Seeing as we have a "What does your character look like?" thread, and I'm kinda curious as to the representation of good, evil, or don't-give-a-fuck among the PC populace, I wanted to ask, in terms of DnD Lawful/True/Chaotic Good/Neutral/Evil, what is your character's alignment?
Tvtropes.org is useful if you need some information on what might clearly define your character's alignment. (http://tvtropes.org)
Mine:
Chaotic Good. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChaoticGood)
Doesn't seem like it fits well for Arm.
For example, an elf has a very different "alignment" when dealing with their tribe vs outsiders.
It's a nice concept, but I don't see the point since most characters players are anonymous so we're just spewing random alignments. I'll play along, though.
Neutral evil
It'd be cool if we could include a quote to enforce that alignment, but I think that'd be too IC.
Um, Lawful something-or-other.
Chaotic would still fit for elves, since you can still follow some rules as a Chaotic-character. Dwarfs definately lawful, and humans strongly leaning towards evil in general.
Most of my characters tend to go towards LN, LG or LE.
On Arm? Lawful Good.
In Brooklyn? Chaotic Neutral.
Tend to play along the lines of Lawful Good, Lawful Evil, or Chaotic Neutral. Anything to take me to extremes.
Almost always neutral and never lawful. Chaotic, sometimes. I'm never evil and I'm either good or neutral in equal measures. So I'm most likely to be neutral good or true neutral at any moment.
Chaotic good. My character is basically a dryad.
Witch.
Cannot classify my PC on this alignment scale and the chaotic neutral fallback when that occurs is less of a fit than something like neutral good. Oh noes, I am not running a D&D PC.
Quote from: Case on June 05, 2011, 02:51:47 AM
Cannot classify my PC on this alignment scale and the chaotic neutral fallback when that occurs is less of a fit than something like neutral good. Oh noes, I am not running a D&D PC.
Classic AD&D Chaotic Neutral is a lot of fun...
"You see a Gorgon here."
"... Okay let me roll a dice... okay, according to the dice, I scream like a banshee and charge."
"GG yo, you're petrified."
On that note, I'd define my character as... uhh... Something evil or chaotic or some mixture of... lawfully chaotically evil good neutral.
LN. LE on a bad day. LG to my bros.
Neutral evil
Neutral Good, with Lawful tendencies
Neutral evil.
That one's underrated.
Quote from: Spoon on June 05, 2011, 05:24:53 AM
Neutral evil.
That one's underrated.
NE is fun, but one of my favorite characters on a MUD was TN. That alignment's definitely underrated. I think most people pick CN instead.
I have played chaotic evil, but they don't seem to live long. Most of my characters that stay alive have a chaotic neutral alignment. I haven't played chaotic good I should sometime try it.
All my characters are shades of grey. I find the d'nd alignment system way too simplistic and restrictive to provide a sort of guideline for my character. I also see very little room for moral objections to anything in zalanthas, especially for the poor(ish) characters. A person does what they need to survive, period.
Dwarves lawful, what? They follow their own rule, their focus, but they're free to follow laws or not like any other race. My favourite dwarf would probably qualify as very chaotic. So would Thrain Ironsword.
The way I understand it, the Lawful alignment doesn't mean you follow the laws of whatever land you are in, but act and think in a rigid, structured manner and prefer clear distinctions to grey areas.
Dwarves are, generally, Lawful-leaning because they follow their focus no matter what and their thoughts are focused on it. Most, if not all, things are weighed in relation to the focus, and the focus must always come first. They will avoid death (since that would make the focus impossible to complete, usually), but their happiness and freedom are not more important to them than the focus.
Elves, on the other hand, are more chaotic because they work in those grey areas. They trust only their tribe-mates, but will work with others if it suits their purposes. The whole never-rides-mounts thing is decidedly lawful-ish, however. It is outweighed though by their flighty, untrusting, double-dealing, steal-happy mindsets.
That's my opinion anyway. The cool thing about alignments D&D style, is they are only guidelines. You can be NG and be an obnoxious, prideful ass, since none of those are 'evil', per say.
Quotethe Lawful alignment doesn't mean you follow the laws of whatever land you are in, but act and think in a rigid, structured manner and prefer clear distinctions to grey areas.
