What DnD alignment do you think each hero is?

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

I never like Lawful as "obeying the law/tradition", coz that just makes Chaotic char ppl that have different values then the norm at the time, so in 100 or more years they wouldn't be Chaotic anymore. IMO Lawful should mean having a definitive set of beliefs you guide your life by all the time, Chaotic about doing everything on whims and Neutral both, depending on the situation.

Chaotic Neutral means following your own whims all the time, but without a consistant approach of bieng willing to harm others seriously for your own game.

Chaotic Good on the other hand, means that you are distrustful of the will and judgement of social authority, it's authority so to speak about how you or others should behave, so you behave with a degree of contempt of societies expectations and beliefs, except when those coalesce exactly with one's own moral beliefs.

For instance the social law may be "do not kill unarmed people" and a chaotic character won't commit murder simply beacause that law says he can't.

However he will question the justice of that and every law, maybe he will decide that a murderer does not deserve to live, even if he throws down his weapon. He may decide that the death penalty is right for murderers.

A chaotic good character, is also more likely to take the 'law into his own hands', than another character. He may decide to "selectively disobey" the laws that he disagrees with, he may decide to, if he has the power disobey the law and have the murderers killed.

Beacause no societies conform exactly to the highest possible standard of goodness, there is always something for the chaotic good character to criticise and even if there wasn't, then this would not change their alignment. A chaotic character, will likely never find everything in society to his likely, so he will not become effectively lawful.

Lawful Good characters on the other hand, give the established laws and traditions, the benefit of the doubt in all cases. Unless there is something blatently wrong about them, they do not question them. This is different from a Lawful Neutral character to whom laws and traditions are effectively sacred and cannot be questioned in any circumstances at all.

When a Lawful Good character acts against the established order, they will always attempt to minimise the disruption this causes to law and tradition.

If a Lawful Good character overthrew an evil king, they would make some relative of his the new king and mantain the monarchy. The system is never at fault, only the individuals in it.

A chaotic good character would almost definately establish a republic, while a neutral character would likely establish a Magna Carta type document to limit the new king's power.

It works the other way around too, a chaotic character might overthrow a republic and make himself king, if he had the means and he saw the republic's actions as evil.

She was the most respected paladin there... her defending him should have counted alot, prob only second to the PC (i really hated how you had no say in the matter... i just saved them all, letting him go if i asked would be the least they could do, bunch of ungrateful curs).

It might have counted for a lot among the Neverwinter elite, however the people want blood. The Neverwinter elite (including the PC to an extent), basically killed Fenthick to appease the people of Neverwinter.

Aribeth and PC challenging the system, would have divided Neverwinter and created chaos, causing a far greater number of innocent people to die and threatening the very survival of Neverwinter's order.

In that case, Aribeth understood that to use her influence to challenge the decision, would cause far worse consequences.

A chaotic good character, would in Aribeth's place have challenged the law , beacause law and order has no value in itself, only goodness and justice have value.

The Chaotic Good character, when faced with the chaos and disruption this would have caused would likely have said, "so what? If the people want blood, then they shall bathe in their own blood for this?"

Hence throwing Neverwinter into a second chaos, in a bid to save one innocent man.

No it wouldn't... he got hanged to appease the masses, even if it was legal.

Well, Lord Whatshisname and the people had decided together that Fenthick had to die.

If the people weren't appeased, then this could lead to chaos and disruption, expecially if they are united with a ruler, who is challenged by influential figures.

Just the perfect recipe for civil war. Those sympathising with Aribeth on one side, and the people and Lord Whatshisname on the other.

She was brainwashed, and by your definition wasn't evil, she wasn't putting her desires first, she just went crazy.

Brainwashed? Not really. She was caught in the dilemma that we covered above, is it right to obey a law, which kills one innocent man in order to appease a mob, which otherwise would cause even more innocent people to die.

However she likely did not see it those terms, which is how a neutral good character would have seen it, she likely saw it as a conflict between her own desire to save the man she loves, and the moral principles she adheres too.

To put it in a very frank way, in Aribeths mind, the only rational answer she could get as to why she wanted to save that man, even if it would destroy the order, peace and even survival of Neverwinter and kill countless more, was beacause she wanted to be with and sleep with this man . She thus doesn't become chaotic good, beacause she questions her own motives for wanting to save Fenthick in particular.

