Snowhunter you've got connections to the roleplaying aristocracy! Impressive!

I dont like alignment.
I prefer to just have a description of what the characters believe and what they will and will not do.
To me that just seems to most logical and sensible way to describe people.

I ADORE SNARF!

Fly Hue as in snarf from Thundercats????

I guess Fly is talking about Snarf from the Thundercats. Not entirely sure what that has to do with this conversation, but she's so cute it doesn't matter.

Anyway, I thought I should put my 2 cents in about alignment in DnD:

It should stay, and to really enjoy the game it should be used. Even if for nothing more then as a little reminder to the player as to how the character should usually act. In actuality, the character isn't you, so he/she shouldn't act like you. Unless you wanna play yourself, but that defeats the point of the game. That said, alignment isn't as restricting as everyone makes out. A good person may do an evil act, but that doesn't automatically make them evil, just like an evil person doing a good act doesn't make them good.

Let's break down each element of the alignments (also, let's ignore 4th edition cuz it sucks):

Lawful: All too often the “law” part causes confusion. Being lawful has little to do with obeying traffic signals and not jaywalking. Lawful characters are the most driven of all characters. They tend to weigh the consequences of their actions, but rarely second-guess themselves. They have a firm grasp on their emotions and don't allow them to dictate their actions. These qualities make them ideal leaders, but they are too headstrong to be worthwhile followers and will eventually angle for a leadership position. They often follow some form of code, such as a paladin's divine doctrine, knight's code of chivalry, or even an assassins “no women, no children” rule. This code may often supersede the actual laws of the land.

Chaotic: A much simpler world view then Lawful. Chaotic characters are driven by their emotions. They do what feels “right” at the time. They are impulsive and often careless. Generally regarded as “loose cannons”. These traits make them very poor leaders and only tolerable followers. However, if the leadership pleases them they can be very loyal. The gut reaction of many chaotic adventurers has saved the day time and again, and the ability to make split-second decisions can be invaluable.

Neutral(first position): The natural followers as they are forever second-guessing themselves. Though not devoid of opinions, they are more then willing to allow the other members make the tough decisions. They are slow to act, and overly cautious, but often see options that the others may miss. Because of their analytical ability they make ideal diplomats and good strategists. Since they are not overly motivated, but loyal nonetheless, they often find themselves “second-in-command”.

Good: This character listens to his/her conscience. They are capable of distinguishing right from wrong with pristine clarity, and feel immense guilt when they deviate from the correct path. They often will attempt to atone for their sins. They are also the most likely to make a self-sacrifice.

Neutral(second position): While still possessing a conscience, they can be selectively deaf to it. They can feel guilty for an evil act, but are able to justify it to themselves. Even so, a neutral character is more likely, and would prefer, to do good as opposed to evil. They just understand that an evil act is sometimes more expedient or convenient.

Evil: A very complicated and multi-faceted alignment. It is important to note that not all evil characters consider themselves evil. They usually think they are misunderstood, or everyone else is unreasonable. The “mwahahaha! I'm sacrificing babies and burning villages just because!” level of evil is quite rare since they tend to find themselves swinging from a noose in short order. Evil characters are generally devoid of a conscience and do evil acts simply because it serves their need. They may also do good deeds because it may serve their purposes. They really don't differentiate between the two. Although they are exceedingly unlikely to do anything that requires risk or effort in which the payout isn't worthwhile since they are usually greedy and self-centered. It's only in very rare cases that they will have a “devotion to evil”, usually evil clerics, anti-paladins, or demons.

True Neutral: Often confused with the “I can do whatever the hell I want” alignment. Basically a WTF alignment that should almost never be used since it's so impractical. This character is fanatically neutral, holding no strong opinions other then the belief that he/she holds no strong opinions. Forever obsessing about the balance between good and evil, they are completely unreliable since they are so inwardly focused.

Wordweaver I still don't understand why I cant make characters and just say what my character is like?
When I write characters for my comic I dont give them an alignment. I give them a personality. They can be in some ways good, some ways bad, and some ways a mix.
Why do I need to stick a label on which moral team they are in?
Real people cannot be classified in this simplistic way, why should the characters be?