I don't think that's true.. some one who is lawful evil would see a well-ordered system as being easier to exploit and usually obey their superiors and keep their word, but they care nothing for the rights and freedoms of other individuals and are not averse to twisting the rules to work in their favor.
On the opposite side of the coin, a chaotic good character favors change for a greater good, disdains the laws that get in the way of social improvement, and places a high value on personal freedom, not only for oneself, but for others as well. They always intend to do the right thing, but their methods are generally disorganized and often out of alignment with the rest of society.
tl;dr
Lawful = Working with society
Chaotic = Working against it
Edit: Lawful good is bro tier. We need more white knights in zalanthas.
Edit 2: Dwarves can be chaotic depending on how they go about achieving the focus. Assuming a dwarf wanted to be the last dwarf alive, he would be evil regardless of how we went about it. If he used legal methods such as forcing them into poverty, execution then the dwarf would be lawful evil. If he went around killing other dwarves without permission from a templar then he would be chaotic evil.
Chaotic Stupid
The Lawful aspect of the D&D alignment system is one of the most often misunderstood. The evil character that follows the laws of the land because it is safer to exploit them is actually not Lawful Evil, but rather Neutral Evil.
A prime example of this confusion can be seen in the Batman villain, Two-Face. While many would see him as Chaotic Evil, due to his choices being determined by a coin toss, he is actually far closer to Lawful Evil. He follows a very rigid rule when making any decision, never swaying from the results of this rule (Batman even thwarts him by replacing his coin with a weighted one that lands on its edge, forcing Two-Face to become stuck in a state of indecision).
To stick with the Batman example, Chaotic Evil is better depicted by the Joker. He has no structured rules he follows, and even when he presents a situation that seems to have some sort of logical outcomes available, he is likely to discard the results anyway, doing whatever suits him at the moment.
It is perfectly fitting for a Lawful character to have only passing concern over the laws of whatever land they live in. It is their own determination to stay true to a code of behavior that makes them Lawful. That being said, I would think that most Zalanthan city-dwellers would fall into the Neutral-Good to Neutral-Evil range, leaning heavily towards NE. They have no specific code that they follow, though they do not act in completely random fashion, and their moral structure is based on how familial their surroundings are. The larger the social group a character identifies with, the more good/altruistic their motivations can be. If you are the lone-wolf sort, there are not enough people to identify with to motivate what would be seen as 'good' actions.
Addition: The L-N-C spectrum has very little to do with society, reflecting in the majority the personal stability of an individual's decisions. Dwarves are Lawful because they each have a specific goal which drives them in all things.
Eh...I think you're trying to apply a logical consistency to something that doesn't actually have one.
Here's D&D law/chaos.
'Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.'
'Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.'
'Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.'
Yea, I have that book too. There is a reason that the paragraph you have quote is followed up by nine more paragraphs before continuing into a detailed set of examples. Glancing at the surface of the ocean and saying you understand it does not do justice to the depths below.
Quote from: Bilanthri on June 05, 2011, 03:07:39 PM
Yea, I have that book too. There is a reason that the paragraph you have quote is followed up by nine more paragraphs before continuing into a detailed set of examples. Glancing at the surface of the ocean and saying you understand it does not do justice to the depths below.
True, but when you look into the abyss the abyss looks back into you, or such. Analyze the ethical alignments thoroughly and they're not even opposed... I'm mostly citing those statements because they support the idea that alignments are not necessarily internal matters, and you can have lawful half-elves or chaotic dwarves without much difficulty.
Lawful and Chaotic are trying to describe two things. Relation to society, and personal consistency/code/strictness of behavior. A machine is lawful by the second part (hence Mechanus). A judge tries to be lawful by the first part. The two aren't really related at all...but the alignment system tries to describe both.
On that note, my character's alignment is probably actually traditional-collectivist-nonsystematic somethin'-or-other.
My first really enjoyable character was quite simply Lawful Good. Gotten NG and TN too.
Quote from: Kalai on June 05, 2011, 03:20:00 PM
True, but when you look into the abyss the abyss looks back into you, or such.
Other than an attempt to match metaphor, I'm not sure how this relates.
Quote from: Kalai on June 05, 2011, 03:20:00 PM
Lawful and Chaotic are trying to describe two things. Relation to society, and personal consistency/code/strictness of behavior.
And there's the rub. Society is not a strictly defined group. A gang of thieves is a society, and, within this group, they are capable of acting Lawful. However, the City Watch would heartily disagree.
