Yeah but @booinyoureyes how many people had CHARNAME killed by that point? Some of which didn't 100% deserve it. Myself I like the character of Hexxat, I find her along with Viconia to be some of the better written evil characters. Then again perhaps I just have a thing for bad girls.
No, even through her romance and the hardships you face, she never loses her composture. Which leads me to believe that that is her actual personality. Really, not even a psychopath could see what she does without breaking their façade.
If the banters with Aerie weren't there, then maybe there would be a case for that. Unfortunately they are, and it does give a glimpse even if in other ways it's a bit non-nonsensical. How long anyone can keep up a facade isn't really an issue. Being composed, cordial and nice may indeed be her actual personality, but it's that way to avoid taking blame or responsibility for anything she does; she's nice, so it's other people's problem if they react badly to her killing some peasants.
@booinyoureyes I think the main difference between Hexxat and Sarevok here is that Sarevok actually meant what he said. He had reasons to like Gorion. Being evil does not mean you can not like someone. Of course liking Gorion didn't stop Sarevok from killing him anyway.
@booinyoureyes I think the main difference between Hexxat and Sarevok here is that Sarevok actually meant what he said. He had reasons to like Gorion. Being evil does not mean you can not like someone. Of course liking Gorion didn't stop Sarevok from killing him anyway.
How does that make anything better? Really, if I were to choose between someone who murdered someone they never knew and someone who murdered someone they had a liking to, I'd gladly choose the former. Of course, this does not make much sense when based on my own actions (dumping Hexxat for Jan or Sarevok is one of the first things I recommend doing once their thief levels reach 13 (5x multiplier) or regain their fighter powers ) Of course, the latter in this case can be coaxed into goodness, while the former remains evil no matter what. Decisions, decisions.
Yeah but @booinyoureyes how many people had CHARNAME killed by that point? Some of which didn't 100% deserve it. Myself I like the character of Hexxat, I find her along with Viconia to be some of the better written evil characters. Then again perhaps I just have a thing for bad girls.
@Delvarian My good characters don't intentionally kill people who don't deserve it. Only when tricked (by like Firkraag and stuff) does that ever happen, and when it does they make reparations as far as the game allows. Usually I even avoid killing the thralls in the planar prison.
Difference: My good charnames kill. Hexxat murders (and no, I don't consider it "hunting" when you kill sentient beings for sustenance)
@booinyoureyes I think the main difference between Hexxat and Sarevok here is that Sarevok actually meant what he said. He had reasons to like Gorion. Being evil does not mean you can not like someone. Of course liking Gorion didn't stop Sarevok from killing him anyway.
@mlnevese I was actually totally joking about Sarevok ;P But yeah, the point stands
We gotta remember that she didn't become a vampire by choice, and she repeatedly states that she had no desire to be one. If there is no cure, then Hexxat's gotta do what she's gotta do. She will inevitably die if she does not consume living blood, be it evil or innocent or what have you. That is what vampires do.
@nonnahswriter I completely disagree! Charname, as many have said, kills a TON of people during the course of the series. She has so many options to not hunt down innocents to meet her needs. Your character is basically providing a walking buffet of hemeburgers. The fact that she does hunt down innocents makes her evil beyond any doubt.
We gotta remember that she didn't become a vampire by choice, and she repeatedly states that she had no desire to be one. If there is no cure, then Hexxat's gotta do what she's gotta do. She will inevitably die if she does not consume living blood, be it evil or innocent or what have you. That is what vampires do.
@nonnahswriter I completely disagree! Charname, as many have said, kills a TON of people during the course of the series. She has so many options to not hunt down innocents to meet her needs. Your character is basically providing a walking buffet of hemeburgers. The fact that she does hunt down innocents makes her evil beyond any doubt.
In the name of Buffy, down with the Vampire Apologists!!!!!!
@booinyoureyes Yet, ironically, Buffy was pretty 'forgiving' of some particular vampires. I mean she's responsible for the whole 'vampires are hot dudes who can be redeemed via love' thing.
In the name of Buffy, down with the Vampire Apologists!!!!!!
@booinyoureyes Yet, ironically, Buffy was pretty 'forgiving' of some particular vampires. I mean she's responsible for the whole 'vampires are hot dudes who can be redeemed via love' thing.
But they had souls (or for one season did not, but had a secret chip planted in their head that made sure that they... bah, Joss Whedon stuff...just watch it!)
I have, it's a great show, loved it. I'm just saying, Buffy was relatively merciful.
There is a school of thought that Angel is irredeemable given his unspeakable crimes committed as Angelus. It depends on if you subscribe to punitive justice or corrective justice.
