How do you procede in real life? Similar to the way you do in games or totaly different? Do you try to impose a certain alignment upon yourself? Do you think that a certain alignment is "the best one"? Do you even care about the way you procede in real life? Do you even have a real life?

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 66 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: What is your alignment (in real life!) (66 votes.)

What is your alignment (IN REAL LIFE!) (Choose 1)
* Lawfull Good - 12% (8)
* Neutral Good - 26% (17)
* Chaotic Good - 27% (18)
* Lawfull Neutral - 3% (2)
* True Neutral - 12% (8)
* Chaotic Neutral - 14% (9)
* Lawfull Evil - 3% (2)
* Neutral Evil - 3% (2)
* Chaotic Evil - 0% (0)

This poll is an example of one of "the signs that you have spent far too long gaming" :shake:

Haven't we already had one of these? Anyway, chaotic neutral it is.

You spelt 'lawful' wrong. :p

Lawful Good it is for me.

Chaotic Neutral because I vary a lot in what I do, but nothing evil, moreso random.

chaotic good for me. i dont like or have much use for rules and laws but i follow if i have to and i think that im, despite all the messed up cr*p i do, a good person ;) besides, Elminster always messes up but its his good intentions that count hehe ;)

It might have been a little easier to answer if the choices were worded a different way. For instance "very kind to animals, children, and nice people but mean to idiot's and mouthy jerks" I suppose my allignment is Chaotic Neutral.

I'm certainly Lawful Evil.

EDIT: followning Jaguar's link, I seem to be more Neutral Evil.

[ August 30, 2004, 16:17: Message edited by: Xei Win Toh ]

Well, I went along with what was written here (http://geocities.com/sovelior/srd/description.html) and pegged myself as Chaotic Good.

Chaotic good is the best alignment you can be because it combines a good heart with a free spirit.

I'd say Neutral, leaning towards good.
I say that because, like the description says in Jaguar's link, I'm Undecided.

Some things from each of the alignments suit me, while others go against..me.
Lawful Good, “Crusader”: She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.That is like me, or atleast what I try to be, but the other part of the LG description I hate.
A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to actThe NG one suits me pretty well, hence the reason I said that I was leaning towards that alignment.
Neutral Good, “Benefactor”: A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them Chaotic Good, “Rebel”: A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.Once again, how I see myself. Yet it gets worse..
He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulationsThat is certainly not me in anyway. There is pleanty of use for laws and regulations, but they shouldn't be followed when they are wrong and do not lead to your gain (or others).

LN is probably right out, as that does not sound like me much.

TN seems similar to me in many ways, but once again, there are some things in it which make me thing "Hmm, that just isn't me".
Neutral, “Undecided”: A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. Neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion.That's me, for sure. I like to act my own way, whether it be good or evil, lawful or neutral. I will ususally act without thinking if it's good or bad, follows the laws or breaks them.

CN is like most of them, some parts are me, some parts aren't.
Chaotic Neutral, “Free Spirit”: A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty...That's me for sure, but is very similar to TN. Although the parts which talk about not trying to upholding others’ freedom and avoiding authority are not like me at all.
Although, saying that the line "He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it," sounds very very like me (but then I guess most people would be like that, who would want to just jump off a bridge?)

Evil, like LN is not me. I certainly would not consider my self evil, which is why I said at the begining I lean slightly towards the good side of things.

In the end, after looking through all that, I'd say the same thing - True Neutral, leaning more towards good than evil. But then of course, the alignment system I've always thought is the worst part of D&D, as it can no way be related to a real person (as I've shown with myself), so therefore disregard everything I have written above :p

And yes, I do have too much time on my hands at the moment...

In the thing which some may consider my real life I'm usually Chaotic Good but still stray from that path on occasion to God-alone-knows-where.

Usually true neutral, however I have some lawful evil moments too.

Chaotic good for me :)

LG or NG. Can't decide...

I'm not one alignment, as it varies to what the subject I'm dealing with is. I've shown qualities of Lawful Good and Neutral Good, but at the same time Lawful Neutral, Lawful Evil and Neutral Evil.