Of course, she also has a moral outrage to this act, and it leads her to hate the very moral outrage, in other words to undermine her own sense of morality. Having done so, it is in a sense defeated by her desire to gain vengeance for Fenthicks death. In order to be at peace, she has to convince her self that Neverwinter's actions were 'good' (and become Lawful Neutral) beacause they were done by legitimate authority to strengthen and sustain order. But since her own sense of goodness is very deeprooted, she cannot do this.

Her desire to gain vengeance, loses all sense of proportion, beacause it becomes her sole reason for living, to such an extent that she actually allies herself with the very people who in a sense really caused Fenthick's death and wanted to destroy Neverwinter, beacause in her mind this course of action was the only way to gain revenge.

Aribeth is evil, beacause she follows her own desire to gain revenge (remember that not all evil biengs are motivated by the same things), to gain the maximum revenge against Neverwinter, without regard for the moral consequences.

"So what that evil beings will take over the world, does it matter when I can gain revenge on Neverwinter, which destroyed my happiness and my reason for living?" She followed her own desire for revenge upon the people of a city, even though this would ultimately cause the death of millions of people.

[ThunderTitan]

Chaotic Neutral means following your own whims all the time, but without a consistant approach of bieng willing to harm others seriously for your own game.

Chaotic Good on the other hand, means that you are distrustful of the will and judgement of social authority, it's authority so to speak about how you or others should behave, so you behave with a degree of contempt of societies expectations and beliefs, except when those coalesce exactly with one's own moral beliefs.

For instance the social law may be "do not kill unarmed people" and a chaotic character won't commit murder simply beacause that law says he can't.

However he will question the justice of that and every law, maybe he will decide that a murderer does not deserve to live, even if he throws down his weapon. He may decide that the death penalty is right for murderers.

A chaotic good character, is also more likely to take the 'law into his own hands', than another character. He may decide to "selectively disobey" the laws that he disagrees with, he may decide to, if he has the power disobey the law and have the murderers killed.

Beacause no societies conform exactly to the highest possible standard of goodness, there is always something for the chaotic good character to criticise and even if there wasn't, then this would not change their alignment. A chaotic character, will likely never find everything in society to his likely, so he will not become effectively lawful.

Lawful Good characters on the other hand, give the established laws and traditions, the benefit of the doubt in all cases. Unless there is something blatently wrong about them, they do not question them. This is different from a Lawful Neutral character to whom laws and traditions are effectively sacred and cannot be questioned in any circumstances at all.

When a Lawful Good character acts against the established order, they will always attempt to minimise the disruption this causes to law and tradition.

If a Lawful Good character overthrew an evil king, they would make some relative of his the new king and mantain the monarchy. The system is never at fault, only the individuals in it.

A chaotic good character would almost definately establish a republic, while a neutral character would likely establish a Magna Carta type document to limit the new king's power.

It works the other way around too, a chaotic character might overthrow a republic and make himself king, if he had the means and he saw the republic's actions as evil.

Like i said, that's my problem with them, they're just against the current order. The fact that there's always something wrong is cause he has an unreachable ideal, not cause he doesn't want order. By your def good char can't be really chaotic. Chaotic char should be about doing what they want, their other aligment half should be determined by what exactly makes them feel good most of the time.

Well, Lord Whatshisname and the people had decided together that Fenthick had to die.

If the people weren't appeased, then this could lead to chaos and disruption, expecially if they are united with a ruler, who is challenged by influential figures.

Just the perfect recipe for civil war. Those sympathising with Aribeth on one side, and the people and Lord Whatshisname on the other.

No, Nasher didn't want to, he just gave the ppl what they wanted. If someone as influential as Aribeth or the PC said something he could have washed his hands of it by saying he was grating them a favor/repaying one by letting him live (some punishment could have been handed instead).

To put it in a very frank way, in Aribeths mind, the only rational answer she could get as to why she wanted to save that man, even if it would destroy the order, peace and even survival of Neverwinter and kill countless more, was beacause she wanted to be with and sleep with this man .

No, she pretty much admits later on that she didn't really love him.

"So what that evil beings will take over the world, does it matter when I can gain revenge on Neverwinter, which destroyed my happiness and my reason for living?" She followed her own desire for revenge upon the people of a city, even though this would ultimately cause the death of millions of people.

