Realignment: Chaotic Good

     We've covered all the Lawful alignments, and while the next step in progression might be to look at neutrality, I think I want to go to the Chaotic alignments for now. I think it will be helpful to talk about the extremes before we go into the intricacies of neutrality.
     Chaotic Good, in my experience, is one of the more popular choices for the good-aligned PC. It allows a player to be a good guy without feeling constrained by being a goody-two-shoes. Lots of players would rather be Han Solo: the scoundrel loner who has a heart of gold but is just as willing to sneak attack a bounty hunter from under the table if need be.
     Far be it for me to denigrate such lofty ambitions. Let's face it, we'd all be Han Solo if we could. But before we end up with a whole party full of scruffy-looking nerf-herders, let's explore some options.
     Chaos is, of course, the opposite of Law. It is randomness and unpredictability instead of organization and order. For a lot of people, chaos equates to freedom; they are not bound to any kind of code or set of rules.
     But, in many ways, this outlook is closer to neutrality. Chaos is not just the absence of rules, but it is an active opposition to the idea of law. If you simply don't care about obeying the law, you still will end up obeying the law some of the time, just because it ends up working in the same line of your own beliefs. For example, you might not care if it's against the law to kill an unarmed peasant. You're not going to do that anyway, because you're Good. So, by default, you're being lawful.
     This, in my opinion, is also closer to what Robin Hood would be. He is often touted as the quintessential CG character, but I'd argue he's more Neutral Good. He steals from the rich and gives to the poor, not because he wants to abolish the laws of property and ownership, but because he wants to set right a greater evil. He's not against all laws, and I'd assume that if there were a way to set right the corrupt system without having to steal, he'd do that (he does come from a landed noble family, after all, so he does have some stock in "the system").
     One way to play a truly chaotic character is that they don't believe there should be laws. They think people should be free to do whatever they want, without any kind of authority trying to impose their views upon others. You want anarchy, for lack of a better term. Of course, this is a difficult interpretation of Chaos to merge with Good. Because as soon as you have anarchy, you've got people who are going to try to hurt and take advantage of others. A person of Good alignment is hardly going to propose a system where evil acts are so wanton. However, this kind of CG character might be naive, overly-optimistic, or otherwise shortsighted. They might think that the inherent goodness of people will overcome, and that is why it is okay to work towards anarchy.
     Another type of chaotic character is going to be the opposite of the OCD-type of lawful character. This type of chaotic PC might be scatter-brained, ADD, or otherwise unable to think and act in "straight lines." This character is still Good, because they mean well, but maybe they are absent-minded or otherwise mentally disheveled. They are not lawful because they can't seem to get their mind around the rules, and they can't think in an orderly fashion. They're still going to try to do good--they probably don't want to break the law--but they just can't keep it all straight. This person is chaotic more by psychology than by philosophy.
     Just remember: as with Law, Chaos should be defined not by how others view the concept of law and order, but how the PC interprets it. Chaotic Good can offer some wonderful roleplaying opportunities for a player to butt heads against kings and cities, as they try to do good but run afoul of the prescribed rules of the land. Just make sure that the player does not run off with the idea of being Chaotic and lose sight of what it means to be Good.

Adult Scenarios

Okay, trying to get back into the regular schedule, which means it's Wednesday and comic day. This comic references the happenings in Lovecraft's story "The Dunwich Horror," possibly my favorites from his core Cthulhu mythos stories. If you read the story, I think it becomes much more clear why Yog-Sothoth should not be portrayed here as bubbly and goofy with an ever-present, endearing little half-witted smile.

The Reign of Rezal

Here it is, my first novel e-published and ready for purchase! And for my readers here, I'm going to give a bit more detailed of a synopsis than is allowed on Amazon.

     In the Chicago of the near future, the brutal forces of the federal government hold unsympathetic sway over the rotting walled metropolis.  But soon, an even more terrible force will take control of the Windy City.  As we speak, a mysterious object pierces the void of space as it accelerates toward our planet, bringing with it the greatest horror the world has ever seen.  The stage is set for the end of all life on Earth. 