Guess I can say I'm not chaotic :p

If everybody obeys the law society prospers far greater than in a different situation. Such is my belief and that is why I am Lawful Good. I can't remeber if I have ever broken a law and I dobut I have.

Don't forget people, lawful good doesn't mean you're a paladin or live such a regulated life. It just means you obey the law - not out of fear - and look out for your fellow human being.

Actually, lawful means more than obeying the law.

For example, one could break the law, but turn himself in and accept punishment. That'd still be lawful.

Lawful also means that a person adhers to a personal code. By no means does Lawful restrict someone to solely having to obey the law. There's more facets to it.

And MoN, I'd have figured you to be of the CS alignment.


Chaotic Stupid :lol: :p

Is this like chev test on his web site?
Anyway, I guess I'm chaotic good, also I never understand this too much.

Me? Chaotic neutral, the alingment of lunatics and mdmen. I would have said chaotric evil, but then again, i have yet to go on a rampage of any kind... I just plot insiduously.

*sigh*

Hmm... then again, I just might be chaotic evil and smart enough to not to show it until I can get away scot.-free?

World domination, here I come.... :p

@Sydax: Yes, it's a bit like that. That test of mine hasn't been updated or bugfixed for some time, so I don't advise taking it. That's because I'm working on a new design for my site and the test will be re-written in a different programming language. The questions may change and I'll probably work on balancing the grading system as well, which means your final results might differ from what you would get now.

Well, but on to my alignment.

You see... the problem is, we don't really share the same set of absolute criteria for Good/Neutral/Evil or Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic and core books don't exhaust the matter (which is good). It depends on the point of view for a good part.

On the first axis, I have lots of annoying Lawful streaks. If we considered the classic Logos-Chaos dichotomy, I would definitely be on the Logos side. However, I don't like the idea of Order for Order's sake, much less law for law's sake. Balance between regulating things and preserving the natural course of events is a good thing, but again, I see balance as a kind of order and order as a kind of balance, so to say. Disturb the balance and you have chaos. Overdo regulating and here comes tyranny, which leads to chaos. My room may be messy and my plans may rely on improvising, and I may be reluctant to accept authority, prefer to do things my own way etc etc but chaos bothers me. In so far as chaos is wrong, establishing and keeping a level of balance between it and law makes no point - it still being reasonable to avoid overregulation and to abstain from disturbing the natural course of events if there's no need otherwise. Guess this makes me Lawful, although people could say Chaotic or Neutral depending on how they see things.

On the second axis, I wouldn't be on the Evil end. I'm not a saint, but not really an evil man, either. So much as I believe Good is the way, I'm aware it's easier said than done. Moralising doesn't make you good and helping people when they ask you, even if you want nothing in return, doesn't really make you holy if it doesn't involve any danger or any great sacrifice. After all, I'm not doing any voluntary social work right now, am I? I haven't committed my life to feeding the hungry or treating the sick. I'm not saving the world. When I'm doing the right thing, it isn't what people consider good: it is what I consider right in a given situation; that's why sometimes people will say that I am not doing good, or even that I'm doing evil. However, I don't believe in any sort of balance between Good and Evil, not even under law. The Good way is the right way, no matter what people or laws say or how inconvenient it is. Guess it makes Neutral a not-so-reasonable option for me, and as Evil doesn't apply, Good would be it. Especially if we consider Good alignment in the sense of aligning with the forces and the philosophy of Good.

I would say Lawful Good, but on what I've said one could build any conclusion from CN, through TN, LN, CG, NG to LG.

[ August 30, 2004, 16:30: Message edited by: chevalier ]

I vary throughout all the Neutrals, depending on whats happening, how I'm feeling ect.

Although most of the time I'm Lawful Neutral.

I chose (true) Neutral. Im not always good, yet not always evil (but sometimes I am very evil(but never very good))
Im not chaotic, because I generaly follow rules (if I think they are fair)

Neutral good. I'm a goody two shoes...but I'm not all that lawful or chaotic either...soo...Neutral Good it is.

Chaotic good here. People have told me that I have "a good heart with a free spirit", and I tend to think that I do as well.