See that wasn't really her, as it's pretty much stated that the Big Bad got to her in her dreams and that that quote above was pretty much BS, put in there by the lizard lady or whatever she was, which Aribeth let happen coz of her guilt.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

Like i said, that's my problem with them, they're just against the current order. The fact that there's always something wrong is cause he has an unreachable ideal, not cause he doesn't want order. By your def good char can't be really chaotic. Chaotic char should be about doing what they want, their other aligment half should be determined by what exactly makes them feel good most of the time.

No, they don't respect any order, except their own moral order. The fact that the present order in some respect coalesces with their own desires, is coincidental.

The Chaotic Good character, acts as they desire, regardless of what law or tradition says. The fact that they desire to be good (ie not to harm others for their own gain, or those of their friends/family), is an element of this. They are chaotic in that they act according to their desires, regardless of what law or tradition says, although they desire to act in a 'good' way.

Remember that in all cases where a character is both lawful or chaotic and also good and evil, the latter is ultimately stronger than the former in their thinking.

If it is not, then the character is lawful neutral or chaotic neutral, beacause their law/chaos standing is their driving force not their alignment.

No, Nasher didn't want to, he just gave the ppl what they wanted. If someone as influential as Aribeth or the PC said something he could have washed his hands of it by saying he was grating them a favor/repaying one by letting him live (some punishment could have been handed instead).

He gave the people what they wanted. Was that beacause he was a lawful neutral democrat in mindset or was he abiding by the exact letter of the law? Either way, Lord Nashers aligment needs looking at.

Lord Nasher was aware that his control over Neverwinter was weak, failing to give the people what they want, even if it was to fufil a 'favor' would weaken his position, weaken the public order.

If PC and Aribeth had conspired together, it is not certain whether Lord Nasher could have been swayed, given Lord Nasher seems to care so much what the 'people' think about him.

Presumably Lawful Neutral rulers still need an ultimate authority above even themselves, in order that they rule. In Lord Nashers case, it was the letter of the law and the will of the people which he took notice of, Aribeth and PC do not hold any formal power over him, so it's unlikely that he would have taken any notice of them.

No, she pretty much admits later on that she didn't really love him.

Well, it's been a while since I've played Neverwinter Nights. Remember that people judge their past feelings, according to their present circumstances.

In Aribeth's case, what that really means is, I let him die and since I cared more about mantaining the order and survival of Neverwinter, I cannot have truly loved him.

It's called memory revisionism, the revising of one's past memories based upon present judgments about what can/cannot have been the case.

In effect the conflict between Aribeth's actions and her own rather absolutist concept of romantic love, convinced her that she cannot have loved Fenthick. It's essentially a rationalisation, adopting to resolve the developing of an intrinsic conflict in Aribeth mind between two concepts.

See that wasn't really her, as it's pretty much stated that the Big Bad got to her in her dreams and that that quote above was pretty much BS, put in there by the lizard lady or whatever she was, which Aribeth let happen coz of her guilt.

The Lizard Lady, Morag I think her name was, was trying to exploit the contradictions and doubts and guilt that already existed within Aribeths mind, in order to bring about a desired alignment change. Why did Morag choose Aribeth and not anyone else, beacause Aribeth was weakened by contradictions within her own system of thought.

As Jesus said- The house divided cannot stand.

Morag was just playing the role of RL devil, exploiting events in people lives, to bring about the desired bad result.

It is very likely Aribeth's alignment would changed, however there are three other likely options that Aribeth could have taken.

Lawful Neutral- The letter of the law must be obeyed to mantain the order of Neverwinter, regardless of personal interests.
OR
Chaotic Good- The letter of the law is irrelavent, I could have rescued Fenthick in order to fufil the demands of righteousness and justice, I did not do so beacause I failed to understand this.
OR
Neutral Good- Sometimes one must follow the letter of the law, even when the consequences are evil, beacause greater evil will result from doing otherwise.

Morag was trying to keep the conflict from being resolved in any of the above ways, by playing Law and Goodness against one-another, in order to create a situation where Aribeth hates law and disregards goodness, creating an evil Aribeth, the perfect ally of Morag. It worked too. Either way, something had to go, the trick was to ensure that the conflict was drawn out, until all the forces got too weak to resist Morag's coup de grace.

[ThunderTitan]

No, they don't respect any order, except their own moral order. The fact that the present order in some respect coalesces with their own desires, is coincidental.

