Willy Wonka's Alignment?

CN or CG? What do you think?

- Ron ^*^

Stephenls

2004-05-26 03:01:59 UTC

Post by Werebat
CN or CG? What do you think?

Chaotic Neutral in the book. Chaotic Good in the movie.

--
Stephenls
Geek
"I'm as impure as the driven yellow snow." -Spike

Sorcier

2004-05-26 03:49:11 UTC

Post by Stephenls

Post by Werebat
CN or CG? What do you think?

Chaotic Neutral in the book. Chaotic Good in the movie.

Hm, my recollection of Glass Elevator had him acting far nicer
than Wilder's version did.
(Strangely I haven't read Chocolate Factory...)

Though, even in the movie he had a little bit of a
vindictive/vicious streak.
CG by a thread.
But don't push him...

Going by values though:
Believes in individuality and self expression? Check. "C".
Belives in the betterment of others? Check. Likely "G".

Hell, I'd label Wonka as Good before I would
Gandalf, Merlin, or Glinda. ;)

Now how about Mary Poppins?
Or Dr. Dolittle? (Harrison version of course! Or book version...)

William Burke

2004-05-26 04:34:02 UTC

Post by Sorcier
Now how about Mary Poppins?

The movie version is a pretty good example of a Lawful Good character,
to my eyes. The book version is somewhat more Lawful Neutral, I think
(including all the other books, of course).

Post by Sorcier
Or Dr. Dolittle? (Harrison version of course! Or book version...)

Haven't seen the movie. The book version is a sterling display of what
happens when a Lawful Good character is in a party of primarily CG and
CN characters.

--p

forumite

2004-05-26 22:20:46 UTC

Post by Sorcier
Now how about Mary Poppins?

The movie version is a pretty good example of a Lawful Good character,
to my eyes. The book version is somewhat more Lawful Neutral, I think
(including all the other books, of course).
--p

Movie Mary Poppins is not Lawful Good. Even Mr. Banks says she brings
chaos. She is not one to let other peoples' rules reflect her
actions, and subtly inspired the children to reject the stoic
lawfulness of the bank. However, despite Mr. Bank's statement, she is
not Chaotic because she does also espouse responsibility, and doesn't
let the children go all out crazy. That she espouses Goodness is
without question. She is Neutral Good.

As for Willy Wonka, I wouldn't say automatically he is Chaotic. Going
by the movie, he has the children sign a contract, enforces it on
Charlie as a test, and during the tour warns of rules and regulations.
However, he is not Lawful either. While a Lawful Good character can
let others make mistakes and learn from them, Wonka goes over the
proverbial line. He's not Neutral to Good and Evil because ultimately
he wants to find a Good child to run the factory and care for the
Oompa Loompas as he does. I say Wonka is also Neutral Good.

Gerald Katz

David Prokopetz

2004-05-26 22:27:46 UTC

Post by Sorcier
Now how about Mary Poppins?

The movie version is a pretty good example of a Lawful Good character,
to my eyes. The book version is somewhat more Lawful Neutral, I think
(including all the other books, of course).
--p

Note that being Lawful Good doesn't necessarily imply adherence the laws and
mores of the society one happens to be presently inhabiting - go down *that*
road and you're back in the old "the Paladin falls the moment he steps
across the border into the Lawful Evil dictatorship - there's no way in Hell
he'd be willing to respect the local laws, therefore he becomes Chaotic"
problem.

- David Prokopetz.

forumite

2004-05-27 22:35:09 UTC

Post by David Prokopetz

Of course, but Mary Poppins is still not Lawful Good. Blowing away
the applicant nannies such that she's the only applicant left is not
Lawful Good behavior. Acting as if she got the job before she was
officially hired is not Lawful Good. Cheating by chivalry in the
horserace is not Lawful Good behavior.

Gerald Katz

~consul

2004-05-26 22:57:59 UTC

William Burke
As for Willy Wonka, I wouldn't say automatically he is Chaotic. Going
by the movie, he has the children sign a contract, enforces it on
Charlie as a test, and during the tour warns of rules and regulations.
However, he is not Lawful either. While a Lawful Good character can
let others make mistakes and learn from them, Wonka goes over the
proverbial line. He's not Neutral to Good and Evil because ultimately
he wants to find a Good child to run the factory and care for the
Oompa Loompas as he does. I say Wonka is also Neutral Good.

Now, in an earlier post, I said he was Neutral Good ... but now I'm playing with the idea
that he can be Lawful Evil. Forget about how he wants a 'good' child to run the factory
and take care of the Oompa Loompas as being inherently 'good'. I think it can be argued
that he is working purely from a self-interest POV, as he did kidnap them, and won't let
them leave (we haven't seen them try), he keeps them sedated with all the chocolate so
they don't rebel. There is no individuality wrt to his workers. He doesn't educate them or
socialize them in any way so they can interact with London in any meaningful/contexual
way. All for the good of the chocolate business. He's found his niche in the market
system, and will do anything to maintain it, within the laws of the nation. Unless you are
on his property and factory, then he will mutilate and manipulate you to no end, if he
sees fit. That he treats his slave workers with kindness doesn't mean his isn't a evil,
its in his best interest to do so, what with his specialized workforce.

DON'T BE BLINDED BY HIS RAZZLE DAZZLE SMILE! HE'S A DANGER TO SOCIETY!!

--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk ..."
-till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
***@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com ((remove the INVALID to email))

The Black Guardian

2004-05-27 06:09:41 UTC

Post by ~consul

Post by forumite
As for Willy Wonka, I wouldn't say automatically he is Chaotic. Going
by the movie, he has the children sign a contract, enforces it on
Charlie as a test, and during the tour warns of rules and regulations.
However, he is not Lawful either. While a Lawful Good character can
let others make mistakes and learn from them, Wonka goes over the
proverbial line. He's not Neutral to Good and Evil because ultimately
he wants to find a Good child to run the factory and care for the
Oompa Loompas as he does. I say Wonka is also Neutral Good.

Now, in an earlier post, I said he was Neutral Good ... but now I'm playing
with the idea that he can be Lawful Evil. Forget about how he wants a
'good' child to run the factory and take care of the Oompa Loompas as
being inherently 'good'. I think it can be argued that he is working purely
from a self-interest POV, as he did kidnap them, and won't let them
leave (we haven't seen them try), he keeps them sedated with all the
chocolate so they don't rebel. There is no individuality wrt to his workers.
He doesn't educate them or socialize them in any way so they can
interact with London in any meaningful/contexual way. All for the good
of the chocolate business. He's found his niche in the market system,
and will do anything to maintain it, within the laws of the nation.
Unless you are on his property and factory, then he will mutilate and
manipulate you to no end, if he sees fit. That he treats his slave workers
with kindness doesn't mean his isn't a evil, its in his best interest to do
so, what with his specialized workforce.
DON'T BE BLINDED BY HIS RAZZLE DAZZLE SMILE! HE'S A DANGER TO SOCIETY!!

While I agree that he's a danger, he's definitely not Lawful Evil.

--
-=[ The BlakGard ]=-
"Somewhere there's danger;
somewhere there's injustice,
and somewhere else the tea is getting cold!"

