What DnD alignment do you think each hero is?

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

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

And no-one has ever existed that intends or desires to cause harm, just for the sake of causing harm. Everyone intends/desires to cause harm beacause it gains them some selfish gain.

Selfishness is thus at the root of malice. Of course some creatures (ie animals) are not smart enough to be malicious, and some people draw a line at bieng selfish when it causes serious harm to others.

Evil and Good do not operate according to paralell goals. Nobody seeks to hurt others for it's own sake, always beacause it benefits them in some way.

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

No they just worked out how to create contradiction and left us to do the thinking.

[vicheron]

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.

You could say the same thing about Nighon. The campaign says that Nighon's way of has been hampered by Erathia. It is entirely possible that Nighon only joined Deyja and Eeofol to avenge past and present injustices and to ensure the security of its future.

[Beelzebubba]

When Heroes 3 was first released a friend and I had a discussion about the D&D alignment of the various towns. Here's what I recall us agreeing upon:

Castle - lawful good (easy one)
Tower - lawful neutral, with good tendencies
Rampart - chaotic good
Fortress - neutral
Stronghold - chaotic neutral
Inferno - lawful evil
Necropolis - neutral evil
Dungeon - chaotic evil

And I suppose the Conflux would be "true" neutral.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

You could say the same thing about Nighon. The campaign says that Nighon's way of has been hampered by Erathia. It is entirely possible that Nighon only joined Deyja and Eeofol to avenge past and present injustices and to ensure the security of its future.

I thought Nighon was some island.

When Heroes 3 was first released a friend and I had a discussion about the D&D alignment of the various towns. Here's what I recall us agreeing upon:

Castle - lawful good (easy one)
Tower - lawful neutral, with good tendencies
Rampart - chaotic good
Fortress - neutral
Stronghold - chaotic neutral
Inferno - lawful evil
Necropolis - neutral evil
Dungeon - chaotic evil

There is a problem with establishing any D&D alignment for "towns" beacause we are really talking about whole societies here, and the different individuals within those societies will not uniformly follow a single aligment.

Good, Neutral and Evil, in Heroes III are more like alliances than anything more deep.

[ThunderTitan]

And no-one has ever existed that intends or desires to cause harm, just for the sake of causing harm.

I disagree with that one... plenty of sadists around imo.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

I disagree with that one... plenty of sadists around imo.

But they do it beacause they get pleasure out of inflicting pain, not for it's own sake.

[ThunderTitan]

But they do it because they get pleasure out of inflicting pain, not for it's own sake.

Well nothing gets done for it's own sake then, i really doubt someone will ever do something that gains them nothing at all.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

But they do it because they get pleasure out of inflicting pain, not for it's own sake.

Well nothing gets done for it's own sake then, i really doubt someone will ever do something that gains them nothing at all.

True, I concede your point, however as we established long ago, not all evil biengs are necceserily sadists. The goals of evil biengs, could include power , wealth and revenge.

Heroes evil beings however, are rarely sadists, they are usually motivated by power, wealth or revenge and they inflict harm in order to serve those agendas.

In general the evil beings, do not go around killing people for no reason at all. There is always some undelying self-serving external purpose for doing this.

[ThunderTitan]

The goals of evil beings, could include power , wealth and revenge.

So could a good character's... the difference should come from how they do it. All other things being equal a good char would most likely quit instead of doing something bad, a neutral one would do the bad act if it's the most convenient, while a evil char would chose the evil act even if he had alternatives.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

So could a good character's... the difference should come from how they do it. All other things being equal a good char would most likely quit instead of doing something bad, a neutral one would do the bad act if it's the most convenient, while a evil char would chose the evil act even if he had alternatives.

A good character might actually deny themselves and not do something they desire to do, if it demanded that they do something that contravenes their morality.

The evil character would however only do the evil act, only if he saw it as more conveniant and easier than other options. If the 'good' act was more conveniant and easier and more profitable, he would do that not the 'evil' act.

The neutral character would judge how beneficial it is, how easy it is and it's moral consequence, on a more or less even basis.