Simple reason?

Detect evil/good/law/chaos.

I mean, there are HUNDREDS of games that do things just as you suggest, the alignment adds another facet to DnD. I think it takes something away from the game if you don't use it. If you act outside your alignment too often then it changes, and there are drawbacks for being certain alignments. Another reason is that adventurers aren't normal people, they are exceptional people, therefore they have exceptional personalities. Most real people wouldn't strap on armor and willingly trudge through a monster infested death-trap for the off chance of scoring some sparkly swag. You'd have to be a little bit touched to do this.

Plus playing alignments is fun. Taking that out is like taking the fireball spell out. Good gosh! Why be a mage if ya can't drop napalm on a troop of orcs?

Okay, let me throw down the gauntlet and push the alignment system to its very limits….

What alignment are all the characters in Harkovast (using DnD alignment system)?

Let's hear some suggestions!

Wordweaver, you can replace those detect spells with a simple detect thoughts. Detect thoughts tells you the basic surface thoughts of the person which should give you a good measure of their intentions. I've taken the smite evil ability and made it into a general smite. Similar to the knights challenge abliity the smite ablility only works if the opponent is your level or higher, in other words considered a worthy opponent by your god. The protection spells can also be made into protection selective spells that protect you from specific creatures.

Your expamle of how evil is defined is very good, however the many people I play with have a very simplistic notion of how to play evil. One player was trying to play an evil elf that was trying to bring a demon back into the world. Another person I played with had no idea how to play evil other than killing other random characters for no reason. I mean these are so simple and unreasonable uses of the evil alignment. Like I said before alignments can be a very good tool for giving you a general idea of what your character is like, but they are not nessary to the game. White box original rules didn't even have alignments and those rules are still playable by todays standards.

I still cant understand why I need to have every character defined as good an evil.
Unless I am playing the roleplaying version of Pro Wrestling, I dont think characters should always be so simplistic.
Also morality becomes a bit of a joke in a world where I cna detect alignment.
If we argue over any topic, a simple spell will answer it for us.
“Is it okay to eat meat?”
Not a complex philosophical question like in our world.
Just cast the spell while eating meat. If it doesn't cause you to show up as evil, then it must be okay!

Guy likes the nazis would never happen.
They would find themselves showing up on their own detect evil spell and would thus get no support. After all, they believed they were the good guys. If a simple spell could have declared with 100% certainty that they were not, their regime would not have existed!

Why do I need spells that tell me who is good and bad anyway? I dont have those in the real world.
No one in Harkovast gets a spell like that (though later on, they will really really wish they had!)

Actually, Vast, the Detect Evil spell doesn't tell you whether or not what you are currently doing is good or evil. It simply tells what a persons alignment is, which is a culmination of every act they have ever done. A single act, unless it's extraordinarily evil (or good), is unlikely to alter a character's alignment.

This, of course, makes it extremely difficult for me to assign alignments to the characters in Harkovast. I don't have access to the whole of their experiences, I only have their current actions to judge by.

Snowhunter. Detect Thoughts doesn't work well as a means of determining a person's overall philosophy of life. All you get is a snippet of thought from one moment in time. Having an evil thought doesn't make you evil, acting on one does. Even a saint may have an evil thought. On the other side of the coin, evil people aren't always thinking evil thoughts. Remember, evil people don't usually think that they are evil, so their surface thoughts aren't gonna be: “I'm gonna kill all of them while they sleep, then kick some puppies, cuz I'm evil. Mwahahahaha!” Also, not everything that is evil can think, or has thoughts that are understood by the spellcaster.

Another thing that's important to note while playing D&D: Good and evil are not designations made by mortals, they are determined by the gods. This is why only clerics and paladins can detect them, for everyone else it's speculation. Taking out the alignments takes away from these two classes since a great deal of their power is derived from the idea that there is good and evil.

Wordweaver but by that logic, if good and evil in that world are predetermined, I cna cast detect evil on people and if you show up as evil, I should lock those people up.
They dont need a trial, because they are evil and shave clearly done evil before and will do it again.
That is a situation so freakish and wierd that I cant even get my head round it.

