The WW Planning Thread

[zipp]

I should've written that character write up sooner! Poor Evil TB had so little to go off of for our last posts together! You did a great job, Evil, though! Wanted you to know that!

[eviltb]

lol thanks dude, I thought you put acorss Seras intentions quite well actually, as I was able to play off them and get their dynamic working. Im researching the actual difference between Chaotic Evil and Lawful Evil before I carry on. So far it breaks down to if you're CE then you're a genocidal madman, but being LE is closer to being actual evil cause its done with plan rather than on a whim. Neutral Evil means you're just a moody emo

[Beowuuf]

Personally I always see the axis as means and ends. Law = using an external code as a guide, going to Chaos = using personal choice / whims asa guide, and good = for the greatest benefit to the most harming the least, and evil = for yourself harming whoever.

So you don't have to be a maniac as CE, you just have no external block or recogniseable pattern on your planning, and no conscience to your selfishness. So a CE cannot be stopped from doing what he wants unless it benefits himself, while a LE can be blocked from doing what he wants if there is a good external reason.

[eviltb]

Im going on the pretext that Evil in LWs world is mostly Lawful. Chaos is just Chaos, their not Evil in the same way Naar is Evil and Kai is Good. Both I would say are Lawful deities, in so much as they use their avatars to fight for them rather than get involved directly. Lets face it, if Naar was Chaotic he'd just go down to Magnamund himself and take over. But Naar doesnt want to destroy, he wants to rule. Which Im sure means Lawful more than Chaotic. Even Wolfs Bane, although running rings around LW, was Lawful in so much as their final encounter was a duel-to-the-death. Ok so he had winged-flaming guy as back-up but still, his intentions when Lawful.

EvilTB here in Temel, doesnt want to turn the place into a hedonistic haven. He wants to build a powerbase to fight Chaos. To do this, he needs to take over. To maintain control, he needs rules, order, discipline. Yes he may slit a few throats, but in the end he needs people to stand behind him, not run around screaming their heads off at the sight of a chaos monster.

[Beowuuf]

Depends, Naar might be Neutral. After all, he has happily grabbed the moonstone to directly open portals and flood Magnamund with Plane of Darkness things. I thin kthe idea of the balance is that it has some inherent rules that would break it to go against. After all, Naar went against the original pact.

Alignments is always a little bit of a cluster to go into, so we can probably stick to Moorcock rules, etc to get us through

Anyway, your definition of Lawful evil for eviltb sounds good, and also sounds like a good counter to the Chaosmaster

[crysis]

Here's some examples of Chaotic Evil and Lawful Evil in Lone Wolf, at least as I understand them. An easy way to distinguish Chaotic Evil is "destruction" while Lawful Evil is "domination"

Chaotic Evil
The Darklords, though some may be seen as Lawful Evil. If you recall, the Darklords really don't have a code or a need to dominate, though they strive to conquer the world. All except for the rare exception would happily tear apart the kingdoms and let everything go to hell except that they can't because of limitations. What may seem like "their laws" is actually more due to the fact that they can't simply go out and conquer the world without a plan.

The Chaos Master. If you recall, there's a whole story in the books about him letting someone escape his grasp simply because he's chaotic that way.

The Cener Druids. Again, a race based on destruction. They would send the whole world into plague with nary a thought. Not much to rule over when everyone's dead.

Lawful Evil
Vonotar. He may be chaotic in his methods, but his ultimate goal is to rule over some country or another.

Shasarak. Shasarak is fiercely territorial and protective of Shadaki, even though he is technically a force of evil. He wants to rule, not destroy.

[crysis]

To clarify... if Evil TB's goal is to rule and dominate others, than he is lawful evil. If his goal is simply to cause pain and wreak destruction, then he is chaotic evil.

Neutral, on the other hand... Cloe is almost a pure neutral character, as she does everything based off of how it will affect her, with little desire to rule and little desire to cause destruction. She just wants power for power's sake and hoards it to herself, keeping away from the rest of the world.

Though her rebirth has shifted her more towards good.

[Beowuuf]

Interesting, why would having other people obey laws be lawful? Surely Lawful is whether you obey them. A mob boss would be lawful if he held themselves to those standards, or only felt comfoprtable operating in that climate. A chaotic one might well tell others to obey him or they'll get whacked, and be happy to be in the organisation, but he wouldn't follow the rules himself.