As for my character, I currently play a decidedly Lawful Neutral. Rigid in personal values, and driven to uphold the tenants of -his- society. Anyone outside of this structure is judged based on how close to his societal norms they come.
Quote from: Bilanthri on June 05, 2011, 03:42:07 PM
Quote from: Kalai on June 05, 2011, 03:20:00 PM
True, but when you look into the abyss the abyss looks back into you, or such.
Other than an attempt to match metaphor, I'm not sure how this relates.
Quote from: Kalai on June 05, 2011, 03:20:00 PM
Lawful and Chaotic are trying to describe two things. Relation to society, and personal consistency/code/strictness of behavior.
And there's the rub. Society is not a strictly defined group. A gang of thieves is a society, and, within this group, they are capable of acting Lawful. However, the City Watch would heartily disagree.
As for my character, I currently play a decidedly Lawful Neutral. Rigid in personal values, and driven to uphold the tenants of -his- society. Anyone outside of this structure is judged based on how close to his societal norms they come.
I thought it safest not to expand on the metaphor. Just ignore it for now. ;)
Certainly true on society not being a strictly defined group, and that tenants of them may come into conflict. Therein lies fun.
Quote from: Kalai on June 05, 2011, 03:57:40 PM
Therein lies fun.
Heh...Fun (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Fun), as defined by Dwarf Fortress. ;)
Chaotic Neutral, i'd say.
Neutral Evil.
Lawful neutral.
Lawful good, probably? I'd say I most commonly play true neutrals.
True neutral, though the DM's probably going to make me change it to Lawful Neutral soon enough
...
Fuck you, Smite evil! ^_^
Quote from: Xagon on June 06, 2011, 05:28:09 PM
Fuck you, Smite evil! ^_^
Ugh...my old gaming group would always get into long-winded debates over whether Smite Evil worked on mortals who effectively adopt their alignment as opposed to supernatural creatures who are intrinsically tied to it.
Yes, Smite Evil will work on a demon, but does it work on the demon's evil, yet completely mortal/mundane servants/thralls?
Dammit GM, you never have us fight demons...why did I make this stupid paladin then?
Chaotic Fun
Lawful Awesome
Chaotic Immortal
Quote from: Anaiah on June 07, 2011, 01:39:51 AM
Chaotic Immortal
The most dangerous of all alignments!
chaotic good-looking.
True Neutral.
It's harder than it looks.
And yes, I did see you doing that.
I'm just not going react.
Yet.
Chaotic good.
Quote from: Reiteration on June 07, 2011, 07:24:27 PM
Chaotic good.
(http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_llgpghCxJD1qk0yg0o1_500.gif)
Neutral boring.
lawful moody
Neutral Complicated. my favorite flavor. and so far, i've only had three people completely misinterpret who my character is supposed to be at any time, which, with the incredible amount of miscommunication and misinterpretation in the game, wins, i think.
bored of simple? people are smart. go complicated!
I change mine to: Chaotic Awesome!
Quote from: Whiran Luck on June 08, 2011, 03:41:01 PM
I change mine to: Chaotic Awesome!
Ah-ah-ah! No takebacks!
neutral good to some, chaotic evil to others... so I guess true neutral because it sits in between?
Quote from: Akaramu on June 09, 2011, 10:56:58 AM
neutral good to some, chaotic evil to others... so I guess true neutral because it sits in between?
I think that's just called 'chaotic evil.'
True neutral.
Quote from: Ocotillo on June 09, 2011, 01:00:38 PM
Quote from: Akaramu on June 09, 2011, 10:56:58 AM
neutral good to some, chaotic evil to others... so I guess true neutral because it sits in between?
I think that's just called 'chaotic evil.'
Wouldn't be true in this case. It's what some people would assume / believe, but the PC is far from chaotic evil. Superstition is powerful in Zalanthas.
Chaotic good
I wanted to put neutral. But it's just not true... :'(
My character's alignments generally change every single time I roll up a new PC. It's fun to switch things up.
Also, I like my PC's to have events change their alignment throughout the course of their lives, so that the character evolves or devolves however you want to view it.
Chaotic Neutral. Always.
At the moment, it is currently:
Neutral Good
I try all of them but then end up lawful good. It's a fucking compulsion.