I always TRY to be a True Neutral...
Most of the times I end up beeing a Lawful Neutral or a Neutral Good...

Chaotic Neutral...
I am prone to both good and evil behaviour, frequently varying, and at times both at the same (being nice to people (unrelated to the plan) while proceeding with various evil schemes, for example) but I always harbour a strong distaste for rules and authorities of any kind, except my own, whenever it applies.
:borg:

I'm considering a path as a Chaotic Neutral, but for now I'll stick to the "undecided", prone to anything, folow your natural instincts kind of path.

Well I didn't read any links. I've always thought of myself as Chaotic Good. Then again that alignment can be misleading.

I would accept very harsh methods of punishment and crime control. I believe in vengeance, I believe in justice by one's own hand when laws can't do their job for you, I believe in fighting evil with evil when other methods aren't as effective. Yet I do fight evil, and I recognize the need for laws. However, I know laws work for the good of the society, not for the good of the individual.

So put short: I would break any law, I would violate any person, commit almost any deed (save killing innocent children or betraying my friends etc) if it would bring more goodness to the world in my eyes.

There's a problem of course. I do view myself Chaotic Good because from that I fit the description of one following his own code, not the code of law or society. But what if my view of good was flawed? I might as well be neutral, or even evil... without realising it myself.

Despite my career choice, I tend to be somewhere in between Chaotic Good and Chaotic Neutral.

chaotic neutral, suits me down to a t.

Chaotic Neutral.

I usually tries to be good, but when someone do something personal to me, I can't control myself and usually kick the crap out of him.

NEVER, underestimate a 167cm tall and 47kg heavy guy, EVER.

47kg? **** you're tiny. :p I could break you with my thumb and forefinger :D

Wow, I'm the only one (yet) who sees himself as evil?

Nah, Xei, I think I am evil... I am working towards Chaotic Evil, but since I am not yet powerful enough to get away with anything really evil, I am just biding my time.... :evil:

I wish my old katana-wielding companions were here, so we'd be more numerous in the evil regard.

Hmm... in any case, I promise that when I commit my first atrocity, you guys will be the firstt to know :p so i can make the alingment change to CE official :p

Arabwel, I think you have evil confused with angsty ;)

Eh, just how evil can be a person who likes chilling out with people, is generally cheerful and polite by default, occasionally caring for other people, even strangers? It takes more than schwartzcharacter fascination to be evil.

Um, if I told you a tenth of the stuff that usually goes through my head iin an average day, I'd be banned on spewing such flagitious content on these family-friendly boards. :p

I mean it, I am evil. I manipulate, lie, scheme and don't give a damn.

*shakes her head*

And I don't do angst, i do morbid and macabre :p

Chev's right. Being evil actually requires an almost sadictic attitude. You have to go out of your way to make someone's life miserable. To not help someone whose life is in danger isn't evil, it's more neutral. To actually PUT that person's life in danger is evil.

Hmm... so you are saying that I am not evil, evven if I am a lying,c heating, stealing and completely emootionless when it comes to most people?

Darn. Got to try harder.

I think people overestimates what it takes to be evil and at the same underestimates what it takes to be good. I think there are very very very few good people in this world, most are neutral and many are evil. Just look at how easy it is to make a normal person do horribly evil things. Do you think the Treblinka guard who went home to his family in the evening stopping to buy some sweets for his children and tucking them in at night after a bed time story viewed himself as evil? Or the American soldiers who raped and burned villages in Vietnam? These are "good" people doing horribly evil things and are thus "evil". These are not isolated instances, a large part of humanity would turn evil if given oppurtunity or sufficient reason. People claiming to be good are almost always full of poo or quite often the ones who do the most horrid acts.

One doesn't become evil for being a Treblinka guard. Besides, it would be hard to support the claim that a low private guard is evil for not... I don't know... trying to swim accross the North Sea and join the allies? Things change when guards aren't risking their lives should they decide to treat the prisoners in a humane way, like those in Abu Ghraib who let their imagination loose and made a pastime of tormenting the captives. I wouldn't like to judge those people, but that behaviour is an example of evil deed in a classic form: for fun, because it feels good.