You would expect an evil character to firmly defend themselves when they are taking abuse (unless they are cowardly weaklings, which Hexxat certainly isn't). Now it simply looks like Hexxat is just being kind (which is a good trait), no different than Nalia behaves towards Aerie.
Back when I was picking beans in Guatemala, we used to make fresh coffee, right off the trees I mean. That was good. This is shit but, hey, I'm in a police station.
I really do not see what she would gain by acting nice all the time without ever dropping the façade, even during her most emotional states.
This is very easy to explain, actually. Because she is a huntress. To avoid scaring her prey, she cultivates a friendly, nice facade. It just makes things easier.
It also makes her much, much more dangerous iyam.
If she was really that which she fronts, then she would show remorse about her condition, and be at least interested in alternatives. That she is more than willing to use evil extremes to get her way is telling IMHO.
I find it peculiar that many are trying to find "apologies" for Hexxat here, as if she was actually a good person, a victim.
She is not. She is a perpetrator, a huntress, a killer and a murderer, and a cold-blooded one at that! She just maintains a very sweet, nice demure, that seems to have charmed quite a few...victims here.
You will note that most of your party avoids falling for her...front. They are not letting their guard down to that bloodsucker!
She took advantage of a young disturbed girl (clara) and killed her, she said sorry but obviously doesn't feel any guilt. What alignment is that? True neutral? I don't think she cares much about balance in the world
She took advantage of a young disturbed girl (clara) and killed her, she said sorry but obviously doesn't feel any guilt. What alignment is that? True neutral? I don't think she cares much about balance in the world
Not all true neutrals are supposed to care about the balance in the world. TN is actually pretty accurate alignment for purely egoistical characters. Now, Hexxat displays some ruthless behaviour, but also some gentle behaviour, so I think they may cancel out each other (not that Hexxat cares).
TN is actually pretty accurate alignment for purely egoistical characters.
No, absolute unselfishness of being is TN - sort of like a Zen Master who has reached Zen. The casting off of all attachments to the material world, reaching the ultimate balance. Everything has purpose, everything is in balance. That which threatens this must be dealt with, whether it is good, evil, chaos, or law.
Purely egoistical is actually CN - everything is centered around oneself. CN are the most unreliable of all individuals, because they are so whimsical. Whatever pleases the self, goes.
NE is actually the most evil of all (IMHO) - it has no boundaries, no constraints, no moral purpose. Annihilation of everything, including even oneself. No remorse, no empathy, no real powerful emotions. Just...evil.
No remorse, no empathy, no real powerful emotions. Just...evil.
If what you say is true, then every single one of my aspie fellows is plain evil, as we fit all these criteria (Asperger's is nowadays identified as "Autistic Psychopathy", which should give you an idea of what the syndrome actually is). Are you really implying that?
The lack of emotion, empathy or remorse does not automatically make anyone evil - their way of thinking does not make someone evil - the way their brain is structured does not make someone evil - what they are capable of incapable of does not make someone evil - what makes someone evil is their ACTIONS, and until proven otherwise, people without the traits you mention are no more propense to evil than people with them.
Your prejudiced precepts make you no better than the people you are attacking, after all, branding people as evil and inhuman due to factors beyond their control was the ideology that fueled the holocaust, wasn't it?
No remorse, no empathy, no real powerful emotions. Just...evil.
If what you say is true, then every single one of my aspie fellows is plain evil, as we fit all these criteria (Asperger's is nowadays identified as "Autistic Psychopathy", which should give you an idea of what the syndrome actually is). Are you really implying that?
You've got that the wrong way round; when it was first 'discovered', it was referred to as Autistic Psychopathy. Now it's Asperger's syndrome, and it's quite different from psychopathy. Someone with asperger's finds it hard to communicate or to understand other peoples emotions based on visual cues like body language. It's not that they can't imagine what other people feel or don't have emotions themselves, although they might find it hard expressing them.
Sociopaths have no problem communicating, and both sociopaths and psychopaths in addition to feeling little to no empathy, tend to lie a lot, are manipulative and deceptive, and psychos are obviously quite predatory as well, which people with aspergers are not; they tend to be happy living in their own world rather than going out to amuse themselves by abusing others.
I would prefer that this discussion regarding aspergers ends with @Coutelier's comment. It is thread de-railment and does not contribute to OP's topic.
I have already notified @Loub that it is not okay to make accusations like the above. Equating @WebShaman's attempt at defining evil, to an attack on people with aspergers, or the intolerance of Nazi Germany, when clearly no such claim was made, amounts to flame-baiting.
