What alignment are you?

[darkmage768]

In Dungeons and Dragons, Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights, and other roleplay games I've played over the years, moral alignment is an important part of choosing your character. Whether consciously or not, I think most people in this game fall into the same categories.

I think often people from different moral alignments misunderstand each other because of their different worldview, which is a pity. For example, I believe Ejayrazz (formerly of the Gramlins) is a really good person (I would describe him as lawful good.) Despite this, he cannot understand the Voxian perspective (which I consider to be a chaotic good perspective) because of actions they've committed like spying, aid scamming, etc.

So what alignment are you, and how do you see your alliance's stance on ethics? What about other alliances, like TOP, NpO, MK, NPO, GPA, VE, NSO, etc?

I don't have an opinion on TOP, I think that NpO are a combination of lawful good and chaotic good, MK are chaotic good inclined to neutrality, NPO are lawful neutral (they don't try to be good or evil, but they do disapprove of spying and other such, in their view, dishonorable behaviour) and GPA are neutral (no !@#$ lol.) NSO try to be evil and I actually quite like them.

I personally consider myself chaotic good.

The moral categories (and yes, there are a hell of a lot of them, nine to be precise) are as follows (they have been adapted from the Dungeons and Dragons handbook:)

Lawful Good:

Lawful good characters typically act with compassion, and always with honor and a sense of duty. A lawful good nation would consist of a well-organised government that works for the benefit of its citizens. Lawful good characters may sometimes find themselves faced with the dilemma of whether to obey law or good when the two conflict- for example, upholding a sworn oath when it would lead innocents to harm- or conflicts between two orders, such as between their religious law and the law of the state.

Neutral Good:

Neutral good characters are guided by their conscience and typically act altruistically, without regard for or against lawful precepts such as rules or tradition. Neutral good characters have no problems with co-operating with lawful officials, but do not feel beholden to them. In even that that doing the right thing requires the bending of breaking of rules, they do not suffer the same inner conflict that a lawful good character would. A doctor who treats soldiers from both sides in a war could be considered neutral good.

Chaotic Good:

Chaotic good characters favor change for a greater good, disdain bureaucratic organizations 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 disorganised and often out of alignment with the rest of society. They have no use for those who would push them around and tell them what to do. While they do not have evil intentions, they often do bad things (even if they do not necessarily enjoy doing these things) to people who are, in their views, bad people if it benefits their goal of achieving a greater good.

Lawful Neutral:

Lawful neutral characters typically strongly believe in lawful concepts such as honor, order, rules and tradition, and often follow 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, 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.

True Neutral:

The true neutral alignment represents neutral on both axes and tends not to feel strongly towards any alignment. Some neutral characters, rather than feeling undecided, are committed to a balance between the alignments. They may see good, evil, law and chaos as simply prejudices and dangerous extremes. Neutral characters might fight off an alliance of tech raiders, only to switch sides to save the alliance from being totally annihilated.

Chaotic Neutral:

Characters of this alignment are individualists who follow their own heart, and generally shirk rules and traditions. Good and evil come a distant second to their need for personal freedom, and the only reliable thing about them is how unreliable they are. They typically act out of self-interest, do but not specifically enjoy seing others suffer.

Lawful Evil:

Lawful evil characters see a well-ordered system as being easier to exploit, and show a combination of desirable and undesirable traits, while usually obey their superiors and keep their word, they care nothing for the rights and freedoms of individuals. For example, a loyal soldier who loves to kill people is lawful evil. Lawful evil characters may find themselves faced with the dilemma of whether to obey law or evil when the two conflict, however their issues with law versus evil are more concerned with 'will I get caught' and 'how does this benefit me?'

Neutral Evil:

Neutral evil characters are typically selfish and have no qualms about turning on their allies-of-the-moment. The have no compunctions about harming others to get what they want, but neither will they go out of the way to cause carnage or mayhem when they see no direct benefit to it. They abide by laws for only as long as it is convenient to them. Villains of this alignment can often be more dangerous than either lawful or chaotic evil characters, because they are not bound by any sort of honor or tradition, and also are not disorganised or pointlessly violent. Examples are an assassin who has little regard for formal laws but does not needlessly kill, a henchman who plots behind his superior's back, or a mercenary who switches sides if made a better offer.

Chaotic Evil:

Chaotic evil characters tend to have no respect for the rules, other peoples' lives, or anything but their own desires, which are typically selfish and cruel. They set a high value on personal freedom, but do not have any regard for the lives or freedom of other people. They do not work well in a group, as they resent being given orders, and usually only behave themselves out of fear of punishment. It is not compulsory for a chaotic evil character for be constantly performing sadistic acts for the sake of being evil, or constantly disobeying orders for the sake of causing chaos. They do however enjoy the suffering of others, and view honor and self-discipline as weaknesses.

Edited January 22, 2010 by darkmage768

[Earogema]

Actually I was going to say Chaotic good, but you already covered Vox with that well enough.

[Ejayrazz]

I will read this over more in-depth as I have work, but you provide an interesting perspective on many things.

Kudos.

[Dochartaigh]

i would honestly put myself as a blend of CG and CN. it is hard to actually be stuck in such a hard code since my personal code of ethics/attitude/mentality differs slightly in some cases with either CG or CN.

i tend to favor change for a greater good though my views of what is good or evil will depend on the situation as tech raiding is seen as evil by many but i support tech raiding while not supporting the raiding of alliances.

i do disdain bureaucratic organizations and governments in general, though it depends as on CN there are some good govs out there. i place high value on personal freedom but only to a certain extent and see the use in limiting it if necessary depending on what the action is.

as for whether i am disorganized or out of alignment with the rest of society, there are essentially several societies in CN with a fluid movement between all groups.

i follow my own heart and will skirt the rules as i feel needed. Good and evil exist but i also believe in logic and can see the logic in evil and the illogical in good and vice versa.

i am also quite reliable and loyal to my alliance and my beliefs.