The Chaotic Good character, acts as they desire, regardless of what law or tradition says. The fact that they desire to be good (ie not to harm others for their own gain, or those of their friends/family), is an element of this. They are chaotic in that they act according to their desires, regardless of what law or tradition says, although they desire to act in a 'good' way.

Remember that in all cases where a character is both lawful or chaotic and also good and evil, the latter is ultimately stronger than the former in their thinking.

If good is stronger then lawful wouldn't a lawful good char also "acts as they desire, regardless of what law or tradition says."? It might be harder for them, but the result should be the same.

And the good/evil part is what gives them their motives, that's why it's more powerful then the lawful/chaotic one,

If PC and Aribeth had conspired together, it is not certain whether Lord Nasher could have been swayed, given Lord Nasher seems to care so much what the 'people' think about him.

I meant they should have tried to sway the ppl. They're the ones that wanted someone publicaly killed for the plague. Lord Nasher was too scared/whatever to dare refuse.

Aribeth and PC do not hold any formal power over him, so it's unlikely that he would have taken any notice of them.

He pretty much admits he didn't want to kill Fenthick(?), and he pretty much owned the PC his continued existance. As did everyone in the damn city. If it was me (the PC) i would have gotten up in court and said something like "you're gonna let him live coz i just saved your efing lives and it's the least you can do to return the favor". No lawful char could have refused me with their honor intact.

In Aribeth's case, what that really means is, I let him die and since I cared more about mantaining the order and survival of Neverwinter, I cannot have truly loved him.

In effect the conflict between Aribeth's actions and her own rather absolutist concept of romantic love, convinced her that she cannot have loved Fenthick. It's essentially a rationalisation, adopting to resolve the developing of an intrinsic conflict in Aribeth mind between two concepts.

No, she pretty much states that the reason she felt so guilty is coz she didn't really love him. Thats where her conflict came from rather then just good vs lawful. She felt that that played a part in letting him be hanged without interfering when she might have tried to protect someone she wasnt conflicted about because it was the right thing to do.

Why did Morag choose Aribeth and not anyone else, because Aribeth was weakened by contradictions within her own system of thought.

Morag was trying to keep the conflict from being resolved in any of the above ways, by playing Law and Goodness against one-another, in order to create a situation where Aribeth hates law and disregards goodness, creating an evil Aribeth, the perfect ally of Morag. It worked too. Either way, something had to go, the trick was to ensure that the conflict was drawn out, until all the forces got too weak to resist Morag's coup de grace.

Yeah, but she did use mind magic on her. Sure her will save was defective because of doubts, but the evil thought were there 10x to Morag.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

If good is stronger then lawful wouldn't a lawful good char also "acts as they desire, regardless of what law or tradition says."? It might be harder for them, but the result should be the same.

And the good/evil part is what gives them their motives, that's why it's more powerful then the lawful/chaotic one,

The lawful character will only cross the law or tradition as a last resort when all other possible actions are exhausted, whilst the chaotic character does so almost as a first resort.

You've got the basic picture, the motives of the lawful good character come from their alignment, rather than from respect for law or tradition itself as lawful neutral characters are inclined.

The lawful good character, also tends to give the law and tradition the benefit of the doubt as to it's essential righteousness, this is different from neutral or chaotic good, which are more questioning.

So unless the law or tradition is obviously and necceserily in the wrong, the lawful good character will abide by it, while a neutral or chaotic good being would question laws and traditions that are in a sense controversial.

I meant they should have tried to sway the ppl. They're the ones that wanted someone publicaly killed for the plague. Lord Nasher was too scared/whatever to dare refuse.

Lord Nasher was afraid of chaos and revolt maybe, but there is something more going on here.

I think Lord Nasher is a Lawful Neutral character, therefore he feels bound to serve the people, beacause Neverwinter likely has a technical democratic tradition.

A Lawful Neutral character is nothing but a slave to others, even if they rise to rule the world they are incapable of ever being free. In the case of Lord Nasher, he saw his master as the people, and he was just delivering to the people, what they wanted since they are his master.

As for PC and Aribeth trying to sway the people, swaying one man is hard, swaying a whole city once it's mind is set, is impossable. Remember they only have a short time, they do not have years to convince the people one soul at a time.