     But, even as they are maneuvered by fate to ground zero, the main players of this nightmare are unaware of it, wrapped up in their own mortal distractions. 

     Vincent Yamashita is on the road from San Francisco, following the trail of his sister’s killer.  But it is not a mere mortal that he hunts, but rather an army of shadowy demons that has plagued his family for generations.  Only his supernatural senses and the mysterious spear at his side give him a chance to escape his sister’s fate. 

     Helena DeVois has been having trouble sleeping lately, as her mind continues to replay the bizarre, experimental surgeries the federal government performed on her body.  By day she uses the extraordinary abilities these bio-mechanical procedures have given her as the government’s deadliest special agent.  However, her latest case is pointing her to something far bigger than she could ever imagine—or believe. 

     Elissa Montgomery has a lot to handle as an orphan child living on the dark streets of the big city.  But she has no fear when her cat Xerxes is by her side.  The denizens of the gutters know to steer clear of her and her guardian, lest they rouse his mystical bestiality. 

     The man known only as Sanctum has a hard time understanding his mysterious past, and the purpose of the strange markings that cover every inch of his skin is unclear even to him.  He comes to Chicago to compete in the International Gladiatorial Games, the most violent—and most popular—game in the world.  Only his superhuman strength, speed, and the electromagnetic powers of his alien tattoos can get him through.

     Too late do they realize they each have unique roles in the fate of the world.  An extraterrestrial horror with the power to destroy and consume all life in the universe will soon raise its kingdom in the city.  And those that survive its descent face a fate far worse than death.  Can they work together long enough to survive and fulfill their individual destinies?  Or will they just be the next in line to fall to the endlessly hungry entity that is Rezal?

Buy it now for your Kindle (or borrow it for free if you are a Kindle Prime member) at:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B008E75ZHO

Postponed Post

I know it's Friday and I'd normally have a post, but I'm hoping to have some news to share for tomorrow. Hopefully it'll be worth the wait.

Cthulhu, Sebek, and Jello...Oh My!

All I can think when I look at this comic is that I need more tomes. I mean, I have a lot of books, but I need some good old-fashioned, musty, yellow-paged, bound-in-human-flesh-and-inked-in-blood tomes. My library just seems incomplete.

Also, somewhere I used to actually have a chart written down which determined what floor/wall color scheme was supposed to indicate what house and/or room. I can't for the life of me fathom why that would ever matter.

Realignment: Lawful Evil

     I'll admit, I've been dreading doing the "evil" axis a little. I think, in many ways, it is the hardest alignment to get your mind around if you want to play a character like that. Real, fleshed-out, three-dimensional evil characters take more work than it might seem at first. Especially Lawful Evil, where there are ostensibly some restrictions to your nefariousness.

     On the other hand, I think it is important to understand evil more as a GM than as a player. For the most part the GM is responsible for playing the antagonists, the villains, the ones pitted against the PCs. Getting a good feel for your evil characters is going to make much better encounters and a more compelling story. 

     Lawful Evil is usually listed as "the tyrant." These are typical for your overlord-type arch-nemesis. Rampaging hordes are all well and good, but you need a Darth Sidious to pull the strings or else your PCs are not going to have the challenge they deserve. 

     First, let us think about the nature of evil itself (without getting to psychological...I'm not really qualified for that). Some people turn to the classic Christian "seven deadly sins" for inspiration: wrath, greed, pride, sloth, lust, envy, and gluttony. This is not a bad place to start (although I think it is more an indicator of medieval morals than it is modern ideas about evil). But if you wanted to really simplify things, you could boil down most evil acts into two motivations: greed and bloodlust. 

     I'd say six of the seven deadly sins come down to greed. Greed doesn't just mean you want wealth, material possesions, and power. You could desire any type of thing for yourself: food/drink/drugs (gluttony), leisure (sloth), physical gratification (lust), or attention and adoration (pride). And, of course, if anybody has anything you want, that brings in envy. 

