Determining my own alignment (according to 3.x D&D)... [Archive]

Devils_Advocate

2009-12-16, 03:01 PM

If you want to get a better handle on alignment, I recommend looking at the Tome of Fiends (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=28828&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=9ff89c170551b4417d4e7865a318cbbc). Relevant excerpts follow:

Every action has motivations, expectable results, and actual results. In addition, every action can be described with a verb. In the history of moral theory (a history substantively longer than human history) it has at times been contested by otherwise bright individuals that any of those (singly or collectively) could be used as a rubric to determine the rightness of an action. D&D authors agreed. With all of those extremely incompatible ideas. And the result has been an unmitigated catastrophe. Noone knows what makes an action Good in D&D, so your group is ultimately going to have to decide for yourselves. Is your action Good because your intentions are Good? Is your action Good because the most likely result of your action is Good? Is your action Good because the actual end result of that action is Good? Is your action Good because the verb that bests describes your action is in general Good? There are actually some very good arguments for all of these written by people like Jeremy Bentham, Immanuel Kant, and David Wasserman – but there are many other essays that are so astoundingly contradictory and ill-reasoned that they are of less help than reading nothing. Unfortunately for the hobby, some of the essays of the second type were written by Gary Gygax.

This is not an easy question to answer. The rulebooks, for example, are no help at all. D&D at its heart is about breaking into other peoples' homes, stabbing them in the face, and taking all their money. That's very hard to rationalize as a Good thing to do, and the authors of D&D have historically not tried terribly hard.
Let's get this out in the open: Law and Chaos do not have any meaning under the standard D&D rules.

We are aware that especially if you've been playing this game for a long time, you personally probably have an understanding of what you think Law and Chaos are supposed to mean. You possibly even believe that the rest of your group thinks that Law and Chaos mean the same thing you do. But you're probably wrong. The nature of Law and Chaos is the source of more arguments among D&D players (veteran and novice alike) than any other facet of the game. More than attacks of opportunities, more than weapon sizing, more even than spell effect inheritance. And the reason is because the "definition" of Law and Chaos in the Player's Handbook is written so confusingly that the terms are not even mutually exclusive. Look it up, this is a written document, so it's perfectly acceptable for you to stop reading at this time, flip open the Player's Handbook, and start reading the alignment descriptions. The Tome of Fiends will still be here when you get back.
…
There you go! Now that we're all on the same page (page XX), the reason why you've gotten into so many arguments with people as to whether their character was Lawful or Chaotic is because absolutely every action that any character ever takes could logically be argued to be both. A character who is honorable, adaptable, trustworthy, flexible, reliable, and loves freedom is a basically stand-up fellow, and meets the check marks for being "ultimate Law" and "ultimate Chaos". There aren't any contradictory adjectives there. While Law and Chaos are supposed to be opposed forces, there's nothing antithetical about the descriptions in the book.

Myrmex

2009-12-16, 03:02 PM

How often are you filled with seething, life-hating rage?

Surgo

2009-12-16, 03:06 PM

Please, ask me questions that you think would help determine my alignment, particularly in respect to the law/chaos axis.
There aren't any questions that can determine this, because the definitions of law and chaos are so stupidly broad that you can easily argue anything to be both lawful and chaotic.

So flip a coin.

jmbrown

2009-12-16, 03:22 PM

Law goes beyond a personal code and that's something the D&D books have always fumbled over. Lawful is a respect for legitimate authority and the order of the universe. You can be honest, forthright, and fair but if you don't respect the binding rules and ideas of a collective community (going against the majority purely for the sake of noncomforming even if the majority is correct) makes you chaotic. A thief could follow a gentleman's code of conduct but if he says "screw the guild, I go my own path" he's not lawful.

With that said, most people in the world are probably closer to neutral in D&D terms than anything else. We form personal relationships, are generally cautious of strangers, and care little of the struggles in the outside world unless it comes directly to us. A person can donate their time and money to a worthy cause and that gives them good tendencies, but it's impossible to be good all the time and people have shortcomings and times of selfishness and dishonesty.

Keshay

2009-12-16, 03:34 PM

There are a couple rules that need to be kept in mind when a person tries to determine thier own "Stats".

1) People tend to think they are far more intelligent than they really are
2) People tend to think they are Wiser than they really are
3) People tend to think they are more charismatic than they really are
4) People tend to think they are heartier than they really are.
5) People tend to think they are more Dextrous than they really are.
*) Strength as the only stat with esaily measurable parameters has no reason to ever be gotten wrong, so long as you have a gym nearby.
6)People tend to think they are either more disciplined or spontaneous than they really are
7) People tend to think they are "gooder" than they really are.

The last two are applicable to your question. Your motivations for the things you do have less to do with your devotion to Good/Evil or Law/Chaos than they do with your circumstances and personal needs at the moment.

You, like 90% of everyone else on the planet who qualifies for an alignment, are likely True Neutral. (I discount children, the mentally disabled/disordered and senile from the ablility to have a true alignment as their behaviors are more a result of their physiology).