He pretty much admits he didn't want to kill Fenthick(?), and he pretty much owned the PC his continued existance. As did everyone in the damn city. If it was me (the PC) i would have gotten up in court and said something like "you're gonna let him live coz i just saved your efing lives and it's the least you can do to return the favor". No lawful char could have refused me with their honor intact.

A Lawful Good character, wouldn't have being able to refuse that with their honor intact, but lawful neutral characters wouldn't have been swayed beacause PC is not vested with any formal authority.

It was not stated that PC would take over the legal system in exchange for aiding the whole city, so the lawful neutral character wouldn't have necceserily listened to PC.

Such concepts as honour, have no meaning to a lawful neutral character, except in the sense of "honouring contracts". If a lawful neutral character makes a pledge or a contract, they will honor it.

This does not necceserily extend to such concepts of "favor for favor" unless this is the established legal or traditional order.

In a barbarian tribe, likely this would be the law and tradition and a barbarian chief would have abided by it. But in a cosmopolitan city, ruled by an ultimately democratic ethos, this is not the case.

What would be 'dishonorable' for Lord Nasher, would be to create chaos and defy the democratic will, beacause order and public opinion, not barbarian notions of blood-debt usually rule in city-states.

No, she pretty much states that the reason she felt so guilty is coz she didn't really love him. Thats where her conflict came from rather then just good vs lawful. She felt that that played a part in letting him be hanged without interfering when she might have tried to protect someone she wasnt conflicted about because it was the right thing to do.

Not something I remember, but maybe you are reading more into it than me, or I just forgot.

Remember that Morag is influencing Aribeth and Aribeth also may rationalise that her actions mean that she couldn't have loved Fenthick.

Just beacause Aribeth later on says that, doesn't make it true. Certainly the hanging of Fenthick has a greater effect on Aribeth than would be reasonable had she not loved Fenthick. I mean it's not like Aribeth goes into crisis every time some begger somewhere starves to death.

Yeah, but she did use mind magic on her. Sure her will save was defective because of doubts, but the evil thought were there 10x to Morag.

This is not magic of the sort which one uses to send people to sleep in battle. Otherwhise one would just cast a dispell spell on bad Aribeth and she would be good Aribeth again.

Morag was merely using magic to work on what was already there, she knew that Aribeth would likely change alignment, she was just using magic to bring to the forefront the very things which would cause Aribeth too, of her own free will switch sides.

The key was to continue to play the three main factors, Aribeths concept of law, her concept of goodness and her love of Fenthick (and thus her memory), until Aribeth stepped out of all of them, creating the evil Aribeth. The key to this was to make remaining in any of them painful to the maximum extent, until Aribeth turned away from all of them in a bid to achieve a degree of inner peace, in the desire for revenge.

Evil is the abscence of good and chaos the abscence of law, as it were. All Morag needed to do, was to destroy Aribeths goodness and lawfulness, so that she would turn against Neverwinter and serve Morag.

It was not a contest against Aribeth's will, breaking Aribeth's will by direct magical assault, was not ever Morag's agenda. It was not a will save thing, a question of Aribeth's will VS Morag's will.

She was more subtle, bringing stuff up in Aribeth's mind in the right mixture and making Aribeth believe it was coming from herself and ensuring the right things filled her mind, to stop Aribeth from resolving the conflicts.

[ThunderTitan]

[
You've got the basic picture, the motives of the lawful good character come from their alignment, rather than from respect for law or tradition itself as lawful neutral characters are inclined.

Of course i got it, i just don't like it.

Evil is the abscence of good and chaos the abscence of law, as it were.

Then there would be no neutral, would it.

Lord Nasher was afraid of chaos and revolt maybe, but there is something more going on here.

I think Lord Nasher is a Lawful Neutral character, therefore he feels bound to serve the people, beacause Neverwinter likely has a technical democratic tradition.

A Lawful Neutral character is nothing but a slave to others, even if they rise to rule the world they are incapable of ever being free. In the case of Lord Nasher, he saw his master as the people, and he was just delivering to the people, what they wanted since they are his master.

Maybe.

As for PC and Aribeth trying to sway the people, swaying one man is hard, swaying a whole city once it's mind is set, is impossible.

Tell that to all those crazy preacher ppl. Especialy in a place resembeling the middle ages.

This does not necceserily extend to such concepts of "favor for favor" unless this is the established legal or traditional order.

