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.
Start publishing on
DD Comics!
Advertise with us
Harkovast- the forum
Harko-rant! I hate elves but I hate hobbits more.
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!
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&D elves, most people's conception of elves, etc) and Elves (Almost always and exclusively Tolkien's High Elves; 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.
Canuvea frankly your post was a relief to read.
Sometimes I feel like everyone just accepts alignment and defends the idea because its the status quo, rather than because it is useful or makes sense.
I would still be entertained to see peoples theories about what alignment characters in Harkovast would be, though.
Harkovast character alignment?
Okay. Let me see… there is evil, neutral, good, and chaotic, lawful, neutral? (Is there actually two neutrals? I wouldn't think so).
Ki is Neutral, (does what he has to regardless, good or evil, would kill babies) Lawful, (always works for Nymus republic's best interests…so is predictable), Awesome (Cause he is).
Shogun is Neutral (cause he kills shit like Ki… with little regard for moral rules, might kill babies, would kill children), Lawful (follows strict societal rules etc), Grouchy (cause he is)
Sir Muir is Good (obvious chivalry nut, wouldn't kill babies, or those surrendering, for example), Chaotic (this guy doesn't know what he himself is doing half the time… or so it seems), Awesome Crazy (really, Sir Muir is pretty damn cool, even if he is kinda crazy).
Chen Chen is Good (has her own ethics that seem goody goody, will kill in self defense… as she sees it), Lawful (…yeah, she's a nun), Neato (surprisingly good fighter, and pretty cool too).
The Gunsmith is Neutral (Works for best interests of the Golta nation, likely, and doesn't care beyond that), Lawful (predictable, only works for money, but upholds bargains etc), Cocky… with guns…(Yeah, thats a pun too).
The Heretic is Evil (working for his own gain as he wants power, even if he does want a "better" nation, will kill babies, wounded, etc), Lawful (is goal directed, wants power, and so needs organization and direction. Is not some kind of rogue exactly), With Anger Issues.
The Speaker is Evil (seeks domination over others for his King, will do whatever it takes to make everyone slaves), Lawful (Goal directed, reliably working for The KITW), Religious nutter asshole who is, admittedly, pretty awesome.
Problem is that this restricts character development and has a tendency to make characters 1 dimensional. Essentially this is a snapshot of character behavior at the moment in the comic, and so cannot really be classified as "alignments" as such. But, I hope this entertained you!
That's a pretty good point actually. But… being good automatically means following the "good code" even if you are also "chaotic." Or so I'd assume… What that means is that perhaps the alignment Good Chaotic itself makes no sense…
Quote Jack Sparrow about honesty here…
You can always trust a "good" person to be "good" regardless of if they are "chaotic" or "lawful." Does that mean that there can be no such thing as "good" "chaotic?" Or does Good Chaotic cover situations just like Sir Muir's.
The thing is, that from a Darsai's perspective (their religion etc) sir Muir is possibly so good as to be perfect. Hence good… and good in Darsai religion means following the laws of Chivalry. Hence he can be called "good."
But even from a Darsai perspective I would call him chaotic… why? He (at least not currently) is not part of the Feudal hierarchy (again, I stress at the moment), and he cannot keep his mind on a single track (or so it seems), as well as seemingly wandering around at random.
Rather from seeing Sir Muir's predictability in the realm of chivalry as negating the rating "chaotic" but instead seeing it as adding to Muir's "good" rating. Maybe we don't have a paradox here…
A "Lawful" soldier of darkness doesn't have to have a code of conduct in battle, it can still fight dirty, so long as it follows the rest of the rules laid out by the evil overlord… And it is evil…
Is, for example, the Geneva convention a symptom of "good" or "lawful?" The "bad" guys can still follow it… So long as it is followed…
Does "Good" and "Evil" depend on intent? I suppose someone could do random things with good intentions. But none of this actually has anything to do with Sir Muir… in fact it all comes down to predictability of action… which Sir Muir has both Lawful and Chaotic aspects of.
Okay. Yeah. Muir is Good Chaotic/Lawful… So I just wasted internet space. Thankfully there is a lot of that.