However, you do raise an important point and that point is, as I see it, contempt. Contempt for the wronged allows the wrongdoer to feel justified or even indifferent, as if he killed a dog and not a human, for instance. That's what made Nazi criminals or those raping and pillaging soldiers from Vietnam able to act like normal, law-abiding, kind and considerate fellows between people they considered equal to themselves.

That said, I would risk an assumption that contempt is the core of evil. Someone who doesn't feel contempt can hardly be evil and when he actually does something we could rate objectively evil, he acts as a tool of destruction rather than the author.

Compassion can break that contempt and defeat, putting some border in place that even those people won't cross. Does it mean their problem is that they first of all lack compassion? Possibly so. Who does evil doesn't show compassion. It's reasonable to assume he doesn't feel it, either (or it would prevent him from hurting the victims). Lack of compassion would also be at the core of evil, though does someone deprived of compassion understand the significance of his choice and the action that follows? Doubt that.

Still, we can pretty much take as granted that contempt and lack of compassion are prerequisites for being evil. I don't see that in people who claim evil alignments here.

I think I am Lawful Evil. I don't consider myself a psychotic bastard, though.

I follow the rules not because I think they all make sense, but because otherwise I would be punished if caught breaking them. But if I see the chance of bending or breaking a rule to my sole benefit, and not being caught, I'd try it.

In fact, most people I know are lawful evil. People don't break the speed limit in the highway when there are policemen around, but they run like devils when they are not in sight. Most people would not go back to a shop to return money if they discovered that the shopkeeper gave them too much change. How many people cheat in exams, games and even love if given the opportunity?

Is this the behaviour of a good-aligned person? I think not. Does this mean that all those people go and hit their partners and childern at home, and go aroud killing and stealing because they break some rules? Neither. They simply take advantage of a profitable situation, and bend the rules to their profit.

I agree with Chev in that a degree of contempt is required for this. You wouldn't break a rule if you respected it.

How to evaluate not returning surplus change is a matter of perception I guess. It also depends on the motive. If someone is happy to get some money without working for it and doesn't think much about other's loss, I bet that would be chaotic. After all, if some Good-aligned characters are thieves and steal from people, how could we expect them to return overchange? A harsh and abrupt variant of LN alignment might think "it's his own fault, that will teach him to pay attention". Heck, even a stern law-abider might think that way. An Edwin-ish LE character might enjoy the idea of undue profit without committing theft. A CN, as a rule, wouldn't give a damn and a TN could do either, depending on whatever criteria he applies. Cheating in games doesn't have to be evil, either. And I can't see kids cheating in tests at school as committing an evil act. Chaotic or eye-for-an-eye-lawful (the teacher asks mean questions so the student cheats in return or in defence), but not evil. A Good-aligned person perhaps dislikes such methods and is unlikely to use them, but that's because Good is somehow tied with Order, much like Evil tends to crave destruction (Chaos) and doesn't mean one can't be Chaotic and still Good or Lawful but Evil.

I don't mean to be unduly critical, but obeying the law out of fear of punishment doesn't make one Lawful. Chaotic doesn't mean stupid and if breaking the law gets you in trouble, a Chaotic character, realistically, will likely avoid it. After all, alignment is not obsessive-compulsive disorder. Likewise, a Lawful character may well break the law if forced to.

As I see it, most people are TN: they are just by default but transgress if it's profitable and they have no compulsion to obey or disobey the law, choosing whatever fits their current needs. If they develop more fixed principles, they drift towards more decided alignments, more likely keeping one axis at neutral than going for an extreme alignment.

Also, there will always be disagreement as to what extent of Lawful, Chaotic, Good or Evil inclination qualifies you for an alignment. Still, badass attitude or Bible thumping quite obviously doesn't make it. It takes some consistency to maintain an alignment and when there is no such consistency, the case is not of unstable, shifting alignment but rather of neutrality on a given axis.

