|
Post by Auric Ashtongue on Oct 21, 2007 16:13:48 GMT -5
On the last one, by combinations, I mean some combinations like evil badgers or noble foxes are wrong, but some combinations, (noble rats or corrupt squirrels) are acceptable.
I figured this issue was boiling under the surface already and I think we should debate it openly now.
|
|
|
Post by Linx Exotic on Oct 21, 2007 16:14:55 GMT -5
I'm going with the last one. I'm not one to follow all of the species stereotypes but some of the extremes can't be ignored.
|
|
|
Post by Auric Ashtongue on Oct 21, 2007 16:17:13 GMT -5
What sort of extremes do you mean, Linx?
|
|
|
Post by Linx Exotic on Oct 21, 2007 16:18:52 GMT -5
The pair you listed, badgers and foxes, is a good example of what I mean. Unlike a simple alignment stereotype they have entire personalities based on their species, which can only be validly warped so much.
|
|
|
Post by corsair on Oct 21, 2007 16:22:46 GMT -5
I disagree with al of those. I think that it should not be that way. I think that woodlanders can be evil and vermin can be noble. I think that a few noble vermin and a few evil woodlanders make every rp good. For example on my site this girl plays a mouse that is a pirate. And I play a ferret that is very good yet has a hot temper.
|
|
|
Post by Linx Exotic on Oct 21, 2007 16:24:48 GMT -5
Well, there is an option for that one...
But I'm not going to deviate from BJ's ideals that gratuitously. I'm willing to make exceptions but the tie between species and personality is still there, if weaker in my mind.
|
|
|
Post by Auric Ashtongue on Oct 21, 2007 16:25:25 GMT -5
I personally think that with a proper background and history, any species can believably fit any alignment... even though I know RPers like that are difficult to come across and the background would have to very unique and very detailed.
So a hopeful yet somewhat sceptical vote for free will.
|
|
|
Post by Linx Exotic on Oct 21, 2007 16:26:29 GMT -5
Thus Auric.
I must agree that quality is directly tied to how far someone is going to deviate. It has to be believable.
|
|
|
Post by corsair on Oct 21, 2007 16:32:53 GMT -5
The way the they grow up affects them. So does the kind of creature. A badger might grow up being treated harshly but that does not mean he is good. He might take all that anger bottled up inside of him, he might take it out on goodbeasts.
|
|
|
Post by Linx Exotic on Oct 21, 2007 16:34:11 GMT -5
That doesn't mean he's bad, though, it just means he has some anger issues. There's a difference.
|
|
|
Post by Auric Ashtongue on Oct 21, 2007 16:35:30 GMT -5
Though so far, I'm 99% sure foxes are pure evil. The default personality is 'Treacherous' as opposed to simple greed or anger. I could provide a rationale for those, like make it a quirky roguish trait or say that he had a rough childhood... but habitual betrayal is nearly impossible to work with in a hero.
|
|
|
Post by Linx Exotic on Oct 21, 2007 16:37:46 GMT -5
And what with all the Salamandastron background it's like the way badgers act (noble) is genetic.
|
|
|
Post by corsair on Oct 21, 2007 16:41:06 GMT -5
Not all badgers go to salamandstron. I mean orlando the ax did not nor did auma or costance or bella or mother mellus
|
|
|
Post by Linx Exotic on Oct 21, 2007 16:42:43 GMT -5
I never said they did, but judging by the lineage seen there added with the near-identical personality of all of BJ's badgers I'm wondering if it just has to do with being a badger.
|
|
|
Post by Auric Ashtongue on Oct 21, 2007 16:44:39 GMT -5
With Blackheart, I actually thought it would be interesting if a badger was so skilled and obssessed with his calling, (massacreing bad guys whole sale) that he went perhaps a few steps too far. He's not corrupt, just way too dedicated to his job.
Though a badger who's actually evil... I can't see it.
|
|