Quote from: Barzalene on June 17, 2011, 02:52:31 PM
I try all of them but then end up lawful good. It's a fucking compulsion.
Like Darth Vader, even my evil characters have a bit of good in them too. I can't play a pure evil, has no soul character. It's just too depressing.
The alignment system is lame.
Use this instead.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SlidingScaleOfAntiHeroes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SlidingScaleOfAntiHeroes)
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SlidingScaleofAntiVillains (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SlidingScaleofAntiVillains)
In that case, I'm a type IV anti-hero.
Tend to play Type IVs devolving into Type Vs.
Quote from: Jingo on June 17, 2011, 04:24:52 PM
The alignment system is lame.
Use this instead.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SlidingScaleOfAntiHeroes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SlidingScaleOfAntiHeroes)
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SlidingScaleofAntiVillains (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SlidingScaleofAntiVillains)
I love playing the opposite of Good is Not Nice (example: Batman) but I'm not sure what that translates to. If I feel lazy and/or know that my character will probably die within a week of chargen that I'll go Good is Not Nice since I don't expect my character to evolve emotionally. Ex: rinthi characters, silt pirates, etc.
I like making
Characters who act decent and are less than such underneath without being real evil; characters who are Jerks with a Heart of Gold; and relatively decent characters who act as though they'd enjoy seeing your blood boil right through their skin onto the sand. Better if they live long enough for me to tweak them based on what they've experienced.
... Apparently I play Type II Anti-villians a LOT. Never thought of that.
This made me realize that I often play some variety of true villain who just isn't very good at it. Totally selfish and evil but too cowardly to ever really do anything.
Let's call that Conveniently Evil.
Neutral.
Not that prissy "balance" druid shit, but the sort that is more interested in their own actions/life etc., and does things which suit themselves.
Quote from: Is Friday on June 18, 2011, 11:41:08 PM
Let's call that Conveniently Evil.
Or perhaps, Sniveling Evil.
Usually? Chaotic Neutral... Do what I want! Recently? Lawful Neutral.
Past few: Lawful Good, Chaotic Evil, True Neutral, Chaotic Good, Neutral Good,
Currently: Chaotic Neutral
Lawful neutral.
Current: Chaotic Good.
I have progressed from Lawful Neutral to Lawful Badass.
Chaotic carefree.
Chaotic Voltaire.
Quote from: jstorrie on July 25, 2011, 05:45:16 PM
I have progressed from Lawful Neutral to Lawful Badass.
This is 200% true.
I'm still chaotic immortal.
an odd overpercentage of
Type II: Woobie Anti-Villain
It's obvious that these types of villains don't WANT to be evil; circumstances just make them out to be. They may act out of Undying Loyalty or love for someone or maybe they're simply fighting for their own survival. Others are broken cuties who have snapped and want to end their suffering by destroying everything. Usually they are suffering from their alignment. The characters garners our sympathy not because their goal is good but because we can see how the Crapsack World made them the way they are. Often suffer from a damaged psyche. Anti Villains in this category may become true villains, but their also just as likely to not become them.
and less often
Type I: Classical Anti-Hero
This was actually the original understanding of the term, a character who is a protagonist but lacks the qualities of the hero as seen by the Greeks (probably closest to the Tragic Hero). See The Arthur Dent and This Loser Is You for related concepts. Type I antiheroes are particularly common in comedy, where they might also fit the role of very mild versions of Unsympathetic Comedy Protagonists. A Type I may transform into a full hero over the course of the story if they manage to overcome their inner demons, discover their courage, find their reason to fight, etc. Whether or not this happens is heavily dependent on the story's placement in the Sliding Scale of Idealism Versus Cynicism; a Type I Antihero in an even slightly idealistic story is all but guaranteed to find true heroism by the end, whereas a Type I in a more cynical setting is much less likely.
and then the rest tend to be transparent and simple.
My character's alignment? Right here (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Cloudcuckoolander)
Chaotic Salter.
IV Anti-Hero.
Typically I'm lawful or neutral good. This is the only mud I have trouble playing evil on, when on other muds that is all I play.
Chaotic evil; I'd like to get into more Lawful evil characters, but I just never have the discipline. :P
Chaotic good.
Lawful Evil.
True neutral.
Oddly... I have no idea!
I am the terror that flaps in the night.
Neutral Good.
