POLL: Which aligment do you despise the most in real life?

Remove all ads!

As it says. For me its the Lawful Good or the Neutral Evil.

Lawful Good: One murder don't justify another. Killing an evil character isn't the right way. Doesn't like paladins ethier.

Neutral Evil: I would never, and I mean NEVER betray someone for money. That is just plain sick.

[EDIT]The second Lawful Good is actually a Lawful Evil. Wrong by me. [/EDIT]

[EDIT2] The first True Neutral is actually Lawful Neutral. I was very tired when making that poll. Sorry. [/EDIT2]

[ May 18, 2003, 23:46: Message edited by: Rutkowski ]

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 35 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Which aligment do you despise the most in real life? (35 votes.)

Which aligment do you despise the most in real life? (Choose 9)
* Lawful Good (Killing evil for goodness) - 31% (11)
* Neutral Good (Believes in goodness in everyone) - 3% (1)
* Chaotic Good (Fights for good without following the laws) - 0% (0)
* True Neutral (Follows his order even if it means killing his mother) - 29% (10)
* (True) Neutral (Believes in harmony and such mumbo jumbo) - 9% (3)
* Chaotic Neutral (A guy who doesn't care for the results of his actions) - 26% (9)
* Lawful Good (Someone who believes in order in cost of freedom) - 31% (11)
* Neutral Evil (Would kill his mother if he got enough money for it) - 57% (20)
* Chaotic Evil (Believes that the strongest shall rule) - 43% (15)

 

As I prefer chaotic good, I despise the contrary, which is lawful evil and is missing in the poll.

What's the difference between lawful good and lawful evil ?

 

Neutral evils: they don't care about anything! All they want is power, profit and pleasure. I can't just understand those people.

 

Lawful Anything. I despise the idiocy of unbending order..

"If im going to be crushed, Id rather it be by an indivigual instead of a machine..."

 

Good implies not killing, respect for life, etc. If killing is justified because it makes the world a better place, then it is only good (e.g. slaying a demon, but not a thug). Therefore religious zealots of Helm are not good.

Lawfulness does not imply law or society. Rather, it applies to a strict sense of ethics or code that one has. The crazy rogue who always gets up at 5 AM, goes to the same park every day, and stabs the same guards with the same knife every day is most likely lawful.

Chaos does not imply randomness so much as it implies that the rules mean little to you, and you will break them if you want. It does imply freedom and free (if also reckless and unorganized) actions and thinking.

Evil implies hurting others and whatnot for selfish gain, pleasure, etc.

Make sure you know what "alignment" means before you can apply it to people. And it doesn't work out too well in real life, only in fantasy settings. Sorry.

(EDIT)

If a person is killing his mother because his government demands it, he is probably lawful, although he is most likely evil as well. A lawful neutral person would probably defy the order, because most of us are born with the ethic of not killing parents.

If a person has little regard for his actions, he is not so much as chaotic as he is simply rash or foolish. Chaotic people won't hold to a single norm very much, but they are capable of thinking things over and knowing what they want.

[ May 18, 2003, 21:18: Message edited by: Oaz ]

 

I despise lawful good as they are all hypocrites. Add to that their holier than thou attitude and you have one big ass.

 

True Neutral is Harmony and whatnot now? I think not. If there is an alignment that I would classify myself as it would be neutral, as in not caring one way or the other. Nothing to do with harmony or mumbo jumbo.

 

I agree with Joaquin.LG's are suckers.

 

I don't believe that DND alignments have any true real life equivalents. Let's stick to the way it is portrayed in games.

How is it that LG = holy than thou and hypocritical?

I understood it to mean lawful = accepts rules with good = selfless. I picture from BG2 Aerie as being an example of LG but not Keldorn. I view him as LN with some LE tendencies. Yes, killing Viconia simply because she is drow is evil.

Aerie is not holier than thou, but Mazzy and Keldorn are. Minsc is more LG than Keldorn!

I dislike CE as it is portrayed in BG2 and DND generally because it isn't protrayed as I understand it.