Let's make a test: You are travelling trough desert. A lone and axhausted merchant carrying a small sack, probably a caravan survivor, crosses your path and says he has had nothing to drink for two days. He asks one of your goatskins with water. You are close to a settlement, but you are in hurry and cannot afford going back to resupply. One goatskin is enough for him to make it to the settlement. If you refuse, he will die. If you give it, you will not die of thirst, but you will definitely suffer dehydration before the end of your journey. What do you do?

[ September 01, 2004, 17:57: Message edited by: chevalier ]

Chaotic good for sure.

I think you are overanalyzing something meant for a game and just for a game.

I like to think that everyone reality is just his or her own alignment.

To answer your question chev: I take him with me and share the water with him as needed ensuring that he does not drink the whole thing at once.

I help people when I can. I go out of my way in most situations. However I'm not going to start giving away all my stuff. I'm hoping after I graduate from University with my MCom I'll be able to make a heap of money and use that for assisting others. Long term development and the big picture. Not 'How can I do good now?' rather 'How can I do the most good?".

I still say I am Chotic Good. I am not Evil, under any definition, nor am I apathic enough to be Neutral. I care for my fellow man, and I will help him even if it causes me to lose something.

I would not say I am Lawful, because I do not think that someone should be punished just for being Evil, even though they haven't done anything to that effect. I do break the law in some cases. I speed, and would not hesitate to jay walk. I don't shoplift anything large then some grapes, and I would return change to a store if it was a large amount.

The difference between Good and Evil is never a clear line, but a grey area. I play in that grey area sometimes. And that makes me Chaotic. But not Evil. ;)

@Chevalier

I would help the man back to the settlement, gladly sharing my water with him. But not out of charity or goodwill, but because in any case I am better off doing it.

If I help him, he will owe me a boon. If he happens to have something valuable in that sack that he wants to part with, or knows of someone who would be glad to reward me for my actions, that will be good for me. I could also profit from the sole knowledge of his travels through the desert, where he was ambushed and by whom, where he found shelter...

On the other hand, I will gain nothing by not helping him. I will know nothing of the road ahead, which could lead me to the ambushers. Also, if he reached the settlement on his own, he would speak badly about me, which could hinder any further dealings that I may have with its people should I return.

By helping the merchant in that situation, I am helping myself.

@Colthrun: That's not evil, though I don't remember you claiming an evil alignment, anyway. To me it looks somewhere close to the idea behind Lawful Neutrality. A Good character might act on the same motive, though charity and goodwill would make him share the water even if no reward were in question. By the way: you're in a hurry in this example, so going back to the city for the glory isn't an option. It's a clear choice: give him water and you get dehydrated but you both live, or not give him water and you're fine but he dies. Doesn't mean there's nothing tricky here - like the opportunities created by the sack he's carrying.

@Abomination: Not saying a Neutral (Good vs Evil axis) character wouldn't absolutely act like that, but it looks like a Good alignment example. Sounds a bit like the LG way of thinking.

Now maybe some answers from people claiming evil alignment in real life?

@Chev: I'd drag the guy along to the settlement, because of the public relations value. Mainly, it would not cause me undue harm, but if a word of my deed reaches people, they'd be inclinded to thinlk of me as someone "good"... that, and there's always the fact that if he's the lone survivor of a merchant caravan, he might come in useful later... say, if he ever srets up shop and I go drop by, I'm bound to get some severe discounts.

Besides, if I just left him there, who is to say he won't run into someone else and thus possibly be able to affect my reputation negatively? Of course, I could just kill him, but that would not profit me in any way, shape, or form.

I would first of all ask myself; "What the hell am I doing in the desert?" After that, I would probably share my water, depending on the attitude of the man. If he is a greedy bastard, let him rot in he... err... desert. :? But if he is a nice fellow that seems to care for people, I would gladly share my water with him. That is why I don't consider myself good nor lawful.

Also, by my thinking, a good one would try to make people redeem their actions, and since I hate nazis and kick the crap out of them at ever chance I get, I wouldn't call myself good.

However, since I do not go out of my way to kick their asses or kick their asses for fun, well, okay, a little bit of fun, I don't consider myself evil ethier.