Quote from: Barzalene on September 28, 2011, 07:22:05 AM
Oddly... I have no idea!
Spoken like a True Neutral.
Quote from: Nyr on September 28, 2011, 09:52:21 AM
I am the terror that flaps in the night.
Translation: Farts under the bedcovers, then flaps them. Horror ensues!
I usually play Lawful <whatever>. I love me some Lawful Evil.
Chaotic Treehugger.
Lawful Granola.
Pretty much all my characters are chaotic good. I'm rarely malicious for no reason but you get me going, mf, and the chains come off.
Usually Chaotic Good or Lawful Neutral.
Chaotic Evil. Probably my first truly evil character, though one other was on his way.
I want to hurt the alignment system with a stick. That's my alignment.
I've had to endure nerduments that lasted for hours.
The topic? Darth Vader's alignment. Lawful evil, Lawful neutral or Neutral evil.
Old-school movie Vader was LN. Expanded Universe Vader was LE. New trilogy Anakin was always NE the whole time, that fucking asshole.
Quote from: Talia on September 28, 2011, 12:04:45 PM
I love me some Lawful Evil.
That's only my staff avatar's alignment. ;)
Semi-Unlawful Mostly-Good.
Borderline neutral. Basically - if my PC sees 10000 sids laying on the ground, they'll grab it and not bother to find out who dropped it, nor will they thank (insert city-king/spirit ancestor here) and make a donation to the cause. But if someone drops their weapon, they'll pick it up and give it back. Unless that person dropping it was attacking my PC. Then, my PC will take the weapon, wield it, and beat the attacker over the head with it. And laugh. Maniacally.
Quote from: Nyr on September 28, 2011, 09:52:21 AM
I am the terror that flaps in the night.
... Darkwing Duck???
I'm pretty sure I'm Lawful neutral
Lawful Neutral is called the "Judge" or "Disciplined" alignment. A Lawful Neutral character typically believes strongly in Lawful concepts such as honor, order, rules and tradition, and often follows a personal code. A Lawful Neutral society would typically enforce strict laws to maintain social order, and place a high value on traditions and historical precedent. Examples of Lawful Neutral characters might include a soldier who always follows orders, a judge or enforcer that adheres mercilessly to the word of the law, and a disciplined monk.
Characters of this alignment are neutral with regard to good and evil. This does not mean that Lawful Neutral characters are amoral or immoral, or do not have a moral compass, but simply that their moral considerations come a distant second to what their code, tradition, or law dictates. They typically have a strong ethical code, but it is primarily guided by their system of belief, not by a commitment to good or evil.
James Bond, Odysseus, and Sanjuro from Yojimbo are considered by Complete Scoundrel as Lawful Neutral.[7] Three exemplars of Lawful Neutral outsiders exist. These are the Formians, the Inevitables and the Modrons.
with heavy petting involved.
Chaotic Neutral. Just there to stir shit up and make your character make hard choices.
Borrowed from someone who borrowed it from the Complete Bastard:
Lawful Good: Batman, Indiana Jones, Dick Tracy
Lawful Neutral: James Bond, Odysseus, Sanjuro (from Yojimbo)
Lawful Evil: Boba Fett, Magneto
Neutral Good: Spider-Man, Zorro
Neutral: Lara Croft, Han Solo (early on), Lucy Westerna (from Dracula)
Neutral Evil: Mystique, Sawyer (from Lost)
Chaotic Good: Robin Hood, Malcolm Reynolds (Firefly), Starbuck (Battlestar Galactica)
Chaotic Neutral: Captain Jack Sparrow, Al Swearengen (Deadwood), Snake Plissken
Chaotic Evil: Riddick, Carl Denham (King Kong)
[Dunno if I agree with all this, but interesting inasmuch as a three by three grid can be used to understand human behavior.]
Quote from: Morrolan on September 30, 2011, 10:50:35 AM
Borrowed from someone who borrowed it from the Complete Bastard:
Lawful Good: Batman, Indiana Jones, Dick Tracy
Lawful Neutral: James Bond, Odysseus, Sanjuro (from Yojimbo)
Lawful Evil: Boba Fett, Magneto
Neutral Good: Spider-Man, Zorro
Neutral: Lara Croft, Han Solo (early on), Lucy Westerna (from Dracula)
Neutral Evil: Mystique, Sawyer (from Lost)
Chaotic Good: Robin Hood, Malcolm Reynolds (Firefly), Starbuck (Battlestar Galactica)
Chaotic Neutral: Captain Jack Sparrow, Al Swearengen (Deadwood), Snake Plissken
Chaotic Evil: Riddick, Carl Denham (King Kong)
[Dunno if I agree with all this, but interesting inasmuch as a three by three grid can be used to understand human behavior.]
batman and riddick are total miss
My most recent was definitely lawful evil.
