h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

AD&D = Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. Was that a suggestion that the article should be titled "Alignment in Advanced Dungeons and Dragons", or maybe just "Alignment in Dungeons and Dragons"? (I'm not clear on the differences between D&D and AD&D, but I don't think they have anything to do with the alignment system.)
Ekaterin.

It was a suggestion that you shouldn't use abbreviations that people might not understand, unless you explain them. Don't know how it should be titled though...

I said I would get back to you on the CN character. I would suggest Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes. Distrustful of all authority, he relishes chaos and immerses himself in it at every opportunity. He works neither for good nor evil, but only for the interests of himself and his friend Hobbes.
-MotDoc

i think he's more of the rebellious child type...

I'd guess that children are a lot more likely than adults to fit my conception of CN (mischievous, randomly and spontaneously doing things just because they feel like it) - adults have learnt that actions have consequences and the consequences of just doing what you feel like may be very bad. Just my humble uninformed opinion, not meant to offend any CN people out there, especially not Motdoc as he's been very helpful.

Would the BOFH (Bastard Operator From Hell - see A2084825 for an introduction) be NE or CE? He kills and tortures users for fun, which is pretty CE, but he seems to plan more than most chaotics.
Ekaterin.

You can make plans and still be chaotic. Chaotic refers more to counterbalancing order and the official structure than being completely random. I don’t know how many have read the Illuminatus Trilogy, but that has the absolute best example of a CN, the guy who hides in corners and changes official signs to make people subtly more angry. Lots of planning, with the purpose of creating chaos.
-MotDoc

Sounds more obscure than Calvin, unfortunately. (Also, does he have a name?)
Ekaterin.

Very obscure. And I can’t remember the name without looking it up.

Suggested EG references:
King Arthur A519491 or A262766
Mother Theresa A918362
Robin Hood A412552
Asimovian Robot A1106687 or A455898
Animal A681310
Calvin and Hobbes A224759
Hitler A1000774 maybe (there’s no good Hitler entry)
No entry for ‘Dogfight’ or Genghis Khan unfortuanately

Apparantly noone on h2g2 enjoys writing about people with evil alignments.
-MotDoc

Thank you for all those links, which I've added to the article. I changed the example of CE to orcs, since they have an edited guide entry. Attila the Hun (A292402) would also do. Basically, it's not hard to come up with examples of CE - anyone who goes in for killing and plundering and destroying will do

Maybe a famous fraudster or thief would be a good example of NE. Can you think of any?

For balanced true neutral, I really need the help of someone who knows more about AD&D and associated fiction than I do. I get the feeling that it's a popular alignment for druids, if that helps.
Ekaterin.

I just remembered that another thing that some things use... sucs As Baldur's Gate... is reputation, your "apparent" alignment. It really only goes from good to evil though. But it's a lot mroe flexible than alignment.
Baldur's Gate is AD&D too.

Okay.. true neutral...
it depends how you take that. If you mean passive neutral, then there's plenty of people like that, simply if they don't care abotu much.
But Balanced... there'd really no one. Perhaps someone who is perfectly at peace with themselves, and everyone else, and the world. Or if you never do anything the same, but never do anything compeltely different, and is neither good nor evil. But its really very rare. I can't think of any examples excet for maybe a supposed zen master.

Neutral evil...
yeah I'd say someone like a thief, who doesn't kill or anything, but doesn't mind taking stuff... so they don't like laws, but as long as they aren't fanatical thieves... or a murderer who doesn't do it for fun, but for purpose...

Druids are supposedly neutral because they are at balanced with everythig... but I really don't think they are. Thats definitely a really hard alignment.





perhaps if it is allowed you could include an alignment table thingy?

look at this: http://www.ishkur.com/features/dnd/alignmentcombos.htm



"True Neutral
Of all the alignments, True Neutral has perhaps the most subcategories and subalignments.
Some people believe in something beyond Good and Evil. Like Neutral Good, they may be either fanatical or lackadaisical, but the essence of the alignment is a belief in something other than Good or Evil.
Many, like certain druids, believe that there must be a balance between Good and Evil -- that without the balance, neither benefits, to the detriment of all. Some True Neutrals will change sides in the middle of a battle, in order to maintain a balance. Such people are considered 'low balancers', because they change sides so often. Other True Neutrals will change sides only in the long-term, or if titanic forces or involved -- they are known as 'high balancers'.
Another form of True Neutral -- and probably the most common -- is 'coin'. Many people will do anything for money -- Good and Evil mean nothing to them. They follow a personal code of their own, but it if the money dictates Law, then so be it. If the money dictates Chaos, then so be it. True Neutral alignments tend make the perfect assassins, as they follow their orders for whatever pay, no matter the situation.
"-http://www.sisterworlds.com/gaeleth/alignment.htm




