next »

[Gimp]

Thank you, AS, for not imposing an alignment system on Anima!
 
(Side note, I once enjoyed a debate that ended with James Bond classed as Lawful Good, so alignment systems can be very flexible, just very unrealistic.  Then again, RPG's were a new idea when the concept was created.)

[Hiro]

Thank you, AS, for not imposing an alignment system on Anima!

Amen, I hate alignment systems. One should never have conversations on what a person with a certain alignment would do.

[Pneumonica]

I've never had a problem with "alignment" as a moral philosophy - the idea of "alignment" as an absolute force of nature always bothered me.  Of course, in 1st edition AD&D alignments had their own languages.  Starting characters got Common, species (unless human - humans had no species language), and Alignment.  Did it make sense?  Not one bit.   

This was part of the reason I always liked Ravenloft as a setting - it made alignment less of a cosmic force by blurring it.  Alignment was not a "detectable" force, nor could you ward off evil universally.  On the flip side, it's often beneficial to have creatures that manifest the absolute value of a specific moral philosophy ("angels", "demons", etc.).  Even Anima has them.  However, beyond injury to such creatures, the idea of "smite evil" powers never clicked with me.

Anyways, this is an extreme digression...

[Swordwraith]

Thank you, AS, for not imposing an alignment system on Anima!

Amen, I hate alignment systems. One should never have conversations on what a person with a certain alignment would do.

I enjoy them in a reverse engineering sense, almost like music theory. Its much more amusing to me to say "Malcolm Reynolds acts Chaotic Good", and match the personality of the person to the broad category. But 'You are Chaotic Good so you should act this way' is somewhat silly. Play the character however you want: Alignment IMO is just a shorthand for describing certain ethic/moral tendencies in broad brush strokes.

Also, Ravenloft gave the land itself an alignment, so, it did contradict its own tenant there. The Domain of Dread was basically sentient evil in its own right.

But anyway.

[Lars]

On the flip side, it's often beneficial to have creatures that manifest the absolute value of a specific moral philosophy ("angels", "demons", etc.).  Even Anima has them.  However, beyond injury to such creatures, the idea of "smite evil" powers never clicked with me.

Anyways, this is an extreme digression...

Well, despite in Anima we could find Light and Darkness, people of Gaia are actually ambiguous. There are long threads in spanish arguing about if Rah was a mesiah or an insane, hero or villan, and the same thing with Zhorne and others.
The perspective to asign a good or evil aura for a character is more based on the general perception of every people.

[Sable]

Well what can you expect when they tell you the two great forces in the world are not good and evil, but light and darkness...

[Keramane]

Thank you, AS, for not imposing an alignment system on Anima!
 
(Side note, I once enjoyed a debate that ended with James Bond classed as Lawful Good, so alignment systems can be very flexible, just very unrealistic.  Then again, RPG's were a new idea when the concept was created.)

I'd debate that he was Chaotic Neutral.  Yes, Queen and Country plays a part, but seriously, he's unorthodox and has a brutality about him that outright shatters Lawful and Good. 

Yes, he likes puppies and girls and fancy flowers, but he ALSO kills with no mercy, destroys peoples homes in his escapes with NO concern for them whatsoever, and discards women after every adventure.  He ALSO has no care for collateral damage, breaks whatever rules he can - his only real excuse being "For the greater good", and any Call of Cthluhu player knows that THAT excuse can apply to anything - and goes through distinct efforts to infuriate pretty much everyone even tangentially related to the law.

Neutral.  Chaotic Neutral.  Shaken, not stirred.

[Gimp]

Thank you, AS, for not imposing an alignment system on Anima!
 
(Side note, I once enjoyed a debate that ended with James Bond classed as Lawful Good, so alignment systems can be very flexible, just very unrealistic.  Then again, RPG's were a new idea when the concept was created.)

I'd debate that he was Chaotic Neutral.  Yes, Queen and Country plays a part, but seriously, he's unorthodox and has a brutality about him that outright shatters Lawful and Good. 

Yes, he likes puppies and girls and fancy flowers, but he ALSO kills with no mercy, destroys peoples homes in his escapes with NO concern for them whatsoever, and discards women after every adventure.  He ALSO has no care for collateral damage, breaks whatever rules he can - his only real excuse being "For the greater good", and any Call of Cthluhu player knows that THAT excuse can apply to anything - and goes through distinct efforts to infuriate pretty much everyone even tangentially related to the law.

Neutral.  Chaotic Neutral.  Shaken, not stirred.

Suffice to say that the arguments of the time have held up to anything I've seen since, and this is not the forum for reopening that debate.
 
As it is a moot point, based solely on individual interpretations, there is no reason to rehash it here.  People are welcome to imagine all the rationales they want, or to debate it with their gaming groups. 
 
My intent was not to derail the current thread, but to point out the foolishness of applying a rigid alignment system to even marginally more realistic characters.

[Keramane]

This is true, apologies for jumping in like that.