Boba fett would be neutral evil...he is a merc bounty hunter, so does not take sides but tends to do bad things for the right pay, far from lawful. Replace him with Hector Barbossa.
Riddick would actually be Neutral good.
Batman would be Chaotic good.
Hard to come up with a good chaotic evil though. Maybe Apocolypse...Hhhmm, No, Joker specially the Ledger version...Yes, He is Chaotic Evil.
Prof X lawful Good and Wolverine Chaotic Neutral...or Gambit, take your pick:)
Yeah, I think the Joker in "The Dark Knight" is a perfect example of chaotic evil. Doesn't play by the rules, and wants to watch the world burn, just because.
I'd say a good Lawful Evil would be Evil from Terry Gilliham's Time Bandits.
QuoteIf I were creating the world I wouldn't mess about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers, eight o'clock, Day One! [zaps one of his minions accidentally, minion screams] Sorry.
Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb!
Quote from: Talia on September 30, 2011, 02:47:10 PM
Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb boring!
Batman is sort of a tricky one. He's lawful good because he abides by a set of rules (such as pacifism). He also collaborates with the police force, albeit as an illegal vigilante. Chaotic good implies he's good without considering the consequences to his actions, or doesn't plan ahead (the opposite of which Batman is very renowned for).
Current pc is...umm...probably closest to Chaotic Neutral, but a totall opportunist.
Chaotic neutral working his way toward chaotic evil or true neutral.
Batman is the tricky one.
On looking at it again, both comics and movies, batman does lean towards lawful...now good, that is debatable...I don't know. I might have to put him more towards lawful evil. Since he is a more "End justify means" type, closer to Magneto.
Quote from: Zoan on October 02, 2011, 01:36:42 AM
Batman is sort of a tricky one. He's lawful good because he abides by a set of rules (such as pacifism). He also collaborates with the police force, albeit as an illegal vigilante. Chaotic good implies he's good without considering the consequences to his actions, or doesn't plan ahead (the opposite of which Batman is very renowned for).
That possibly would make him lawful neutral. Though we might argue that Bruce Wayne is LG, and Batman is LE, and part of the dramatic tension of the series is the internal conflict through which Bruce Wayne must control Batman (his dark side) and dedicate him to the pursuit of good.
[derail]Though it would be easier to use Freudian analysis on Batman, where Alfred is his Superego (representing his parents, civilization, and nurturance), Batman is his Id (his urge to destroy, to just do what he wants, to take power for himself), and Bruce Wayne is the ego, trying to balance between the needs to create and destroy.[/derail]
[/quote]
[2.derail]Aside: The definition of "good" in D&D is seriously questionable. One of the general themes of D&D is using swords and magick to kill one's problems away. That is generally considered an "evil" solution in the real world. In literature, it is certainly a form of heroic good, but it ignores the psychological implications and pressures that killing puts on a person's mind [and spirit]. As I age, I find myself more and more creeped out by "Paladin"-type figures who kill again and again with little remorse, certain of the "rightness" of the killing.
At another extreme, there is violence for its own sake, and that is also problematic. And pacifism for its own sake is just as troubling. Violence (the use of force to achieve a goal) is a thorny issue that can never be solved by a simple blanket statement of "use it" or "do not use it." [2.derail]
*pushed "quote" instead of "modify"*
Quote from: Morrolan on October 03, 2011, 09:57:07 AM
Quote from: Zoan on October 02, 2011, 01:36:42 AM
Batman is sort of a tricky one. He's lawful good because he abides by a set of rules (such as pacifism). He also collaborates with the police force, albeit as an illegal vigilante. Chaotic good implies he's good without considering the consequences to his actions, or doesn't plan ahead (the opposite of which Batman is very renowned for).
That possibly would make him lawful neutral. Though we might argue that Bruce Wayne is LG, and Batman is LE, and part of the dramatic tension of the series is the internal conflict through which Bruce Wayne must control Batman (his dark side) and dedicate him to the pursuit of good.