"True Neutral: Most people. You are good to those who are good to you; bad to those who are bad to you. You probably have no ethos, or a cynical ethos (“You leave me alone, I will leave you alone.”) Michael Douglas at the beginning of Romancing the Stone might be an example of this. N.B. “Balance” is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of. No one, outside of a cheesy fantasy book, has ever struggled to maintain “balance.” Remember Gandalf barring the way of the Valarauka over the precipice of Moria? “You cannot pass! I am a servant of the Secret Fire, you cannot pass!” Men don’t plunge to their death, wreathed in flame, for balance. Balance forsooth!"
-http://nwvault.ign.com/features/editorials/072801.shtml



"
Twice Neutrals (or True Neutrals) believe in the True Balance. For there to be Light and Good, there must exist Darkness and Evil, and Order and Chaos must both exist side by side. Twice Neutrals know that there will always be Good and Evil, Life and Death, as well as Order and Chaos, and choose not to be either or any.
They view themselves as guardians of the True Balance, guardians of the World and Universe. "
-http://www.worldofdhara.com/alignments.html

...yet other sites said True Neutral was the rarest... it depends on how you look at it...

Zen master sounds like the best example to me. Completely indifferent to outside things...
-MotDoc

After a bit of Googling I decided Case from Neuromancer would do for NE. I didn't remember him doing anything blatantly evil in the book, but he was an illegal hacker and had got into trouble for double-crossing the wrong people. There's no Edited Entry for Neuromancer or cyberpunk, unfortunately.

I can see a Zen master as seeking for balance within their own mind, but not really in the world - I don't see them as trying to change the world at all. I've put it in anyway as it's the closest we've got.

Other possibilities for Balanced: there's some stuff about the Balance in Michael Moorcock's Elric series. I think Elric would be CG, but who urges him to sway the Balance from Chaos to Law? (Actually, I'm not convinced that this series distinguishes between Chaos and Evil.) The wizards in LeGuin's Earthsea books also talked about maintaining the balance, but then they went out on heroic quests to save the world.

Alignment table thingy? What's that?
Ekaterin.

Just as a side note on the title - Dungeons & Dragons would seem more appropriate than 'Advanced' Dungeons & Dragons - as the latter hasn't existed for some 5 years, except in the musty collections of die hard gamers...

...and adding 'Advanced' to the front always leads to questions about whether it's different from normal Dungeons & Dragons - which is even more of an irrelevant question now than it used to be... well, because it doesn't exist any more.

So, can we drop the 'Advanced' bit?



The Apprentice

OK, will do. Do you want me to take it out all the way through i.e. change all the references to "AD&D" to "D&D"? I've seen people use both abbreviations, which is what confused me.
Ekaterin.

I would strongly suggest changing all references to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons and AD&D to Dungeons & Dragons and D&D.

D&D is the only version of the game that exists at present, and for the foreseeable future. And old time gamers should recognise the reference to D&D as a general one - as both games supported the alignment system.



The Apprentice

from what i've seen/heard/figured out AD&D is about the same as saying version 2.5 or sumthin.

the reason you have to keep in AD&D is that cetain computer games... namely Baldur's Gate, its sequels, possibly Icewind Dale... and others, are based on that.

Except that possibly there aren't direct references to that in the entry anyway... your choice.

The alignment table... really a graph... is what the Neverwinter Nights game also uses.
basically there's nine squares, aranged in the normal way:
LG NG CG }
LN NN CN }this side is on a scale of 1-100 on good-evil
LE NE CE }
{-------}
This is 1-100 on the Lawful-Chaotic Axis

With both together you can plot any alignment on the chart. The game has your alignemnt change in points, like
"Your alignment has shifted three points toward evil"
"Your alignment has shifted five points toward lawful"
and when it crossed a the lines, your official game alignment... the simply LG or NE form... changed.

However the game didn't shift on the law-chaos axis nearly enough. More in the expansion but still not enough.