Posts from - City alignments based on AD&D.

And I remember the chapter in which the Morgul and Mordor orcs killed each other in the fortress of Cirith Ungol; I remember how one Snaga archer shot a large Uruk who he had an argument with; and, finally, I remember how all these orcs argued among themselves in the chapter "Uruk-Hai," which you mentioned! In fact, only Saruman's orcs turn out to be law-abiding; and Mordor is a mixture of chaos and lawfulness (by the way, if you remember, Grishnakh decided to steal the Ring from the hobbits and take it for himself).

Here is my description of the alignments:

Chaotic Good
Characters of this alignment believe that good should always triumph over evil, no matter the cost. In their pursuit of good, they ignore laws and regulations that they consider unjust or oppressive. Many vigilantes and freedom fighters fall into this category. Chaotic good characters hate bullies, tyrants, and others who abuse their power.

Lawful Good
As with all lawful characters, these heroes prefer an orderly society where everyone follows the rules. They believe that justice and virtue can only be achieved through laws and the enforcement of those laws. A lawful good character always strives to do what is right, even if it means breaking the law. An honest police officer or a noble king are good examples of lawful good characters.

Neutral Good
Neutral good characters are fair and compassionate, but they are also more likely to be independent and avoid getting involved in the affairs of others. They believe that balance between law and chaos is important, but they also believe that good should ultimately triumph over evil. A classic example of a neutral good character is Robin Hood.

Lawful Neutral
Characters of this alignment are strict and unyielding. They believe that order and law are the most important things in the world, and they will do whatever it takes to maintain them, even if it means sacrificing their own personal values. Lawful neutral characters are often seen as cold and unfeeling, but they are also very reliable and trustworthy.

True Neutral
Characters of this alignment believe that all things should be in balance. They do not believe in good or evil, law or chaos. They simply believe that everything has its place in the world, and that it is important to maintain that balance. Druids and other nature-worshippers are often true neutral.

Chaotic Neutral
Most people consider those who fall into this category to be dangerous and unpredictable. They do not believe in good or evil, and they do not care about laws or rules. Chaotic neutral characters are often motivated by their own whims and desires, and they can be very difficult to predict.

Neutral Evil
These characters are motivated by their own self-interest. They will do whatever it takes to get what they want, even if it means hurting others. Neutral evil characters are not necessarily cruel or sadistic, but they are not above using violence or intimidation to achieve their goals.

Lawful Evil
Lawful evil characters believe that society needs laws and order, but they also believe that those laws should be used to benefit themselves. They are often ambitious and ruthless, and they will do whatever it takes to climb the social ladder. Lawful evil characters are often found in positions of power, such as politicians and military leaders.

Chaotic Evil
Chaotic evil characters are the most dangerous and unpredictable of all. They are motivated by a desire for power, wealth, and destruction. Chaotic evil characters are often violent and sadistic, and they have no regard for the lives of others. They are the ultimate villains, and they should be feared and avoided at all costs.

I remember a chapter where the Morgul and Mordor Orcs slaughtered each other in the fortress of Cirith Ungol
......
In fact, only Saruman's Orcs turn out to be law-abiding.

Yes, I was already thinking that Orcs are inherently too chaotic... Saruman's Orcs, by the way, were mutants bred by him, as far as I remember, so they behaved better than ordinary Orcs. :)

by the way, if you remember, Grishnákh decided to steal the Ring from the Hobbits and take it for himself

I remember it very well, and although it can be partially attributed to the "call of the Ring," he is still far from being orderly... By the way, the example of LotR can illustrate many of the worldviews being debated here! Orcs are most likely chaotic evil. A disorganized horde, ready to tear each other apart over the slightest trinket, over a trivial disagreement. Saruman is almost a perfect example of lawful evil. Strict hierarchy, the state he created, a clearly defined goal - power; even after being overthrown, he manages to subjugate (again, by creating a mini-state, using power and law) the Shire... His subjects do not destroy and break everything good; if they break something, it is for a strictly defined purpose: both the Ents' forest and the groves in the Shire were cut down for his mechanical devices, and not just out of malice. I think that the Nine Nazgûl are closest to neutral evil. On the one hand, they seem to exist in the orderly "economy" of Sauron, and on the other - complete "absence of presence," no emotions - they simply obey Sauron's will, and this is not their choice, note. Gollum is very similar to a neutral evil character. Unlike Orcs, he doesn't have a mess in his head; he has a specific goal, and not just a pure desire to destroy and break - this distinguishes him from chaotic evil. But he is also not capable of working in a team - he is too individualistic and selfish to accept laws and authority over himself - this excludes the option of "lawful good." And now let's compare it with the definition of NE in AD&D: Neutral Evil: Neutral evil characters are primarily concerned with themselves and their own advancement. Their only interest is in getting ahead. If there is a quick and easy way to gain a profit, whether it be legal, questionable, or obviously illegal, they take advantage of it. Although neutral evil characters do not have money, which makes them quite receptive to bribes. In my opinion, Gollum is a perfect match! :) A flexible chameleon, willing to cooperate if it benefits him, and not hesitating to stab in the back for the same benefit.