Question to help determine alignment? Forget the Wizards quiz, that's geared towards determining alignment for a prospective character. The questions asked do not readily apply to real-world situations one might encounter.

1) You witness a minor auto accident while en route to an important time sensitive appointment. What do you do?
a) keep on driving
b) keep on driving, but call 911 to report the accident
c) Stop, make sure everyone is ok, and move on once it is determined there are no injuries.
d) same as c, but you wait for authorities to arrive and provide a statement.
e) same as d, but you proivde a statement such that the fault for the accident lies not with the pretty early 20 year old, but with the late 20's early 30s non-(Common) speaking homely mother of 3 who are crying in the backseat of her car in the hopes that you'll be able to get a date with Pretty Girl.

2) Ever kill anyone? On purpose? In anger? Premeditated? Just to watch them die? Enjoy it? Do it again?

3) Would you give your last dollar to a stranger so that they could eat. Note, in giving up this last dollar you may not be able to eat yourself for awhile. And you have no idea how recently this fellow has eaten.

4) How many random people (entire world) would you give your life to save.
How many from you own country?
Your own Community?
Your own family?

I'm not entirely sure how any responses provided to those questions would relate to D&D alignments, but they're pretty good questions to ask as self-assessments.

KillianHawkeye

2009-12-16, 03:49 PM

Do you help people even if there's nothing in it for you? Or do you expect they'll do something for you later on? Do you help people you don't even know (Ex: a homeless person on the street), or do you just keep walking and avert your eyes?

Do you follow the laws & customs of your society even when you can easily get away with breaking them (Ex: obeying a stop sign at 3 A.M.)? Or do you only do so when it is convenient or necessary? Do you consciously make an effort to disobey your laws & customs, and if so, is it because you honestly disagree with them or just for the fun of it?

Zovc

2009-12-16, 04:46 PM

1) People tend to think they are far more intelligent than they really are
2) People tend to think they are Wiser than they really are
3) People tend to think they are more charismatic than they really are
4) People tend to think they are heartier than they really are.
5) People tend to think they are more Dextrous than they really are.
*) Strength as the only stat with esaily measurable parameters has no reason to ever be gotten wrong, so long as you have a gym nearby.
6)People tend to think they are either more disciplined or spontaneous than they really are
7) People tend to think they are "gooder" than they really are.

Yes, I can see myself suffering from all of those, although I am convinced of some of them and have even been reassured by others.

1) You witness a minor auto accident while en route to an important time sensitive appointment. What do you do?
a) keep on driving
b) keep on driving, but call 911 to report the accident
c) Stop, make sure everyone is ok, and move on once it is determined there are no injuries.
d) same as c, but you wait for authorities to arrive and provide a statement.
e) same as d, but you proivde a statement such that the fault for the accident lies not with the pretty early 20 year old, but with the late 20's early 30s non-(Common) speaking homely mother of 3 who are crying in the backseat of her car in the hopes that you'll be able to get a date with Pretty Girl.

Unfortunately I am pitifully unaware of the world around me, I don't know the names of many of the roads I travel on, or of any landmarks to help point authorities to my location or the location of the accident.

I doubt I would make the stop. If I was able to direct help to the location, I would try to make the call ("b").

If the appointment was work-related, I probably would pull over ("c"), but if a loved one was in peril (hospital, etc.) I would not.

So, somewhere between a, b, or c. I would say "a" is the most probable. I would not do "e," even if I was single.

2) Ever kill anyone? On purpose? In anger? Premeditated? Just to watch them die? Enjoy it? Do it again?

No, the only time I would ever kill someone would be in self defense or in the defense of another. If I was able to end a violent conflict with anything other than death (or even violence), I would pursue it first.

3) Would you give your last dollar to a stranger so that they could eat. Note, in giving up this last dollar you may not be able to eat yourself for awhile. And you have no idea how recently this fellow has eaten.

This is a tough one. I always feel very awkward around someone who asks me for money--it would likely depend on the person's presentation. I can't give a complete "no," but chances are I wouldn't. The thought of giving up a meal for someone else isn't particularly scary to me, though.

4) How many random people (entire world) would you give your life to save.
How many from you own country?
Your own Community?
Your own family?
I'd say it depends. I might not give my life to save anyone from certain groups of people, unless I was sure they would know that a 'person like me' did it for 'people like them.' Even then, I'm not sure, because they might still get the wrong idea. I'd be afraid of the message being confused, to be honest.

Country doesn't matter so much, nor does community, the people I care most about would be my friends, and I'd definitely give my life to save two of any of them. I would hesitate to give my life for one, but might do it, particularly if both of us would die if one of us didn't sacrifice ourselves.

I'd hope I can save more lives than I'm giving up if I was ever in a situation like that, essentially.

I'm not entirely sure how any responses provided to those questions would relate to D&D alignments, but they're pretty good questions to ask as self-assessments.

If anything, they make me seem a lot more neutral than I like to think I am (perhaps this is just the "gooder complex" you mentioned).

Myrmex

2009-12-16, 04:50 PM

There are a couple rules that need to be kept in mind when a person tries to determine thier own "Stats".

