meanwhile, criminals who lie
to a Confessor will often find the sentence for doing so worse than that
for the actual crime. If the lie is under oath, it will sometimes be
treated as oath-breaking and punished by death. This incredible hatred
of liars horrifies those who do not follow Junil. Casual lies, when
officials aren't involved, are technically legal, but considered to be a
grave insult. I made the mistake once of complimenting a particularly
horrific-looking woman, the captain of some Bannor regiment on her
“beauty,” figuring she'd appreciate the nicety. I barely talked her
into sparing me, and instead received a lecture on the origin of each
and every one of her terrifying scars, earned fighting the Infernal,
Sheaim, and Orcish empires. Luckily, a few were legitimately excellent
stories, and I even borrowed one to explain my newly broken leg in a
tavern later that day.



This is not to say that Junil's believers agree universally. The
religion has fewer theological gray areas to spark discussion, and
occasionally conflict, than Erebus' other religions. But it is not
without. The definition of redemption, and what may be done to earn it,
is a point of fierce contention. The Bannor prefer redemption through
death for those who have committed crimes especially offensive to Bannor
or Order sensibilities, firm in the belief the redeemed will spend
eternity in Junil's vault [5] if they are truly repentant. The
Kurioates seem to feel that several years in a dungeon is sufficient for
most crimes, although they tend to not to look kindly upon especially
heinous crimes or repeat offenders.



At this point, I'd like to mention the infamous inquisitions. An Order
confessor assured me that they were merely routine investigations, and
that only those guilty of worshiping outright malevolent deities needed
to be worried. He was a terrible liar, and seemed as terrified of the
inquisition as anyone else. Problematically, he also insisted he
abstained from alcohol. But for reasons far different than you might
expect, I found myself in the trust of the madame of a local brothel,
who was more than happy to set the record straight.



“Inquisitors? (What followed next was a long string of impressive
curses.) Alright, you want to hear a story to back all that up? Well,
there was this Temple of Kilmorph. Fine place. Nobody there who'd ever
done anyone any harm. Boring, traditionalist, not exactly what I like
in a customer, but fine, decent working folk. No bad blood. Then comes
this fire-and-brimstone preacher, screaming that he was here to root
out the cult of Mammon. At first the followers of Kilmorph were cheered
by this; they really don't like Mammon. Turns out he meant them. Oh,
and Tali help any poor fool who tried to defend them; Junil's loyal
followers found themselves taken away along with them. Even a few
confessors tried standing up to this psychopath. Merciful Sirona, but I
don't know where they went or what happened to them. When they came
back about a month later... they weren't right in the head. They lived
their lives, but... they weren't really alive, y'know? The temple was
demolished without comment.” She also mentioned the name of the man who
was responsible, Aldrin Gray although I could, of course, do nothing
legally. I was after all, only a visitor. However, I have reason to
suspect that Confessor Gray may not be remaining in his post much
longer; the laws of the Order apply equally to him as much as anyone
else, and I recently heard rumor of him blaspheming in a temple.



I am not about to convert to the order, or even recommend it to anybody
who values hedonism, pleasure, and general fun as much as I do. Its
priests range from agreeable, practical individuals who believe law
exists to protect the weak from the cruel, to raving lunatics intent
upon turning the world into a machine. But the Order has ways of
eliminating the latter, for which I am truly thankful. All considered,
as a general rule, I have found the followers of the Order, with rare
exception, to be genuinely good people. But remember: good is not nice.



1 – One of the many fine alcohols produced by the Jubilee Mage's Guild.
The exact production method is secret, but it likely concerns sun mana.
As well as the usual effects of drunkenness, the drinker, unless
incredibly strong-willed, becomes brutally and unflinchingly honest...
well, more than is usual for the drunk. Foreigners usually avoid it;
basic human instinct advices against drinking anything that glows. I
find the glow can be minimized by offering it in well-lit places, and
serving it in properly tinted glass, and I always carry some for
interview purposes. I recommend Spring Sky; it's expensive even by the
considerable standards of Sunshine, and considered a sissy drink by
most, but its pleasant flavor and low alcohol content makes people
underestimate it, and it lessens the effects of drunkenness that might
interfere with the victim's drinker's newfound honesty.

