Buddha's New D&D Thread is Groovy, Man.

[saskganesh]

Which is why it never made any sense to me and probably why it is no longer an alignment. 

That was why?  Because you had a narrow and limited interpretation of Lawful Evil?

I find it a shame the rules of the game were so built around your interpretations.

Neil changed the meaning of lawful so that people could meaningfully play a LE character.  By definition a LE character would have a very limited ability to do anything unless the structure he was working in was inherently evil.  Which is why Asmodeus could be LE.  His sphere war run by him under rules that were inherently evil.

In any role playing world LE characters would be essentially be non existant.

it's easy to imagine LE social/political structures that would support LE characters.

a slave empire.
an evil wizard oligarchy.
a theocracy of Asmodeus, or some other diredivinedude.

none of these are stretches.

[Neil]

Which is why it never made any sense to me and probably why it is no longer an alignment. 

That was why?  Because you had a narrow and limited interpretation of Lawful Evil?

I find it a shame the rules of the game were so built around your interpretations.

Neil changed the meaning of lawful so that people could meaningfully play a LE character.  By definition a LE character would have a very limited ability to do anything unless the structure he was working in was inherently evil.  Which is why Asmodeus could be LE.  His sphere war run by him under rules that were inherently evil.

In any role playing world LE characters would be essentially be non existant.

I changed nothing.

Besides, there are vast numbers of LE characters in every D&D gaming world.

[crazy canuck]

Why do you think that?

You've got a bunch of people going about their day to day lives, obeying the law, but if they find a way to take advantage of others for gain they will, at least up to a point.

Perhaps neutral evil would be more common, to include all those speeders out there.

What you are describing is Chaotic not Lawful.  And acting in your own best interests isnt evil. 

[crazy canuck]

Which is why it never made any sense to me and probably why it is no longer an alignment. 

That was why?  Because you had a narrow and limited interpretation of Lawful Evil?

I find it a shame the rules of the game were so built around your interpretations.

Neil changed the meaning of lawful so that people could meaningfully play a LE character.  By definition a LE character would have a very limited ability to do anything unless the structure he was working in was inherently evil.  Which is why Asmodeus could be LE.  His sphere war run by him under rules that were inherently evil.

In any role playing world LE characters would be essentially be non existant.

it's easy to imagine LE social/political structures that would support LE characters.

a slave empire.
an evil wizard oligarchy.
a theocracy of Asmodeus, or some other diredivinedude.

none of these are stretches.

True, I should have qualified that by saying in most worlds that are created....

[crazy canuck]

Besides, there are vast numbers of LE characters in every D&D gaming world.

Not anymore.

[Neil]

Besides, there are vast numbers of LE characters in every D&D gaming world.

Not anymore.

Of course there are.  The vast, vast, vast, vast majority of all characters published in Dungeons and Dragons' eleven main campaign settings were published under the 9-alignment system, and even the 3-alignment system has an edge on the current abomination.

[Neil]

Why do you think that?

You've got a bunch of people going about their day to day lives, obeying the law, but if they find a way to take advantage of others for gain they will, at least up to a point.

Perhaps neutral evil would be more common, to include all those speeders out there.

What you are describing is Chaotic not Lawful.  And acting in your own best interests isnt evil.

It can be.

[Barrister]

What you are describing is Chaotic not Lawful.  And acting in your own best interests isnt evil.

Acting in your best interests while entirely disregarding how it might effect others is almost the very definition of evil.

[saskganesh]

see: Ayn Rand=teh evil. 

[crazy canuck]

What you are describing is Chaotic not Lawful.  And acting in your own best interests isnt evil.

Acting in your best interests while entirely disregarding how it might effect others is almost the very definition of evil.

But you have to add in the last part to make it evil.  It is possible to act in your own interest while still having a mind for others.  that is how most people function isnt it?

[ulmont]

What you are describing is Chaotic not Lawful.  And acting in your own best interests isnt evil.

Obeying the law while taking advantage of it where possible is lawful.

[Oexmelin]

hm, fun system.

and I never realised before that CK cribbed this.

I am curious, as I never played CK: how has it inspired / how have they stolen from it ?

But yeah, Pendragon's system (and game setting) is very interesting. For some reason, I tend to favour very obscure systems / worlds: Pendragon, Tekumel, Dragon Warriors, Dream Ouroboros...

I have never played D&D aside from computer games, as I always disliked how alignment has actual game implications: spells that detect alignment, objects that can be used by some alignment, etc.

[garbon]

I am curious, as I never played CK: how has it inspired / how have they stolen from it ?

They basically just took those and made them opposing attribute pairs.  So one character will be valorous and merciful (and whatever other traits they gain) and will be disliked by a cowardly & cruel character.  If the first character is a king and the second a vassal, the vassal might have constantly decreasing loyalty towards his liege.  From that list, the only one they don't have is pious vs. worldly (closest might be zealous / skeptical).

[crazy canuck]

What you are describing is Chaotic not Lawful.  And acting in your own best interests isnt evil.

Obeying the law while taking advantage of it where possible is lawful.

I agree.  but you said, "finding a way to take advantage of others" which includes finding ways of breaking the law without getting caught.  With your qualifier I agree it is lawful but also not evil.  Such a person could also be LG.

For example everytime BB buys a new pair of pants he looks around for the best possible deal.  He doesnt buy from Joe's Slacks Emporium even though good old Joe could really use BB's business because Joe charges way to much (the main reason Joe has no customers).  BB also doesnt buy from Susie Sheer's Khaki Kingdom because, while well priced Susie's product quality is terrible.  Even though Susie desparately needs the sale to stay in business BB passes her by and goes to the Khaki Barn, well known for its low prices and good quality.  Now the Bargain Basement Khaki Barn doesnt need BB business.  the owner the the Barn is the most wealthy person in town.  Not saying much in that town but still, relatively speaking, he doesnt need the business.

Despite that our valiant paladin BB still buys his slacks and Khaki pants from the Barn because it is in his own self interest to do so.  In fact BB even clips out coupons from time to time so that he can get an even better deal.  He does this knowing that the coupons are lost leaders for the Barn but BB can't help himself.  In his mind he is doing nothing wrong.  Objectively speaking we would all condemn him for buying slacks and Khaki pants and none of us would be caught dead walking into the Barn with him - especially when he has coupons in hand but he has found his little legal niche to stick it to the man and he can do so without losing his precious LG alignment which all Crown Counsel must maintain as a term of employment.

[garbon]

But that's because of the example you picked.