Arivne

2004-05-27 10:07:18 UTC

~consul <***@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com> wrote:
<snip>

Post by ~consul
Now, in an earlier post, I said he was Neutral Good ... but now I'm
playing with the idea that he can be Lawful Evil. Forget about how
he wants a 'good' child to run the factory and take care of the
Oompa Loompas as being inherently 'good'. I think it can be argued
that he is working purely from a self-interest POV, as he did
kidnap them, and won't let them leave (we haven't seen them try),
he keeps them sedated with all the chocolate so they don't rebel.
There is no individuality wrt to his workers. He doesn't educate
them or socialize them in any way so they can interact with London
in any meaningful/contexual way. All for the good of the chocolate
business. He's found his niche in the market system, and will do
anything to maintain it, within the laws of the nation. Unless you
are on his property and factory, then he will mutilate and
manipulate you to no end, if he sees fit. That he treats his slave
workers with kindness doesn't mean his isn't a evil,
its in his best interest to do so, what with his specialized workforce.
DON'T BE BLINDED BY HIS RAZZLE DAZZLE SMILE! HE'S A DANGER TO SOCIETY!!

It's worse than you think. <grin>

http://www.dribbleglass.com/articles/wonka-scandal.htm

http://www.dribbleglass.com/posters/wonka.htm

Arivne

Matt Pillsbury

2004-05-27 00:22:12 UTC

***@netzero.com (forumite) writes:
[...]

He's not Neutral to Good and Evil because ultimately he wants to
find a Good child to run the factory and care for the Oompa Loompas
as he does. I say Wonka is also Neutral Good.

A Neutral person might prefer having a Good person in charge, or as a
neighbor.

--
Matt Pillsbury
pillsy[at]mac[dot]com

David Johnston

2004-05-27 03:18:57 UTC

Post by Sorcier
Now how about Mary Poppins?

The movie version is a pretty good example of a Lawful Good character,
to my eyes. The book version is somewhat more Lawful Neutral, I think
(including all the other books, of course).
--p

Movie Mary Poppins is not Lawful Good. Even Mr. Banks says she brings
chaos. She is not one to let other peoples' rules reflect her
actions, and subtly inspired the children to reject the stoic
lawfulness of the bank. However, despite Mr. Bank's statement, she is
not Chaotic because she does also espouse responsibility, and doesn't
let the children go all out crazy. That she espouses Goodness is
without question. She is Neutral Good.
As for Willy Wonka, I wouldn't say automatically he is Chaotic. Going
by the movie, he has the children sign a contract, enforces it on
Charlie as a test, and during the tour warns of rules and regulations.
However, he is not Lawful either. While a Lawful Good character can
let others make mistakes and learn from them, Wonka goes over the
proverbial line. He's not Neutral to Good and Evil because ultimately
he wants to find a Good child to run the factory

Careful. He wants "good" by his standards, not by some alignment
system that he's never even heard of. You have look at what
his standards are, before you decide whether his good is Good.
So what are the standards he was looking for? I would say
self-discipline (the ability to resist temptation), and a willingness
to preserve an established status quo and take responsibility
for preserving it. What does that sound like to you?

and care for the

Post by forumite
Oompa Loompas as he does. I say Wonka is also Neutral Good.

Wait a second. That's a bit off. Are you seriously claiming that
a Neutral Good character can't let others make mistakes and learn
from them?

forumite

2004-05-27 22:47:03 UTC

All that proves is he strives for Good and wants Good. All archons,
guardinals, and eladrins want that. Law/Chaos axis is not defined.

Post by David Johnston
and care for the

Post by forumite
Oompa Loompas as he does. I say Wonka is also Neutral Good.

Wait a second. That's a bit off. Are you seriously claiming that
a Neutral Good character can't let others make mistakes and learn
from them?

No, what I'm saying is that a Lawful Good person would not let
Augustus be sucked up a pipe, Violet turn into a blueberry, Veruka
fall down into the furnace, or Mike get shrunk. A Lawful Good person
would not go to such extreme measures to teach a lesson. The
Everlasting Gobstopper bribe, however, was a Lawful Good test.

Robert Singers

2004-05-27 23:08:16 UTC

Out from under a rock popped forumite and said

Post by David Johnston
Wait a second. That's a bit off. Are you seriously claiming that
a Neutral Good character can't let others make mistakes and learn from
them?

That's a weird leap to make. Seems entirely lawful for me to not interfere
with a test that has been set, especially it's outcome.

--
Rob Singers
"All your Ron are belong to us"
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere

forumite

2004-05-28 23:37:19 UTC

Post by Robert Singers
Out from under a rock popped forumite and said

Post by David Johnston
Wait a second. That's a bit off. Are you seriously claiming that
a Neutral Good character can't let others make mistakes and learn from
them?

That's a weird leap to make. Seems entirely lawful for me to not interfere
with a test that has been set, especially it's outcome.

The problem is not the existence of a test, but what encompasses the
test, in this case failure of the test.

Gerald Katz

David Johnston

2004-05-29 00:36:20 UTC

Post by forumite
No, what I'm saying is that a Lawful Good person would not let
Augustus be sucked up a pipe, Violet turn into a blueberry, Veruka
fall down into the furnace, or Mike get shrunk. A Lawful Good person
would not go to such extreme measures to teach a lesson. The
Everlasting Gobstopper bribe, however, was a Lawful Good test.

That's a weird leap to make. Seems entirely lawful for me to not interfere
with a test that has been set, especially it's outcome.

The problem is not the existence of a test, but what encompasses the
test, in this case failure of the test.

Uh...what? In any case I'm inclined to go with Lawful Neutral.

Robert Singers

2004-05-29 22:17:56 UTC

forumite startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following words of
wisdom

Post by forumite
The problem is not the existence of a test, but what encompasses the
test, in this case failure of the test.

You're saying that a Lawful alignment would not set a test that could be
failed? Also can I suggest to you that if you want to decide on what the
test comprises you should possibly consider the good\evil axis.

--
Rob Singers
"All your Ron are belong to us"

David Johnston

2004-05-27 23:50:21 UTC

All that proves is he strives for Good and wants Good.

How does it prove that? What is he doing that is so good?

Post by David Johnston
and care for the

Post by forumite
Oompa Loompas as he does. I say Wonka is also Neutral Good.

Wait a second. That's a bit off. Are you seriously claiming that
a Neutral Good character can't let others make mistakes and learn
from them?

No, what I'm saying is that a Lawful Good person would not let
Augustus be sucked up a pipe, Violet turn into a blueberry, Veruka
fall down into the furnace, or Mike get shrunk.

What? None of them? I'm pretty sure at least some LGs have no
problem with harshly punishing disobedience of the rules. I certainly
don't think a Neutral Good person is crueler than an Lawful Good
person.

William Burke

2004-05-28 00:02:59 UTC

Post by forumite
No, what I'm saying is that a Lawful Good person would not let
Augustus be sucked up a pipe, Violet turn into a blueberry, Veruka
fall down into the furnace, or Mike get shrunk.

It's also worth noting that, at least in the book, none of them are
killed or seriously injured. (Well, Violet is blue forever.) On the
other hand, they are arguably punished all out of proportion to their
crime, which isn't Lawful Good.

--p

Robert Singers

2004-05-28 01:26:34 UTC

Out from under a rock popped William Burke and said

Post by William Burke
It's also worth noting that, at least in the book, none of them are
killed or seriously injured.ÿ (Well, Violet is blue forever.) On the
other hand, they are arguably punished all out of proportion to their
crime, which isn't Lawful Good.

"Proportion" is a subjective judgement you're making.

--
Rob Singers
"All your Ron are belong to us"
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere

William Burke

2004-05-28 01:33:47 UTC

Post by Robert Singers
Out from under a rock popped William Burke and said

"Proportion" is a subjective judgement you're making.

Hence the use of the word "arguably."

--p

Robert Singers

2004-05-28 01:45:49 UTC

Out from under a rock popped William Burke and said

Post by Robert Singers
Out from under a rock popped William Burke and said

"Proportion" is a subjective judgement you're making.

Hence the use of the word "arguably."