Gollum has a complex character... There's a glimmer of good in him that almost manages to win out :) (the episode where the hobbits are sleeping, and he returns from "reconnaissance"); if Sam hadn't insulted him, he might have become a good character...
And Frodo, by the way, became somewhat bad for a while.
I would say that the problem with D&D alignments is their excessive static nature. But in life, things aren't like that... For example, I was a fan of evil forces until I was 16 and considered egoism the only correct norm of behavior, but now I definitely define myself as good and altruistic:...

No, altruism... :-/ I switched to "Philosophy." :)

I would say that the problem with D&D-style alignments is their excessive static nature. But in reality, things are not so... For example, I was a fan of evil forces until I was 16 and considered egoism the only correct norm of behavior, and now I definitely define myself as good and altruistic:...

It doesn't matter who you think you are. What matters is who you are. Besides, many people "play villains" until they are 16. You might have considered yourself a Satanist, but in reality, you wouldn't hurt a fly.

As for me, I consider myself True Neutral :D

Definitely not a good one, twenty years. :cool:

And I am chaotically good, according to Slonysh's definition :) I love good and dislike laws :)

Gollum has a complex character... There's a glimmer of good in him that almost manages to win out :) (the episode where the hobbits are sleeping, and he returns from "reconnaissance"); if Sam hadn't insulted him, he might have become a good person...
And Frodo, by the way, became "bad" for a while.
I would say that the problem with D&D alignments is their excessive static nature. But in life, things aren't like that... For example, I was a fan of evil forces until I was 16, and I considered egoism to be the only correct norm of behavior, but now I definitely define myself as good and altruistic...

Well, most characters don't have that many alignments. Only good/evil. :) / :mad:
As for Gollum's "redemption," it's quite far-fetched... You know, it's easy to say "repent," but who would hand over a living person to be torn apart by a giant spider? Imagine it vividly, not just on a theoretical level, and you'll understand: there wasn't much good left in that creature's soul...
As for the "evil" Frodo, let's attribute it to a hypnotic state. Most people lost control when they saw the Ring. Bilbo, Boromir... and even Gandalf admitted that he was afraid of the temptation.

By the way, about Boromir. Gondor, in my opinion, is the embodiment of lawful neutral philosophy. They are not interested in good, but in themselves. Let everyone die, as long as Gondor survives. As Drakolich mentioned in her post, they are "insensitive bureaucrats."

So, when I imagine Gollum in vivid detail, that's when he becomes so pathetic that I feel sorry for him... He's like a typical client for a psychotherapist... You just need to "reach" him...

As for corrections, I don't know, I believe in them:), because I'm an optimist:)

And I am chaotic good, according to Slonysh's definition :) I love good and dislike laws :)

I'm telling you - these elves... ;) They'll save an old lady from villains and run off to frolic in the dew, but they'll forget to help her cross the pedestrian crossing... :eek:

Good, evil... The main thing is who has the gun! :-)

But seriously, all these classifications based on worldview are very arbitrary. It's more applicable to Heroes 4 than to Heroes 3.

Castle - Lawful Good
Rampart - Neutral Good
Tower - Chaotic Good

Conflux - Lawful Neutral
Fortress - True Neutral
Stronghold - Chaotic Neutral

Dungeon - Lawful Evil
Necropolis - Neutral Evil
Inferno - Chaotic Evil

This is a very rough classification :) In reality, it's like this:
Rampart - Neutral Good
Tower - Neutral Good
Castle - Lawful Good
Fortress - Lawful Neutral, Chaotic Good
Conflux - Neutral Good, Lawful Neutral, Chaotic Evil
Stronghold - Chaotic Neutral
Dungeon - Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, True Neutral
Necropolis - Neutral Evil, Lawful Neutral
Inferno - Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, Chaotic Evil
This is if we don't take into account the numerous nuances.
More than nine.

At the same time, if you pay close attention to the plot of the campaigns, the heroes of different factions behave in accordance with these alignments! Take, for example, the cunning and treacherous Sandro, weaving intrigues - a typical NE. The cold-blooded Xeron, who kills his own soldiers on a whim, is a clear example of CE.

Throughout the game, Xeron was only recorded killing a soldier once. It was a minor character. Xeron is a typical LE.

XEL, could you tell me what you based your well-made classification on? Did you use the campaigns from Armageddon's Blade and Shades of Darkness?

Xel, isn't there too many options for each faction? For example, Conflux – chaotic neutral – combines all the listed characteristics. It's the most neutral elemental faction, and whether it will help in the fight for the Blade of Armageddon or come up with something else is another question.
And I wouldn't consider Necromancers to be truly neutral. If they wanted order, they wouldn't have started a war against Erathia.