What would be 'dishonorable' for Lord Nasher, would be to create chaos and defy the democratic will, beacause order and public opinion, not barbarian notions of blood-debt usually rule in city-states.

Barbarian "favor 4 favor"? I should blame Robert E. Howard. Of course we are talking about a fictional world...

Not something I remember, but maybe you are reading more into it than me, or I just forgot.

Ups, it's in HotU. And apparently you're right, the ppl of Neverwinter really are pretty ungratefull sobs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aribeth#Ar ... Tylmarande

Just beacause Aribeth later on says that, doesn't make it true. Certainly the hanging of Fenthick has a greater effect on Aribeth than would be reasonable had she not loved Fenthick. I mean it's not like Aribeth goes into crisis every time some begger somewhere starves to death.

There's no point for her to deceive herself at that point, especialy since being truthfull to herself is what snapped her out of it. And isn't it worse to have let a person you were gonna merry die because you didn't really love him? What does that make you?

It was not a contest against Aribeth's will, breaking Aribeth's will by direct magical assault, was not ever Morag's agenda. It was not a will save thing, a question of Aribeth's will VS Morag's will.

It was about breaking her will, kinda like real brainwashing. Sleep depravation, repeating things over and over etc. It wasn't direct mind control, but she wasn't really in her right mind.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

Then there would be no neutral, would it.

Neutral is simply a small amount of good, enough to keep the character from being bad, but not enough to make them really good.

Tell that to all those crazy preacher ppl. Especialy in a place resembeling the middle ages.

There are a lot of crazy preacher people and they have time to convince people. PC and Aribeth, well there is only 2 of them and they need to convince the whole city in a very short amount of time.

Barbarian "favor 4 favor"? I should blame Robert E. Howard. Of course we are talking about a fictional world...

Whose Robert E. Howard?

There's no point for her to deceive herself at that point, especialy since being truthfull to herself is what snapped her out of it. And isn't it worse to have let a person you were gonna merry die because you didn't really love him? What does that make you?

A monster. And who has an interest in ensuring that Aribeth thinks of herself as a monster. Yes Morag does. Who's influencing Aribeth.

Morag. If Aribeth considers herself a monster, then to side with monsters is logical is it not. I do not believe that Aribeth's later testemony is reliable, given all she'd been through.

It was about breaking her will, kinda like real brainwashing. Sleep depravation, repeating things over and over etc. It wasn't direct mind control, but she wasn't really in her right mind.

Real brainwashing doesn't exist, it's simply a word people use for persuasion of people by those an individual doesn't think highly of. For instance 'cult brainwashing', cult is just a word people have for small emergant religious group that threatens to upset the religious status quo in a way they do not consider desirable.

Morag wasn't trying to break Aribeth's will by magic, no she had far higher
goal, that was to get Aribeth to willingly serve her. Breaking someone's will by magic or for that matter torture, while effective in the short term and getting people to stop opposing you, doesn't create loyal servants.

To create a loyal servant, one must use those tools and others to 'convince' them of the falsity of what they believe in, preferably everything that they believe in, to convince them that they must change, that they are at fault and not the people tormenting them.

Since Aribeth thinks it's her own head, things are so much more effective, beacause there is no-one else to blame but herself. This creates a situation where to remain 'good Aribeth' is too painful to bear, at which point Aribeth is 'pursuaded' to join Morag, using her own will.

[ThunderTitan]

Neutral is simply a small amount of good, enough to keep the character from being bad, but not enough to make them really good.

Exactly what i don't lie about it. I'd prefer evil to require malice, not just putting yourself first regardless of ethics, coz lets face it, most ppl do just that.

There are a lot of crazy preacher people

Then why are most cults started by 1 person?

Whose Robert E. Howard?

I'm sure a google search will answer that.

A monster. And who has an interest in ensuring that Aribeth thinks of herself as a monster. Yes Morag does. Who's influencing Aribeth.

Morag. If Aribeth considers herself a monster, then to side with monsters is logical is it not. I do not believe that Aribeth's later testemony is reliable, given all she'd been through.

Morag was long dead, as was Aribeth. The conversation happens in one of the Nine Hells, with her spirit. And she was there for just that reason.

Real brainwashing doesn't exist

Permanent brainwashing doesn't exist, and Aribeth was definatly not a "loyal servant". But she served her purpose.