2 – For an extreme case, see “The Compact Shattered,” specifically the
chapter regarding theories about the birth of Mardero. Ten of the
twelve involve the Order, ranging from the most likely theory concerning
a botched attempt to destroy an unholy tome, to a patently absurd
peasant's tale regarding a woman being thrown off a cliff. Thankfully,
most instances of Order incompetence are similar to that found in the
autobiography of Goodreau, regarding the death of his daughter; they
manage to avoid doing any more damage, at least...

3 – The Werewolf Problem is an philosophical quandary. It consists of
two questions. The first: A werewolf attacks a palace. Five men rush
through the portcullis but a sixth lags behind. If you close the
portcullis you save the five, but the slow man will be killed. If you
do nothing the werewolf will ignore the slow man and kill the five in
the yard. What do you do? The second: A werewolf attacks a palace.
Five men are being chased by the werewolf but do not have time to reach
the portcullis and the safety of the inner yard, they will be killed
unless something is done. You realize that if you were to push a man
from the palace walls into the werewolf's path it would distract the
beast and give the five time to escape though it would mean the death of
the single man. What do you do?

4 – This may have to do with the punishments involved; the crime for
nepotism and/or cronyism (seen as one in the same) can be quite harsh.
If the individual was genuinely competent and did no harm, but was not
the best candidate, they generally only suffer a minor demotion to a
position where they have no power to repeat the mistake. However, if
the choice was genuinely harmful, punishments can range from
irreversible and awe-inspiring demotions (such as the nobleman who,
despite being a member of a centuries old noble family, found himself
cleaning sewers after choosing his lecherous drunkard brother to head
the City Guard) of all involved, to outright execution if the crony in
question is a foreign spy or follower of a religion such as the Ashen
Veil or Overlords and the promoter should have reasonably suspected as
much. The Order's definition of “reasonable suspicion,” however, can be
a bit unforgiving; failure to show up at the temples of Junil, or at
least the Fellowship, Empyrean or Runes (who hold enough influence to
force the Order to tolerate them), tends to cause unfriendly knockings.

5 – Details of which are sketchy. It's generally agreed, outside of the
Ashen Veil, to be preferable to Hell. How much so is a point of
debate. The general consensus among laypeople of no religious
conviction is that boredom, a probable part of Junil's vault, is
preferable to eternal agony.

#78
Nivenus

Nivenus
  • Members
  • 1 789 messages

MaaZeus wrote...

Dr. Peter Venkman wrote...

Collider wrote...

Dr. Peter Venkman wrote...

Collider wrote...

Thane to me is chaotic good. At current, at least. He does want to do good and IIRC almost all of the targets we learn that he killed (Dantius, slavers) were corrupt people who likely deserved it anyway.


Impossible. You cannot have a chaotic good character when they operate solely around the basis of a contract. He is a neutral/chaotic neutral, just like Zaeed.

He doesn't. When you meet him in ME2 he is freelance. He killed Dantius because she was corrupt, rather than for money or a contract.


One out of many. The reason Thane even joins Shepard is to make up for all of the things that he has done in the past. He's a neutral, through and through.



Yup. And his words when joining Shepard was that the suicidial odds do not concern him, only abducted colonists. I might even put him on the good the side. Putting him on Lawful Evil is just wrong, he clearly does have sense empathy and is willing to risk his own neck to save innocents like the workers on Nassana's place.

Obviously his line of work is questionable, though after meeting Irikah I think he started choosing his jobs and only killed bad people. This also led to making those bad people hate Thane and kill Irikah. So atleast he is neutral, but perhaps I would even put him on Chaotic Good as he goes around killing bad people because of what they have done and thinks they deserve it . (Not too different from Garrus actually, his way is just different.) He also gives an impression that he wants to make a world better place even at the risk of costing of his soul (hence the prayers and all).

Old Thane was definetly true neutral, just doing his job without deeper thought or emotional impact. New Thane, while having questionable methods like Garrus, his motives are definetly good, again just like Garrus. Biggest difference between Thane and Garrus is that unlike Garrus Thane perfectly realises how bad some of the things he does are where Garrus is a standard Vigilante and believes that whatever he does are just no matter what the laws think.


I could see Thane as "lawful neutral" but you're forgetting that classical alignment is not about what you feel but about what you do. Having empathy for others does not make one  good or neutral. It is what a character does that determines their alignment, not how they feel about it.

For example... the Operative from Serenity is evil. He even says as much. Another example is Ozymandias in Watchmen. Another is (arguably) Saren as he's depicted in ME1 (we'll leave out Revelations for now). These characters are well-intentioned extremists. Having good intentions gets you a few points, but not many. In the end, your methods were still evil.