But I hate the DND understanding of TN. It is just so lame. Their version of TN = selfishness in the extreme, and selfishness at the expense of others and their rights is evil. So TN in DND is actually closer to pure evil than anything else.

To prove how hard TN is to play look at Jaheira from BG2. She is in fact NG and not TN.

My 2 cents.

 

Ok, screw the info I gave after all the aligments, it was just how I understood it. So wrong of me.

 

<rant>

Keldorn is still LG judging from his dialogues. Some of that opnely suggests being lawful, nothing there is unlawful and it's pretty obvious he's good. Although old, cynical paladins appear LN at times because they are as they are - cynical, occasionally harsh, arrogant and short with fools. This includes even NG-leaning paladins like the one speaking.

Aerie isn't really hollier than thou although she's typically goody two shoes and directly or indirectly rants a bit now and then about goodness (especially in Jaheira romance conflict). She's religious, has strong faith and morals - she's most likely to be lawful. In fact she would need to consciously believe in some degree of balance to be Neutral Good instead. Or the 'I do what's good and it's I to decide what's the good thing' Lathanderian type.

Minsc is chaotic due to his partial insanity coming from head injury. He mumbles about some vision of justice and righteousness, so he could be some weird LG fanatic instead of CG as well. I thought he was so until I noticed his LG alignment in the chart.

Lawful is *not* unbending order. In fact even Lawful Neutral aka True Lawful is not. Of course one that would obey any order given by authority is most likely LN. But he can be NN if he just trusts his master or even CN on similar basis. However, if there's no more balance or lack of commitment, the character's alignment changes accordingly. I could also think of a few actions that would result in alignment change to evil on the spot. Perhaps LE is close to that kinf of obedience, but only in effect, not in intention - most LE's obey the law because it benefits them, because it's convinient or because of fear.

Another thing is that Lawfulness is indeed more based on order than law (or at least it generally is so in RPG, because d&d corebooks give the law-based lawfulness impression). Using RL examples, drinking underaged, exceeding speed limit, crossing the street on red light etc doesn't make you chaotic even though it's in fact illegal. Consequently if you have done nothing illegal in whole your life and never violated any orders you aren't lawful by the sole fact. The thing is if you're an orderly person, prefer organised approach, fixed and clear rules, fair play, honesty, your tiny little habits etc etc. Doesn't even require you to be narrow-minded or traditionalistic or preclude you from being flexible.

What also comes to mind is that alignment is secondary to one's mindset, philosophy, beliefs and other preferences. It's just a descriptive cathegory similar to UN cathegories assigned to states. Lawful good for example may be 60% good 95% lawful, 75% both, 95% good and 60% lawful or even 60% on both (yea, almost a 2E druid). If chaotic good works the same way, 95% good 60% lawful LG character has more in common with a 95% good 60% chaotic CG character than some 60% good 95% lawful LG one. And both LGs remain LG, while the CG remains CG. Also some persons have alignment exceptions (let's think of arrogance or vengefulness for example), conflicting alignments or even split alignments (like a ranger who's perfectly CG in Elven Forest and legitimately LG in his human village).

I hope the above quoted examples of numerical nature prove sufficiently that people may substantially differ within one alignment and appear contrary to the chosen alignment not only rarely.

Last but not least, neutrality whether towards order and chaos or good and evil is not arithmetically halfway in between. Balance is not just killing a few people with local assassin guild after the local Lathanderian has resurrected them or vice versa. That would in fact be closer to 100% lawful than most paladins get. Or perhaps really, insanely, chaotic - as following lawful concepts to the letter is utterly insane and objectively measured resulting in more chaos than anything else. A neutral person has some balance to preserve or generally believes in good and lacks the spirit or maybe is simply mean and malicious but not evil enough. Or just doesn't really care about morals. Most people don't even think once in their lives about what their alignment could be - so they can't take the mediana of two neighbouring options. This all taken in consideration, neutrality (whether lack of commitment or balance) is a separate way as far as performance is concerned, although technically it's still somewhere in between. Sidenote: to some degree good or law recognises the need for balance (for good it can be the innate value peace and for law some moderation - as opposed to literal abiding /supreme law is supreme injustice as ancient Romans would say/) whereas chaos or evil doesn't.