[vhilhu]

Then why are most cults started by 1 person?

that might just as well be an illusion, simply its better to show 1 charismatic leader instead of a group, as it feels more messiah-like. it is certainly so with eg Lenin & Hitler, who could be compared to cult leaders. i think theres just not enough info on the really serious cults that existed long time ago to draw conclusions from those (Moses, Jesus, Zarathustre etc etc)

Whose Robert E. Howard?

Why, a friend and contemporary of the creator of Cthulhu!

[Lunar]

Elwin - Chaotic Good
Lord Ironfist - Lawfull Good
Solmyr - Chaotic Good in my opinion (Marids (blue genies of water from D&D) are chaotic good )

[ThunderTitan]

Then why are most cults started by 1 person?

that might just as well be an illusion, simply its better to show 1 charismatic leader instead of a group, as it feels more messiah-like

I'm talking about suicide cults and the like. Oh, and scientology.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

Exactly what i don't lie about it. I'd prefer evil to require malice, not just putting yourself first regardless of ethics, coz lets face it, most ppl do just that.

But not too many knowingly put themselves first, when it causes acute harm to others and benefits them relatively little.

Evil people are people who put themselves first even though this causes greater harm to others perhaps, while neutral people will tend to benefit themselves at the expense of another, but only to a certain extent.

Then why are most cults started by 1 person?

Beacause that person convinces other preacher types to support him and to share the load.

Morag was long dead, as was Aribeth. The conversation happens in one of the Nine Hells, with her spirit. And she was there for just that reason.

Does such concepts as love, exist among spirits in hell. I doubt it would.

She was in hell for the evil she caused to Neverwinter wasn't she?

Elwin - Chaotic Good
Lord Ironfist - Lawfull Good
Solmyr - Chaotic Good in my opinion (Marids (blue genies of water from D&D) are chaotic good smile_teeth )

I would not count Elwin as Chaotic Good. I would count his as True Neutral, since he does not act in a particularly virtuous way, except towards his love Shaera which is essentially neutral. He quite happily throws the nation into war and chaos in order to win 'his love'.

Solymr is Lawful Neutral by a long shot. Eventually yes he turned against Gavin Magnus, but he took a long time to do that.

[ThunderTitan]

But not too many knowingly put themselves first, when it causes acute harm to others and benefits them relatively little.

Like i said, malice.

Beacause that person convinces other preacher types to support him and to share the load.

With my Sorcs high charisma that wouldn't have been a problem.

Does such concepts as love, exist among spirits in hell. I doubt it would.

You can actualy redeem her, so yes. Remember, she's not a demon, just there for punishment.

He quite happily throws the nation into war and chaos in order to win 'his love'.

Wouldn't that make him evil?! Chaotic Neutral sounds better by your descriptions, as he doesn't actualy try to better anyone elses situation except his own. He might have gone Chaotic Good by the end though.

Solymr is Lawful Neutral by a long shot. Eventually yes he turned against Gavin Magnus, but he took a long time to do that.

And even then he justified it by saying that the world he'd promise to serve GM did end.

[vhilhu]

what alignment would DL be? Lawful Evil?

[ThunderTitan]

what alignment would DL be? Lawful Evil?

Yup, he's a devil.


And look what i found:

A "Lawful Stupid" (sometimes also called "Awful Good" or "Lawful Awful") character is a character (a good example would be badly played Paladins) who is ostensibly lawful good but, in practice, hews strongly to Law and only coincidentally to Good. "Lawful Stupid" characters will often do things that are actively detrimental to the health and well-being of the party in the name of Lawful Good, such as announce the party's presence to an overwhelmingly powerful foe, or needlessly antagonize an evil but necessary contact. It should be noted that "Lawful Stupid" is a term used by players and not a proper alignment set forth by the system.

[vicheron]

Dracon - Lawful Evil

Why Lawful Evil for Dracon?

He's a genocidal maniac. Hunting the Rust Dragons made sense but why did he want to wipe out the Faerie and Azure Dragons?

The DnD system doesn't really work. Fortress and Stronghold are considered neutral but they're perfectly content with slaughtering people for land and gold. They're really not that different than Dungeon.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

Like i said, malice.

Exactly. Neutral beings are not really prepared to help others at their own expense, but nor are not malicious, in that they are prepared to hurt others seriously for relatively little gain to themselves.

With my Sorcs high charisma that wouldn't have been a problem. tongue

The difference is that the preacher types have already made their mind up that Fenthick should die, and there is only a very small amount of time to convince them all.