Therefore, I am Neutral, IMHO

Then, I am a Syndicalist. I believe that the fascist ideals we uphold in this world, ideals that doesn't promote a truly democratic goverment, I consider myself chaotic. I do not believe that the goverment need to care about if I wear a seatbelt in the car or if I wear a helmet when I hike. They should have laws, that I agree on, but I could never be able to follow all those stupid laws we have now. Remove the pettyness, remove the beraucracy(sp?), remove the current un-democratic goverments we have today.

After that rant, you see why I consider myself Chaotic. ;)

@Ara: That would work if you were in a familiar area or one you're going to revisit and it cost you nothing to share the water. The idea is you're in a hurry and carrying no surplus weight, not even water. You have just enough of everything to make it. If you share, you're 100% to arrive at your destination sick from dehydration, although you won't die. If you go back to the settlement (there's a reason why it's called settlement and not town), you're going to be late for something important.

Sorry to disappoint you, but as of now, it looks more like True Neutral than Evil ;)

Well, since I am chaotic, i can always blame temporary insanity for being late, and I can never be sure if I return or not.

:p

Are you trying to claim that I am not chaotic?

Nah, don't get me wrong. It's not like I'm making a point of questionning people's alignments or whatever such. Only the fact of people claiming to have (rather than aspire to) evil alignments in real life awoke my skepticism and set me in *****ing mode. Guess I'd better shut up before I end up hijacking the thread ;)

Heh, well, it WAS that test of yours that says that i am chaotic evil, remember?

:p

Chevalier, I have to say that I find your ideas of good and evil quite peculiar. Keeping another person’s money can barely be considered a good or a purely neutral act. Regardless of how insignificant the extra change given by mistake might be, regardless of the motives for keeping it, you are conscientiously and willingly taking what is now rightfully the shopkeeper’s. That is called stealing, and it’s considered wrong by all societies.

What does a person need to do, in your opinion, to be considered evil? Could you provide separate examples of what you think should be the behaviour of each one of the three evil alignments in real life?

I am not claiming to be a mass murderer, a ruthless thief, or a member of the Conservative Party :p , which seems to be the general idea of an “evil person”. I claimed to be Lawful Evil, because the description of the alignment provided in all games I have played fits my personal view of the world. Perhaps the name of my alignment should be Egoistic Neutral or similar, but the only one of the offered alignments that fits, is Lawful Evil. Different motivations drive people to do things, and mine are neither selfless nor aimed at a greater good.

And I don’t care about the damn balance. :D

(Edit: spelling)

[ September 02, 2004, 18:00: Message edited by: Colthrun ]

That is called stealing, and it’s considered wrong by all societies.That's why it's forbidden by laws.

Still, a thief can be lawful. A predictable thief that always mugs the same kind of people in the same alley using the same weapon to threaten them, as Oaz put it in some thread in the D&D forum, is Lawful. Then you also have the structure of an underground society of thief guilds and the like, with rulers and subjects, "legitimate" authority and usurpers, power struggles, established patterns of behaviour and ways of solving conflicts, and the like.

The same way, stealing doesn't have to be immediately evil. It surely doesn't qualify for a good act on its own and is wrong indeed, but one can't really speak of evil alignment if someone doesn't return a couple of cents of overchange. If it happened in a game I DMed, I would give a Good or a Lawful character a hard time, but it wouldn't be enough for alignment change. A paladin would fall for that, sure, but if I made him change his alignment that would be for a serious breach of his vows, obligations etc and not the act in itself. Similarly, a monk could get in trouble with me as DM, but that would be for the breach of discipline and letting momentuous instincts take over his actions.

Even if we assume that ends don't justify means (and I agree here), the authors of such objectively evil acts don't really exhibit evil in acts they commit with a good end in mind. For instance, stealing from rich merchants to feed hungry children hardly makes one evil, although it does expose to a high risk of going down the evil path. If the character stole not to acquire goods for himself but to deprive the victim of them, the journey would be even faster.

Most thieves in D&D are actually Neutral in alignment. This means they won't probably steal the last penny from you or physically harm you in the process beyond what's needed to get your fat purse. What they do may be evil, but it lacks the intensivity to merit an evil alignment. This is especially true for people growing up in the streets and knowing no other life.

