2020. 2. 13. 20:57ㆍ카테고리 없음
What it ultimately boils down to. But since it's so much fun to argue. Character Alignment is a shorthand for a given character's (or religion's, society's, organization's, etc.) moral/ethical outlook on. Many roleplaying games use some sort of alignment system as a, an 'ideal' for a character to live up to, or just a descriptive shorthand for characters, though some gamers deride them as crutches to 'real roleplaying,' and some systems accordingly have none at all. Always remember that the vast majority of characters in fiction are not tabletop game characters, and therefore lack a canonical interpretation of alignment by the standards below.
Characters should only be categorized under them when their alignments are clearly and explicitly stated in canon. As both the standards and especially character personalities are vague, complicated to interpret, and subject to change with, thus leading to endless debate, the assignment of alignments to characters not stated to have them is considered strictly subjective. The alignment system most roleplayers are familiar with is the one used in, which has appeared in a couple of different forms: The original editions of drew on the works of and to come up with three alignments:, with Lawful representing honor and obedience to, well,. Chaotic characters may be insane, but could simply lean towards a desire for the freedom to do what they want. Whether they do good or evil because of this freedom is what decides their moral leaning. Neutrality alternatively represents neither one (as was the case with animals and people who simply didn't care) or a desire to see ' between the two.
Later editions kept this as the 'ethical' axis of the alignment scale and added a second 'moral' axis of Good, Neutral, and Evil. The ethical axis was more one's attitude towards the position of society and rules: Lawful characters think having an ordered society is important and beneficial; Chaotic characters don't necessarily oppose this, but think the freedom of the individual comes first; Neutral characters tend to judge such situations on a case-by-case basis. If a law was unjust, a lawful person might think it needs retooling, or say that it prevents more problems than it causes. A neutral person might see the need for such a law, but would still think it should be scrapped and redone from scratch. A chaotic person would probably just break it. This is sometimes lumped in with two different attitudes: whether the character in question believes that the universe as a whole is orderly, and how the character conducts his life (with plans or flying by the seat of his pants). This can produce considerable confusion, as the three levels can exist in any combination.
The 'moral' axis can be adequately explained by the focus of those morals: Good people generally focus on you (they feel that they should help everyone else when possible). Neutrals are usually focused on us, meaning their family and friends (they can be charitable, but their 'circle' always comes first), though they can display elements of me (in that they tend to look out for themselves and are uninterested in the affairs of others (though they'll still balk at outright harming others)). Evil people are generally me focused (often at the expense of other's misfortune). However, like good, evils can also focus on you (but instead of aid and kindness, when those who are evil-aligned focus on others, it is with an emphasis on destruction and suffering). Combining the two axes allowed characters to be of nine possible alignments, as follows:.: Basically, they believe Law is Good, and that you do good by upholding the law. The alignment of, and the.
Believes in Truth, Justice and such, but may potentially believe in them a little. Commonly run into the question of whether.
Poorly portrayed, he tends to be, largely depending on your interpretation of 'good'. Individuals who believe that will tend to view society as tending towards, with most individuals within it as lawful. In D&D up to 4.0 edition, archons, celestials who inhabit the Seven Heavens, are Lawful Good. From a non- D&D, more realistic perspective, however, LGs are likely altruists who believe in an orderly lifestyle for the benefit of their species. Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion, but it can be a dangerous alignment when it restricts freedom and criminalizes self-interest.: Sweetness and light.
Doing good is more important than upholding the law, but law is not a bad thing. Not too caught up in; concerned with moral goodness, but often not willing to enforce it in others. A is very likely to be. Just think 'basically nice person' and you've probably got it. (For advanced learners, there's.) states may be, but depending on how idealistic or cynical the setting is, they may be deluding themselves.