[magicninja]

Chaotic Good seems about right these days.

[Lord Razzia]

I think I'd fall under Chaotic Neutral, with Lawful Good Influences.

[Fallen Fool]

I generally bounce back and forth between Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral, heh.

[ads89]

Neutral Good:

Neutral good characters are guided by their conscience and typically act altruistically, without regard for or against lawful precepts such as rules or tradition. Neutral good characters have no problems with co-operating with lawful officials, but do not feel beholden to them. In even that that doing the right thing requires the bending of breaking of rules, they do not suffer the same inner conflict that a lawful good character would. A doctor who treats soldiers from both sides in a war could be considered neutral good.

[nippy]

Lawful Evil.

e: something lawful

Edited January 22, 2010 by nippy

[Aurion]

I'm probably closest to Lawful Neutral, maybe True Neutral.

Edit: And maybe a Lawful Evil trait or two tossed in for flavoring.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Aurion

[HurricaneLOL]

IC: Chaotic Evil

OOC: Lawful Neutral

[Prime minister Johns]

IC: Lawful neutral (good tendencies)

OOC: Lawful Good

[kriekfreak]

IC: Neutral Evil with a real strong tie to honor and loyalty with a flint of Chaotic Neutral.

OOC: Chaotic Neutral

[Griff]

I'd probably say Chaotic Neutral.

[Evitressa]

As a rogue, probably Chaotic Neutral. Nice write-up btw.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

I am very familiar with the AD&D alignment system.

I also consider it fatally flawed. I will spare you a long rant on the subject, and just give a link that scratches the surface a little. The short of it is it amounts to trying to pigeonhole people a limited number of labels that, if interpreted strictly enough to really mean something actually fit no one, and if interpreted loosely enough to fit real characters actually mean nothing. For example, you say you are lawful good? Does that mean you value law because you believe it is necessary for good, or because it leads to good, or do you value good because that is the best way for order and law to be ensured, or, or, or? The alignment system is a cop-out for people afraid of character development.

That said, "closest fit" for me would probably be chaotic good. Not a very good fit but still probably the best of the bad lot.

As to my character in CN, I suppose lawful good would be similarly the best fit.

Also I would have to disagree with the alliance characterisations made in the OP. At least during my tenure there, GPA was definitely Neutral politically but didnt even resemble "neutral" in the alignment system, we were a MUCH better fit for LG. Pacifica poses as LN but acts more like NE. NSO likes to pose as "evil" but they are probably closer to PN behind it. The only one I agree with you on is MK - CG with the C part and the G part often in conflict.

But the alignment system is honestly so bad that, even though those are honestly the best fits possible in each case, they are still mostly nonsense.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Sigrun Vapneir

[Captain Flinders]

Chaotic neutral. Perfectly sums up my play. Maybe a touch of true neutral as well. Last time I tested for this kind of thing I got true neutral.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Captain Flinders

[Doitzel]

I think my character prettymuch defines the Chaotic Good classification. I'm like Qui-Gon Jinn or something.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Elyat

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

A good and interesting topic, with one basic flaw in execution. instead of asking the character to define itself, it would be better to get the opinion of the NPCs. Rulers should be asked to pigeon-hole other rulers. That would be more interesting and mayhaps a clearer picture, in my opinion. Of course working with the assumption that NPC's can ignore racial and gender bias [alliance affiliation in this verse] to come to an objective view.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Alfred von Tirpitz

[Valtamdraugr]

Lawful neutral

[darkmage768]

@ Sigrun Vapneir, I think that in some ways you are correct, but to suggest more than nine moral viewpoints seems excessively precise. If you'd like to present a different alignment system, I'm cool with that- might I suggest a different thread?

Despite this, I think your arguments against the D&D alignment system are weak, because 'lawful good' is not just a label which you identify with, it is explained thoroughly and the position is well thought out. If you don't fully identify with one position, you can always add in elements of other positions as many people have done in this thread. The arguments you're presenting relate to actual D&D where you have to choose one moral viewpoint and stick to it, but that's not the case here.

@ Alfred Tirpitz... yup, perhaps, but you'd have to limit how many people you asked the community to comment on.

[lebubu]

I'd place MK somewhere between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good. My character (if you can even call it that, IC and OOC blend together in my case) is Lawful Evil and I doubt I'm a minority in MK.

[Ferdinand I]

I think it is impossible to judge oneself objectively, but i tried my best and i believe Ghaotic Good describes me best.

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

@ Alfred Tirpitz... yup, perhaps, but you'd have to limit how many people you asked the community to comment on.

Not neccessarily, it need not be limited, unless of course you have some sort of an averaging algorithm you intend to use to come to a conclusion regarding each character at the end of the excercise. Then i can understand how it can get out of hand and a cumbersome excercise. if on the other hand the intent is just to get a rough idea about key characters [and yes most people will classify at the most 10 characters which will be overlapping anyways] it should suffice.

But this is good too.

[darkmage768]

Bear in mind I did ask people to comment on alliances, which most people have refrained from so far. But if you like, we can include commentary on individuals in the thread too, or make a new one.