No, absolute unselfishness of being is TN - sort of like a Zen Master who has reached Zen. The casting off of all attachments to the material world, reaching the ultimate balance. Everything has purpose, everything is in balance. That which threatens this must be dealt with, whether it is good, evil, chaos, or law.
I'm afraid you are wrong. People who actively advocate balance between good and evil as well as chaos and order (druids etc.) are of course true neutral, but that doesn't mean all true neutrals are like that. Yoshimo, for example, is rather an apathic and egoistic thief and bounty hunter. And he is true neutral.
The problem is that D&D uses a series of what 6? Different catagories to slap everyone's morality into. This doesn't work. No two people are the same, therefore no two neutral evil people will act exactly the same. These are guidelines nothing more, and it's easy to argue for and against any alignment for any character based on the relatively short time we get to know them.
Ahhh, now we are getting to the interesting part of Alignment in D&D.
Most people have problems here.
First of all, you CANNOT use real-world examples to try to equate the Alignment System in the D&D world. In the D&D Universe, Good, Evil, Chaos, Law, and yes, Neutral are not just abstract, psychological concepts but real things, that really exist.
We know this because spells like Detect Good/Evil really work, Protection from Good/Evil does as well, and of course the Outer Planes pretty much puts the final nail in the coffin. We know this because those who made the rules have determined that it is so.
As such, we have to stay within the boundaries of what is defined.
Second, in D&D, ACTIONS decide alignment. You may think evil thoughts all day long, but if you do not do evil things, you are not evil.
Note that I did not create these rules - I am merely repeating them here.
Now, we come to PEOPLE.
Incredibly enough, people differ. I know, I know, it is a shocker. The rules say that those of the Prime Material were given FREE WILL. This means that through their actions (which they decide), they can change their Alignments, among other things (such as free to believe whatever tickles their fancy, etc).
So how is it that an ABSOLUTE (like TN) can be represented (by PEOPLE) in so many different ways (this is just an example of one alignment)? I am pretty sure that most of you can now connect the dots, but I will go into greater detail, for those who are not following along.
On this scale (think of it as a graph, if you will, with sliders going in the various directions of Good, Evil, Chaos, Law, with Neutral in the middle). Actions make movements along this graph, accordingly. Some are big, most are small, and often, they counter one another out, resulting in a general direction (or non-direction, as the case may be). Note as well, that this is a constant "check" so to speak, that occurs constantly.
We can call this Alignment Fluctuation, if you wish. This little "mark", or dot, is Person X. It tends to vibrate in place (movements here, there, none, etc). Most people tend to do things as they always do, react to things as they always do, and there is very little change in day-to-day life. Occasionally, something may happen to change this, but such is mostly rare.
Adventurers, of course, are somewhat different in this regard, as their lives are hardly constant. They face changes and must make decisions based on such far more than the average Commoner. As a result, their dot on the Alignment Graph moves much more, accordingly.
To actually change an Alignment, one has to move that dot into an area of another alignment (makes sense IMHO). Even that is not enough, however. It needs TO STAY THERE. For such a change, something dramatic has to have happened (had to of been done).
For example, I am Lawful Good, and I do something terrible. Terrible enough to actually move that dot on the Alignment graph temporarily to Lawful Neutral. Now, from this point, different things could happen :
I could be remorseful for my actions, and do something to change things. Through my good actions, I move that dot back to Lawful Good.
I could continue to do terrible things. Through my actions, the dot stays in the Lawful Neutral area, and I actually change my alignment.
I do instead chaotic things, and my alignment starts to slide towards Neutral...
So much for that. One could consider it to be different "flavors" of an alignment, if one wills.
So now we come to personality. Personality may have some shape from a person's alignment, dependingly. But it is not a given. Because only Actions themselves result in Alignment, a personaliy may (or may not) result in actions, dependingly.
This is why we can have many different PEOPLE, with different personalities, quirks, whatever, and still be the same alignments.
People who are insane are normally the alignment CN, according to the rules.
I feel that is actually aimed at me, and accurately fits my character, doesn't it? Well, no matter. While I am indeed quite insane, I am relatively harmless outside of my bleakness, spiteful stance on social interaction and sheer emotional instability demonstrated here due to starvation caused by power outages after an unexpected cyclone, which is a phenomenon that had never happened before, hit my region, which caused all the food to spoil due to the fact that we were left stranded for 5 days with no electricity or phone signals to speak of, which in turn rendered me unable to properly absorb my medication, which has rendered me unable to properly interact with other human beings and sleep - I think I haven't slept in a week and will likely spend another one without it due to my body having to readapt to the medication. The unique combination of Autism, Unstable Emotional Personality Disorder and Attention Deficit Hiperactivity Disorder lends me an extremely inhuman, and likely inhumane, ideology when not kept in check, luckily I think I can feel the medication finally working, which likely means that I won't be such an antagonistic prick in the forums any longer, though that remains to be seen. Also, I can clearly taste Irn Bru in my mouth, which is most definitely not a good thing, since it actually tastes of blood and sugar. Back on topic, I think Hexxat would very likely approve of this beverage if she has a particular taste for diabetics.