Yes. Perhaps I should have said you're obviously wrong :-)

--
Rob Singers
"All your Ron are belong to us"
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere

William Burke

2004-05-28 02:02:36 UTC

Post by Robert Singers
Out from under a rock popped William Burke and said

Post by Robert Singers
Out from under a rock popped William Burke and said

"Proportion" is a subjective judgement you're making.

Hence the use of the word "arguably."

Yes. Perhaps I should have said you're obviously wrong :-)

Ha. Fair enough.

To argue it more visibly: (also, Wonka spoilers)

All the children do is act greedy and impulsive and not listen to their
parents. The traditional punishment for this ranges from a scolding to
a spanking. Instead, Wonka essentially scars them for life. (Well,
Veruca doesn't really suffer at all, except for being covered with
trash. The other three undergo drastic and somewhat irreversible body
modifications.)

Is this really a just and reasonable punishment?

Then again, it is Roald Dahl, so maybe.

--p

Robert Singers

2004-05-28 02:23:52 UTC

Out from under a rock popped William Burke and said

Post by William Burke
All the children do is act greedy and impulsive and not listen to their
parents. The traditional punishment for this ranges from a scolding to
a spanking. Instead, Wonka essentially scars them for life. (Well,
Veruca doesn't really suffer at all, except for being covered with
trash. The other three undergo drastic and somewhat irreversible body
modifications.)
Is this really a just and reasonable punishment?

The huge flaw in your argument is that Wonka is not "their parents". He's
definately something /other/ than their parents. His "laws" will be
different. By his laws the punishment may be "proper". The punishment may
also be trivial by his standards. By this I mean for example that he may
have a different view regarding bodies.

--
Rob Singers
"All your Ron are belong to us"
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere

Werebat

2004-05-28 07:05:23 UTC

Post by Robert Singers
Out from under a rock popped William Burke and said

So Willy Wonka is from the Far Realm?

How would he deal with Tom Bombadil and the Mad Hatter?

- Ron ^*^

Mouse

2004-05-28 18:33:43 UTC

Post by Werebat
So Willy Wonka is from the Far Realm?
How would he deal with Tom Bombadil and the Mad Hatter?
- Ron ^*^

Deportation and a nice stew, respectively.

--
Either way, I hate you Count Chocula, if I didn't already.
- Drifter Bob, rec.games.frp.dnd

The Black Guardian

2004-05-28 02:36:13 UTC

"Proportion" is a subjective judgement you're making.

Hence the use of the word "arguably."

Yes. Perhaps I should have said you're obviously wrong :-)

Ha. Fair enough.
To argue it more visibly: (also, Wonka spoilers)
All the children do is act greedy and impulsive and not listen to their
parents. The traditional punishment for this ranges from a scolding to
a spanking. Instead, Wonka essentially scars them for life. (Well,
Veruca doesn't really suffer at all, except for being covered with
trash. The other three undergo drastic and somewhat irreversible body
modifications.)

Rubbish. Wonka does nothing of the sort. He simply lets them play in traffic
until they get smacked by a car.

Post by William Burke
Is this really a just and reasonable punishment?

If they're foolish enough not to heed his warnings... Sure. >:)

--
-=[ The BlakGard ]=-
"Somewhere there's danger;
somewhere there's injustice,
and somewhere else the tea is getting cold!"

Tim Fitzmaurice

2004-05-28 07:03:24 UTC

Post by The Black Guardian

Post by William Burke
Is this really a just and reasonable punishment?

If they're foolish enough not to heed his warnings... Sure. >:)

Since he wasn't in the business of punishing kids for misbehaving on a
tour, but testing the kids to see who was suitable for the factory, isnt
an argument simply over whether the punishment for misbehaving was just or
not currently sitting in slightly the wrong context at the moment (I can
see arguments existing for how the context of testing makes the ethics
more goodly or more evil - be interesting to see which argument people go
for most).

Tim
--
When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart
ICQ: 5178568

~consul

2004-05-28 16:17:38 UTC

Post by William Burke
It's also worth noting that, at least in the book, none of them are
killed or seriously injured. (Well, Violet is blue forever.) On the
other hand, they are arguably punished all out of proportion to their
crime, which isn't Lawful Good.

In the -FUTURE-, Violet will have an immense increase in her incidence of skin cancer, due
to the loss her melanin in her skin. Mike Teevee has developed a bone disease where he can
no longer support his own body structurebeing stretched and malformed. Same with Agustos,
as he obviously broke all his bones and cartilage when he got squeezed through the tube,
probably additional brain damage due to suffocation from being in the tube so long.
Veruca is probably fine, she just got dumped in the garbage. Maybe she caught an exotic
disease, given the genetic manipulated ingrediants and non-OSHA regulated production means.

William Burke

2004-05-28 20:04:11 UTC

In the -FUTURE-,...

Well, you can say that if you want. I remember the book specifying that
they're all going to be all right, but it's been a long time.

--p

~consul

2004-05-28 20:24:24 UTC

Post by William Burke
Well, you can say that if you want. I remember the book specifying that
they're all going to be all right, but it's been a long time.

Yeah, it did say they were going to be alright.

Bryan J. Maloney

2004-05-28 01:44:50 UTC

He lets kids lick things that taste like snozzberries! That's just
perverse.

forumite

2004-05-28 23:43:17 UTC

All that proves is he strives for Good and wants Good.

How does it prove that? What is he doing that is so good?

He doesn't want a greedy person to run his factory. He tests for a
good, honest child.

Post by David Johnston
and care for the

Post by forumite
Oompa Loompas as he does. I say Wonka is also Neutral Good.

Wait a second. That's a bit off. Are you seriously claiming that
a Neutral Good character can't let others make mistakes and learn
from them?

No, what I'm saying is that a Lawful Good person would not let
Augustus be sucked up a pipe, Violet turn into a blueberry, Veruka
fall down into the furnace, or Mike get shrunk.

A Lawful Good society can have a death penalty as not. However, the
death is to be quick. A Lawful Good society would not tolerate
mutilation. Neutral Good wouldn't tolerate mutilation either, but
motivation is key. Neutral Good is tolerant of poetic justice.

Gerald Katz

David Johnston

2004-05-29 00:37:55 UTC

Post by forumite
No, what I'm saying is that a Lawful Good person would not let
Augustus be sucked up a pipe, Violet turn into a blueberry, Veruka
fall down into the furnace, or Mike get shrunk.

Why are Lawful Goods not tolerant of poetic justice?

Werebat

2004-05-29 06:05:20 UTC

Post by forumite
No, what I'm saying is that a Lawful Good person would not let
Augustus be sucked up a pipe, Violet turn into a blueberry, Veruka
fall down into the furnace, or Mike get shrunk.

Why are Lawful Goods not tolerant of poetic justice?

Because they're bad poets.

- Ron ^*^

William Burke

2004-05-29 03:57:59 UTC

Post by David Johnston
Why are Lawful Goods not tolerant of poetic justice?

Because they're bad poets.

This isn't their fault, though; nothing rhymes with paladin.

--p

David Johnston

2004-05-29 04:23:07 UTC

On Sat, 29 May 2004 03:57:59 GMT, William Burke

Post by David Johnston
Why are Lawful Goods not tolerant of poetic justice?

Because they're bad poets.

This isn't their fault, though; nothing rhymes with paladin.

Saladin.

Justin Bacon

2004-05-29 04:29:46 UTC

Post by David Johnston
On Sat, 29 May 2004 03:57:59 GMT, William Burke

Post by David Johnston
Why are Lawful Goods not tolerant of poetic justice?

Because they're bad poets.

This isn't their fault, though; nothing rhymes with paladin.

Saladin.

Saladin days!