I classify Thane as lawful evil because he commits murder for money and during his time as an assassin in the service of the hanar, he likely killed people who weren't necessarily "evil." One of the primary qualities of good, as described in Book of Exalted Deeds is the value of life. Another is forgiveness. Another is mercy. Someone who kills for a living cannot properly be called good, even if those people "deserve to die."

Thane may well have reformed by the time he joins Shepard (he is a freelancer now, so he can choose who he kills) but I still would say he classifies as neutral rather than evil at the very best. During his time under Shepard he may reform even further, making his way to good. But he doesn't start there, not so far as D&D alignments are concerned anyhow.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

I've seen arguments about how a
lawful good will put good over the law of their land, and I've never
believed it. You wouldn't become a Paladin if you didn't believe the
law of the land was just: becoming lawful good is dependent on
accepting that the laws are good. If you did not deem the laws good but
choose to follow them as a knight, then you are lawful neutral. If you
promise to obey the laws as a knight with the intent of disobeying when
they counter your personal feelings, then you are neutral-good: the
laws are great when they work, but they aren't determining for you.
Lawful good is strictly for those who believe in the laws always: it
goes back into the 'good isn't nice' rule, which applies far more to
lawful-good (the rules) than neutral-good (the sentiment).


That's a gross misinterpretation of the alignments. Law, as I've explained earlier, does not mean "law of the land." It means, in a more general sense, order. This is not hypothetical, this is what the rulebooks actually say. This is not to say a lawful good character will choose "good over law," as you say, but they'll definitely choose their law over the local law. This is also true for lawful neutral and lawful evils.

For instance, a devil is lawful evil. That doesn't mean he feels obliged to obey the laws of some small kingdom he hops into. Sure, his natural inclination is to work within the system so he probably will to some extent, but generally speaking the devil will hold his obligations to the diabolic hierarchy to be more important than what some earthly king thinks. Likewise, a paladin values his code over local laws. He'll obey the laws if he can, even if he dislikes them, because he respects order, but if the code and local law conflict, you can bet he's going to obey the code.

#79
Dean_the_Young

Dean_the_Young
  • Members
  • 20 684 messages
Alignments span far beyond early D&D books.



You wouldn't become a Paladin in the first place if you didn't believe in the law (code) you are bound by. An individual driven by their own desire to do good is simply that: good. To take a lawful good profession, there are established codes you have to follow. If you are a Paladin to an earthly kingdom, then those laws are your code: you became a Paladin for that code. If you are servant to a divine god, then that god's laws are your code. But if the code defies your morals, the code wins out for a lawful good character.




#80
Nivenus

Nivenus
  • Members
  • 1 789 messages

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Alignments span far beyond early D&D books.

You wouldn't become a Paladin in the first place if you didn't believe in the law (code) you are bound by. An individual driven by their own desire to do good is simply that: good. To take a lawful good profession, there are established codes you have to follow. If you are a Paladin to an earthly kingdom, then those laws are your code: you became a Paladin for that code. If you are servant to a divine god, then that god's laws are your code. But if the code defies your morals, the code wins out for a lawful good character.


You are still not understanding me and the alignments, as they are listed in this thread, were a D&D gameplay element initially, although they've since been appropriated for other media (probably why WotC chose to change them in 4e).

1. There is no single paladin's code. In most settings there are several orders, all with their own code.

2. Not every lawful good character is a paladin.

3. Law is a way of saying "order;" it does not mean law literally.

4. A lawful character swears fealty to only a single form of law. They respect other forms, but if the other forms conflict with the law they've sworn to obey, than they obey the one and not the other. Think of it like federal law vs. state law in the United States. If a state law contradicts federal law, then the state law is illegal (except, of course, when the federal law is itself unconstitutional). In a lawful character's mind, written law is only "lawful" when it coincides with the "greater law" they follow.

5. A lawful character is allowed to, on occasion, be unlawful. Alignment is not a straight jacket, as the designers have said several times.

6. A truly lawful good character would never swear to obey a code that required him to do evil (at least so far as he can foresee, obviously mistakes can be made).

Modifié par Nivenus, 13 mai 2010 - 02:06 .


#81
Dean_the_Young

Dean_the_Young
  • Members
  • 20 684 messages

Nivenus wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Alignments span far beyond early D&D books.