</rant>

 

That means that I was right about the LN description? Thanks Chevalier.

 

gotta be neutral evil, people that do things completely for themselves just make me angry.

 

Chevalier. I like your post and reasoning. The reason why I felt that Keldorn was to be stripped of his status as a paladin and permanently changed to LE was that in the quest involving the fallen paladins in BG2 he lies! to the fallen Paladin leader (Anarg?). That is not lawful behaviour and can even be considered evil since he was trying to save his own butt.

Still it's only a game and 1 incident.

And none of this is relevant to real life...

 

Me? I despise those of good alignment the most.

As for my favored alignment, I would say Neutral Evil is the way to go. Why care about others when you can empower yourself at their expense? The world's your oyster and anyone who does not agree with that fact is either weak or stupid.

True Neutral does it for me as well. Why should I even bother with your petty arguments of morality when I have a much greater purpose in life: power, enlightenment, wealth, etc? I seek perfection within myself, knowing that I am ever superior to the incessantly squabbling hordes of Blackguards and paladins and knowing that with that superiority none can force their moral code upon me. Of course, being obsessed with 'Balance' is dumb as well.

The above points are in-character rants, justifications the PCs I usually play use for themselves.

Though in real life I do go out of my way to harm those I suspect of being good at heart and not simply in word. There's nothing like the feeling of corrupting a do-gooder and turning his/her idealism into bitterness and despair.

I bear a certain resentment towards those of Lawful Neutral alignment too (well, as close as the concept can be applied to real life anyway). Those who do good just for appearances sake and are too cowardly to speak out against a stupid rule/law/regulation. Backstabbing hypocrites who screw people over with a 'nothing personal' air. Damn it, if you're going to mess someone up, take pleasure in it! Such a waste!
I tend to direct my barbs at such people as well.

Hence, I'm at odds with most of the world, seeing as the Chaotic evil/neutral are either dead or locked behind bars and the Lawful evil ones usually have nothing to do with me.

End of personal rant.

 

Can someone explain to me why selfish greed and gain is the domain of Neutral Evil alone?

 

Selfish greed is typically evil, but in some cases might even get along with neutrals. The thing is that it's typically evil, but not evil enough to force alignment change to evil. I would rather associate it with Lawful Evil, since Neutral Evil is more about power and Chaotic Evil is primarily oriented on spreading evil and perhaps also chaos.

In the light of my understanding of alignments, greed adds to one's evilness. If it's only greed it may be just a greedy streak. Troubles arise when the character wouldn't spare any of his money on whatever purpose other than his own gain or if he would store the money, not use it even for his own pleasure, but just count it whole nights. That's evil and so the character draws close to evil alignments (and for sure isn't of good alignment), even though the character isn't evil himself exclusively for this unless he would expressly harm another creature for money.

However, if the character doesn't only exploit the system, but also twists the law or uses his influence to impose chaotic laws (yes, it's possible for a law to be chaotic), his lawfulness is in question. That's why Bill Gates is Chaotic Evil and not even Neutral Evil (as he's not even going to uphold that law himself in his relations with other subjects).

On Lawful Neutral subject:

There are many types of Lawful Neutrals:

Lawful Mageish: he's not driven by good or evil. He doesn't care. But, apart from discipline, he sees law as the force that keeps chaos under control and chaos (or anarchy) isn't welcome. Law is civilisation, civilisation is advancement, advancement is enlightenment. Good and evil pose threat to that. However, so long as LEs and LGs stay within the law they won't mess too much.

Lawful Stupid: somehow believes in the innate sancticty of law. Won't break a rule. Ever. Sometimes thinks that legal is good and that it's evil to break a law. Sometimes might see himself as good even. He needs *some* morality, but good is not for him. Perhaps he would even be evil but is too weak for that.