[derail]Though it would be easier to use Freudian analysis on Batman, where Alfred is his Superego (representing his parents, civilization, and nurturance), Batman is his Id (his urge to destroy, to just do what he wants, to take power for himself), and Bruce Wayne is the ego, trying to balance between the needs to create and destroy.[/derail]
That possibly would make him lawful neutral. Though we might argue that Bruce Wayne is LG, and Batman is LE, and part of the dramatic tension of the series is the internal conflict through which Bruce Wayne must control Batman (his dark side) and dedicate him to the pursuit of good.
[derail]Though it would be easier to use Freudian analysis on Batman, where Alfred is his Superego (representing his parents, civilization, and nurturance), Batman is his Id (his urge to destroy, to just do what he wants, to take power for himself), and Bruce Wayne is the ego, trying to balance between the needs to create and destroy.[/derail]
[2.derail]Aside: The definition of "good" in D&D is seriously questionable. One of the general themes of D&D is using swords and magick to kill one's problems away. That is generally considered an "evil" solution in the real world. In literature, it is certainly a form of heroic good, but it ignores the psychological implications and pressures that killing puts on a person's mind [and spirit]. As I age, I find myself more and more creeped out by "Paladin"-type figures who kill again and again with little remorse, certain of the "rightness" of the killing.
At another extreme, there is violence for its own sake, and that is also problematic. And pacifism for its own sake is just as troubling. Violence (the use of force to achieve a goal) is a thorny issue that can never be solved by a simple blanket statement of "use it" or "do not use it." [2.derail]
[/quote]
You say in this it is the need to create and destroy, I rather see it as the need to control and let go. Alfred the voice of reason or the Archetype, Bruce wayne is the self the Id, the true self torn between the two, leaving Batman as the ego swollen and bruised self always seeking to protect the Id.
Just my 2 sid.
Quote from: X-D on September 30, 2011, 01:23:24 PM
Riddick would actually be Neutral good.
You meant to type evil?
He leans toward doing good, actually. It's his destiny.
Not really evil, from what I gather from the two films. He's always killing evil peopleand defending innocent ones. Though I suppose he's mostly a selfish badass who coincidentally gets caught up in showdowns.
Anyway, where do you put Mahatma Ghandi? Neutral good?
I meant neutral good, a few others have even explained already.
He does not care about law but his actions don't show any randomness, So, those two are out. He is not trying to keep any balance, so true neutral is out as well, He tends to protect the innocent when he can though is willing to use violent means, he is willing to risk his own life to protect what he considers good.
He is Neutral Good.
Lawful stupid.
Lawful Evil.
Reason being: He will sacrafice that innocent commoner girl without a thread of guilt for the greater good of whoever his employer might be.
End justifys the means
What would Malcolm Reynolds be?
Chaotic Good
Even though he tries really, really hard NOT to be good?
:D
Hint:
>That's what makes him chaotic.
Neutral-Good. For sure, way too soft hearted.
Chaotic neutral. Who needs law anyhow?
Neutral Awesome.
Also, Batman is all alignments. He enforces the law by breaking it, and commits police brutality for the greater good.
Lawful neutral or chaotic neutral leaning towards chaotic evil......really hard mind to crack
Lawful Fuckyou.
Chaotic souptent
Chaotic Evil.
Closest that would fit the character I last gave a shit about would be lawful evil. Maybe. But not really.
I'm excited about a lawful good I'm hoping to play after my current character dies.
fluffy-cloud-animal good
chaotic IDGAF
Lawful Neutral
Probably.
From who's perspective?
Chaotic Rockstar
Lawful Evil.
Started Lawful Good.
Somewhere between Lawful good and neutral now.
Quote from: Dark Fate on December 15, 2011, 03:29:37 PM
Started Lawful Good.
Somewhere between Lawful good and neutral now.
Too much time spent hanging around my chaotic neutral character.
Neutral Good
Some men ... just want to watch the world burn ...
Chaotic Awesome.
Lawful Meek
Though it's a sort of 'so lawful it's chaotic to outsiders because of secrecy, or so chaotic it's lawful to outsiders because of the same'
Chaotic good.
Lawful evil, I think. Possibly neutral.
Lawful neutral.