     Bloodlust, on the other hand, encompasses more than just wrath. Anger isn't inherently evil (even in the Christian religion, God has all sorts of moments of righteous wrath). I like using the term bloodlust because it indicates somebody who just enjoys inflicting pain, misery, and death on others. Serial killers, torturers, and rapists are really just in it to hurt others, which is as evil as it gets.

     Applying the Lawful axis to evil starts making you have to finagle things a little, though. Because Law indicates order and structure, not wanton death and destruction. A Lawful character usually has a plan, or at least a method to their madness. Hence the typical LE person, who usually falls under the "greed" category. They desire money or power, usually, and will step on anyone they need to in order to get it. On the other hand, they might be "lawful" in the OCD way (as we've mentioned before), and then their evilness might take any form. A serial killer who is compelled to ritualistic murder could be LE. They are not the tyrant or mastermind that you expect from LE, but they still fit the bill. The same is true for the type of character who is Lawful because they follow a personal code or rules. Maybe they are evil in some ways, but not others. For example, something like a demon or vampire that feeds on people would not kill children; that's their food source after all, and it would just be irresponsible to harvest before they're ripe. Also, keep in mind that most D&D worlds are places where the intervention of gods is relatively commonplace (that's how most all divine magic works). A follower of an evil god would be lawful to follow the mandates of their deity--even if they wouldn't inherently be driven to do whatever evil deed was required by them.

     On a final note, consider this: a LE character might not think of themselves as evil. They may believe that they rightfully deserve whatever it is they're after. Their own sense of the justice of the universe (their Lawful nature) dictates to them that they should be allowed to kill, steal, etc. Hitler probably didn't see himself as evil; he actually thought that he was doing the world a favor by committing genocide. It doesn't make the actions less evil, but it makes a more developed bad guy. Some of the best villains are these types, because they are the most believable.

Did You Hear the One...?

     I wish there were more urban legends. I'm sad because I'm starting to think that there aren't ever going to be any more true urban legends. Sure, I check Snopes pretty regularly, but what they consider "new legends" anymore really aren't the kinds of things I'm interested in.

     When I first started getting interested in urban legends, I was reading through Jan Harold Brunvand's wonderful books. He not only discussed the legends and their various permutations, but also gave some very interesting and entertaining analysis of why these stories were so popular, so long-lasting, and so easy to believe. These books were so fascinating that I just had to get more, and it was always exciting to flip through and find new legends that I had never heard before (and even a few that I myself had once believed). Being a nerd, I found urban legends to be a great mixture of folklore and forteana, part sociology and part a study of unexplained phenomena.

     Then I discovered Snopes, and I spent months gorging on legends. I systematically went through and read every article on the sight. I remember it being especially satisfying because, at the time, I was doing a job that put me on the road for months at a time. So poring over this all-inclusive site served as a great distraction, and I found the writers of the articles were just as entertaining and analytical as Brunvand.

     But, alas, all good things must end, and I eventually read every scrap of content on the site. Now I'm afraid that I may never get another new, true urban legend.

     See, a true urban legend takes time to develop. You need a tale that is passed down over the years by word of mouth, retold like some multi-generational game of Telephone. You need a story that weaves itself into the cultural fabric, so that it is indistinguishable from the truth. An urban legend needs to be impossible to trace because it just seems to be part of the collective consciousness (or zeitgeist, to borrow an intellectual elitist's term). What we get now—according to Snopes—are virus and Facebook hoaxes, missing child alerts, and misattributed quotes and political propaganda. These aren’t legends; they are forgotten almost as soon as they are born.

     I don't think we'll ever get a true urban legend again because of the speed of information. Stories don't have a chance to gain the momentum needed to reach the appropriate mythical status. People like me are part of the problem, really. We hear something that we think might not be true, and we immediately jump on the internet to check it out. We've hunted myth and legend to extinction.

     In college, my roommate and I talked about trying to start our own urban legend on the campus. It never really materialized because, as most things involving teenage boys, the idea quickly flew out of our heads when something even remotely more interesting came along. I think it might have worked, because we were working with a somewhat insular environment (the college campus).