The guardinal celestials of D&D, who inhabit Elysium, are Neutral Good. Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order, but it can be a dangerous alignment when it advances mediocrity by limiting the actions of the truly capable.: and who are stereotypically found opposing tyrants and other oppressive types. They tend to believe that things like order, discipline, and can get in the way of doing good. Thanks to their free-spirited, easily bored nature, if the local government isn't considered sufficiently oppressive, they might just go out and find one that is. Or they may believe too much order is bad for everyone. Whatever their stance is, they act on their ideals before they let laws get in the way, and sometimes they dare the laws to get in the way. Basically, think or — a guy who lives for freedom and adventure, but consistently lends a helping hand to the downtrodden and oppressed whenever the opportunity arises, even if he has to go well out of his way to do so.
Whether characters are portrayed as, or depends on the views of the author and, ultimately, readers. Represented in pre-4th Edition D&D by the elf- and fey-like eladrin celestials of Arborea. Chaotic good is the best alignment you can be because it combines a good heart with a free spirit, but it can be a dangerous alignment when it disrupts the order of society and punishes those who do well for themselves.: The rule-abiding sort. Law and order is more important than whether you're good or evil.
Believes in keeping order, though not necessarily in Justice as a universal constant (though they may — this can get complicated). They'll arrest a robber or rapist, but may also kick a family out of their home for failing to pay rent, even if they were poor. May also believe in a Cosmic Order that transcends laws — many monks are. Just as often the bad guys as the good guys in an situation. People who think will argue that all societies tend towards, as the Always individuals who make up society surrender their freedom to the law in exchange.
Modrons, D&D beings of geometrically perfect precision and order who inhabit the plane of Mechanus, are Lawful Neutral. Mercenaries who obey their contracts without question, and take either side of the moral spectrum, are. Can make a good. Probably the best known example of this alignment is from (who basically sees 'lawful' as the same as 'good'). Lawful neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot, but it can be a dangerous alignment when it seeks to eliminate all freedom, choice, and diversity in society.: Sometimes known as just Neutral, or even. Comes in two flavors: and Druids are the former sort, on the same side as the animals.
The balance-happy sort may sometimes be, but may also be a. It's not uncommon to see monks, for instance; not to mention. Many a fits under this alignment. Your average citizen of Libria (in ) is an example of the 'Just Doesn't Care' version of neutrality, without necessarily being stupid — the government would probably be. Druids in D&D were required to be until the 3rd Edition of the game, and even then had to maintain 'some of nature's neutrality'. Mordenkainen, from the setting, a very powerful wizard who actively tries to keep any major power from getting the upper hand, is an example of the 'Balance Keeping' version. Animals, meanwhile, are considered to lack any sort of moral capacity; since moral judgments can't be placed on them, they are in.
Rilmani, metallic-skinned humanoids from the Outlands, are the True Neutral archetype, maintaining the balance between all the other planes. If True Neutrals include the kind with a head for things, then they most likely typically do not care for idealist virtues and/or politics. Intelligent true neutrals are quite logical in how they go about things, including morals. Employers fire and hire employees in equal measure, etc. Neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion, but it can be a dangerous alignment when it represents apathy, indifference, and a lack of conviction.: The ultimate free spirits, or just? It can go either way.
Chaotic Neutral characters are all about freedom, and don't care so much about morality. Sometimes they're just amoral nutjobs, and sometimes they're generally good people with a wild streak that sometimes leads them into bad things. Often used by players in to excuse doing anything they feel like (in the case of a who disables evil alignments — see, below), and often prohibited by the sort of who also prohibits outright evil characters. Like Lawful Neutral, however, how 'good' they ultimately end up seeming depends on which side of the plot tends toward. The toadlike slaad ('I didn't know what he was talking about, so I ate him.' ), inhabitants of Limbo, are Chaotic Neutral.
Chaotic neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom from both society's restrictions and a do-gooder's zeal, but it can be a dangerous alignment when it seeks to eliminate all authority, harmony, and order in society.: The ordered sort of Evil, that often ends up in charge. Can be a lot like Lawful Neutral, but nastier. Well-structured, large-scale and often scarily successful evil. May believe in keeping order, or may simply believe that a well-ordered system is so much. Whether an is Lawful Evil or Lawful Neutral is basically a function of whether he enjoys what he's doing (see above example of kicking the family out of the house).