Justin Bacon
***@aol.com

(Brownie points for anyone who knows the reference.)

Werebat

2004-05-29 15:05:39 UTC

Post by David Johnston
Why are Lawful Goods not tolerant of poetic justice?

Because they're bad poets.

This isn't their fault, though; nothing rhymes with paladin.

A $50 bill inside a Paladin's hat?

- Ron ^*^

William Burke

2004-05-30 01:01:13 UTC

Post by David Johnston
Why are Lawful Goods not tolerant of poetic justice?

Because they're bad poets.

This isn't their fault, though; nothing rhymes with paladin.

A $50 bill inside a Paladin's hat?

Come to think of it, where IS Mr. Knickerbocker, anyway?

--p

Werebat

2004-05-30 13:55:42 UTC

Post by David Johnston
Why are Lawful Goods not tolerant of poetic justice?

Because they're bad poets.

This isn't their fault, though; nothing rhymes with paladin.

A $50 bill inside a Paladin's hat?

Come to think of it, where IS Mr. Knickerbocker, anyway?

Ah, you just saved me the trouble of having to forge my headers and make
the exact same response. :^)

My 4-year-old son now demands to listen to "throwing dice along the
wharf" ("Singapore") every time we get in the car, and he sings along to
the whole song. Very amusing.

As for myself, I think that "Jockey Full of Bourbon" is the best driving
song EVAR.

- Ron ^*^

Sorcier

2004-05-30 06:49:35 UTC

Post by David Johnston
Why are Lawful Goods not tolerant of poetic justice?

Because they're bad poets.

Haiku are Lawful.
(Draw your own conclusions...)

Sorcier

2004-05-30 06:47:59 UTC

Post by forumite
A Lawful Good society can have a death penalty as not. However, the
death is to be quick. A Lawful Good society would not tolerate
mutilation.

????

Losing a hand for theft seems in keeping with LG.
As would a brand for some crimes.

Post by forumite
Neutral Good is tolerant of poetic justice.

Heck, LG can be tolerant of it too!
But it prefers codified systematic justice.

Christopher Adams

2004-05-31 10:41:06 UTC

Post by Sorcier
Losing a hand for theft seems in keeping with LG.
As would a brand for some crimes.

You are a crazy man. Lawful Good is still Good, and mutilation or branding as a
punishment is not Good. It's Neutral at best, and mutilation probably skews all
the way to Evil.

--
Christopher Adams
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nath Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you
understand?

You're not a bad person. You're a terrific person. You're my favorite person.
But every once in a while you just can be a real cunt.
- Bill

David Johnston

2004-05-31 16:54:25 UTC

On Mon, 31 May 2004 10:41:06 GMT, "Christopher Adams"

Post by Christopher Adams

Post by Sorcier
Losing a hand for theft seems in keeping with LG.
As would a brand for some crimes.

You are a crazy man. Lawful Good is still Good, and mutilation or branding as a
punishment is not Good. It's Neutral at best, and mutilation probably skews all
the way to Evil.

While I think harsh punishments for wrongdoing are more Lawful than
Good, I think your categorisation might put an unacceptable proportion
of the past's population in the Evil category.

Michael Scott Brown

2004-05-31 17:27:38 UTC

Post by David Johnston
While I think harsh punishments for wrongdoing are more Lawful than
Good,

Harshness has nothing to do with Lawful or Chaos. RTFM.

-Michael

Christopher Adams

2004-06-01 00:06:24 UTC

Post by David Johnston
While I think harsh punishments for wrongdoing are more Lawful than
Good, I think your categorisation might put an unacceptable proportion
of the past's population in the Evil category.

And the problem with that is?

Seriously, though, the alignment system in D&D is explicitly designed to
describe the actions of fictional characters in a fantasy setting according to a
simple moral-ethical system loosely based on modern Western notions of morality.

A lot of people (or more precisely, societies) that existed in the past were
pretty evil by today's standards, and that's reflected in the fact that they'd
be judged as Evil if you were to do something as foolish as apply D&D alignment
to the real world.

It probably helps that I agree with the D&D alignment system when it says that
cruelty in the name of Good is not Good itself.

Christopher Adams

2004-06-01 00:22:17 UTC

Post by Christopher Adams
Seriously, though, the alignment system in D&D is explicitly designed to
describe the actions of fictional characters in a fantasy setting
according to a simple moral-ethical system loosely based on modern
Western notions of morality.

Addendum: that is, in the real world people cannot easily be categorised as
"favouring social order" or "favouring individual freedoms" in isolation from
their full spectrum of moral, ethical, and social opinions. The few exceptions
are people who are fanatical (and I don't mean that in any negative sense) about
a particular cause which *can* be itself generally identified with such things;
hardcore libertarians can arguably be used as examples of Chaotic politics.

Nevertheless, it's clear from the descriptions in the core rules and in other
products like the Book of Exalted Deeds, which includes a section specifically
advising exalted characters to be "ahead of their time", i.e. modern, in their
attitude towards issues like slavery and justice, that the alignment system is
based on the generally-prevailing opinions within Western society in the present
day.

~consul

2004-05-28 16:11:25 UTC

I've finally said that my opinion of him is not Lawful Evil, nor Chaotic or Neutral Good.
It is Neutral Evil. In general, of course, as there are plenty of evil folks who do 'good'
actions for the sake of fitting in, or for not causing folks to go ballistic on him.

The Black Guardian

2004-05-27 06:05:42 UTC

Post by forumite
Movie Mary Poppins is not Lawful Good. Even Mr. Banks says she brings
chaos. She is not one to let other peoples' rules reflect her
actions, and subtly inspired the children to reject the stoic
lawfulness of the bank. However, despite Mr. Bank's statement, she is
not Chaotic because she does also espouse responsibility, and doesn't
let the children go all out crazy. That she espouses Goodness is
without question. She is Neutral Good.

Definitely agree.

Very convincing. I might change my opinion.

--
-=[ The BlakGard ]=-
"Somewhere there's danger;
somewhere there's injustice,
and somewhere else the tea is getting cold!"

~consul

2004-05-26 15:39:35 UTC

Post by Sorcier

Post by Stephenls

Post by Werebat
CN or CG? What do you think?

Chaotic Neutral in the book. Chaotic Good in the movie.

Though, even in the movie he had a little bit of a
vindictive/vicious streak.
CG by a thread.
But don't push him...
Believes in individuality and self expression? Check. "C".

But he was also very full of his rules that everyone had to follow to the letter. He
believed in a harsh punishement for the breaking of them. I'd say Neutral.

Post by Sorcier
Belives in the betterment of others? Check. Likely "G".

SMT

2004-05-26 17:44:06 UTC

Post by Werebat
CN or CG? What do you think?

Chaotic Neutral in the book. Chaotic Good in the movie.

Though, even in the movie he had a little bit of a
vindictive/vicious streak.
CG by a thread.
But don't push him...
Believes in individuality and self expression? Check. "C".

But he was also very full of his rules that everyone had to follow to the letter. He
believed in a harsh punishement for the breaking of them. I'd say Neutral.

Post by Sorcier
Belives in the betterment of others? Check. Likely "G".

--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk ..."
-till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x-

<<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
This is exactly the problem I atempted to raise about alignment back in
February with a series of badly recieved (and honestly quite badly wirtten)
and entirely misunderstood posts about a carnivore/herbivore/omnivore
alignment system.

What we're dealing with here is Willy's PERSONALITY, which evidentally not
compatible with the alignment system as it stands.

To allow for this sort of thing I thought of another fairly straight forward
alignment variation that applieswell to this and I think also makes sense
for a lot of people.

A self/other alignment system using the existing alignments.