The situation starts looking different when the character's newly discovered inclinations develop into a bad habit, especially if the character is unrepentant of his actions. Considering this practically always happens at some point, it's safe to expect alignment change in the future. However, a single act doesn't make it.

As for Good-aligned theieves and such, I agree that Good-aligned thieves, although theoretically viable, are unrealistic. An iconic kind-hearted rogue is a very rare exception and one that confirms the rule. That is because he isn't really a rogue in the normal sense. A strange system of values in a character that doesn't assign much value to private property and disdains the social structure and discriminative in choosing rich targets that will make up for the loss (think Imoen, perhaps) could make it, though. It still wouldn't exempt him from normal expectations of Good alignment, meaning some selflessness and readiness to make sacrifice for others would be required of him. Very unlikely, as I said, but still possible as I also said ;)

maybe alignments are boguss... maybe we don't have alignments, maybe were just humans or dwarvs or elvs or gnomes or halflings or half-orcs or yuan-tis etc!

And MoN, I'd have figured you to be of the CS alignment.
Chaotic Stupid You were confused again heh? Mixing things up...

CS is not an alignment. I's more like a constellation or true Aura and it stands for Celestial Superior.

Will you ever learn?

Now don't answer me with: "That's what I ment with Chaotic Stupid..."

:p ;)

Chaotic Good seems the closest fit for me.

Hmmm, probably either Spasmodic Lewd or Awful Gleeful...

(Edit: ahh, the thin line between Lewd and Gleeful...."

@Bion

What are you trying to tell us, dude?

While it's hard being True Neutral, I think my personality fits that best. Prolly not perfect, but hey. I thought I was more chaotic neutral, but I gues I'm not a madman. :)

At the risk of going a bit off-topic here, I'll present this dilemma here instead of making a new thread for it.

I often think what would happen if the world got into a war. If everything plunged into anarchy, as nuclear weapons were fired all over the globe and everyone realised their lives would no longer depend on the society, law and order. But that everyone would have to watch out for themselves.

Now, when the war does finally hit you, and you decide to go to the gunshop and pick up weapons, get a truck and drive to a certain factory with independent power supplies, water and food storages (one that is not needed by the army of course), to make your base in and defend it against intruders, who do you take with you? Honestly. This would be a time, where you could only keep those by your side who truly saw their own advantage by YOUR side to their last breath. Who would risk their lives for you, and you for them. Anyone else, would turn on you sooner or later.

Of all the friends and good friends I know, there are quite a few who I would not trust in a situation like this. Who, when given a gun and put into a world of complete anarchy, could not be trusted to cover my back. Who might in fact kill me or otherwise betray me because they saw their own good in it. I'm sure we all know these people. Reliable people even, but with something about them that makes you doubt you could really trust them when their own lives and well-being was put to a test as well, possibly at your expense.

The world we live in is, in the end, a poor place for a traditionally evil person. Almost any visibly evil person is a stupid one, because their free lives are usually brought to a quick end. What I believe, is that many who are "evil" don't even necessarily know it themselves. Only by putting people into a world, place and a situation where their deeds truly have no consequences, will you see what they are like. A place of war or anarchy. That's where most of the evil of man is visible anyway. Where a man is responsible only to himself and their religion, should they have such a thing.

[ September 20, 2004, 10:16: Message edited by: Foradasthar ]

War; or perhaps business consulting.

Face it: everyone you know that goes into business consulting -- Accenture, McKinsey, Boston Consulting, etc. -- ends up Neutral Evil...

We cannot judge alingments based on D&D worlds; we have to use scales appropriate for modern world.

Thus, knowing the amount of white-collar crime, organized crime, heck, even tax fraud... i think it is reasonable to say that evil alingments do exist.

Or words to that effect, anyway.

Lawful neutral, I don't break the law but I can be pretty selfish some of the times.

Stuck somewhere between True Neutral and Chaotic Good. Closer to Neutral in general, but a bit too unpredictable and spontaneous, and with a definite dislike for "law for the sake of law", to really be Neutral. And not selfish enough...