Are almost always this alignment. If, he's almost always Lawful Evil. On the 'bright' side, the and are often Lawful Evil (if they're evil at all), as they tend to develop a 'Code of Honor' to guide their actions, and can in fact be dependable allies in an situation where other alignments might fizzle out. In circumstances where you are not a threat to their intentions, Lawful Evil might well be the 'lesser of the three evils', but on the other hand, it's the one most likely to win and the one that most frequently causes suffering on a grand scale. In general tend towards Lawful Evil — mostly since they plan to construct their very own empire that you'd better fall in line with — as do many. A mercenary who always keeps his contract (good or evil), but enjoys a job where he gets to hurt people, is Lawful Evil and more likely to end up working for the bad guys. The baatezu (devils) of D&D rule the plane of Baator with a Lawful Evil fist, and some of these were originally angels.
As a good reference point, Big Brother (or O'Brien) from 1984 would be Lawful Evil. Lawful evil creatures consider their alignment to be the best because it combines honor with a dedicated self-interest, but it is also the most dangerous alignment because it represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil.: Sometimes known as the Asshole Alignment.
The Neutral Evil Alignment can be even more dangerous than the Chaotic Evil Alignment — simply because you can't be sure of which way they'll swing in the end. Neutral Evil characters are primarily in it for themselves, because while they are usually villains, they can also swing to the good guy's side, like the they really are. They may also just happen to be on the Good Guy's Team. Why are they so bad? It could be that or maybe. Could be that they've given in to.
They could be part of the. They could just be, you know,. They could take way too far. Or it could be for no readily apparent reason whatsoever. They can be the very embodiment of malice, or just petty thugs.
In Dungeons & Dragons, characters who are selfish above all else are Neutral Evil by default. Expect any Neutral Evil state to be, and a Neutral Evil city the. The double-dealing, backstabbing, gleefully evil and mercenary fiends called yugoloths (daemons), living in the Bleak Eternity of Gehenna, are D&D's archetypal beings. Neutral evil beings consider their alignment to be the best because they can advance themselves without regard for others, but it is also the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure evil without honor and without variation.: If Chaotic Neutral indicates the truly free spirit, Chaotic Evil is the truly evil free spirit. Whereas the Chaotic Neutral is concerned only with his freedom but isn't a really horrible person, the same can't be said for the Chaotic Evil character.
They will do whatever they want to (even if, and sometimes, especially, it hurts other people) and (to them) rules don't matter. Whereas a Neutral Evil character will sometimes follow the law if it is convenient, the Chaotic Evil character occasionally takes pleasure in going out of their way to break the law. So why are they evil? Perhaps they're in it for profit.
Maybe they are narcissistic or egotistical. Or maybe they're simply insane; most but not all psychopaths fall under this designation. But contrary to what some believe, Chaotic Evil does not mean the kind of wanton, meaningless slaughter and destruction associated with. Indeed, it is often the more calculating and intelligent villains of this kind that are the most dangerous. Being Chaotic Evil doesn't mean a character HAS to slaughter an entire village just because he's passing through.
Shin Megami Tensei Iii Nocturne Maniax Chronicle Edition Iso
Of course, if he's having a bad day, or is bored, he might just jam a knife in somebody. Are good examples of Chaotic Evil. It's the canonical alignment of tanar'ri (demons), beings who were created in and by an endless semisentient Abyss that itself is dedicated to entropy, in D&D. For a great example of how Chaotic Evil can be done well and not be, see. Chaotic evil beings believe their alignment is the best because it combines self-interest and pure freedom, but it is also the most dangerous alignment because it represents the destruction not only of beauty and life but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.
It helps to think of it as a 3x3 square with the moral and ethical axes on each side, and all the possible alignments surrounding, like so: Alignment Chart Ethical Lawful Neutral Chaotic Good Lawful Good Neutral Good Chaotic Good Neutral Lawful Neutral True Neutral Chaotic Neutral Evil Lawful Evil Neutral Evil Chaotic Evil The alignment any particular character falls under is mostly a matter of opinion in works other than, where it's usually spelled out (and even then, fans are likely to spill a lot of words about how ). It's also generally only important in, but that doesn't stop RPG fans from discussing what alignment characters in every other work they like would be — just for fun, try Googling ' alignment', or better yet, Google Site Search it on an RPG-oriented forum. This is why most of the above statements about which alignment a character 'probably' is are qualified (and, incidentally, why none of the examples is ). There will always be a This is the concept that gives, and their names. Expect a setting that explicitly uses alignment to make frequent use of and type plots. The is a way for video games to represent this.