Unless you take different aspects of the character's lives and classify that… Muir is Good in Darsai ethics… Evil in Golta ethics (he isn't a golta)… "Lawful" in how he fights etc, adheres to code of conduct… "Chaotic" in his decision making process due to being slightly insane, etc…
But at this point the "alignment system" would become so complex as to implode upon itself…
DM: "So, are you casting detect Golta evil or Darsai evil?" Player: "Which will give a decipherable meaning?" DM: "None. All members of your party are Golta evil, and at least two are Darsai evil (along with that plant over there) so you really aren't gonna get anything discernible." P: "Ah. Well crap." DM: "Try casting detect 'Intent to Harm' instead." Player: "But I already know Shogun wants to strangle Sir Muir!"
Alignment system… as I stated before… is crap. Hark is right, and even my considerable Devil's advocate skills have failed.
I should start anew thread of stuff that pisses me off in dungeons and dragons!
You are quite right about Harkovast morality being variable.
Sir Muir is deffinitely good under Darsai ethics…but he would be considered a dangerous maniac by Nymus standards!
I dunno if Ki is neutral. He is rather cheerful abotu killing people! However loveable, charming and cool he may be, he is (by his own admission) a very bad person!
The Speaker would definitely be lawful. He has a VERY rigid and ordered world view that he wants to inflict on everyone else.
The Heretci is a bit harder to pin down, he has an ideology, but he seems to spread a lot of disorder with all his bandits and his ideas are all about "strong people should beat up weak people and take their stuff, Tang-Dao are the best race and everyone else should shut the hell up!" which feels like a more chaotic world view.
Maybe neutral evil?
Damn these classifications really are stupid, but its fun to try adn assign them all the same!
Here is a tough one….what about Quinn-Tain?
Well, then the question about Ki is would he kill if it wasn't necessary. He may be a bad person, but he is a good warrior for the Nymus Republic… I dunno, you know the character best. But, let me ask you this, if there was someone begging Ki for his/her life who it was NOT necessary for Ki to kill, would Ki take the time to kill them? Just for the sake of it?
I said the Speaker is Lawful, didn't I? He is definitely lawful!
The Heretic… I still say that he is goal driven and objective oriented. His world view, or how he wants things to be, is chaotic in a sense… but… Neutral evil? Yeah, maybe, I'd still say lawful (rule of the strongest is still rule! Okay, that's just semantics (I think)) Evil though.
It is fun.
Quinn-Tain. Forgot about him, strangely enough. Hmm. Definitely lawful. Lawful in the overall scheme because he is playing a game of chess with the West. Quinn-Tain has no scruples about doing "evil" as a counter move to the West (even if he would prefer good)… And I think his overwhelming sense of "lawful" plays into that. The rules of the great game trump ethics. Quinn-Tain is too Lawful to be "Good" but not mean enough to be "bad" hence I dub Quinn-Tain: Totally Lawful, Neutral, with really large teeth and a tendency to cause spit to fly into the face of his victims.
What differentiates Quinn-Tain from Ki is QT's larger viewpoint and his probable dislike of being "evil" if he has to (he still does it though). Ki simply doesn't mind (And possibly enjoys it). Also, QT's probably smarter.
The difference between Quinn-Tain and Ki is that while they both do bad things because they think they are necessary, Ki doesn't care and actually enjoys doing it, while Quinn-Tain feels really bad about it and regrets it but thinks there is no choice.
Does that make one morally better than the other?
That's a very subjective question.
Which is really the point with Harkovast. The morality of the situation, who is right and who is wrong, is often very murky.
I don't feel I need to patronise the audience by always making it clear who is in the right.
A case in point is the reaction to Shogun killing wounded Junlocks. Is he smart and pragmatic? Or a merciless monster?
The idea of an alignment system really is the antithesis of Harkovast.
Bah. Morality always seemed subjective to me. In fact, talking about morality as if there is an objective law or rule behind it bothers me immensely.
Does a god say what is right and what is wrong? What gives that god the right? Power? Well, I don't like that in the least. That makes the "god" simply a person who can force it's views onto other people and the universe itself. That is one thing that I simply abhor.