     But now I think I might start up the experiment again, once I can find the right venue…

I Certainly Do Love Crafty Puns

     Partially relevant to today's comic, I had the opportunity to finally sit down and play Miskatonic School for Girls last weekend. It was quite enjoyable, but I fear I was making quite the spectacle of myself for laughing uproariously at things I don't think the other players got. Since the game is supposed to take place in a school filled with Lovecraftian monsters and characters, it is full of puns and inside jokes about the Cthulhu Mythos (kind of like this comic...). One example that should be pretty easy to guess is Herbert West as being one of the faculty. My personal favorite was Asa Toth, the school's music teacher (complete with flute).

     Anyway, here's the comic, reinvigorated as I now feel about my own inside jokes.

Realignment: Lawful Neutral

     Last week we talked about Lawful Good and tried to present some other options for roleplaying that alignment that didn't just rely on the standard "paladin" mentality. I'm going to continue across the chart now, and take a look at Lawful Neutral.

     Now, I think we covered a lot of the aspects of Law pretty good last week. The point of a Lawful character is that they have some kind of structure or order to their lives, whether it be in the form of laws, personal codes of honor, or just OCD-like slavishness to routine and ritual. 
     Neutrality, on the good-evil axis, is a little trickier. Like all of the alignments, there's a lot of ways this can be played. But I think neutrality on this axis has the greatest potential for being played wrong. 
     Okay, obviously there's not really a "wrong" way to play your character, but there are definitely some interpretations of "neutral" that I think are a bit off.
     For example, I've known people to play LN when really they were playing Lawful Good or Evil characters. Their actions had a clear bend one way or the other, but the player was hesitant to subscribe to good or evil, and therefore took the cop-out route. No, I'm not saying neutrality is a cop-out; it can be a valid character choice. But many characters will treat it as a cop-out, especially seasoned players who want to avoid all those smites and magic circle spells that target specific alignments. Of course, these are usually the type of hack-and-slashers who only have eyes for numbers and don't like to waste time roleplaying. If you have one of those in your game, you've got bigger problems, so I won't harp on it.
     On the other hand, the wishy-washy aspect of neutrality could be an interesting character choice. Perhaps somebody who has never really had to face any kind of moral dilemma would be neutral like this, or maybe somebody who is afraid to "rock the boat" and will change their opinion based on those around them. A LN character with this kind of neutrality would likely then fall back on whatever rule system governs them. They trust their law to figure out the tricky ethics for them, and will go with that. Examples that come to mind might be a scholar (like a wizard or priest) who has spent most of his life reading and studying. He has a firm grasp of the laws that apply to him (like the rules of the mage college or the tenets of his religion), but he does not broaden his scope to consider more universal concepts of good and evil. As another example, consider a character with a simple peasant background; he knows to do what he is told and to respect authority (lawful) but maybe he has never experienced some of the moral gray areas that fill the world, and therefore is almost unable to make any kind of consistent choice (neutral).
     The classic example of LN seems to be the mercenary. They will take any job, and not question the whys or wherefores, so long as they get paid. The problem is that many people who play mercenary-esque characters forget about the Lawful part of it. Sure, being a cool I-don't-care-so-long-as-I-get-paid bounty hunter type frees you from the restraints of being a "good guy" or a "bad guy," but it doesn't give you carte blanche to do what you want. Mercenaries have jobs to do (typically involving contracts), and they'd better damn well follow the rules of their contracts if they want to ever get another one. A smart GM, when faced with a merc, will make sure that the contracts involved are always very specific. And a good LN will know that they have to abide by any agreements they make, or else they will not be playing their alignment properly.
     There are a lot of other issues with neutrality, but some of them are more appropriate to be covered in later installments. So for now, I will leave you to ponder what other options for LN might be out there.


     P.S. In my campaigns, I have always allowed alignment shifts to happen through roleplaying if it seems natural and right within the lifespan of the character. This seems to happen a lot with characters who are "neutral" in the good-evil axis. If they go through a whole campaign hunting down pillaging orc raiders and overthrowing murderous necromancer lords, they tend to start making "good" choices even when not forced to. As always, remember that people grow and their opinions change. This is what keeps the character--and the  game--alive and interesting.
     