Working out a specific character's alignment is subject to, and let's not forget mountains of. Arguments about what the alignments themselves mean often get into the. As the quote for shows, the alignment system was and is meant to be a roleplaying tool (every DnD manual from 2E on mentions this fact). Most players of any TTRPG involving one tend to ignore this, and either ignore their alignment or treat it as a character shackle. This truth in and of itself is the reason so many (and arguments) based on this concept exist. If someone is having difficulty depicting a character of a particular alignment because of the alignment, or in imagining how to do so sensibly, it's probably because they're putting the cart before the horse. Alignment isn't personality and doesn't determine it.
Personality determines alignment. You should first come up with the personality and see how the character functions based on it, and then see which alignment it fits. For example, instead of presenting as doing random evil acts for no reason, you might come up with a character who thinks the only way to get by is to dominate everyone else by using physical violence, and is willing to apply this method at the least provocation, lest he seem 'weak', not caring that he hurts others — and then realise his behaviour and attitude amount to a kind of Chaotic Evil, this time with a reason. A on is creating motivational posters of various characters from fiction and real life with a caption explaining their alignment. The ultimate example being a 3x3 grid showing every alignment with varying pictures and captions, ◊:. As with all good concepts, it's very ripe for parody — there are such motivational posters of including 'Chaotic Awesome' (for ) and 'Chaotic Gorgeous' (Evanna Lynch's portrayal of ). Is also quite helpful in explaining the concept of Character Alignment, and has further info on the nine different alignments.
As a general rule, do not add Character Alignment to any work where it is not featured in. Explains this in more detail.
See also, and. The will invert any alignment. Except for; the opposite of zero is still zero. Due to the controversial nature of this trope, and not to mention, it's considered shoe-horning to categorize people with these kind of tropes, since it invites an. The one exception is outlines of actual proposed systems (such as the theory). Examples of Works/Settings With Explicit Character Alignment.
See the example in the article description. In the fifth issue of the comic, an alignment chart is given for the odd variants of the main characters in Adventure Time's world. Assuming they translate to the main versions, they are: Lawful Good - Princess Bubblegum, Neutral Good - Finn, Chaotic Good - Jake, Lawful Neutral - Lemongrab, True Neutral - Tree Trunks, Chaotic Neutral - Marceline, Neutral Evil - Ice King, and Chaotic Evil - The Lich. The vacant Lawful Evil space is taken by one-shot villain Me-Mow.
Aristotle's philosophy posits that every personal quality is an axis of a person's moral alignment, and the ideal/virtuous path is somewhere on the middle of each axis, called the golden mean or middle way depending on your translation. For instance, if courage is a virtue, it's actually a scale where going to high results in, and going too low results in. Some Buddhist religious philosophies express the eight-fold path in much the same way. The theory of the four humours is that every person's being is composed of various amounts of four fundamental elements added together, usually with one dominating.
Hippocrates actually expanded the theory to medicine and the idea that this applied to the physical body as well as the mind lasted well into the middle ages:. Sanguine - active, extroverted, energetic. Choleric - irritable, curt, thoughtless. Phlegmatic - relaxed, passive, low-energy. Melancholic - introverted, brooding, thoughtful. has a bit of an implied alignment system, with all wrestlers being divided into, or, though this generally isn't acknowledged in — except in Mexican lucha libre promotions in the vein of, some other Spanish regions such as The Dominican Wrestling Federation and lucha-inspired promotions like, where wrestlers are openly referred to as either ' or '.