You have the alignment that you persue for yourself and the alignment you
wish that others would follow. In Willy's case it would be self - CG/CN and
other LN.

Most LE ppl would want others to be LN, arguably the most easily
dominated/controlable alignment.

Hippies for example would tend to be both self and other CG.

Brandon Cope

2004-05-27 03:15:07 UTC

Post by SMT
What we're dealing with here is Willy's PERSONALITY, which evidentally not
compatible with the alignment system as it stands.

You'll just have to change his personality until it cleanly fits one
of your nine options you have.

Brandon

Robert Singers

2004-05-27 03:23:36 UTC

Brandon Cope startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following words
of wisdom

Post by SMT
What we're dealing with here is Willy's PERSONALITY, which
evidentally not compatible with the alignment system as it stands.

You'll just have to change his personality until it cleanly fits one
of your nine options you have.

Or he\you could just understand the alignment system and not make incorrect
assumptions.

--
Rob Singers
"All your Ron are belong to us"

SMT

2004-05-27 09:46:54 UTC

Post by Robert Singers
Brandon Cope startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following words
of wisdom

Post by SMT
What we're dealing with here is Willy's PERSONALITY, which
evidentally not compatible with the alignment system as it stands.

You'll just have to change his personality until it cleanly fits one
of your nine options you have.

Or he\you could just understand the alignment system and not make incorrect
assumptions.
--
Rob Singers
"All your Ron are belong to us"

See the thing is when I look at the alignments as written in the books (2E
and 3E) I actually quite like the ideas in theory.
Yet when I try to apply alignments to any real or fictional person I find
they rarely fit, and they seldom work much better when applied to well
developed D&D characters who actually have a deep and well thought out
personality.

2004-05-27 11:56:03 UTC

Post by Robert Singers
Brandon Cope startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following words

Post by Brandon Cope
You'll just have to change his personality until it cleanly fits one
of your nine options you have.

Or he\you could just understand the alignment system and not make

incorrect

Post by Robert Singers
assumptions.

If you find that it's because you aren't using them properly.

SMT

2004-05-27 13:38:14 UTC

Post by Robert Singers
Brandon Cope startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following

words

Post by Brandon Cope
You'll just have to change his personality until it cleanly fits

one

Post by Brandon Cope
of your nine options you have.

Or he\you could just understand the alignment system and not make

incorrect

Post by Robert Singers
assumptions.

See the thing is when I look at the alignments as written in the books

(2E

Post by Robert Singers
and 3E) I actually quite like the ideas in theory.
Yet when I try to apply alignments to any real or fictional person I

find

Post by Robert Singers
they rarely fit, and they seldom work much better when applied to well
developed D&D characters who actually have a deep and well thought out
personality.

If you find that it's because you aren't using them properly.

Oh and you know that do you.
I've been playing D&D for 20 years and DMing for 10 of those with various
groups of players and I have rarely been satisfied with the way alignments
play out including many of my own NPCs and PCs.
People I've played with have had varying opinons of alignment from much more
positive than mine thru to even more negative.

That said I do find alignment usefull as game mechanic, and it is a good
starting point for inexperienced players and undeveloped characters, but I
think that as a character becomes more developed (which with thourough
creation can be from the start) it looses it's relevance beyond it's role as
a game mechanic.

2004-05-27 14:09:31 UTC

Post by SMT
See the thing is when I look at the alignments as written in the books

(2E

Post by SMT
and 3E) I actually quite like the ideas in theory.
Yet when I try to apply alignments to any real or fictional person I

find

Post by SMT
they rarely fit, and they seldom work much better when applied to well
developed D&D characters who actually have a deep and well thought out
personality.

If you find that it's because you aren't using them properly.

Oh and you know that do you.

Yes. That they work fine and don't interfere in anyway shape or form
with character development is was my first clue.

Post by SMT
I've been playing D&D for 20 years and DMing for 10 of those with various
groups of players and I have rarely been satisfied with the way alignments
play out including many of my own NPCs and PCs.
People I've played with have had varying opinons of alignment from much more
positive than mine thru to even more negative.
That said I do find alignment usefull as game mechanic, and it is a good
starting point for inexperienced players and undeveloped characters, but I
think that as a character becomes more developed (which with thourough
creation can be from the start) it looses it's relevance beyond it's role as
a game mechanic.

It *is* a game mechanic and doesn't have any relevance beyond that
anyway. You could, in theory, choose an alignment to assist you in
developing a character personality but the correct use of alignment is
to assess general attitudes via personality and assign them to the bin
that fits best. It's just that simple - a best fit operation. Nobody is
going to fit all of the "a so and so aligned character will do this"
examples but guess what? It doesn't matter one bit.

Your complaint makes me wonder exactly how you do use alignments.

SMT

2004-05-27 15:49:15 UTC

Post by SMT
See the thing is when I look at the alignments as written in the

books

Post by JB
(2E

Post by SMT
and 3E) I actually quite like the ideas in theory.
Yet when I try to apply alignments to any real or fictional person

Post by JB
find

Post by SMT
they rarely fit, and they seldom work much better when applied to

well

Post by SMT
developed D&D characters who actually have a deep and well thought

out

Post by SMT
personality.

If you find that it's because you aren't using them properly.

Oh and you know that do you.

Yes. That they work fine and don't interfere in anyway shape or form
with character development is was my first clue.

Post by SMT
I've been playing D&D for 20 years and DMing for 10 of those with

various

Post by SMT
groups of players and I have rarely been satisfied with the way

alignments

Post by SMT
play out including many of my own NPCs and PCs.
People I've played with have had varying opinons of alignment from

much more

Post by SMT
positive than mine thru to even more negative.
That said I do find alignment usefull as game mechanic, and it is a

good

Post by SMT
starting point for inexperienced players and undeveloped characters,

but I

Post by SMT
think that as a character becomes more developed (which with thourough
creation can be from the start) it looses it's relevance beyond it's

role as

Post by SMT
a game mechanic.

It *is* a game mechanic and doesn't have any relevance beyond that
anyway. You could, in theory, choose an alignment to assist you in
developing a character personality but the correct use of alignment is
to assess general attitudes via personality and assign them to the bin
that fits best. It's just that simple - a best fit operation. Nobody is
going to fit all of the "a so and so aligned character will do this"
examples but guess what? It doesn't matter one bit.
Your complaint makes me wonder exactly how you do use alignments.

Whilst the manifestation of the alignment system has varied at various times
and places in my experience, what your describing is not far different from
how it has often been.

I think that we are having this dispute is exactly the problem I have with
it.
Now maybe you have been very fortunate and I have been very unfortunate in
our respective experiences.
In my experience there is no other aspect of the game that causes so much
debate and dispute as alignment.
I've never heard anyone challenge a characters actions/behaviour on the
basis of their say their race, but I've seen sesions grind to a hault over
alignment arguments. It's true this tends to happen mostly with not such
good players and/or rules lawyers, but I've seen alignment conflicts with
even the best players I've ever played with.
Look as us here, we're not even talking about a specific example, and yet we
are pretty much telling each other how we should interpret something which
is a subjective and relative matter (unless your gonna have a strict by the
books alignment situation which is when you end up with the aformentioned 1
dimensional stereotypes).

2004-05-27 17:09:08 UTC

Post by JB
It *is* a game mechanic and doesn't have any relevance beyond that
anyway. You could, in theory, choose an alignment to assist you in
developing a character personality but the correct use of alignment is
to assess general attitudes via personality and assign them to the bin
that fits best. It's just that simple - a best fit operation. Nobody is
going to fit all of the "a so and so aligned character will do this"
examples but guess what? It doesn't matter one bit.
Your complaint makes me wonder exactly how you do use alignments.