If there is no god? Well then, it's simply a bunch of people with their own views that sometimes coincide, but sometimes do not, for many many reasons.
The only reason an alignment system could work is if we recognize that the "good" refers to the views of "Heaven" (or whatever particular plane is in charge in the D&D worlds) and evil is the opposite. Essentially it's just "good according to…"
I agree about QT and Ki.
The Greek Gods should have been the last to lecture anybody about ethics… I mean, really!
Let me take a shot at that quote: "Do the gods command it because they think it's good, or is it good because the gods are more powerful than you and they say so?" Er. Wait. That's almost saying the same thing though, isn't it? Yeah. Don't let me paraphrase Plato… Actually, I just made that up with little regard for what Plato said.
No, it isn't saying the same thing! If the gods are simply more powerful than you and just tell you what to do then they don't have to behave the same way they say you should because they are your masters and you are a slave; what applies to the slave does not necessarily apply to the master and vice versa. If they think it's good then they will also try to behave that way; making them, oddly, equal to the average human on an ethical level.
Gee, I wonder which type of "God" the King in the West is… hmm… who knows? Well, you do, you write this stuff. And most can guess pretty accurately.
How does this tie into Plato? Well, if "the gods command it because it is good" than it should even call the gods to account. If "it is good because the gods command it" then we go straight back to the master/slave thing I mentioned earlier, and it doesn't really bind the gods (unless an even more powerful god says so too, etc)…
Essentially, if something is good because a god says so; then that means good "is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger" and Plato hated that idea (or so it seems).
So it seems that if there are gods, or a God, or whatever, then we may want there to be an objective morality because we aren't slaves that way… unless being a slave to a god has an appeal which I don't see (though I'm sure some do see an appeal). Then again, something isn't true just because we want it to be. And I'm not even sure I would want it.
I'm sticking with my subjective morality, thank you kindly, and if some god were to tell me I'm wrong… too bad for them! My response would be: "Provide sound reasoning for that claim then." Or, an equally arrogant, "Prove it." And "because I'm a god" doesn't qualify as a valid answer.
So, yeah, that did make me think. Here's my thoughts. I tend to think as I type, helps me that way. Also explains some of the erratic behaviour of said thoughts.
Pretty sure the first edition did have alignments, i hae it somewhere but can't be arsed digging it out to check.
You know what i hate? Humans. Humans are in everything, well except Harkovast and they have been done to death. Humans are lame, they have no funky powers, they sometimes get an extra skill point in some rpgs but wow that's exciting isn't it. Humans are boring and over exposed, they are ALWAYS the same no defining feature like pointed ears or hairy feet, nope they are average in every way which makes them about as interesting as this rant. which in turn is about s interesting s watching paint dry, but not funky immortal elven paint, no bog standard average human magnolia fucking paint.
Actually you make a good point.
Humans are just not as interesting as whacky fantasy races.
If I included humans in Harkovast they would just seem the dull side that contrasts with the others to make them more interesting.
What would I make their culture like anyway? All the cultures are in some way based on a human culture, so how could I pick one as the definitively 'human' culture?
Advertise with us
DDComics is community owned.
The following patrons help keep the lights on. You can support DDComics on Patreon.
- Banes
- JustNoPoint
- RMccool
- Abt_Nihil
- Gunwallace
- cresc
- PaulEberhardt
- Emma_Clare
- FunctionCreep
- SinJinsoku
- Smkinoshita
- jerrie
- Chickfighter
- Andreas_Helixfinger
- Tantz_Aerine
- Genejoke
- Davey Do
- Gullas
- Roma
- NanoCritters
- Teh Andeh
- Peipei
- Digital_Genesis
- Hushicho
- Palouka
- Cheeko
- Paneltastic
- L.C.Stein
- Zombienomicon
- Dpat57
- Bravo1102
- TheJagged
- LoliGen
- OrcGirl
- Fallopiancrusader
- Arborcides
- ChipperChartreuse
- Mogtrost
- InkyMoondrop
- jgib99
- Call me tom
- OrGiveMeDeath_Ind
- Mks_monsters
- GregJ
- HawkandFloAdventures
- Soushiyo