Look for media based on North American wrestling not rooted in lucha culture, such as video games, to use euphemisms to refer to this system (such as 'Fan Favorite' for Face and 'Rule Breaker' for Heel). When a D20 game was released under, the alignments were actually Face, Tweener, and Heel. Later games have 'Clean' and 'Dirty'; apparently no real 'tweeners'. IWRG spells out the difference between tecnicos and rudos. For the first two years of 's existence, the was law and almost every wrestler followed it to some extent, unless they were specifically trying to make a statement.
It was retired when enforcement became impractical but returned as an optional suggestion used to assess members of the locker room more than anything else.:. Not only did they come up with the best-known alignment system, but a number of their settings feature gods of different alignments competing for power. Many spells and items will only function on/for characters of a given alignment (moral, ethical, or both). In most settings, a god will accept clerics only of alignments no more than one 'step' removed from its own (for example, a Lawful Neutral god, unless otherwise specified, would accept a Lawful Good or Lawful Evil cleric (to complicate matters, there is normally a rule that states that Clerics can only be True Neutral if their god is), but wouldn't accept a Chaotic Neutral cleric), though their lay worshipers can be of any alignment. In earlier editions of the game, only player characters were able to freely choose their alignment; monsters (that is, any non-human or demihuman creature) were born with their specific alignment and could never change.
This was due to the influence of the Outer Planes (which were arranged precisely according to the alignment axis) and the gods of the campaign. A goblin, for example, was born evil, and no amount of counseling would ever change it (though magic might). The fact all creatures (including PCs) had invisible 'alignment auras' that could be 'read' was proof of this.
The reason for this was so that good-aligned characters. There were, however, occasional variations — you might meet the rare non-evil goblin, for example, but it would be the result of crossbreeding, magic, etc. — never willing change. If the many, many conversations on alignment on various boards (oddly only rarely becoming flame wars) are any indication, the rules for alignment are vague.
It really doesn't help that the writers don't seem that constant, one iconic character is lawful because they are devoted to something, but another iconic is chaotic because they are devoted to their art. Planescape introduces intermediate alignments between extremes and classifies them as tendencies. For example, you can have Good-leaning Chaotic Neutral, or a Chaotic-leaning Neutral Good, instead of just Chaotic Good. This seems to make classification of characters who are not exactly in one alignment or another much easier. This far predated Planescape, with various Outer Planes in the 1st Edition Player's Handbook shading into each others' alignments, with, for example, The Nine Hells being described as the plane of 'absolute Lawful Evil' while the planes of Acheron and Gehenna on either side being planes of 'Lawful Evil Neutrals,' the former being essentially 'Lawful Lawful Evil' and the latter being 'Lawful Evil Evil.' Only the Outer Planes along the central axes were of absolute alignment, with the intermediate planes between them having varying degrees of appropriate blending.
This even extended into NPCs being described with alignment 'tendencies' such as Chaotic Neutral (Good.). Another bit of evidence that suggests that alignment was originally intended to be more 'tangible' was the concept of alignment languages. If you were, say, then you had the option of learning to speak the official Lawful Good language (tm). Presumably, you were then issued your LG decoder ring and membership card that gave you access to the Lambda Gamma frat house where there is absolutely no underage drinking and a strict curfew. Hey, if you wanted a party house, you should've pledged, which has the most keggers, but you'll probably have trouble getting your roommate to pick up his socks!.
The Alignment Languages weren't quite as silly as they seem, with the Alignments being more akin to belonging to secret societies devoted to particular philosophies/religions (such as the Cynics or Pythagorians in Ancient Greece) that taught you the appropriate code words and phrases than real, living languages. For example, they were described in the 1st Edition Dungeon Master's Guide as being useful for such things as conducting philosophical discussions appropriate to the alignment, or identifying impostors (which was why Assassins were able to learn Alignment Languages other than their own) but being pretty useless for, say, buying a loaf of bread at the local market. The D&D 3rd edition sourcebook Complete Scoundrel (which includes options and prestige classes for playing a or ) lists several characters as examples of 'scoundrels' of different alignments.:, Dick Tracy, and.: Starbuck (from ), Malcolm Reynolds (from ), and.:, and Sanjuro.:, Lucy Westenra (from ), and (in his early appearance).