Gamer Meme

[jackofallgeeks]

Yoinked from postvixen
This is actually something that my Brothers and I did a lot in middleschool and highschool...

The basic idea is to make me, Andrew, a character for some game. Give me stats, abilities, alignment, special powers, the works. Then, take this, and post it on your journal -- it's a Meme, after all.

Use whatever game system you like (DnD, WoD, Morrowind, AniMayhem, Unsung, M:tG, City of Heros, GURPS, etc); I know bunches of them, and those I don't I'd be willing to learn.

Comments

Re: -laughs for days and days-

[dikaiosunh.livejournal.com]

Also, and as a side note... that's why I always thought of LG as one of the more interesting alignments to play. The old 2e rules gave fighting against slavery as an example of a LG act - which isn't working within the rules of the slave society. My understanding was that LG characters needed to adhere pretty strictly to *some* code, but not necessarily society's prevailing one (and, in a vaguer sense, not one that was purely personal, like a CG char's). Part of the fun I always had with characters was that different characters' conceptions of what lawfulness and good required could be very divergent... one of the most fun sequences I ever played was a tense argument between my LG ranger and the party's paladin over what to do with some captured Orcs (I favored mercy b/c we had them disabled, he favored executing them b/c they were lawbreakers).

Re: -laughs for days and days-

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

Alas, I've never been in a DnD game that had much Role-playing involved, though I will say that on principle LG would be interesting to play -- but for me specifically because they would *have* to play by whatever rules they were given. I wouldn't see fighting slavery as a LG thing to do, more a CG thing, as it places personal freedoms over societal dictates. The LG places society, and thereby whatever rules the society follows, over all else. This makes a nice little opening for LG villains, someone who's put in the position of opposing the 'heroes' because of the laws (maybe those of a corrupt baron).

At the same time, I see no trouble with the argument between the Ranger and the Paladin -- I'm against the idea that LG means "Boy-Scout Straight-laces", and think that LGs can have any and all human traits from sloth to wrath to petty prejudices against Druish girls. You both agree that the orcs need be stopped, but disagree on when 'stopped' is -- death or disablement.

Now I feel *really* geeky for debating the ethics of DnD's alignment system.
:p

Re: -laughs for days and days-

[dikaiosunh.livejournal.com]

This harkens back to undergrad, when I used to spend way too much time in the Gamers' Guild office, discussing WoD mythology, but no matter...

I disagree that LG chars need always play by all the rules (or whatever rules they are given, presumably by the government, etc.). I could perfectly well accept a character who is, say, LG but accepts some version of natural law theory (think Aquinas), who considered any positive law that violated the natural law invalid (as, e.g., slavery plausibly would). I think what would make the cut between someone like that who was LG and one who was NG/CG would be whether or not their idea of the natural law was societal or otherwise institutionalized. The Aquinian, who took church doctrine to be more or less identical with natural law would be LG, while a Thoreau type who believed natural law could be found by introspection and reflection would more plausibly be counted as NG or CG.