Gay Angels

     This last week I've read a lot about the reactions to the news that the new Green Lantern would be gay. Specifically, the attempted boycotts (and their backfires) from certain anti-gay religious groups like One Million Moms. It made me think immediately of other positive gay characters in other media.
     One that came to mind that I think might be largely overlooked is from the show Reaper. I say this because the show was never a huge hit and didn't last that long (only two seasons from '07-'09). 
     I'm going to pause here to mention that under the picture there will be some spoilers to the show.

     In the second season, the main characters move into an apartment and meet their neighbors, a gay couple of Tony (played by Ken Marino) and Steve (played by Michael Ian Black). Now, there are definitely some stereotypes, as Steve is more the typical effeminate gay man who helps the protagonists with their cooking and decorating. Of course, even then, a comment is made by the characters that they have traded in their parents for two gay men, and it was the best decision they ever made.
     Later we find out that Tony and Steve are demons, which seems bad. But then, when Steve is thought to have been destroyed, it turns out instead that he has gone back to being an angel because of his good deeds.
     Okay, let's back up a bit to make sure the full significance of this sets in. Reaper subscribes to a set of beliefs pretty common in Christian mythology. The Devil and all demons are actually fallen angels that were cast into Hell after attempting rebellion against God. Like everything else that goes to Hell, the demons are supposed to be resigned to their fate for eternity. But then Steve, the more stereotypically gay of the two, manages to do what no other demon in the history of the universe has been able to do: get back into God's good graces and be admitted back into Heaven as an angel. It suddenly sets a precedent that anybody--even a demon--can be a good enough person to get to Heaven.
     Now, I'm not saying Reaper doesn't have its share of problems when it comes to cutting-edge liberal portrayals. It fails the Bechdel Test fairly spectacularly on a regular basis. But it is interesting to note how unarguably positive the image of a redeemed gay angel is. I can only imagine how many Moms from the One Million would have their heads explode if they saw that.

Remember When Rat-tails Were a Thing?

I went through six years of having a ridiculous ponytail, not unlike Robert's (well, okay, it was pretty significantly not like Robert's, but still). And since Rat-things, according to Mythos lore, are rats with human-like faces and little hands, I still make the mental association to this day whenever I see somebody with a scruffy little ponytail.

Realignment: Lawful Good

     Let's start on the farthest side, the alignment that is quite possibly the most often mocked and misunderstood.

     Lawful Good.

     Commonly referred to as "lawful stupid," this alignment largely gets its reputation because of its association with paladins. The preconceived notion is that LG characters are goody-two-shoes who are incapable of independent thought. They just do whatever they are told (by throne or church or whatever authority figure might be relevant), and never give a second thought to situations where there might be gray-areas. Good is good and evil must be smote, and often a LG character's conceptions of what constitute "evil" are much broader than more "liberal" characters.

     While this is may be a valid way to play this alignment, it is by no means the only way. For starters, consider this: what is more important to you, Law or Good? I find this a good question to ask about any alignment, really. There are two parts, but are they equal? You could even think of it as shades of neutrality in either direction.

Plus, chicks dig all that chilvary crap.

     For example, let’s say Good is paramount. Maybe that means their Lawful side has some flexibility. This type of LG character would be within his/her alignment to, say, break a law that they feel is unjust, even though they still believe in Law. Or maybe they can justify that they will adhere to a “higher law,” rather than the one created by mortals. While this idea initially invokes the idea of religion, the point is that the definition of “law” is flexible. You could follow the law of your homeland (or race, or religion), even if it doesn’t jibe with the law of the kingdom you’re in. The “law of the wild” is even a valid choice; it may not seem like it, but the “natural order” still follows rules—even if that rule is survival of the fittest. Personal vows and commitments count as Law, too. A warrior who lives by a code of honor would not be unlawful in following their code, even if their actions seem to disrupt a normal sense of law. A LG samurai who has vowed to avenge his master’s death would not be doing anything against his alignment if he killed the murderer, even though the argument could be made that killing isn’t “good.” It’s a matter of interpretation. But really, law doesn’t have to involve any kind of official legislation or even a specific personal code of conduct. Remember that Law opposes Chaos. A Lawful person could simply be very rigid and disciplined, living by strict habits and routines. It might not even be a conscious choice; they’re just one of those people who have to do things the same way all the time.