You wouldn't become a Paladin in the first place if you didn't believe in the law (code) you are bound by. An individual driven by their own desire to do good is simply that: good. To take a lawful good profession, there are established codes you have to follow. If you are a Paladin to an earthly kingdom, then those laws are your code: you became a Paladin for that code. If you are servant to a divine god, then that god's laws are your code. But if the code defies your morals, the code wins out for a lawful good character.


You are still not understanding me and the alignments, as they are listed in this thread, were a D&D gameplay element initially, although they've since been appropriated for other media (probably why WotC chose to change them in 4e).

Let me rephrase it for you, then: there are more interpretations of lawful good than your D&D, even within players of D&D.

1. There is no single paladin's code. In most settings there are several orders, all with their own code.

No one is claiming there is a single code. What code they claim to adhere to, they must follow to be lawful.

2. Not every lawful good character is a paladin.

Paladins are the archetype for lawful good. They can be used.

3. Law is a way of saying "order;" it does not mean law literally.

Without following established laws, there is no order. A person who breaks his vows is not maintaining that order.

4. A lawful character swears fealty to only a single form of law. They respect other forms, but if the other forms conflict with the law they've sworn to obey, than they obey the one and not the other. Think of it like federal law vs. state law in the United States. If a state law contradicts federal law, then the state law is illegal (except, of course, when the federal law is itself unconstitutional). In a lawful character's mind, written law is only "lawful" when it coincides with the "greater law" they follow.

This isn't under debate.

5. A lawful character is allowed to, on occasion, be unlawful. Alignment is not a straight jacket, as the designers have said several times.

At those times, the character is not being lawful at that time. If he or she routinely rejects that code, then he is not lawful when it is inconvenient, he is not lawful. The comparison holds.

6. A truly lawful good character would never swear to obey a code that required him to do evil (at least so far as he can foresee, obviously mistakes can be made).

Paradox resolved, then. Most lawful good characters aren't lawful good... or there's a debate about what good and evil actions are, which is far more relevant. Order and chaos are easy: follow the rules or ignore them. Good and evil are not.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 13 mai 2010 - 02:20 .


#82
Nivenus

Nivenus
  • Members
  • 1 789 messages
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

[quote]Nivenus wrote...

You are still not understanding me and the alignments, as they are listed in this thread, were a D&D gameplay element initially, although they've since been appropriated for other media (probably why WotC chose to change them in 4e).[/quote]Let me rephrase it for you, then: there are more interpretations of lawful good than your D&D, even within players of D&D.[/quote]

Let me rephrase it. Mine is (as of 3.5) the canonical definition. I'm referencing the Book of Exalted Deeds. I'll grant there are other interpretations, but they are, in fact, incorrect or rather, any that interprets the conflict of law and good for LG characters to be as drastic as you're proposing.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

[quote]
1. There is no single paladin's code. In most settings there are several orders, all with their own code.[/quote]No one is claiming there is a single code. What code they claim to adhere to, they must follow to be lawful.[/quote]

Of course; I never disputed that.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
[quote]2. Not every lawful good character is a paladin.[/quote]Paladins are the archetype for lawful good. They can be used.[/quote]

Yes, but they represent an extreme of both law and good, just
as demons represent an extreme of chaos and evil. It doesn't mean every LG character needs to be as pure as a paladin. Order of the Stick is an excellent representation of several characters with lawful good
alignments in Roy, Miko, Durkon, and Hinjo, all who have very different
personalities and ways of interpreting their duties as LG characters.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
[quote]3. Law is a way of saying "order;" it does not mean law literally.[/quote]Without following established laws, there is no order. A person who breaks his vows is not maintaining that order.[/quote]

To clarify what I've already said, a lawful character will follow their code, and then any lesser laws. If the latter conflicts with the former, than they break the lesser laws willingly, because they do not consider the lesser laws to apply to their interpretation of law. Further down, you seem to agree on this point, so I'm not quite sure why we're arguing this point.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

[quote]
4. A lawful character swears fealty to only a single form of law. They respect other forms, but if the other forms conflict with the law they've sworn to obey, than they obey the one and not the other. Think of it like federal law vs. state law in the United States. If a state law contradicts federal law, then the state law is illegal (except, of course, when the federal law is itself unconstitutional). In a lawful character's mind, written law is only "lawful" when it coincides with the "greater law" they follow.[/quote]This isn't under debate.[/quote]