It is like magic eugenics crossed with magic secret police, except it would actually work!

If evil people dont think they are evil, this leads to an amusing parrallel to being gay when someone uses a spell and finds out!

“No! I'm not evil! Yeah I stole a FEW things, but Iwas just experimenting, it was the 60's!”

or

“Mum, dad, I can't live a lie anymore! I'm evil!”
“Well….Have you ever tried not being evil, honey?”

Removing alignment does not remove classes at all.
Clerics can have a belief system they have to follow, as can paladins, you just have it be their religious code rather then “THE CODE OF GOOD/EVIL”. All clerics and paladins would believe their code was the most holy and righteous one, but they wouldn't get a cosmic “you are good” badge from heaven.
That actually gives mroe opportunities for interesting situations, such as two religions in conflict that both think they are the good guys (you know, like happens in our world!)

If the bad guys know that they are evil and deliberately try to be eivl, they just end up seeming like comedy panto villians or dick dastardly!
They end up saying lines like this one from Hordac on he-man-
“Skeletor, I see that your evil is almost equal to my own!”

Of course, a character who thinks evil is the right thing to do believes doing evil is good and thus….ah crap!

Who said anything about predetermined? Your actions dictate your alignment. You chose an alignment when you create a character because you have an idea of how that character has behaved up until the point at which he/she has decided to become an adventurer.

Just because someone is evil doesn't mean that they have done something illegal. So you can't just lock up someone simply for being evil. In many ancient societies it was the evil people who made the laws. Heck, that might be true today too.

You've heard of the saying “The path to hell is paved with good intentions” right? An evil person might have a goal which may be considered noble. Hitler wanted to unify Germany and instill a sense of nationalistic pride. Nothing evil in that. The problem was in his methods.

Even if there were a spell in our world that could say without a doubt that a person was evil or good, people wouldn't necessarily accept it. Even in D&D the result of the spell is only available to the caster. The rest of the party accepts the results because the DM generally tells the player “You feel a strong aura of evil emanating from the place” out loud.

And yes, Skeletor is an inane concept of evil that only exists in Saturday morning cartoons.

This discussion has gotten more philosophical that I had intended.

Anyway, going back to why use alignments in D&D. Why use any of the rules in D&D? I mean, if you think alignments are unrealistic, how realistic is Raise Dead? Fireball? Evasion? Zombies? Dragons? Quivering Palm? Hit Points?

Wordweaver_three
Why use any of the rules in D&D?

Haha, had to quote that :O

But yeah I agree, the alignment system isn't the greatest problem in D&D. Do they still waste people's time with having your your goddamned eye colour on your character sheet? Seriously, why?!?!

Because the first thing I wanted to know when I saw Han Solo in Star Wars is his height, eye colour and bloody weight of all things… Give me his Bra size too while your at it will ya?

Wordweaver even if an evil person has not broken the law, if you can cast a spell that literally tells you instantly if they are a good or an evil person, that sort of makes our whole concept of innocent till proven guilty a bit meaningless.

My main problem is that I can see things that alignment does to detract from the game, but I cant see anyway in which it adds anything useful.
It just makes everyone a bit more simplistic and unrealistic.

Wordweaver, I argee that the detect thoughts spells will not work as neatly as a detect evil or detect good spell, however a person would automatically distrust someone that was the evil alignment. Which defeats the purpose of your definition of the use of the evil alignment. I mean by your definition one person could be in the evil alignment just because they are selfish and put themselves before others. Which means that they are not automatically going to take out the party, but if they are known to be evil everyone will distrust them anyway. A detect thoughts spell will never perfectly tell you everyones deepest thoughts, feelings or philosophy, but it can tell you what they are thinking right now which might give you an indication of if they are trustworthy or not. If the first thing a person thinks is I'll get them to trust me so I can do something else later, might not be trustworthy. If the persons first thoughts are oh good an adventuring party I hope they'll let me join, might be more trustworthy. I like having some uncertainty because it gives people the chance to put more thought into they're role-playing.