     Which leads into the idea that maybe Law is more important than Good. These types of characters might border on Lawful Neutral because they are less interested in doing what is “good,” and more interested in preserving whatever law matters to them. They want to do good, yes, but that comes second to preserving structure and order. On the other hand, there’s plenty of justification in their mind. If they believe the law they are following is designed to do good, they might be willing to do things that are not ostensibly “good,” feeling that the ends justify the means. Remember, a person’s motivations and perspectives are relevant to their alignment. A misguided person who is trying to do good is still Good, even if it turns out their actions are causing problems in the long run. As another example: a wizard who makes potions for the Duke—and in doing so, raises money to help an ill friend—is doing good, even if it turns out the Duke is going to use those potions to help his army overthrow the rightful king. Of course, if the wizard finds out about this, he would have a moral obligation to stop dealing with the Duke (unless there were other circumstances which made the Duke seem like he’d be a more benevolent ruler than the king). That’s just one scenario that jumped into my head, I’m sure we can all come up with many more. Just because the game uses terms like “good” and “evil” doesn’t mean there’s not complicated areas in between. Keep that in mind when deciding what kind of “good” you want your LG character to be working towards.

     To sum up: there are plenty of gray areas even in a stereotypically two-dimensional alignment like Lawful Good. I think we’ll find with most of these alignments, playing around with just one of the two components of the alignment opens up a lot more possibilities for personality creation and roleplaying potential.

Alignments: They Do Not Mean What You Think They Mean

    I've played a lot of different RPGs over the years, and seen a lot of different rule systems.  while most of them borrow elements from D&D, one thing that usually is not used by other systems is alignment. The Star Wars RPG uses a system of assigning Light Side and Dark  Side points, but it's not really the same thing. Alignments are meant to be guidelines to your character's outlook on life and general disposition, as defined on a scale of law/chaos and good/evil.
     When I was a less experienced player and GM, I used to balk at the idea of alignments. How could all of human philosophy, emotion, and personality be summed up by nine mere designations? I was always tempted to remove alignments completely, if they weren't so intricately tied up to other game mechanics (such as spells and effects).
    Of course, now I know. The point isn't to pigeonhole characters, but to help reign them in. It's a tool for the GM, not a leash for the players. How many GMs have had their entire game derailed by somebody doing something that seems out of character and contrary to the plot/goals of the party?
    Without some guidelines as to how a PC should act, you tend to have problems within the party. The act of taking on an alternate persona makes some people think that gives them carte blanche to be a bastard. Maybe they're normally a nice person and want the chance to experience assholery second-hand. Or maybe they're tools in real-life, too, but now can hide it behind their character. Whatever the reason, there's always going to be that one guy who decides that he's going to be a douchebag. There's going to be the rogue who decides that "being a thief" gives him the right to pick the other characters' pockets. Or there's the mage who decides being "neutral" means he doesn't care who's in the fireball's blast radius. It might just be a simple matter of everybody arguing over treasure distribution at the end of the fight.
    I don't allow mixed-alignment parties in my games, yet I've still had problems. You still get the lawful character arguing with the chaotic character, and the neutral characters disagreeing (or agreeing) with both of them. Then you have folks who have interpretations of alignments that are miles away from what they actually should be. 
    With this in mind, I'm going to start a series of posts about the different alignments, just to talk about the different aspects and variations possible even within a single alignment. In this way I can further defend the use of alignments by helping dispel the myth that there's only one way to play any certain one. As always, I encourage you to put in your two cents as well.

I added this pic because I love me some Venture Bros, although I really can't see how you can argue that Rusty is any kind of Good, especially considering the caption used...