Whilst the manifestation of the alignment system has varied at various times
and places in my experience, what your describing is not far different from
how it has often been.

Gygaxian interpretations are in the past. Only the present matters.

Post by SMT
I've never heard anyone challenge a characters actions/behaviour on the
basis of their say their race, but I've seen sesions grind to a hault over
alignment arguments.

That's alarm bell number one. Actions (and their underlying motivations)
define alignment not the other way around. Anyone who says "you can't do
that it's against your alignment" is *grossly* misusing alignment.

Paladins may cause themselves problems with errant behavior but if you
aren't up to following the rather simple ethos of a Paladin then *don't
play one*. The DM can assist a player on uncertain ground.

Post by SMT
It's true this tends to happen mostly with not such
good players and/or rules lawyers, but I've seen alignment conflicts with
even the best players I've ever played with.
Look as us here, we're not even talking about a specific example, and yet we
are pretty much telling each other how we should interpret something which
is a subjective and relative matter (unless your gonna have a strict by the
books alignment situation which is when you end up with the aformentioned 1
dimensional stereotypes).

The morality associated with each alignment category is subjective. What
alignment is and the application of the alignment rules are not.

Brandon Cope

2004-05-30 00:45:54 UTC

Post by JB
Gygaxian interpretations are in the past. Only the present matters.

Only if you are playing 3.x

Brandon

David Prokopetz

2004-05-30 03:01:14 UTC

Post by JB
Gygaxian interpretations are in the past. Only the present matters.

Only if you are playing 3.x

No, I think Gygaxian judgements can safely be discarded in favour of your
own common sense even if you're playing 1e. ;)

- David Prokopetz.

Hong Ooi

2004-05-27 13:56:34 UTC

Post by Robert Singers
Brandon Cope startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following

words

Post by Brandon Cope
You'll just have to change his personality until it cleanly fits

one

Post by Brandon Cope
of your nine options you have.

Or he\you could just understand the alignment system and not make

incorrect

Post by Robert Singers
assumptions.

See the thing is when I look at the alignments as written in the books

(2E

Post by Robert Singers
and 3E) I actually quite like the ideas in theory.
Yet when I try to apply alignments to any real or fictional person I

find

Post by Robert Singers
they rarely fit, and they seldom work much better when applied to well
developed D&D characters who actually have a deep and well thought out
personality.

If you find that it's because you aren't using them properly.

Of course, the same could be said of communism.

Hong "or capitalism" Ooi

--
Hong Ooi | "Well, that about WANGER up the
***@zipworld.com.au | WANGER of your WANGER, Hong.
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ | WANGER."
Sydney, Australia | -- MSB

2004-05-27 14:10:35 UTC

Post by Robert Singers
Brandon Cope startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following

words

Post by Brandon Cope
You'll just have to change his personality until it cleanly fits

one

Post by Brandon Cope
of your nine options you have.

Or he\you could just understand the alignment system and not make

incorrect

Post by Robert Singers
assumptions.

See the thing is when I look at the alignments as written in the books

(2E

Post by Robert Singers
and 3E) I actually quite like the ideas in theory.
Yet when I try to apply alignments to any real or fictional person I

find

Post by Robert Singers
they rarely fit, and they seldom work much better when applied to well
developed D&D characters who actually have a deep and well thought out
personality.

If you find that it's because you aren't using them properly.

Of course, the same could be said of communism.

Sure, if a thousand other countries adopted communism without any
problems then your country's inability to use it would indicate
incorrect usage.

Brandon Cope

2004-05-30 00:54:39 UTC

Post by Robert Singers
Brandon Cope startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following

words

Post by Brandon Cope
You'll just have to change his personality until it cleanly

fits
one

Post by Brandon Cope
of your nine options you have.

Or he\you could just understand the alignment system and not make

incorrect

Post by Robert Singers
assumptions.

See the thing is when I look at the alignments as written in the

books
(2E

Post by SMT
and 3E) I actually quite like the ideas in theory.
Yet when I try to apply alignments to any real or fictional person

I
find

Post by SMT
they rarely fit, and they seldom work much better when applied to

well

Post by SMT
developed D&D characters who actually have a deep and well thought

out

Post by SMT
personality.

If you find that it's because you aren't using them properly.

Of course, the same could be said of communism.

Sure, if a thousand other countries adopted communism without any
problems then your country's inability to use it would indicate
incorrect usage.

Except the ratio isn't nearly 1000-1 for alignment.

Brandon

2004-06-01 08:38:23 UTC

Post by Hong Ooi
Of course, the same could be said of communism.

Sure, if a thousand other countries adopted communism without any
problems then your country's inability to use it would indicate
incorrect usage.

Except the ratio isn't nearly 1000-1 for alignment.

How the hell would you know what the ratio is? Most people in this
Newsgroup (the D&D players at any rate) either use alignment without
difficulty or don't use it for good reasons. It's only idiots like you
and Grubb who consistently fail and from your reports of their comments
we know your players are no better than you.

Brandon Cope

2004-05-30 00:51:50 UTC

Post by Robert Singers
Brandon Cope startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following

words

Post by Brandon Cope
You'll just have to change his personality until it cleanly fits

one

Post by Brandon Cope
of your nine options you have.

Or he\you could just understand the alignment system and not make

incorrect

Post by Robert Singers
assumptions.

See the thing is when I look at the alignments as written in the books

(2E

Post by SMT
and 3E) I actually quite like the ideas in theory.
Yet when I try to apply alignments to any real or fictional person I

find

Post by SMT
they rarely fit, and they seldom work much better when applied to well
developed D&D characters who actually have a deep and well thought out
personality.

If you find that it's because you aren't using them properly.

Or you aren't using them properly.

Brandon

Michael Scott Brown

2004-05-27 16:33:30 UTC

Post by SMT
See the thing is when I look at the alignments as written in the books (2E
and 3E) I actually quite like the ideas in theory.
Yet when I try to apply alignments to any real or fictional person I find
they rarely fit, and they seldom work much better when applied to well
developed D&D characters who actually have a deep and well thought out
personality.

Such a deficiency suggests that you are incompetent. Ethical complexity
usually implies neutrality. Mark it and move on.

-Michael

Brandon Cope

2004-05-27 22:37:21 UTC

Such a deficiency suggests that you are incompetent. Ethical complexity
usually implies neutrality. Mark it and move on.

Thus, to be non-neutral, you must be a two-dimensional caricature who
is a simpleton.

Thank you for showing why alignment must be tossed.

Brandon

Robert Singers

2004-05-27 22:43:49 UTC

Out from under a rock popped Brandon Cope and said

Post by Michael Scott Brown
Such a deficiency suggests that you are incompetent. Ethical
complexity usually implies neutrality. Mark it and move on.

Thus, to be non-neutral, you must be a two-dimensional caricature who
is a simpleton.
Thank you for showing why alignment must be tossed.

Only you would make that leap Brandon.

--
Rob Singers
"All your Ron are belong to us"
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere

Michael Scott Brown

2004-05-27 23:48:24 UTC

news:<uLotc.12703

Post by Michael Scott Brown
Such a deficiency suggests that you are incompetent. Ethical complexity
usually implies neutrality. Mark it and move on.

Thus, to be non-neutral, you must be a two-dimensional caricature who
is a simpleton.
Thank you for showing why alignment must be tossed.

Thank you for showing why the group considers you a moron.

-Michael

Matt Pillsbury

2004-05-28 04:52:06 UTC

Post by SMT
See the thing is when I look at the alignments as written in the
books (2E and 3E) I actually quite like the ideas in theory.
Yet when I try to apply alignments to any real or fictional
person I find they rarely fit, and they seldom work much better
when applied to well developed D&D characters who actually have
a deep and well thought out personality.