Also if the definitions of good and evil come from the gods and no one thinks that they are evil (meaning that the gods also do not think of themselves as evil, which they wouldn't) then aligments would only matter by the perspective of your god. anyone following a god opposed to yours would be evil. Anyone following your god or one of you gods allies would be good. Those following neutral gods or following no gods would be neutral. For example the follower of a demon god would label themselves as good, opposition as evil, and neutral people as neutral.

So, let's face it alignments are really only there to give another descriptor to your character. Alignment only really matters for the players because they desire a guidline to follow. Not to metion all players meta-game from time to time and it really screws over the party balance when one person decides to be evil in a good-aligned party. When that happens everyone is trying to find a way to find out the evil party member's “dirty little sercret”. It detracts from the game and forces us to define good and evil actions within the party. I remember in one campaign we had one evil character that was secretly planning the killing of every one else in the party. We actually had to help this character keep her alignment secret because she was so bad at doing so. Not only that but when she screwed up so bad that we would be forced to find out the DM cheated to keep her secret. Heck I had a unicorn for a mount which has a constant magic circle against evil going, and detect evil at will. There should have been no way for me to miss that her character was evil. I mean what was the point of doing aligments in that campaign when it didn't seem to matter anyway.

RED_NED, Alignment is part of the rules, character description is not. You do not have to describe your character's hair color, eye color, weight, sexual orientation, embarassing birthmarks, ect…

Character description is for fun. You can make your character look as wild and crazy or as normal as you like. It can be a useful tool for imersing yourself more fully into the setting, but like alignment it is not necessary. Your character could look exacly like you have, your name and act just like you if you like. Smoe peole like these details and some people don't it depends on your perference.

All this alignment talk got me to thinking about a concept that my fiance and I were thinking about a while ago. A character who is gereally selfish and evil in nature, but he is doing all the right things for the wrong reasons. To keep the populance happy (because a happy population results in less storming of the castle) he has bettered the economy and healthcare. He hates competition so he eliminates other evil people to keep them from taking power from him. He has hired mercenaries and other knights to protect his realm and forbids them from abusing the people, because he has to protect his assets. Now technically he should be called evil because all of his actions are done for selfish purposes, but the poeple he rules over will call him good hearted.

Haven't heard from you in a while Cthonic, nice to have you back!
I am Chaotic Awesome.
Though some claim I am Neutral Furry, these are untrue rumours!

Snowhunter according to Sartre there is no love but the deeds of love. By that he meant that there is no such thing as being good except in doing good.
Sartre would say that your example of the selfish man is actually an example of a good person. Though he thought of bad reasons to do things, his actions were good.
But of course, philosophers in DnD are out of a job straight away because a simple spell every cleric knows renders all moral arguments null and void.

Wow, I was gonna make the same Satre comment “You are but the sum of your actions” or what ever that goggle eyed french wierdo said haha :P

Your actions in game should shape the character and personality you have. Ive seen in D&D games people have been told they cant do X, Y and Z because of their alignment. You should be able to do whatever you want in a game, and the sum of your actions denote what kind of person you are. Act like a dick and your Alignment is Chaotic Dick or whatever :P

No red ned, that's not realistic!
For the game to be realistic everyone is predetermined as good adn evil at the start and if you try to change you are punish with exp loss making you weaker.
The same way that if someone behaves differently in real life they learn more slowly and become weaker then your friends….oh wait…thats complete nonsense isn't it?

That's exactly the problem with alignments. If your actions tell you what your alignment is, then why have an alignment? Your actions would show to everyone else what kind of character you are anyway. If someone is a really good role-player they can create a character and depict their actions in a way that would show what their alignment is without actually writing down what the alignment is.

I'm gonna admit to having a fondness for Hobbits and Tolkienesque Elves, but only when done by the big man himself. I can't think of a single imitation I've seen that has grabbed me like those did: the elves' tragic nobility, the hobbits' innocent childishness and hidden strengths, and while we're on the subject all of his created races.