1) People tend to think they are far more intelligent than they really are

As easily testable as strength- where'd you score on your last standardized test? If you take the GRE and score in the 90th percentile, then you likely have a 17 or 18 int.

Agree with the rest, though.

Zovc

2009-12-16, 05:00 PM

As easily testable as strength- where'd you score on your last standardized test? If you take the GRE and score in the 90th percentile, then you likely have a 17 or 18 int.

Agree with the rest, though.

Most tests actually test knowledge skills, if you ask me.

ghashxx

2009-12-16, 05:08 PM

Zovc

2009-12-16, 05:35 PM

When attempting to make yourself into a character and determine your stats etc, I have one suggestion on what to do, either don't do it at all or don't spend very much time thinking about it. This gets so ridiculously complicated it's absolutely insane. I personally think everyone is mostly true neutral with lawful evil tendencies. But that's because I'm cynical and all that jazz. But in the end, find something that kind of makes sense to you, and then move on because you can always find another reason for why you might be chaotic, or might be good, and of course you're not evil because that's just bad.

I really hope you're not actually evil.

To be honest, I can only think of a few isolated instances of me being an 'evil' person. This was in junior high, and was mostly just me lashing out at someone because someone else was lashing out at me. Now that I've 'grown up,' I would say the "evilist" I ever am is 'neutral,' by not doing the good thing.

In high school two of my friends got in a big fight and I didn't stop them because I was afraid of getting hurt myself, I would consider that to be a neutral choice, and I regret being 'that evil.'

hamishspence

2009-12-17, 07:08 AM

Going by PHB "humans tend toward no alignment, not even neutral"

So having 90% of people be TN would sort of undercut that, since 90% is at the high end of Usually.

Cambions (Expedition to the Demonweb Pits) are "usually evil" and 10% are neutral or good- and these are technically fiends with some human blood.

So I would say that when it comes to alignment, neutrality isn't that common.

This site discusses the alignment system in some detail- drawing from sources throughout the history of D&D.

http://www.easydamus.com/alignment.html

To sum up, evil tends to be associated with egotism, good with altruism, law with collectivism, and chaos with individualism, in this interpretation.

There may be exceptions to these general rules though. The egotist who never harms anybody save in self defence, is probably Neutral rather than Evil.

Conversely, the altruist who indulges in harming people far too much, with "for the greater good" as their justification, may be Neutral or even Evil rather than Good.

EDIT: looks like someone already quoted that site as a source.

Amiel

2009-12-17, 07:28 AM

There really needs to be an addendum to alignment; what I have in mind is alignment tendencies (you may find this useful for your game).

Unlike in the case of alignment exemplars, mortals should not be needlessly pigeon-holed in the given alignments, ideally they're guidelines rather than restrictive standards. If a player so wishes, he or she may choose an alignment tendency, that is, it will serve as a secondary alignment to, in addition to, or complement your primary alignment, or even replace the stated alignment. However, lawful characters cannot have chaotic tendencies (and vice versa) and good characters cannot have evil tendencies, and vice versa).
For example, a character may have an alignment of lawful evil (neutral tendencies).

The way a player writes their character's alignment may also indicate which is their primary focus. For example, if he or she is Lawful evil, they will be more lawful than evil while a Lawful Evil character will be both lawful and evil.

Megaduck

2009-12-17, 07:41 AM

Trying to determine you're own alignment in D&D is sort of like trying to figure out how to cast one of the spells or studying for your politics exam using the DMG as a guide book.

Alignment is just a very rough guideline tossed in to help the game work. It can't be used a a philosophy any more then the grapple rules can be used to learn how to fight.

Really, it's just a game, put together to be a game. Nothing more.

hamishspence

2009-12-17, 07:50 AM

true-

though if you are playing a character which is basically "you with big powers" the alignment system may start to become relavent.

Also- tendencies were one of the 2nd ed alignment principles- and so might not be out of place in 3rd ed- as a way of adding subtle shadings.

Like, Lawful, but only just (lawful with neutral tendencies) and so on.

The suggestion of adding them to 3rd ed is an interesting on.

Foryn Gilnith

2009-12-17, 09:04 AM

Do alignment tendencies affect Holy Smite, Smite Good, Detect Law, Dictum, et cetera? If not, they're almost useless, and you had best stick to fleshing out the personality more rather than fiddling around with alignment.

But then again, they're so simple to add that it doesn't hurt, and I assume that the notation is understood. Alignment tests peg me as NG when I'm feeling pious and NE when I'm not, but in both cases I'd say I have a N tendency. NG (N), or NE (N).

@OP: If you can find some reliable alignment tests, I'd say take them at different times. When I'm feeling pious, I don't pick the Good answers because my religion says so. My mood actually makes those choices natural. If I'm in a bad mood, the mood will make the **** moves seem natural. Mood is a factor to consider with these tests.

hamishspence

2009-12-17, 09:14 AM

they might also clarify the whole

"Evil is Complete Monster" "No, Evil is severe jerk" argument, by giving an answer which partially satisfies both:

Evil with neutral tendencies is Severe Jerk,
Evil without neutral tendencies is Complete Monster.

grautry

2009-12-17, 10:05 AM

You, like 90% of everyone else on the planet who qualifies for an alignment, are likely True Neutral. (I discount children, the mentally disabled/disordered and senile from the ablility to have a true alignment as their behaviors are more a result of their physiology).