Such a deficiency suggests that you are incompetent. Ethical
complexity usually implies neutrality. Mark it and move on.

Thus, to be non-neutral, you must be a two-dimensional caricature
who is a simpleton.

Ethical complexity is hardly the only way to add depth to a charac-
ter. Alignment isn't a useful classification scheme for every genre,
but for the sort of stories D&D is designed for, it works very nice-
ly indeed.
[...]

--
Matt Pillsbury
pillsy[at]mac[dot]com

David Johnston

2004-05-27 18:19:09 UTC

They fit just fine as long as you bear in mind that they are a
continuum.

Robert Singers

2004-05-27 21:59:03 UTC

Out from under a rock popped SMT and said

Post by SMT
See the thing is when I look at the alignments as written in the books
(2E and 3E) I actually quite like the ideas in theory.
Yet when I try to apply alignments to any real or fictional person I
find they rarely fit, and they seldom work much better when applied to
well developed D&D characters who actually have a deep and well
thought out personality.

It's hard for me to understand how exactly you percieve alignment but all I
can say is you appear to be doing it wrong. Alignment is both less complex
and more subtle then you appear to understand.

--
Rob Singers
"All your Ron are belong to us"
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere

Brandon Cope

2004-05-30 00:50:51 UTC

Post by Robert Singers
Brandon Cope startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following words
of wisdom

Post by SMT
What we're dealing with here is Willy's PERSONALITY, which
evidentally not compatible with the alignment system as it stands.

You'll just have to change his personality until it cleanly fits one
of your nine options you have.

Or he\you could just understand the alignment system and not make

incorrect

Post by Robert Singers
assumptions.
--
Rob Singers
"All your Ron are belong to us"

That's because alignments are cookie-cutter molds for two-dimensional
dungeopn crawlers so that they can justify murdering and stealing from
other sentients.

Brandon

Michael Scott Brown

2004-05-30 07:24:54 UTC

Post by Brandon Cope
That's because alignments are cookie-cutter molds for two-dimensional
dungeopn crawlers so that they can justify murdering and stealing from
other sentients.

You know, Brandon, do you *ever* stop to consider that statements like
this, that you proudly offer up as ostensible "proof" of the flaws in D&D,
might just be a wee bit off the mark past first edition? You have once again
proven solely that you are gifted with an unstoppable quotient of ignorance.

-Michael

Bruce Grubb

2004-05-31 14:33:58 UTC

Post by Brandon Cope
That's because alignments are cookie-cutter molds for two-dimensional
dungeopn crawlers so that they can justify murdering and stealing from
other sentients.

I would say the fact that no one can agree on what the alignnments of many
fictional and historical characters proves that if not badly designed the
alignment system in 3.x is as badly explained as it was in AD&D1 days.

David Johnston

2004-05-31 16:57:19 UTC

Post by Bruce Grubb
I would say the fact that no one can agree on what the alignnments of many
fictional and historical characters proves that if not badly designed the
alignment system in 3.x is as badly explained as it was in AD&D1 days.

I would say it reflects more than anything, differences in perception
concerning the moral nature of such characters. Willy Wonka's a
particularly egregious example since a lot of people find him
benevolent and a lot of other people find him sinister. It depends
on how seriously you take what happened to the people who failed
his test and how much you hold him liable for setting up the test.

Brandon Cope

2004-05-31 23:18:09 UTC

Relative morality appears!

Brandon

Michael Scott Brown

2004-06-01 06:01:32 UTC

Post by David Johnston
I would say it reflects more than anything, differences in perception
concerning the moral nature of such characters. Willy Wonka's a
particularly egregious example since a lot of people find him
benevolent and a lot of other people find him sinister. It depends
on how seriously you take what happened to the people who failed
his test and how much you hold him liable for setting up the test.

Relative morality appears!

Non sequitur.

-Michael

Michael Scott Brown

2004-05-31 17:27:11 UTC

Post by Michael Scott Brown
You know, Brandon, do you *ever* stop to consider that statements like
this, that you proudly offer up as ostensible "proof" of the flaws in D&D,
might just be a wee bit off the mark past first edition? You have once again
proven solely that you are gifted with an unstoppable quotient of ignorance.

Thus proving once again (in case anyone here would forget) that you,
too, are a FUCKING MORON.

Listen closely, Grubb, for this might be that bright and shiny moment
where the point finally gets through to you.

DIFFERING CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE ALIGNMENTS OF *FICTIONAL CHARACTERS* ARE
THE RESULT OF DIFFERENT ******INTERPRETATIONS******* OF THOSE CHARACTERS.

The flaw lies not with the alignment system, but with the variation in
each person's impression of those characters (as well as variations in
presentation).

Try a little test, Grubb. Describe Batman's ethical motives and beliefs
in a fashion that is absolutely 100% in conformity with EVERY SINGLE VERSION
OF BATMAN EVERY PUBLISHED. Remember, now, this extends from the original
gun-toting vigilante to the Adam West camp version in the tights, to the
superman-killing psychotic Dark Knight.

-Michael

Brandon Cope

2004-05-31 23:17:15 UTC

Post by Michael Scott Brown
You know, Brandon, do you *ever* stop to consider that statements

Post by Michael Scott Brown
this, that you proudly offer up as ostensible "proof" of the flaws in

D&D,

Post by Michael Scott Brown
might just be a wee bit off the mark past first edition? You have once

again

Post by Michael Scott Brown
proven solely that you are gifted with an unstoppable quotient of

ignorance.

DIFFERING CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE ALIGNMENTS OF *FICTIONAL CHARACTERS* ARE
THE RESULT OF DIFFERENT ******INTERPRETATIONS******* OF THOSE CHARACTERS.

In a well-defined alignment system, different interpretations would be
minimal. Thus, the alignment system in D&D is not well-defined. If the
system is not well-defined, then it is broken.

Choke on that Mikey.

Brandon

David Prokopetz

2004-05-31 23:57:04 UTC

Post by Michael Scott Brown
You know, Brandon, do you *ever* stop to consider that statements

Post by Michael Scott Brown
this, that you proudly offer up as ostensible "proof" of the flaws in

D&D,

Post by Michael Scott Brown
might just be a wee bit off the mark past first edition? You have once

again

Post by Michael Scott Brown
proven solely that you are gifted with an unstoppable quotient of

ignorance.

DIFFERING CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE ALIGNMENTS OF *FICTIONAL CHARACTERS* ARE
THE RESULT OF DIFFERENT ******INTERPRETATIONS******* OF THOSE CHARACTERS.

In a well-defined alignment system, different interpretations would be
minimal.

Literary interpretation differs widely no matter *what* metric you attempt
to apply - it's just about a definitional quality of literature.

- David Prokopetz.

Christopher Adams

2004-06-01 00:15:51 UTC

Post by Brandon Cope
In a well-defined alignment system, different interpretations would be
minimal. Thus, the alignment system in D&D is not well-defined. If the
system is not well-defined, then it is broken.

You misread his statements (I suspect deliberately, but then I suppose I am
replying more to correct the disinformation you produce than to correct your
mistakes).

The disagreements are not caused by differing interpretations of the alignment
system, but by differing interpretations of the characters. For example, if my
personal opinion of the Batman is coloured by the hard-ass version in "Kingdom
Come", who goes to arguably totalitarian lengths to keep order in Gotham City,
then my description of him under the alignment system of D&D is going to be
different from that of someone whose opinion of the Batman is coloured by comics
which portray him as a tough but fair man who is motivated primarily by a
compassionate desire to never see anyone else suffer what he went through as a
child, and who works as much within the law as the unusual nature of his
opponents allows. Both of our opinions will be different from someone whose
primary image of the Batman is Adam West in too-tight spandex.