Having said that, though, making a fantasy race and calling them elves doesn't inherently turn me off. Heck, I've done it myself. But I get bored of them if they don't have some hook other than being ethereal with pointy ears: they have to be more than shallow Tolkien rip-offs if they're gonna hold my attention.

I do try to practice what I preach. :P The elves in my own fantasy world(s) have this long and involved backstory involving terraforming across two interlinked realities, and are rooted in the old legends about fairies stealing human children (which appealed to me partly because it's so un-Tolkien, or more specifically un-Tolkien-ripoff-like). Oh, and they don't have Obligatory Natural Enemies in the form of dwarves or anything else.

If they weren't rooted in that old elf folklore, though, I'd be finding a new name for them in a shot. That's a point with which I definitely agree with you: if it quacks like a duck, then call it a duck, but if it goes twit-twhoo then for goodness' sake don't call it a duck for the sake of sounding like a fantasy story. (Mmm, I love delicious over-stretched metaphors.)

Aaand that brings us to your cat warriors (along with all the other races): definitely not elves, and rightly not masquerading as them. :D

Meanwhile, whilst we're talking about D&D, I'm gonna join in with the laughing at the alignment system. Especially when it comes to entire races that are, for instance, Always Chaotic Evil or whatever. Never mind that a lot of the monsters are natural predators (displacer beasts, for instance: what are those things gonna be if not carnivores?) and barely sentient besides. They're pure evil! Just like in real life! XD

Splicer Parade that is why it is okay to shoot lions and tigers when ever you want.
They are evil alignment.
Also, so are foriegners.

God bless you alignment system!

I had a good example with the reworking fantasy cliches thing the other day. I was playing magic the gathering *NERD ALARM* and there were some new cards where the elves had horns. I said how that was a cool weird take on Elves. My friend then pointed out “If you are going to make it so they don't even look like elves…why are you still calling them elves?”

He was right!

harkovast
Splicer Parade that is why it is okay to shoot lions and tigers when ever you want.
They are evil alignment.
Also, so are foriegners.

God bless you alignment system!

I had a good example with the reworking fantasy cliches thing the other day. I was playing magic the gathering *NERD ALARM* and there were some new cards where the elves had horns. I said how that was a cool weird take on Elves. My friend then pointed out “If you are going to make it so they don't even look like elves…why are you still calling them elves?”

He was right!

It's a common thing in most fantasy things, I believe on Tv Tropes its under the category “call a shmeerp a rabbit” or something similar. It's making what is effectively a new creature but giving them perhaps some characteristics that very vaguely link them to a better more established creature. Maybe it makes them easier to accept to a new audience than having to relearn a new name for a different creature, and its easier just to pidgeonhole them.

You see this all the time in vampires and zombies.

I remember Orson Scott Card talking about the Schmeerp thing, Confusedsoul. Only I think he used the example of bread. You're justified in making up some wacky name for it if it's different from normal bread, like it makes you fly or it's baked with Goldwheat from the Celestial Kingdom of Schnorg (that's paraphrased), but otherwise, why not just call it bread?

Thank you so much for not linking to TV Tropes. If I set foot on that site that's it, I'm trapped for the rest of the day. :P

Harkovast - Exactly! And the uglier someone is, the more evil their alignment. That's why goblins are mean and sneaky and cowardly, while halflings get off just being opportunistic scamps.

I can't exactly judge you for playing Magic, when I spent my summer learning to play (and getting my butt kicked at) YuGiOh. I mean - uh - did I just admit that aloud? <_<

Thanks splicer, just when I was feeling dorky for playing magic the gathering, you come along and admit to playing Yu-Gi-Oh. Now I feel cool again.
Have you seen the abridged series of Yu-Gi-Oh? Freakin awesome!

You make a good point about halflings! They do seem to get off easy compared to goblins!

“Oh look! Something was stolen! Must have been a cheeky halfling! Those loveable scamps!”
“No, actually, goblins did it.”
“WHAT? Those filthy thieving vermins! Lets invade their caves and kill those foul scum! Hazzah!!”