I also cannot sense any psychological disturbance on Hexxat's being, she simply is what she is: a predator who simply enjoys the hunt a little more that she should. Even if she could, I doubt she'd actually change, she seems too comfortable with her own habits, as most people are. This does not change her so called "evilness", though she is very much of the affable sort, and likely not a threat to a being such as Charname, who she seems loyal to anyway, never giving any hint or taking any action that would imply betrayal.
She took advantage of a young disturbed girl (clara) and killed her, she said sorry but obviously doesn't feel any guilt. What alignment is that? True neutral? I don't think she cares much about balance in the world
Now, Hexxat displays some ruthless behaviour, but also some gentle behaviour, so I think they may cancel out each other (not that Hexxat cares).
As someone once told me: "Even Hitler loved his children"
I don't really see alignment as a ledger that measure good actions and bad actions. How many douchey things must one do to be considered a douche?
If I punch you then hug my mom, punching you was still wrong
Comments
Myself I like the character of Hexxat, I find her along with Viconia to be some of the better written evil characters.
Then again perhaps I just have a thing for bad girls.
Really, if I were to choose between someone who murdered someone they never knew and someone who murdered someone they had a liking to, I'd gladly choose the former.
Of course, this does not make much sense when based on my own actions (dumping Hexxat for Jan or Sarevok is one of the first things I recommend doing once their thief levels reach 13 (5x multiplier) or regain their fighter powers )
Of course, the latter in this case can be coaxed into goodness, while the former remains evil no matter what.
Decisions, decisions.
Difference: My good charnames kill. Hexxat murders (and no, I don't consider it "hunting" when you kill sentient beings for sustenance) @mlnevese I was actually totally joking about Sarevok ;P But yeah, the point stands
Charname, as many have said, kills a TON of people during the course of the series. She has so many options to not hunt down innocents to meet her needs. Your character is basically providing a walking buffet of hemeburgers. The fact that she does hunt down innocents makes her evil beyond any doubt.
Even in the Forgotten Realms where vampires are an "evil aligned race" some avoid preying on innocents (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Jander_Sunstar)
In the name of Buffy, down with the Vampire Apologists!!!!!!
Yet, ironically, Buffy was pretty 'forgiving' of some particular vampires. I mean she's responsible for the whole 'vampires are hot dudes who can be redeemed via love' thing.
I have, it's a great show, loved it. I'm just saying, Buffy was relatively merciful.
There is a school of thought that Angel is irredeemable given his unspeakable crimes committed as Angelus. It depends on if you subscribe to punitive justice or corrective justice.
Instead I will derail it with film analogies! someone needs to meet Kaiser Soze
It also makes her much, much more dangerous iyam.
If she was really that which she fronts, then she would show remorse about her condition, and be at least interested in alternatives. That she is more than willing to use evil extremes to get her way is telling IMHO.
I find it peculiar that many are trying to find "apologies" for Hexxat here, as if she was actually a good person, a victim.
She is not. She is a perpetrator, a huntress, a killer and a murderer, and a cold-blooded one at that! She just maintains a very sweet, nice demure, that seems to have charmed quite a few...victims here.
You will note that most of your party avoids falling for her...front. They are not letting their guard down to that bloodsucker!
Lesson here : don't be a victim!
Purely egoistical is actually CN - everything is centered around oneself. CN are the most unreliable of all individuals, because they are so whimsical. Whatever pleases the self, goes.
NE is actually the most evil of all (IMHO) - it has no boundaries, no constraints, no moral purpose. Annihilation of everything, including even oneself. No remorse, no empathy, no real powerful emotions. Just...evil.
The lack of emotion, empathy or remorse does not automatically make anyone evil - their way of thinking does not make someone evil - the way their brain is structured does not make someone evil - what they are capable of incapable of does not make someone evil - what makes someone evil is their ACTIONS, and until proven otherwise, people without the traits you mention are no more propense to evil than people with them.
Your prejudiced precepts make you no better than the people you are attacking, after all, branding people as evil and inhuman due to factors beyond their control was the ideology that fueled the holocaust, wasn't it?