The D&D system is simplistic, but this does not affect its utility since it is
supposed to describe characters who exist within a morally simplistic universe.

Robert Singers

2004-06-01 02:59:45 UTC

Brandon Cope startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following words of
wisdom

He might choke laughing at you. What pay off do you get being so dense in
public?

--
Rob Singers
"All your Ron are belong to us"

Werebat

2004-06-01 06:56:15 UTC

Post by Michael Scott Brown
You know, Brandon, do you *ever* stop to consider that statements

Post by Michael Scott Brown
this, that you proudly offer up as ostensible "proof" of the flaws in

D&D,

Post by Michael Scott Brown
might just be a wee bit off the mark past first edition? You have once

again

Post by Michael Scott Brown
proven solely that you are gifted with an unstoppable quotient of

ignorance.

DIFFERING CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE ALIGNMENTS OF *FICTIONAL CHARACTERS* ARE
THE RESULT OF DIFFERENT ******INTERPRETATIONS******* OF THOSE CHARACTERS.

Ooo! He gotchoo cold DISSED!!! SNAP!!!

- Ron ^*^

William Burke

2004-06-01 04:54:32 UTC

In article <***@hotmail.com>,
Werebat <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

(sorry, piggybacking, cause I have him killed)

Literary analysis was RUINED!

--p

Michael Scott Brown

2004-06-01 06:01:13 UTC

news:<PVJuc.16762

Post by Michael Scott Brown
DIFFERING CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE ALIGNMENTS OF *FICTIONAL CHARACTERS* ARE
THE RESULT OF DIFFERENT ******INTERPRETATIONS******* OF THOSE CHARACTERS.

<falls on the floor laughing>

Please, Cope. No alignment or ethical system can control how people
interpret the motivations of fictional characters they read about.
Suggesting that an "alignment system" would somehow magically force everyone
in the universe to feel the same way about Batman's nature (despite wildly
varying portrayals of the character over the last century) is the apotheosis
of sheer stupidity.

Once again, you have been led to water, but have quite profoundly
refused to drink - as befits an ass, I suppose. The only thing I'm choking
on is my sense of horror at the concept of someone AS FUCKING MORONIC AS
BRANDON COPE being allowed to live.

-Michael

2004-06-01 08:40:12 UTC

Post by Brandon Cope
That's because alignments are cookie-cutter molds for

two-dimensional

Post by Brandon Cope
dungeopn crawlers so that they can justify murdering and stealing from
other sentients.

You know, Brandon, do you *ever* stop to consider that

statements like

Post by Michael Scott Brown
this, that you proudly offer up as ostensible "proof" of the flaws in D&D,
might just be a wee bit off the mark past first edition? You have once again
proven solely that you are gifted with an unstoppable quotient of ignorance.

What, no reference to "King and Country"? Do you just lurk for weeks on
end waiting for someone to mention alignment so you can make a stupid
comment?

Brandon Cope

2004-05-30 00:48:49 UTC

Post by Robert Singers
Brandon Cope startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following words
of wisdom

Post by SMT
What we're dealing with here is Willy's PERSONALITY, which
evidentally not compatible with the alignment system as it stands.

You'll just have to change his personality until it cleanly fits one
of your nine options you have.

Or he\you could just understand the alignment system and not make incorrect
assumptions.

I used and understood the alignment system in 1e. After getting rid of
that crap, I have no interest in using any alignment system again. The
fact that I ran AD&D for years without alignment only proves that I
don't *need* it.

Brandon

Robert Singers

2004-05-30 01:34:40 UTC

Brandon Cope startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following words
of wisdom

Post by Robert Singers
Or he\you could just understand the alignment system and not make
incorrect assumptions.

So you're saying your contribution to this thread is irrelevant and
uninformed. I'd kind of guessed as much.

--
Rob Singers
"All your Ron are belong to us"

Michael Scott Brown

2004-05-27 16:31:59 UTC

Post by SMT
What we're dealing with here is Willy's PERSONALITY, which evidentally not
compatible with the alignment system as it stands.

You'll just have to change his personality until it cleanly fits one
of your nine options you have.

Oh, look, it's Brandie, posting again in an attempt to make sure that
there is *no one else* who does not also believe he is a moron.

Hint, Brandie - personality is not alignment.

-Michael

Sorcier

2004-05-27 04:51:39 UTC

Post by ~consul

Post by Sorcier
Believes in individuality and self expression? Check. "C".

But he was also very full of his rules that everyone had to follow to
the letter. He believed in a harsh punishement for the breaking of
them. I'd say Neutral.

Point.
I've always seen his rules as random and capricious though.
And his punishments as somewhat random (although poetic).
Your points are a big part of why I place him as Good but tottering
real close to the border of Neutral.
I'll think more on it...

The Black Guardian

2004-05-27 06:02:31 UTC

Post by Sorcier

Post by ~consul

Post by Sorcier
Believes in individuality and self expression? Check. "C".

But he was also very full of his rules that everyone had to follow to
the letter. He believed in a harsh punishement for the breaking of
them. I'd say Neutral.

Point.
I've always seen his rules as random and capricious though.

I wouldn't agree. His rules were for the benefit of all, and fairly uniform.
Every rule broken was basically "don't touch/eat/do that, else there
will be dire consequences."

Post by Sorcier
And his punishments as somewhat random (although poetic).

What punishments? The only one he gave was to Charlie, but Charlie
redeemed himself, and Wonka easily caved. Everyone else was
punished by their own actions.

Post by Sorcier
Your points are a big part of why I place him as Good but tottering
real close to the border of Neutral.

I do agree here. He didn't try very hard to prevent people from
breaking his rules, which puts him very close to Neutral.

--
-=[ The BlakGard ]=-
"Somewhere there's danger;
somewhere there's injustice,
and somewhere else the tea is getting cold!"

David Johnston

2004-05-27 07:47:51 UTC

Post by The Black Guardian

Post by Sorcier
And his punishments as somewhat random (although poetic).

What punishments? The only one he gave was to Charlie, but Charlie
redeemed himself, and Wonka easily caved. Everyone else was
punished by their own actions.

Post by Sorcier
Your points are a big part of why I place him as Good but tottering
real close to the border of Neutral.

I do agree here. He didn't try very hard to prevent people from
breaking his rules, which puts him very close to Neutral.

Since the whole point was to test them to see who would fall
into the traps set for people who break the rules, trying to
stop them would rather defeat the purpose.

Sorcier

2004-05-30 06:56:52 UTC

Post by The Black Guardian

Post by Sorcier
And his punishments as somewhat random (although poetic).

What punishments? The only one he gave was to Charlie, but Charlie
redeemed himself, and Wonka easily caved. Everyone else was
punished by their own actions.

C'mon, the fix was in!

The Black Guardian

2004-05-26 03:21:01 UTC

Post by Werebat
CN or CG? What do you think?

CG -- same as the last time this was discussed here.

--
-=[ The BlakGard ]=-
"Somewhere there's danger;
somewhere there's injustice,
and somewhere else the tea is getting cold!"

Anonymous Jack

2004-05-27 12:30:13 UTC

Post by Werebat
CN or CG? What do you think?

Chaotic Evil, and he has the lot of you hoodwinked.

Sorcier

2004-05-30 06:59:20 UTC

Post by Anonymous Jack

Post by Werebat
CN or CG? What do you think?

Chaotic Evil, and he has the lot of you hoodwinked.

Hey, like I said, if Wonka's Evil, Gandalf and Glinda are
positively fiendish!

Michael Scott Brown

2004-05-27 16:45:14 UTC