Entirely agreed. Most everyone(myself included) is True Neutral.

The quickest way to test if you are Good is to see how much effort you put into helping other people. For example:

How many hours per week do you spend helping other people? Not just friends or family either, but relative strangers. Like volunteering to help collect money for charities, to help in elderly homes, orphanages or wherever they are looking for volunteer help in your area.
Do you regularly donate to charities? I don't mean five bucks either, what I mean is a significant percentage(at least 5-10%) of your monthly income(waived if you literally can't donate because any missing money would mean starvation or whatever). Do you donate blood?
And so on.

Overall, if you spend at least a couple hours per week and a noticeable portion of your wealth helping strangers then you are a Good person. If not, it's likely that you're Neutral and you're overestimating your 'goodness'.

Telonius

2009-12-17, 10:07 AM

I think the easiest way to check is to see how motivated you are to promote the alignment. Your average person is neutral on all axes. Even a person with moderate to severe jerkish tendencies would be neutral, if that's just generally "the way he is" rather than coming from active malice. Even a person who generally follows the law or gives a few cents to the bell-ringers at Christmas would be neutral. It's the person who goes out of his way to kick an old lady that's evil; the guy who tackles and citizens' arrests the crook that's lawful; and who goes out and works in the soup kitchens regularly that's good.

Do you go out of your way to help people? - Good
Do you go out of your way to hurt people? - Evil
Do you go out of your way to maintain law/order/tradition? - Lawful
Do you go out of your way to break the law/cause disorder/annoy authority figures? - Chaotic

Setra

2009-12-17, 10:09 AM

One question that has always bugged me on the alignment test is

"A powerful but corrupt judge offers you wealth if you'll testify against a friend. Do you:

Condemn your friend and take the money
Take the money and testify, but try to keep your testimony ineffective
Refuse the offer and refuse to testify
Testify on your friend's behalf, no matter the consequences"

Is the friend actually guilty? I wouldn't testify against an innocent man, but I would testify against him if I knew he was guilty.

Edit: That sentence makes me sound Lawful Neutral doesn't it?

Edit Edit: I think in general the Wizard's test is biased against Neutral people.

"Your country is wracked with famine. Would you:

Share what food you had with others
Eat as little as possible yourself, and share the rest
Steal what food you needed to survive
Steal as much food as possible, then sell it back to the community at a high price"

How about "Eat what little I have, don't share, but don't steal"?

Riffington

2009-12-17, 10:10 AM

Please, ask me questions that you think would help determine my alignment, particularly in respect to the law/chaos axis.

Three kids, (two of whom are ethnic minorities; the third isn't) are being tried for a crime you're certain none committed - but which has strong circumstantial evidence. Being convicted will ruin their chances for college. You know the judge of the nonminority student. You can get him acquitted by pulling in a favor; however the judges of the two nonminority students won't listen to you, are jerks, and will convict regardless of what you do. Should you pull in a favor and let an innocent kid have a life? This will of course cause significant racial tension as minorities will think the system racist. Or should you let the system run "uncorrupted" and "racially fair", sacrificing this kid's future?

You find an undetectable way to steal money from NAMBLA. Take it?

Your brother killed, but you know for sure he won't do it again. Do you help him hide the crime?

hamishspence

2009-12-17, 10:17 AM

I'm still not sure where "90 % of people are True Neutral" comes from.

The closest I've seen in 3.5 is Fiendish Code II's "Most people are only weakly aligned" which could be taken to mean Neutral.

or it could be taken to mean that there are "weakly evil" and "strongly evil" people. And the various others.

on the example given of pulling strings to get somebody off- A person might refuse to pull strings for other reasons- a fear that if they'll do it for "good" reasons they will eventually end up doing it for bad reasons. Such a "rules are there for a very good reason" perspective may be consistant with D&D Lawful alignments.

Riffington

2009-12-17, 10:27 AM

on the example given of pulling strings to get somebody off- A person might refuse to pull strings for other reasons- a fear that if they'll do it for "good" reasons they will eventually end up doing it for bad reasons. Such a "rules are there for a very good reason" perspective may be consistant with D&D Lawful alignments.

Of course :)
That's why I put it in as a law/chaos question, not as a good/evil question.
I'm assuming he's good. You need very different questions for an evil man to determine law/chaos.

Setra

2009-12-17, 10:28 AM

I found this neat little alignment test (http://www.okcupid.com/tests/take?testid=8383433238062182666)

I got True Neutral, though personally I think I'm Lawful.. but meh

hamishspence

2009-12-17, 10:35 AM

I think the big thing about 3.5 D&D in particular is that, because of its focus on acts as much as intentions, it is possible for a kind, compassionate person to be evil- if, they are routinely setting aside that kindness and compassion when dealing with "the enemy" Or even, when trying to preserve the many by sacrificing the few.