I lack the consistency of any of these alignments. I sometimes give money to beggars, sometimes I ignore them and sometimes I tell them to **** off! I don't kill people but I don't really jump in front of a car just to save a soul either. I do sometimes steel, I ussualy don't feel like giving back change and If I would get the chance to make some profit i would not refuse. If we were to give stupid examples of evil: "Would we try to sell something with more than we paid for it?". I help people, I enjoy helping people, but would not donate my house and al my valuables for charity! I do get drunk, act without much thinking, say things without thinking first, yell out loud in the middle of the city at noon, curse out loud in the middle of the street, @chev > I would give the flask of water to the merchant and suffer dehydration, I would punch someone in the face if he reached the limit of my almost infinite tolerance, I would definetly not be okay with someone killing me without me trying to stop him (NOBODY ON EARTH IS JESUS!), I obey some laws for my own wellfare, I don't agree with all exteriorly imposed rules and laws but do have a bit of my own code of morality. THUS I have my share of law, chaos, good and evil deeds, resulting in the somewhat self-imposed TRUE NEUTRAL! what makes me true neutral is the lack of consistency in either of the alignments (as chev said earlier)

Neutral Good I'd like to think. :p

i think you are all true neutral...

@Kelvon: Sounds Neutral, yeah. CG isn't out of question (some hints there), but there isn't enough information to tell. I would say Good-leaning or at least non-evil True Neutral, but let's just wait till I've finished porting that test into PHP. It's not like I'm going to ask you 100 questions on the boards :shake: :lol:

Chaotic good, there has never bin much lawful in me, but I try, most of the time, to help people and so on. But if I find a rule stupid and/or annoying, I seldom follow it.

Again, it seems I'm a bit nosy throwing my two cents every other post, but isn't really Lawfulness about following rules that are lawful in nature? It's not so popular nowadays as it used to be, but in legal doctrine there is a school that teaches that a legal rule inconsistent with natural law is ipso facto void and not binding. That's it about stupid rules (generally, rules inconsistent with natural laws are those which defy reason).

As for annoying ones... well, does it make you non-Lawful if you jaywalk when there are no cars comming or when you drink alcohol in the safety of your house if you're not of drinking age for the particular country? Come on...

One resource I surveyed, claimed that as a matter of crude simplification, Lawfulness implies the pursuing the interest of the group while being Chaotic stands for pursuit of individual interest. Then again, while CG characters won't really allow themselves to be outvoted by their peers, they will still make sacrifices for common good. On the other hand, being Lawful sometimes requires you to take things in your very own hands and make a couple of arbitrary decisions.

Well, when comparing DND to real life, I tend to view as Chaotic-aligned people who have double standards, think along the lines of "how does it make me feel?" rather than "how does it make the other people feel?", consider promises to be of a relative rather than absolute nature, are not consistent in their behaviour and principles, don't know what they want from life and so on.

Lawful would be people who exercise the "don't do to your neighbour what you don't want to be done unto" approach, have respect for customs and traditions, won't mess with established order for the fun of it, keep their promises and fulfil their commitment, consider it proper to return debts and favours, have a more less consistent system of principles and are reasonably logical.

Note: it's possible for one person to combine traits from both pools, so it's never simple.

by your definitions, I actually still thinks, I fit in as Chaotic good. I do, sadly, a lot of times have double standards, I tend to judge people harshly for some mistake, while if I commit the same mistake, it's not that bad. but on other things, I am of cause, very lawful, I "never" breaks a promise and I always pays my debts. but alignments is of cause simplifications and one can never say to only belong to one alignment, it depends on the situation. but I think I'm very chaotic in my behavior and I'm definitely not evil (or so I hope) and I'm not neutral either, therefor I think CG is what fits me most of the time, but there will of cause always be exemptions.

I'd have to say chaotic good. Though some wierd and sick stuff runs through my mind, and I can think up some really evil schemes and tortures; I could never act on those things. My concience is too strong to let me. Nor would I want to.

Thankfully there aren't too many evil people on SP. Think about how things could be if everyone was evil...

Maybe Jaguar would staple more than just beards to computers...