It's my central thesis, so I'm not sure what you're debating then.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

[quote]
5. A lawful character is allowed to, on occasion, be unlawful. Alignment is not a straight jacket, as the designers have said several times.[/quote]At those times, the character is not being lawful at that time. If he or she routinely rejects that code, then he is not lawful when it is inconvenient, he is not lawful. The comparison holds.[/quote]

If they routinely break the code, yes. Occasional lapses are, however, acceptable. This is true also of good vs. evil.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

[quote]
6. A truly lawful good character would never swear to obey a code that required him to do evil (at least so far as he can foresee, obviously mistakes can be made).
[/quote]Paradox resolved, then. Most lawful good characters aren't lawful good... or there's a debate about what good and evil actions are, which is far more relevant. Order and chaos are easy: follow the rules or ignore them. Good and evil are not. [/quote]

Good and evil are easy, so long as you don't bring real life ethical philosophies into the discussion. The rules have a set list of what is considered "good" and what is considered "evil."

Modifié par Nivenus, 13 mai 2010 - 02:35 .


#83
gethspy

gethspy
  • Members
  • 173 messages

Tlazolteotl wrote...

Pfft ... still using 3rd edition alignments, I see.

4e alignments are wrong

Modifié par gethspy, 13 mai 2010 - 02:36 .


#84
Dean_the_Young

Dean_the_Young
  • Members
  • 20 684 messages
It appears what we aren't arguing over half of what was thought to be under dispute, and the rest of what is is inherently unresolvable (bringing in actual ethics into a discussion of good versus evil, D&D canon versus more general multi-game interpretations).

#85
Nivenus

Nivenus
  • Members
  • 1 789 messages

Dean_the_Young wrote...

It appears what we aren't arguing over half of what was thought to be under dispute, and the rest of what is is inherently unresolvable (bringing in actual ethics into a discussion of good versus evil, D&D canon versus more general multi-game interpretations).


Indeed. However, I will say you provided a strong argument, minus mutual misinterpretation.

#86
KalReegarVasNeema

KalReegarVasNeema
  • Members
  • 82 messages
 Lawful Good - Samara, Kaiden
Neutral Good - Tali, Liara
Chaotic Good - Garrus, Ash
Lawful Neutral - Thane
True Neutral - Legion, Mordin
Chaotic Neutral - Grunt, Wrex, Kasumi
Lawful Evil - Saren
Neutral Evil - The Biotic God
Chaotic Evil - Morinth, Jack, Zaeed

#87
wizardryforever

wizardryforever
  • Members
  • 2 826 messages
I'll attempt to resurrect this thread by asking what people think of peripheral characters' alignments. What about Admiral Xen? Dr. Archer? Maelon? Joram Talid and Elias Kelham? These have been giving me a bit of trouble, but I'll attempt to place them.

Xen: Lawful Evil

Archer: Lawful Evil

Maelon: Chaotic Neutral

Talid: Lawful Evil

Kelham: Neutral Evil



Guess they weren't as hard to place as I thought, any other interesting characters we haven't covered here that might be hard to place?

#88
BigGuy28

BigGuy28
  • Members
  • 552 messages
I don't know why so many think Samara is Lawful Good. She is a classic Lawful Neutral character. She is more Judge Dredd "I am the law." and less "These are the laws and I will enforce them."



Jack and Grunt are classic examples of a Chaotic Neutral character with Jack having slight Evil leanings initially.



Zaeed I see as a good example of a Neutral Evil character.



Of course Legion is a classic example of a True Neutral character.



Tali I'd say is Neutral Good



Thane, Garrus, Kasumi and Mordin are Chaotic Good with Thane and Kasumi having more neutral leanings



Morinth is Chaotic Evil or Neutral Evil with heavy Chaotic leanings.



Jacob is a good example of Lawful Good.



Miranda I'm really not sure on, I don't see her being evil. With her I'd probably have to say True Neutral with good leanings.



4th Edition alignments make this whole thing a lot easier though.




#89
bottledwater

bottledwater
  • Members
  • 228 messages
cerberus is not lawful, and it is not neutral. it is an extremist group. anyone from citadel space who chooses to work with them can not be neutral or lawful.

#90
BigGuy28

BigGuy28
  • Members
  • 552 messages

bottledwater wrote...

cerberus is not lawful, and it is not neutral. it is an extremist group. anyone from citadel space who chooses to work with them can not be neutral or lawful.