A "evil but kind" person would believe, for example, that to maintain order, severe punishments might be needed. They would rush to the aid of a man in trouble, but pronounce "Death by public torture" on a criminal.

Talya

2009-12-17, 10:39 AM

I'd like to say Chaotic Good, but Chaotic Neutral is really the only possibility for me. I just don't give a flying frack about random strangers except on an academic level, so my libertarian-anarchist leanings are entirely selfish. (I even approve of Law...because it gives me an advantage over others if I ignore it!)

Tengu_temp

2009-12-17, 10:44 AM

I'm still not sure where "90 % of people are True Neutral" comes from.

Mostly from people who think that you have to be a saint to be Good, a complete monster to be Evil, Miko to be Lawful and Elan to be Chaotic. It takes much less than that, in my opinion - someone who never had the opportunity to perform good deeds more important than helping an old woman cross the street, yet has the intention of doing good and cares about other people, is clearly Good for me.

hamishspence

2009-12-17, 10:47 AM

Sounds about right.

Not doing harm can be relavent as well- a person who knows how easy it is to harm others without meaning to, and goes out of their way to avoid this, is probably closer to Good than Neutral.

jmbrown

2009-12-17, 11:01 AM

Mostly from people who think that you have to be a saint to be Good, a complete monster to be Evil, Miko to be Lawful and Elan to be Chaotic. It takes much less than that, in my opinion - someone who never had the opportunity to perform good deeds more important than helping an old woman cross the street, yet has the intention of doing good and cares about other people, is clearly Good for me.

Intention doesn't save lives. Intention doesn't feed starving bellies. Intention doesn't stop bad things from happening. You have to act to do something good and likewise you have to act to do something evil. Inaction or "sitting on the fence" is the very definition of neutrality.

Unless you live on a deserted island, you have the ability to help other people. Even the smallest towns in the poorest countries have some sort of volunteer service. Likewise if you don't participate in harming others you're not causing harm yourself. Although people will argue against it, you're not obligated by law to risk your life for someone else (a hotly debated subject in America is that you can actually be sued for saving someone and they get hurt as a result of your action). Most countries obligate you to report a crime but you can do that in anonymity and with little effort on your part. Aiding a person you know is a criminal is a crime itself even if it's as seemingly harmless as providing them with shelter.

If you don't consistently act, you're neutral by the very definition of the word. Most people are indifferent to others purely by nature. We are animals and social animals at that. We shouldn't feel bad because we're not labeled as being "good."

hamishspence

2009-12-17, 11:26 AM

the little deeds are still important. Little acts of helpfulness and kindness, that cost you very little, are good, even if on a small scale.

You can be of good alignment (IMO) without being heroic and risking your life on a regular basis. And of course there is preventing evil- the person who defuses rows, the person who, when their friend is tempted to be spiteful to others, gently discourages them.

grautry

2009-12-17, 11:53 AM

the little deeds are still important. Little acts of helpfulness and kindness, that cost you very little, are good, even if on a small scale.

Depends on what you define as 'little'. Help a lady across a street? Give a buck or two to a charity a couple of times per year?

They're positive things, but not nearly enough to be Good because most people will do a little evil as well. Maybe you'll get angry and act like an *******. Or drunk and act like an *******. Maybe you'll steal office supplies. Maybe you'll hurt someone's feelings. Maybe this maybe that.

Just as you need to actively harm people in order to be Evil, you also need to actively help people in order to be Good. I don't mean that to be Good you need to 'risk your life' or heroically save someone. That's BS. It simply means devoting time, effort and money to help others.

If you don't do that, then you're simply not Good. If you don't harm others then you're not Evil either. Which means you're neutral, just like the other 90% of real life population.

Riffington

2009-12-17, 11:59 AM

Depends on what you define as 'little'. Help a lady across a street? Give a buck or two to a charity a couple of times per year?

They're positive things, but not nearly enough to be Good because most people will do a little evil as well. Maybe you'll get angry and act like an *******. Or drunk and act like an *******. Maybe you'll steal office supplies. Maybe you'll hurt someone's feelings. Maybe this maybe that.

Just as you need to actively harm people in order to be Evil, you also need to actively help people in order to be Good. I don't mean that to be Good you need to 'risk your life' or heroically save someone. That's BS. It simply means devoting time, effort and money to help others.

If you don't do that, then you're simply not Good. If you don't harm others then you're not Evil either. Which means you're neutral, just like the other 90% of real life population.

Sure, true. If you spend a little time being nice and a little time being a jerk, you're Neutral. But the point is that anyone can be Good or Evil - you have opportunities every day to do Good and Evil things.

grautry

2009-12-17, 01:09 PM

Sure, true. If you spend a little time being nice and a little time being a jerk, you're Neutral. But the point is that anyone can be Good or Evil - you have opportunities every day to do Good and Evil things.