Splicer, as much as I hate to trap you on TV tropes again….did you see the entry for Harkovast on there?

well, since this thing was originally about elves and hobbits, ill put my two cents into that slot first. personally, i dont think i can even call in elf an elf, just some femine dude or a hot chick with pointy ears. same with a dwarf and a hobbit, and any other really human looking thing im missing. if its just on the basis of looks, then your really gonna step it up. thats where the creative line begins. you get a basic concept, and do something unique. whether its cultural, physical, or something else, it has got to be brought forward. for instance, hark, no offense, your comic is full of furries(i know they are anthro, however furry is funny, just with shorter n's). but, you then gave them culture, ability, and personality beyond the yiff, and thus i dont see them as yiffers, but as their own species. yes, the forest elf has been done to death, but you cant really blame people. not everyone can be as creative as anyone else. still, you can take the elf and cook it a new way. like a jungle elf, a concrete jungle elf to be percise (or hell, elf that realises that its not an elf but keeps up the act cause chicks dig that, anything goes). that can open up many new ways of portraying that basic concept, expanding it beyond the standard flavor of elf, but as a new, exotic, and refreshing tasting elf. and ya know, you might be sick of forest elf, but maybe you would like the refreshing taste of a new elf hark. hungry yet?

now, onto the order and chaos of this order and chaos debate. first, ive not actually played DnD much, so gasp in horror and shun me. as such, ive put my own spin on concepts delved upon in the game. its a bit more complicated, so ill just try to give as bare bone an answer as i can and hope it works. those born under a higher influence of order are more prone to adhere to a single style of life, based on desighn. for instance, if it was the norm to eat a hunk of meat each morning, and you were raised to that norm, you would eat a hunk of meat each morning without much of a hitch. it comes naturally to eat a hunk of meat each morning, and if the norm is widely accepted and achievable, everyone would eat a hunk of meat in the morning. now, if the norm was to wear something different every day, never walk the same path twice, wake up with your wife one day, go to bed with a new one the next, essentially live in “chaos”, then it is the same as what i said earlier. an adherance to a style of life BY DESIGHN, not as a set of rules someone gave you. there is no universal law, just your ability to stick to what you think and do. good and evil can be/is anything that the person conjures. whether or not it is widely accepted and deemed to be good or evil is another matter. just move down the concept from order to neutral to chaos, and thats the basic desighn i came up with. as such, you can find a chaotic creature serving a single ordered path, but it wont be universally accepted amongst his kin at all (depending), and he may find it hard to follow the path, depending on how well his sanity, intellect, wisdom, well being, upbringing, etc is. so, harkovast, i can say that all your races up to this point seem pretty orderly by my definition, as those i have seen seem to adhere greatly torwards what their races structure of life is. even if you do show an example of one that doesnt act outright darsai or nymus or etc, due note that ones upraising and necessity can generate change in any creature, and only a more wide spread example can deter their position from the position above. anyone confused yet?

When you bring out elves and dwarves, the audience kinda knows what they are going to get. They have a basic idea of what an elf and a dwarf is, and so are basically just looking at how far what you are doing varies from their preconception.
If you give your race an entirely new name and culture, you create a genuine sense of discovery. People are wondering what these people might be and are excited to see them. If you mention elves on page 5, I am not goign to excited to see elves, I've seen them hundreds of times before. Compare that to the Lel or the Ivos. When their names keep cropping up, there is real interest to know what they will be.

The problem you run into with alignment systems is that someone who consistantly behaves in an unpredictable manner and beleives doing so is the right thing to do…if following a code of conduct and is thus lawful!
When you look at something like Harkovast and come to the conclusion that everyone in it is lawful, to me that just highlights how broken and pointless alignment systems are (especially with regard to law and chaos!)