Why not? Just because an organization is bad or viewed as bad that doesn't mean there can't be good people working in it trying to do good.

#91
dreman9999

dreman9999
  • Members
  • 19 067 messages
1. Their is no Good or evil in ME. Just renegade and paragon.
2. Jack and Morith are not evil, their nuetral.

#92
dreman9999

dreman9999
  • Members
  • 19 067 messages

BigGuy28 wrote...

bottledwater wrote...

cerberus is not lawful, and it is not neutral. it is an extremist group. anyone from citadel space who chooses to work with them can not be neutral or lawful.


Why not? Just because an organization is bad or viewed as bad that doesn't mean there can't be good people working in it trying to do good.

Ignore him. Lawful means organized systemor one who use an organized system which Cerberus is. Their for Cerberus is Lawfully Evil

#93
Water Dumple

Water Dumple
  • Members
  • 706 messages
Lawful Good: Samara
Standard Good: Jacob
Chaotic Good: Garrus

Lawful Neutral: Legion
Standard Neutral: Tali
Chaotic Neutral: Grunt

Lawful Evil: Miranda
Standard Evil: Thane
Chaotic Evil: Jack

I have absolutely no idea where to put Mordin. He's definitely not Chaotic, but you could justify him going nearly anywhere else.

Modifié par Water Dumple, 14 août 2010 - 08:31 .


#94
Redem0

Redem0
  • Members
  • 342 messages
Hum is that me or there is some fundamental difference between Paragon Sheppard in ME1 and ME2



In the first installement he's a much more by the book kind of guy, that would make LG however I believe he's closer to Neutral good (though I think several things keep him from being really considered Chaotic like how he handle the concil)

#95
wizardryforever

wizardryforever
  • Members
  • 2 826 messages

BigGuy28 wrote...

I don't know why so many think Samara is Lawful Good. She is a classic Lawful Neutral character. She is more Judge Dredd "I am the law." and less "These are the laws and I will enforce them."

Jack and Grunt are classic examples of a Chaotic Neutral character with Jack having slight Evil leanings initially.

Zaeed I see as a good example of a Neutral Evil character.

Of course Legion is a classic example of a True Neutral character.

Tali I'd say is Neutral Good

Thane, Garrus, Kasumi and Mordin are Chaotic Good with Thane and Kasumi having more neutral leanings

Morinth is Chaotic Evil or Neutral Evil with heavy Chaotic leanings.

Jacob is a good example of Lawful Good.

Miranda I'm really not sure on, I don't see her being evil. With her I'd probably have to say True Neutral with good leanings.

4th Edition alignments make this whole thing a lot easier though.


I agree with this, except that Samara is Lawful GOOD, not Neutral.  She follows her Code, and her code involves punishing the wicked and protecting the innocent.  Consider that her Code requires her to protect innocent lives if possible, letting the criminal get away in some cases.  She says this herself with her story about Nihlus.  Justice (not vengeance, the lines are sometimes blurred) is a Good concept, her being a person dedicated to justice is a bit of a clue as to her alignment.

Oh, and 4th edition sucks ass.  They changed the alignment system because idiots got confused by the old one.  Just a general statement, not directed at anyone.

#96
AntiChri5

AntiChri5
  • Members
  • 7 965 messages
Lawful Good: Samara. Liara.

Neutral Good: Tali Kaiden.

Chaotic Good: Garrus, Jacob.

Lawful Neutral: Legion. Ashley.

True Neutral: Mordin. Thane.

Chaotic Neutral: Kasumi

Lawful Evil: Miranda.

Neutral Evil: Zaeed.

Chaotic Evil: Jack, Grunt.

Chaotic fucking psycho evil: Morinth.

Modifié par AntiChri5, 14 août 2010 - 09:35 .


#97
fantasypisces

fantasypisces
  • Members
  • 1 293 messages
Miranda: Starts Lawful Evil, then goes to Lawful Neutral at the end
Jacob: Neutral Good
Mordin: Chaotic Good (one person said he was Chaotic evil, sorry person, you are dumb)
Garrus: Chaotic Good
Grunt: Chaotic Evil
Jack: Chaotic Evil, but then Chaotic Neutral if you romance her.
Thane: Hard to pin down, but I would say Chaotic Good
Samara: Lawful Good
Tali: Neutral Good
Legion: True Neutral
Zaeed: True Neutral as he borders between lawful and chaotic, but never with an abundance of good or evil, they are pretty evenly divided.
Kasumi: Chaotic Good

For ME1:
Ashley: Neutral Good
Kaiden: Neutral Good
Wrex: True Neutral
Liara: Neutral Good
Garrus: Chaotic Neutral (he changes in ME2)
Tali: Neutral Good

Seems ME1 had a much smaller spread to me.