You can actualy redeem her, so yes. Remember, she's not a demon, just there for punishment.

This is a quest I never ran across. I still doubt the sincerity of Aribeth's claim not to have loved Fenthick.

Given that all at the time apparantly considered it obvious. Aribeth's later claims are probably just a rationalisation of memory.

Wouldn't that make him evil?! tongue Chaotic Neutral sounds better by your descriptions, as he doesn't actualy try to better anyone elses situation except his own. He might have gone Chaotic Good by the end though.

I'm actually a bit hazy as to the plot. The reason I would consider him true neutral rather than chaotic neutral, is that he shows a consistant line of motivation, other than the consistant line of reasoning of "become more powerful" and gets on quite well with the established order, that is the druids, but is unwilling to respect this order when it conflicts with his own desires.

Elwin steps on people's toes for Shaera, and does so an aweful lot, the long term consequences of this are bad (war and chaos), but I'm not sure how much awareness Elwin has of the likely consequences of his actions, to others than himself.

Again, Elwin acts pretty often to mantain and respect the order of Aranorn's authority, (the druids) and generally abides by the rules, but is willing to break them also, when he considers them oppressive to himself and Shaera.

But nowhere does he show any particular virtue, he acts only in the interests of himself and Shaera, but he does lack malice, that is a willingness to inflict greater harm on others, for comparitively little gain to himself.

He's a genocidal maniac. Hunting the Rust Dragons made sense but why did he want to wipe out the Faerie and Azure Dragons?

The DnD system doesn't really work. Fortress and Stronghold are considered neutral but they're perfectly content with slaughtering people for land and gold. They're really not that different than Dungeon.

Well, you're reffering to opportunistic snipping of Erathia by Erathia and Krewlad when Erathia was invaded by Inferno and Dungeon creatures.

Have you considered that perhaps their actions were motivated by the need to expand, or perish in the new world order, created by Gryphenheart's death.

Rather than simply by greed for land or gold. To survive Tatalia and Krewlad must expand, to do so they must sieze land and gold.

Taking over a place so that your burgeoning population can eat, even if it requires that others lose out, is a neutral action. Animals will do this quite happily, and animals are normally considered neutral aligned.

What marks out an evil being out, is the desire to benefit themselves to the maximum extent, even if this requires that others sacrifice more than the evil character gains. While people may get hurt as a result of trying to stop neutral beings trying to increase their own quality of life, or retake what they consider theirs, they have no interest in extending themselves massively at others extent.

This means that neutral biengs will normally reach some form of compromise with those they have the power to destroy utterly, to obtain the maximum possible reward. An evil bieng will not do so.

Their agressive actions are in a sense driven by neccesity of avoiding the condition of themselves or their own group from worsening in future, or of protecting the survival of themselves or their group, not by a desire to benefit themselves to the maximum, even if this is at others expense.

[ThunderTitan]

Exactly. Neutral beings are not really prepared to help others at their own expense, but nor are not malicious, in that they are prepared to hurt others seriously for relatively little gain to themselves.

But that's the thing, you said Evil is all about putting your goal before any ethical considerations, that's not really malice, just selfishness.

Given that all at the time apparantly considered it obvious. Aribeth's later claims are probably just a rationalisation of memory.

That actualy frees her from torment in hell? Kind off a shaky way to run a realm of eternal torture if anyone can stop their punishment by just rationalizing their actions.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

But that's the thing, you said Evil is all about putting your goal before any ethical considerations, that's not really malice, just selfishness.

And malice *is* an extension of selfishness. You happily harm other people a great deal for your own gain, that is selfish and malicious.

That actualy frees her from torment in hell? Kind off a shaky way to run a realm of eternal torture if anyone can stop their punishment by just rationalizing their actions.

Or perhaps hell is distorting her memory in order to increase the punishment?

Either way, the testomony of the soul of someone like Aribeth, in a place of eternal misery and torment run by supernatural beings, is rather shaky.

[ThunderTitan]

And malice *is* an extension of selfishness.

No it isn't. Malice implies intent/desire to do harm, selfishness doesn't, it just sometimes causes harm as a side effect.

Either way, the testomony of the soul of someone like Aribeth, in a place of eternal misery and torment run by supernatural beings, is rather shaky.

Do you really think that the devs really thought it out that much?