Good day...
Or not, you decide.
Sociopaths have no problem communicating, and both sociopaths and psychopaths in addition to feeling little to no empathy, tend to lie a lot, are manipulative and deceptive, and psychos are obviously quite predatory as well, which people with aspergers are not; they tend to be happy living in their own world rather than going out to amuse themselves by abusing others.
I have already notified @Loub that it is not okay to make accusations like the above. Equating @WebShaman's attempt at defining evil, to an attack on people with aspergers, or the intolerance of Nazi Germany, when clearly no such claim was made, amounts to flame-baiting.
These are guidelines nothing more, and it's easy to argue for and against any alignment for any character based on the relatively short time we get to know them.
Most people have problems here.
First of all, you CANNOT use real-world examples to try to equate the Alignment System in the D&D world. In the D&D Universe, Good, Evil, Chaos, Law, and yes, Neutral are not just abstract, psychological concepts but real things, that really exist.
We know this because spells like Detect Good/Evil really work, Protection from Good/Evil does as well, and of course the Outer Planes pretty much puts the final nail in the coffin. We know this because those who made the rules have determined that it is so.
As such, we have to stay within the boundaries of what is defined.
Second, in D&D, ACTIONS decide alignment. You may think evil thoughts all day long, but if you do not do evil things, you are not evil.
Note that I did not create these rules - I am merely repeating them here.
Now, we come to PEOPLE.
Incredibly enough, people differ. I know, I know, it is a shocker. The rules say that those of the Prime Material were given FREE WILL. This means that through their actions (which they decide), they can change their Alignments, among other things (such as free to believe whatever tickles their fancy, etc).
So how is it that an ABSOLUTE (like TN) can be represented (by PEOPLE) in so many different ways (this is just an example of one alignment)? I am pretty sure that most of you can now connect the dots, but I will go into greater detail, for those who are not following along.
On this scale (think of it as a graph, if you will, with sliders going in the various directions of Good, Evil, Chaos, Law, with Neutral in the middle). Actions make movements along this graph, accordingly. Some are big, most are small, and often, they counter one another out, resulting in a general direction (or non-direction, as the case may be). Note as well, that this is a constant "check" so to speak, that occurs constantly.
We can call this Alignment Fluctuation, if you wish. This little "mark", or dot, is Person X. It tends to vibrate in place (movements here, there, none, etc). Most people tend to do things as they always do, react to things as they always do, and there is very little change in day-to-day life. Occasionally, something may happen to change this, but such is mostly rare.
Adventurers, of course, are somewhat different in this regard, as their lives are hardly constant. They face changes and must make decisions based on such far more than the average Commoner. As a result, their dot on the Alignment Graph moves much more, accordingly.
To actually change an Alignment, one has to move that dot into an area of another alignment (makes sense IMHO). Even that is not enough, however. It needs TO STAY THERE. For such a change, something dramatic has to have happened (had to of been done).
For example, I am Lawful Good, and I do something terrible. Terrible enough to actually move that dot on the Alignment graph temporarily to Lawful Neutral. Now, from this point, different things could happen :
I could be remorseful for my actions, and do something to change things. Through my good actions, I move that dot back to Lawful Good.
I could continue to do terrible things. Through my actions, the dot stays in the Lawful Neutral area, and I actually change my alignment.
I do instead chaotic things, and my alignment starts to slide towards Neutral...
So much for that. One could consider it to be different "flavors" of an alignment, if one wills.
So now we come to personality. Personality may have some shape from a person's alignment, dependingly. But it is not a given. Because only Actions themselves result in Alignment, a personaliy may (or may not) result in actions, dependingly.
This is why we can have many different PEOPLE, with different personalities, quirks, whatever, and still be the same alignments.
People who are insane are normally the alignment CN, according to the rules.
Also, I can clearly taste Irn Bru in my mouth, which is most definitely not a good thing, since it actually tastes of blood and sugar. Back on topic, I think Hexxat would very likely approve of this beverage if she has a particular taste for diabetics.
I also cannot sense any psychological disturbance on Hexxat's being, she simply is what she is: a predator who simply enjoys the hunt a little more that she should. Even if she could, I doubt she'd actually change, she seems too comfortable with her own habits, as most people are. This does not change her so called "evilness", though she is very much of the affable sort, and likely not a threat to a being such as Charname, who she seems loyal to anyway, never giving any hint or taking any action that would imply betrayal.
I don't really see alignment as a ledger that measure good actions and bad actions. How many douchey things must one do to be considered a douche?
If I punch you then hug my mom, punching you was still wrong
2) Depends on who I pointed at.