I suppose it was only a matter of time before someone mentioned yiffing on the Harkovast forum.
If you don't know what that means, don't ask me to explain it. You really are happier in your ignorance.
And certainly dont type it into an image search…especially not at work!

wait, i was the one who would first mention yiffing on the forum. seriously!? now i feel so perverted now. heck, all i really know of the subject is some kind of sodomy with someone in an animal getup, yet im now the one who brings this kind of junk to the forum. you must attract all the clean people from the internet hark, until now. shame on me, i expected so much more.
well, i tried to defend the elves, but truly i dont care that much about them. you cant beat out the joy of imagination and the mystery of a name not attached to a face. course, when throwing out names of faces like chinotan, anarakar, kaz, quegiled, etc, it can be nice to fall back to someting like human, or orc. not to mention, when it comes time for a slaughter, something disposable and not really your own can still carry your message in its blood.
i seriously stopped right here before going to order and chaos when i re-read the last part of your reply. did you look it up when you were working? slow day, or do you like the risk?lol.
(if you dont want to repeat the “alighnment is broken, heres my arguement, again!” just say so, i just thought that i might not have described my idea of it well enough. heck, dont comment if you dont really want to.)well, lets look at how we look at society. in general, people take to dressing normally( t-shirt, jeans, shorts) despite it being perfectly legal and perhaps far more entertaining to dress up like a clown or in a bizarre fashion. however, then lets look into private life. i bet that if we knew what our own neighbors did in their own free time, we'd see them as freaks, sickos, and maybe monsters. still, if you looked at everyone, then you can say its perfectly natural and okay to be unnatural and debased. its not right, but it happens, we do it. whether for the good in it or for attention or for something, we break the desired image of cleanliness and purity to do something that isnt. its why i put humanity at a 50/50 torwards my own order and chaos scale. we can easily set up a system of rule and codes of moral conduct and establish the norm, but do you really expect anyone to keep to these guidlines in the long run. thats why we have police and the saying “law is ment to be broken.” also why i perfer order to lawful. lawful ipplies judges and documents and such. order more implies to nature. when the law is broken, someone goes to jail. when the natural order of things is broken, you know that the gazelle eating a lion means something. just a preference. the more orderly a creature is, say 70/30, the more easier it is to keep that clean profile aformentioned. on the opposite end, the clean profile may exist, but there is no point in following it. everyone is going to do what they want, wear what they want, unless they, or the enforcers, dont mind the headache in keeping the standard.
well, again, sorry for the headache you must have over order and chaos, the strain on your eyes from reading the stuff above, and for being the first one to introduce something that really shouldnt have come.

I'll say this for elves… if you do them in such a way as to shock people (who have this normal conception of elves, you know, good guys, pointy ears, forest hippies, fragile girlymen (as Arnold might say), etc)… well, good on you! Insane, homicidal, zenophobic, musclebound Arnold-like elves who spend their time crushing rabbits and crucifying humans would be interesting. I'd love to see the reactions on some people's faces! The Elvenator! But then are they still elves? They are if you call them elves. Sorta.

I divide elves into two groups… wussy elves (Legolas, D specifically the Noldar and Lindar, and excluding those wussy bow wielding freaks, the Teleri (like Legolas)). Arrows, erm, long range weapons, are for wusses, REAL elves use close combat weapons and don't look like anorexic stick insects. Just kidding, I think any race will/should, be as varied as humanity… and that's okay.

That being said, one of those anorexic stick insect elves with a bow can still put an arrow in my skull easily enough. But the definitive Elf, for me, will always be the Tolkien high elves. You know, like the one guy who scared five Nazgul into jumping into a raging river. By himself.

Order/Chaos… alignment system… Lawful/Chaotic… blah blah blah… do paladin's have the urge to shoot baby rabbits in the head with a luger? No. Because they don't have lugers… but after walking through a field filled with the little blighters and being constantly harassed by them I bet even a paladin starts feeling the urge to use that mace/hammer of theirs in inventive ways. Is that wrong? PETA may think so, but it depends on the person, some may think that the things should have been culled a long time ago. How does that fall into the lawful, good, chaotic, evil, thing? Does it take into consideration different perspectives? Is it based on a character's religion? Etc? If not it's useless, if it does then it might as well not exist.

And I have no desire to shoot bunny rabbits of any age in the head with a luger, or any other firearm. Those are long range weapons… Nah, I'm joking. And I apologize for jumping around my topics like… a, uh, bunny rabbit on meth.