Of course, but in order to be Good you need to actually go out there and do the good stuff. It needs to be a significant part of your life. If it isn't, then you're not bad or evil either, just pretty much neutral.

hamishspence

2009-12-18, 06:09 AM

Point being, that the person who is strongly benevolent, and when situations come up where the temptation to do something evil comes up, resists it far more often than not, they are Good, even if the scale of their Goodness is pretty small.

The "ordinary decent person" so to speak, rather than the absolute saint.

You can probably think of common descriptions:

"They have a good heart"
"They have a kind heart"
and possibly more exaggerated:
"They don't have a mean bone in their body"

These are the majority of Good people in my view. Not heroes, not saintly. Just good folk.

Stephen_E

2009-12-18, 08:17 AM

Law really comes down to sticking to your code of ethics. Chaos either lacks one or disregards it. Neutral in the ethical axis would be being ethically flexible.

Law is sticking to someone elses code of ethics.

Since the PHB specifically describes "Chaotic characters follow their consciences," and what is a conscience if not a code of ethics, and internal code.

Stephen E

Optimystik

2009-12-18, 08:31 AM

I'm still not sure where "90 % of people are True Neutral" comes from.

Races of Destiny says it pretty clearly.

"The variety of human existence naturally pulls human personalities in different directions. For example, humans crave having their own voice and standing out from the crowd, but they also have a tendency to “follow the herd” and adhere to the status quo. An individual human who strives to break from the mold can later become a defender of the status quo—or can defend some aspects of the status quo while advocating radical change in other aspects. Because of this inner conflict, humans as a race are decidedly neutral in alignment."

"Human Psychology," page 7.

Tengu_temp

2009-12-18, 09:44 AM

Intention doesn't save lives. Intention doesn't feed starving bellies. Intention doesn't stop bad things from happening. You have to act to do something good and likewise you have to act to do something evil. Inaction or "sitting on the fence" is the very definition of neutrality.

It's true that intention doesn't do any of these, but that doesn't matter. Because alignment is more about who you are than what you do. Otherwise we have absurd situations like a good character becoming more evil because his actions unknowingly resulted in the destruction of a city, or an evil character becoming more good because he helps the poor in order to increase his approval rating. Actions result from your alignment, not set it.

Law is sticking to someone elses code of ethics.

Since the PHB specifically describes "Chaotic characters follow their consciences," and what is a conscience if not a code of ethics, and internal code.

A code of ethics is set, rational. Conscience is something you feel. I'd say that lawful characters stick to their own personal code, which might but doesn't have to be the same as a code set by their society, but the law/chaos axis is very vaguely defined in general, and it doesn't help that different DND books understand it very differently.

Optimystik

2009-12-18, 09:49 AM

Alignment is a combination of actions and intent. It is not solely one or the other.

A good character can be penalized if evil results from his actions, as long as he knew (or strongly suspected) they would. The paladin that frees a child from beneath a boulder will fall if he knowingly causes an avalanche that flattens the village below. The evil character that murders another evil character who himself was poised to kill the good king (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0435.html) is performing a quasi-good act. Ends do matter, not just intent, and only total ignorance of the ends absolves the character.

Tengu_temp

2009-12-18, 09:54 AM

Optimystik

2009-12-18, 10:14 AM

If you know that your supposedly good action will have evil consequences, and you carry out the action anyway, then you intend to cause these consequences as well. Ergo, you have at least partially evil intentions.

But you may also be in a situation where neither option is good. Cue the classic dilemma of the paladin who must stop the plague from spreading across the countryside by burning one village.

Your intentions can be quite pure in that case, but nevertheless result in evil no matter what you do. And that's why they have an Atonement spell.

Tengu_temp

2009-12-18, 10:24 AM

I don't see any contradictions here. If you want to stop a plague by burning the plagued village, then you don't intend only to stop the plague, you intend to burn the village as well.

Optimystik

2009-12-18, 10:28 AM

I don't see any contradictions here. If you want to stop a plague by burning the plagued village, then you don't intend only to stop the plague, you intend to burn the village as well.

It's not a matter of "want." You have no choice.

Either kill a few innocents, or let many more die.

Your intent is to save lives, but doing that requires ending a few of them.

Tengu_temp

2009-12-18, 10:33 AM

It is a matter of "want", because you can always opt to do nothing. That makes it even worse than choosing the lesser evil, though, because even more innocents will die to the plague.

Of course, I'm a firm believer that a world idealistic enough to have paladins who can fall for any evil deed, even lesser evil, is also a world idealistic enough that in each situation where you have to choose between lesser and greater evil there is also a third option that's completely not evil. It's just not always obvious, or easy.

Talya

2009-12-18, 10:36 AM

I found this neat little alignment test (http://www.okcupid.com/tests/take?testid=8383433238062182666)

I got True Neutral, though personally I think I'm Lawful.. but meh

I'm glad you got True Neutral. I despise "lawful." :)

Your result for The D&D Alignment Test ...

Chaotic Neutral
You scored 38% Law vs Chaos and 50% Good vs Evil!