Angry asshole ;D
Chaotic neutral....probably chaotic neutral...
Chaotic neutral with a slight tendency towards evil.
Lawful robotic.
Chaotic neutral.
Quixotic evil
Chaotic chaotic!
Evil Evil. Duh.
Complex. Impossible to properly express with the D&D alignment chart.
Lawful nude
Neutral good. Deleted the rest--- decided I'd rather not leave that up here.
Lawful-Evil.
Yup.
(http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/388462_10150513527265259_215766950258_11076100_2138874759_n.jpg)
chaotic asshole
Fantasywriter dumped some awesome on my desktop right there.
True neutral, really, underneath the cultural bias towards chaotic neutral. What you are and what your culture dictates you act as are two different things and only one matters when you have to make the decision to shoot somebody.
You lawful neutral types, yeesh. Sometimes my undesirable's scared to be in the same room with you.
chaotic awesome.
new character
either chaotic/neutral evil
or just chaotic neutral
good..................
a real True Neutral, I think the only one I've ever played in any game
chaotic nuetral same as my most favored D&D character.
Swings depending on my own mood and his but somewhere between true neutral and chaotic good. I think my favorite PC was something like neutral evil. Actually, all of my Allanaki PCs tend to be closer to dark side.
Horizontal and six feet under.
neutral good, likely to my eternal shame.
Principled ( in Rifts system)with Scrupulous tendencies
Nature: Supplicant? (maybe?) Demeanor: Caregiver (WOD)
Alignments are guidelines however any character under the right circumstances will or may break their alignment. People are complicated like that. When running a game I tend to make players wait a few games before picking one and I really use them to help with magical items and spells and what not. Otherwise as long as I think my players PCs are acting in way in which there character would they can do whatever they want.
Quote from: FantasyWriter on January 25, 2012, 07:18:00 AM
(http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/388462_10150513527265259_215766950258_11076100_2138874759_n.jpg)
Love how the characters from firefly are in this.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_rtOXMZlMTkg/TQbkXCTbEnI/AAAAAAAAD_0/TXs6bXo_27s/s1600/wire.jpg)
I think, with a lot of reflection, my character is True Neutral. First one I ever had.
Quote from: Case on March 29, 2012, 03:49:55 PM
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_rtOXMZlMTkg/TQbkXCTbEnI/AAAAAAAAD_0/TXs6bXo_27s/s1600/wire.jpg)
Shiiiiiiiit. That's pretty awesome. I'd put Brother Mouzone down as the lawful neutral badass he is though.
I'm not even sure. He just exercises a (much) more cynical variant of "Treat others how you would like to be treated"
Lawful Neutral.
Chaotic good.
True neutral.
Current is top secret.
The last one couldn't really be defined with the D&D alignment criteria, at all, but generally she was half chaotic, half neutral good without any real desire to 'save the whole world' (hopeless case) as a D&D good aligned character might have had. And also REALLY RACIST. And hateful rather than forgiving of 'bad people'. Maybe in D&D terms that would have prevented her from being good. But for Zalanthan standards, she probably was a shining beacon of light, so full of love for a select few she'd burst at the seams at times.
I've never tried an evil character, I do believe I could pull it off - so well that I'd feel sick in RL about it. So it probably wouldn't be a good idea.
I think you're working your 'good' and 'evil' alignments off of simplistic versions of good and evil, Akaramu.
I was referring to the D&D - definition of good and evil, the origin of the lawful/chaotic good/evil chart. My own opinion is a very different one. And would make the thread explode. :P
Lawful Neutral, leaning towards True Neutral as he Just Doesnt Care for most things.
Neutral Evil
True Neutral, leaning a bit towards good, however.
I'd be inclined to say Lawful Neutral with Benevolent tendencies.
Chaotic neutral.
Quote from: MeTekillot on May 03, 2012, 03:54:58 PM
Chaotic neutral.
I see my current one that way as well. Though i think as he grows it might change to a more true neutral.
Quote from: Morrolan on June 07, 2011, 03:53:41 PM
True Neutral.
Heading toward the paternalism of Lawful Neutral.
Lawful Stupid.
I don't think my character knows his alignment yet. Likely I'll be the last to know when he does.
Lawful Depends On The Situation
Neutral evil.
true nutral... grin
lawful neutral with evil tendencies.
Chaotic Neutral ;D