To think on it the other way would be the chaotic good cop - he may well hold the job, but he'd always be seen as the loose cannon that plays by his own rules.


I definitely agree on Cloe being a pure neutral. Usually that's a wishy-washy characteristic for a player, if it's from the outset, as that character cannot have any great convictions. I see a true neutral of Cloe's experience as a very cool conscious balancing act. Every act becomes a reasoned choice.

[zipp]

The idea behind the Lawful alignment is all about where your interests lie. A simple way to think about it is that a Lawful character does what s/he does according to some deeper plan. Chaotic characters do things because they can or for the joy of the moment.

In short: Lawful characters seek sustainability; Chaotic characters do not, or even actively seek the opposite.

It's also important to note that it is a character's beliefs, more than their actions, which decide their alignment, though the good writer/role player will combine the two into a common practice more often than not, and be sure to portray an inner struggle or change when the actions don't fit the belief.

A mob boss is a Lawful Evil character. A hired hitman who seeks to rise, through money and power, in the ranks of the mob would also be a Lawful Evil character. A hired hitman who killed for the pleasure of killing and never wanted to be anything but a hitman... that's Chaotic Evil.

This carries over to good, as well. A Paladin does what s/he does because it is the decree of their order and they do so according to laws and codes (thus adhering to a sustainable organization and plan). Lone Wolf is envisioned as a Lawful Good character, though she is often forced to make decisions for the greater good that involve such things as the killing of guards. A figure like Alyss, on the other hand (to use an unpopular example) would be Chaotic Good. She always ends up on the side of good, but she has no long-term plan in place and no order to adhere to, instead doing things as they occur to her.

One of the easiest ways to figure out whether a good character is Lawful or Chaotic is to ask where they stand with the law of the land. If they are wanted as a criminal or perceived as a criminal/problem by the majority of society, then they are most likely Chaotic. The Captain from Firefly, for instance.

Chaotic Good characters are problematic because much of this designation relies on outside sources. Depending on the comic he features in, Batman could be considered either Chaotic Good or Lawful Good. Most consider him, because of his long-standing rules against killing, to be Lawful Good. However, in Batman Begins, he is more Chaotic Good, blatantly ignoring the city's rules in order to bring justice to the city's enemies.

As for neutrality, thank you for the kind words! The trick with neutral characters it that no one starts out as neutral. Neutrality is a thing learned. Cloe started out as Chaotic Evil, then became Lawful Evil when she learned to better control her power. By now, she's doesn't want the responsibility and infamy that comes along with domination, but she doesn't seek to better the world, either. She's not even seeking to better herself. She just wants to figure out what she's supposed to do and do it so she can live out existence.

[Simey]

I concur with the idea of us having a story arc - even a short term one - that should benefit all of us. Though that's kind of easy for me to say, 'cause I feel I can run Simey's arc - such as it is - parallel to most goings on. But if we have some broad idea that we can all latch on to, that might bring a bit of useful coherence and drive. Personally, I'm feeling a bit more with things - having finally joined in! - but still a bit at sea regarding where we're going at the moment.

Apr 14, 2010 4:17:41 GMT -5 eviltb said:

Just trying to figure out/justify how taking over a small Sommerlending village gets him closer to that...

Like Eshnar, Temel in the WW has been enlarged somewhat from the small town on the map in the books. Ages ago I had S & A there and was treating it as a medium-to-large town, I think, the idea being - again, as with Eshnar - that temporarily improved relations with Vassagonia had made the Temel-Eshnar road a more major trade route and caused the towns to grow. Hopefully a larger town gives you more scope.

And I had Temel as being in Cloeasia - dunno if that was right.

[zipp]

I'm pretty certain Temel is Cloeasian, yes.

[Beowuuf]

Heh, Simey's long quest to have the Cloesian question affected by his charcter might well come up afetr all!

[Simey]

My real quest is to justify all sizeable population centres as being within the borders of Cloeasia! ;D

[zipp]

The Cloesian Question... sounds philosophical!

[Beowuuf]

Or sinister. Or like a spy novel. Or a new indie band.