Keep this in mind, before you read this and take it too seriously...
This test is based on a system of moral absolutes. There is no subjectivity in D&D, as it is based on a fantasy world of heroes and villains. That is why their alignment system is so simple and polar. So naturally, if I were to apply this simple morality to modern day life, things would look very "black and white". That is why I watered down the concept of evil and good. It is very unlikely that anyone who takes this test is a mass murderer or a superhero, so Mean vs. Nice will have to take the place of good vs. evil.

Chaos and Neutrality in a nutshell:
-Chaotic characters tend to be spontaneous and disorganized. They tend to dislike authority and they live by their own rules.
-In regard to good vs. evil, neutral characters tend to be somewhat selfish. They do not have a strong will to do the right thing, but they do have a conscience.

Your Alignment:
"The Free Spirit"

You are a loose cannon, like my good friend Zaphod, pictured below. You are unreliable and quirky, but fun loving and spontaneous. You may be self centered and occasionally obnoxious, but you're not a bad person overall. People who can stand you are usually amused by your antics.

drengnikrafe

2009-12-18, 10:56 AM

I have spent a long time working out my own character sheet. That includes my alignment. The only trouble is, my alignment is just about the most variable thing about me.
However, regardless of my indecisiveness in regards, I tend towards Law and Good. I will help people I don't know, find stealing generally wrong, and trend away from things that are frowned upon by the codes of ethics of things I listen to (Laws of the country, guidelines of my parents, etc). Sometimes I rebel, but... hey, I'm a teenager. They tell me rebellion is normal. I suspect as I approach the end of my life, I will become more lawful and more good.
One of the things that gets me a little on my alignment is my refusal to normalcy. Where there are popular people doing whatever it is they do in big groups, I directly rebel. They wear jeans, I refuse. They stand in packs, I refuse. They say it's weird to wear blankets in place of jackets, and nerdy T-shirts, and play D&D, I do all those. Of course, I attribute those more to personality unrelated to alignment and personal preference, but I figure you deserve to know.

Optimystik

2009-12-18, 11:16 AM

Of course, I'm a firm believer that a world idealistic enough to have paladins who can fall for any evil deed, even lesser evil, is also a world idealistic enough that in each situation where you have to choose between lesser and greater evil there is also a third option that's completely not evil. It's just not always obvious, or easy.

To quote Hinjo - "[Atonement] wouldn't exist if it didn't need to be used once in awhile." Paladins, for all their rules and powers, are still mortals, and can make mistakes. The fact that there is a third option does not mean they will know what it is, or have time to ruminate long enough to discover it. Yanking their class features can be one of the best ways to get through to them and make them really consider their actions, as it makes them think "am I really on the right path here?"

Tengu_temp

2009-12-18, 11:29 AM

Yanking their class features can be one of the best ways to get through to them and make them really consider their actions, as it makes them think "am I really on the right path here?"

Or to make the player feel frustrated that you put him into a lose-lose scenario, while the party wizard does not have to suffer such drawbacks despite being a much more powerful character.

Optimystik

2009-12-18, 11:31 AM

Or to make the player feel frustrated that you put him into a lose-lose scenario, while the party wizard does not have to suffer such drawbacks despite being a much more powerful character.

Hold on now. Are we talking about an actual paladin in a hypothetical in-universe scenario, or your friend Ted who sits across a table from you and pretends to be a paladin on Thursday nights?

Because obviously in a game sense, dilemmas like these are no fun, I agree. But I was discussing the topic in an in-universe context, not a gaming-table context.

Tengu_temp

2009-12-18, 11:39 AM

Optimystik

2009-12-18, 11:56 AM

My last post was from a game perspective, the previous ones both game and in-universe. Because if a world is cynical enough that situations where a paladin has no choice but to fall (or can choose only between falling and dying) are common, then paladins wouldn't exist there - the order wouldn't be able to establish itself before dying out.

I disagree - the fact that being a paladin isn't easy is not in itself enough to discourage people from being paladins. Quite the opposite, in fact.

And again, the Atonement spell was specifically designed to address situations like this.

Good gods (I mean the really good ones, not the facsimiles in OotS) deal with the same dilemma on a daily basis - they want to remove evil from the world, but must tolerate it for the greater good due to things like the Pact Primeval. So it can be important for paladins to go through troublesome situations like this - any paladin who deals with this, falls, and gets restored, will work that much harder to never end up in such a situation again.

And they will understand the paradoxes of faith much more clearly as a result, having personal experiences to balance their dogma.

Tengu_temp

2009-12-18, 12:13 PM

Atonement is a level 5 spell with possible experience cost to the caster - only in high power games will it be readily available to any paladin. In other settings all, or most of, willing paladins will receive atonement only if falling is rare - something special that only few paladins actually experience, not something that's bound to happen to most of them sooner or later. If falling is common, however, the number of paladins will drop faster than it can raise, and soon the order is gone.

Optimystik

2009-12-18, 12:23 PM

Atonement is a level 5 spell with possible experience cost to the caster - only in high power games will it be readily available to any paladin.

You're back to a game context, but I was never there.