[ThunderTitan]

If the 'good' act was more convenient and easier and more profitable, he would do that not the 'evil' act.

I said if all other things are equal or pretty negligible.

The evil character would however only do the evil act, only if he saw it as more convenient and easier than other options.

He'd also do it if it was just as convenient and easy as the others, or the difference would be minimal.

A neutral char would prob choose based on some internal logic depending on his other alignment.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

He'd also do it if it was just as convenient and easy as the others, or the difference would be minimal.

A neutral char would prob choose based on some internal logic depending on his other alignment.

But what is the fundermental difference between Chaotic Neutral and Evil?

[ThunderTitan]

But what is the fundamental difference between Chaotic Neutral and Evil?

A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer)


A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal.

So Neutral = causing any chaos he can; Evil = causing chaos that will most certainly end badly;

A CN char will cause a big fight for the chaos, a CE one so he can get ppl hurt in the chaos.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

So Neutral = causing any chaos he can; Evil = causing chaos that will most certainly end badly;

A CN char will cause a big fight for the chaos, a CE one so he can get ppl hurt in the chaos.

I don't think that a chaotic neutral character aims to create chaos. He simply isn't guided by any law, which ultimately means he/she rails against laws imposed by others.

The difference between him and a chaotic evil character, is the chaotic evil character, always acts to benefit himself, in particular when this hurts others, the chaotic neutral character will sometimes act in a kind way, when the whim strikes him, but does not do so consistantly.

A chaotic neutral character, is simply unreliable and his/her behavior, shifts more or less randomly. You cannot trust a chaotic neutral character to aid you at their own expense any more than you can trust them not to hurt you when it benefits themseves.

They do not consistantly disregard others as part of consistant strategy to maximise their own profit, this is what seperates them from chaotic evil, while they do not consistantly respect and aid others that are in need, that is what seperates them from chaotic good.

What they have in common, is they all do not place any instrinsic value on authority, structure law or order, although they will still not undermine it when doing so would contravene their moral system.

[ThunderTitan]

I don't think that a chaotic neutral character aims to create chaos.

Not consistently... that was a limited example as to show the difference.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

Not consistently... that was a limited example as to show the difference.

Also, in a sense creating 'chaos' is not possible beacause chaos is in a sense the abscence of order and to create a true abscence of order you'd have to be powerful enough to obliterate the entire universe.

A chaotic neutral character, might actually be lawful for a short period, beacause it's his whim to follow the law.

It's kind of like the chaotic neutral character wakes up every morning a different alignment. They are pretty scary beacause you never know what alignment they are today, but they are incapable of carrying out consistant alignment based plans over a long period of time.

On rare occasions, some plans are carried out over a long period of time, beacause these plans are consistant with all alignments. For instance staying alive and becoming more powerful.

Anyway, back on topic, I think the aligment of each main character is this.

Lysander- Chaotic Good. Despite bieng a ruler, he doesn't respect tradition at all, nor other powerful people in his nation.
Wearjak- Neutral Good. Critical of certain respected authorities, but generally warm to the idea of order and stable traditions generally.
Emilia- Lawful Good.
Elwin- True Neutral. Doesn't show any strong tendancies towards good or evil, law or chaos.
Gauldoth- Lawful Evil. Although Gauldoth is pretty wise and not sadistic.
Tawni- I haven't played this campaign yet.

[ThunderTitan]

Also, in a sense creating 'chaos' is not possible because chaos is in a sense the absence of order and to create a true absence of order you'd have to be powerful enough to obliterate the entire universe.

Didn't Einstein dislike the way quantum theory was heading coz it relied on a rather random (chaotic) universe?

A chaotic neutral character, might actually be lawful for a short period, beacause it's his whim to follow the law.

And this is why following laws shouldn't be enough for the Lawful alignment.

Lysander- Chaotic Good. Despite bieng a ruler, he doesn't respect tradition at all, nor other powerful people in his nation.

What? A Lawful char would also be against tradition being misused or perverted.

Tawni- I haven't played this campaign yet.