Lawful Abiding: laws are to be kept and they warrant order. He doesn't care about good or evil since he believes that it's the law's task. If the law stops serving common good he might even protest. Or when the law is not really lawful but promotes chaotic aims under the seal of law, like copyright law abuse, overly free market, several 'personal freedoms' that in fact affect other citizens if used. As he's not evil he might even dislike unjust but still lawful rules. Some of abiders are LG-leaning or even occasionally LG. However, it's hardly imaginable that an abider would break any law except a blatantly illegal one. Anomen perhaps belongs here. Keldorn might be the LG variation of this.

Lawful Freaky: 'I don't break law, leave me alone'. Doesn't care enough to be evil, sees good characters as suckers, won't break laws because he fears the punishment or because his mindset is so programmed. If he had cojones he would probably be evil. Sometimes he's just powermongering, but not evil enough, not caring at all for anything else than his own gain. Not done enough evil to become evil regardless of the lack of conscious evil drive.

Lawful Disillusioned: He doesn't believe in balance. He's just not driven by good although he typically frowns on evil or even fights it. Sometimes he acts like or almost like LG, but he's not as idealistic or sets different goals for himself and his actions. Perhaps Helm belongs here although he could be also Lawful Abiding.

on Keldorn:

Lawful Neutral is typically less likely to lie than Lawful Good for whom Good could be an excuse for lying. Of course except Lawful Freaky and maybe Lawful who would lie when not punishable under law. Keldorn was on a mission the aim of which was to infiltrate the Fallen Paladins from Bridge Disctrict rather than nuke them into oblivion. Telling the turth would make it impossible to succeed in that mission and the Lawful Good aim impossible to achieve. Even if he lied to save his own butt there would be two possibilites: cowardice and conscious choice to lie.

Cowardice isn't really LG and most certainly not suiting a paladin. Seventh or higher level LG cleric required if he doesn't fall (some squire paladin or 1-3 level could get away with that, but not a high-level knight). Wisdom 15 is too much for such lack of control, especially that he must be aware of his great 17 STR (even though he probably has a girdle anyway) and lots of HP plus nice thac0 and that the Fallen are rookies except Anarg and maybe Reynald de Chatillon (still not really a threat).

Conscious choice to lie is most probably the result of mathematical evaluation of one's chances, of evil done through lying and of good lost through lying. Sometimes *not* lying would mean Falling for ever or temporarily as refusing to answer is always suspicious and might be more harmful. Conceal alignment spell (paladin only, 2nd level IIRC) probably belongs here and officers dressing as private soldiers to avoid a bullet in the head too, same to nobles pretending to be peasants to avoid getting torn apart by a rowdy group of commies (both real life Polish-Soviet war examples).

As for perfectly willing and deliberate lying, here's an example: if a group of LE guards is chasing a little boy who's stolen a loaf of bread, a paladin isn't supposed to fight city guards. He could offer to defend the boy in the court, but he's not supposed to be stupid enough to believe it would work. If he refuses to answer, they will probably find the way if only they look around a bit. So, he's rather supposed to send them in random direction. Telling them he doesn't know or hasn't seen anythng is also a lie and is suspicious. Plus, it doesn't help the poor boy.

OK, that's about enough.

@Khazraj: My huge and complex RPG personality test is in the making. I'm at the stage of evaluating answers. When it's ready I'll drop you the link.

[ May 22, 2003, 14:35: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Chaotic Neural: Jan Jansen(if I remeber corretly): who wouldent wanna be like him.

 

I prefer the Chaotic good alignment. Striving for good---good is the only thing that is important, the means of achieving goog aren't important. But, I must admit I think of my self as kind of a neutral evil-chaotic good character. May sound mad, but I am basicly a good guy, willing to sacrifice a lot for those that mean somethin' to me, but I am also just a bit evil...I take revenge without mercy and I alway take care of my own needs 1st.

 

Ah, doesn't that just make you neutral?