Most in-universe paladins belong to orders, or churches. If they explain the situation, the head cleric will then cast the spell on them (generally, after making them undertake a quest for the church, or to make amends to the relatives of those slain.)

Or, they will receive a vision or other sign from their deity, leading them to absolution, at which point the deity itself returns their powers.

The important part is the falling, and the lesson the paladin learns from it. Hopefully, humility - that they can't fix everything nice and neat, any more than an LG god can fix everything nice and neat. That sometimes, you can try your absolute best, and still fail.

In other settings all, or most of, willing paladins will receive atonement only if falling is rare - something special that only few paladins actually experience, not something that's bound to happen to most of them sooner or later. If falling is common, however, the number of paladins will drop faster than it can raise, and soon the order is gone.

1) I agree this is a rare occurrence; I never said or indicated differently. But assuming that paladin orders will disband because a high-ranking member or two falls and is atoned, is a slippery slope fallacy.

2) These sorts of dilemmas usually only happen to high-ranking paladins - your Solamnuses, your Sturm Brightblades, your Tirion Fordrings. Far from a common occurrence. But being rare does not mean it is nonexistent.

3) Fantasy stories focus on rare occurrences. 99% of drow are evil bastards - the one that gets a book written about him is the chaotic good rebel. So considering these dilemmas from a story-telling perspective is useful.

Keshay

2009-12-18, 02:52 PM

Re: Int

As easily testable as strength- where'd you score on your last standardized test? If you take the GRE and score in the 90th percentile, then you likely have a 17 or 18 int.

See, this points right back to the "People tend to think they're smarter than they are" point.

Just because you score high on a standardized test does not mean you're highly intelligent, it just means you're good at taking tests. Sure, intelligence can help with that, but its not the most inmportant factor.

Using the GRE as in indicator of intelligence is highly problematic, as it has been widely critisized for its intended purpose, much less as a measure of intelligence. Less than half the student who do well on GRE live up to that performance in Grad school. Not a good indicator imo.

I won't go so far as to postulate that you did well on you GRE, and therefore assign yourself an arbitrarily high intelligence. But in general, this is what people do. They pick and choose indicators from their past that "prove" how intelligent they are, ignore indicators that are contrary, and decide that they are highly intellignet.

The best one is "When I was a kid I took an IQ test, and I scored so well that they would not even tell me what I got! I must be a genius!" Hint: They don't tell anyone what they got, those tests are just for identifying the special needs kids.

There has yet to be invented a test that can accurately measure D&D intelligence. Until someone figures out a way for folks to cast Wizard spells, it won't happen.

Surgo

2009-12-18, 03:07 PM

Using the GRE as in indicator of intelligence is highly problematic, as it has been widely critisized for its intended purpose, much less as a measure of intelligence. Less than half the student who do well on GRE live up to that performance in Grad school. Not a good indicator imo.
You just made the same mistake you criticized Myrmex for making. High intelligence doesn't imply good performance in graduate school.

Keshay

2009-12-18, 03:11 PM

You just made the same mistake you criticized Myrmex for making. High intelligence doesn't imply good performance in graduate school.

Howso? Intelligence was no part of the argument I made. The argument I presented was that GRE performance does not predict Grad school performance. Where was intelligence introduced?

Surgo

2009-12-18, 03:24 PM

Keshay

2009-12-18, 03:37 PM

It was implied in your argument, because if you don't correlate "GRE performance" with "intelligence" in your post you are saying absolutely nothing (or at the very least you aren't addressing what you quoted at all, and are saying something totally unrelated).

The issue of all tests not adequately modeling D&D intelligence was adequately addressed elsewhere in the post in unambigous terms. The purpose of that paragraph in particular was to question the usefulness of the GRE in general, as it does not accurately model the exact thing it is designed to measure. Therefore its usefulness as a measure of intelligence in general is further questioned.

I hope this clears the misunderstanding up. I'm sorry you found the original post confusing.

ericgrau

2009-12-18, 08:03 PM

I have trouble deciding what alignment I am. I'm pretty sure I'm Good on the good/evil axis, although I may be neutral.

Please, ask me questions that you think would help determine my alignment, particularly in respect to the law/chaos axis.

Try this:

Good: Sacrifice to help others.
Neutral: Help others if convenient (average person)
Evil: Disregard others when other goals conflict.

Law: Strict on rules and methods.
Neutral: Obeys rules and methods when convenient (average person)
Chaos: Disregards rules and methods when other goals conflict.

I used broad terms on purpose. Too often I see evil portrayed as hurting others for no reason, or chaos as acting randomly just to be a dip****. Or neutral (on either axis) as half and half (of pointless hurting or randomness). Nobody acts like that. On the flipside there's "Stupid Good" suicide missions to save someone, or "Lawful Stupid" stick up your arse.

Sacrificing your life only for friends sounds like neutral. Heck, even an evil person would. But it seems like you wouldn't go that far or maybe you haven't yet had the opportunity or you haven't told us enough. So I say neutral based on "not enough evil". Still haven't heard much from you about the law-chaos axis.