Chaotic Neutral or Evil, depending on her mood at the time. She's in some ways a better char then Gauldroth IMO.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

Didn't Einstein dislike the way quantum theory was heading coz it relied on a rather random (chaotic) universe?

Of course, Einstein's pantheism had something to do with it aswell. In character Einstein was actually probably chaotic good, since he didn't really have a very high opinion of traditions, or nations or goverments.

I think he said that nationalism was the measles of mankind at one point.

However it seems that quantum theory seems to point to order out of chaos, but also the imperfection of the order of that universe.

Whether the universe will eventually get more and more unstable until it eventually dissolves into a mass of random quantums, in other words 'pure' chaos, or whether the quantums will become more stable over time, or whether things will stay the same, I don't think anyone has any way of knowing.

The whole thing suggests that the universe originated not ex nihilo, but from a primal chaos. In other words, the original creation theories of the babylonians were actually correct.

And this is why following laws shouldn't be enough for the Lawful alignment.

True, I was pointing out that chaotic neutral characters might have a lawful whim, so for a short time they might behave in a lawful way, even if they are really chaotic.

What? A Lawful char would also be against tradition being misused or perverted.

True and that's the problem with working the true alignment of someone like Lysander. And then there is the problem that since Paleadra is less than 4 years old, really there isn't much tradition to follow. What there really, is the tradition of Erathia and Antagarich.

Certainly Lysander doesn't behave in what one would describe as a fashion befitting his rank as leader of a sovereign state. He runs off into the wilds, leaving his nation in the hands of others, he is restless and eternally on the move, never stopping in one place, least of all his capital city.

A lawful good ruler, would I think have not behaved in such an erratic fashion, they would perhaps even have stepped down when Sir Worton drew his blade, 'proving' that he was a Gryphenheart.

Chaotic Neutral or Evil, depending on her mood at the time. devil She's in some ways a better char then Gauldroth IMO

In which case she is almost certainly chaotic neutral. Chaotic Neutrals can behave in an 'evil' way at times, and they can behave in a 'good' way at times.

At times it is almost like Tawni likes to take mortal risks, for instance the way she declared herself captain and the way she pretended to be unarmed for the water-burial ceremony of her father.

And the whole Pirate Queen thing too. Her whole mission to become ruler, is based upon what amounts to a whim.

[ThunderTitan]

Certainly Lysander doesn't behave in what one would describe as a fashion befitting his rank as leader of a sovereign state. He runs off into the wilds, leaving his nation in the hands of others, he is restless and eternally on the move, never stopping in one place, least of all his capital city.

We only see him doing those things when he feels that there are no good alternatives.

A lawful good ruler, would I think have not behaved in such an erratic fashion, they would perhaps even have stepped down when Sir Worton drew his blade, 'proving' that he was a Gryphenheart.

But the fact that he knew it would be a bad thing for Worton to rule and that it was prob fake do make his actions justified even from a lawful PoV. The law of his kingdom was being perverted, he wasn't gonna stand for it.

Chaotic is too much anyway.... Neutral Good maybe

In which case she is almost certainly chaotic neutral. Chaotic Neutrals can behave in an 'evil' way at times, and they can behave in a 'good' way at times.

Well she doesn't really ever behave in a "good" way, but most of her "evil" is done as a result of her chosen career.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

But the fact that he knew it would be a bad thing for Worton to rule and that it was prob fake do make his actions justified even from a lawful PoV. The law of his kingdom was being perverted, he wasn't gonna stand for it.

Chaotic is too much anyway.... Neutral Good maybe

However Lysander does apparantly threaten the social status quo creating resentment among the nobility and he doesn't really seem to care much for the traditions of Erathia.

That is a case for making him chaotic. He does what he feels is right, without regard for the traditions of his society, nor for the 'proper' social powers.

However, he also places a fair amount of emphasis upon certain traditions, such as the tradition of hereditery kingship, hence why he calls himself lord and not king.

However, he also shows a fair bit of disregard for the very real possibility that Sir Worton might well be a Gryphenheart.