Modifié par fantasypisces, 14 août 2010 - 10:17 .


#98
Bluko

Bluko
  • Members
  • 1 737 messages
Just my two cents on the matter of character alignment.

Lawful Good-Samara
Neutral Good-Tali, Ashley, Kaidan, Liara
Chaotic Good-Garrus, Kasumi

Lawful Neutral-Miranda, Jacob
True Neutral-Legion, Mordin
Chaotic Neutral-Wrex, Grunt, Thane, Jack

Lawful Evil-Zaeed
Neutral Evil-?
Chaotic Evil-Morinth

Modifié par Bluko, 14 août 2010 - 10:27 .


#99
BigGuy28

BigGuy28
  • Members
  • 552 messages

wizardryforever wrote...


I agree with this, except that Samara is Lawful GOOD, not Neutral.  She follows her Code, and her code involves punishing the wicked and protecting the innocent.  Consider that her Code requires her to protect innocent lives if possible, letting the criminal get away in some cases.  She says this herself with her story about Nihlus.  Justice (not vengeance, the lines are sometimes blurred) is a Good concept, her being a person dedicated to justice is a bit of a clue as to her alignment.

Oh, and 4th edition sucks ass.  They changed the alignment system because idiots got confused by the old one.  Just a general statement, not directed at anyone.


Samara follows her code that's why I see her as Lawful Neutral. Lawful Good follows the laws set up by the city/world/government that they serve/live in. I just really don't buy her being Lawful Good. Also remember, if anyone gets in her way say... a police officer that has to arrest her she will kill that police officer. That is not a good person.

4th Edition is a great game, very fun and I enjoy it very much. Horrible D&D game though. Old alignments didn't confuse anyone really, they just made it a bit easier and it doesn't bother me.

Modifié par BigGuy28, 14 août 2010 - 11:09 .


#100
Jigero

Jigero
  • Members
  • 635 messages
Lawful Good: Legion, Samara, Tali, Kaiden, Ashely, Jacob

Neutral Good: ME1 Liara, ME2 Wrex

Chaotic Good: Garrus, Modin

Neutral: Kasumi,

Lawful Neutral: Miranda.

Chaotic Neutral: Grunt, ME1 Wrex

Lawful Evil: Thane, ME2 Liara

Neutral Evil: Zaeed, Jack, Morinth

Chaotic Evil: no one.



Breakdown.



Legion: Lawful good because he is a crusader for his people and he is doing things for the good of his people. Not only that he does fallow his own laws.

Tali: Doing good for the sake of her people and a paragon of her people, also is mindful of their laws.

Samara: Asari Paladin

Kaiden: Lawful to the Alliance and also believes in doing good.

Ashley: same as Kaiden

Jacob: boy scout moral ****.

Liara: Was neutral good in Me1 but slipped to Lawful Evil because she pretty much runs the underworld on Ilium.

Wrex: Was Chaotic Neutral in ME1, but in ME2 he's trying to better his people but not exactly lawful so neutral good.

Garrus: He's like dirty harry, so Chaotic good

Kasumi: Steals yet is willing to do good. so Neutral

Miranda: Law enforcer with in Cerebus, but is kinda neutral to anything.

Mordin: Mordin is ruled by science, but does have some sense of morals, but will do evil for the sake of good. so Chaotic Good

Grunt: really only cares about challenging him self in battle. so chaotic neutral

Thane: Lawful to his religion but does evil acts because he really has no qualms about who he kills. so Lawful Evil.

Zaeed: Has no problem doing evil acts like sacrificing innocent people to obtain a goal. But doesn't do evil for evil's sake.

Jack: Enjoys hurting people and killing people and would do it to anyone regardless.

Morinth: Evil but does evil for her own sake. She doesn't do evil for the greater sake of evil.



No one is truly chaotic evil because no one is really trying to do evil for the greater sake of evil. None of them wanna rule the world or anything like that.