Alignment

Remove all ads!

Mostly amoral evil, with some megalomania in there.

It's GOOD to be evil...

 

Chaotic Good. I believe that ends justify the means and all that, at least in most instances. There are some people I would very much like to do extremely violent things to, but that is only when I feel it's necessary to improve the quality of life on other people or myself as a whole.

This of course causes a dilemma that I'm still not quite done thinking over. Afterall, a complete idiot as a person can often be extremely good at something else that may be far more good to the society as a whole. And vice versa. Because it's so difficult to actually define what's a good thing and what's a bad thing to begin with, I'd much rather not put any alingment on myself at all.

Let's just say, I value friendship, trust and loyalty. And I don't care one whit how important some person is in other things, political sociological or otherwise, if s/he does not fit into the "friendly, trustworthy and loyal" cathegory, I consider them as crud that the world would do better without. So, within these limits, I am chaotic good.

 

Still doing my Neutral Good thing here. And with a girlfriend somewhere between Chaotic Neutral and Neutral Evil. What fun I'm having.

 

I usually choose chaotic neutral and end up chaotic good because I can't be mean to imaginary characters. I don't mind a little honest thievery however.

 

I say I'm Lawful Good. Goodness and loylty are my most discernable characteristics.
But of course there are some times I need to break the rules for the greater good. That makes me Neutral Good.
Lawful Neutral sometimes...

...as chevalier said

Due to my deep dislike towards evil, chaos and selfishness, I could never be Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, Chaotic Evil, Neutral and Chaotic Neutral.

 

Probaly Neutral Evil.

The sad thing is I play most of my games as good characters, because you get more XP and gold that way.

 

Aye, bad game designing that it. Though maybe the people at RPG Codex have brainwashed me to their mode of thinking, I've been lurking around there way too much.

As for me, the closest thing comes in as TN - I just don't care enough about too much at all.

 

I am prob. LG

 

ill stick with Chaotic Evil... its far more fun.

Anything you dont like, kill it.

 

Three things:

1. Shouldn't this be in the D&D forum? Not sure though...

2. RooK the Fallen are so far away from LG as you can, my guess is that he is Chaotic Evil or Neutral Evil.

3. Myself be Chaotic Neutral, nothing more, nothing less.

 

Gentlemen, please allow me to show you the error of your thinking.

1. With evil PCs, one gets more kill XP
2. With evil PCs, one gets much more GP worth of loot
3. With evil PCs, one takes what one likes.

While:

1. One gets XP for goody quests. Doesn't even require alignment comportment to be Good in most cases. Evil can do good for personal gain.
2. Good PCs, IF ROLEPLAYED, don't kill quite a large bunch of walking treasuries.
3. Certain items or quests are unavailable to Good characters. No murder = no corpse looting. Goodies won't take certain rewards.

Confusion starts when people don't roleplay their alignments. This means for example BG2 paladins killing rich NPCs for loot and remaining LG paladins with untouched reputation thanks to game engine.

An obvious conclusion is that neutrals get the best of two worlds.

 

Well, I still say I'm Chaotic Good, but most of the online tests I've done to find out say I'm basically Lawful Neutral.

 

I don't think "depending on my mood" is an acceptable answer to a question of one's alignment. If you do a mix of good and evil "depending on your mood", then you are leaning toward neutral. An alignment quality isn't something related to specific moments, rather it's a measurement of your overall character. So saying "I'm XX when I feel like it, but XX when I feel like that" isn't really a valid response.

 

Lawful neutral.

I will obey the law but I want to get things done my way not the right way.

 

Where were you when the Alignment thread in BG2 started? You could have ended the arguement with this single sentence, you know.

Chaotic Neutral. Both D&D and real-life based.
I got errors on the last few tests I took. (Excluding Chev's, that wasa browser error.)

 

That's because people don't agree on what is lawful/chaotic and what is good/evil. Let's take theft, adultery or vengefulness. I'm sure five random persons won't agree on where those belong.

Chaotic Good would be good-hearted but doing things totally his own way.

Lawful Neutral will either do what suits him without breaking laws too much and without bothering with the moral side, or do the right (to him) thing without thinking about the effects. Actually, LN might also believe that playing fair is enough.

 

If you're basing your test on P&P D&D, go read the PHB. What is good, evil, lawful, and chaotic is explicity defined.

(Theft, adultery, and vengefulness are probably neutral good-evil-wise in D&D. It's probably chaotic in law-chaos-wise).

I'm tempted to argue with Chev's definitions of CG and LN, but I think I'm just going to nip my rant in the bud.

 

Neutral Good.

A slight tendency towards Chaos, lately. I care less for community and family then I did before, eventhough I really love them.
But I'm a loyal friend and civilian.

Point is that I don't let myself be stopped by laws when I have to 'do good', but I'm trying to obey when possible.

 

Definitely chaotic neutral.

 

Eeer, I have. Many times. And they're not defined there explicitly.

Personally, I would agree with you on the three examples being lawful/chaotic, but there are DMs, test authors and other such folks who think otherwise. I would rather evaluate all ramifications of the fact that could have been predicted with enough care. Steal from the rich and you're chaotic, stealing away from people until they get in poverty, that's evil. Vengefulness problem relies on whether we consider revenge a reason enough to do something very nasty to the target. You can have extremely lawful vengeful paladins of Helm and extremely chaotic deadass vengeful elves.

But I'm not going to argue with anyone about this here. My point is to show that there are controversies and there's no uniform view.

And I didn't really give any definition of CG or LN. Those can't really be defined and it comes down to individuals. Let's say LN's are typically law abiders who don't care so much about morals. Some won't harm you but won't help you. Especially if helping you would require time, effort or sacrifice. Some are so totally devoted to law and order that they care nothing about good/evil connotations. Some aren't good enough. Some aren't evil enough. Some are extremely obedient pawns, or opportunists.

CGs are typically messy and individualists. Which doesn't mean they always are, or that lawfuls can't be individualistic. That's where comes in my self-made and self-used system of evaluating good/evil and chaotic/lawful related traits. Just why wouldn't an iconic CG elven ranger be obsessive compulsive about cleaning his bow and arrows all the time? Or why a paladin couldn't be strongly individualistic. And so on and so forth. After all, we can have chaotic policemen hunting lawful criminals